Date: May 11, 2012
Subject: New York Times Op-Ed Titled “Game Over for the Climate”
From: Bob Tisdale
To: James Hansen – NASA GISS
Dear James:
I just finished reading your opinion that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times. I enjoyed the title “Game Over for the Climate” so much that I’m considering changing the title of my book to something similar, like “Game Over for the Manmade Global Warming Scare.” Yes. That’s got a nice ring to it. Thanks for the idea. I’ll have so see how difficult it would be to change the title of the Kindle edition. Yet, while I enjoyed the title, the content of your opinion shows that you’re still hoping to appeal to those who are gullible enough to believe your claim that carbon dioxide is responsible for the recent bout of global warming. I hope you understand that many, many persons have weighed your opinions and found them wanting.
The internet has become the primary medium for discussions of anthropogenic global warming, as I’m sure you’re aware. You have your own blog. Your associate at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Gavin Schmidt is one of the founders of the once-formidable blog RealClimate. What you may not be aware of is that one of the other contributors to RealClimate Rasmus Benestad in a recent post expressed his feelings that all of their work there might have been for naught [my boldface].
However, if the notion that information makes little impact is correct, one may wonder what the point would be in having a debate about climate change, and why certain organisations would put so much efforts into denial, as described in books such as Heat is on, Climate Cover-up, Republican war on science, Merchants of doubt, and The Hockeystick and Climate Wars. Why then, would there be such things as ‘the Heartland Institute’, ‘NIPCC’, climateaudit, WUWT, climatedepot, and FoS, if they had no effect? And indeed, the IPCC reports and the reports from the National Academy of Sciences? One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.
I can understand Rasmus Benestad’s doubts when a website skeptical of manmade global warming, WattsUpWithThat, has gained visitors since 2008 while RealClimate is floundering. The web information company Alexa shows that WattUpWithThat’s daily reach began to surpass RealClimate’s in May 2008. And for the last 6 months, Alexa could no longer rank RealClimatebecause its percentage dropped too low. On the other hand, the daily reach of WattsUpWthThat increased greatly and WattsUpWthThat has become the world’s most-viewed website on global warming and climate change.
Over the past 30 years or longer, James, you’ve created a global surface temperature record called the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. It shows global surface temperatures have warmed since 1880. While there are some problems with that dataset we need to discuss, it is something you can be proud of. But in those 3 decades, you’ve also developed and programmed climate models with the sole intent of showing that manmade greenhouse gases were responsible for that warming. Those models are included, along with dozens of others, in the archives used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their reports. Unfortunately, your efforts with climate models, and the efforts of the other modeling groups, have not been successful. Far from it. And since your opinions are based on the results of your climate models, one has to conclude that your opinions are as flawed as the models.
I’m one of the independent researchers who study the instrument-based surface temperature record and the output data of the climate models used by the IPCC to simulate those temperatures. Other researchers and I understand two simple and basic facts, which have been presented numerous times on blogs such as WattsUpWithThat. Keep in mind WattUpWithThat reaches a massive audience daily, so anyone who’s interested in global warming and climate change and who takes the time to read those posts also understands those two simple facts.
Fact one: the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it.
The climate models used in the IPCC’s (2007) 4th Assessment Report show surface temperatures should have warmed about 2.9 times faster during the late warming period (1976-2000) than they did during the early warming period (1917-1944). The IPCC acknowledges the existence of those two separate warming periods. The climate model simulations are being driven by climate forcings, including manmade carbon dioxide, which logically show a higher rate during the later warming period. Yet the observed, instrument-based warming ratesfor the two warming periods are basically the same.
If the supposition you peddle was sound, James, manmade carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases should have warmed the surface of our planet at a much faster rate in recent decades, but they have not. In other words, there’s little evidence that the carbon dioxide you demonize in your op-ed has had any measureable effect on how fast global surface temperatures have warmed. We independent climate researchers have known this for years. It’s a topic that surfaces often, so often that it’s joked about around the blogosphere.
Some independent researchers have taken the time to present how poorly climate models simulate the rates at which global surface temperatures have warmed and cooled since the start of the 20th Century. We do this so that people without technical backgrounds can better understand that very fundament flaw with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I resurrected it again in a two-part post back in December 2011 (see here and here), both of which were cross posted at WattsUpWithThat. I’ve published numerous posts about this since December using different datasets: sea surface temperature, land surface temperature and the combination of the two. I’ve published so many posts that show how poorly the IPCC’s climate models simulate past surface temperatures that it’s not practical to link them all. The posts also include the new and improved climate models that were prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5thAssessment Report. Sorry to say, they show no improvement.
Fact two: natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases.
In your opinion piece, you mentioned the predictions you made in the journal Science back in 1981. Coincidentally, that’s the year when satellites began to measure the surface temperatures of the global oceans. Those satellites provide much better coverage for the measurement of global sea surface temperatures, from pole to pole. You use a satellite-based dataset as one of the sea surface temperature sources for your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. That NOAA sea surface temperature dataset is known as Reynolds OI.v2. It is the same dataset I have used to illustrate that natural processes, not greenhouse gases, are responsible for surface temperature warming of the global oceans since 1981. Since land surface temperatures are simply along for the ride, mimicking and exaggerating the changes in sea surface temperatures, the hypothesis you promote has a significant problem. Climate models are once again contradicted by observation-based data.
I’m one of very few independent global warming researchers who study sea surface temperature data and the processes associated with the natural mode of climate variability called El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO is a process that is misrepresented by many climate scientists when they use linear regression analysis in attempts to remove an ENSO signal from the global surface temperature record. Those misrepresentations ensure misleading results in some climate science papers.
ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.” In fact, there are no climate models used by the IPCC that are capable of recreating the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. And I know of no scientific studies that show any one climate model is capable of correctly simulating all of the fundamental coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with ENSO.
If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles. As a result, the climate models exclude the variations in the rates at which the tropical Pacific Ocean releases naturally created heat to the atmosphere and redistributes it within the oceans, and those climate models also exclude the varying rate at which ENSO is responsible through teleconnections for the warming in areas remote to the tropical Pacific.
Climate scientists have to stop treating ENSO as noise, James. The process of ENSO serves as a source of naturally created and stored thermal energy that is discharged, redistributed and recharged periodically. Because these three functions (discharge, redistribution and recharge) all fluctuate (see Note 1), impacts of ENSO on global climate vary on annual, multiyear and multidecadal timescales. Common sense dictates that global surface temperatures will warm over multidecadal periods when the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events, causing more heat than normal to be released from the tropical Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere and to be redistributed within the oceans. And the opposite will occur, global surface will cool, when La Niña events dominate ENSO over a multidecadal period. It is no coincidence that that is precisely what has happened since 1917.
Note 1: El Niño events (the discharge mode) are not always followed by La Niña events (the recharge mode). Both El Niño and La Niña events can appear in a series of similar phase events like the El Niño events of 2002/03, 2004/05 and 2006/07 and the La Niña events of 2010/11 and 2011/12. El Niño and La Niña events can also last for more than one year, spanning multiple ENSO seasons, like the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña. When a strong El Niño is followed by a La Niña like the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 it is very obvious that two portions of ENSO are acting together and redistributing warm water that’s left over from the El Niño. The results of the combined effects are actually difficult to miss in the sea surface temperature records.
The satellite-era sea surface temperature data reveals that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the warming of global ocean surfaces for the past 30 years, as noted earlier. It illustrates the effects of La Niña events are not the opposite of El Niño events. In fact, the satellite-based sea surface temperature data indicates that, when major El Niño events are followed by La Niña events, they can and do act together to cause upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. And since the Eastern Pacific Ocean has not warmed in 30 years, those ENSO-induced upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data are responsible for practically all of the global sea surface temperature warming for the last 3 decades.
I have been presenting and illustrating those ENSO-caused upward shifts for more than 3 years. I have plotted the data, discussed and animated the process of ENSO using numerous datasets: sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. And since cloud amount for the tropical Pacific impacts downward shortwave radiation (visible light) there, I’ve presented and discussed that relationship as well. The data associated with those variables all confirm how the processes of ENSO work for my readers. They also show and discuss how those upward shifts are caused by processes of ENSO. I’ve written so many posts on ENSO that it is impractical for me to link them here. A very good overview is provided in this post, or you may prefer to read the additional comments on the cross post at WattsUpWithThat.
James, you are more than welcome to use the search function at my website to research the process of ENSO. With all modesty, I have to say there’s a wealth of information there. I’ve assembled that same information in my book If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their deceptive Ads? You might prefer the book since then you’d have a single source of more detailed discussions on the topics presented in this memo. It also illustrates and discusses how the climate models used by the IPCC in their 4th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to reproduce the global surface temperature record since 1901. Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause. An overview of my book is provided in the above-linked post. Amazon also provides a Kindle preview that runs from the introduction through a good portion of Section 2. That’s about the first 15% of the book. Refer also to the introduction, table of contents, and closing in pdf form here. My book is written for those without technical backgrounds so someone like you with a deep understanding of climate science will easily be able to grasp what’s presented.
In closing, I was sort of surprised to see your May 10, 2012 opinion in the New York Times. I had discussed in the second part of my August 21, 2011 memo to you and Makiko Satothat ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the recent 30-year rise in global sea surface temperatures. You must not have read that memo. Hopefully, you’ll read this one.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations 
1} CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS, TO FIND BETTER ANSWERS
Temperature in the atmosphere is NOT same as in human body; when under the armpit is 1C warmer than normal = the WHOLE body is warmer by that much. In nature is opposite. Time for mature debate; for real proofs, it’s time for the secular Skeptics to get on the front foot.
Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, CO2 only 260-400ppm? Q: do you know that O+N expand /shrink INSTANTLY in change of temperature? Q: do you know that; where they expand upwards; on the edge of the troposphere is minus – 90⁰C? Q: why O+N expand more, when warmed by 5⁰C, than when warmed by 2⁰C? A: when warmed by 5⁰C, they need to go further up, to release MORE heat; to intercept more extra coldness, to equalize. Q: if O+N are cooled after 10minutes to previous temperature, why they don’t stay expanded another 5 minutes extra? A: not to intercept too much extra coldness, to prevent too much cooling. A2: they stay expanded precisely as long as they are warmer – not one second more or less – that’s how they regulate to be same warmth units overall in the troposphere, every hour of every year and millennia! (Past GLOBAL warmings were never global!)
Q: do you know that: if troposphere warms up by 2⁰C extra – troposphere expands up into the stratosphere by 1km, how much extra coldness is there to intercept? A: intercepts extra appropriate coldness, to counteract the extra heat in 3,5 seconds > that extra coldness falls to the ground in minutes Q: if O+N are warmed extra for 30minutes, why they don’t shrink after 15minutes, or after one day? A: if O+N after cooled to previous temperature; stayed expanded for a whole day extra -> they would have redirected enough extra coldness, to freeze all the tropical rivers / lakes.
Q: can CO2 of 260-400ppm prevent oxygen + nitrogen (998999ppm) of expanding when they warm up? A: O+N when warmed extra – they expand through the walls of a hi-tensile hand-grenade. Q: do you believe in the laws of physics, or in IPCC and the Warmist cult? The laws of physics say: part of the troposphere can get colder than normal – only when other part gets warmer than normal. B] if the WHOLE troposphere gets colder -> air shrinks -> intercepts less coldness on the edge of the troposphere > retains more heat and equalizes in a jiffy. C] both hemispheres cannot get warmer simultaneously for more than few minutes – if they doo -> troposphere expands extra -> intercepts extra coldness and equalizes in a jiffy. Q: do the O+N wait to warm up by 2-3⁰C, before they start expanding; or expand instantly extra, when they warm up by 0,000001⁰C? Mitich formula: EH>AE>EHR (Extra Heat >Atmosphere Expands >Extra Heat Releases) Tons of extra CORRECT proofs, why I am a GLOBAL warming Infidel. I believe in climatic changes; big and small – I know that human can improve the climate / because water controls climate = to a degree, human can control water. On the other hand, ALL the phony GLOBAL warmings are, yes, phony.
Lots of B/S makes fertile imaginations. Money corrupts even honest people, lying is bread and butter to people involved in climatology, don’t blame them. Present our own ‘’honest’’ proofs. Warmist believe in 90% possibility of GLOBAL warming – the face Skeptics believe 101% in global warming
2} CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS, TO FIND BETTER ANSWERS
You constantly use the terms: ‘’thermodynamics and convection’’ but never implement it.
IT’S, THE SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISMS: to be same warmth units in the troposphere every hour of every day / year and millenia
Factor 1] when troposphere warms up – oxygen + nitrogen expand, INSTANTLY. They are 998999ppm in the troposphere. Volume of the troposphere increases INSTANTLY. Nobody talks about it; if they did – they would have proven their misleading is WRONG. Because of bigger cities, bitumen / bricks / more people are having hot showers and cooking than 150y ago; the air in those cities is always warmer than before (city island heat) From 500km3 of air is expanded to 550km3. Those extra 50km3 are increasing the volume of the troposphere. Take in the account the contribution of every big city on the planet; conservative estimate: the ‘’troposphere’’ has expanded by 5-7m up; that extra volume intercepts and redirects enough extra coldness ‘’to CANCEL the extra heat’’. That extra coldness doesn’t fall back into those cities; because in few minutes falling down – by spinning the planet fast eastwards + horizontal winds on the way down disperse that extra coldness somewhere far west = far west of every big city is fraction colder. ‘’Fraction, because that coldness is distributed on much larger are, than the city. Overall, same warmth units in the troposphere every hour of every year and millenia.
Factor 2] usually, HORIZONTAL winds take the heat from the ground; VERTICAL winds take that heat to the edge of the troposphere; discharge the heat into the unlimited coldness; and exchange it for coldness, which takes about 3,5 second > that extra cold air gets to the ground in minutes. WHEN HEAT INCREASES on the ground > VERTICAL WINDS INCREASE.
Warmer air expands > increases volume > on the way up. Hot air balloon is a good example; because is using the heat convection – to get up, and stay up. The power of warm air wants to go up – the warmer it gets – the more powerful vertical winds. Lifts 100kg balloon + the gas bottle + the basket + 5-6 people in it – it’s lifting 600kg, over half a ton. In that balloon is lots and lots of CO2+H2O; but doesn’t prevent it of going up, to release heat. Example: if the balloon instantly disappeared – that warm air inside the balloon would have shot up as a rocket – to take the heat to the edge on the troposphere and replace it with coldness.
Can CO2 and water vapor prevent the warmed air from getting up? A: When the gas burns to warm up the air inside the balloon; the flame turns the gas into CO2 AND ‘’VATER VAPOUR’’. If those two molecules CO2 + H2O were preventing expansion of oxygen + nitrogen inside the balloon; the balloon wouldn’t have taken off the ground with that extra weight. That is factual / proof of their lies / Warmist ‘’smoking gun’’.
After 1/2h up in the air; in the balloon is over 20 000ppm of CO2 + lots of water vapor!
Q: can CO2 + water vapor prevent the warm air into the balloon of expanding and going up? A: you know the answer; don’t let them get away with their cheap lies.
3] Another proof:
When it gets hotter than normal – vertical winds increase. People with hang-gliders prefer over rocks / red soil. Because on that kind of surface, sunlight produces extra heat. They hate rice paddies / swamps. Which brings back to Sahara; in Sahara the vertical winds are much faster than in Brazil. Because above Sahara is much less CO2 and water wapour, to produce dimming affect (to intercept lots of sunlight, where cooling is much more efficient) = on the ground much hotter / upper atmosphere colder. ‘’proportion in difference of heat between the ground and upper atmosphere is greater – that makes ‘’VERTICAL WINDS to SPEED UP!!!
In Brazil, because of dimming affect – upper atmosphere is warmer, but at daytime on the ground is much cooler. At night is warmer in Brazil than Sahara; because the vertical winds are slower. They are slower, because the proportion in difference of temperature between the ground and upper atmosphere are much less. Doctor’s order for growing better trees! So much about H2O +CO2 being bad for climate. If you don’t know what is good climate – ask the trees; Sahara or Brazil??? That makes the Conspirators not just wrong, but back to front as well. In Brazil, from 33C at lunch time cools in 12h to 23C at night — in Sahara, from 45C at lunch time; in 12h cools to down to 10C. That means: nature can cool by 25C more in Sahara ‘’ in 12h’’ than in Brazil; they state that troposphere cannot cool extra 0,135C in a decade?!… Grow up people, all of you. Self adjusting mechanism is brilliant, but avoided by both camps!
Fact: when the air for that latitude gets warmer than normal – vertical winds speed up accordingly – INCREASES efficiency in cooling.
Fact: when the air for that latitude cools – vertical winds slow / can even stop. But because close to the ground is always warmer than up, they just slow down. Self regulation that never fails; because the creator inserted a thermometer in every atom of oxygen / nitrogen.
4} ANOTHER OPEN CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS; TO FIND MISTAKE, OR BETTER ANSWERS
If any of the active Warmist / Skeptic gets outside the ‘’big city island heat’’: you can see 10km radios +10km up = 700km3 of air. There are horizontal and vertical winds. From those rocks over there, vertical wind goes up – behind there, vertical winds go in direction down towards the swamp – on the other side – vertical winds go fast up from that red, exposed soil to the sunlight – further there vertical wind goes in direction down towards the rice paddies – behind you, the wind goes upward from the farmer’s house walls / roof. Those winds slow when the cloud comes above… but depends on the angle the cloud approaches and its density / altitude… then those winds speed up again, but not at the same speed… red soil is warmed by the sunlight faster than the rocky outcrops. 2h after sundown, from the sandy soil and that house, vertical winds change directions. From the red soil and the rice paddy / swamp, change direction after midnight; but at slower speed. Who is monitoring?
2]Those vertical winds are attacked by horizontal winds that are on different altitudes / directions every 90m. up. Sometime SOME winds travel at 3knots – others at 27knots – others at 40knots and rearrange the temperature constantly – then some slow down – on other altitude speed up. Who is recording the DIFERENT temperatures on every few cubic meters that is changing every 10 minutes in the year; in the space you can see?!?! The space you can see with your eyes, without moving, is area of 600 000 different temperatures, and those temperatures change every 10 minutes. There are 6000 thermometers monitoring for IPCC, on the WHOLE planet!
They have only 1% of thermometers for what is needed, to monitor the space you can see with your eyes. How many thermometers you think you will see in those 700km3?! How much larger area on the planet you cannot see without mowing?!? Be honest to yourself. Not 100-200-300-6000 years ago… NOW they have 6 000 thermometers for the WHOLE planet, that is sending them data; mostly on the ground / most concentrated in Europe /USA… Enough to monitor temp for 6000 rooms. Thermometer is suitable to monitor temp in a room, NOT one thermometer for 500 000km2!!!
5} Confusion in monitoring the GLOBAL temp is same as monitoring the amount of water in 6 creeks in your area; if this year those 6 creeks have 25% more water – to declare that: the WHOLE planet has 25% more water. Would you believe that? If not, why do you believe that they know if the WHOLE planet is warmer, with precision, by 0,135C; that is ;;to a one thousandth of a degree’’?! Which means: if is warmer where they are monitoring – it’s colder some place where nobody is monitoring. Not necessary by 0,135C; if your creek behind your house has 25% more water this year – doesn’t mean that Amazon river has 25% less water. Same as; if Europe is warmer by 0,75C, Oceania needs to get cooler by only 0,013C, because is much larger area than Europe. It proves that: in the 70’s wasn’t colder planet, in 90’s wasn’t warmer planet, is not cooling again (missing heat). It means that they have being lying EVERY time!!! The Fake Skeptics are looking for sunspots, galactic dust and other crap; to create backdoor exit for the extreme Warmist.
6} In the military book says: if you see a flashlight from atom bomb explosion in the distance – instantly hit the ground, with your butt towards ground zero and put the gasmask on – then 3 minutes after the original blast, if you can turn your head towards ground zero. Because after three (3) minutes – the wind by SAME SPEED as the explosion, goes BACK towards the ground zero and demolishes just as much, already weakened concrete buildings. But, turning in the opposite direction without getting up – otherwise – the returning wind will take you to ground zero.
What the issue here is: atom bomb is heating oxygen + nitrogen to millions of degrees – they expand and their SPEED damages concrete buildings; not the 20-30kg of plutonium – (reason atom bomb is useless out of space, where is no oxygen + nitrogen) effect would be as few shotgun pellets (apart in Hollywood entertainment). O+N wouldn’t have SHRUNK after three (3) minutes – IF THEY WERE NOT COOLED –that’s the issue!!! But, they shrink almost as fast as they expand from the explosion. O+N shrink with the speed of a bullet and demolish the already weakened concrete buildings. MILLION DEGREES, O+N COOL IN THREE (3) MINUTES – the shonky ‘’experts’’ tell you that: in 10 years, the planet will be warmer by 0,156C… Cannot cool fraction of a degree, in 10 years ?! Thanks to the fake Sceptic’s ignorance…
No, when air close to the ground warms up EXTRA, by 1-2-3C, doesn’t expand as fast as by atom bomb; but expands accordingly, of the amount of extra heat / INSTANTLY. Just that atom bomb is taking dust + WATER VAPOUR + CO2 – it gives better chance to be analysed visually; what normal extra warming does to oxygen + nitrogen. I.e. if is localized extra warming – that part of the troposphere expands into the stratosphere as a nuclear mushroom – then intercepts appropriate amount of extra coldness in 3,5 seconds – then INSTANTLY shrinks and brings that extra coldness to the ground in a jiffy.
BOTTOM LINE:
ALL THE HEAT IN THE TROPOSPHERE OVERALL; IS ‘’the EARTH’S GLOBAL TEMPERATURE’’ Forget about USA temp, or Arctic, or Antarctic, or Mediterranean, or heat in the sea, in your oven, in the fossil fuel, or heat stored in plutonium. Unless is ‘’ALL’’ heat combined in the troposphere ‘’ONLY’’, it’s = misleading / smokescreen.
1] Forget about the temperature in the sea; submarine volcanoes /hot vents increase the temp. Because the earth’s crust is much thinner on the bottom of the oceans; 97% of the active volcanoes / hot vents are on the bottom of the sea B] winds, ruff sea cools the surface water. C] below if is 10cm of 20C and 55m of 23C; or is the opposite, nobody notices the difference; even though tremendous difference in the amount of stored heat. D] yesterday’s rain brought coldness from high up and cooled the ‘’surface’’ water; below hasn’t changed – but record will show: the Whole ocean as colder by 2C. It’s stupid data for immature people. Designed exclusively for the fundamentalist and for the Urban Sheep.
2]Forget about Arctic temperature, or surface temperature, or Antarctic temp; they are all for confusing the ‘’already confused’’ The whole temp of the troposphere is earth’s temperature!!! If one is taken on Arctic in July, was warmer than normal, England was warmer than normal in May, Brazil in December was warmer than normal, Australia was warmer than normal in January, they are emphasising… it’s all meaningless crap. Smokescreen / puling wool over ignorant eyes. To get from 10 light years away from the truth, down to only 9 light years: they should take on every monitoring place temperature simultaneously, on the whole planet. For example, at 12 pm Greenwich time; then to take it at 8am Greenwich time ‘’on the whole planet’’ and compare those two. Lets call it: ‘’People’s request, model for monitoring’’
3]Forget about the temperature in the stratosphere. That temp doesn’t fluctuate. B] in the stratosphere are gases as aerosol, helium, ozone. Those gases just seat / spin there and never come to the ground to bring any coldness = they are irrelevant for the planet’s temperature regulation. Are used occasionally for confusion There is no methane in the stratosphere, it’s a lie. Methane sinks in the ground, because is produced together with other compounds. If some goes up in the atmosphere at night – as soon as reaches altitude where is sunlight, UV, infrared; zaps it instantly and turns every molecule of methane into 2 molecules of water and one CO2.
4] Forget about cherry picking, always is someplace warmer than normal; unless the Swindler finds out and report the other place where is colder than normal; he is lying to you; or fundamentalist is usually lying to himself also / reassurance, fear of reality.
5]Forget about the heat in the smelters, converting ores into metals / my oven was yesterday 240C, making roast; does that means that GLOBAL temp is gone up by 225c? Idiots! Energy that came from the sun yesterday and was locked in the trees or crops – then released in 6months or 25y (the word: ‘’energy budget’’ is crap / energy budget = honesty deficient; sky is the limit). Red soil absorbs more heat than rocks – irrelevant if released in the air at 12pm or 11am. It’s not difference than them talking about the energy locked into the fossil fuel, or into the atoms = con job. Those ‘’energy budgets, positive / negative signals and albedos’’ should all go into Hansen’s & Plimer’s ass. Sand exchanges heat different than red clay.
Fundamentalists from both camps: Q: what’s the difference if CO2 in the air releases the heat 2minutes before, during, or 10minutes after the ‘’hottest minute of the day?! Grow up, guys!!
Rocks and clay don’t go up towards the stratosphere, to release / waste heat and exchange it for coldness. It’s the oxygen + nitrogen; they are 998999ppm, stupid! The amount of wool the Warmist pulled over the Fake Sceptic’s eyes; to keep the Fakes warm and cook their brains, is bigger than Mt Ararat. They will start ‘’researching’’ if the stew, goulash, soup, or french-fries have bigger energy budget and which of them is releasing heat faster ‘’and producing GLOBAL warming… As long as the Fakes are assisting them. There is money to be made on shonky researches. There is no money into acknowledging that: ‘’overall global temp is ALWAYS the same; that’s what the laws of physics and my formulas say!!!
6]Forget if the sealevel goes up or down, that has noting to do with any phony GLOBAL warming. There are real reasons for it.
7]Forget about the ice on the polar caps + glaciers. They don’t depend on temperature, average temp there is minus -30C. on the land ice is melted from below, by the geothermal heat / on the sea is melted by the salty water / sweater can melt ice below zero centigrade. More ice / less ice; 100% depends on the availability of raw material for renewal of the ice every winter. That raw material / water vapour in the air, is treated as ‘’ bad for the climate’’ by the fanatics from both camps. Are Sahara and Brazil not big enough, to notice the trut?
As soon as heat is released from wood, coal, volcanoes, smelter, plutonium, from your oven, into the air; ‘’then it becomes /belongs as GLIOBAL temperature’’. No matter if its in your room, backyard, Arctic, equator, 2-40-700m in the air, or on 1-5-20km altitude. That is GLOBAL temperature. All other crappy staff is for creating zombies / fanatics / rip-off and destruction of the democratic west. If not with red Kalashnikovs / oppress them with green. CO2 is increasing, not a hint of GLOBAL warming; fake Skeptics are looking for reasons why. Because isn’t such a thing, idiots, stop helping the Warmist. The fake Skeptics are the biggest Sadomasochists.
When any extra heat is released, or produced in the air / troposphere; on the place / places released -> that O+N expands upwards, according to the extra amount of heat released. Intercepts EXTRA coldness, to equalize, than instantly shrink; not to redirect too much extra coldness. That’s what regulates the global temperature. Any other heat than the heat in the troposphere; is a smokescreen. No matter if is Arctic’s, Antarctic’s heat, or heat in the sea, or heat stored in the atoms, in the fossil fuel, or in your oven; ONLY becomes GLOBAL temp, when is released in the air, not before. All the solar / galactic influences on the earth’s climate is much les than one Al Gore’s fart!
Reblogged this on pindanpost.
Bob –
He’s not listening. He won’t respond if he runs true to form either. You are challenging him on the Science of the matter. He is off in his own make-believe little universe with his admirers and supporters. The issue of CO2 Induced Global Warming is purely political to Hansen, you see he ‘knows’ he’s right and you are wrong; there’s nothing to talk about. He’s been proved wrong but that doesn’t matter, his fans are cheering him on, he has another speaking engagement to prepare for, he must dust off his old set of slides again and move a couple paragraphs in his speech so as not to seem stale and repetitive to his fans. When you get to be his age, when the party is almost over, when you’ve sold the last shred of integrity in your kit, there is no response to anyone outside your circle. He’s an actor now, and the Show must go on. Wish it weren’t true.
Ref @stefanthedenier – Why didn’t you just shake the man’s hand and link to your blog? You went way overboard.
“Fact one: the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it.”
I disagree. There is great uncertainty in the early 20th century temperature records, plus uncertainty in the models themselves, and then even in terms of AGW there is uncertainty in climate sensitivity (2C per doubling, 4C per doubling, and even 1C per doubling of CO2 are all AGW).
I notice you provide no uncertainty or error bars in your comparison of late and early 20th century rates of warming vs models. Without factoring in uncertainty how do you know the difference between observations and models is statistically significant?
“If the supposition you peddle was sound, James, manmade carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases should have warmed the surface of our planet at a much faster rate in recent decades, but they have not.”
The amount of warming seen is consistent with Hansen’s ’81 and 88 model based projections assuming a climate sensitivity of about 3C. The aerosol forcing and the thermal response times are very much still unknown though.
“It is the same dataset I have used to illustrate that natural processes, not greenhouse gases, are responsible for surface temperature warming of the global oceans since 1981.”
I suspect you’ve confused cause and effect. A warming world may exhibit certain patterns of warming, but those patterns should not be confused as being the cause.
Ocean Heat Content has increased over decades. Clearly the warming of the surface is therefore not due to an exchange from the deep ocean to the surface and atmosphere.
nomnomnom says: “I notice you provide no uncertainty or error bars in your comparison of late and early 20th century rates of warming vs models…”
Please feel free to duplicate my data presentations and add uncertainty analysis.
nomnomnom says: “The amount of warming seen is consistent with Hansen’s ’81 and 88 model based projections assuming a climate sensitivity of about 3C. The aerosol forcing and the thermal response times are very much still unknown though.”
This statement does not address the portion of my post that you quoted.
nomnomnom says: “I suspect you’ve confused cause and effect.”
As I noted in the post, I’ve discussed, illustrated and animated the ENSO-related processes that cause the upward shifts. You must not have studied the links I provided.
nomnomnom says: “Ocean Heat Content has increased over decades.”
Apparently you’re also not aware that natural variables are responsible for the rise in Ocean Heat Content since 1955. Otherwise you wouldn’t have changed topics. Are you aware that the tropical Pacific OHC only rose during and in response to the La Niña events of 1973/74/75/76, and 1995/96, and 1998/99/00/01?
Also see my post from 2 ½ years ago titled ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data:
Are you aware that the OHC anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N dropped from the 1960s until the late 1980s, and then shifted upwards in response to a shift in North Pacific sea level pressure? See my post here:
And are you aware that the rise in North Atlantic OHC anomalies is more than twice that of Global OHC and that the paper Lozier et al (2008) “The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic” identifies the driver of decadal North Atlantic OHC variability. Link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5864/800?rss=1
They write, “…the large-scale, decadal changes in wind and buoyancy forcing associated with the NAO is primarily responsible for the ocean heat-content changes in the North Atlantic over the past 50 years.”
Also see my post here:
stefanthedenier: Next time, please just leave a link to your post instead of reposting the entire thing here:
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/
As it is, your comments appear to the casual reader to have nothing to do with the topic being discussed so they will most likely simply glance at them and not bother to read them in full.
Bob, I appreciate your response to Dr. Hansen, but you seem once more intent on misrepresenting the actual facts of both the data as well as the dynamics behind Earth’s energy imbalance. Certainly the late 20th century warming is greater than the early 20th century in both intensity and actual level, and you can attempt to misrepresent this all you want, but the slope of the warming curve from 1976 to 2000 exceeds anything seen earlier in the century over a similar period (you must use a similar timeframe!).
But beyond that, your inclusion of sea surface temperutures with land surface temperatures in the same sentence, as though they indicate the same sort of measurement dynamic of the Earth’s energy imbalance is simply incorrect, unsupportable by the basic physics, and you should know better. Of all people, you should knolw better. You well know, and have even created graphs that we’ve discusssed in which SST’s are best as predictors of energy flux from ocean to atmosphere. SST’s are NOT good predictors of energy content of the ocean. A closer (though still not perfect) ocean equivalent of land surface temperatures is ocean heat content. But becasue land surface temperatures are general taken a few meters off the ground, and ocean heat content can be measured at various depths, even equating these two is not really a good measurement of what’s been going on with Earth’s energy balance. Land surface measurements also are rather a poor indicator of the overall energy imbalance of the planet. The single best metric– and really the only metric that will give you the best overall indicator of whether or not the Earth’s energy system is gaining energy or not (which is the core of AGW), is ocean heat content. As the energy storage of the ocean is thousands of times larger and has much much more thermal inertia than the atmosphere, it gives us the best long-term guage of what is happening to the Earth’s non-tectonic solar derived energy. And of course, it has steadily increased for over 40 years, dipping slightly sometimes in El Nino years (when SST’s tend to be higher) as some of that energy is released back to the atmosphere.
The other strong indicator, that corresponds directly with ocean heat content is the state of Arctic Sea ice. Arctic sea ice has been declining steadily for many decades in concert with increasing ocean heat content. This is strong co-confirmatory evidence that Earth’s non-tectonic energy is increasing (i.e. the planet is warming). Some studies have indicated that some waters flowing into the Arctic are the warmest they’ve been in at least 2000 years. Yes, warmer than the much discussed Medieval Warm Period.
So Bob, there are several things that become obvious. First, the atmosphere has a far lower thermal inertia than the ocean and thus, while it is warming over the long term, it will display much more natural variability than the ocean. If you want to see what’s going on with Earth’s energy imbalance, look first to the ocean. Increase ocean heat content and declining Arctic Sea ice are good indicators– far better than just looking at land surface temperatures over some short period. Over longer periods of course land temperatures will increase from increasing greenhouse gases, but even then, the energy storage represented by though increases will be a fraction of what the ocean is storing.
Finally, stop equating or using SST’s as the ocean equivalent to land surface temperatures. It makes you look like a complete ignoramous and you are surely not. The two are related in that SST’s are good indicators of where atmospheric temperatrues might be headed over the short-term, but they are measuring two very different kinds of things. If you must look at ocean and land together, look at ocean heat content and land temperatures, but really, in deciding whether or not humans are affecting the Earth’s energy balance, look at ocean heat content and Arctic sea ice. (we can discuss Antarctic sea ice at much length in another post if you’d like)
R. Gates says: “Bob, I appreciate your response to Dr. Hansen, but you seem once more intent on misrepresenting the actual facts of both the data as well as the dynamics behind Earth’s energy imbalance…”
That’s as far as I got, R. Gates. I have not misrepresented the surface temperature data or the climate model simulations of it as represented by the model mean. And I have in no way misrepresented the process of ENSO.
Bob, you conveniently ignored the main substance of my post. Sea surface temperatures and land surface tempertures are not measuring the same dynamical proprty in Earth’s energy imbalance, and you should well know that. In regard to the temperature rise in the earlier part of the 20th
century and later part, you are comparing the slopes on anomaly charts, and you are correct, for the two periods you’ve chosen happen the rate of change in the temperture anomalies were the same in those two periods, even though of course the actual level of the anomalies in the later part of the 20th century are far higher. But I misunderstood your point on this. My apologies.
That the climate models are wrong about where and how the excess energy will be stored from the imbalance created by increased greenhouse gases is obvious. Everyone knows that the models are always going to be wrong in some detail. Hansen and Trenberth and every other climate scientist readily acknowledge this. That’s why the models are constantly being updated. Your criticism of Dr. Hansen on this point is rediculous. The models being wrong in predicting the exact details of the energy imbalance, and the greater natural variabilty of atmospheric temperatures versus ocean heat contentdoes not negate the fundamental physics behind anthropgenic global warming. As measured by the best and most stable planetary energy guage we have, ocean heat content, the world is warming, and has been warming continually for at least 40+ years.
R Gates, you are presenting the typical strawman argument then arguing about it. If you actually had a point it is lost in the chaff or your misdirection.
R. Gates says: “Bob, you conveniently ignored the main substance of my post.”
I responded to your first sentence, which I found off-putting.
R. Gates says: “Sea surface temperatures and land surface tempertures are not measuring the same dynamical proprty in Earth’s energy imbalance, and you should well know that.”
Hansen did not discuss energy imbalance in his opinion. I did not discuss energy imbalance in my post. I discussed surface temperature and warming. Let me ask, assuming I’m right and most if not all of the warming of sea surface temperatures is natural, and likewise, most of the ocean heat content rise is natural, then why would we care about energy imbalance?
R. Gates says: “That the climate models are wrong about where and how the excess energy will be stored from the imbalance created by increased greenhouse gases is obvious. Everyone knows that the models are always going to be wrong in some detail. Hansen and Trenberth and every other climate scientist readily acknowledge this.”
They do? The IPCC presents climate models as gospel.
I did apologize for misunderstanding your point about the slope of the anomaly in the early 20th century compared to the slope of the anomaly in the later part of the century. you were right, they have a very similar rise– albeit, the later 20th century was starting from higher temperatures and ending at higher temperatures than earlier in the century, just as, when the next round of a warm PDO begins, we will be starting from a higher base than we did in 1976-77, and this extra energy that will be added to tropospheric temperatures will once more give us a new round of record high temperatures. It is actually remarkable (if you don’t believe in AGW) that we have not seen even cooler tropospheric temps over the past decade. A cool PDO, some moderate volcanic activity, and a quiet sun should have really cooled things off more than they did, IF there wasn’t an added element of longer-term forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases keeping temperatures from really tanking.
But again, the energy imbalance is the core physical issue of AGW. If there is no energy imbalance– there is no warming. How the models account for this extra energy is an entirely different issue. They obviously have not in general been able to account for exactly how all the extra energy is getting into the oceans– rather underestimating it. But the extra energy really has very little to do with sea surface temperatures. Sea surface temperatures are an indication of heat flow from ocean to atmosphere (not energy being actually stored in the ocean), and thus, are not good at all as measurement of energy imbalance. They often in fact run opposite in direction to actual gains in ocean heat content– but you know this, and have showed graphs that well attest to this negative correlation.
The essential physical thing that must occur, in regards to AGW is heat content of the oceans increasing. It it the biggest most stable reservoir of non-tectonic energy on Earth. The troposphere will of course warm as well, but it will be far more variable. Comparing the two is like comparing a thimble full of water to a large swimming pool full, with the two thermally connected in complex ways. SST’s are generally measuring the rate of energy flowing from the swimming pool to the thimble, but are not good indicators of overall energy stored in the pool. A warmer thimble will cause the heat to flow less readily from pool to thimble by altering the thermal gradient between the two. Increasing greenhouse gases will alter this thermal gradient. You can think of increasing greenhouse gases as acting like a “transistor” or “governor”, regulating the flow of energy from the larger reservoir of the ocean to the smaller reservoir of the atmosphere.
Though I doubt you will, you should stop equating SST’s with energy content of the ocean. It is physically incorrect to do so and will often be negatively correlated, especially during La Nina or El Nino episodes.
R. Gates says: “…just as, when the next round of a warm PDO begins, we will be starting from a higher base than we did in 1976-77…” and “A cool PDO, some moderate volcanic activity, and a quiet sun should have really cooled things off more than they did, IF there wasn’t an added element of longer-term forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases keeping temperatures from really tanking.”
There is no mechanism by which the PDO, as defined by JISAO, can impact global surface temperature.
R. Gates says: “But again, the energy imbalance is the core physical issue of AGW.”
Wrong. Anthropogenic global WARMING relies on surface temperature as its primary metric.
R. Gates says: “Though I doubt you will, you should stop equating SST’s with energy content of the ocean.”
I have never equated sea surface temperature with ocean heat content. You’re beginning to anger me, R. Gates. Take some time off. See ya in a couple of weeks.
Very nice essay, Bob, thanks. I’m afraid poor old Dr. Hansen has become somewhat delusional in his activist dotage….
If you haven’t seen it, there’s some interesting reading on the topic of natural vs. man-made warming at
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2012/05/09/why-belief-in-cagw-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-is-not-currently-justified-by-the-standards-of-the-scientific-method/
pdtillman: Thanks for the link.
Regards
Bob, proving to Hansen that HE is wrong, doesn’t bring result. Hansen’s situation is exactly the same as; when tanager gets pregnant, but she states: ‘’yes, but I didn’t have sex’’ and she sticks to that story – she knows the truth – so does Hansen. Proving to Hansen that he lied… well, he invented the lies; therefore he knows that are lies. Now his situation is: same as when you pay $2, to get on the rollercoaster – then when it starts rolling – you are prepared to pay $10, to get off; but then is too light; because if you jump off, you will heart yourself much more. So, have a heart for him, Bob. Hansen knows the damages he has done – he knows, if admits that was all a lie… He knows that: as long as the Skeptics are putting the real climatic changes, with the phony GLOBAL warming in the same basket – he has nothing to worry about
That’s why I proposed a challenge in my book: ‘’ Hansen and Michael Mann to be connected to a lie detector, with the question: ‘’do they believe in GLOBAL warming?’’ No, not in climate change; climate is in constant change; some places for better, some for worse – it’s necessary for climate to keep changing. But do they themselves believe ‘’in the GLOBAL warming’’?!?!?!
Bob, warming / cooling of the oceans, affects tremendously ‘’the climate’’ on the land; but that has NOTHING to do with any phony GLOBL warming. B] when is El Nino, waters of Chile (east pacific) get warmer – waters around Australia get colder; in La Nina is the opposite. Even if EVERY molecule of water in every sea gets warmer – that doesn’t produce GLOBAL warming, but ‘’milder climate’’ makes climatic changes; because H2O controls the climate, not CO2; but that is not a GLOBAL warming. Water vapor brings day / night’s temp closer – absent = mote extreme temp between day and night.
The only way Hansen will spit the dummy is: if is presented to him as in my comment above that says ‘’the bottom line’’ that states the factors that are IRELEVANT for the OVERALL global temp. Therefore, unless is accompanied with proofs what is relevant and WHY; Hansen will not fall on his sword. My proofs can assist you to put Hansen in checkmate position. Otherwise, Warmist will be getting all the funds and will keep walking all over the sceptical people, for another 50y. After 50y, they will turn into global cooling story, again. If you and your visitors cannot prove my comments above wrong, legitimately– nobody can. Therefore, you guys can get Hansen cornered. But as long as ‘’Skeptics’’ keep including irrelevant factors… there will always be some place warmer on the planet ‘’than the previous year’’ that’s what Hansen &Co are exploiting – because the Skeptics avoid to believe the truth that: ‘’ when is warmer than normal on some place – MUST GET colder than normal on some other place; laws of physics don’t permit on the WHOLE planet to be warmer, or colder; for more than 7-8 minutes!!!’’ That’s the bottom line; yes, all the necessary proofs ate on my blog
R Gates say: The single best metric– and really the only metric that will give you the best overall indicator of whether or not the Earth’s energy system is gaining energy or not (which is the core of AGW), is ocean heat content. 2] And of course, it has steadily increased for over 40 years,
Mr. Gates, sun’s influence on the heat in the ocean is SAME every year, but there are different influences: A] earth’s crust is thinner on the bottom of the sea, than on land / the ring of fire – B] Over 98% of all the active volcanoes + hot vents are on the bottom of the sea = 100% of that heat is absorbed by the water and spread by the currents. C] surface water has a mirror effect for the sunlight. When the sunlight increases the temp in the surface seawater -> evaporation increases; evaporation is cooling process D] when evaporation increases -> the clouds increase / clouds are the ”sun-umbrella for the seawater – intercept part of the sunlight up, where cooling is much more efficient = decreases heating on the sea – the ”SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISM” Start learning!
2: ”steadily increased for 40years”?! Bag the CO2?! listen Gates: for the last 40y, the population on the planet increased / economy improved. Correct so-far?! End result is: for the last 40y you are referring; use of canola, olive oil increased -> day after is used – 50% ends up on the surface of the sea – also the production of chickens, pigs increased by 200% -> most of that fat ends up on the surface of the sea – including the EXTRA industrial oils. All those spread as invisible film on the surface of the sea = SLOW DOWN evaporation. Remember what I said that ”evaporation is cooling of the seawater – less evaporation =? Plus by less evaporation = less clouds = SMALLER sun- umbrella for the sea / land… guess what that means.
Next step: because you are blaming CO2 and the crapogenic do-do; real damages that can be prevented, are ignored: those fats / oils are preventing water to get replenished with oxygen – big part of the sea for big part of the year cannot sustain most of the variety of fish. They blame the fishermen; instead of B/S distributors like you. I don’t blame you, you are defending Hansen for cash, same as a solicitor defends a bank-robber, pedophile, for cash. As long as you know: the truth, the real proofs exist; by avoiding my comments above, the truth will not change or disappear. The only prudent think is, to face the truth; instead of wasting your time, to be Hansen’s foot solder – in which is no happy ending – your climax will be off your butt – you will poop yourself… crimes you are committing are irreversible. Think about it. Every time you see a picture of the sea; remember what Stefan told you. Time is against you, Gates!!! Cheers.
“Please feel free to duplicate my data presentations and add uncertainty analysis.”
Don’t you think that’s important before drawing a conclusion? If the difference in warming rates between models and observations are not statistically significant then it won’t be true that the models and observations disagree.
“As I noted in the post, I’ve discussed, illustrated and animated the ENSO-related processes that cause the upward shifts.”
You’ve shown is correlation, not causation. Yes heat moving around is correlated with ENSO, but that would be true whether or not rising CO2 is causing the warming. I bet GCMs exhibit patterns with some basins warming more than others. The warming won’t be uniform. The planet will wobble up to a higher temperature, it won’t do it uniformly in every region when there’s so much heat being moved about all the time.
nomnomnom says: “You’ve shown is correlation, not causation. Yes heat moving around is correlated with ENSO, but that would be true whether or not rising CO2 is causing the warming. I bet GCMs exhibit patterns with some basins warming more than others. The warming won’t be uniform. The planet will wobble up to a higher temperature, it won’t do it uniformly in every region when there’s so much heat being moved about all the time.”
Actually, I believe you’d have a very hard time convincing anyone here that GCMs have any skill at being able to simulate sea surface temperatures, partly because they do such a poor job with ENSO. I read a paper recently that concluded that only one of the CMIP3 models showed trade winds reversing in the western tropical Pacific during an El Niño. All the others failed to produce that very, very basic part of the process of ENSO. But the one model that did have the trade winds reversing still had the double ITCZ problem. So we toss them all away.
Here’s a very telling set of graphs. They illustrate the observed sea surface temperature anomaly trends during the satellite era (Reynolds OI.v2 SST) versus the simulations of it using the CMIP3 multi-model mean, with the trends presented on a zonal mean basis. For some unknown reason, the modelers believe the tropics warm faster than the mid and high latitudes. Here’s the comparison on a global basis:
And here’s the comparison for the Atlantic:
And for the Pacific:
Can you see any similarities? I can’t. The modelers have no clue as to how, where and why sea surface temperatures warmed during the satellite era—that is, for the last 30 years. Refer to the two part post here:
And here:
And I also believe I have presented correlation AND causation. I’ve shown the very fundamental differences between El Niño and La Niña events and how they cause those upward shifts in sea surface temperature anomalies. After a major El Niño event, like the 1997/98 El Niño, there is a massive amount of “leftover” warm water in the eastern tropical Pacific, on the surface and below it. You can’t miss it. The resumption of the trade winds returns the warm surface water to the west, where it is carried poleward (to the KOE and the SPCZ) and into the Indian Ocean. And all of the leftover warm subsurface water is carried west by an oceanic Rossby wave at about 10N. It slams into Indonesia a number of months later. That warm water is also carried poleward and into the Indian Ocean. Does the same thing occur following a La Niña? Nope. Because a La Niña is simply an exaggerated ENSO-neutral state. There is no leftover cool water after a La Niña since the stronger-than-normal trade winds have been pushing any cool upwelled waters to the west all along, where it’s heated by the additional downward shortwave radiation associated with the increased strength of the trade winds.
La Niña events that follow major El Niño events don’t counteract the El Niño; they complement it, causing an upward ratcheting effect on the sea surface temperature anomalies of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. It’s all very basic.
Bob Tisdale:
Bob Tisdale says: May 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm
in this thread:
and in this thread
you responded to my comments there. Thanks for that. Apologies for my late reaction, but I would like to respond to both of your similar comments in these threads. I think it’s only fair to respond.
Your quotations:
“I’m a blogger. I’m not a climate scientist. I have no funding source that requires me to publish or perish. If you want to start throwing a couple of hundred grand at me for funding every year that requires me to publish the results of my research, then I’ll start publishing papers.”
“I present data, discuss it, and animate maps of it because it’s dynamic. People around the world learn from my presentations of data.”
To enlighten you: That’s exactly what articles in magazines do. They present data, discuss them and maybe draw some conclusions from them.
You did the work and you have the data. Your claim in the Hansen letter: “I’m one of very few independent global warming researchers who study sea surface temperature data and the processes associated with the natural mode of climate variability called El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO is a process that is misrepresented by many climate scientists when they use linear regression analysis in attempts to remove an ENSO signal from the global surface temperature record.”
It’s blatantly obvious in the text, directed to Mr. Hansen, that you do draw certain conclusions from the ENSO phenomenon based on your own studies as an independant global warming researcher. Besides the complete text in the “Unsent memo to Hansen” is full of such conclusions made by you about the ENSO phenomenon.
Now researchers want to get their work published in respected peer-reviewed journals for the simple fact that their work should be taken seriously by the scientific community. You clearly have done your work in the many blogs and book you are writing or have written. So there is no need for big money to fund you every year. A good idea or new theory is always welcome at these magazines.
You don’t have to pay a magazine hundreds or thousands of dollars in order to get published. It’s for free.
A good friend of mine is also publishing in peer-reviewed magazines and he doesn’t get funding either. “To be taken seriously by the community and to establish a name” is his reason.
You can freely submit your article here:
Science: http://www.submit2science.org/ws/menu.asp
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/index.html
Royal Society: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/submit.xhtml
Geophysical Research Letters: http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/submissions.shtml
Just to name a few.
So: No I am not going to fund a person who has already done his homework and obviously draws conclusions from his work in an “Unsent memo” to Mr. Hansen.
@Robbie Boy
I’m sure you don’t mind a little sarcasim, you seem to enjoy dishing it out, let’s see how well you do taking a little on the cheek yourself. There’s an old book that you’ve probably never heard of called “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. It was written by a fellow named Dale Carnegie and first published in 1936. You really need to do yourself a favor Robbie Boy and check it out or get it from Amazon and read it cover to cover as soon as possible. Life’s short Robbie Boy! Don’t waste a minute of it! There’s a we bit yer Daddy never told ye about yer P’s and Q’s! Now, if yer done takin it in that cheek, bend over a bit more and turn the other.
@ Pascvaks Boy
Is that the best you have to offer for me? Obviously another poster, who is out of arguments.
Have you actually read the “unsent memo to Hansen” by Mr. Tisdale? Mr. Tisdale is looking down on James Hansen in all the possible ways one can expect. I don’t like that.
I am not fond of James Hansen, but I don’t think a well-respected scientist (any serious scientist) deserves a treatment like that. So a taste of Mr. Tisdales own medicine is the least I could do. Mr. Tisdale is clearly drawing conclusions from his work in the text so he should publish his work in the scientific literature. The reason why he hasn’t done so makes one think if his theory/hypothesis really is based on such a solid foundation. I have my doubts.
And you want to teach me a lesson on how to win friends and influence people? I don’t enjoy this at all and I think these climate skeptics and climate proponents need to grow up a little bit and work a bit more together. And if one party has better arguments the other party should accept that as adults.
This text by Mr. Tisdale was in essence a childish and denigrating piece of work. If he wants to be taken seriously he should publish his work in the scientific literature.
Many other good skeptics like Svensmark, Spencer, Christy and Lindzen are doing the same.
Robbie replied to Pascvaks: “Have you actually read the ‘unsent memo to Hansen’ by Mr. Tisdale? Mr. Tisdale is looking down on James Hansen in all the possible ways one can expect. I don’t like that.”
Robbie, the fact that you don’t like my presentation is immaterial. You probably didn’t like being told there was no Santa Claus.
Robbie continued: “I am not fond of James Hansen, but I don’t think a well-respected scientist (any serious scientist) deserves a treatment like that. So a taste of Mr. Tisdales [sic] own medicine is the least I could do.
Robbie, I don’t see where you’ve written a rebuttal to any of the subject matter contained in the post. You’re simply dwelling on the outdated not-peer-reviewed argument.
Robbie says: “Mr. Tisdale is clearly drawing conclusions from his work in the text so he should publish his work in the scientific literature. The reason why he hasn’t done so makes one think if his theory/hypothesis really is based on such a solid foundation. I have my doubts.”
Robbie, you still don’t get it. I don’t present theories/hypotheses. I don’t make claims about the causes of global warming based on climate models, which are founded in physics and hypotheses but programmed from beliefs on how climate could/might respond to increases in anthropogenic forcings. I present data, and I describe the story told by the data. They’re very simple stories. You’re apparently having difficulty coming to terms with the simplicity of what I do; otherwise you would not continue to belabor this.
Robbie writes: “This text by Mr. Tisdale was in essence a childish and denigrating piece of work.”
Childish?
I also don’t believe my post was denigrating. It was realistic. But I write blog posts for a non-technical audience; maybe that’s why you felt I was talking down to Hansen.
Good-bye, Robbie.
Mr. Tisdale says in the Unsent memo:
“Fact two: natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases.”
That’s a really big assertion.
I’d like to see the evidence for it. You need to explain how ENSO is capable of storing heat for such a long time and suddenly releasing it causing the climate to warm on a long-term timescale. Also you need to explain why the warming has stopped with your ENSO index and why the climate hasn’t really cooled lately because of the La Niña phases we are in right now. Where are the scientific papers on that?
The Earth came out of the Little Ice Age about 150 years ago. That was a prolonged period of cooling. Where has all that heat that is now being released to cause the 20th century warming suddenly come from?
Heat cannot be created. Your assertions have been under scientific scrutiny for a while now and it didn’t survive in the scientific community. ENSO cannot explain a longterm warming trend or you need to have some good and solid evidence for that. Are you really that ignorant that climate scientists didn’t take a good and serious look at this phenomenon?
Some of your other quotes:
“ENSO is a process that is misrepresented by many climate scientists when they use linear regression analysis in attempts to remove an ENSO signal from the global surface temperature record.” – Where is your paper on this one?
“As a result, the climate models exclude the variations in the rates at which the tropical Pacific Ocean releases naturally created heat to the atmosphere and redistributes it within the oceans, and those climate models also exclude the varying rate at which ENSO is responsible through teleconnections for the warming in areas remote to the tropical Pacific.” – Naturally created heat – where does that heat come from? Source for that please!
“Climate scientists have to stop treating ENSO as noise, James. The process of ENSO serves as a source of naturally created and stored thermal energy that is discharged, redistributed and recharged periodically.” – Still no source for your assertion!
ENSO means El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Now what does the word Oscillation mean? Maybe that’s why ENSO is treated as noise. It oscillates and cannot be the cause for warming or cooling on a long-term scale. It doesn’t do it currently and it didn’t do it in paleoclimatology (Davies et al 2010, Davies et al 2012)
Your assertions are all based on one single opinion and some blogs written by that same single opinion to which you refer to time and again. If you were to write articles for magazines your work would be scrutinized fairly easily, because it stands on a very shaky foundation.
Present your sources for your assertions in the peer-reviewed literature. Only then I can and will take a good and serious look at it. I don’t acknowledge blogs as scientific evidence, because science fortunately doesn’t work that way. All I read about ENSO in the literature is that it isn’t able to cause long-term warming trends.
And please don’t bring up the McLean et al 2009 paper: It has already been rebutted scientifically: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Foster_etal.pdf
The attempt by McLean et al 2009 is however a very brave and courageous step and how it should be done correctly. I admire them for that.
Robbie: Thanks for providing evidence that you have not read and/or understood what was presented in this post and the links provided. You quoted a sentence but then apparently did not read what was written in the paragraphs after it that was provided in explanation. Because, if you had, you would have clicked on the links attached, read those posts, and noted that I do not mention McLean et al 2009. If you had read what was in those posts, you might have understood what was written, and then you wouldn’t be wasting my time with the nonsensical “ENSO is an oscillation” argument.
The fact that YOU won’t find my work credible until it’s been published as a peer-reviewed article does not concern me in the least. It does not concern me one little bit.
Please stop wasting your time and mine. You’re going to find yourself unwelcome here.
Adios