Questions the Media Should Be Asking the IPCC – The Hiatus in Warming

UPDATE: Jo Nova introduced her cross post Six question the media should be asking the IPCC:

It’s clear science journalists need some help. The IPCC are saying “The ocean ate my global warming” and most environment reporters just cut-n-paste this excuse — they fall for the breathtaking joules-to-the-22nd-figures  — not realizing they convert to a mere 0.07C over nearly 50 years (as if we could measure the average temperature of the global oceans to a hundredth of a degree!). Worse, the warming we do find is so small, it supports the skeptical calculations, not the IPCC’s ones. I ran a tutorial for journalists at the end of the post, and asked Bob Tisdale (author of Climate Models Fail ) if he had some other questions. He did, oh boy, and here they are. Thanks to Bob.  – Jo

# # #

Joanne Nova asked me to suggest questions the media should be asking the IPCC about their 5th Assessment Report (AR5).  I’ve provided a few examples along with background information.

This post will discuss the slowdown in global warming since 1998 (or the halt since 2001) known as the hiatus.  While the hiatus in warming had been the topic of many blog posts around the blogosphere over the past few years, public awareness of the pause in surface temperature warming skyrocketed with David Rose’s 13 October 2012 Daily Mail article titled “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”.

Suggested Question:  Why did the IPCC simply glance over the well-known hiatus period in their Summary for Policymakers?

Background Information:

In their Summary for Policymakers of their 5th Assessment Report, the IPCC made only very brief references to the cessation of warming, coming to no conclusions about it.

In their approved Summary for Policymakers dated 27 September 2013, the IPCC states on page SPM-3:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1).   Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12   [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}

And on page SPM-10:

The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).  The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

The discussion by the IPCC includes the terms “low confidence” and “medium confidence”, indicating the IPCC hasn’t a clue about what caused the halt in warming.

Suggested Question:  In Figure SPM.1, the IPCC shows that hiatus periods can last for 3 to 6 decades.  Why then is there no mention of that possibility in the future? 

Background Information:

The IPCC has failed to address something that is blatantly obvious in their Figure SPM.1 from the AR5 Summary for Policymakers. (See the reduced size copy in my Figure 1.)  Since the 1850s, and before the current hiatus, there were two multidecadal periods when global surface temperatures stopped warming and actually cooled.

Figure 1

Figure 1

That means most persons will conclude that it’s very likely the current hiatus could last for at least 3 decades.  See my Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2

And that, of course, leaves questions in everyone’s minds about the validity of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

Suggested Question: After decades of efforts, why can’t the climate models used by the IPCC simulate coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that cause multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures and, in turn, land surface air temperatures?

Background Information: 

There are a number of reasons the IPCC has avoided any discussion of the possibility the current hiatus could last for at 3 decades.  First, that would mean their projections of future global warming are useless. (More on this later.)

The second reason is more damning of the climate models used by the IPCC.  They cannot simulate the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that cause multidecadal variations in observed sea surface temperatures.  These processes are most evident in the sea surface temperature data of the Northern Hemisphere.

1. Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

(This discussion is from my recent blog post Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates.  I’ve changed the illustration number for this post.)

Climate models used by the IPCC for the 5th Assessment Report do not properly simulate the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation).   In Climate Models Fail, I presented a number of scientific studies that were very critical of how models simulated many variables, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.  (See Ruiz-Barradas, et.al. (2013) is “The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in twentieth century climate simulations: uneven progress from CMIP3 to CMIP5”.)

We can illustrate the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation using the method recommended by Trenberth and Shea (2006), and it was to subtract global sea surface temperature anomalies (60S-60N, excludes the polar oceans) from sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Atlantic (0-60N, 80W-0).  They used HADISST data and so have I.  In the time-series graph in Figure 3, I’ve also smoothed the AMO data with a 121-month running average filter.  As shown by the blue curve, the North Atlantic has a mode of natural variability that causes its sea surface temperatures to warm and cool at rates that are much greater than the variations in the surface temperatures of the global oceans.  And we can see that the variations occur over multidecadal time periods (thus the name Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation).  Keep in mind that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is responsible for some (but not all) of the warming of land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the more recent warming period, according to the climate scientists at RealClimate.  (See also Tung and Zhou (2012) Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records.)

Figure 3

Figure 3

If we subtract the modeled global sea surface temperatures from the modeled sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic (shown as the red curve in Figure 3), we can see that the forced component of the CMIP5 models (represented by the multi-model ensemble mean) does not simulate the observed multidecadal variations in the North Atlantic.  That is, there is very little difference between the modeled variations in global and North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies.  The comparison also strongly suggests that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is NOT a response to manmade greenhouse gases (or aerosols) used by the climate modelers to force the warming (or cooling) of sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic.

# # #

For further information about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, see NOAA’s  AOML (Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory) Frequently Asked Questions webpage here, and my blog post here and my introduction to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation here.

2. North Pacific Multidecadal Variability

The North Pacific also exhibits multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures.  Unfortunately, the climate science community presents those variations in a very abstract (statistically created) form called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  To further complicate matters, the variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index are actually inversely related to the sea surface temperatures of the region of the North Pacific from which the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index is derived.  That, of course, is confusing to most persons.

In the North Pacific, the variations are dominated by the sea surface temperatures of an area east of Japan known as the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (or KOE).  The inverse relationship between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index and the sea surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension are shown in Figure 4.  They’re basically mirror images of one another.

Figure 4

Figure 4

(Note:  In Figure 4, the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension data have been detrended, and they have been standardized (divided by their standard deviation) because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index is standardized.)

Because we’re interested in sea surface temperatures and not an abstract form of them, we’ll use the sea surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension for much of this discussion.

Let’s see whether the models can simulate the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension. For this example, we’ll subtract the global sea surface temperatures from the sea surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension.  (It’s similar to the method used by Trenberth and Shea for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.)  The coordinates used for the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension data are 30N-45N, 150E-150W and the global sea surface temperature data are for all of the global oceans, 90S-90N.  (The multidecadal variations in the Kuroshio-Oyashio data in Figure 5 are different those in Figure 4 because they were determined using different methods. Also note they have not been standardized in Figure 5.)  As shown with the blue curve in Figure 5, there are very large multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension after the global data has been subtracted.

Figure 5

Figure 5

On the other hand, using the models prepared for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, we get totally different results when we subtract the modeled global sea surface temperatures from the modeled sea surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension. (See the red curve in Figure 5.)  This indicates the models do not simulate the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension.  Because the variations in the surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension region dominate the North Pacific, the failure of the models to show the same multidecadal variations suggests that greenhouse gases (and aerosols) used in the models are not responsible for the warming (and cooling) in North Pacific sea surface temperatures.

For further information about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (what it is and what it is not) refer to my blog posts  here, here and here.

Suggested Question: Why aren’t the climate models used by the IPCC expected to simulate multidecadal variations in global surface temperatures?

Background Information:

We discussed and illustrated (above) how the climate models used by the IPCC cannot simulate the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic and the North Pacific. Regarding the hiatus period, the IPCC included on page SPM-10 (my boldface):

There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability.

One wonders how climate models can have any value at all if they are “not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability”—especially when one considers that internal variability was a strong contributor to the warming that occurred from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century…and has now stopped that warming.

This failure to properly simulate the timing and strength of internal variability caused a former lead author of the IPCC (Kevin Trenberth) to remark in David Appell’s 7 May 2013 article “W(h)ither global warming?  Has global warming slowed down?

“One of the things emerging from several lines is that the IPCC has not paid enough attention to natural variability, on several time scales,” he [Dr. Trenberth] says, especially El Niños and La Niñas, the Pacific Ocean phenomena that are not yet captured by climate models, and the longer term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which have cycle lengths of about 60 years.

Additionally, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) recently prepared and presented their recommendations for the future of the IPCC.  [Refer to their document titled Submission by The Netherlands on the future of the IPCC.]  Under the heading of “The IPCC needs to adjust its principles”, KNMI begins:

We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.

Suggested Question:  Why has the IPCC chosen to hide the fact that climate models cannot simulate the hiatus in global warming?

Background Information:

My Figure 6 is the approved final version of Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of the IPCC’s AR5.  It compares observed global surface temperature anomalies to the spaghetti plot of outputs from the climate models prepared for the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007, using a number of scenarios. (Scenario A1B was used and presented most often by the IPCC in AR4.) Also included in their Figure 1.4 are ranges of model predictions from prior assessment reports: FAR is the 1st Assessment Report, SAR is the 2nd, and TAR is the 3rd.  Notice how it shows the last few years of global temperature data within the extreme lower range of the climate model outputs.  This suggests a few of the models (the models with the very slow warming rates) capture the slowdown in warming since 1998…and the cessation of warming we’ve been experiencing since 2001.

Figure 6

Figure 6

It’s difficult to imagine why the IPCC would include the model outputs from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Assessment Reports, they were obsoleted by models used in the 4th Assessment Report, or why the IPCC would include the scenarios of the 4th Assessment Reports where greenhouse gas emissions were less than those that have occurred.  Clearly, by including all of these meaningless model outputs, their intent was to hide the fact that the models most widely used in the 4th Assessment Report failed to simulate the hiatus period.

I have included here as my Figure 7 the former version of the same illustration (Figure 1.4).  It is from the Second Order Draft of Chapter 1 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.  In it, the observed global surface temperatures in recent years are below model prognostications.  Clearly, the final version (Figure 6) is attempting to hide the fact that the models have grossly overestimated the warming.

Figure 7

Figure 7

Keep in mind, the illustration in the Second Order Draft (Figure 7) was prepared by climate scientists for politicians, and that the changes (Figure 6) were required by the politicians who approved the IPCC’s AR5.

It’s obvious that because the models cannot simulate the absence of warming, they cannot be used to attribute to manmade greenhouse gases the warming that occurred from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century—and they cannot be used to project future global surface temperatures.  It’s no wonder the politicians who approved AR5 requested/required that change.

Suggested Question: Why is the IPCC defining the hiatus period with the start date of 1998, or with a 15-year period, when the surface temperatures of many parts of the global oceans have not warmed (or have actually cooled) for 20 years to more than 30 years?  And why do the climate models used by the IPCC show warming in those ocean basins?

Background Information:

In all of the discussions of the global warming hiatus in AR5, the IPCC starts the hiatus period in 1998, limiting the hiatus period to the last 15 years.  They also limit the presentation to the data and models that represent the combined global land surface air plus sea surface temperatures.  This discussion shows that the hiatus period has lasted much longer than 15 years in some ocean basins.

For the past couple of years, I have been presenting model-data comparisons for sea surface temperature anomalies during the satellite era.  I also included more up-to-date versions of those comparisons in my recently published book Climate Models Fail.  The following graphs are from the book.

(Note: this discussion includes the latest and greatest models prepared for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, as represented by the multi-model ensemble-member mean of the sea surface temperature simulations.)

The Southern Ocean (90S-60S) surrounds Antarctica. With the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the Southern Ocean serves as the hub for the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific basins.  Spatially complete sea surface temperature data have only been available for the Southern Ocean since the early 1980s with the introduction of satellite-based measurements.   Over the past 3+ decades and based on the linear trend, the sea surface temperatures of the Southern Ocean have cooled, Figure 8, but the models show they should have warmed if sea surface temperatures were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases.

Figure 8

Figure 8

As defined by the coordinates of 90S-90N, 180-80W, the Eastern Pacific Ocean stretches from pole to pole and from the dateline to Panama. The East Pacific covers approximately 33% of the surface of the global oceans. The sea surface temperatures for the East Pacific (Figure 9) show little to no warming for more than 3 decades, based on the linear trend.  On the other hand, if sea surface temperatures were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases, climate models show the sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific should have warmed about 0.45 deg C in that time.  Apparently, the surface of the East Pacific Ocean has not been warmed by manmade greenhouse gases.

Figure 9

Figure 9

Using the coordinates of 60S-65N, 120E-80W, the sea surface temperature data for the entire Pacific Ocean is shown in Figure 10.  The Pacific Ocean is so large it covers more of the surface of the planet than all of the continental land masses combined.  Yet, based on the linear trend, the surface of the largest ocean on Earth has not warmed in 2 decades.  Contrary to the observations-based data, the models indicate the surface of the Pacific Ocean should have warmed about 0.4 deg C in that time—under the obviously flawed assumption that manmade greenhouse gases warm the surface of the Pacific Ocean.

Figure 10

Figure 10

(Note:  For those with a copy of my recent book, Figure 8 is Figure 7-6 in Climate Models Fail.  Figure 9 is Figure 7-31 in the book and Figure 10 is Figure 7-26.)

SUMMARY

The IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report was obviously incomplete in its portrayal and discussion of the recent hiatus in global warming.  Some people might even go so far as to say the IPCC has misled the public and policymakers intentionally.

DATA SOURCE

The data and model outputs presented in the graphs prepared by me for this post are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.  For those who would like to replicate my graphs, refer to my blog post Step-By-Step Instructions for Creating a Climate-Related Model-Data Comparison Graph.

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, IPCC SPM AR5, Model-Data Comparison SST, PDO. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Questions the Media Should Be Asking the IPCC – The Hiatus in Warming

  1. Bernd Palmer says:

    Thank you Bob, very comprehensive and helpful.

  2. Peter Ward says:

    “That means most persons will conclude that it’s very likely the current hiatus could last for at least 3 decades.”

    Most persons won’t, sadly. They’ll conclude what they’re told to.

    Although the MSM haven’t covered AR5 very much or very long, I think it may be because there was nothing new. Because the IPCC was unable (for once) to say “it’s worse than we thought”, it wasn’t really news. So people will continue to think what they’ve always thought unless they’re plugged into these one or two online communities where the facts emerge.

  3. geran says:

    The 7th question might be “Why can’t the IPCC answer the first six questions?”

  4. the basic questions haven’t being answered: when oxygen & nitrogen (the air) warms up extra -> volume of the troposphere instantly increases = volume of cooling increases and equalizes in a jiffy: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/unavoidable-two-hurdles-to-cross/

  5. Reality

    #The 2001 to 2010 decade is the hottest on the instrumental record globally, over ocean, land and on every continent.
    #2011 and 2012 are the hottest la nina affected years on record
    #The long term trend in warming is unaffected by short term noise


    #1998 was affected by one of the strongest el ninos in 60 years
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    Natural factors in this hottest decade were so influenced by cooling that it led a paper by Mclean, Freitas and Carter to conclude that 2011 would be as cold as 1956…

    “COOL YEAR PREDICTED

    It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009:

    Our ENSO – temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath by John McLean

    “The paper, by John McLean, Professor Chris de Freitas and Professor Bob Carter, showed that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, is a very good indicator of average global atmospheric temperatures approximately seven months ahead, except when volcanic eruptions cause short-term cooling.”
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

    They were out by 0.5 degrees c, not even close. It has not cooled despite natural factors due to AGW holding temps up.

    The oceans are still warming.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Sea levels are still rising
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    The Arctic is still melting

    and much more…

    All of the above is ACTUAL DATA, NO MODELS, the science is not models they are merely projections of certain scenarios. The actual evidence is overwhelming and clear.

    I could also present much solid science to show rising heat record trends, risis in extreme precipitation events (floods, drounght, hail, snow) and rising droughts. Read IPCC AR4 synthesis report, they never predicted a change in tornados or an increase in hurricanes. Basically all the actual evidence confirms and supports AGW and the science of the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle.

    Someone once said (cannot remember who) that science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and evidence is the dictator. The evidence is what I have posted above.

  6. Bob Tisdale says:

    Michael the Realist says: “All of the above is ACTUAL DATA, NO MODELS, the science is not models they are merely projections of certain scenarios. The actual evidence is overwhelming and clear.”

    Thanks for stopping by. Obviously, you’ve missed something very fundamental. Climate science has its basis in climate models. Without climate models, the IPCC cannot attribute global warming or climate change to manmade greenhouse gases.

    As I’ve shown in numerous blog posts, the climate models are so flawed they cannot be used for attribution studies or for projections.

    Have a nice day.

  7. Pingback: No Matter How the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models Are Presented They Still Look Bad | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  8. Pingback: No Matter How the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models Are Presented They Still Look Bad | Watts Up With That?

  9. “Without climate models, the IPCC cannot attribute global warming or climate change to manmade greenhouse gases. ”

    Why the models? I used actual data, the models are merely projections of certain scenarios and are not the basis for the science. The trends are clear in temperature, Arctic and glacier melting as well as ice volume, falling ocean ph, which is likely to have dire long term consequences on ocean health, rising sea levels, ocean warming and much more. All detailed and proven above, most faster than expected. The data speaks for itself, is consistent with the theory, and most importantly, there are NO OTHER FACTORS that can explain the warming, especially the 0.6 deg c of the last 60 years when virtually all natural factors have been flat or cooling. The climate is not magic, it reacts to forcings, if most natural forcings are cooling then you need to accept the theory that predicted this would happen, the theory based in solid measurable physics of the greenhouse effect and the radiative properties of CO2, the theory based on the science of the carbon cycle, which we have seriously thrown out of balance by increasing CO2 by 40%. There are no valid, scientifically accepted arguments against AGW and its effect on the warming, ocean, arctic and weather of the last 60 years.

    So you have missed something fundamental, namely the science and the data.

  10. Willis Hart says:

    The oceans are still warming, MTR? Not according to the ARGO buoys (10 years and zero warming). Same with global sea ice (the University of Illinois’s Arctic Science Research Center) and hurricane activity (Ryan Maue’s/FSU’s cyclone activity tracking). It seems to me as if your overwhelming evidence is rather weak.

  11. Bob Tisdale says:

    Michael the Realist says: “The data speaks for itself, is consistent with the theory, and most importantly, there are NO OTHER FACTORS that can explain the warming…”

    Where have you been, Michael the Realist? You have some reading and understanding to do, if you’d like to catch up with the rest of us (42MB):
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf

    Regards

  12. Willis, you did not read my initial post, I had this link that clearly shows the oceans are still warming.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
    Make sure to check the second graph of the warming to 2000 m.
    I also provided links to the Arctic melt, the 0.6 degree rise in temperature, the rising sea levels and of the ENSO strength over the last 60 years, clearly showing the cherry picked year of 1998 being influenced by the strongest el nino of the 60 years.

    So considering that everything is as predicted and most are stronger than predicted, can you please explain the 60 year trend in ocean warming, temperature, and sea level when taking into account that the main natural factors of ENSO were flat overall, solar was flat and now falling and we had a big volcano in the middle.

    Try and stick to the point, the data is quite strong and there are no natural factors that can explain these trends.

    Bob stick to the question, can you answer it? If I want to learn science I go to the actual peer reviewed science.
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf

  13. Bob Tisdale says:

    Michael the Realist says: “Bob stick to the question, can you answer it? If I want to learn science I go to the actual peer reviewed science.
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf

    What question, Michael?

    When the “actual peer-reviewed science” is contradicted by data, then the “actual peer-reviewed science” is crap, Michael. I’m not so sure why that’s so hard to understand.

    You’re wasting your time here, Michael.

    Additionally, in looking at your reply to Willis, I don’t believe you’ve fully grasped that ocean heat content data is contrived. Contrived is the nicest word I can think of. Have you read and understood the following posts about ocean heat content DATA, Michael? This one:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/
    And this one:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/nodcs-pentadal-ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000m-creates-warming-that-doesnt-exist-in-the-annual-data-a-lot-of-warming/
    And this one:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/a-different-perspective-on-trenberths-missing-heat-the-warming-of-the-global-oceans-0-to-2000-meters-in-deg-c/
    And this one:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000-meters-why-arent-northern-hemisphere-oceans-warming-during-the-argo-era/
    And this one:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/rough-estimate-of-the-annual-changes-in-ocean-temperatures-from-700-to-2000-meters-based-on-nodc-data/

    As I noted before, when the “actual peer-reviewed science” is contradicted by data, then the “actual peer-reviewed science” is crap, Michael.

    Adios, Michael.

  14. “When the “actual peer-reviewed science” is contradicted by data, then the “actual peer-reviewed science” is crap, Michael. I’m not so sure why that’s so hard to understand. ”
    You really have very little, your one sentence replies shows that you have not grasped or understand the science. Throw away slogans seems to be all you have. Also your never ending links to yourself belay the lack of peer reviewed science your excuses are made of.

    The question is (and please answer it, though I suspent from the dismissive tone you are cutting me off because my question is to inconvenient for you)…
    **** The data over the last 60 years shows as evidenced above:
    * Sea levels are rising, and faster than predicted
    * Arctic Ice is falling, and faster than predicted
    * Ocean warming has continued through to now
    * Ocean ph is falling through to now
    * Temps have risen 0.6 deg c

    Over the last 60 years the following has occurred:
    * Enso has been flat overall (except the cherry picked year of 1998 was influenced by the strongest el nino and the last 3 years have been influenced by back to back la ninas)
    * Solar has been flat for 50 years and then falling (smallest cycle in 100 years)
    * Huge volcano in early 90′s with huge cooling influence

    So please explain WHY WE HAVE THE CONSEQUENCES ABOVE WITH MOST MAJOR NATURAL INFLUENCES BEING FLAT OR COOLING. Feel free to give your ‘multiple theories’ with science and data.

    The flattening of temps are easily explained and have been, natural fluctuations due mainly to ocean cycles and solar, and are regular in the record. What is significant is that we have not cooled, which clearly shows that AGW is overwhelming natural factors and when the natural factors switch to warming, another burst (as seen before) will occur taking us into uncharted territory (we already are). The ocean cycles are cyclic, which means that they will even out over time and their support is temporary, nevertheless they also provide problems for the ocean health in regards to the warming and the falling ph.

    So the science and the data concur, you have demonstrated or shown nothing that disagrees with that, so unless you have an alternative theory or reason for the observations you are clearly wrong.

  15. Again, the climate is not magic, things happen for a reason, they have pretty good ideas of what makes what happen, and they cannot explain the changes of the last 60 years without AGW. With AGW it all fits perfectly. Not perfectly with model projections, it is a planet and not every variable can is known beforehand (solar and ENSO and CO2 emissions and aerosols and volcanos…) but it fits perfectly with what we would expect in a world warming by AGW. Some links below depending on how keen you are at learning, some might not work until the US reopens for business.

    Greenhouse Gas Spectrum animation
    http://www.chem.arizona.edu/chemt/C21/sim/gh/

    Papers on changes in OLR due to GHG’s
    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

    MY NASA DATA Live Access Server –
    http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/las/getUI.do?dsid=air_quality&varid=carbon_dioxide_in_free_troposphere&auto=true

    Carbon Cycle
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

    The Greenhouse Effect Explanation
    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

    The Global Climate 2001-2010: a decade of climate extremes – Summary Report
    http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15110

    Key Indicators
    http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

    “Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

    The discovery of global warming
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

    Explore the difference between weather and climate, some really good info here (part of week two readings on the course I am doing)
    http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate

    [Bob Replies: YAWN! That’s all you can do is link dogma. How pathetic!! Good-bye, Michael.]

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    Michael the Realist says: “You really have very little, your one sentence replies shows that you have not grasped or understand the science.”

    Actually, I understand the science much better than you, because you, with your question, are presenting symptoms of a warming world (for the most part), not symptoms of a world warmed by manmade greenhouse gases. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend, Michael?

    Michael the Realist says: “Throw away slogans seems to be all you have.”

    I have not presented one “throw away slogan” to you. Obviously, you have failed to read and understand the links I provided for you on this thread. That’s okay. Complex processes are beyond most persons, especially persons such as you who do not want to learn.

    Michael the Realist, do you realize you’re advertising model weaknesses with your examples?

    You wrote, “* Sea levels are rising, and faster than predicted”, and
    “* Arctic Ice is falling, and faster than predicted.”

    The modelers have had decades to tune their models…and they still can’t get it right, according to your “faster than predicted”. Pretty crappy models. You need another tactic, one that doesn’t advertise model failings, Michael.

    Michael the Realist says: “Ocean warming has continued through to now.”

    That comment is evidence that you didn’t read or understand the posts I linked for you earlier. Try this one again, Michael.
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000-meters-why-arent-northern-hemisphere-oceans-warming-during-the-argo-era/

    Ocean heat content in the Northern Hemisphere to depths of 2000 meters shows no warming during the ARGO era. That’s the NODC’s data directly from their website. Wanna try again?

    Michael the Realist says: “* Ocean ph is falling through to now”

    In a discussion of global warming, you introduced “ocean ph”, Michael? Oy vey!

    Michael the Realist says: “So please explain WHY WE HAVE THE CONSEQUENCES ABOVE WITH MOST MAJOR NATURAL INFLUENCES BEING FLAT OR COOLING.”

    I presented the reason to you, Michael. How could you have missed it? It was linked to my reply to you yesterday. Obviously, you’ve failed to grasp the significance of it. ENSO acts as a chaotic, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator. Get it? It’s really kind of simple, when it comes right down to it.

    Here’s the overview for you once again.
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf

    Apparently, all you can present is dogma. You have no grasp of the subject matter beyond that.

    If you, Michael, do not want to even try to understand what I’ve presented to you, you’re not only wasting your time here, you’re wasting mine.

    People don’t come here to read comments by someone like you who can only parrot AGW doctrine, Michael. They go to SkepticalScience if they want to read that crap. They come here to learn how data indicate the oceans warmed via natural processes. If you don’t want to learn that, then go off to SkepticalScience where you can be among those who can’t grasp or refuse to grasp what I’ve presented.

    Adios, Michael.

  17. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  18. Sorry I do not read opinion blog science. [SNIP]

    [Then there is no reason for you to continue to post comments here, Michael. Don’t waste my time with your cut and paste nonsense. Adios!
    … Bob.]

  19. Pingback: Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC? | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  20. Pingback: Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC? | Watts Up With That?

  21. Pingback: Tamino Resorts to Childish Attempts at Humor But Offers Nothing of Value | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  22. Pingback: Tamino Resorts to Childish Attempts at Humor But Offers Nothing of Value | Watts Up With That?

  23. Pingback: Open Letter to Lewis Black and George Clooney | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  24. Pingback: Open Letter to Lewis Black and George Clooney | Watts Up With That?

  25. Pingback: Questions Policymakers Should Be Asking Climate Scientists Who Receive Government Funding | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  26. Pingback: Questions Policymakers Should Be Asking Climate Scientists Who Receive Government Funding | Watts Up With That?

  27. Pingback: The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 5 – The Relationship Between the PDO and ENSO | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  28. Pingback: The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 5 – The Relationship Between the PDO and ENSO | Watts Up With That?

  29. Pingback: New Study Predicts a Slight Cooling of North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures over the Next Decade | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  30. Pingback: New Study Predicts a Slight Cooling of North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures over the Next Decade | Watts Up With That?

  31. Pingback: Seven Years Ago, An IPCC Lead Author Exposed the Critical Weakness of the IPCC Foretelling Tools | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  32. Pingback: Seven Years Ago, An IPCC Lead Author Exposed Critical Weaknesses of the IPCC Foretelling Tools | Watts Up With That?

  33. Chris Schoneveld says:

    I keep on stressing this linguistic point. it’s not “sea surface temperatures were warmed”. The temperature is not warmed. It is the water that is warmed.

  34. Bob Tisdale says:

    Chris Schoneveld, over the past year I’ve tried to correct that in my writings. Thanks.

  35. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Hi Bob, Thanks for acknowledging. My advice is normally ignored by authors.

  36. Pingback: On Steinman et al. (2015) – Michael Mann and Company Redefine Multidecadal Variability to Provide the Answers They Want and Need | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  37. Pingback: On Steinman et al. (2015) – Michael Mann and Company Redefine Multidecadal Variability And Wind Up Illustrating Climate Model Failings | Watts Up With That?

  38. Pingback: Open Letter to U.S. Senators Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  39. Pingback: Open Letter to U.S. Senators Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio | Watts Up With That?

  40. Pingback: What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change? | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  41. Pingback: What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change? | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s