Search HotWhopper

Loading...

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Anthony Watts' Next Trick is to Disappear the Data - or Laughing at Pat Michaels

Sou | 1:21 PM 35 Comments - leave a comment

Today Anthony Watts puts up a chart of what he says is the rate of change of global sea level using a ten-year running mean of the sea level change each decade.  Problem is not only that he forgot some of the data, he forgot that like him, lots of his readers are chart illiterate and confuse rate of change with total actual change.  Or did he.  Is it any more likely he was counting on that?  Anthony's not very bright when it comes to charts.

This is the actual sea level change from the University of Colorado (click any chart to enlarge it):




This is the chart Anthony posted - what he calls the Decadal (overlapping) rates for sea level rise as determined from the satellite sea level rise observations, 1993-2011.  Obviously smoothed by some means or other, though Anthony doesn't say so.


This is the chart I plotted based on these data - with and without Anthony's missing data points and no smoothing.  Remember this is just the amount of the increase in sea level from each preceding 10-year period  stepping one year at a time. A ten year moving average of the rate of change not the total change over the period from 1993 to 2013:




Not just hiding the data but also hiding the incline..


But wait, doesn't the moving average tend to hide the most recent incline?  This is the chart I plotted showing the actual sea level rise, with an eleven year moving average:




Another view


Here is more exposure of Anthony's latest trick.  It's the same data plotted as an annual rise from 1993 to 2012 as well as the change in sea level from one year to the next.  Note the huge jump in sea level in 2012 after the slight drop in 2011. Seas dropped noticeably in 2011 because of all the rain that fell in the "unprecedented" (deniers hate that word) global flooding in places like Australia, Brazil and elsewhere.  It didn't take long to more than recover, did it:



Anthony doesn't find it funny


Anthony doesn't tag his article "humour", he tags it "politics, sea level".  My guess is he doesn't understand it and didn't know it was "meant to be funny".  But he does give a hat tip to Pat Michaels.  Buried in the comments is this little post, after a few readers pointed out problems. Michaels decides he'd better spell out in black and white to Anthony and his readers that it's "just a joke", appropriately substituting a term that he thinks the WUWT infants would be more comfortable with - "funsies":
Pat Michaels says:
May 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm  May I humbly point out that I posted this for funsies? If we lose our sense of humor, we become like Mikey Mann.


Pat Michaels and his Dismissives are a joke!


Let's do what Pat Michaels suggests and laugh at Michaels and who he chooses as his crowd.  They surely are a joke.  Anthony Watts and his WUWT Dismissives who can't read a chart, don't check the data, who just look at the pictures and bash their keyboard.

Steven says scientists who actually measure this stuff are deluded in an 'all the world is mad' comment:
May 28, 2013 at 4:31 pm Latitude: The bottoms of the oceans are sinking and the land is rising. All at the same time. Imagine that ! People who think there will ever be a significant rise in oceans levels are seriously deluded.

James Padgett doesn't check the facts.  Nor does he realise that Anthony plotted a (distorted and incomplete) rate of change, not the total change when he says:
May 28, 2013 at 3:34 pm  Trenberth’s missing heat doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of thermal expansion.

While FerdinandAkin thinks every rise in sea level brings us one step closer to the imaginary imminent ice age that's going to hit any day now, when he says:
May 28, 2013 at 2:52 pm  Does not the geological record tell us that sea level peaks out just before the start of next glaciation period?

Update: It looks as if another professional disinformer, Marc Morano fell for it hook, line and sinker, as did the potty peer Monckton.  Just like Watts, neither of them suggest it's a 'funsie'.  Goes to show innumeracy is a common characteristic of the anti-science propagandists.  Not a surprise.

Update2: Several hours later Anthony belatedly added a "humour" tag to his post.  He must have read Pat Michael's comment - or maybe he visited HotWhopper.  I had to go back to a cached version to check the original. Here are the two versions (animated):



35 comments:

  1. > May I humbly point out that I posted this for funsies?

    Do you know where Michaels "posted" this originally?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I couldn't find where it was posted first. If anyone finds it maybe they'll let us know.

    I don't believe for a minute that Anthony would know how to prepare such a chart all by himself, so he must have got it from somewhere else. The idiot Marc Morano has reposted Watts article and gives no indication it's a 'funsie', which speaks volumes about his lack of numeracy and propensity for disinformation (as if we didn't know already).

    SkepticalScience documents multiple instances of Pat Michaels 'deleting inconvenient data'. That site is down at the moment, but I came across a repost at ClimateProgress.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/16/404832/cato-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/

    I guess every time Michaels fakes data it's meant to be a 'funsie' against humanity. It's just that he doesn't usually own up. It says a lot for his opinion of the dullards at WUWT - that he might have figured he could hoodwink the readers as well as Anthony. It says a lot about Anthony and the idiots at WUWT that he did hoodwink Anthony, Marc Morano and many of their readers even after he eventually owning up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When I first saw it, I figured a few commenters might get it wrong. I was surprised at how many are now not only talking about dropping rise, but actual dropping levels. It IS a joke. But it's not by the WUWT crowd, it's on them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A Reverse image search shows quite a number of examples.

    Looks like it comes from the World Climate Report on the 10th of September 2012.

    And it was already reposted on the 13th of September last year on WUWT. Anthony Watts seem to forget more often that he already posted something. Like in his post: Another Internet poll goes horribly wrong

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ WMC

    Sorry - only just seen your question - I think here:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/09/10/sea-level-acceleration-not-so-fast/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I now see that you've already written a post about this at Stoat and already knew the source... oh well, it's the thought that counts.

      Delete
  6. "James Padgett doesn't check the facts. Nor does he realise that Anthony plotted a (distorted and incomplete) rate of change, not the total change when he says:"

    A poor reading on your part. I've always accepted that the sea levels have been rising - and have been for many thousands of years. I was also quite aware that it was referring to the rate of sea level rise.

    Another thing, I didn't say "any" sea level rise - I said "much" sea level rise.

    I also qualified that I was referring to sea level rise caused directly by Trenberth's missing heat - not all sea level rise.

    Finally, lighten up, it was just a light-hearted joke.

    -JP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Umm I quoted you accurately as writing "Trenberth’s missing heat doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of thermal expansion."

      1) Nowhere in that quote does it suggest that you've "always accepted that the sea levels have been rising" least of all that you think they've been rising for "many thousands of years" - and if they've been rising for "many thousands of years" why were coastlines so stable over the Holocene? Why didn't eg Venice sink many "thousands of years" before now?

      2. I quoted you with the word "much".

      3. Delight us. Just how much "thermal expansion" do you calculate should be in the top few thousand metres of ocean from Trenberth's missing heat?

      4. "Finally, lighten up, it was just a light-hearted joke." Make up your mind. Are you seriously offended; do you seriously think seas have been rising for "thousands of years" or are you still making a "light-hearted joke"? (Anthony wasn't joking until Pat Michaels told him to pretend he was joking :(

      5. I use different forms of humour plus facts - to send up Anthony Watts denial and that of his merry band of Dismissives. You must agree WUWT is a barrel of laughs...an endless supply for parody, satire and black comedy...

      Delete
  7. 1. I never said my quote did say that. I'm just letting you know my beliefs.

    If you are actually curious about the long term sea level rise then you can look up the info pretty easily:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

    2. The accuracy of your quote of me is irrelevant since you misrepresented its contents. You said I didn't realize that the chart was about the rate, but I most definitely did notice that. Simply put, you read what you wanted to read from it.

    3. No calculation is necessary. If Trenberth's missing heat existed, hiding away the vast evils of global warming for some future date, then the sea level rise should be greatly accelerating - and no, a single data point isn't going to cut it to prove such a trend.

    4. Yes, I seriously think sea levels have been, on average, rising for thousands of years. There are many ancient cities that are now deep under the ocean. Feel free to dispute the chart I posted.

    As for the joke, I was referring to my own joke about Trenberth's missing heat, but it is skeptic stuff so I'll forgive you for not getting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your "beliefs" - the faith of denialism according to anonymous :)

      Next time I'll make sure to read your mind first to see what you "meant" rather than what you wrote.

      No calculation necessary? Is that like saying all that is needed is "faith"?

      Ah, I see. You're referring to the pre-Holocene deglaciation. I guess that means you think seas will rise as earth warms and ice melts. Oh, hang on - are you now saying that humans are causing global warming after a couple of thousand years of slight global cooling as shown by Marcott et al and others?

      Delete
    2. 1. Everyone has beliefs. I try to base my beliefs on facts.

      2. And you didn't need to read my mind, you just needed to not infer things that weren't there - that was my point.

      3. Not at all. I don't need to calculate 24567+24845 to know that the sum will be greater than either value. Similarly, I don't need to calculate the exact amount of thermal expansion based on hypothetical missing heat when there is no obvious acceleration of sea level rise.

      4. I was referring to the entire sea level rise that has been occurring since the last glacial maximum. You may have missed it, but that flat looking line actually represents 4 meters of sea level rise.

      Here is a better look at it:

      http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png

      Of course these things need to be taken with a grain of salt. The resolution is clearly not going to be that great and we can expect short periods during which the sea level will fall a bit, like during the Little Ice Age, and subsequently, periods in which the sea level rises a bit faster than "average," like the period following the Little Ice Age.


      Delete
    3. Three points.

      1. Unless you do the sums like real scientists such as Balmaseda, Trenberth and Källén do, you won't know what is the expected thermal expansion from a rise in ocean heat. Oceans are very big and store a huge amount of heat. A tiny increase in sea level would still mean a lot of extra heat has gone into the ocean assuming the rise was only from thermal expansion.

      2. You don't need an acceleration in sea level rise to show the seas are warming. You just need a rise - it could be a steady rise if oceans were heating at a steady pace. Even a decelerating trend would signify warming provided there is still a rise in the sea level.

      2. The rate of sea level rise is increasing. In other words the rise is accelerating. It's up to about 3.2 mm a year at present. Some of that is from ice melt and some from thermal expansion. It's all from global warming.

      Delete
    4. I regard anyone posting on WUWT as fair game, whether they write an article or make a comment - though I focus more on the silly articles usually. The comments are just the icing on the cake.

      You say you try to base your beliefs on facts.

      What do you make of David Archibald's prediction? Or Vincent Gray's codswallop? Or Joseph D’Aleo latest gish gallop of fact-free, unsubstantiated, strawman filled denial of global warming? Or the theory that human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation didn't produce the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2, it's all down to insects?

      What about Denier Don Easterbrook? Or perennially puzzled Bob Tisdale and his tricks?

      Or the big fat lies told by Anthony himself in his crazy efforts to deny the reality of the 97% consensus?

      What about the continuous efforts on WUWT to distort the facts and worse? Do you like many others just accept the lies and distortions as 'facts' because they accord with your 'beliefs'?

      Maybe you can shed some light on why so much nonsense gets a free pass on WUWT. Why WUWT hates 'facts' so much that it distorts them beyond all recognition.

      Delete
    5. I did a bit more digging on sea levels. I agree that they changed a lot in the past but they've been pretty steady for 'thousands of years' until recently. And they are going to rise a lot in the future.

      Here's an overview from NASA:

      By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had essentially ceased, while ongoing adjustments of Earth's lithosphere due to removal of the ice sheets gradually decreased over time. Thus, sea level continued to drop in formerly glaciated regions and rise in areas peripheral to the former ice sheets. At many low-latitude ocean islands and coastal sites distant from the effects of glaciation, sea level stood several meters higher than present during the mid-Holocene and has been falling ever since. This phenomenon is due to lithospheric responses to changes in ice and water loading. Water is "siphoned" away from the central equatorial ocean basins into depressed areas peripheral to long-gone ice sheets. Loading by meltwater that has been added to the oceans also depresses far-field continental shelves, tilting the shoreline upward and thus lowering local sea level. Over the past few thousand years, the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year.

      Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years.


      More here.

      Delete
    6. 1. As i said, I don't need to know the exact figure to see that there isn't acceleration. NOAA says it is sub 2 mm a year ( http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf ), which is significantly less than previous decades.

      2. If the seas are warming, all other things being equal, then there will be an acceleration in sea level rise. We already know that the seas have been rising steadily since the end of the LIA. If the temperature remained exactly the same then I'd expect the seas to continue to rise if they are at a level that is melting various ice sheets around the world.

      In other words - rising sea levels, by themselves, are not proof of continued warming.

      3. That figure seems to conflict with the NOAA data. I also don't find such small increases to be terribly concerning. As I said earlier, it would make sense for sea levels to rise quickly following a cold period like the LIA - the glaciers that quickly expanded during that time would just as quickly melt away.

      Delete
    7. Selecting the years from 2005-2012 is what's called cherry-picking. You need to see it in context - like this longer series from NOAA.

      And surely you're not arguing earth is warming because of the Little Ice Age that finished more than a hundred and fifty years ago? What could cause that? Why would earth just warm up all by itself? I know a lot of deniers believe in magic - is that part of your 'faith' too?

      Climate only changes if there is a 'forcing'. Something happens to make it change. It doesn't happen all by itself. And it's a lot warmer now than it was just before the Little Ice Age.

      Thing is, it's not just seas that are getting hotter and keep rising more quickly. It's also glaciers melting, Arctic sea ice disappearing, West Antarctica and the Peninsula heating up and melting, surface temperatures rising, many more hot records than cold records, the stratosphere cooling. Not to mention the fact that more CO2 means global warming, just as it always has since the beginning of time.

      Delete
    8. If the seas are warming, all other things being equal, then there will be an acceleration in sea level rise.

      No. Wrong again. If seas are warming, all other things being equal, there will be a sea level rise. No acceleration necessary. "No warming" does not mean a decrease in sea level. The ocean would have to cool to produce a decrease in sea level - or water shifted from the ocean to the land like happened in the amazing floods of 2010-11.

      Acceleration in sea level rise means a rise in the *rate of warming* and/or water being added from the land.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. 0 - 2000m thermosteric component of sea level change here.

      Delete
    11. 1. That isn't cherry-picking. That's showing the most recent data.

      And let's be honest here, Trenberth's travesty of missing heat occurred sometime in 2009 (I believe). His heat was missing at that time and if it was going to manifest in the sea level data then it would be in recent data - not unreliable data from prior to the satellite record.

      2. The LIA was caused by a lack of solar activity. You can clearly see solar activity increasing until at least 1950-1960:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-bfly.gif

      You also have this bizarre and persistent belief that the earth reacts instantly to changes in inputs/outputs. Just because the sun becomes more active, it doesn't mean the Earth instantly reaches a new homeostasis. If that was the case then my kettle would immediately begin boiling when I turned the gas onto high - or even just instantly evaporate.

      And let me be clear here, I do believe carbon dioxide has some small effect. I am quite unconvinced that the models involving positive feedback effects accurately reflect reality.

      3. Glaciers have also been melting, on average, since the end of the Last Glacial Maximum. This isn't concerning.

      The other effects you mention, like cherry-picking a small section of Antarctica, are also unconcerning. "Record highs" in the surface station record aren't scientific - especially with urban heat bias.

      Quite simply, the records we have on these things are either not very reliable, not very old, or both. Speaking of "records" in this way is not scientific and not very convincing.

      3. FYI, there have been plenty of glaciations with much higher CO2 levels. If anything we are at a geologically low point in CO2. Most life on this planet evolved under these higher levels, which is why it is so amusing when people talk about ocean acidification harming corals - they evolved when CO2 was so much higher.

      4. Yes, an acceleration is necessary. I'll give you an example, I put an ice cube in a glass of water and set it in my kitchen. The temperature in the kitchen is constant, but the ice cube will be melting the entire time. In fact, even with the exact same temperature the melting will be accelerating the entire time as more of its surface area is exposed.

      If I set the thermostat up to 80 then the rate of melting will increase - it will accelerate.

      Delete
    12. Yes it is cherry picking when you ignore the rest of the data.

      Trenberth was concerned that there were insufficient records of deeper ocean heat. He is now rectifying that.

      How do you know what I 'believe' (there's your faith showing again). It doesn't matter what I or you believe, all that matters are the facts. BTW just how many years is it now that you've been waiting for your kettle to boil?

      Urban heat is accounted for in the temperature record. No need to count it twice. Record heat events demonstrate global warming. You can't just toss them out because they don't fit your faith or ideology.

      What you are saying with your acceleration nonsense is that if there is no added heat water will expand by magic. That's utter garbage. BTW ice is solid, water is liquid. The reason ice melts more quickly as it gets smaller is because more surface area is exposed relative to the volume as it melts. We were discussing thermal expansion of water itself as it heats. Water in the ocean can only expand upwards to the surface.

      When were these glaciations with "much higher CO2 levels". How bright was the sun? What concentration was the CO2? How many humans existed at the time? Or other mammals?

      You really want to hasten this mass extinction with your desire to continue a rapid increase in greenhouse gases? Luckily you and the other dismissives only comprise 8% of the population.

      One last thing, you haven't answered my questions about the material on WUWT. What do you think of all the garbage that Anthony posts? Do you simply agree with it all, and if not, why don't you question it and point out the idiocy at least as much as you question proper science?

      Delete
    13. 1. Again, it isn't cherry-picking to look at the relevant data. We are talking about the period of his missing heat and therefore we look at the time period of his missing heat.

      This isn't rocket science.

      But if you feel the need to repeat yourself again, as if that will change the relevant time period then go ahead.

      2. You seem obsessed with "belief" and "faith" (your word). I'm not going to pretend to be absolutely sure about something when I'm not. Your continued harping on it doesn't further any sort of discussion.

      3. They attempt to account for UHIs, but it is anybodies guess if they are actually accurate. Show me the 4-5 degree decrease that is being applied to urban surface stations; show me the smaller decrease that is being applied to rural stations with cement around them. The shotgun approach of James "boiling oceans" Hansen using lights is obviously a pretty stupid methodology.

      In any case, even if they did accurately account for UHIs, they don't account for them at the individual stations where these "record highs" are being set. Your argument was about record highs.

      4. That isn't what I said. The ambient temperature can remain the same and heat will still transfer to a cooler area (e.g. a glacier or ice cube). It doesn't need to constantly get warmer in a room for an ice cube to melt. If doesn't need to constantly get warmer for sea ice or glaciers to melt. All it has to do is be above freezing.

      By your logic if it was .1 degree C in Antarctica then all the ice should be gone within a year. You seem incapable of grasping, or you are refusing to grasp the concept of hysteresis.

      By the way, I like how you repeated what I said about the surface area of a melting object back to me like I hadn't said it at all - really clever stuff there.

      5. You are welcome to look up all that information regarding previous environments yourself. The past climate was different in many ways - not just the ones you mention. Some of the differences caused the earth to be cooler (sun) and some caused it to be warmer (continent placement).

      I notice you have no come back regarding ocean acidification affecting corals that evolved under higher levels of carbon dioxide. Of course, I'm sure you haven't promoted the evils of ocean acidification now have you?

      6. My opinions on articles on WUWT are irrelevant to the conversation. I sometimes agree with them and other times I don't. I comment there very rarely. Many times I don't read articles that I don't find interesting.

      7. And for heaven's sake, try to understand hysteresis before bothering to reply again. If you can't understand such a simple concept then there is no point in discussing this with you.

      Delete
    14. 1. Even your data showed rising sea level therefore getting warmer. Unless you're arguing none of it came through thermal expansion and all came from surface warming melting ice. And looking at a longer time period, the trend shows a clear acceleration in sea level. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't make it not so.

      And you've completely ignored the measured rise in ocean temperature itself.

      2. You are the one who insists on your "belief" instead of discussing facts.

      3. As for UHI, no, it's not 'anyone's guess'. It's been verified independently from different sources such as BEST, Zeke's recent paper and even the satellite data.

      Record highs are happening everywhere, not just in urban areas. Look at Australia's record heat wave, the Russian heat wave, the European heat wave and the USA last year. And the disappearing sea ice in the Arctic. In fact the world as a whole is getting hotter, or are you denying that too.

      4. Are you now saying it's not even getting hotter? That's denial at it's best. Read what I wrote. We were talking about thermal expansion/sea level rise of the ocean from a warming ocean, not sea level rise from adding more water. The ocean won't expand from heating up unless it is heating up - duh!

      "By your logic" - Not my logic at all. Read it again.

      5. Still you reckon anything except CO2. If the sun acting alone caused glacials and interglacials then the earth's climate is extremely sensitive. Much greater than what real scientists have estimated.

      Missed the bit about ocean acidification. What did you say? Your posts are so long and full of gish that it's hard to keep track of your latest. Are you arguing that because one marine species liked low pH all species will just have to lump it or disappear? I should be pleased for small mercies I expect. Too many people on WUWT think the ocean is releasing CO2, not absorbing it.

      6. Yes, your opinions on WUWT are only of passing interest. I'm guessing you tolerate the idiocy there because it's anti-science stance conforms with your thinking, and it looks as if you agree with a lot of their nonsense anyway, from what you've written here.

      7. I don't know what you are on about. You are the one who thinks the earth is heating up by magic. Maybe you are misunderstanding hysteresis thinking we're still coming out of the LIA, just overshooting the 'recovery' by a huge margin for some reason you haven't yet explained (as long as it's not human activity, anything will do).

      Delete
  8. You also have this bizarre and persistent belief that the earth reacts instantly to changes in inputs/outputs. Just because the sun becomes more active, it doesn't mean the Earth instantly reaches a new homeostasis. If that was the case then my kettle would immediately begin boiling when I turned the gas onto high - or even just instantly evaporate.

    It's not the sun. Trivial variation compared to other forcings.

    And how do we explain the OHC increase in all major basins since the 1980s when TSI began to fall? Where is the energy coming from if TSI is *falling*? What physical mechanism is involved here?

    Look at the data: OHC (top); TSI (yellow, bottom); GHG forcing (GISS); total net forcing (GISS).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BBD - I figure he put his kettle on the stove back in the 1950s and is still waiting for it to boil. That's why he thinks the warmer sun in the 1950s is still heating up the earth. Not sure if he's experienced day vs night or not. :D

      Delete
    2. TSI isn't exactly a great method of determining solar influence (e.g. varying UV, affect on cosmic rays, etc).

      I'd look at your link, but it looks too unreliable for me to enable javascript/flash on it.

      As for why the Earth started heating up in 1978, that is pretty obviously due to the PDO going into its positive phase (the previous 30 year cooling period was coincidentally during the PDO's negative phase).

      The PDO is clearly one of the long-term lags in climate that I was speaking of.

      Oh and Sou, I clearly don't think the sun from the 1950's-1960's is still heating up the planet because the temperatures have been stagnant since 1998-2000 - a flat line - no rising temperatures in over a decade.

      It is inconvenient for you I know.

      Delete
    3. The link you suspect is Nick Stokes excellent tool. Quite safe for everyone, except those few who refuse to see facts staring them in the face, where there is a (small) risk of it destabilising their world view.

      Delete
    4. TSI isn't exactly a great method of determining solar influence (e.g. varying UV, affect on cosmic rays, etc).

      Rubbish.

      - There is no evidence whatsoever for a climatologically significant effect of GCRs.

      - UV *may* have *regional* climate effects, but there is no evidence for any influence on global climate.

      See the 2012 NRC report The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate:

      The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by UV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI at surface], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

      [...]

      Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years.


      Next, this nonsense:

      I'd look at your link, but it looks too unreliable for me to enable javascript/flash on it.

      Blatant evasion. If you want to be taken seriously, you will not do this again.

      As for why the Earth started heating up in 1978, that is pretty obviously due to the PDO going into its positive phase (the previous 30 year cooling period was coincidentally during the PDO's negative phase).

      You clearly have no idea what the PDO actually is. I suggest you find out. Then you can explain how a regional SST change can cause OHC to rise simultaneously in all major ocean basins for four decades (and counting). I await your response with great interest.

      I clearly don't think the sun from the 1950's-1960's is still heating up the planet because the temperatures have been stagnant since 1998-2000 - a flat line - no rising temperatures in over a decade.

      First you refuse to look at the data and now you engage in simplistic misrepresentations of what is actually occurring. And yet you expect to be taken seriously.

      Again, I ask you:

      How do we explain the increase in OHC in all major basins since the 1980s when TSI began to fall? Where is the energy coming from if TSI is *falling*? What physical mechanism is involved here?

      Is your grasp of the basics of physical climatology so weak that you do not understand that >90% of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of radiative imbalance is going into the oceans?

      Do you not understand that as a consequence, short-term variability in the rate of atmospheric warming is barely relevant?

      Delete
    5. This is starting to take up far too much of my time so my answers will be brief and ignore much of the irrelevant distractions and baiting.

      1. "There is no evidence whatsoever for a climatologically significant effect of GCRs."

      That's an argument from ignorance, which isn't surprising since the entire CAGW is a giant argument from ignorance.

      I said TSI wasn't a good measure of determining solar influence. The CLOUD experiment certainly shows that cosmic rays do affect aerosols and many scientists think it is a valid area for further experimentation and exploration.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD

      Of course, if aerosols aren't important to climate then perhaps you can tell all the climate scientists who are guessing at them to take them out of their models.

      2. "UV *may* have *regional* climate effects, but there is no evidence for any influence on global climate."

      Your source said "particularly" regional climate effects. It didn't say only climate effects. You misrepresented or misread it.

      And again, you operate completely on arguments from ignorance - as if we absolutely know everything about the climate.

      But in any case, thank you for the source, since it confirms what I've been telling Sou about solar influence, but allow me to quote that section for her:

      "there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years."

      In other words, over 50 years ago, let me see, around the 1950's-1960's, there is substantive evidence for solar influence on the climate - which is what I've been saying all along.

      3. "Do you not understand that as a consequence, short-term variability in the rate of atmospheric warming is barely relevant?"

      Of course it is irrelevant. Now that the atmospheric records that you guys have been relying on to make your case aren't going in the direction that you need you switch off to a less reliable temperature record.

      And once that record flatlines or dives then you can switch to yet another set of data - as long as that data is showing warming.

      Talk about cherry-picking.

      Delete
    6. That's an argument from ignorance, which isn't surprising since the entire CAGW is a giant argument from ignorance.

      No, it is not. For example:

      Laken et al. (2012) A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations

      Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epoch-superpositional (composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray flux known as Forbush decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.

      And:

      Sloan & Wolfendale (2011) The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming

      A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.

      And there's plenty more.

      Delete
    7. Your source said "particularly" regional climate effects. It didn't say only climate effects. You misrepresented or misread it.

      Don't play silly word games with me.

      The NRC report was perfectly clear:

      However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI at surface], it [UV] can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

      Read the words.

      * * *

      "there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years."

      In other words, over 50 years ago, let me see, around the 1950's-1960's, there is substantive evidence for solar influence on the climate - which is what I've been saying all along.


      Please look at the data. It is very clear that the increase in GHG forcing is emerging as the dominant driver of climate since the mid-C20th. Solar influence prior to that is not at issue here. You are very clumsily attempting to create a strawman. Try to remember that you are not at WUWT now.

      I repeat: modern warming cannot be attributed to solar variability because TSI is *falling* and OHC in all major basins is *rising*. So where did the energy come from? Please describe a physical mechanism which does not involve magic energy and fairy-dust.

      While you are at it, where is your explanation for how regional SSTs can cause OHC to rise in every major basin for four decades? I was looking forward to that.

      Delete
    8. Of course it is irrelevant. Now that the atmospheric records that you guys have been relying on to make your case aren't going in the direction that you need you switch off to a less reliable temperature record.

      And once that record flatlines or dives then you can switch to yet another set of data - as long as that data is showing warming.

      Talk about cherry-picking.


      This is barely-disguised conspiracist ideation, but expected given your recitation of debunked denialist tropes.

      Beyond pointing that out, it doesn't merit further comment.

      Delete
  9. Compare this:
    As for why the Earth started heating up in 1978, that is pretty obviously due to the PDO going into its positive phase (the previous 30 year cooling period was coincidentally during the PDO's negative phase).

    to this:

    The PDO is clearly one of the long-term lags in climate that I was speaking of.

    and this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg

    Just how long is that "lag" supposed to be? And when is the earth going to get back to temperatures of the 1960s? Maybe the PDO only heats the earth but doesn't cool it? Is that what you are arguing?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

    Oh and Sou, I clearly don't think the sun from the 1950's-1960's is still heating up the planet because the temperatures have been stagnant since 1998-2000 - a flat line - no rising temperatures in over a decade.

    Leaving aside your cherry-picked 1998 and the fact that the past decade is the hottest on record, and that the oceans are still heating up; once again you're arguing an increase in solar radiation heats the earth but a decrease doesn't cool it. Another magical one way effect.

    With all ups (but not downs) from PDOs and ups (but not downs) in solar radiation the earth should by rights have boiled away eons ago.

    Any argument, no matter how inconsistent and self-contradictory, as long as it's not human activity. Gotcha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. "Just how long is that "lag" supposed to be?"

      A reasonable guess would be the length of a half-cycle or two - 30-60 years.

      2. " Maybe the PDO only heats the earth but doesn't cool it?"

      Not at all, it cooled during the 30 years of the last negative cycle, which I believe I already said. Are you even bothering to read my posts?

      I wonder since you haven't mentioned hysteresis, but I assumed someone quietly told you that you were ridiculously wrong on it or you finally realized it yourself.

      Oh and please, if you can't see what is wrong with the skeptical science page on it then there is no hope for you. Their graph is so blatantly stupid the way it applies linear trend lines to a cyclical phenomena that a grade school kid could see the error.

      3. "Leaving aside your cherry-picked 1998"

      Do you even know what cherry-picking is?

      I gave a range of 3 years - not a single year. I could've started earlier if I'd wanted to, but again, I was being kind to the warmist argument.

      "and the fact that the past decade is the hottest on record"

      "Hottest of record" doesn't say anything about the trend. I can only assume you accept that it isn't warming and that "hottest on record" is simply an attempt to distract from such inconvenient facts. .

      Of course, "hottest on record" is of a very short record. We've only had truly reliable global temps since the satellite era - around 1978 or so.

      "and that the oceans are still heating up"

      Yes, the atmospheric record is inconvenient so you switch to a vastly inferior and shorter data set.

      Do you guys have no shame?

      "once again you're arguing an increase in solar radiation heats the earth but a decrease doesn't cool it."

      The sun spot record I showed you shows solar activity is near the maximum it achieved during the 1950's-1960's. Clearly solar influence can cool the planet, but we need to see a real and sustained decrease. I suspect global temps will remain close to current levels for a while, or perhaps decreasing very slowly over the next few decades, but that would only be true if solar influences remain steady.

      In any case, your entire post seems to be a collection of straw man arguments which directly contradict things I've already said (like the cooling the PDO can cause). If you are just going to lie about my position then there isn't really much point in my attempting to educate you.

      Delete
  10. TSI isn't exactly a great method of determining solar influence (e.g. varying UV, affect on cosmic rays, etc).

    Yeah, let's not use top of atmosphere solar irradiance to measure incoming solar irradiance, which effect is swamped by incoming cosmic rays (not! - and these can be measured separately in any case).

    Now we've got magical one way "it's not the sun it's cosmic rays", "it is the sun but only for heating not cooling", "it's PDO but only for heating not cooling", "it's natural recovery from the LIA", "it's melting iceblocks" and "it's boiling kettles".

    And all that came from a snide remark about Trenberth's missing heat. Wow!

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", could you please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. It requires no registration and is just the same as "Anonymous" but with the advantage that you can use a unique name rather than being lumped in with all the other anonymice. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. It's been requested by a regular HotWhopperite to help readers keep track of who says what, (You can of course comment using OpenID or Google or WordPress or whatever, which are forms of authentication.)

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.