The climate doomsday-cult promoters at the Huffington Post and Climate Nexus did their usual thing, trying to convince the American public that Hurricane Joaquin was the result of global warming.
Of course, when the alarmists uttered these claims, they were based on the hurricane computer models that forecast Joaquin's path would strike the East Coast of the U.S. Fortunately for the coastal residents, the climate change doomsters were wrong, spectacularly.
Instead, as the adjacent chart clearly documents, those ocean waters have cooled since 1940, not warmed as predicted. Another case of 'those stubborn facts'.
In summary, the empirical evidence again confirms that climate simulations and computer models are very suspect regarding their capabilities at both short and long-term predictions/forecasts. Governing elites, bureaucrats and the public should absolutely not base any expensive policy-making decisions on these research tools.
Claims of rapid, accelerating, dangerous and unequivocal global warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases means that should be happening...especially for the oceans that represent about 72% of the Earth's surface...yet the latest empirical evidence shows the above adjectives are big fat lies when it comes to this gigantic thermal sink...Ooops...those stubborn facts strike again.....
(click on pie chart to enlarge)
Ocean expert Bob Tisdale's recent article delineated the various warming trends of the key ocean basins.
His dataset for the adjacent chart comes from the ARGO system, which is the most sophisticated technology in use for measuring ocean depth warming. (More on that dataset here.)
Previously, 'C3' published an article about the non-"unequivocal" nature of global warming. That article also provided insight as to locations of the much feared "dangerous" and "rapid" global warming - turns out the only locations are the concrete/asphalt environs of airports and major urban/metro areas.
So, what does the actual ocean-deep warming empirical evidence presented on this chart tell us? (Remember, this is the warmed-up data presented after bureaucrat sceintists adjusted the raw measurment data.)
#1. On a per century trend basis, global warming of the oceans is barely happening.
#2. Unequivocal ocean warming is not taking place - note that neither the Pacific or North Atlantic exhibit a warming that is climate significant (in fact, one could claim their warming is likely a function of measurement error and/or those "adjustments").
#3. The oceans are not going to be boiling from CO2 emissions as predicted by NASA's top climate expert.
#4. If 72% of the world's surface and Earth's atmosphere are not exhibiting accelerating and dangerous warming, then any claim that the entire globe is exhibiting those characteristics is a scientific falsehood, i.e. a blatant lie.
Hmmm...those stubborn climate facts can be sooo annoying.
Over the last 30 years, the globe has warmed, which no scientist denies.
Likewise, all scientists agree with the NOAA scientific climate facts: ocean warming over the 30 years ending 2013 is not "unprecedented."
Per NOAA, prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer CO2 emissions, the global ocean warming was significantly greater, approaching the 2 degree per century rate in 1945.
This prior exceptional warming across the world was duly noted by the mainstream press at the time (scroll down to the 1940s on this page to learn more about previous global warming).
As this accompanying chart of NOAA empirical evidence shows, the 30-year warming rate ending in 1945 was 1.6 times greater than that of the current 30-year period ending in 2013.
And this unprecedented warming of ocean waters occurred during a 30-year period when human CO2 emissions were some 85% less than the modern era (166 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions versus 784 billion tonnes for the most recent 30-year span).
The climate 'FactCheck' summary: the world's climate has experienced a declining ocean warming rate since the 1940s, which contradicts the "consensus" anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, per NOAA. Just another case of those-stubborn-facts ... modern ocean warming is not unprecedented.
The experts are befuddled and recognize that they are without a rational reason for the global warming pause, other than the obvious: natural climate change.
If the current 17-year trend continues, the oceans would warm by an almost unmeasurable one-tenth of a degree Celsius by year 2100. (The 17-year period is 204 months, starting with January 1, 1997 - that is before the super El Nino phenomenon of 1997-1998)
The adjacent charts (courtesy of ocean expert Bob Tisdale) plot the temperature changes for each major ocean basin since late 1981.
The red vertical line on each chart denotes the date of January 1997. The trend data in the corner of each chart assumes the trend from 1997 will continue to year 2100 (warming: trends are not predictions).
From these individual charts, we learn that the northern hemisphere is warming while the southern isn't; it's warming for all the Atlantic basins yet cooling for all the Pacific basins.
Clearly, the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and its associated climate models, provide no explanation for this mishmash. It's hard enough for the "experts" to even explain why the Arctic basin warming took off in recent years, while the Southern Ocean basin did the exact opposite, let alone trying to make sense of this global 'mishmash' using the rather lame construct of CO2 greenhouse gas causation.
Summary: The expert consensus was wrong about global warming; the AGW hypothesis is without empirical evidence merit; climate science is not settled, nor will it be in near future; and climate change will continue regardless of CO2 emissions.
Note: Bob Tisdale used NOAA's Nomad web site to create the charts. The Nomad ocean dataset is the highest resolution climate record available but it only goes back to 1981. Bob Tisdale article the charts pulled from.
We have NASA to thank for introducing the world to climate-porn, which has become a widely accepted word of derision describing the greens' and Democrats' anti-CO2 doomsday-propaganda.
Back in 1988, NASA kicked it off with its constant disaster-laden predictions, not only in articles, but even in Congressional testimony.
NASA technocrats purposefully attempted to scare the public and policymakers with promises of skyrocketing temperatures, with Earth's atmosphere turning into Venus-like conditions and, of course, those soon-to-be boiling oceans. As the public was going to learn over the next few decades, NASA made sure no climate-porn catastrophe was left unexposed.
So after decades of NASA scare tactics what does the empirical evidence say? What about that CO2-induced accelerated warming that will cause oceans to boil?
Using the NOAA's high-resolution ocean temperature dataset, the chart above reveals the absolute non-existence of "accelerating" global warming, for all the world's oceans, and for those tropical waters that NASA predicts we will witness boiling.
Since 1988, and after gigaton upon gigaton of human CO2 emissions over the last 25 years, the ocean warming is not so much. Accelerated warming is nada. And since 1996, a year prior to the super El Nino of 1997-98, the oceans' warming trend has actually been shrinking.
In fact, the tropical oceans since 1996 are actually cooling.
Is that an indication that we should be worried about global cooling? Well, a lot of people are now thinking the unthinkable and talking about it.
Not only have the IPCC climate models performed poorly on a global basis, their predictive skill capability on important regional climates approach being abysmal also.
As this new peer reviewed study concludes, the models being used to predict sea surface temperatures for the tropical Pacific have produced results that have standard deviations of some 200% stronger versus observed measurements since the Super El Niño of 1997/98. Not good. Confirms previous studies of climate models.
Essentially, the demonstrably large failures of both global and regional climate models represent a systemic failure created by those consensus "experts."
Remember how NASA's former climate "scientist" James Hansen predicted the oceans will be boiling because of CO2...the data & experts body slam that wild exaggeration (stupidity?) while breaking no sweat
Bob Tisdale is a respected and widely quoted expert on ocean warming and cooling, who often exposes the serial falsehoods and exaggerations of the climate science establishment, much to their dismay.
In a recent article, Bob does it again, this time exposing the bogosities of both the "missing heat" by Kenneth Trenberth's missing brain and then confirming the pathological exaggeration of Hansen's "boiling oceans."
Prior to speaking to the above chart, Bob points out a flagrant propaganda ploy used by establishment climate-alarmist scientists, and the IPCC, which is never challenged by the MSM press (to paraphrase): "OMG, the oceans have warmed by 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules!" Hey, that's a lot scary warming, no?
Well.....no, it's actually not a lot of warming. The 24X1022 Joules represent, in the scheme of things, a tiny warming of the oceans - a barely measurable total of +0.09C degrees over 55 years. Of course, the climate "scientists" who use this propaganda trick don't feel inclined to point out that the ludicrous figure with all those zeros is essentially a ludicrous tiny amount of global warming.
The Tisdale chart above is a plot of NODC's ocean heat empirical dataset, and a similar dataset from the UK. Both dataset plots provide essentially the same trend: for NODC, the 100 year trend is a meager +0.16°C increase and the UK's an even tinier +0.13°C.
So, in the case of the NODC findings, the almost impossible-to-measure +0.09°C over 55 years for the top 2,000 meters of the ocean indicates future temps, a hundred years out, will equate to an almost impossible-to-measure increase of +0.16°C.
Contrasting those literal flyspeck trends to the typical James Hansen buffoonery, to boil the oceans would require the current average ocean water temperature to increase some 85°C. Per this actual ocean empirical evidence shown in the chart: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, EVAAAH!
Then there is the climate-savant Trenberth who thinks all the missing global warming has disappeared into the deep oceans. He conjectures that this 55-year increase will soon start boiling waters from underneath. Hmmm, or is it instead all those warmer ocean molecules will stage a simultaneous break-out of their deep ocean prison and immediately flash-fry humanity with an +0.16° increase?
With these two knuckleheads prominently representing the case for bogus climate alarmism, is it any wonder the most recent Gallup poll doesn't reflect even a single scintilla of the American public being impressed by global warming "scientific" hysteria.
The global warming science facts do not support the climate doomsday scientists' contention that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous long-term ocean warming - the empirical evidence is 'unequivocal' about this
(click on image to enlarge)
Doomsday climate scientists would have everyone believe that human CO2 emissions causes long-term climate change in form of "accelerating" warming, especially the oceans. If this were the case, then it should be easy to prove using the global ocean temperature observations from NOAA.
As the adjacent chart depicts, while atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily increased (black dots), the plot of the 30-year change in ocean temperatures (jagged blueish curve) exhibits wide variation.The smooth blue and grey curves represent polynomial fitted trends to the observations, clearly demonstrating that trends in CO2 and ocean warming are not closely related - well, truth be told, they're moving in very opposite directions.
From these opposing trends, one could safely surmise that the correlation between CO2 levels and long-term ocean warming is, in fact, not robust, but rather weak.
Moving on, the red curve is a 5-year average of the long-term temperature change, which obviously indicates the current 5-year average of change being well below previous values, and is now declining. The red curve also reveals that the historical temperature change prior to the 1950's was significantly higher and actually accelerated faster than that experienced over the last three decades (the modern doomsday "global warming").
Conclusions from the actual NOAA empirical evidence: Long-term ocean warming has likely not been a result of human CO2 emissions (a tiny addition to natural greenhouse gases). Long-term modern warming of the oceans is neither dangerous, rapid, accelerating, unprecedented nor unequivocal. Starting around 1998, the modern ocean warming stabilized and slowly morphed into a cooling phase. The global warming science facts are irrefutable, the inconsistent, sporadic long-term ocean warming since the early 1900's does not support the climate doomsday scientists - unequivocally, the empirical evidence mocks them.
Note: The above chart plots the long-term ocean temperature changes (30-year changes). For example, the temperature change datapoint for April 2012 represents the change from April 1982 to April 2012. Likewise, the January 1910 datapoint represents the temperature change from January 1880 to January 1910.
Connect the dots: Hollywood stars, such as Matt Damon, often spread misinformation about our modern climate and environment - a favorite is that boiling oceans will result from CO2-induced global warming
As these two charts reveal, the tropical waters around South Pacific islands range from 23°C to 28°C, which attracts a lot of tourists to these vacation paradises. And note that the atmospheric levels of CO2 had little, if any, impact on sea surface temperatures over the last 15+ years. (Red curve is 36-month mean of absolute monthly temperatures.)
There are those who claim that modern global warming is raising the sea water temperatures to dangerous levels, and soon there will be "boiling" oceans (103°C for sea water - gee, it only has to increase about 70 degrees). Where do Hollywood stars, like Matt Damon, get these wacky, non-scientific fears from?
Well.....just watch the climate scientist who spews this unsubstantiated craziness - he's is the highest earning "climate scientist" ever for a reason, and, btw, it's not because he's any good at climate predictions. Yet Hollywood celebrities involuntarily pee in their metro-panties when this climate-activist starts spreading the hysterical B.S.
The Hollywood stars are so gullible and lazy they never realize that the real facts totally contradict the crazy-man ravings, as the above charts clearly show.
Connect the dots: CO2-induced global warming is not raising sea water temperatures to dangerous levels; sea water temperatures are not "accelerating" nor "unprecedentd"; and the likelihood of boiling oceans ranges from about nil to zilch - except in the anti-science minds of the Hollywood airheads.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts (or lack thereof) - while James Lovelock recently admits to hyping global warming alarmism, James Hansen still does crazy fearmongering - on video he predicts boiling oceans
(click on images to enlarge)
Look closely at the above - this is what "boiling" oceans look like after some 1.3 trillion tons of CO2 emissions poured into the atmosphere since 1850. As this tropical island paradise indicates, the long held belief of CO2 caused global warming is not supported by the tropic's data in the least, let alone supporting NASA's Hansen's recent crazy prediction of boiling oceans.
At the 2:12 minute mark of this recent video, Hansen does his crazy "boiling ocean" hype - it's a total disregard of facts and plausibility. Despite this craziness, there are scads of American coastal elites and lazy (stupid? gullible?) mainstream media types that buy into Hansen's ludicrous, catastrophic warming "science" predictions.
Still think there are runaway greenhouse effect facts that would lend credence to boiling oceans? Think again - expert tropical sea temperature measurements are conclusive - it ain't happening.
The Cook Island sea surface temperature data are another factual reality check - the tipping point of runaway global warming is not taking place and, without question, should be heavily ridiculed by all the legitimate science community and an objective press as the bogus scare hype it represents.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts: "Tipping point" global warming is not supported by the evidence; it's not even remotely plausible per the empirical data from the tropics; the world is not going to end from human-caused boiling oceans; and, NASA's James Hansen is possibly crazy, with fame, fortune and the drooling love of the MSM press lapdogs.
Note: Black dots in both charts above represent monthly CO2 levels. Sea surface temperatures plotted represent the longest continuous monthly measurements (without any monthly gaps) for both island locations.
Global warming theorists now claim that Arctic sea ice melt causes colder and snowier winters - the empirical evidence indicates that it must also cause colder oceans, a definite AGW negative feedback
(click on images to enlarge)
These Bob Tisdale charts of ocean temperatures through January 2012 are most enlightening. To summarize the data plotted on the charts, ocean temperatures, as represented by the Southern, South Pacific and global measurements, clearly show a decline since the 1998 El Niño event. The Southern Ocean (aka the Antarctica Ocean) has experienced a very significant decline in temperature since the early 2000's.
Sooo...per the logic of the typical global warming alarmist, the Arctic sea ice melt from human CO2 emissions does the following, from one Polar region to its geographic opposite:
In essence, the tortured logic of the ever-changing alarmist climate change theories literally leads one to conclude that global cooling weather events are the natural negative feedback to AGW.
Of course, no IPCC climate change report (so far) has remotely stated the above. But the actual climate empirical evidence (ie, non-warming world, lower ocean temps) and cold weather events has now forced CO2-centric global warming alarmists into a pretzeled logic that ultimately supports the overall negative feedbacks of global climate as understood by CAGW-skeptics, not the positive feedbacks pushed by the IPCC.
The NASA climate model developed by James Hansen has been atrocious at predicting global warming over the last 15 years and the evidence mounts it is even worse at predicting ocean heat content
Read here. The oceans represent some 70% of the globe's surface and is a giant reservoir of energy, with an immense effect on the climate. Being able to accurately predict the heat content is absolutely essential if climate models are ever to be trusted.
As the adjacent chart by expert Bob Tisdale reveals, the NASA climate model prediction for ocean heat content (OHC) is robustly higher than actual measurements of OHC since 2003. The model doesn't work as advertised, like most climate models' predictions.
"The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003? Apparently not."
The NASA model was developed by Hansen. He had it programmed to predict a rapid increase in OHC based on the questionable CO2-based AGW hypothesis. Because of a major weakness in the AGW hypothesis (the never realized positive feedback loops) NASA's model is unable to predict OHC correctly, let alone the world's climate.
Experts reconstruct sea surface temperatures off of Norway - evidence confirms this subarctic region was warmer during Roman and Medieval times
Read here. It's another peer reviewed study published that refutes Mann's 'hockey stick' caricature of past temperatures over the last 2000 years. (click image to enlarge)
Modern warming is not unprecedented as claimed by the IPCC's Climategate "scientists."
"Sejrup et al established exceptionally accurate chronologies for two marine sediment cores raised from the same location on the Norwegian continental margin...they developed the δ18O history depicted in the figure [adjacent], which they use as a proxy for what they call "near surface water summer temperature." And as this history clearly shows, the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was significantly greater than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period has been to date." [H.P. Sejrup, H. Haflidason, J.T. Andrews 2011: Quaternary Science Reviews]
New peer reviewed study by James Hansen of NASA / GISS measures recent ocean heat content and his data indicates insignificant warming - thus, oceans by year 2100 will not warm much
Read here. Willis Eschenbach does the number crunching on the Hansen et al 2011 analysis that earth has a serious energy imbalance, and this "imbalance" is represented by an ocean warming equivalent of 0.54 W/m2 of energy over the period of 2005 - 2010.
Now, +0.54 W/m2 sounds like a very serious energy imbalance indeed until one translates what that means in degrees Celsius of ocean warming, then projecting that "warming" out to year 2100. That is exactly what Willis's number crunching did and he discovered that based on Hansen's "serious" energy imbalance that oceans will warm by a laughable and by a barely measurable amount of:
+0.15C degree by 2100 AD
Above is the formula that Willis used to convert the "serious" imbalance into actual degrees warming
Adjacent, is an Excel representation of calculations done by Willis. (click to enlarge)
You can download this 'C3' Excel file to examine/play with the calcs. (If you find an error in our representation of Willis's work, please email us.)
The climate models used by IPCC are incapable of predicting sea surface temperatures (global warming) with any reliability
Read here. Utilizing climate agency provided data and the commonly installed computer spreadsheet program called Excel, Bob Tisdale does a thorough analysis of ocean temperatures and climate model predictions. In a nutshell, Bob's comparative analysis clearly shows how worthless the climate models truly are.
(As an aside, from the Climategate2.0 emails we learn that the top IPCC scientists are so busy plotting and conspiring against other scientists they don't have the time to learn this powerful analytical tool called Excel. This may explain why the IPCC is so clueless about the robust failures of climate models, no?)
The above charts (click to enlarge) produced by Tisdale show both the Northern and Southern hemisphere actual sea surface temperatures (blue). The charts include the IPCC's climate model projection (red) for the last 17 years. As can be seen, the reality of sea surface temperatures and global warming is significantly different than what the IPCC's climate models predicted.
Per the climate models, the projected warming by 2100 is 5 times greater than the trend based on reality in the Southern Hemisphere and approximately 3 times greater for the Northern Hemisphere. This level of climate model error truly makes the IPCC projections worthless even for decadal periods, let alone for year 2100.
Yet, despite the obvious model failure, climate scientists whose financial security is dependent on the taxpayer dole continue to claim in public that climate model projections are accurate, if not the holy gospel of climate science. In private though, the Climategate2.0 emails indicate that climate scientists have little regard for the billion dollar climate model failures.
Welcome to the world of UN-IPCC climate science corruption.
Read here. As scientific study after study has determined, climate models have about zero skill in predicting future climate scenarios. These computer simulations suffer from many shortcomings that automatically prevent them from predicting accurate global warming (or cooling) and associated climate change characteristics.
Even the most incompetent of the Climategate scientists, Kevin ("it's a travesty") Trenberth admits the following about the stupendously expensive climate models:
“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models...Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”
Obviously, the "experts" concur with the laypersons' conclusion: models are worthless regarding future climate predictions. But can climate models at least accurately predict the past (hindcasts), though? Nope.
Bob Tisdale did some extreme number crunching and found that the climate models can't even accurately hindcast the past despite knowing what exactly happened with the past climate.
Soooo, what did he find when he compared the real data of the past versus the simulated past data?
The simulated climate model average determined NINO3 sea area temperatures must have increased at a rate of 10.4C degrees per century.
And what was reality?
NINO3 sea temperatures actually increased at a per century rate of 0.7C degrees.
Summary: Policymakers should completely ignore any scientists who rely on climate models as a basis for future global warming or climate change predictions.
The above temperature reconstructions of satellite measurements are as of the end of October 2011. The white areas of each (land, sea and air) represent zero to insignificant temperature cooling/warming; yellow-orange-red colors represent warming; and the blueish areas represent cooling. (click on images to enlarge)
Clearly, what the world's best scientific-based technology tells us is that global warming is not "unequivocal" as most IPCC Climategate scientists robustly claim. In fact, as has been well documented by numerous studies, including BEST, significant warming has been basically absent for some 15 years, which has caused great befuddlement for the IPCC's climate "scientists."
At any point in time, at anyplace on the globe, there could be significant warming, while significant cooling is simultaneously happening at another locale, and both can be associated with vast regional areas of insignificant temperature change. When speaking of "unequivocal" global warming, there is no such thing.
One would think this needless to say, but it seems necessary: the IPCC's unequivocal climate liars would do all of science, the world, and the policymakers a huge service if the lies of "unequivocal," "accelerating," and "unprecedented" global warming were eliminated from the public discourse. These are propaganda terms that the objective empirical evidence robustly refutes.
If that were to happen, it would become increasingly difficult to accurately label scientists as "unequivocal" liars.
Read here. All of the major climate models predicted that the billions of tons of CO2 emitted by humans over the last 60 years would cause the oceans to warm in an "accelerating" manner. It's not happening, though.
A critical measurement of ocean climate is its heat content. The newest data from NOAA reveals ocean heat content has flat-lined over recent years, contrary to "expert" climate model predictions. (click on images from Bob Tisdale to enlarge)
"And as many are aware, Climate Model Projections of Ocean Heat Content anomalies did not anticipate this flattening. Figure 2 compares the ARGO-era (2003 to present) NODC Global Ocean Heat Content anomalies to the GISS Model-E Projection of 0.7*10^22 Joules per year. The linear trend of the observations is approximately 7% of the trend projected by the model mean of the GISS Model-E."
Read here. Using actual ocean warming records and comparing those to IPCC climate models was recently accomplished. The purpose of doing so was to determine if model(s) sensitivity would produce predicted warming that matched the actual warming. The determination from the analysis was that the models robustly overestimated ocean warming versus actual - 3.0°C vs 1.3°C.
"The following comparison between the 20th Century runs from most (15) of the IPCC AR4 climate models, and Levitus observations of ocean warming during 1955-1999, further bolsters the case for a relatively low climate sensitivity: estimated here to be about 1.3 deg. C for a future doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is quite a bit lower than the IPCC’s best estimate of 3 deg. C warming...The observed rate of warming of the ocean has been too weak to be consistent with a sensitive climate system. This is demonstrated with the IPCC models themselves...it should be mentioned the above analysis assumes that there has been no significant natural source of warming during 1955-1999. If there has, then the diagnosed climate sensitivity would be even lower still."
Why hasn't the IPCC and the climate modeller community conducted this analysis themselves? Ahhhh....good question with an obvious answer - making failure public is painful.
The "world-ending" anthropogenic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is supposed to be "global" except apparently it isn't; and often, it's not warming at all.
per the NOAA/NCDC data, the continental U.S. has actually been cooling over the last 15-years;
climate change alarmists are now finally admitting in the science literature that the world has not warmed since 1998;
the latest NASA satellite technology shows no ocean warming since 2002;
ocean heat content has basically been flat since 2003;
and finally, all measurements taken to identify the atmospheric "hot" spot required by the AGW hypothesis have not found it.
That's pretty damning evidence - not a single key climate measurement reveals the holy grail trifecta of "unprecedented," "unequivocal" and "accelerating," global warming. But wait....it gets even worse.
Adding to the alarmists' misery of a failed hypothesis is a critical area of the globe that is so important it's the basis of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) proxy - the area of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies. The chart on the left, the NINO3.4 anomalies since 1900 show no warming; the chart on the right, the NINO3.4 anomalies from 1981 through June 2011, show no warming.
Essentially, a major proxy for global ocean temperatures has a flat trend for the past century plus.
To expand on the area that the NINO3.4 covers, there is a large Pacific ocean expanse (33% of world's ocean surface) that engulfs the NINO3.4 and closely mimics its temperature changes. This ocean area is known as the East Pacific. It stretches from pole to pole and is depicted on the map below (left).
As the chart on the right reveals, since 1981 this vast ocean region has not warmed, despite the massive amounts of human CO2 greenhouse gases and the "consensus" AGW hypothesis.
Soooo, how can a global warming hypothesis that has conspicuously failed every global warming empirical measure and validation test still be considered a viable scientific hypothesis? How can such abject, empirical failure by a hypothesis still allow it to resonate with the liberal/left/progressive elites? Well, just like their love affair with eugenics, awful and idiotic science can find a permanent home in the belly of the left because of the dangerous power and control it artificially bestows to the ruling classes, relative to the average citizen.
Read here. Global warming scientists and alarmists are always trying to rationalize why the catastrophic AGW hypothesis is in continuous fail mode, and why the globe is cooling and not warming as they predicted. Besides the infamously lame "aerosols overwhelm CO2" excuse that is trotted out every few years by elite losers, the other favorite excuse is that global warming actually goes and hides in the deep ocean basins, where no one can ever seem to find it.
The "warming is hiding" hypothesis is also fairly lame as the latest evidence reveals, which is not a surprise since only greens/lefties/liberals believe it.
"Data from Catlin Arctic Survey 2011, collected during an eight-week expedition from March to May, indicates the temperature of Arctic seawater below 200 metres depth has decreased by a ‘surprising’ one degree Celsius in comparison with previous observations...“What was most surprising was the degree of change; even the most incremental differences in ocean temperatures matter. To put this temperature change in context, global sea temperatures rose by only 0.25 of a degree Celsius in the last 30 to 40 years but this was enough for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report to state the oceans are warming.”"
Read here. We've written before about how worthless climate models are as prediction tools, and that their output should never be used by policymakers as a basis for major decisions. Every month it seems there is a new revelation of just how terrible these models are. (click on image to enlarge)
This month, it's the total failure of James Hansen's climate models used at NASA. As the adjacent chart shows, Hansen's model predicted ocean heat to significantly accumulate because humans are emitting ever greater amounts of CO2. Well, we keep emitting CO2 but the oceans stopped gaining heat in the amounts predicted several years ago.
Again, the empirical evidence from actual observations does not support the exaggerated output predictions of AGW-driven climate models. Policymakers need to recognize the robust, consistent model failures and mitigate their influence.
Read here. Over the last 15 years, the alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists have been predicting a significant warming of sea surface temperatures due to the vast increase of human greenhouse (CO2) gases. This was the supposed no-brainer, "consensus" prediction that government and bureaucrat elites swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Yet, over that time span, the guaranteed "warming" trend has been essentially non-existent, other than extended warming spikes due to strong El Niño phases. The two charts below indicate the lack of a significant warming trend for ocean waters, globally, over the last 15 years.
The left chart represents the Southern Hemisphere seas, and the right chart, the Northern Hemisphere. Per the IPCC consensus climate science, this feeble level of "warming" (cooling?) was not supposed to happen. (click on images to enlarge)
Clearly, policymakers and the public have been seriously misled by unproven climate science techniques, non-verifiable climate models, and researchers solely devoted to increased government AGW-research funding.
Read here and here. Let's say you are a NASA climate scientist and have been on record for a very long time that the world is warming due to human CO2 emissions - despite the evidence to the contrary. And let's say you decide to produce a new study to absolutely prove your case by showing how the oceans are heating due to an energy imbalance.
"Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. This energy imbalance provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change."
Finally, let's say you want to enhance your study with graphs that will bolster your case. Then you would use the below graph if you're a NASA scientist with a political agenda, with the actual empirical science being a lower priority. (click on images to enlarge) (image source)
Notice the 1980 starting point for the above graph. Why do you think a NASA scientist would start the graph at 1980 when there is data all the way back to 1955? Oh, here's why. (image source)
Obviously, the ocean heat data prior to 1980 reveals both large increases and decreases of an inconvenient nature that the NASA scientist does not want to bring any attention to.
Of course, if the NASA scientist wasn't just pursuing a political agenda he might of also have brought attention to the fact that the majority of ocean basins (5 of 7) have recently been losing heat, or are flat, in direct contrast with his hypothesis that they are gaining from a CO2-caused energy "imbalance." (image source)
And, if the NASA scientist really desired to mislead policymakers, he would be sure not to include the sea surface temperatures as shown below. Gee, global sea temps seem to be highly variable with a recent significant decline, which neither condition seems to match the NASA "analysis" that oceans are overheating because of an energy "imbalance." (image source)
Wouldn't it be great if we could still trust that our government scientists are objective and truthful, sans their personal and political agenda bullshit?
Updated 4/24/2011: Anthony Watts calls Hansen on the bullshit cherrypicking also. And he describes the new Hansen Mt. Pinatubo hypothesis 'total bollocks.'
Read here. Map source here. (click on images to enlarge)
Newton et al. analyzed sediment cores from the Makassar Strait between the Indian and Pacific Oceans and confirmed that the hottest sea-surface temperatures took place some 800+ years ago, during the Medieval Period. These scientists noted that Medieval Warming took place during a solar activity maximum.
"Based on Mg/Ca ratios of the planktonic foraminifer Globigerinoides ruber that they obtained from a sediment core that was extracted from the seabed at the southern end (~5.3°S, 117.8°E) of the Makassar Strait...as they describe it, that "the warmest sea surface temperatures of the past 2000 years occurred between 1000 and 800 years ago," which period, they say, "is broadly coincident with the Medieval Warm Period as reflected in Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly reconstructions."
"...used to reconstruct surface-water temperature (SST), sea-surface salinity (SSS), and seawater density variability over the past 2000 yr. Maximum SST and SSS occurred at both sites between 850 and 700 yr ago, coinciding with the Medieval Solar Maximum and Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1000–700 yr ago). SST and SSS declined at both locations after 700 yr ago and reached minimum values during the Little Ice Age, between 300 and 100 yr ago." [Alicia Newton, Robert Thunell and Lowell Stott 2011: Geology]
Read here. Climate model predictions have proven to be utterly worthless and the newest evidence, as of December 2010, demonstrates they're getting no better. One of the grand failures has been Nasa's James Hansen's climate model predictions of ocean heat content growth. The model has ocean heat dramatically increasing as the red line in the chart below demonstrates. The actual heat content increase (decrease) is the blue line, which is literally flat.
The information represented in the chart is from the cutting edge, best-of-breed (Argo) technology specifically developed for ocean climate measurements.
(click on image to enlarge)
From Bob Tisdale: "...it is very obvious that ENSO and the distribution of warm and cool waters caused by ENSO are major components of Global Ocean Heat Content (OHC).....OHC studies such as Hansen et al (2005), however, do not include ENSO in their models. They assume that Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases have a measurable impact on Ocean Heat Content. The impacts of the failure of GISS to include ENSO and other natural variables in their analysis was illustrated and discussed in detail in Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?"
Read here. The 'Argo' ocean buoy real-time reporting system is the most advanced technology that scientists possess for measuring ocean temperatures at varying levels. Recently, NASA scientists at its Jet Propulsion Lab reported that the Argo data was showing a slight ocean cooling trend since 2003, which was recently confirmed by another peer-reviewed paper.
This ocean cooling has proven to be a major source of embarrassment to AGW scientists as it is the exact opposite of what they and the IPCC climate models predicted.
Now, a new paper by Vélez-Belchí et al. finds that Argo data indicates significant ocean cooling in the Mid-Atlantic area since 1998.
"An analysis of the five oceanographic cruises at this latitude shows that there has been a significant cooling of −0.15°C in the upper ocean (600–1800-dbar range) over the last 7 years, from 1998 to 2004, which is in contrast to the warming of 0.27°C observed from 1957 to 1998. Salinity shows a similar change in tendency, with freshening since 1998. For the upper ocean at 24.5°N, 1998 was the warmest and saltiest year since 1957. Data from the Argo network are used to corroborate the strong cooling and freshening since 1998..."[Vélez-Belchí, Pedro, Alonso Hernández-Guerra, Eugenio Fraile-Nuez, Verónica Benítez-Barrios, 2010: Journal of Physical Oceanography]
"According to climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr, ocean heat content provides the most appropriate metric to diagnose global warming, rather than the conventional use of ground and atmospheric temperatures."
Read here. The failures of the IPCC's climate models are wide and deep. While the models focus on the atmosphere warming the oceans via human CO2 emissions, at the bottom of the seas geological activity is taking place, for the most part unseen, spewing heat and gases into the water undetected.
Unfortunately, climate models do not include the reality of massive crustal, seabed activity, and as a result, this lack of model inclusion contributes to the continuous model incapablity of predicting future climate scenarios with any degree of accuracy.
"Scientists from the MARUM Center for Marine Environmental Sciences and the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Bremen on board the German research vessel Meteor have discovered a new hydrothermal vent 500 kilometres south-west of the Azores. The vent with chimneys as high as one meter and fluids with temperatures up to 300 degrees Celsius was found at one thousand metres water depth in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The discovery of the new deep-sea vent is remarkable because the area in which it was found has been intensively studied during previous research cruises.....“Our results indicate that many more of these small active sites exist along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge than previously assumed,” said Dr. Nicole Dubilier, the chief scientist of the expedition. “This could change our understanding of the contribution of hydrothermal activity to the thermal budget of the oceans."
Read here. As AGW alarmist after AGW alarmist predicted, and as gullible reporter after gullible reporter dutifully reported, the Arctic is warming and will soon be nothing but a pond of tepid water. Of course if these predictions were true, this would mean the Arctic melt season would have lengthened - every year the melt season would be longer. Or stated another way, every year the Arctic melt season would start earlier and end later.
Guess what? The Arctic melt season has not experienced the predicted expansion trend over the last 3 decades. Instead it shows considerable variation due to natural weather/climate oscillation patterns. And based on the most current data, the 2010 melt season was the shortest in recent memory. (click on image to enlarge)
Global warming alarmists, and many government-paid scientists, state that the oceans are warming at an "accelerating" pace. That ocean temperatures have reached "unprecedented" levels. And these current conditions threaten marine life with waters that are becoming dangerously hot.
Like so many of the liberal/left's global warming myths, the actual temperature data does not support the claims that oceans are experiencing accelerating warming or are even at unprecedented levels, jeopardizing marine life as we know it. If these conditions actually existed, the U.S. coastal regions of the Pacific and Atlantic would be showing it, and in fact, they don't. (click on images to enlarge)
The pattern that both the Pacific and Atlantic coastal surface waters reveal is one of cooling-warming-cooling-warming-cooling and etc. The coastal water temperatures do vary considerably but both the Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters have temps below their 1940-1950 ranges, which clearly suggests that "accelerating" and "unprecedented" are very inaccurate descriptions - objectively, they are nothing more than worthless, political propaganda terms, primarily used to heat the emotions of the incredibly gullible and willfully ignorant (i.e. celebrities, MSM reporters and liberal/left politicians).
Using the interactive climate graphing service at the Global Warming Science site, we chose 12 coastal grids for both the Pacific and Atlantic. The above charts are based on the HadCRU SST dataset. Superimposed on the ocean temp spaghetti charts are past atmospheric CO2 levels. It's patently obvious that coastal temperatures are not influenced by CO2 levels - there's no correlation. Additionalcurrent temp
chartshere. Historical temp chartshere.
Read here. Scientists seeking more funding for their global warming research love to gain media attention by constructing press releases that mislead and misinform. They do this because they know a gullible and stupid press corp will pick up on the global warming nuances and run with that as the headlines. The latest case of this practice of science by press release is the JPL study claiming that a newer type of El Niños is getting stronger. (click on image to enlarge)
Well, if mainstream reporters has gotten off their collective lazy rear-ends, they would have easily found that the JPL press release was flat-out wrong about the central Pacific (CP) El Niño being "relatively new" - ahem....the CP El Niño has been around at least as long as they've been taking official instrument temperatures of the central Pacific. And, they would have discovered that the claim of "getting stronger" swims in the deep waters of bogosity. As Bob Tisdale charts indicate, the JPL "press release" science is pretty lame, which means mainstream outlets like the NYT and LA Times will swallow it, hook-line-and-sinker.
Read here (and if there's time, read the enlightening comments also). Climate science's plunge into the toilet continues. Would it not be appropriate for a scientist attempting to prove a hypothesis that the waters around Antarctica are warming (and will warm even more!) would at least check the real observed data? Guess not. (Update: Further analysis of this study's bogosity.) (click on image to enlarge)
And, of course, the peer-review journal's editors who published this
study were either too stupid or too lazy to look at the basic data
Map source here. Read here. Anderson et al. used sea core sediments to reconstruct temperatures of the Norwegian Sea surface over the last 3,000 years. Research clearly identified the Roman warming, Dark Ages cooling, Medieval warming and the Little Ice Age cooling. Research also showed historical temperatures warmer than those experienced in the Norwegian Sea during the modern era.
"The climate history derived from this study is remarkably similar to that derived by McDermott et al. (2001) from a high-resolution speleothem ð18O record obtained from a stalagmite discovered in a cave in southwestern Ireland. At the beginning of the 3000-year-long Voring Plateau record, both regions were clearly in the end-stage of the long cold period that preceded the Roman Warm Period...both regions begin their descent into the Dark Ages Cold Period, which held sway until the increase in temperature that produced the Medieval Warm Period...Last of all, the Little Ice Age is evident, with cold periods centered at approximately 400 and 100 years BP.....Andersson et al. report that "surface ocean conditions warmer than present were common during the past 3000 years."
Read here. Another global warming alarmist claim is found to be lacking, if not entirely false. The sea surface temperatures are not increasing as predicted by scientists and their climate models. The lack of warming seas is dramatic evidence of the human CO2-induced greenhouse effect being without merit.
"In the Lyman et al 2010 paper, there is the interesting statement that “…sea surface temperatures have been roughly constant since 2000…” There are important consequences of this lack of a continued global average ocean surface temperature increase: since an increase of atmospheric water vapor is required to amplify the radiative heating from added CO2 and other human inputs of greenhouse gases, the absence of continued ocean surface warming suggests this water vapor feedback to radiative forcing is more muted than predicted by the IPCC multi-decadal model predictions....The claims that warming is continuing is, therefore, based on the land portion of the surface temperature record....With respect to the land surface temperature trends, we have documented a warm bias as we report in our paper Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009"
Read here. The extreme warmth and global existence of the Medieval Warming is again highlighted in the peer-research conducted in the Gulf of California's Pescadero Basin. No doubt about it: Medieval temps were hot and not just a northern Europe climate condition. (click on image to enlarge)
Researchers developed high-resolution records of diatoms and silicoflagellate assemblages spanning the past 2000 years from analyses of a sediment core extracted from Pescadero Basin in the Gulf of California (24°16.78'N, 108°11.65W). Results indicated that the relative abundance of Azpeitia nodulifera (a tropical diatom whose presence suggests the occurrence of higher sea surface temperatures), was found to be far greater during the Medieval Warm Period than at any other time over the 2000-year period studied, while during the Modern Warm Period its relative abundance was actually lower than the 2000-year mean.
Read here. U.S. government climate "experts" predicted that Arctic sea ice would melt to nothing because of the CO2-induced "unprecedented" (not) warming. As with almost all climate predictions emanating from U.S. climate scientists, nature is proving them wrong.
Why are U.S. climate scientists always so wrong? Are they just incredibly stupid? Nope, that's not the case - it's more venal than that. Simply put, their research funding (and salaries) provides the necessary incentive to mislead and lie about the global warming "crisis." Like all humans, scientists can be corrupted too.
For more failed predictions, read on. (click on left image to enlarge)
Read here. Often climate alarmists will point to warming ocean temperatures, or sea ice melting, and actually conclude that these conditions are caused by human CO2. Although there is no scientific evidence that even remotely suggests CO2 causes ice to melt or oceans to warm, that does not dissuade alarmists from spreading the bogus claims to the gullible MSM.
Real scientists are actually investigating the observed ocean temperature cycles across the world, and in the Arctic areas at least, the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to the natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as the culprit. (click image to enlarge)
"We present area-averaged time series of temperature for the 100–150 m
depth layer of the Barents Sea from 1900 through 2006. This record is
dominated by multidecadal variability on the order of 4C which is
correlated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index."...."The hint in the conclusion (which the authors stop short of defining)
is that the pattern of data, seen below, might be linked to the recent
pattern of Arctic sea ice melt and some partial recovery seen in the
last two years."
Read here. Article reviews a long list of ocean/sea temperature studies that confirm the recent ocean cooling. But scientists are unable to explain why oceans lost such a massive amount of heat, especially since climate models predicted the exact opposite. What these findings suggest are earth's warming/cooling climate cycles are dominated by natural causes yet to be identified, let alone being understood.
Read here. The AGW hypothesis claims that the world's oceans have significantly warmed due to human CO2 emissions, and will continue to warm at an accelerated pace. The IPCC climate models were programmed to assume this ocean warming assumption. Reviewing the major research studies on this issue over the last decade, it's been found that the oceans have not significantly warmed, and more importantly, have actually cooled (lost heat) in recent years. This behavior runs counter to every IPCC climate model. In addition, one of the studies points to the oceans acting as a giant climate thermostat incorporating negative feedback mechanisms. The negative feedbacks prevent the global warming from achieving any type of "tipping point."