The ‘Entire’ Atlantic Ocean is Cooling, contrary to media reports

Figure 1.) Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly maps that illustrate recent Atlantic Ocean cooling.

Figure 1. Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly maps that illustrate recent Atlantic Ocean cooling.

Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many universities are at a loss to explain recent conflicting temperature trends from Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. It can be boiled down to this: temperatures of the Earth’s three big fluid systems are each trending in different directions. The temperature of the Pacific Ocean is rising, the temperature of the atmosphere has remained constant, and the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean is cooling.

That’s a problem.

These variances in temperature trends are not fitting previous climate model predictions and talking points released to the media. To counter this problem and almost, as predictably as rain in springtime, climate scientists favoring the theory of man-made global warming are flooding the media with new, and this time supposedly very reliable, explanations that are generated from their latest super-computer climate models. Their explanations, or better yet, their rationalizations for two of the three fluid temperature trends, Pacific Ocean warming and the atmospheric warming “pause”, have been discussed in previous CCD posts.

This article will discuss the validity of the latest explanation put forward by the consensus climate science community concerning recent cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean.  These scientists contend that recent cooling of the northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean is the result of increased worldwide human induced atmospheric warming which is acting to melt the Greenland ice cap at alarming rates. This Greenland ice cap melt water is flooding into the northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean, thereby lowering the seawater temperature in this region.

As further supporting evidence they cite previous research publications which supposedly prove that ancient atmospheric warming also melted the Greenland Ice Cap and cooled the northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean.

There are many problems with this explanation as summarized below.

  1. The atmosphere has not warmed in 18.7 years according to the most accurate data derived from satellites. Even utilizing NASA’s recently “adjusted” atmospheric temperature data, there has only been very minor and uniform increases in the temperature during the last 18.7 years. Neither of these trends properly explains / fits the recent cooling of the entire Atlantic Ocean.
  2. Recent research from NASA’s Operation Ice Bridge clearly shows that Greenland’s ice mass loss is only occurring in areas immediately adjacent to the ocean. This perimeter-based ice loss is greatest in areas where the ice cap overlays known deep geological fault zones that are emitting geothermal heat onto the base of the ice cap. The interior portions of the Greenland Ice Cap are in ice mass balance. NASA admits they are not completely sure why the Operation Ice Bridge results do not fit into a nice neat global warming theory context.
  3. The extent of Arctic Ocean sea ice has increased the last three years, and not decreased as predicted.
  4. The Antarctic Ice Cap extent has increased steadily for thirty five years, and not decreased as predicted.
  5. The ancient melting of the Greenland Ice cap is most likely related to ancient volcanic eruptions (see previous CCD post) and associated local geothermal heat flow, not paleo-atmospheric warming.
  6. The true nature of what drives ocean heating and cooling is not well understood. It is likely a mixture of many forces including: variations in deep ocean geological heat and fluid flow, long-term variations in astronomical phenomenon, and long-term variations in major deep ocean currents.
  7. Lastly, and most telling, by carefully examining the shallow SST (sea surface temperature) anomaly maps atop this article (Figure 1.), it becomes very apparent that the entire Atlantic Ocean is cooling, and not just in the northern portion of the Atlantic that is adjacent to Greenland. This strongly suggests that outflow of summertime Greenland Ice Cap melt water into the northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean is not the primary driving force behind cooling the entire Atlantic Ocean.

Many noted and well-intentioned climate scientists and universities are now starting to publicly admit that overwhelming amounts of new research indicates that the theory of man-made global warming does not properly explain many observed climate trends. It certainly does not explain why the temperatures of Earth’s three most dominant fluid systems—the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean and the atmosphere—are trending in different directions.

Reason dictates that a more balanced approach to studying climate trends is needed. Any approach needs to take into account the effects of natural variability and whether man is having a real influence. Let’s stop trying to force fit every observed climate occurrence, including cooling of the entire Atlantic Ocean, into a global warming context.

It’s time to jump off the consensus bandwagon!

James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 41 years and who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate.

REFERENCES

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/greenland.asp

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/greenlands-ice-sheet-winter-growth-above-average.html

http://www.livescience.com/49224-greenland-ice-sheet-melt-changing.html

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/09/28/nasa-omg-oceans-are-melting-greenland/

http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-bipolar-science-nasa-20150804-story.html

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/03/22/1230-pm-the-atlantic-ocean-is-showing-signs-of-a-possible-significant-long-term-shift-in-temperatures-from-warm-to-cold/

http://www.livescience.com/49967-pacific-ocean-global-warming-pause.html

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/14276/20150423/iceberg-fleet-not-to-blame-for-north-atlantic-cooling.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/29/melting-arctic-sea-ice-could-be-disrupting-the-oceans-circulation-with-potentially-major-consequences/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic/

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (147)

  • Avatar

    Steven C

    |

    This is an interesting, insightful article. If changes in solar activity correspond strongly with changes in climate, then the recent decline in solar output could explain some of the cooling in the Atlantic. Regardless, there’s much here that should be studied, and the fact that the entire Atlantic shows shows a cooling cycle is noteworthy.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Global warming is warming of the *globe*. That does not mean parts of it can’t cool for awhile. Heat sloshes around….

      Reply

  • Avatar

    mike cross

    |

    One key measure of the earth’s variable heat balance is the overall true albedo and the recently launched US satellite in it’s million mile orbit is the device to measure’ record and identify any changes. Lets hope the data is not vetted by Mann et al

    Reply

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        NOAA and NASA are trying to correct for known biases. How would you prefer to correct for them?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Jeffrey Skilling demanded that the Enron trading business adopt mark-to-market accounting, citing that it would represent “true economic value”.

          Who are you to argue?

          Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          No they are not. They are “adjusting” know biases with data that is even more biased. Ignoring the better satellite data. Only because it shows what they want it to.
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

          Then they “adjust” data to fit failed model results.
          https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/has-noaa-once-again-tried-to-adjust-data-to-match-climate-models/

          These “adjustments” are meaningless garbage.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Why is satellite data any better? It, too, must be adjusted to remove biases.

            Do you know why the surface raw data is adjusted — in your own words?

            And you didn’t say how you would correct for these biases in the raw data….

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The surface data is “adjusted” so it matches the failed model “predictions” based upon rising Co2, plain and simple. Gotta keep the grants flowing in.
            [quote]Why is satellite data any better? It, too, must be adjusted to remove biases.[/quote] Sure, ok it has to be “adjusted”. Trouble is the the Satellites and the radiosonodes all agree.
            [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-24-04-39-53.png[/img]

            [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-24-04-50-35.png[/img]
            The outlier is the most recent NOAA/NASA data, which is being investigated by Congress after whistleblowers came forward to report political manipulation and improper procedures.

            How would I correct for these biases? The biggest bias is belief in the invalidated CAGW hypothesis.

            The only real world thing these fraudulent adjustments match is rising Co2.
            [quote]Up until now the adjustments have made no sense, because they didn’t appear to correlate to anything in the real world. But now we can see that correlate almost perfectly with the amount of CO2 in atmosphere. Red below is CO2 and blue is the USHCN adjustments.[/quote]
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1603-aug-03-05-53.gif[/img]

            Stop “adjusting” data to match rising Co2 for a start.
            [quote]Up until now the adjustments have made no sense, because they didn’t appear to correlate to anything in the real world. But now we can see that correlate almost perfectly with the amount of CO2 in atmosphere. Red below is CO2 and blue is the USHCN adjustments.[/quote]

            They have been caught lying countless times and are in no way credible anymore.
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/

            http://climateaudit.org/2009/01/20/realclimate-and-disinformation-on-uhi/
            [img]http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4931/uhcnadjust.jpg[/img]

            Why, in your own words do you think they prefer surface stations in urban areas over satellites?
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/why-does-nasa-giss-oppose-satellites/

            And why do they prefer to use ocean buoy data that has been “corrected” by water taken into ships to cool engines over better data like this?
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

            Tom’s “pause” buster busted!
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/figure-9.png[/img]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            The surface datasets, land and ocean, also all agree after bias corrections.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Agree with what ?
            The preconceived conclusions ?
            You call this science ?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Deniers like you are really fun to play with.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I’m bowing out ,kid.
            I’ll leave it to the others who visit this blog to evaluate the intelligence levels and logic of things discussed.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            This is when people like you bow out — when you realize you can’t address the data, and you realize the other guy won’t let up, but you want to try and save face.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Read the previous posts and see if you can understand,
            which I don’t think will happen.

            I have already addressed your lack of comprehension and total ignorance of scientific thought.

            That fact that you ignore that proves my point conclusively.

            I sign off because I no longer choose to converse with a mental midget

            NAMELY YOU.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            You can’t explain the observed data. I know it, and you know it.

            Now run along….

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Your lack of ability to comprehend in the abstract is not my problem.
            It’s yours.

            And I know you’re andrzewski.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            You still haven’t expained the observations in terms of your hypothesis that there is no greenhouse effect.

            Why not?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Demonstrated umpteen times. Just that jerks like you will not admit it.

            You are adrezjewski and a multiply proven liar and phony.
            I don’t care you’ll not confess
            I know what you are.
            Keep posting

            I believe most of us will keep laughing.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Stop lying — you haven’t demonstrated anything, and you know it.

            I have no idea who “adrezjewski” is. Sorry.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You are nothing and it’s here for everybody to see.
            I’ll let all visitors to this site to form their own opinions.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            When are you going to address that data in light of your hypothesis that there is no GHE?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            If you’d shut up maybe some people wouldn’t know how dumb you are.
            It’s all been addressed before. It’s all been admitted before by your own words.
            Your lack of comprehension is your problem only.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            No, you haven’t addressed any of this. You’re afraid to even broach the data, and explain why it isn’t evidence for a GHE.

            I’m onto you by now.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Wrong again as usual Andrezejewski.
            I’m just fed up with your lies.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            You do know, yes, that Watts wasn’t even capable of graduating from college?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Yeah… But he gets a lot more traffic that your pathetic site. Wonder why that is? 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            How many “boards” are you banned from again?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            LOL…. Only after “corrections”? By the same idiots who made all those failed model predictions? 😀

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I’ve asked you before and you evaded the question: how would you correct for the known biases NOAA is correcting for?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The surface datasets, land and ocean, also all agree after bias corrections.[/quote]
            Please show your proof of this. Show me both before and after “adjustments”.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            They were published in Figure 2 of the now-famous Karl et al paper in Science magazine this summer. Go read it.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            You haven’t read the paper, have you?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Why would I? it is garbage. The station series run by the very same Karl refutes his busted pause buster.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            So you don’t understand how UAH and RSS correct for biases.

            You should learn — it’s interesting. And it will disabuse you of the notion that satellite data is in some way superior to surface data. It is not — their models are much more complicated.

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          To Pomme de brilliance :

          You explain how raw objective data is biased.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Time of observation bias, station move biases, change of thermometer bias, and more. Zeke Hausfather has explained this in detail with several posts on Judith Curry’s blog. Go read them.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You’re admitting the data used to support the alarmist argumentation cannot be measured.

            Well, are you going to admit that the argumentation is fundamentally unscientific ?

            Why not admit the entirety of the theorizing is in the realm of metaphysics and NOT science.

            You have just stated that obvious conclusion.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Of course they are measured. Then tehy are corrected for known biases. Happens in every science every day.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You’ve already admitted otherwise and you don’t know it.
            So much for your IQ, kid.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            to BS!
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/zeke-still-hiding-behind-tobs/
            [quote]Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is the first refuge of climate scoundrels. It is normally described by alarmists as “they used to take temperatures in the afternoon, but now they take them in the morning.”

            This explanation is complete nonsense. Min/Max thermometers record the lowest minimum and highest maximum since the last time they were reset. The actual claim is that people used to be incredibly stupid and reset their thermometer only once per day near the afternoon maximum, causing double counting of warm temperatures on cold days which fell after warm days.

            Even using NCDC fake data, this claim doesn’t hold up. NCDC TOBS adjusted temperatures show no US warming over the past 25 years. All of the reported US warming over the past 25 years is due to infilling fake data. NCDC TOBS adjusted temperatures show no warming since 1990.
            [/quote]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Steve Goddard?? You’re citing Steve Goddard???

            Steve Goddard is wrong. He’s been wrong on so many things. He’s devolved into nothing but insults because he’s so angry that everyone knows he’s wrong.

            You’ll have to do better than a guy who can’t even be honest about his real name.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Where is he wrong? You cite sources who are completely laughable and completely fraudulent.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Go read deSmogblog’s entry on “Steve Goddard” (fake name). He’s been wrong many times. Most people now write him off as a joke.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            deSmogblog’s 😀 Run by a convicted internet fraudster? Why are all of your goto sources liars and frauds David? 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Lefevre first garnered public attention in 1999, when he co-founded NETeller (now known as Neovia), an online money transfer facility. Though a publicly traded UK company, the firm’s involvement in transactions serving the then-fledgling online gambling sector led to U.S. charges of possible money laundering against the company and his arrest in January 2007.[4] Lefebvre plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to conduct illegal Internet gambling transactions and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and testify if necessary. The court ordered him to repay $185 million.

            Yep super “credible” source there Davy Boy. 😀 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/15/desmog-blog-headed-back-to-obscurity/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It actually proves nothing of the sort. The story shows Tony used likely the worst of two data sets. And did make errors which he admitted to.

            You never read it to the end did you? You know the part where he corrected himself? It shows he can admit when he is wrong and learn from it.
            [quote]Steven Goddard writes: “Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy.[/quote]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Lefevre’s “error” show’s he is not very honest. 😀
            One can only wonder why you think he has any credibility.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Pure Projection from the Guy who everyone writes off as a joke! 😀
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/david_appell1.jpg[/img]

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=david+appel

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=david+appel
            [quote]Normally, I ignore David Appell who runs a blog called Quark Soup where he spends a good portion of his time hyperbloviating about things that make him upset. A lot of the time, that’s me and the readers of WUWT. I long ago decided he’s just not worth anyone’s serious consideration. The numbers he gets on his blog demonstrate that he just isn’t an effective communicator, which is sad, because his chosen profession is as a science writer. He lists several science magazine publications on his website. My policy to mostly ignore him changed recently with one over the top headline.[/quote]
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/24/david-appell-denies-he-has-any-class/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Citing your self? Might be one way to increase traffic at your pathetic site, but no thanks i’ll pass.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            You’re afraid of a simple list of papers?

            No wonder you are so uninformed. Keep hiding, or you might learn something.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            More projection. All of the hockey sticks have been invalidated by recorded history and the archeological record. Specially Mann’s.

            The Hockey Stick has zero statistical skill. Sorry.
            [quote] The NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. [/quote]

            While we are on the subject of papers.

            “Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record. The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.”

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You cite hockey stick nonsense as science !
            You’re more demented than even I thought .

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Yesterday I made it clear you are know no science, and are afraid of it.

            So you don’t get an opinion on the hockey stick. Sorry bud.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Notice how quickly you, as a denier, head for ad hominem attacks, because you are unable to compete on the science.

  • Avatar

    Peter_PNW

    |

    I believe the link below is the source data for the “warming pause” meme.

    Note that often cited data excludes a portion of the polar latitudes.

    [url]http://www.remss.com/research/climate[/url]

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Meme? “The Satellites show that global temperatures have been falling for almost two decades, but this doesn’t suit NASA’s agenda – so they generate fake temperature data to create the appearance of warming.”
      [img]http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:12/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/mean:12/offset:-0.297/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1997/mean:12/offset:-0.297[/img]
      The divergence between observations and “adjustments is spectacular, but particularly interesting is level of fraud going on during the current El Nino.
      [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ScreenHunter_10438-Sep.-16-04.21.gif[/img]

      Reply

      • Avatar

        glen

        |

        What is NASA’s agenda? I do not understand what is the purpose/agenda for producing ‘fake’ data?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Left wing academics love socialism, they see “climate change” as a way to impose this on the world. It’s what Mann called the “Cause” in the Climate Gate emails.

          The well over 1 Trillion Dollars a year pounded into grants globally does not hurt either.

          Every bit of the so called evidence alarmists cite is based upon invalid and failed models and “adjusted” data.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Exactly, just like PPM as expressed in parts per million in chemistry of mgl in metric, But I like to refer to it as power, prestige and money. Power is control, prestige is their accolades and pats on the back and awards they congratulate each other with, and money well that speaks for its self as everyone needs it to live today.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Now follow the money, and who has the power to hand out that money, and the prestige they can gain to earn that.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            How will solving climate change bring about socialism? You will still plug your toaster into the same outlet….

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Well how many memes was it then by your warmest to explain away that one meme? 50 err something? WOW that is an awfully lot of explaining just for one so called meme now isn’t it? 😆

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      And what was it they finally did??? Oh yeah, they re-adjusted the data and claimed the pause didn’t exhist, to keep up their meme, like it never happened and all their excuses never happened. White wash it and say all is good, more grant money please! 😀

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Peter_PNW

        |

        http://www.remss.com/research/climate

        “Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).”

        Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          This link you posted is based upon See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012. LOL…

          [quote]Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.[/quote] The same models that have zero predictive skill?
          [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]
          What warming? [quote]Many papers indeed have claimed to find a human “fingerprint”, but upon close examination the evidence is simply consistent with human caused warming — while conveniently neglecting to point out that the evidence would also be consistent with naturally caused warming. This disingenuous sleight-of-hand is just one more example of why the public is increasingly distrustful of the climate scientists they support with their tax dollars.[/quote] Almost 8.5 million polled and “Action on climate change” ranked dead last? http://data.myworld2015.org/

          In 2011 Santer said a 17 year lack of warming would be needed to invalidate the models.
          [quote]So with Dr. Ben Santer now solidly defining 17 years as the minimum to determine a climate signal, what happens to the argument when we reach 2013-2014 and there’s still no statistically significant upwards trend?[/quote] It has been almost 20 years, so according to Santer, it has already been invalidated. Expect goal posts to move again?

          [quote]’212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979′ ‘Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming’
          [/quote]

          Santer has zero credibility because he has demonstrated zero predictive skill with his “models”. “Adjusting” data to fit invalidated model results proves nothing, but might come up again in those RICO trials.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            The site that I pointed to is the repository of data supporting the “hiatus” meme. (Which is the very data set a family member of mine uses in her junior high class to teach the false nature of anthropogenic climate change).

            Meanwhile, in the West, and the East…
            … oh yes, I completely understand that all “mega” events fall comfortably within the normal distribution of the Holocene. But do your statistics on the odds of such events falling within a very very tiny period in which they were predicted.

            “… time makes more converts than reason.”

          • Avatar

            prestigio

            |

            why do you say
            climate change
            instead of
            global warming

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Because what we’re dealing with here is the end of the Holocene Stability.

            We obviously don’t have the capability to accurately model this planet’s fluid dynamics, nor does humanity have recorded, in ANY written form, a record of this planet’s behaviors outside of the Holocene Stability.

            We do have oral traditions, and we have geologic records, which clearly show us this planet normally enjoys vast changes in temperature. To even approach the idea that we understand this system is the depth of hubris.

            So, once we tip it out of the Holocene Stability, we are 99.4% ignorant of what will happen.

            I judge that the practice of agriculture (a capability and emerged within the Holocene Stability) will be highly degraded once we exist our lovely little bubble.

            And, for some of us, its allows been climate change rather than the more pop global warming. And its always been measured in centuries.

          • Avatar

            prestigio

            |

            are you saying
            human carbon energy use
            will bring about a
            new geological epoch

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I’m saying it is unknown what effect introducing geologically scaled quantities of CO2 into the biosphere will have on a dynamic planetary system of fluids. We do not know where the thresholds are. A small effect compounded over many iterations will have effects unlike single iterations.

            And I’m saying that “not knowing” is no escape from the risks to the stability we depend on in the practice of agriculture.

            The risks are immense.
            The alternatives are all around us.
            Its an easy judgment.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            We know, all you have to do is look at what a half a doubling of Co2 has done.

            “Holocene century-on-century changes have a standard deviation close to 1deg C, so if there is a signal due to carbon dioxide, it still has not emerged from the background noise.”
            http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

            It’s not at all “unknown”.
            [quote]
            philincalifornia

            May 17, 2015 at 9:52 pm

            Yep undetectable after a half doubling of the effect of CO2 above 280 ppm. What’s 2X undetectable again, so we can get our bearings on a full doubling ?

            Any other climate parameters where the effect is above the square root of F-all ??
            [/quote]
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/17/new-paper-how-much-of-the-global-temperature-change-is-natural/

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            We agree, nothing yet emerged is anything like the magnitudes outside of the Holocene

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Any other climate parameters where the effect is above the square root of F-all ??

          • Avatar

            Glenford

            |

            Please don’t include me and most of the rational people in “we are 99.4% ignorant of what wil happen. You are 99’4% ignorant because you refuse to believe the evidence. Ignorance is not only not knowing, it’s also what you WON’T know. I know the ocean will become more acidic. Since the start of the industrial revolution the ph has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. It has been 8.2 for 10’s of millions of years. There will be no more coral reefs as they are dissolving now, shellfish shells are thinning, young shellfish are having problems forming shells. I n the future there will be no shellfish. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/ I know walrus will continue to beach on land because there are no iceflows for them to beach on in the Bering Sea. I know all low lying shoreline will be flooded causing millions of people to be displaced costing multibillions of dollars in property loss…it’s starting now, I know we will be growing more grain crops further north as the temp goes up, it’s starting now. Good thing because the bread basket will heat up and dry up and yields will drop off to nothing. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/climate-change-notleys-unexpected-ally-in-growth/article24363383/ I/we know Greenland ice is melting where it is in contact with the ocean. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/28/why-nasas-so-worried-that-greenlands-melting-could-speed-up/ We/I know glaciers are retreating, check out Mt. Kilimanjaro. I’ve noticed decreased snow cover in my backyard, you say it’s natural and the climate is cyclic, I disagree we should be entering a mini iceage, due to the sun’s inactivity, but we are not. We/i know 2015 to date is the hottest year on record, another thing you won’t believe. Biologists and botanists are seeing changes in animals and plants due to warming…I could go on but you know all the evidence of warming that you won’t believe.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I’m astounded that everything you know can be summarized so concisely.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/not-enough-co2-to-make-oceans-acidic-a-note-from-professor-plimer/

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/07/study-co2-acidification-does-not-harm-coral/

            No ice flows?
            http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

            [quote] all low lying shoreline will be flooded causing millions of people to be displaced costing multibillions of dollars in property loss…it’s starting now,[/quote]

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/miami-beach-to-drown-in-only-840-years/

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/sea-level-was-higher-during-the-medieval-warm-period/
            [quote] I know we will be growing more grain crops further north as the temp goes up, it’s starting now. Good thing because the bread basket will heat up and dry up and yields will drop off to nothing. [/quote]

            http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

            Bread Basket yields dropping off?
            http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/co2-is-greening-the-planet-african-savannahs-getting-a-makeover-to-forests/

            [quote]Greenland ice is melting where it is in contact with the ocean. [/quote] Really? Who knew?
            http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

            http://www.livescience.com/1600-global-warming-kilimanjaro-meltdown.html

            [quote]We/i know 2015 to date is the hottest year on record, another thing you won’t believe.[/quote] We? Not so much.
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/01/is-there-evidence-of-frantic-researchers-adjusting-unsuitable-data-now-includes-july-data/

          • Avatar

            Glenford

            |

            You can;t use Steven Goddard as an authority, he’s an idiot and has no idea what he’s talking about. You need to quote credible sources. Greenland ice melt https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064236/full WUWT you should read the whole paper…”A worrying implication is that the grasslands and open savannas of Africa, areas with unique floras and faunas, are set to be replaced by closed savannas or forests. Hence it appears that atmospheric change represents a major threat to systems that are already threatened by over-grazing, plantation forestry and crop production.” I’ll give you Mt. Kilimanjaro https://www.skepticalscience.com/mount-kilimanjaro-snow.htm Ocean acidification is happen it’s ph 8.1 down from millions of years at 8.2 http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F more https://skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm You’ll uderstand this “The world’s oceans are absorbing more carbon dioxide, as shown by the three sets of measurements in this graph. More carbon dioxide means more acidity (lower pH). Source: EPA’s Climate Change Indicators (2010).” From students guide to Climate Change http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/acidity.html 68% of Republicans now believe that the climate is changing…you are losing the battle.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yeah Glee, because SKS or is it SS is such an “athority and credible source”. Really? That is priceless! 😀

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote] I know the ocean will become more acidic[/quote]

            [quote] I know all low lying shoreline will be flooded causing millions of people to be displaced costing multibillions of dollars in property loss[/quote]

            [quote]We/i know 2015 to date is the hottest year on record[/quote]

            [i]”The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”[/i] – Ronald Reagan

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Glenford: In the debate we witness here, we will generally see that all the phenomena you describe are relegated to the result of ‘natural variation’, or are countered by similar but opposite conditions, or are negated by ‘bad data’. Which I find to be interesting and often factual but narrowly refined to a particular POV, a position that seems to be that there is nothing to worry about, or at least nothing to be done, because nothing Homo Colossus does could in any way substantially change the lovey calm of the Holocene (which includes all the phenomena generally described here on either side of the debate).

            My use of “99.4%” is intended to convey the fact that humanity has (nearly) no knowledge of the actual nature of what the magnitudes of normal are, one we leave the Holocene Stability.

            I do find it compelling that the practice of agricultural only emerged once the range of temperature variation constrained to the degree that the practice would result in a net improvement in survival over a long period of time. The power of Stonehenge and similar contemporary observatories is not that of a transcendent mystery – it is an agricultural calculator that, on average, resulted in good crops then the seed is sown with the sun reaches just-that-point. If the seasons are just a little chaotic and unpredictable (and we have NO IDEA what that range of variation is), agriculture becomes very hard to do – something Growers are observing even today (but I’m sure there’s a clever rebuttal to that evidence…). Personally, I got out of the business of agriculture 10 years ago. But I do appreciate my cereal every morning.

  • Avatar

    prestigio

    |

    once data s adjusted
    it is no longer
    validly
    called data

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    I find it astonishing and even laughable that no one wants to think about and acknowledge the obvious

    FACT

    that we are still in the so-called
    Last Ice Age.

    If more people would acknowledge that and try to move forward,
    we probably wouldn’t be talking about the

    STUPIDITY

    of Climate Change
    Global Warming
    or the spectacular idiocy of a

    GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Everyone knows this.

      And it’s the climate we’ve adapted to, that civilization was built upon.

      So we change it at our peril.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Everybody knows this in spite of no proof ?
        You don’t even realize you’re making a religious appeal and ignoring science.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          No proof? Study some science, buddy. Climate change is one of the largest stressors a species can extinct. Especially one as rapid as ours.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            That’s right,

            NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

            And given your various comments,
            I don’t expect you to understand.

            Have you considered stopping smoking dope ?

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        How exactly are we gonna change it?
        [quote]philincalifornia

        May 17, 2015 at 9:52 pm

        Yep undetectable after a half doubling of the effect of CO2 above 280 ppm. What’s 2X undetectable again, so we can get our bearings on a full doubling ?

        Any other climate parameters where the effect is above the square root of F-all ?? [/quote]

        ‘212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979’ ‘Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming’

        The CAGW Model based hypothesis is invalid.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          About 2% of the trapped heat goes into the atmosphere, where it is subject to significant natural variation.

          About 93% goes into the ocean, and it is gaining heat at a prodigious rate.

          Explain.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            We’re still in the so-called

            LAST ICE AGE

            Address that if you can.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            The greenhouse effect is there even during the recent ice ages.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Oh really,
            You , of course would have scientific method proof of this even though no one else has.

            Present the proof and forget about
            stupid ass appeals to authority.

            There is no scientific method proof ever uttered or published that there is such a thing as your stupid ass greenhouse effect.

            AND THAT IS TRUTH

            I do not expect you will accept because of your idiot religious fervency otherwise.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I have already showed you the data showing there is a greenhouse effect.

            I fully realize you want/need to ignore it, but that doens’t work with me. You’ll need to explain your claim there is no GHE in light of that data.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Keep talking, kid.
            You don’t understand what you’ve said.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            The longer you avoid dealing with the data I showed, the weaker your case gets.

            Actually you have no case. Keep dancing. Faster.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You’re beginning to sound and smell like

            anrezjewski

            but so what.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]About 93% goes into the ocean, and it is gaining heat at a prodigious rate.[/quote] The entire Atlantic is cooling and you claim it’s warming at “prodigious” rate?

            Which failed model are you basing this clap trap on?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            The Atlantic ocean is not cooling — this article only focuses on SST.

            In fact, the top 2000 meters of the Atlantic ocean have gained 13 zettajoules of heat in the last 5 years. The global ocean has gained 46 ZJ. Prodigious amounts.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Is your source that refuted Pause Buster by Karl et al?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Clearly, you can’t cite any science. Shame.

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Are you really saying the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        THAT’S RIGHT

        As claimed by the alarmist crowd,

        THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROOF OF A
        GREENHOSE EFFECT.

        I’ll even give you a free one .
        There never will be any proof because
        Thermal Infrared Spectroscopy
        conclusively proves there is no such thing
        only with possible exception of water vapor.

        Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You are an absolute fervent devotee and liar.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I understand the science. You clearly do not.

            Really, you are too foolish to even converse with. Goodbye.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Glad you think so. kid.
            I’ve proven my point.
            You can wallow in your ignorance.
            I invite all observers of this blog to come to their own conclusions.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            If there is no greenhouse effect, explain the measured data in the graph I linked to above.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I have no duty to correct your ignorance of science and obvious lack of knowledge of the scientific method.
            You clearly understand none of that. I have no duty to educate or spoon-feed you.
            You find out for yourself as I did.
            If you can !

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            That data is direct evidence for the greenhouse effect. So you’ll have to refute if it you think there is no greenhouse effect…. I don’t think you can.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            BTW

            Have you ever looked up anything yourself except other alarmists obvious and admitted biased opinions ?

            Have you ever objectively collected data yourself instead of relying on admitted biased and adjusted data to come to conclusions or even accepting the conclusions without review of the determinative process ?

            Kid, you pretend to be an intellectual,

            WHEN YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT !

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            You aren’t addressing the data I posted.

            Again, in light of it, show that there is no greenhouse effect.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I already have.
            You don’t know it.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            No, you certainly haven’t. Don’t bail out now — it’s just getting to the good part. Explain the measured data I linked to.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Nobody gives a Schmidt!

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            You can’t accept data you find inconvenient. I get that — I see it from deniers all the time.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I don’t find your commentary to be inconvenient,
            I find it to be
            IDIOTIC.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I think nothing of your opinion, because you don’t know any science.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Roy Spencer is a creationist, not a scientist.

  • Avatar

    David Appell

    |

    You missed the time when Tony Williard lied about me.

    Lying is how Tony Williard does as a matter of course.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    The same old, the same old

    Andrzejewski under a new appell(ation)
    visits us again with the same lies and failed models and proven lie data.
    And of course takes the position as if once again if not immediately proven wrong, his position must be accepted as bible level truth.
    Read over everything that he has said and compare it to the ravings of the so-called “Drewski”.
    They are one and the same. We’ve been through this before.
    They are proven liars and charlatans.
    I rest my case and hope that you’ll look up the prior cross arguments and come to your own conclusions as I have.

    Reply

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        Why does this site have such a crappy commenting interface? It’s about the worst I’ve ever seen….

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          I’ve called you out and all you can say is you don’t like it.
          I’ve proven my case and all you can is the same.
          I’ve exposed you as a phony….ditto.
          You think you can win by repetitive verbiage.
          You think you can win having the last post——————–maybe you’re andy skolnick———–but I think you’re Drewski ( andrzejewski).

          What will be your next Appell(ation) after the current unadmitted embarrassment and hauling down ?

          I don’t expect you to understand.
          I certainly do not expect you to agree.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Why won’t you explain how the data I provided says there is, in your opinion, no greenhouse effect?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I am none of the people you fear. Unlike you, I don’t need to hide. I am http://www.davidappell.com

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I ask everybody out there to comment and say what they think of this ongoing cacophony and in whom they put their trust.
            I cannot , shall not and will not
            concede to the global alarmist liars who think they can win by volume of verbiage without

            ANY

            scientific proof.
            I refuse to believe hat these phonies can win purely on political manipulation and total abandonment of the scientific method.

            But of course in the USA,
            O’Bama exists in the white house
            and that means surrealism is possible
            in everyday life.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Why do you fear the data? You have to explain your hypothesis in light of the data. So far you have made every excuse for not doing so.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Andrezejewski baby

            It is not I who has proposed an hypothesis.

            It is you and the rest of the alarmists and clowns you like to quote who have and have done so without an iota of scientific proof.

            I have merely pointed out your side’s failure of logic and proof.

            You’ve got it A** BACKWARDS.

            It’s a very simple concept and based on the scientific method and logic.

            Because of that I fully expect that you will be able to understand.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            No one is “afraid” of the “data”, please show us the unaltered and raw data. The scientific method demands it shown, as well as all the “adjustments” which need to be documented and open so others can independently check it.

            The problem is with the “artifacts” you are mistakenly calling “data”.
            [quote] Artifact (error), misleading or confusing alteration in data or observation, commonly in experimental science, resulting from flaws in technique or equipment. [/quote]
            It is misleading and confusing when all data and adjustments are withheld or hidden. The number of times alarmists have refused FIOA requests completely discredits them. They simply no longer have any credibility.

            As for explaining failed hypothesis, please explain why every one of the IPCC’s models have been invalidated by observations, yet you still promote the failed CAGW hypothesis.

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Can you explain why, if there is no greenhouse effect, an average of 390 watts per sq meter is observed leaving the Earth’s surface as radiation, but only 265 W/m2 is observed leaving out the top of the atmosphere?

      Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.