Global warming and causality.

So you say. Regardless, even if the graph is real it doesn't make an impoprtant point.
My "side" is the science.

 

No, because that's what the physics says.

Because temperature was still below the equilibrium level for that amount of solar activity. I've explained this obvious fact to you many times, and you always just refuse to know it.

Two wrongs don't make a right, sorry.

You mean to people who, like you, don't know any of the relevant physics?

 

And I've explained that if that was the case, the rate of coean warming would be slowing down. You always ignore that. You have to, because it debunks a sacred tenet of your religion.

This isn't a debate. The facts say your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong. Repeating the debunked theory a lot won't make it less wrong.

 

By using floats that dive down deep. Thousands of them, over the entire globe. Which have an accuracy of 0.003C.

"Well, we don't know everything, so we know nothing!" is kind of the opposite of the scientific method, and it's your method.

 

This paper was eventually retracted.
A major problem with the Resplandy et al. ocean heat uptake paper
Posted on November 6, 2018 by niclewis | 410 comments
by Nic Lewis Obviously doubtful claims about new research regarding ocean content reveal how unquestioning Nature, climate scientists and the MSM are.

Resplandy et al. Part 5: Final outcome
Posted on September 25, 2019 by niclewis | 152 comments
By Nic Lewis The editors of Nature have retracted the Resplandy et al. paper.

 

Not really.
Ocean Heat Content Surprises
Posted on January 14, 2019 by curryja | 271 comments
by Judith Curry There have several interesting papers on ocean heat content published in recent weeks, with some very important implications.

The Little Ice Age and 20th century deep Pacific cooling [link]

Gebbie and Huybers

From the paper’s Conclusions:

“More generally, OPT-0015 indicates that the upper 2000 m of the ocean has been gaining heat since the 1700s, but that one-fourth of this heat uptake was mined from the deeper ocean. This upper-lower distinction is most pronounced in the Pacific since 1750, where cooling below 2000 m offsets more than one-third of the heat gain above 2000 m.”

“The implications of the deep Pacific being in disequilibrium become more apparent when compared to a counterfactual scenario where the ocean is fully equilibrated with surface conditions in 1750 CE. That the deep Pacific gains heat in this scenario, referred to as EQ-1750, confirms that heat loss in OPT-0015 results from the cooling associated with entry into the Little Ice Age. Moreover, the EQ-1750 scenario leads to 85% greater global ocean heat uptake since 1750 because of excess warming below 700 m. It follows that historical model simulations are biased toward overestimating ocean heat uptake when initialized at equilibrium during the Little Ice Age, although additional biases are also likely to be present. Finally, we note that OPT-0015 indicates that ocean heat content was larger during the Medieval Warm Period than at present, not because surface temperature was greater, but because the deep ocean had a longer time to adjust to surface anomalies. Over multicentennial time scales, changes in upper and deep ocean heat content have similar ranges, underscoring how the deep ocean ultimately plays a leading role in the planetary heat budget.”

 

The research and the data say otherwise.
Ocean Heat Content Surprises
Posted on January 14, 2019 by curryja | 271 comments
by Judith Curry There have several interesting papers on ocean heat content published in recent weeks, with some very important implications.

Pacific Ocean heat content during the past 10,000 years [link]

Rosenthal, Linsley, Oppo

“Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.”


CERA-20C: A Coupled Reanalysis of the Twentieth Century [link]

Loyalaux et al.

“CERA-20C is a coupled reanalysis of the twentieth century which aims to reconstruct the past weather and climate of the Earth system including the atmosphere, ocean, land, ocean waves, and sea ice. This reanalysis is based on the CERA coupled atmosphere-ocean assimilation system developed at ECMWF. CERA-20C provides a 10 member ensemble of reanalyses to account for errors in the observational record as well as model error. It benefited from the prior experience of the retrospective atmospheric analysis ERA-20C.”

5.2. Ocean Heat Content

“In CERA-20C, time series of heat content show discontinuities between streams resulting from the model drift from its initial state (Figure 10). The model drift reflects the fact that the initial conditions from ERA-20C and ORA-20C used to initialize the different production streams are inconsistent with the coupled model’s natural state. The origin of the drift remains unknown so far. The complexity of the system makes it very difficult to point toward a single explanation and this question remains open to further investigations. In the early twentieth century, when the uncertainty in the state of the ocean is high and the ocean model is poorly constrained by observations, the ocean component of CERA-20C drifts toward its preferred state. As the observing system grows, the uncertainty and the drift are reduced. The relatively well-observed upper ocean adjusts faster than the ocean interior, where the timescales of ocean processes are particularly slow and the observational constraints are very small. Further work is needed to understand and reduce the model drift so that the initial conditions and the ocean model behavior are more realistic in poorly observed periods and areas.”



Figure 10. Time series of the global average ocean heat content in the CERA-20C ensemble for the (top left) upper 300 m, (top right) the upper 700 m, and (bottom left) the entire water column. The solid lines are the ensemble mean and the shading shows the ensemble standard deviation.

This figure shows that the ocean heat content for the upper 300 m reached values during the period 1935–1955 that exceed any value reached during the period 2000–2010.

 

Thousands in the global ocean system. Come’on man. If the number of floats is 3000 that would be one float for every 100,000 cubic miles.

It is exactly the scientific method. A hypothesis is suggested, it is demonstrated, and if any instance of the hypothesis is not true the hypothesis is rejected. The hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the current global warming period has never been scientifically demonstrated or proven.

 

Which it has, as I have explained, and which, unlike your claims, has been proved, repeat, PROVED by the facts of objective physical reality: the halt and reversal in arctic sea ice contraction since 2012. It doesn't matter how loudly or hysterically or often lying sacks of $#!+ like Al Gore claim the oceans are "boiling" when the amount of ice floating on them continues to increase. That ice is a stubborn fact of objective physical reality that just flat-out disproves CO2-centered climate theory.

No, I ignore it because it's a bogus claim that has been proved false by actual physical events.

Ain't that the truth...

No, that is false, which is why you cannot identify any such facts that can be independently verified. You are completely reliant on politically controlled temperature data sets that have repeatedly been proved to have been dishonestly manipulated to conform to proved-false CO2-centered climate theory.

Repeating your conclusively debunked claims of fact a lot won't make CO2-centered climate theory less wrong.

 

Indeed, it has been conclusively falsified.

 

But then throw all that technical virtuosity away by falsely and absurdly assuming that the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years was accompanied by the "normal" ocean temperature...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

No, that's just another absurd falsehood from you. More accurately, your side's "method" is, "We don't know very much about climate; but we know that it is controlled by CO2, so the only thing we have to think about is how."

 

Utter falsehood as the equipment is not that accurate thus you made it up.

 

The well paid climate alarmists rationale is that they have “accounted for” everything else so the only thing left is human CO2 emissions.

Additionally they use the logical fallacy of assuming that since every other warming trend resulted in increased CO2 that increasing CO2 will result in warming. That thought process is the same as noting that more people wear shorts and tee shirts when the temperature increases and then claiming that if more people where shorts and tee shirts the temperature increases.

 

Yeah, "climate change" is just the latest version of the old "windshield wipers cause rain" fallacy.

But not as funny.

 

Climate change is the natural degradation of the politically opportunistic maxim of ‘never waste a crisis’ into ‘always create a crisis’.

 

I'm sorry. I misremembered. It's actually 0.002C.
https://argo.ucsd.edu/faq/
---
The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002°C
---

When will you all learn that I can _always _back up what I say?

 

I don't think anyone here understood that.

It was an accurate description of your antiscience religious mania. You were claiming that having less-than-perfect knowledge means we can't draw any conclusions about climate. However, since you don't apply that standard to anything except climate science, you're clearly not being honest about holding such a standard, so your claims can be ignored.

No, the science says we know a whole lot about climate, and what we know points to human-made greenhouse gases as being the cause of the current warming.

The simplest theory that explains all of the observed data will be the accepted theory. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data, so it is the accepted theory.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to come up with a theory that explains the data better than AGW theory. Simply complaining how the current theory goes against your politics will not overturn science. As your theory is contradicted by the observed data, you'll need to discard it and come up with something new. Good luck.

 

Even with the bad math, the claim is still bunk. That's more than enough points. Argument from incredulity isn't an argument.

Sure it has. Predictions have been made, those predictions have come true, so the theory is confirmed. That's how the scientific method works. Anyone who says repeatable lab work is required doesn't understand the scientific method.

All of the corrupting bribe money flows to your side, thus all of the sleaze, fraud and garbage pseudoscience comes from your side. In contrast, the ethical scientists refuse your bribe money. Any of them could double their salary if they'd just lie for the deniers, but they don't. They take a pay cut to tell the truth, giving them even more credibility.

No. No one has ever used that argument. Where did you come up with such lunacy? Did some propagandist feed it to you, or did you make it up yourself?

If you didn't just fake that story, I'm sure you can show where someone used the argument. Please proceed. (This should be funny, watching how you choose to run.)

 

So you don't understand statistical noise, and you claim that proves your case? Wow.

Oh, Gore Rule Invoked. Anyone bringing up Gore forfeits the argument for their side. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they rave about politicians.

The physical events say that your sun theory is garbage in multiple ways.

Here's one I hadn't mentioned before. Up until the 1970s, temperature followed solar output closely.

Oops. That destroys your "Climate is heating up from long term solar increases" theory, because the climate clearly _wasn't_ heating up from long term solar increases prior to the 1970s.

Can you tell us why your theory didn't apply before the 1970s? What magic happened then that made the climate change the way it behaves?

 

And then what happened after 2010?

It kept warming. And warming. And warming.

Oops.

 

It is the only possible assumption behind CO2-centered climate "science."

No, it was absurd garbage unrelated to anything I have said.

No I wasn't.

That is just another fabrication unrelated to anything I said.

That claim is false, and has been conclusively falsified by actual physical events.

No, AGW theory is directly contradicted by the observed data, which is why those data have had to be altered to conform to the theory.

And I have: it's the sun.

That's your policy, not mine. Most people here consider me to be on the left.

As your theory is contradicted by the observed data, you'll need to discard it and come up with something new. Good luck.

 

One point defines the temperature in 100,000 cubic miles?

The theory has never been confirmed using the scientific method.

Michael Mann has taken a pay cut? Tell us more please.

The theory is not that human CO2 emissions are causing the current warming trend?

 

But in fact, it didn't.

Ooops.

 

The paper's conclusion is the paper's conclusion. You have no point.
And there has not been unusual warming post-2010 anyway.

Global Sea Surface Temperature Records Suggest Only Modest Warming In The 20th And 21st Centuries

By Kenneth Richard on 9. May 2022

Global sea surface temperatures have only been warming at a rate of about 0.06°C per decade since 1950. According to Dieng et al., 2017, global sea surface temperatures (SST) cooled slightly (-0.006°C/decade) from 2003 to 2013. This reduced the overall 1950-2014 warming rate to 0.059°C per decade. Image Source: Dieng et al., 2017 The NCAR/HadCRUT4 […]

 

Mamooth made a hilarious statement showing clear ignorance of what constitutes a viable sample,

Which was a reply to AFM:

AFM correctly shows that the sample size for the size of the ocean is LOW thus the data isn't comprehensive.

Willis went into this in some detail showing how uneven and how poorly the oceans are sampled by the ARGO Floats while the technology is good the sampling size is low.

Where in the World is Argo?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

February 6, 2012

Excerpt:

The Argo floats are technical marvels. They float around below the surface of the ocean, about a kilometre down, for nine days. On the tenth day, they rise slowly to the surface, sampling the pressure, temperature, and salinity as they go. When they reach the surface, they radio home like ET, transmit the data from the instrumental profiles, and they drop back down into the eternal darkness for another nine days. The first Argo floats were put into the ocean in the year 2000. In 2007, the goal of 3,000 floats was achieved.

In “Krige the Argo Probe Data, Mr. Spock“, I discussed some issues with the Argo floats. Then in “Decimals of Precision” I discussed and strongly questioned the outrageous error claims made by the Argo researchers. They say that we can detect a temperature change with an error of 0.004°C per year in the top 1,800 metres of the ocean. I say no way, not yet.

In a comment on that thread, I posted a graphic showing the current distribution of the Argo floats, shown below as Figure 1.

LINK

========

He shows that large areas of the oceans are barely sampled, and other areas never gets sampled and so on.