What appeared to be a startling development in the important topic of global warming started with Dr James Renwick on Sunday 17 March, 2013, in an interview aired on TV1 at about 11:17 am. Susan Wood introduces it by describing the current severe drought.
TVNZ issued a press release a few hours later, stating: “Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought,” even though that was not a faithful reflection of the interview.
The NBR followed up the same day with an article in which they make an identical statement: “Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought,” which suggests that the NBR obtained the statement from TVNZ.
Rodney Hide picked up the story (which is how I discovered it) a week ago with an article in the NBR criticising Renwick for blaming global warming for the drought.
My initial post supported Rodney’s article in the NBR and I defended him when he was lambasted by Gareth Renowden.
It was a startling story, since reputable scientists say that you cannot blame this or that specific weather event on global warming. Although warming might increase the frequency or ferocity of an event, warming alone cannot create one. But the statement was corroborated by the very broadcaster which interviewed Renwick. They should know. So it appeared to be true.
This is just not so
Because the statement was outrageous, I was sceptical, but after reading the transcript and studying the video, I thought that taking that meaning from it was plausible and I wrote a post carefully explaining my reasoning.
There was a clamour of dissent until Andy suggested someone contact James Renwick. Good idea, I thought, and I emailed him.
Within half an hour, James politely confirmed that he never blamed the drought on global warming: “This is just not so.” It’s good to hear him say that, actually, but we must deal with the fallout.
So, I apologise to Dr Renwick for misquoting him so badly — that is, over a statement so disastrously incorrect. And I am asking TVNZ for an explanation.
Our public broadcaster has told a very naughty porky.
Views: 270
It’s great to see that Dr. Renwick does not agree that global warming had anything to do with this summer’s weather in the antipodes. One wonders what exactly Dr. Renwick might claim as an indicator in New Zealand of global warming.
Mike, drought effect on kiwifruit from Tony Hawkin, CEO of East Pack Ltd, NZ’s largest post-harvest operator (my employer):-
“To date the 2013 season has been completely different from other seasons so far – never has there been less fruit available to pack than Zespri wanted to ship and sell……..Never before have we seen the Kiwistart programme [precedes May/June Mainseason, growers get premium prices] being completely unrestrained and allowing packhouses to pack as much fruit as they can possibly find.”
“This year’s drought has resulted in fruit maturity being later than average and fruit sizes being a lot smaller than ideal. Our Edgecumbe and Opotiki sites have packed some of the smallest fruit that we have ever seen and throughout the whole kiwifruit industry Green fruit average size is the smallest ever recorded.”
“On the positive side the drought has produced some of the best tasting fruit that we have ever known – from our Asian customers’ perspective this is particularly important as for them taste is even more important than fruit size”
# # #
Cherries?
BTW re sweetness, it is amazing to watch the Asians: mostly Malays, Chinese, some Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and Phillipino (but most of our overseas workers are Vanuatuans – sweet-tooths too), ladling half a dozen spoonfuls of sugar into their teacups.
Hi Richard
Cherries were extra sweet this year, a good size, no splitting due to little rain and lots of sun. The crop was knocked back about 30% by very late frosts (7th Nov) which meant the remaining fruit was larger than normal. Plus, we irrigate them with trickle irrigation so dry conditions are not as much of a problem. I did note that the water table remained well above normal summer levels and our irrigation well supplied full irrigation throughout the season. From my experience, this summer in North Canterbury was not exceptionally dry by any stretch. We did not have nearly the number or strength of Norwesters which are the really drying winds. We did have plenty of sun though. In fact, I was ordered to install a small swimming pool, which is now dismantled for the winter.
Good result Mike, and up 10% on last season (if I’ve got that right).
Re: “The crop was knocked back about 30% by very late frosts (7th Nov)” and “little rain”
I recall this exchange in the ‘New Zealand’ thread:-
Richard C (NZ) says:
July 8, 2012 at 2:44 pm
So place your bets, when will the last frost be this year at Mike’s cherry orchard
Mike Jowsey says:
July 8, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Last year the last frost was on 3rd November. It was a very light one. Last year’s crop was about 60% of normal. Then we got the rain at Christmas which buggered everything!
# # #
I would have lost money on my frost bet.
>”The crop was knocked back about 30% by very late frosts (7th Nov) which meant the remaining fruit was larger than normal”
I recall too discussing frost mitigation a year ago. Does the larger fruit offset (to a degree) the cost and effort of frost protection (just going on Nov 2012)?
Man you guys are stubborn. What don’t you understand about the effect that the GW trend has on the shifting of probabilities for weather events such as droughts or floods?
Don’t you think you look silly riding this ‘Causation’ debate about ONE drought when really you should think about the outcome if we have a rise in the frequency and severity of these droughts to consider?
If you are a smoker and get lung cancer, does this prove that YOUR cancer was definitively caused by smoking? No. If however the lung cancer rate among 1 million heavy smokers is ten times the national average, would you resist to concur that smoking caused the vast majority of the extra cases?
People rebuild their houses after one flood and the insurance generally pays. But if the frequency of flooding goes up, eventually affected areas will have to be abandoned as no bank and no insurance man will want to pay for the folly of building there.
Even our current government (Bill English) admitted that he (the government) will not be able to offer prolonged assistance to farmers in the case of a rising frequency of droughts and told the farmers that they will have to change their practices to adapt. I agree.
You seem to want to wring some confirmation of your denial of the contribution of GW to drought out of talk about one specific drought. But this is misleading and on a statistical basis with a broader view than one summer, it will prove to be plain wrong.
The forecasts of increasing extremes in a warmer world have been made for a long time now and they are pretty uniformly held and confirmed by the science community.
The case of the moderation of weather patterns – especially the oscillation behavior of the northern hemisphere jetstream due to the warming and ice reduction in the Arctic is particularly well documented. The current wicket May weather in the US Midwest is a good recent example. The wickedness of the weather of late can with good support from leading scientists be attributed to our warming planet.
If you are still unsure, sit though Prof Francis’ talk here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETpm9JAdfcs
“You seem to want to wring some confirmation of your denial of the contribution of GW to drought out of talk about one specific drought.”
Who on earth are you talking to?
It’s pretty obvious RT. You can not conclusively say that a weather event was caused by AGW. You can however say that the probability of such an event occurring has increased/decreased because of AGW.
This is true. Renwick says that a one in 50 year event might become a one in 25 year event, so if we check back in 100 years we might have 4 data points, or maybe 2.
No argument with that. What are you on about?
We can say that the probability of an event may have increased or decreased because of AGW
In the UK, the met office predicted drier summers and wet warm winters. The exact opposite has happened over the last few years, but hey who cares, it’s all climate change.
Thanks for this post. I think this is the best interpretation of the events, namely that TVNZ are the culprit for misleading the public
I think any speculation on what James Renwick meant is moot in this case.
Yes, it’s moot. But it’s useful to have his firm statement on record that weather events are not caused by global warming. Everyone and his dog has been looking around at this warm record or that storm and saying that’s global warming, we’re all doomed. It will be handy to slap them with Renwick’s authoritative statement.
I haven’t seen the email, but you have to be careful not to turn a double negative into a positive
Do you mean “there’s no global warming, so it doesn’t cause weather events”?
No, I mean that the statements
“I did not claim that the recent drought was caused by global warming”
is not the same as
“the recent drought was not caused by global warming”
This appears to be getting somewhat Clintonesque
Oh, right.
James makes it crystal clear that he did not say, and it’s not true, that global warming caused the drought. Unless he’s being most audaciously devious, which I cannot believe. I’ll likely (95% confidence) release the email in due course.
No Andy. You guys look desperate to try to mislead the public into thinking that global warming is not causing droughts (or floods) for that matter. Its you guys here that are trying to spin this story so that perhaps some folks out there think: Oh well, its juts weather. Its nothing to do with climate change. That, would be a bad outcome and would be the propagation of a lie. You know that. Now back of the case and get real. Tell the public that they can expect more droughts and tell the farmers that they will need to adapt to the changing climate as there will be no tax payer bailouts trying to pay for unsustainable farming practices in changing climate. Bill English said so much himself.
For warming to influence weather, it must first exist. Do you agree? No warming, no influence. Show us warming over the last approx. 17 years! If the ocean’s warming without warming the atmosphere, how has that been affecting the weather?
Richard, the AGW forcing has gone on unabated. The rise of atmospheric temperatures will be undulating, due to well researched ocean circulation patterns, solar rhythms and so on. If you subtract the natural cyclical signal from the data, the steady rise of the trend is clear as a bell.
Here is a video showing you the temp record plus especially the last 16 years with subtracting the known natural variations from the data.
What do you see? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk
Has AGW stopped?
And again, this is just the air temp record. Remember that the vast majority of the heat content added to the Earth system is stored in the enormous heat capacity of the oceans.
>”Richard, the AGW forcing has gone on unabated.”
Cling to that Thomas, the forcing may be there but it is ineffectual in the face of far stronger forcings e.g. PDO (negative phase of which is actually the cause of the current standstill) and solar input which has been plummeting since 2011/12). Meanwhile the atmospheric temperature standstill is a documented fact:-
‘The Global Warming Standstill’
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf
Acknowledged by Hansen, Sato and Ruedy:-
‘Global Temperature Update Through 2012’
“Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade.”
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
>”Here is a video showing you the temp record plus especially the last 16 years with subtracting the known natural variations from the data. What do you see?”
Out of date data. Since the end of series 2010 El Nino, temperature anomalies are way back down near all dataset baselines i.e. nowhere near the trajectory of say Foster and Rahmstorf’s data torture exercise. Latest April UAH anomaly is +0.1 C in ENSO-neutral conditions. At the beginning of 2010 (El Nino) it was up around +0.58 C anomaly and made Foster and Rahmstorf look good. Now they look silly.
>”Has AGW stopped?”
Yes, at least for the last decade it has stopped completely. For up to 23 years (RSS) warming is statistically insignificant and not the 0.2 C/decade required of AGW.
>”Remember that the vast majority of the heat content added to the Earth system is stored in the enormous heat capacity of the oceans.”
Yes, solar-sourced energy with response varying between 6 – 100 years (Trenberth), most significant at about 12 – 14 years (Scafetta, Abdussamatov). OHC is consistent with that lagged response and long-term (400 years) TSI. Upper Pacific and Atlantic OHC cooling in the ARGO era:-
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png
If the upper Pacific hasn’t warmed since 2003 (in fact cooling) there’s no ocean warming and certainly no anthropogenic ocean warming. The IPCC has been trying to come up with an anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism for the last 25 years but by AR5 SOD it still has no empirical evidence or conclusive mechanism:-
‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?’
Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing
Interesting video, thanks. I was surprised to see so much warming over the last 16 years, so I looked at a few things. The GISTEMP LOTI dataset from 2001 to the present shows stasis and from 2002 considerable cooling. That’s 11.5 years of the 16 years that Cook is illustrating. Even the dTs dataset shows stasis from 2005, which means 7.5 years of warming gone. To verify this, go to Wood for Trees and use the interactive graph. Kindly explain why he shows warming that occurs over just 4 to 8 years as if spread over 16 years. It doesn’t make sense.
The presentation is hard to believe. I noticed the paper when it was published earlier this year and wondered at their ability to identify the forcings, given our poor understanding of the climate system — the IPCC can’t. In addition, there has been no warming for the last 16 years if the temperature has not been rising, no matter how many forcings you “remove.” To show it rising at the same rate since 1978 is simply ridiculous.
We haven’t even begun to consider the hugely controversial “removal” of the natural forcings. We just don’t know enough about the climate system to do that. I don’t think anybody else has tried it. I note that he doesn’t show us the size of the human forcing, yet his slick commentary strongly implies that their mathematics isolated it.
I remain unconvinced; your evidence has to be stronger.
One more thing: you mention “the vast majority of the heat content added to the Earth system is stored in the enormous heat capacity of the oceans.” Yes, that’s true. But your implication, that somehow the climate is influenced by telemetry from deep in the ocean without the air temperature rising, is nuts. I don’t accept that heat “stored” in the oceans has any climate forcing capacity until and unless it emerges to heat the air. Reasonable?
Richard T said: ” I don’t accept that heat “stored” in the oceans has any climate forcing capacity until and unless it emerges to heat the air. Reasonable?”
But of cause it is affecting things at the surface and it will emerge and affect the surface! Heat stored in the ocean system is accumulative. The only way to cool the oceans again would be, guess how? Through giving off heat to the atmosphere!
The atmospheric temperatures are greatly influenced by ocean temperatures. And deep ocean water will eventually well up again on the upward parts of the great ocean circulation currents. Energy as you know, is a conserved quantity and just because the oceans store the vast majority of the energy excess due to AGW, does not mean we will not see the effects.
Thomas:
The top layers of the ocean are expected to store the energy, not the bottom. But the top layers aren’t warming.
Please provide us with the links to the relevant portions of the IPCC reports that predict that the deep ocean will warm while the atmosphere and upper layers do not.
>”The only way to cool the oceans again would be, guess how? Through giving off heat to the atmosphere!”
Actually no. The ocean WAS giving off heat CONTINUALLY but NOT cooling up to the early 2000s, it was accumulating heat as you yourself state Thomas but gains were greater than losses. The only way to cool the oceans is to reduce the energy input so that losses are greater than gains. That occurred from about 1986 and the thermal lag took effect by early 2000s after which the upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling (Indian was still warming because it receives heat mainly from the Pacific by circulation and from the Atlantic to a much lessor degree, but the upper Indian stopped warming 4Q2010).
But the reduced energy input to the the ocean since 1986 has been a minimal reduction and therefore minimal OHC reduction, it is only since 2011/12 that the input reduction is becoming significant. The effect (of any significance) of the post 2011/12 energy input reduction wont show up in the atmosphere until about 6 years have elapsed (Trenberth).
This is now MSM stuff Thomas, even CO2-centric Steven Sherwood acknowledges this (Quoting Brisbane Times):-
University of NSW scientist Steven Sherwood – a lead author on the next IPCC report – said the Nature Geoscience study had found oceans were capturing heat more rapidly than expected over the past decade. [that’s highly contentious and the latest data doesn’t support it]
”By assuming that this behaviour will continue, they calculate that the climate will warm about 20 per cent more slowly than previously expected, although over the long term it may be just as bad, since eventually the ocean will stop taking up heat,” Professor Sherwood said.
But other research had pointed out the recent ocean heat storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, he said.
”So while their conclusions are interesting, they need to be taken with a large grain of salt until we see what happens to the oceans over the coming years,” he said
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/warming-to-take-longer-in-reaching-forecast-levels-20130519-2jukg.html#ixzz2TmcrXyh3
>”The atmospheric temperatures are greatly influenced by ocean temperatures. And deep ocean water will eventually well up again on the upward parts of the great ocean circulation currents. Energy as you know, is a conserved quantity and just because the oceans store the vast majority of the energy excess due to AGW, does not mean we will not see the effects.”
The accumulated energy is solar-sourced (not “due to AGW”). The accumulation will be released progressively as it always has been. It will not be released in one dollop so that we all swelter. And because losses will be greater than gains due to reduced energy input, the accumulation will turn to a de-accumulation (for want of a better term). That process is already underway starting back in the early 2000s.
TVNZ produce a piece that directly contracts the email statement of James Renwick, we point that out and are accused by you, Thomas, of propagating a lie.
How does that work, exactly?
Yes Andy. Spin makes a lie out of situations. I repeat: You are riding this because you hope that some passer-by spectators here might think that the last drought (and perhaps by inference droughts or weather extremes in general) have nothing to do with AGW. I am I not correct?
This is the fallacious story you are trying to spin.
This drought, its duration and severity has been made more likely due to AGW. This is a fact that is well supported by science. And this is the message that people need to hear. The rest is semantical shenanigans on your end and utterly irrelevant to the message and the management decisions that Farmers and others that will be effected by the changes in climate will have to take into account.
I am not trying to spin any story
The story that you are trying to spin is that it is perfectly fine for a public funded broadcaster to make stuff up.
i.e they say in their press release that “James Renwick told us that the drought was caused by global warming”. His email clearly states that he did not say this, and the transcript and the interview also clearly state this
You seem fine with this
>”This drought, its duration and severity has been made more likely due to AGW. This is a fact that is well supported by science”
And the “science” as applicable to “This drought” is (citation please)?
Or are you just making it up as you go along?
FYI, there’s a standstill in the NZ temperature series too (NIWA or NZCSET – take your pick but there’s no difference in the recent years). If NZ temperatures have remained static this century, albeit warm, why wasn’t there a drought of comparable “duration and severity” to “this drought” every year this century?
No Andy. You guys look desperate to try to mislead the public
No Thomas, TVNZ look desperate trying to mislead the public by making statements that are not supported by the science and contradicted by the person being interviewed
By the way, why don’t you pop over here and read about the new paper that find significantly lower climate sensitivity; a paper written by some of the big guns on the topic
Definitely incumbent on the National news and current events broadcaster to convey the facts but in this case they’ve failed.
I have to say though, being familiar with Renwick’s climate double-speak since he’s assumed Jim Salinger’s mantle, that I completely understand how Renwick was misinterpreted by them and by Corin Dann in particular.
Memo to Corin Dann:
If you are making a news item on the basis of your personal but incorrect premise, you are not reporting facts.
And if you are intent on presenting that premise during an interview with an “expert” to the extent that it prevents you from determining exactly what the expert is saying, then why did you need the expert at all except as a sounding board for yourself if all you are doing is imposing your own opinion on a topic rather than seeking expert-based assessment?
A caution: some “experts” are looking for every opportunity for public exposure of their particular slant on an issue and wont voluntarily correct your false assessment of it if it suits their purposes to have the public left with the false impression you’ve created. James Renwick is one of those.
Also Corin, be especially cautious of an expert whose narrative includes “Yeah, it is. Yeah, climate change, global warming” and “That’s the bottom line, yeah”.
I would agree that the dialogue on both sides was largely gibberish.
What happened to our language?
More news of the real, guys
– quick, put your blinders on…You are one thick kumara. – RThttp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-15/national/39272484_1_fishing-boats-glen-spain-boris-worm
Remind me again how migratory behavior of fish in Canada relate to the issue of TVNZ and their coverage of the north island drought?
I am sure there is a connection somewhere ….
Indeed, Andy, the connection is a phenomenon known as Anthropogenic Global Warming – perhaps you may have heard of it?
realityrulesok (Rob Taylor) has demonstrated for the last time a deep contempt for courteous behaviour and he has gone off somewhere. I don’t know where and I don’t care. He will not be returning.
Already been 2 posts on this at WUWT so no need to reach for the “blinders”. Second one:-
Washington Post Headline: “Worlds fish have been moving to cooler waters for decades, study finds”
Posted on May 16, 2013 by Bob Tisdale
“As usual, global warming enthusiasts in the press overlook some basic issues—like the sea surface temperatures for the Indian and Pacific Oceans from pole to pole haven’t warmed in 19+ years, and the Atlantic data show little warming for more than a decade. Further, the tropical Indian and Pacific sea surface temperatures haven’t warmed since 1986. It’s therefore difficult to make claims like “more evidence of a rapidly warming planet”, but that doesn’t stop proponents of hypothetical human-induced global warming.”
WHAT THE PRESS RELEASE AND THE WASHINGTON POST AREN’T BOTHERING TO TELL THE PUBLIC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/16/washington-post-headline-worlds-fish-have-been-moving-to-cooler-waters-for-decades-study-finds/
But keep trying Rob, as Tom Petty puts it – “even the losers get lucky sometimes”
So you accuse the scientists who reported on species migrations of fraud? Do you think they made their data up? Have you got any alternate data at hand showing that species have been staying put and habitats have not changed? Or are you again and again confusing natural variability of the climate data, i.e. short term fluctuations, as an indicator to trend changes?
So rather than echoing the WUWT, why don’t you bother to look at the data from leading ocean scientists fist: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Thomas:
They found that fish have moved. They assumed that the fish moved because of global warming. Two different things. As many have pointed out, the oceans haven’t warmed significantly for about 19 years. So if the fish are moving, could it be due to other factors? Changes in circulation patterns? Over-fishing in the tropics? These are valid questions to ask, in an era when absolutely everything is blamed on global warming.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
And even when all the dust has settled, global warming doesn’t necessarily imply anthropogenic global warming, does it? The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present, and the Roman Warm Period was warmer again. Before that the Minoan Warm Period was still warmer. All these Warm Periods occurred naturally, so until irrefutable proof is presented (it hasn’t yet) we must assume the null hypothesis and conclude that the current warming is natural too.
Thomas – even if the fish are migrating due to warming temperatures, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this warming is anthropogenic in origin. In order to claim that something is causing an effect, be it fish migrating, ice melting, etc, you must first establish that the ‘something’ exists.
CO2 can only raise the temp 1.2C maximum per doubling of total (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2 levels. Positive feedbacks are supposed to triple this initial warming effect, and the vast majority of these feedbacks is supposed to come from water vapour. The positive feedback from water vapour was supposed to be evident in a tropospheric hot spot that has not eventuated in over 40 yrs of looking from more than 30,000,000 weather balloons and 2 satellites.
Now, without the tropospheric hot spot what evidence do you have of positive feedback from water vapour? Without evidence of positive feedback from water vapour what evidence do you have of of AGW beyond the tiny 1.2C per doubling of CO2? Without evidence of AGW beyond a tiny 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2 levels, what evidence is there that the fish migrations, melting ice, or any other evidence of warming is attributable to man’s CO2 output?
If you want to blame warming on a cause then you must first establish that the cause exists. Without the tropospheric hot spot to prove positive feedback from water vapour you don’t have this evidence except for a trivial amount of warming attributable to CO2 alone. And before you go running over to skeptical science in search of the tropospheric hot spot, all the papers Cook puts up on SKS have been debunked (funny he doesn’t mention the papers debunking them). In addition, the temperature records reflect approximately what would be expected without feedback from water vapour, which is why the climate models have all failed so dismally.
See page 13:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
To give you an idea of how trivial CO2 is:
The level of CO2 was 398.35ppm in April, 2013, up 1.9 from 396.45ppm in April 2012. At the current rate of 1.9ppm a year it will take 210 years to double the CO2 levels to 796.7ppm giving us a maximum temperature rise of 1.2C. For it to rise an additional 1.2C it will need to double again to 1593.4ppm which at our current rate of 1.9ppm will take another 419 yrs. Please remember that the 1.2C attributable to a doubling of CO2 is the top end is well, it could well less and due to the fact 1.2C is an extreme it probably is.
To get anywhere near the predicted levels of around 3C predicted by the catastrophists, it is going to take 629 yrs, end even then it’s only 2.4C. To prove otherwise you need to prove positive feedback from water vapour, and to do that you’ll need the tropospheric hot spot – which doesn’t exist. All this talk of migrating fish is irrelevant waffle without first establishing the cause of the warming, and the empirical data shows that it’s not man except for a tiny amount.
Evidence of warming is not evidence of why it’s warming – where’s your evidence that man is responsible?
Nice summary, Magoo, thanks.
>”So rather than echoing the WUWT, why don’t you bother to look at the data from leading ocean scientists fist: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/”
We do, but in more detail than you do Thomas. You are essentially just looking at the Indian Ocean there Thomas (as were Balmaseda et al in their truncated study ending 2009). But if we do a basin-by-basin analysis (as we do but you don’t) of the same NODC data it is clear that the upper Pacific and Atlantic has been cooling since 2003:-
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png
Data source:-
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
Now even the upper Indian hasn’t warmed since 4Q2010.
This discussion is silly. Trolls such as Thomas and his fellow members of the Flat Earth Society, are clearly in need of a return to Primary School, and a massive re-education kick start. Andy, Rich C and Richard T – your tolerance is extraordinary.
Thomas et al should tune into
joannenova.com.au ,
read and learn. A sample:
”
Ocean temperatures – Is that warming statistically significant?
The oceans as measured by ARGO are warming, but that warming is not only far less than the models predicted, it is far less even than the instrument error.
Everyone agrees: 90% of the energy in the Earth’s climate system is stored in the oceans. Rocks and sand don’t transmit the heat down, except at incredibly slow rates. The wil-o’-the-wisp-atmosphere hardly holds any energy. But water covers 70% of the surface, to an average depth of 3,700m, and it can store septillions of joules.
Climate models say the Earth’s energy balance is out of whack, and therefore 90% of the extra energy trapped by increasing greenhouse gases is stored in the ocean. The oceans are warming (probably), but the extra energy found in the top 700m of the world’s oceans is not enough. The modelers argued the heat was hidden below, that from 700m-2,000m. Skeptics argue the missing energy was flung out to space. This is the big enchilada, and as far as measuring oceans goes, everything changed in 2003 when we finally got the ARGO system, and that’s why it’s worth a closer look now.
David points out that the errors might be seriously miscalculated. A single ARGO buoy (which measures ocean temperatures down to 2000m) has an uncertainty of about 0.1C. But using 3,000 buoys doesn’t make that uncertainty dramatically smaller when all that data is combined together. It would, if the 3,000 buoys were all measuring the same swimming pool. But each buoy measures a different piece of ocean, and the ocean does not have one global temperature. Or it would if all the world’s ocean localities warmed by the same increment due to global warming, in each time period. But that would be a very brave assumption, because different parts of the world’s oceans probably warm at different rates due to global warming. So the measurement uncertainty is closer to the instrument error of 0.1C than the 0.004C as claimed by fans of man-made global crisis, and since the oceans have only warmed by about 0.02C (if that) since we’ve been measuring it with ARGO, that tiny amount of warming might just be noise. Going back further, the pre-ARGO data is so bad that longer datasets have much larger uncertainties.
Overview of Measuring Ocean Temperatures….. ”
READ ON, THOMAS….
LOL! Thanks Flipper! Will print your post and past that on my office wall.Your comment should say more than implied sarcasm, Thomas, or it won’t survive. – RTWhy don’t we discuss theories of ocean warming on its own thread? It doesn’t see relevant to the topic of the post.
Just a suggestion…
>”Why don’t we discuss theories of ocean warming on its own thread?”
Merit in that I agree Andy, except that ocean heat is now the underlying thread of all of this like it or not. Even the most significant element of your Lewis CS comment in ‘Global Warming’ is ocean heat. OHC is front-and-centre now the atmosphere is a non-issue, every climate issue, including NZ drought and the porkies derived from it have an ocean heat element to them one way or another.
I think the problem will be resolved once RT takes the ocean heat issue to post level and keeps it fresh as Jo Nova does (see Flipper’s quote). I know by email that RT is considering this on Tuesday.
And yes there’s the ‘Ocean Heat Content’ ‘Open Threads’ but I’m about the only one that frequents them. The issue however is continually topical now and the likes of SkS have been banging on about it with their own spin at post level for some to now so ocean heat specific comments can be contained rather than spilling over into off-topic threads. It would be good though to use the ‘Open Threads’ more for discussion but posts are what provoke it eventually in comments unfortunately.
RT will be forced to take the initiative soon and I sense he will as he gets to grips with the details of it (there’s a lot of it to digest) as I see in some recent comments of his (also by personal communication). In doing so much of the OHC knowledge gap (e.g. Thomas’) will be bridged too so hopefully some of the ignorance will subside.