Current Solar Cycle Weakest In 2 Centuries! And Grant Foster’s “Far-Fetched” Model Claims

The Sun in November 2016.  And models coming back to reality

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)The star at the center of our solar system last month again approached bottom with its solar activity. The monthly mean for sunspot number (SSN) was 21.4. Just how low this is, is clearly illustrated by comparing it to other solar cycles. SSN in November was only 36% of the mean of the previous 23 cycles 96 months into the cycle. The data are plotted in the following chart:

Figure 1: The monthly SSN of solar cycle (SC) 24 (red) since December 2008 compared to the mean of the previous 23 observed solar cycles (blue) and the similar SC 5 (black).

Over the past 8 years of the current cycle, activity has been only 56% of the mean. The following chart shows all 24 solar cycles — 8 years into the respective cycle:

Figure 2: The activity of the previous 24 systematically observed cycles since 1755 is compared. The numbers result from the summed accumulated monthly anomalies from the mean value (blue curve in Figure 1) — 96 months into the cycle.

SC24 activity up to the current month is dropping rapidly. There are many indications of a protracted end of the cycle with few sunspots.

In January 2017 we will assess the sun’s polar fields. The suspense is building because what we suspect with respect to the next cycle is becoming more and more solid as we get closer and closer to the sunspot minimum. A quick look at the new data all points to another weak cycle ahead.

=====================================

And it is widely accepted that weak cycles are associated with cooling climate conditions. Little wonder an increasing number of scientists are retreating from runaway warming predictions.

Sexed up climate models

And as the evidence of much slower warming grows, climate modelers have been scrambling to get their models back in line with observations, Bosse and Vahrenholt write. A recent new paper appearing on November 30, 2016 has created some controversy. Thomas Knutson and his colleagues of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the NOAA at Princeton examined the warming slowdown we have seen since 1997.

They conclude that it is due to large internal variability, one that is larger than assumed by climate models. They find:

Nonetheless, if CMIP5 models overestimate the TCR (forced warming rate), internal climate variability may have also played a significant role in the late 20th century global warming.”

“Internal variability” is in fact just another name for natural factors, and the authors suspect that there is a significant probability of a reduced warming trend for the future – like we have been seeing since 1997.

Their findings confirm what a number of scientists have suspected already: CO2 has been greatly exaggerated as a climate-driving factor. Ocean cycles are turning out to be playing a major role and rising CO2 concentrations are not leading to a climate catastrophe after all. The climate catastrophe is only showing up in IPCC models.

Grant Foster’s far-fetched claims

Bosse and Vahrenholt write that proponents of high CO2 climate sensitivity are upset by these new, non-alarmist findings. Grant Foster at his site “Tamino” claimed flaws in the findings, commenting:

I consider its many, and very serious, flaws to be telling evidence that the whole “slowdown” idea was misguided from the very start.”

But Bosse and Vahrenholt claim that “Tamino“ first ought to carry out a few simple operations before making such far-fetched claims about peer-reviewed papers, and so present all trends in “Tamino’s“  own datasets since 1951 that are at least 15 years long – and all end at 2015.

Figure 4: Trends of global temperature (GMST) with the start year on x axis until 2015. The steep drop since 1997 is clear to see. The AMO trends (violet) are also plotted.

The slowdown in the warming rates after 1997 compared to the values after ca. 1975 are not what Tamino (Grant Foster) claims they are. Rather they are in fact real.

Figure 4 clearly shows that the AMO (violet) sets the pace, with its trend some 4 years ahead of the GMST.

Getting back to real physics

In summary observations show that there is a TCR that is not more than 1.35°K for a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration. Anything over that is just “modeling hype”, write Bosse and Vahrenholt.

What does it all mean? Vahrenholt and Bosse summarize?

When models predict a warming of 2°C, observations tell us it is actually only 1.4°C — which is really not a catastrophe.  So let’s keep the focus on physics, which deals with the evaluation of observations,  and stays away from catastrophe scenarios!”

 

112 responses to “Current Solar Cycle Weakest In 2 Centuries! And Grant Foster’s “Far-Fetched” Model Claims”

  1. terastienstra

    What Thomas Knutson and his colleagues have been doing is the only thing models are useful for. Make a model of your complex set of algorithms and check with reality how the model holds up. When it proves to be wrong, your algorithms are wrong and you have to try to find a physical explanation how to change or replace them. That is how you can get closer and closer to the truth. But NEVER use a model as a replacement of reality.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      This reminds me of a computer program I wrote for a friend a few decades ago. She had become pretty rich by inheritance but did not know what to do with her shares, houses, and cash for a living. So I wrote a simple bookkeeping program running from year to year in which she could try minor decisions about first selling a house or some shares, etc. It proved that minor decisions made the difference between being completely bankrupt or extremely wealthy at the end of her life. I had to advise her not to use the program for real decisions. How do we call it, non-linear, chaotic systems? A reality check is not even needed, to see that the program is worthless.

  2. Ken Gregory

    In summary observations show that there is a TCR that is not more than 1.35°K for a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration.

    This estmiate TCR = 1.35 °C is much too high because it fails to account for the urban heat island effect (UHIE) and the natural warming from the Little Ice Age.
    See https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2230

    This report is based on the analysis by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry that utilized the AR5 greenhouse gas forcings to calculate climate sensitivity. Adjusting for new aerosol estimate, the UHIE and the natural millennium warming cycle, the TCR best estimate is 0.85 °C, with a likely range of 0.7 – 1.1 °C. This implies that if CO2 concentrations increase exponentially from recent history, greenhouse gas emissions will cause a temperature rise of 0.57 °C by the year 2100. The FUND AIM is the only economic model that estimates social benefits as well as costs of CO2 emissions. It shows the the net social benefit of emissions best estimate is 16.6 US$/tCO2 with a likely range of 19.3 to 11.5 US$/tCO2. CO2 emissions are very beneficial.

  3. gallopingcamel

    I find it depressing that such eminent scientists as Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt still imagine that CO2 is a major factor affecting global average temperature.

    They talk about a “Sensitivity Constant” of 1.4 K/doubling of CO2. If this concept made any sense global average temperature would be rising monotonically because [CO2] in the atmosphere is rising at an accelerating rate.

    Clearly other factors have overwhelmed the effect of CO2 since the satellite era began 37 years ago.

    In sharp contrast there is a stunning correlation between [CO2] and temperature over the last 850,000 years owing to Henry’s law that says that the solubility of gases in water decreases with temperature:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/

    I regard Thomas F. Stocker as the “Prince of Darkness”. He knows the truth but prefers to retain his cushy sinecure at the IPCC by supporting the false hypothesis that CO2 causes “Catastrophic Global Warming”.

    1. David Appell

      GC wrote:
      “They talk about a “Sensitivity Constant” of 1.4 K/doubling of CO2. If this concept made any sense global average temperature would be rising monotonically because [CO2] in the atmosphere is rising at an accelerating rate.

      They are. The 30-yr trend in surface temperatures has been rising at 0.15-0.2 C/dec since 1990.

      1. AndyG55

        Straight across the El Nino step change.

        Apart from that El Nino, there has been NO WARMING

        You know that, everyone knows that.

  4. mikeR

    Figure 4 above is highly misleading as the comparison between the temperature records and AMO is ridiculous. The data from Tamino is for temperatures adjusted to reduce or remove the impact of ENSO and volcanos while the AMO appears to not have been adjusted in any way. If you compare like with like (i.e. the raw values from Tamino data before adjustment) you find that the AMO follows ((not leads!) by 2 to 6 months depending on the data set see -https://s20.postimg.org/3kzkcxz6l/Trends_Tamino_AMO_temperatures.jpg.

    The puzzling thing is it is difficult to understand whether the use of above figure was meant to be deliberately misleading or was just an inadvertent mistake.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      mikeR: “the comparison between the temperature records and AMO is ridiculous.”

      Assuming you think it’s ridiculous because you believe that variations in CO2 concentrations in volumes of 0.000001 cause temperature changes in the ocean, and thus, climate changes, please support your beliefs by citing a scientific experiment that physically measures the temperature-changing cause-effect of CO2 on water temperatures. By how much (i.e., cite observational measurements) do water temperatures decrease with a reduction of CO2 concentrations by, say, 10 ppm (-0.00001)? Again, cite your peer-reviewed scientific sources so that we can all observe how un-ridiculous your beliefs are.

      Here are 5 (out of several dozen) papers from 2016 linking AMO variations to climate variations. Perhaps you should contact these scientists and let them know why you think their conclusions are “ridiculous.”

      Li et al., 2016
      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..1811364L
      The twentieth century Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperature (NHT) is characterized by a multidecadal warming-cooling-warming pattern followed by a flat trend since about 2000 (recent warming hiatus). Here we demonstrate that the multidcadal variability in NHT including the recent warming hiatus is tied to the NAT-NAO-AMO-AMOC coupled mode and the NAO is implicated as a useful predictor of NHT multidecadal variability. An NAO-based linear model is therefore established to predict the NHT, which gives an excellent hindcast for NHT in 1971-2011 with the recent flat trend well predicted.

      Zampieri et al., 2016
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811630371X
      In spring and summer, results show significant changes in the frequencies of certain weather regimes associated with the phase shifts of the AMO. These changes are consistent with the seasonal surface pressure, precipitation, and temperature anomalies associated with the AMO shifts in Europe.

      Johannessen et al., 2016
      http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/28234
      Statistical comparison with several climate indices shows that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is the mode of variability that is most significantly associated with the amplified warming–cooling in the Arctic

      Shi et al., 2016
      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3381-3
      Our reconstructed December–February mean temperature shows a close association with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) over the past three centuries, with warm (cold) periods coinciding with the positive (negative) phases of the AMO. This persistent relationship suggests that the AMO may have been a key driver of multidecadal winter temperature variations on the southeastern TP [Tibetan Plateau].

      Livsey et al., 2016
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116300129
      In 2012 the most severe United States drought since the 1930’s occurred, highlighting the need for a better understanding of the climate factors driving droughts. Spatial-temporal analysis of United States precipitation data from 1900 to 1999 indicates that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) primarily modulates drought frequency. … Changes in the extended drought record correspond with timing of the Roman Climate Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and changes in the AMO as recorded in a proxy record derived from North Atlantic ice-rafted debris. These results indicate that lacustrine-derived XRF element data can be used as a quantitative tool to reconstruct past drought records, and suggest that AMO modulated drought in southern Texas for the last 3000 years.

    2. Frank

      mikeR, I don’t know how you could get the result “you find that the AMO follows ((not leads!) by 2 to 6 months depending on the data set see -https://s20.postimg.org/3kzkcxz6l/Trends_Tamino_AMO_temperatures.jpg.”. If you compare the trends of Taminos and the AMO-trends ( Data from v. Oldenborgh (2009) ) you can make a leg/lead correlation and you’ll get something like this: https://img4.picload.org/image/ralorppo/amoleg3.gif .
      Would you be so kind to show us your way how you justify your claims?

    3. Frank

      mikeR: PS: Please look at your figure http://s20.postimg.org/3kzkcxz6l/Trends_Tamino_AMO_temperatures.jpg
      1. see the axis, IMO it should be K/decade not K/a.
      2. you calculated the trends to a single month ( July 2016) which is missleading IMO, the better choice are annual data as reference, this would be the average of 2015. Then you’ll get very other trends as ist’s shown in fig. 4 of the post above.

  5. sod

    The majority of sun spot stories are a prototype of fake news.

    Anyway, i will buy a new hat, as you all think it will be get really cold now.

    1. DirkH

      Don’t buy a hat, sod! Buy shorts! CO2 will warm you with its infrared radiation at a Planck temperature of 200K!

      1. Kenneth Richard

        DirkH,

        There are a lot of people around here who are heating their homes with CO2 now. Forget furnaces, just build one of these:

        https://hidroponics-ea.blogspot.com/2011/01/build-homemade-co2-generator-cheaply.html

        Need hot water? Just add CO2 to your hot water supply system. It works great.

        For refrigeration, we’re now just “sucking CO2 out of the air” with machines:

        http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140513014/this-machine-can-suck-carbon-out-of-the-air

    2. AndyG55

      Don’t forget the tin-foil lining !

  6. MikeR

    Frank, yes thank you for pointing out the incorrect axis labels. They should have read K/decade of course.

     I am not sure I understand your point re using the average of 2015. I could duplicate figure 4 by using the adjusted data up till July 2016 or the average of 2015. It made little difference which end point was used.

    If you used the unadjusted data, either way you do it, the result is the same. AMO lags the surface temperature.

     If you don’t believe me, it is easy enough to do the calculations in Excel and just use the text file linked to above. You may need to consult Tamino’s site https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/by-request-adjusted-satellite-and-surface-data/) so that you select the appropriate columns. The data is grouped in 4 with left most being the unadjusted data and the right most being the adjusted data.  The AMO data can be obtained here –  http://woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-amo/from:1951 .

    Let me know if your results differ.

    1. Frank

      MikeR: I used the data-output of Tamino’s indeed from the source you cited. I calculated annual means up to 2015 and yes, my result differs. The trend ( I took as one case the C/W adjusted) from 2001 to 2015 (annual averages) is 0.11 K/ decade, see: https://picload.org/image/ralopgcp/cwtr15.gif . In your figure this trend is about 0.15 K/decade, about 50% higher. And I used the same data of Tamino and the AMO from the source I cited and made a leg/lead comparison with regressions of the trends as shown above. What instrument did you use to folllow the other way around?

    2. Kenneth Richard

      mikeR: “AMO lags the surface temperature.”

      So what is the cause of the surface temperature variation, mikeR? Assuming it is your belief that it’s CO2 causes it, can you support that belief scientifically? Or are you just stating your opinion, unsupported by experimental or physical evidence?

      The last time I asked you this and you actually responded (I see you’ve ignored my questions again), you responded by providing links to 4 blog posts, with two of the 4 from bloggers who don’t agree with you about the climate impact of CO2 (Curry and Spencer). And the other two blogs acknowledged we have no experimental, observational, or scientific evidence that CO2 heats water. So why do you believe what you do?

  7. Frank

    “And it is widely accepted that weak cycles are associated with cooling climate conditions.”
    The solar cycle 24 was very weak as the figure 2 of the post shows. If this weak cycle would be associated with cooling.. I missed it!

  8. MikeR

    Frank,  with regard to your earlier comment and your lag/lead plot.

    Is this plot for the adjusted or unadjusted data? Which temperature data was used? From figure 4, the lag is very different (by years) for Giss compared to CruTemp.

     If it was for unadjusted data, did you plot the correlation  for both successive leads and lags on a monthly basis? It appears that your graph is for annual data which would not show correlations  for periods as short as 2 to 6 months.

    I will post the relevant  monthly  cross correlations between the temperature data and AMO later when the next opportunity arises (hopefully tomorrow).

    1. Frank

      MikeR: Short answers: I used the adjusted (Tamino) data. The record I selected for the regression analyses was C/W adj. and annual data. I look forward for your results and I hope you see that I’m very interested in some discussions about different results. So I also hope that your first impression (Fig.4 is deliberately misleading ) was not true! 😉

    2. Frank

      MikeR: Short answers: I used the adjusted (Tamino) data. The record I selected for the regression analyses was C/W adj. and annual data. I look forward for your results and I hope you see that I’m very interested in some discussions about different results. So I also hope that your first impression (Fig.4 is deliberately misleading ) was not true! 😉

    3. Frank

      MikeR: Short answers: I used the adjusted (Tamino) data. The record I selected for the regression analyses was C/W adj. and annual data. I look forward for your results and I hope you note that I’m very interested in some discussions about different results. So I also hope that your first impression (Fig.4 is deliberately misleading ) was not true! 😉

    4. Frank

      MikeR: Short answers: I used the adjusted (Tamino) data. The record I selected for the regression analyses was C/W adj. and annual data. If you look carefuly on your own figure ( or on fig.4 of the post) you should see the leading AMO-Trends also by eyeballing? I look forward for your results and I hope you see that I’m very interested in some discussions about different results. So I also hope that your first impression (Fig.4 is deliberately misleading ) was not true! 😉

  9. tom0mason

    sod,

    “The majority of sun spot stories are a prototype of fake news.”

    Really, and where did you copy that ridiculous line from?

  10. mikeR

    Frank,

    I have linked lag correlations for both the adjusted data (see top graph) and for the raw unadjusted data (lower graph) see-https://s20.postimg.org/s13y26vrx/Correlation_Lag_AMO_temperatures.jpg .

    You can see from the graphs for the adjusted data that Hadcrut surface temperature lags AMO by about 3 years, Berkeley by 4.5 years , C and W by about 5.5 years, GISS by 6.5 years and NOAA by 8 years.

    In other words all over the place.

    In contrast the for the raw unadjusted data, it is clear that AMO lags for all the surface temperatures by 6 months.

    Do I need to elaborate any further? I think we have put this bit of nonsense to bed.

    As for the figure4 above being deliberately misleading, I have my suspicions but I am feeling charitable so I will invoke Hanlon’s razer – “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      mikeR: “It is clear that AMO lags for all the surface temperatures by 6 months. Do I need to elaborate any further?”

      Yes. What causes the variation in oceanic surface temperature? You believe it’s CO2, right, mikeR? Do you have observational evidence to support that belief?

      mikeR: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”

      Can you explain why it is your belief that it is “stupidity” to associate climate variations with the AMO…since that’s that’s a common conclusion found in peer-reviewed scientific papers?

      1. MikeR

        Kenneth,

        You seem to always leave a trail of red herrings and straw men in your wake.

        “Yes. What causes the variation in oceanic surface temperature? You believe it’s CO2, right, mikeR?”

        No, Kenneth I don’t think it is due entirely to CO2. Only part of the variation ie. the long term trend, whose most likely and simplest explanation is increasing CO2. Superimposed on this are the multi-decadal oscillations due to ENSO (and dips due to volcanic activities) which are probably unrelated in any way to CO2 , but who knows.

        And again “Do you have observational evidence to support that belief?”

        No for the reasons explained above , it is not my belief.

        And once again “Can you explain why it is your belief that it is “stupidity” to associate climate variations with the AMO…since that’s that’s (sic) a common conclusion found in peer-reviewed scientific papers?”.

        I have never stated that there is no association between AMO and climate variations.

        Ken . The primary constituents of your arguments are made of so much straw it is does not take much effort to blow your house down. Just the slightest puff.

    2. Frank

      MikeR: As I understand it you correlated the Temps as they are vs. AMO? My lag/lead result is for the TRENDS up to 2015. This is mentioned in the text below the figure. And the other question from me you didn’t answer: The slopes of the trends 2001…2015 are well below yours ( I made an example for CW here: https://picload.org/image/ralopgcp/cwtr15.gif ). And your referenced figure: http://s20.postimg.org/3kzkcxz6l/Trends_Tamino_AMO_temperatures.jpg shows the leading TRENDS of the AMO very clear, especially after 1992. Are you sure that you’re right with your thesis “AMO hitchhikes GMST”? When we consider that the AMO is a fingerprint of the AMOC ( there are many papers out with this conclusions) it’s remarkable that a strong AMOC heats the planet as a whole, see https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog_held/64-disequilibrium-and-the-amoc/ . A rapid strengthening of the AMOC was observed after 1995, see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00443.1
      So it seems to me very unlikely that the AMO lags the GMST as you claim. Have a look at your own figure!

  11. Il Sole nel Mese di Novembre 2016 - Il Ciclo 24 Attualmente più Basso del Ciclo 5 : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte: Notrickszone […]

  12. mikeR

    Frank

    I note from your latest and previous comments that for some reason that you only examined the 15 years from 2001 to 2015. This is the reason why your data, shows a lower trend than my data and additionally lower than nearly virtually every trend shown in Figure 4 above. I remind you that Tamino’s data extends for a bit over 65 years from 1951 to July 2016. Why you would select 15 of these years is beyond me unless you have a fondness for cherries?

    To further emphasize, the graph that you presented corresponds to one point at the very bottom right hand corner of Figure 4. To think this is representative of the remaining 600 points that are shown in Figure 4 demonstrates a high degree of original thinking and suggests that you should pursue a career that caters for such creativity. There are numerous courses available in creative writing that should suit your talents. I would avoid any mathematical or scientific pursuits.

    You also made comment that you thought my graph for raw unadjusted temperatures showed that AMO leads temperatures. It is hard to tell visually but when you do the calculations AMO definitely lags surface temperatures. I have linked to a graph showing AMO correlations with unadjusted temperatures as a function of both lead and lags see – https://s20.postimg.org/q1xhsjql9/Lag_Lead_Correlations.jpg .

    Your other point regarding your preferred use of 2015 rather than July 2016 escapes me (perhaps I am the stupid one) . Using the end of 2015 instead of July 2016 changes the trend for C and W (adjusted) from 0.0119 to 0.0118 K/ annum.

    1. Frank

      MikeR: The core is: 1. you can’t explain why your trends ( see http://s20.postimg.org/3kzkcxz6l/Trends_Tamino_AMO_temperatures.jpg ) after 1999 to 2016 are so much higher then those of figure 4 where also all trends from 1951 on were shown.
      2. You can’t explain why the TRENDS of the AMO lead the TRENDS of the GMST as your own figure shows clearly. The rest of your comment lowers the level too much to continue the discussion.

  13. mikeR

    Kenneth

    Finally we have some agreement. Yes there is a definite association between AMO and surface temperatures which I presented above, i.e. AMO follows surface temperatures by about 6 months. This is unsurprising as the AMO , as the name suggests, is derived from the SST of the North Atlantic. Anyone who takes a dip in the ocean throughout the year is aware that ocean temperatures lag surface temperatures usually by a couple of months. The physics is trivial, i.e. The heat capacity of the ocean being much larger than the land. . A simple description without mention of greenhouse gases is at https://staff.concord.org/~btinker/GL/web/water/water_temperatures.html.

    Now Kenneth, is there a plausible physical mechanism that is proposed to explain why the AMO values should precede surface temperatures by several years (somewhere between 3 to 8 years depending on the surface temperature measurement) ? Let me know if you can locate anyone who has suggested a plausible physical mechanism.

    Kenneth , above, as per usual, uses argument from authority via cut and paste and provides a list of publications that relate to the AMO.

    Of the 5 publications he links to, 4 refer to weather/climate for localized regions and posit associations with AMO (plausible).

    The only one that appears to be relevant to global surface temperatures (at least for the northern hemisphere) is the first. Unfortunately it is a dead link (Kenneth invariably provides one, which demonstrates that he is unlikely to have read he material he links to). But I did with a bit of hunting around find the publication by Li et al (2016) at http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-11364.pdf .

    It is a one page abstract from the proceedings of the April 2016 meeting of the AGU. However looking at the conference program the paper does not appear anywhere. Possibly the paper was withdrawn before the meeting.

    If anyone else has any more luck let me know, otherwise we might have to rely on Kenneth to recite the full contents verbatim.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      So you’ve finally responded, but, as expected, you have completely avoided the question I have posed again and again (that you keep on avoiding again and again).

      What scientific evidence do you have to support your belief that CO2 variations cause heat variations in water bodies? You have yet to cite a single scientific paper supporting your beliefs, mikeR. So far, the only sources you seem to be capable of citing are blog essays — Tamino, RealClimate, SkepticalScience, and Dr. Spencer’s and Dr. Curry’s blogs (who don’t agree with you). But then, ironically, you have the audacity to try to undermine the legitimacy of papers published in scientific journals with highly substantive “critiques” like “Unfortunately it is a dead link (Kenneth invariably provides one, which demonstrates that he is unlikely to have read he material he links to”. Support your beliefs, mikeR.

      What causes the temperature changes in water that, in your view, cause oscillations in the AMO? CO2 does, right?

      Why is it your belief that CO2 concentrations (which have not been oscillating, but linearly increasing) cause changes in the AMO, which, as the name implies, does oscillate? At what point did CO2 cause a decrease in temperatures, which in turn caused a downturn in the AMO phase? As always, please cite scientific evidence (not blogs, as you usually do) in supporting your beliefs.

      http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141208/ncomms6752/full/ncomms6752.html
      The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a key component of the global climate system, responsible for a large fraction of the 1.3 PW northward heat transport in the Atlantic basin. Numerical modelling experiments suggest that without a vigorous AMOC, surface air temperature in the North Atlantic region would cool by around 1–3 °C, with enhanced local cooling of up to 8 °C in regions with large sea-ice changes. Substantial weakening of the AMOC would also cause a southward shift of the inter-tropical convergence zone, encouraging Sahelian drought, and dynamic changes in sea level of up to 80 cm along the coasts of North America and Europe.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2543/abstract
      The influence of the ocean circulation on the climate of Ireland is more subtle than it first appears. Temperatures in Ireland are warmer than similar Pacific maritime climates. It is heat – carried primarily in the Atlantic overturning circulation – released over the Atlantic that provides this additional warmth. We investigate variations in Irish climate using long-term station-based time series. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) explains over 90% of the pronounced decadal temperature and summer precipitation variation.

      http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/ncomms4323.html
      Our analyses show that the combined solar and volcanic forcing is highly correlated to both existing AMO reconstructions over the past two centuries.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331114502.htm
      Around the turn of the millennium, however, climate researchers became aware that the average temperature of the Atlantic Ocean was not entirely stable, but actually fluctuated at the same rate throughout the North Atlantic. This phenomenon is called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which consists of relatively warm periods lasting thirty to forty years being replaced by cool periods of the same duration. The researchers were able to read small systematic variations in the water temperature in the North Atlantic in measurements taken by ships during the last 140 years. Although the temperature fluctuations are small — less than 1°C — there is a general consensus among climate researchers that the AMO phenomenon has had a major impact on the climate in the area around the North Atlantic for thousands of years

      “An interesting new theory among solar researchers and meteorologists is that the Sun can control climate variations via the very large variations in UV radiation, which are partly seen in connection with changes in sunspot activity during the Sun’s eleven-year cycle. UV radiation heats the stratosphere in particular via increased production of ozone, which can have an impact on wind systems and thereby indirectly on the global ocean currents as well,” says Associate Professor Knudsen. However, he emphasises that researchers have not yet completely understood how a development in the stratosphere can affect the ocean currents on Earth. “During the last century, the AMO has had a strong bearing on significant weather phenomena such as hurricane frequency and droughts — with considerable economic and human consequences. A better understanding of this phenomenon is therefore an important step for efforts to deal with and mitigate the impact of climate variations,” Associate Professor Knudsen concludes.

      1. yonason

        Hi, Kenneth, the link MikeR says is “dead” appears to be merely damaged, truncated prematurely. But when you select the whole thing, and paste it into the browser address bar, it comes up just fine.
        http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..1811364L#sthash.QF5ycAQB.dpuf

        And, it is about the AMO, and by Li, et., al.

        MikeR also has Doug Appell’s nastiness and arrogance, almost as if it were some kind of syndrome they share. Additional symptoms are the occasional reading comprehension deficit, and inability to engage in meaningful dialogue. I’m not a physician, but it strikes me as peculiar that they display the same negative qualities which are often found in social misfits.

        I could be wrong, but that’s how he comes across to me.

        1. yonason

          It’s the “..” that causes the problem, I see. I guess MikeR isn’t computer savvy enough to have spotted that. Oh, well. No one’s perfect. Too bad he isn’t humble enough to acknowledge that.

          1. mikeR

            Yonasan

            My humility is legendary. The term FIGJAM was coined in my honour.

        2. yonason

          Richard, I ran that link through an html editor, and it passed, so let’s see if it also works here – the one MikeR was too lazy to fix.

          test

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Yes, the link works, of course. I already knew that all of the links worked 100% — all of AGU links have the “…” feature. The “broken link” tactic is routinely employed by those of mikeR’s persuasion so as to suggest something is being tendentiously “hidden” from those who might find something questionable about the paper itself. Remember, he also immediately dismisses other scientific papers on the basis of what scholarly journal they happened to be published in. And then he turns around and cites blogs to support his beliefs, not scientific papers. Again, this is common behavior. I’ve spent years “debating” with mikeR-like people. As he has already done (i.e., characterizing scientist Frank B. as “stupid”), smug name-calling often comes next in the sequence.

        3. mikeR

          The link kindly provided by Yonasan above points to the abstract of the Li et al. paper. It is exactly the same abstract that I linked to previously on the 19th! And it was EGU not AGU.

          Until now, no one has managed to find the paper itself. It does not appear in the EGU programme. I was hoping that someone by now would have located some evidence of a poster or talk or the paper itself. I may have missed it but as I said previously, the obvious reason would be that it is has been withdrawn, but who knows?. However it just provides further evidence Kenneth is unlikely to be reading the papers themselves. He just likes the abstracts.

          As for Frank, I have never said explicitly that he is stupid. I just praised him as a creative thinker whose talents in this regard should be further utilized.

          Look, my pathetic attempt at humour is clearly not too everybody’s tastes which is perfectly understandable if you are on the wrong end, but I have had rave reviews elsewhere .

          Likewise I thoroughly enjoyed Yonasan’s attempt to join the psychoanalytic community with his diagnosis of my mental condition.

          I am however afraid that Yonasan is exhibiting his own psychopathology. The Dunning-Kruger syndrome is a terrible affliction as the sufferer is blissfully unaware of his condition. For those who have no knowledge of this syndrome it often strikes people who think they are experts in areas outside the field of competence. It also often appears to be incurable as the sufferers often immerse themselves into environments frequented by fellow sufferers that simply reinforce their delusions.

          I too was once a member of Dunning-Kruger anonymous and managed to cure my affliction by signing the oath that I will leave open heart surgery to the experts. You should try it.

          Yonasan for the sake of your mental health , I recommend you go outside and smell the daisies and stay away from sites like this. I will endeavour to do likewise.

          Finally Yonasan, please don’t take too seriously my tongue in cheek comments.

          1. AndyG55

            Empty garbage from mikeR.

            YET AGAIN !

            Don’t shake your head mike, that shunken, petrified, pea-sided brain will rattle like crazy..

      2. MikeR

        Kenneth,

        None of the links you provided above has relevance to the relationship between AMO and global surface temperatures, in particular the claim that AMO leads global surface temperatures. They all appear, once again, to refer to relationships between AMO and other weather/climate related phenomena on a regional North Atlantic, Ireland, ocean currents etc. .. basis. Again I have no issues with this.

        To get you back on track, I have to reemphasize the relationship between AMO and global surface temperatures is the issue. This is what is shown above in the man body in Figure 4 and that is the subject of discussion between myself and Frank.

        Your links seem to be just another drip feed from your compendium that you have accumulated diligently and in all likelihood have not read. However I might be totally wrong. As you have these publications at your fingertips, could please give page references or quotes from the publications that are related to the topic at hand- the claim that “AMO sets the pace, with its trend some 4 years ahead of the GMST.”

        I anxiously await your reply but I am not holding my breath.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39858102/Atlantic_forcing_of_Pacific_decadal_vari20151110-28334-16f2l1.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1482229570&Signature=WgaO4aZUwxLOxg2vzlzWD%2B5jTmw%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DAtlantic_forcing_of_Pacific_decadal_vari.pdf
          [I]t is shown that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) has had a substantial influence on the equatorial Pacific decadal variability. According to AMO phases we have identified three periods with strong Atlantic forcing of equatorial Pacific changes, namely (1) 1931–1950 minus 1910–1929, (2) 1970–1989 minus 1931–1950 and (3) 1994–2013 minus 1970–1989. Both observations and the model show easterly surface wind anomalies in the central Pacific, cooling in the central-eastern Pacific and warming in the western Pacific/Indian Ocean region in events (1) and (3) and the opposite signals in event (2). The physical mechanism for these responses is related to a modification of the Walker circulation because a positive (negative) AMO leads to an overall warmer (cooler) tropical Atlantic. The warmer (cooler) tropical Atlantic modifies the Walker circulation, leading to rising (sinking) and upper-level divergence (convergence) motion in the Atlantic region and sinking (rising) motion and upper-level convergence (divergence) in the central Pacific region.

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057877/full
          Observational analysis shows that the NAO leads both the detrended NHT [Northern Hemisphere Temperature] and oceanic Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) by 15–20 years. Theoretical analysis illuminates that the NAO precedes NHT multidecadal variability through its delayed effect on the AMO due to the large thermal inertia associated with slow oceanic processes.

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html
          We find that the most prominent annual mean surface and tropospheric warming in the Arctic since 1979 has occurred in northeastern Canada and Greenland. In this region, much of the year-to-year temperature variability is associated with the leading mode of large-scale circulation variability in the North Atlantic, namely, the North Atlantic Oscillation. Here we show that the recent warming in this region is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous [natural] Rossby wave-train activity [planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation] originating in the tropical Pacific. Atmospheric model experiments forced by prescribed tropical sea surface temperatures simulate the observed circulation changes and associated tropospheric and surface warming over northeastern Canada and Greenland. Experiments from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (ref. 16) models with prescribed anthropogenic forcing show no similar circulation changes related to the North Atlantic Oscillation or associated tropospheric warming. This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.

  14. MikeR

    Frank, I apologize for any offense I created with my comments above. One of my numerous character flaws is I tend to get annoyed by comments that , in my opinion, do not have any basis in science. Blatant cherry picking aggravates my condition.

    To address your points above,

    1. The explanation for the difference in trends between my graphs and figure 4, which I thought was abundantly clear from the labels on my figures, is that the former uses the adjusted data and I used the raw unadjusted data from Tamino’s data set. The trends are naturally different. To illustrate this here is the adjusted and unadjusted data with lines of best fit for the C and W data from 1951 until 2015 see – https://s20.postimg.org/7x2wxgkm5/C_and_W_adjusted_and_raw.jpg .

    2. You state that my graph clearly shows ( I assume by eyeballing) that AMO leads the surface data. I had the opposite impression. Looks can be deceiving and this is the reason I presented the lead/lag graph above. I thought that was clear. AMO lags the surface temperatures by 6 months. You have Tamino’s data and I assume Excel. It is relatively easy to duplicate my calculations. If you need assistance I can help.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      mikeR: “I tend to get annoyed by comments that , in my opinion, do not have any basis in science.”

      Ironic, mikeR, since you’ve done nothing to support your beliefs about CO2 causing water temperature changes other than cite blogs (Tamino). Can you support your beliefs by citing actual scientific papers, or do you only reference blogscience?

      Cite a scientific paper that confirms your belief that “AMO lags the surface temperatures by 6 months”.

      And then answer the question: What physical mechanism causes the surface temperature oscillation that leads the AMO[scillation] by 6 months? Have anthropogenic CO2 emissions been oscillating in concert with surface temperatures? If not, what causes the decline in surface temperatures that drive the decline in the AMO with a lag of 6 months?

    2. Frank

      MikeR,
      1. No more red herrings please! The discussion was about fig.4 of the post and the title of the figure was: “Trends from ….to 2015”. So let’s talk about trends. It would be the best we use the same data, so please take this ones: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1951/to:2016/compress:12 and let us see your figure similiar to your own figure http://s20.postimg.org/3kzkcxz6l/Trends_Tamino_AMO_temperatures.jpg.

      2. The lag/lead was NOT eyeballing as I wrote on 17th of December with this figure :https://img4.picload.org/image/ralorppo/amoleg3.gif
      Please note the headline: leg/lead of AMO TRENDS vs. GMST TRENDS.
      Try the same operation with the data of your own figure http://s20.postimg.org/3kzkcxz6l/Trends_Tamino_AMO_temperatures.jpg and let us know the result.

      1. mikeR

        Frank,

        Like yourself, I am a firm advocate of a herring free zone.

        Firstly for point 1.

        I have used exactly the same procedure (annual data until 2015) that you recommend and here are the results for all the adjusted and unadjusted data from Tamino. See the following –
        https://s20.postimg.org/5nansc38d/Lags_Adjusted_and_unadjusted.jpg .
        Note that the peaks at varying lags for the adjusted data disappear when using the raw unadjusted data. This is a strong indication that the correlations for the adjusted data are simply artefacts of the adjustment.

        Also here are the trends and the correlation with AMO for the Hadcrut data from woodfortrees.org which you linked to – https://s20.postimg.org/iu4p5lobh/Had_Crut_from_1951_to_2015_compress_12.jpg
        As you can see there is no evidence at all for AMO leading HadCrut. I am not sure what the point of introducing this data set other than to refute your own premise.

        With regards to point 2.

        I note your statement of 19th December “You can’t explain why the TRENDS of the AMO lead the TRENDS of the GMST as your own figure shows clearly”.
        The only conceivable way you could have made this rather bizarre statement was via eyeball. The figure you linked to on Feb 17 was for your own data and was not related to my figure! Frank you need to pay more attention.

        1. Frank

          MikeR, With great disgust I read this actual article http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/20/horrible-irony-merkel-recently-said-germany-needed-immigrants-everywhere-truck-drivers-are-being-sought/ on this Blog. I’m from Berlin where the terror arrived on Monday. The article is shameless and I won’t write anymore here. The discussion was very interesting and I would like to continue at another place where ever you want. This place is now, sorry for this, a no go area for me and for every decent citicen IMO.
          bye

          1. mikeR

            Frank, the situation sounds terrible. Stay safe.

          2. DirkH

            Frank 21. December 2016 at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Reply
            “This place is now, sorry for this, a no go area for me and for every decent citicen IMO.”

            Triggered.

          3. yonason
          4. yonason

            Poor little Frankie has his panties in a twist because Pierre tells the truth about Merkel’s preference for foreign animals over native Germans.

            Well, for those of you who aren’t allergic to the truth, here’s some more detail on that rotten little assassin who never should have even been allowed into Germany.
            motls.blogspot.com/2016/12/what-germany-allowed-anis-amri-is.html

          5. yonason

            Correct link for my last post above.
            motls.blogspot.com/2016/12/what-germany-allowed-anis-amri-is.html

  15. MikeR

    Kenneth,

    Just a quick response as you are a stickler for peer review. I am happy to publish my results in the same scientific journal that published the above nonsense that “AMO (violet) sets the pace, with its trend some 4 years ahead of the GMST”.

    With regard to the oscillation, the phenomena is called ENSO. You may have heard of the term, (‘O’ stands for oscillation’). The physical mechanism is well understood, see https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/enso-tech.php .

    As for the decline with a lag of 6 months I referred earlier above to the physical mechanism. I repeat (this time with feeling)- “The physics is trivial, i.e. The heat capacity of the ocean being much larger than the land”. This of course means that regions of the oceans, such as the North Atlantic respond more slowly than the surface to ENSO driven changes.

    Kenneth, I know it is confusing to you that surface temperatures follow the equatorial Pacific temperatures (even Kenneth would find it hard to dispute this) while the ocean, a hemisphere away, responds with a delay of about 6 months.

    In reality I think it would be hard for me to publish my results as the concept of thermal lag is well understood but good luck for anyone who wants to propose a physical mechanism that could plausibly explain how a change in the temperature of the North Atlantic affects the surface temperatures 4 years into the future.

    I would even take a semi plausible or even highly implausible explanation (neutrinos, quantum gravity waves, tachyons etc.. ).

    Actually tachyons might be the answer as they are thought to be able to reverse cause and effect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon . Kenneth this your chance for fame and fortune. If you can prove this a Nobel Prize awaits.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      mikeR: “I am happy to publish my results in the same scientific journal that published the above nonsense that ‘AMO (violet) sets the pace, with its trend some 4 years ahead of the GMST'”.

      No, it’s probably better for you to stick with your blogscience results, mikeR, as I’m a little dubious that you’ll be able to get a scientific journal to agree that changes in air temperatures cause changes in ocean temperatures considering the orders-of-magnitude differences with regard to the heat capacity of the oceans vs. the air.

      Question: Do scientific results that don’t follow along with your belief system (that human CO2 emissions are the predominant cause of ocean temperature changes) immediately become “nonsense” and “ridiculous” and “stupidity” just on that basis alone? In other words, do you judge the merits of scientific papers on whether or not they coincide with what you believe to be true about human CO2 emissions driving water temperatures? If you don’t believe it’s true, therefore it is not? Because that circular thinking certainly seems to be what you are, and have been, employing here in these comments.

      I’m still waiting for you to produce something other than “Tamino” blogscience as a source to support your beliefs. Will you ever be providing it, or should more obfuscation be expected in response to these fundamental questions about CO2-forcing of water temperatures?

      1. mikeR

        Kenneth

        With regard to your first point above. SST measurements are now predominantly done from satellites see -https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/SeaSurfaceTemperature . The satellite infra red measurements are from the top 10 micron layer of the ocean surface while microwave measurements originate from the top 1 mm of the surface. There is a good reason for the second ‘S’ is SST.

        if you think the atmosphere cannot heat an ocean layer this thin by a fraction of a degree (the amplitude of the AMO signal is at most 0.5 C) then you clearly , in the vernacular we use down here , have a few roos loose in the top paddock.

        The last paragraph must be Kenneth’s attempt at humour. Figure 4 at the top of this blog and the discussions that flowed on from this were calculations based on… wait for it (drum roll).. Tamino’s blog. Consistency is clearly not Kenneth’s strong suit.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “if you think the atmosphere cannot heat an ocean layer this thin by a fraction of a degree (the amplitude of the AMO signal is at most 0.5 C) then you clearly , in the vernacular we use down here , have a few roos loose in the top paddock.”

          Never said the air “can’t” heat the skin layer, but, as the scientists point out, the forcing seems to “nearly always” go in one direction. Why do you believe that the air almost always heats the water? Or do you?

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL011133/pdf
          “Skin SST is typically 0.1 -0.5 K cooler than the immediate sub-surface water, although considerable variation in the skin-bulk difference has been observed (e.g. Donlon et al., 1999). This temperature difference is due to the vertical heat flux through the thermal boundary layer in the top millimeter of the ocean; net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.”

          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223950477_Measurements_of_the_oceanic_thermal_skin_effect
          The surface skin layer of the ocean, much less than 1 mm thick, is nearly always cooler than the underlying water because the heat flux is nearly always from the ocean to the atmosphere

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698184901185
          The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the “explanation” as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do.

          Your own blogs acknowledge that the heat trapped by CO2 “cannot penetrate into the ocean itself,” and that the temperature gradient for the “skin” layer is 0.002 K at most, which would appear to be less than “a fraction of a degree.” Not only that, but they acknowledge that CO2 has never actually been observed to cause heat changes in bodies of water in an actual experiment. It is therefore a belief (that you obviously share). Why do you believe in something that has never been observed or subjected to an actual scientific experiment, mikeR? How is that science?

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
          Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. … Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat [from CO2 trapping] cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer [“0.1 to 1 mm thick on average”], and the level of this warming [0.002ºK at most as determined using clouds as proxy for CO2 via the RealClimate link] ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the layer. … It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions

          “Obviously it’s not possible to manipulate the concentration of CO2 in the air in order to carry out real world experiments [it’s never been tested, but we believe it’s true anyway], but natural changes in cloud cover provide an opportunity to test the principle.” [Comparing the cloud greenhouse effect to the CO2 greenhouse effect is like comparing apples to refrigerators.]

          RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
          “Clearly it is not possible to alter the concentration of greenhouse gases in a controlled experiment at sea to study the response of the skin-layer [to variations in CO2]. Instead we use the natural variations in clouds to modulate the incident infrared radiation at the sea surface. … There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1 [the total amount of heat change theoretically possible in the skin layer due to changes in cloud cover].”

          The range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)” [Hence the reason why comparing CO2 GHE to CC GHE is ridiculous.

          Again, mikeR, your own blogs acknowledge that the heat generated from CO2-trapping cannot penetrate past the skin layer and into the ocean itself. And even if it could, the largest effect it could possibly exert would be 0.002ºK. No wonder why scientists don’t even mention CO2 when they identify the factors that affect OHC variations. So why do you believe CO2 is the dominant force behind recent climate changes?

          http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C0041%3AOOTIRP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
          Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
          “[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space. The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 not mentioned as an atmospheric constituent affecting the radiative properties of the ocean, or anywhere in the paper.]

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstract
          The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux. [CO2 not mentioned as a parameter in determining surface flux, or anywhere in the paper.]

          http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223950477_Measurements_of_the_oceanic_thermal_skin_effect
          The near-surface temperature gradients that introduce a difference in the skin and bulk temperatures result from three distinct processes: the absorption of insolation, the heat exchange with the atmosphere, and levels of subsurface turbulent mixing.In conditions of low wind speed, the heat generated in the upper few meters of the water column by the absorption of solar radiation is not mixed through the surface layer, but causes thermal stratification and temperature differences between the uppermost layer of the ocean and the water below. There is a strong diurnal [sunshine] component to the magnitude of these temperature gradients, as well as a dependence on cloudcover, which modulates the insolation, and wind speed, which influences the turbulent mixing. [CO2 not mentioned as a factor in the heat exchange, or anywhere in the paper.]

          1. mikeR

            Kenneth addresses a question to myself “Why do you believe that the air almost always heats the water? Or do you?

            No Kenneth I don’t believe this. It probably depends on the temperature of the air relative to the water. Perhaps you beg to differ? If so can you provide your reasoning.

            The skeptical science article you kindly linked to (https://skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html) provides a detailed explanation and evidence as to how GHG warm the ocean. The article refers to the importance of the skin layer that prevents heat escaping from the ocean, in particular the temperature gradient within this layer.

            The temperature of the top layer is critical to the heat loss of the ocean and the resultant equilibrium temperature of the ocean. This thin top layer (in the absence of a vacuum or double glazing or some other some low thermal conductivity barrier between the ocean and the atmosphere) will be affected by the temperature of the atmosphere. Consequently due to the change in the rate of heat loss ( notice neither the author or myself claim the atmosphere is directly heating the ocean) the temperature of the deeper parts of the ocean will also be affected , after varying lengths of time , depending on the depth (and the degree of mixing).

            Kenneth If you don’t believe this then you can conduct an experiment yourself. Fill a jar with water gently heated to 35 degree C. Place it under a shade to protect it from direct sunlight (and down-welling IR) and measure the temperature at various intervals , firstly on a warm day (say with atmospheric temperature 30 degrees C) then repeat the experiment on a very cold day (say 10 degrees C or better still -20 degrees C ) . Let me know the results of your measurements of the water temperature for a range of time intervals from minutes to hours.

            Kenneth get back to me with your conclusions as to whether air temperature does or does not affect the temperature of water.

            p.s. This actually reminds me of an experiment we did as a student in high school about Newton’s law of cooling. Despite this ,I won’t spoil the surprise for Kenneth. I will let him work it out for himself.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “The temperature of the top layer is critical to the heat loss of the ocean”

            The temperature of the top layer, or skin, is predominantly determined by solar heating, mikeR. Not greenhouse gases. Do you deny this? The Sun’s energy is easily the dominant source of the ocean’s heat, as it penetrates 10s of meters past the skin. Or is it possible that you believe the Sun is capable of affecting/heating the first 30 m of the ocean, but its dominance is superseded by CO2 in the 0.1 mm to 1 mm “thick” skin? Do you really believe that?

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50786/full
            “[I]intense daytime solar heating overcomes the net upward longwave energy flux and warms the skin”

            The skin’s temperature gradient does not exceed 0.002K, as even RealClimate acknowledges, and this “heat” in the skin layer is the only means by which CO2 could possibly influence water temperature, and thus it cannot even come close to seriously competing with the other variables (solar, clouds, wind…) that affect the surface flux, let alone become the dominant forcing agent, as you apparently believe. For example, clouds have a significantly larger role within the greenhouse effect (LW) on ocean temperatures than does CO2, and the shortwave forcing by clouds supersedes the longwave to the point that CO2 is but a tiny bit player. Do you deny this?

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
            The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO(2). The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO(2) doubling.

            And again, I see you are joyously citing the SkepticalScience link I cited, a blog, in your embracing of the author’s (who admits he is not a scientist, but a former police officer) hypothetical “explanation” that has never been confirmed in a scientific experiment with controls and physical measurements. I’ve been asking you to cite something other than blogscience to confirm your beliefs about CO2 determining OHC variations, and yet you still cannot. All you have is a blog entry written by a non-scientist. And yet you expect me to just accept that what you believe is true is actually true. Why? Do you consider yourself a skeptic? If so, why do you believe in something (CO2 variations heat or cool water) that has never even been observed, or measured? Do you even question it, or is it “truth” for you?

            And your reference to an “experiment” is amusing. Of course the air temperature itself has an effect on water temperature. That isn’t what’s being “debated” (if we can generously call what you offer here “debate” material). We’re talking about determining the effect on ocean heat of varying CO2 over a body of water, not varying air temperatures over a body of water. Did you not realize this, or are you just obfuscating by pretending that you didn’t know that that’s what this is about? I suspect the latter.

            Again, as both RC and SkS acknowledge, we have no “real world” observational evidence to support the hypothesis that CO2 variance heats or cools water. If you think there is actual observational evidence to support your beliefs, please cite it. I’ve been waiting for you to support your beliefs ever since I first began asking you this question…and all you’ve provided so far is blog entries rooted in hypotheticals.

            Try this experiment (that, unlike yours, actually addresses the question at hand):

            Find or create two empty and identical glass-covered greenhouses (or other transparent buildings) that are located side-by-side, with neither structure affected differently by trees or shade or other outdoor environmental conditions. Inside each building place matching containers (large, preferably) filled with the same amount of water in each. Measure the baseline conditions of water temperature with precise thermometers, and measure the baseline CO2 concentration each building — which will presumably be the same or similar in each. In the first building (control), do not alter the internal natural CO2 concentration, but leave it at baseline (presumably close to 400 ppm). In the second building, inject incrementally increasing quantities of CO2 (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 1,500 ppm) with a CO2 generator (which are used in greenhouses to stimulate plant growth). Use a CO2 monitor (also used routinely in greenhouses) to measure and control the amount of CO2 contained in the experimental building. After a specified time lapse, measure the water temperature change, if any, for both the control building and the building with added CO2 from identical depths and locations for each container. Finally, reverse the process and incrementally draw down the CO2 injection in the experimental building while again gauging water temperature changes for each building.

            What do you think the results would be, mikeR? Do you know? If not (and, of course, you don’t), don’t you think you probably should know the actual physical measurements from a real world experiment like this (or some variation of it) before you attempt to insult others for not believing in the “truth” of CO2-forcing of water temperatures, as you do? (For the record, I am agnostic. I think it’s possible that CO2 variation could have an effect on water temperatures, but I have no idea what effect that would be, if it does. We don’t have any physical measurements.)

            Since you believe CO2 variations cause net ocean heat changes, could you please explain why it is that ocean temperatures plummeted after the Medieval Warm Period through about the 1900, since CO2 levels actually rose slightly during this period? What caused the ocean temperatures to decline, since it wasn’t CO2, mikeR? Or do you believe that it was?

          3. yonason

            @ Kenneth Richard…

            I recently posted a critique of MikeR’s jar of water “experiment,” and just realized I left out a crucial detail. His “expt” is designed for water temp above atmospheric. But in order to address whether the atmosphere heats the water, the water temp should be BELOW atmospheric. Both expts, if they could be properly designed, which he doesn’t even come close to doing for his design, might give some interesting info on relative rates of heat transfer between a body of water and the atmosphere. Whether useful or not I don’t know, but they might be interesting to some specialists. Hmmm, I wonder if any heat transfer folk have already done them?

            Anyway, hopefully Pierre will dig out my comment soon. I’d be appreciative any criticism you could give it, time permitting. Thanks in advance.

    2. AndyG55

      So much WAFFLE..

      Sooooo little actually said.

  16. yonason

    @Kenneth Richard 21. December 2016 at 7:02 AM

    A BRIEF CRITIQUE OF MIKER’s “EXPERIMENT.”

    =============================

    “Fill a jar with water
    gently heated to 35 degree C.”

    “GENTLY HEATED”??? LOL!!! THE FINAL TEMPERATURE IS PATH INDEPENDENT, i.e., IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW ONE ARRIVES AT IT.

    PERHAPS HE IS OF THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST (“These things must be done delicately.”) SCHOOL OF SCIENCE???

    “Place it under a shade to protect it from direct sunlight”

    WHY NOT HAVE ONE IN THE SHADE AND ONE IN SUN? DOESN’T HE THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO QUANTIFY THE DIFFERENCE? (IT’S CALLED A “CONTROL”).
    THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER POSSIBLY IMPORTANT FACTORS THAT HE DOESN’T MENTION, LIKE…

    SEALED JAR vs OPEN (to determine how pronounced the effect of an open surface is for this jar of his).
    INSULATED JAR VS NOT.
    VARIOUS DEGREES OF AIR MOVEMENT OVER THE SURFACE.
    RELATIVE HUMIDITY.
    DEGREE OF SALINITY OF THE WATER.
    CLEAR WATER vs CLOUDY (maybe from algae or other organic particulate).
    WATER pH.
    TEMPERATURE OF THE GROUND THE JAR IS SET ON.
    MATERIAL THE JAR IS MADE OF, AS WELL AS IT’S THICKNESS AND THERMAL PROPERTIES.

    ….JUST TO NAME A FEW.

    “firstly on a warm day (say with atmospheric temperature 30 degrees C)
    then repeat the experiment on a very cold day (say 10 degrees C or better still -20 degrees C ).”

    WHY NOT 30, 20, 10, 0, -10, -20? YOU KNOW, TO GET SOME ACTUAL “DATA.”

    …NOTE THAT -20 DEG C IS -4 DEG F, SO THE WATER SURFACE WOULD FREEZE FIRST, THEREBY INSULATING THE LOWER WATER, SLOWING HEAT LOSS. ALSO, TEMPS THAT LOW AREN’T HELPFUL IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF THE INFLUENCE OF HEAT FLOW AT THE SURFACE ON THE TEMP OF THE REST OF THE WATER.

    MORE DETAIL ON HEAT LOSS THROUGH THE JAR SURFACE:

    THE WATER SURFACE IS EXPOSED TO THE AIR IN HIS “EXPERIMENT,” BUT THE JAR BOTTOM AND SIDES AREN’T INSULATED (IF SO HE SHOULD HAVE SPECIFIED), SO THERE IS HEAT FLUX THERE, AS WELL, WHICH MAKES ANY CAUSE/EFFECT ANALYSIS ON BULK TEMPS PROBLEMATIC. …i.e., HIS “EXPERIMENT” IS NOTHING LIKE AN EQUIVALENT CHUNK OF OCEAN WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY WATER AT CONSTANT TEMPERATURE EXCEPT AT THE SURFACE. …MEANING HIS “EXPERIMENT” WILL TELL HIM NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE OCEAN SURFACE INFLUENCES TEMPERATURES AT OCEAN DEPTH.

    =============================

    In short, MikeR’s “expt” is amateurish and sloppy, and leaves one with little confidence that he has any clue what he is writing about. Perhaps if he went into a bit more detail, rather than leaving it to us to fill in what he left out…assuming he knows how to do that?

    1. mikeR

      Yonasan thank you for your suggested modifications to the experimental protocols for the Newton cooling experiment. By all means do the experiment yourself. Unfortunately there are some indications that you have never been involved in experimental science.

      I note that you want to have a control jar exposed to the sun. This concerns me somewhat as the idea of having a control that is exposed to an uncontrolled environment strikes me as bizarre.

      The point about heating the, water gently (which back in my days was recommended experimental procedure) was to ensure that the temperature of the, water was at the required value. Many thermometer such as mercury or alcohol thermometers, have a slow response to changes in temperature and it would be easy to overshoot the specified temperature. Even with a fast responding device it could be difficult to get the exact time to achieve the required temperature.

      Your suggestions to do the experiment with a cooler jar of water strikes me as excellent. Newtons law of cooling is bit of a misnomer as the law equally applies to heating of a body .

      To make this problem easy, I would take a glass of water that has been in refrigerator for an hour or so , and measure its temperature at various intervals once you take it out the refrigerator. Make sure you have, drawn the curtains so the glass is not exposed to sunlight. Also ensure that your room temperature is greater than 4 degrees C. M my suggestion is turn up the heating to a comfortable 20C .

      However as the debate with Kenneth is just trying to establish whether air can heat water, I am not sure whether you need to go to even the lengths above which requires a thermometer.

      To simplify the experiment even further. I would have two glasses of equal volumes that have been in the refrigerator for the same time. One (the control) remains in the refrigerator while the other is taken out. A comparison can be made after a period such as an hour . You can then judge, whether the glass that ,was exposed to the outside air, in comparison to the water that stayed in the refrigerator was cooler, at the same temperature or warmer.

      You can perform the same experiment with other liquids such as beer or white wine and examine the effect of alcohol content. In this case both liquids could be consumed and the experiment repeated 20 times to ensure statistical accuracy. You may need to fine an Englishman to help with the warm beer.

      For purely scientific reasons I have conducted similar experiments on many occasions. These were referred to as Friday afternoon experiments. Often the results were forgotten by the end of the experiment but for others I do have recall. Again I will not pre-bias your results by indicating what my results were.

      Finally you cold forgo all this experimental work (and liver damage) by performing a Gedanken experiment. Just think about it.

      By the way Yonasan it is considered poor netiquette to SHOUT. There are more solitary pursuits that can be used to relieve your pent up frustrations

      1. yonason

        FOOD FOR THOUGHT

        “…there are some indications that you have never been involved in experimental science.”

        hahahahahahahah

        “By the way Yonasan it is considered poor netiquette to SHOUT.”

        I was writing yours as small and mine as large so it would be clear which was which. I would have italicized yours, leaving mine normal, if the usual html codes worked for me on this website. They don’t. That was the only way I could do that. So, no, I wasn’t “SHOUTING,” even though I realized it might look like that after I posted it. Whatever.

        Now back to why your “experiment” is irrelevant.

        Since we all know that a warm object will cool in the presence of a cooler object, the question is not IF it will occur, but how long it will take. So, let’s see what the likelihood of that will be in the case of oceans vs atmosphere.

        The relative volume of the worlds oceans is less than, but comparable to that of the atmosphere (They are roughly the same order of magnitude.)
        http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/159214/530wm/E0550330-Global_water_and_air_volume-SPL.jpg

        HOWEVER… Thermodynmically, the oceans are the elephant in the china cabinet, being 3 orders of magnitude greater than the air.
        https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/image2.png

        Transfer of heat from water to air will dominate, i.e., the oceans rule the climate, not the other way around. But then, that’s what Kenneth has been saying all along, isn’t it, that the oceans heat the atmosphere, but that the atmosphere doesn’t heat the oceans. It can not. It’s far too insignificant.

        1. mikeR

          Yonasan,

          Firstly I am glad my comment regarding your patent lack of expertise in experimental design was greeted with humor. I agree your suggestion that the ‘the control ‘ be placed in uncontrolled environment was indeed very humorous.

          I am glad you have come around to the idea that cold liquid can be heated by air. You must have performed the beer experiment many times

          Objects that are at different temperatures and are in contact exchange heat. One gets warmer while the other one cools. The amount of cooling/heating depends on their heat capacities and of course you are right about the relative heat capacities that are very different, so in nearly every circumstances the cooling of the atmosphere is significantly larger than the warming of the entire ocean. Hence the concept of a cool sea breeze. Things can be different however at the skin layer of the ocean from which satellites measure SST.

          The following needs to be read with a warning. I am not or have ever been a climate scientist , an atmospheric physicist or an oceanographer. Usually I like to leave comments like the following to those with more expertise, which are very thin on the ground here. However as I have said before, having little or no expertise does not seem to be an issue for most who comment here.

          So my lay interpretation is, as follows.

          There are at least two aspects of the way the atmosphere interact with the ocean. The first is by direct contact between the two. This effect maybe dominated by other sources of heat . When the sun is present this direct heating by the sun will clearly dominate. However at night, the air temperature may have a more noticeable effect and it maybe more significant on a regional basis. To illustrate this, during the Arctic winter, storms that bring warm air from the south can slow down the freezing of the ocean during the freezing season or increase the melt during the melting season .This appears to be the case in the Arctic as evidenced by the rapid declines accompanying such storms that was exhibited this year.

          The second more general process is the continuous influence of down welling IR radiation from predominantly water vapour and to lesser extent by other greenhouse gases. Despite the claim by many in the denial community that this cannot occur, opinions to the contrary about this can be found from both sides of the debate, at the following sites.

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/ , and https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/ and https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/ and parts two, three and four, https://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/can-downwelling-infrared-warm-ocean.HTML, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/ , http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body/ and http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii .

          The last might link might be of particular interest to Kenneth as it provides some direct experimental evidence, despite its shortcomings.

          By the way I apologize for following Kenneth’s example of dumping links.

          It maybe symptomatic of another issue. I can sense the reduction in my IQ, the longer I participate in these exchanges. The only saving grace is the law of conservation of IQ. My loss may be compensated by an increase in the IQ of the others that frequent this site . For them the only way is up.

          Please Yonasan don’t take this latter facetious comment too seriously.

          I did promise myself that I would not bother with another exchange with the denizens of this site , due to ennui and time constraints .Unfortunately I am honouring the promise in the breach.

          Anyway another 30 minutes of my life gone wasted on this nonsense.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            mikeR: “Despite the claim by many in the denial community that this cannot occur, opinions to the contrary about this can be found from both sides of the debate, at the following sites:

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/ , and https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/ and https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/ and parts two, three and four, https://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/can-downwelling-infrared-warm-ocean.HTML, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/ , http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body/ and http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii .

            Excellent job, mikeR. You have once again managed to provide links to 7 blog essays regarding how CO2 miight possibly maybe could perhaps heat the ocean. Not a single one of them is found in a peer-reviewed journal. And the the one from Dr. Spencer’s blog that you think provides “direct experimental evidence” doesn’t even include CO2 variation as a test variable, just as the RealClimate “experiment” doesn’t either (clouds are used).

            You have once again demonstrated that your beliefs about CO2 radiating ocean heat are based solely on blogscience, hypotheticals, and non-observed assumptions. But yet, in your mind, you think you have the science on your side.

            “I can sense the reduction in my IQ, the longer I participate in these exchanges. The only saving grace is the law of conservation of IQ. My loss may be compensated by an increase in the IQ of the others that frequent this site . For them the only way is up.”

            These are the kind of comments that are not helping you here, mikeR. They make you appear very small.

          2. AndyG55

            You better go, miker.

            With an IQ as low as yours, you cannot afford to lose any more.

            Single digits does seem to be a natural fit for you, though.

          3. yonason

            “To simplify the experiment even further. I would have two glasses of equal volumes that have been in the refrigerator for the same time. One (the control) remains in the refrigerator while the other is taken out.” – MikeR

            Exxcellent idea, MikeR. When I’m done with the “expt” I’ll have a nice refreshing thirst quencher. Very considerate of you.

            “I am glad you have come around to the idea that cold liquid can be heated by air.”(**) – MikeR

            We NEVER said it couldn’t, MikeR. We’re all familiar with heat loss/gain by hot/cold liquids in a thermos. What we are saying, and you keep ignoring, is that you need to provide concrete experimental proof that an insignificant increase in a thermodynamically insignificant trace gas can alter the extent of said heat transfer.

            ** Straw man alert.

          4. mikeR

            Sorry Yonason, if I was using a straw man reference it must be catching. Whoever thought that you could catch such stupidity through communication with sufferers via the Internet? I know we have computer viruses but I didn’t realize they could be vectors for transmission for stupidly.

            However I do dispute the straw man diagnosis as the experiment I described here (http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/16/current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-2-centuries-and-grant-fosters-far-fetched-model-claims/comment-page-1/#comment-1154077 ) could allowed you to calculate the effect of relatively small changes in CO2 by either interpolating or extrapolating the results to the 400 pm regime. Next time actually read my comments before you reply.

            Maybe try the experiment yourself.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            I do dispute the straw man diagnosis as the experiment I described here could allowed you to calculate the effect of relatively small changes in CO2 by either interpolating or extrapolating the results to the 400 pm regime. Next time actually read my comments before you reply.

            mikeR, if one does not actually vary CO2 concentrations up or down over water bodies, then this “experiment” does not actually provide physical measurements for the effects of CO2 on ocean heat. “Interpolating or extrapolating the results to the 400 ppm regime” is not a thing, as you are referring to models and hypotheticals, not real, empirical evidence subjected to the scientific method. In other words, you’re not doing a science experiment testing the effects of varying CO2 over water bodies if you don’t actually vary CO2 over a body of water.

            I originally thought you were just pretending that you didn’t know that you have to actually use CO2 as a variable when testing the effects of CO2 on water heat. Now I’m wondering if you weren’t pretending.

          6. AndyG55

            Poor miker.. not a straw man.. and EMPTY man.

            Yet another load of meaningless, empty dribble.

            Reading your comments is only ever going to have a dumbing down effect on even the brightest person.

            When are you going to learn to put a coherent scientific argument together ??????

          7. yonason

            I DID read what you posted and what you think passes for an informed comment. It isn’t.

            You think you’ve got Kenneth because he asserted that air can’t affect OCEAN temps, but can affect WATER temps. Let me state it as simply as I can for you, MikeR. Water small. Ocean big. It’s a matter of scale. Size matters, as I have also written about. So, yeah, I stand by my strawman comment.

            Here’s an experiment for you. Immerse 1 liter of water at 50 degrees into a perfectly insulated flexible container with 10 liters of air at 70 degrees. What’s the final equilibrium temperature of the system?

            Another little problem with the post you linked to is your snarky remark about Venus, “I gather they are using our sister planet Venus as the control.” Presumably you think Venus is so hot because of CO2? Sorry, you lose again.
            http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html

            Among his concluding remarks is “…the statement that the ‘extra hundreds of degrees of Venusian heat’ are mostly due to the greenhouse effect is simply wrong.”

            …as are you.

          8. Kenneth Richard

            “You think you’ve got Kenneth because he asserted that air can’t affect OCEAN temps, but can affect WATER temps.”

            I avoid using words like “can’t”, as this implies certainty. And I do think that air temperatures can and do have some effect on ocean temperatures. But in the case of oceans vs. atmosphere, we are talking about several orders of magnitudes of heat capacity differences, and thus the “some” effect that the air temperature has on water temperatures is minuscule relative to the direct heat source’s radiative variation.

            Volumetric heat capacity of water = 4.1796 J•cm−3•K−1
            Volumetric heat capacity of air = 0.00121 J•cm−3•K−1
            So it takes 3,454 times more energy to heat up 1 liter of water than it does to heat up 1 liter of air.
            Volume of the world’s oceans = 1.338 billion km3
            Volume of the world’s atmosphere = 4.177 billion km3
            It would take 1,106 times more energy to raise the temperature of the earth’s oceans by 1°C than it would to raise the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by 1°C.

          9. mikeR

            Kenneth,

            Once again you are demonstrating the limits of your understanding of science.

            To interpolate or extrapolate you need to have, by definition, the temperature at more that one CO2 value. In the slightly more complex version of the experiment I described, this could be accomplished by varying the amount of Bicarbonate or HCl.

          10. Kenneth Richard

            mikeR: “To interpolate or extrapolate you need to have, by definition, the temperature at more that one CO2 value.”

            To test the effects of CO2 on water temperatures, you actually need to use CO2 variation as a variable in the experiment. As a professional “experimental physicist”, do you have a scientific paper you can cite that actually does utilize CO2 as a variable in a scientific experiment? If so, what are the physical measurements? If CO2 concentrations were decreased by -0.00001 (10 ppm) over a body of water, by how much will the water temperature be cooled?

            Speaking of CO2 causing cooling when it is reduced, can you answer this question? I’ll ask for a 6th time since you’ve refused to answer on the other 5 occasions.

            What was the mechanism that caused OHC to plummet between the MWP and LIA, since CO2 levels actually rose slightly during that period? If it wasn’t CO2, what was it? Throughout the Holocene, ocean temperatures also rose and plummeted several times at rates and amplitudes that far exceeded the tiny change in OHC since the 1950s. What caused those dramatic shifts in OHC/temperature, mikeR? CO2 didn’t flux. So what was it?

          11. AndyG55

            MikeR has once again demonstrated he has NO UNDERSTANDING of SCIENCE at all.

            Zero understanding, just anti-science ranting and BS.

            His ONLY input so far.

            We await something resembling science, mikeR, but it seems you will never get that far.

          12. AndyG55

            You are talking to a brick wall, Kenneth.

            He knows he is totally unable to answer any of your questions.

            He will now come back with yet another waffling, tedious load of tripe, saying basically NOTHING.

          13. yonason

            @Kenneth Richard 26. December 2016 at 6:18 AM

            RE use of “can’t”

            Sorry, didn’t mean to put my words in your mouth.

            I meant essentially what you write, though. And yes, I’m aware of the vast difference in heat capacities.

            Thanks.

          14. yonason

            RE Arctic waters not freezing in winter.

            Warm ocean currents may have something to do with it.
            http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/arctic_currents_sm.jpg

            As to downwelling IR, where did it come from? If it comes from the sun, of course it will warm the surface. If what came from the sun is re-emitted up by the surface, then when it comes down it just replaces what left, so there’s no net increase. If you think so, please show how one photon becomes two, becomes four, etc. That would be some trick if you can manage it.

      2. AndyG55

        MikeR manages yet another load of mindless waffle..

        and says NOTHING.

        1. yonason

          Sounds like he’s angling for a Nobel Surprise in chemistriness.

          1. AndyG55

            Nobel faeces prize.

            Like Al Gore and the IPISS.

  17. mikeR

    “The temperature of the top layer, or skin, is predominantly determined by solar heating, mikeR. “

    Total agreement with that Kenneth, especially when the sun is above the horizon.

    However I am not sure how effective it is in heating the 1 mm thick layer at night or presently at latitudes north of the arctic circle. In fact there are currently open ocean areas in the Arctic that haven’t seen the sun for a month or more. I wonder what is keeping that water above freezing, maybe moonlight?

    Keep digging that hole Kenneth. If you dig far enough you will eventually find daylight, maybe.

    The other point to note is Kenneth’s consistency.

    Kenneth yesterday,
    “No, it’s probably better for you to stick with your blogscience results, mikeR, as I’m a little dubious that you’ll be able to get a scientific journal to agree that changes in air temperatures cause changes in ocean temperatures considering the orders-of-magnitude differences with regard to the heat capacity of the oceans vs. the air.”

    Kenneth today,
    “Of course the air temperature itself has an effect on water temperature. That isn’t what’s being “debated” (if we can generously call what you offer here “debate” material). We’re talking about determining the effect on ocean heat of varying CO2 over a body of water, not varying air temperatures over a body of water. Did you not realize this, or are you just obfuscating by pretending that you didn’t know that that’s what this is about? I suspect the latter.”

    Finally, Kenneth incessantly complains that there is no direct experimental evidence that greenhouse gases can increase the temperature of water. He then suggests a set of experiments with green houses. Unfortunately I have no access currently to such facilities so I leave it to him to perform these measurements and report back. If he has such confidence that can obtain data that refutes the greenhouse effect , then I stress it is imperative that he conducts these experiments for the sake of humanity . As a by product I believe fame and fortune will follow for our Kenneth.

    However there are other possible experiments which do not entail actual greenhouse. If you search on the internet there are several examples of these experiments.

    They usually involve the measurement of the temperature of water in bottles with air with and without CO2, after being exposed for a period to a lamp or the sun. The results seem to be contrary to Kenneth’s presumptions.

    Kenneth you could replicate these experiments more rigorously. My suggestion is to also vary the concentration of CO2. This could be accomplished by the addition to the water of carefully measured amounts of sodium bicarbonate and HCl (be careful with the HCl, make sure you have adult supervision). With the use of basic stoichiometry, in conjunction with tables for the solubility of Co2 at different temperatures and a calculation of the partial pressure, you should be able to estimate the concentration of CO2 in the air for each bottle (and also the NaCl content of the water- you could adjust the salt to try and match sea water) .

    With a control bottle without C02 and the range of CO2 concentrations in the other bottles, he should be able to extrapolate his temperature readings back to a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm. Kenneth could also observe the effect of a doubling of the concentration of CO2. Sounds like fun.

    Kenneth, if you have any modifications to the experimental design so it meets your presumably stringent requirements please feel free to incorporate them. If the costs associated with the experiment are too onerous then there are various funding bodies that could be approached.

    The Heartland institute is an obvious choice as they are already a source of funding , on an indefinite basis for the current grand scale in-situ experiment. I gather they are using our sister planet Venus as the control.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      However I am not sure how effective it is in heating the 1 mm thick layer at night or presently at latitudes north of the arctic circle. In fact there are currently open ocean areas in the Arctic that haven’t seen the sun for a month or more. I wonder what is keeping that water above freezing, maybe moonlight?

      Wow. Is it possible that you actually believe that CO2 keeps the Arctic waters warm, or above freezing, during the winter, when it’s dark for months on end? I would not be the least bit surprised if this is actually what you believe to be true: humans keep the Arctic waters from freezing with their CO2 emissions. Wow.

      mikeR, the waters in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions have gigantic heat storage capacities that circulate and redistribute their heat via natural processes; the heat doesn’t just disappear in winter, or when the Sun doesn’t shine, as you apparently believe. I assume this is brand new information for you, as apparently you get most of your informational material about the Arctic climate from blogs which insist that humans are the primary determinants of the Arctic climate.

      Here’s a paper about stored ocean heat from solar absorption that might help you understand these natural processes more adequately, and why the heat doesn’t just “disappear” when the Sun isn’t shining.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064541/abstract
      High-resolution measurements of ocean temperature and salinity in the Arctic Ocean’s Canada Basin reveal the importance of the release of solar-derived stored ocean heat on sea-ice growth. Locally-absorbed summer solar heat is stored in a Near Surface Temperature Maximum (NSTM) layer underlying the mixed layer. The heat content of the NSTM layer was anomalously large following summer 2007, which saw considerable sea-ice losses and intense solar absorption into the exposed surface ocean. Measurements provide evidence for the entrainment of NSTM-layer heat in fall/winter 2007–08 by shear-driven mixing, and convective mixing by the release of dense, salty plumes during sea-ice growth. While at least a portion of the NSTM-layer was eroded, deeper warm ocean layers remained unaffected. It is shown that the release of solar heat stored following summer 2007 was sufficient to have reduced sea-ice thickness at the end of the 2008 growth season by about 25%.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4440/abstract
      A multiple linear regression analysis reveals that interannual variability in extreme blocking and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) are the two predominant drivers of surface meltwater production across the entire Greenland ice sheet (GrIS), but Arctic sea ice extent and North Atlantic cyclone activity can also influence the extent of summer melting over portions of the GrIS.

      Zhang, 2015
      http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4570.full
      The estimated increase in the Atlantic heat transport into the Arctic since 1979 is consistent with the [natural] strengthening of AMOC since the mid 1970s implied by indirect evidence such as the AMOC fingerprints, and could have contributed substantially to the observed summer Arctic SIE decline.

      Lessen and Thejll, 2005
      http://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/Rapporter/SR/sr05-02.pdf
      Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea-Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000
      [W]e find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.

      The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html
      Here we show that the recent warming in this region is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity [planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation] originating in the tropical Pacific. Atmospheric model experiments forced by prescribed tropical sea surface temperatures simulate the observed circulation changes and associated tropospheric and surface warming over northeastern Canada and Greenland. Experiments from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (ref. 16) models with prescribed anthropogenic forcing show no similar circulation changes related to the North Atlantic Oscillation or associated tropospheric warming. This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.

      https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/6A/SpecialEdition/6A_SpecialEdition_1/_pdf
      Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic [cooling, then warming] can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO not by the external response due to the human activity.

    2. Kenneth Richard

      Kenneth incessantly complains that there is no direct experimental evidence that greenhouse gases can increase the temperature of water. He then suggests a set of experiments with green houses. Unfortunately I have no access currently to such facilities so I leave it to him to perform these measurements and report back.

      Um, mikeR, I’m not the believer here. You are. You apparently believe that CO2 variations above water bodies in volumes of +/-0.000001 provide the requisite forcing to heat or cool 4,500 m deep oceans. Yes, it’s a belief. It’s never been tested in a scientific experiment. We have no physical measurements verifying the effect of CO2 variations on water temperatures in any sort of a real-world experiment. Obviously, having no physical or observational evidence isn’t the least bit problematic for you: you’re going to believe it’s true anyway. Like religious faith. You’re not a skeptic, obviously. You just accept the paradigm without questioning it, probably due to a reliance on the authority behind it: most people believe it, so it must be true. As a true skeptic, I am agnostic on this. On the other hand, the sheer absence of any scientific paper providing physical measurements and observational results regarding an experiment involving CO2’s effect on water heat is rather concerning. Unlike you, I don’t just “believe” anyway. I question. You don’t. You just believe.

      Since you are a believer, though, mikeR, please answer this question (which I will ask again since you avoided answering it the first time):

      Between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, ocean heat content plummeted dramatically. During this same period, CO2 levels rose slightly. So something caused dramatic changes in the ocean’s heat content. Assuming you agree it wasn’t CO2, what do you think it was? What was the mechanism?

      Furthermore, throughout the Holocene, OHC has rapidly risen and fallen at rates that far exceed today’s (Bova et al., 2016; Rosenthal et al., 2017) amplitudes. This can clearly be seen on this graph:
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Heat-Content-Rosenthal13-copy.jpg

      What caused those rapid and pronounced changes in OHC, mikeR? Surely you don’t believe it was CO2. Or do you?

  18. mikeR

    Kenneth,

    You just can’t help yourself can you. Once again in true straw man style you attempt to put words in my mouth, with this prime example of your methodology . “Wow. Is it possible that you actually believe that CO2 keeps the Arctic waters warm, or above freezing, during the winter, when it’s dark for months on end “

    No!, No! No!, No raised to the power of n.

    Co2 of course cannot explain the warming in its entirety (underline entirety). Thee explanation for the warmth is obviously multi-factorial. There is the thermal inertia of the ocean, which as you say is probably the biggest factor , there are also winds that bring warmer air from the south, there are clouds, there are near-surface temperature maximum (NSTM) layers in certain regions (see your first reference below. ) etc…

    However the last I heard the Arctic temperatures are currently above -237C so this region is still emitting IR in the direction of space and the intervening water vapour, CO2 and methane will still absorb the outgoing radiation and remit downwards.

    To save time, I am going to preempt a possible response regarding the much higher greenhouse effect due to water vapour than due to CO2, but this is possibly premature as Kenneth might be a disbeliever in both?. But if he is not a disbeliever then this will inevitably lead on to discussion about the differences between water vapour (precipitable water and CO2 residence times) and the commonality (absorption bands in the IR) . A good discussion of this can be found at https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm .

    Finally Kenneth you have stretched the limits of my patience with your war of attrition via straw men,, Ctrl C and Ctrl V tactics, arrant hypocrisy (I recall Kenneth commenting about the material inside this blog while complaining about Tamino’s blog! ) and assorted diversions . With regard to the latter, I am not bothering to follow Kenneth down his latest rabbit hole, as therein lies madness,

    The holiday season and warm weather beckons me and additionally I also have bigger fish to fry so I may not have the time to deal with more of your nonsense.

    Kenneth. I will leave you to have the field to yourself . Someone else might be paying attention. Good luck to those unfortunates.

    Have a great Christmas and New Year.

    p.s. How is the CO2 in a bottle experiment going?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Yet another post in which you have avoided answering questions related to your beliefs about CO2 heating water. (Why did OHC plummet from the MWP to the LIA since CO2 rose during that period, mikeR?) Yet another post devoid of any scientific paper, and instead we enjoy yet another solicitation of the SkepticalScience blog. That’s apparently all you have.

      No, you are once again wrong in supposing I would be fomenting an argument about CO2 vs. water vapor within the GHE. No, as even RealClimate acknowledges, even clouds are by far the more dominant factor in the greenhouse effect than CO2:

      RC: “[T]he range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”

      Smithusen et al. (2015) find that the CO2 greenhouse effect at the poles is “weak” to non-existent. In fact, increasing CO2 causes cooling for portions of Antarctica (according to the authors’ measurements). This is probably new information for you, mikeR, as it comes from Geophysical Research Letters, not a blog:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
      Abstract: For this region [central Antarctica], the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system.

      For most of the Antarctic Plateau, GHE-TES [greenhouse effect as measured by the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer] is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling. Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive. An evaluation of monthly averages of GHE-TES shows that the increased cooling due to CO2 of Antarctica is strongest during austral spring and autumn. … Central Antarctica is the only place on the planet where increased CO2 concentrations lead to an increased LW energy loss to space [cooling]. In the Northern Hemisphere the lowest, but invariably positive, [CO2] forcing values are seen over Greenland and Eastern Siberia.

      Here is an illustrative graph (link below) from the paper below indicates that the observed CO2 greenhouse warming effect is weak, close to zero (~5 W m-2), for both Antarctica and Greenland relative to the rest of the globe, which averages ~20 W m-2. So why do you believe CO2 dominates at the poles, mikeR?
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015GL066749/asset/image_n/grl53769-fig-0004.png?v=1&s=e020fff98b6acf78d73242ddc49a2603806b7158

      Here are a few recent papers that show that cloud radiative forcing is capable of melting 90 Gt of ice a year and warming the GIS surface by 1.2 C. According to your beliefs, how much ice does a change in CO2 concentration of 0.000002 by volume (+2 ppm/yr) serve to melt the Greenland ice sheet in a given year? Do your blogs provide the measurements in Gt? Or perhaps you actually have a scientific paper you could reference?

      Tricht et al., 2016
      http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160112/ncomms10266/pdf/ncomms10266.pdf
      Clouds are known to play a pivotal role in regulating the local SEB [Surface Energy Balance], with competing warming and cooling effects on the surface. … The satellite-based cloud observations allow to estimate the cloud impact on the SEB [Surface Energy Balance]. … The annual mean CRE [Cloud Radiative Effect] of 29.5 (±5.2) W m 2 provides enough energy to melt 90 Gt of ice in the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] ablation area during July and August. … The snow model simulations, which capture the evolution of the GrIS SMB [Surface Mass Balance] from 2007 to 2010, indicate that clouds warm the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] surface by 1.2° (±0.1) C on average over the entire period [2007-2010]. … These results further indicate that not only liquid-bearing clouds but also clouds composed exclusively of ice significantly increase radiative fluxes into the surface and decrease GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance]

      Conway and Cullen, 2016
      http://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/313/2016/tc-10-313-2016.pdf
      The effect of clouds on glacier surface energy balance (SEB) has received increased attention in the last decade … Given the frequent cloud cover at the site, cloudy periods accounted for a majority of the melt observed, especially during autumn when SWnet [shortwave] inputs were lower

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4540/abstract
      At low latitudes, strong seasonal changes in cloud cover and precipitation largely control the mass balance of glaciers.

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0076.1
      The surface energy budget plays a critical role in determining the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which in turn has significant implications for global sea levels. Nearly three years of data (January 2011–October 2013) are used to characterize the annual cycle of surface radiative fluxes and cloud radiative forcing (CRF) from the central Greenland Ice Sheet at Summit Station. The annual average CRF [cloud radiative forcing] is 33 W m−2, representing a substantial net cloud warming of the central Greenland surface. Unlike at other Arctic sites, clouds warm the surface during the summer. The surface albedo is high at Summit throughout the year, limiting the cooling effect of the shortwave CRF and thus the total CRF is dominated by cloud longwave warming effects in all months. All monthly mean CRF [cloud radiativer forcing] values are positive (warming)
      ——————-

      Finally Kenneth you have stretched the limits of my patience with your war of attrition via straw men,, Ctrl C and Ctrl V tactics, arrant hypocrisy (I recall Kenneth commenting about the material inside this blog while complaining about Tamino’s blog! ) and assorted diversions . With regard to the latter, I am not bothering to follow Kenneth down his latest rabbit hole, as therein lies madness

      Yes, we all know the reason why you refuse to answer simple questions related to the heating/cooling of the oceans via CO2 concentration changes. It’s because you know all you have is blogscience to support your beliefs, and even they don’t help you on this matter. I have no idea what you’re talking about with your strange “example” of hypocrisy “I recall Kenneth commenting about the material inside this blog while complaining about Tamino’s blog!”, but I will assume this is just related to understandable frustration.

      Yes, have a good holiday.

    2. AndyG55

      “A good discussion of this can be found at https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

      ROFLMAO.

      You CANNOT be serious, Mike.!!!!

      NO WONDER you are so mixed up and ill-informed about the FACT the CO2 back radiation cannot cause ocean water because..

      1. It is LW, therefore cannot penetrate the water surface.

      2. CO2 re-emittance doesn’t happen below about 11km in the atmosphere anyway.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        You CANNOT be serious, Mike.!!!!

        He is dead serious. Blogscience is all he has to go on when it comes to attempting to support his beliefs about CO2 heating water. This is the same person who tried to undermine a scientist’s paper a week or two ago because it happened to have been published in a scholarly journal he considers inferior. And yet he finds it quite acceptable to use the information provided by Skeptical Science to support his beliefs about why CO2 heats the ocean.

        Here is “How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean” by Rob Painting. This is the citation mikeR uses to support his beliefs.
        https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

        Here is the biographical information on Rob Painting, the author of the above blogscience.
        https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
        Rob [Painting] is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.”

        This is the “science” that the whole of AGW paradigm is built on. No experiments. No physical measurements. No observational evidence. Just hypothetical models. And that’s all it takes for someone like mikeR to become a believer.

        This is the same mikeR who, upthread, wrote this:

        mikeR: “I tend to get annoyed by comments that , in my opinion, do not have any basis in science.”

  19. AndyG55

    There has been NO WARMING in Antarctica in the whole of the satellite data, despite CO2 levels climbing to over 400ppm.

    https://s19.postimg.org/5dm8qkc4z/UAH_So_Pol_All.png

    There has been NO WARMING in the Arctic except for El Nino events and AMO ocean currents. In fact UAH NoPol shows NO WARMING this century before the El Nino.

    https://s19.postimg.org/jrz6i34oj/UAH_No_Pol_2000_2016.png

    There is , in fact NO CO2 WARMING signal in the whole of the satellite data. NONE.

    The only very slight warming has come from El Nino and regional ocean effects, NEITHER of which have anything to do with CO2, but everything to do with the Sun and natural cycles.

  20. mikeR

    Kenneth,

    I had the misfortune of taking a peek at this blog, which I had promised myself not to do as the contents are dangerous for one’s sanity. I was also going to spend my time on more fruitful pursuits than replying to someone whose pompous self-regard dwarfs even mine.

    But due to the hilarity of Kenneth’s latest contributions I had to make comment. The above smearing of the author of the skeptical science piece is laughable by the (/sarcasm on) scientifically and academically well credentialed Kenneth (who clearly is a legend in his own mind).

    Kenneth’s massive personal list of peer reviewed publications should be revealed. For some reason he hasn’t done so. Modesty must have precluded him from doing so. Alternatively, he may be using an alias so maybe he could at least indicate the number of peer reviewed publications he has authored or co-authored for either name. If I was to hazard a guess I suspect the answer corresponds to any integer between but not including -1 and +1.

    Dumping a series of what he thinks are relevant links to papers (often paywalled) is delusional if the thinks that is how a scientist works. To have even a scintilla of credibility Kenneth you actually have to read, or in this case be able to demonstrate an understanding of a scientific publication. In light of that I would like him to review one or two of the publications he has linked to. I have already given my opinion ( see http://tinyurl.com/zj6n98k) of a paper by Douglass that Kenneth linked to on a previous occasion ( even upon the most cursory read it was clear that it was destined for the round file) . Maybe Kenneth could review this paper in detail so that we can see his genius at work.

    Actually a much easier task will be for him to examine the seminal work (/sarcasm back on) he linked to on an earlier occasion by the three Canadian psychologists Vares et al., 2016 http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm .
    I would love to see Kenneth review this paper in detail. I am not sure which of the three authors correspond to Larry, Mo and Curly but this paper should be the lead paper in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

    Over to you Kenneth, show us what you are made of. If required, I can certainly provide my review of this paper , once I stop laughing.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Sorry, mikeR, but I have no problem acknowledging that my degrees are in the social sciences, and I haven’t published any climate-related paper in a journal.

      What you apparently have failed to understand (still) is that, by pointing out Rob Painting’s credentials, I was merely illustrating the quality of your source material in your “attempts” to support your beliefs about CO2 variations causing net heat content to rise on centennial scales. Again, that is what this whole discussion was about. That’s why I keep on asking you the same questions about why you believe what you do, and why you respond by citing blogscience written by Rob Painting or oddly claiming that the question of how, physically, CO2 heats water is a “going-down-a-rabbit-hole” diversion.

      You ostensibly have nothing else to offer but blog essays as source material to support your beliefs. In contrast, we cite peer-reviewed scientific papers here. That’s the difference between us, mikeR. Next week we will be releasing the list of 450 scientific papers published in 2016 that support a skeptical position on global warming alarm. In it are 130 papers on solar forcing’s role in climate change. A list with 107 of the Sun-Climate papers was pre-released a month or so ago (23 have been added to the list since then). You can see that list here: http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/21/the-sun-climate-connection-over-100-scientific-papers-from-2016-link-solar-forcing-to-climate-change/

      Also included in the list of 450 papers are about 60 to 70 papers related to the paleoclimate’s much warmer-than-now temperatures, including several reconstructions that cast doubt on the claims that the “globe” has been warming in recent decades. A summarizing article regarding this topic (with 55 papers referenced from 2016) was just posted a few days ago: http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/22/the-hockey-stick-collapses-50-new-2016-scientific-papers-affirm-todays-warming-isnt-global-unprecedented-or-remarkable/

      We’ll also have a few dozen scientific papers supporting a skeptical position on sea level rise. Some examples of articles that have already utilized these new papers: http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/29/30-scientific-papers-reveal-inverse-co2-sea-level-signal-as-co2-rises-sea-level-falls/ …. http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/ …. http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/05/3-new-papers-global-seas-now-rising-about-2-inches-per-century-claims-of-1-meter-rise-by-2100-sheer-nonsense/ …. http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/01/all-natural-four-new-scientific-publications-show-no-detectable-sea-level-rise-signal/

      If you were to stick around and post some more responses in the future, you will find that I invariably provide a sizable volume of citations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature to support my positions. Again, that’s the main difference between you and me. You cite blogs. And you run away from the most basic of climate science questions, such as:

      What was the mechanism that caused OHC to plummet between the MWP and LIA, since CO2 levels actually rose slightly during that period? If it wasn’t CO2, what was it? Throughout the Holocene, ocean temperatures also rose and plummeted several times at rates and amplitudes that far exceeded the tiny change in OHC since the 1950s. What caused those dramatic shifts in OHC/temperature, mikeR? CO2 didn’t flux. So what was it?

      This is a question I’ve asked you 4 times now; each time you refuse to respond. We all know why, mikeR. But I sure would like to be wrong and actually see you respond to this with something other than your usual blogscience links or personal insults.

      Have a great holiday, mikeR. Sorry that you consider us “dangerous to one’s sanity.”

      1. mikeR

        “Sorry, mikeR, but I have no problem acknowledging that my degrees are in the social sciences, and I haven’t published any climate-related paper in a journal.”

        Kenneth, have you pointed this out to your avid readers and fans before? Perhaps you should put this as a disclaimer before every one of your blog post and comments.

        The Wizard of Oz has provided characters such as the straw men which you have employed regularly as a primary resource for your argumentation. Consequently the scene near the end of the movie, when the imperious wizard is revealed as a frail old man and a fraud, seems particularly appropriate. It is a bit sad actually.

        However there is nothing per se wrong with being a social scientist .Has Kenneth (or an alter ego) published in that field? Who knows? Who actually cares ( other than again to gauge the level of deception).

        So Kenneth I take it you will not, review the paper by Vares et al. that you enthusiastically linked to. The bitter truth revealed above is that you are incapable of understanding the paper.

        However others who frequent this site, as well as Frank (upon his return), and maybe Pierre could help with the review of this paper. Another resource are the scientists affiliated with the Heartland Institute. They have a number of decrepit geriatric scientists who, despite having little background in climate science , are trotted out to give a cloak of scientific respectability to that organization. They could be of assistance.

        I anxiously await such a review but I will not be holding my breath due to the dangers of auto-asphyxiation.

        Finally I will raise the ante by linking to the IPCC report(http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf ) that has about 9,800 links embedded therein , rather than drip feeding a few at a time. There are many that are related to the OHC/temperature the MWP and LIA. There are about 50 references for the latter two in the document. Just look for yourself.

        I do not claim to have read many of the vast number of articles linked to in the report and there are also many that are well beyond my level of understanding (my background in this field is limited as I am a just a humble experimental physicist) so I will not make grandiose claims lest someone comes along, in an act of karma, pricks my pretensions.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          I honestly could not care any less what you or anyone else thinks of my “credentials” to comment on matters of climate, mikeR.

          http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
          An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

          Person A makes claim X.
          Person B makes an attack on person A.
          Therefore A’s claim is false.

          The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

          mikeR: “I am a just a humble experimental physicist”

          So why can’t you provide links to anything other than blogscience to support your beliefs about CO2 heating water, mikeR? Why can’t you cite an actual scientific paper that provides the physical measurements from an actual experiment involving CO2 as a variable? Is it because you know that your beliefs aren’t rooted in anything involving actual experimental physics?

          I’ll ask this simple question for a 5th time, since you have avoided providing an answer in the previous four attempts:

          What was the mechanism that caused OHC to plummet between the MWP and LIA, since CO2 levels actually rose slightly during that period? If it wasn’t CO2, what was it? Throughout the Holocene, ocean temperatures also rose and plummeted several times at rates and amplitudes that far exceeded the tiny change in OHC since the 1950s. What caused those dramatic shifts in OHC/temperature, mikeR? CO2 didn’t flux. So what was it?

          1. mikeR

            I am totally unsurprising that Kenneth knows what an ad-hominem attack is , as he has mastered this tactic along with straw men and diversions. Actually I am not sure if he is that floridly delusional but I wouldn’t rule it out.

            Look Kenneth, the edifice has crumbled leaving a trail of wreckage. I think it might be time for a new career move or a switch to a new alias. Don’t use any previous aliases because they may have a lot of associated baggage.

            Finally Kenneth raised the question –
            “What was the mechanism that caused OHC to plummet between the MWP and LIA, since CO2 levels actually rose slightly during that period?”

            I really don’t know. Well beyond my level of expertise.

          2. AndyG55

            “Look Kenneth, the edifice has crumbled leaving a trail of wreckage.”

            Yep, the AGW scam is well and truly over.

            That’s what happens when a scam is built on pseudo-science and fabrication.

            Only far-left political will, supported by huge monetary considerations, is keeping the scam in a coma instead of dying a NATURAL death.

          3. yonason

            I guess sod and David Appell couldn’t handle it, so they had to bring in their BIG GUN, I.E., miker.

            What he lacks in substance, he tries to make up in volume, mostly insults, with a smattering of sciency sounding double talk.

            Come on, MikeR, drop the insults and show us you know what your talking about, FOR A CHANGE.

            Wow us with your genius. if you can.

          4. AndyG55

            “bring in their BIG GUN, I.E., miker’

            Firing BLANKS !!!

          5. AndyG55

            “I am a just a humble ”

            BS, you are totally full of yourself.

            With NOTHING to back up your baseless ego.

        2. AndyG55

          “Finally I will raise the ante by linking to the IPCC report ”

          OMG !! Propaganda central !! So funny !!

          “pricks my pretensions.”

          Pretentions is all you have, as well as being a pr***

        3. AndyG55

          “I do not claim to have read any of the articles”

          As is obvious. (note, the “m” has been removed.)

          Otherwise you could produce something to answer Kenneth’s question.

          But you can’t, can you, little muppet.

        4. AndyG55

          And really, miker, what an overly verbose load of juvenile self-aggrandising garbage.

          A veritable Technicolor yawn of puerile nonsense and idiocy, while still saying nothing of any importance or relevance?

          Is that really the best you can do?

    2. AndyG55

      “I had the misfortune of taking a peek at this blog”

      Scared of the TRUTH and actually learning something, hey..

      .. standard AGW BS.. run and hide. !!!

    3. AndyG55

      What a meaningless and EMPTY rant from MikeR..

      Typical of the know-nothing.. and doesn’t want to know AGW clown.

    4. AndyG55

      “The above smearing of the author of the skeptical science piece”

      What, quoting his own bio that shows that he is nothing but an activist hack?

      Is that what you are saying , Mike?

    5. AndyG55

      “I have already given my opinion”

      So what.. it stinks, too.

      1. mikeR

        AndyG55 contributions above, demonstrate the danger of allowing young children unsupervised access to computers, Ipads and the internet. I understand that some parents encourage the use of these devices from a young age. They can be used to improve the child’s literacy skills and AndyG has shown some ability in this regard by demonstrating his ability to string together three consecutive sentences.

        However they should only have access, without parental supervision, once they have demonstrated the necessary maturity and are able to do up their own shoelaces.

        1. yonason

          Yet another, as AndyG55 writes, “meaningless and EMPTY rant from MikeR.”

        2. AndyG55

          Produce something OTHER than empty rants. miker.

          So far NADA, NOTHING..ZIPPO

          Just a load of meaningless empty twaddle.

          Seems to be your stock in trade.

        3. AndyG55

          1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

          2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

          3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record. Slight cooling.

          4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

          5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

          6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion

          7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

          8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 – 2015

          9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

          10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010

          11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

          12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling

          13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

          That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those regions and time periods.

          There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect in the REAL temperature data. NONE WHAT-SO-EVER.

          The ONLY warming has come from regional El Nino and ocean circulation effects such as the PDO and AMO.

      2. yonason

        MikeR is like Wimpy.

        He’ll gladly supply you some facts at a later date, if only you’ll believe him now.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ6xBaZ92uA

  21. Vern Cornell

    Why worry about the details…?
    Another one or three degrees will not hurt..!
    There is a lot of information that says we will benefit..
    Repeat that….there is a lot of…information..
    We will benefit…
    Let’s get that temperature up, up..!
    Thanks….Vern Cornell … Tierrasanta

  22. Homepage

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here: notrickszone.com/2016/12/16/current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-2-centuries-and-grant-fosters-far-fetched-model-claims/ […]