A global-scale instrumental temperature record that has not been contaminated by (a) artificial urban heat (asphalt, machines, industrial waste heat, etc.), (b) ocean-air affected biases (detailed herein), or (c) artificial adjustments to past data that uniformly serve to cool the past and warm the present . . . is now available.
Composed of 450 instrumental records from temperature stations sheltered from ocean-air/urbanization/adjustment biases throughout the world, a new 20th/21st century global temperature record introduced previously here very closely aligns with paleoclimate evidence from tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen and other temperature proxies.
The Alignment Of Paleoclimate Proxy Data & Instrumental Records
The paleoclimate proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere (NH) consistently show an oscillation rather than a linear warming trend between 1900 and 2010: (a) a substantial warming trend between 1900 and the early 1940s, (b) a substantial cooling trend between the 1940s and 1970s, and (c) a subsequent warming trend since the 1980s that matches or comes close to matching the warming peaks in the 1930s and early 1940s (rather than greatly exceeding it).
In 2016, Dr. Pei Xing and co-authors unveiled a new method (MVDM) for calibrating low-frequency NH tree-ring data (utilizing 126 tree-ring records) for the last 1,200 years in The Extratropical Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction during the Last Millennium Based on a Novel Method. The proxy evidence shows an oscillation — including substantial cooling between the 1940s and 1970s — and no net warming since the early 1940s.
Image Source: Xing et al., 2016 (MDVM Reconstructed NH Temperature)
Christiansen and Lungqvist (2012) utilize proxies from 91 locations across the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere to reveal no net warming since the 1940s.
Image Source: Christiansen and Lungqvist (2012)
Schneider et al., 2015 use proxy evidence from 15 IPCC-referenced locations in the Northern Hemisphere to document no net warming since the 1940s.
Image Source: Schneider et al., 2015
Stoffel et al., 2015 used proxy data from 22 Northern Hemisphere locations to illustrate there has been no net warming since the 1940s.
Image Source: Stoffel et al., 2015
A New Instrumental Record Of The Northern Hemisphere
In a ground-breaking new paper (Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018) published in the journal Energy and Environment, an analysis of land surface instrumental records from across the globe’s ocean air sheltered (OAS) regions reveals that, like the proxy evidence presented above, most of the modern era warming occurred prior to the 1940s, and the there has effectively been no net warming since then.
Lansner and Pepke Pedersen (2018) point out that, due to the divergent rates of warming and cooling for land vs. ocean water, there is a significant difference in the range of temperature for the regions of the world influenced by their close proximity to oceans and coastal wind currents (ocean air affected, or OAA) and the inland regions of the world that are unaffected by ocean air effects and coastal wind because they are sheltered by hills and mountains or located in valleys (ocean air sheltered, or OAS).
The two authors acknowledge that it is “difficult” to isolate the influence of the ocean’s effects on temperature changes and the influence of climate- or radiation-induced changes in driving temperature change. So the two authors chose to “retrieve temperature data where impact of the ocean temperature trends has been reduced as much as possible.”
The results they obtained in analyzing “thousands” of instrumental temperatures from across the globe are especially noteworthy. To summarize, Lansner and Pepke Pedersen (2018) found that the OAS regions of the world reached annual temperatures that were just as warm or warmer during the 1920s to 1940s as they have been in recent decades. There has been no net warming — and, in fact, an overall slight cooling — since the 1940s for the OAS temperature stations.
Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018
“We found that in any land area with variation in the topography, for the period 1900-2010 we can divide the meteorological stations into the more warm-trended ocean air-affected OAA-stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered OAS-stations. The methods used in this work are meant to give a rough picture of the large differences in temperature trends between OAS and OAA stations. … When we isolated temperature trends 1900–2010 with as little ocean influence as possible – the OAS areas – we found a warm period 1920–1950 with temperatures similar to recent decades for all investigated areas worldwide. We have not found any area with numerous OAS/Valley stations available where the majority of temperature stations show a different result.”
“In contrast, the OAA locations like islands, coasts, hills facing dominating ocean winds, etc., did not reflect the warm period 1920–1950 well. … Therefore, the lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.”
“In locations best sheltered and protected against ocean air influence, the vast majority of thermometers worldwide trends show temperatures in recent decades rather similar to the 1920–1950 period. This indicates that the present-day atmosphere and heat balance over the Earth cannot warm areas – typically valleys – worldwide in good shelter from ocean trends notably more than the atmosphere could in the 1920–1950 period.”
1. “[W]e show in Figure 3 the results for the Scandinavian area where we have used a total of 49 OAS stations and 18 OAA stations. The large number of stations available is due to the use of meteorological yearbooks as supplement to data sources such as ECA&D climate data and Nordklim database. … For the years 1920–1950, we thus find temperatures in the OAS area to be up to 1 K warmer than temperature in the OAA area.”
2. “Another example is from Central Siberia (Figure 4), where a total of 18 OAS stations and 17 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2, raw data. … Again we find that the temperature trends from the OAS area show more warming in the 1920-1950 period with about 0.5–1.5 K higher temperatures than the OAA areas.”
3. “In the Central Balkan area [Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Rumania, Greece, and Turkey] (Figure 5), 41 OAS stations and 25 OAA stations were used … data from meteorological yearbooks and statistical yearbooks supplemented with GHCN v2 raw (NOAA) and BEST raw data. … The temperature trends from the OAS area from the 1925 to 1950 period are found in most years to be around 1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”
4. “For the USA (Figure 6), we defined the OAS area as consisting of eight boxes, each of size 5° X 5°. … A total of 236 temperature stations were used from this area. … All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. … Again the temperature trends from the OAS area as defined above show the 1920–1955 period in most years to be around 1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”
5. “For Central China (Figure 7), 14 OAS stations and 12 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. …The temperature trends from the OAS area show the 1920–1950 period around 0.5–1.5 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”
6. “For the Pakistan/NW India area (Figure 8), 10 OAS stations and 8 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. … The temperature trends from the OAS area show the 1930–1955 period to be around 1–1.5 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”
7. “In the Sahel area (Figure 9), 34 OAS stations and 11 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. The temperature trends from the OAS area show the 1930–1950 period to be around 0.2–1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”
8. “For Southern Africa (Figure 10), 13 OAS stations and 15 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. The temperature trends from the OAS area as defined show the 1920–1945 period to be around 0.2–1.5 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”
9. “For South East Australia (Figure 11), 18 OAS stations and 24 OAA stations were used and all data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. … The temperature trends from the OAS areas show the 1925–1950 period to be around 0.3–0.5 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”
10. “Finally, for Central South America (Figure 12), 17 OAS stations and 13 OAA stations were used. Data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data and also from the BEST raw data base. … The temperature trends from the OAS area as defined show the 1930–1965 period to be around 0.5–1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”
Global Temperatures In Non-Urban Areas Have Warmed By 0.375 K/Century Since 1900
Combining the OAS temperatures and OAA temperatures and using the century-scale trends for each identified in the paper (-0.03 K/century and +0.78 K/century, respectively), it may be concluded that instrumental temperature stations located in non-urban areas and not subjected to artificial urban heating bias produce an overall warming trend of just 0.375 K/century (0.038 K/decade) during 1900-2010.
“For the OAS areas, we find a linear temperature trend over the whole period from, 1900 to, 2010 of -0.03 K/century whereas we find 0.78 K/century for the OAA areas. We recognize the remarkable temperature increase in temperature in the years after the 1918/1919 strong El Nino. After this warming, the OAS temperature data appear to have jumped by around 0.5 K to a new level, indicative of a shift to a new climatic regime. The OAA data fail to show this abrupt change.”
This much milder rate of warming over the 20th/21st centuries underscores just how influential urbanization might have been in driving up warming artificially, or non-climatically, during the modern era.
The phenomenon of artificially-driven warming rates has been documented in many other analyses.
99 responses to “It’s Here: A 1900-2010 Instrumental Global Temperature Record That Closely Aligns With Paleo-Proxy Data”
To a layman, like me, it seems that this shows there is virtually no CO2 signal in all of this. Is that fair to say? The steady rate of sea level rise over the past century or more would also seem to confirm that.
Yep. CO2 has been an immeasurable bit player at most when it comes to warming.
Plant life, well that’s another matter 🙂
I am frequently pointing out that there are multiple lines of evidence suggesting that the temperature today is probably no warmer than it was during the highs of the late 1930s/early 1940s, at any rate as far as the Northern Hemisphere is concerned (which is the only area of the globe where there is a reasonable amount of temperature data; the Southern hemisphere having very little historical data, little coverage and as Phil Jones candidly remarked most of the SH outside the tropics is simply made up).
This is significant in that about 96% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place since 1940 so if the temperature today is broadly similar to that of the 1940s it suggests that there may be no sensitivity at all to CO2, or if there is some sensitivity then it is rather small.
Ah, the good old “it was warm before” argument. Why do skeptics always resort to this kind of flawed reasoning? Also, please present those “multiple lines of evidence” otherwise it shall be enough if I just tell you that it’s warmer now than back then. Because evidence!
Here is a github repo with hundreds of climate related data series, have fun disputing the “evidence”:
When the evidence comes from adjustments to actual observations, one must be careful about the evidence. Especially when the adjuster has a large stake in the game.
I understand the rationale and desire for adjustments. But that does not mean that the adjustments are correct. Frequently, I look at the adjusted results vs. original observation and compare them to known meteorological phenomena. The unadjusted series often is a better indicator of reality. For example, the observed data in Great Lakes states showed much-below normal temperatures for winter/spring of 2014, etc. But the adjusted data showed normal. Yet, the Great Lakes set records for ice. Many other examples exist.
So when “alarmists” send me to adjusted data, do not be surprised if I am not persuaded. In fact, back in my research days, I mentioned to fellow researches my hesitancy with certain adjustments. I eventually dropped out of publication activities because I did not think some adjustments could be justified. My colleagues assured me that the review would not be critical of the adjustments. It turned out that my colleagues were correct, but that does not make me feel better.
All horses from the same stable….. except the satellite data which shows no warming for 33 out of the 40 years, Just the El Ninos steps as discussed earlier.
…and which you remain wilfully CLUELESS about.
Reality of 1040’s peak erased by AGW-cult ordained MAL-ADJUSTMENTS
“Reality of 1040’s peak “….
Reality of 1940’s peak
Sebastian, you seem utterly convinced that man-made CO2 (still a tiny trace gas in our atmosphere at 0.04%) is going to burn the planet to hell tomorrow. Of course, when it comes to doomsayers, it’s always tomorrow, next week or in the future. That just continues until the next fearmongering “fad” comes along to be likewise always “predicted” in the future. Some questions for you:
Every exhalation is around 4% CO2 (40,000ppm – atmospere now 397ppm). How is it you don’t burn your tongue in the sun when you exhale that ENORMOUS 4% of CO2?
How is it that delicate aragonite corals evolved when CO2 was some 20x higher than today?
With CO2 so much higher in the past and you expecting a LINEAR scale to CO2 heat trapping effect, why was there never a runaway greenhouse, ever?
How is it that CO2 was many times higher than today even during deep ice ages?
You understand that CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and farmers actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yields, right?
Do you know that Viking graves in Greenland now are in permafrost – something you can’t dig without hydraulics? Vikings colonised and farmed Greenland 1000 years ago, why did they leave 300 years later?
The Little Ice Age is documented in paintings from the 1600’s where the Thames and Hudson rivers froze 10ft thick and the locals held fairs on them. Are you aware of this at all? Are you aware this was caused by the “Maunder Minimum”, a time when very few Sunspots and Solar activity occurred?
Do you remember when an imminent “ice age” was predicted in the 70’s?
Are you aware that Global temps rose sharply between 1910 and 1940, then fell sharply between the 40’s to the 70’s? Did Man have something to do with it or is my next question the answer?
Do you understand the cycles of the oceans (PDO, AMO, ENSO) and their impact from warm to cool and back again over regular decadal scales?
Why is it that in a desert, you can fry during the day and freeze at night, but not in the tropics? What magical atmospheric component is missing in a desert to cause this and therefore, is CO2 actually trapping any catastrophic heat at all? A clue – notice how the night is usually warmer when it’s overcast?
Have you noticed that CO2 continues to climb but Global temps have flatlined for the last 17 YEARS? Why the disconnect?
Are you aware that according to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~397 ppm, accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level?
Do you understand that warm water outgasses CO2 – try opening a warm and a cold bottle of soda water. Do you now understand that the oceans could never become “acidic”, considering their pH ranges from 7.9 to 8.3, depending on where you measure it and, that the pH scale is also logarithmic?
How do you explain the findings of ancient tools and tree stumps under retreating glaciers?
Have you seen the geologic records that show CO2 rising AFTER temp rises by some hundreds of years?
Have you discovered Milankovich Cycles – how the Earth has cyclical wobbles in its orbit being tugged on by other planets causing major changes in our distance from the Sun?
Have you discovered that on very regular cycles, the Earth suffers a major ice age about every 100,000 years lasting many times longer than our current interglacial? Do you think that’s connected to my previous question?
Why is it that some 90+% of species live around the Equator?
Figures are readily available to show winters kill more people than summers – have you looked into them and why do you think retirees look forward to living in warmer climates?
Are you aware that the Arctic ice extent is now the same as the 1979 annual mean? Do you really think it’s going to be “ice free” at all this NH summer?
Does it make sense that “climate scientists”, being largely (if not totally) government funded, need to continue blaming Man for CO2 ills since governments want to tax us on it and, if they say it’s not, they’ll lose their job?
Frankly, all of the tip-toeing, cherry-picking and completely unscientific (if not impossible) explanations I see on this site in support of AGW are truly far-fetched wonders of the age. You seem to suggest that surface winds are somehow stopping hot water from rising? Nonsense. All that rubbish and referencing to desperately try and explain-away the now 17 year warming pause.
If you get all the charts and scale them by whole degrees (something we might physically feel – maybe) then they’d be a straight line not even resembling static.
People, have a good look around and you’ll find there are more questions that require answering before spouting for certain that Man is to blame for climate change. It’s been doing it for billions of years and will continue to do so. There’s NO peer-reviewed study out there that can scientifically and unequivocally state that they can filter out Man’s warming signal from the natural noise.
If you keep believing point-blank the government and the lamestream media, you’ll look like a fool (you’re rapidly getting there) and have a lighter wallet to boot. Don’t be a puppet or a parrot to them. Remember this:
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic”.
If you refuse to publish this post or delete it, the volumes about your “science” will have been spoken.
Nice compilation of facts.
Unfortunately, it will have not effect on seb, who seems to be here just to harass and annoy. I can’t recall his ever having contributed anything positive to any conversation.
But I don’t understand you final sentence. If Pierre doesn’t delete seb’s nonsense, I don’t see why he would delete your sense.
Olef, Seb has nothing to do with what gets published.
He is, in fact, just an anti-science serial pest / parrot / AGW troll wannabe.
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t believe even 97% of the crap he comes out with, he is rarely able to back up anything he says with actually empirical evidence.
I think he is just doing it as some self-gratification, attention-seeking troll exercise.
He serves no other purpose here.
Assuming by “ice extent” you mean sea ice, this claim is not supported by the evidence.
Actually K, the wording is darn awful, but the current level, ie now, is actually ABOVE the 1979 annual mean.
12.87 Wadhams now, versus the 1979 annual mean of 12.32 Wadhams
But its not really a sensible comparison seeing as its only just out of winter up there.
The real point is that the RECOVERY from the extreme highs of the mid/late 1970s seems to have levelled out over the last decade, as cyclic thing are likely to do.
Where to now.??
Well if the AMO has anything to say, it will probably start to expand again.
Why would the planet burn to hell and why tomorrow? Don’t mix your fantasies with reality.
Now off to your pretty silly (sorry mods, feel free to snip it if you think his questions aren’t silly) questions:
As a gas CO2 mixes pretty well with its surroundings. There is no atmosphere column above your tonque that has a CO2 concentration of 40000 ppm when you exhale.
Anything can evolve to cope with the environment that it evolves in. If the changes happen too fast, the species go extinct.
For a runaway greenhouse effect (GHE) the conditions need to be very different from what we know about Earth’s past. I hope you don’t think that science is predicting a runaway GHE?
And the scale is not linear, what makes you think that?
Carbon is a pretty common element. Burning fossil fuel isn’t the only process that releases it into the atmosphere.
Because it got cold? Hence the permafrost expanding?
Maybe someone can lift the first reply to Olaf out of the spam thingy … next questions:
No I don’t, same as nobody will remember when skeptics predicted a fast cooling in 2007/2008 which never happened.
Define sharply. The cooling is probably partly man-made, yes. Lookup the term “global dimming”. Something we gradually recovered from.
Humidity. That’s why the CO2 effect is comparatively larger than the H2O effect over desert zones.
They haven’t flatlined and one should never ignore the ocean heat content when talking about climate and whether or not it warmed.
Yes, I am. You brought up that the scale would be linear or that I would somehow believe that. Remember?
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but the Oceans are still a net sink for CO2. They are absorbing more than they outgas and thus the acidity increases.
How do you explain that glaciers are retreating to levels only seen in ancient times as per this “evidence”? Doesn’t this mean we live in unusually warm times?
Sure I have, that is perfectly normal since you know … warmer temperatures cause more outgasing of the oceans.
Your questions are cute and all, but what is the point of them? Will answer the rest in the next reply.
So then why have the Earth’s deserts been cooling/not warming as CO2 concentrations have risen?
North China: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Holocene-Cooling-NE-China-Zheng-2018.jpg
American Southwest: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Holocene-Cooling-American-Southwest-Temperatures-Loisel-2017-copy.jpg
So as ocean temperatures warm, they outgas more than they absorb CO2. And yet today, they don’t outgas more than they absorb…because…fossil fuels. On the other hand, scientists admit that we don’t know how the carbon sink “works” and an anthropogenic signal in CO2 uptake cannot be detected because “it is not yet possible to directly confirm from surface observations that long-term growth in the oceanic sink is occurring”.
McKinley et al., 2017
“That the growth of the partial pressure of CO2 gas in the atmosphere ( pCO2 atm) drives a growing oceanic sink is consistent with our basic understanding that, as the globally averaged atmosphere-to-ocean pCO2 gradient increases, carbon accumulation in the ocean will occur at an increasing rate (Section 3). This behavior has been illustrated clearly with models [not observations] forced with only historically observed increases in pCO2 atm and no climate variability or change (Graven et al. 2012, Ciais et al. 2013). Nonetheless, critical mysteries remain and weigh heavily on our ability to quantify relationships between the perturbed global carbon cycle and climate change. … The current inability to accurately quantify the mean CO2 sink regionally or locally also suggests that present-day observational constraints are inadequate to support a detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works and how it is responding to intensifying climate change. This lack of mechanistic understanding implies that our ability to model (Roy et al. 2011, Ciais et al. 2013, Frolicher et al. 2015, Randerson et al. ¨ 2015), and thus to project the future ocean carbon sink, including feedbacks caused by warming and other climate change, is seriously limited. … The sum of the available evidence indicates that variability in the ocean carbon sink is significant and is driven primarily by physical processes of upwelling, convection, and advection. Despite evidence for a growing sink when globally integrated (Khatiwala et al. 2009, 2013; Ciais et al. 2013; DeVries 2014), this variability, combined with sparse sampling, means that it is not yet possible to directly confirm from surface observations that long-term growth in the oceanic sink is occurring. … [T]his CESM-LE analysis further illustrates that variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean carbon uptake on decadal timescales.”
“They haven’t flatlined and one should never ignore the ocean heat content “
They have flatlined, for 33 years out of 40.
Just El Nino Ocean effects
Poor seb has just ADMITTED YET AGAIN, the it is Oceans causing the warming, therefore SOLAR ENERGY, …
…. and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with CO2. or any human influence.
So glad you are FINALLY starting to comprehend scientific facts, seb
Now try not to faceplant with your next comment.
“thus the acidity increases.”
More anti-science BS from seb
Just chant the mantra , seb
So funny that you think the oceans are acidic. ! 🙂
And that you think some tiny amount of CO2 change alter it.
Your grasp of chemistry just nearly as bad as your nearly non-existent grasp of physics, maths, biology.. and everything else you rant about. !!
“How do you explain that glaciers are retreating to levels only seen in ancient times as per this “evidence”? Doesn’t this mean we live in unusually warm times?”
OMG. seb thinks tree grow underneath glaciers.
I know you are totally lacking in any biological knowledge.. but SERIOUSLY ???
No, it indicates a very slight RECOVERY from an ANOMALOUSLY COLD period.
“Lookup the term “global dimming”. Something we gradually recovered from.”
No seb , you are still as dim as you have always been!!
The globe must be about the same “brightness as in the 1930s, 40s , hey seeing its about the same temperature.
Seas and oceans are thankfully a bit warmer, due to the strong solar cycles over the last 60-70 years.
“Because it got cold? Hence the permafrost expanding?”
WOW. seb FINALLY acknowledges that the LIA was ANOMALOUSLY COLD.
And as that permafrost is still there in Greenland, encasing buried people, it must have been a LOT WARMER only 1000 or so years ago
Hilarious to watch seb starting to trip himself up and land in faceplant after faceplant of his own BS. !!
“… warmer temperatures cause more outgasing of the oceans.”
Well done, seb.
You are finally starting to learn.. taken a LONG time hasn’t it.
“If the changes happen too fast, the species go extinct.”
Roflmao. More idiotic FANTASY from seb.
Nowhere near the aCO2 level when these plant and coral evolved.
Still woefully LOW in the grand scheme of history.
“That’s why the CO2 effect is comparatively larger than the H2O effect over desert zones.”
Do you have any empirical measurements of CO2 warming deserts at night, seb ??
Or are you just FANTASISING.. as always. !!
“The cooling is probably partly man-made, yes. Lookup the term “global dimming”. Something we gradually recovered from.”
So the warming since the cold trough around 1970 is because we cleaned up the atmosphere of REAL pollutants.
Thus allowing more SUN in to warm up the oceans.
Is that what you saying ? 😉
seb faceplants yet again. 🙂
Its hard for you to keep your misinformation and unawareness straight, isn’t it seb.
You are the only one “faceplanting” here …
poor EMPTY attention-seeking seb. !!
Kenneth, please try to reply at the end of threads/conversations and not inbetween. It’s difficult to find those comments and reply to them (in case you were wondering why some of your questions stay unanswered).
Do I need to remind you about the Schmithüsen 2015 paper (the one with the negative GHE in Antarctica)?
Figure 4: https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/1fbf787f-b86a-42e0-b43d-f4369f598959/grl53769-fig-0004-m.jpg
Notice where the CO2 GHE is highest?
Did you just admit that you still don’t know how this works? The oceans are just one side of the equation, the other is the atmosphere. With a constant CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the ocean temperature more or less controls how much outgases (towards the equator) and gets absorbed (towards the poles). With a constant ocean temperature, varying CO2 concentration controls how much the oceans absorb/outgas. With both being variable it gets a bit more complicated, but as long as the concentration in the atmosphere increases faster as the concentration in the oceans, the oceans will be a net sink. Understood?
Another instance of you denying how physics work just because it hasn’t been measured in the oceans? (well, it has as the first two sentences of the abstract of that paper clearly say).
It’s highest in places where it hasn’t been warming, and its lower in places where it has. That’s why I asked my question.
Perhaps you can explain why scientists have found the oceans to be a net source of CO2 in recent decades rather than a net sink. For example:
Astor et al., 2013
Based on these observations, 72% of the increase in fCO2sea in Cariaco Basin between 1996 and 2008 can be attributed to an increasing temperature trend of surface waters, making this the primary factor controlling fugacity at this location. During this period, a decrease in upwelling intensity was also observed. … The fCO2sea data also showed a statistical significant positive trend of 1.9570.48 matm yr1 (R2¼0.13, po0.01; Fig. 6a, Table 1). The total observed variation in fCO2sea at the CARIACO station from 1996 to 2008 was 24 matm, representing a change of 6% during the study period. If the effect of temperature is removed, the nfCO2sea shows a lower rate of increase of 0.4070.61 matm yr1, which yields a statistically insignificant trend (R2¼ o0.01, p40.5, Fig. 6b and Table 1). Therefore, the effect of SST on fCO2sea at CARIACO is very significant.
From thermodynamics considerations, temperature changes may cause variations of 4.13–4.23% fCO2sea per 1°C (Gordon and Jones, 1973; Takahashi et al., 1993). Therefore, surface warming of 1°C would drive a 16 matm increase in fCO2sea at CARIACO. Fig. 3 shows that SSTA and fCO2sea anomalies are mostly in phase with each other. An increase/decrease of 1°C is usually followed by an increase/decrease of 16–20 matm of fCO2sea. Thus, the SST increase of 1.3°C between 1996 and 2008 accounted for 16 matm increase in fCO2sea explaining around 72% of the fCO2sea observed variation. This suggests that the changes measured in fCO2sea were primarily the result of surface-ocean warming in Cariaco Basin.
The increase in calcifying organisms likely contributed to the observed increase in surface water CO2; additionally, the decrease in upwelling observed after 2005 also affected the efficiency of the biological pump’s ability to remove CO2. The coupling of these processes (i.e., the lack of removal of the upwelled TCO2 due to a decrease in carbon fixation and the shift in phytoplankton population) may explain the remaining 28% increase observed in fCO2sea, and these two processes, together with temperature, potentially contributed to the high fCO2sea values observed during 2005–2008.
These observations confirm that this area is a consistent source of CO2 to the atmosphere.
The main process controlling the long-term changes in surface fCO2sea at CARIACO was temperature, with net community production playing a secondary role. Over the study period, deseasonalized SST increased by 0.0970.02 1C yr1 , representing an overall increase of 1.13°C in 13 years. Despite large seasonal variability, the deseasonalized fCO2sea data for the CARIACO time-series station also showed a statistically significant interannual increase of 1.7770.43 matm yr1 . Thermodynamic effects explained 72% of the fCO2sea variability in surface waters. A decrease in upwelling intensity between 2004 and 2008 also contributed to this change. Warmer waters with low primary production and high TCO2 and fCO2 prevailed for much of the period of observation. At the CARIACO site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events.
“Another instance of you denying how physics work just because it hasn’t been measured in the oceans? “
seb’s fantasy fizzucs at it again… so funny ! 🙂
Can’t be measured, only exist in cult-washed imaginings and models.
“With a constant ocean temperature,”
But you keep telling us they are heating up. DOH !!!
Still with the manic cognitive confusion, hey seb. Can’t keep the misinformation straight.
The oceans will be a net sink while-ever ocean plant life keeps munching on the CO2 plant food, seb.
One day you will grow AWARE enough to realise that our highly beneficial atmospheric CO2 contribution has “kick-started” the carbon cycles to a more fertile abundant level.
THANK GOODNESS, otherwise we couldn’t feed the world.
“(the one with the negative GHE in Antarctica)”
And what the **** does that have to do with CO2 over deserts.
Are you saying that because its so dry over deserts, CO2 has a negative GHE.?????
“Notice where the CO2 GHE is highest?”
Nothing on that chart to indicate what it is even a model of. Its a NON-chart full of NON-information. A true seb-type chart.
Just a kiddy’s smearings.
Thanks AndyG55 for demonstrating just how hard one can “faceplant” himself. Not a single reply to what I wrote makes sense, it’s as if you are replying to a completely different version of my reply that only exists in your mind, not the actual one …
It’s not even a good troll attempt :/
You’ve been at this climate thing how long? Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area?
Well, read the paper again. Then try to find out where the ocean absorbs CO2 and where CO2 is outgasing. Then come back here and demonstrate that you understood how it works.
P.S.: And once again you made this generalisation error, you wrote “the oceans” while quoting from a paper about an area of the Carribean. Nope, warm patches that are of course outgasing CO2 aren’t “the oceans”.
@AndyG55 8. May 2018 at 1:07 PM
I don’t know what seb thinks the image in his link means, but it’s supposed to represent a yearly averaged GHE, computed based on TES IR spectra.
See legend under the image, here.
Note – the legend is absent in the image he linked to.
“Not a single reply to what I wrote makes sense,”
Poor seb, still suffering basic comprehension issues.
It was YOUR post that makes a mockery of commonsense.
Please stop these pitiful pleas for attention. seb..
Still EMPTY of all science
No, but that’s because I’m not a believer that CO2 is the temperature-setter for surface temperatures. You do, obviously. That’s why I asked you why deserts — where the CO2 GHE is supposedly dominant vs. the H2O GHE — have not been warming. I’ve asked you this question twice now, and each time you’ve failed to respond. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
Isn’t it your claim that 100% of the rise in CO2 concentration is due to humans? Yes, it is. So here we have a paper that says 72% of the rise in CO2 is due to temperature rise in this region of the ocean in recent decades. This contradicts your claims of 100% attribution. In fact, the paper never even mentions anthropogenic influences in the CO2 change, insisting that the other 28% of the change in concentration comes from natural processes too. In other words, these scientists claim that 100% of the change in CO2 for this region is due to natural processes, not human activity.
This is consistent with other analyses from scientists with whom you disagree.
“The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by ,the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
“The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”
“Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area? “
Oh look, more seb gobbledygoop
What are you trying to say, seb??
That areas of less CO2 GHE warm more than areas with more GHE.
“Nope, warm patches that are of course outgassing CO2 aren’t “the oceans”.”
Ahh.. so now the ocean only has warm “patches”, and isn’t warming as a whole. Ok. 😉
And those warm patches aren’t actually part of the ocean.
WOW.. bizarro logic there, seb. !!
Your cognitive mal-functioning is really quite hilarious
“but it’s supposed to represent a yearly averaged GHE, computed based on TES IR spectra”
So, from that kiddy smear.. GHE is highest where there is less moisture.
Making a TOTAL MOCKERY of the mythical H2O positive feedback suppository.
The CO2 GHE is highest where there is less H2O vapor/humidity, yes. Which is why the Arctic hasn’t warmed overall in the last 80 years and why Antarctica has been cooling in recent decades…because CO2 does the warming at the poles…where its effect is “weak“…
Then why repeat the caption as if it would say something different than what I intended to show by linking to this image?
Oh yeah, then maybe you should read what I wrote and compare that to your replies above. It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t reply to what I wrote, but to what you imagine I wrote.
Sames as in the current reply here.
How is it even possible to understand it this way?
Same here, willfully misunderstanding what I wrote or genuine comprehension issues?
Firstly, should I tell you about my internal counts of how often you evaded a question? Secondly, nobody is saying that CO2 sets the temperature. You really need to learn how the GHE (that you don’t believe in) works. Then we can argue about it. Before that everything you write to argue against it sounds a little silly.
To answer your question: the deserts are warming.
Anyway, let’s assume the deserts aren’t warming (as you claim). How does that fit into the “it’s the Sun” claim that skeptics so often make?
You seem to always find the papers that are the most ridiculous versions of climate science 😉
Sorry, if you don’t understand why a paper like this is pure nonsense, then you can’t be helped. I don’t want to discuss the causes for the CO2 concentration increase with such a person.
Continue to believe what papers like these say and see where it gets you. Just don’t be surprised when people think of you a certain way though, if this is what you are basing your arguments on 😉
Either you know how it really works and try to mock it with this “simplification” or you don’t know how these mechanisms work. Which is it? Both possibilities are equally bad if you really want to show the world that AGW isn’t real …
” It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t reply to what I wrote”
I highlighted and corrected all your erroneous thinking. Sorry you were unable to comprehend.
You had ZERO substance anyway.
There is NOT ANY provable warming from CO2, seb
If you have any empirical proof… then produce it.
Or just remain your normal ranting attention-seeking empty space.
Sorry that can’t understand or comprehend the substance of the paper, but it is a well known fact that your basic comprehension of actual science and physics is minimal at best.
Sorry that you don’t understand that basically EVERYTHING you type is pure fantasy and mindless nonsense.
How can there be anything more RIDICULOUS in climate science, or any science for that matter, than the manic brain-washed anti-science mantra you keep chanting ? !!!!
But that is unfixable.
“willfully misunderstanding what I wrote “
You are the one said that warm patches were outgassing. So those that aren’t outgassing, must not be warm.
Try to fix your cognitive malfunction, seb.
“Just don’t be surprised when people think of you a certain way though,”
You mean like we think of you as a [snip]… attention seeking in a vain attempt to boost your empty self-esteem and find some purpose in your life. ?
Nobody reading your posts could come to any other conclusion.
“Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area? “
Given that the mean free distance of that frequency emissions in the atmosphere is some 11-15m, you mean ???
Or is what you are trying to say is that it doesn’t warm up where the CO2 GHE is greater…
… but it warms up “somewhere-else” just by magic.
(maybe in La-La-Land, because there is no proof it warms any REAL place).
What FANTASY realm do you live in, seb ?
Ok AndyG55, I’ll bite …
You didn’t recognize it as sarcasm.
You didn’t comprehend that this was an explanation of the mechanism not an actual claim.
You didn’t recognize an often quoted paper (by Kenneth) and one of its claims. Instead you somehow thought that the part of the sentence you cited has something to do with deserts.
Failure to understand a chart and to lazy to read the provided link to the paper.
You didn’t understand the sentence and made up your own straw man.
This is one of the strangest comprehension issues you are displaying. You didn’t understand that it was about Kenneth claiming that results from a paper about a patch (or small area) of the sea surface, would valid for “the oceans” (as in ALL of the sea surface).
You then somehow thought I was saying those patches aren’t part of the oceans. Really weird.
No, you didn’t. You either tried to mock me by willfully misunderstanding everything I wrote to get me to reply (= trolling) or you really didn’t comprehend what I wrote. Which is it?
Has it ever occured to you that the planet has a transport system that moves air and water from one place to another? I find it strange how you could come to the conclusion that I am saying what you wrote here.
Where to you get the time to waste on such mindless prattle.
I assure you, I understand all the balderdash you keep coming out with.
Its arrant nonsense and blatant attention seeking.
If you have a problem with people interpreting verbatim what you wrote.. That is a problem for you to get your fantasy story-tale straight.
I don’t need to mock you.. you do an excellent job of doing that yourself, in every post.
“Has it ever occurred to you that the planet has a transport system that moves air and water from one place to another?”
Yes seb , its called WEATHER, and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2.
Still waiting for some empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING other than enhanced plant growth.
Such a pity that you are INCAPABLE of spending so much time writing arrant nonsense, and so little time actually trying to produce basic science and physics to support you brain-washed cult beliefs.
“seb’s fantasy fizzucs at it again… so funny..
….Can’t be measured, only exist in cult-washed imaginings and models.!”
No that was not sarcasm, seb.
“You didn’t comprehend that this was an explanation of the mechanism”
Yet another failure from you, then.
Warmer water outgasses.. oceans are getting warmer.. therefore more outgassing
Not outgassing, must not be getting warmer.
Its basic logic, seb.
Something your seem to be devoid of.
The oceans COOLED remarkably during the Neoglaciation leading eventually to the LIA Cold Anomaly.
Thankfully, the SUN has been slowly doing its warming thing , especially during the Grand Solar Maximum of the latter half of last century.
Little surges here and there as ocean energy gets a little bit out of balance with the incoming SOLAR radiation.
The oceans contain a HUGE amount of water, takes a LONG time to warm up….. and hopefully to cool down.
And, oh look, a STEP CHANGE at the 1998 El Nino.
Well who knew! 😉
And just at the end of the Grand Solar Maximum…
… purely coincidence of course. 😉
(I would have said only about 0.3ºC though)
So now global warming since pre-industrial times never happened, it just warmed until the 1940s (totally natural of course) and the current warming is merely the recovery from the cooling up until the 70s.
Good to know. Thank you for overturning centuries of science and showing us how it really is!
“So now global warming since pre-industrial times never happened, it just warmed until the 1940s (totally natural of course) and the current warming is merely the recovery from the cooling up until the 70s.”
YIPPEEE.. seb finally see the truth !!!
No-one is overturning anything seb.
Just CORRECTING the mal-adjustments of the AGW-cult.
Its always been known that there was natural warming up to 1930/40s which was a time of similar temperatures to now.
…and that the was a dip down to a minimum in the mid-late 1970s.
What you are seeing is CORRECT data.
So of course it bares ZERO resemblance to the farce that is GISS or anything from the mal-adjusted NCDC stable.
UAH April 2018 +0.21ºC… (SCARY HOT !!)
7th warmest April in UAH record
Year to date.. I make 2018 in 9th place,
… (but its nearly midnight here. I’ll check again in the morning !)
Rather than compile a list of seb’s blathering, I’ve found what appears to be an illustration of what such a list might look like.
Well aren’t you a nice person. Here, have a fish …
AGW parrot wanna cracker?
Nice work Yonason.
RSS April 2018. +0.274C
Now in 11th place, down from 8th for March
“Land only.” Hmm . . isn’t that all that matters; after all, that’s were all the humans live.
And IMO they if they want to record ocean temps, and I think they should, the two should be kept separate. That way we would be better able to see any dynamic relation between sea temps and land temps, which might lead to a more complete understanding of climate dynamics. But that’s a bonus. Bottom line is, as you write, that is “all that matters.”
But then, it would probably be much harder to sell their junk warming nonsense.
If only a separation by land and sea temperature would exist in any major temperature database. Oh wait, it does exist. What was your point again?
Seb has ZERO counter, as always..
… just empty yabber. !!
A counter for what? Land and sea data is kept separate in almost all temperature data series. How should one “counter” a request to do just that?
You can also use gridded temperature data and filter out certain locations, etc … nobody is stopping anyone from doing just that. What Yonason requests is what already exists.
But since you aren’t able to understand sarcasm and keep failing the Turing test, there is only one conclusion, isn’t there?
Poor EMPTY seb. LOSER at every point.
Ocean warming gradually from increased SOLAR input.
Land shows world temperatures higher than now in the 1930s, 40s.
Absolutely ZERO evidence of human influence on temperatures anywhere, anytime.
That must hurt having to ACCEPT the facts.
OK seb, which of the so-called “major” temperature data bases has a separation of OAS and OAA sites?
AndyG55, that is not the topic of this thread. It’s about land vs. ocean/sea temperatures. And as you might have seen from the link above (https://github.com/priscian/climeseries) almost all climate data series differentiate between both.
No seb, the topic is not land/ocean temperatures
Try reading it again.!
Your comprehension level is abnormally low today… even for you.!
Continuous, world wide ocean data is not available prior to the satellite era, let alone the high Arctic, Antarctic, etc. Thus it is simply not scientific to assert knowledge of measured global average temperatures prior to the satellite era.
Yet climate science as reported in the Press routinely say “warmest ever”, which begs the question of “warmest since when?”, and “what data do you have?”, and “what are the data uncertainty ranges?”.
The above published papers do a great service by using best practices to determine what recent global temperatures likely were.
And basically ZERO ocean data was available before 2003 for the southern oceans. Even the AGW cult leaders have said it was “mostly made up”
I didn’t know about the strong El Nino of 1918/19 and the step change of temperatures that lead to the “warm years” of the 1930’s and 40’s.
As an advocate of the influence of the Sun on climate, I’m a little impressed to see 1930’s and 40’s as possibly even warmer than now, because solar activity – grand maximum – reached it’s peak in the 50 years after that.
I believe, as AndyG55 remarked above, that *the oceans* are the great reason why world’s temperatures didn’t get much warmer in the late XX century, in comparison with the 1930-1940 period.
The oceans are cooling now and solar activity is reaching levels similar to the Dalton minimum (or possibly Maunder minimum levels).
This looks like a certain recipe for strong cooling in the coming decades.
The real question is how long the oceans can retain the energy gained during the Grand Solar Maximum.
Some estimates are 15-20 years.
Only time will tell.
No, they aren’t …
Southern oceans are cooling.
So is the North Atlantic.
Shouldn’t reply to a bot, but:
From this paper:
MODELLED AGW BS vs
And as soon as you see the names Trenberth and Abraham, you KNOW there is some serious scam “adjustments” going on.
Its what they do.
And some people still “believe every bit for farce they produce. So GULLIBLE.
And of course, even you would know that the slight rise in MODELLED OHC since the LIA has been TINY compared to the drop in OHC down into the LIA.
Equivalent of a fraction of a degree compared to whole degrees
Interesting that you have decided to show a graph with a trend that starts in the year 1960 — even though most people realize that the 1960s were perhaps one of the coldest decades of the last 100 years. Did you notice that the instrumental record for the 1900-2010 period in Lansner and Pepke Pedersen (2018) also shows a warming trend since the 1960s? Do you really not understand that this was never even being questioned? Instead, the key issue here is that both the NH proxy evidence and the OAS instrumental data clearly show there has been no net warming in the last 100 years — which is including the 1920s to 1940s warm period and the 1940s to 1970s cooling. Your graph doesn’t show the the warming during the first half of the 20th century. Your graph begins during the much cooler 1960s. Therefore, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
But even if we were to assume that your let’s-rip-OHC-trends-out-of-their-long-term context-and-start-the-trend-in-a-cold-period graph is accurate, let’s take a look at how that “global” scale trend in ocean heat context breaks down:
1970-2009 OHC trends for the Pacific and Southern Oceans show a cooling/non-warming trend. Only the Atlantic and Indian Oceans warmed during 1970-2009, but this warming was enough to offset the Pacific and Southern Ocean cooling to allow visual representations of what’s happened to make it appear that the entire globe‘s oceans have been sharply warming.
“In the Southern Ocean, the increasing trend of the total OHC slowed down and started to decrease from 1980, and it started to increase again after 1995. In the warming context over the whole period [1970-2009], the Pacific was losing heat, especially in the deep water below 1000 m and in the upper layer above 300 m, excluding the surface 20 m layer in which the OHC kept increasing through the time.”
And, of course, the Atlantic Ocean has just passed its warming phase and is now on an abrupt cooling trajectory, in phase with the AMO…
“The good news is our latest research, published in the journal Nature, gives us a much better understanding of these Atlantic oscillations. We now know that accelerations in sea-level rise in cities like New York and Boston on the north-east coast of the US are linked to a cold spell in the Atlantic. The bad news, at least if you’re an African farmer or have a coastal property in New England? We’re about to go into a cold phase.
“The observations that we do have of the Atlantic overturning circulation over the past ten years show that it is declining. As a result, we expect the AMO is moving to a negative (colder surfer waters) phase. This is consistent with observations of temperature in the North Atlantic.”
“This is known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and the transition between its positive and negative phases can be very rapid. For example, Atlantic temperatures declined by 0.1ºC per decade from the 1940s to the 1970s. By comparison, global surface warming is estimated at 0.5ºC per century – a rate twice as slow.”
“Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming…” – the paper, for which Trenberth was an author.
Given the uncertainties in all the parameters, and given that no direct measure of said “imbalance” can be made, it seems pretty arrogant of them to take it for granted.
“No part of the earth ever has an energy “balance”. There is excess energy in daytime and in the summer and a deficit at night and in the winter. The imbalance can change with every breath of wind, every cloud and every change of weather. The earth has a large thermal capacity, so it could possibly absorb surplus energy or lose it for very long periods. Geologists know that this has happened many times in the past. The periodicity can be short or long.
Most of the averages are either unknown or not known to a satisfactory level of accuracy. The distribution curve of
each quantity is even less known. The impossibility of measuring the average temperature of the earth’s surface has already been mentioned, but almost all of the others are equally unknown or uncertain. Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) claim they know the average radiative intensity of the sun, but the accuracy of current measurement is low and the future is unpredictable. All the quantities have skewed distribution curves, making an averaging exercise impossible. The diurnal cycle, where the sun disappears at night, influences almost everything else. The diagram cannot cope with seasons, or local or regional changes. The computer models do, however, claim to provide for latitudinal differences. ” – Vincent Gray
Typical warmists don’t need no stinkin facts, though. Assume the effect. Assume the cause. Adjust data to fit.
I’m sick of them and their annoying sycophants.
my response to Kenneth, re the paper cited by you know who, is disappeared.
Why the red herring again, Kenneth? Not seeing the whole thread? This was about “the oceans are cooling now” and they clearly aren’t in this graph.
Please stop trying to distract from the topic. You just provided the “entirely irrelavent” part to this “discussion” …
Red herring?! This thread was started by Dmh, whose comment was about the 1930s and 1940s being as warm or warmer as the recent decades because the oceans didn’t warm enough in the late 20th century to overtake the warming in the first half of the 20th century.
“I’m a little impressed to see 1930’s and 40’s as possibly even warmer than now, because solar activity – grand maximum – reached it’s peak in the 50 years after that. I believe, as AndyG55 remarked above, that *the oceans* are the great reason why world’s temperatures didn’t get much warmer in the late XX century, in comparison with the 1930-1940 period. The oceans are cooling now”
You (purposely?) ignored the reference to the 1930s/40s warmth in relation to the more recent decades in the original comment, deciding to post a graph that started in 1960. So I pointed out to you that you had, once again, failed to address the topic initiated by the original commentator about the warmth in the first half of the 20th century. To which you now (dishonestly?) claim that I am the one who is “trying to distract from the topic.” Obviously, the reason why I posted what I did was because I thought you were the one who was trying to avoid addressing the warmth in the 1930s/1940s that superseded the warmth of recent decades. That’s why I called your graph “entirely irrelevant” to not only this thread, but to the entire article which, once again, prominently emphasizes the 1930s/1940s warmth that supersedes the warmth in recent decades.
Considering your track record, I’ll just assume this was yet another example of duplicity. Instead of replying to anything I actually wrote substantively, you decided to fabricate a complaint about me tossing out red herrings and distracting from the topic when I clearly did nothing of the kind.
I don’t know if this is the language barrier, but:
“I believe, as AndyG55 remarked above, that *the oceans* are the great reason why world’s temperatures didn’t get much warmer in the late XX century, in comparison with the 1930-1940 period.”
The OP believes the oceans are buffering the heat from the Sun (solar maximum 50 years after the 1930s/1940s), preventing Earth from getting much warmer. I don’t think he meant the ocean temperatures with the remark that the 1930/40s were warm. Then the OP mentions: “The oceans are cooling now”
I replied, that they aren’t cooling now and added a graph that shows just that.
You go on and on about 1960 as the beginning of the graph and some warming I am dismissing. It’s a very big red herring … your usual distraction strategy. Or maybe it is indeed the language barrier and either I or you misunderstood what the OP was really writing.
Maybe I should stop replying to you too then if you continue to resort to this tactic to derail discussions.
Why should I reply to anything you throw into a thread that has little or nothing to do with what I was critizing? That’s a distraction and I fell for yours way to often in the past months.
P.S.: No, the warmth of 1930/40s did not superseed the warmth of recent decades. That happened only in the skeptics fantasy bubble.
Again, the original poster was talking about the 1930s/40s warmth relative to the warmth in recent decades. You posted a graph that began its trend in 1960, ignoring the commentary about the 1930s/40s warmth. In an attempt to bring you back to the topic at hand rather than letting you reference yet another graph that has nothing to do with either the article or the comment on the 1930s/40s warmth, I called you on your decision to post a graph that began in 1960. And then you decided to accuse me of “derailing” a thread! This article wasn’t about ocean cooling now. It was about the reliability of the instrumental temperature record and how well they match up with proxy evidence that shows the 1930s/40s were as warm or warmer than recent decades.
This is absurd! I didn’t derail the discussion. That’s what you did…and do. I tried keep you from going off on your own tangent about the warming trend that began in the 1960s/70s while simultaneously ignoring the 1930s/40s warmth mentioned by the original poster as well as the article itself. Yes, if you stop replying to me, that would be just fine. It’s not like you are bringing anything substantive to the table, here.
Yes, in the data sets that add artificial heat via urbanization and “completely artificial” adjustments to hide the decline in the proxy temperatures, the recent decades are warmer. For the instrumental data not adjusted to show warming/non-warming to fit the models, and for the proxy evidence (tree rings, pollen, ice cores, etc.), the 1930s and 1940s were just as warm or warmer. Of course, you prefer the artificially heated and adjusted data.
Major parts of the oceans ARE starting to cool.
Any deep warming in the modelled and adjusted OHC must be from the Sun, atmospheric CO2 cannot and does not warm the oceans in any possible way.
Even HadSST shows cooling of oceans
“No, the warmth of 1930/40s did not superseed the warmth of recent decades. That happened only in the skeptics fantasy bubble.”
Nope, warmth of 1930/40s DID supersede recent decades in all REAL in-adjusted data.
REAL DATA shows that to be a fact, especially in the NH.
Sorry to burst your brain-hosed bubble, seb
I know its all you have in your life.
*Yawn*, how often do you have to repeat this nonsense to yourself until you can finally fall asleep? I wonder how someone can become like this and at the same time pretends to base his/her opinion purely on facts …
Poor seb.. It seems things need to be repeated a LOT of times before they can get through your manic AGW brain-hosing.
Do you have ANY empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ocean warming??
NOPE… seb = ZERO facts.
Have you figured out that DWLWR cannot warm oceans , especially in the piddlingly small amount that might come from a 0.04% trace gas.
Your whole premise has ZERO reality in any sort of science or physics.
That hose must have been on ultra-high pressure.
Its the only way you could continue to just “BELIEVE” despite ZERO scientific evidence.
Just your continued desperate trolling for attention.
How does a human being become so pathetic.!!!!
oops early morning here.. forgot to close the bold after one paragraph. !!
“I’m a little impressed to see 1930’s and 40’s as possibly even warmer than now, because solar activity – grand maximum – reached it’s peak in the 50 years after that.” – Dmh
I think that needs to be addressed, but higher temps appear to have been a reality, at least on the land.
That is a great collection and one to save!
“Composed” of 450 …, not “comprised.” The whole comprises the parts, not the other way around. “Comprised of” is bureaucratese, a fancy way to get it wrong.
Sorry to be today’s Mrs. Grundy. The graphs are superlative and stunning. Good work.
I guess that just about finishes the CO² scam except it won’t. There is clearly no signal of co² warming in any of these data
The anti-CO2 scam is NOTHING to do with temperatures or climate.
Its a political construct.
Stated as such by the AGW-cult leaders.
Thanks for sharing all of the great regional graphs. That will keep me busy for some time.
Relevant data. Unfortunately, these authors are considered infidels by the Church of Global Warming.
Ok, I’ve read the paper now …
So it’s unadjusted temperature data they are suing, but they seem to be well aware of the problems resulting from that. Comparing trends between OAA and OAS should still be possible, but of course the trend of either series is that of unadjusted data.
Near the end they present one of their findings as:
Well, surprise surprise. OAA data doesn’t have as much variation in it because of the oceans. OAS data is far more volatile and the time of day the temperature was measured matters more. So it’s basically an artifact of using unadjusted data.
What they should rather ask themselves is why their OAA and OAS data doesn’t differ after the 1950s. I wonder how raw and adjusted temperatures differ before 1950 vs. after 1950: https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/564921572096348160
The reconstructions you present here, well … we discussed them before, so I won’t repeat myself.
Nice try, but nope … it’s once again skeptic wishful thinking. Not the one flaw that would once and for all debunk AGW.
“So it’s basically an artifact of using unadjusted data.”
Unlike GISS, you mean, which is PURELY and TOTALLY an artefact of ADJUSTED data.
Working with ORIGINAL data will always be the downfall of the AGW fantasy.
“we discussed them before, so I won’t repeat myself.”
And you made a fool of yourself then, totally empty, as I recall.
The thing that really debunks the AGW cult religion is the TOTAL ABSENCE of any evidence that CO2 causes warming of anything, anywhere, anytime.
Temperatures unaffected by SOLAR warming of the oceans, show the 1940s warmer than now.
Them’s the FACTS, seb, no matter how much you rant and rave.
translation… “so, basically, it’s an artifact of reality.”
Reality BITES the AGW meme. !!
“What they should rather ask themselves is why their OAA and OAS data doesn’t differ after the 1950s.”
That’s patently obvious to anyone with a functional brain.
So .. not you.
Climate science needs to be outsourced to the Danes.
[…] Continue reading […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-… […]
Even the GHCN data put out by NOAA shows no warming for the US for the average daily maximum temperature from 1895 to 2018 based on the varying number of temperature stations ~1000 stations (maximum no.of stations was the year 1990)