18 October 2014

AGW is already falsified

The global atmospheric warming pause, going on 18 years now, together with the lack of sea level rise acceleration, has already falsified the AGW hypothesis.

There are dozens of explanations for the warming pause.

Pause choc anyone?

(courtesy Cartoons by Josh)

My explanation for the "pause" is: that carbon dioxide is an insignificant warmer. And that's what I call the "best" explanation too.

What Twitterer and climate activist Dr Manjana Milkoreit says the "best" explanation is, is that the "missing heat" is going into the ocean.
To which I retorted:
But the facts are against this hypothesis as well. The main way ocean heat uptake is measured is sea level rise. 22,000 years ago changes in earths orbit, or perhaps other unknown mechanisms, caused the huge ice sheets to melt.

This gave rise to the fast sea level rise depicted in this graph from 15,000 to 7,000 years ago.

About 7,000 years ago substantial land ice melt ceased and the rise of the oceans began to be dominated by thermosteric rise, where ocean rise is due to thermal uptake. Hence sea level rise is a measure of ocean heat uptake since 7,000 years ago, and especially so since 3,000 years ago.

Well, unfortunately for Manjana and her fellow AGWers, there has been no acceleration in sea level rise, which is thought to be a fairly steady 1.3mm - 1.8mm a year.

There are claims of a higher rate of rise of up to 3.2mm/yr from satellites. But these are tweaked somewhat by the dubious and arbitrary Global Isostatic Adjustment.
The rationale for the upward tweak of the Global or Glacial Isostatic Adjustment is that lands are rising and ocean beds are falling due to more seawater making seas heavier, pushing the sea floors down.  Also, that rising land is making sea level rise seem a bit less than it "really" is.

Well, wouldn't the melting of earth's ice sheets make earth as a whole get bigger, springing back due to weight of ice sheets being lifted?

Perhaps there is merit in this GIA argument.  The problem arises in determining how much to adjust things by. 

We've only been measuring by satellite for a few years, and even then changes in gravity, used to measure sea and land level rise, could be due to several factors superimposing -- it's hard to separate these factors.

Rather like to often touted "2C limit" to global warming, the GIA number is likely mostly plucked out of thin air.
In any case reality is "wrong", and needs to be adjusted (by small 0.3mm/yr boost). It's just an amazing coincidence that all tweaks to official climate records always support, and never detract, from the AGW narrative.

Another tale of upward tweaking:
Satellite sea level data has been "adjusted" upward by 34% over past 9 years alone

And see:

Global sea level rise from tide gauges is half of that claimed from satellites. Which is right?

Steven Goddard weighs in with a relevant rant here:


And more doubt over satellite measurements of sea level rise courtesy of Goddard:


In fact there is plenty of reason to suggest there's been a slow down in sea level rise:



Even the upwardly tweaked satellite data is showing a slowdown from around 2004:



No acceleration and maybe a slow down in sea level rise:

See also:


For the last 3,000 years the sea level rise has been fairly steady and almost exclusively from thermosteric and halosteric rise. And of those two, thermosteric rise is the vast majority, as depicted in this graph:

 Halosteric rise (rise caused by less saltiness in water -- red line) is small compared to thermosteric rise (black line).
Some say there's little or no sea level rise at all:



All glaciers are a balance between precipitation and melt/advancement.  The polar ice sheets operate at ice-load saturation, meaning they hold about as much ice as they can handle, and more ice/snow means the glaciers will move faster.

One of the things that is problematic for taking ice core samples is the constant movement of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica.  There so much movement they have to regularly move the marker for the South Pole:
Within the polar circles glaciers survive the current warmer interglacial in a permanent and secure equilibrium between snow and melt, receiving more precipitation during warmer times, offsetting any increased melting at the edges due to the warmth.

Hence a few degrees of global warming, whatever the cause, can not melt these glaciers!

This Richard Alley graph shows that warming produces increased precipitation to compensate for any glacial ice melt during hotter times:

How do glaciers form in the first place? By precipitation -- snow -- turning to ice. New glaciers are beginning to form in Scotland right now:

Another question is: will the missing AGW heat come back to the ocean surface to do more "terrible" warming in the air? It may not.

The oceans have been absorbing heat for 1000s of years since the last ice age; that heat may stay in the oceans for 1000s of years more, until well into the next period of glaciation.

And, if this missing heat's not on the surface to do damage then it can't produce worse weather. (Of course a warmer world has better weather though, not worse).
There is better coverage for measuring ocean heat content since ARGO was deployed in 2004.  Even ARGO is showing a reduction of ocean heat:

Yet even with ARGO, sea level rise still remains the best measure for ocean heat uptake.
You could argue that natural factors are cooling earth, offsetting AGW, causing the "pause" if it even is a pause. "Pause" assumes CO2 will make it warmer, which isn't in evidence.
But Atlantic and Pacific ocean oscillations that influence temps are pretty near normal, so it's not that.
And, though the sun is relatively quieter overall, it's at it's peak right now. And though that peak may be lower than the last few, it's still a peak that increases the sun's solar wind output and irradiance a bit compared to the bottom of that sunspot cycle. So, the sun's not the cause of the lack of warming either.
It's not aerosols:
 No noticable trends in aerosols according to Optical depth measure
None of the 52 & growing number of pause excuses really stack up.
With CO2 rising in supposedly record amounts, the effect on earth's average temp is seemingly close to zero, reflecting a climate sensitivity of close to zero
It's not cherry picking (as some claim) to say that there's a lack of rising temps together with rising CO2 during the last 18 years or so. The so-called pause is significant, especially given the faster rise in atmospheric CO2.

Did human CO2 emissions cause the slight warming from 1976 to 1998?

How do we know 1976-1998 warming wasn't all natural and not CO2? There's more cooling than warming during time of rising CO2.
Some insist there is no pause:
But even Australia's left-leaning ABC admits to the pause:
So, when you combine the lack of atmospheric warming for 18 years with the lack of sea level rise acceleration, showing there is no anomalous AGW heat uptake by the ocean, the AGW hypothesis is already falsified.

Updated 25 Oct 2014.

Tags: global warming, climate change

07 September 2014

"The Conversation" claim contradicted by BoM press release

In a Conversation article about Jennifer Marohasy's claim of temp fudging at Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) (1,2,3) authors Lisa Alexander and Andy Pitman claim that BoM's homogenisation adjustments are to reduce the extremes of Australia's temperature trend. 
Exactly what "reduce the extreme temp trends" means is not 100% clear, but I assume it means that the slight increase in temp from 1910 to 2014 is lessened post-homogenisation.
No, the Bureau of Meteorology is not fiddling its weather data
From the article:
"Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the Bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia. "
That article was on 1 September 2014. Then four days later, on 5 September 2014, BoM releases a graph showing that the post-homogenised red line (ACORN-SAT) had in fact increased the upward trend over the raw data of the blue line (AWAP).  Hence directly contradicting the claim made by authors of The Conversation article.

22 July 2014

Cooling is natural; warming is AGW

Those familiar with AGW theory will know that since industrial times, all warming is caused by CO2, while all cooling is natural. There's a paper to that effect described on WattUpWithThat explaining that the current pause in warming is, of course, all natural and merely masks the AGW warming that would otherwise occur. 

...links to this paper:
But actually it's warmed naturally many times before since significant human CO2 emissions from 1950, such as 1859 to 1879, and 1910 to 1945:

There was a slight warming from 1976 to 1998 that was supposed to be due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

But there's nothing to suggest that the temperature increase is entirely natural and not related to human emissions which, as I say, have only been significant since about 1950.
I noticed this dubious graph on page 20:
The authors claim it proves the logarithmic nature of CO2-induced warming. The problem is, CO2 emissions haven't risen linearly since 1880 when this graph starts.
Humans have only been adding relatively modest amounts of carbon dioxide since about 1950:

There were no significant human greenhouse gas emissions before 1950, so the idea that these emissions were responsible for any temp rise from 1880 to 1950 is just plain wrong.

Putting a line on a graph like that, whether it's on a log scale as this one is, or is linear, is dodgy anyway because the choice of starting and ending points completely influences the slope of the trend line.

I could choose different start and end points, especially if we had more data, and come up with an entirely different result. Temperature just varies up and down, naturally. That's what temperature does.

The trend lines they have chosen amount to wishful thinking on the author's parts; they're going to show global warming at all costs!

The above graph is based on another dubious equation, equation 1:

They've arbitrarily made up the values of natural warming Tnat and the amount of human-made warming. Then they say there's a 20 year lag in warming because the oceans have to warm up first before the air can actually warm up. Hard to believe.

Then they subtract the arbitrary level of greenhouse warming together with the also arbitrary 20-year ocean lag, and get this graph:

See? The warming's all AGW, and not natural at all! When you can just arbitrarily determine the level of natural warming, based on assumption, science becomes easy!

I wish I could be payed to come up with this sort of stuff too. But unfortunately I'm not on the climate science gravy train.