Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_DarkHelmet]

LOL. Last I saw on this thread Water Dog gave up after getting his azz kicked. But it looks like he's back with a vengeance after visiting some global warming denial sites and brushing up on the latest graphs and talking points.

[_Res Ipsa]

Nope. Somebody who understands the difference between "Polar Ice" and "Glacial Meltwater Around the West Antarctic Peninsula" and who knows the difference between 2014 and 2018 is calling you dishonest.

I made a very clear and obvious point about processes vs systems and then bring up the fact that antarctic ice has steadily increased. I specifically say, getting warmer in one area, cooler in another. No dishonesty whatsoever. I couldn't have been more clear. You and pakes then humorously respond to articles about the antarctic with links to stuff about the arctic. ROFL. You just slipped on and fell in a pile of your own ____. How, embarrassing. As usual, instead of admit your gaff and move on, double down. It's an easy enough thing to confuse after all, the words are similar. Honest mistake, but nope, RI is never wrong about anything. When he makes a mistake, it's because I was dishonest. He is, without question, the superior man. And this right here is why I won't engage you further.

TBML

Is there anything else to even talk about? I feel like I've made my point pretty clear. I suppose we can all just agree to disagree. If anybody else has anything new, I'll be watching. RI's venom is unwelcome. If someone like Themis wants to engage in a polite discussion, I'm game.

Why, yes, there is something else to talk about. Because once again you've done your schtick about rewriting history after you've been caught being dishonest. Let's look at what you really said, not at your attempt to wriggle out of it.

Here is everything you posted up to your claim about "polar ice":

People are not photoshopping graphs to conceal warming. Okay? With the exception of some outliers, that ____ isn't happening. And such outliers are on both sides. There have been numerous controversies related to climate scientists being caught literally making data up. Notice in this discussion I have not brought that up a single time? I generally try to assume people are acting in good faith.

I'm not drawing a line from 98. Neither are guys like Lindzen. Nobody is trying to play such games to fool people. That's quite an accusation.

I'm excluding 98. Ignore that outlier bump, from 99 onward it's basically flat. A dip/rise/dip around 2010, which averaged out is flat, starts to rise again 15/16, and now it's coming back down again. Does it continue to go down? No way to know, we'll see. I don't disagree with the point you're making at all. But, being fair, that argument flows in both directions. Why are we starting in 1979? Or 1890 or wherever?

The time scale for this stuff goes a lot further back... millions of years. This chart questions the notion that CO2 drives the climate. CO2 concentrations are going up up up. The rate of increase has been increasing. And yet, from 99 to 16, the atmosphere temp is effectively flat. Some ups, some downs. According to the models this shouldn't be happening, it should just be going up, no dips, just up.

No. They go up, they go down, they go up, they go down. A trendline laid over the thing from 79 to today, yes, it goes up. So what? How is this at odds with natural variability and the known history of the earth?

[Three graphs showing temperatures going up and down]

On what basis is it a "good amount" and on what basis will it "continue over time" and what does that even mean? Here's the bottom line. There has been no empirical evidence of any negative warming effects whatsoever. None. Zilch. There isn't anything to point to. The polar bears are fine. Species that are under threat due to human activity, which I don't dispute, has nothing to do with warming and has to do with overt actions, pollution, etc.

To this point, you've said absolutely nothing about processes v. systems. You haven't even used the words. Then you say:

At this very moment, polar ice is reported to be higher than ever, over the past 10,000 years.

Not until the very end of your post do you mention processes and systems:

Question. From a systems modeling perspective, if you have a region of the planet that is getting colder, while another is getting hotter, what does this mean? Do you understand the difference between a process and a system? Can we make statements about a system, based on the observations of a process? What are the limitations of any statements we might make?

So you attempt to rewrite history:

I made a very clear and obvious point about processes vs systems and then bring up the fact that antarctic ice has steadily increased.

is 100% false. You didn't make any point about processes v. systems before you made your claim about "polar ice," let alone a "clear and obvious one."

You've lied about what you said a second way. Here, again, is what you said:

At this very moment, polar ice is reported to be higher than ever, over the past 10,000 years.

You're trying to change what you actually said to:

antarctic ice has steadily increased

Not the same thing at all.

Then you posted a graph. A graph that isn't about polar ice -- it doesn't even show the quantity of ice. It graphs a proxy for meltwater around a small section of antarctica.

You followed that with a link to a journal article that appears to be the source of the graph. The article's behind the paywall. Here's the abstract:

Over the last decade or so, certain source-specific C25 highly branched isoprenoid (HBI) lipid biomarkers have emerged as useful proxies for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. Thus, IP25 (Ice proxy with 25 carbon atoms) and IPSO25 (Ice proxy for the Southern Ocean with 25 carbon atoms) represent binary measures of past seasonal sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, respectively. A further tri-unsaturated HBI (generally referred to as HBI III) appears to provide proxy evidence for the region of open water found adjacent to sea ice (i.e. the marginal ice zone (MIZ)) in both polar regions. This review provides an update on current knowledge pertaining to each proxy. The first section focuses on describing those studies that have aimed to establish the underlying features of each proxy, including source identification and spatial distribution characteristics. The second section presents some important analytical considerations pertinent to the accurate identification and quantification of HBI biomarkers. The third section describes how each HBI proxy is normally interpreted within the sedimentary record for palaeo sea ice reconstruction purposes. This includes the interpretation of individual and combined biomarker profiles such as the PIP25 index and multivariate decision tree models. A summary of all previous palaeo sea ice reconstructions based on HBIs is also given, which includes examples that clarify or reinforce our understanding of the individual or combined biomarker signatures. Some knowledge gaps and areas for future research are also briefly described.

Nothing in there about there being more antarctic sea ice today than over the last 10,000 years.

I'm not going to address Canpakes' links, but in response to his statement that Antarctic sea ice was declining fast, you quoted this from a journal:

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models. After a record high extent in 2012 the extent was even higher in 2014 when the magnitude exceeded 20 × 106 km2 for the first time during the satellite era. … [T]he trend in sea ice cover is strongly influenced by the trend in surface temperature [cooling].

So, because I follow this stuff, I know what has happened since 2014. So, I posted a link to the current observation. After all, your claim was "At this very moment" -- not four years ago. And the most current observation is:

Antarctic sea ice may have reached its maximum extent on October 2, 2018, at 18.15 million square kilometers (7.01 million square miles). If the downward trend continues, it will be the fourth lowest maximum in the satellite record—higher than the 1986, 2002, and 2017

So, not only not the highest over the last 10,000 years. Not even close.

Your response?

You and pakes then humorously respond to articles about the antarctic with links to stuff about the arctic. ROFL. You just slipped on and fell in a pile of your own ____. How, embarrassing. As usual, instead of admit your gaff and move on, double down.

Maybe, as usual, you didn't click on my link. Or were so goddam lazy that you didn't scroll down the page to the language I quoted. Look, I even took a screenshot for you:



I'm not always right. But I try very hard to get things right in my posts because I care about that. You do the same crap, over and over and over. Post something that's false. Double down with a BS explanation that tries to rewrite history. Falsely accuse others. Then flounce off in a huff when called on it.

And as long as you do this with climate change, I'm gonna be on your ass about it.

[_Themis]

People are not photoshopping graphs to conceal warming. Okay? With the exception of some outliers, that crap isn't happening. And such outliers are on both sides. There have been numerous controversies related to climate scientists being caught literally making data up. Notice in this discussion I have not brought that up a single time? I generally try to assume people are acting in good faith.

Everyone that I have looked into always shows the scientists were not making things up, but science deniers were.

I'm not drawing a line from 98. Neither are guys like Lindzen. Nobody is trying to play such games to fool people. That's quite an accusation.

That's the idea behind the pause. They draw a line from 1998 because it is an exceptionally warm year to create the idea that earth has not been warming up since. This is done to argue against increased CO2 making the earth warmer. So do you agree that there has not been this kind of pause in the temperature record in the graph you presented?

I'm excluding 98. Ignore that outlier bump, from 99 onward it's basically flat. A dip/rise/dip around 2010, which averaged out is flat, starts to rise again 15/16, and now it's coming back down again. Does it continue to go down? No way to know, we'll see.

The trend even after 98 is still going up. And when you go back further to get a better trend line it shows real warming.

The time scale for this stuff goes a lot further back... millions of years. This chart questions the notion that CO2 drives the climate. CO2 concentrations are going up up up. The rate of increase has been increasing. And yet, from 99 to 16, the atmosphere temp is effectively flat. Some ups, some downs. According to the models this shouldn't be happening, it should just be going up, no dips, just up.

CO2 causes a feedback. As it increases in the atmosphere the temperature goes up, or if it decreases the temperature goes down. CO2 levels don't go up or down on there own, but need other natural, or unnatural, factors to change there amount. This is why CO2 levels in the past tend to follow changes in overall temperature, but they will increase or decrease overall temperature from the change in temperature from some other factor like sun activity. Today we have a large human activity that is increasing CO2. And no it is not flat, and it ignores the complexity of the system and other parts like oceans. The one accepted scientific view is CO2 is is a greenhouse gas, and an important one.

No. They go up, they go down, they go up, they go down. A trendline laid over the thing from 79 to today, yes, it goes up. So what? How is this at odds with natural variability and the known history of the earth?

It's different because humans are adding things like CO2 and methane making them drivers of climate change for the first time in history, or maybe you could just say we humans are the drivers.

On what basis is it a "good amount" and on what basis will it "continue over time" and what does that even mean?

0.3 C in well under 20 years is quite a bit if that trend continues over a century, and we have seen overall increases since the 1800's only explained by human activity. Sure is that trend does not continue then it's not a big deal, but 2 C is a lot. You only need to go 4-8 C lower to get into an Ice age.

[_canpakes]

Nope. Somebody who understands the difference between "Polar Ice" and "Glacial Meltwater Around the West Antarctic Peninsula" and who knows the difference between 2014 and 2018 is calling you dishonest.

I made a very clear and obvious point about processes vs systems and then bring up the fact that antarctic ice has steadily increased. I specifically say, getting warmer in one area, cooler in another. No dishonesty whatsoever. I couldn't have been more clear. You and pakes then humorously respond to articles about the antarctic with links to stuff about the arctic. ROFL. You just slipped on and fell in a pile of your own crap. How, embarrassing. As usual, instead of admit your gaff and move on, double down. It's an easy enough thing to confuse after all, the words are similar. Honest mistake, but nope, RI is never wrong about anything. When he makes a mistake, it's because I was dishonest. He is, without question, the superior man. And this right here is why I won't engage you further.

Lol. Nope.

1. You posted an assertion about “polar ice” never being more prevalent and then posted a graph for the Antarctic region.

2. I responded that ‘polar’ also refers to the arctic, which has seen substantial decreases, and mentioned that the Antarctic is also seeing some decreases.

3. You counter with one source that talks about ‘extent’ in the Antarctic seeing a recent increase.

4. I counter with a newer source that has updated measurements.

5. You throw a shitfit and start rambling on about someone who cannot tell the difference between the north and south poles (apparently yourself), then rant on about RI ‘lying’ about ... something ... that apparently you can’t identify.

All because you posted another crappy claim and tried to support it with a graph that didn’t match the claim.


By the way, if you had bothered to read the paper that you posted the link to, you’d have ended up reading the conclusion:

We estimate that the DJFM sea ice edge was at most 0.41◦ further south between 1989 and 2014 than it was during the Heroic Age (1897–1917), implying a reduc- tion of 14.2 % in pan-Antarctic extent.

– This change is most dramatic and statistically robust in the Weddell Sea, where the ice edge shifted by 1.71◦ southward between the two periods.

– Our estimate of the change in extent between the Heroic Age and the present day is small relative to estimates of the change between the 1950s and 1970s, based on whale catch data (Cotté and Guinet, 2007; de la Mare, 1997; Titchner and Rayner, 2014). This suggests the possibility that the sea ice was significantly more ex-tensive during the period 1931–1961 than during the Heroic Age.

So, yeah, even your own source asserts that Antarctic ice appears to have measurably diminished during the past century.

Sorry, Dog. You got punked again.

[_Water Dog]

Everyone that I have looked into always shows the scientists were not making things up, but science deniers were.

I don't think you've looked very hard.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... 60faa627ba

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.

The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-re ... te-records

That's the idea behind the pause.

No, it's not. I'm afraid you haven't paid attention to this debate over the years if that's what you think. RI is taking you for a ride. You think a House oversight committee conducted an investigation and subpoenaed records in order to look into a Photoshop gimmick of a line chart from some hack "denier" website? That would be a pretty short hearing. The data incontrovertibly showed a pause in the warming. When guys like Lindzen refer to this hiatus, they are not playing deceptive games with trendlines. Everybody acknowledged the reality of the pause. Only recently has the alarmist camp changed their tune and now argue the pause never happened. "The pause that never was" they say, now.

A new paper posted today on ScienceXpress (from Science magazine), by Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA’s Climate Data Center, and several co-authors[1], that seeks to disprove the “hiatus” in global warming prompts many serious scientific questions.

The main claim[2] by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.

In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.

https://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiat ... -after-all

Note this is the same Karl study busted for deception.

"Temperatures are just temperatures."

"Read my thousand page report."

Lindzen, along with Patrick Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger, responded here.

And finally, even presuming all the adjustments applied by the authors ultimately prove to be accurate, the temperature trend reported during the “hiatus” period (1998-2014), remains significantly below (using Karl et al.’s measure of significance) the mean trend projected by the collection of climate models used in the most recent report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much. And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/ ... after-all/

In the past couple threads who has gotten cited? RI likes to bring this up. Who have my sources been?

- Richard Lindzen - PhD atmospheric physicist, former head of meteorology at MIT
- Judith Curry - PhD climatologist, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
- Nicholas Lewis - Not sure of his background, apparently physics and mathematics. He has a respectable and growing body of publications co-authored with people like Curry.
- Patrick Michaels - PhD ecological climatologist, no idea if he was dept head or anything like that, but tenured environmental science faculty at U of Virginia.
- Paul Knappenberger - MS environmental scientist, extensive climatology research experience with Virginia State Climatology office and other institutions. Well published.
- Chris Landsea - PhD atmospheric scientist, leading hurricane researcher/expert with National Hurricane Center
- Simon Belt - PhD organic geochemist, Professor of Chemistry in the Centre for Chemical Sciences, School of - Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Plymouth
- Tom Edinburgh - PhD, post doc, at university of cambridge
- Jonathan Day - PhD meteorologist, university of reading, antarctic researcher

Just "denier" idiots, the lot of them, lol

"consensus, consensus"

[_Water Dog]

Preempting RI, also for consideration.

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-major-glo ... ended.html

So there is no confusion, I'm not saying Karl's final results are a fabrication or any such thing like that. So please don't lie and try to spin my words to mean any such thing.

[Guest]

Just "denier" idiots, the lot of them, lol

Again, I thought you didn't appeal to authority! What happened?

I have much better list of experts.

Dr. Andrew Weaver
University of Victoria
School of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Phone: 250-472-4006
Expertise: Climate Modelling and Forecasting

Dr. Lonnie Thompson
Ohio State University
School of Earth Sciences
Phone: 614-292-6652
Expertise: Effects of climate change on glaciers

Dr. James Hansen
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Phone: 216-678-5500
Expertise: Atmospheric Science and Climate Change

Dr. Tim Barnett
Research Marine Physicist
Scripps Institute of Oceanography
Email: timdotbarnett@ucsd.edu
Expertise: Oceans and climate change

Dr. Virginia Van Sickle-Burkett
Chief Scientist for Global Change Research
U.S. Geological Survey
E-mail: virginia_burkett@usgs.gov
Expertise: Impacts of climate change

Dr. Terry Prowse
Chair in Climate Impacts on Water
Water and Climate Impacts Research Center
University of Victoria
Tel: 250-363-3067
E-mail: prowset@uvic.ca
Expertise: Impacts of climate change on water (i.e. floods and droughts)

Dr. Kathleen Miller
Institute for the Study of Society and Environment
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado
Phone: (303) 497-8115
Expertise: the economic and social impacts of climate change

Dr. Aiguo Dai
Climate and Global Dynamics Division
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder Colorado
Phone: 303-497-1357
Email: adai@ucar.edu
Expertise: atmosheric science, clouds, climate change modeling

Dr. Linda Mortsch
Department of Environmental Studies
University of Waterloo
Phone: 519-888-4567
Expertise: adapting to the effects of climate change

Dr. Thomas Wilbanks
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Phone: 865-574-5515
Email: wilbankstj@ornl.gov
Expertise: Energy and environmental policy, developing countries, global change, technology and society, institution-building.

Dr. Roger G. Barry
Director, World Data Center for Glaciology
National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO
Phone: 303-492-5488
Email:rbarry@nsidc.org
Expertise: Arctic climate

Dr. Richard Armstrong
Interim Director
National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO
Phone: 303-492-1828
Email: rlax@nsidc.org
Expertise: remote sensing of ice and snow, snow cover and glacier mass/extent as indicators of climate change

Dr. Caspar Ammann
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Phone: 303-497-1705
Email: amann@ucar.edu
Expertise: historical climate change

Dr. Gavin Schmidt
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY
Phone: 212-678-5627
Email: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
Expertise: Climate change and oceans computer modelling

Contact List for Climate Change and Global Warming Scientists in Australia and New Zealand
Dr. Bradley Opdyke
Department of Earth and Marine Sciences
Australian National University
Phone: +61 2 612 54205
Email: bradley.opdyke@anu.edu.au
Expertise: Climate change and coral reefs, carbon cycle modelling

Dr. Greg Bodeker
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
New Zealand
Phone: +64 3 440 0438
Email: g.bodeker@niwa.co.nz
Expertise: Climate change and ozone

Contact List for Climate Change and Global Warming Scientists in the European Union
Dr. Martin Beniston
Department of Climatic Change and Climate Impacts
University of Geneva
Phone: +41 (0) 22 379 0769
Email: martin.beniston@unige.ch
Expertise: Impacts of climate change

Dr. Eva Bauer
Earth System Analyst
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Phone: +49 (0) 331 288 2588
Email: eva.bauer@pik-potsdam.de
Expertise: Earth system modelling, climate change

Dr. Terje Bernsten
Center for International Climate and Environmental Research
Oslo, Norway
Phone: +47 22 85 87 71
Email: t.k.bernsten@cicero.uio.no
Expertise: Regional effects of chemically active greenhouse gases

Dr. Heinz Blatter
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
Swiss Federal Institute of Technolog, Zurich
Phone: +41 44 632 82 85
Email: heinz.blatter@env.ethz.ch
Expertise: Climate modeling of climate change effects on sea ice and glaciers

[_DoubtingThomas]

Lindzen, along with Patrick Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger, responded here.

Your prophets!

[_Water Dog]

This is a positively awesome article. It's nice to see things in the human context.

Representative Joe Barton of Texas, the formidable Republican ranking member of the House climate committee, feigned astonishment. He rounded on Karl and said: “You and other officials have made repeated appearances before this committee in recent months, telling us over and over again about “global warming”. Not one of you has ever told us that there has been global cooling throughout the past seven or eight years. Why not? Or is Lord Monckton lying to us?”

Tom Karl, who was sitting next to me, looked as though he wished the “warming” Earth would swallow him up. He shifted from one well-padded butt-cheek to the other. He harrumphed, “Er, ah, well, that is, we wouldn’t have quite – oof – um – done the calculations that way, aaahh… We wouldn’t have averaged the anomalies from – umf – multiple datasets with different fields of coverage, err – aaagh…”

While the committee members were doing their democratic duty, Tom Karl rounded on me and hissed, “How do you expect to be taken seriously?”

“I don’t,” I said. “I expect the data to be taken seriously.”

Karl also took issue with my having told the committee there had been no particular trend in landfalling U.S. hurricanes over the past 100 years. He was carrying a vast artist’s portfolio of charts about with him. He flipped it open and said, “You’re wrong.”

“No,” I said, “I’m right.”

He pointed to the graph. I was indeed wrong. Karl’s graph showed no trend in landfalling hurricanes not only for 100 years but for 150 years. His face fell, then brightened again: “Ah,” he said, “but just look at how tropical storms have increased in the past 30 years!”

“You know perfectly well,” I replied, “that that apparent increase is merely an artifact of the satellite coverage that began 30 years ago. Before then, you knew if a hurricane had hit you, but you would probably not be able to detect every tropical storm.”

Karl sent a rather testy reply to the committee saying that the mere data were not relevant. Eight years was too short a period to draw any conclusion, yada yada. What he could not quite bring himself to admit was that he had been wrong in suggesting there had been no global cooling from 2001-2008. His own dataset showed it.

Now, perhaps still smarting over his trouncing at the hands of a mere layman trumping predictions with data, Karl has done his best to abolish outright the Pause of 18 years 6 months that makes a standing mockery of the wildly exaggerated predictions of the error-prone models unjustifiably but profitably favored by the politico-scientific establishment of which he is a member.

Skeptical scientists including Bob Tisdale, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, Dick Lindzen and our kind host, have all weighed in with commendable speed to point out how much is wrong with Karl’s overt data tampering.

LOL

Anyway, what is the pause? This is the pause.

Suppose, ad argumentum, that he is right. In that event, in the past 15 years global warming at the Earth’s surface has continued at the not particularly alarming rate of 0.116 K per decade. In 1990 the IPCC’s central business-as-usual prediction for the medium term was equivalent to 0.28 K per decade, so, on any view, Karl’s paper is an admission that the models have been exaggerating by well over double.

Beneath the surface heaves the vasty deep. The least ill-resolved source of data about the temperature of the top 1900 m of the ocean is the network of some 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys.

Unlike the assorted ship’s buckets and engine intake sensors and promenade-deck thermometers that preceded them, the bathythermographs were specifically designed to provide a consistent, calibrated, competent ocean temperature dataset.

They have their problems, not the least of which is that there are so few of them. Each buoy takes only 3 measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – a volume 200 miles square and a mile and a quarter deep. The bias uncertainty is of course less than it was in the bad old days of buckets and such, but the coverage uncertainty remains formidable.

Another problem is that ARGO only began producing proper data in 2004, and there seems to have been no update to its marine atlas since the end of 2014.

Nevertheless, ARGO is the least bad we have. And what the buoys show is that the rate of global ocean warming in those 11 full years of data is equivalent to less than a fortieth of a degree per decade – 0.023 degrees per decade, to be more precise:

The lower troposphere extends about as far above the surface as the ARGO-measured upper ocean extends below it. Its temperature is measured by the satellites from which the RSS and UAH datasets come. They have a highish bias uncertainty, but a low coverage uncertainty. Following the recent revision of the UAH dataset, they now tell much the same story. Here is the RSS graph for the 11 years 2004-2014:

Here is the obvious question. Where is Karl’s surface warming coming from?

Has this question been answered?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/ ... odynamics/

[_Water Dog]

Tom Karl; what is the temperature according to Obama’s throat probe?

Hahaha.