An interesting effect of this transfer is how moist air coming off the oceans and passing over a barrier like the Rockies or the Antarctic peninsula causes a net warming of the air. On the descending side it can create Froehm storms and significant temperature rise.

In effect the heat came from the oceans ( ultimately the sun ) and there is a heat transfer from sea to air but the difference in heat capacity between the two media is about three orders of magnitude, so drop in SST is undetectable. The rise in air temp can be several degrees C.

The degree of this “warming” is thus a function of the strength of the wind in such regions.

The result is an apparent increase in “mean global temperature” if anyone is fool enough to combine SST and land air temps in a global mean. ( No names mentioned, you know who your are ).

However, it is clear that this is a transfer of energy from the sea surface to the air and does not represent a true warming ( ie increase in total heat energy ) of the lower climate system. It is false “warming” signal due to averaging two incompatible datasets : air temps and sea temps.

This is one reason for the warming of the Antarctic peninsular when the rest of the continent does not show any warming. Simple increase in wind strengths. Jim Steele wrong about this recently at WUWT.

Like I’ve been saying a lot recently : what is the average of an apple and an orange? A fruit salad. Very tasty but not much use for science.

Here’s the whole paper, a letter actually. It references other papers that corroborate.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/nature08233.pdf&sa=U&ei=mbJoVOyIBYWHyQSfv4LQBw&ved=0CAcQFjAB&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFUgyXk5ccOPKLt7nJu14sZP5VhSA

How many old people move from Florida to Minnesota?

Duh.

From the article:

While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated Hg emissions in the U.S. they contribute very little to the global Hg pool 2005 estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources, natural & human-generated, range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 Tons/year Human caused U.S. Hg emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 % of the global total, & U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 %.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/outreach/Basics2-Mercury-Mar07.pdf&sa=U&ei=kLZoVLuKBIqVyQSIsIHwCA&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE-0MWOzW_3jF_CT_V6Zg8Itmomjg

@Bob Tisdale

With all due respect, even in your response to me you both get things wrong, and make things up

You state I called you a liar.

Here is what I did say, verbatim:

“But this is a good example of how Tisdale either lies, or more likely is such an extremist ideologue he can’t see what amount to fabrication.”
Go to the link that therein presented, and it does serve as an example of exactly what I stated. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/bob-tisdale-pisses-on-leg-claims-its-raining/

And what I did state was that you either lie, or “more likely” (which means I am saying it is LESS LIKELY that you are a liar) can’t see what amount to fabrications.

This raises the question of why you felt compelled to mis-characterize what I wrote, in order to respond to me and to my comment.

You also, and repeatedly, confuse use of the term “moronic” with “anger.”
The two are not related. I stand by my statement that it is moronic to say their has been a “pause” in global warming. (Granted I have a high standard here.) You then turn that into something else, and go on and on. And on, about it.

Again, why? As a further way to simply dismiss the substance of what my points are? Reflecting the exact same pattern of most climate change refutation?

This way, “well, John Carter is angry, so his points can’t be considered.

Never mind that it’s not true, (Don’t confuse annoyance with anger,)

And more importantly, never mind that it’s completely irrelevant to the issue. Which I notice is what a large portion of climate change refutation and “skepticism” is based upon, things that are irrelevant to the issue, falsely or erroneously conflated with things that are.

So that’s two wacky and somewhat manipulative things you did in response to my comment. Yet you probably don’t see the as manipulative, right? For this same reason: This pattern that is, much of what climate change refutation is.

And here’s a third: You made a huge deal out of the fact I linked to Tamino’s blog. I linked to it for an example of you misrepresenting the issue or data. The piece seemed to sufficiently do that. You don’t think it did? We can debate that elsewhere. But you completely ignored, in keeping with your pattern – that I wrote, again verbatim, “sure, it’s Tamino,” Meaning an acknowledgement that I’m not going to it as an authority on objectivity or even endorsing it, merely using it as a quick example, for a simple comment on a discussion thread. Not a blog post on a super popular and influential web site by a proprietor who testifies before Congress on this matter.

As for your link, it really doesn’t matter what you say about surface temperatures in it. There’s been plenty written on it by the world’s leading science organizations, and you’re not an expert on it. But Curry linked to you. That was my point. And part of the point was also the site where your articles appeared, which is a radical ideologue site that poses as a science site, where everything is interpreted in the most extreme way in order to support the idea that climate change is not a real issue, and is extraordinarily insular, self reinforcing, and self sealing.

Yet Curry elected to link to there, because, like you (although likely less so) she doesn’t realize it.

As for what Trenberth says on the pause, how much of my disagreement with him is a matter of semantics, and interpretation?

I tell you what, I’ll make every effort to get in touch with him this week or next, discuss that specifically, and report back to this blog, Jcurry,and yourself, via here. And if he and I still fundamentally disagree, I’ll note it, if I have made an error that I have overlooked, or he helps me see, I’ll note it. (Here’s the funny thing. As a non ideologue, I’m willing, and capable, or doing that.)

But yes, I think the whole notion of a “pause” in global warming, as if this issue is in fact linear and should render a somewhat orderly atmospheric temperature progression over very short geologic periods of time, is inane, and misconstrues the more fundamental issue here, and confuses a lot of people over it, and what it really is.

And even more so given the fact that every single one of the fourteen warmest years on record has still occurred since 1998, and 2014 is on track to make it fifteen (and to be the warmest – NOAA – or near warmest, ever.) And that this is trivial in compared to the level of change to the stases conditions that stabilize and drive future climate, notably but not limited to our oceans, albedo, carbon entrapment, and ice sheets. And the fact, usurping energy (and thus having a cooling affect on the atmosphere from what it would otherwise be), that these are rapidly changing, and this change is accelerating.

That is the key part of this, not some, yes – though perhaps I shouldn’t have used the term – “moronic” and simplistic notion of the short term overly dwelled upon climatically variable shifts in ambient global air temperatures, which are focused on simply because that is the part that people can most easily see, feel and relate to, most directly related what is expected to shift much more greatly over time, and is easiest to measure.

If you do decide to respond in comments to this comment, I ask you not to misrepresent it, again, Maybe that’s unfair, since I did say you either lie on the issue or “more likely” misrepresent without even realizing it because of your extreme ideology on the issue, so I guess you can start to illustrate that at least it’s not an automatic pattern, by, if replying, not misrepresenting or miscontruing this comment as well.

I know that’s hard if one does have ideology (since by the nature of it it’s not recognized), but it’s warping the discussion on this issue, and our understanding of it.

Thanks.

P.s. my assessment of climate change, also once again contrary to your assertions and assumptions, does not rely on the work of Trenberth.

The fact that the enormous majority of climate and related scientists who professionally study this issue offer general support to the same view that I hold (and refute the knowledge you believe you hold) is of some credibility, and certainly should mean something for most people who simply don’t have the time or the level of expertise and skill and study on the issue to be able to comprehensively understand it. But it is not what my conceptual or scientific understanding of the issue is based upon, but merely supportive. Significant, but I’m not merely parroting the fact that “the relevant scientists think this,”therefore I do.

And as if I can’t have any disagreement with any of them.

That is what the process of science is. Examination, disagreement, re-analysis, adjustment. Yet most climate change skepticism is erroneously based on conflating any of that with refutation of the basic underlying climate change phenomenon,

And you do it here, egregiously, while claiming that my claim comes from Trenberth’s work (false, but it wouldn’t matter even if not) yet I disagree with him, and trying to make that also into some sort of profound overarching point (through clever rhetoric, naturally, when once again it’s pointless).

There’s plenty of disagreement on climate change. Valid disagreement. Misrepresentation, misinformation, skepticism based upon misconstruction of the issue, driven by ideology that seeks, as if counsel to a side one must defend, a case one must ‘win,’ to always refute climate change and twist anything and everything in a way that does so, without even realizing it’s being done, is not part of that disagreement. There is plenty of debate – legitimate debate, over the issue of climate change. Over the question as to whether our past alteration of the atmosphere is affecting current climate, and is very likely to significantly shift future climate? No, there’s not.

Just because you say there is, and lot of passionate people do(but remarkably few who actually professionally study the issue and who work in a directly related science discipline professionally) doesn’t make it so. If you want something to be some way, and it is uncertain, and presents a risk range, you can believe it and assert it, and sort of self perpetuate that belief through collective desire. But it also doesn’t make it so.

Skeptics don’t want to accept that, and so create a false debate, through the above illustrated patterns (and others) included, exhibited in your comment in response to mine.

John Carter | November 15, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
No, not at all, not if you’re delusional, or just wildly ignorant, about the basic changes we’ve already made to the long term nature of our atmosphere relative to the trailing geologic record

Sort of even beyond the head in the head in the sand phase, kind of like this guy?

1. Head in the sand is pretty much the province of global warmers (actual global warmers shown below):

2. Changes to the atmosphere…
a. The change is mostly a little more CO2 at least in the first world.
b. Renewables push manufacturing to China/third which increases soot emission and other undesirable emissions in both air and water (cadmium, silicon tetrachloride. etc.)
c. The CO2 level before man came along was so low plants were gasping for breath. Gasping plants need a lot of water. 280 PPM is too low for a healthy ecosystem – hence 33% of land is desert.
d. CO2 increased plant growth 50% increase in the 20th century. Growth increased 11% from 1982 to 2011, according to CSIRO , in an article “Rising CO2 level making Earth’s deserts bloom”. This growth is due to CO2 and higher temperatures, is clearly benefiting everyone on the planet -both man and beast.

3. “The geological record”, shows that current horribly low CO2 level is a dangerous anomaly. The evolution of C4 plants is a response to the desperately low level of CO2.

Man has benefited the planet enriching the atmosphere with CO2. In the third world there are some emissions issues. On balance, from an atmosphere standpoint man has made the earth better off.

See comments below in response to Tisdale, they adequately address the pause issue

Re three sites, a problem is that the internet has helped lead to a lot of self selecting polarization and insularity , so there’s not a lot.

Climate progress is pretty good but it’s not always objective, and often castigates others, and takes for granted that everyone should “know” at least the basics of what it know,s and even view things in sort of the same way.

In that regard I think it undermines its own credibility much outside of those who already tend to agree with a lot of what it writes.

Skeptical science is very objective, repeatedly offering information that undermines it’s own arguments a little if that is what the information suggests.

Here’s the problem. I can’t even write “Sks” without at least one commenter writing something like “you cite sks, you’ve lost all credibility.”

And it’s the basic problem today. Climate change refutation is based upon a false construction of the basic issue (see responses below to Tisdale’s comment in responses to mine.) So a site like sks that matter of factly takes the multiple myths that “skepticism” is based on, and without rancor or adjectives or even, much as can be done (everyone is human) spin or mistakes (again, everyone makes mistakes, it’s a question of degree and occurrence), shows them to be false, either has to be seen by true climate change skeptics as a non credible site, or their (maybe your) entire skepticism has to be rethought, which people don’t want to do, one because we don’t like to change, we don’t like to change our heartfelt view, and in most cases – what is driving the skepticism – people want to be skeptics, and cling to it)

There’s some others, but again that isn’t really germane to the radical extremist nature of WUWT. Also, site like NASA tend to be good, and there’s plenty of science articles reasonably broken down in science magazine sites. But again, a lot of that is ignored as well, for the same reasons. The science does not support skepticism. what the science has been falsely turned into, does. but that science doesn’t really go to what the issue is, or misconstrues it, or misrepresents a tiny sliver, or some ongoing process of science, as the whole, and any possible adjustment of mistake or disagreement therein, falsely, as “refutation ” of climate change.

I agree, I was pretty sweeping – fair enough point you make there – I’m tired of all the over focus on the idea of “pause” and also misconception over what it actually does and does not represent, and it’s false conflation with the issue of general change itself. Again, see my response below to Tisdale’s comment to me. Thanks.

Judith made a presentation at a 2011 NOAA workshop on water which partialy used the McCabe paper on US droughts as they relate to PDO and AMO.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/events/2011/pdf/water-cycle-presentations/Curry_noaaWaterClimate.pdf

Just a reflection on the statement “the pause is over” from a honest rational skeptic who looks at things objectively from the broadest possible perspective.

1) Something had to exist in order for it to be over. Clearly, tropospheric temperature growth flattened after the big El Nino of 1998. Hundreds of scientists have been working many years and many ideas have been put forth to explain the “hiatus”.

2) The “hiatus” clearly caused tropospheric temperatures to diverge from models that were run prior to the hiatus showing possible evolution of tropospheric temperatures. That models will diverge from actual reality is not at all a surprise. The biggest and most powerful supercomputer in the world could not accurate model the exact path of a particle of dust floating in your living room. Particles of dust are like model runs. There are likely billions of such particles and each of those will have its own path and represent potential evolutions, all subject to the force of gravity, air currents in the room, etc. Even though no supercomputer can predict the exact path of a real particle of dust subject to very simple “forcings”, it is not hard to predict that in aggregate, your table will get dusty. Thus, the hiatus, in no way disproves AGW.

3) A rational skeptic is looking for evidence to disprove their theory, or at the very least, refine it. The hiatus has been a gift and has spurred much research that has help to evolve the understanding of the science, especially sources of natural variability. So whether the actual hiatus has been caused by Pacific ocean cycles, Atlantic Ocean cycles, solar cycles, global THC cycles, sulfates, etc, or some combination of all of these– the point is that it was an opportunity to see why the actual climate diverged from the models and thus expand our knowledge. What can be hoped, and is not at all clear as of yet is whether something useful and dynamically quantifiable can be put into future models.

4) I see no evidence yet that the “hiatus” is actually over, even if 2014 turns out to be the warmest year on record. I say this because we would have to see tropospheric temperatures return to the growth rates we saw in the 90′s. This may very well (and some would argue likely) happen in the next 10 years, but one “warmest year” is not enough to show that growth rate returning.

5) Conflating the “hiatus” or flattened temperatures into declining or “cooling” is a dishonest practice.

6) The “hiatus” is a bit of a “look squirrel” moment for “skeptics” as the over-emphasis on the low thermal inertia troposphere takes the attention away form the overall climate system, which continued to gain energy quite strongly during the “hiatus”. The troposphere is a very poor proxy for energy gains in the climate system over anything less than decadal averages at best. Everyone who studies the oceans knows they very likely have warmed quite robustly during the heart of the tropospheric “hiatus”. This energy stored in the ocean during the hiatus represents many degrees of potential warming in the troposphere. The natural flow of energy is from ocean to troposphere. The odds are very good that energy stored during the “hiatus” will follow that natural flow– it’s just a matter of when and how robustly.

Captain

Thanks for that but where does the study actually come from? Is there a link to an article that contains this graph?

You have probably seen the various discussions I have had with R gates about Mega Volcanoes. My new article covers the exact period of supposed transition but to date the observational record from four different sources doesn’t support the mega volcano theory. There were some very warm decades in the 14th, 15th and 16th century.
tonyb

I could be wrong, but that article appears to be from a fossil fuel industry forum, which is likely going to be extremely biased. I’ve read other numbers, but I’ll have to find. Have other things have to do today so won’t be able to get back but if check back this week, will def see what I can find on it.

That article also seems at least, from the quote you provided, to put the emissions as a percentage of total rather than of our total anthropogenic emissions, which would also give very diff numbers.

keep in mind it’s not the total amt that matters, its the addition above what is naturally easily physiologically eliminated from organisms,add a little more and it can start to bio accumulate past an organisms natural self eliminating capacity.

Also, more important, while a fair point on mercury (pending the actual figures are of the total amt of our emission contribution) keep in mind that the contri’ of coal to atmospheric alteration are extensive, the mining of coal has been very destructive, and there is no doubt that aside from increasing gg levels, coal is also one of the world/s leading contributor to general air polltn – in addtn to mercury – and that harms or slightly reduces everybody’s health, though its largely invisible, and almost impossible to measure or correctly isolate out.

IT just makes more sense, since it’s probably of more value in the long run, and is what we and our kids breathe and probably can’t have a price tag in the long run, to just focus on having clean air.

JC – there is no argument about climate change – climate change has happened, is happening, and will happen. This has been the case since climate existed. There are legitimate arguments over global warming and the consequences. I’m pretty sure ACO2 is contributing to warming, but it is small compared to other forces. And the proof that warming in general is bad is virtually nonexistent. It is probably 90% a good thing if more warming occurs.

Then, when it comes to proposed solutions to what probably is a non-problem, one must be extremely circumspect of ones that will cripple or kill the economy. On top of that, cheap energy is vital to our health and welfare, an inconvenient little something you warmists want to shove under the rug.

So, over all, there is a lot to argue about and it is highly important that skeptic keep up the pressure for scientist to produce good science, provide all code and data, and above all, DON’T EXAGGERATE WHAT IS KNOWN!!!

One year near the peak solar of even a weaker than normal cycle isn’t exactly proof positive that anything is over or begun.

Or, 64% didn’t vote because they were disgusted with Kommandant Obama.

Mr. Carter is certain that global warmers are right:
1. Despite the poor track record of predictions.
2. The poor performance of the models. The models are at their highest deviation from observed temperatures and didn’t track observed temperatures to begin with.

3. From my understanding the CERES data doesn’t support the theory working the way it was originally supposed to (reflected shortwave radiation is decreasing and OLR is increasing). The dancing has started to say this is a secondary effect of CO2.
4. The current knowledge of clouds according to the IPCC is abysmal.

Well, the good news is we have a new prediction to test. Timmerman says the pause is over. Either he is right or by 2020 we will know that the global warmers are wrong again.

Trenberth is more cautious and says that the end of the pause relates to whether the PDO has switched.

John Carter. Statements like “I could be wrong, but that article appears to be from a fossil fuel industry forum, which is likely going to be extremely biased. ” is making me think you are nothing more than a political hack. This is from the Purdue University web site.

You may be missing something in your analysis Simon–e.g., ‘climate’ is an example of something that ‘changes,’ right– like a stove is an example of something that’s hot. It’s not that a stove is hot all the time that is the issue; it’s that if it doesn’t get hot it’s not a stove.

> Don’t play dumb and think that your actions are justified
Because everyone else does what you do.

This would be valid if we’d speak of truth, but we’re talking about justification here.

That commenters treat Judy’s weeks in review as open threads looks like good enough justification to me. And since this seems to include Judy herself, some might even argue that this is more than enough.

***

> Honor the renaming.

Unless Moshpit wishes to argue that only a few Denizens honor Judy’s change of word the way he’d like it to be, he might very well be profiling here. Or perhaps shadowing, to remain in the spirit of ClimateBall ™:

http://bloodbowl.wikia.com/wiki/Skills