'The national forecasters called a summit to discuss the strange seasons in the UK after the freezing winter in 2010, followed by the soggy summer 2012 and this year’s cold spring.
'The high level meeting concluded that climate change is a major factor in colder winters.
'A new pattern identified by the University of Reading was blamed for making wet summers more likely.
'The meteorolgists noticed a warming of the North Atlantic Ocean in recent years.'
We know that our Holocene interglacial is cooler than the previous 4 IGs as shown by the antarctic ice cores. Or the last 500,000 years.
Recently we've had the Eemian IG results from Greenland ice cores and this shows temps to be 8C higher and SLs 4 to 8 metres higher than today. That's just 130,000 to 115,000 years ago.
Once again why is it that we never see these facts front and centre before the Aussie people. How come our Holocene is the coolest, yet we are told repeatedly that humans have caused dangerous climate change. What a load of BS.
Remember all that twaddle about future lack of snow and the poor kiddies who wouldn't know what snow was anymore.
That's been the mantra for many years, but the trouble is the trend seems to going the other way. At least in N America and I'd guess elsewhere as well.
I can recall that Robert Kennedy Jnr fool debating this point a number of years ago. He didn't instill me with much confidence then but his mad prophecies will hopefully come back and bite him on the bum.
Then there was the Viner loon in the UK with a similar message.
Thanks for that comment Neville. I've read that before - that the heat content expressed as joules tends to emphasise the warming whereas expressed in actual temperature terms it's far less significant. Or at least, far less worrying looking. And that's what I mean about the Climate Commission presentation - it was misleading and geared to exaggerate the true situation.
I don't disagree there is some warming evident in the oceans, but is it significant, and does it represent something out of the ordinary if we could review the same data for say the past several centuries?
All of that said, I also note the argument that while heat content expressed in joules shows a more noticeable trend or effect than expressed as temp anomalies, it does reflect a real significance in that the oceans are vast and an increase of that magnitude suggests substantial additional heat. But of course, is that an issue? Is it unusual? Are those OHC variations managed within the normal heat exchange systems with no great effect?
Still, disingenous on the part of the Climate Commission in my view!
But it's an improvement on the numbers burnt to death during the LIA. One of the prime causes of the witch trials was the change in the climate leading to failed crops, starvation etc.
Lomborg states that up to 500,000 were killed during this period.
Just to try and bring a bit more common sense to the argument about renewables and this time using Lomborg's info from the IEA. Page 172 "Cool It"
Today wind and solar make up about 1.7% of the mix and this might increase to 2.4% by 2030. Remember in 1990 total human emissions of co2 were 21.6 billion tonnes, 11.6 bn tonnes from OECD and 10 bn tonnes non OECD.
By 2010 that total was 13 bn tonnes OECD and 18.8 bn tonnes non OECD. By 2035 the projections from the EIA are 14.3 bn tonnes OECD and a whopping 28.9 bn tonnes from the non OECD or at least double the OECD countries.
So the hoped for renewable numbers of 2.4% ( solar and wind) are just a farce when we consider the huge increase of co2 emissions by 2035.
All that money is a criminal waste and we should have people all over the world roundly condemning this madness.
What is it about these simple sums that people find so difficult to understand? There is only one answer and that is adaptation and more R&D, anything else is just nonsense.
The significance is not much different than zero down to 2000 metres. When measured in joules this looks impressive but is really just 0.1C or so if you really believe that can be measured accurately down to 2000 metres.
Does anyone seriously believe they can make such accurate measurements at such great depths?
Roy Spencer, Bob Tisdale, Anthony Watts etc all make comments backing Willis's conclusions.
Then you have to convince yourself that this tiny uptick is somehow caused by AGW and that we can actually fix that change by solar and wind energy. Good luck with that.
'Global sea surface temperatures are at about +0.15 deg C for the week centered on June 12th, compared to the base years of 1971-2000. Sure does look as though global sea surface temperature anomalies are going to need another very strong El Niño event to get them to warm.
'Other than the rises and falls in response to El Niño and La Niña events, it doesn’t look as though global sea surface temperatures have wandered very far from an anomaly of +0.2 deg C over the past 12-plus years.'
'The West Australian government has refused to confirm opposition claims it has spent $250 million reviving a moth-balled power station in the south-west.'
They all agree that there is a warming of the global oceans. But it's not a uniformly global phenomenon as far as I know. Does it indicate something unusual is occurring? I can't comment cos I just haven't done the research. But it really is warming as best we can tell.
'The national forecasters called a summit to discuss the strange seasons in the UK after the freezing winter in 2010, followed by the soggy summer 2012 and this year’s cold spring.
'The high level meeting concluded that climate change is a major factor in colder winters.
'A new pattern identified by the University of Reading was blamed for making wet summers more likely.
'The meteorolgists noticed a warming of the North Atlantic Ocean in recent years.'
Louise Gray in UK Telegraph
We know that our Holocene interglacial is cooler than the previous 4 IGs as shown by the antarctic ice cores. Or the last 500,000 years.
Recently we've had the Eemian IG results from Greenland ice cores and this shows temps to be 8C higher and SLs 4 to 8 metres higher than today. That's just 130,000 to 115,000 years ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/first-complete-ice-core-record-of-last-interglacial-period-shows-the-climate-of-greenland-to-be-significantly-warmer-than-today/
Once again why is it that we never see these facts front and centre before the Aussie people. How come our Holocene is the coolest, yet we are told repeatedly that humans have caused dangerous climate change. What a load of BS.
Remember all that twaddle about future lack of snow and the poor kiddies who wouldn't know what snow was anymore.
That's been the mantra for many years, but the trouble is the trend seems to going the other way. At least in N America and I'd guess elsewhere as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/19/vanishing-snow-should-there-be-a-law/#more-88441
I can recall that Robert Kennedy Jnr fool debating this point a number of years ago. He didn't instill me with much confidence then but his mad prophecies will hopefully come back and bite him on the bum.
Then there was the Viner loon in the UK with a similar message.
Thanks for that comment Neville. I've read that before - that the heat content expressed as joules tends to emphasise the warming whereas expressed in actual temperature terms it's far less significant. Or at least, far less worrying looking. And that's what I mean about the Climate Commission presentation - it was misleading and geared to exaggerate the true situation.
I don't disagree there is some warming evident in the oceans, but is it significant, and does it represent something out of the ordinary if we could review the same data for say the past several centuries?
All of that said, I also note the argument that while heat content expressed in joules shows a more noticeable trend or effect than expressed as temp anomalies, it does reflect a real significance in that the oceans are vast and an increase of that magnitude suggests substantial additional heat. But of course, is that an issue? Is it unusual? Are those OHC variations managed within the normal heat exchange systems with no great effect?
Still, disingenous on the part of the Climate Commission in my view!
I suppose we should always try and have a laugh. I can just see some warmist witch doctor saying this-----
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/19/hump-day-hilarity-big-kahuna-warmy/#more-88446
But it's an improvement on the numbers burnt to death during the LIA. One of the prime causes of the witch trials was the change in the climate leading to failed crops, starvation etc.
Lomborg states that up to 500,000 were killed during this period.
Just to try and bring a bit more common sense to the argument about renewables and this time using Lomborg's info from the IEA. Page 172 "Cool It"
Today wind and solar make up about 1.7% of the mix and this might increase to 2.4% by 2030. Remember in 1990 total human emissions of co2 were 21.6 billion tonnes, 11.6 bn tonnes from OECD and 10 bn tonnes non OECD.
By 2010 that total was 13 bn tonnes OECD and 18.8 bn tonnes non OECD. By 2035 the projections from the EIA are 14.3 bn tonnes OECD and a whopping 28.9 bn tonnes from the non OECD or at least double the OECD countries.
So the hoped for renewable numbers of 2.4% ( solar and wind) are just a farce when we consider the huge increase of co2 emissions by 2035.
All that money is a criminal waste and we should have people all over the world roundly condemning this madness.
What is it about these simple sums that people find so difficult to understand? There is only one answer and that is adaptation and more R&D, anything else is just nonsense.
Good post from Willis Eschenbach at WUWT on the tiny forcing shown in ocean heat content data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/19/forcing-the-ocean-to-confess/#more-88429
The significance is not much different than zero down to 2000 metres. When measured in joules this looks impressive but is really just 0.1C or so if you really believe that can be measured accurately down to 2000 metres.
Does anyone seriously believe they can make such accurate measurements at such great depths?
Roy Spencer, Bob Tisdale, Anthony Watts etc all make comments backing Willis's conclusions.
Then you have to convince yourself that this tiny uptick is somehow caused by AGW and that we can actually fix that change by solar and wind energy. Good luck with that.
'Global sea surface temperatures are at about +0.15 deg C for the week centered on June 12th, compared to the base years of 1971-2000. Sure does look as though global sea surface temperature anomalies are going to need another very strong El Niño event to get them to warm.
'Other than the rises and falls in response to El Niño and La Niña events, it doesn’t look as though global sea surface temperatures have wandered very far from an anomaly of +0.2 deg C over the past 12-plus years.'
Bob Tisdale
June 17, 2013
'The West Australian government has refused to confirm opposition claims it has spent $250 million reviving a moth-balled power station in the south-west.'
Fin Review
Well, yes that's true, it does cover only a select period. For example, if we had the same data from say 1880, what would it show?
But I'm not sure that the data for 1960 to present can be made to show something else. That graph comes from here, plenty of other graphs to look at:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
They all agree that there is a warming of the global oceans. But it's not a uniformly global phenomenon as far as I know. Does it indicate something unusual is occurring? I can't comment cos I just haven't done the research. But it really is warming as best we can tell.