Limiting Greenhouse Gases Beyond CO2 May Help Stop Climate Change

Limiting carbon dioxide emissions may not be the only way to fight climate change, according to the results of a new study.

In a paper published this week in Nature, scientists from NOAA found that in addition to carbon dioxide, “other greenhouse gases measurably contribute to the problem,” reports Science Daily. According to NOAA scientists Stephen Montzka, Ed Dlugokencky and James Butler, cutting emissions of these other gases could help to reduce atmospheric warming in the short term.

Gases like methane trap heat just like carbon dioxide, but don't remain in the atmosphere for as long, LiveScience explains.

The study reports that by limiting emissions of methane, along with nitrous oxide and ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, humans may be able to make a difference relatively quickly. If methane emissions were cut immediately, results could be seen within a decade, Butler says.

He added, “it would be nice to see some near-term results, and that might be something that society can grab onto.” But, he warned, to ignore “carbon dioxide is to fail.”

There may be a chance for improvement by limiting these other greenhouse gases, but it is not a total solution. Even if these other greenhouse gases were totally eliminated, “it would not be enough to stabilize the warming influence from all greenhouse gases over the next 40 years.” That is, of course, unless carbon dioxide pollution was drastically reduced as well.

Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to climate change and it is quite persistent in the atmosphere, in some cases lingering for several thousand years. According to the researchers, it would take a reduction of 80 percent of man-made carbon dioxide emissions to diminish its “climate warming effect substantially within a couple of decades.”

Efforts to diminish carbon dioxide emissions are important for the U.S., as energy debates grow increasingly heated. Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants rose in 2010 by over 5%, the biggest annual increase since records began, and coal-fired boilers were responsible for 81% of CO2 emissions from electricity generation, according to The Environmental Integrity Project.

Not everyone is ready to fight climate change. Most recently, Fox News accused a popular children's cartoon of having a "global warming agenda," and a study found that “conservative white males are more likely to endorse climate change denial.”

HuffPost blogger Erik Rasmussen says there is an “enormous reality gap between science and the public.” 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is manmade, but public opinion polls show that nearly half of Americans believe it is a natural planetary trend.

Perhaps before we can look beyond carbon dioxide emissions, the public needs to accept the general scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

Comments

[StephenBP]

08:54 PM on 08/15/2011

Global warming hysteria has got to stop. The globe is warming. It has done this for billions of years. The climate is changing, and it has done this as long as there has been climate.

Now the fact that the human race has added enough fossil fuel waste into the air to raise the level of our most important greenhouse gas by 40% in only two centuries is not a sufficient cause for global warming hysteria. It is simply a fact, and an uncomfortable fact, but it is not reason for global warming hysteria. People who are getting hysterical over global warming really need to stop and tell themselves hey, this is not the end of the world. This is not the end of my job. I will not starve to death, at least not tomorrow. I can live without a Dodge Ram truck the size of a house. The Saudi Arabians will do just fine without my gas money. Hey, there is life after NASCAR. I can build my own solar heater and wind generator and heat the house during most of the winter. We will survive. We will get by.


Ha ha.

[Publicola]

12:06 AM on 08/26/2011

"We will survive. We will get by."

It's even worse than it appears, but it's alright.

[Publicola]

12:59 PM on 08/15/2011

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. 

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

[Andrew Harvey]

03:00 PM on 08/14/2011

People more likely to be critical of Global Warming Hysteria:

1) People with jobs
2) People who studied something other than basket weaving in college.
3) People who go to church
4) People don't waste their time reading the HP

Actually, there's considerable overlap between these four categories. In fact, category four is completely consumed by categories one, two and three.

[toxicity]

04:20 PM on 08/14/2011

You are not very perceptive.

[gallon]

06:52 AM on 08/15/2011

zero for four, Harvey.

[Catagori]

02:38 PM on 08/12/2011

As ever, CO2 proves to be the key greenhouse gas driving global warming. The gap between the public's perception of climate change versus that of scientists needs to change. Please join www.catagori.com to reduce CO2 through cap and trade designed on the human scale, and spread the word about the critical importance of massively reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Our lives may depend on it.

[givemtheirwish]

12:04 PM on 08/12/2011

The Meltdown of GloBULL Warming Alarmism # 25

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

Postma finds:

The effective blackbody radiative ensemble temperature of Earth’s surface and its atmosphere does not directly relate to the ground temperature. We should expect the surface-air temperature to be higher than the ensemble temperature because 1) the input flux density has a much higher temperature than -180C; 2) the temperature distribution of any atmosphere in thermal equilibrium with a source of heat is already one in which the surface-air temperature is higher than the effective radiative temperature of the ensemble.

My own predictive model* which has been as reliable as most others predicts:--
- GloBULL Warming Alarmists will continue to experience dramatic meltdown
- Many of the fraudster "scientists" will be exposed as per Climategate by their peers & supporting staff
- The puppet masters who control AGW fraud will quickly drop the cause now that it has been exposed

Re prediction 2 above; below is a very pertinent article from Martha Mendoza, AP, from 2005 highlighting the fact that Academic fraud is on the rise. Little did she know!!
http://www.achsnatl.org/ethics/Integrity_Matters_Sept05.pdf
http://www.academicintegrity.org/

*My predictive model has been improved recently. The tea leaves are allowed to brew for a further 90 seconds before reading. I believe the results are 5% more accurate than previously experienced.

[jimboy71]

10:31 PM on 08/12/2011

I seem to recall something about how blackbody radiance is for perfect (read theoretical) not real world bodies.

[Publicola]

02:35 PM on 08/13/2011

You're right, you know. The difference between the ideal blackbody temperature of the Earth and its actual temperature is in fact strong evidence for the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.

Not that givemtheirwish understands any of this - as is demonstrated by his "stadium" analogy he doesn't even understand grade school-level science.

[HowthCastle]

02:47 AM on 08/13/2011

My, and you are so objective!

[Cayce58]

12:43 PM on 08/11/2011

55 million years ago, the oceans burped. It was an extinction event. Core samples indicated a change in the ratio of oxygen16 to oxygen 18, which indicated a 8 to 10 degree rise in temp at the same moment in time that shellfish went from 12 to 1 species and 1 large land animal survived. A hunt for other samples taken proved it was worldwide. The presence of carbon12 indicated a large amount of methane in the atmosphere. There were no clues to indicate it came from volcanic, burning fossil fuels or rotting permafrost. That left methane(or methyl) hydrate. Methane forms in the mud on the slopes of the continental shelf and the ocean bottoms. It forces its way up and freezes into methyl hydrate when it meets the ocean water. It is stable at low temps and high pressure. As the water warms, it sublimates and thins, saturating the water until a disturbance causes a expansion of the bubbles. What happens next is what happens when you open a warm bottle of coke. A year ago a 10 square mile bubble of methane rose in the arctic. The arctic ocean is rapidly getting warmer. One warm currrent has appeared out of nowhere, another from greenland is more intense. As the ice disappears, dark ocean, which absorbs 80% of the suns heat, replaces it. It's one of the feedback mechanisms that are scaring the most experienced scientists. the arctic could produce enough methane to make your CO2 debate irrelivent.

[Settled Science]

05:46 PM on 08/11/2011

Except that the release of that methane is due to melting ice, which is due to warming, which is due to CO2.

[ILoveFiction]

07:52 PM on 08/11/2011

I always warming followed melting ice.

You know, the ice just decides to melt. And then everything gets warmer cause there's no ice to keep it cold.

[Publicola]

10:07 AM on 08/11/2011

NIPCC Report Major Contributor Bob Carter Debunked*

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Report's Bob Carter Hid The Incline in global warming over recent decades, as statistician Tamino demonstrates.*

NIPCC global warming scientist Bob Carter is a leader of and/or contributor to other prominent organizations that are "skeptical­" of man-made global warming as well, including the Heartland Institute, the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an­d the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris has repeatedly refused to address NIPCC global warming scientist Bob Carter's de facto fraud here on HuffPo, despite - or because of - the fact that Bob Carter is also the ICSC's Chief Science Adviser.**

Dear Orkneygal,

Isn't the NIPCC's Bob Carter committing de facto fraud by tweaking down the increasing global temperature trend line until it is deceptively flat? Isn't that like cheating, as in scamming, hoaxing, deception, misrepresentation, fraud etc.?

Bob Carter also is a founding leader of the "skeptical­" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

Please finally answer the question instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

------------------------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/climate-change-impacts-water-resources_n_911152_101378826.html

[Orkneygal]

08:04 AM on 08/13/2011

There is help for your condition. Consult your physician. He/She might be able to adjust your medications to help you.

All the best with your 'perseveration' situation!

http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=159

[Publicola]

12:47 PM on 08/13/2011

Dear Orkneygal,

Bob Carter is a founding leader of the "skeptical " New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). 

Isn't the NZCSC's Bob Carter committing de facto fraud by tweaking down the increasing global temperature trend line until it is deceptively flat? Isn't that like a scam, a hoax, a deception, a lie, misrepresentation, fraud etc.?

You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationsh ip do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

Please finally answer the question instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

[Orkneygal]

08:52 AM on 08/11/2011

Willlie-

Thank your for your continued support of my comments here on HUFFPo.

You valiant efforts are a great support during the dark hours of the Rommulan attacks.

Again, Thank You!

Your continued support is essential to revealing the Truth!

Later.........

[ILoveFiction]

02:12 PM on 08/11/2011

Hah!

Your rhetoric is superb.

And calorie-free!

How do you do it?

[realpolitic]

02:52 PM on 08/11/2011

What truth do you have that the world's vast scientific community is missing?

[realpolitic]

12:46 AM on 08/11/2011

Orkneygal has made two glaring errors in her posts. Hopefully after being shown the latest research and the flaws in her thinking she will correct the record. First, she says the upper ocean has had a lull in the warming  and to arrive there she misinterpreted a study entitled "Importance of the Deep Ocean for Estimating Decadal Changes in Earth's Radiation Balance."

Wrong!  "Josh Willis, in an article published on the NASA Earth Observator­­y web site states that once Argo thermomete­­r measuremen­­t errors were removed,  the world's oceans have been absorbing additional energy and have been warming."

"In fact, the work of (von Schuckmann et al., 2009) indicates the global ocean accumulate­d (between the surface and 2,000 meter depth) 0.77 (plus or minus 0.11) watts per square meter of heat between 2003 and 2008, which is roughly consistent with the 0.86 (plus or minus 0.12) watts per square meter of heat (between the surface and 750 meter depth) accumulate­d between 1993 and 2003 as documented in Willis et al. (2004); and Hansen et al. (2005).

Here is a graph with the 2008/2009 Argo network data included.

http://www­.argo.ucsd­.edu/globa­l_change_a­nalysis.ht­ml#temp

Then Orkney thinks the tropical "hot spot" can not be found. 

Wrong!   According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program,  "In the tropics, the agreement between models and observations depends on the time scale considered. For month-to-month and year-to-year variations, models and observations both show amplification (i.e., the month-to-month and year-to-year variations are larger aloft than at the surface). This is a consequence of relatively simple physics, the effects of the release of latent heat as air rises and condenses in clouds."

According to the EPA,"Most recent studies.. find that when uncertaint­ies in models and observatio­ns are properly accounted for newer observatio­nal data sets are in agreement with climate model results.  In the tropical upper tropospher­e, where the predicted amplificat­ion of surface trends is largest, there is no significan­t discrepanc­y between trends from RICH–RAOBC­ORE version 1.4 and the range of temperatur­e trends from climate models. “A robust warming maximum of 0.2–0.3K (10 yr)−1 for the 1979–2006 period in the tropical upper tropospher­e could be found in both homogenize­d radiosonde datasets.”­"

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/RTC%20Volume%203.pdf  p.11 of 56

What say you, Orkney?  Do you admit to being wrong or are deniers never wrong?

[Orkneygal]

08:48 AM on 08/11/2011

Make your objections known to the UK's MET Office.

Let us know of their response.

All the best in your endeavors to prove one of the World's most supportive and foremost CAGW scientific organisations is wrong.

[realpolitic]

02:59 PM on 08/11/2011

Well, the second study the Met office offers has little to do with a recent lull in the upper ocean warming.  I think their PR department is not aware of the recent measurement errors that were corrected and now the world's upper oceans show a warming trend again.  I have presented many researchers who have written on this development.   I did write the Met office to find out their position on upper ocean warming, though.  I have not heard back from them yet.  Whatever happens, I am sure you will keep trumpeting whatever suits your agenda, as that is what deniers do.

[jimboy71]

10:33 PM on 08/12/2011

So are you Jo Nova or what?

[texfly]

11:49 AM on 08/13/2011

Watch out rp, I think she likes you. Be forewarned she's a cannibal.

[realpolitic]

03:52 PM on 08/13/2011

undefined

[Pharos]

02:59 PM on 08/14/2011

Black widow also comes to mind.

[banana republican]

08:57 PM on 08/10/2011

I'm reminded of the decline of the spotted owl. When first detected, the Left mobilized to shut down logging operations costing tens of thousands of people their livelihoods and destroying entire communities, When, after ten years, this hadn't helped, someone got the bright idea to do a study to see just what was happening to the little spotted owl. Turns out, it was the bigger Bard Owl increasing in numbers and pushing the spotted owl out (can anyone say 'evolution?). Was the Left humbled and remorseful for their tragic error? Not in the least. They've got a new solution: Place even more timberland off-limits and send gunners into the woods to assassinate the Bard Owls. You see, in their own mind, the Left sees everything they do as surrounded by a shroud of righteousness and shields them from any culpability that might otherwise be the expected result of making a stupid mistake.

[Publicola]

09:41 PM on 08/10/2011

banana: "...the Left mobilized to shut down logging operations costing tens of thousands of people their livelihood­s and destroying entire communitie­s..."

Gotta love it when people these sorts of claims as it they were fact. Or not.

[realpolitic]

12:10 AM on 08/11/2011

Yea, what hyperbole!  I remember when  entire cities were destroyed because the left wanted to protect a few spotted owls.  It was like the hospital scene in Gone With The Wind.

[gallon]

10:49 PM on 08/10/2011

banana: " . . . rabble rabble gibber gibber . . . "

Hey banana, the article is about greenhouse gases and climate change. Your political rant is way off topic.

[ClimateHawk]

01:44 PM on 08/10/2011

Good news.

The legal basis for claiming damages related to climate change denial is starting to form.

Prediction: Deliberately spreading false or misleading information about this important matter of public health and safety will have consequences for the perpetrators.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/08/09/09greenwire-lawyers-make-insurance-claim-in-bid-to-prove-d-15499.html

[gallon]

04:49 PM on 08/10/2011

I like it . The climate disinformation campaign is modeled after the tobacco disinformation campaign. Same villains. Same tactics. This could get interesting.

[Javani]

09:33 PM on 08/10/2011

That might be the stupidest article ever. those lawyers know nothing. Of course ins. rates go up because climate change, because the fiduciaries will use any excuse to raise rates. The excuse of climate change for coastal homes is obvious. It does not matter if the oceans are not rising, it is the theory which supplies the supposedly good faith reason to raise rates. If that lawyer really thinks the seas rising have caused any increased claims, actual claims, she needs to go back to school.

The smart lawyer would sue the insurance company saying the raising of rates to incorporate global warming fears/costs is as bogus as the IPCC science behind the well-paying myth.

[gallon]

10:50 PM on 08/10/2011

How is the IPCC science bogus, javani? You offer partisan opinions, but no substance.

[Publicola]

01:34 PM on 08/10/2011

Roy Spencer Wrong On NASA Satellite Data For Years

Roy Spencer analyzed NASA satellite data incorrectly for years until audited and corrected by independent scientists.

givemtheirwish parrots: 

"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

givemtheirwish is parroting and promoting the Heartland Institute's latest science denier propaganda. That Heartland Institute-authored propaganda misleading un-skeptical members of the public notwithstanding, the actual report is not in reference to actual NASA data but instead to Heartland Institute "expert" Roy Spencer's latest NASA satellite data-related analysis.

Roy Spencer analyzed NASA satellite data incorrectly for years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Roy Spencer's climate science has been repeatedly debunked by other climate scientists.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

Roy Spencer believes per the Bible God will protect us from global warming.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

Roy Spencer is a creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Roy Spencer's repeated failures to have climate science conform to his religious fundamentalist beliefs notwithstanding, climate science deniers believe and parrot what Roy Spencer says with zero skepticism.

[Javani]

09:35 PM on 08/10/2011

Heretic! Burn him! Burn him with the 2001 IPCC AR3 hockeystick graph you have as your icon.

[Publicola]

09:42 PM on 08/10/2011

That's not what my icon is, but thanks for playing.

[gallon]

10:51 PM on 08/10/2011

Rant away, javani.

[givemtheirwish]

01:02 PM on 08/10/2011

Ooooooops # 586

"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. [READ ON]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

Wow, who'd have thunk it?
The Tea Leaf Reader Computer Model is flawed. Must have been Madoff Computer Modelling, inc who put that one together.

The poor Alarmists get "GORED" yet again.

I wonder how long it'll take the warming acolytes to see the irony in the term "MAN-MADE Global Warming".............LOL

[Publicola]

01:44 PM on 08/10/2011

givemtheirwish: "The poor Alarmists get "GORED" yet again."

Science denier irony springs eternal.

Hey givemtheirwish,

You still don't see the obvious and very, very basic flaw in your "stadium" analogy downthread, do you.

No wonder you can be so easily GORED by Heartland Institute-authored climate science denier propaganda...

lol.

[Publicola]

04:18 PM on 08/10/2011

C'mon, givemtheirwish:

Here's your analogy again:

"If our atmosphere were a 10,000 seat stadium, man-made CO2 would account for 4 seats. Water Vapor (do you know what that is PUB??) accounts for most of the seats."

You twice have not spotted the VERY basic flaw in your analogy, Wishy - even after I have given you 2 hints to help you out.

3rd time's a charm?

[ Note to the home audience: Please don't give this one away - let's see how long it takes Wishy to figure this one out. ]

[realpolitic]

02:05 PM on 08/10/2011

The guy who wrote the article for Forbes works at the Heartland Institute which is a bogus science denying, public relations firm funded by energy companies that has a reputation for misleading the public and outright lies. The actual abstract to the study says 

"While
the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations."

Does this language to you, which sounds entirely speculative, actually sound like it is "blowing a gaping hole" in anything.  I mean, you deniers are simply unreal.

[Publicola]

11:04 AM on 08/10/2011

Fraud by NZCSC Global Warming Scientist Bob Carter Debunked*

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) global warming scientist Bob Carter tried to Hide The Incline in global warming over recent decades, as statistician Tamino demonstrates.*

NZCSC global warming scientist Bob Carter is a leader of and/or contributor to other prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming as well, including the Heartland Institute, the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris has repeatedly refused to address NZCSC global warming scientist Bob Carter's global warming fraud here on HuffPo, despite - or because of - the fact that Bob Carter is also the ICSC's Chief Science Adviser.**

Dear Orkneygal,

You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

Please answer the question instead of continuing to run away from it -   thank you.

----------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/climate-change-impacts-water-resources_n_911152_101378826.html

[texfly]

11:46 AM on 08/10/2011

Bob Carter, well known climate humorist shows three ways to HIDE THE INCLINE:

Use 3 BIG points to bias the eye.

Use 2 THICK flat lines to bias the eye (then invoke the climate re-set button to dismiss the step increase)

Use a LARGE T-axis scaling that would hide the Himalaya's.

Add a dash of Black Swan and Buried Heads in the Sand, and wallah! -- acolyte stew!
And the miners eat it up. So ... who's fooling whom?

[realpolitic]

02:54 AM on 08/10/2011

Orkenygal tried to postulate a pause in upper ocean warming. Well, according to the EPA..... "In fact, the work of (von Schuckmann et al., 2009) indicates the global ocean accumulated (between the surface and 2,000 meter depth) 0.77 (plus or minus 0.11) watts per square meter of heat between 2003 and 2008, which is roughly consistent with the 0.86 (plus or minus 0.12) watts per square meter of heat (between the surface and 750 meter depth) accumulated between 1993 and 2003 as documented in Willis et al. (2004); and Hansen et al. (2005). These studies suggest the ocean has and continues to accumulate heat, contributing to an overall imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget, as further documented in two other recent studies by Trenberth et al. (2009) analyzing the period March 2000 to May 2004 and Murphy et al. (2009) (analyzing the period 1950–2004)." We have added the following text on this topic to Section 4(f) of the final TSD on this topic: "The thermal expansion of sea water is an indicator of increasing ocean heat content. Ocean heat content is also a critical variable for detecting the effects of the observed increase in GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere and for resolving the Earth’s overall energy balance (Bindoff et al., 2007). For the period 1955 to 2005, Bindoff et al. (2007) analyze multiple time series of ocean heat content and find an overall increase, while noting inter-annual and inter-decadal variations. NOAA’s report State of the Climate in 2008 (Peterson and Baringer, 2009), which incorporates data through 2008, finds “large” increases in global ocean heat content since the 1950s and notes that over the last several years, ocean heat content has reached consistently higher values than for all prior times in the record." What say you, Orkney?

[realpolitic]

03:09 AM on 08/10/2011

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/RTC%20Volume%203.pdf   p.12 of 58

[Orkneygal]

07:27 AM on 08/10/2011

About Dr Trenberth-

http://tinyurl.com/3b2oj3f

About the pause in Ocean Warming-

http://tinyurl.com/3gc47kn

Isn't that Hansen you refer to the same one that has been repeated arrested for criminal activity?

[realpolitic]

01:25 PM on 08/10/2011

Orkney gives two studies which she says backs her contention that the upper ocean warming has paused since 2003.  Well, the first study she presents is questionable because according to Josh Willis once intrument calibration errors were removed the upper ocean has shown warming since then. "Josh Willis, in an article published on the NASA Earth Observator­y web site states that once Argo thermomete­r measuremen­t errors were removed,  the world's oceans have been absorbing additional energy and have been warming."  "In fact, the work of (von Schuckmann et al., 2009) indicates the global ocean accumulate­d (between the surface and 2,000 meter depth) 0.77 (plus or minus 0.11) watts per square meter of heat between 2003 and 2008, which is roughly consistent with the 0.86 (plus or minus 0.12) watts per square meter of heat (between the surface and 750 meter depth) accumulate­d between 1993 and 2003 as documented in Willis et al. (2004); and Hansen et al. (2005).

Then Orkney completely misinterprets the second study.  It does not postulate a lull in recent upper ocean warming.  The article "Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth's radiation balance" abstract states: 

"We use control run data from three Met Office Hadley Centre climate models to investigate the relationship between: net top‐of‐atmosphere radiation balance (TOA), globally averaged sea surface temperature (SST); and globally averaged ocean heat content (OHC) on decadal timescales. All three models show substantial decadal variability in SST, which could easily mask the long‐term warming associated with anthropogenic climate change over a decade."

http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl1113/2011GL047835/2011GL047835.xml&t=gl,2011,palmer

The authors are talking about models show "substantial decadal variability in sea surface temperatures, which could mask warming."  The authors are speaking hypothetically and real world upper ocean temperature measurements are not introduced, which again after calibration adjustments show a warming upper ocean.  So Orkney is resting her beliefs one on a misinterpreted study.

[ClimateHawk]

01:46 PM on 08/10/2011

Do you think Dr. Hansen is protesting so that he can get grant money?

Doesn't exactly fit the stereotypes of climate scientists, does it?