Via Greenie Watch is a pointer to this article from NPR, entitled “The Mystery of Global Warmings Missing Heat”.
A research project named Argo has distributed an array of 3,000 free floating instrument packages around the Earths oceans, the packages being designed to measure temperature and salinity to 2000 metres depth.
I quote NPR’s opening paragraph -
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
Global warming has taken a breather? Is this predicted by the climate models cited by the IPCC? Given that Al Gore, Greenpeace, George Monbiot, Phillip Adams, the European Commission and Tony Blair all assure us that the science is settled can they demonstrate that this is expected behaviour?
A further quote from the body of the article -
80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. … Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
None? Then what is there to understand? The observational evidence indicates that warming in the oceans has not occurred for at least five years. Understanding this is a trivial exercise, one that any five year old could cope with. I suspect that what NPR, and the journalist, mean is that the observational evidence does not conform with their preferred hypothesis that human activity = bad and that we are pushing the planet to a climactic climatic hell and damnation, resulting in personal cognitive dissonance.
So, the oceans have joined the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica, polar bears (more bears) , the last eight years, clouds and the troposphere in not complying with the forecasts from the models which the IPCC cites as the basis of it’s prognostications. If the IPCC is going to continue to rely on models, I suggest Naomi Campbell’s opinion is probably as valid as any other they use, but if they want accuracy in the forecasts, Punxsutawny Phil might do better than their current efforts.
Another quote -
But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it’s probably going back out into space.
The heat is going out into space? What? Like it has always done? And this is a mystery? I can’t blame the scientist for this, it must be the journalist or the editor, because this statement is farcical.
I suggest that NPR’s comprehension problems would disappear if they were to form their opinions based on the observational evidence, instead of trying to gerrymander the facts to suit their preconceived notions.
Addendum: From The Reference Frame via Freeborn John
If a model gives completely wrong numerical predictions for five-year periods, what is the exact reason that it won’t give wrong predictions for ten-year or thirty-year periods?
Quite.
