The Leading Edge Exploring how the dynamic relationships between system processes and methods affect our world and how we can see further to create new knowledge and understanding. daily 1 2009-10-26T00:30:13Z 2014 Jan - The Leading Edge THERE IS NO PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING: Part IV THERE IS NO PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING: Part IV

The Arctic Gap might be filling in...

Cowtan & Way 2013 illustrates that previous 'estimates' of the atmospheric global warming pause may have been unable to fully account for the Polar Amplification Effect. Insufficient temperature measurements in the Arctic have prevented a better understanding of just how much the standard GMT measurements may be negatively biased. If the kriging method used in Cowtan & Way, 2013 proves substantially valid then the touted atmospheric pause in temperature rise may not actually exist. While the method can benefit from further analysis (as can all studies) Kevin Cowtan and Robert G. Way seem to have made important progress in filling the Arctic gap with this recent work.

Ocean Heat Content (OHC)

The OHC is around 90% of the picture of global warming. The NOAA data indicates that the pace of warming has remained relatively steady.


NOAA heat_content2000m

90% of heat from the sun is estimated to be trapping in the worlds oceans. Only 2 to 3% is estimated to trap in the atmosphere. The graph above is probably the best evidence that there is 'no pause' in total global warming of the climate system. It shows a relatively steady warming in the ocean all the way down to the 2000 meters level and is estimated to have trapped around 19 x 1022 joules since 1955.

Source: NODC (National Oceanographic Data Center)

No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z News Item
2013 December - The Leading Edge AGU talk on science and advocacy: by Gavin Schmidt Editors note by John P. Reisman:

Note: Gavin Schmidt does a very good job of covering the topic regarding 'responsible' advocacy. I have long argued that it is okay to 'advocate' education and clarity regarding science. Due to some unscrupulous uses of advocacy the word advocacy has a bad taste in the mouths of many scientists though. The reputation of the word has suffered. 'Responsible Advocacy' is a good way to frame what one can do  in this area. It is important to define precisely what one is advocating. For scientists one can honestly advocate what the science indicates. Suggestions beyond that exceed the science.

That said, if one is aware of a policy direction that comports with the science in all relevant areas, then one may suggest implications based on that evidence. But it is a dangerous ground for those not sufficiently aware in 'all' relevant areas. Such considerations may include: economics, sociocultural psychology, resource capacity, risk ratios for various actions in different areas. Without consideration of other disciplines and realities an open ended suggestion may do more damage than good. Lest we not forget the corn/ethanol legislation of the early 21st century.

It is important for scientists to separate out any advocacy that is policy oriented and demarcate that advocacy, as well as be aware that overstepping ones understanding can have serious ramifications and should be avoided without appropriate caveats. Responsible open and honest advocacy limited to the area of ones expertise and understanding and available evidence is key to the foundation of good communications that will further the discussion and minimize blowback.

AGU talk on science and advocacy: by Gavin Schmidt

As Gavin discovered, his own ideas were closely aligned with Steven Schneider. The ideas are well reasoned and logical and can help any scientist that is interested in joining public discussion to understand methods and ideas that will help raise the level of discourse for the public.

While their are human difficulties in any kind of advocacy the prejudices against the word itself should be reduced. It is not wrong to advocate science in the needed context. It is not wrong to advocate education, progress, understanding, etc. It is typically when advocacy leans into policy that the risks increase for scientists. Science, properly presented, can inform policy. Caution is warranted beyond that.

In the end, the best understanding available by science can lead policy-makers toward more relevant decision making. Suggestions are good to raise the level of discourse but the lack of comprehension of any individual does increase the risk that even a focused consideration can miss the mark when it comes to relevant policy.

Care in how one presents suggestions should be embraced. As to the risks of advocacy, too narrow a focus can easily be inadequate to the task of progress in policy as the last question asked to Gavin (listen to presentation) illustrated well the dangers. Too narrowly focused a position combined with lack of understanding of all relevant sciences can cause the formation of incorrect context in position. This can easily lead to inadequate or less relevant policy recommendations.

Non scientifically based advocacy can easily reach beyond reason. It is important that science, and responsible scientists, contribute in a manner that brings the discussion closer to what the science actually indicates.

I highly recommend all scientists listen to this presentation, all the way to the last question :)



All in all, some degree of advocacy or even confirmation bias is unavoidable simply because we are human. The best method is to be honest, parse issues, give context, and tell the truth as best as it is knowable without scientifically inappropriate claims.

No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2013-12-24T15:00:00Z News Item
2013 November - The Leading Edge Nov. 8, 2013: Super Typhoon Haiyan; Nov. 13, 2013: There is no Pause in Global Warming - Part III; Bjorn Lomborg: Oops he did it again! Nov. 8, 2013: Super Typhoon Haiyan

After Hurricane Katrina, there was some discussion of establishing a new category for hurricanes. Typhoons (Western Pacific) and Cyclones (Indian Ocean region) are the same as hurricanes, as the names only indicate the region in which the storms are occurring.

The Saffir-Simpson scale is generally based on damage potential rather than wind speeds, though wind, rain, and other factors are included in the estimations. This is not a solid approach as infrastructure hardening could potentially alter the damage potentials of certain storm factors.

An interesting consideration for a new category of storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale would be the limitation in Category five of survivability of concrete and steel structures. An analysis of the destructive capacity of Typhoon Haiyan may well contribute to this discussion with regard to impact on concrete and steel structures and destruction range from the shoreline or storm center.

One thing is evident: warmer oceans due to global warming, and the fact that hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclone strength is determined to a strong degree by the amount of heat provided at the ocean surface provides the basis for discussion of how such storms should be categorized. The possibility of a new category such as 'Category 6' is yet to be decided but would likely have a significant proportional increase in wind-speed and related factors over and above 'Category 5' on the Saffir-Simpson scale.

The wind speeds for Typhoon Haiyan were exceptional, placing it in the category of 'one' of the strongest storms ever recorded in modern history.

NASA reports on Haiyan wind speeds:

Update #1 - Nov. 08, 2013 - NASA Sees Super-Typhoon Haiyan Maintain Strength Crossing Philippines

MODIS image of Haiyan

As Super-Typhoon Haiyan moved over the central Philippines on Nov. 8 at 05:10 UTC/12:10 a.m. EDT, the MODIS instrument aboard NASA's Aqua satellite captured this visible image.

Image Credit:
NASA Goddard MODIS Rapid Response Team

Super-Typhoon Haiyan slammed into the eastern Philippines as the strongest tropical cyclone of the year, and as of Nov. 8, 2013, was exiting the country and moving into the South China Sea. NASA's Aqua satellite captured visible and infrared data of Haiyan after it made landfall near Leyete, identifying the extent of its power.

Super-Typhoon Haiyan Infrared from MODIS

The U.S. Navy's Joint Typhoon Warning Center noted that just before Super-Typhoon Haiyan made landfall its maximum sustained winds were 314 kph/195 mph, with gusts up to 379 kph/235 mph. PAGASA, the Philippines Weather organization noted that Haiyan's maximum sustained winds at landfall were near 234 kph/145 mph.

The storm is clearly in the top level of estimates for storm strength (314 kph/195 mph). Hurricane Katrina's highest winds were estimated at 280kph (174 mph).

Haiyan made landfall as an extremely powerful super typhoon, perhaps the strongest ever recorded at landfall, with sustained winds estimated at 195 mph (315 kph) by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center.  Previously, Hurricane Camille, which struck the northern Gulf Coast in 1969, held the record with 190 mph (305 kph) sustained winds at landfall. After striking Samar, Haiyan quickly crossed Leyte Gulf and the island of Leyte as it cut through the central Philippines.


The science of global warming continues to advance in its understanding of where the 'missing heat' is. Part I of the 'global warming has stopped' story was the a claim that global warming stopped in 1998. Part II is in the OSS July Leading Edge report focused on Levitus et al. 2012, which clearly indicated additional heat energy being stored in the deep ocean.

Two additional reports this year advance understanding on where missing heat likely is. Balmaseda et al. 2013 and Cowtan and Way 2013 (ocean heat content), furthering understanding of 'missing heat'. Stefan Rahmstorf has done an overview piece of the 'Cowtan and Way' work at RealClimate that illuminates understanding of the amount of heat in the Arctic region responsible for contributing to the rapid decline of the Arctic Ice sheet and where a significant portion of the 'missing heat' seems to be.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Kevin Cowtan Robert G. Way; DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297

In summary, the study indicates that by filling in surface and atmospheric gaps in the temperature observations with satellite measurements, a significant amount of the 'missing heat' is apparent in the Arctic region. So much so as to indicate that warming in the atmosphere is actually climbing on a decadal scale of 0.12ºC per decade, which would essentially nullify the claim that surface, or atmospheric, warming has paused or stopped.

Further, when adding the surface temperature and deep ocean estimates the data clearly illustrate that there is no pause in global warming.

Scientifically this new paper is interesting and if the attribution remains strong this method may be valuable to future assessments of the global heat content.

Bjorn Lomborg: Oops he did it again!

Nov. 21, 2013 – by John P. Reisman

As previously noted here and here, Bjorn Lomborg, in a new article in USA today, continues to spin reality. Why? Two possible reasons may be driving his motive:

  1. Lomborg really believes he 'is' ordering relevance correctly and/or,
  2. Lomborg is trying to remain controversial in order to keep his name in the press.

The title of his article:

"Typhoon Haiyan not about climate change"

The subtitle:

"The recent storm in Philippines was not a result of global warming, but about poverty."

One thing that can be said with virtual scientific certainty is that Lomborg is wrong. Poverty did not cause Typhoon Haiyan. But as Lomborg would tell you if you asked. that's not what he said. He was 'inferring' that the death and destruction from typhoon Haiyan was because of poverty, and poor planning and execution of the evacuation.

What he is not saying is that alleviating poverty would not have prevented typhoon Haiyan.

He also says nothing about the strength of typhoon Haiyan, and that while unlikely attributable directly to global warming, did occur under the influence of increased ocean heat content and increased radiative forcing due to human-caused global warming. Lomborg says nothing about the fact that Haiyan may be the strongest storm in modern recorded history. He also missed the point that industrial carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to increased ocean heat content, which at the ocean surface is the primary driver of hurricane/typhoon/cyclone strength. Let's look at the science behind Lomborg's statements appeal to science reasoning:

"Global warming is real, and there are many good arguments for cutting CO2 effectively. But hurricanes are not one of them."

The scientific evidence for 'more' or 'fewer' hurricanes is not the most relevant point, and there is much uncertainty on the more or fewer question on regional basis around the globe. What is well established however is that more heat energy at the ocean surface, at a given time, feeds storm strength when these storms do spin up. The end result is more damage potential at sea or upon landfall. The costs of more destructive storms depend on multiple economic factors.

"Moreover, cutting CO2 is one of the least effective ways to help."

This ignores the bulk of our understanding of the economic costs related to CO2 increase in the Earth climate system. Economic costs have the potential to spin up exponentially with increasing industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

"The European Union's climate policy will cost $20 trillion over the century and yet, it will immeasurably reduce temperatures by 0.1oF."

This is not a well established understanding and is based on old meme arguments that include limited scope arguments that exclude relative economic advantages of cutting carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. In other words it's bad economics (Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School). A full cost/benefit analysis needs to be considered in order to understand the relevant economic impacts of continued increases in CO2 emissions.

"Spending trillions of dollars to do nothing towards these very simple goals is a poor way to help. And using a human tragedy as a vehicle for promoting CO2 cuts is just immoral."

This is a typical Lomborg style appeal to emotion argument. The poor will suffer, therefore don't focus on global warming. It is a non sequitur and essentially ignorant argument however as it ignores relevant factors related to global warming that will impact the poor. If one reasons out the relevant evidence one can argue that Lomborg is using the 'poor' as his appeal to emotion argument to avoid dealing with carbon dioxide emissions and if we do ignore global warming and increased emissions, the poor will suffer even more. Thus Bjorn Lomborg is arguing against his own argument.

Possible he is too focused on his own version of reality that he is able to successfully delude himself in order to maintain his stance.

Lomborg's argument style remains sophist in the worst sense of the word. Misdirection by rhetorical inference, which is a common political poly to mislead and misdirect a subject.

Source: USA Today


No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2013-11-01T00:00:00Z News Item
2013 October - The Leading Edge The IPCC AR5 WG1 Has Landed Note: This page will have components added to it as time allows for comparative analysis to IPCC AR4.

The IPCC AR5 WG1 Has Landed

The AR5 WG1 report was approved and is available. The majority of the image data is expected to be available the first week of November. OSS will update images on this page with final edit images as able.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Estimated atmospheric CO2 levels have increased:

Atmospheric CO2

IPCC AR5 WGI Atmospheric CO2

Cumulative Total Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1870




Radiative Forcing

Estimated radiative forcing has increased 72% since IPCC AR4 (1.66 to 2.29)

IPCC AR5 WGI Radiative forcing by Emissions and drivers


IPCC AR5 WGI Observed global averaged combined land-ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012

Observed Changes in Surface Temperature 1901-2012

IPCC AR5 WGI Observed change in average surface temperature 1901-2012

Global Average Surface Temperature Change

IPCC AR5 WGI Global average surface temperature change

No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2013-10-01T00:00:00Z News Item

Date: Monday, Oct. 13, 2014

Note: This article is written with a US decision in mind. However, these principles apply globally. It is important to maintain an Open Internet and Network Neutrality in all nations. Consider how you can support this important issue in your country.

OSS Perspective:

The OSS supports Net Neutrality because it is clear that reducing the 'open net' reduces freedom and liberty on multiple levels. From promotion of democracy and liberty to protection of free speech and the ability of free markets to innovate and compete in a rapid and progressive manner. The main point is how the internet is classified by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). By classifying the net as a utility, which from the OSS perspective it clearly should be classified as, the ability of the government to protect the free flow of information and free market capacity is increased.

The Risk

Ironically, corporations promoting regulation and stratification, which will allow charging more for selective access to bandwidth, are arguing that by 'restricting' access they are supporting 'free market' principles. Context is required to understand that they are arguing corporate rights in contrast to the rights of 'the people' to have equal access to a necessary and needed public utility.

The internet is the most important pipeline we have for information, communication, and organization.

This lends to the larger argument of the corporate person, whereas corporations claim they are people too, legally, in accordance with 'Citizens United vs. the FEC', which first, does not support 'citizens' rights, and second supports 'corporate' rights,  by granting corporations the rights of a person. Rhetorically inferring Citizens United was a 'right of the people' is absurd at best, but at worst it is a serious erosion of the potential of the 'American Dream' as we have understood and came to value in the founding and shaping of The United States of America.

The Corporate Lobby Argues...

Corporations say they have no intention of reducing the free flow of information, but this is an ambiguous and unreliable phrase. They can say they have no intention, but if the corporate lobby achieves their goals they will be able to restrict access at the last mile between your house or connection and the provider. This gives them the ability to create artificial scarcity thus pushing the consumer into paying more if they want more or better access. Corporations will also be more able to restrict content thus limiting the open nature of the net. This can have many varied ramifications affecting content access.

Corporate Control of Communications (Corporatocracy)

The negative ramifications of allowing corporations to gain control of the internet will most likely include increased costs for access, reduction of utility of the internet, and a general and potentially strong impact over the short and long term ability to foster freedom, liberty and even economic and national security. And if you were ever concerned about the NSA using your data to control your life (generally the NAS mission is to protect Americans) you might want to consider the fact that corporations literally restrict your ability until you give them permission, otherwise your general internet interaction may be limited (Just think about the number of times you've clicked "I Agree" without reading the endless small print). And corporations 'do' use your data to control aspects of, and impose influence over your life via network interactions that are far more intrusive than the NSA when examined in relevant context.

Critical Issues for Freedom & Innovation

National Security

this type of unfair competition and limitation being lobbied by corporate providers to control the utility of the net needs to be discouraged...

Consider economic and national security. In this case, the U.S. government 'utility' classification can aid in protecting free speech and free markets. Contrast this with countries where governments are controlling the free flow of information on the internet – in this case it would be corporations having control over the free flow of information. China, Russia, and others are doing their best to reduce freedom on the net and therefore control the message, the people, and what they are 'allowed' to talk about. Remember the 1993 coup in Russia. If not for the internet, the people of Moscow would have had a much more difficult time organizing to put down the coup. The internet is a security utility that helps protect freedom.

In an globalized world international and national security are becoming increasingly synonymous. The ability for individuals to communicate without filtering on a national and global basis is clearly an issue of democratic capacity. A neutral internet aids in providing equal and open access as a paradigm for national and international security. This precedent is supported by the Centrist Party.

Free Speech and Personal Liberty

From the OSS perspective, reducing Net Neutrality is similar to reducing Free Speech. Reducing Net Neutrality clearly is implicated in increasing corporatocracy, which is the amount of control that corporations are able to exercise over their ability to influence and reduce free markets and liberty, which can lead to and result in a greater corruption of democracy and degradation of the Republic as well as an erosion of the balance of powers.

Free Markets, Innovation and Fair Competition

the Internet is just as much a utility as telephones... and more...

By not classifying the internet as a utility we allow corporations increased control over access, which enables them greater control over costs via access. It also may easily create large monetary barriers to entry in the marketplace, which would then exclude smaller developers. This gives larger corporations unfair advantage over smaller net developers that don't have the monetary resources to get past increasing barriers to entry, thus coercing small developers to enter the market by giving up their innovations and rights to larger corporations. This type of unfair competition needs to be discouraged. In contrast the open internet has fostered individual innovation which has greatly enhanced the 'utility' of the internet. Therefore, this type of unfair competition and limitation being lobbied by corporate providers to control the utility of the net needs to be discouraged by protecting and ensuring an open internet.

Background on Net Neutrality

Open Internet-Net Neutrality: globe and peopleVinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the TCP/IP protocol as well as Tim Berners Lee the originator of the HTTP protocol as well asLawrence Lessig and others have spoken on behalf of the Open Internet (Net Neutrality).

In 2003 Professor Tim Wu of Columbia University - Law School published a paper called 'Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination', which presented context between those for control of the internet and maintaining it's current "Darwinian" (open/evolving) structure, which is more of a 'Free Market' approach allowing the open nature of the net to enable open development and more equal communications access across a broad and level playing field.

At stake is the classification by the FCC as Title I, or Title II, both (and consideration of other aspects of the Act such as access under section 706), which deals with the rights and duties of telecommunication providers. In order to protect Net Neutrality and an Open Internet the FCC should classify the internet as a utility with as much protection of the 'public utility' as possible. Ensuring it is not morphed into a 'corporate utility' is important in this consideration. Thus enabling the FCC full authority to defend an open internet and equal access rights from a regulatory perspective for public (flesh and blood) persons.

Note: The fact that we need to differentiate flesh and blood persons and corporate persons is another issue that needs to be addressed in greater detail.

What You Can Do Right Now

This is important. Write your representatives. In the upper right corner of the house and senate web sites you can find your representatives and let them know where you stand on this issue:

Go to both web sites and drop them a note. Use the text below or use your own words. But let them know the Internet is just as much a utility as telephone lines(much more actually), and just as much a utility as water pipelines, electrical power, gas lines and any roads we use to get to work or get a job done.

Message Subject: Net Neutrality and the Open Internet

Dear (representative),

I, along with the OSS Foundation, strongly support an Open Internet and Net Neutrality. The internet is more than a simple utility such as telephone or broadcast communications. It's bigger than that, and even more important. It is the cumulative advancement of human communication and interaction technology. A free and open internet allows and enables freedom of speech, national and international communication and organization. It also connects people with other critical utility services. It is the largest provider of emergency and critical information available from government and educational institutions directly to the public.

Furthermore, the Internet helped prevent the coup in Russia in 1993; enabled democracy during the Arab Spring. Dictatorships and corporations desire to control freedom of information flow across this critical communications utility pipeline inhibiting access and artificially increasing cost while reducing innovation and competition, which is distinctly Anti-American. Please vote for and support Network Neutrality by voting to ensure an 'Open Internet' with regard to the maximum utility classification possible at the FCC 'for the people' of America.

The internet is the most important utility pipeline we have for information, communication, and organization. Let's keep it  open. 

(Your Name)


2013 September - The Leading Edge IPCC AR5 WGI Note / Bjorn Lomborg continues to present evidence of obtuse perspectives based on cherry picking the evidence base. / EMS/ECAM Meeting/Conference Reading, U.K. IPCC AR5 WGI Released at the End of September

OSS will feature IPCC AR5 in the October issue of the Leading Edge. The graphics associated with the AR5 WGI report are expected to be released before the end of October.

Bjorn Lomborg continues to cherry pick the evidence base.

In a new article in the Washington Post called 'Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather' Bjorn continues to miss relevant points. One might say he has taken a psuedo-denialist position on climate change. Now that the government of Denmark has removed funding from his organization one wonders who is funding his skepticism these days or if he is now handling that based on his 'controversy value' achieved by placing his argument in areas where it is partially true based on a limited scope evaluation of the argument and incorrect or irrelevant context, based on either his ignorance or misunderstanding of relevant studies and evidence, or his inability to understand the reality of the evidence available.

Based on the evidence his opinions should not be trusted regarding climate change and the economy for public understanding.

In Bjorn's latest misconstruction of facts we see how he misses relevance and cherry picks statements to make his case using non sequitur arguments to support his misunderstanding.

Bjorn: "The total impact is likely to be less than 0.1 percent of global economic output."

R.J. Nicholls, of who is one of the author's of the paper Lomborg cites (out of context) gives context to the statements Lomborg is asserting:

"...just reporting the numbers is simplifying a complex message."

However, it is more important to note that Lomborg's cherry picking excludes too many factors to support his statements. This is similar to other scientists that have made claims that exceed the scope of the research. The Svensmark example comes to mind.

Beyond that Lomborg also has chosen a paper that examines a low impact scenario, whereas the best science available is for higher levels of sea level rise than considered in Lomborg's example.

It is easy to say not all the impacts from global warming will be bad. But without relevant context that statement is as misleading as any other misinformation that exists that is unsupportable by evidence or reason.


I could continue and take apart all his points, and maybe I will at some point, but in general facts out of context just are not intelligent. From that perspective one wonders why any one is still listening to Bjorn Lomborg?

Remarks from Nicholls:

"I think that this quote (from Lomborg) understates the impacts as our analysis reflects only coastal zones, considers quite small SLR scenarios, and as we state clearly in the discussion it is an incomplete analysis. It is also dependent As the quote is linked to a paragraph which also discusses drought -- this may also be misinterpreted that we talk about drought and sea level rise. My earlier email gave a lot more relevant information."


"Anthoff, David, Nicholls, Robert J. and Tol, Richard S.J. (2010) The economic impact of substantial sea-level rise.<> Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15, (4), 321-335. (doi:10.1007/s11027-010-9220-7<>). This shows higher costs than the earlier paper -- not surprisingly -- and again includes a nuanced discussion which interprets the insights from the work and points  a number of caveats and hence questions for further research. Hence just reporting the numbers is simplifying a complex message.


On the other hand, our results do suggest lower costs than are widely reported and emphasize the great potential benefits of adaptation and protection in particular in reducing costs (see for example the recent Hallegatte et al 2013 paper on flooding in coastal cities in Nature Climate Change ). The barriers to such adaptation and the factors that contribute to success or failure remains an important research question which we continue to investigate."

For context on this last statement one needs to understand that the SLR assessment also does not include a multitude of other impacts that will also be affecting various economies.

For example: With a more acidic ocean many extinctions are expected and the structure of the food web in the ocean will be significantly altered. On the positive side, if you can call it that, more jelly fish are expected along with more sharks as these animals may thrive in a more acidic ocean.

The more interesting issue are the impacts for crops. Agriculture is expected to suffer from the increasing number of days where crop thermal limits are exceed with will significantly impact yield production.

EMS/ECAM Meeting/Conference Reading, U.K.

The EMS/ECAM was held between Sept. 9th and 13th. The gathering is interesting because it brings together the weather and climate communities in sessions and discussion panels. Through this integration it is apparent that both communities are benefiting from the interchange by learning and growing in understanding of the weather/climate interface.

Adaptation/Mitigation on Sale Now!!!

One interesting message that was heard at the conference was that climate mitigation and adaptation are on sale now, however they will become increasingly more expensive in the future.

'Known Unknowns' and 'Unknown Knowns'

In honor of Donal Rumsfeld's famous 'unknown unknowns' speech a speaker (I think this was Gerald Fleming) discussed the consequences of known unknowns and unknown knowns giving context to the ability of important aspects of science that are accepted science that non scientists don't understand. The issue generally is that what scientists have in their foundational thought is largely unknown to an audience that one might be addressing. There was a lot more to the talk though and it was very interesting as exemplified by the packed room.

Summary & Images From Meeting:

The 2013 EMS/ECAM was yet another wonderful opportunity for scientists and professionals to come together and discuss difficult issues and share new understanding. It's amazing how useful the free flow of ideas and topical presentations can be to furthering our ability to learn and communicate the complexities involved in weather and climate science.

Photographer: Jon Bradley

Haleh Kootval, WMO; Tanja Cegnar, Slovenian Environment Agency

Tanja Cegnar

Award Winner

John Hirst, U.K. Met.

John Hirst U.K. Met.

John Reisman, OSS Foundation

John P. Reisman EMS/ECAM 2013

Gerald Fleming, Ireland Met.

Gerald Fleming, Ireland Met.

Rasmus Benestad, Met. Norway

Rasmus Benestad, Met. Norway

Alan Thorpe, ECMWF

Alan Thorpe, ECMWF

No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2013-09-01T00:00:00Z News Item

Part II

by John P. Reisman

We Keep Hearing Global Warming Has Paused? THERE IS NO PAUSE.

There seems to be significant confusion on the issue of human caused global warming because some say that the warming has stopped, or paused. Let me be clear. THERE IS NO PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING!

This is proven in the measurements.

I have long contended, even when people were talking about 'missing heat' that it's not under the couch, it's in the ocean. To understand this properly first you need to understand the climate system consists of three major components:

1.    The Ocean
2.    The Land
3.    The Atmosphere

The system is coupled and complete in all respects. The cryosphere consists of sea ice, land ice, and snow, which can be found in/on the ocean, or on land (glaciers and snow).

According to Levitus et al, 2012:


Further work constrained these estimates down to an estimated 90%. The process of science is to to test it's conclusions and continually refine models in order to determine the level of confidence in the science. While there is high confidence in the 90% estimate, we can expect further refinement in the estimate as the science continues to improve. The relevant conclusion here is that there is high confidence that the majority of trapped energy is going into the oceans.

Note: The process of science is to increase confidence in the conclusion. This is typically achieved through the discovery of problems in the science. In other words, to improve, science must be critical of itself.

SPECIAL: IPCC AR5 was released in Sept. 2013. I have added it for additional context to this article as it provides additional relevant information



That leaves approximately 7% to 10% of the energy to be either stored in land, ice, and the atmosphere, or to be expended in heat transfer processes such as energy used in changing elements between states such as from ice to liquid, or liquid to vapor, which involves the use of energy.


  • Oceans: estimated at 90% to 93%
  • Atmosphere: estimated 2% to 3%
  • Land, snow, ice, glaciers and energy transition processes (such as from ice to liquid, or liquid to vapor) are estimated to be in the 4% to 6% range.


Simply put, if you want to see if Earth is warming or not you need to look at the place where most of the heat energy is going: the oceans. As shown in the image below the Earth climate system is steadily warming.


Natural variation in the ocean oscillations is a key determinant factor in how much energy manifests in the atmosphere verses the ocean. When oceans are carrying heat deeper below the surface, then the atmospheric heat is removed by transference processes of wind, current and radiative transfer.

One of the obvious key components that drives such changes is in the largest body of water on Earth: the Pacific ocean. When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is positive, the Pacific ocean transfers more heat to the surface, which transfers more heat to the atmosphere. When the PDO is in negative phase more heat is transferred to the deep ocean from the atmosphere. This typically cools the atmosphere.

For context, the PDO has been relatively negative between 1998 through current (2013). Generally speaking, evidence indicates that the Earth atmosphere should be cooling. It is not. It is remaining relatively stable.

Many are confused about why the atmosphere is not warming but in fact the answer is relatively simple. Heat is always moving around in the climate system between the atmosphere and the ocean systems. That is the chief cause of short term temperature variation on the intra and extra-decadal scales.

Some claim a pause in the atmospheric temperature rise means that global warming has stopped or paused. In fact this 'pause' signal may be best interpreted as warming because normally when the PDO is negative it causes 'global cooling' in the atmosphere.

This also may mean that when the PDO does turn positive, we can expect more heat than normal to be released to the atmosphere since there is much 'extra' heat in the oceans now. That would likely translate to a further acceleration of the hydrologic cycle (increasing potential intensity in precipitation events: snow, rain, hail, sleet).

The most likely results from this heat transfer (during a positive PDO) will be warmer atmospheric temperatures, more floods, more intense rain storms and thus more infrastructure damage in areas where appropriate infrastructure hardening has not been implemented.

Global Warming Continuing at a Steady and Strong Pace

Ocean Heat Content 0 to 2000 meters from NOAA/NODC up to 2013


In a discussion with Sydney Levitus, the Lead Author of 'World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010' I was intrigued by something he asked me to look up in the paper, which at that time I had not read yet:

"We have estimated an increase of 24 x 1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36C (65F)."

There is an old saying, what goes up must come down. In this case, we need to consider that what goes down will eventually come up. Not all at once of course, but as mentioned above, when the PDO goes positive, we can likely expect a significant change in the atmospheric heat content as heat energy is transferred from the deep oceans back into the atmosphere.



No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2013-07-01T00:00:00Z News Item
2013 Apr - The Leading Edge Once more into the breach dear friends, once more...: Global Warming Stopped!?; In a related story..., ; Meet the new crew...; Another congressional round of testimony? Once more into the breach dear friends, once more...

Global Warming Stopped!? Again...

The Economist reported an article this month called 'A Sensitive Matter'.

Not unlike the Wall Street Journal last year the focus is on the 'leveling' of the temperature record, on 'too short' a time scale. Short time-scales incorrectly represent the state of the climate. The Economist article is not as off as other interpretations of the scientific understanding such as at Fox News, but the inference and the headlines is more misleading and may infer and convey bias. Fox news tends to focus on the 'it's not a problem' scenario, without ever asking the questions that would reveal what the word 'problem' means in this context. Fox does ask people questions, but they focus the question on people such as Marc Morano, rather than those that know the science better. This tends to solicit the answers they may already be seeking rather than the truth of the matter.

The facts are that short term drops, and rises, in surface temperature readings, over a limited number of years, can be attributed to natural cycles related to ocean heat content overturn combined with atmospheric cycles/patterns. These shorter term natural cycles can drive global temperature up and down temporarily. But this is not the same as the long-term trend based on the total energy added to the system by increased greenhouse gases. Interesting to note however that these ocean atmosphere cycles are also increasingly operating under the influence of human changes; and are thus are thus operating under greater potential influence of these human induced changes; and the resulting change in total climate forcing.

So, is the big news really that global warming stopped...

and does this mean that the climate sensitivity is much lower than models predict? If it were true it would be truly great news. Just one little problem, it's not true. The 'Earth's climate system' is still warming, and the climate sensitivity is still estimated to be in the vicinity of 3º C for a doubling of CO2 (possibly a little lower/higher).

Where's the Heat?

Well..., it's not under the couch. It's under the surface of the ocean. In the deep ocean actually. Think of it this way. Pretend you live in a mansion and 90% of the mansion is getting warmer, but some people are in the part of the mansion that is not getting warmer because someone closed the heat vents to the rooms they are in, or left some windows open. And the people that live in those rooms are claiming that the rest of the mansion is not warming because the rooms they are in are not warming. It's worse than a specious argument because there is no evidence that it might be plausible; it's simply wrong.

It's a classic logical fallacy based on misunderstanding the reality of the temperature in the other rooms of the mansion, which make up 90% of their world, so to speak. Sort of like saying it's winter where I live in the northern hemisphere, so it must be winter everywhere... forgetting, or ignoring, entirely that half the planet is the southern hemisphere where, for example, Australia exists..., where it happens to actually be 'summer' when the northern hemisphere is in winter.

Simply Put...

Heat energy that might have ended up in the atmosphere is being stored in the deeper ocean. Don't worry though, that energy will rise again... Well, actually that might be something to be concerned about since that energy will further influence storm and precipitation events.

What's Really Happening...

Keep in mind that significant uncertainties still exist as to measurement coverage at the TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere) regarding the accuracy of the total radiation imbalance. Recent changes in tropical zonal winds and increases in the transport of heat energy to the deep ocean are now being tracked with more instrumentation than before. The accumulated knowledge contributed form Navies all around the world for ocean heat content now allow a more systematic examination of ocean heat content since 1955.

The deep ocean heat energy storage has been building steadily but changes in the natural cycles/variation, such as heat transport mechanisms, including ocean/atmosphere cycles and evaporative cooling (wind which desalinates water, enabling salt to attach within the interstices of water molecules increasing density and carrying heat energy deeper in the ocean), which removes heat that would have been available for atmospheric warming.  Other natural variations, such as changes in the MOC, and PDO also aid in transporting heat into the deeper ocean. If these mechanisms had not transported the heat into the deep water the atmosphere would have shown increased warming. The conclusion is that the earth is still warming, it's just not showing up in the surface temperature record at this time.

So why the misleading headlines?

One must consider that those reporting of climate science are also not experts in climate science. That translates to some confusion about how to approach the subject and not really knowing which information is more relevant than less relevant information. This in turn is easily exploited by by those that are biased toward the 'it's all a hoax' idea. In the end, the public is confused by the mixed messages but none of the mixed messages actually change the reality that Earth is warming and that the warming is human-influenced.


In a related story...,

yet another politician Republican Joe Barton has invoked biblical references to support the red herring argument that humankind might not be responsible for current warming.

Meet the new crew...

When the new Congress convenes tomorrow, climate change deniers will ascend to the chairmanships of several important House committees.

  1. "Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) vice chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology under incoming chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX).  Sensenbrenner, who denies the evidence demonstrating that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change, has already announced his intention to obstruct the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of emissions."
  2. "Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) will become chairman of the Committee's Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee. In 2009 Broun called global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community," to thunderous applause from his colleagues.  Broun likely will seek to use Congress's authority to subpoena and investigate climate scientists."
  3. "The Economy and Environment Subcommittee will be chaired by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who famously believes that climate change can do the world no harm because God promised to keep Earth safe for humanity after Noah's flood. As Shimkus puts it, "I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for His creation.""
  4. "The new Energy and Power Subcommittee will be chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), a longtime antagonist of the EPA and a staunch advocate for Kentucky's coal industry who does not regard global warming to be an important issue.  Whitfield's subcommittee will oversee energy issues and the Clean Air Act."

Source: Center for Inquiry

Another congressional round of testimony:

Leave it to the Republicans in charge of the committee to call on witnesses that will ensure the confusion continues.

Subcommittee on Environment Hearing - Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context

Subcommittee on Environment | 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | Apr 25, 2013 10:00am


Truth in Testimony

No written or video testimony found on sub-committee site?

Located this PDF on Judith Curry's web site:

Judith also posted a transcript of her spoken testimony here:


Truth in Testimony


Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, President, Copenhagen Consensus Center
Truth in Testimony

No written or video testimony found?


No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2013-04-01T00:30:00Z News Item
2013 Mar - The Leading Edge 2012 Significant Climate Anomalies and Events; Chief of US Pacific Forces Calls Climate Biggest Worry; Retired NASA Scientists Misunderstanding Climate; 2012 Billion Dollar Disasters in the US 2012 Significant Climate Anomalies and Events

Global Highlights




  • The 2012 global average ocean temperature was 0.45°C (0.81°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F) and ranked as the 10th warmest year on record. The three warmest annual ocean surface temperatures occurred in 2003, 1998, and 2010—all warm phase El Niño years.



Chief of US Pacific Forces Calls Climate Biggest Worry

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, in an interview at a Cambridge hotel Friday after he met with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities, said significant upheaval related to the warming planet "is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about."


Source: Boston Globe

Retired NASA Scientists Enter Climate Change Fray

A group of retirees from NASA who once put a man on the moon and call their group The Right Climate Stuff “shouldn’t be taken seriously” according to an article in The Guardian, a British newspaper.


Doiron said he looked at the climate models that such fears are based on and felt they couldn’t be believed. After all, he said at NASA he’d used computer models to develop the landing gear for the lunar module and knows a thing or two about them.

Dave Fehling / StateImpact

Dr. Willie Soon at a climate change debate at the University of Houston Law Center. Dr. John Nielson-Gammon (back to camera) awaits his turn. Listen to them in our Radio Story.

“So we validated the model before we used it for any design decisions. And the current climate models are not validated,” Doiron said. “I don’t think we’re using anything close to a rational process to deal with this concern about global warming.  The politicians, at least those in leadership, are acting like it’s a proven thing, that (carbon dioxide) is causing global warming, but it’s not been scientifically proved.”

Doiron is headed back to Washington. On Friday he’s slated to be on a panel to talk about “The Right Climate Stuff” at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Dorian's mistake. It's a basic scientific tenet. Correlation is not causation. Just be cause their models were terribly flawed does not mean that all models are terribly flawed. This is a very common mistake made by people that do not understand that facts used out of context are less or even irrelevant.


2012 Billion Dollar Disasters in the United States

2012 US billion dollar disasters due to climate.


Ten Times More Hurricane Surges in Future, New Research Predicts



No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2013-03-01T18:35:00Z News Item
2013 Jan - The Leading Edge NCDC Announces Warmest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S.; The Warm Globally, Freeze Locally Effect NCDC Announces Warmest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S.
January-December 2012 U.S. Temperature Anomalies Map
Difference from average annual temperature in 2012 compared to the 1981–2010 average. Map by NOAA team. Large versions of annual and monthly maps are available for reuse.





The Warm Globally, Freeze Locally Effect

Many people make the mistake of thinking that a cold weather spell means that global warming has stopped. Nope. It's just weather happening inside a changing climate. Winter will still happen and there will be cold days, but data indicate there are clearly more warm records being broken than cold records.

It is a mistake to claim that just because winter still happens and there are cold days that global warming is not happening. As illustrated below, for the day, January 15th, 2012, warm anomalies occur as do cold anomalies. The trends indicate a continuation of warm records outpacing cold records. A single day or period does not make for the global trend. Current global warming is caused by increased radiative forcing, mixed with natural cycle influences on relevant time scales.

The interesting point however is that warmer air in the Arctic region is possibly if not likely the impetus to the cold spells that seem to be occurring with increased intensity. Warm air in the Arctic expands and may be the reason that during certain periods, some regions are experiencing cold air masses that are anomalously cold.

Temperature and Temperature Anomalies Jan. 15, 2012

January 15, 2013 Global Temperature Graph

Source: Current Climate Conditions

No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z News Item
2012 December - The Leading Edge December saw the annual gathering of the Fall Meeting of the American Geological Union in San Francisco; the release of Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds from the Director on National Intelligence office of the United States of America. Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds

Director on National Intelligence, National Intelligence Council



AGU Fall Meeting

Notable Climate Related Talks outlined on Real Climate

Source: RealClimate







A two minute video about crop yield productivity with global warming.

No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2012-12-01T00:00:00Z News Item
2012 October - The Leading Edge Level of Knowledge in our Political Leadership Level of Knowledge in our Political Leadership

by John P. Reisman

In 2009 Representative Paul Broun, who is known for his assertion that President Obama was not born in America criticizing President-elect Barack Obama's call for a civilian national service corps, suggesting that Obama might use it to establish a Marxist dictatorship." and "That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Broun is a member of the Republican Party and the Tea Party Caucus.

Broun serves on the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the United States House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment as well as the United States House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.

In statements to the House in 2009 he called Global Warming a hoax.

On September 27, 2012 Representative Broun, in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman's Banquet stated:










It is important to understand the level of knowledge our political leaders bring to their decision making process. Rep. Broun has demonstrated without a doubt that he is not looking at scientific evidence.

No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2012-10-01T00:00:00Z News Item
2012 September - The Leading Edge No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2012-09-01T00:00:00Z News Item 2012 August - The Leading Edge Senator Inhofe and Climate Science; West Nile Virus Outbreak West Nile Virus Outbreak:

Reported outbreak now in multiple cities around United States

DALLAS — An outbreak of West Nile virus has engulfed Dallas County, with nearly 200 cases of human infection and 10 deaths, leading the mayor of Dallas to declare a state of emergency and to authorize the first aerial spraying of a pesticide in the city since 1966.

The high number of infections and deaths from the mosquito-borne disease marks the nation’s worst outbreak of West Nile in a year that has already logged a record number of cases across the country. The virus has become endemic in the United States since the first outbreak in 1999.

Dr. Petersen with the C.D.C. said it was difficult to say why the Dallas area has had such a severe outbreak, but he said that the early spring and the hot summer were likely culprits, because heat affects factors like mosquito abundance. Hot weather both increases the mosquito population and causes more of the virus to build up in their salivary glands.

“That summer in New York City when it was discovered in this country — 1999 — was a very hot summer,” Dr. Petersen said. “In 2002, 2003, when it was all over the U.S., it was abnormally hot. We had an early spring and abnormally hot weather this year, so that could be a factor.”

Source New York Times

From the US Senate:




Opening Statement of Senator James M. Inhofe

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


Wednesday, August 1, 2012 10:00 AM





New York Times editorial: "Given the stakes, the IPCC cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations more transparent. The panel's under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests..." (February 17, 2010)












No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2012-08-01T00:00:00Z News Item
2012 July - The Leading Edge It's Summer, It's Hot; Anomalies and Trends; Farmers are beginning to realize that it's too late to prevent Climate Change It's Summer, It's Hot.

The question regarding attribution of recent heat waves being 'climate change' or 'global warming' remains a confusing issue for many. The reality is that the data indicates it's both. In other words, it's summer and it's global warming.

The best way to examine this is to recognize two things. Summer happens and summer is warmer than winter; and we have increased the total radiative forcing of the atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse gas content. Therefore, it's both. All natural variation is now occurring on a different radiative forcing path. The trends clearly indicate that hot records are outweighing cold records which matches the expectations for a warming world.

Temperature - Record Highs/Record Lows. Source NCAR

The trends indicate are in line with the general forcing and change in temperature. This is only one out of many lines of evidence. It remains that there are no evidence lines on a global scale that indicate the planetary temperature is either stable or cooling, or that it is natural cycle. The conclusion remains that the current warming is strongly human influence.

Anomalies and Trends

The US is indicated to have experienced anonymously high temperatures having the hottest January through July period in the instrumental record. Statistical analysis clearly implicates the increased radiative forcing as a significant cause factor over and above the odds of natural occurrence for the recent large heat waves that Earth is experiencing. New analysis of the data reveals unambiguous connections to human induced forcing.

Additional research is examining other types of climate extremes in precipitation and event intensity.

Year to Date Horserace Graph for Contiguous U.S.
Year-to-date temperature, by month, for 2012 (red), compared to the other 117 years on record for the contiguous U.S., with the five ultimately warmest years (orange) and five ultimately coolest years (blue) noted. The 2012 data are still preliminary. Please click for a more thorough explanation.



The focus for them is on adaptation to a warmer world.

Many farmers are coping with climate change now. Whether or not everyone 'believes' in climate change is now immaterial with regard to increasing impacts on trend. with increasing stress on crops due to changes in the hydrological cycle and heat stress, more and more farmers are seeking answers from modified crops to heartier breeds of cattle that are more accustomed to drought conditions such as those that come from Africa and India.

Realistically speaking, now one can say that it's not just the climate that is changing, our crops and our cattle are changing too. One wonders if there is an irony in the notion that we are immigrating new breeds of African and Indian cattle because America cattle cant' seem to handle the heat.

  • Cattle rancher Ron Gill looks over his herd in Wise County near Boyd, Texas, Aug. 1, 2012. Gill has been cross breeding cattle with more drought tolerant breeds.

    By LM Otero, AP



No publisher John P. Reisman Environment Global Warming Summary 2012-07-01T00:00:00Z News Item