Update on 700m OHC through December 2010

[skierinvermont]

]

What do you know...

It shows the exact same thing.

A Plateau in temperatures around 2003/2004, and continuing to the end of the data period.

What the Warmists need to admit is that there hasn't been any significant warming of the planet for the last 13 years, since 1998.

It doesn't mean that the theory is completely wrong.

It just means that the climate projections were made during a natural upswing in temperatures due to PDO, AMO, and intense solar cycles.

We are now in an AMO, PDO, and Solar Cycle downswing. And a La Niña cycle too.

One would have to expect to see temperatures evening out. We would be in deep do-do if we didn't see at least a plateau in temperatures.

It wouldn't be unexpected for this plateau to continue, or perhaps even include a drop in temperatures over the next couple of decades. But, at some point, PDO, AMO, and other cycles will reverse again leading to another jump in temperatures.

There still may be a CO₂ component, just buried in the other cycles. And, thus, when the temperatures start warming again in a couple of decades, we might see more temperature extremes.

What the warmists need to do is to rather than trying to convince people that the warming that hasn't been happening is actually a subtle warming trend, but rather they need to calculate in the effects of AMO, PDO, and Solar Cycles... and perhaps even El Niño / La Niña. Are there even long-term cyclical patterns of El Niño/La Niña currents?

Accepting these other cycles, one should better estimate the forcing due to CO₂ (if any).

1) The do no show the same thing. The Levitus source shows an actual plateau, the sources I referenced merely show a slowing. There is a substantial qualitative and quantitative difference.

2) There has been significant warming since 1998. The surface has warmed at .11C/decade (based of HadCRUT + UAH infilling of data sparse regions). The oceans absorbed a tremendous quantity of heat at approximately .8W/m2 since 1998. This nearly exactly matches the theoretical expectation. The troposphere warmed anywhere from .07C- .15C/decade depending on what source you use.

[WeatherRusty]

Accepting these other cycles, one should better estimate the forcing due to CO₂ (if any).

CO2 forcing is not an estimate, it is a calculation derived through the application of well established physics. You get very close to 3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 as measured from the tropopause.

[nzucker]

1) The do no show the same thing. The Levitus source shows an actual plateau, the sources I referenced merely show a slowing. There is a substantial qualitative and quantitative difference.

2) There has been significant warming since 1998. The surface has warmed at .11C/decade (based of HadCRUT + UAH infilling of data sparse regions). The oceans absorbed a tremendous quantity of heat at approximately .8W/m2 since 1998. This nearly exactly matches the theoretical expectation. The troposphere warmed anywhere from .07C- .15C/decade depending on what source you use.

Basically all sources, whether it is surface temps, OHC, satellite temps, whatever, show a plateau in warming; it's that simple. No need to argue over a plateau which even believers in AGW like Rusty admit exists. RSS only shows a trend of around .05/decade since 1998; UAH shows around .08C; GISS shows around .12C. All of these are significantly less than the predicted warming rate of .2C+/decade. In the last few years, we've barely warmed at all. We're in a historic solar minimum as well as a -PDO/Niña, so this is expected by everyone except the fanatics who view CO2 as the climate's sole driver.

[skierinvermont]

Basically all sources, whether it is surface temps, OHC, satellite temps, whatever, show a plateau in warming; it's that simple. No need to argue over a plateau which even believers in AGW like Rusty admit exists. RSS only shows a trend of around .05/decade since 1998; UAH shows around .08C; GISS shows around .12C. All of these are significantly less than the predicted warming rate of .2C+/decade. In the last few years, we've barely warmed at all. We're in a historic solar minimum as well as a -PDO/Niña, so this is expected by everyone except the fanatics who view CO2 as the climate's sole driver.

Indeed there has been a slowing, I have never said otherwise. What I objected to was the statement that there has been no warming, and the use of cherry-picked OHC data that shows less warming than newer methods. No need to lecture me on these statistics, I am the one that has calculated them and provided them in the first place.

[WeatherRusty]

Basically all sources, whether it is surface temps, OHC, satellite temps, whatever, show a plateau in warming; it's that simple. No need to argue over a plateau which even believers in AGW like Rusty admit exists. RSS only shows a trend of around .05/decade since 1998; UAH shows around .08C; GISS shows around .12C. All of these are significantly less than the predicted warming rate of .2C+/decade. In the last few years, we've barely warmed at all. We're in a historic solar minimum as well as a -PDO/Niña, so this is expected by everyone except the fanatics who view CO2 as the climate's sole driver.

The expectation for 0.2C per decade is an average over an extended period of time. Since the rise in temperature is not monotonic, some decades will warm faster than others. Over a short period temperature may even decline, just as it always has been prone to do. This effectively carries the implication that internal variability in climate will sometimes add to the background warming trend and at other times subtract from it. Since the factors which lead to internal variability neither add to nor subtract from the energy budget over the longer terms of their oscillatory cycles they essentially can be considered non factors to the long term trend.

Should the Sun alter in it's output significantly in a sustained way, the radiative forcing of climate would be changed accordingly. Even so, solar variability only changes to a relatively small degree...enough to produce with the addition of feedback something on the order of 0.5C to 1.0C if we are to attribute all of warming and cooling during the MWP and LIA to solar variability. However, volcanism and the lack thereof most likely contributed to the extremes during those periods.

I know of no one who believes CO2 to be the only driver of climate. If they do they are certainly not learning that misinformation from the science of climatology. CO2 becomes the predominant driver over periods measured in decades and centuries.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Skiier is still knocking it out of the park here.

[tacoman25]

I give up. There is no argument which could restore to science the respect it so richly deserves. Academics are now looked down upon. Being an expert at something brings ridicule and condescension. Ideology, politics, money and religion are reclaiming a strong foothold in the determination of our country's future. Science be damned.

Talk about an overreaction. I never said anything damning about science or academics, I simply was making a point that some of the prominent AGW people demonstrate an obsession with their cause, which prevents true objectivity.

[VAwxman]

1) The do no show the same thing. The Levitus source shows an actual plateau, the sources I referenced merely show a slowing. There is a substantial qualitative and quantitative difference.

The actual differences are incredibly small, though the one thing that does stand out is the first graph shows a stronger bump up around 2004 or so which yours does not show. That does give more of a "plateau" impression, which I guess is what you are getting at. But in the end, there are not huge differences and neither remotely indicate what the future will bring anyway.

[salbers]

Quick note on recent Argo buoy findings about the Southern Ocean absorbing the excess heat:

http://www.earthweek.../ew110408b.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/04/3181934.htm

[BethesdaWX]

Quick note on recent Argo buoy findings about the Southern Ocean absorbing the excess heat:

http://www.earthweek.../ew110408b.html

http://www.abc.net.a.../04/3181934.htm

If the Earth can just put Energy away like that, we have some major problems here and now. Not going to go into the validity of ARGO's measurements below 1000m/lack of mapping, but what the Earth does with energy is very unknown to us.

However, we do know that Global Sea Surface SST's and Sea Levels are Basically Flat.

Note the Map Below is Biased, generally sea Levels have been decreasing slightly, but but not to the extent the one below shows.

[salbers]

I think we have seen this satellite plot that shows sea levels rising...

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Satellite and ARGO agree as can be seen here:

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

[BethesdaWX]

I think we have seen this satellite plot that shows sea levels rising...

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Satellite and ARGO agree as can be seen here:

http://www.argo.ucsd...e_analysis.html

huh? Do you call this agreement?

Steric Sea Level rise cannot be compared to satellite measurements, so I'm not sure why you're even thinking of comparing the two the datasets are gathered and analyzed in completely different ways.

Also your graph is outdated, just FYI

[salbers]

In case it wasn't obvious enough I was referring to figure 1 down below (top panel), where a comparison of total sea level is being made. 2008 is new enough for me, unless you can show the same comparison from a later study.

http://www.argo.ucsd...e_analysis.html

Steric sea level Steric sea level provides a great example of Argo's complementary relationship with other observing system elements, particularly the altimeter Jason. Argo provides the capability to understand sea level change by measuring its component due to subsurface temperature and salinity. The steric component is dominant over the mass component in regional sea level variability and on a global basis it accounts for about 1/3 of total sea level increase in the past half century (Domingues et al 2008). Accurate projections of future sea level require an understanding of the causes of sea level change in the modern record.

On seasonal and longer time-scales, sea surface height is dominated by changes in subsurface density. Thus, by measuring temperature and salinity as a function of depth, Argo reveals not only how much of sea surface height variability is steric in origin, but also how the steric signal is distributed over depth and between temperature and salinity. Combining sea surface height measurements from the Jason altimeter and Argo's ability to see below the ocean surface, climate related basin-scale signals on interannual and decadal timescales, such as a 15-year spin-up of the South Pacific gyre described by Roemmich et al, 2007 are becoming apparent. On global scales, Argo and Jason, together with satellite gravity measurements, partition global sea level rise into its steric and mass-related components (Willis et al, 2008, Cazenave et al, 2009, Leuliette and Miller, 2009, Wunsch et al, 2007).

[BethesdaWX]

You were referring to Sea level measurements from CSU (colorado state). (?) That was my objection in comparing ARGO floats to Satellite Data.

[salbers]

It's CU in Colorado / Boulder. They seem to agree despite your objections.

[BethesdaWX]

It's CU in Colorado / Boulder. They seem to agree despite your objections.

Yes, they agree that sea level rise has slowed, although not perfect agreement.....but its not about my objections, its about common sense.

Those who state UAH cannot be compared to GISS because ones SFC and one is LT would have to give up the argument.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, they agree that sea level rise has slowed, although not perfect agreement.....but its not about my objections, its about common sense.

Those who state UAH cannot be compared to GISS because ones SFC and one is LT would have to give up the argument.

No.. measuring sea level rise with ARGO+mass balance is measuring the exact same thing as satellite sea level measurements. It's simply two different ways of measuring the exact same thing.

With GISS vs UAH they are measuring physically separate entities.

Big difference.

Your claim that sea level has been decreasing is complete nonsense as usual. All three methods of estimate sea level rise below are shown below (satellite, tide gauge, and mass+steric inferred).

[BethesdaWX]

No.. measuring sea level rise with ARGO+mass balance is measuring the exact same thing as satellite sea level measurements. It's simply two different ways of measuring the exact same thing.

With GISS vs UAH they are measuring physically separate entities.

Big difference.

Your claim that sea level has been decreasing is complete nonsense as usual. All three methods of estimate sea level rise below are shown below (satellite, tide gauge, and mass+steric inferred).

What the hell?

GISS and UAH, for example, also measure the "same thing". UAH's also measures the "surface" layer, (Near surface on AMSU)...and its in violent disagreement with GISS. If the METHODS are different, in calibration & analysis, then you cannot compare one to the other analysis wise. So picking a point on CU and comparing it to ARGO makes no sense if you're trying to "one-up" the other.

And Only a complete Idiot cannot see the slowing in Global Sea Level rise, On Colorado State and ARGO compared to the Long term trend. The trends on ARGO and CU since 2004 are nowhere near the Long term Mean mr Numbnut.

I'll calculate them myself in needs be.

[skierinvermont]

Please point to which chart above shows significant slowing. And of course you originally claimed that sea level was dropping.

[BethesdaWX]

Please point to which chart above shows significant slowing. And of course you originally claimed that sea level was dropping.

1) Colorado state and ARGO trends are lower than those of the overall increase.

2) No, I said ARGO steric sea level was dropping...theres a difference.

[skierinvermont]

2) No, I said ARGO steric sea level was dropping...theres a difference.

That's not actually what you said.. but we'll assume that's what you were trying to say.

It's still false. The graphic posted of Leuliette 2009 shows slight increase, and more recent analyses like Lyman 2010 show moderate steric sea level rise based on ARGO.

The only one that shows decreasing is Willis 2008 (which is shown in one figure you posted simply for a comparison to the newer Leuliette 2009) but this paper has been RETRACTED by the author.

[BethesdaWX]

That's not actually what you said.. but we'll assume that's what you were trying to say.

It's still false. The graphic posted of Leuliette 2009 shows slight increase, and more recent analyses like Lyman 2010 show moderate steric sea level rise based on ARGO.

The only one that shows decreasing is Willis 2008 (which is shown in one figure you posted simply for a comparison to the newer Leuliette 2009) but this paper has been RETRACTED by the author.

1) Dude, ARGO data is ARGO data, the "studies" cannot change the data.

2) Weren't we speaking of a slowing sea level rise, not a decrease?

[skierinvermont]

1) Dude, ARGO data is ARGO data, the "studies" cannot change the data.

2) Weren't we speaking of a slowing sea level rise, not a decrease?

Lol.. where have you been the past 4 months? I have posted dozens of studies all interpreting ARGO differently. There are infilling and calibration issues. Willis 2008, which is the only study to show a decrease, was retracted by the author. The newer studies that use ARGO data like Leuliette 2009, Lyman 2010 show increasing steric sea level.

2) No.. you've said several times now that steric sea level is dropping. You said it just 3 posts up. This is false. None of the newer studies of ARGO say that it is dropping.