toronto blizzard Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I don't believe I ignore any facts - on the other hand I do ignore a lot of opinion, misinformation, and pseudo-science. Perhaps that's where we differ. Yes, a cold PDO will have an influence, but that influence will be temporary. A hot PDO has an effect, too. The PDO is an oscillation - it fluctuates above and below some middle value and is therefore incapable of causing a long-term trend in global temps. The Earth has been warming for over a century. The BEST project findings confirmed that trend. Do you deny the reality of that warming trend? Can you describe any real-world process that would cause only the cold PDO intervals to effect climate change? No I believe the Earth has warmed just not due to AGW. And why would the influence be only temporary? And The cold PDO is clearly associated with Global Temps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 And the cold phase of the PDO will not alter in a warming climate. If you are stating that there will be warm and cold phases of the PDO in a warming climate, I agree. Each phase will continue to have its impact on shorter-term temperatures. However, all things being equal, at the same magnitude and duration, a cold PDO phase won't lead to conditions that were as cold as in the past prior to the warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 No I believe the Earth has warmed just not due to AGW. And why would the influence be only temporary? And The cold PDO is clearly associated with Global Temps The influence is temporary because the PDO is an oscillation, like a pendulum swinging back and forth. The central point about which the oscillation occurs is not affected by the swinging of the pendulum. Only an outside force can move the central point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 If you are stating that there will be warm and cold phases of the PDO in a warming climate, I agree. Each phase will continue to have its impact on shorter-term temperatures. However, all things being equal, at the same magnitude and duration, a cold PDO phase won't lead to conditions that were as cold as in the past prior to the warming. I disagree Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The energy imbalance is highly speculative. The OHC data says otherwise, unless one can find a credible explanation for the continuing increase in OHC. Latest OHC charts from the NOAA's National Oceanographic Data Center: http://www.nodc.noaa...ontent55-07.png http://www.nodc.noaa...ontent2000m.png As Roy Spencer concludes, "at some point we need to ask whether all of this missing warming and energy are missing because they really do not exist". Do you have a link to Dr. Spencer's paper? Perhaps the paper relies largely on pre-Argo era data before better measurements were available? FWIW, Hansen, et al, noted in 2011: The intermediate response function yields planetary energy imbalance in close agreement with Argo-era observations. The intermediate response function also agrees with the planetary energy imbalance for 1993–2008, if we accept the Lyman et al. (2010) estimate for upper ocean heat uptake. Given that (1) Lyman et al. (2010) data is in much better agreement with the Argo-era analyses of von Schuckmann et al., and (2) a single response function must fit both the Argo-era and pre-Argo-era data, these results support the contention that the Levitus et al. analysis understates ocean heat uptake in data sparse regions. http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf (p.14 of the .pdf). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I disagree Don On what basis? Are you assuming all or almost all of the ongoing warming is natural? If so, what developments or data would lead you to consider the relevance of growing anthropogenic forcing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 On what basis? Are you assuming all or almost all of the ongoing warming is natural? If so, what developments or data would lead you to consider the relevance of growing anthropogenic forcing? He is clearly stating that he does not believe there has been any warming between the phases in ocean cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 He is clearly stating that he does not believe there has been any warming between the phases in ocean cycles. Correct. I missed that response. I'm still curious as to whether there is any data or developments that would lead him to reconsider his views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Do you have a link to Dr. Spencer's paper? Perhaps the paper relies largely on pre-Argo era data before better measurements were available? It was a back and forth between he and Trenberth from 2010/2011. Here is a graph from Trenberth with a couple of added years from Spencer. As per my previous quote from Spencer...most of the "missing energy" comes from the RSW and not the OLR. Also Spencer looks at Hansen's estimated radiative forcing and OHC. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 The energy imbalance is highly speculative. As Roy Spencer concludes, "at some point we need to ask whether all of this missing warming and energy are missing because they really do not exist". I say the Pacific hasn't warmed in the last 17 years because it hasn't, it has cooled. Credit to Bob Tisdale for graphs. Your physics is flawed due to faulty assumptions. Given Tisdale's long track record of disingenuous chartsmanship, if I have to believe that article in Nature or his cheerypicked charts - there's no question, Tisdale has no credibility whatsoever. Cutting and pasting that nonsense to support your position isn't impressive. Have you ever tried to find any peer-reviewed research of his? I've never found any. Tisdale doesn't do research, he just manipulates data for denialist advocacy. The North Pacific has been cooling recently but you claimed the whole Pacific has been cooling when, as I showed, there has been a long-term warming trend. Play all of the rhetorical games you want - science isn't settled by rhetoric, it's settled by data. And the data does not support your position.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The majority of solar heating occurs in the tropics. That heat then propogates north and south according to thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. A negative -PDO tends to dredge up cool deep water and send it across the equitorial Pacific, thus reducing the heat available to be absorbed by the atmophere. The Sun warmed equitorial surface water is not so vigorously replace by cooler water from depth during a positive PDO, so more heat energy is transported out of the tropical Pacific. ENSO is a shorter term variation on this. This process is driven by the wind creating surface tension at the water surface. The wind governed by the position and strength of semi-permanent high pressure cells which are in turn governed by....I don't know what. None of this adds or subtracts energy to the climate system. Only the Sun, changes in albedo and the atmosphere's greenhouse gases can do so. Any change to albedo and OLR is later reversed when the phase changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Greenland is melting in the context of a planet that is hoarding energy. Globally the ice is melting long term. The oceans are warming long-term. This was predicted more than 100 years ago based on physics. That physics is irrefutable science. The absorption spectrum of CO2 will not change. Unless things change the ice will keep melting until it is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The OHC data says otherwise, unless one can find a credible explanation for the continuing increase in OHC. Latest OHC charts from the NOAA's National Oceanographic Data Center: http://www.nodc.noaa...ontent55-07.png http://www.nodc.noaa...ontent2000m.png Do you have a link to Dr. Spencer's paper? Perhaps the paper relies largely on pre-Argo era data before better measurements were available? FWIW, Hansen, et al, noted in 2011: The intermediate response function yields planetary energy imbalance in close agreement with Argo-era observations. The intermediate response function also agrees with the planetary energy imbalance for 1993–2008, if we accept the Lyman et al. (2010) estimate for upper ocean heat uptake. Given that (1) Lyman et al. (2010) data is in much better agreement with the Argo-era analyses of von Schuckmann et al., and (2) a single response function must fit both the Argo-era and pre-Argo-era data, these results support the contention that the Levitus et al. analysis understates ocean heat uptake in data sparse regions. http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf (p.14 of the .pdf). The trouble with those graphs is that the monthly temperature climatologies deeper than 1500 meters have not been calculated/observed, therefore data at the 2000 meter depth doesn't exist. Add in that in 55 years, only 5% of the 1° X 1° gridcells have three observations or more for January-March at the1500 meter level. So data for these graphs is a little spars to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The trouble with those graphs is that the monthly temperature climatologies deeper than 1500 meters have not been calculated/observed, therefore data at the 2000 meter depth doesn't exist. Add in that in 55 years, only 5% of the 1° X 1° gridcells have three observations or more for January-March at the1500 meter level. So data for these graphs is a little spars to say the least. So we should increase NOAA's budget by $100,000,000,000 so that they can try to convince people who are ideologically impervious to any proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Given Tisdale's long track record of disingenuous chartsmanship, if I have to believe that article in Nature or his cheerypicked charts - there's no question, Tisdale has no credibility whatsoever. Cutting and pasting that nonsense to support your position isn't impressive. Have you ever tried to find any peer-reviewed research of his? I've never found any. Tisdale doesn't do research, he just manipulates data for denialist advocacy. The North Pacific has been cooling recently but you claimed the whole Pacific has been cooling when, as I showed, there has been a long-term warming trend. Play all of the rhetorical games you want - science isn't settled by rhetoric, it's settled by data. And the data does not support your position.. Again, the Pacific has not warmed in the last 17 years but has cooled. Do you dispute the Reynolds data? What specifically is wrong with Tisdale's graphing of Reynolds data? You are the one playing rhetorical games and got your hand caught in the cookie jar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 So we should increase NOAA's budget by $100,000,000,000 so that they can try to convince people who are ideologically impervious to any proof? Yes vergie, that's exactly what he said..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Greenland is melting in the context of a planet that is hoarding energy. Globally the ice is melting long term. The oceans are warming long-term. This was predicted more than 100 years ago based on physics. That physics is irrefutable science. The absorption spectrum of CO2 will not change. Unless things change the ice will keep melting until it is gone. It looks impressive it really does, except satellite data isn't nearly as impressive and does not show a "hoarding of energy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The trouble with those graphs is that the monthly temperature climatologies deeper than 1500 meters have not been calculated/observed, therefore data at the 2000 meter depth doesn't exist. Add in that in 55 years, only 5% of the 1° X 1° gridcells have three observations or more for January-March at the1500 meter level. So data for these graphs is a little spars to say the least. The first graph shows the 0m - 700m layer. Even there, warming is taking place, though it is slower than for the larger 0m - 2000m graph, for which measurements are more limited at the greater depths. Hence, I don't believe it is unreasonable to state that OHC is rising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Again, the Pacific has not warmed in the last 17 years but has cooled. Do you dispute the Reynolds data? What specifically is wrong with Tisdale's graphing of Reynolds data? You are the one playing rhetorical games and got your hand caught in the cookie jar. The Solomon et al 2012 paperin Nature is peer-reviewed research. Tisdale's cherry picked charts are a blog post. Is it really so difficult to understand which has the greater credibility? If Tisdale has any honest findings to report why doesn't he submit them to peer-review and publish them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The Solomon et al 2012 paperin Nature is peer-reviewed research. Tisdale's cherry picked charts are a blog post. Is it really so difficult to understand which has the greater credibility? If Tisdale has any honest findings to report why doesn't he submit them to peer-review and publish them? You are getting yourself confused and grasping at straws. Tisdale isn't cherry picking anything. He is showing the last 17 years of Reynolds data plotted out. I used the last 17 years to refute your silly claim of "but as long as we are adding to AGW by annually dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere I don't see any hope of that happening". By your logic, the Pacific should not have cooled because you do not expect the Atlantic to cool "while we are dumping in gigatons of CO2". Yet the Pacific did cool while we were "dumping in gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere". So if the Pacific cooled (which it has) why won't the Atlantic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Revin at the NYT came much closer to getting the story right re the Summit Melt. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/unprecedented-greenland-surface-melt-every-150-years/ While Joe Romm charges "scientific reticence" in using the 150 year figure. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/24/580371/abc-news-on-stunning-greenland-ice-melt-scientists-say-theyve-never-seen-anything-like-this-before/?mobile=nc Mean while Jeff Masters opines that we may be in for a repeat as the next high pressure system moves in. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 You are getting yourself confused and grasping at straws. Tisdale isn't cherry picking anything. He is showing the last 17 years of Reynolds data plotted out. I used the last 17 years to refute your silly claim of "but as long as we are adding to AGW by annually dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere I don't see any hope of that happening". By your logic, the Pacific should not have cooled because you do not expect the Atlantic to cool "while we are dumping in gigatons of CO2". Yet the Pacific did cool while we were "dumping in gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere". So if the Pacific cooled (which it has) why won't the Atlantic? You're making a strawman argument - nobody ever claimed that warming would be monotonic. Natural variability, which includes AMO and PDO, will periodically cause short-term cooling in some areas. So what? AGW predicts long-term warming and that's what the observational record shows. Look at the long-term AMO record - did the temporary cooling from about 1955 through about 1975 erase the long-term trend? No, it didn't. For that matter, how would you explain the long-term warming trend without AGW? The next cool AMO phase will still be warmer than previous ones. To return to this thread's topic, can you give us any reason to think Greenland's ice sheet balance will recover from the high levels of melting we have observed in recent years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 You're making a strawman argument - nobody ever claimed that warming would be monotonic. Natural variability, which includes AMO and PDO, will periodically cause short-term cooling in some areas. So what? AGW predicts long-term warming and that's what the observational record shows. So why are you insinuating that the Atlantic will not cool while we are adding gigatons of CO2? When the Atlantic does cool (like the Pacific has), would you not expect a halt in the Greenland melt and sea ice loss as well as adding back some sea ice that has been lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 It was a back and forth between he and Trenberth from 2010/2011. Here is a graph from Trenberth with a couple of added years from Spencer. As per my previous quote from Spencer...most of the "missing energy" comes from the RSW and not the OLR. Also Spencer looks at Hansen's estimated radiative forcing and OHC. LINK Two quick things about Dr. Spencer's blog entry: 1. He recognizes that CO2 exerts a forcing, but believes the climate sensitivity is fairly low. 2. It appears that his comments about deeper waters don't consider the Argo era data. He wrote: While some might claim that it is because warming is actually occurring much deeper in the ocean than 700 m, the vertical profiles I have seen suggest warming decreases rapidly with depth, and has been negligible at a depth of 700 m. Even as data is sparser as one goes below 700 meters, the papers on the topic suggest greater not lesser warming at greater depths. For example, Levitus's 2012 paper found heat content increasing 0.39 watts per square meter for the 0 m - 2000 m depth but 0.27 watts per square meter for the 0 m - 700 m depth, meaning more rapid increases in heat content were taking place below 700 m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 So why are you insinuating that the Atlantic will not cool while we are adding gigatons of CO2? When the Atlantic does cool (like the Pacific has), would you not expect a halt in the Greenland melt and sea ice loss as well as adding back some sea ice that has been lost? Because a short-term blip in Atlantic temps will not constitute a switch to a cooling trend. Show a 30 year trend and you may have a little credibility - cherry-pick shorter trends and you won't prove a single thing. It would take a lot of cooling to halt the Greenland melting and add back arctic sea ice and I just don't see that happening barring some catastrophe like a supervolcano eruption. And as I and others have shown with hard data - the Pacific, as a whole, has not cooled. You only make yourself look foolish to keep repeating that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 You're making a strawman argument - nobody ever claimed that warming would be monotonic. Natural variability, which includes AMO and PDO, will periodically cause short-term cooling in some areas. So what? AGW predicts long-term warming and that's what the observational record shows. Look at the long-term AMO record - did the temporary cooling from about 1955 through about 1975 erase the long-term trend? No, it didn't. For that matter, how would you explain the long-term warming trend without AGW The next cool AMO phase will still be warmer than previous ones. To return to this thread's topic, can you give us any reason to think Greenland's ice sheet balance will recover from the high levels of melting we have observed in recent years? Regarding the background, long term warming that you're referring to, it's my opinion that solar activity has played a significant role in that. Total solar irradiance has been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century, reaching a peak in the 90s, when global temps also surged to their highest levels. Below is a graph of US sfc temps vs TSI over time. Pretty good correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Regarding the Pacific discussion, it was warming from 1977 to approximately 2006, but has begun to cool down just over the past several years. Most of the 1990-2010 period featured both a warm Pacific and Atlantic, hastening the arctic melt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Regarding the Pacific discussion, it was warming from 1977 to approximately 2006, but has begun to cool down just over the past several years. Most of the 1990-2010 period featured both a warm Pacific and Atlantic, hastening the arctic melt. I don't see the correlation you are suggesting. The big losses started in 2001. since then its been strong la nina or weak el nino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Because a short-term blip in Atlantic temps will not constitute a switch to a cooling trend. Show a 30 year trend and you may have a little credibility - cherry-pick shorter trends and you won't prove a single thing. It would take a lot of cooling to halt the Greenland melting and add back arctic sea ice and I just don't see that happening barring some catastrophe like a supervolcano eruption. And as I and others have shown with hard data - the Pacific, as a whole, has not cooled. You only make yourself look foolish to keep repeating that. There will be a long term cooling of the Atlantic. It will not be a short term blip. During that time the Greenland melt will halt and there will be artic sea ice added back (will it be back to the late 70's? probably not, but it isn't out of the question). As for the Pacific, SST's have cooled for the last 17 years. If you want to talk OHC, that isn't what I was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I don't see the correlation you are suggesting. The big losses started in 2001. since then its been strong la nina or weak el nino. I was referring to the PDO. Cool phase began in the past several years. The arctic sea ice saw a rapid decrease shortly after the Atlantic flipped warm in the mid 90s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.