Ted Cruz shows his intentional CC denial by questioning NASA's need to engage in Earth science

[skierinvermont]

I'd argue the "pause" began in 2001-02, not 1997-98. There's also a difference between "statistically detectable" warming and "statistically significant" warming.

 

The warming from 1998 is statistically significant. 

 

The surface/atmospheric warming since 2002 is not statistically significant but that does not mean a 'pause' has occurred. Would you likewise say that a 'pause' occurred from 1987-1997 or 1977-1987 just because a linear regression over the course of both of those 11 year periods shows no trend? No of course not. All it is is cherry-picking short-term variability out of a longer term trend. 

 

I would agree that a 'slow-down' in surface warming occurred 1998-present because, despite the fact that it is cherry-picked, it is probably the longest period in a while that warming has been under .1C/decade. 

 

The problem is 'slow-down' isn't nearly as catchy a phrase as 'hiatus' or 'pause.' But it is the more accurate description of what has happened. 

 

 

And in reality, it isn't really a slow-down at all if you use the more powerful, appropriate, and comprehensive measure of global heat: OHC. By that measure, the earth has continued warming rapidly throughout the last 15 years.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The warming from 1998 is statistically significant.

The surface/atmospheric warming since 2002 is not statistically significant but that does not mean a 'pause' has occurred. Would you likewise say that a 'pause' occurred from 1987-1997 or 1977-1987 just because a linear regression over the course of both of those 11 year periods shows no trend? No of course not. All it is is cherry-picking short-term variability out of a longer term trend.

I would agree that a 'slow-down' in surface warming occurred 1998-present because, despite the fact that it is cherry-picked, it is probably the longest period in a while that warming has been under .1C/decade.

The problem is 'slow-down' isn't nearly as catchy a phrase as 'hiatus' or 'pause.' But it is the more accurate description of what has happened.

And in reality, it isn't really a slow-down at all if you use the more powerful, appropriate, and comprehensive measure of global heat: OHC. By that measure, the earth has continued warming rapidly throughout the last 15 years.

I agree with you regarding the statistically-significant nature of the warming since 1998, but definitely disagree with your characterization of OHC as a measure of radiative imbalance @ the TOA, because it's not in direct exchange with the TOA-surface boundary.

If the TOA-surface boundary were to reach radiative equilibrium, the deeper oceans would take much longer to do so, for obvious reasons. The upper oceanic mixing layer, on the other hand, is in direct exchange with the sea surface and the atmosphere, so that layer will equilibrate in tandem with the sea surface and lower troposphere. Once you get below that layer, you're technically living in the past as heat only travels via diffusion below the upper oceans and equilibration takes decades to centuries.

That's what you call secondary exchange. It really doesn't matter what the deep oceans are doing unless you're looking at sea level rise, in which case it's a much bigger deal.

[StudentOfClimatology]

As for the supposed "pause", really it depends on the dataset you choose to use. Systems like UAH and GISS show detectable warming post-2001, while others like HADCRUT, NCDC, and RSS really don't. It's a debate over semantics, mostly, because these deviations are all within these systems' margin of error, regardless of whether one wants to admit it or not.

[Msalgado]

I agree with you regarding the statistically-significant nature of the warming since 1998, but definitely disagree with your characterization of OHC as a measure of radiative imbalance @ the TOA, because it's not in direct exchange with the TOA-surface boundary.

If the TOA-surface boundary were to reach radiative equilibrium, the deeper oceans would take much longer to do so, for obvious reasons. The upper oceanic mixing layer, on the other hand, is in direct exchange with the sea surface and the atmosphere, so that layer will equilibrate in tandem with the sea surface and lower troposphere. Once you get below that layer, you're technically living in the past as heat only travels via diffusion below the upper oceans and equilibration takes decades to centuries.

That's what you call secondary exchange. It really doesn't matter what the deep oceans are doing unless you're looking at sea level rise, in which case it's a much bigger deal.

 

I'd argue that if you want to categorize the slowdown by a radiative imbalance then there's been no slowdown at all as the radiative imbalance has grown and has been measured to have grown within the past decade.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

 

I don't want to speak for skier, but I believe he was discussing warming and not radiative balance.  The OHC content increase is absolutely a measure of warming and its warming of a greater magnitude than anything in the atmosphere.  Given the increase in OHC, its incorrect to say there's been a slowdown.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'd argue that if you want to categorize the slowdown by a radiative imbalance then there's been no slowdown at all as the radiative imbalance has grown and has been measured to have grown within the past decade.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

Huh? Yes that's the only way to determine the validity of the "pause".

I think you're misinterpreting that paper..it's not a full-spectrum analysis, rather it's an estimation of the radiative forcing attributable to CO2 from 2000-2010. That doesn't tell us much about the full spectrum imbalance..that data is readily available from CERES. Yes, the radiative dampening effect of CO2 is easily measurable and has grown in the relevant spectra as concentration has increased, and this has (and will continue to) lead to large scale warming. However, the full-spectrum imbalance is determined by a lot more than just CO2, even on a multi-decadal scale. Everything from stratospheric water vapor and nitrous oxide to the shifting tropospheric circulations and coinciding location of cloud cover/wind anomalies plays into the observed "imbalance" over the timespans we're looking at. The strengthening of Brewer Dobson circulation since the 1990s is one example of this emergent behavior, as more O3, N2O, and H2O is being pumped into the stratosphere.

It so happens that CERES has captured this naturally emergent behavior very well, despite its flaws. Best thing is, this data is readily available. I work with it frequently..it's great. Order it for yourself.

I don't want to speak for skier, but I believe he was discussing warming and not radiative balance. The OHC content increase is absolutely a measure of warming and its warming of a greater magnitude than anything in the atmosphere. Given the increase in OHC, its incorrect to say there's been a slowdown.

No one is questioning deep ocean warming, but that's a separate artifact altogether if we're discussing the supposed hiatus. That was always a surface/atmosphere phenomenon, a direct result of a detectable (but temporary) global radiative equilibration due to a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors, possibly including the reduction in CFC emissions..there's according a substantial volume of literature on the topic. Exactly what caused it is unknown (my guess is it was a combination of the solar min, a stronger BDC, and stronger trade winds over the equatorial pacific upwelling colder waters), but none of this changes it's nature. Eventually this will all swing the other way and the pause will end, but it's important to analyze this stuff properly, imo.

[The_Global_Warmer]

1996-2000 0-100M OHC versus 2010-2014 0-100M OHC.

 

 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

1996-2000 0-100M OHC versus 2010-2014 0-100M OHC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow that is striking

[skierinvermont]

I agree with you regarding the statistically-significant nature of the warming since 1998, but definitely disagree with your characterization of OHC as a measure of radiative imbalance @ the TOA, because it's not in direct exchange with the TOA-surface boundary.

If the TOA-surface boundary were to reach radiative equilibrium, the deeper oceans would take much longer to do so, for obvious reasons. The upper oceanic mixing layer, on the other hand, is in direct exchange with the sea surface and the atmosphere, so that layer will equilibrate in tandem with the sea surface and lower troposphere. Once you get below that layer, you're technically living in the past as heat only travels via diffusion below the upper oceans and equilibration takes decades to centuries.

That's what you call secondary exchange. It really doesn't matter what the deep oceans are doing unless you're looking at sea level rise, in which case it's a much bigger deal.

 

Completely incorrect. It's a closed system. If the deeper oceans are warming the heat has to come from somewhere - either from a TOA imbalance or from the upper ocean in which case there would be no change in total OHC.

 

There is a change in total OHC, therefore, there is a TOA imbalance. Give this some thought for a minute - I'm confident that if you do you will arrive at the same conclusion.

[FloridaJohn]

The upper oceanic mixing layer, on the other hand, is in direct exchange with the sea surface and the atmosphere, so that layer will equilibrate in tandem with the sea surface and lower troposphere. Once you get below that layer, you're technically living in the past as heat only travels via diffusion below the upper oceans and equilibration takes decades to centuries.

 

I believe there are also vertical currents in the oceans that help to mix the lower and upper ocean, so diffusion is not the only way in which heat travels to the deeper layers.

[WxUSAF]

 

Do you think that should be sacrificed in favor of adding funding to space sciences? Maybe short sighted politicians can't see the ramifications, but until humans no longer inhabit this earth, I think NASA's should be heavily involved in the realm of earth sciences.

I'm not sure why it's supposed to be a zero-sum game.  Why can only one or the other be funded?  NASA has 4 major science divisions:  Earth, Planetary, Astrophysics and Heliophysics.  Earth has been the largest (in terms of funding) for some time and I think it's appropriate that it continue to be.  But I don't think it should come at the expense of the other 3.  Particularly as I'm someone who's relying on the Planetary budget for my livelihood.  

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not sure why it's supposed to be a zero-sum game.  Why can only one or the other be funded?  NASA has 4 major science divisions:  Earth, Planetary, Astrophysics and Heliophysics.  Earth has been the largest (in terms of funding) for some time and I think it's appropriate that it continue to be.  But I don't think it should come at the expense of the other 3.  Particularly as I'm someone who's relying on the Planetary budget for my livelihood.  

 

Unfortunately, a lot of funding in other scientific fields have been diminished due to the increase in climate science funding. This is true in general meterology as well (i.e. funding for studies on tornadoes, hurricanes, etc that don't specifically involve climate change). This is where politics crosses over into the science and it becomes messy.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Completely incorrect. It's a closed system. If the deeper oceans are warming the heat has to come from somewhere - either from a TOA imbalance or from the upper ocean in which case there would be no change in total OHC.

Yes the system is closed, but some of it is in primary equilibrative exchange and some is in secondary exchange. The deep oceans are in secondary exchange with the upper ocean-surface-TOA layer, which in in primary equilibrative exchange. The deep oceans are colder than the upper oceans for this reason.

There is a change in total OHC, therefore, there is a TOA imbalance. Give this some thought for a minute - I'm confident that if you do you will arrive at the same conclusion.

Not exactly. The deep oceans will lag surface equilibrium..every single modeling study backs this up..they're colder than the upper oceans for the reasons mentioned beforehand. The dominant mixing layer that encompasses the upper ~100m should not be considered part of the "deep ocean" domain because it's behavior is stochastically different, and could be considered primary.

[WxUSAF]

Unfortunately, a lot of funding in other scientific fields have been diminished due to the increase in climate science funding. This is true in general meterology as well (i.e. funding for studies on tornadoes, hurricanes, etc that don't specifically involve climate change). This is where politics crosses over into the science and it becomes messy.

I admit to not knowing the historic and current funding levels of the Earth Science R&A programs at NASA or NSF, but both those agencies try their best to follow the recommendations of the Earth Science Decadal Survey.  Sure, politics can alter that, as I'm seeing in the Planetary budget, but the Decadal is the best place for the community to set priorities.  I'd wager the Decadal talks a great deal about climate and rightly so.  

[Msalgado]

Sorry, SOC but I don't buy the argument that the reason surface temps have warmed more slowly is due to a change in radiative balance.  I get that the paper is only limited to the atmospheric windows of CO2, but thats indicative of continued increase of downward radiation from GHG in general. 

 

I would buy this theory more if La Nina years hadn't continued warming.  The hiatus is completely nonexistant when you look at all other metrics - including OHC - and if it was due to radiative equilibrium then you would not see a the increase warmth in the surface record when broken down by ENSO phase.  

 

To argue that the reason there's no surface warming then you shouldn't see the continued distribution of heat in other parts of the surface system.  Instead, the evidence points to a redistribution of the imbalance due to variability and nothing more.

[nflwxman]

Sorry, SOC but I don't buy the argument that the reason surface temps have warmed more slowly is due to a change in radiative balance.  I get that the paper is only limited to the atmospheric windows of CO2, but thats indicative of continued increase of downward radiation from GHG in general. 

 

I would buy this theory more if La Nina years hadn't continued warming.  The hiatus is completely nonexistant when you look at all other metrics - including OHC - and if it was due to radiative equilibrium then you would not see a the increase warmth in the surface record when broken down by ENSO phase.  

 

To argue that the reason there's no surface warming then you shouldn't see the continued distribution of heat in other parts of the surface system.  Instead, the evidence points to a redistribution of the imbalance due to variability and nothing more.

 

There are a few papers that suggest that the imbalance dropped to around .5W/m^2 in and around 2008-2011 when the solar slump and a series of slow release tropical volcanoes were seeping soot.  However, based on the latest OHC data, that slowdown has come to an end and the imbalance is likely rebounded.

 

But yeah, the vast majority of the "hiatus" can be explained by the thermal inertia of the many ENSO negative events we've had and not the overall imbalance. The storage capacity of the mid-deep layers of the ocean is obviously changed by these events as evidenced by several recent papers.  It appears that we are entering an extended period of ENSO positive conditions.  Therefore, I would be willing to wager the opposite occurs and we enter rapid warming.  Hence my 0.85C on GISS prediction for 2015-2024 average surface temperature (approximately 0.25C higher than 2005-2014).

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Sorry, SOC but I don't buy the argument that the reason surface temps have warmed more slowly is due to a change in radiative balance. I get that the paper is only limited to the atmospheric windows of CO2, but thats indicative of continued increase of downward radiation from GHG in general.

It's not about what you or I want to believe, it's about what the data shows. Our "opinions" are essentially worthless. You can access/order the CERES data here and have a look for yourself.

http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php

I would buy this theory more if La Nina years hadn't continued warming.

Except there hasn't been a linear warming or +/-TOA relationship underneath the ENSO stochastics, despite the clever graphs from various internet blogs. There are many short term forcings that influence global temperature on year to year timescales. Obviously ENSO is the big one, but ignoring the rest is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I honestly don't understand why so many people choose to ignore both observational data and thermodynamic reality when it comes to controversial stuff like this. It only leads to future failure.

The hiatus is completely nonexistant when you look at all other metrics - including OHC - and if it was due to radiative equilibrium then you would not see a the increase warmth in the surface record when broken down by ENSO phase.

To argue that the reason there's no surface warming then you shouldn't see the continued distribution of heat in other parts of the surface system. Instead, the evidence points to a redistribution of the imbalance due to variability and nothing more.

You're confusing systematic warming with domainal warming. There is systematic warming ongoing for reasons we all know, but that doesn't mean the warming will be multi-domainal or in equilibrative synchronization at any given time. Even if we were to stop increasing CO^2 right now, the deeper oceans would continue to warm well into the future, long after the upper ocean-surface-TOA boundary equilibrated.

The deep OHC argument doesn't really have any meaning when referring to short term phenomenon like the "pause".

[Msalgado]

Its pretty funny that you start off your post lecturing about opinions and data and then shrug off something you don't agree with as internet blogging when there are peer reviewed publications about the hiatus and its link to ENSO but whatever, dude.  I look forward to your publication in Nature showing us the radiative balance in equilibrium as the cause of the hiatus.  Your advisor must be proud!

[StudentOfClimatology]

Its pretty funny that you start off your post lecturing about opinions and data and then shrug off something you don't agree with as internet blogging when there are peer reviewed publications about the hiatus and its link to ENSO but whatever, dude. I look forward to your publication in Nature showing us the radiative balance in equilibrium as the cause of the hiatus. Your advisor must be proud!

I never denied a link between ENSO and the "hiatus". The difference is, the radiative imbalance can be measured quantitatively, while the cause(s) of the "hiatus" cannot be, in the same fashion. There, you're looking at something theoretical in nature. Scientific method 101 here..I'd flunk out if I tried to conflate two different issues like that in a paper. Yikes.

[skierinvermont]

Yes the system is closed, but some of it is in primary equilibrative exchange and some is in secondary exchange. The deep oceans are in secondary exchange with the upper ocean-surface-TOA layer, which in in primary equilibrative exchange. The deep oceans are colder than the upper oceans for this reason.

Not exactly. The deep oceans will lag surface equilibrium..every single modeling study backs this up..they're colder than the upper oceans for the reasons mentioned beforehand. The dominant mixing layer that encompasses the upper ~100m should not be considered part of the "deep ocean" domain because it's behavior is stochastically different, and could be considered primary.

 

 

It's not about what you or I want to believe, it's about what the data shows. Our "opinions" are essentially worthless. You can access/order the CERES data here and have a look for yourself.

http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php

Except there hasn't been a linear warming or +/-TOA relationship underneath the ENSO stochastics, despite the clever graphs from various internet blogs. There are many short term forcings that influence global temperature on year to year timescales. Obviously ENSO is the big one, but ignoring the rest is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I honestly don't understand why so many people choose to ignore both observational data and thermodynamic reality when it comes to controversial stuff like this. It only leads to future failure.

You're confusing systematic warming with domainal warming. There is systematic warming ongoing for reasons we all know, but that doesn't mean the warming will be multi-domainal or in equilibrative synchronization at any given time. Even if we were to stop increasing CO^2 right now, the deeper oceans would continue to warm well into the future, long after the upper ocean-surface-TOA boundary equilibrated.

The deep OHC argument doesn't really have any meaning when referring to short term phenomenon like the "pause".

 

Still wrong here. This is very simple stuff and you need to spend some more time thinking about it. It's a closed system. The deep oceans cannot warm without the heat coming from somewhere. It can come from:

 

1) The upper ocean w/ no TOA imbalance, in which case there is no net change in total OHC

 

OR

 

2) The upper ocean w/ a TOA imbalance replacing the heat in the upper oceans that is transferred deeper, in which case there would be a total change in OHC.

 

 

You are misunderstanding papers that find the deep oceans continue warming LONG LONG after surface equilibrium is reached and surface temperature warming halts. This is simply a practical approximation.

 

In reality, if the deep oceans are warming, and the rest of the system is neither warming nor cooling, the system is not in equilibrium. The system is gaining heat. Literally, by definition it is not in equilibrium. There is only one place for the heat to come from, and that is outside the system ---> TOA imbalance. The imbalance is just so small that for all practical purposes it is zero. The only sign of this imbalance would be very slow deep ocean warming probably amounting to less than .1W/m2. However, this very slow rate of warming could continue for decades or centuries before reaching complete equilibrium. This is entirely theoretical of course since radiative forcing would be unlikely to stay unchanged for centuries.

 

Ask a professor if you have to, but the concept of a closed system is really one you ought to grasp.

[StudentOfClimatology]

You are misunderstanding papers that find the deep oceans continue warming LONG LONG after surface equilibrium is reached and surface temperature warming halts. This is simply a practical approximation.

That's just it. We use "approximations" because not only is actual equilibrium unachievable, but the effect of deep ocean lag on surface-TOA emissions is so small that it'd be impossible to measure in the day-to-day noise. So for all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA boundary equilibrates before the deep oceans, even the sub 100m layer.

If you want to discuss specifics, that's fine, but it's of little use...

In reality, if the deep oceans are warming the system is not in equilibrium. The system is gaining heat.

The system can still gain heat, despite the boundary layers in primary exchange having already equilibrated..again, for all intents and purposes. It's essentially a transfer process.

This entire debate is moot anyway because the yearly swings in the radiative ratios/budget are far larger than any small secondary effects of deep ocean lag on TOA emissions.

[skierinvermont]

The system can still gain heat, despite the primary exchange boundary layers having already equilibrated. It's essentially a transfer process.

 

 

No it cannot.  This is a fundamentally false statement. The only way for that to be true is if you were converting huge amounts of some other form of energy into thermal energy. Like reacting all the uranium on the planet to convert as much chemical energy into thermal energy as possible. The surface, near surface, and atmosphere may not warm, but if the deep oceans warm, the TOA is in imbalance. It is essentially a transfer process, but it still requires a TOA imbalance.

 

A significant thermal imbalance of the oceans is incontrovertible evidence that the TOA is in imbalance. Numerous papers state this as fact.

[phil882]

I'm not sure why it's supposed to be a zero-sum game.  Why can only one or the other be funded?  NASA has 4 major science divisions:  Earth, Planetary, Astrophysics and Heliophysics.  Earth has been the largest (in terms of funding) for some time and I think it's appropriate that it continue to be.  But I don't think it should come at the expense of the other 3.  Particularly as I'm someone who's relying on the Planetary budget for my livelihood.  

 

I agree completely... in a perfect world NASA should see a boost in funding which would allow all science divisions to benefit. However, it is unlikely that in the current congress political climate that we see any boost in funding into any government based science organization as a whole. That's why Ted Cruz is suggesting to boost the space sciences of NASA at the expense of earth sciences. He has no intention of boosting the funding of NASA as a whole, but merely shifting the current budget dollars around. He wants to look like the good guy that is funding space exploration (which polls highly with Americans) even though the reality is that he wants to cut the overall NASA budget. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

No it cannot. This is a fundamentally false statement. The only way for that to be true is if you were converting huge amounts of some other form of energy into thermal energy. Like reacting all the uranium on the planet to convert as much chemical energy into thermal energy as possible.

The thermal imbalance of the oceans is incontrovertible evidence that the TOA is in imbalance. Numerous papers state this as fact.

I'd suggest reading more carefully. You're living in a fantasy world with this "perfect equilibrium" nonsense..it can't happen..the elliptical nature of our orbit mandates a substantial full system imbalance year round, +/- 23W/m^2 between boreal summer and boreal winter.

Read my quote again:

We use "approximations" because not only is actual equilibrium unachievable, but the effect of deep ocean lag on surface-TOA emissions is so small that it'd be impossible to measure in the day-to-day noise. So for all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA boundary equilibrates before the deep oceans, even the sub 100m layer.

Do you understand now? Obviously if the deep oceans are warming, the surface-TOA layer will not be in *perfect* equilibrium, but that's physically impossible to begin with. For all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA layer equilibrates before the deep oceans do.

[Msalgado]

If a system is in equilibrium with the TOA (IOW the amount of energy out to space is the same as in) then how is there any energy left over to warm the oceans?  That's fundamentally impossible!  For the deep oceans to warm requires that the TOA and surface NOT be in equilibrium.

[skierinvermont]

I'd suggest reading more carefully. You're living in a fantasy world with this "perfect equilibrium" nonsense..it can't happen..the elliptical nature of our orbit mandates a substantial full system imbalance year round, +/- 23W/m^2 between boreal summer and boreal winter.

Read my quote again:

Do you understand now? Obviously if the deep oceans are warming, the surface-TOA layer will not be in *perfect* equilibrium, but that's physically impossible to begin with. For all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA layer equilibrates before the deep oceans do.

 

Your first statement is irrelevant. I am aware of large seasonal variations but this is irrelevant to the conversation. Obviously what is being discussed is annual imbalances. 

 

In a theoretical near equilibrium planet, the TOA imbalance would be exactly proportional to the deep ocean imbalance, assuming the heat content of the rest of the system is staying the same. So it does not make sense to say the TOA equilibriates before the deep oceans do. They equilibriate at the exact same time. 

 

The main point is that you cannot use CERES data to contradict OHC data in measuring the earth's energy imbalance. Of the two, OHC data should be considered far more reliable.

 

OHC data shows that the earth system - at the TOA - has been in a large imbalance for the last 15 years. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

If a system is in equilibrium with the TOA (IOW the amount of energy out to space is the same as in) then how is there any energy left over to warm the oceans? That's fundamentally impossible! For the deep oceans to warm requires that the TOA and surface NOT be in equilibrium.

Wow. I'm amazed how simple concepts can be so hard to grasp for some on here.

The rate of transfer between the upper oceans and deeper oceans is exponentially slower than the rate of transfer within the upper mixing layer itself. The effect of deep ocean lag on TOA emissions is so small it cannot be measured. For all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA boundary layer equilibrates before the deep oceans, which are in secondary exchange with the upper oceans. Obsessing over unmeasurable semantics makes no sense, in the grand scheme.

I already stated this too, if you'd have bothered to read:

Obviously if the deep oceans are warming, the surface-TOA layer will not be in *perfect* equilibrium, but that's physically impossible to begin with. For all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA layer equilibrates before the deep oceans do.

Is this clearer?

[skierinvermont]

Wow. I'm amazed how simple concepts can be so hard to grasp for some on here.

The rate of transfer between the upper oceans and deeper oceans is exponentially slower than the rate of transfer within the upper mixing layer itself. The effect of deep ocean lag on TOA emissions is so small it cannot be measured. For all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA boundary layer equilibrates before the deep oceans, which are in secondary exchange with the upper oceans. Obsessing over unmeasurable semantics makes no sense, in the grand scheme.

I already stated this too, if you'd have bothered to read:

Is this clearer?

 

If the TOA imbalance is an unmeasurable semantic, the imbalance of the deep ocean is also semantics, since they are the exact same size in the hypothetical.

 

The point is you've tried to say that this is what has been happening the last 15 years - that the deep ocean imbalance of the last 15 years doesn't really mean that the earth is in imbalance. This is incorrect.

 

The deep ocean imbalance of the last 15 years is actually quite large - not small semantics as in our hypothetical scenario - and indicates a large and persistent TOA imbalance. 

 

What has occurred is short term variability which has temporarily been shifting heat to the deep oceans independent of the AGW that is occurring. So instead of witnessing AGW heat accumulate in the upper ocean, we are seeing that heat transferred deep by natural short term processes.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Your first statement is irrelevant. I am aware of large seasonal variations but this is irrelevant to the conversation. Obviously what is being discussed is annual imbalances.

In a theoretical near equilibrium planet, the TOA imbalance would be exactly proportional to the deep ocean imbalance, assuming the heat content of the rest of the system is staying the same. So it does not make sense to say the TOA equilibriates before the deep oceans do. They equilibriate at the exact same time.

The main point is that you cannot use CERES data to contradict OHC data in measuring the earth's energy imbalance. Of the two, OHC data should be considered far more reliable.

Again with the fairytale world. I don't know how much easier I can make this.

Ever read this one? The vast majority of equilibration/thermal response in the surface-TOA boundary is achieved well before the deep oceans equilibrate..between 90-97%, by modeling studies. The remaining response is so small that it can be considered noise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC085iC11p06667/abstract;jsessionid=72175AB4D88A1F17336B64C40AF125CF.f04t03

The influence of the world oceans on climatic response is considered here with emphasis on the heat transferred to waters beneath the well-mixed surface layer and to polar bottom water forming zones. An upwelling-diffusing model is formulated to treat this problem whose effective transport properties are calibrated from the steady state vertical profiles of radiocarbon, potential temperature and other tracers measured by chemical oceanographers. The key issue with regard to the question of atmospheric temperature response to external climatic forcing is whether heat is exchanged between the surface mixed layer and deep sea at rates comparable to heat transfer rates between the planetary radiation field and the atmosphere-mixed layer system. An important model parameter appearing in the analysis is the polar sea warming coefficient ∏ equal to the rate of change of polar sea temperature relative to changes in areally averaged mixed layer temperature. For ∏ values in the range of 0 to 2 the models predicts response times in the range of 8 to 20 years to attain 63% of the equilibrium temperature change for a step function climatic forcing, and 50 to 1000 years to get 90% of the equilibrium response. These may be compared with the roughly 4 year response time one gets with an oceanic mixed layer only model. To study the carbon dioxide climate problem, a more realistic time-dependent forcing function is used based on the historical growth of fossil fuel CO2 and a logarithmic scaling law for the temperature increment which would obtain at any instant if the system were in radiative-convective equilibrium. Our results suggest the influence of deep sea thermal storage could delay the full value of temperature increment predicted by equilibrium models by 10 to 20 years in 1980 to 2000 A.D. time frame. Also considered is the model response to periodic forcing, the sensitivity of the results, and the implications of the model results with regard to climatic changes on a decadal to millenial timescale.

[Msalgado]

Wow. I'm amazed how simple concepts can be so hard to grasp for some on here.

The rate of transfer between the upper oceans and deeper oceans is exponentially slower than the rate of transfer within the upper mixing layer itself. The effect of deep ocean lag on TOA emissions is so small it cannot be measured. For all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA boundary layer equilibrates before the deep oceans, which are in secondary exchange with the upper oceans. Obsessing over unmeasurable semantics makes no sense, in the grand scheme.

I already stated this too, if you'd have bothered to read:

Is this clearer?

 

It amazes me how smug you are when you're quite obviously wrong.  Even if you were right, your condescension toward others here is so often on overdrive.  And why?  Because you're a grad student?  Whoopty ****ing do!  You're not the only one.  In any event, brush up on your 1st law before you say **** like your first line there because the irony is dripping right off this post. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

If the TOA imbalance is an unmeasurable semantic, the imbalance of the deep ocean is also semantics, since they are the exact same size in the hypothetical.

Wrong, it's easily derivable.

The point is you've tried to say that this is what has been happening the last 15 years - that the deep ocean imbalance of the last 15 years doesn't really mean that the earth is in imbalance. This is incorrect.

Huh? I never said anything like that.

The Earth is always in radiative imbalance..this figure is highly variable from month to month, year to year, decade to decade, etc. The hiatus was caused by a temporary equilibration in the TOA imbalance due to a slew of factors..CERES clearly picked this up.

The deep ocean imbalance of the last 15 years is actually quite large - not small semantics as in our hypothetical scenario - and indicates a large and persistent TOA imbalance.

No, it doesn't. Honestly, you're full of it. Take a basic physics class and you'll grasp this better. The deep oceans are in secondary exchange..they're not even in thermal equilibrium with the upper oceans..they're much colder.

I don't know how to explain this to you any more clearly.