salbers Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Actually it appears sea level has been rising during this period: http://www.agu.org/j...8GL036010.shtml And Argo OHC / sea level is still going up? http://www.argo.ucsd...lysis.html#temp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 ??? I said 0.038% is a small portion of the atmosphere. Either way,you completely skip over everything...its annoying. I like the way you have a tendency to run away from some of your arguments when being challenged. I think the motivation for your citing this figure is pretty clear. Maybe if you can present an argument that has fewer of these clearly questionable implications, I can then figure out and focus on what your main point is. You also ignore my question about radiative forcing routinely having an effect on the temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Actually it appears sea level has been rising during this period: http://www.agu.org/j...8GL036010.shtml Not according to ARGO, and it is the newest dataset. Both have showed leveing off in OHC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I like the way you have a tendency to run away from some of your arguments when being challenged. I think the motivation for your citing this figure is pretty clear. Maybe if you can present an argument that has fewer of these clearly questionable implications, I can then figure out and focus on what your main point is. What are you talking about? Do I need to go more slowly? Do I have to re-post all the sources I've posted over the past month? All science is questionable...my posts are not some "new world order" in new ideas, they are well known principles that have been lacking from the debate. You are the one who is straying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 http://www.argo.ucsd...lysis.html#temp ARGO was set up in 2004. It will be fun to watch ARGO over the next several decades, No rise in sea levels since it began, we'll see if they begin to drop. FYI: I would disregard the "decrease" on the above graph, because it uses an incomplete data near the end. So its basically a flatline, not a decrease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It probably takes a little time to reach the new equilibrium, also it's usually cited as 1-2 years. One thing I am still a little unclear on is how the surface cools even though the earth is still accumulating heat at .9W/m2. My guess is that when the earth's energy imbalance (which is due to the oceans warming slowly and causing a lag to the CO2 radiative forcing) decreases from .9W/m2 to .8W/m2 during a solar minimum, the cold oceans exert more cooling on the land. Perhaps Rusty could elaborate more on this. When the radiative imbalance is positive such as is currently the case, we have more downward directed energy over the full electromagnetic spectrum warming the surface than what the Earth is loosing to space. This energy is emitted from both the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere. The oceans radiate to the atmosphere only from a thin skin a few molecules deep, the very top of the water column. During the day this thin skin is warmed and radiates more strongly to the atmosphere than at night when the skin cools which sets up turbulence at the surface, warmer water just below the surface replacing the radiatively cool thin skin. If this were the end of the story, the surface waters would very quickly reach thermal equilibrium with the downward radiation. As it is in the real world, surface winds move water setting up circulation patterns in the water. For instance, the easterly trade winds of the Pacific blow stronger at times than at others. The stronger winds push warmed surface water to the west, and cooler subsurface water off the west coast of South America is forced to rise to the surface in replacing the water being driven westward by the wind. The cooler water now gets caught up in the westward current and La Nina is born. The ocean's surface water becomes cooler as more and more area is covered in this water. Since the atmosphere is warmed primarily by the surface it resides over, the atmosphere is cooled a bit. This process was initiated by a mechanical change differing in nature from the radiative warming and cooling mentioned earlier. The result is that the surface being cooler radiates away at somewhat lower energy. The total system will know be emitting even less energy than previously. The system gains more energy and is warmed more overall when the surface is cooler. Ocean mixing over time tends to equalize thermal differences to the equal of the downward radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 When the radiative imbalance is positive such as is currently the case, we have more downward directed energy over the full electromagnetic spectrum warming the surface than what the Earth is loosing to space. This energy is emitted from both the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere. The oceans radiate to the atmosphere only from a thin skin a few molecules deep, the very top of the water column. During the day this thin skin is warmed and radiates more strongly to the atmosphere than at night when the skin cools which sets up turbulence at the surface, warmer water just below the surface replacing the radiatively cool thin skin. If this were the end of the story, the surface waters would very quickly reach thermal equilibrium with the downward radiation. As it is in the real world, surface winds move water setting up circulation patterns in the water. For instance, the easterly trade winds of the Pacific blow stronger at times than at others. The stronger winds push warmed surface water to the west, and cooler subsurface water off the west coast of South America is forced to rise to the surface in replacing the water being driven westward by the wind. The cooler water now gets caught up in the westward current and La Nina is born. The ocean's surface water becomes cooler as more and more area is covered in this water. Since the atmosphere is warmed primarily by the surface it resides over, the atmosphere is cooled a bit. This process was initiated by a mechanical change differing in nature from the radiative warming and cooling mentioned earlier. The result is that the surface being cooler radiates away at somewhat lower energy. The total system will know be emitting even less energy than previously. The system gains more energy and is warmed more overall when the surface is cooler. Ocean mixing over time tends to equalize thermal differences to the equal of the downward radiation. So, for my future reference, when do you expect the atmosphere to resume warming once again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 So, for my future reference, when do you expect the atmosphere to resume warming once again? In climate terms I don't believe the atmosphere has ceased warming. It is capable of reaching near the warmest temperature in the instrumental record as evidenced by the warmth of 2010. Ten of the warmest years recorded have occurred during the past twelve years. That tells me something it may not tell you, but you asked me! I expect the 2010's to become the warmest in the record just as every one of the previous four decades have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 In climate terms I don't believe the atmosphere has ceased warming. It is capable of reaching near the warmest temperature in the instrumental record as evidenced by the warmth of 2010. Ten of the warmest years recorded have occurred during the past twelve years. That tells me something it may not tell you, but you asked me! I expect the 2010's to become the warmest in the record just as every one of the previous four decades have done. Yes, this past decade was very hot, as it should have been! There has been no significant trend in the past decade, as there shouldn't be. That Should change by the mid 2010's. SO......If this upcoming Decade (2010's) does not become the "warmest ever", and fall back to where the 90's were (via satellite data), what will your thoughts be on AGW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Argo data Old outdated study that has since been retracted. ALL new peer-reviewed OHC studies say it has continued to rise rapidly since 03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Old outdated study that has since been retracted. ALL new peer-reviewed OHC studies say it has continued to rise rapidly since 03. ARGO has been retracted? Hey...if you know what you're talking about, link the "study". FYI...this is Sea Measurement system, Just as GISS/UAH are to temperature. ARGO has not been adjusted since its creation in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 In climate terms I don't believe the atmosphere has ceased warming. It is capable of reaching near the warmest temperature in the instrumental record as evidenced by the warmth of 2010. Ten of the warmest years recorded have occurred during the past twelve years. That tells me something it may not tell you, but you asked me! I expect the 2010's to become the warmest in the record just as every one of the previous four decades have done. If the temperature remained the same for the next 100 years, all those years would be among the "warmest ever" but it would still be a rejection of AGW theory. Just saying 2010 was second warmest with a Strong El Niño and record +AMO, both natural factors, isn't much in the way of evidence. It didn't get quite as warm as 1998 according to Hadley/RSS/UAH which is pretty impressive considering we should have warmed about .25C from the anthropogenic emissions and you have a much warmer Atlantic regime now than in 1998 due to the natural +AMO/-NAO pattern. Old outdated study that has since been retracted. ALL new peer-reviewed OHC studies say it has continued to rise rapidly since 03. Actually the same charts you've posted show a leveling off around 2006/2007 which doesn't make a lot of sense if you believe in accelerating anthropogenic warming, especially considering we were in La Niña from 2007-2009 when the oceans should have been accumulating more heat. The plateau matches up well with the other stabilizations of global temperature seen in UAH/RSS/Hadley etc...so no surprise there but pretty clear the warming has slowed since 2002 and probably even more so in the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Hey...if you know what you're talking about, link the study...(the data I posted goes through 2010) ARGO has not been adjusted since its creation in 2004. Cazenave 2010, Leuliette 2009, von Schuckmann 2009 I can give more if you like. All use ARGO data.. all say that been warming rapidly since 03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 If the temperature remained the same for the next 100 years, all those years would be among the "warmest ever" but it would still be a rejection of AGW theory. Just saying 2010 was second warmest with a Strong El Niño and record +AMO, both natural factors, isn't much in the way of evidence. It didn't get quite as warm as 1998 according to Hadley/RSS/UAH which is pretty impressive considering we should have warmed about .25C from the anthropogenic emissions and you have a much warmer Atlantic regime now than in 1998 due to the natural +AMO/-NAO pattern. Actually the same charts you've posted show a leveling off around 2006/2007 which doesn't make a lot of sense if you believe in accelerating anthropogenic warming, especially considering we were in La Niña from 2007-2009 when the oceans should have been accumulating more heat. The plateau matches up well with the other stabilizations of global temperature seen in UAH/RSS/Hadley etc...so no surprise there but pretty clear the warming has slowed since 2002 and probably even more so in the last few years. It doesn't show leveling off. You have a fascination with zooming in on each and every tiny blip in data that is not that precise. The trend of heat gain by the ocean since 2003 is .8W/m2... which coincides nicely with the theoretical rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Cazenave 2010, Leuliette 2009, I can give more if you like. All use ARGO data.. all say that been warming rapidly since 03. This is a Sea Level Graph you friggin genius You never bother to read, this is why you look like a complete fool. These are the actual measurements taken by ARGO, just like GISS measures temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Hey...if you know what you're talking about, link the study...(the data I posted goes through 2010) ARGO has not been adjusted since its creation in 2004. They most certainly have been adjusted. Early on some of the floats had recorded depth of observation issues which biased the temperature readings. The problem has been rectified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 They most certainly have been adjusted. Early on some of the floats had recorded depth of observation issues which biased the temperature readings. The problem has been rectified. DUDE, this is sea level data, not temperature data Epic Fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It doesn't show leveling off. You have a fascination with zooming in on each and every tiny blip in data that is not that precise. The trend of heat gain by the ocean since 2003 is .8W/m2... which coincides nicely with the theoretical rate. Yes, but it's slowed since 2007 a lot, when it should have been rising even faster due to La Niña. You still haven't answered how OHC can remain steady for two years in the midst of a major La Niña with rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Until you answer this question, I won't be convinced that you actually understand what you're talking about. So far, you're making just about as much sense as the claims that the Arctic superstorm is going to destroy us all, and at least that had some comic value whereas you have little. It makes no sense for you to base your argument on the 2003-07 time period, but then write off my arguments about 2007-2009 because the measurements aren't precise enough. Anyway, why is it such a surprise that OHC has leveled off in the last few years? Basically all our measurements, even the warmer ones like GISS, show that there's been a significant plateau in global temperatures. When 2011 is factored into the equation, the decline in warming is going to look even more impressive, much more if the current trends on AMSU hold for a while. This is logical considering we've just begun a major solar minimum, whose effects will mostly be felt in 20-30 years but whose influence is already showing up in the precise scientific data we use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I expect the 2010's to become the warmest in the record just as every one of the previous four decades have done. Last Four Decades? You apparently read trends different than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Yes, but it's slowed since 2007 a lot, when it should have been rising even faster due to La Niña. You still haven't answered how OHC can remain steady for two years in the midst of a major La Niña with rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Until you answer this question, I won't be convinced that you actually understand what you're talking about. So far, you're making just about as much sense as the claims that the Arctic superstorm is going to destroy us all, and at least that had some comic value whereas you have little. It makes no sense for you to base your argument on the 2003-07 time period, but then write off my arguments about 2007-2009 because the measurements aren't precise enough. Anyway, why is it such a surprise that OHC has leveled off in the last few years? Basically all our measurements, even the warmer ones like GISS, show that there's been a significant plateau in global temperatures. When 2011 is factored into the equation, the decline in warming is going to look even more impressive, much more if the current trends on AMSU hold for a while. This is logical considering we've just begun a major solar minimum, whose effects will mostly be felt in 20-30 years but whose influence is already showing up in the precise scientific data we use. Why are you responding to someone who doesn't even know the difference between ocean heat content and sea level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Last Four Decades? You apparently read trends different than I do. uhhhhh, waaaat? That only goes to 1980. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 They most certainly have been adjusted. Early on some of the floats had recorded depth of observation issues which biased the temperature readings. The problem has been rectified. Yes, that was 2002 and 2003, which is why it is left out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 If the temperature remained the same for the next 100 years, all those years would be among the "warmest ever" but it would still be a rejection of AGW theory. Just saying 2010 was second warmest with a Strong El Niño and record +AMO, both natural factors, isn't much in the way of evidence. It didn't get quite as warm as 1998 according to Hadley/RSS/UAH which is pretty impressive considering we should have warmed about .25C from the anthropogenic emissions and you have a much warmer Atlantic regime now than in 1998 due to the natural +AMO/-NAO pattern. If after 100 years it hasn't warmed? The decade of the 2000's was the warmest. It hasn't COOLED, and the last full year we have is amongst the very warmest. The warmest year is always going to occur during an El Nino and the warmer years will occur during warm ocean cycles....of course...how could it be any different? 2010 occurred during a deep solar minimum, very impressive. What happens in thirty years when solar, PDO, ENSO all phase warm? I'll tell you, the El Nino will be hot as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I definitely see a slowing of the increase here, maybe I am blind but it looks pretty evident: Here is a good website from NOAA showing a compilation of studies regarding 0-700m OHC...all of them show long-term warming, quite dramatic, but also a slowing of the trend in the last few years...one of the studies even has a slight decline in OHC recently: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/ohc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 If after 100 years it hasn't warmed? The decade of the 2000's was the warmest. It hasn't COOLED, and the last full year we have is amongst the very warmest. The warmest year is always going to occur during an El Nino and the warmer years will occur during warm ocean cycles....of course...how could it be any different? 2010 occurred during a deep solar minimum, very impressive. What happens in thirty years when solar, PDO, ENSO all phase warm? I'll tell you, the El Nino will be hot as hell. wtf? Intracycle cooling is barely noticable. We also had a record +AMO that we didn't have in 1998. Not to mention 2010 was a west based Nino, which is evidence of a stronger atmospheric signal, with more WP. We ere loaded warmer this time, and still didn'tmake it. We will probably never reach the 1998 spike. There has been no real trend for over a decade, sea levels have been dropping according to ARGO (objective) analysis. I ask you this...if this upcoming decade were to come in a good .2C colder than the last...what would your thoughts on AGW be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 DUDE, this is sea level data, not temperature data Epic Fail Argo floats measure sea level? This is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Argo floats measure sea level? This is ridiculous. haha omg read about it, my friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Why are you responding to someone who doesn't even know the difference between ocean heat content and sea level? I think he might be talking about steric sea level rise (the change in sea level due to expansion of the ocean's water as it warms)...that's sometimes used as a proxy for OHC. If after 100 years it hasn't warmed? The decade of the 2000's was the warmest. It hasn't COOLED, and the last full year we have is amongst the very warmest. The warmest year is always going to occur during an El Nino and the warmer years will occur during warm ocean cycles....of course...how could it be any different? 2010 occurred during a deep solar minimum, very impressive. What happens in thirty years when solar, PDO, ENSO all phase warm? I'll tell you, the El Nino will be hot as hell. I'm just saying that claiming a decade is the warmest ever doesn't mean the IPCC projected warming trend of .2C per decade, increasing to .25C per decade, is verifying. You have to have steady and accelerating warming in order to verify the predictions the computer models have made. Since 1998, UAH shows a trend of approximately +.07C/decade, whereas RSS is probably around .05C/decade. This is a clear slowing of the warming since the 1980s and 1990s, especially if you believe the satellite data. Even Hadley did not show 2010 to be the warmest year on record, despite a strong El Niño, record high AMO, and 13 years of anthropogenic warming since the last strong Niño event. Rusty, I have to admit that you appear to be backing off some of your earlier claims about dramatic and inevitable climate change and coming into more of a compromise with those who say natural factors are going to play a big role in slowing the warming in the next few decades. This seems very reasonable to me, as I'm basically in the camp of those who believe CO2 causes a long-term background warming but also thinking that the PDO and solar minimum are going to halt much of the rapid warming we saw in the last couple of decades, and perhaps give us more time to adapt to a different climate or assuage the crisis through geoengineering. Given the length of past major solar minima, we probably have about 30-40 years of lower solar activity to continue cooling the Earth, at the very least. The PDO and ENSO phases will turn towards warmer in the 2030s, but the AMO will not be as high in all likelihood. I'd pinpoint the 2020-2025 time period for the potential for the lowest global temperatures, with rapid warming occurring in the 2040s and 2050s. Of course, this is total speculation and quite unscientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Last Four Decades? You apparently read trends different than I do. An ENSO graphic ending in 1980? What does that say to the surface warming trend of the past 4 decades? I must be loosing my mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 An ENSO graphic ending in 1980? What does that say to the surface warming trend of the past 4 decades? I must be loosing my mind! Call a doctor quick But yes I don't understand that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.