|
Post by hilbert on Aug 5, 2009 0:32:14 GMT
And you don't see something odd about that one year jump? Explain once again why OHC stopped increasing. How about this: the ARGO system covers a much larger area and is more accurate than the XBT system. Might you have a reference for the history of the ARGO system? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 5, 2009 8:21:15 GMT
The particular record above for exmaple shows a large rise in OHC around 2002/2003. The flatness since then negates some of that, but interestingly if the 1990-2000 trend had continued to 2009 we would have lower OHC by now despite no 6 flat years. Don't forget it might be incorrect to simply project patterns seen in the record. I've already given them. One is that the records may be incorrect over this 6 year period. Another is that such 6 year variation can occur. 1995-2001 in that record looks pretty flat to me for example. You have a theory but no evidence to suggest its right Socold. You are acting just like a project manager with a project traveling sideways. Yep its going to get back on the road and you will be saying that even after coming to a standstill in the ditch. . . .then it will be somebody else's fault.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 5, 2009 10:11:42 GMT
I note we have estimations of surface temperatures of the oceans that show a warming over the last decades? This OHC thing?
It must be so that we dont have the temperature data for various ocean depths to calculate the total heat content of the oceans to the same accuracy as the surface temperature is estimated from satellites.
Importantly in stormy conditions it is very difficult for ice to form because cool water sinks to the bottom of the ocean and warmer water rises to the surface.
After all if there was a windy period every 30 to 40 years then the bottoms of the oceans would be colder and the arctic in particular would be warmer and more solar would warm the surface during that period but also the lack of ice would mean less insulation from irradiation to space in winter until the ice reformed. All pretty complex.
So if you measure surface temperatures of the earth it seems you are going to get the wrong answers. What you need to measure is the heat content of the earth and its atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2009 17:14:49 GMT
OHC is based on measurements at depth. Have a look at documentation about ARGO buoys and XBTs.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 5, 2009 18:43:42 GMT
OHC is based on measurements at depth. Have a look at documentation about ARGO buoys and XBTs. Thanks. I see drifting ARGO bouys covers about the top half to a third of the oceans and ship based XBT potentially could do a bit here and there to cover for the rest.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 5, 2009 18:55:46 GMT
And you don't see something odd about that one year jump? No more than that 6 year flat trend. if the 1990-2000 trend had continued to 2009 we would have lower OHC by now despite no 6 flat years. I'd like to hear the reasoning for that one. Let's see, it stopped increasing, but would have stopped increasing anyway [/quote] I just gave you the reasoning. Looking at the graph to see where OHC would have been if the 1990-2000 trend had continued is something I cannot do for you.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 5, 2009 19:28:20 GMT
Found something funny on the ARGO website in the context of what the data means in the last few decades ;D www.argo.ucsd.edu/Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?
In 1999, to combat this lack of data, an innovative step was taken by scientists to greatly improve the collection of observations inside the ocean through increased sampling of old and new quantities and increased coverage in terms of time and area.
That step was Argo.
Where is Argo now? Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. Today's tally of floats is shown in the figure above. While the Argo array is currently complete at 3000 floats, to be maintained at that level, national commitments need to provide about 800 floats per year (which has occurred for the past three years).
The bolding on five and 40 is part of the web site.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 15, 2009 16:07:03 GMT
So, why the funny jump in the OHC charts in about 2002-2003?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 15, 2009 17:02:34 GMT
So, why the funny jump in the OHC charts in about 2002-2003? Its definitely anthropogenic! This was caused by a massive instantaneous hand linking of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere in 2002 to turn back heat towards the ocean, a portent of the future when the hands of these molecules get welded together by the increasing heat.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 16, 2009 13:29:20 GMT
No, seriously, did people switch at that time and have a calibration problem?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 16, 2009 16:51:41 GMT
But you cannot answer his question, can you? We don't really know how much of that downward trend was cyclical, since our records only extend back a very short period of time. I expect temperature to continue rising and therefore there will be no upturn in sea ice. This is regardless of whether arctic ice extent cycled up and down in the past. "I expect temperature to continue rising and therefore there will be no upturn in sea ice. This is regardless of whether arctic ice extent cycled up and down in the past." I like testable statements - so I thought I would bring this back to the front again. From SoCold on 21 May 2009 - Hypothesis: There will be NO upturn in sea ice Test SoCold Expected Result: NH Winter 2009-2010 sea ice extent and area will not exceed the same metrics for NH Winter 2008-2009We shall assess the result of the test of the hypothesis in October when the melt has definitely stopped.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 16, 2009 21:40:18 GMT
I was talking about the trend, not year to year variation.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 16, 2009 22:38:34 GMT
And you don't see something odd about that one year jump? No more than that 6 year flat trend. if the 1990-2000 trend had continued to 2009 we would have lower OHC by now despite no 6 flat years. I'd like to hear the reasoning for that one. Let's see, it stopped increasing, but would have stopped increasing anyway I just gave you the reasoning. Looking at the graph to see where OHC would have been if the 1990-2000 trend had continued is something I cannot do for you.[/quote] If, might have, could have......black is white and up is down. Based on 10 years of data (questionable at that), OHC was said by Hansen to be the "smoking gun" for AGW. It looks to me like it is shooting blanks. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 16, 2009 23:43:42 GMT
I was talking about the trend, not year to year variation. I see so when you said: "and therefore there will be no upturn in sea ice." What you meant was there will be no upturn in sea ice _trend_? 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Alice through the Looking Glass - Lewis CarrolSoCold I think perhaps we should call you Humpty Dumpty I expect that your next input will be that you expect at least 30 years before you will accept things as a 'trend' anything to avoid validation. The art of the unfalisifiable hypothesis is alive and well
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 17, 2009 0:03:09 GMT
Based on 10 years of data (questionable at that), OHC was said by Hansen to be the "smoking gun" for AGW. It looks to me like it is shooting blanks. What do you think? There is large variation OHC records from year to year. Not as much as in the surface temperature records, but OHC records don't show a nice smooth linear increase in the past 30 years. This is one OHC record: Lots of ups and downs, why? Could be record problems or could be actual variation in OHC from year to year. Either way when no other 6 year period of the past 30 shows a smooth and fixed year by year increase in OHC, there can be no justifiable expectation for the past 6 years to show such a thing. Understanding that earth has a positive energy inbalance leads to the conclusion that OHC will rise over many years, but it's not clear from that alone that it will increase every 6 year period. That's definitely in doubt now for example. In that record above the trend over the past 6 years is as good as flat, but what about the trend over the past 8 years? In that record it looks like there is a trend since 2001 of about 10^22J per year. Is the record wrong to show that large increase in about 2003? Maybe. Maybe one of the other records are correct. But maybe not. And so it isn't so certain that expected rise in OHC is falsified. When the period of contention of the last 6 years is the most volatile record wise - eg data over this period is preliminary, some OHC records don't even cover all this period yet, a number of recent corrections have been made to OHC records, there is still disagreement between what has been published in different records in this period, talk of the sea level/ice cap mass/OHC not adding up over this period - I am not prepared to make strong conclusions that this or that has been falsified. If flat or falling OHC stands the test of time, eg we have 2003-2009 flat established in the records in 2015 and also preliminary 2009-2015 data show no warming either then the expectation of OHC rise will have serious problems.
|
|