|
Post by trbixler on Feb 10, 2014 15:45:51 GMT
Some discussion of the settled science of CO2. "The reason for ‘the pause’ in global warming, excuse #37 in a series: ‘trade winds’" link
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 10, 2014 15:54:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 10, 2014 21:21:44 GMT
Matthew England is an arch-alarmist ..... works with Chris Turney at UNSW. I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 10, 2014 21:36:52 GMT
I was wondering if I could duplicate this with a hair dryer and a tub of water? It doesn't seem reasonable. Andrew and Icefisher if you read this what are your thoughts? What happens to the air you would be warming to warm the water below? The answer is in the question.
|
|
ant42
Level 3 Rank
Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 129
|
Post by ant42 on Feb 11, 2014 8:19:18 GMT
Umm, maybe its just me, but the default position for the pacific is Easterly trade winds.
So he is conceding that ENSO over rules CO2?
And we only warm during El ninos.
Thanks for that ground breaking news.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 11, 2014 9:04:23 GMT
I was wondering if I could duplicate this with a hair dryer and a tub of water? It doesn't seem reasonable. Andrew and Icefisher if you read this what are your thoughts? The polar regions tend to supply dense cold water to the oceans and the sun only heats the surface layers. If you heat a cold bath in a cold room with a radiant heater from above, the top surface will be warmest. If you then only slightly mix the top surface, the surface will get colder.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 11, 2014 15:18:42 GMT
Thanks Andrew, the idea that trade winds are drawing up deep cold water and also pushing warm water deep down I find unbelievable. I find it hard to believe warm water can be forced down deep. It is that new physics Code. Only a select few have the ability to really understand it. Just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 12, 2014 5:51:29 GMT
Thanks Andrew, the idea that trade winds are drawing up deep cold water and also pushing warm water deep down I find unbelievable. I find it hard to believe warm water can be forced down deep. It is that new physics Code. Only a select few have the ability to really understand it. Just sayin. Funny coming from a person who is unable to explain freakophysical temp rises, or who thinks geometry causes a 50% reduction in the ghe.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 12, 2014 6:29:21 GMT
"In a study that is likely to irritate climate change skeptics, the researchers concluded that unusually strong trade winds pushed hotter waters deep below the surface and raised colder waters but global warming –typically based on ocean temperatures - will soon continue." Nice try, but Bob Tisdale will tell you that trade winds heap warmer water in the western Pacific. Colder water replaces it, perhaps by the Humboldt Current. Then the trade winds reverse. For starters (but explore the site, especially ENSO): Tisdale, Bob. “Edition 2 of Book ‘Who Turned on the Heat? – The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation.’” Scientific. Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations, November 14, 2012. bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/edition-2-of-book-who-turned-on-the-heat-the-unsuspected-global-warming-culprit-el-nino-southern-oscillation/
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 13, 2014 16:17:07 GMT
"In a study that is likely to irritate climate change skeptics, the researchers concluded that unusually strong trade winds pushed hotter waters deep below the surface and raised colder waters but global warming –typically based on ocean temperatures - will soon continue." www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10628030/Global-warming-pause-due-to-Pacific-winds-study-finds.htmlI don't know if this is rational or garbage? To imply that winds are moving warm ocean water down into the ocean and raising cold water is ah...I don't know. Is this rational? Is it physically possible? Can this be duplicated in a laboratory? Does thermal dynamics work this way even allow for this to occur? I am gobsmacked. Its an idea. This guy has "curve fitted" his theory to the ocean oscillations. Plenty of theory on how all this might work (I have my own) but as he states in the study this is an effect that occurs every few decades. He felt compelled to recognize that so he could tell us when it would go away and warming would resume. Judith Curry had a discussion about this recently. What this study is not saying is that while the winds might be responsible for cold water upwellings creating the pause, the previous lack of winds were responsible for a lack of upwelling and that created unusual warming. So you have to average it all out and when you do that you don't meet Dr England's objective of keeping faith in the models. So be gobsmacked by a lack scientific integrity! Once you recognize a multi-decadal pattern of natural variation its no longer acceptable to draw conclusions from a shorter term period. 30 years is not acceptable. You need to start looking at 70 and 80 year trends. Its more than possible that there are longer term variations. The ice core data strongly suggests a mult-centennial oscillation of 2 to 3 degreesC. The CAGW climate control freaks waved their arm and determined this variation observed in the ice core data as simply data noise because it was not accompanied with evidence of CO2 variation. And since ice cores are the only source of scientific conclusions that CO2 has not varied in the past on a multi-centennial basis well they cherry picked their way through the data and the conclusions to reach the point they wanted to reach. At any rate the result is the 3 degrees for the century estimated 14 years ago by the IPCC was reduced to 1.5 degrees by actual observation over 30 years, and to about .75 degrees now by recognizing the ocean oscillations and 70 to 80 year trends. Of course this does not jibe with the models at all. CO2 has not even tracked the warm correctly, but never mind that all they think they have to do is find the errors in the observation data, cherry pick their way through it all and in the end they will be right. Of course we still have to factor in solar grand maximum, data manipulation to fit the observation record to expectations, and UHI. The pie is going to get smaller. All this study is is fodder to keep the funding going for the modeling. Dr England isn't a dummy. He just thinks its important to keep piling computer resources into his lab and thats not going to happen unless folks remain as dedicated to restricting energy use as they were a few years ago. He is already feeling the pinch. So yeah this should irritate skeptics simply because its crappy science from the standpoint that the author was wearing blinders and failed to recognize the obvious broader implications
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 14, 2014 21:28:11 GMT
AR5 TS: • Different global estimates of sub-surface ocean temperatures have variations at different times and for different periods, suggesting that sub-decadal variability in the temperature and upper heat content (0 to to 700 m) is still poorly characterized in the historical record. {3.2} • Below ocean depths of 700 m the sampling in space and time is too sparse to produce annual global ocean temperature and heat content estimates prior to 2005. {3.2.4} • Observational coverage of the ocean deeper than 2000 m is still limited and hampers more robust estimates of changes in global ocean heat content and carbon content. This also limits the quantification of the contribution of deep ocean warming to sea level rise. {3.2, 3.7, 3.8; Box 3.1} • Based on model results there is limited confidence in the predictability of yearly to decadal averages of temperature both for the global average and for some geographical regions. Multi-model results for precipitation indicate a generally low predictability. Short-term climate projection is also limited by the uncertainty in projections of natural forcing. {11.1, 11.2, 11.3.1, 11.3.6; Box 11.1} The above is from the tech section of AR5. And some folks have the audacity to call folks who look at made up papers using made up numbers and call them junk,.......... deniers? ?......
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jun 1, 2014 6:39:57 GMT
The Schtick reports: New paper finds Atlantic Ocean warming since 1975 was natural, not due to greenhouse gases. A paper published today in Climate Dynamics finds that warming of the surface of tropical Atlantic Ocean since 1975 was not due to an increase of greenhouse gases, and was instead due to natural ocean and atmospheric oscillations. According to the authors, "After a decrease of SST by about 1 °C during 1964–1975, most apparent in the northern tropical region, the entire tropical basin warmed up. That warming was the most substantial (>1 °C) in the eastern tropical ocean and in the longitudinal band of the intertropical convergence zone." "Examining data sets of surface heat flux during the last few decades for the same region, we find that the SST [sea surface temperature] warming was not a consequence of atmospheric heat flux forcing. In other words, sea surface temperatures did not rise as a consequence of increased "radiative forcing" from greenhouse gases. "Conversely, we suggest that long-term SST warming drives changes in atmosphere parameters at the sea surface, most notably an increase in latent heat flux, and that an acceleration of the hydrological cycle induces a strengthening of the trade winds and an acceleration of the Hadley circulation. These trends are also accompanied by rising sea levels and upper ocean heat content over similar multi-decadal time scales in the tropical Atlantic." "...it is likely that changes in ocean circulation involving some combination of the [natural] Atlantic meridional overtuning circulation [AMOC] and the subtropical cells are required to explain the observations." Indeed, increases in greenhouse gases cannot significantly heat the oceans. Paper link: link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2168-7Schtick link: hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-finds-atlantic-ocean-warming.html---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if the AMO is a natural cycle without anthropogenic influence: And the RSS upper air temperature trend appears to correlate with the AMO trend: It begs the question, where's the RSS going to be in a couple of decades time...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 1, 2014 18:45:21 GMT
Bob Tisdale and Joe Bastardi will like that paper
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2014 1:19:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jul 14, 2014 6:35:51 GMT
weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gifWhile apologising for my technical inability to post pictures. I thought there were three interesting features [at least] on above gif. a) There seems to be a strong stream of anomalously cold water streaming out from the Peru coast. Wind direction would appear to indicate that any remaining El Nino warmth will soon dissipate. earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-84.18,-5.84,588 b) There seems to be a continuing persistant cold patch in the middle of the Atlantic. This suggests a weak N Atlantic Drift. A tremendous amount of tropical heat is no longer reaching Europe and the Arctic. The Europeans might be well advised to invest in more insulation. c) There is a cold patch streaming out across the Pacific from southern Japan. Does anyone know how this gets formed, and is this normal? It seems to be a pretty large feature.
|
|