Where's the Heat, Cooling Oceans

[matt]

Oct 9, 2010 0:48:24 GMT gwaarin said:

Nope, not having a hard time following. I've just seen too many people downplaying the second most powerful climate drivers next to the sun.

Oceanic Oscillations along with the sun are directly responsible for climate. The Antarctic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation to name four major ones.

The PDO is currently in it's cool phase.
The AO is currently positive but declining toward negative - If it goes hard negative like last winter with a negative PDO we will have a brutal Northern Hemispherical winter.
The NAO is currently positive which is declining toward negative. This in conjuction with a cool phase PDO and a negative AO will cause a trifecta of sorts for setting up an incredibly harsh Northern Hemispherical winter.
Lastly, the AAO just switched to negative, but this oscillation will have little affect on the Northern Hemisphere.

www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html

www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html

Then why are we having record high temperatures? Add a little more chill and we still have near record high temperatures.

[socold]

Oct 9, 2010 14:04:19 GMT duwayne said:

Oct 9, 2010 1:51:17 GMT socold said:

The PDO index has declined in recent decades though, therefore should it not have had a cooling effect?

The cumulative annual PDO values for 1977-2006 is 13.1. For 1948-1976 the value is -19.1. For 1918-1947 the value is 9.4.

For 2007-2009 the cumulative PDO value is -2.1 and based on recent months the PDO will be negative again this year as the Ocean Current down leg begins.

PDO Index has a declining trend in recent decades:
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1970/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/trend

If a more positive PDO causes more warming than a less positive PDO (why wouldn't it?) then the effect of PDO since, eg 1980, is a cooling effect.

[matt]

Oct 9, 2010 2:31:25 GMT magellan said:

Perhaps he should take lessons from Dr. James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth and the rest of the gang. But at least his, as is Scafetta's, is testable unlike those pimping AGW where no matter what happens, it's never wrong.

What an insulting way to put an erroneous post.

[matt]

Oct 9, 2010 15:41:52 GMT socold said:

If a more positive PDO causes more warming than a less positive PDO (why wouldn't it?) then the effect of PDO since, eg 1980, is a cooling effect.

That is in dispute. Icefisher says that the subtraction of the global SST makes the PDO relative, meaning that as long as it's positive, further warming will occur.

[nautonnier]

Oct 9, 2010 15:32:32 GMT matt said:

Oct 9, 2010 0:48:24 GMT gwaarin said:

Nope, not having a hard time following. I've just seen too many people downplaying the second most powerful climate drivers next to the sun.

Oceanic Oscillations along with the sun are directly responsible for climate. The Antarctic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation to name four major ones.

The PDO is currently in it's cool phase.
The AO is currently positive but declining toward negative - If it goes hard negative like last winter with a negative PDO we will have a brutal Northern Hemispherical winter.
The NAO is currently positive which is declining toward negative. This in conjuction with a cool phase PDO and a negative AO will cause a trifecta of sorts for setting up an incredibly harsh Northern Hemispherical winter.
Lastly, the AAO just switched to negative, but this oscillation will have little affect on the Northern Hemisphere.

www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html

www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html

Then why are we having record high temperatures? Add a little more chill and we still have near record high temperatures.

Matt I suggest you read about enthalpy and the affect water vapor has on the enthalpy of a volume of air.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html

Temperature is NOT a measure of atmospheric heat content

It is common to have lower atmospheric heat content and higher atmospheric temperatures when the air is dry,

Look at GOES East loop (this will update but here is today )

www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/loop-wv.html

See the HUGE swathe of dry air over the continental US the Gulf of Mexico, Northern Mexico and a good proportion of the North West Atlantic?

All that air will need far less heat to be raised in temperature.

This is basic physics that AGW always dodges.

[steve]

Nautonnier, as your site says "The sensible heat due to heating evaporated water vapor can be almost neglected."

You are confusing the heat capacity of water vapour with the latent heat of evaporation required to create the water vapour.

So for example, the basic physics of AGW would point out that heat waves will be stronger (in temperature terms) if the soil is dry.

[magellan]

Oct 9, 2010 16:10:01 GMT matt said:

Oct 9, 2010 2:31:25 GMT magellan said:

Perhaps he should take lessons from Dr. James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth and the rest of the gang. But at least his, as is Scafetta's, is testable unlike those pimping AGW where no matter what happens, it's never wrong.

What an insulting way to put an erroneous post.

What an insulting way to put an erroneous post.

Of course quoting RealClimate insults and erroneous posts is baseless according to you.

The whole reason for Steve McIntyre starting ClimateAudit was due to Gavin Schmidt deleting his posts. Censorship is a RealClimate specialty.

Words mean things.

2010 is climate (Arctic ice etc.)
2011 will be called weather.

[socold]

Ah I see, so the idea is that the PDO index at any point provides the rate of warming, not the amount of warming. Ie, the average annual PDO index in different decades:
1980s 0.79825
1990s 0.3345
2000s -0.11525

This would mean a warming influence from PDO in the 1980s, a lower warming influence in the 1990s and cooling influence over the 2000s?

[matt]

Oct 9, 2010 16:28:54 GMT nautonnier said:

Matt I suggest you read about enthalpy and the affect water vapor has on the enthalpy of a volume of air.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html

Temperature is NOT a measure of atmospheric heat content

It is common to have lower atmospheric heat content and higher atmospheric temperatures when the air is dry,

Look at GOES East loop (this will update but here is today )

www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/loop-wv.html

See the HUGE swathe of dry air over the continental US the Gulf of Mexico, Northern Mexico and a good proportion of the North West Atlantic?

All that air will need far less heat to be raised in temperature.

This is basic physics that AGW always dodges.

The planet as a whole maintains a relatively constant relative humidity. You're spouting chaff.

[icefisher]

Oct 9, 2010 15:41:52 GMT socold said:

If a more positive PDO causes more warming than a less positive PDO (why wouldn't it?) then the effect of PDO since, eg 1980, is a cooling effect.

That sounds intuitive but if you inspect how the PDO is calculated your statement is unsupported because the global mean SST is subtracted from the PDO grids.

Thus the SSTs in the Pacific can be increasing but the index can be decreasing and global temperatures go down when you would expect them to go up.

Better understanding how these systems operate to effect average global temperatures when it is really more a distribution of heat in the oceans as opposed to necessarily a change in heat would go a long ways to understanding how our climate actually works and how the globe actually warms and cools.

Since distribution of heat affects total radiation these processes change the formula for equilibrium in the system. Understanding what drives them and why they tend to run for 30 years (is that a major ocean equilibrium process with the atmosphere?) would help bring climate science out of the dark ages where bleeding is the cure du jour.

[nautonnier]

Oct 9, 2010 16:41:12 GMT steve said:

Nautonnier, as your site says "The sensible heat due to heating evaporated water vapor can be almost neglected."

You are confusing the heat capacity of water vapour with the latent heat of evaporation required to create the water vapour.

So for example, the basic physics of AGW would point out that heat waves will be stronger (in temperature terms) if the soil is dry.

Here is the site steve - it is not mine - but feel free to show everyone the proof that humid air does not have a higher enthalpy than dry air.


www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html

[astroposer777]

Oct 9, 2010 15:32:32 GMT matt said:

Oct 9, 2010 0:48:24 GMT gwaarin said:

Nope, not having a hard time following. I've just seen too many people downplaying the second most powerful climate drivers next to the sun.

Oceanic Oscillations along with the sun are directly responsible for climate. The Antarctic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation to name four major ones.

The PDO is currently in it's cool phase.
The AO is currently positive but declining toward negative - If it goes hard negative like last winter with a negative PDO we will have a brutal Northern Hemispherical winter.
The NAO is currently positive which is declining toward negative. This in conjuction with a cool phase PDO and a negative AO will cause a trifecta of sorts for setting up an incredibly harsh Northern Hemispherical winter.
Lastly, the AAO just switched to negative, but this oscillation will have little affect on the Northern Hemisphere.

www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html

www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html

Then why are we having record high temperatures? Add a little more chill and we still have near record high temperatures.

The collapse of the thermosphere could explain some of the temp increase. The atmosphere lost volume but not mass and therefore would have increased in density, and would trap more radiation. If the thermosphere is the point of escape for trapped energy, what happens when it shrinks? SC24 is now ramping up and the thermosphere is expanding, while global temperatures seem to be leveling off. Is that just coincidence?

[duwayne]

Oct 9, 2010 15:41:52 GMT socold said:

Oct 9, 2010 14:04:19 GMT duwayne said:

The cumulative annual PDO values for 1977-2006 is 13.1. For 1948-1976 the value is -19.1. For 1918-1947 the value is 9.4.

For 2007-2009 the cumulative PDO value is -2.1 and based on recent months the PDO will be negative again this year as the Ocean Current down leg begins.

PDO Index has a declining trend in recent decades:
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1970/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/trend

If a more positive PDO causes more warming than a less positive PDO (why wouldn't it?) then the effect of PDO since, eg 1980, is a cooling effect.

If the PDO is positive, it's in the heating mode. If it's negative, it's in a cooling mode. The trend isn't important. Why does arctic ice continue to form after arctic temperatures start to trend up?

[duwayne]

Oct 9, 2010 16:43:36 GMT socold said:

Ah I see, so the idea is that the PDO index at any point provides the rate of warming, not the amount of warming. Ie, the average annual PDO index in different decades:
1980s 0.79825
1990s 0.3345
2000s -0.11525

This would mean a warming influence from PDO in the 1980s, a lower warming influence in the 1990s and cooling influence over the 2000s?

Yes, but note that the 2000 PDO cooling influence really started in 2007. 2000-2006 had a cumulative positive PDO. And note that this is only 1 of the Ocean Currents that influences Global Temperatures.

[daisy]

Oct 9, 2010 16:56:18 GMT matt said:

Oct 9, 2010 16:28:54 GMT nautonnier said:

Matt I suggest you read about enthalpy and the affect water vapor has on the enthalpy of a volume of air.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html

Temperature is NOT a measure of atmospheric heat content

It is common to have lower atmospheric heat content and higher atmospheric temperatures when the air is dry,

Look at GOES East loop (this will update but here is today )

www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/loop-wv.html

See the HUGE swathe of dry air over the continental US the Gulf of Mexico, Northern Mexico and a good proportion of the North West Atlantic?

All that air will need far less heat to be raised in temperature.

This is basic physics that AGW always dodges.

The planet as a whole maintains a relatively constant relative humidity. You're spouting chaff.

I think maybe you should have a read of this:

www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2007-willett/1INTRO.pdf