Post by bobtisdale on Feb 17, 2009 14:14:26 GMT
Magellan: Thanks for the "water absorption spectrum" link. You wrote, "If you have a source for the physical process by which can explain how a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 could account for anything measurable in ocean warming I'd appreciate it. There is a lot of arm waiving, but I'd like to see some experimental evidence."
I don't believe an increase in CO2 accounts for anything substantial or measurable, which was the point of that post at my website. Greenhouse gases (all of them) should warm the skin and the mixing layer, and increasing subsurface temperatures as well by locking in more heat. I have no problem with that thought. My disbelief about an increase in CO2 providing any measurable contribution results when I look at graphs of time-series data of global SST. The following are three global SST anomaly curves over the terms of the data sets, monthly data, smoothed with 37-month filters.
Here's the HADSST version:
i35.tinypic.com/531t2u.jpg
Here's the ERSST.v3 version:
i35.tinypic.com/286wppc.jpg
And here's ERSST.v2 version:
i35.tinypic.com/atsz03.jpg
I haven't physically added trends to the graphs because the disparity is so great. Note that the rate of rise in the early 20th century warming period far exceeds that of the last 30 years or so. But the anthropogenic greenhouse gases impact on SST, according to some, should be much more dominant in the last 30 years. I don’t see it. The El Nino around 1940 was significant but not as large as the 1997/98 El Nino, so that shouldn't be throwing off the trend of the early warming period.
Additionally, the portion of my post that you quoted did not qualify what the source was for an increase (not THE increase) in downward longwave radiation. You're the one who brought up CO2. Look like I need to clarify that in the post.
In the post you quoted from, I illustrated evidence in the instrument temperature record that contradicts the common misconception, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation about El Nino events. It is claimed by many that El Ninos do not cause global warming. Here’s a post at Accuweather.com titled “El Nino does Not Cause Global Warming”, with a video interview with Michael McPhaden of NOAA. The post’s title is a quote from McPhaden. Yet, clearly, I’ve illustrated that El Nino events do cause upward step changes in SST, which sure look like they would contribute significantly to global warming. The East Indian and West Pacific Oceans and the North Atlantic combined represent approximately 40% of the global oceans between 60S and 65N, and they appeared to have increased in significant steps after the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events.
My most recent post about surface currents is part of a series intended to dispel another misconception about El Nino events, which is that there is no significant change in Pacific flow at the equator during an El Nino. But there clearly was during the 1997/98 El Nino.
Regards
I don't believe an increase in CO2 accounts for anything substantial or measurable, which was the point of that post at my website. Greenhouse gases (all of them) should warm the skin and the mixing layer, and increasing subsurface temperatures as well by locking in more heat. I have no problem with that thought. My disbelief about an increase in CO2 providing any measurable contribution results when I look at graphs of time-series data of global SST. The following are three global SST anomaly curves over the terms of the data sets, monthly data, smoothed with 37-month filters.
Here's the HADSST version:
i35.tinypic.com/531t2u.jpg
Here's the ERSST.v3 version:
i35.tinypic.com/286wppc.jpg
And here's ERSST.v2 version:
i35.tinypic.com/atsz03.jpg
I haven't physically added trends to the graphs because the disparity is so great. Note that the rate of rise in the early 20th century warming period far exceeds that of the last 30 years or so. But the anthropogenic greenhouse gases impact on SST, according to some, should be much more dominant in the last 30 years. I don’t see it. The El Nino around 1940 was significant but not as large as the 1997/98 El Nino, so that shouldn't be throwing off the trend of the early warming period.
Additionally, the portion of my post that you quoted did not qualify what the source was for an increase (not THE increase) in downward longwave radiation. You're the one who brought up CO2. Look like I need to clarify that in the post.
In the post you quoted from, I illustrated evidence in the instrument temperature record that contradicts the common misconception, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation about El Nino events. It is claimed by many that El Ninos do not cause global warming. Here’s a post at Accuweather.com titled “El Nino does Not Cause Global Warming”, with a video interview with Michael McPhaden of NOAA. The post’s title is a quote from McPhaden. Yet, clearly, I’ve illustrated that El Nino events do cause upward step changes in SST, which sure look like they would contribute significantly to global warming. The East Indian and West Pacific Oceans and the North Atlantic combined represent approximately 40% of the global oceans between 60S and 65N, and they appeared to have increased in significant steps after the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events.
My most recent post about surface currents is part of a series intended to dispel another misconception about El Nino events, which is that there is no significant change in Pacific flow at the equator during an El Nino. But there clearly was during the 1997/98 El Nino.
Regards