|
Post by duwayne on Jul 9, 2009 17:20:46 GMT
GLC, I don't read all the posts here so you may have already answered this question... What is your projection for Global Warming? I've seen nothing to suggest doubling CO2 will produce anything more than 1 to 1.5 deg warming. I was hoping to see your forecast of Global Warming. I think you would agree that CO2 is only a part of the equation. And a "no more than" statement is different from a "likely" forecast although you may intend for them to be the same. I'd like to comment on your thoughtful analysis which you posted earlier. You point out that the 1915-1944 and 1975+ warming periods were both about 0.13C per decade. And these warming periods of about 30 years each "book-ended" an intermediate flat temperature period of about 30 years. If the "Ocean factors" offset the other "warming factors" including CO2 forcing during the flat period, then they must be approximately equal. And if the "Ocean factors" oscillate in approximately equal positive and negative amplitudes, then the "Ocean factors" and the other "warming factors" must each be about 0.07C per decade. And the overall long range warming rate would be about 0.7C per decade as the "Ocean factor" up and down oscillations cancel each other out. If the "warming factors" as defined above (which include CO2 affects) warm at 0.07C per decade and the scientists are correct in their claim that CO2 growth forces at about 1.0C per decade excluding feedback, then something is offsetting part of the CO2 forcing. The logical candidate for this negative warming is "weather" in its broadest sense. Scientists believe that the earth would be much colder without greenhouse gases. But they also believe the current Global temperatures would be much higher due to greenhouse gas forcing without the cooling affect of weather. Weather is to some degree a result of the warming caused by greenhouse gases. And it reduces the sensitivity of global temperature to greenhouse gases at least in a cumulative sense. One can question whether an incremental increase in greenhouse gases causes an incremental increase in weather which results in a negative feedback to CO2 forcing, but a negative feedback is consistent with the empirical evidence.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jul 9, 2009 18:48:41 GMT
has anyone done an analysis with the XBT data and ignoring the ARGO data for example to prove that splicing the data has been done wrong? Steve? HELLOOOO? ANYONE HO-OME? According to Levitus' graph, ocean heat content rose 4 x 10^22J between 1980 when global warming really got going to 2003 when ARGO data comes onstream. Then he has it rise by the same again in 2 years, and then go flat? I don't buy it, and if you were being honest with yourself, neither would you.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 10, 2009 9:24:52 GMT
has anyone done an analysis with the XBT data and ignoring the ARGO data for example to prove that splicing the data has been done wrong? Steve? HELLOOOO? ANYONE HO-OME? According to Levitus' graph, ocean heat content rose 4 x 10^22J between 1980 when global warming really got going to 2003 when ARGO data comes onstream. Then he has it rise by the same again in 2 years, and then go flat? I don't buy it, and if you were being honest with yourself, neither would you. I can here you! No I don't "buy" the 2001-2003 part of the plot. I don't buy any 2 or 3 year period of ocean heat content data because the sampling isn't good enough. But I'm not going to put it down to "splicing errors" because so far the evidence I have seen wouldn't support it. So the questions I'm asking are: - what does the XBT analysis alone say? - what do the tide guages say? - do the analyses of individual ocean basins tell us anything? - what are the underlying reasons as to why the various analyses are converging? - what are the continuing differences between the various analyses (eg. do they differ on the As far as I can see, you are rejecting it for aesthetic reasons.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jul 10, 2009 12:49:39 GMT
This is an important issue to me, but I don't know much about it. At what point (if any) do you think that the OHC data are good?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 10, 2009 13:30:32 GMT
This is an important issue to me, but I don't know much about it. At what point (if any) do you think that the OHC data are good? Generally, when looking at graphs such as these the initial thing would be to look at the error bars. Unfortunately, the Levitus plot doesn't include them, but the Domingues plot is indicating plus or minus 1 or 2 x 10^22 Watts for the last decade or so of the data. An error of this size is quite significant for determining a trend over a couple of years, but less so when looking at the trend over 10 years. So I think Levitus (and Ishii) are probably correct in the assessment of the rise between about 1995 and 2003, but I wouldn't take too much notice of any specific 2 year section of this line. More specifically, it should be possible to align OHC with sea level rises measured by various source and glacier and ice cap mass balances. Till a couple of years ago it was not, and a lot of the inconsistencies were discussed in the last IPCC report. The alignment is now better in part because of the resolution of technical problems with the XBT and ARGO buoys. This doesn't mean that the data is perfect, but such is life.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jul 10, 2009 20:38:22 GMT
I wouldn't take too much notice of any specific 2 year section of this line. More specifically, it should be possible to align OHC with sea level rises measured by various source and glacier and ice cap mass balances. Till a couple of years ago it was not, and a lot of the inconsistencies were discussed in the last IPCC report. The alignment is now better in part because of the resolution of technical problems with the XBT and ARGO buoys. This doesn't mean that the data is perfect, but such is life. Particularly 2 year sections which double the change of the previous 23 years. Funnily enough, these only seem to occur in lead IPCC author's analyses of OHC fom 2003-2005. Strange also that the lead analyst of ARGO data, Josh Willis, says that since 2003 deployment, and after correction, the data shows a "slight cooling" to date. So, I'm calling Bulls*it on the Levitus 2009 fabrication and going with less biased scientists.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 10, 2009 22:22:39 GMT
I wouldn't take too much notice of any specific 2 year section of this line. More specifically, it should be possible to align OHC with sea level rises measured by various source and glacier and ice cap mass balances. Till a couple of years ago it was not, and a lot of the inconsistencies were discussed in the last IPCC report. The alignment is now better in part because of the resolution of technical problems with the XBT and ARGO buoys. This doesn't mean that the data is perfect, but such is life. Particularly 2 year sections which double the change of the previous 23 years. Funnily enough, these only seem to occur in lead IPCC author's analyses of OHC fom 2003-2005. Strange also that the lead analyst of ARGO data, Josh Willis, says that since 2003 deployment, and after correction, the data shows a "slight cooling" to date. So, I'm calling Bulls*it on the Levitus 2009 fabrication and going with less biased scientists. Both Levitus and Domingues show about 15x10^22 joules increase since the 1950s. Apart from the shape of the variation getting there, there's not much difference. In fact in terms of the variation Levitus and Domingues show more agreement with each other than with Ishi.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 11, 2009 0:18:01 GMT
Particularly 2 year sections which double the change of the previous 23 years. Funnily enough, these only seem to occur in lead IPCC author's analyses of OHC fom 2003-2005. Strange also that the lead analyst of ARGO data, Josh Willis, says that since 2003 deployment, and after correction, the data shows a "slight cooling" to date. So, I'm calling Bulls*it on the Levitus 2009 fabrication and going with less biased scientists. Both Levitus and Domingues show about 15x10^22 joules increase since the 1950s. Apart from the shape of the variation getting there, there's not much difference. In fact in terms of the variation Levitus and Domingues show more agreement with each other than with Ishi. What has been the case since ARGO was deployed in 2003 and fully operational in 2007? It's not difficult to see the more accurate the measurement instrumentation and wider coverage, the less it agrees with previous "measurements". Even then the ARGO data was adjusted upward at least twice. Do you think it is just coincidence the upward trend stopped dead its tracks after 2003? Or is the truth of the matter the oceans were not warming at the reported rate derived from XBT floats?
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jul 11, 2009 7:19:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2009 10:14:56 GMT
Sorry I was looking at the Ishii 2006, it seems they've changed it since to show less of a rise in the 70s. Although up to 2003 all of them show a similar level of warming. In coming years no doubt they will come to an agreement on years since then. Either Dominigues will be convinced by Ishiis methods or vice versa. Or perhaps a 3rd group backs either one of them up.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jul 11, 2009 11:55:41 GMT
Sorry I was looking at the Ishii 2006, it seems they've changed it since to show less of a rise in the 70s. Although up to 2003 all of them show a similar level of warming. In coming years no doubt they will come to an agreement on years since then. Either Dominigues will be convinced by Ishiis methods or vice versa. Or perhaps a 3rd group backs either one of them up. Uh, huh. So what about the outliar Levitus et al in red on the graph I linked? You know, the one which has as much of a rise between 2003-2005 as it has in the preceding 23 years. Do you find that credible when the chief analyst of ARGO data Josh Willis says there has been a "slight cooling" since 2003?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2009 17:16:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 12, 2009 11:29:05 GMT
Sorry I was looking at the Ishii 2006, it seems they've changed it since to show less of a rise in the 70s. Although up to 2003 all of them show a similar level of warming. In coming years no doubt they will come to an agreement on years since then. Either Dominigues will be convinced by Ishiis methods or vice versa. Or perhaps a 3rd group backs either one of them up. Uh, huh. So what about the outliar Levitus et al in red on the graph I linked? You know, the one which has as much of a rise between 2003-2005 as it has in the preceding 23 years. You keep banging on about a 2 year section of data, and you appear to be attempting to add Levitus to your list of "AGW high priests". This is what Levitus is quoted as saying before his analysis came out: Don't all the analyses show something quite close to stable OHC since 2003?
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jul 13, 2009 0:15:07 GMT
Don't all the analyses show something quite close to stable OHC since 2003? This is Pielke, Sr's point, that 10^22 J should have been added to the OHC every year since 2003, according to Hansen's theory.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 13, 2009 6:50:40 GMT
That's an average rate, not a fixed amount every single year
|
|