|
Post by icefisher on Jul 13, 2009 7:29:47 GMT
That's an average rate, not a fixed amount every single year How does it vary?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 13, 2009 17:25:27 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. Yes. This is Pielke Sr's point. Nobody elses. Disproving his own point doesn't add a lot to the debate frankly.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 13, 2009 19:17:24 GMT
That's an average rate, not a fixed amount every single year How does it vary? You can see how much it it believed to vary in individual OHC records themselves.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 13, 2009 19:30:25 GMT
You can see how much it it believed to vary in individual OHC records themselves. I didn't ask how much it varies, I asked how it varies. You know, the mechanism, the driver, the cyclic forcing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 13, 2009 19:38:26 GMT
ENSO events affect short term OHC trends somewhat, so probably do solar cycles. Also a large part of the short term variation in the records will also be from measurement uncertainty. If the heat just stayed put it would be easy to measure, but it's constantly moving which makes precise measurements impossible. But over 10 years or so these things should be irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 13, 2009 20:17:16 GMT
ENSO events affect short term OHC trends somewhat, so probably do solar cycles. Also a large part of the short term variation in the records will also be from measurement uncertainty. If the heat just stayed put it would be easy to measure, but it's constantly moving which makes precise measurements impossible. But over 10 years or so these things should be irrelevant. Should be? From the theory of how a trend is adequate to do the job, one should keep in mind variations in events like ENSO only provides information on the trend not the absolute temperature. Hansen has argued extensively for this and I agree its an important way for cost effective longterm monitoring. But its not good for short term monitoring and it poses huge challenges when you go to splice databases together. The only way to properly splice such databases is over a long period of calibration running both systems. And since you argue that 10 years isn't enough, its certainly not enough for a parallel system test to play out for accurately splicing datasets together. Yet the only way that warming was preserved recently was through the splicing of ENSO dominated data sets to the new ARGO bouy system based upon a very short calibration period. . . .ugly stuff. I would think you would be the first person to criticize that rather than defend it.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jul 14, 2009 1:30:56 GMT
What can mask .85 W / m^2 ? If it's average, it should be (on average) up 6 * 10^22 J by now, yes?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 14, 2009 7:14:02 GMT
What can mask .85 W / m^2 ? If it's average, it should be (on average) up 6 * 10^22 J by now, yes? Another problem is that its most likely that OHC varies with warming/cooling period of the ocean currents...so again, the trend using only the warming period tells you little of the overall trend. The variation between the warming/cooling period as likely at least .2C because it managed to drop that much even as CO2 increased...as well as previous periods. Dropping the warming trend by .2C is a HUGE difference (1C) when projected to 2100. Which brings us to the real issue here. We shouldn't be asking when a projection is proven false. What we should be asking is when the heck was it supposedly "proven" in the first place? There is evidence that it has warmed. There is evidence that CO2 might cause some warming. Just about everything else is largely untested speculation. The fact that most of the warming occurred during what has now known to be a natural warming period along with the previous, nearly equal warming period...should in its self cast serious doubts about the magnitude of CO2 forcing and the proposed feedbacks. To say that "the science is settled" is an outright lie. The real science has only just begun. In its awkward early stages has a fixation with CO2...not unlike the early work in psychology had a fixation on sex.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 10:01:50 GMT
What can mask .85 W / m^2 ? If it's average, it should be (on average) up 6 * 10^22 J by now, yes? No.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jul 28, 2009 14:51:46 GMT
References?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 28, 2009 16:37:51 GMT
No references. The Hansen paper makes no prediction that OHC will rise by 0.85W every year. All the OHC data I've seen shows a reasonable amount of variabilty of similar amounts to the 0.85W figure given.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 1, 2009 0:42:40 GMT
No references. The Hansen paper makes no prediction that OHC will rise by 0.85W every year. All the OHC data I've seen shows a reasonable amount of variabilty of similar amounts to the 0.85W figure given. From Pielke, Sr.: The observed best estimates of the observed heating and the Hansen et al prediction in Joules in the upper 700m of the ocean are given below: OBSERVED BEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002]. 2003 ~0 Joules 2004 ~0 Joules 2005 ~0 Joules 2006 ~0 Joules 2007 ~0 Joules 2008 ~0 Joules 2009 —— 2010 —— 2011 —— 2012 —— HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002]. 2003 ~0.98 * 10** 22 Joules 2004 ~1.96 * 10** 22 Joules 2005 ~2.94 * 10** 22 Joules 2006 ~3.92 * 10** 22 Joules 2007 ~4.90 * 10** 22 Joules 2008 ~5.88 * 10** 22 Joules 2009 ~6.86 * 10** 22 Joules 2010 ~7.84 * 10** 22 Joules 2011 ~8.82 * 10** 22 Joules 2012 ~9.80 * 10** 22 Joules Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should be approximately 5.88 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2008 than were present at the beginning of 2003. For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 9.8 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next four years. This requires a heating rate over the next 4 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean of 2.45 * 10**22 Joules per year, which corresponds to a radiative imbalance of ~1.50 Watts per square meter. This rate of heating would have to be about 2 1/2 times higher than the 0.60 Watts per meter squared that Jim Hansen reported for the period 1993 to 2003. While the time period for this descrepancy with the GISS model is relatively short, the question should be asked as to the number of years required to reject this model as having global warming predictive skill, if this large difference between the observations and the GISS model persists.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 1, 2009 1:24:20 GMT
Would seem that Mr. Hansen has made some type of prediction of OHC. And as usual in his case, he is so far off the mark to reality. I just don't get it. HOW can people with smart brains keep following this drivel without question? Never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 1, 2009 16:20:37 GMT
No references. The Hansen paper makes no prediction that OHC will rise by 0.85W every year. All the OHC data I've seen shows a reasonable amount of variabilty of similar amounts to the 0.85W figure given. Um, I think you mean 10^22 J every year. The number comes directly from Hansen's radiative forcing numbers. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/Radiative Imbalance. The IPCC and GISS calculate the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing at ~1.6 W/m2(-1.0, +.8), (see, 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Summary for Policy Makers, figure SPM.2 and Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., page 1434, Table 1). This is the effective total of all anthropogenic forcings on the climate system. Projected heat accumulation is not calculated from this number, but from the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance (Ri). According to Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., the imbalance represents that fraction of the total net anthropogenic forcing which the climate system has not yet responded to due to thermal lag (caused primarily by the oceans). The assumption is that since the earth has warmed, a certain amount of energy is required to maintain the current global temperature. Continuing absorption will cause global temperatures to rise further until a new balance is reached. Physically, the climate system responds to the entire 1.6 W/m2 forcing, not just a portion of it. But while energy is being absorbed, it is also being lost by radiation. The radiative imbalance is better described as the difference between the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its associated radiative loss. The global radiative imbalance of .75 W/m2 (shown below) would mean that the earth system is radiating .85 W/m2 in response to 1.6 W/m2of total forcing (1.6 – .85 = .75). For a more detailed discussion of radiative equilibrium see, Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: “Heat storage within the Earth system.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 331-335.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 1, 2009 20:08:13 GMT
Not to bother the thread with facts but the 10^22 J every year is an average, not a fixed 10^22 J every year. One year could have 5^22 J and another could have 15 and still meet that average.
|
|