|
Post by tacoman25 on May 17, 2009 3:31:57 GMT
I don't believe this matches the data that the original graph of this thread is based on.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 17, 2009 14:56:32 GMT
I don't believe this matches the data that the original graph of this thread is based on. You believe right. The original graph of this thread omits this information.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 17, 2009 16:41:08 GMT
The sound you heard from socold was the sound of him sucking air as he stepped off the edge. Bottom line is even the most aggressive of analyses falsifies the models. The last bastion of hope for the models is everybody got the OHC wrong and the authors of the study socold published went out of their way saying repeatedly they had no clue if the adjustments they were making were right. The sound george, is actually the skeptics frantically backpeddling. Levitus, the main author of that study was the skeptics golden boy a few years back when he published a paper saying OHC had fallen by 1/3 in recent years. Subsequent publications later and he's now become accused of massaging figures. When skeptics don't like a piece of research, they opt for conspiracy theories. Really? Because the atmosphere is not warming as it should, Hansen et al 2005 with an impressive group of "consensus" scientists in agreement, set out to use OHC as proof for CO2 AGW. Pielke has blogged and published much on OHC. I pointed out to Pielke the apparent great uncertainty in the various OHC data, and the constant adjusting. His reply: Thank you for sending. I agree there remain uncertainty in the ocean heat data, but they all still point to a lack of warming which is inconsistent with the global climate models predictions over the last 5 years. Even before that time period, the radiative feedbacks must be negative if the forcings given by the 2007 IPCC report are accepted as accurate. This data still remains the best to diagnose global warming and cooling, even with its uncertainties.
Per Pielke, a litmus test: 2003 8*10**22 Joules 2004 9*10**22 Joules 2005 10*10**22 Joules 2006 11*10**22 Joules 2007 12*10**22 Joules 2008 13*10**22 Joules 2009 14*10**22 Joules 2010 15*10**22 Joules 2011 16*10**22 Joules 2012 17*10**22 Joules
This is actually quite a conservative test for the IPCC since the radiative imbalance (which includes all radiative forcings and feedbacks; see), and thus the actual ocean heat storage changes should be larger. Please explain if CO2 AGW is driving radiative imbalance measured by OHC, why it could do anything but continue to gain joules of energy year after year?
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 17, 2009 17:57:24 GMT
Thank you, Magellan, that captures the point nicely.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 17, 2009 18:15:39 GMT
The sound george, is actually the skeptics frantically backpeddling. Levitus, the main author of that study was the skeptics golden boy a few years back when he published a paper saying OHC had fallen by 1/3 in recent years. Subsequent publications later and he's now become accused of massaging figures. When skeptics don't like a piece of research, they opt for conspiracy theories. Really? Because the atmosphere is not warming as it should, Hansen et al 2005 with an impressive group of "consensus" scientists in agreement, set out to use OHC as proof for CO2 AGW. Pielke has blogged and published much on OHC. I pointed out to Pielke the apparent great uncertainty in the various OHC data, and the constant adjusting. His reply: Thank you for sending. I agree there remain uncertainty in the ocean heat data, but they all still point to a lack of warming which is inconsistent with the global climate models predictions over the last 5 years. Even before that time period, the radiative feedbacks must be negative if the forcings given by the 2007 IPCC report are accepted as accurate. This data still remains the best to diagnose global warming and cooling, even with its uncertainties.
Per Pielke, a litmus test: 2003 8*10**22 Joules 2004 9*10**22 Joules 2005 10*10**22 Joules 2006 11*10**22 Joules 2007 12*10**22 Joules 2008 13*10**22 Joules 2009 14*10**22 Joules 2010 15*10**22 Joules 2011 16*10**22 Joules 2012 17*10**22 Joules
This is actually quite a conservative test for the IPCC since the radiative imbalance (which includes all radiative forcings and feedbacks; see), and thus the actual ocean heat storage changes should be larger. Please explain if CO2 AGW is driving radiative imbalance measured by OHC, why it could do anything but continue to gain joules of energy year after year? Pielkes litmus test is based on OHC increasing by a constant amount each and every year if taken literally. Such a litmus test is falsified by the 1996-2001 flat period. We can see from the record that OHC has increased in the long term and it does contain less variation than the global surface or atmospheric temperature record. But it sure aint a year by year increase and still has variation in it. Whether by measurement error or because such variation actually exists in OHC. The litmus test would be better explained as the average trend, of which actual OHC will sometimes be above and sometimes below. The litmus test starts with 2003 8*10**22 Joules You can see in the record in the graph posted 2003 is well ahead of this. The graph shows 2003 was 12*10**22 Joules. Ie it's already ahead of the trend. So is the flatness in the past few years simply a correction back to trend followed by now going slightly below it? OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 17, 2009 19:11:42 GMT
Really? Because the atmosphere is not warming as it should, Hansen et al 2005 with an impressive group of "consensus" scientists in agreement, set out to use OHC as proof for CO2 AGW. Pielke has blogged and published much on OHC. I pointed out to Pielke the apparent great uncertainty in the various OHC data, and the constant adjusting. His reply: Thank you for sending. I agree there remain uncertainty in the ocean heat data, but they all still point to a lack of warming which is inconsistent with the global climate models predictions over the last 5 years. Even before that time period, the radiative feedbacks must be negative if the forcings given by the 2007 IPCC report are accepted as accurate. This data still remains the best to diagnose global warming and cooling, even with its uncertainties.
Per Pielke, a litmus test: 2003 8*10**22 Joules 2004 9*10**22 Joules 2005 10*10**22 Joules 2006 11*10**22 Joules 2007 12*10**22 Joules 2008 13*10**22 Joules 2009 14*10**22 Joules 2010 15*10**22 Joules 2011 16*10**22 Joules 2012 17*10**22 Joules
This is actually quite a conservative test for the IPCC since the radiative imbalance (which includes all radiative forcings and feedbacks; see), and thus the actual ocean heat storage changes should be larger. Please explain if CO2 AGW is driving radiative imbalance measured by OHC, why it could do anything but continue to gain joules of energy year after year? Pielkes litmus test is based on OHC increasing by a constant amount each and every year if taken literally. Such a litmus test is falsified by the 1996-2001 flat period. We can see from the record that OHC has increased in the long term and it does contain less variation than the global surface or atmospheric temperature record. But it sure aint a year by year increase and still has variation in it. Whether by measurement error or because such variation actually exists in OHC. The litmus test would be better explained as the average trend, of which actual OHC will sometimes be above and sometimes below. The litmus test starts with 2003 8*10**22 Joules You can see in the record in the graph posted 2003 is well ahead of this. The graph shows 2003 was 12*10**22 Joules. Ie it's already ahead of the trend. So is the flatness in the past few years simply a correction back to trend followed by now going slightly below it? OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules. OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules. Why not? Are you suggesting then the so-called radiative imbalance has limits? If CO2 is largely responsible for .85 w/m 2 more energy being absorbed than emitted to space from 1993-2003, why wouldn't it be in 2012, or 2009 for that matter? BTW, how does reflected LW IR warm the oceans more than the sun's SW radiation? A perpetuum mobile perhaps? Do you have evidence that changes in cloud cover have been ruled out? I didn't think so. This was just another failed attempt at salvaging a failed hypothesis, aka CO2 AGW.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2009 20:48:06 GMT
OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules. Ahhhhh! A CO2 pulsation theory! How does that work Socold? Does CO2 have natural cycles where it becomes transparent to longwave IR?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2009 21:52:58 GMT
OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules. Ahhhhh! A CO2 pulsation theory! How does that work Socold? Does CO2 have natural cycles where it becomes transparent to longwave IR?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 18, 2009 0:38:34 GMT
Pielkes litmus test is based on OHC increasing by a constant amount each and every year if taken literally. Such a litmus test is falsified by the 1996-2001 flat period. We can see from the record that OHC has increased in the long term and it does contain less variation than the global surface or atmospheric temperature record. But it sure aint a year by year increase and still has variation in it. Whether by measurement error or because such variation actually exists in OHC. The litmus test would be better explained as the average trend, of which actual OHC will sometimes be above and sometimes below. The litmus test starts with 2003 8*10**22 Joules You can see in the record in the graph posted 2003 is well ahead of this. The graph shows 2003 was 12*10**22 Joules. Ie it's already ahead of the trend. So is the flatness in the past few years simply a correction back to trend followed by now going slightly below it? OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules. OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules. Why not? Because it's already at about 12*10**22 Joules according to that graph. No Look at the graph. It shows ocean heat content jumped about 5*10**22 in just two years. It also shows from 1996 to 2001 OHC hardly changed in comparison. So lots of varition there. The recent flat period, well if it climbs another 3*10**22 in the next 3 years it will have met the litmus test. Because it reduces the rate of heat loss from earth into space. As a result the atmosphere warms and the temperature difference between the ocean and atmosphere decreases. That means less heat loss from the ocean, and so the ocean heats up. That's just one reason - part of the weather noise - which is why OHC wouldn't necessarily rise year after year by a constant amount under overall positive radiative forcing. On the contrary, you and pielke have been too quick to jump to a conclusion that isn't warranted until a lot more years of data come in a certain way. Certainly if OHC starts to rise again in the next 10 years there will be eggs on faces. This goes for global temperature though too. It will be interesting to see what position skeptics fall back to when warming continues.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 18, 2009 0:40:56 GMT
OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules. Ahhhhh! A CO2 pulsation theory! How does that work Socold? Does CO2 have natural cycles where it becomes transparent to longwave IR? Nothing of the sort. Look at the OHC record - see the variation. It isn't a smooth line which is what your argment assumes.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 18, 2009 2:27:25 GMT
Ahhhhh! A CO2 pulsation theory! How does that work Socold? Does CO2 have natural cycles where it becomes transparent to longwave IR? Nothing of the sort. Look at the OHC record - see the variation. It isn't a smooth line which is what your argment assumes. Which record? There are several. There are very few things in measurement that are "smooth". Variation is a normal function in nature, unless you assume room temperature, then that's about as smooth a line you can get. You still cannot get around the fact that OHC is not increasing since 2003. What exactly you are arguing is puzzling. There should be correlative agreement with other data (ice loss, sea level rise etc.). There isn't. It may not be a pleasant thought, but the metrics do not support the hypothesis at the moment. Maybe it will start up again soon, but it's not now. First Greenland was the canary in the coal mine, then it shifted to the Arctic. Neither are performing well for AGW. It was said in 2007 and 2008 the Arctic ice's fate was certain doom. What will you folks say next year or the year after should it still fail to shrink as we've been promised by "experts"? P.S. Would you care to provide just one AGW source that allows 10-20 years of cooling or even no warming? Could you also do me a favor and locate one empirically devised study that can account for the 2007 Arctic ice loss? I was looking at this one that is based on cloud cover data. Do climate models include cloud cover changes well that could account for nearly all warming on the globe regardless of changes in TSI? www.arm.gov/science/research/pdf/R00143.pdf
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2009 10:02:36 GMT
In the Levitus data that socold has shown, the story seems to be that most of the time, the oceans are not warming! It sort of jumps up every few years and then levels out for a few years. The problem is it rarely jumps down.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 18, 2009 13:54:25 GMT
In the Levitus data that socold has shown, the story seems to be that most of the time, the oceans are not warming! It sort of jumps up every few years and then levels out for a few years. The problem is it rarely jumps down. It's nice you brought up Levitus because RPS blogged on it today. How much simpler do you need it explained? The .6 w/m 2 Pielke quotes was a revised number by Hansen last year, so his 2005 paper (and IPCC) were apparently overestimated to begin with. No matter which analysis used, Willis, Loehle or Levitus, the oceans are not gaining energy per Hansen et al 2005, and hence, IPCC AR4. You're going to say with a straight face that GHG caused the large jump in OHC from 2001 to 2003? Do you actually understand how much energy is in the oceans? The top ~3 meters contain more heat than the entire atmosphere, and you think even the most casual observer with limited knowledge of radiation physics doesn't see the lunacy in believing LW IR heats the oceans more than rising to space? Also, the drop in 1998 was due to a copious amount of heat released by the super El Nino, which recovered (another subject). Regardless, the idea that the small rise in a trace gase, CO2, (which follows temperature) can account for such increases in OHC is unphysical and one must ascribe to perpetual motion to believe CO2 can account for oceans to increase heat absorption more than that of the sun's direct solar radiation. It is junk science. climatesci.org/2009/05/18/comments-on-a-new-paper-global-ocean-heat-content-1955%E2%80%932008-in-light-of-recently-revealed-instrumentation-problems-by-levitus-et-al-2009/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 discrepancy 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.”
The new Levitus et al. 2009 paper, while not discussing this issue, further confirms that global warming, using upper ocean heat content as the metric, has stopped, at least for now. Moreover, the rate of heating in the last 5 years falls significantly below the amount of heating predicted by the IPCC models, as shown in the above figure.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2009 14:19:10 GMT
In the Levitus data that socold has shown, the story seems to be that most of the time, the oceans are not warming! It sort of jumps up every few years and then levels out for a few years. The problem is it rarely jumps down. It's nice you brought up Levitus because RPS blogged on it today. How much simpler do you need it explained? The .6 w/m 2 Pielke quotes was a revised number by Hansen last year, so his 2005 paper (and IPCC) were apparently overestimated to begin with. No matter which analysis used, Willis, Loehle or Levitus, the oceans are not gaining energy per Hansen et al 2005, and hence, IPCC AR4. You're going to say with a straight face that GHG caused the large jump in OHC from 2001 to 2003? Do you actually understand how much energy is in the oceans? The top ~3 meters contain more heat than the entire atmosphere, and you think even the most casual observer with limited knowledge of radiation physics doesn't see the lunacy in believing LW IR heats the oceans more than rising to space? Bored with your snarky tone, Magellan. Pielke Sr said: Levitus et al abstract says: which could be taken to mean that interdecadal variability is still evident, and the recent data doesn't affect the trend much.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 18, 2009 17:55:11 GMT
OHC doesn't have to increase much in that record to reach the litmus test's 2012 value of 17*10**22 Joules. Why not? Certainly if OHC starts to rise again in the next 10 years there will be eggs on faces. This goes for global temperature though too. It will be interesting to see what position skeptics fall back to when warming continues. So you are completely ruling out the possibilty of a multidecadal negative PDO period (such as what occurred from 1946-76) preventing warming for another 20-30 years? And no possibility of lower solar activity stunting warming either? CO2 conquers all?
|
|