|
Post by hilbert on Jun 5, 2009 16:50:13 GMT
I think that Pielke's challenge is that there should be essentially a 10^22 J / yr gain in OHC, irrespective of the particular 2003 value.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 5, 2009 19:22:55 GMT
nautonnier: "IF there is an El Nino (and lots of people like glc are rooting for one ) then all that will do is further reduce the heat content of the oceans. El Nino is only the warm surface water slopping back to the West coast of the americas in a Kelvin wave then by convection and evaporation warming the atmosphere increasing convection in the Hadley cells and altering the weather patterns in the area. ALL that ENERGY is sucked out of the Pacific which means that unless SoCold and Steve's pipeline full of heat suddenly appears, the Pacific will get cooler still. From the global heat content point of view an El Nino is a COOLING event even though the atmosphere will have a short spike of temperature as the heat is transported from the Pacific ocean to space. In fact one could see an El Nino as a negative feedback " That is a very perceptive observation. Along the same line of reasoning, I wonder how cold it would have been up here on the surface, if we hadn't gotten the benefit of some of that heat lost by the oceans, since 2003? Or did it bypass the atmosphere and go straight through the "pipeline" to space?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 6, 2009 9:42:31 GMT
More on topic, if Hansen et al. predict that ~ 10^22 J / yr are added to the OHC every year since the beginning of 2003, at what point is that prediction falsified (this assumes that the OHC does not rise much in the next few years)? If you are a supporter of AGW, at what point of discrepancy in the projection vs. measured OHC are you willing to say, "The projection is probably wrong." ? Hansen et al 2005 did not project that 10^22 J/yr would be added to OHC every year. This has been stated a number of times. If the paper were rewritten today, I guess the trend would be down about 30 percent because the original paper was based on a 10 year trend and the ARGO data extends the dataset about 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 6, 2009 16:02:36 GMT
More on topic, if Hansen et al. predict that ~ 10^22 J / yr are added to the OHC every year since the beginning of 2003, at what point is that prediction falsified (this assumes that the OHC does not rise much in the next few years)? If you are a supporter of AGW, at what point of discrepancy in the projection vs. measured OHC are you willing to say, "The projection is probably wrong." ? Hansen et al 2005 did not project that 10^22 J/yr would be added to OHC every year. This has been stated a number of times. If the paper were rewritten today, I guess the trend would be down about 30 percent because the original paper was based on a 10 year trend and the ARGO data extends the dataset about 5 years. Hansen et al. did say that there was a net forcing of ~.85 W / m^2, which effectively translates to the OHC heat addition of 10^22 J / yr, in my understanding (which, admittedly, is imperfect). The net forcing is "net", meaning that it is not maskable over time.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 6, 2009 16:21:12 GMT
steve: "Hansen et al 2005 did not project that 10^22 J/yr would be added to OHC every year. This has been stated a number of times."
If it has been stated a number of times, then it must be so.
steve: "If the paper were rewritten today, I guess the trend would be down about 30 percent because the original paper was based on a 10 year trend and the ARGO data extends the dataset about 5 years."
That makes a little bit of sense. But why did you say it?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2009 14:25:31 GMT
Hansen et al 2005 did not project that 10^22 J/yr would be added to OHC every year. This has been stated a number of times. If the paper were rewritten today, I guess the trend would be down about 30 percent because the original paper was based on a 10 year trend and the ARGO data extends the dataset about 5 years. Hansen et al. did say that there was a net forcing of ~.85 W / m^2, which effectively translates to the OHC heat addition of 10^22 J / yr, in my understanding (which, admittedly, is imperfect). The net forcing is "net", meaning that it is not maskable over time. IIRC his paper was making an observation that the change in heat content over ten years amounts to a net transfer of energy to the oceans of 0.85W/m^2 on average. The implication is that this rate of heat transfer is typical, but even in his ten year period, 1996-2001 was pretty flat (not as flat as 2003-2008). Therefore, nobody looking at the data that Hansen and his co-workers did would have predicted a monotonic annual increase, and if the paper had made this prediction then the reviewers would have rejected it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2009 14:29:41 GMT
steve: "Hansen et al 2005 did not project that 10^22 J/yr would be added to OHC every year. This has been stated a number of times." If it has been stated a number of times, then it must be so. Of course not. But it has been stated a number of times without anyone coming back and saying "No, see section X of the paper, or see this article by Hansen." I'd be delighted if people did this because it would help improve my understanding. Far better than providing answers that are ignored.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2009 16:45:48 GMT
This prompted me to look at the Levitus paper which quotes a trend of 0.4W/m^2 for the period 1970-2008. It differs from the Hansen paper because of the different start point. See figure 1. ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdfWith a start-point of 1995 (a la Hansen) the trend is roughly 0.78 as opposed to Hansen's figure of 0.85 if you do a best fit. Given the degree of uncertainty and variability, I don't think the recent trend "falsifies" Hansen's figure.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 7, 2009 23:53:48 GMT
This prompted me to look at the Levitus paper which quotes a trend of 0.4W/m^2 for the period 1970-2008. It differs from the Hansen paper because of the different start point. See figure 1. ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdfWith a start-point of 1995 (a la Hansen) the trend is roughly 0.78 as opposed to Hansen's figure of 0.85 if you do a best fit. Given the degree of uncertainty and variability, I don't think the recent trend "falsifies" Hansen's figure. Its kind of funny when you have all these scientists say something like it doesn't make sense for the oceans to fluctuate so much so we adjusted the figures to get what we expect, just conveniently right before it adjusts again. Sort of like a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 8, 2009 0:09:57 GMT
This prompted me to look at the Levitus paper which quotes a trend of 0.4W/m^2 for the period 1970-2008. It differs from the Hansen paper because of the different start point. See figure 1. ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdfWith a start-point of 1995 (a la Hansen) the trend is roughly 0.78 as opposed to Hansen's figure of 0.85 if you do a best fit. Given the degree of uncertainty and variability, I don't think the recent trend "falsifies" Hansen's figure. You don't see a problem with the huge jump from 2002 to 2003, that SST does not follow it, and then a purely coincidental plateau at the same time? CO2 caused that? No questions as to why all "adjustments" always seem to end up on the AGW side of the equation? Nah, confirmation bias is simply not possible in climate "science". First you must provide evidence that 10-20 ppm can cause OHC to rise any measurable amount; it is unphysical that back IR can have more warming effect on oceans than direct solar radiation alone. Where are all the back IR mirror arrays? Then there's the pseudoscience of "heat in the pipeline", which you have nothing for either. Shouldn't there be some requirement for evidence at this point?
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 8, 2009 0:37:39 GMT
This prompted me to look at the Levitus paper which quotes a trend of 0.4W/m^2 for the period 1970-2008. It differs from the Hansen paper because of the different start point. See figure 1. ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdfWith a start-point of 1995 (a la Hansen) the trend is roughly 0.78 as opposed to Hansen's figure of 0.85 if you do a best fit. Given the degree of uncertainty and variability, I don't think the recent trend "falsifies" Hansen's figure. OK, I see .4 x 10^22 J / yr , but not .4 W/m^2 Hansen's number is .85 W/m^2, which seems to translate to 10^22 J / yr. Did I miss something?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 8, 2009 11:36:38 GMT
This prompted me to look at the Levitus paper which quotes a trend of 0.4W/m^2 for the period 1970-2008. It differs from the Hansen paper because of the different start point. See figure 1. ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdfWith a start-point of 1995 (a la Hansen) the trend is roughly 0.78 as opposed to Hansen's figure of 0.85 if you do a best fit. Given the degree of uncertainty and variability, I don't think the recent trend "falsifies" Hansen's figure. Its kind of funny when you have all these scientists say something like it doesn't make sense for the oceans to fluctuate so much so we adjusted the figures to get what we expect, just conveniently right before it adjusts again. Eh! What scientist has said "it doesn't make sense for the oceans to fluctuate so much"?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 8, 2009 12:05:10 GMT
This prompted me to look at the Levitus paper which quotes a trend of 0.4W/m^2 for the period 1970-2008. It differs from the Hansen paper because of the different start point. See figure 1. ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdfWith a start-point of 1995 (a la Hansen) the trend is roughly 0.78 as opposed to Hansen's figure of 0.85 if you do a best fit. Given the degree of uncertainty and variability, I don't think the recent trend "falsifies" Hansen's figure. You don't see a problem with the huge jump from 2002 to 2003, that SST does not follow it, and then a purely coincidental plateau at the same time? CO2 caused that? No questions as to why all "adjustments" always seem to end up on the AGW side of the equation? Nah, confirmation bias is simply not possible in climate "science". First you must provide evidence that 10-20 ppm can cause OHC to rise any measurable amount; it is unphysical that back IR can have more warming effect on oceans than direct solar radiation alone. Where are all the back IR mirror arrays? The back radiation, as measured in the tropics(by an experiment believe it or not) is about 425W/m^2 (see ref below). Solar incidence at midday in the tropics is 1365 at the top of atmosphere, and about 2/3 of this at the surface - at night it is effectively zero! There are no "mirror arrays". It's mostly all the greenhouse gases that diffusely emit the radiation. It's unphysical that back IR is rejected as being unimportant. Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals Journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics L. C. Schanz1, 2 and P. Schlüssel1, 3 1996 www.springerlink.com/content/x028216lr32730l5/
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 8, 2009 12:15:32 GMT
This prompted me to look at the Levitus paper which quotes a trend of 0.4W/m^2 for the period 1970-2008. It differs from the Hansen paper because of the different start point. See figure 1. ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdfWith a start-point of 1995 (a la Hansen) the trend is roughly 0.78 as opposed to Hansen's figure of 0.85 if you do a best fit. Given the degree of uncertainty and variability, I don't think the recent trend "falsifies" Hansen's figure. OK, I see .4 x 10^22 J / yr , but not .4 W/m^2 Hansen's number is .85 W/m^2, which seems to translate to 10^22 J / yr. Did I miss something? Erk! Yes, the Levitus paper was in J/year. So the Levitus figure is 40% of Hansen's, and my calculation for the period 1995-2008 is about 78% of Hansen's. I said in a guess in the post above that the figure should be about 30% less than Hansen's - well it's 22% less. Other than the reported figure, I still don't think this would have changed the central findings of Hansen's 2005 paper by much.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2009 16:41:28 GMT
Erk! Yes, the Levitus paper was in J/year. So the Levitus figure is 40% of Hansen's, and my calculation for the period 1995-2008 is about 78% of Hansen's. I said in a guess in the post above that the figure should be about 30% less than Hansen's - well it's 22% less. Other than the reported figure, I still don't think this would have changed the central findings of Hansen's 2005 paper by much. Considering the author I would have to agree 100% with that summation.
|
|