|
Post by steve on Apr 18, 2013 13:14:17 GMT
So the detrended warming is related to the ocean state. So what? What we are interested in is the cause of the trend. Ocean cycles may control the red detrended line but they don't control the rise evident in the blue HadCRUT4 line: The ocean state is not cooling. Ocean heat content is rising, and the rise is validated by observed rises in sea level (which cannot be fully explained by other causes such as loss of land ice). Uh Steve we are talking about your chart there, the green plot. Its clearly entered a cooling phase and it is pulling Hadcrut4 with it both the blue and red plots. It appears to have about 20 years to run if past histories are an indicator. Where do you get this sudden about face denial from? Climate model adjusted upper ocean heat? Its also the case that the underlying trend (the blue plot) without the ocean state is quite a bit less than one degree per century. Yes, the underlying trend is the underlying trend and at face value the ocean index *cannot* be said to be the cause of the underlying warming trend. At most the green line is delaying or slowing the warming. The underlying trend was less than 1C per century *last* century.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Apr 18, 2013 13:25:48 GMT
Not to make to fine a point all seem to be going down at the end of the charts.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 18, 2013 14:47:17 GMT
Not to make to fine a point all seem to be going down at the end of the charts. Pay no attention to graphs and data; a word wrapped in asterisks means it is absolutely true and not to be questioned. Just do that and steve must capitulate.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 18, 2013 17:06:47 GMT
The warming of the oceans *cannot* be said to have been caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, unless of course it has a greater warming influence than the sun itself not unlike a perpetual motion machine. There is zero evidence CO2 has anything but an unmeasurable influence. I have asked several times now for a qualitative/quantitative accounting of how rising CO2 levels can warm the oceans deep. According to Compo et al, the oceans are the primary source of continental warming. Bob Tisdale has demonstrated oceans are responsible for warming quite convincingly. His latest book is very informative. The authors used GCM's to form their hypothesis, and we're told they contain all the relevant physics necessary to simulate the climate system. What is the error in their findings? Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental WarmingAh yes, "little doubt". No evidence for it, but "little doubt".
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 18, 2013 20:44:29 GMT
magellan,
So CO2 warming the oceans is a "perpetual motion machine" but the oceans can warm the land just by itself? That's quite funny.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 18, 2013 22:34:07 GMT
magellan, So CO2 warming the oceans is a "perpetual motion machine" but the oceans can warm the land just by itself? That's quite funny. I can ask again here then steve - how do you propose the oceans are warmed?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2013 11:21:38 GMT
magellan, So CO2 warming the oceans is a "perpetual motion machine" but the oceans can warm the land just by itself? That's quite funny. I can ask again here then steve - how do you propose the oceans are warmed? I understand that there is a big ball of hot plasma about 93 million miles away that has something to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2013 17:19:23 GMT
magellan, So CO2 warming the oceans is a "perpetual motion machine" but the oceans can warm the land just by itself? That's quite funny. Perhaps you missed this part:
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2013 17:21:39 GMT
I can ask again here then steve - how do you propose the oceans are warmed? I understand that there is a big ball of hot plasma about 93 million miles away that has something to do with it. I'm still waiting for the calculations for how much an effect 2xCO2 can have on ocean warming. It's out there somewhere, keep looking.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 20, 2013 19:50:10 GMT
I can ask again here then steve - how do you propose the oceans are warmed? I understand that there is a big ball of hot plasma about 93 million miles away that has something to do with it. Indeed - and there is no effect from CO 2 or other 'radiative gases' as they can only cool the oceans not warm them. This puts the AGW hypothesis on somewhat shaky ground doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2013 23:19:46 GMT
I understand that there is a big ball of hot plasma about 93 million miles away that has something to do with it. Indeed - and there is no effect from CO 2 or other 'radiative gases' as they can only cool the oceans not warm them. This puts the AGW hypothesis on somewhat shaky ground doesn't it. "...and there is no effect from CO2..."? What's that supposed to mean? And CO2 "can only cool the ocean"? That is the most embarrassing thing you have said since you made a post in which you showed you did not understand the hydrological cycle on November 22nd 2010. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/1463/hydrologic-cycle-outgoing-infra-redI pointed out your horrendous error on that thread in quite polite terms. But you disappeared for 6 months. Was it a coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2013 23:30:12 GMT
I understand that there is a big ball of hot plasma about 93 million miles away that has something to do with it. I'm still waiting for the calculations for how much an effect 2xCO2 can have on ocean warming. It's out there somewhere, keep looking. magellan, you are demonstrating your confusion by your questions. If you take a hot air gun and blow it on the surface of water, what will the effect be? Ultimately, what you are claiming is that hot air on the surface of water cannot influence the temperature of the water. I'm not convinced, and I doubt whether other people would be convinced when the discussion is reduced to those terms.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 21, 2013 0:27:18 GMT
I'm still waiting for the calculations for how much an effect 2xCO2 can have on ocean warming. It's out there somewhere, keep looking. magellan, you are demonstrating your confusion by your questions. If you take a hot air gun and blow it on the surface of water, what will the effect be? Ultimately, what you are claiming is that hot air on the surface of water cannot influence the temperature of the water. I'm not convinced, and I doubt whether other people would be convinced when the discussion is reduced to those terms. Its good you agree the surface air on average is hotter than the surface of the water as that is a key element of my theory as well. The question of course is how did it get warmer.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 21, 2013 0:58:11 GMT
I'm still waiting for the calculations for how much an effect 2xCO2 can have on ocean warming. It's out there somewhere, keep looking. magellan, you are demonstrating your confusion by your questions. If you take a hot air gun and blow it on the surface of water, what will the effect be? Ultimately, what you are claiming is that hot air on the surface of water cannot influence the temperature of the water. I'm not convinced, and I doubt whether other people would be convinced when the discussion is reduced to those terms. Steve: You can blow all the hot air on top of water that you want, and it barely affects the temperature. However, leave it in the sun for an hour, the water will warm to be warmer than the air temperature. CO2 have an effect on water temperature? The way radiation works it would be so small that it could not be measured. Sun light wavelengths have an effect? Oh ya....and in a very short period of time.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Apr 21, 2013 1:44:51 GMT
ok hot air gun on water .. well you would get water vapour .. which would create 2 things mostly cooling and a little heat that would be soon dissipated is'nt that basic science.. if not your oceans would have boiled a long time ago .. so more heat more cloud less heat hitting earth .. or am i missing somthing ?
|
|