|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2010 16:37:00 GMT
This was a three-way disagreement. Not Pielke and Willis versus Trenberth. That's right, and nobody knows WTF is going on. Including you of course I won't because I'm not a model expert. Willis has a part reference (a presentation he went to). I don't see he has the need to invent things. He seems quite happy to argue his corner. If 0.1W/m^2 is going into the top 100 metres of the ocean at the same time as 0.1W/m^2 is going from the top 100 metres to the next 100m etc. etc. etc.....and 0.1W/m^2 is going from the layer 700 metres down to the layers below, then I think you would be hard pushed to detect the transit of this energy by using ocean buoys. Simple really. I should remind you before you get all excitable again, that I've bet on Willis in this argument. It is a matter of faith then, not observational evidence. As such then, he should be able to tell us what the OHC in the upper 700m will be 5 years from now. Also, in case you've forgotten, Willis co-authored the Hansen 2005 paper, so he has boxed himself in a corner. I've been following the OHC issue since 2006. You can go through Pielke's blog and just plug in 'Josh Willis'. Willis and Trenberth are squirming because they are running out of options. Pielke has them by their short hairs and they know it. Trenberth has zero evidence there is heat "in the pipeline", which Pielke has deconstructed by his own calculations and supported by recent published research.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 20, 2010 17:10:52 GMT
If 0.1W/m^2 is going into the top 100 metres of the ocean at the same time as 0.1W/m^2 is going from the top 100 metres to the next 100m etc. etc. etc.....and 0.1W/m^2 is going from the layer 700 metres down to the layers below, then I think you would be hard pushed to detect the transit of this energy by using ocean buoys. Simple really. I thought collectively it was considered heresy in the AGW community to give any consideration whatsoever to processes for which a physical mechanism to force it was absent? Now I see a process that just a few short years ago was adamantly denied becoming a non-scientific refuge.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 21, 2010 6:09:48 GMT
If 0.1W/m^2 is going into the top 100 metres of the ocean at the same time as 0.1W/m^2 is going from the top 100 metres to the next 100m etc. etc. etc.....and 0.1W/m^2 is going from the layer 700 metres down to the layers below, then I think you would be hard pushed to detect the transit of this energy by using ocean buoys. Simple really. I thought collectively it was considered heresy in the AGW community to give any consideration whatsoever to processes for which a physical mechanism to force it was absent? Now I see a process that just a few short years ago was adamantly denied becoming a non-scientific refuge. I have no idea what you're on about now.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 21, 2010 8:10:41 GMT
Leif's paper may be important in our understanding of the sun but it hardly, at least yet, destroyed every correlation of temperature to solar activity anyplace other than in your imagination. Either that or you have no understanding of what correlation entails
There aren't any correlations. I understand perfectly well "what correlation entails" and I don't believe you can find a single valid case where there is a statistically sound solar-temperature correlation - particularly when using updated data.
Does anyone know if F-C & Lassen have updated their solar-NH temperature reconstruction? It was beginniing to falling apart in 1975.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 21, 2010 8:26:36 GMT
It is a matter of faith then, not observational evidence. As such then, he should be able to tell us what the OHC in the upper 700m will be 5 years from now. Also, in case you've forgotten, Willis co-authored the Hansen 2005 paper, so he has boxed himself in a corner.
I've been following the OHC issue since 2006. You can go through Pielke's blog and just plug in 'Josh Willis'. Willis and Trenberth are squirming because they are running out of options. Pielke has them by their short hairs and they know it.
Trenberth has zero evidence there is heat "in the pipeline", which Pielke has deconstructed by his own calculations and supported by recent published research.
We appear to have a mismatch where the net energy input (at TOA) to the climate system does not tally with the energy measured within the system. Something is either wrong or incomplete (i.e. not measured). I don't know where the discrepancy lies, however, it should be noted that sea levels are continuing to rise - albeit at a slower rate than previous. This would suggest that the oceans are still gaining heat and/or icesheets are continuing to melt.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Apr 21, 2010 10:28:54 GMT
Heat or heat flux it two different things. Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/kgC The atmosphere air weight is about 10 m of water but have much less heat capacity per kg, or about 1/4 of water.
That is a temperature imbalance in the atmosphere is about about the same as 2,5 m of water over the oceans. And if we use 70% of earth is water is it like the atmosphere entire heat capacity have about the same capacity as less than 4 m of top the ocean. Here are we talking of the first 700 m or nearly 200 times larger heat capacity than in the atmosphere.
With a heat flux in the range of 1w/m2 will one degree heating of the ocean take just about (700 m x 10.000 kg/m x 4.18 kJ/kg)/ 1j/s or just over 1000 year.
Or the other way around. It the same average temperature change in degrees will occure in the atmosphere and in the ocean will a change with the same heat flux that take about 1000 year in the ocean only about 5 year in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 21, 2010 18:18:26 GMT
Heat or heat flux it two different things. Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/kgC The atmosphere air weight is about 10 m of water but have much less heat capacity per kg, or about 1/4 of water. That is a temperature imbalance in the atmosphere is about about the same as 2,5 m of water over the oceans. And if we use 70% of earth is water is it like the atmosphere entire heat capacity have about the same capacity as less than 4 m of top the ocean. Here are we talking of the first 700 m or nearly 200 times larger heat capacity than in the atmosphere. With a heat flux in the range of 1w/m2 will one degree heating of the ocean take just about (700 m x 10.000 kg/m x 4.18 kJ/kg)/ 1j/s or just over 1000 year. Or the other way around. It the same average temperature change in degrees will occure in the atmosphere and in the ocean will a change with the same heat flux that take about 1000 year in the ocean only about 5 year in the atmosphere. Is this intended for me. If it is then it''s ok I know the relative heat capacities of water, air, etc. However, the rising sea levels since both 2003 and 2005 suggest that a) the oceans have continued to warm or b) continental ice sheets are continuing to melt or c) both a & b are occurrring.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 21, 2010 20:31:47 GMT
Is this intended for me. If it is then it''s ok I know the relative heat capacities of water, air, etc. However, the rising sea levels since both 2003 and 2005 suggest that a) the oceans have continued to warm or b) continental ice sheets are continuing to melt or c) both a & b are occurrring. Then you must know that is a condition that has remainded unchanged for the last 12,000 years approximately.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Apr 22, 2010 0:50:55 GMT
glc and I rarely agree, but the question is, why is the sea level still rising? Chronologic inertia? :-)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 22, 2010 2:11:58 GMT
glc and I rarely agree, but the question is, why is the sea level still rising? Chronologic inertia? :-) Big ice cubes take longer to melt?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 22, 2010 20:30:18 GMT
Heat or heat flux it two different things. Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/kgC The atmosphere air weight is about 10 m of water but have much less heat capacity per kg, or about 1/4 of water. That is a temperature imbalance in the atmosphere is about about the same as 2,5 m of water over the oceans. And if we use 70% of earth is water is it like the atmosphere entire heat capacity have about the same capacity as less than 4 m of top the ocean. Here are we talking of the first 700 m or nearly 200 times larger heat capacity than in the atmosphere. With a heat flux in the range of 1w/m2 will one degree heating of the ocean take just about (700 m x 10.000 kg/m x 4.18 kJ/kg)/ 1j/s or just over 1000 year. Or the other way around. It the same average temperature change in degrees will occure in the atmosphere and in the ocean will a change with the same heat flux that take about 1000 year in the ocean only about 5 year in the atmosphere. Is this intended for me. If it is then it''s ok I know the relative heat capacities of water, air, etc. However, the rising sea levels since both 2003 and 2005 suggest that a) the oceans have continued to warm or b) continental ice sheets are continuing to melt or c) both a & b are occurrring. or d) the measurement of sea level is incorrect
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Apr 22, 2010 22:39:30 GMT
Is this intended for me. If it is then it''s ok I know the relative heat capacities of water, air, etc. However, the rising sea levels since both 2003 and 2005 suggest that a) the oceans have continued to warm or b) continental ice sheets are continuing to melt or c) both a & b are occurrring. or d) the measurement of sea level is incorrect The more likely choice.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 22, 2010 23:05:44 GMT
or d) the measurement of sea level is incorrect
Of course - that'll be it. Obviously the ARGO measurements will be ok - well ok in the top 700m of the ocean, that is. Measurements at depths between 700m and 2000m are, no doubt, highly suspect.
Regarding sea level measurements: Could you be more specific as to how they might be wrong. Have they always been wrong? Have they got 'more wrong' over time? Please elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 23, 2010 1:56:00 GMT
or d) the measurement of sea level is incorrectOf course - that'll be it. Obviously the ARGO measurements will be ok - well ok in the top 700m of the ocean, that is. Measurements at depths between 700m and 2000m are, no doubt, highly suspect. Regarding sea level measurements: Could you be more specific as to how they might be wrong. Have they always been wrong? Have they got 'more wrong' over time? Please elaborate. Oh yes, but easily observable defects such as thermometers on parking lots, attached to roof tops, next to tarmacs, buildings, air conditioners, busy street intersections etc. are all figments of the imagination. Despite dozens of empirical and statistical studies on urbanization affecting surface temperatures, those too are to be ignored. Land use change? Boundary layer physics? Pure nonsense. The tropical troposphere should be warming at a faster rate than the surface; can we change the subject? Yes glc, you've got a point. Obviously the ARGO measurements will be ok - well ok in the top 700m of the ocean, that is. Measurements at depths between 700m and 2000m are, no doubt, highly suspect. Put your thinking cap on glc. How does heat go undetected 700m? There is no "missing heat". There is missing science.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Apr 23, 2010 6:17:35 GMT
|
|