Where's the Heat, Cooling Oceans

[william]

In reply to Hilbert's comment:

glc and I rarely agree, but the question is, why is the sea level still rising? Chronological inertia?

The sea level has stopped rising.

Why did it rise in the past?

Roughly half of the 20th century sea level rise has no physical explanation. Thermal expansion and/or melting glaciers and ice sheets cannot explain the rise.

There is no explanation as to why the sea level has suddenly stopped rising.

In the paleo past there is evidence of 10m to 15m sea level changes that have no explanation.

Some unknown forcing function is causing the ocean level to increase and decrease independent of planetary temperature.

Sea Level Controversy

Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century
global sea level rise

The rate of twentieth-century global sea level rise and its causes are the subjects of intense controversy1–7. Most direct estimates from tide gauges give 1.5–2.0 mm/yr, whereas indirect estimates based on the two processes responsible for global sea level rise, namely mass and volume change, fall far below this range. Estimates of the volume increase due to ocean warming give a rate of about 0.5mmyr21 (ref. 8) and the rate due to mass increase, primarily from the melting of continental ice, is thought to be even smaller. Therefore, either the tide gauge estimates are too high, as has been suggested recently6, or one (or both) of the mass and volume estimates is too low.

www.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/pubs/papers/2004nature.pdf

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/figsonly/327/5967/860

Sea-Level Highstand 81,000 Years Ago in Mallorca

Global sea level and Earth’s climate are closely linked. Using speleothem encrustations from coastal caves on the island of Mallorca, we determined that western Mediterranean relative sea level was ~1 meter above modern sea level ~81,000 years ago during marine isotope stage (MIS) 5a. Although our findings seemingly conflict with the eustatic sea-level curve of far-field sites, they corroborate an alternative view that MIS 5a was at least as ice-free as the present, and they challenge the prevailing view of MIS 5 sea-level history and certain facets of ice-age theory.

[socold]

Apr 23, 2010 15:20:27 GMT william said:

In reply to Hilbert's comment:

glc and I rarely agree, but the question is, why is the sea level still rising? Chronological inertia?

The sea level has stopped rising.

This is a dying skeptic meme. We are on the cusp of seeing exactly why people warn skeptics not to draw information from short time periods.



We did warn you guys. When you have a longterm upward trend and suddenly it goes flat for a short period, at least check past variation to see if that behavior may not be inconsistent. Even then you need a fair amount of time to ensure there has been a "reversal". We see the exact same meme unfolding with arctic sea ice, surface temperatures and glaciers - skeptics claiming there's been a recent reversal. By 2020 we'll probably have quite a collection of skeptic claims such as this that have not bourne out.

[hunter]

socold,
Sea levels are rising as they have been for many years. You AGW true believers are the ones who have confabulated short term fluctuations into world wide catastrophes.
And as to the ice, you are way past ice and into delusional territory.
'True believer syndrome' defines the capacity you demonstrate:
www.skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
This quote is interesting and relevant to ponder when dealing with AGW true believers:
"The fact that the supportive evidence was largely supplied by the same person exposed as a fraud is suppressed. There is always the hope that no matter how many frauds are exposed, at least one of the experiences might have been genuine."
No matter how many times the fearful predictions and evidence of AGW promoters shown to be garbage, you true beleivers stick to it. This is a fascinating social phenomenon. Thank you and all true believers for demonstrating it so well.

[magellan]

Apr 23, 2010 17:55:52 GMT hunter said:

socold,
Sea levels are rising as they have been for many years. You AGW true believers are the ones who have confabulated short term fluctuations into world wide catastrophes.
And as to the ice, you are way past ice and into delusional territory.
'True believer syndrome' defines the capacity you demonstrate:
www.skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
This quote is interesting and relevant to ponder when dealing with AGW true believers:
"The fact that the supportive evidence was largely supplied by the same person exposed as a fraud is suppressed. There is always the hope that no matter how many frauds are exposed, at least one of the experiences might have been genuine."
No matter how many times the fearful predictions and evidence of AGW promoters shown to be garbage, you true beleivers stick to it. This is a fascinating social phenomenon. Thank you and all true believers for demonstrating it so well.

The entire premise of AGW is based on extrapolation of trends and even single events into the distant future. We're always cautioned not to use single years, 5 years or even ten years, but it is not difficult to locate multitudes of examples from AGW prognosticators.

Since socold brought it up, Arctic ice melt is a good example. All we need do is grab some quotes from prominent AGW scientists in 2007/2008/2009. All socold need do is find one AGW scientist that predicted Arctic ice would be where it is today. One year from now should it be increasing again, will the talking points be the same?

June 5th, 2009: On Climate Progress, NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, (and the “breathtaking ignorance” for blogs like WattsUpWithThat).

April 4, 2010: Dr. Serreze said in an interview with The Sunday Times: “In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated.” (not breathtakingly ignorant?)

The list is long for these types of statements from the AGW priesthood.

[icefisher]

Apr 23, 2010 21:54:59 GMT magellan said:

The entire premise of AGW is based on extrapolation of trends and even single events into the distant future. We're always cautioned not to use single years, 5 years or even ten years, but it is not difficult to locate multitudes of examples from AGW prognosticators.

Hey we are just peons. You have to be a[glow=red,2,300] CLIMATOLOGIST[/glow] to speak non-scientific nonsense.

[stranger]

Essentially, socold's graph says sea levels have risen by over an eighth of an inch a year, or just about an inch and a quarter every ten years. Yet competent measurement by remotely situated monitors that are immune to wave action shows no sea level rise - and many show an actual decline.

On the other hand, this bastion of AGW propaganda seems to have at least smelled the coffee. Have a link:

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1267757/Britain-facing-bitterly-cold-winters-drop-solar-winds.html

Whether they are fully awake yet is still open to question.

Stranger

[icefisher]

Apr 24, 2010 0:44:24 GMT stranger said:

Essentially, socold's graph says sea levels have risen by over an eighth of an inch a year, or just about an inch and a quarter every ten years. Yet competent measurement by remotely situated monitors that are immune to wave action shows no sea level rise - and many show an actual decline.

On the other hand, this bastion of AGW propaganda seems to have at least smelled the coffee. Have a link:

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1267757/Britain-facing-bitterly-cold-winters-drop-solar-winds.html

Whether they are fully awake yet is still open to question.

Stranger

Yeah Lockwood is a smart guy it shouldn't take him too much longer to put the rest of the pieces together. Lower latitude freezing then each year slightly increases the earth's albedo feedbacking the system into another iceage, turning major if it goes to the [glow=red,2,300]TIPPING POINT!!!![/glow] ROTFLMAO!

Of course we could get lucky and in 300 years have it start getting warmer again! Who knows all that coal we burn to stay warm could be the salvation!

[nautonnier]

Apr 22, 2010 23:05:44 GMT glc said:

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.

I was merely pointing out what every metrologist will tell you that there will always be errors in measurement. With something like worldwide sea level that is unarguable - there is no need to get all defensive about it - people might suspect a guilty secret

So let's look at the sea level metrics - your favorite El Nino is caused by the piling up of warm surface water in the western pacific blown there by the trade winds and when these drop the water slops back in a Kelvin wave to the East.... what sea level is 'normal' and where is that? Tectonic sinking and lifting alter the heights of coastlines as does drainage causing subsoils to dry and shrink so tide gauges are of what use? I know!! We can use satellites -- well in their wide radar footprint they get increasing numbers of really really good reflectors called ships particularly large container ships and these raise the average sea level considerably. OK - but now we have the ARGO floats - these well _float_ and they have GPS so THEY can be accurate can't they? Well GPS is not accurate to better than centimeters even with local area augmentation and is the sea surface the float is in rising/falling due to a Kelvin wave, tides, or a storm surge or just wind?..... and so we go on. Yet we are told 'global sea level is rising in _millimeters_

I put it to you that you could not measure the level of Chasewater Lake to the nearest millimeter - yet you believe measurements of global sea level to that accuracy?



I'll stick with option d)

[glc]

I was merely pointing out what every metrologist will tell you that there will always be errors in measurement. With something like worldwide sea level that is unarguable - there is no need to get all defensive about it - people might suspect a guilty secret

So let's look at the sea level metrics - your favorite El Nino is caused by the piling up of warm surface water in the western pacific blown there by the trade winds and when these drop the water slops back in a Kelvin wave to the East.... what sea level is 'normal' and where is that? Tectonic sinking and lifting alter the heights of coastlines as does drainage causing subsoils to dry and shrink so tide gauges are of what use? I know!! We can use satellites -- well in their wide radar footprint they get increasing numbers of really really good reflectors called ships particularly large container ships and these raise the average sea level considerably. OK - but now we have the ARGO floats - these well _float_ and they have GPS so THEY can be accurate can't they? Well GPS is not accurate to better than centimeters even with local area augmentation and is the sea surface the float is in rising/falling due to a Kelvin wave, tides, or a storm surge or just wind?..... and so we go on. Yet we are told 'global sea level is rising in _millimeters_

I put it to you that you could not measure the level of Chasewater Lake to the nearest millimeter - yet you believe measurements of global sea level to that accuracy?

You make the same points that are regularly made on the sceptical side but which are fundamentally incorrect.
Firstly, we know all about measurement error and measurement bias. However these issues can be - and are - managed.

Measurement error particularly in large samples will not result in a trend. The only way you will get a spurious trend is if the bias (not error) increases over time. Satellite drift , for example, can produce a warming (or cooling) trend but we know why this happens. This is one of the reasons why I don't think UH is a significant issue. No-one denies UH exists. I've experienced it myself, but the question is whether the TREND in UH has increased significantly.

Your other assumption seems to be that if we can only take measurements to a certain accuracy then we can't measure changes which are smaller than the accuracy of the measurement. This is not actually correct. Consider this hypothetical example.

The country XYZ has a fairly uniform all-year round mean temperature of around 10 deg. XYZ has number of fairly reliable thermometers dotted around the country but they only measure to the nearest degree.

QUESTION: Could XYZ detect, say, a 0.2 deg per decade rise in temperature. ANSWER: With sufficient sampling and a long enough record - yes they could (within certain confidence limits).

Initially, every thermometer may be recording exactly 10 deg. If we have a 1000 readings, the mean temperature will obviously be 10 deg. The actual temperatures will be somewhere between 9.5 deg and 10.49999... deg. If the true temperatures are evenly distributed about the mean then after a decade (and the 0.2 deg rise) the readings will change. Most of the thermometer readings will still be 10 deg, but those temperatures that were initially between 10.3 and 10.4999... will be over 10.5 and the thermometer reading will be 11. With an even distribution 800 readings will be 10 deg and 200 will be 11 degrees. The mean will be (8000+2200)/1000 = 10.2 deg, i.e. a 0.2 deg rise.

If the initial temperatures were not evenly distributed, i.e. more than 50% were higher (or lower) than the mean then we might not detect the true trend immediately but eventually after 20 or 30 years the true trend will emerge. After 50 years all thermometers will read 11 deg.

The basic point is that your peaks and toughs will even themselves out. The samples are sufficiently large to ensure that a few 'outlier' readings will not affect the calculated means. Even if there's a blip one day it will be smoothed out by other data. And, more importantly, even if the data is noisy this is unlikely to have an impact on the trend. Satellites are not suddenly going to start measuring increasing numbers of peaks of storm surges.

Trend is the key.

There are whole areas of stats and maths which are devoted to error analysis - be it measurement error or other - but the above example illustrates the general point I think.

On a sort of related point. In a recent WUWT post by Walt Meier the likelihood of getting a certain number of heads (or tails) from 10000 coin tosses was discussed.

Would anyone like to guess/estimate/calculate the probability of getting less than 4000 heads from 10000 tosses?

[socold]

Apr 23, 2010 17:55:52 GMT hunter said:

socold,
Sea levels are rising as they have been for many years.

Oh it's this old fallback again.

Variation #1
Skeptic A: The glaciers are now growing!
Socold: No they aren't - look they are declining.
Skeptic B: Socold you moron, glaciers have been declining for many years - so why do you even bring it up?

Variation #2
Skeptic A: Doesn't look good for AGW now that sea level is no longer rising!
Socold: Sea level is rising - look.
Skeptic B: Socold you moron, sea level has been rising for many years - so why do you even bring it up?

Or if you want it a bit more in-your-face with some actual quotes, try these for size:

William (posted Yesterday at 10:20am): The sea level has stopped rising.

Hunter (posted Yesterday at 12:55am): Sea levels are rising as they have been for many years.

You just can't make this stuff up. Yet some posters here continually do!

[socold]

Apr 23, 2010 21:54:59 GMT magellan said:

The entire premise of AGW is based on extrapolation of trends and even single events into the distant future.

Not even remotely true. The premise of AGW is four simple points:

1. Greenhouse gases warm the earth
This is scientific fact. Based on physics not at all on extrapolation.

2. Human activity is raising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere
Again this is a scientific fact and is not based on extrapolation. We aren't simply seeing rising co2 levels and extrapolating that rise into the future. We know why it's rising and we expect the rise to continue, not because of extrapolation, but because we understand the ongoing cause of the rise (our emissions which are very likely to continue throughout this century)

3. The rise in greenhouse gases dominates the total effect humans have on global temperature
Understanding the warming caused by doubling co2, or the cooling caused by emitting aerosols is based on physics, not extrapolation. The net effect humans have on global temperature is dominated by our greenhouse gas emissions (co2 and friends). That net effect is positive. Ie humans activitity is having a warming effect on climate and this warming effect is increasing over time.

4. The human warming impact is large enough to be the most important factor in temperature changes over the next 100+ years

At even 1C warming per doubling of co2, that's more than the total warming of the 20th century. And that's only co2, there are other greenhouse gases we are increasing too. So the total temperature change from 2000 to 2200 is going to be significantly impacted by human greenhouse gas emissions.

In summary
Anthropogenic Global Warming - that man is warming the globe, is based on 4 evidence based points. No extrapolation.

We're always cautioned not to use single years, 5 years or even ten years, but it is not difficult to locate multitudes of examples from AGW prognosticators. Since socold brought it up, Arctic ice melt is a good example. All we need do is grab some quotes from prominent AGW scientists in 2007/2008/2009. All socold need do is find one AGW scientist that predicted Arctic ice would be where it is today. One year from now should it be increasing again, will the talking points be the same?

Obviously if arctic sea ice starts increasing everyone will accept it. What skeptics are having trouble grasping is the reality of data. You can't claim the multi-decadal sea level rise has ended or multi-decadal arctic sea ice decline has ended based on 2 or 3 years of data.

June 5th, 2009: On Climate Progress, NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, (and the “breathtaking ignorance” for blogs like WattsUpWithThat).

April 4, 2010: Dr. Serreze said in an interview with The Sunday Times: “In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated.” (not breathtakingly ignorant?)

The list is long for these types of statements from the AGW priesthood.

So two wrongs make a right? Despite commenting on the sea ice threads on many occassions, I personally have never made any claims about 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 sea ice based on short term trends. Go back and find an example if you think I have.

[socold]

Apr 24, 2010 0:44:24 GMT stranger said:

Essentially, socold's graph says sea levels have risen by over an eighth of an inch a year, or just about an inch and a quarter every ten years. Yet competent measurement by remotely situated monitors that are immune to wave action shows no sea level rise - and many show an actual decline.

Wow it gets crazy. So we have william who claimed "The sea level has stopped rising.", implying that sea level was rising but has recently stopped.

Hunter who claims "Sea levels are rising as they have been for many years.", implying that sea level has always been rising.

And now stranger who claims "competent measurement by remotely situated monitors that are immune to wave action shows no sea level rise - and many show an actual decline", implying that sea level has not risen for ages.

I suggest the reason you are all disagreeing is because you are trying to find excuses and you've simply found independently contradicting ones.

Edit: and this one is less clear but is not nautonnier arguing that we can't know what sea level is doing because we can't measure it with sufficient accuracy? If so that make a total of four contradicting arguments:

-Sea level has stopped rising
-Sea level has never risen
-Sea level has always risen
-We don't know

It's funny how whether we are talking about glaciers, sea level rise, arctic sea ice, the answer has always got to be something - anything - but what science says.

[icefisher]

Apr 24, 2010 13:34:33 GMT socold said:

Apr 23, 2010 17:55:52 GMT hunter said:

socold,
Sea levels are rising as they have been for many years.

Oh it's this old fallback again.

Variation #1
Skeptic A: The glaciers are now growing!
Socold: No they aren't - look they are declining.
Skeptic B: Socold you moron, glaciers have been declining for many years - so why do you even bring it up?

Variation #2
Skeptic A: Doesn't look good for AGW now that sea level is no longer rising!
Socold: Sea level is rising - look.
Skeptic B: Socold you moron, sea level has been rising for many years - so why do you even bring it up?

Its an artifact introduced by those funding the whole charade. When things are rising fast they get studies out in a matter of months - it spurs magazine/journal sales. . . . gotta get that publicity, sales, and next grant going!!!. Then when things are not rising as expected it takes years to get a study done - no fame or fortune here.

When science went into the publishing business it was inevitable. Yellow journalism is what sells.

So when you don't have actual access to the data you can use basic laws of human behavior as a proxy.

Yourself Socold? You are just confused by which study is being used. . . .which just happens to be an issue at high tide at the moment with even Lockwood offering solar explanations, albeit still without the dire predictions of feedback and tipping points.

That stuff just takes a little longer to develop.

PDOs provide a handy explanation for why Steven Schnieder's "the world is going to end" dire predictions show up on roughly on a 30 year time scale. And since he is a big big big research dollar mover providing the money front for society's lunatics all of science rocks to his beat.

And of course GLC's "the trend is the key" is what really drives it to dizzying heights. Trend provides the last piece of the puzzle. . . .greed!

Like a bunch of drunken real estate development investors making money hand over fist in a upward real estate market selling $300,000 homes as fast as they can build them 10 to an $1,000/acre farmland. So why not accelerate the build out plan? After all the banks want in as partners so money sources aren't a problem! After all the "trend is the key"!!! Its going to continue forever!

Yep, basic human nature is quite apparent in the cycles of time.

If you live long enough you have to find at least a partial cure to being too young and too stupid.

[hilbert]

Apr 24, 2010 13:31:49 GMT glc said:

...
Would anyone like to guess/estimate/calculate the probability of getting less than 4000 heads from 10000 tosses?

sigma = sqrt(n*p*q) = 50 (for a fair coin); expected value is 5000, so you're 20 s.d.'s out.

Always good to use proper statistics--you're probably a big fan of Climate Audit, eh? :-)

hilbert

[nautonnier]

Apr 24, 2010 13:31:49 GMT glc said:

I<<SNIP>>>

"Satellites are not suddenly going to start measuring increasing numbers of peaks of storm surges.
Trend is the key. "



Yet if we have a season with multiple tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic and cyclones in the Pacific - Satellites may well be measuring increasing numbers of storm surges in the equatorial regions.

In the same way that the number and size of large container ships and tankers and for that matter oil rigs has increased over the last 30 years possibly in recent years reducing due to the world recession (perhaps someone could see if there is a correlation between satellite-measured-sea-level stabilizing as the recession reduces shipping ?)

It is also notable that Bangladesh has _gained_ land area in the last few years and areas on the coast of southern India the sea has dropped exposing villages that had previously been under the sea.


you can carry on with your straight line trends based on global averages but the world environment is not a controlled environment and does not appear to be obeying the models.