|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 21, 2016 16:50:53 GMT
WHY ARE THE NORTHERN OCEANS WARMER THAN THE SOUTHERN OCEANS? (PART 2)THERE ARE BIG DIFFERENCES AT GREATER DEPTHSWhen you look below the upper 100 meters ... let's start at 100-700 meters ... the picture and the trend changes. The N Pacific is cooler than the S Pacific and those negative anomalies have been increasing across the entire 2004-15 time period in each of the 3 latitude zones (0-20, 20-40 and 40-65). As shown in the attached charts, the anomalies for the N Pacific (N Pacific mean temp minus S Pacific mean temp) are -1.2, -0.2 and -1.2 C respectively by latitude zone. The tropical and mid-latitude zones have declined by about -0.25 C over the 11 years (-2.5 C per century). At the high latitudes, the N Pacific increased to 2010, then declined by about -0.1 C. So, while the N Pacific is warmer in the surface layers than the S Pacific in the mid-latitudes and has been warming relative to the S Pacific north 20 degrees north latitude, the temperatures at depth are both cooler than and have been declining relative to the S Pacific. At 100-700 meters, the N Atlantic is still much warmer than the S Atlantic, but has been cooling across the entire 2004-15 time period in each of the 3 latitude zones. The temperature anomalies are least in the tropics and increase to the north: 0.6, 4.4 and 5.6 respectively. The cooling has been -0.35, -0.15 and -0.5 respectively. Since the N Pacific and N Atlantic show consistent cooling below the upper 100 meters over the last decade, we must assume, that in a period of solar slowdown, that sooner or later, this may affect the surface layer over a wide area of both oceans (definite assumption). We know that this is already happening in the N Atlantic and may soon do so in the N Pacific as the last of the blob dissipates (another assumption). Will the AMO and the temperature equivalent of the PDO also go negative in the near future? This would undoubtedly(?) affect the northern hemisphere climates. As always, these data come from Argo. Keep up the good work boys and girls. I'm waiting for Jan-Feb. 2016.   
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 21, 2016 16:51:14 GMT
Great find Code!
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 21, 2016 16:54:30 GMT
OH boy Missouriboy! This will take time to fully digest!
I am not liking what you are graphing tho!
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 21, 2016 17:00:12 GMT
Great find Code.  |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 21, 2016 19:39:46 GMT
WHY ARE THE NORTHERN OCEANS WARMER THAN THE SOUTHERN OCEANS? (PART 3)
AND EVEN GREATER DEPTHS
When you look below the upper 700 meters the picture and the trends are largely the same as 100-700 meter zone. While Argo shows that the heat content of the deepest zone (of those Argo measures) do show small increases over the 2004-15 period, the temperature anomalies between the northern and southern oceans appears to be changing. The N Pacific below 700 meters is colder than the S Pacific above 20 N latitude and is becoming more so over time. The N Atlantic below 700 meters is still warmer than the S Atlantic and this anomaly becomes greater as you move poleward. Like the Pacific, these anomalies have been declining over the time period, with the exception of the N Atlantic above 40 N latitude, where temperature anomalies increased through 2012 and have declined since ... interestingly coincident with the rise of the blue blob.   
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 22, 2016 22:31:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 22, 2016 23:01:49 GMT
Not only is the heat hiding in the oceans, but it's hiding from Argo as well. Guess I need to convert the temperatures to joules. I suppose they got their data from that illustrious scientist Joules Vern. "Of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases, 93 percent is stored in the oceans. The heat content of the ocean going down to a depth of 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) also hit a new record high last year, the report noted".  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 22, 2016 23:31:24 GMT
Yep, it IS hiding from ARGO as well.
Heck, even in Joules it is hiding.
I am amazed how "couph" accurate the graph is, what with the itsy bitsy teeny error bars and all.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 23, 2016 3:01:42 GMT
Yep, it IS hiding from ARGO as well. Heck, even in Joules it is hiding. I am amazed how "couph" accurate the graph is, what with the itsy bitsy teeny error bars and all. Hey look! Another climate chart. I didn't know that Michael Mann worked for Enron! Minus that last little bit of course.  You'll note that it doesn't have error bars either. Whooops. They must have run out of CO2.  |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 23, 2016 3:46:20 GMT
Yep, it IS hiding from ARGO as well. Heck, even in Joules it is hiding. I am amazed how "couph" accurate the graph is, what with the itsy bitsy teeny error bars and all. Here is the Argo story. Looking a the graph below you can see that it bears some resemblance to the heat-content graphs that they presented 'from 2004 to 2015'. Of course it's tacked onto a database from 1960 to 2004 that I don't have a clue about. Since the chart shows deviations from 2004, you'll note that the total 11-year change for 0-2000 meters amounts to 0.03 C, which is of course a terrifying 0.3 C per century. This is of course compared to the surface temperature of the oceans that change by 3 C over the course of the seasons in any one year. But not to worry, we're all gonna die right on schedule as prophecized. Somehow I doubt that this is the warmest the oceans have ever been ... but what do I know? Of course, I don't have any error bars either, but at least I know what the source is.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 23, 2016 3:59:39 GMT
0.03C just doesn't seem as scary does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 23, 2016 8:01:09 GMT
Argo shows the oceans are warming with no hiatus or pause. This is confirmed independently by sea level rise which shows uninterrupted thermal expansion. And again confirmed by sea surface temperature measurements.
In summary the world's oceans have been heating up uninterupted since at least the 70s. This is despite the last 15 years having extraordinary low solar activity. An increasing GHG blanket is being applied to earth. The surface and atmosphere are going to heat up primarily with heat bleeding into the oceans.
0.03C warming of a body of water the size of the ocean requires a massive amount of energy. This is a sign of the ongoing heating effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 23, 2016 12:00:08 GMT
Socold, the low solar activity worries me just a little but there may be a case for what I may call "heating momentum" akin to latent heat of whatever. Can't argue anything scientifically but I feel that the momentum may be about to end and that CO2 is nowhere in the mix.
Be gentle ....
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 23, 2016 12:27:05 GMT
The big question is why is earth presently so much colder than the Eemian???
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 23, 2016 16:19:09 GMT
Argo shows the oceans are warming with no hiatus or pause. This is confirmed independently by sea level rise which shows uninterrupted thermal expansion. And again confirmed by sea surface temperature measurements. In summary the world's oceans have been heating up uninterupted since at least the 70s. This is despite the last 15 years having extraordinary low solar activity. An increasing GHG blanket is being applied to earth. The surface and atmosphere are going to heat up primarily with heat bleeding into the oceans. 0.03C warming of a body of water the size of the ocean requires a massive amount of energy. This is a sign of the ongoing heating effect. Yes, I assume that it does require a massive amount of energy. But I think the major point is that when you process the best data we have and step away a bit to view the results, there is nothing to support the hysteria of the ulta-AGW folks. You can divide the results from 'the best data we have' ... although short ... in three charts (below): the upper 100 meters where most of the 'charge' and 'discharge' of the battery must occur (unless geothermal is a significant component), the middle zone (100-700 meters) which appears to show the trends in individual oceans, and the deeper zone (700-2000 meters) which should be indicative of the 'trickle-down' warming (or cooling) that accumulates from longer-term trends. And what do we see? The deeper zone does show a small decadal increase of about 0.01 C. To affect our climate and weather, I assume that this heat must resurface at some point, but I fail to see how such a small value could be disastrous ... nor do I see a mechanism by which all this heat, which is spread over a very large volume, could be rapidly re-concentrated in the thin surface layer. It is more likely the background charge of the global battery. The middle zone shows what I am interpreting as an ongoing change in the hemispherical heat balance of the oceans. The southern oceans are getting warmer, while the northern oceans are getting cooler. Since the northern oceans are significantly warmer (as discussed in previous post) this is probably part of a longer-term cycle that may directly affect many of the indexes that we monitor such as the AMO and PDO. The global change is about 0.02 C ... again, this doesn't seem dramatic. The real change here appears to be in the N Atlantic with a decadal loss of about -0.12 C. If anything, it would seem that this redistribution of heat, if continued, from the northern hemisphere to the south, would tend to reduce the oceanic temperature gradient between hemispheres for what that's worth. The upper 100 meters of the oceans are, I assume, where most (all) of the heat transfers that affect our climate occur. Here the overall temperature change since 2004 is currently about 0.3 C and practically all of this change has occurred since 2012, largely as a result of the current El Nino. I note that this is also coincident with the peaks of the current solar cycle, as small as that has been. We will see what happens in the next year or two as this heat is shed and (assumption) the upcoming La Nina sets in. So, I repeat, what is all the excitement about (in a scientific sense)? I remain open to all reasonable theses, as all scientists should be. But, before trillions of society's scarce resources are spent to solve a problem, one ought to require that 'the problem' be firmly established ... again, in a scientific sense. Have we done that? Is the science truely settled? I don't think so. If some oil company would like to send me money, then I can provide my address.  But until then, perhaps us sceptics should be given some slack for engaging in a thought process that science absolutely requires.    |
|
But until then, perhaps us sceptics should be given some slack
