|
Post by steve on Mar 26, 2009 17:38:52 GMT
Within the past year, a major error in ocean temperature sampling was discovered. I may have the facts twisted, and I'll find corrections and a reference if desired... World War II caused a shift from the British sampling sea temperatures via a bucket of water collected from the side of the ship to USA's being responsible for most measurements, and these readings were from engine room intakes. Thus, sea temperatures appeared to increase as the British data became less prevalent. And how does anyone know if ocean temperature changes are not from undersea volcanoes? The error affects only the sea surface temperature data and only for the period from 1945 to about 1970. The sea surface is only a tiny part of the ocean that is closely coupled with the atmosphere. Discussions about ocean heat content relate to the energy in the bulk of the ocean which interacts less directly with the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 27, 2009 18:01:17 GMT
Within the past year, a major error in ocean temperature sampling was discovered. I may have the facts twisted, and I'll find corrections and a reference if desired... World War II caused a shift from the British sampling sea temperatures via a bucket of water collected from the side of the ship to USA's being responsible for most measurements, and these readings were from engine room intakes. Thus, sea temperatures appeared to increase as the British data became less prevalent. And how does anyone know if ocean temperature changes are not from undersea volcanoes? The error affects only the sea surface temperature data and only for the period from 1945 to about 1970. The sea surface is only a tiny part of the ocean that is closely coupled with the atmosphere. Discussions about ocean heat content relate to the energy in the bulk of the ocean which interacts less directly with the atmosphere. While all of this is true, there is absolutely no reason why the SST should be cooler than the rest of the ocean. If OHC is increasing due to CO2, then that should be adequately reflected in SSTs. Why would the heat "hide" deep beneath the surface?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 27, 2009 18:32:42 GMT
The error affects only the sea surface temperature data and only for the period from 1945 to about 1970. The sea surface is only a tiny part of the ocean that is closely coupled with the atmosphere. Discussions about ocean heat content relate to the energy in the bulk of the ocean which interacts less directly with the atmosphere. While all of this is true, there is absolutely no reason why the SST should be cooler than the rest of the ocean. If OHC is increasing due to CO2, then that should be adequately reflected in SSTs. Why would the heat "hide" deep beneath the surface? That's a silly argument. Why does there have to be a "reason". There is no "reason" for the existence of the camel, but I've ridden one. Here's a temperature profile of the ocean. How much deep ocean water needs to come to the surface to make a big difference to sea surface temperatures? faculty.piercecollege.edu/leesc/Ocean_10/Exercise/Profiles/Pacific/T/Tsection/0_6000/Pac_T_6_con.htm
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 27, 2009 18:37:48 GMT
While all of this is true, there is absolutely no reason why the SST should be cooler than the rest of the ocean. If OHC is increasing due to CO2, then that should be adequately reflected in SSTs. Why would the heat "hide" deep beneath the surface? That's a silly argument. Why does there have to be a "reason". There is no "reason" for the existence of the camel, but I've ridden one. Here's a temperature profile of the ocean. How much deep ocean water needs to come to the surface to make a big difference to sea surface temperatures? faculty.piercecollege.edu/leesc/Ocean_10/Exercise/Profiles/Pacific/T/Tsection/0_6000/Pac_T_6_con.htmIt wasn't an argument, it was a question. If the oceans are being warmed by absorbing increasing CO2, therefore causing OHC to rise, then shouldn't that naturally be reflected in SST rises? My question is, why would SSTs differ much from OHC as a whole? And if the OHC that we can measure shows no warming or cooling, should we then assume that the heat is at depths we can't accurately measure? Is it not true that some prominent AGW proponents were arguing not too long ago that there would more and stronger El Ninos due to AGW?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 27, 2009 18:50:04 GMT
It wasn't an argument, it was a question. If the oceans are being warmed by absorbing increasing CO2, therefore causing OHC to rise, then shouldn't that naturally be reflected in SST rises? My question is, why would SSTs differ much from OHC as a whole? And if the OHC that we can measure shows no warming or cooling, should we then assume that the heat is at depths we can't accurately measure? Both OHC and SSTs have risen over the past few decades, but the ocean temperatures in the first few metres are much higher than the temperatures even a few metres deeper. With currents like ENSO, you can have significantly different amounts of deeper colder water coming to the surface for periods of years to decades which would result in SSTs being much more variable. As deeper colder water comes to the surface then warm surface water must be going to the depths. But that relatively small amount of water is not going to add much to the OHC.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 27, 2009 18:59:47 GMT
It wasn't an argument, it was a question. If the oceans are being warmed by absorbing increasing CO2, therefore causing OHC to rise, then shouldn't that naturally be reflected in SST rises? My question is, why would SSTs differ much from OHC as a whole? And if the OHC that we can measure shows no warming or cooling, should we then assume that the heat is at depths we can't accurately measure? Both OHC and SSTs have risen over the past few decades, but the ocean temperatures in the first few metres are much higher than the temperatures even a few metres deeper. With currents like ENSO, you can have significantly different amounts of deeper colder water coming to the surface for periods of years to decades which would result in SSTs being much more variable. As deeper colder water comes to the surface then warm surface water must be going to the depths. But that relatively small amount of water is not going to add much to the OHC. And this is precisely why I think the IPCC and others underestimate the "dampening" effect of the oceans on global surface temperatures. The earth is 75% ocean and that ocean is incredibly deep, with trillions of tons of very cold water. If anything, it would seem that increasing CO2 would warm the atmosphere/surface much faster than the oceans...but then the oceans act as a dampener on the heat. So again I ask: if all that you say is true, then why were people like Hansen and Gore predicting more and stronger El Ninos (which would, in turn, result in warmer and warmer surface conditions)?
|
|
|
Post by bsattu on Mar 27, 2009 20:19:35 GMT
Question?
Which hold more heat? gas or liquid? CO2 or H2O? How much H2O is there compared to CO2?
Has anyone measured any other gas for absorbtion of heat?
Gas Formula Abundance percent by volume Abundance parts per million by volume Nitrogen N2 78.084% 780,840 Oxygen O2 20.9476% 209,476 Argon Ar 0.934% 9,340 Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0314% 314 Neon Ne 0.001818% 18.18 Helium He 0.000524% 5.24 Methane CH4 0.0002% 2 Krypton Kr 0.000114% 1.14 Hydrogen H2 0.00005% 0.5 Xenon Xe 0.0000087% 0.087
n 1954 the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) adopted standard atmosphere for general use and affirmed its definition of being precisely equal to 1,013,250 dynes per square centimeter (101,325 Pa).[2] This value was intended to represent the mean atmospheric pressure at mean sea level at the latitude of Paris, France, and as a practical matter, truly reflects the mean sea level pressure for many of the industrialized nations (those with latitudes similar to Paris).
Since CO2 dissolves directly to solid at -78c(-108F) does it fall back and become a gas again? (repeats the cycle)
I am curious
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 28, 2009 5:51:06 GMT
They changed how they compute the baseline for the anamolies from their previous study, because there is much more data for the past few years, when the ARGO floats were deployed. That's all that happened, no fraud involved! No fraud? Bottom line is in financial markets a CPA reporting on financial results might change how a figure is calculated but not without doing both calculations and reporting both for at least a couple of years so any effects can be openly observed. He does that because to do otherwise would invite lawsuits. . . .scientists now determining our financial futures are not held to such a standard. That might make you feel like a bug in a rug when the results follow your belief system. . . .but your turn will come if you allow it.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 4, 2009 16:15:56 GMT
SSTs are not lower. The deep oceans are essentially as cold as polar waters. Think in terms of "less cold" rather than "more hot." The big problem occurs when polar waters warm up a tad (as they are doing now). Then they don't dive to the bottom and push the bottom water up to the surface when it hits a continent. This will greatly reduce the thermal buffer the oceans currently provide and temperatures can increase far more. Oh, and the fish mostly die.
|
|