Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 Next
Comments 44301 to 44350:
-
David Kirtley at 01:48 AM on 26 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
If you're interested in helping out with on-going, crowd-source research using old ship logs you can "hop aboard" one of these vessels and help transcribe the data at OldWeather. I'm aboard the US Concord which sailed all over the world in the late 1800s.
-
Composer99 at 00:56 AM on 26 June 2013There is no consensus
PeterBCourt:
Even if one does not feed the trolls, misinformation must still be examined and addressed.
So your unveiling of Schollenberger's straw-grasp is IMO a very useful exercise.
-
angliss at 00:52 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
shoyemore@8 - MT's idea to drop "global warming" is a good one. He's incorrect, however, that Holdren coined the term "climate disruption" - it's been in use since well beore Holdren came along, and I started using it at S&R before Holdren started working for President Obama. That said, however, Holdren did popularize "climate disruption."
-
Dumb Scientist at 00:36 AM on 26 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Sorry for the delay. I now think more than 10,000 Monte Carlo runs are necessary for stable statistics, but I'm traveling now and only have access to my netbook. When I return home next Monday I'll try 1,000,000 runs on my desktop and reply as soon as possible.
-
PeterBCourt at 22:43 PM on 25 June 2013There is no consensus
I've waded into some discussions recently and have presented some of the points here on the consensus. This to me is a very key issue, because if one cant discredit it, then the only option is looney conspiracy theories involving very large numbers of scientists over decades. Lets face it, the average (and even not so average) person is not going to be able to comphrehend and judge the detail of any scientific discussions. Its all about who you are willing to trust.
I came across a rebuttal quoting Andrew Montford at bishop hill quoting Brandon Shollenberger. Now I know many feel that Shollenberger is an extreme wingnut, and Troll who is best not fed, but he is all excited about finding a hole in theconsensus project.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/cooks-unreported-finding.html
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/ 17May2013.
It took me a little to understand what he is on about. His statements on the relative numbers of each Endorsement levels. A reminder that these levels are:
1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
4. No Position
5. Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
6. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify
7. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%
8. UndecidedHis incorrect claim is that the top rating 1 - (only 65 papers) is smaller than the "Oppose AGW" numbers at 77 rejects. But he is comparing Level 1 alone with the bottom 3 levels 5,6 and 7.
The correct comparison of course is top 3 with bottom 3, which is 3898 Endorses vrs 77 rejects, and 7976 that state no opinion.
Amazing at how they are grasping at straws to overcome a mountain of evidence. Well .. disgusting actually.
-
Esop at 20:55 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
The funny thing is that when we hit a new record in the surface temps in 2010, the deniers make a lot of noise that the surface measurements only represented a tiny 2% of the whole system. How things change. I will bet that once the next Nino hits and we get a new surface record, it will be back to the same tune.
Just like Arctic sea ice. If 2013 does not go lower than 2012, they will scream recovery and coming ice age, but when 2014 or 2015 smashes the 2012 record, they will claim that it is all natural and they knew it would happen all along. Denial is easy when you can make up your own facts and reality, and the press never questions it, but call upon you as an expert on the topic.
-
Icarus at 20:46 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Hmmm...
-
Icarus at 20:43 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Tamino provides a nice simple graphic showing that global temperature remains within the projected range based on previous decades of warming:
<img width="450" src="http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/giss.jpg" alt="">
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/2012-updates-to-trend-observation-comparisons/
-
Esop at 20:37 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
A very timely article, Dana.
Just this morning, one of Norway's major newpapers, Finansavisen, ran an editorial perpetuating the very same myths.
No surprise, though. Norway has more outspoken deniers per capita than any other nation on earth. Humlum and Giæver are just two of many.
NRK (Norway's BBC) has a bad habit of inviting denialists, but no climate scientists when debating global warming. A well informed denier knows the talking points and will run over a representative from the Green Party andy day of the week.
This is just one tool in the state owned TV Channels quest to form public opinion and gather support for continued explotation of FF reserves in the North Sea and Arctic, securing continuation of major cash flow for the state owned oil company.
-
Icarus at 20:36 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Sea level rise continues unabated, which is surely another indication that there has been no slowdown in global warming, even without the OHC data.
-
Terranova at 20:29 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
John at.11
It's possible. Acceleration or deceleration ate inevitable.
-
Ken in Oz at 19:11 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Ned - you don't think humanity has the intelligence to foresee the consequences of our actions, sufficient ethics to act like it matters or the collective organisation capable of incorporating scientific foresight into effective government policies and regulations? You seem to be saying that even knowing that climate change makes bubonic plague seem inconsequential you think no government level efforts should even be attempted due to certainty of failure.
-
shoyemore at 17:40 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Michael Tobis comments:
It’s tempting, then, to say “global warming has not stopped, it has just gone underwater”, but I think this is an opportunity to let go of the always poorly chosen name “global warming”.
I believe John Holdren coined the term “climate disruption”, and I think it is exactly right.
-
Paul D at 17:33 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
ajki@6
You might find this article useful:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
-
grindupBaker at 16:56 PM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
The period 1550 -1850 was known as "Little Ice Age", appears drop maybe 0.5 degrees C just eyeballing graphs. So, I do not see how finding that ocean heat was less ~1870 A.D. than previously thought leads to the conclusion of increased anthropogenic warming 1873–1955 unless the prior computations include a quantitative assessment of what the ocean heat change would have been during that period with no anthropogenic warming.
-
Donthaveone at 15:04 PM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
To scaddenp,
I read the paper you provided, it does detail potential errors in the readings from the Challenger and the authors appear to do thier best to take these errors into account.
They say all the errors add a warm bias to the measurements therefore the Challenger data is reduced in magnitude, obviously the larger the reduction the larger the trend over the 135 years becomes.
So i suppose it comes down to how much confidence you have in the data and according to the authors i would say that is not too much when they say
Obviously, these local differences may represent any timescale in the 135-year intervalfrom a transient meander of the Gulf Stream in 1873 to a long-term change in the current's latitude. Similarly, regional to ocean-scale differences may be affected by interannual to decadal15,16 variability, including in the deep ocean17, and hence our Challenger-to-Argo difference based on stations along the Challenger track must be viewed with caution.
That said i found it an interesting study and according to the authors the results show a warming on centenial time scales
The larger temperature change observed between the Challenger expedition and Argo Programme, both globally (0.33 C +/-0.14, 0-700 m) and separately in the Atlantic(0.58 C +/-0.12) and Pacific (0.22 C+/-0.11), therefore seems to be associated with the longer timescale of a century or more. The implications of centennial-scale warming of the subsurface oceans extend beyond the climate system's energy imbalance.
What the authors are saying is that the positive trend in OHC can be extended right back to the 1870's (Challenger data).
In summary, this paper uses data that cannot be considered accurate but if we were to accept these results as they are the trend shown in this data is similar to other studies and tthey show the trend extends back well before man could have started to change the climate through CO2 emissions. This paper is not a new discovery, this paper adds to what is already known and that is OHC and therfore SLR has been increasing at a steady rate for well over a century.
I believe the headline "Is more global warming hiding in the ocean" to be an inaccurate description of what the paper discusses and declares.
Thanks again for supplying the paper
Cheers
-
Tom Curtis at 14:25 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
DSL @4, it is the equivalent in energy content to two small nuclear weapons when averaged över the increase in OHC since the 1960s. Over the last decade, it has average near 4.6 times the energy release by the Little Boy bomb.
Personally I do not think the comparison is apt on two grounds. Firstly, in terms of physics, while the energy content is equivalent, the entropy of an atomic explosion is much less than that from the TOA energy imbalance. Because of this, a single small fission bomb has greater capacity to cause harm than does the TOA energy imbalance, even though the later is global in extent. Put another way, if some alien race were dropping four small fission bombs at random locations around the globe every second, we would be in no doubt as to the destructive effect of the energy release. In contrast, the greater energy release from the TOA energy imbalance can only, currently, be shown to be causing harm by statistical analysis.
Second, I do not consider it appropriate to use the tragedy of Hiroshima for merely illustrative purpose. Strictly speaking, John Cook referred to the bomb itself rather than its consequences for illustrative purposes, but I see no benefit in even coming close to that line.
-
ajki at 14:21 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
I'm not very happy with this (kind of) "liberal" approach on terms. When that what has been measured and shown by the scientific community throughout ages is "global warming" - then by all means call it so. The term "climate change" smells like "denier spirit" - just to come by with this usual "well hey, that's ok - climate will always change". Using the wrong term for the noted phenomenon will get us nowhere.
-
Donthaveone at 14:07 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
I do believe GillianB is referring to this statement
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-like-atom-bomb-scientists/story-fn3dxiwe-1226668054364
Or habe (Hiroshima atomic bomb equivalents) but alas i do not know how this figure was reached.
-
Donthaveone at 13:45 PM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
Mod,
I have read the comments policy and i do accept i erred when i copied and pasted a statement for which i appologise, i did not complain to a moderator i merely asked what the word meant as i did not recognise it. I have no idea what was inflammatory but if a mod feels it is then so be it.
In response do the mods feel it is acceptable to percieve ones tone and then make unsubstantiated comments based on that perception?
Also do the mods feel it acceptable that one can claim the use of the word "Cheers" when ending a post to be an indication of ones true intentions?
Moderator Response:[DB] Per the Comments Policy :
No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.
For those genuinely wishing to engage others on the science of climate change...and the denial of it, then Skeptical Science is the place to do that. However, please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum. The Comments Policy is a common set of rules that everyone here observes and abides by.
Lastly, please note that moderation policies are not open for discussion.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it; this will allow yourself to participate in a rich discussion. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
DSL at 13:32 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
It's two hiroshimas per second, if you're talking about ocean heat content gain. I haven't seen a calc for the other two or the other parts of the climate system. Of course, OHC 0-2000m has spiked in recent months . . .
-
GillianB at 13:23 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
Hi, can someone point me towards the calculations behind the 'four Hiroshimas a second' statement?
Thanks, Gillian
-
DSL at 13:09 PM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
Yah, I second what Rob points out.
Skeptical Still: "I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause."
Start with the greenhouse effect. If it's highly probable (it's been measured in lab for over a century, inferred from satellite for decades, directly measured from the surface for a couple of decades (e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004), and successfully accounted for in products such as air-to-air missiles), then we have a basic energy imbalance situation. Add GHGs, and the climate system stores more energy. No matter what any other forcing is doing, and no matter what alternative is offered, the enhanced greenhouse effect must be accounted for. If you don't believe that humans are responsible for the rapid rise in CO2, there are threads for that. If you don't think that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, Lacis et al. 2010 is a fairly readable explanation why it is.
The paleo data simply helps constrain the net feedback both in terms of strength and timing. It does not provide evidence for the basic theory. That's just physics. -
scaddenp at 12:46 PM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
Skeptical Still.
Okay, how about looking at a longer (2000 years say). The important thing is actually to take a long enough record to be able to distinguish the signal from noise. This depends on S/N ratio.
"I have not see any proof that we understand whether the delta in the ‘forces’ caused the climate change or themselves were caused by the climate change (or were coincidental to it)." I find this strange coming from a fellow geologist. Firstly its not normal to talk of proof in science, only maths gets that. Second, there is a vast geological literature on the paleoclimate and forces. For starters you should look at IPCC WG1 Chp 6 for the basic background but follow cites from key papers and you will see new research. Hansen and Sato 2012 is discussed here. Note Fig 3 especially.
"Cant predict weather so cant predict climate" is a very old myth. See here for pointers to the science. I would strongly suggest you work your way through the "arguments" button on the top left of this page so see what science has to say about these myths.
-
michael sweet at 12:29 PM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
Skeptical,
If you have a degree in Geology you will be aware that changing sea level leaves geological records. This link has data you might appreciate covering the last 40 million years. Is that enough for you? The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians all left records of sea level. These records extend the well documented record back 4,000 years. You cannot expect to have world wide tide gauge records longer than 150 years, scientific measurements have only been done for that long.
You are confusing climate and weather. Climate is much easier to forecast than weather. I do not know if there will be a storm in two weeks. It will certaily be colder in January than it is now in Florida. Read the background information before you challenge people who are much more informed than you are. If you do not understand the basics you cannot hope to master more complex subjects. The ice core data is compared to model projections to determine how the various forcings interact. This is one of the ways the models are validated. If you do not understand how the data is examined, how can you expect to understand "incredible" results?
It is not the responsibility of this web site to spoon feed you all climate science. You must read the background information so that you can ask reasonable questions. I suggest you go to the "start here" button at the top of the page. Ask a few questions about items you do not understand. You will sound like you want to learn more with a better attitude.
If you do not look at the data you will never see "incredible" evidence. That does not mean that the data does not exist, just that you have not looked for it yet. Arhennius predicted in 1896 that the increase of CO2 would increase temperatures more in winter than summer, more at night than in the day, more over land than sea, more in the arctic than the tropics and more in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere. All these predictions have been measured in the last several decades. That sounds pretty "incredible" to me. What is your alternate explaination for the collapse of Arctic sea ice (keep in mind that the "skeptics" still deny the ice is melting and predict a recovery every year)?
We all wish that AGW theory was wrong. Unfortunately, the data indicate that is not the case.
-
scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Ned - I find this very hard to comprehend. You are skeptical about published science because people are asking for something to be done? Because studies to date show that mitigating will be way cheaper than adaptation? This makes no sense at all. Let me put another example. Suppose science instead finds that there is asteroid on collision path with earth with 99% probability and also put up a number of potential avenues by which this might be averted. Are you going to be skeptical that the asteroid exists because they are funnily enough jumping up and down and asking for something to be done about it? What should they do?
This sounds very much like this little piece of logic:
"If AGW is true, then it is better to mitigate. I dont like proposals for mitigation, ergo AGW cant be true."
Is that really what you mean? On the other hand, solutions to date have had a lot of trouble gaining traction, particularly with with political right. Perhaps you would like to take the challenge here and say what you think should be done if you were convinced AGW needed mitigation.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:57 AM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
Skeptical Still...
First I have to ask, do you believe that the researchers who have spent decades studying this subject understand their field of science? Those researcher are extremely clear about how serious this issue is. What I get from your comments is that, not only are you "not yet convinced," you seem to have already made up your mind before fully understanding the issue.
This is definitely a field of science where there are considerable uncertainties in many areas. Thus, it requires getting to know many more of the elements of the research in order to grasp how all the pieces fit together.
This is the point I usually direct people to Richard Alley's AGU lecture.
"I don’t deny anything- but I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause."
And this is where I usually point out the basic radiative physics of CO2.
"To the supporters of man-mad climate change- I hope for all our sake you are wrong."
And this is where I agree wholeheartedly. But the concern is that the evidence is overwhelming at this point. It's very unlikely to be wrong. The remaining question is merely, is it going to be bad, or is it going to be really bad? Or, hope beyond hope, can we stomp on the brakes and get our trajectory under control fast?
-
Skeptical Still at 11:24 AM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
I stumbled on this webpage and appreciate the huge amount of work, data and analysis that goes into it. I have a degree in Geology and understand the arguments yet I'm not convinced and I'll site two examples. 1. The text posted alongside a graph showing sea level rise cautions the reader not to focus on a small set of points (with a ruler) as any trend line can be visible in a small data set. We are cautioned further to look at the entirety of the data. The first thing I noticed is that the data is only available to the mid-1800s. This ~180 year span is a tiny sliver of geologic time- even since the last ice age. We don’t seem to have a data set covering a span of time long enough to be meaningful. Why draw a conclusion from incomplete data? 2. Ice cores are presented as providing data on volcanic dust, atmospheric gases and other forces that worked to cause previous climate change. I have not see any proof that we understand whether the delta in the ‘forces’ caused the climate change or themselves were caused by the climate change (or were coincidental to it). The inference I took is that we fully understand the mechanics of the earth’s climate and can account for the causes of past climate change. Given our meager ability currently to forecast the weather and predict storms this does not seem to be true. I’m not a ‘denier’ nor is my head in the sand. I’m offended by these terms and refuse to hold a civil discussion with anyone resorting to name calling. My position, to paraphrase, is that incredible claims require incredible evidence. I don’t deny anything- but I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause. To the supporters of man-mad climate change- I hope for all our sake you are wrong. P.S. I don't seem to have mastered the formatting capabilities of the software- please forgive the lack of structure in my writing.
-
Ken in Oz at 11:17 AM on 25 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
"The transport of ocean heat to depths, and to the poles, will drastically slow down, and this will allow the surface of the tropical oceans to warm rapidly."
This is -dare I say the word? - alarming.
Are we already getting long lived warm zones in deep water beneath and around the gyres? How much heat and time before that drastic slowing down?
My own interest in ocean heat has been mostly as a better way to communicate the ongoing nature of the ghg induced change in global heat balance in the face of strident claims that warming has been slowing down. The ups and downs of global air temperatures allow the unfortunate impression that global warming is something that waxes and wanes; Dana and co's combined ocean, land, ice and atmosphere heat content shows much less internal variability and, if used as a reference measure, would probably never go as long as one American or Australian election cycle without showing clear signs of ongoing warming. -
Ned Netterville at 11:09 AM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Even if global warming is the greatest threat to humanity since the Bubonic Plague, asking governments to address the problem with legislation is like putting Homer Simpson in charge of guarding the beer keg. D'oh! Whatever the U.S. congress does to address the problem is 100 percent certain to make matters worse. The reason I'm a skeptic is because I see and hear intelligent climate scientist calling for a political solution, and that is just plain nuts.
-
Donthaveone at 11:02 AM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
I am sorry maybe i misunderstood what the point of SKS was.
dana1981 posted a newspaper story which in a nutshell claimed OHC data taken some 120 years ago was compared to current day Argo data and from this comparison it was then stated that the comparison shows the OHC has risen by an amount and this was due to AGW. The newspaper story gave no indication of how this comparison was achieved.
I was of the opinion that such a comparison was unrealistic in terms of both number of samples and methodology and stated such in the hope of generating a discussion point however this did not occur, instead i was told my "tone" was not acceptable and you cannot end a post with the word "cheers" i would be fascinated to know what is the correct way of ending a post DiKran?
Following on from this a moderator made this statement
(-Moderation complaints snipped-)?
To Dikran,
You stated in 9
(-blockquote snipped-).
(-Inflammatory snipped-). In regards to discussing science well i have asked questions regarding the science around this issue, have you even attempted to respond to those questions?
To scaddenp in 11,
Thankyou very much for the link i have not read the paper as yet but i will and respond to you in time.
Regards?
Moderator Response:[DB] Firstly, you were given a direct link to the openly-available submitted version of the paper in the previous moderator's comment.
Secondly, familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy before posting further comments. This is NOT an option.
-
scaddenp at 09:47 AM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
My institution gives me access to the paper. In it I see that it builds heaving on "135 years of global ocean warming between the Challenger expedition and the Argo
Programme, Dean Roemmich,W. John Gould& John Gilson 2013" which is publically available. It answers most if not all of Donthaveone's queries but funnily enough they dont leap to the same conclusion. Worth reading. -
Phil at 08:22 AM on 25 June 2013Lu Blames Global Warming on CFCs (Curve Fitting Correlations)
tcflood @73
Have you got Lu mixed up with KK Tung ?
-
william5331 at 06:21 AM on 25 June 2013Citizens Climate Lobby - Pushing for a US Carbon Fee and Dividend
It is very important what is done with the money collected as a carbon tax. Rather than give it to every citizen, give it in equal parts to every registered tax payer, whether or not they are paying tax currently. This has the great advantage that the data base already exists so there will be virtually no cost in implimenting it. Then don't let the legislators give this money as a tax reduction. You want to get this money into the hands of your poorest citizens. They will instantly spend all this money just to keep their heads above water and the money will come into the market to generate more taxes at all levels. After about 4 transfers of this money it is almost all in the hands of the government but in it's passage, it has "done good". The government can then start to pay off the national debt or at least borrow less. The amount of money in the system is of very little importance. The rate at which it circulates, of huge importance. Of course it would be insane to impliment such a system before cutting all subsidies to fossil fuel companies and transferring these subsidies to renewable energy companies.
-
tcflood at 04:20 AM on 25 June 2013Lu Blames Global Warming on CFCs (Curve Fitting Correlations)
Moderator,
I was going to reference your site regarding your posting on Q-B Lu's recent paper and his two-part posting discussing the paper and your response. I haven't been able to find his posts. If I have simply missed them this time, please provide a link. If you have removed them, I would suggest that you post a comment that you have done so and your reasons for doing so.
Moderator Response:[TD] I don't see any comments by Lu in the deleted comments. I also don't remember seeing Lu's comments on this thread. Nor are any comments by Lu on the "It's CFCs" thread.
[TD] Maybe you are thinking of Lu's response over at Climate Science Watch.
[DB] There is no registered user at SkS under any variant of Lu's name.
-
Kevin C at 23:17 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Bigger problem - the reservoir isn't in equilibrium with itself. OK, think this is too hard to solve with either intuition or simple models.
-
Kevin C at 22:51 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
OK, very interesting result - my intuition appears to be completely wrong on this.
I made a simple model in which the atmosphere is constantly in equilibrium with the difference between forcing and ocean heat uptake, equivalent to the effective sensitivity equation. Then I drove this from a 2 box model in a TCR experiment (although any realistic response function will give the same result).
If focing levels out, then the heat flux immediately reverses so that heat leaves the ocean rather than entering it. This heat goes into the atmosphere, warming it. That's where 'warming in the pipeline' comes from.
If this model is plausible then a flattening in forcing looks completely different from a hiatus decade, even using only total OHC as a measure.
The model is flawed because the heat reservoir doesn't have a temperature. I need to redo the whole thing with a thermodynamic model as a check.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:22 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
It is interesting that the 20th century IPO phases seem to line up fairly well with another cycle I've heard about more frequently in the past, the 'Pacific Decadal Oscillation' (PDO). From what I can gather on the geography of where they each occur these aren't the same thing, but it seems likely that there is some connection.
Both cycles also line up with previous 'warming breaks' in the early 1900s and 1950s to 60s. The previous warming break is often attributed to aerosol pollution blocking incoming sunlight and that is also considered a possible cause of the current 'slow down' in atmospheric warming, but seems unlikely to have been a significant factor when atmospheric temperatures dipped ~1910. Meehl's model showing a mechanism for this correlation between the IPO cycle and warming shifts suggests that the 'natural cycle' is a principal factor, though it would still be useful to nail down how much aerosol pollution is contributing to the effect.
Given that IPO cycles seem to last between 15 and 30 years I'm not sure we can say the shift back is going to happen 'soon'. It could be any time now... or 15 years down the road.
-
Kevin C at 22:07 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Yes, that's what I said. What I'm trying to get at is whether there are other causes which could have the same effect (or sufficiently similar effects that we would need more complex fingerprints to distinguish them).
i.e. If A causes X and B causes X, then X doesn't allow us to choose between causes A and B.
I'm just working on a model - more later.
-
chriskoz at 21:38 PM on 24 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
I can hint Donthaveone, that easy answers to most of their gishgallop @3 can be found in Dean Roemmich video posted by citizenschallenge@1. Very nice and informative video at your fingertips requiring little effort: no need to spend energy looking for the publication and learning all of those terms and acronyms without what you won't understand the publication anyway.
In this video, Dean has shown in very simple words, that the amount of ocean warming between Chalenger and Argo is most likely underestimated. This is a simple answer to your gishgallop about "uncertainty". Have you genuinely checked it after citizenschallenge@1, you would not need post your questions, or you would post a reasonable questions, e.g. fow the uncertainty was measured and what is the confidence level of the final conclusion. But instead, you prefer to conclude:
"Too many variables combined with a very small sample means this comparison is a futile exercise"
That's pure nonsense. In statistics, any sample greater than 1 can be analysed and the confidence of how the sample represents the population be concluded. But you are clearly not interested how. I concur with Dikran.
-
Rob Painting at 20:43 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Kevin - intensification of the wind-driven ocean circulation speeds up the rate of Ekman pumping in the centre of the ocean gyres. In effect, more warm water is taken from the surface layers in the subtropics and transported to deeper ocean layers. The vertical column of water in the centre of the gyres, where downwelling occurs (known as Taylor columns), become more rigid as the ocean gyres spin up. These columns lengthen as a result of the spin-up, so warmer water is displaced vertically in the ocean. One of the consequences of this enhanced ocean circulation is stronger upwelling (Ekman suction) in the equatorial regions (stronger easterly trade winds), and a stronger poleward transport of warm surface water away from the equator (in the western boundary currents), combined with a stronger equatorward transport of cold polar surface water in the Eastern Boundary Currents.
What I'm getting at is that the trends shown in figure 3 are precisely what we would expect based upon the motion of fluids on a rapidly rotating planet such as Earth. So the effects you point out in 1-3 are in fact a sign that the wind-driven ocean circulation has strengthened.
I believe a lot of confusion still exists because of the failure to account for the effects of global dimming in the early part of the 2000's. As shown in the Roemmich et al (2007) paper I have linked to in the post, the South Pacific subtropical gyre spun down at around the same time that Hatzianasstissiou et al (2011) show a strong dimming of surface solar radiation - mainly in the Southern Hemisphere.
-
Kevin C at 19:18 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Figure 3 is very interesting and exactly what you would expect from an increase in ocean circulation.
It has a major bearing on a problem I'm wrestling with at the moment: Can OHC be used as a diagnosting of a change in forcing - specifically does the continued OHC accumulation over the last decade actually mean that there has been no significant change in forcing?
My intuitition says (and I'm working on checking it), that a flattening in forcing would lead to the following effects:
- A flattening of surface temperature trends.
- A slowing of heat accumulation in the shallow layers.
- Ongoing heat accumulation in the deep layers.
Note that this is similar, but not identical to the fingerprint of a hiatus decade. The only difference is that in a hiatus decade the rate of warming of the deep oceans increases.
If I am correct, then the continuing increase in OHC is not sufficient evidence to conclude that global warming is continuing unabated, because the oceans would continue to play catchup to the new level of forcing whether or not the forcing had flattened - you can't tell a flattening in the forcing from an increase in circulation (at least at first). However an increased rate of deep ocean heat accumulation does provide a fingerprint which distinguishes between the two.
The next question would be how long does it take to distinguish between them?
-
Cornelius Breadbasket at 19:05 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Thank you Rob.
-
Rob Painting at 18:56 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Individuals will make their own decision as to whether they find this information alarming or not. The consequences of a shutdown of the wind-driven ocean circulation could be very profound. As for previous behavior of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, given that many readers will not be familiar with this index - I'm writing a follow-up to this post.
-
Cornelius Breadbasket at 18:28 PM on 24 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Can you say how strong the empirical evidence is for rapid warming to start in the near future? As a non-scientist climate change communicator I'd like to let people know what the balance of evidence is without being too alarmist.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 17:42 PM on 24 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
donthaveone SkS is primarily intended for discussion of science, if you want to engage in rhetoric, or blogsphere bitch-slapping, then you would be better off elsewhere. If nothing else, please read the comments policy, especially the item about sloganeering, which basically gives posters a requirement to be willing and able to discuss the science supporting their position.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 17:38 PM on 24 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
donthaveone did you try emailing the corresponding author of the paper to ask for a preprint? Scientists are generally quite pleased to hear of people wanting to read their work and will happily send them a preprint. Most journals are happy for authors to do this (if in doubt you can consult SHERPA/RoMEo - in this case JGR is a "green" journal in the sense the author can archive both pre- and post-prints, meaning there is no copyright problem preventing the author from sending you a copy). Sometimes if you want to find out answers, you do have to do a little bit of work for yourself.
As to how can I tell intentions from the tone of a post? Well that is kind of what language is for. Ending posts that ask multiple question with a statement that shows you have already made up your mind "Too many variables combined with a very small sample means this comparison is a futile exercise." is a pretty good indication that the questions were merely rhetorical and you are not really interested in the answers. Ending posts with "cheers" is also a fair indicator - it does come accross as being somewhat sarcastic, especially following rhetorical questions. -
Tom Curtis at 17:38 PM on 24 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
Donthaveone @6 equals, in translation, "The world has an obligation spoon feed me for free any information I desire." Perhaps Donthaveone would be better of reflecting that his questions don't stand unanswered. Rather, he is merely too lazy (or skinflint) to seek out the answers when provided.
-
Donthaveone at 17:14 PM on 24 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
Just checked the link and it is paywalled and the abstract does not provide any answers to my questions therefore they still stand unanswered.
Moderator Response:[DB] Only the unitiate use Google; the Wise use Google Scholar. Scholar, like a wise Rabbit, finds all...like this.
-
Donthaveone at 17:11 PM on 24 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
Dikran,
How could you possibly tell by the tone of my post what my intentions are?
Thanks for the link.
Cheers
Prev 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 Next
