EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:01 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:49 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2247
Location: Central Colorado
Iowanic wrote:
Howdy, Warmair! Thought I recognized that name from somewhere!

My point on the original article:

Breaking century-old records seems significant to me.

I'm glad you are here Iowanic. Seems significant to me, too. Long ago, it was said that AGW would cause climate fluctuation beyond historic---eventually leading to 1/3 crop failures, contributing to the rapid population die off by mid century. Then you have denialists still stopping anything significant in reducing our emissions the 90% by 2020 needed to have a chance for future generations of survivors. 8) :x
What happened with TES??? Besides over the top political correctness in booting out anti-immigration people like me. Maybe an explosion from all the BS PC. You know you can light farts spectacularly (being a large part methane). :lol:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:35 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Snowy123 wrote:
warmair wrote:

The average depth of the ocean is 3500 meters so I am uncertain as to what the above proves. I do know that ocean currents have no problem distributing heat below 700 meters. The La Nina weather pastern involves the overturning of the pacific ocean with cold water rising near S America and warm water rising to the surface off the E Australian coast. From memory I think the Australian east coast sea temperatures are running at about 1.5 degrees above normal at the moment.


What it shows is that the depth in the ocean where we have the best measurements show no change in Heat Content. Those measurements that go into 2000 meters are not as good as the 0-700 meter data, and should be taken with a grain of salt, since the values for 0-2000 m are significantly deviating from the higher quality 0-700 m dataset. If heat is being transferred from higher to lower levels of the ocean, we should be seeing this transfer through the first 700 m of the ocean. But we're not.


I just don't think that measuring the top 1/5 of the layer of the ocean is going to prove very much, certainly drawing the conclusion that the ocean has suddenly stopped warming is a bit of a stretch. If I told that 1.4 continents were warming and that proved global warming you would no doubt not be impressed.
The important point is that where we get strong evaporation as in the warmer areas of the planet the water is going to sink because of its high salt content and be replaced by cooler water from below. So all we should expect to see is a few places where cool water is rising to the surface. The heat is moved from one place to another as part of a large parcel of water, which finds a depth where the densities are the same but are not at the same temperature. At this point mixing will occur and a uniform temperature will be established. Something similar happens in the atmosphere when convection causes hot air to rise which is then replaced by cooler air from above. In order to prove anything we need temperature readings down to a point where the temperature remains constant.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:12 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
warmair wrote:


I just don't think that measuring the top 1/5 of the layer of the ocean is going to prove very much, certainly drawing the conclusion that the ocean has suddenly stopped warming is a bit of a stretch. If I told that 1.4 continents were warming and that proved global warming you would no doubt not be impressed.


The 0-700 meter depth of the ocean is crucial in determining if any heat content is mixing down to the lower levels.

We don't observe that going on.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2247
Location: Central Colorado
Snowy123 wrote:
warmair wrote:


I just don't think that measuring the top 1/5 of the layer of the ocean is going to prove very much, certainly drawing the conclusion that the ocean has suddenly stopped warming is a bit of a stretch. If I told that 1.4 continents were warming and that proved global warming you would no doubt not be impressed.


The 0-700 meter depth of the ocean is crucial in determining if any heat content is mixing down to the lower levels.

We don't observe that going on.

Bull! The Norwegians reported that the waters off their continental shelf had warmed 1*F down to 700 meters (1,200') in 2009. What is bad news is that methane deposits are at that depth and lower, and a prone to sudden release of methane by a 2*F rise, or mechanical action. (a good reason why this plentiful resource is not mined)
The same year three sets of tundra scientists reported that tundra methane releases were at the tipping point of self-release without more CO2 and other GHGs from humans warming. Links to those reports were accidentally erased by admin. CO2 has gone up at 3% per year except last year a record 5%. There is enough CH4 going into self-release mode to equal 150% of the CO2 already in the atmosphere, and that is enough to warm the oceans past the release point of methane deposits down to great depth. The further oceanic methane is even more than in arctic tundras, and causes more warming to the very bottom methane hydrate deposits, called turnover. Of course the inertia of ocean temperatures is great and takes hundreds of years to warm that much.
I wonder what fate there is after their fat and happy lives, for denialists. Will God sentence them for murder of future generations??

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Johhny Electriglide wrote:

Bull! The Norwegians reported that the waters off their continental shelf had warmed 1*F down to 700 meters (1,200') in 2009. What is bad news is that methane deposits are at that depth and lower, and a prone to sudden release of methane by a 2*F rise, or mechanical action. (a good reason why this plentiful resource is not mined)


Well Johnny, Norway does not represent the whole globe, so in no way does that refute the fact that Global Oceanic Heat Content from 0-700 meters in the ocean, has flatlined over the last several years. Moreover, it could also be a relatively high anomaly in 2009 in Norway over a relatively flat line over the last several years. This means that there is a mechanism that is preventing the oceans to gain any additional Heat Content. Whether it's a negative feedback to warming, or another forcing other than CO2, it does not match up with the AGW theory.

Different places in the world's OHC trends have also been totally different, with the Indian Ocean gaining OHC, and the Atlantic Ocean losing OHC. Overall, it averages to no gain in OHC over the last 9 years.

Image

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e1353.html

Enhanced warming over the global subtropical western boundary currents

Nature Climate Change
Year published:(2012)
DOI: doi:10.1038/nclimate1353
Received 06 May 2011
Accepted 30 November 2011
Published online 29 January 2012

Subtropical western boundary currents are warm, fast-flowing currents that form on the western side of ocean basins. They carry warm tropical water to the mid-latitudes and vent large amounts of heat and moisture to the atmosphere along their paths, affecting atmospheric jet streams and mid-latitude storms, as well as ocean carbon uptake1, 2, 3, 4. The possibility that these highly energetic currents might change under greenhouse-gas forcing has raised significant concerns5, 6, 7, but detecting such changes is challenging owing to limited observations. Here, using reconstructed sea surface temperature datasets and century-long ocean and atmosphere reanalysis products, we find that the post-1900 surface ocean warming rate over the path of these currents is two to three times faster than the global mean surface ocean warming rate. The accelerated warming is associated with a synchronous poleward shift and/or intensification of global subtropical western boundary currents in conjunction with a systematic change in winds over both hemispheres. This enhanced warming may reduce the ability of the oceans to absorb anthropogenic carbon dioxide over these regions. However, uncertainties in detection and attribution of these warming trends remain, pointing to a need for a long-term monitoring network of the global western boundary currents and their extensions.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:58 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:

Bull! The Norwegians reported that the waters off their continental shelf had warmed 1*F down to 700 meters (1,200') in 2009. What is bad news is that methane deposits are at that depth and lower, and a prone to sudden release of methane by a 2*F rise, or mechanical action. (a good reason why this plentiful resource is not mined)


Well Johnny, Norway does not represent the whole globe, so in no way does that refute the fact that Global Oceanic Heat Content from 0-700 meters in the ocean, has flatlined over the last several years. Moreover, it could also be a relatively high anomaly in 2009 in Norway over a relatively flat line over the last several years. This means that there is a mechanism that is preventing the oceans to gain any additional Heat Content. Whether it's a negative feedback to warming, or another forcing other than CO2, it does not match up with the AGW theory.

Different places in the world's OHC trends have also been totally different, with the Indian Ocean gaining OHC, and the Atlantic Ocean losing OHC. Overall, it averages to no gain in OHC over the last 9 years.

Image


Unless the regions averaged are equal in all ways, that would be a useless manipulation of the data.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:01 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
Image

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:02 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
Image

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:03 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
Image

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:06 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
You can see all of the graphs with or without the error bars included.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CO ... ndex1.html

Data distribution figures for temperature and salinity observations, temperature and salinity anomaly fields for depths 0-2000m, heat content and steric sea level (thermosteric, halosteric, total). Temperature anomalies and heat content fields are detailed in Global ocean heat content (1955-2008) ..., pdf (1.40 MB). The same calculations have been extended to keep the fields current and include fields of salinity anomalies, and steric sea level components. Explanation of differences in heat content between published work and online values is outlined in the notes (pdf, 4.2 MB).

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:09 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Image


Yep, and that image clearly shows that we have pretty much stopped gaining OHC over the past 10 years.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:09 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Image


So does this image.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:12 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Image


The data measured for 0-2000 meters of the ocean is way more uncertain than the 0-700 meter range, since there aren't as many sensors that extend as far deep as 2000 meters. Since we have not observed heat mixing through the 0-700 meter depth of the ocean over the last 9 years, while it has flatlined in the 0-700 meter range, we can conclude that the data for 0-2000 meters is likely contaminated, which would make sense, since it is an uncertain sporadic dataset.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Unless the regions averaged are equal in all ways, that would be a useless manipulation of the data.


How is it a manipulation of the data, if the heat content for all of the different places of the globe are averaged out to produce a baseline average where you can compare the heat content trends in different parts of the globe? The fact that only the Indian Ocean has seen a significant gain in OHC is troubling for the AGW hypothesis.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group