EnviroLink Forum

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.
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).

_________________
"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

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

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.

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

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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

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

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

_________________
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

_________________
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

_________________
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

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

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

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

So does this image.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

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.

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.