2013 was the 4th warmest year based on noaa data

[flacaltenn]

What happened to "the Pacific ocean ate the global warming" narrative

I think maybe trenberth realized that if the sort of heat he was talking about had in fact been sequestered in the ocean, the warming would have caused the water to expand and the result would be obvious in the tidal gages. Enough research has been done on sea level at this point that they would have just looked stupid trying to claim rising sea level.

Was this the point I missed?

yeah.. he was referring to corrobating the Ocean Heat rise with tidal gauge readings. If the BTK heat was MORE significant -- you OUGHT to be able to see the thermal expansion on those gauges. (maybe).. In fact -- something like 40% of that rise you just plotted is NOT NEW WATER --- it's thermal expansion.. And another chunk of it is due to basin changes and geologic vertical shifts of shorelines. True story..

So for thermal expansion to account for THAT MUCH of the rise you're sweating, it MUST be systemic in the entire ocean volume --- not just surface warming.. Dont ask me HOW they separate the thermal expansion from REAL WATER VOLUME WITHOUT a BTK study -- but they do... Criminy Bullwinkle -- aint you the Ocean Engineering representative here?

You tell me..

 

[Abraham3]

A 125 year period is insignificant on the geological scale.

Global warming is not a geological process.

I stared at this post for a couple minutes, like one of those magic eye pictures, and all I get back is WTF?

I could repeat it: Global warming is not a geological process.

I could explain it: Global warming is a process we've observed taking place for the last 150 years. As noted, that is a meaninglessly short span of time from a geological viewpoint. Therefore, the process we've been watching take place is not a geological one.

Global warming is a process involving sunlight, the atmosphere, the oceans and the land's surface. These are not geological features. Global warming involves no geological items. It is not a geological process.

Geological processes include things like plate tectonics, subduction, upthrust, escarpment, fault slippage, vulcanism, earthquakes, isostasy and a gazillion other things that have no involvement with global warming whatsoever.

So, is your WTF answered?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

That CO2 does not drive climate.

It does not.

That the Greenhouse Effect is a sham.

All atmospheres trap heat. That fact is not in dispute.

That the world's climate scientists falsify their data and their conclusions to get rich from research grants.

Beats working at Sears.

 

[Abraham3]

I think maybe trenberth realized that if the sort of heat he was talking about had in fact been sequestered in the ocean, the warming would have caused the water to expand and the result would be obvious in the tidal gages. Enough research has been done on sea level at this point that they would have just looked stupid trying to claim rising sea level.

Was this the point I missed?

yeah.. he was referring to corrobating the Ocean Heat rise with tidal gauge readings. If the BTK heat was MORE significant -- you OUGHT to be able to see the thermal expansion on those gauges. (maybe).. In fact -- something like 40% of that rise you just plotted is NOT NEW WATER --- it's thermal expansion.. And another chunk of it is due to basin changes and geologic vertical shifts of shorelines. True story..

So for thermal expansion to account for THAT MUCH of the rise you're sweating, it MUST be systemic in the entire ocean volume --- not just surface warming.. Dont ask me HOW they separate the thermal expansion from REAL WATER VOLUME WITHOUT a BTK study -- but they do... Criminy Bullwinkle -- aint you the Ocean Engineering representative here?

You tell me..

I'd suspect by calculating how much meltwater flowed into the ocean last year.

 

[Abraham3]

I'd also like to suggest that if you think the components of sea level rise do not support the increased OHC that Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kallen found, you show me such an opinion from someone actually qualified to form it.

 

[Abraham3]

This indicates that OHC has been increasing at a fairly steep pace for a good deal longer than BTK's deep water pulse. And since the ocean has been taking over 90% of global warming all along, the heating diverted from surface warming would be expected to have a trivial effect on ocean warming. Therefore, I do not see there being any reason to expect a gross change visible in ocean temperature or sea level rise.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/01/global-warming-and-the-gulf-stream.html

This graphic from ARCTIC NEWS

 

[flacaltenn]

This indicates that OHC has been increasing at a fairly steep pace for a good deal longer than BTK's deep water pulse. And since the ocean has been taking over 90% of global warming all along, the heating diverted from surface warming would be expected to have a trivial effect on ocean warming. Therefore, I do not see there being any reason to expect a gross change visible in ocean temperature or sea level rise.
Arctic News: Global Warming and the Gulf Stream

This graphic from ARCTIC NEWS

You just cant' stay clean from skepticalscience can you? with their Atom Bomb counters and Enemies Lists. Graphic is a fraud.. It's a crayon job that appears in skepticalscience and probably ORIGINATED there because it's got their kind of crayon fraud all over it...

HERE is the data from the Church Study...

Discussed by NASA here... Correcting Ocean Cooling : Feature Articles

Note the vertical scale has been expanded.. The PEAK VALUES are WRONG, and I doubt that the skepticalscience crayon got the bump in 1960s correct either..

You're never gonna stay out of the sewer are you? No matter how BIG and BLUE your Fonts gets..

 

[SwimExpert]

THIS GRAPHIC IS FROM SWIM EXPERT

I've been stalking Abby.

 

[Dot Com]

Global Highlights
• The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

•Separately, the 2013 global average land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record.

•The 2013 global average ocean temperature was 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F) and tied with 2006 as the eighth highest annual temperature on record and the highest since 2010, the last time El Niño conditions were present in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. ENSO-neutral conditions were present in this region during all of 2013.

•Precipitation measured at land-based stations around the globe was near average on balance for 2013, at just 0.31 mm above the long-term average. However, as is typical, precipitation varied greatly from region to region. This is the second consecutive year with near-average global precipitation at land-based stations.
Global Analysis - Annual 2013 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Will be waiting for giss data later today...

.62c....

About .04c cooler then the warmest year back in 2010 with a nino.

good thread. Yeah, I saw this on their website too but was too slow on the draw

 

[Kosh]

See how all this will end up after the real numbers are crunched.

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[SSDD]

I'd also like to suggest that if you think the components of sea level rise do not support the increased OHC that Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kallen found, you show me such an opinion from someone actually qualified to form it.

Wow, the thinking process of warmers never ceases to amaze me. "found"? they didn't "find" anything at all. They suggested, they claimed, they supposed, they guessed...but they didn't "find" shit.

That you convert suggested to found in your mind speaks volumes.

 

[Abraham3]

So, do you or do you not have a qualified source to tell us that the components of sea level rise do not match BTK's FINDINGS?

 

[Abraham3]

You just cant' stay clean from skepticalscience can you? with their Atom Bomb counters and Enemies Lists. Graphic is a fraud.. It's a crayon job that appears in skepticalscience and probably ORIGINATED there because it's got their kind of crayon fraud all over it...

Do you disagree that over 90% of the thermal energy accumulated by greenhouse warming ends up in the ocean?

And in case you hadn't figured it out, my big blue fonts are a response to SwimExpert (or the puerile cutesy nickname I prefer for it - "Useless-brain-fucked-pile-of-steaming-elephant-shit" - who accused me of being "dishonest" when I posted material I got from Wikipedia and, though I provided all the footnoted references, did not mention "Wikipedia". Mea culpa.

 

[Geaux4it]

Global Highlights
• The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

•Separately, the 2013 global average land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record.

•The 2013 global average ocean temperature was 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F) and tied with 2006 as the eighth highest annual temperature on record and the highest since 2010, the last time El Niño conditions were present in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. ENSO-neutral conditions were present in this region during all of 2013.

•Precipitation measured at land-based stations around the globe was near average on balance for 2013, at just 0.31 mm above the long-term average. However, as is typical, precipitation varied greatly from region to region. This is the second consecutive year with near-average global precipitation at land-based stations.
Global Analysis - Annual 2013 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Will be waiting for giss data later today...

.62c....

About .04c cooler then the warmest year back in 2010 with a nino.

Cool story brah

-Geaux

 

[SSDD]

So, do you or do you not have a qualified source to tell us that the components of sea level rise do not match BTK's FINDINGS?

Sure...all peer reviewed and published in respectable journals and more if you wish. The question is.....is there enough peer reviewed, published material available, or will there ever be enough to sway you from your cultish beliefs?


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows sea levels around Australia have declined over the past 7000 years

Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review

A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews is the "First synthesis of post-glacial sea level data around Australia in over 25 years," and shows that sea levels around Australia were from about 1 to 2.5 meters higher than the present 7000 years ago during the Holocene Thermal Maximum [which lasted 4000 years between 9000 to 5000 years ago]. The authors note that Australia is relatively stable tectonically and thus sea level data is not complicated by post-glacial isostatic and other adjustments, which would add considerable uncertainty to sea level reconstructions.


[URL="http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html"]http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html[/URL]

Global sea level trend during 1993?2012

A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds global sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 to a rate equivalent to only 7 inches per century. According to the authors, global mean sea level rise from 1993-2003 was at the rate of 3.2 mm/yr, but sea level rise "started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012."

The authors also find "This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during last decade," which is in direct opposition to claims that the oceans "ate the global warming." This finding debunks alarmist claims that ocean heat uptake has increased over the past decade, demonstrating instead that ocean heat uptake has decreased during the global warming pause since 2004, and has gone negative since 2007, as shown by fig. 4b indicating steric sea level rise from thermal expansion has been negative since 2007.

The paper adds to several other peer-reviewed publications finding either no acceleration or a deceleration of sea level rise during the 20th and 21st century, and thus no evidence of any human influence on sea level rise.


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds sea level trends are biased by natural ocean oscillations

Sea level trends, interannual and decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean - Zhang - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that much of the observed variation in Pacific Ocean sea levels is explained by natural ocean oscillations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO]. The authors caution that sea level trends over the short period observed by satellites [less than 20 years] can be erroneously biased by this natural variability.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds global sea levels rising less than 7 inches per century

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N27/C3.php

A recent paper reviewed by CO2 Science finds sea levels have risen over the past 9 years [2002-2011] at a rate of only 1.7 mm/yr, equivalent to 6.7 inches per century. The paper corroborates the NOAA 2012 Sea Level Budget which finds sea levels have risen at only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 7 years from 2005-2012 [less than 5 inches/century], and the paper of Chambers et al finding "sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years." Contrary to alarmist claims, sea level rise decelerated over the 20th century, has also decelerated since 2005, and there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels. Concomitantly, the air's CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!


[URL="http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/11/sea-level-rise-in-southwest-pacific.html"]http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/11/sea-level-rise-in-southwest-pacific.html[/URL]

Nineteenth and twentieth century sea-level changes in Tasmania and New Zealand

According to a paper published last week in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, the rate of sea level rise in the Southwest Pacific region (Tasmania & New Zealand) dropped by a factor of 6 from 4.2 mm/yr between 1900-1950 to only 0.7 mm/yr between 1951-2000.


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-finds-sea-levels-rising-at.html

http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf

A new paper finds global mean sea levels rose at only 1 mm/year, equivalent to less than 4 inches per century, over the 203 year period from 1807-2010. The finding is remarkably similar to the sea level rise of 1.1-1.3 mm/yr found by the NOAA 2005-2012 Sea Level Budget, the only sea level budget which reconciles both satellite [altimeters & GRACE] & ARGO float data. The authors also find no evidence of acceleration of sea level rise, which indicates that there is no evidence of a human influence upon sea levels. In addition, the authors find that sea level rise is a localized rather than global phenomenon, with 61% of tide gauge records demonstrating no change in sea levels, 4% showing a decrease, and a minority of 35% showing a rise. This implies relative sea level change is primarily related to subsidence or post-glacial rebound [land height changes] rather than melting ice or steric sea level changes [thermal expansion from warming].


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html

Rate of Sea Level Rise: Predictions vs. Measurements

A paper published in Coastal Engineering finds the rate of sea level rise has greatly decelerated over the past 10 years, which "is clearly the opposite of what is being predicted by the models," and that "the [sea level rise] reduction is even more pronounced during the last 5 years."


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/paper-sea-level-rise-not-accelerating.html

Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks - Wenzel - 2010 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (1978?2012) - Wiley Online Library

A paper published yesterday in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, confirms other studies of tide gauge records which show that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years, in contrast to statements of the IPCC and Al Gore. Sea levels have been rising naturally since the peak of the last major ice age 20,000 years ago, and the rate of rise began to decelerate about 8,000 years ago:


Excuse the formatting errors...i was in a rush this morning. I suspect that no amount of perfectly formatted postings running contrary to your beliefs would have any more effect on you than these poorly formatted posts above. Interesting to note that you seem to have your beliefs rooted in one or two papers while mine are based on paper after paper after paper after paper. Which of us is the true denier?

 

[Dot Com]

You just cant' stay clean from skepticalscience can you? with their Atom Bomb counters and Enemies Lists. Graphic is a fraud.. It's a crayon job that appears in skepticalscience and probably ORIGINATED there because it's got their kind of crayon fraud all over it...

Do you disagree that over 90% of the thermal energy accumulated by greenhouse warming ends up in the ocean?

And in case you hadn't figured it out, my big blue fonts are a response to SwimExpert (or the puerile cutesy nickname I prefer for it - "Useless-brain-fucked-pile-of-steaming-elephant-shit" - who accused me of being "dishonest" when I posted material I got from Wikipedia and, though I provided all the footnoted references, did not mention "Wikipedia". Mea culpa.

agreed. The denialists here are especially averse to sources that don't fit their static world view.

 

[mamooth]

You just cant' stay clean from skepticalscience can you?

I'll have to use Skeptical Science more often. First, because they're really good at showing results clearly, using hard data and impeccable sources. And second, because it always sends the denialists over the edge. It's like Skeptical Science is now #1 on the official denialist enemies list.

 

[Dot Com]

You just cant' stay clean from skepticalscience can you?

I'll have to use Skeptical Science more often. First, because they're really good at showing results clearly, using hard data and impeccable sources. And second, because it always sends the denialists over the edge. It's like Skeptical Science is now #1 on the official denialist enemies list.

haven't denialists learned anything from the Galileo affair. They are when they hear some newly obtained info that doesn't fit their static world view

 

[orogenicman]

Which altered data set?

Pity the poor denialists. The data keeps saying they're full of shit, hence all they've got left is their various 'tard conspiracy theories about how everyone in the world is faking data.

They prefer the opinions of former right wing DJs and male message therapists. Weird, I know.

 

[westwall]

Which altered data set?

Pity the poor denialists. The data keeps saying they're full of shit, hence all they've got left is their various 'tard conspiracy theories about how everyone in the world is faking data.

They prefer the opinions of former right wing DJs and male message therapists. Weird, I know.

Well you prefer comic book editors. So I guess that makes us even stevens.