Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997, study finds

[80zephyr]

Gods.

wiki/Global_cooling

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.​

THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION. The question was whether science was predicting global cooling. Since the governments own science board was the one predicting it, you have no point in the context of the discussion.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Ian, why does your graph of OHC from Levitus 2009 look so different of every other graph I can find from Levitus 2009?

this is the first point I would like to make on OHC. the models run ridiculously hot. the graph above is wrong. the model trend line and the observation trend line do not intersect, the model is already higher in 2003 and has diverged wildly ever since.

This last one directly from the Levitus paper at Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems - Levitus - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So... why is that Ian?

I gave crick a chance to reexamine his post and he chose not to.

his first graph-

crick decided to put up a chart that ends at the same time that mine starts, and then asks me why they dont look similar. how fucking stupid is that?

his second and third charts are essentially the same but at least they contain part of the ARGO era data that makes up my graph. does it look similar? yes. is it exactly the same over the same years? no. why? because my chart is done in three month data points and his is done in yearly data points.

I told you before crick. any time you are confused about what I have presented, that is a clue to go back and reinvestigate what I have said. I am not always right but when it comes to reading graphs you are commonly wrong, due to your lack of basic understanding.

I give Crick (carbon) credit for finally posting a chart with a temperature axis. To date, they've still never shown exactly how a deminimus increase in an atmospheric trace element raises temperature. Maybe tomorrow.

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

 

[Crick]

I posted the data - the actual graphics - from Levitus 2009. You put up a graph that shows a continuous line to 2011, that from my reading does NOT appear in Levitus 2009 and labeled it Levitus 2009. If you have a reasonable explanation for that, I'm ready to hear it.

thanks for sending me on an interesting excursion. first off, my apologies for letting you confuse me in the first place. you said my graph was from L09 and I reacted as if it was. my only excuse...no, forget about excuses. It was my fault, I should have just read the caption on the graph. it says ARGO era NODC OHC anomalies - Lev09. the graph is based on NODC ARGO data with the L09 corrections in place.

the differences.

I hope the poo flinging monkey doesnt see this, as the ARGO data was definitely shifted down. I dont have a feel for the x axis units but it is still cooler than before. of course that also means the OHC is farther away from the climate model mean. give some, get some. at least I learned something today.

edit-

DATASET INTRODUCTION
The NODC OHC dataset is based on the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems”, Geophysical Research Letters. Refer to Manuscript. It was revised in 2010 as noted in the October 18, 2010 postUpdate And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data. As described in the NODC’sexplanation of ocean heat content (OHC) data changes, the changes result from “data additions and data quality control,” from a switch in base climatology, and from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations.

Lovely. And now, please, what is it that you believe all this MEANS?

 

[Crick]

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

If you had walls as thick as the Earth's atmosphere and were happy with a degree per century, 100 ppm would work just fine.

 

[saveliberty]

Maybe you Faithers should stop pissing in the ocean?

 

[IanC]

Lovely. And now, please, what is it that you believe all this MEANS?

what does it mean?

it means the climate model runs hot for OHC. what did you think it means? when this graph was made, roughly when the 1st quarter 2011 ARGO data was available, the GISS model for OHC had a trend much higher than the observations. the absolute numbers for the climate model is actually higher still because the trend line was moved downward to normalize the two types of values at zero for Jan 2003.

Surely you must be able to glean some information from a graph? maybe not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

If you had walls as thick as the Earth's atmosphere and were happy with a degree per century, 100 ppm would work just fine.

Odd that window insulation uses argon instead of CO2

 

[Billy_Bob]

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

If you had walls as thick as the Earth's atmosphere and were happy with a degree per century, 100 ppm would work just fine.

You obviously dont have a dam clue how CO2 is to retard heat loss....

 

[Billy_Bob]

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

If you had walls as thick as the Earth's atmosphere and were happy with a degree per century, 100 ppm would work just fine.

Odd that window insulation uses argon instead of CO2

Argon passes very little IR. Thus it passes very little heat through the glass. CO2 on the other hand passes IR very well... Only an idiot cant easily figure out why they use argon gas.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

If you had walls as thick as the Earth's atmosphere and were happy with a degree per century, 100 ppm would work just fine.

Odd that window insulation uses argon instead of CO2

Not really, a window isn't the Earth's atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lovely. And now, please, what is it that you believe all this MEANS?

what does it mean?

it means the climate model runs hot for OHC. what did you think it means? when this graph was made, roughly when the 1st quarter 2011 ARGO data was available, the GISS model for OHC had a trend much higher than the observations. the absolute numbers for the climate model is actually higher still because the trend line was moved downward to normalize the two types of values at zero for Jan 2003.

Surely you must be able to glean some information from a graph? maybe not.

But the heat must be hiding in there somewhere!!! The models are right and the buoy measurement readings are wrong...

 

[Billy_Bob]

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

If you had walls as thick as the Earth's atmosphere and were happy with a degree per century, 100 ppm would work just fine.

Odd that window insulation uses argon instead of CO2

Not really, a window isn't the Earth's atmosphere.

^^^^^^^
Clueless... Point of previous post shown true...

 

[saveliberty]

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

If you had walls as thick as the Earth's atmosphere and were happy with a degree per century, 100 ppm would work just fine.

Odd that window insulation uses argon instead of CO2

Argon passes very little IR. Thus it passes very little heat through the glass. CO2 on the other hand passes IR very well... Only an idiot cant easily figure out why they use argon gas.

...and in Northern climates we don't want to trap heat why?

 

[jon_berzerk]

My expertise is in building design/construction. I only WISH I could find insulation materials any were near as capable to holding in heat as CO2 is. We keep designing buildings with better insulation and we still lose to much heat.

But, a hundred parts per million will do it. Sure it will.

Mark

If you had walls as thick as the Earth's atmosphere and were happy with a degree per century, 100 ppm would work just fine.

Odd that window insulation uses argon instead of CO2

Argon passes very little IR. Thus it passes very little heat through the glass. CO2 on the other hand passes IR very well... Only an idiot cant easily figure out why they use argon gas.

indeed C02 is is more conductive to heat then aluminum

that is why i would find it strange that they would use C02 as their bogey man

in the man made global warming hoax