Noaa says 2013 is holding onto 6th warmest/Sept tied for 4th warmest!

[polarbear]

No temperature rise in 15 years. Even the gloom and doom doctors agree that is fact.

What would this be?

It's an unsourced image hosted on Tinypic.

In other words, it's worthless.

There is a reason why he did not want to disclose the source.
Because it`s the usual crap, like "tree huggers" etc which recycled it from the usual "scientific" source, namely "skeptical science" blogger John Cook
4 results - TinEye

A nut called Nucitelli decided to publish a "study" and claims he found the missing heat in the upper 700 meters of ocean water.
The way he "found" it was not with the huge Argo array system, put together by 30 nations and can sample ocean temperature from the surface down to 2000 meters:

The entire buoy network could not find the "missing heat", but Nutti Nuccitelli found it in previously published "scientific literature" :

Missing heat found in oceans, global warming has accelerated in past 15 years : TreeHugger

Missing heat found in oceans, global warming has accelerated in past 15 years

• Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
• Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.

• The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

And this is where Nuccitelli found the "missing heat"...not in the ocean but on paper:

The paper is a Comment on another paper, Douglass & Knox 2012 (DK12). We originally began examining this paper in a blog post which can be viewed here.
Our original draft blog post noted that DK12 had effectively been "pre-bunked," as several recent studies have reconciled global heat content data with top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance measurements with no evidence of a long-term slowdown in global warming. Several recent studies have also concluded that it is necessary to include data from the deep ocean in order to reconcile global heat content and the TOA energy imbalance, which DK12 failed to do. Ultimately we decided that it was worth writing up our findings and submitting them to PLA as a comment on DK12.
Mistaken Analysis Begets Mistaken Conclusions

Thus the DK12 conclusion that ocean heating slowed from 2002 to 2008 was a result of cherrypicking both a short timeframe and only part of the global heat content data. As a result of cherrypicking noisy short-term data, DK12 argued that the apparent slowing in the rate of OHC increase was a result of a 'climate shift' in 2002. However, our Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate that the long-term global heat content trend has risen at a steady, increasing rate over the past 4 decades.

So they found a study called DK12 that used supposedly "cherry picked" data... and that`s supposed to be proof that all the other data even the data gathered with the huge Argos network is invalid.
Par for the course !
These assholes can`t accept the facts no matter how often they have been confirmed by actual measurements.
...but keep grasping for every straw to cling to their beliefs.
If all fails they attack you with insults or try ridicule any source which has evidence to the contrary,...and try to conceal that it`s their beloved "source" of "scientific information" , namely "skeptical science", an internet blog started by Australian blogger John Cook, their climate oracle that fills in what the entire IPCC organization and their 93% consensus science can`t explain without leaving the realm of realism.
He needed his own blog because nobody else, not even the most fervent IPCC AGW zealots would want to be seen publishing the kind of garbage John Cook calls "skeptical science".

 

[mamooth]

ENSO conditions have been negative through all of 2013. That is, cooler Pacific waters at the surface (La Nina), which cools air temps, and puts more heat into the oceans instead of the air. Even with that cooling-the-air effect, and a low solar output, it's still another very warm year. Whenever it flips to a decent El Nino, all warming records will get shattered.

That strong El Nino won't come soon. The ENSO index is projected to very slowly increase in the next 6 months to slightly positive, but not enough to call it an El Nino. And there's also about a 6 month lag for air temperatures to follow ENSO.

 

[polarbear]

Btw. I could not find this picture in any of the Geophysical Research letters.
It`s been fabricated and based on nothing more than estimates:

Note the grey line which supposedly represents the surface temperature as an average of all oceans...and does not even jive with any current satellite data.

That grey line was not sensational enough so they display the theoretical integral of the total heat content for the total mass of water all the way down to the "total depth", (what they used for that value nobody knows) ....
In addition to that they decided to terminate the grey line which already levels off at 2004 at 2008, clipping off 2008 to presents.
So how "recent" can this "study" be if it has no data from 2008 to the present.
It`s not as if that data were not available.
It does not fit their curve into doom, not even the grey line from 2002 to 2008.
But you are supposed to have your eyes glued to the purple line which is a total fabrication and keeps climbing exponentially just like any other integral function..

 

[polarbear]

Here is NOAA`s live server showing current ocean temperature:

Note how small the areas are which show a positive anomaly.
Currently these are off the west coast of Canada and on the east coast near Newfoundland ("iceberg alley"), slowly drifting north.
The usual pattern, nothing out of the ordinary.
And Baffin Island where the moss is from currently reports clear sunny skies and a "balmy" -13 C.
And now to that claim:

Acidity is a red herring. They weren't using acidic sphagnum moss from the muskeg zone, since Baffin is way north of that, in the tundra zone. Tundra doesn't form muskeg or peat bogs. Dead plant matter in tundra conditions actually decays faster if the soil is more acidic.

Litter decomposition in moist acidic and non-acidi... [Oecologia. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

You quoted an article that also said:

Site differences in soil moisture and temperature could not explain site differences in decomposition. However, higher soil N availability at the moist acidic tundra may have contributed to faster decomposition since, in a separate experiment, fertilization with N stimulated decomposition of a common substrate at both sites. In addition, lower pH in acidic tundra may promote greater abundance of soil fungi, perhaps explaining faster decomposition rates at that site. In summary, the large differences in plant species composition between moist acidic and non-acidic tundra are likely to not contribute to site differences in decomposition. Nevertheless, decomposition is much more rapid in moist acidic tundra.

How many times do I have to repeat that Baffin Island has an arid climate and the sand just below the surface is as cold as ice..and stays that way year-round. Show me a fungus that exists in that area which can decompose moss or any other plant. Do you have any idea how old these tree stumps I keep showing you are?
There would be fungus all over these by now!
You should also write the FDA a letter so they can make a few revisions:

A low-acid canned food (LACF) is any food (other than alcoholic beverages) with a finished equilibrium pH greater than 4.6 and a water activity greater than 0.85, excluding tomatoes and tomato products having a finished equilibrium pH less than 4.7.
An acidified food (AF) is a low-acid food to which acid(s) or acid food(s) are added and which has a finished equilibrium pH of 4.6 or below and a water activity (aw) greater than 0.85.

And that`s for a water activity as high as 0.85 to preserve canned food in an acidic & moist medium.
What kind of aw value do you think has ice cold dry sand ?
You spent all that time to find an article which reports on an experiment how stuff can rot even if it`s acidic in the Alaskan Brook Hills foothill area...which is well within the tree-belt and forests...where wood rots just as good as it does way down south...because ther is no shortage of fungi and moisture.
Both of these requirements are either non- existent on Baffin Island or extremely sparse.
Heck if you dry food for most of it you don`t need any preservatives either as long as you don`t allow the houseflies to plant maggots in it.
Last not least...that experiment you quoted
I`m pretty sure these guys did not spend from say "pre-industrial times" to the present waiting for their acidic litter to rot in the Brooks Range/Alaska forest. I`ld say for sure that that 44 000 year old moss you keep defending has been out from under the ice a lot longer than it takes to rot for moss in Alaska.
So where does that leave your latest (buried in ice until we burned oil) pet peat moss theory ?

 

[Katzndogz]

Yes it is definitely warming.

Global warming? Chile hit with worst cold spell in 80 years | The Daily Caller

Anyone looking to get some delicious Chilean fruit this winter is going to be disappointed, as the worst frost in more than 80 years has damaged 50 million boxes of fruit exports — causing the country to declare a state of emergency in its agricultural sector.

Read more: Global warming? Chile hit with worst cold spell in 80 years | The Daily Caller

 

[daveman]

What would this be?

It's an unsourced image hosted on Tinypic.

In other words, it's worthless.

Considering that we've all seen this graph on multiple occasions, that it has been the topic of a lengthy and heated thread and that ten seconds in Google would find its source, what's worthless here is your pointless, unjustified and deceitful attempt at a diversion. This is at least the third or fourth time you've attempted such BS with me. Have you found that it works? Does it prevent you from embarrassing revelations regarding your ignorance or the unsubstantiability of your position in this debate?

Well, Gunny, any comments?

You get all enraged when people question you.

You'd think you'd be used to it by now.

Post the website you originally got the image from, or continue being ridiculed. Your call.

 

[Abraham3]

You two are so incredibly full of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...reveals-about-global-warming.html#post7889866

I'm not enraged that you question me. I'm enraged that I have to debate this crap with such fooking idiots.

 

[daveman]

You two are so incredibly full of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...reveals-about-global-warming.html#post7889866

I'm not enraged that you question me. I'm enraged that I have to debate this crap with such fooking idiots.

No one's keeping you here, Skippy.

You're also not changing anyone's mind.

 

[Abraham3]

You two are so incredibly full of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...reveals-about-global-warming.html#post7889866

I'm not enraged that you question me. I'm enraged that I have to debate this crap with such fooking idiots.

No one's keeping you here, Skippy.

You're also not changing anyone's mind.

Same to you, Skippy.

 

[flacaltenn]

You two are so incredibly full of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...reveals-about-global-warming.html#post7889866

I'm not enraged that you question me. I'm enraged that I have to debate this crap with such fooking idiots.

Strange that you should be leaning so hard on that one graph and study.. And calling us "fooking idiots" when you couldn't figure out the significance of this little calculation that I did a couple weeks back.. I posted it TWICE --- right after you referenced the BTK study for the umpteenth time.. Got no response or even RECOGNITION of what that calculation implied..

Really ---- you'd rather assail me again than comment on that calculation of the Joules going into the ocean for the past 15 yrs??

No wonder we keep you around here... Try it.... Does that number result look familiar to you? It should.
And what am I missing in the calculation?? Hint: there are several mods neccessary...


1.6W/m2 * (361*10e12)m2 * (3.15e7)sec/yr * 15yr * 0.90 = 24.6e22 joules

Mamooth said I didn't explain it.. That was ON PURPOSE. I expect that folks REPOSTING that BTK study would automatically know the challenge I was making.. I'd like to believe that I'm not dealing with "fooking idiots"...

 

[polarbear]

You two are so incredibly full of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...reveals-about-global-warming.html#post7889866

I'm not enraged that you question me. I'm enraged that I have to debate this crap with such fooking idiots.

Strange that you should be leaning so hard on that one graph and study.. And calling us "fooking idiots" when you couldn't figure out the significance of this little calculation that I did a couple weeks back.. I posted it TWICE --- right after you referenced the BTK study for the umpteenth time.. Got no response or even RECOGNITION of what that calculation implied..

Really ---- you'd rather assail me again than comment on that calculation of the Joules going into the ocean for the past 15 yrs??

No wonder we keep you around here... Try it.... Does that number result look familiar to you? It should.
And what am I missing in the calculation?? Hint: there are several mods neccessary...


1.6W/m2 * (361*10e12)m2 * (3.15e7)sec/yr * 15yr * 0.90 = 24.6e22 joules

Mamooth said I didn't explain it.. That was ON PURPOSE. I expect that folks REPOSTING that BTK study would automatically know the challenge I was making.. I'd like to believe that I'm not dealing with "fooking idiots"...

I`m only concerned about this part:

1.6W/m2 * (361*10e12)m2 * (3.15e7)sec/yr * 15yr * 0.90 = 24.6e22 joules

Joules is the same as watt seconds anyway, but neither will tell you by how much it will raise the temperature unless it has been specified what the mass (or volume) of water was that absorbed the 1.6 W/m^2.
1 watt second = 0.239 calories...= the heat energy required to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree. So you need to know the mass, not just the area and the # of watts & the time.
With 1.6 watts per square meter we get about as much heating as a 25 watt pencil soldering iron dipped into a 5 X 5 meter swimming pool.

There is no way to calculate with any degree of accuracy how long it would take to raise the pool temperature by 1 degree C not even if I would give you the depth which would then also give you the mass of water.
Unless the heat source is near the bottom, not at the top and the pool is covered and 100% insulated you would be way off.

But in reality on the ocean the 1.6 watts/m^2 is above the surface, 15 µm IR does not deep penetrate liquid water and the slightest breeze of air will cause more heat loss per time & m^2 than the 1.6 watts can supply.

To say that the "missing heat" can be found in the deep part is utter nonsense. You could hold a blow torch all day long to the top of a bucket full of water and never manage to bring it to a boil.
If you don`t have a blowtorch just go & disconnect the lower element of your hot water tank and try heat it just with the top element.
The only part that warms up is from where that element is & the top.
Open the drain valve at the bottom and all you get is cold water.
There are only a few places along the coasts where you get some "up-welling" and bottom/top heat transfer in our oceans where the extra 1.6 W/m^2 could get transferred down.
That is certainly not the case for the entire ocean area and for 24/7 year-round. And in addition to that the bulk of the surface water heat is dissipated into the air above it by evaporation & convection...not down into the depth.
So in the final analysis it`s rather silly to "calculate" by how much 1.6 watts/m^2 surface heat can warm up an entire ocean over a decade, while a few gusts of wind can drain more surface water heat in a matter of minutes than what had been absorbed with a mere 1.6 watts/m^2 all day long.
With tropical storms and hurricanes it`s called "rapid intensification" for a good reason...it`s a rapid heat exchange on a much larger magnitude than just a few watts/m^2 !

 

[flacaltenn]

You two are so incredibly full of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...reveals-about-global-warming.html#post7889866

I'm not enraged that you question me. I'm enraged that I have to debate this crap with such fooking idiots.

Strange that you should be leaning so hard on that one graph and study.. And calling us "fooking idiots" when you couldn't figure out the significance of this little calculation that I did a couple weeks back.. I posted it TWICE --- right after you referenced the BTK study for the umpteenth time.. Got no response or even RECOGNITION of what that calculation implied..

Mamooth said I didn't explain it.. That was ON PURPOSE. I expect that folks REPOSTING that BTK study would automatically know the challenge I was making.. I'd like to believe that I'm not dealing with "fooking idiots"...

I`m only concerned about this part:

1.6W/m2 * (361*10e12)m2 * (3.15e7)sec/yr * 15yr * 0.90 = 24.6e22 joules

Joules is the same as watt seconds anyway, but neither will tell you by how much it will raise the temperature unless it has been specified what the mass (or volume) of water was that absorbed the 1.6 W/m^2.
1 watt second = 0.239 calories...= the heat energy required to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree. So you need to know the mass, not just the area and the # of watts & the time.
With 1.6 watts per square meter we get about as much heating as a 25 watt pencil soldering iron dipped into a 5 X 5 meter swimming pool.

There is no way to calculate with any degree of accuracy how long it would take to raise the pool temperature by 1 degree C not even if I would give you the depth which would then also give you the mass of water.
Unless the heat source is near the bottom, not at the top and the pool is covered and 100% insulated you would be way off.

But in reality on the ocean the 1.6 watts/m^2 is above the surface, 15 µm IR does not deep penetrate liquid water and the slightest breeze of air will cause more heat loss per time & m^2 than the 1.6 watts can supply.

To say that the "missing heat" can be found in the deep part is utter nonsense. You could hold a blow torch all day long to the top of a bucket full of water and never manage to bring it to a boil.
If you don`t have a blowtorch just go & disconnect the lower element of your hot water tank and try heat it just with the top element.
The only part that warms up is from where that element is & the top.
Open the drain valve at the bottom and all you get is cold water.
There are only a few places along the coasts where you get some "up-welling" and bottom/top heat transfer in our oceans where the extra 1.6 W/m^2 could get transferred down.
That is certainly not the case for the entire ocean area and for 24/7 year-round. And in addition to that the bulk of the surface water heat is dissipated into the air above it by evaporation & convection...not down into the depth.
So in the final analysis it`s rather silly to "calculate" by how much 1.6 watts/m^2 surface heat can warm up an entire ocean over a decade, while a few gusts of wind can drain more surface water heat in a matter of minutes than what had been absorbed with a mere 1.6 watts/m^2 all day long.
With hurricanes it`s called "rapid intensification" for a good reason...it`s a rapid heat exchange on a much larger magnitude than just a few watts/m^2 !

Excellent . Would love to discuss this with anyone that understands where this energy might have went. That big number is the 90% claimed to be absorbed by the oceanss. Cant do it right now but there are many implications. Maybe start a thread.

 

[Abraham3]

Strange that you should be leaning so hard on that one graph and study.. And calling us "fooking idiots" when you couldn't figure out the significance of this little calculation that I did a couple weeks back.. I posted it TWICE --- right after you referenced the BTK study for the umpteenth time.. Got no response or even RECOGNITION of what that calculation implied..

Mamooth said I didn't explain it.. That was ON PURPOSE. I expect that folks REPOSTING that BTK study would automatically know the challenge I was making.. I'd like to believe that I'm not dealing with "fooking idiots"...

I`m only concerned about this part:

1.6W/m2 * (361*10e12)m2 * (3.15e7)sec/yr * 15yr * 0.90 = 24.6e22 joules

Joules is the same as watt seconds anyway, but neither will tell you by how much it will raise the temperature unless it has been specified what the mass (or volume) of water was that absorbed the 1.6 W/m^2.
1 watt second = 0.239 calories...= the heat energy required to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree. So you need to know the mass, not just the area and the # of watts & the time.
With 1.6 watts per square meter we get about as much heating as a 25 watt pencil soldering iron dipped into a 5 X 5 meter swimming pool.

There is no way to calculate with any degree of accuracy how long it would take to raise the pool temperature by 1 degree C not even if I would give you the depth which would then also give you the mass of water.
Unless the heat source is near the bottom, not at the top and the pool is covered and 100% insulated you would be way off.

But in reality on the ocean the 1.6 watts/m^2 is above the surface, 15 µm IR does not deep penetrate liquid water and the slightest breeze of air will cause more heat loss per time & m^2 than the 1.6 watts can supply.

To say that the "missing heat" can be found in the deep part is utter nonsense. You could hold a blow torch all day long to the top of a bucket full of water and never manage to bring it to a boil.
If you don`t have a blowtorch just go & disconnect the lower element of your hot water tank and try heat it just with the top element.
The only part that warms up is from where that element is & the top.
Open the drain valve at the bottom and all you get is cold water.
There are only a few places along the coasts where you get some "up-welling" and bottom/top heat transfer in our oceans where the extra 1.6 W/m^2 could get transferred down.
That is certainly not the case for the entire ocean area and for 24/7 year-round. And in addition to that the bulk of the surface water heat is dissipated into the air above it by evaporation & convection...not down into the depth.
So in the final analysis it`s rather silly to "calculate" by how much 1.6 watts/m^2 surface heat can warm up an entire ocean over a decade, while a few gusts of wind can drain more surface water heat in a matter of minutes than what had been absorbed with a mere 1.6 watts/m^2 all day long.
With hurricanes it`s called "rapid intensification" for a good reason...it`s a rapid heat exchange on a much larger magnitude than just a few watts/m^2 !

Excellent . Would love to discuss this with anyone that understands where this energy might have went. That big number is the 90% claimed to be absorbed by the oceanss. Cant do it right now but there are many implications. Maybe start a thread.

How do you manage to throw all these numbers around and still make such basic mistakes?

That isn't radiation shining on the ocean. That's heat already there. That's Ocean Heat Content. Do you understand "Content"?

 

[flacaltenn]

Omg

 

[daveman]

How do you manage to throw all these numbers around and still make such basic mistakes?

That isn't radiation shining on the ocean. That's heat already there. That's Ocean Heat Content. Do you understand "Content"?

The sun doesn't shine on the ocean?


Have you suffered head trauma recently?

 

[Abraham3]

Omg

Yeah, that's what I said.

 

[Abraham3]

What would this be?

It's an unsourced image hosted on Tinypic.

In other words, it's worthless.

There is a reason why he did not want to disclose the source.
Because it`s the usual crap, like "tree huggers" etc which recycled it from the usual "scientific" source, namely "skeptical science" blogger John Cook

A nut called Nucitelli decided to publish a "study" and claims he found the missing heat in the upper 700 meters of ocean water.

The entire buoy network could not find the "missing heat", but Nutti Nuccitelli found it in previously published "scientific literature" :

[*]Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012)

And this is where Nuccitelli found the "missing heat"...not in the ocean but on paper:

I missed this. Let me just say this Mr Bear.


W R O N G

The graph is from Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen 2013. It's available for review. Have a look.

 

[whitehall]

Liberal chicken littles can't even enjoy a mild September without predicting doom and gloom. What a bunch of pathetic a-holes.

 

[Abraham3]

How do you manage to throw all these numbers around and still make such basic mistakes?

That isn't radiation shining on the ocean. That's heat already there. That's Ocean Heat Content. Do you understand "Content"?

The sun doesn't shine on the ocean?


Have you suffered head trauma recently?

No, but you might when this finally sinks in. The joules on the vertical axis of that graph are HEAT. The graph is OCEAN HEAT CONTENT vs TIME. It is NOT a graph of insolation. It is, effectively, temperature.

 

[whitehall]

Note to lefties: go to freaking China and convince them to curb their fossil fuel emissions and while you are at it volunteer to repair Japan's nuclear reactor. Come back in about 30 years and let us know how you made out. Meanwhile let us enjoy mild fall temperatures without preaching to us about the end of the world.