Ocean Temps Dropping

[Old Rocks]

westy- so why do all of the true believers graphs go up when the ARGO data seem to go down? or at the very least stay flat?

thats the crazy thing about global warming, both sides take the same data and get different results. but by all means lets spend trillions of dollars and put our economy into the trashbin. NOT!

One side is using raw data. The other side is using data that has been processed through various statistical algorithms. In other words it's been "massaged". They do the same with ARGO as GISS is doing with the weather station data.

More lies, Walleyes. The site I gave you was the ARGO site. Yours it the processed one. Why would ARGO disagree with their own data?

 

[Old Rocks]

If this is true and the oceans are not warming then it does in fact harm the predictions from the ipcc...Why, because energy should be increasing and compounding within our oceans at a ever increasing rate if the planet is warming and staying in line with the green house theory. Right? Oceans cover most of the planet, so they sure as heck better be warming if we are seeing increase warming.

If this is shown to be true then it is damaging.

One other thing to consider Matthew is the long wave radiation from the supposed CO2 backscattering would penetrate microns into the oceans. On the other hand new data from the solar folks show that the UV output of the sun has been higher than the visible spectrum and UV penetrates a few meters deep. That actually will warm the oceans. IR does not as it is far too shallow.

Really? Yet the ARGO data shows the oceans becoming increasingly warm.

 

[IanC]

westy- so why do all of the true believers graphs go up when the ARGO data seem to go down? or at the very least stay flat?

thats the crazy thing about global warming, both sides take the same data and get different results. but by all means lets spend trillions of dollars and put our economy into the trashbin. NOT!

One side is using raw data. The other side is using data that has been processed through various statistical algorithms. In other words it's been "massaged". They do the same with ARGO as GISS is doing with the weather station data.

More lies, Walleyes. The site I gave you was the ARGO site. Yours it the processed one. Why would ARGO disagree with their own data?

my phone doesnt do pdf but if my memory is correct the peer reviewed paper in the OP shows 3 or 4 estimates by different authors, of the ocean heat content that are slightly negative but with error ranges could go either direction to a small degree. can someone check?

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate: Ocean heat content increases update

We have discussed this issue a number of times because of its importance in diagnosing the long term radiative imbalance of the atmosphere. Basically, if there has been more energy coming in at the top than is leaving, then it has to have been going somewhere – and that somewhere is mainly the ocean. (Other reservoirs for this energy, like the land surface or melting ice, are much smaller, and can be neglected for the most part).


The main problem has been that over time the network of XBT probes and CTD casts has been replaced by the Argo float network which has a much greater coverage and more homogeneous instrumentation. However, connecting up the old and new networks, and dealing with specific biases in the XBT probes is difficult. An XBT (eXpendable Bathy-Thermograph) is a probe that is thrown off the ship and whose temperature readings as a function of time are transferred to a profile in depth from knowledge of how fast the probe falls. Unfortunately, this function is a complicated one that depends on the temperature of the water, the depth, the manufacturer of the probe etc. Various groups – working with the same basic data – have shown that there were biases in the XBT associated with incorrect calibrations and have attempted to make better corrections.

The latest paper is a consensus effort from many of the people involved in the previous work and shows how robust the recent decades warming of the ocean has been. Indeed, the ‘best estimate’ for the changes in the top 700m seems to be a greater warming than seen in the NODC data and more than even the models were suggesting:

 

[editec]

The ocean is heating ip!

No it isn't

Yes it is

No it isn't!


You're dumb

No you're numb!

Am not

Are too

Na-uh!

Yeah -eah!

Seriously boys...doesn't this get old after a while?

None one of us is truly qualified to evaluate the science here.

 

[westwall]

The ocean is heating ip!

No it isn't

Yes it is

No it isn't!


You're dumb

No you're numb!

Am not

Are too

Na-uh!

Yeah -eah!

Seriously boys...doesn't this get old after a while?

None one of us is truly qualified to evaluate the science here.

Why not? There is no magic to it. I'll grant you I havn't a clue when it comes to high level mathematics dealing with quantum mechanics. Or programming the aerodynamics scheme for a run through a computational fluid dynamics program for an F1 race car is beyond my ability. But this? Hardly.

 

[IanC]

RealClimate: Ocean heat content increases update

We have discussed this issue a number of times because of its importance in diagnosing the long term radiative imbalance of the atmosphere. Basically, if there has been more energy coming in at the top than is leaving, then it has to have been going somewhere – and that somewhere is mainly the ocean. (Other reservoirs for this energy, like the land surface or melting ice, are much smaller, and can be neglected for the most part).


The main problem has been that over time the network of XBT probes and CTD casts has been replaced by the Argo float network which has a much greater coverage and more homogeneous instrumentation. However, connecting up the old and new networks, and dealing with specific biases in the XBT probes is difficult. An XBT (eXpendable Bathy-Thermograph) is a probe that is thrown off the ship and whose temperature readings as a function of time are transferred to a profile in depth from knowledge of how fast the probe falls. Unfortunately, this function is a complicated one that depends on the temperature of the water, the depth, the manufacturer of the probe etc. Various groups – working with the same basic data – have shown that there were biases in the XBT associated with incorrect calibrations and have attempted to make better corrections.

The latest paper is a consensus effort from many of the people involved in the previous work and shows how robust the recent decades warming of the ocean has been. Indeed, the ‘best estimate’ for the changes in the top 700m seems to be a greater warming than seen in the NODC data and more than even the models were suggesting:

I read realclimate, and sometimes I like Gavin Schmidt, but I had to laugh when that web page came up and one of the hyper links jumped out. "make better corrections"

that always seems to be the answer for those guys. if you dont get the right answer, correct it until it does. remember the Y2k fiasco? hahahaha

 

[IanC]

Argo float deployment began in 2000 I think.

exactly. the info that Rocks is quoting is almost all pre- ARGO. the argo data show basically flat readings for all the parameters. we all try to shade our positions in the best light but I dont think Rocks even contemplates what he says or the links he posts. he is trying to win a debate not understand the situation. worst of all, non sequiturs seem to mean the most to him.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Argo float deployment began in 2000 I think.

exactly. the info that Rocks is quoting is almost all pre- ARGO. the argo data show basically flat readings for all the parameters. we all try to shade our positions in the best light but I dont think Rocks even contemplates what he says or the links he posts. he is trying to win a debate not understand the situation. worst of all, non sequiturs seem to mean the most to him.

If the oceans are not warming then the planet is NOT warming. Which goes against the surface data and the data showing that more energy is staying within the Atmosphere then going to space. Dont make any sense. I hope we find this warmth soon because it should be going up, up, up. If we are getting a imbalance of the energy system.

The oceans should be warming. NO question. I don't know of any way around it.

 

[westwall]

Argo float deployment began in 2000 I think.

exactly. the info that Rocks is quoting is almost all pre- ARGO. the argo data show basically flat readings for all the parameters. we all try to shade our positions in the best light but I dont think Rocks even contemplates what he says or the links he posts. he is trying to win a debate not understand the situation. worst of all, non sequiturs seem to mean the most to him.

If the oceans are not warming then the planet is NOT warming. Which goes against the surface data and the data showing that more energy is staying within the Atmosphere then going to space. Dont make any sense. I hope we find this warmth soon because it should be going up, up, up. If we are getting a imbalance of the energy system.

The oceans should be warming. NO question. I don't know of any way around it.

Are you talking about Trenberths missing heat? The heat that can't be found? The heat that most probably never even existed? The heat that Trenberth concocted to make his alarmism make some semblance of sense? That heat?

Global warming “missing energy” row erupts

 

[IanC]

exactly. the info that Rocks is quoting is almost all pre- ARGO. the argo data show basically flat readings for all the parameters. we all try to shade our positions in the best light but I dont think Rocks even contemplates what he says or the links he posts. he is trying to win a debate not understand the situation. worst of all, non sequiturs seem to mean the most to him.

If the oceans are not warming then the planet is NOT warming. Which goes against the surface data and the data showing that more energy is staying within the Atmosphere then going to space. Dont make any sense. I hope we find this warmth soon because it should be going up, up, up. If we are getting a imbalance of the energy system.

The oceans should be warming. NO question. I don't know of any way around it.

Are you talking about Trenberths missing heat? The heat that can't be found? The heat that most probably never even existed? The heat that Trenberth concocted to make his alarmism make some semblance of sense? That heat?

Global warming “missing energy” row erupts

no problem. they will just go back and find some 'adjustments' that need to be made to old data. wait a minute.....havent they already done that?.....several times?

 

[westwall]

If the oceans are not warming then the planet is NOT warming. Which goes against the surface data and the data showing that more energy is staying within the Atmosphere then going to space. Dont make any sense. I hope we find this warmth soon because it should be going up, up, up. If we are getting a imbalance of the energy system.

The oceans should be warming. NO question. I don't know of any way around it.

Are you talking about Trenberths missing heat? The heat that can't be found? The heat that most probably never even existed? The heat that Trenberth concocted to make his alarmism make some semblance of sense? That heat?

Global warming “missing energy” row erupts

no problem. they will just go back and find some 'adjustments' that need to be made to old data. wait a minute.....havent they already done that?.....several times?

Uhhh.........yes and yes.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, here we have some ananymous postes that are smarter than all the scientists in the world. Wonder why the rest of us find that so laughable?

 

[westwall]

My, my, here we have some ananymous postes that are smarter than all the scientists in the world. Wonder why the rest of us find that so laughable?

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be asking yourself "why are these hero's having to change their numbers so frequently to match their ideas." But as you aren't, you don't.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks has linked up to Roy Spencer's website dozens if not hundreds of times. but you never see him pointing out this graph-

there are the sea surface temps for the 00's . do the temps look like large increases like OR says or do they look flat like I say? the satellite and the argo buoys say the same thing dont they? when you splice on supposedly superior data to older, less superior data do you ignore the new data in favour of the old data because that is what you want to see?

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, perhaps we should run that graph back so it includes the 1998 El Nino.

And look at that La Nina in 2008. All that, and 2008 was the warmest on record. And 2010 had a lesser El Nino, and it is tied with the years of 2005, and 1998 for the warmest year on record.

 

[Old Rocks]

And here is NOAAs graphs for the heat content of the upper 700 meters of the oceans.

Ocean Climate: Upper Ocean Heat Content

 

[ScienceRocks]

And here is NOAAs graphs for the heat content of the upper 700 meters of the oceans.

Ocean Climate: Upper Ocean Heat Content

Why is the rise about 1/4th of 1998-2004 between 2004-2009? Why the huge decrease in the rise of oceanic heat with a increasing imbalance within our atmosphere. Should be growing not decreasing in rate.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think that reflects our ignorance about the circulation of heat within the ocean currents. There is actually less heat in the upper layers than there should be. The is the travesty that one of the climatologists is refering to. For if that heat is not there, why is the much less heat content having as much affect as we are seeing? Is the climate that much more sensative to the heat? And if it is there, where is it going to show up, and what affect will it have when it does? Given what we have seen this year, these are not minor questions.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think that reflects our ignorance about the circulation of heat within the ocean currents. There is actually less heat in the upper layers than there should be. The is the travesty that one of the climatologists is refering to. For if that heat is not there, why is the much less heat content having as much affect as we are seeing? Is the climate that much more sensative to the heat? And if it is there, where is it going to show up, and what affect will it have when it does? Given what we have seen this year, these are not minor questions.

With the Soi having been a record 27 in Dec and with the strongest nina since 1976...I would watch for a reverse to a massive fucking nino. 1998 had 2.8c within 3.4...Id watch for maybe the first ever 3+ anomaly within 3.4 in 2012. I believe that would give us .74-.76c with giss, Noaa data for 2012 if that occurs.