What hiatus?

[flacaltenn]

Nope.. Not hiding in deeper waters.. Because the NOAA data shows it SLOWING there for 2000 - 2012 as well.. IN FACT --- The brand new Government WHITEHOUSE climate data is already rising to the top of Google search.. Don't ask me where Barack got this graph -- but it ALSO shows a SLOWING of the heat storage during "the hiatus"....

ALL HAIL CLIMATE.GOV !!!!!!!


Wouldn't know how we could survive for all these years without it..

WTF are you talking about? The rise at 2000 is clear, as is the increasing spread indicating the higher warming in the deeper water.

So, what slowing are you talking about?

More graph reading issues here. The amount of heat going INTO those layers is not just the magnitude of that graph, its actually the derivative or slope that matters. There is a short spike of heat added to the total around 2000 as you noted, but everything THEREAFTER is at considerably lower slope. Meaning ---- the rate of ADDITION for heat during most of the hiatus is lower than most of the historical record.. If heat was STOLEN from surface, those slopes should have looked like a barnstormer reaching for the blue yonder...


40% chance you understand how to even interpret that graph...

 

[Abraham3]

I can see that the slope declines, but it never stops rising and the deeper water accumulates heat faster than the shallower water from 2000 on.

Rising heat content is not an equilibrium situation, is it.

 

[westwall]

Nope.. Not hiding in deeper waters.. Because the NOAA data shows it SLOWING there for 2000 - 2012 as well.. IN FACT --- The brand new Government WHITEHOUSE climate data is already rising to the top of Google search.. Don't ask me where Barack got this graph -- but it ALSO shows a SLOWING of the heat storage during "the hiatus"....

ALL HAIL CLIMATE.GOV !!!!!!!


Wouldn't know how we could survive for all these years without it..

WTF are you talking about? The rise at 2000 is clear, as is the increasing spread indicating the higher warming in the deeper water.

So, what slowing are you talking about?

More graph reading issues here. The amount of heat going INTO those layers is not just the magnitude of that graph, its actually the derivative or slope that matters. There is a short spike of heat added to the total around 2000 as you noted, but everything THEREAFTER is at considerably lower slope. Meaning ---- the rate of ADDITION for heat during most of the hiatus is lower than most of the historical record.. If heat was STOLEN from surface, those slopes should have looked like a barnstormer reaching for the blue yonder...


40% chance you understand how to even interpret that graph...

40%? You're being far too generous my friend.....our "engineer" hasn't got a chance.

 

[flacaltenn]

I can see that the slope declines, but it never stops rising and the deeper water accumulates heat faster than the shallower water from 2000 on.

Rising heat content is not an equilibrium situation, is it.

What we see in those graphs --- particularly the NOAA versions, is the Earth's major heatsink in action.. No surprise that as you say -- there are points "not in equilibrium" that MAY force heat into the ocean layers. And transfer to the deeper layers occurs simply because the THERMAL DIFFERENCES become great enough to move some heat deeper. But you can't SKIP layers. So that if new heat is building quicker at 2000 m than at 400 m --- there is either a conveyor mechanism we don't understand, or a threshold for thermal POTENTIAL has been reached to move it deeper.

In those graphs -- there are major transfers (the numbers are quite small, but the rates are significant) in the 70s --> 80s and again in 2000 --> 2003.. But then the 0-700m shuts down almost entirely for the rest of "the hiatus"..

So there is important Science here. But no real explanation for the pause in terms of STEALING heat from the surface.. IMO --- we are seeing the heat sink KICKED into action by the joint occurrence of surface warming coincident with major ocean patterns like PDO and ENSO. And I DOUBT that this transfer happens in a year or even maybe in a decade.

One thing we DO KNOW from those charts.. The ocean is not LEAKING the stored heat. It IS hanging around. As the baseline storage shows no leakage or relaxation method. Unless you consider that the heat APPEARS to be shuffled off to lower levels like a good well behaved heatsink would.. That tells you that it's NOT LIKELY to return to radiative exchanges at the surface anytime soon... It is literally EATING some heat..

But not the heat YOU WISH it was eating..

 

[SSDD]

Nope.. Not hiding in deeper waters.. Because the NOAA data shows it SLOWING there for 2000 - 2012 as well.. IN FACT --- The brand new Government WHITEHOUSE climate data is already rising to the top of Google search.. Don't ask me where Barack got this graph -- but it ALSO shows a SLOWING of the heat storage during "the hiatus"....

ALL HAIL CLIMATE.GOV !!!!!!!


Wouldn't know how we could survive for all these years without it..

Not to mention that if that quantity of heat were moving into the oceans, the resulting expansion would translate into an acceleration of sea level rise....again, not happening. Blaming the oceans for eating their global warming is just more pseudoscience from the first class car on the AGW crazy train.

 

[SSDD]

40% chance you understand how to even interpret that graph...

Or less. He is, after all, desperate for something....anything to support his faith.

 

[Abraham3]

I can see that the slope declines, but it never stops rising and the deeper water accumulates heat faster than the shallower water from 2000 on.

Rising heat content is not an equilibrium situation, is it.

What we see in those graphs --- particularly the NOAA versions, is the Earth's major heatsink in action.. No surprise that as you say -- there are points "not in equilibrium" that MAY force heat into the ocean layers. And transfer to the deeper layers occurs simply because the THERMAL DIFFERENCES become great enough to move some heat deeper. But you can't SKIP layers. So that if new heat is building quicker at 2000 m than at 400 m --- there is either a conveyor mechanism we don't understand, or a threshold for thermal POTENTIAL has been reached to move it deeper.

In those graphs -- there are major transfers (the numbers are quite small, but the rates are significant) in the 70s --> 80s and again in 2000 --> 2003.. But then the 0-700m shuts down almost entirely for the rest of "the hiatus"..

So there is important Science here. But no real explanation for the pause in terms of STEALING heat from the surface.. IMO --- we are seeing the heat sink KICKED into action by the joint occurrence of surface warming coincident with major ocean patterns like PDO and ENSO. And I DOUBT that this transfer happens in a year or even maybe in a decade.

One thing we DO KNOW from those charts.. The ocean is not LEAKING the stored heat. It IS hanging around. As the baseline storage shows no leakage or relaxation method. Unless you consider that the heat APPEARS to be shuffled off to lower levels like a good well behaved heatsink would.. That tells you that it's NOT LIKELY to return to radiative exchanges at the surface anytime soon... It is literally EATING some heat..

But not the heat YOU WISH it was eating..

Are you blind?

Those datasets, over the period in which all you deniers have been screaming there's been no warming, ARE RISING. Do you deny that?

The ocean has always been where the majority of the incoming heat ended up. 90% of the heat in the climate systems RESIDES in the ocean. You knew this. So I have always found it a little ODD that you can see those rising ocean temperatures but still wave those surface numbers in our faces and scream "NO WARMING".

There are most certainly mechanisms that take water directly from the surface to the depths: the overturning currents for one. They do go directly from one depth to another. And they are localized. You talk as if you thought the overturning currents took place everywhere. They do not. If the oceans worked the way you seem to believe they work, every BT trace would be a straight line.

 

[IanC]

I wonder why the reanalyzed data looks so different from past data. hmmmm.....

thank god that people like bob tisdale are keeping track of 'old results'.

 

[polarbear]

This is the abstract of "A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change"

by J. P. Abraham, M. Baringer, N. L. Bindoff, T. Boyer, L. J. Cheng, J. A. Church, J. L. Conroy, C. M. Domingues, J. T. Fasullo, J. Gilson, G. Goni, S. A. Good, J. M. Gorman, V. Gouretski, M. Ishii, G. C. Johnson, S. Kizu, J. M. Lyman, A. M. Macdonald, W. J. Minkowycz, S. E. Moffitt, M. D. Palmer, A. R. Piola, F. Reseghetti, K. Schuckmann, K. E. Trenberth, I. Velicogna and J. K. Willis

published in Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 51, Issue 3, pages 450–483, 3rd Quarter 2013

A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change - Abraham - 2013 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library

Reviews of Geophysics - Volume 51, Issue 3 - 3rd Quarter 2013 - Wiley Online Library

Abstract
[1] The accuracy of ocean temperature measurements is discussed in detail in the context of ocean heat content, Earth's energy imbalance, and thermosteric sea level rise. Up-to-date estimates are provided for these three important quantities.
Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multidecadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflects the impact of anthropogenic warming.

**********************************************************************
I was going to start this thread with the abstract from Murphy 2009 that I just cited to Westwall, but it doesn't seem to have much (as far as can be told from the abstract) beyond 2000. Murphy does give a heating rate of 1.1 Wm^-2 that closely matches the satellite info that Mamooth has put up repeatedly.

So, as I stated several times: the FACT that direct measurements show the Earth is accumulating solar energy at an increasing fact should REALLY mark the complete end of these IDIOTIC attempts to claim that global warming isn't taking place.

The only real question all along has been "Where is the heat going?" Since even before 1998, more than 90% of the trapped energy was going in to the oceans, it was always a prime candidate. Now loads of data from multiple studies show the heat that had been warming the surface at a good clip is very likely to be getting stashed in the deep oceans due to changes in ENSO circulation patterns.

What "direct measurements"..?????
There are no direct measurements that show that heat is "being stashed in the deep oceans".
And the source you quoted says that there aren`t any. These are just the usual "estimates"All you had to do is was to click on their link :
A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change - Abraham - 2013 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library

The deep ocean (>700 m) has been estimated to have absorbed 42% (80.4 × 1021 J) of the 193 × 1021 J stored in the ocean between 1955 and 2003 [Church et al., 2011]. Variability of the heat content of the deep ocean modulates both the energy budget of the climate system and global sea level [IPCC, 2007]. Therefore, a comprehensive closure of the global energy budget [e.g., Trenberth and Fasullo, 2010] and a precise attribution of observed changes in sea level are not possible if variations of the deep ocean heat content are not formally evaluated.

That`s not all, there is more:

two standard errors are about ±2 × 1022 J in the 1980s, decreasing to ±1 × 1022 J in the early 1990s, but increasing in the late 1990s then decreasing substantially to about ±0.5 × 1022 J in the Argo era. The reference period is 1955–2006.

And all they got is an increase of precisely NOTHING (Zero, silch, SFA) in heat content for the water above 700m from 2000 to the present, where the temperature had been measured.


So it`s "estimated" that the heat content must have increased by 5 *10^22 Joules if you tally it from the surface down to 2000 meters.

But that`s how you freaks operate. You got a Google hit presumably for "ocean heat content" and brandished the part that suited you, totally distorting what they have in fact published.

You know the difference between "heat content" and temperature?
Do you?
I guess not.
Else you`ld have realized that deeper down it did not get any warmer either. The "heat content increase" graphed as red is what you get if you multiply the volume without having to raise the temperature....then you get sensational results in "heat content".
And that`s what AGW "science" is all about isn`t it?
So it`s no wonder that this junk science publishes their last hurra, "the oceans ate up the heat" in this format instead of temperature....which would make a joke out of CO2 "climate sensitivity":

For the WLS trends, this is equivalent to an increase in global upper OHC of about 19 × 10^22  J and implies an averaged ocean warming of ~0.2°C over 43 years (or ~0.048°C per decade) in the upper 700 m.

That`s 0.0048 degC per year...how would you even measure that?
And nobody did.
It`s called "artificial precision" or "fals precision" by REAL scientists and had been obtained by dividing 0.2 C by 43 years....and assumes that we did now that this temperature was precisely 0.2 degrees cooler 43 years ago.
Amazing how you could determine that it`s been 0.2 C cooler 43 years ago than it is now,isn`t it?
(same source):

Most modern CTDs now use thermistors, often in pairs, and strain gauge pressure sensors. While Hamon's original STD experiments had an accuracy of 0.1°C

But somehow the "(97%) climate scientists" managed to determine that the oceans have been 0.2 C cooler with data from 43 years ago that has an error range of ± 0.1 C.

False precision

fake precision, misplaced precision and spurious accuracy) occurs when numerical data are presented in a manner that implies better precision than is actually the case; since precision is a limit to accuracy, this often leads to overconfidence in the accuracy as well

In science and engineering, convention dictates that unless a margin of error is explicitly stated,...

the presentation of data should be limited to what is warranted by the precision of those data. For example, if an instrument can be read to tenths of a unit of measurement, results of calculations using data obtained from that instrument can only be confidently stated to the tenths place, regardless of what the raw calculation returns or whether other data used in the calculation are more accurate.

So as usual the AGW freaks opted for the "regardless" and present computer model calculation "data" which to boot is based on so called "best estimates" instead of presenting the data warranted by measurements....and their 97% consensus is Okay with that.


But then again since when is "climate science" a real science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Spectacularly POIGNANT observation there PBear....

So it`s no wonder that this junk science publishes their last hurra, "the oceans ate up the heat" in this format instead of temperature....which would make a joke out of CO2 "climate sensitivity":

A lot of contradictions in this "excuse" for a hiatus....
Not the least of which is if the 0-700m layer shut down during the bulk of "the hiatus", and there are no long delays on heat transfers --- how did the ocean EAT the warmth for the past 15 years?

Even disregarding the estimated increases in each layer -- THE RATE or heat addition is not exceptional compared to the 70s and 80s.. If it's eating heat NOW -- it was munching the same amounts back then.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We just had our coldest feb in 21 years...WITHOUT A NINA. Weird!

 

[westwall]

We just had our coldest feb in 21 years...WITHOUT A NINA. Weird!

 

[Abraham3]

I think it had a great deal more to do with Rossby Waves than ENSO.

 

[Abraham3]

So, as I stated several times: the FACT that direct measurements show the Earth is accumulating solar energy at an increasing fact should REALLY mark the complete end of these IDIOTIC attempts to claim that global warming isn't taking place.

The only real question all along has been "Where is the heat going?" Since even before 1998, more than 90% of the trapped energy was going in to the oceans, it was always a prime candidate. Now loads of data from multiple studies show the heat that had been warming the surface at a good clip is very likely to be getting stashed in the deep oceans due to changes in ENSO circulation patterns.

What "direct measurements"..?????
There are no direct measurements that show that heat is "being stashed in the deep oceans".

Do you always have this much trouble with English? The direct measurements were of the Earth's radiative imbalance, taken by satellites. Note that the subject of the first comment is "the Earth", not the oceans. Note also, in my later comment about the oceans - after commenting that the important question was where was that heat going- my use of the phrase "...is very likely being stashed...".

So, the Earth is still accumulating heat and its very likely moving in to the deep ocean.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think it had a great deal more to do with Rossby Waves than ENSO.

World wide my friend. This is from the noaa feb report!

 

[IanC]

I wonder why the reanalyzed data looks so different from past data. hmmmm.....

thank god that people like bob tisdale are keeping track of 'old results'.

I would also like to point out that the volcanic signature (that Abraham3 likes to talk about) of Pinatubo is absent in historic OHC studies, and only presents itself after reanalysis!

 

[westwall]

I wonder why the reanalyzed data looks so different from past data. hmmmm.....

thank god that people like bob tisdale are keeping track of 'old results'.

I would also like to point out that the volcanic signature (that Abraham3 likes to talk about) of Pinatubo is absent in historic OHC studies, and only presents itself after reanalysis!

Yes, it's amazing what these guys can find when they reanalyze data....

 

[SSDD]

The desperation is palpable.

 

[flacaltenn]

I wonder why the reanalyzed data looks so different from past data. hmmmm.....

thank god that people like bob tisdale are keeping track of 'old results'.

I would also like to point out that the volcanic signature (that Abraham3 likes to talk about) of Pinatubo is absent in historic OHC studies, and only presents itself after reanalysis!

Not only is it not in older REAL data -- there are a lot of PAPERS acknowledging how weak the coupling probably is.. For Instance...

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013.pdf

Linkages between volcanic eruptions, AMOC and OHC
are not well established. Iwi et al. (2012) do not find strong
evidence for an effect of Pinatubo on the strength of the
AMOC and Carton and Santorelli (2008) state that their analysis
of OHC does not reflect an impact from the eruption
of Pinatubo. As shown in the Supplement, the derivative of
OHC from Church et al. (2011), an update to the record of
Domingues et al. (2008), bears no relation to SOD (hence,
the conclusion of Murphy et al. (2009) seems highly dependent
on which OHC record is used, and possibly how the
data are smoothed). There is extensive literature on this subject,
nearly entirely focused on the debate of whether or not
major volcanic eruptions affect OHC and the strength of the
AMOC. Our study seems to be the first to suggest that variations
in the strength of the AMOC may have compromised
prior estimates of volcanic cooling.

 

[Abraham3]

Every one of your (admittedly old) "World Ocean" plots show that the ocean's heat content is increasing. If the Earth as a whole is not warming, from where do you suggest that energy comes?