Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

I don't know that there IS a recent increase in this metric.. You got good enough historical data to come up with another one of those MEANINGLESS "Global" figures for >700m?

 

[flacaltenn]

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

My point is only that most radioactive waste is low level waste, and that most of the low level waste cannot be recycled, which is true. Man, what have you been smoking?

Wish I had been smoking something..

Look -- it's just not relevent to the questions of adopting nuclear power for electricity.. It's part of the strategic problem of nuclear waste.

Would be like realizing that not ALL EVIL OIL is used for gasoline.. And that we'll still have to deal with drilling and selling about 1/2 of it ---- when and if we move transportation energy elsewhere..

 

[mamooth]

In fact, several years ago I took satellite photos of the Pinatubo eruption

Dang. I wish I had my own satellite.

(And yes, I know what you meant.)

 

[flacaltenn]

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. From the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

"The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced."

The Argo data shows greater deep warming than the non-Argo data.

I find it funny as all get-out that you think you know "how science works" better than the three PhDs who wrote this paper and the several more PhDs that reviewed it for publication. When was the last time you were in the field, dude? And how far offshore was that?

Without the armada of Argo floats -- what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..

How you gonna make a general like that one --- CLAIMING TO BE COVERING THE GLOBE --- with not enough data?

Seems to me --- they ought to concentrate on the MAJOR sub-surface TRANSPORT streams and do a GOOD JOB OF THAT FIRST.. Because that's the big Cuisinart Mixer that moves the heat around..

The fact that went for a GLOBAL number just to make a PUBLIC EXCUSE for the lack of atmospheric warming --- is just more media centered science..

A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...

 

[Abraham3]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

I don't know that there IS a recent increase in this metric.. You got good enough historical data to come up with another one of those MEANINGLESS "Global" figures for >700m?

The full text of the work is available. Why don't you show us where they went wrong.

 

[Abraham3]

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

My point is only that most radioactive waste is low level waste, and that most of the low level waste cannot be recycled, which is true. Man, what have you been smoking?

Wish I had been smoking something..

Look -- it's just not relevent to the questions of adopting nuclear power for electricity.. It's part of the strategic problem of nuclear waste.

Would be like realizing that not ALL EVIL OIL is used for gasoline.. And that we'll still have to deal with drilling and selling about 1/2 of it ---- when and if we move transportation energy elsewhere..

Oil is not evil. It's a lovely resource material. It just sucks to burn.

 

[westwall]

My point is only that most radioactive waste is low level waste, and that most of the low level waste cannot be recycled, which is true. Man, what have you been smoking?

Wish I had been smoking something..

Look -- it's just not relevent to the questions of adopting nuclear power for electricity.. It's part of the strategic problem of nuclear waste.

Would be like realizing that not ALL EVIL OIL is used for gasoline.. And that we'll still have to deal with drilling and selling about 1/2 of it ---- when and if we move transportation energy elsewhere..

Oil is not evil. It's a lovely resource material. It just sucks to burn.

I absolutely agree with you on this.

 

[flacaltenn]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

I don't know that there IS a recent increase in this metric.. You got good enough historical data to come up with another one of those MEANINGLESS "Global" figures for >700m?

The full text of the work is available. Why don't you show us where they went wrong.

Yeppers.. I'll get right on that.. As soon as you show me how the IPCC mangled that TSI number back in the other thread..

That MIT-UConn paper I posted there has a LOT to do with my thoughts on this latest TrenBerth media event. Because I suspect that limiting the study of finding miniscule amounts of ocean warmth to the actual ocean conveyors of that warmth -- would have been a far more intelligient thing to do than faking another Global average..

 

[Abraham3]

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. From the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

"The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced."

The Argo data shows greater deep warming than the non-Argo data.

I find it funny as all get-out that you think you know "how science works" better than the three PhDs who wrote this paper and the several more PhDs that reviewed it for publication. When was the last time you were in the field, dude? And how far offshore was that?

Without the armada of Argo floats -- what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..

How you gonna make a general like that one --- CLAIMING TO BE COVERING THE GLOBE --- with not enough data?

Seems to me --- they ought to concentrate on the MAJOR sub-surface TRANSPORT streams and do a GOOD JOB OF THAT FIRST.. Because that's the big Cuisinart Mixer that moves the heat around..

The fact that went for a GLOBAL number just to make a PUBLIC EXCUSE for the lack of atmospheric warming --- is just more media centered science..

A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...

The ORAS model takes global inputs and gives global results.

The divergence between before and after about 1998 seems to be due to changes in tropical wind patterns tripped off by la Nina. That air, land and SST should stop climbing at the same time the deep ocean starts heating rapidly provides an answer to the TOA deficit. You don't have an alternative, do you.

On what do you base this charge that they were looking for an excuse for the lack of atmospheric warming? What do you believe they did? Do you think these model runs are lies? Do you think they fed the models made up data? Do you think they're all lying? Cause that's what you're saying.

 

[Abraham3]

I don't know that there IS a recent increase in this metric.. You got good enough historical data to come up with another one of those MEANINGLESS "Global" figures for >700m?

The full text of the work is available. Why don't you show us where they went wrong.

Yeppers.. I'll get right on that.. As soon as you show me how the IPCC mangled that TSI number back in the other thread..

That MIT-UConn paper I posted there has a LOT to do with my thoughts on this latest TrenBerth media event. Because I suspect that limiting the study of finding miniscule amounts of ocean warmth to the actual ocean conveyors of that warmth -- would have been a far more intelligient thing to do than faking another Global average..

I can see why you might be afraid to read it. Much too easy to badmouth it when you don't even know what it actually says. Let senile, incompetent bumblers like Pielke do it for you.

So, you think Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen are lying? You think their paper is a complete fraud? Have the guts to say it outright.

 

[Abraham3]

Without the armada of Argo floats -- what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..

I realize you won't read the paper. No sense spending ten minutes getting smarter. But you could have wasted the ten seconds it would have taken to read my post with your brain engaged.

THE ARGO DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING BELOW 700 METERS AFTER 1998 THAN DOES THE NON-ARGO DATA.

Seems to me --- they ought to concentrate on the MAJOR sub-surface TRANSPORT streams and do a GOOD JOB OF THAT FIRST.. Because that's the big Cuisinart Mixer that moves the heat around..

Seems to me you ought to read the paper.

A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...

You wish.

 

[PMZ]

Defense lawyers know that their job for jury trials is typically aimed at creation of some doubt. If they can get that up to ''reasonable'' in the minds of jury, they have won.

So it is with deniers. They have no science that supports their politics, so they have elected to try the creation of doubt methodology. Of course as science has built the case proving AGW and it's impacts, the doubt business has moved from tough to impossible. And truth be told, the trial is long over and the doers of the world are solving the problems rather than trying to deny the science.

But, I think that this discussion will go on for several more years as that is easier for deniers than admitting they've been so wrong for so long.

 

[flacaltenn]

The full text of the work is available. Why don't you show us where they went wrong.

Yeppers.. I'll get right on that.. As soon as you show me how the IPCC mangled that TSI number back in the other thread..

That MIT-UConn paper I posted there has a LOT to do with my thoughts on this latest TrenBerth media event. Because I suspect that limiting the study of finding miniscule amounts of ocean warmth to the actual ocean conveyors of that warmth -- would have been a far more intelligient thing to do than faking another Global average..

I can see why you might be afraid to read it. Much too easy to badmouth it when you don't even know what it actually says. Let senile, incompetent bumblers like Pielke do it for you.

So, you think Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen are lying? You think their paper is a complete fraud? Have the guts to say it outright.

Just checked the other thread where we were addressing how and why the IPCC mangled the TSI numbers.. Still no response from you.. The paper I referenced there is key to any comments I might make about this "revelation"..

I did scan the ENTIRE paper weeks ago -- that's why I'm still chuckling about the diving walruses.. How much of the "global" ocean did they cover?

Don't think B T & Kallen are lying.. I think they are LEARNING. I applaud a better approach to climate science. I certainly rejected Trenberth's ORIGINAL whacks at it. NOW -- he needs to take a few courses in Linear System Theory and he'll be closer to understanding forcing functions and temporal response of systems with complex storage...

I KNOW what "the paper actually says".. And these guys made a calculated decision to try and fix the public perception that the warming has halted with a "global" measurement of very tiny numbers. RATHER than doing IMPORTANT science like how that energy gets transported or affects the surface/atmos energy exchange.

The entire purpose of that paper was to make the news cycle with an excuse for the failure of their previous simplistic assumptions about heat energy exchange within the climate system.

Too much energy expended leaping to conclusions about how this warming "adds" to the actual OBSERVED surface temperatures..

 

[westwall]

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. From the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

"The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced."

The Argo data shows greater deep warming than the non-Argo data.

I find it funny as all get-out that you think you know "how science works" better than the three PhDs who wrote this paper and the several more PhDs that reviewed it for publication. When was the last time you were in the field, dude? And how far offshore was that?

Without the armada of Argo floats -- what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..

How you gonna make a general like that one --- CLAIMING TO BE COVERING THE GLOBE --- with not enough data?

Seems to me --- they ought to concentrate on the MAJOR sub-surface TRANSPORT streams and do a GOOD JOB OF THAT FIRST.. Because that's the big Cuisinart Mixer that moves the heat around..

The fact that went for a GLOBAL number just to make a PUBLIC EXCUSE for the lack of atmospheric warming --- is just more media centered science..

A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...

The ORAS model takes global inputs and gives global results.

The divergence between before and after about 1998 seems to be due to changes in tropical wind patterns tripped off by la Nina. That air, land and SST should stop climbing at the same time the deep ocean starts heating rapidly provides an answer to the TOA deficit. You don't have an alternative, do you.

On what do you base this charge that they were looking for an excuse for the lack of atmospheric warming? What do you believe they did? Do you think these model runs are lies? Do you think they fed the models made up data? Do you think they're all lying? Cause that's what you're saying.

Yes, the MODEL can come up with anything you want it to. That's why it's results are not considered DATA. Show us DATA that says the oceans are warming below 700 meters

 

[westwall]

Without the armada of Argo floats -- what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..

I realize you won't read the paper. No sense spending ten minutes getting smarter. But you could have wasted the ten seconds it would have taken to read my post with your brain engaged.

THE ARGO DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING BELOW 700 METERS AFTER 1998 THAN DOES THE NON-ARGO DATA.

Seems to me --- they ought to concentrate on the MAJOR sub-surface TRANSPORT streams and do a GOOD JOB OF THAT FIRST.. Because that's the big Cuisinart Mixer that moves the heat around..

Seems to me you ought to read the paper.

A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...

You wish.

It does? Show us. And not models, we want raw data.

 

[PMZ]

The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW. That has been done by theory, modeling and data. No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.

The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land, oceans, ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.

 

[Saigon]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

Peilke Sr put up a lot of info on this a couple of years ago. While heat content is the correct units to measure ocean warming people do not realize how small the actual temperature changes are, or how uncertain past measurements are. When trends are smaller than the error bars it is unlikely that the results are valid, especially when the mechanism of energy transport is contrary to past explanations. Trenberth is trying to change the Null Hypotheses on very flimsy evidence. Again.

I'm with Ian on this one.

Although I think this abstract from the paper cited earlier is interesting.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content :

[1] The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521/2013/papers/balmaseda13grl_inpress.pdf

I think we are 10 years away from PROVING what most of us believe to be true.

Even 2 oe 3 years from now, Argos won't have been able to build up much of a picture. It's going to take time. Clearly the smart money is on deep ocean warming, but right now that is more theory than fact.

We also know that Argos results won't make a shred of difference to most Sceptics on this board.

 

[westwall]

The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW. That has been done by theory, modeling and data. No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.

The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land, oceans, ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.

Nothing is proven in science you ignoramus. NOTHING! Science is concerned with FACTS, not TRUTH. One need only look at your tortured posts to realize you know nothing about science, the scientific method, or scientific enquiry.

 

[orogenicman]

Without the armada of Argo floats -- what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..

I realize you won't read the paper. No sense spending ten minutes getting smarter. But you could have wasted the ten seconds it would have taken to read my post with your brain engaged.

THE ARGO DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING BELOW 700 METERS AFTER 1998 THAN DOES THE NON-ARGO DATA.



Seems to me you ought to read the paper.

A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...

You wish.

It does? Show us. And not models, we want raw data.

Took about 20 milliseconds to find it. Have at it:

Temperature Data

You wanted the raw data. You got it. Now, What I want from you is to take that data and produce something (anything) that refutes the papers based on this data that says the oceans are heating up (particularly at depth). Shit or get off the pot.

 

[gslack]

The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW. That has been done by theory, modeling and data. No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.

The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land, oceans, ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.

Theory, modeling and data proves nothing... LOL, you just tried to claim a theory can prove itself correct, and are obviously either too stupid to know it, or to ignorant to understand the significance of that ignorance...