IPCC climate report 2013

[BornFromTheVoid]

Thanks for the rather patronising link on sceptics. Onwards and upwards though, the data from the 3000 buoys still doesn't give you an accurate representation of the temps for the very reasons I cited. Like I've stated until scientist can find all this missing heat, something by the way a leading sceptic claimed anyway ( Stephen Wilde ) then all this talk of hide and seek heat content is nothing more than a bloggers theory which you candidly state is not science.

 

It's from realclimate, not my own. Sorry you found it patronising.

 

So despite that thousands scientists think the argo floats are fine, that the oceans are accumulating heat and that the data is good, you believe the argo floats are useless, the missing heat simply cannot be found, and all the scientific evidence that goes against your idea is just a bloggers theory? That doesn't seem right, surely?

 

 

BFTV and othersI,

 

As SIis unavailable, I will attempt to put what I think are is questions about the accuracy of the temperature readings into context.

Over the last 7 days I have done a bit of reading around the sublect (including BFTV's reference as well as the recent Judith Curry report and bloggs and work presented by Landscheif et al).

 

My problem and I think SI's is that it is known that the top 700meters have warmed by an average of 0.4C. I dont dispute the figures  by the way.

 

I have seen figures on realclimate wihich say that this if averaged out of the top 2000meters  gives an average warming of only 0.04C....

 

But the intersting figure I have seen quoted was an average of 0.009C if the estimated total ocean content is included.

Furthermore it is reported that under high pressure (the  very bottom of the southern hemiphere depths are taken into account)  this average averages out at a warming of only 0.001 - 0.003C when averaged out over the total volume. This is because apparently that the specific heat of water increases rapidly under high pressure and density.

 

So my question is  Can ARGOS record values of this order of magnitude? How do we measure the changes at these amazing depths? Particularly as the report you have included suggests that heat is transported easily through water?.

 

 

Midlands Ice Age

 

Hi MIA,

The argo floats only measure down to 2,000m, the deeper ocean data comes from other sources and the trends aren't quite as robust.

There are over 3,000 argo floats out there, so the small error (argo website says +/-0.005C here) for an individual float gets largely cancelled out when you average the millions of readings. Over time, you can also build up the trends too, because to even cause a fraction of a degree of warming in the water down to 2,000m requires huge amounts of energy.

World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010

 

 

Another way of looking at ocean heat accumulation is by examining the sea level record. Most of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion as the oceans accumulate heat. Sea level rise has been accelerating over the over the last century, which implies and growing accumulation of heat also.

[Methuselah]

No Pete, it's called keeping an eye on recent developments whilst living a very busy lifestyle. Not all of us have the luxury of endless hours to spend reading every detail, of every new paper released. As you know, I've been combining jobs 200 miles apart for most of the summer (no laptop with no time to use it if I did have one), a family, and a home to finish renovating. I'm only around now because I'm off after an op, it'll soon be back to the manic, headless chicken lifestyle I live.

well, whatever, I hope you make a quick recovery, from your op, J...Let's just set our disagreements aside? 

[UV-RAY]

It's from realclimate, not my own. Sorry you found it patronising.

 

So despite that thousands scientists think the argo floats are fine, that the oceans are accumulating heat and that the data is good, you believe the argo floats are useless, the missing heat simply cannot be found, and all the scientific evidence that goes against your idea is just a bloggers theory? That doesn't seem right, surely?

 

 

 

Hi MIA,

The argo floats only measure down to 2,000m, the deeper ocean data comes from other sources and the trends aren't quite as robust.

There are over 3,000 argo floats out there, so the small error (argo website says +/-0.005C here) for an individual float gets largely cancelled out when you average the millions of readings. Over time, you can also build up the trends too, because to even cause a fraction of a degree of warming in the water down to 2,000m requires huge amounts of energy.

World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010

 

 

Another way of looking at ocean heat accumulation is by examining the sea level record. Most of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion as the oceans accumulate heat. Sea level rise has been accelerating over the over the last century, which implies and growing accumulation of heat also.

 

 

It's from realclimate, not my own. Sorry you found it patronising.

 

So despite that thousands scientists think the argo floats are fine, that the oceans are accumulating heat and that the data is good, you believe the argo floats are useless, the missing heat simply cannot be found, and all the scientific evidence that goes against your idea is just a bloggers theory? That doesn't seem right, surely?

 

 

 

Hi MIA,

The argo floats only measure down to 2,000m, the deeper ocean data comes from other sources and the trends aren't quite as robust.

There are over 3,000 argo floats out there, so the small error (argo website says +/-0.005C here) for an individual float gets largely cancelled out when you average the millions of readings. Over time, you can also build up the trends too, because to even cause a fraction of a degree of warming in the water down to 2,000m requires huge amounts of energy.

World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010

 

 

Another way of looking at ocean heat accumulation is by examining the sea level record. Most of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion as the oceans accumulate heat. Sea level rise has been accelerating over the over the last century, which implies and growing accumulation of heat also.

Nom problem BFTV, can I get back to you on this as I'm now enjoying the delights of a nice bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon. The bloggers comment was in cheek.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Nom problem BFTV, can I get back to you on this as I'm now enjoying the delights of a nice bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon. The bloggers comment was in cheek.

 

Enjoy SI. No booze for me tonight. I've Captain Janeway and the Voyager crew to keep me entertained though

[Methuselah]

Enjoy SI. No booze for me tonight. I've Captain Janeway and the Voyager crew to keep me entertained though

Seven-of-Nine, too?

[UV-RAY]

Seven-of-Nine, too?

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Seven-of-Nine, too?

 

Not quite yet, only just reaching Borg territory!

[Methuselah]

Not quite yet, only just reaching Borg territory!

That's a shame, guys...there were always a couple of things, about her, that stood out! 

[jethro]

well, whatever, I hope you make a quick recovery, from your op, J...Let's just set our disagreements aside? 

 

Thanks, feeling better already.

 

Disagreements? Wasn't aware there were any.

[knocker]

Watt is up with Roger Pielke Sr

 

I wasn’t going to write another post today but I’ve just come across a new Watts Up With That (WUWT) post by Roger Pielke Sr. The title of the post is Radiative Forcing, Radiative Feedbacks and Radiative Imbalance – The 2013 WG1 IPCC Report Failed to Properly Report on this Issue. I’ve got to say that I’m amazed by this post as it seems to be an incredibly embarrassing mistake for a professional climate scientist to make. It seems as though Roger Pielke Sr does not understand the difference between a radiative forcing an energy imbalance.

 

 

http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/watt-is-up-with-roger-pielke-sr/

Edited October 23, 2013 by knocker

[jonboy]

Watt is up with Roger Pielke Sr

 

 

http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/watt-is-up-with-roger-pielke-sr/

 

Just for balance Knocker when you read the blog you would get this from the comments 

 

Wotts, having the opportunity to read Pielke’s views in a fuller context, I withdraw my earlier claim that he has made a mistake. Rather, I have been misinterpreting him as talking about feedback to the temperature response of a giving forcing, whereas he has been talking about the feedback in radiative terms to a given forcing.

 

So please read fully before posting!!!

Edited October 24, 2013 by jonboy

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just for balance Knocker when you read the blog you would get this from the comments 

 

Wotts, having the opportunity to read Pielke’s views in a fuller context, I withdraw my earlier claim that he has made a mistake. Rather, I have been misinterpreting him as talking about feedback to the temperature response of a giving forcing, whereas he has been talking about the feedback in radiative terms to a given forcing.

 

So please read fully before posting!!!

 

And if you continue reading, you can see that they've not fully decided whether the blog post is incorrect or not (not a good position to be in when your dishing out criticism for sure, but that's never stopped WUWT before!).

 

But it does seem that both WottsUWT and WattsUWT should have put a little more thought into their blogs post before publishing them!