IPCC climate report 2013

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

 

 

(1) Ever heard of hysteresis? Oceans soaking up heat and giving it back later comes to mind. This comment relies that all factors are well mixed over the period in question - in this case year to year. Why does the sun's energy (or indeed any other natural factor) have to synchronise with the dataset but CO2 electromagnetic energy of the same wavelengths is somehow different in that, specially, that form of energy, which is indistinguishable from any other form of energy, is capable of capacitance in our oceans. You can post anomalies of -0.5C for 60 years into the future, and still show 'slow warming'

 

(2) I didn't say it was your view; but nevertheless it is ingrained, given that 'normal' climate is a reference period in the past presumably a stable period without warming or cooling, excepting natural variation.We say that the atmosphere has warmed compared to that period; the implication is clear - the reference period is normal, we're currently posting high anomalies against that period that is abnormal; therefore the reference period is 'better' since it is 'normal'

 

 

Indeed, I have, and you know that. Only your example of it is not happening. The oceans are accumulating heat, not releasing it.

Perhaps I'm just well below your own mental faculties, but the rest point 1 makes no sense to me.

 

Climate is quite variable on long time scales, and regionally, on short time-scales. That is of course, barring some cataclysmic event. Your insistence that people who accept the science behind climate change, believing in these idealised fantasy scenarios is false.

The reference period is just that, a reference period upon which to gauge change. Turning into a largely semantic argument is needless.

 

Lol, Judith Currie has probably forgotten more than most who work within the IPCC, I'm sure she would love to hear how well you regard her and her worthless blogging.

 

I never said anything about her being worthless. But just keep making up false accusations, it seems to work well for you, and you keep getting away with it.

 

Ant yet the report practically airbrushes the pause out of existence, could be a lot of egg on faces if they are wrong about this.

 

Or because it's little more than straw clutching by a few and largely insignificant, just as the faster than projected warming from 1992 to 2006 was insignificant.

The models are not used for short term variability.

Edited October 1, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[stewfox]

 

Indeed, I have, and you know that. Only your example of it is not happening. The oceans are accumulating heat, not releasing it.

 

 

If the upper ocean warming (0-700m) is slowing down and hence matching the slowdown in global surface temperatures rises , what else have we got left to explain the levelling off  global warming in the last 10-20 yrs.... the volcanoes ?

 

--------------------------------------------

Second:  In the last ten years the upper layer has warmed more slowly than before.This recent slower warming in the upper ocean is closely related to the slower warming of the global surface temperature, because the temperature of the overlaying atmosphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the ocean surface

--------------------------------------------

 

.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Edited October 1, 2013 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

If the upper ocean warming (0-700m) is slowing down and hence matching the slowdown in global surface temperatures rises , what else have we got left to explain the levelling off  global warming in the last 10-20 yrs.... the volcanoes ?

 

--------------------------------------------

Second:  In the last ten years the upper layer has warmed more slowly than before.This recent slower warming in the upper ocean is closely related to the slower warming of the global surface temperature, because the temperature of the overlaying atmosphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the ocean surface

--------------------------------------------

 

.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

 

When the upper layer of the ocean warms quickly, the surface temperatures warms more quickly. But there is plenty more ocean below 700m.

 

This is a very good piece on it by realclimate. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

[UV-RAY]

Indeed, I have, and you know that. Only your example of it is not happening. The oceans are accumulating heat, not releasing it.Perhaps I'm just well below your own mental faculties, but the rest point 1 makes no sense to me. Climate is quite variable on long time scales, and regionally, on short time-scales. That is of course, barring some cataclysmic event. Your insistence that people who accept the science behind climate change, believing in these idealised fantasy scenarios is false.The reference period is just that, a reference period upon which to gauge change. Turning into a largely semantic argument is needless.  I never said anything about her being worthless. But just keep making up false accusations, it seems to work well for you, and you keep getting away with it.  Or because it's little more than straw clutching by a few and largely insignificant, just as the faster than projected warming from 1992 to 2006 was insignificant.The models are not used for short term variability.

I never said you did, it's just that your opinion of her comes across as such. As for the pause being fairly insignificant, well we shall see just how insignificant it remains in the near future. Could be an awful lot off eggs on faces and toys thrown out of prams if it continues.

[keithlucky]

Maybe the IPCC can enlist James Cameron to take his deep sea submarine to new depths to find the hidden warming.Study finds no signs of missing heat http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/study-finds-argo-buoys-show-no-evidence-of-missing-heat/

 

When the upper layer of the ocean warms quickly, the surface temperatures warms more quickly. But there is plenty more ocean below 700m.

 

This is a very good piece on it by realclimate. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

 

Edited October 1, 2013 by keithlucky

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

Maybe the IPCC can enlist James Cameron to take his deep sea submarine to new depths to find the hidden warming.Study finds no signs of missing heat http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/study-finds-argo-buoys-show-no-evidence-of-missing-heat/

 

 

Taking a look at the referenced paper in that link, give us this table. Take note of the 0-2000m trends.

 

 

And once again, from realclimate, rather than simply looking at 2003 to 2008 upper ocean data, how about the whole record?

 

[stewfox]

When the upper layer of the ocean warms quickly, the surface temperatures warms more quickly. But there is plenty more ocean below 700m.

 

This is a very good piece on it by realclimate. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

 

Its the same link ??  You missed the point

 

The top 700 meters isn't warming because the planet isn't warming

 

It is not possible that warming of the deep ocean accelerates at the same time as warming of the upper ocean slows down. If the 'heat; is going to go somewhere its going to be taken in at the top (700 metres of ocean)

 

You can as the article suggests use 'wind' to explain changes to 700m/2000m but I don't buy the 'wind argument'.

 

My view if we are seeing a flattening of global warming the 'missing heat cause' by CO2 should see temps rising in the top 700 metres of ocean water. We are not seeing that so its back to volcanoes or something else to explain the 'pause'. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

Its the same link ??  You missed the point

 

The top 700 meters isn't warming because the planet isn't warming

 

It is not possible that warming of the deep ocean accelerates at the same time as warming of the upper ocean slows down. If the 'heat; is going to go somewhere its going to be taken in at the top (700 metres of ocean)

 

You can as the article suggests use 'wind' to explain changes to 700m/2000m but I don't buy the 'wind argument'.

 

My view if we are seeing a flattening of global warming the 'missing heat cause' by CO2 should see temps rising in the top 700 metres of ocean water. We are not seeing that so its back to volcanoes or something else to explain the 'pause'. 

 

Yes, so read the whole piece. The climate scientists, at real climate, in that link, disagree with you. How can the planet not be warming if ocean heat content is increasing? The top 700m meters is warming, but like global temperatures, at a slower rate

 

From the realclimate link

 

 

 

If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.

If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.

 

 

 

I can't help it if you don't buy the explanations.

[UV-RAY]

Its the same link ??  You missed the point

 

The top 700 meters isn't warming because the planet isn't warming

 

It is not possible that warming of the deep ocean accelerates at the same time as warming of the upper ocean slows down. If the 'heat; is going to go somewhere its going to be taken in at the top (700 metres of ocean)

 

You can as the article suggests use 'wind' to explain changes to 700m/2000m but I don't buy the 'wind argument'.

 

My view if we are seeing a flattening of global warming the 'missing heat cause' by CO2 should see temps rising in the top 700 metres of ocean water. We are not seeing that so its back to volcanoes or something else to explain the 'pause'. 

It's impossible for the top 700m not to warm whilst the deep oceans warm, still I suppose anything is possible in the world of the IPCC. What makes this stance for  proponents of AGW more amusing is how they argued the case against a certain Stephen Wilde whose claim that heat  stored deep within the oceans was then released much later was not possible, yet here they are just doing that. IMO the heat storage system is an interesting concept but to try and use this to defend a desperate theory is a bit rich.

[4wd]

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

Disappearing things.

[4wd]

Or, "The Tamino Trick"http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/#comment-441673

[knocker]

It's impossible for the top 700m not to warm whilst the deep oceans warm, still I suppose anything is possible in the world of the IPCC. What makes this stance for  proponents of AGW more amusing is how they argued the case against a certain Stephen Wilde whose claim that heat  stored deep within the oceans was then released much later was not possible, yet here they are just doing that. IMO the heat storage system is an interesting concept but to try and use this to defend a desperate theory is a bit rich.

 

What you can't have heat transfer? Or

 

Glossary: Why are the deep waters from the interior Arctic Ocean warm?

The mean temperature of the deep water masses from the interior Arcic Ocean is -0,9 degrees centigrade. That is much warmer than the surface waters of the Greenland Sea, which cool down to  -1,8 degrees in winter. However, where does the warmth of the deep Arctic waters come from? It is the result of a long chain reaction, happening in the shallow seas on the edge of the Arctic Ocean – right there, where in winter sea ice formation takes place. When the sea ice is formed the salt, which is present in the water, does not get enclosed. It leaves the ice instead and increases the salinity and density of the water layer below the ice. Due to their rising density these waters get heavier and start sinking. One can compare this sinking process of the water masses with a snowball falling down a freshly snow-covered slope. The longer the snowball rolls, the more snow get attached to its body. That means, while rolling down the Arctic shelf, the salty sinking water masses come across a layer of warm Atlantic water. They take part of the heat and salt in this Atlantic layer and transport it to deeper levels in the Arctic Ocean. At the bottom of the Arctic Ocean these sinking water masses form a body of warm deep water that later on streams out of the Arctic Ocean into the Greenland Sea.

 

 

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/awi_longterm_data_reveal_increase_of_temperature_in_the_deep_greenland_see/?cHash=5a643361d6bacdd02e098d1c372cc1b4

Edited October 1, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

I wonder what the Romans would have said about such outright dismissal, of anything hard to understand; merda taurorum animus conturbit?

[Highland Snow]

An interesting viewpoint:

 

http://www.trendingcentral.com/climate-change-complicit-media/

[UV-RAY]

What you can't have heat transfer? Or

 

 

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/awi_longterm_data_reveal_increase_of_temperature_in_the_deep_greenland_see/?cHash=5a643361d6bacdd02e098d1c372cc1b4

 

 

What you can't have heat transfer? Or

 

 

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/awi_longterm_data_reveal_increase_of_temperature_in_the_deep_greenland_see/?cHash=5a643361d6bacdd02e098d1c372cc1b4

Lol, you simply cannot explain missing heat content by putting forward a theory to back up a theory. We can only go on the facts at hand and assume almost anything we like. I'll always go with the facts and not assumptions.

[Methuselah]

Lol, you simply cannot explain missing heat content by putting forward a theory to back up a theory. We can only go on the facts at hand and assume almost anything we like. I'll always go with the facts and not assumptions.

But you're not talking about heat, SI - you are talking about degrees of temperature...

[UV-RAY]

But you're not talking about heat, SI - you are talking about degrees of temperature...

I'm talking about the so called missing heat content that's supposedly locked up in the oceans Pete. This is what the IPCC would have us believe that somehow all that extra CO2 which we've been pumping out is now being absorbed into the oceans, which in turn will be released at X amount of time. By that I think they mean when all natural forcings turn positive again.

[Methuselah]

I'm talking about the so called missing heat content that's supposedly locked up in the oceans Pete. This is what the IPCC would have us believe that somehow all that extra CO2 which we've been pumping out is now being absorbed into the oceans, which in turn will be released at X amount of time. By that I think they mean when all natural forcings turn positive again.

Well, I'm almost convinced that the missing heat has gone into the oceans, and/or into melting ice; but not the CO_2...?

[UV-RAY]

Well, I'm almost convinced that the missing heat has gone into the oceans, and/or into melting ice; but not the CO_2...?

Why did it suddenly go missing now, did it take a wrong turn and why wasn't all this extra heat absorbed into the oceans prior to the pause. It's a weak excuse in trying to explain why global temps aren't responding as per climate models predicted. 

[Methuselah]

Why did it suddenly go missing now, did it take a wrong turn and why wasn't all this extra heat absorbed into the oceans prior to the pause. It's a weak excuse in trying to explain why global temps aren't responding as per climate models predicted. 

Entropy? Latent heat? Specific heat? Thermohaline circulation? All four and more? 

[UV-RAY]

So heat should have been stored in the oceans for the last X amount of years then, so why did global temps rise over that period of time and stall now?

[Methuselah]

I refer the honorable gentleman to the 'answers' I gave previously...

[UV-RAY]

I refer the honorable gentleman to the 'answers' I gave previously...

None of which directly answer the question as it's another assumption Lol.

[Methuselah]

None of which directly answer the question as it's another assumption Lol.

If, by 'assumption', you mean 'the answers lie somewhere buried within the known laws of physics' then, aye, it most certainly is an assumption. One I'm more than happy to make, though... 

[UV-RAY]

If, by 'assumption', you mean 'the answers lie somewhere buried within the known laws of physics' then, aye, it most certainly is an assumption. One I'm more than happy to make, though... 

Lol, are you sure you aren't a politician.