68 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 15 October 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

It is not speculation to say that the heat is been sequestered in the deep ocean - it is recorded fact and accounts for the pause in surface warming over the last 16yrs. Global warming (warming of the globe as a whole) has not stopped but has continued as predicted;


http://www.sciencedi...375960112010389

Concentrating on the first 700meters is cherry picking the facts that suit a denialist agenda - nothing more. Little Fish should know this since we have discussed it at length and is ample evidence of his dishonesty.

Br Cornelius

Little Fish said:

there is nothing to answer. you claimed "global temperatures are rising". this is a present tense statement. since global temperatures have not risen for the last 16 years it is incorrect to say they ARE rising. it would have been correct to say they rose for 15 years, then did not rise for the next 16 years. but you can't say that because someone might ask you why the "global temperature" did not rise for 16 years at a time when co2 increased by 10%. the usual speculative response to that question would then be that the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and will resurface sometime in the future, but again the ocean measurements to 700 meters depth have shown that the oceans have not been warming, they have in fact been coolling, but then the usual speculative response is that the heat must be below the ocean mix layer below 700 meters, but of course that cannot be the case either since co2 rereadiates in the long wave and is all absorbed in the first few microns of water, so heat from co2 infra red reradiation cannot penetarte the oeans at below 700 meters so would have to be first detected in the top 700 meters, so you are STUCK with the FACT that the man made warming hypothesis has failed, and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

Edited by Little Fish, 15 October 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

And thus you show your ignorance of ocean heat movement and circulation. The ocean is not static and mixes to its very depths - driven by wind, the rotation of the earth and by its interaction with the continents.

Unless you attempt to understand the behaviour of complex systems you will continue to make these simple gross errors in thinking. It is impossible to understand climate change with linear thinking.

But you know all this already because we have discussed it at length on more than one occasion.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 15 October 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 15 October 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

What do you care?  You never read anything, anyway.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 15 October 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

And thus you show your ignorance of ocean heat movement and circulation. The ocean is not static and mixes to its very depths - driven by wind, the rotation of the earth and by its interaction with the continents.

Unless you attempt to understand the behaviour of complex systems you will continue to make these simple gross errors in thinking. It is impossible to understand climate change with linear thinking.

But you know all this already because we have discussed it at length on more than one occasion.

Br Cornelius

Little Fish said:

there is nothing to answer. you claimed "global temperatures are rising". this is a present tense statement. since global temperatures have not risen for the last 16 years it is incorrect to say they ARE rising. it would have been correct to say they rose for 15 years, then did not rise for the next 16 years. but you can't say that because someone might ask you why the "global temperature" did not rise for 16 years at a time when co2 increased by 10%. the usual speculative response to that question would then be that the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and will resurface sometime in the future, but again the ocean measurements to 700 meters depth have shown that the oceans have not been warming, they have in fact been coolling, but then the usual speculative response is that the heat must be below the ocean mix layer below 700 meters, but of course that cannot be the case either since co2 rereadiates in the long wave and is all absorbed in the first few microns of water, so heat from co2 infra red reradiation cannot penetarte the oeans at below 700 meters so would have to be first detected in the top 700 meters, so you are STUCK with the FACT that the man made warming hypothesis has failed, and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

[Br Cornelius]

It is the oceans as a whole which have warmed - concentrating on the first 700m is a distraction. You should look at the thread on the Atlantic deep ocean circulation to see why it has probably gone deeper. More energy equals more mixing.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 16 October 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

It is the oceans as a whole which have warmed - concentrating on the first 700m is a distraction. You should look at the thread on the Atlantic deep ocean circulation to see why it has probably gone deeper. More energy equals more mixing.

Br Cornelius

you are not responding to the point being made.
any heat from co2 re radiation would be detected in the 0-700 meter depth measurements. any heat from co2 starts at the ocean skin surface, it does not avoid detection by instantly moving to the lower depths. you say "probably gone deeper", how did you work out this probability? you are protecting your belief with unsupported speculation.

Edited by Little Fish, 16 October 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[Little Fish]

here is what NOAA said in 2008:

"El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.
We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
http://www1.ncdc.noa...2008-lo-rez.pdf

so there you have it - NOAA says if there is more than 15 years of no warming, then the global climate models fail, and so too does the catastrophic man made warming hypothesis fail.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 16 October 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

you are not responding to the point being made.
any heat from co2 re radiation would be detected in the 0-700 meter depth measurements. any heat from co2 starts at the ocean skin surface, it does not avoid detection by instantly moving to the lower depths. you say "probably gone deeper", how did you work out this probability? you are protecting your belief with unsupported speculation.

"Probably" - because the mechanism is still been investigated. The heat is there in the deep oceans - the exact mechanism of deep mixing is still been investigated. It is probable that the increased strength (energy) of the ocean convey is increasing mixing sending it deeper when it meets the barrier of the continental shelves.

Knowing that it is there - but not knowing exactly how it got there, without further empirical investiagtion is not a real issue - its what science is all about - ansewring the questions that arise from the ongoing research.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

and the first most salient bit you ignored:

Little Fish said:

you are not responding to the point being made.
any heat from co2 re radiation would be detected in the 0-700 meter depth measurements. any heat from co2 starts at the ocean skin surface, it does not avoid detection by instantly moving to the lower depths.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 16 October 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

here is what NOAA said in 2008:

"El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.
We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
http://www1.ncdc.noa...2008-lo-rez.pdf

so there you have it - NOAA says if there is more than 15 years of no warming, then the global climate models fail, and so too does the catastrophic man made warming hypothesis fail.

As I have shown - the warming is swtill there - just not in the place you would like it to be. The evidence is supportive of continued warming.
This is a problem of complex systems - as they become more energetic they also become more unpredictable and at certain critical boundary conditions the "predictable" outcome breaks down and is replaced with a more difficult to predict outcome.
What is critical here is that the Global system as a whole has continued to accumulate heat at a steady rate - the models all about anticipating where this heat will end up - but they are not good at predicting these complex boundary conditions where the meta state of the whole system flips into another meta-stable state. This is why I have always maintained that climate models are only useful into the short to medium term.

Let me restate the important point here - increasing energy in the system will produce climate change whatever form that may take.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 16 October 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

"El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

What NOAA is saying is that between 1999 and 2008, warming was insufficient to overcome the ENSO component.  It doesn't say that there was no warming.  The statistics used cannot say that given the weak trend.  Were the error 15% greater, or the estimate 13% smaller, NOAA could not say that the ENSO component was not zero.  That's a pretty slim margin to hang your hat on.  One or two random fluctuations could completely destroy it.

Since 2008, we have set another all-time record temp (2010).  We have also undergone a solar minimum and are now a little over a year from a solar maximum.  We have undergone a La Nina event which is not even considered by this report, as it was written before the event and we are entering a new El Nino event.  Although, NOAA has accounted for ten years of climate stability, we must remember that the earth is nevertheless, a lot warmer than it was in 1975 or in 1908.  This paper takes that as given.  Far from disproving warming, the paper simply assumes it.

Quote

We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

I note that you are making use of a climate model to support your contention.  Previously you have said that these models are not reliable.  Time to decide which side of that fence you're on.  Life as a mugwump doesn't become you.

The paper is discussing a decade-long event.  Climate is determined using 30-year averages because decade-length fluctuations are common and tend to disapear rather easily -  so much so, that you can count on it.

The part you have bolded says that at least fifteen years of zero temperature change is needed to overcome the expected present-day warming (The paper covers a ten-year period.).  Temperatures will have to remain stable through the end of next year to make this true, and as we've already seen, we set a new record in 2010.

Quote

http://www1.ncdc.noa...2008-lo-rez.pdf

so there you have it - NOAA says if there is more than 15 years of no warming, then the global climate models fail, and so too does the catastrophic man made warming hypothesis fail.

This paper doesn't say what you think it does.  NOAA did not say that there has been fifteen years without warming.  It said it would need that to conclude that warming had temporarily ceased.  It only had ten years to work with.

You are employing circular reasoning, using a climate model to present your case, then saying that they fail.  If that is so, then your case fails, too, because it is based on a climate model.

Sorry, but you have not made your case.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 16 October 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

This paper doesn't say what you think it does.

the paper says what it says, its not difficult to understand. you are just constructing a fabricated strawman argument with intent to obfuscate.

Quote

NOAA did not say that there has been fifteen years without warming.

and I did not claim that NOAA made that statement in the paper, you are appealing to your imagination.

Quote

It said it would need that to conclude that warming had temporarily ceased.  It only had ten years to work with.

yes that is correct, it said that then, and since that paper we have had 16 years of no warming, ergo the failure of the man made global warming hypothesis has since come to pass.

Quote

You are employing circular reasoning, using a climate model to present your case, then saying that they fail.

the NOAA paper does not use circular reasoning and nor do I, the paper states that a period of 15 years or more of no warming observations is required to create a discrepancy between real life temperatures and the expected warming rate of the GCM models, so the 16 year period of no warming in the observations means that it did not warm as expected and the no warming period cannot be dismissed due to natural effects. now if it did not warm "as expected" then the IPCC assumed magnitude of warming from co2 built into the models is overestimated, which means the catastrophic man made global warming hypothesis has failed. I should not have to write so much to explain something that is self evident in NOAAs statement.

Quote

If that is so, then your case fails, too, because it is based on a climate model.

the 16 years of no warming is based on the temperature datasets, not climate models.

Quote

Sorry, but you have not made your case.
Doug

you wish

Edited by Little Fish, 16 October 2012 - 04:14 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 16 October 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

As I have shown - the warming is swtill there - just not in the place you would like it to be. The evidence is supportive of continued warming.
This is a problem of complex systems - as they become more energetic they also become more unpredictable and at certain critical boundary conditions the "predictable" outcome breaks down and is replaced with a more difficult to predict outcome.
What is critical here is that the Global system as a whole has continued to accumulate heat at a steady rate - the models all about anticipating where this heat will end up - but they are not good at predicting these complex boundary conditions where the meta state of the whole system flips into another meta-stable state. This is why I have always maintained that climate models are only useful into the short to medium term.

Let me restate the important point here - increasing energy in the system will produce climate change whatever form that may take.

Br Cornelius

let's make some assumptions that favour your position.
let's assume that all the warming of the oceans to a depth of 2000 meters is from co2 re radiating its long wave infra red.
let's assume that this infra red radiation is not somehow picked up in the recent widespread 0-700 meters ocean temperature depth measurements, but just instantly moves to a depth of 700-2000 meters in the ocean.
according to Levitus et al 2012 who measured the ocean heat to a depth of 2000 meters, the equivalent Watts/square meter as spread out across the ocean surface would be equivalent to a co2 forcing of 0.39W/m2 which is 3 times lower than the IPCC climate sensitivity estimate, which means there is no cause for alarm over man made global warming.

[Br Cornelius]

The simple question here is - Has the Global system stopped accumulating energy, or has it continued to accumulate energy ?
The data says the Global system has continued to accumulate energy over the last 16yrs, and that energy has to have come from outside the Global system itself. Since the solar input has declined we must conclude that the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere is still out of equilibrium - which in plain words means that the Globe is warming.

The fact that it is not manifesting as predictable linear surface warming is frankly immaterial.

Can I suggest that those who fail to understand these concepts go away and read up on Chaos theory. James Gleick's book Chaos : the making of a new science is a very good primer. Until you understand Chaoes thory you cannot understand climate science.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 16 October 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

let's make some assumptions that favour your position.
let's assume that all the warming of the oceans to a depth of 2000 meters is from co2 re radiating its long wave infra red.
let's assume that this infra red radiation is not somehow picked up in the recent widespread 0-700 meters ocean temperature depth measurements, but just instantly moves to a depth of 700-2000 meters in the ocean.
according to Levitus et al 2012 who measured the ocean heat to a depth of 2000 meters, the equivalent Watts/square meter as spread out across the ocean surface would be equivalent to a co2 forcing of 0.39W/m2 which is 3 times lower than the IPCC climate sensitivity estimate, which means there is no cause for alarm over man made global warming.

If you fail to account for ice melt and overestimate the current forcing component given by the IPCC, your complacency might be justified - but when you do I would say not.

Just to reassure you that I am not just blowing hot air - here is an article confirming what I have said;

http://www.forbes.co...climate-data/2/

An interesting article discussing why the ENSO bifibralation (complex chaotic  thermodynamic system) has acted to conceal the real trend over the last 16yrs;

Quote

If you disregard the trend lines and stare at the data points over just the last decade or so (or just look at the time series at the top of this post), you see little to no warming. But when the data points are grouped according to whether they’re La Nina years, El Nino years, or neither (neutral years) and trend lines are drawn through them, you see La Nina, El Nino, and neutral years are all inescapably trending warmer. 2011, for example, was

the warmest La Nina year on record

.

http://www.washingto...WtAhT_blog.html

Statistical trickery you might claim - but that would reveal your ignorance of complex chaotic systems.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 16 October 2012 - 08:12 PM.