Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[kerplunk]

Sounds like a cherry-pick to me.

[XM5ER]

kerplunk said:

Sounds like a cherry-pick to me.

And therein lies the problem, both sides of this debate say the same thing. Why? Because there is no clear trend either way. Some would say this disproves the theory of AGW, but hey ho.

[kerplunk]

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

Sounds like a cherry-pick to me.

And therein lies the problem, both sides of this debate say the same thing. Why? Because there is no clear trend either way. Some would say this disproves the theory of AGW, but hey ho.

You need to be more specific - what trend?

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

Sounds like a cherry-pick to me.

And therein lies the problem, both sides of this debate say the same thing. Why? Because there is no clear trend either way. Some would say this disproves the theory of AGW, but hey ho.

You need to be more specific - what trend?

Exactly.

[XM5ER]

LongQ said:

kerplunk said:

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

Sounds like a cherry-pick to me.

And therein lies the problem, both sides of this debate say the same thing. Why? Because there is no clear trend either way. Some would say this disproves the theory of AGW, but hey ho.

You need to be more specific - what trend?

Exactly.

[mondeoman]

Where's the cherry pick?? It was flatlining - then it wasn't. How is that cherry picking? If I'd only said 2013-2017, yep , bang to rights, but 2005 to 2017? Nah.

[kerplunk]

mondeoman said:

Where's the cherry pick??

You're looking at sea temps for the tropics at 100m - 300m depth. What is it about this particular slice of ocean data that makes you think temps won't rise 'anytime soon' (ignoring the fact that surface and satellite troposhere temps have risen quite sharply setting new records over the period you're looking at)?

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 9th November 11:05

[mondeoman]

No, read the graph. It’s got all oceans, all there for reference.

And has heat rises, then the energy moves upwards so no surprise surface and air temps have gone up....

Or are you expecting the energy to dive down into the deep oceans and disappear?

[kerplunk]

mondeoman said:

No, read the graph. It’s got all oceans, all there for reference.

And has heat rises, then the energy moves upwards so no surprise surface and air temps have gone up....

Or are you expecting the energy to dive down into the deep oceans and disappear?

I am reading the graph. The description indicates the 5 x ocean curves are the parts of those ocean areas that are between 20N and 20S.

[Toltec]

kerplunk said:

I am reading the graph. The description indicates the 5 x ocean curves are the parts of those ocean areas that are between 20N and 20S.

I see what you mean, most people would not think of N Atlantic to mean anything as low as latitude 20.

I think what Mondeoman is getting at is the change in energy in that volume of water is far greater than that seen in the atmosphere. Measuring climate climate change based on only temperature changes is missing an important part of the system. You cannot ignore the differences in energy involved in temperature changes in different mediums and particularly the energy involved in phase changes in H2O.

[kerplunk]

Toltec said:

kerplunk said:

I am reading the graph. The description indicates the 5 x ocean curves are the parts of those ocean areas that are between 20N and 20S.

I see what you mean, most people would not think of N Atlantic to mean anything as low as latitude 20.

I think what Mondeoman is getting at is the change in energy in that volume of water is far greater than that seen in the atmosphere. Measuring climate climate change based on only temperature changes is missing an important part of the system. You cannot ignore the differences in energy involved in temperature changes in different mediums and particularly the energy involved in phase changes in H2O.

I think your beef is with mondeoman not me. If we're interested in how much energy there is in the system (and whether it's increasing/decreasing) then look at the data for the whole system not just thin slices of it - we agree! Mondeoman's figures for what the north pacific 0.5c temperature drop equates to energy-wise are meaningless (he assumes that -0.5C drop represents energy that has left the system but that doesn't follow, we're not talking about a static body of water here, there are currents, the heat content moves around).

I suspect the graph has been constructed that way to highlight the cooling in the 0-20N part of the pacific - kinda jumps out at you doesn't it. Wouldn't look as good if it was combined with the 0-20S portion.

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 10th November 13:21

[Toltec]

kerplunk said:

I think your beef is with mondeoman not me. If we're interested how much energy there is in the system (and whether it's increasing/decreasing) then look at the data for the whole system not just thin slices of it - we agree! Mondeoman's figures for what the north atlantic 0.5c temperature drop equates to energy-wise are meaningless (he assumes that -0.5C drop represents energy that has left the system but that doesn't follow, we're not talking about a static body of water here, there are currents, the heat content moves around).

I suspect the graph has been constructed that way to highlight the cooling in the 0-20N part of the pacific - kinda jumps out at you doesn't it. Wouldn't look as good if it was combined with the 0-20S portion.

I don't have a beef with either of you, you are correct in that the graph shows partial data, he is correct in that total energy in the system appears to be ignored in preference to temperature readings. The sun adds energy to the planet, greenhouse gases have an effect on how much of that energy is retained, temperature changes are an effect of how this energy is distributed.

"Climate - the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period."

Changes in climates are symptoms of the change in retained solar energy and changes in energy flows in the air and water covering the planet. My gut feeling is that melting of ice and increased atmospheric H2O are stabilising global atmospheric and oceanic temperature changes, if the planet runs out of ice to melt we are going to be in deep do do.

[kerplunk]

Actually I'll roll back just a little. That sub-surface 0.5 cooling in the pacific is probably a symptom of the recent El Nino which raised surface/trop temps to record levels recently. That could well be viewed as energy that has now left the system to space via the atmosphere, so it could be an 'interesting' graph if what you're interested in is ocean cycles and where the energy comes and goes from the system at different times and places.

[kerplunk]

Toltec said:

kerplunk said:

I think your beef is with mondeoman not me. If we're interested how much energy there is in the system (and whether it's increasing/decreasing) then look at the data for the whole system not just thin slices of it - we agree! Mondeoman's figures for what the north atlantic 0.5c temperature drop equates to energy-wise are meaningless (he assumes that -0.5C drop represents energy that has left the system but that doesn't follow, we're not talking about a static body of water here, there are currents, the heat content moves around).

I suspect the graph has been constructed that way to highlight the cooling in the 0-20N part of the pacific - kinda jumps out at you doesn't it. Wouldn't look as good if it was combined with the 0-20S portion.

I don't have a beef with either of you, you are correct in that the graph shows partial data, he is correct in that total energy in the system appears to be ignored in preference to temperature readings.

Indeed and probably the best example of ignoring ocean heat content data was during the putative 'pause' in global warming. Somehow I doubt that's what mondeoman was referring to though

[XM5ER]

kerplunk said:

Toltec said:

kerplunk said:

I think your beef is with mondeoman not me. If we're interested how much energy there is in the system (and whether it's increasing/decreasing) then look at the data for the whole system not just thin slices of it - we agree! Mondeoman's figures for what the north atlantic 0.5c temperature drop equates to energy-wise are meaningless (he assumes that -0.5C drop represents energy that has left the system but that doesn't follow, we're not talking about a static body of water here, there are currents, the heat content moves around).

I suspect the graph has been constructed that way to highlight the cooling in the 0-20N part of the pacific - kinda jumps out at you doesn't it. Wouldn't look as good if it was combined with the 0-20S portion.

I don't have a beef with either of you, you are correct in that the graph shows partial data, he is correct in that total energy in the system appears to be ignored in preference to temperature readings.

Indeed and probably the best example of ignoring ocean heat content data was during the putative 'pause' in global warming. Somehow I doubt that's what mondeoman was referring to though

Indeed, the ocean ate my warming was a commonly used reason to explain away the pause by Gavin et al. So given that we have the best monitoring system that we have ever had in the Argo buoys, is there clear evidence of an increase in ocean heat content (particularly in the Pacific) since 1998?

[Toltec]

kerplunk said:

Indeed and probably the best example of ignoring ocean heat content data was during the putative 'pause' in global warming. Somehow I doubt that's what mondeoman was referring to though

Follow the heat

[kerplunk]

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

Toltec said:

kerplunk said:

I think your beef is with mondeoman not me. If we're interested how much energy there is in the system (and whether it's increasing/decreasing) then look at the data for the whole system not just thin slices of it - we agree! Mondeoman's figures for what the north atlantic 0.5c temperature drop equates to energy-wise are meaningless (he assumes that -0.5C drop represents energy that has left the system but that doesn't follow, we're not talking about a static body of water here, there are currents, the heat content moves around).

I suspect the graph has been constructed that way to highlight the cooling in the 0-20N part of the pacific - kinda jumps out at you doesn't it. Wouldn't look as good if it was combined with the 0-20S portion.

I don't have a beef with either of you, you are correct in that the graph shows partial data, he is correct in that total energy in the system appears to be ignored in preference to temperature readings.

Indeed and probably the best example of ignoring ocean heat content data was during the putative 'pause' in global warming. Somehow I doubt that's what mondeoman was referring to though

Indeed, the ocean ate my warming was a commonly used reason to explain away the pause by Gavin et al. So given that we have the best monitoring system that we have ever had in the Argo buoys, is there clear evidence of an increase in ocean heat content (particularly in the Pacific) since 1998?

Argo doesn't go back to 98 unfortunately. The trend is up since 2004.

[XM5ER]

kerplunk said:

Argo doesn't go back to 98 unfortunately. The trend is up since 2004.

Do you have a link ( I did google it without success)?

[kerplunk]

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

Argo doesn't go back to 98 unfortunately. The trend is up since 2004.

Do you have a link ( I did google it without success)?

Lots of ocean stuff here:

http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm

[Gandahar]

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

Sounds like a cherry-pick to me.

Because there is no clear trend either way.

Have you got stats to prove no clear trend either way?

This is the science thread after all.