Old prediction may fit the present pattern

Smokey says:

I refer Walter to these articles, which thoroughly deconstruct the seawater pH scare:

Firstly, articles aren’t a very good substitute for peer-reviewed science. They may contain all kinds of poor science whereas peer-reviewed science is less likely to do so.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test

So what exactly from this article do you claim deconstructs ocean acidification? The peer-reviewed science it refers to says in the abstract http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1002/2009GL040999/ “Global ocean acidification is a prominent, inexorable change associated with rising levels of atmospheric CO2. …. Future mixed layer changes can be expected to closely mirror changes in atmospheric CO2, with surface seawater pH continuing to fall as atmospheric CO2 rises.”
This report is evidence supporting ocean acidification.
You’ll need to be more specific about your claim that debunks acidification.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again

Again I start to examine this article but it falls apart under scrutiny.
Your article says:

This pH decline (acidification) has been attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions – This should come as no surprise because the pH estimates are largely derived from atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Orr et al., 2005).

So what does Orr et al., 2005 say:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/full/nature04095.html

Today’s surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. … Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.

Whoops, doesn’t support your argument one bit. Perhaps you need to be more selective about what science you wish to quote rather than listing a couple of articles.
I scroll a little further in your article to this:

On top of that… There is solid evidence that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels have actually caused carbonate deposition to increase over the last 220 years (Iglesias-Rodriguez et al., 2008)…

Looks like real science for once, I think to myself, let’s look closer.
Well, it’s about Phytoplankton, not the entire biosphere as you claim. Not even all Phytoplankton, just one species, Emiliania huxleyi, grown i a lab.
Not impressed by your evidence so far, but let’s continue anyway. The conclusions seems opposite to what most science has found, what possible reasons could that be? Is all other science on acidification wrong and this one right? Possibly, I admit, but taking a quick look at the “Responses to this article” section is all that is needed to see how science panned out.
A response by Thomas J. Goreau says

A serious caveat is that Iglesias-Rodriguez et al.’s cultures were grown under high “nutrient-replete conditions” (nitrate 100 micromolar, phosphate 6.24 micromolar). Only when nutrients are in excess can phytoplankton be CO2 limited and increase growth rates when CO2 rises. These conditions are extremely abnormal in surface waters, other than sewage plumes or the most intense upwelling events. Coccolithophores should not show such responses in most ocean waters. This is reminiscent of the “CO2 fertilization effect” that predicts plants should grow faster as CO2 rises, as found in highly fertilized greenhouse plants, but not during normal nutrient-limited plant growth. Experiments with elevated CO2 under natural nutrient levels are needed to assess the real-world carbon cycle implications.

The original authors do not contend this point saying “Consequently, we agree that an important further step will be to assess the role played by nutrient limitation (iron, nitrate, phosphate) in influencing the phytoplankton physiological response to elevated CO2 levels.”.

Walter also says [to RSC]: “So please, in your next post supply EVIDENCE to defend your previous claims…”
There is plenty of empirical evidence presented in those articles and in the following comments.

So you say, but when we actually start looking at the evidence, as I have done above, then it doesn’t help your claim that “More CO2 is better for the biosphere, including the oceans.”.
It is poor science to simply cite one paper, even worse one that represents just one species and claim that the entire planet is now safe. Worse is to ignore the large amount of science that shows that there is an ocean acidification problem.
Even looking at the previous article is enough to give numerous links to other citing papers. Here’s a few quotes from their abstracts.

We present predicted changes in ocean surface pH from the Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM-1). Results presented at a 2010 workshop in Sendai, Japan, of experiments on marine animals under elevated CO2 conditions indicate that few general conclusions across species can as yet be made.

Our results imply that at these conditions the advantages offered by the biogenic nature of calcite will disappear putting coccoliths on algae and in the calcareous bottom sediments at risk.

There will be a several thousand-year-long interruption to CaCO3 sedimentation at many points on the seafloor. A curious feedback in the ocean, carbonate compensation, makes it more likely that global warming and sea-level rise will continue for many millennia after CO2 emissions cease.

We observe the demise of heavily calcified nannoconids and reduced calcite paleofluxes at the beginning of a pre-anoxia calcification crisis.

We show that 10 of the 18 species studied exhibited reduced rates of net calcification and, in some cases, net dissolution under elevated pCO2. However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all.

This study underscores that physiological processes beyond calcification are impacted greatly, suggesting that overall physiological capacity and not just a singular focus on biomineralization processes is essential for forecasting the impact of future CO2 conditions on marine organisms.

These are all quotes from research citing the paper listed in your article. Not quite the picture of bliss you make it out to be.

Walter wants evidence, he gets loads of evidence.

Looks like another strawman argument to me. I’d imagine there’d be more things than just temperature influencing growth rates.
Here’s some more evidence for you to ponder.
http://e-atlas.org.au/content/declining-coral-calcification-great-barrier-reef

But when we ask for evidence of global harm due to “carbon”… *crickets*

I already showed there was plenty of evidence to show how CO2 is harming the planet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/old-prediction-may-fit-the-present-pattern/#comment-673866
And above I added some more. Have fun! I look forward to seeing more of your “evidence”.

Richard S Courtney says:

OK. To stop your false accusations that I have not provided “evidence”, I cite the following.

Not good enough Richard. Your citation does not support your claim.

I said;

The same thing over and over and over again without bothering to read what I have said, or you simply are unable to comprehend. I honestly cannot tell which. Either way it’s fairly certain you will continue to repeat yourself so until you address my earlier comments, I will simply direct you back to this post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/old-prediction-may-fit-the-present-pattern/#comment-672395 .

At June 2, 2011 at 5:37 am Tallbloke provided a full explanation of the ARGO data. That explanation clearly shows the oceans are cooling in recent years and provides an explanation for the “adjustment” needed to make those direct measurements agree with earlier measurements .
I said I agreed with the contents of his link when I replied at June 2, 2011 at 5:55 am. That statement of agreement is my presenting the evidence for o’ocean cooling’ you say I have not.

Tallbloke’s link to ARGO data is only showing the upper 700m as depicted by the Argo floats. The ocean is on average (according to wikipedia) 3,790 metres deep!!! Your data only covers a small fraction of the entire depth. You do not measure the entire ocean. Argo float cannot go under ice so they also miss all water beneath the arctic. Guess what happens to an argo float as the water circulates – it move with it!! Amazing, yes they capture data in the same area of water over and over again.
Just like surface temperature gives us a thin slither of insight into the heat around our planet, so too the Argo data is a limited view of the ocean heat. It cannot show what the entire ocean is doing, none-the-less I think it is a great tool but it should be used in conjunction with all other evidence.
As the Argo team say: “The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.”. Richard S Courtney obviously disagrees with the people that make them!
Also, seeing how you like short term cherry picking, you may wish to take a look at what the Argo data is starting to do according to “skeptic” Bob Tisdale.
http://i51.tinypic.com/20k62yq.jpg

I said;
3. “Ocean expansion has reduced (i.e. the ‘committed heat’ has vanished).”
You responded with the fatuous comment that ;
“The ocean would need to contract in order to support your claim that it has lost heat.”
Firstly, I made no such claim: I said the additional heat of “committed warming” is not in the oceans. Do you really think I am sufficiently stupid as to debate a ‘straw man’ presented by a troll? I assure you that I am not.

I think you might be sufficiently stupid enough to say contradicting things like, “the oceans are cooling” and “thermal expansion has reduced”.

Anyway, the oceans have had a fall in sea level since 2004; see
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

No it hasn’t.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/sl_ib_ns_global.pdf
You need to learn the difference between sea level and steric sea level.
And if yu did want to argue that it was steric sea level you meant to say, then perhaps you could even acknowledge that a second study disagrees with you, as shown in the very same graph you present, and detailed further on the very same page.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#steric

Go away. You are a nuisance.

Just being skeptical of a skeptic’s “science”. 😉

Walter says:
June 6, 2011 at 5:30 am
“We show that 10 of the 18 species studied exhibited reduced rates of net calcification and, in some cases, net dissolution under elevated pCO2. However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all.”
======================================================
Walter, that one came from my house, so I might be a little help with it….
The levels tested were from ~400 ppm CO2 to 2850 ppm. Only the highest level impacted calcification. Reduced rates means it slowed, but not that it stoped. No conditions were met for carbonates, and the species that lost calcium matrix also need carbon to fix calcium. No allowances were made for carbonates/buffering at all, which would occur in nature but not in the lab.
You can read more here without the paywall:
http://nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/2009/12/variation-in-calcification-among.html

tallbloke says:
June 5, 2011 at 1:38 am

The guy who constucted that cartoon (Kevin Tenberth) doesn’t accept it any more, so why should I? He knows that his ‘missing heat’ means it is wrong.

Trenberth’s paper suggests that you are wrong.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf
Trenberth’s homepage suggests that you are wrong.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Trenberth’s statement regarding the use of the Travesty term suggests that you are wrong.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html
“It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”

Reflectivity depends on emissivity (about 0.983 for water), trying to find out how much the angle of incidence affects reflection isn’t easy, because all the papers I can find discuss the downwelling longwave as ‘diffuse’ and seem to just assume that only the reflectivity due to emissivity needs to be accounted for. Incoming shortwave from the Sun certainly is affected by angle of incidence, so I’d like to know at what wavelength ‘it doesn’t matter’ any more.

At least in the near infrared range there is reflectivity on water. This photo was taken with a Hoya 52mm RM72 Infrared Filter so it’s letting in a lot of light at wavelengths not absorbed by CO2.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/orangebread/246328969/lightbox/
Pretty all the same!
I would suggest that for your peer-review paper, you get some firmer science than just a guessing the angle of incidence. I expect you already consider that though reflected visible light passes back through the atmosphere and into space, by contrast reflected IR would be absorbed. I hope you already account for this in your calculations.

We were discussing the longwave flux, not the overall heat flux. According to the Kiehl-Ternberth cartoon, the difference between downwelling and ocean emitted longwave is ~65W/m^2. There are measurement problems.

No doubt, unlike some people I wouldn’t jump to any conclusion about the sign (+ve/-ve) regarding measurement problems. 😉 I look forward to seeing your calculations along with your “cartoon”.

My contention is that this effect is nowhere near sufficient to explain the increase in ocean heat content in the late C20th, partly because the effect of increased back radiation on the ocean surface isn’t as big as the current wisdom thinks it is.
I will get around to presenting my calcs on my blog. Part of the reason for the unrealistic splice in the OHC data between XBT and ARGO at 2003 is due to unrealistic numbers before 2003, which I think were calibrated to the theoretical co2 forcing and failed to account for extra insolation due to reduced tropical cloud cover.

As I said before, if you wish a theory is to stand, then it must undergo scrutiny. You can’t expect people to just “trust me I did the calcs and everything I say is valid”. The sceptic alarm in me goes off when I hear this.
And if you could put it into a peer-review paper that would give it greater credibility. Is that likely to happen?

Diminishing solar activity levels correlate with diminishing upper atmosphere specific humidity.

Yeah, I read somewhere recently that it is partially to blame for the levelling off of surface temperatures this past decade. I’ll try and dig this up again.

Yes, but not as much as previously thought if Dr Leif Svalgaard is correct about the overcounting of sunspots during the Waldmeier era.

Not as much, but it still diminished.

I think he is correct, because I have supporting evidence for his contention from another dataset independent of his (different physical basis) …

Just imagine how you could be the one to save us from all the action on climate change, if only this theory could be critiqued, or perhaps put into a peer-reviewed paper.
Sorry to get so negative about this, but time and time again we see some person on the internet without their home-grown theory about how the science is wrong. I’ve yet to see one grow into anything more than propaganda for “sceptics” to swallow without question (irony of the sceptic label).

Hmmmm, ARGO data. Where can I download it unadjusted by NODC?
Guess I’ll have to use the Loehle graph for now. He was good enough to send the data on request. Unlike Josh Willis who has studiously ignored my emails.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog-300×189.jpg

Your link didn’t work for me. In any case I got to the data by following the links from the argo site.
ftp://ftp.ifremer.fr/ifremer/argo/latest_data/

And yes Walter, I know it is data to 700m. The ocean below that level doesn’t change a lot.

So you say. Interesting to read science then that disagrees with you.
“Eddies Found to Be Deep, Powerful Modes of Ocean Transport Connecting Atmospheric Events and Deep Ocean”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428143157.htm
“The previously unknown deep-sea phenomenon”

And yes Walter, I’m aware of the german study which wrung an infintesimal warming trend out of the 2000m data. If NODC can manage it with the 700m data, why not?

Manage what? A graph, or a conclusion like Richards?

But eventually, even the most committed warmist will give up searching for the ‘missing heat’ hunting the snark and other trivial pursuits and learn to live with a failed theory.

“Large temperature increases were detected around Antarctica, and a relatively large temperature increase was detected along the northward path of Circumpolar Deep Water in the Pacific.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JC006464.shtml
Scientists will continue to look to balance the energy budget one way or another. That may mean finding a problem with the satellites that measure incoming/outgoing radiation, the theory of AGW, or finding more of the heat is transported to places we don’t observe very well.
The difference between you and I seems to be that I am open to all of these possibilities, you wish to rule out some before you have the scientific evidence to do so.

Make it easy on yourself. Abandon it now.

The sceptic in me says not to trust do it yourself science rather than what the peer-reviewed science says. I’ll go with that instinct unless there is good evidence. I can’t swallow your “trust me, I’ve done the numbers” approach.