I’m taking the rest of the weekend off – for two reasons:
1. With 100million views under my belt, I’ve earned it.
2. I’m rebuilding my home personal computer as it is becoming flakey, and such things take three times as long as you figure. Windows doesn’t take well to new mobos, and backup/prep must be done. So I’ll be down anyway.
Talk quietly amongst yourselves on any topic within site policy – don’t make me come back here until late Sunday night whenI start my regular work week. 😉 – Anthony
UPDATE: Sunday AM – My computer rebuild went well, and I learned some valuable things that I’ll share in an upcoming post. I went from an old AMDx2 64 dual core to a Intel I5 quad core CPU, doubled my memory speed, doubled my video card speed, and went from a SATA2 to SATA3 SSD. I can blog even faster now. Speaking of which, my email load this morning contained two stories (one quite dramatic) that I’ve put on auto-scheduled publishing that will appear soon. I’m still taking the rest of the day off though. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
dp says:
January 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Tallbloke sed:
If the ARGO data hasn’t been massaged too badly, then the signs are that large amounts of energy are leaving the ocean from deeper down than ARGO measures.
What are your thoughts on how ARGO buoys might be missing all this deep heat as it moves up through the monitored layers? If they can find it going down it seems they should surely find it going up. This has been puzzling me. WUWT?
Have they been missing it? I thought gates was telling us OHC in the measured levels had been rising the last two years. I’m not sure I buy his floods as a reason for sea level fall though. Six mm of world ocean is equivalent to a couple of thousand cubic kilometers of water IIRC.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 2:48 pm
One would expect to see this water returned back to the oceans during ENSO neutral periods, and that over the long-term, OHC and ocean levels will continue their parallel rise.
One would expect that, you. The rest of us expect the unexpected.
Eve Stevens,
Thanks for that info. I’d be curious to see if data on the that solar/climate study was broken down into periods of the 20th Century such as 1900-1950 and 1950-2000, to see if there is a change in the breakdown between the influence of solar and anthropogenic GHG’s. As CO2 has increased dramatically since 1950, I would expect its relative influence versus solar to have increased as well.
Tallbloke:
The floods were one way that the AGW folks were trying to eqaulize the slowing down of sea level rise.
What they failed at is that the normal traverse of water from land to ocean is approx 4.2 months world wide.
One of the longest systems in the world is the Missouri River/Mississippi River system. It has been at normal levels for months now after epic floods this spring.
I am sure there are other areas of the world that are now also dry. Central Plains of the USA/Canada. Urkrane in Europe…just to name a few.
The retained water on land theory doesn’t cut it when dealing with reality.
The OHC has not risen, and in fact looks flat with a negative bias. The XBT data had such wide error bars that nothing of definitive value could be assertained there. Step jump in 2003 when swithcing to ARGO buoys…..and flat since they became predominant.
All in all, the slowing of the rise of sea level is indicative of a cooling ocean. This confirms the slowing down of the sun, as we all know that SW radiation pentrates the oceans, but LWR doesn’t…ok….2 or 3 microns, but evaporation pretty much takes care of any heat.
Warmists spawn new generation.
DirkH says:
January 7, 2012 at 3:57 pm
“Warmists spawn new generation.”
If you’re an American and you have a third grade schoolkid in a public school, you might want to check whether “Kid Pan Alley” activists infiltrate your school. They pretend to “let the kids write a song” which will then turn out to be a warmist or an OWS class warfare song.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 11:52 am
How do skeptics to AGW explain this?
The weather changes day to day without any change in Solar activity. How does one explain this?
Anthony,
Congrats on the excellent statistics! I’ve been here since 2008 so quite a few thousand of your page views are mine 🙂
Regarding the computer rebuild, I agree, it takes time. I just tried to restore an oldish computer with a Windows XP recovery partition, thiking it should work (that is what recovery partitions are for, right?). Wrong, it didn’t even manage to get the graphics card driver to work. 4 bits per pixel is not much…. and don’t even mention the wireless card. Then I tried a Linux LiveCD (Kubuntu), and half an hour later I was browsing the net. Everything just worked.
Thanks for all your efforts, a rest is well deserved!
Tallbloke, you may not “buy it”, but the extra rainfall coupled with the strong La Nina is the mainstream explanation of the short term sea level fall, as reported (though certainly not invented) here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-fall-2010-basic.htm
tallbloke says:
January 7, 2012 at 3:43 pm
I’m not sure I buy his floods as a reason for sea level fall though. Six mm of world ocean is equivalent to a couple of thousand cubic kilometers of water IIRC.
======================================================
360 km³ of water will raise the oceans 1 mm X 6 mm = 2160 km³
..It’s hiding in the deep ocean with the missing heat and the unprecedented droughts
Tallbloke said:
“Have they been missing it? I thought gates was telling us OHC in the measured levels had been rising the last two years. I’m not sure I buy his floods as a reason for sea level fall though. Six mm of world ocean is equivalent to a couple of thousand cubic kilometers of water IIRC.”
______
I would never expect you to buy anything I said without some research. All that missing water from the oceans wasn’t due to thermal contraction, and it certainly didn’t go to building up the continental glacial mass of Greenland or Antarctica. Where was the “missing” ocean water?
Fortunately, the Grace satellite data shows us quite nicely that it went mostly to the continents of Australia, South America, Asia, and the far North American continent:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth/grace/earth20110823b-full.jpg
Easily enough water was dumped in these regions to account for the 6mm ocean drop, as the Grace data clearly show. Usually most of the water evaporated from the oceans falls back on the ocean itself, but during La Nina periods, weather patterns often drop more of it on land. Of course, as this water drains back to the oceans, the ocean level goes back up, which is exactly what the latest reading shows. After the dip of 2010 into early 2011, there has been a rebound as some of that water has already drained back into the oceans:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Does anyone have an estimate of how much heat was added to the troposphere by popping off thousands of nuclear devices between 1945 and 1998?
[REPLY: Atmospheric tests may have numbered less than 1000. Start here. -REP]
ferd berple says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 11:52 am
How do skeptics to AGW explain this?
The weather changes day to day without any change in Solar activity. How does one explain this?
_____
Daily weather patterns (except for diurnal changes) can be considered “noise” to the longer-term solar changes, just as the longer-term solar changes can be considered “noise” to the very long-term Milankovitch cycles.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:16 pm
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Ah, duelling sea level graphs. What fun.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TJRV2_iLHUg/TrZDLi9qcEI/AAAAAAAAB_0/eog1N-_P_gk/s1600/Searise.gif
Camburn says:
January 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Tallbloke:
The floods were one way that the AGW folks were trying to eqaulize the slowing down of sea level rise.
What they failed at is that the normal traverse of water from land to ocean is approx 4.2 months world wide.
____
Do you not believe the Grace satellite data, or is this one more corruption brought about by the evil Dr. Hansen? Interestingly, the 4.2 months lag is about the time lag we’ve seen between when the the ocean levels were hitting a short-term bottom in early 2011, and when they started rebounding significantly in later 2011. Seems to confirm that the Grace satellite data and the ocean level data probably had it about right. All that “missing” water went to the continents and then began draining back. Give me a scientific reason to doubt this…
Camburn says:
January 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm
The OHC has not risen, and in fact looks flat with a negative bias.
I’ve published a series of graphs made using the Argo viewer. The oceans of the world from 70N-70S, down to 2000 meters. Have a look for yourself (check out the next/prev buttons at the top)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57706237@N05/6615701073/in/photostream/lightbox/
There is no trend in the Argo data beyond that one would get from reading tea leaves. The only OHC increase I’ve heard of is that channeled by Trenberth and Hansen. By subtracting Argo from the Climate Model Oracles, they have determined that the deep oceans are warming.
The fact that the satellites confirm that the deep oceans are not warming, because sea levels are not rising, well that just proves that the satellites are wrong. The climate models cannot be wrong because they rely on computers and computers do not make mistakes.
“R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 11:52 am
However, there does appear to be a great divergence in correlation in the later part of the 20th century (after about 1980) between solar activity ( as measured any number of ways) and global temperatures. How do skeptics to AGW explain this?”
1980 is when anthropogenic CO2 started to rise. See easy to answer. Wot? It started to rise many years before then? No surely can’t be true. Oh there must be a delay mechanism. Maybe the CO2 has to practise catching and returning those nasty little photons for several years before it becomes proficient enough to make a difference.
Plot lost. Reboot. Reboot…
If there is someone here who can speak from an expert level on the difference between the two sea-level graphs that Tallbloke has presented, please post something.
Note: Saying Nasa, CU, Hansen, Trenberth, etc. etc. etc., are lying is not going to hack it. I’d really like an experts opinion.
BTW, the CET temp has dramatically dropped these five years or so:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_an.html
Tthe GISS temp has dropped by as much as 0.5 degC from Nov. to Dec. 2011:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsGISTEMP.html
And now GISS is lower than UAH! Is this real??
tokyoboy,
Odd that you would stop at 2009 with CET, as 2011 saw the 2nd warmest year on instrument record for Great Britain. MIght want to update your junksciencearchive data…
Have a pleasant rebuild Mr Watts. I find that those go better with beer instead of champagne but up to you. Congrats on the milestone.
Mr Gates: I would first need to know your data sources as a lot have been “homonginized” or “adjusted” in very arbitrary ways.
There is nothing unusual about the 1980 to present climate. Check this out for a bit of perspective:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm
“If there is someone here who can speak from an expert level on the difference between the two sea-level graphs that Tallbloke has presented, please post something.
Note: Saying Nasa, CU, Hansen, Trenberth, etc. etc. etc., are lying is not going to hack it. I’d really like an experts opinion.”
Nils-Axel Mörner about Jason/TOPEX
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
But don’t ask me why they haven’t corrupted Envisat the same way, after all, it’s an EU satellite. Maybe a Kommissar asleep at the wheel.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm
If there is someone here who can speak from an expert level on the difference between the two sea-level graphs that Tallbloke has presented, please post something.
I’d really like an experts opinion.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/sea-level-scare-stories-simply-scandalous/
“In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’”
Out of the mouth’s of IPCC experts…
Ken Coffman says:
January 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Hi Ken
On another thread I tried to get a response from commentors to a connundrum I have (to no avail so far), maybe you could oblige (or any one else)
In order to keep heat from penetrating the space shuttle nose cone, the inside of the cone and various instruments housed therein are painted/covered with low emissivity substance, usually gold.
http://contrails.iit.edu/DigitalCollection/1960/WADDTR60-773article14.pdf
For instance, if I have a box with an internal heater and I wish that box to retain the heat where it is, I would paint the box inside and out with low emissivity paint (LEP).
Contrastingly, if I wanted the inside of the box as cool as possible for as long as possible, I would paint the box with high emissivity paint (HEP).
Here is another link about heat transfer
http://www.energyideas.org/documents/factsheets/PTR/HeatTransfer.pdf
Here is the conundrum:-
According to the GH Theory, the atmosphere is heated FROM THE INSIDE by the surface. Imagine the atmosphere as a box with the earth surface as the heater.
If I want to keep the inside of the box as cool as possible, I would “paint” the box with HEP. But since I can’t paint the atmosphere, the next best thing I could do is to infuse the atmosphere with High Emissivity gas molecules……CO2
What is wrong with the above?
thnx in advance