To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[IlarMeilyr]

You're missing a point. The forcing function pushing energy into the oceans has not risen dramatically over that time period - though it HAS risen - it is where that energy is being stored. The increase in deeper waters is at a much higher rate than that in shallow waters. That can be explained by changes in circulation driven by changes in wind patterns. No magic required.

Hilarious!

Atmospheric CO2 is driving heat down deep into the oceans. You should be a sit com

There is an emerging consensus in the scientific community, based on highly accurate models which experimental evidence will one day validate, that increasing atmospheric CO2 has no choice other than to force heat down into the depths of the ocean (which should be provable, but for now just take it on faith).

It does so by some mechanism which has yet to be identified. But faith, afterall, is evidence of things not seen, and -- MODELS!

 

[flacaltenn]

So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century? When I first came here you said it was from TSI. I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.

The rapid rise in the warming rate is the result of data manipulation....nothing more....nothing less.

It definitely is for OHeatContent. There's no real increase in the rise rate during the period where we have acceptable GLOBAL data.

There's not even changes in the atmos/surface RATES worth attributing to the GW theory that predicts ACCELERATED warming.. Whether the data is manipulated or not..

 

[mamooth]

Well there ya go.. You still don't understand the storage (energy) relationship or you wouldn't haven';t have posted that propaganda piece for the masses from NOAA....

The usual. It disagrees with you, therefore it's a fraud. This grows old.

Because EVEN IF the forcing function (from GW or elsewhere) had NEVER CHANGED or varied slightly around a central rate ---- "working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades." ---- doesn't say SHIT about how the forcing function VARIED...

"Forcing function" seems to be your current favorite technobabble term. You invoke it constantly, but you never state what it actually is. You really need to plot this forcing function of yours for us.

The Balsmeda-Trenberth "re-analysis" threw all kinds of preconceived artifacts into that curve that can not and SHOULD NOT be seen in the rawer data.

For instance -- I've gotten 4 papers SINCE this fairytale asserting you never SEE VOLCANIC signatures at 700meters under the sea.. But BTK told the simulator to toss those in. They also told the simulator to key on CO2 levels as a proxy for surface temperatures. ALL of those "increased rates" that they discovered "are preconceived and CREATED" to show rate adjustments in storage that are just not there --- And NOT SUPPOSED to be there.

THATs the reason -- there hasn't been a DOZEN follow-up papers on this stinky herring..,

What else did the voices/WUWT tell you?

Is it getting warmer or not? If it IS -- the forcing function should make that STORAGE go very non-linear.. (After VERY long expected delays for mixing and storage to depth.)

Because heat can magically hide. Oh wait, it can't.

It could "double since 1865" without ANY changes to the forcing function,.. Depending on where you normalize the data and take the doubling.. They INDUCED higher rates to make that claim.

When you look at less "simulated", clearer NOAA data --- that rise since 1865 and it's recent flattening is FAR MORE compatible with the expected delayed reaction to the solar insolation change since mid 18th century,....

If the forcing was the same, the heat increase would have to steadily decrease, as the oceans warmed and started radiating away more heat. At least in the real world, where heat can't magically hide for a century and then pop up and say "Hello!", that's how it works. Your theory invokes magic, hence why it's ignored.

 

[mamooth]

And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..

Here is the 700m depth chart from NOAA with ACTUAL data...

Where are MASSIVE "rate changes" over the last 2 decades SquidWard????

The trend line is clearly steeper during the warming slowdown.

You're just not very good at this at all, as demonstrated by you missing something that simple.

It's fraud.. There I said it...

You being incompetent does not lead to a conclusion of fraud on the part of others.

Alas, Dunning-Kruger. You won't be able to understand you're incompetent. So you're in deep with the "the whole planet is wrong, but I, a mere amatuer, know the real truth, because I read a conspiracy blog. And if anyone doesn't believe that, it proves they're part of the conspiracy as well."

Good luck with that. What makes you think it will work any better in the future?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well there ya go.. You still don't understand the storage (energy) relationship or you wouldn't haven';t have posted that propaganda piece for the masses from NOAA....

The usual. It disagrees with you, therefore it's a fraud. This grows old.

Because EVEN IF the forcing function (from GW or elsewhere) had NEVER CHANGED or varied slightly around a central rate ---- "working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades." ---- doesn't say SHIT about how the forcing function VARIED...

"Forcing function" seems to be your current favorite technobabble term. You invoke it constantly, but you never state what it actually is. You really need to plot this forcing function of yours for us.

The Balsmeda-Trenberth "re-analysis" threw all kinds of preconceived artifacts into that curve that can not and SHOULD NOT be seen in the rawer data.

For instance -- I've gotten 4 papers SINCE this fairytale asserting you never SEE VOLCANIC signatures at 700meters under the sea.. But BTK told the simulator to toss those in. They also told the simulator to key on CO2 levels as a proxy for surface temperatures. ALL of those "increased rates" that they discovered "are preconceived and CREATED" to show rate adjustments in storage that are just not there --- And NOT SUPPOSED to be there.

THATs the reason -- there hasn't been a DOZEN follow-up papers on this stinky herring..,

What else did the voices/WUWT tell you?

Is it getting warmer or not? If it IS -- the forcing function should make that STORAGE go very non-linear.. (After VERY long expected delays for mixing and storage to depth.)

Because heat can magically hide. Oh wait, it can't.

It could "double since 1865" without ANY changes to the forcing function,.. Depending on where you normalize the data and take the doubling.. They INDUCED higher rates to make that claim.

When you look at less "simulated", clearer NOAA data --- that rise since 1865 and it's recent flattening is FAR MORE compatible with the expected delayed reaction to the solar insolation change since mid 18th century,....

If the forcing was the same, the heat increase would have to steadily decrease, as the oceans warmed and started radiating away more heat. At least in the real world, where heat can't magically hide for a century and then pop up and say "Hello!", that's how it works. Your theory invokes magic, hence why it's ignored.

You might actually be GETTING something out this hobby of yours.

The "forcing function" is the POWER being applied,. Power X time = energy... That';s how "excess heat" in W/m2 goes into storage as JOULES. So if the GW W/m2 were the forcing function for this storage, and it was INCREASING --- the storage curve would have higher order terms in addition to just a linear rise.

After all -- the screaming is all about the projected downward POWER from CO2 isn't it? And isn't it supposed to be INCREASING??

Storage at 700m actually DOES "pop-up and SAY HELLO".. That's what AMO/PDO/ENSO is all about -- isn't it? Trenberth described ENSO as "the ocean's thermal safety valve"..

 

[flacaltenn]

And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..

Here is the 700m depth chart from NOAA with ACTUAL data...

Where are MASSIVE "rate changes" over the last 2 decades SquidWard????

The trend line is clearly steeper during the warming slowdown.

You're just not very good at this at all, as demonstrated by you missing something that simple.

It's fraud.. There I said it...

You being incompetent does not lead to a conclusion of fraud on the part of others.

Alas, Dunning-Kruger. You won't be able to understand you're incompetent. So you're in deep with the "the whole planet is wrong, but I, a mere amatuer, know the real truth, because I read a conspiracy blog. And if anyone doesn't believe that, it proves they're part of the conspiracy as well."

Good luck with that. What makes you think it will work any better in the future?

No it doesn't Squiddly.. The storage damn near STOPPED from 2005 to about 2011.. Who can't read a graph?

And who expects that heat at 700m would NOT have a DELAY in it wrt the forcing function of at least several years???

The only real rate increase in that graph is from about 2011 to 2015 - where the rate returns to essentially what it was in the 1990s.. And that's partly because of NOAAs change in RECORDING sea water temperatures.

My God -- you are a paranoid denier -- aint'cha? With your Dunning-Kruger skit and ad homs. Have some CONFIDENCE in your position nidget...

 

[mamooth]

You might actually be GETTING something out this hobby of yours.

The "forcing function" is the POWER being applied,. Power X time = energy... That';s how "excess heat" in W/m2 goes into storage as JOULES. So if the GW W/m2 were the forcing function for this storage, and it was INCREASING --- the storage curve would have higher order terms in addition to just a linear rise.

After all -- the screaming is all about the projected downward POWER from CO2 isn't it? And isn't it supposed to be INCREASING?

Storage at 700m actually DOES "pop-up and SAY HELLO".. That's what AMO/PDO/ENSO is all about -- isn't it? Trenberth described ENSO as "the ocean's thermal safety valve"..

Okay, I give up. It's getting too strange for me to translate.

 

[flacaltenn]

You might actually be GETTING something out this hobby of yours.

The "forcing function" is the POWER being applied,. Power X time = energy... That';s how "excess heat" in W/m2 goes into storage as JOULES. So if the GW W/m2 were the forcing function for this storage, and it was INCREASING --- the storage curve would have higher order terms in addition to just a linear rise.

After all -- the screaming is all about the projected downward POWER from CO2 isn't it? And isn't it supposed to be INCREASING?

Storage at 700m actually DOES "pop-up and SAY HELLO".. That's what AMO/PDO/ENSO is all about -- isn't it? Trenberth described ENSO as "the ocean's thermal safety valve"..

Okay, I give up. It's getting to strange for me to translate.

Whatzdaprob Squiddly.. Don't know that heat "just Pops up and says Hello" during ocean cycles? Or you can't tell me if the principle GW forcing function is getting larger??

 

[flacaltenn]

Hint ---- do a search on Global Warming Forcing Function... See what pops up... That's how adults discuss Global Warming..

 

[Crick]

And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..

Here is the 700m depth chart from NOAA with ACTUAL data...

Where are MASSIVE "rate changes" over the last 2 decades SquidWard????

Abut 1986-7, right where BTK turns as well.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.

You can say that with a straight face and not crack up over how obviously stupid and false it is?

 

[Crick]

Who do you believe has said such a thing?

I think those of us on the mainstream science side can say that the world is getting warmer and it is doing so in response primarily to human GHG emissions. Some combination of natural cycles and changes in the Earth's climate have caused a large amount of warm surface water to be subducted deeper than is typical.

That's what I can say.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who do you believe has said such a thing?

I think those of us on the mainstream science side can say that the world is getting warmer and it is doing so in response primarily to human GHG emissions. Some combination of natural cycles and changes in the Earth's climate have caused a large amount of warm surface water to be subducted deeper than is typical.

That's what I can say.

LOL @ "mainstream science"

Science has skepticism and lab work, you have neither

 

[flacaltenn]

And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..

Here is the 700m depth chart from NOAA with ACTUAL data...

Where are MASSIVE "rate changes" over the last 2 decades SquidWard????

Abut 1986-7, right where BTK turns as well.

And just how does that fit the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange???

If they started eating heat in 1985 -- there was a 15 year delayed effect on the surface temps but they STOPPED eating heat during the middle of the "pause" in 2005? Spare me the fairytale explanations for why that happened.

If this effect at 700m is from GW and it's been getting HOTTER at the surface --- that curve should look more like a parabola than a line..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I posted this for Crusader Frank, but it will do for you as well jc.

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

LOL....

1. All matter emits black-body radiation. Your chart shows but 7..

2, Because all matter emits black-body radiation, you can not quantify what is actually retarded by so called GHG's.

What kills me is the alarmists are using 'new' names for well established process that even today we can not fully give attribution.

Without the ability to quantify precise origins you can not determine what is actually being retarded or emitted by what.

This is called cherry picking by the alarmists...

Damn, Silly Billy, that is a graph of absorption spectra, not emission. I think what is 'retarded' here is you. LOL

Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?

You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.

Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head..

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?

You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.

Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head

BillyBob, you can't explain your point if it is mostly empty bluster. If you don't think all the GHGs were listed, just say what you think they are. You are referring to "the wave length" and "the molecule". The word "the" is a definite article and refers to something specific. Please say what specific wave length and molecule you are referring to.

"Retarded" is not used in radiation physics. If you are inventing new terms define them. Rather than simply calling someone a "moron" about spectral emissions, just state what you think spectral emissions "can and can not cause". When you type vague sentences with mostly bluster, people will assume you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Wuwei]

So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.

You can say that with a straight face and not crack up over how obviously stupid and false it is?

I agree if someone is saying that, it is stupid and false. But I haven't seen any serious person say that CO2 is driving heat deep into the ocean. At least I hope the more scientifically minded aren't.

Every scientist, denier or warmer, believes it is mostly visible wave lengths, UV, etc that penetrate and provide heat deep in the ocean. What the GHGs do is to cut down the amount of heat escaping via IR radiation from the ocean surface to space.

 

[mamooth]

And just how does that fit the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??

People who understand the science will point out that the oceans don't "consume energy at a higher rate". That's entirely your strawman, so nobody else cares about it.

The oceans are absorbing nearly the same amount of energy each year. There is a slowly increasing trend there from increasing backradiation, but that trend isn't significant over a few years. What can change a lot from year to year is how much heat the oceans release back into the atmosphere. The oceans always heat the atmosphere, and small differences in how much heat is transferred have significant effects on air temperature trends.

 

[flacaltenn]

So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.

You can say that with a straight face and not crack up over how obviously stupid and false it is?

I agree if someone is saying that, it is stupid and false. But I haven't seen any serious person say that CO2 is driving heat deep into the ocean. At least I hope the more scientifically minded aren't.

Every scientist, denier or warmer, believes it is mostly visible wave lengths, UV, etc that penetrate and provide heat deep in the ocean. What the GHGs do is to cut down the amount of heat escaping via IR radiation from the ocean surface to space.

Stupid and false is what this "excuse" for the surface temperature hiatus was all about. Knowing that the IPCC was gonna acknowledge and address "the pause" in their upcoming report -- BTK (trenberth ocean heating paper) RUSHED a "mini paper" (actually a letter form submission) to the publisher with their fractured "re-analysis" of deep heating ocean.. Phony artifacts and all to make the claim that they "found" ACCELERATIONS in the rates of ocean heating just prior to the "pause". Like in the previous couple decades. Those accelerations are not IN the NOAA "rawer" version of deep ocean heating. This EXCUSE got VERY WIDE coverage in the media -- thanks to the activist team of authors and their syncophants. Like -----

The relentless increase of ocean heat

[[Judith Curry summarizes the TORRENT of propaganda about the Oceans "eating the global warming heat" during the "non-existent pause" by quoting Joe Romm quoting the nutcase Dana Nuticelli from skepshitscience... ]]

Let me extract the key points and figures. Back in July, scientist Dana Nuccitelli summarized a new study, “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content“:

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

****************************************

Go back a page and look at the NOAA version of ocean heating to 700m.. There WAS a positive and fairly CONSTANT run-up in ocean heating prior to "the pause".. I acknowledge that delays are expected in a system so vast -- so it's PLAUSIBLE that the oceans ate some heat. AND MAYBE had a delayed effect on surface temperatures. Even WITHOUT the mania of Trenberths' self-injected re-analysis biases and artifacts which were intended to give the impression that these effects were exactly CONCURRENT with the pause.

But here's the importance of this battle over the excuse..

1) We have no credible sufficient data to see if that run-up from the 1970s was UNIQUE in any way or what the immediate prior rates were to the detail needed to find a "global warming" signature at 700m..

2) If it WAS a very delayed effect on absorbing and storing heat -- the likely mechanism was that the ocean appetite got stimulated not by GH radiative imbalance -- but with a combo of that with direct solar insolation which was the actual "meal" consumed..

If the 2nd point is true -- then there might exist a HUGE NEGATIVE feedback on greenhouse warming that would wreck havoc with the folklore of accelerated, irreversible, run away GW.. That thing we were told is CERTAIN if certain trigger temps are met.

All I know -- is that the public was fed a huge dose of propaganda and BS from the SAME HANDFUL of activist scientists hiding out in lab coats with high credentials..

 

[flacaltenn]

And just how does that fit the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??

People who understand the science will point out that the oceans don't "consume energy at a higher rate". That's entirely your strawman, so nobody else cares about it.

The oceans are absorbing nearly the same amount of energy each year. There is a slowly increasing trend there from increasing backradiation, but that trend isn't significant over a few years. What can change a lot from year to year is how much heat the oceans release back into the atmosphere.

You don't even know what you posted a day ago ---- do you? What did your heroes at NOAA assert that you posted a couple pages back?? You're a waste of time -- actually...