TE
So at this time, as a real scientist, one might say there is not enough data from ARGO to make firm statements about heating and cooling in the abyss and for the upper 700 m the ARGO float data coverage is just beginning to be relevant to models and future predictions.?
Scott
Matthew You can go back and check — I’ve always been very pro-active for nuclear power. In my post above I even referenced China’s approach to trade on nuclear (latest being Argentina) as a type of win/win approach that Huntsman talks about.
And yes, Obama is supporting these type of approaches. Google for example your question on super-critical coal units — you will see that the U.S. and other Developed Countries have agreed to finance these high efficiency units in Developing Countries.
Unlike TE, I accept Wunsch found net cooling.
I didn’t write anything about OHC at depth, I only cited NASA GISS that SSTs haven’t warmed and have cooled for large portions of the oceans.
But it is a good point – no reliable data of sufficient coverage to indicate what’s happening below 2000m and only Argo for a relatively brief period. Difficult to assess what’s actually happening.
The miracle would be that a very very thin layer of water at the very surface of the oceans could stop the heat from gobkazillions of atomic bombs from leaving the oceans.
My biggest concern with respect to Paris is that everyone is trying to meet this 2 C target. But what is the basis of the 2 C target? As far as I can tell there isn’t any good scientific or economic basis for the 2 C target. Rather, the 2 C target was arbitrarily chosen 20 years ago by some German scientists. Since then people have tried to dogmatically justify the 2 C target, such as trying to claim that we shouldn’t go over 2 C because it was never 2 C warmer than pre-industrial times during the Pleistocene (but by that logic, we never had satellites or cars during the Pleistocene so should we get rid of those as well?), trying to argue that going above 2 C will cause Antarctica to deglaciate (James Hansen seems to be the main culprit responsible for this belief; but if you look at the arguments of James Hansen, he just looks at CO2 concentrations that existed during the beginning of Antarctica deglaciation 34 million years ago, never mind the fact that the correlation between warming and CO2 will be higher for warming that is initiated by changes in CO2 concentrations than warming that isn’t, and the fact that the continents have moved considerably and today’s continent arrangement results in a colder climate) or they have to pretend that some magic tipping point exists just above 2 C and that we need to avoid it (even though all our understanding of the magnitude of the feedbacks suggest that runaway global warming is not possible for the next billion years so no such tipping point exists).
TE
So at this time, as a real scientist, one might say there is not enough data from ARGO to make firm statements about heating and cooling in the abyss and for the upper 700 m the ARGO float data coverage is just beginning to be relevant to models and future predictions.?
Here’s what I wonder: IFF polar ( let’s say just Antarctic ) deep(er) water formation increased, much of that would go below 2000m. Wouldn’t equatorial waters flow further poleward to fill the void? And might the cold water be lost from the balance ( because we don’t measure much below 2000m ) but the 0-700 and 0-2000 depths indicate warming?
Things such as this might be occurring, no?
For the record, i do not filter the articles that I mention based upon the venues in which they are published or who owns the publishing press (in most instances I have no idea, and I certainly don’t keep track of which papers are owned by Rupert Murdoch, and I don’t pay enough attention to all this to know why someone would object to Murdoch).
I refer to articles that I find to make an interesting, insightful, or provocative argument. Often the articles are written by people that I know (or know of), other times I encounter the article in a more random way (spotted on twitter, or somebody sent me an email).
Miracles indeed!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
You’ll need some miracles after 2020.
I apparently forgot how elementary Adam Smith was, pooh on me.
Cause everyone’s read it, right?
Uh huh.
Judith: It is perfectly reasonable to assert that unforced variability and naturally forced variability interfere attribution of warming to anthropogenic forcing. However, both factors also influence the confidence intervals for TCR and ECS in Lewis and Curry (2014). Is there a consistent assumption about unforced variability and naturally forced variability that works for both?
Agreed, this is my main criticism of the existing methods of estimating ECS/TCR. LC14 attempted to partially address this by picking two periods with approx the same AMO index
Vaughan, one difference between a borehole measurement and the likes of HadCRUT, BEST, etc is that the thermometer calibration should not be an issue if the measurements were done correctly. That still doesn’t rule out the confounding problem with a single borehole, but sampling widely separated boreholes should significantly reduce the “common mode” errors.
Judith: Attribution of at least 50% of observed warming to humans has little importance. If you use Otto (2013) or Lewis and Curry (2014) to translate 50% of observed warming into TCR and ECS (and say the rest could be natural variability), all this means is that TCR must be greater than 0.7 degC and ECS must be greater than 1 degC. In essence, the IPCC has said there will be future warming, but they can’t say with high confidence that warming will be anywhere near catastrophic.
What might bring you some cheer is that a good slice of the Murdoch press in Australia, especially news.com.au, is very much of the shrieking green left. A hot spell or some heavy weather is neatly fitted to the dominant alarmist narrative in a way that would be the envy of even the Guardian and NYT.
Sydney is having some hot November days at last, and I can assure you the “records” are about to tumble according to our obedient media. (If they don’t tumble, the subject can be changed next day to Miley Gaga or whatever.) Concerning population, there are definitely far too many non-refugee humans according to our MSM. As for the superlative and almost limitless Permian black coal which is the foundation of our (and their) prosperity…they couldn’t hate it enough! And Rupert, like the rest of the MSM, lets them preach Chicken Little stuff you wouldn’t even read on HuffPo.
With the great bulk of the MSM staying properly on-message for Paris, I wouldn’t worry about one or two hold outs like WSJ. You need that for realism, don’t you?
Climate mitigation iatrogenics has always been a big part of my arguments against the proposed government “solutions” for AGW. Being a libertarian I find it interesting that Bjorn Lomborg of leftist persuasion argues this point against some of the proposed AGW government solutions. I suspect as I have heard Lomborg imply previously that he is not against government action of this type – as a libertarian would be on principle – but that he sees other government involvements that he much prefers over AGW. Of further interest is that Lomborg points to government and the politicians running them as being less than reliable in sticking to their policies and promises on AGW solutions. It makes me wonder how he keeps his leftist view of government – unless he thinks the AGW problem is somehow unique.
“Whether betting big today with a comprehensive global climate policy targeted at stabilization will ………… quickly produce losses that throw mankind into economic, social, & environmental bankruptcy”
I just wonder whether JC’s favoured quote isnt as over-stated and exaggrated as the climate catastrophism. “economic, social & environmental bankruptcy”. Really? What happened to the innovation and ingenuity to turn a problem into a profit?
I’m pretty sure water figures in all the CMIP5 models, Peter. But I know nothing about what values they use, so if you feel their values are wrong then you’re better informed than I.
A more specific criticism of Mike Jonas’s WUWT article is that, just as statistician William M. Briggs disallows filtering, Jonas disallows fitting. Since all areas of science makes heavy use of both, these rejections of filtering and fitting have something of the flavour of Jack D. Ripper’s rejection of fluoridated water:
It should come as no surprise that scientists who tie one or both hands behind their back by not allowing themselves to use all the scientific tools at their disposal would end up knowing less as a result. What is not legitimate however is to project their resulting ignorance on those of their colleagues who understand and use those tools to best advantage.
vp, “@cd: The ocean can release heat much more quickly than they can regain heat. The rate varies greatly with surface wind velocity, salinity/density gradient stability and CO2 concentration has a small impact on the rate which can be significant on multi-century and millennial scales.
The chill factor, for oceans instead of people. :)
Kind of. a direct water to air heat exchanger is more efficient in the WATER -> AIR direction partially due to evaporation but mainly due to the air being more mobile. The air itself is mainly just limiting the rate of heat loss, more turbulent mixing and a higher flow rate just enhances the rate of loss. I don’t like to call it evaporative cooling because it is hard to keep track of where that latent ends up and there isn’t a good indication of what “normal” evaporation should be.
