Deep ocean NOT Warming ,ocean holds No missing heat

This is a mugs game. I could put all the onus on you to prove your own arguments too, but that would be pointless.

The problem with the debate most of the time, is that people make claims, and validate them by the fact that others fail to disprove them. Pointless.

 

I was hoping to see some response to my original questions. While heating may be minimal with a 50% increase in CO2 concentration, what happens at a 500% increase in concentration? Notice that I made no inference about global warming, but we either burn up every last carbon molecule in the earth's crust or we make an effort to find out why we should not burn it all up.

 

I made reference in another thread to John Coleman, who is actually a meteorologist, who makes these arguments much better than I ever could. I don't challenge your statement; the best I'm going to be able to do is show you some of the basis for my beliefs.

 

Exactly. The big picture is that the energy/temperature of the planet is going up. That's just simple and very well understood physics. People get hung up on surface land temperatures since that is where people live but the energy is going somewhere (sub-surface ocean) and eventually it will express itself at surface temperatures as well.

Here is a nice 4 minute summary of the big picture along with a simple CO2 atmospheric experiment:

 

Don't prove anything, just calculate the heat gain (or loss.)

You like to consider yourself an independent thinker, so go ahead and think a little. No points off if you use a calculator and a HS textbook for the science, as required.

 

This is getting personal again. I'm reminded again how pointless it is to debate "religion."

 

I was attempting (quite respectfully) to go beyond beliefs and into actual thinking. I also see a purely political and manipulative component in much of the global warming claims. Likewise there is often a herd mentality among many funded groups that often follows the funding incentives. That is an unquestioned reality of dealing in any subject with economic winners and losers.

So I like to see the responses to questions bypassing all the politics and questionable science. Hence the original questions were ones needing only some thinking instead of looking to see what some "expert" says or what someone else's opinion might be. I'm interested in your thoughts (not anyone else's thoughts) about the actual range of possibilities of increasing CO2 concentrations that all of us will be experiencing for many, many decades.

 

Respectfully, I don't want to bypass the point of the original post. Anyone can question Kevin Trenberth's credibility, but few if any of us have similar credentials. He has publicly stated that global air temperatures haven't risen since 1998. He was attempting to find continuing temperature rise in the ocean. The NASA study appears to cast doubt on this. This therefore casts doubt on the assertions being made about rising global temperatures. I don't dispute that they are always in flux, but whether we are headed towards a toasty doom is the main point of my skepticism. Yes, "skepticism" which is not the same thing as "denial."

 

The NASA study does not cast doubt on temperature rises in the ocean.
What it casts doubt on is temperature gain in the lower ocean. It confirms a raise in temperature in the upper level.
It does not address or quantify energy used to melt artic ice, nor vaporize additional water into gaseous form.

 

The lower ocean was the place Kevin Trenberth was looking for temperature rise. This can't be good for his theory.

 

Exactly, which is how science is supposed to work.
Now with experimental evidence indicating the energy surplus did not go into a temperature rise in the deep ocean, he needs to either reform his theory, or, depending upon his level of confidence in the data, try another experiment to measure the temperature of the deep ocean.

This is a perfect example of how science is supposed to work. Hypothesis and theories tested by experiments/data. If the hypothesis or theory is not supported, make a new hypothesis, or alterations to the theory to explain the observations.

 

It goes against his guess that the lower ocean is harboring additional heat; it does NOT change the fact that the upper ocean is harboring additional heat.

Is that point clear to you ?

 

Greg @38
"The CO2 rise is often cited as "proof" of temperature rise. That theory has been largely dispelled. Ice-cores from Antarctica clearly show that CO2 rise followed temperature rise, it did not precede it."

Interestingly Greg provided the 3rd study that 'undispelled' this. I thanked him for it and started a different thread.

 

It still sounds to me like grasping at straws.

 

So where do you think the extra energy is going?
If you have a better hypothesis I'd be eager to test it and see if it can describe the observations.

 

What extra energy? Since 1998, the last warming spell has been over. I explained my hypothesis in an earlier post.

 

"What extra energy?"

Llovel's abstract says 0.64 +/- 0.44 Watts per square meter, as most participants here have no doubt read by now.

Average geothermal heat flux is 0.087 Watts per square meter according to

Geothermal gradient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and we'd want to keep that in mind. Is is natural. The sun as a heat source is natural. Only increasing IR trapping by very large combustion of fossil carbon could be regarded as unnatural. That thing upon which the human enterprise currently depends.

Earth's albedo is now changing in various places for various reasons. I wonder how many Watts is that?

Mojo @57, was the NASA study this? (I can't always access WUWT)

Nature Geoscience 1, 399 - 403 (2008)
doi:10.1038/ngeo208
Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds
Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood
Abstract
Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65 +/-0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.

Perhaps during our Miskolczi discussion, I mentioned the following article. I still think it is worth reading.

Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy
Peter W. Thorne, et al. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.80
WIREs Climate Change
Abstract
Changes in atmospheric temperature have a particular importance in climate research because climate models consistently predict a distinctive vertical profile of trends. With increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, the surface and troposphere are consistently projected to warm, with an enhancement of that warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Hence, attempts to detect this distinct fingerprint’ have been a focus for observational studies. The topic acquired heightened importance following the 1990 publication of an analysis of satellite data which challenged the reality of the projected tropospheric warming. This review documents the evolution over the last four decades of understanding of tropospheric temperature trends and their likely causes. Particular focus is given to the difficulty of producing homogenized datasets, with which to derive trends, from both radiosonde and satellite observing systems, because of the many systematic changes over time. The value of multiple independent analyses is demonstrated. Paralleling developments in observational datasets, increased computer power and improved understanding of climate forcing mechanisms have led to refined estimates of temperature trends from a wide range of climate models and a better understanding of internal variability. It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively.

It cites 195 other articles, but is not really painful to read.

 

OK, the article title says "slow the rate of increase"
and you say "no greenhouse effect."

LOL!

OK, almost finished laughing at you ...
Lindzen postulated some time ago an 'Iris effect,' that would let heat escape Earth. I don't remember what mechanism he envisioned. Decreased atmospheric vapor would certainly fit the bill, although it is beyond me why that would occur and become more prominent over time in a heating world. If anything, I think vapor should increase over time. Something to follow.

 

The Iris effect is that more (highly reflective) clouds will decrease the rate of solar heat input. This is entirely physics. So far so good. You will notice it relates to the top side of clouds.

Clouds have bottom sides also. They limit the rate at which heat is lost from the earth. Go outside on two nights, one with clear sky and one with heavy cloud cover. Bring a thermometer, so you can know that the temperature of air around you is not different. You will experience even more physics. You will feel much colder on the clear night. You will be losing heat to outer space (cue dramatic music).

If by any chance you follow the American Geophysical Union's Charney lectures, you will know that earth releases most of its heat through cloud-free sky.

So, clouds have tops and bottoms, and the Iris effect is half the story.

The other thing is, to have more clouds, you pretty much need more tropospheric humidity (down low, not up high as discussed earlier here). I read that it is increasing, but not by much, and the measurements have a lot of +/-. More humidity -> more rain -> humidity is not so easy to increase.

This is important not just for Iris, but also because for CO2 to have that big (3 oC per doubling) warming effect, it needs positive feedback from humidity. I don't see that happening so far.

I have asked before at PC (a) how much humidity does increase in the climate models? (b) is that enough to make the big feedback?

Obviously I should be asking the climate modelers themselves. Now, to find some honest ones

You can make ice at night even when the air temperature is above freezing. But you need a clear sky.If it's cloudy,no ice. Physics.

Science is so much fun, and so powerful, that I get a bit sad when it gets treated like a beach ball around here.