The pause, and sea levels.

[anticrank]

Most of the additional heat from radiative forcing goes into the oceans.


What do you think you mean by this statement?

What do think heat is?

What do you think radiative forcing is?

What do you think additional heat is?



I know exactly what is meant by those terms. Do you have a point to make?

Well as you made a point that I assume made sense to you, I assumed also that you would be able to say why. Perhaps not.

Your statement does not make much sense to me because, for example, heat does not go anywhere. But perhaps your understanding of heat is different from mine, which is why I asked the question. I might have asserted that you are wrong but I would like to know why you think what you do. Perhaps I am wrong.

I am not sure if I would understand at all what you mean by radiative forcing, which is why I asked the question.

I am not sure at all that I understand what you mean by "additional heat", which is why I asked the question.

it is up to you whether you want to communicate something useful or simply broadcast your assertions, but surely the point of a debate is to have an exchange of views, not simply a statement of "I know what I mean". I know what I mean too but I don't assume I am omniscient.

You asked me what I thought heat, radiative forcing, etc., were. I did not respond that I knew what I thought they meant (that would be tautologous), but that I knew what they mean. I mean by those terms exactly what is meant by those terms in general scientific/engineering discourse.

If you do not know what is meant by those terms, you should have said so, rather than insinuating ignorance on my part.

Let's start with heat. You say it doesn't go anywhere. An astounding claim. How do you think radiators work, if heat can't go anywhere? Ever heard of convection, conduction, radiation?

Anticrank

[XFool]

Let's start with heat. You say it doesn't go anywhere. An astounding claim.

[Sorcery]

The coastal tide guage data dating back to 1870 in http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ shows no change in rate of increase.

Actually it does.

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Coastal% ... ration.pdf

Ok while I can see their may be a little acceleration to be found by statistics, it could be an artefact of the 1905 to 1930 pause in rising sealevels rate of change and then a catch up in the years 1930 to 1950 (which looks to me as if it's the steepest part of the curve).
When Keeling started measuring CO2 levels in 1958 they were then around 310ppm so only a smallish change in CO2 levels from pre industrial of 280ppm, cf the the current 400ppm. The mystery to me seems to be why were sea levels rising from 1870 and presumably before that. Possibly the seas levels are still recovering from the last ice age? Possibly other anthropogenic factors like land use.

The satellite data looks different to the tide gauge data. Is that why the tide gauge data stops when the satellite data starts in the nasa graphic? Naughty of them.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea- ... e-problem/

[TopOnePercent]

LMF seems to have a limitation on the number of nested quotes. So...

-------
XFool wrote:
The thing that always strikes me about climate science is that it is clearly a very complex subject, with many large scale and complicated mechanisms involving a wide range of physical science and statistical methods. My conclusion is that simple minded, amateur 'explanations' on arbitrary bulletin boards - of which there are myriads - are almost always going to be simplistic, misleading and wrong.

TopOnePercent wrote:
Stop offering them then!

XFool wrote:
I'M NOT!

Err... you haven't noticed this? What conclusion do you think I should reasonably draw from that? What would be a "logical" conclusion to draw?

TopOnePercent wrote:
That your response to any post that disagrees with your faith is hostile, petulant, and often irrelevant?

XFool (re)wrote:
I see. So that is your 'interpretation' of my very factual reply to your factual error?: "I'M NOT!"

Oh well! That's the way the logic crumbles, I guess.
-------

I hope that aids your understanding, TOP.

It answers my question, yes.

[johnhemming]

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting land ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms.

It is also complicated by isostatic rebound from the ice ages and by groundwater extraction in places like Florida, and island communities.
The coastal tide guage data dating back to 1870 in http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ shows no change in rate of increase. The increase in CO2 is said to have really taken off after 1945 so how can we connect the rate of sea level rise to CO2?

Lets look at your statement:
1870 about 0, 1930 about 50. In 60 years 50m.
1990 about 175. In 60 years (from 1930) 125m.

To me that is an increase in the rate of see level rise as in a more than doubling of the rate rather than no change.

I remember finding a paper from the 1930s that linked global temperatures to CO2 levels.

[dspp]

Without wanting to derail the thrust of your contribution, surely your units are wrong, m should be mm ?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

regards, dspp

[hiriskpaul]

The coastal tide guage data dating back to 1870 in http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ shows no change in rate of increase.

Actually it does.

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Coastal% ... ration.pdf

Ok while I can see their may be a little acceleration to be found by statistics, it could be an artefact of the 1905 to 1930 pause in rising sealevels rate of change and then a catch up in the years 1930 to 1950 (which looks to me as if it's the steepest part of the curve).

When Keeling started measuring CO2 levels in 1958 they were then around 310ppm so only a smallish change in CO2 levels from pre industrial of 280ppm, cf the the current 400ppm.

One has to be wary in interpreting any movements in the rise as the errors* on the measurements are quite large. They start out between 19-22mm between 1870 and 1885. They are then around 17-18mm until 1899. They then drop down to about 11mm by 1916 and stay in the 9-11mm range until 1948. They then improve again, but never get much better than about 6mm. For some reason the errors on the measurements leap back up again to about 9mm from the end of 2000. With errors of that size and given the rate of rise, the path taken by the mean would not be expected to be smooth - it would be highly unlikely that it would be. It would also be dangerous to base any decisions on "What it looks like". Human beings are woefully poor in handling data like this as we have evolved to spot patterns and we spot them when they are not there. The only way to identify a small acceleration is through statistical analysis. That statistical analysis says that there was a statistically significant increase in the rate of sea level rise in the period. In other words it is highly likely that the sea level rise accelerated, but it is not guaranteed. The statistics do not attribute any reason for the acceleration, just that is highly likely to have occurred.

The mystery to me seems to be why were sea levels rising from 1870 and presumably before that. Possibly the seas levels are still recovering from the last ice age? Possibly other anthropogenic factors like land use.

Not something I know much about, could be just the ongoing trend from the last ice age, but I am just guessing.

The satellite data looks different to the tide gauge data. Is that why the tide gauge data stops when the satellite data starts in the nasa graphic? Naughty of them.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea- ... e-problem/

What do you mean by different? The tide gauge data was not taken by NASA and I would have expected it to be different to that from satellites. Measurements taken across different places, quite possibly with a different definition of "Sea level" and possibly even from a different chart datum. I am sure people have tried, but I would have thought it was quite difficult to marry the 2 sets of measurements. It is an interesting question though as to what happened to the gauge data after 2001? With the introduction of satellites, was the collection of gauge data considered redundant and stopped?


*For the avoidance of doubt, I am using the term "errors" in the statistical sense.

[escalader]

hiriskpaul wrote:



Sorcery wrote:
The coastal tide guage data dating back to 1870 in http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ shows no change in rate of increase.

Actually it does.

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Coastal% ... ration.pdf

If you dig a bit deeper into that excellent NASA web site, it gives more detail here
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding ... /sea-level

That paper you linked to is a bit out of date (2006) and there is a more recent one http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e2635.html

Regards escalader

[johnhemming]

Without wanting to derail the thrust of your contribution, surely your units are wrong, m should be mm ?

True.

[Injunear]

Let's start with heat. You say it doesn't go anywhere. An astounding claim.

I don't think so. The reason I asked you what you thought heat was, was because I don't think you do understand it, though I am happy to admit I may be wrong about that. Heat is an energy state. What flows or can be transmitted in a variety of ways is energy. I do understand that we talk colloquially about heat radiating etc. Physically this is rather imprecise.

How do you think radiators work

I think radiators work by radiating energy. Some of that energy warms us (raises our energy levels) as we absorb it, so we experience that as heat.

Ever heard of convection, conduction, radiation?

Yes, thank you. All these are mechanisms by which energy can be transmitted from matter with a higher energy state to that with a lower energy state.

The enclosed from wikipedia might be helpful in clarifying why I say that heat does not flow, it is energy that goes somewhere, not heat.

"In a previous theory of heat common in the early modern period, heat was thought to be a measurement of an invisible fluid, known as the caloric. Bodies were capable of holding a certain amount of this fluid, hence the term heat capacity, named and first investigated by Scottish chemist Joseph Black in the 1750s.[5]

Since the development of thermodynamics in the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists have abandoned the idea of a physical caloric, and instead understand heat as a manifestation of a system's internal energy. Heat is no longer considered a fluid, but rather a transfer of disordered energy. Nevertheless, at least in English, the term "heat capacity" survives. In some other languages, the term thermal capacity is preferred, and it is also sometimes used in English."

I have seen an even more concise definition of heat as the internal energy of matter which implies the potential for energy to to be transferred to matter with lower internal energy, but I cannot now find that.

I do recognise that in non-technical parlance heat is said to flow. But this language derives from a rather antiquated understanding of energy.

[Injunear]

If we go back to the original statement that I was seeking some clarity about:

Most of the additional heat from radiative forcing goes into the oceans.

All I can glean from this is that, what you mean, according to general scientific definitions, is:

"Most of the additional energy from the additional energy (added to the earth/atmosphere system) goes into the oceans"

The only additional energy added to the earth/atmosphere system comes from the sun. Are you saying that most of the sun's energy flux to the planet is absorbed by the oceans? if that is the case why are you saying this? What is the reason that the ocean's absorb most of the Sun's energy flux? (If that is what you mean).

[Sorcery]

Hiriskpaul wrote :
<i>What do you mean by different? The tide gauge data was not taken by NASA and I would have expected it to be different to that from satellites. Measurements taken across different places, quite possibly with a different definition of "Sea level" and possibly even from a different chart datum. I am sure people have tried, but I would have thought it was quite difficult to marry the 2 sets of measurements. It is an interesting question though as to what happened to the gauge data after 2001? With the introduction of satellites, was the collection of gauge data considered redundant and stopped?</i>

I am pretty sure gauge data collection has not stopped it's just now difficult to find an up to date global graph of it. It appears to be supplanted by the satellite data. The satellite data seems to show an instant increase in sea level rise and is therefore suspect imho.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/ls ... 90_400.png
2.9 mm a year but not accelerating over the period. it is however different I think to the tide gauge data adjusted for land height.

Cant find a recent adjusted tide gauge adjusted graph but this in the opening post of the Curry link I provided seemed to contradict the satellite data :
There have been a number of papers that have used various subsets and time frames of the ‘stationary’ (GIA or dGPS corrected) PSMSL tide guages to infer more reliable estimates of SLR as noted by the IPCC. Past half-century estimates range from about 1.7mm/year to about 2.0mm/year, with little to no acceleration. The most relevant recent estimate is Mörner, 2.2mm/year from 1970-2010 during the period when AGW was supposedly happening. This seems plausible, as the average dGPS tide gauge SLR for Western Europe (2.2mm/yr), the US (2.1mm/yr), Japan (2.3mm/yr), and Australia (2.2mm/yr) over roughly the same period are all similar. Also proving the sea isn’t truly level, and dGPS isn’t completely accurate.


Also this paper prefers tide gauges : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9116300205

This graph shows what various papers have provided for sea level rise with the satellite data grafted on :
http://www.realclimate.org/images//haysl13.jpg

So I agree it's an apples and pears comparison.

[anticrank]

Let's start with heat. You say it doesn't go anywhere. An astounding claim.

I don't think so. The reason I asked you what you thought heat was, was because I don't think you do understand it, though I am happy to admit I may be wrong about that. Heat is an energy state. What flows or can be transmitted in a variety of ways is energy. I do understand that we talk colloquially about heat radiating etc. Physically this is rather imprecise.

How do you think radiators work

I think radiators work by radiating energy. Some of that energy warms us (raises our energy levels) as we absorb it, so we experience that as heat.

Ever heard of convection, conduction, radiation?

Yes, thank you. All these are mechanisms by which energy can be transmitted from matter with a higher energy state to that with a lower energy state.

The enclosed from wikipedia might be helpful in clarifying why I say that heat does not flow, it is energy that goes somewhere, not heat.

"In a previous theory of heat common in the early modern period, heat was thought to be a measurement of an invisible fluid, known as the caloric. Bodies were capable of holding a certain amount of this fluid, hence the term heat capacity, named and first investigated by Scottish chemist Joseph Black in the 1750s.[5]

Since the development of thermodynamics in the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists have abandoned the idea of a physical caloric, and instead understand heat as a manifestation of a system's internal energy. Heat is no longer considered a fluid, but rather a transfer of disordered energy. Nevertheless, at least in English, the term "heat capacity" survives. In some other languages, the term thermal capacity is preferred, and it is also sometimes used in English."

I have seen an even more concise definition of heat as the internal energy of matter which implies the potential for energy to to be transferred to matter with lower internal energy, but I cannot now find that.

I do recognise that in non-technical parlance heat is said to flow. But this language derives from a rather antiquated understanding of energy.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The concept of heat is very well established in physics. It is internal, or thermal, energy. As such it can be transported by convection, conduction, turbulent mixing, radiation, molecular diffusion, cups of coffee carried by waitresses, etc etc etc.

So when I say that most of the additional heat resulting from radiative forcing goes into the oceans, that's exactly what I mean: it is transported there by the normal processes of heat transport.

Anticrank

[anticrank]

If we go back to the original statement that I was seeking some clarity about:

Most of the additional heat from radiative forcing goes into the oceans.

...

Are you saying that most of the sun's energy flux to the planet is absorbed by the oceans? if that is the case why are you saying this? What is the reason that the ocean's absorb most of the Sun's energy flux? (If that is what you mean).

I'm not saying that. That's absurd. Why would I say that? Don't ask me why I'd say that. Ask yourself why you're asking me that. The vast majority of the energy radiated in from the Sun gets radiated back out again. Green house gases affect the balance of incoming and outgoing energy fluxes; they don't trap the totality of incoming energy. We'd fry, don't you think?

Radiative forcing, being a net radiative flux into the system (a flux imbalance), causes the energy content of the earth's ocean-atmosphere system to increase (above the datum zero-forcing state). The additional heat that I refer to is the integrated radiative forcing: the sum (or integral) over area and time of the flux imbalance. Most of that accumulation of heat ends up in the oceans.

Anticrank

[hiriskpaul]

Also this paper prefers tide gauges : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9116300205

Just so you know, that paper has attracted criticism for inaccuracies:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.21 ... =cerf-site

For global climate monitoring, satellite data has to be the way forward as it is so much more accurate.

[Injunear]

I'm not saying that. That's absurd. Why would I say that? Don't ask me why I'd say that.

I didn't know you think it is absurd. That's why I asked. Why shouldn't I ask? No one forces you to answer.

Radiative forcing, being a net radiative flux into the system (a flux imbalance), causes the energy content of the earth's ocean-atmosphere system to increase (above the datum zero-forcing state). The additional heat that I refer to is the integrated radiative forcing: the sum (or integral) over area and time of the flux imbalance. Most of that accumulation of heat ends up in the oceans.

So to paraphrase your longish words a positive net energy balance causes the plant/atmosphere to gain energy. So far, so good. But then we get "most of the accumulated heat ends up in the ocean". The only net energy balance to the planet is the sun. Ergo you are saying that the suns positive net energy ends up in the oceans. But I thought you said this was absurd. If you think it is absurd why are you saying it?

If you don't think it is absurd, what do think is happening when you do say it?

If you have time maybe you can explain what you mean when you say "datum zero forcing state"?

[Injunear]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The concept of heat is very well established in physics.

Thank you for your assessment but forgive me if I suspend judgement on your qualities as an assessor. I agree that the concept of heat as internal energy is well established. We can agree about that.

[Sorcery]

"For global climate monitoring, satellite data has to be the way forward as it is so much more accurate."

I would like to see gauge data side by side with satellite data to be really convinced.
Satellites certainly have better coverage though.

[anticrank]

I'm not saying that. That's absurd. Why would I say that? Don't ask me why I'd say that.

I didn't know you think it is absurd. That's why I asked. Why shouldn't I ask?

It's very simple really, and it goes to heart of why you seem to think that your skepticism has some merit, when it has none. You make an absurd and unsupported suggestion, based on some incompetent reading of my posts: the suggestion being that I might think that most of the Sun's energy output, incident on the planet, might be absorbed by the oceans. If you understand how ludicrous that suggestion is, why make it? I certainly gave you no reason to. If you think the people ranged against you -- climate scientists, most other scientists, even me -- are stupid enough to believe such obvious falsities, then you need think again. Think about your prejudices, perhaps.

Radiative forcing, being a net radiative flux into the system (a flux imbalance), causes the energy content of the earth's ocean-atmosphere system to increase (above the datum zero-forcing state). The additional heat that I refer to is the integrated radiative forcing: the sum (or integral) over area and time of the flux imbalance. Most of that accumulation of heat ends up in the oceans.

So to paraphrase your longish words a positive net energy balance causes the plant/atmosphere to gain energy. So far, so good. But then we get "most of the accumulated heat ends up in the ocean". The only net energy balance to the planet is the sun. Ergo you are saying that the suns positive net energy ends up in the oceans. But I thought you said this was absurd. If you think it is absurd why are you saying it?

Sheesh, this is what you asked me previously:

The only additional energy added to the earth/atmosphere system comes from the sun. Are you saying that most of the sun's energy flux to the planet is absorbed by the oceans?

Let's get this straight: most of the sun's energy flux to the planet is NOT absorbed by the oceans, and I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that most of the heat accumulated due to radiative forcing ends up in the oceans. Now, you wrote:

The only net energy balance to the planet is the sun.

which is as meaningless a statement as I've read in a long time. If what you mean is that the Sun is the earth's energy source, then fine. Just say so.

Ergo you are saying that the suns positive net energy ends up in the oceans.

Again, a meaningless collection of words. I'm saying that most of the accumulated heat resulting from radiative forcing (the difference between incoming and outgoing energy fluxes at the top of the atmosphere) goes into the oceans.

The fact that I'm having to explain this stuff to you, the fact that you're using terms like 'the suns positive net energy', which are essentially meaningless in the current context, is very telling. It tells me, for a start, that you have no business telling me that I don't understand heat.

If you have time maybe you can explain what you mean when you say "datum zero forcing state"?

Whatever state the planet is in (with respect to its energy content) at some point in the past when there was no radiative forcing. Alternatively, the equilibrium state of the system in the absence of radiative forcing.

anticrank

[anticrank]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The concept of heat is very well established in physics.

Thank you for your assessment but forgive me if I suspend judgement on your qualities as an assessor. I agree that the concept of heat as internal energy is well established. We can agree about that.

It's abundantly clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, that's how it is sometimes.

anticrank