The Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is freezing. What does this mean?

[Amzer Zo]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Claude Allegre, ...

[...]

About time for some truths to come out of this guy's mouth and finger tips... must be getting weak with old age... like with the debates over El Hierro between so-called "scientists" which are politician in disguises and real scientists, Allegre is a politician.

... check the fiasco he got into with Haroun Tazieff regarding eruptions in the French Antilles.

[Lifebringer]

Yes it will make for some lovely ski weather in teh Northern European countries. Hopefully they will make use of that "extra water supply" and give freely to the drought areas, in exchange for produce. Neighborly behaviors of love and caring can spread around the world. Nutrition and Poverty are our biggest enemies, and those who cause the miseries generation after generation are going to answer for it dearly.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

[Amzer Zo]

From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/2...as-paused-too/

Fact check for Andrew Glikson – Ocean heat has paused too
Posted on February 25, 2013 by Anthony Watts

Over at The Conversation Andrew Glikson asks Fact check: has global warming paused? citing an old Skeptical Science favorite graph, and that’s the problem; it’s old data. He writes:

As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans (since 1950, more than 20×1022 joules), the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4×1022 joules.
…
To summarise, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.

Figure 3: Build-up in Earth’s total heat content. http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs...nt_on_DK12.pdf

Hmmm, if “…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…” I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory (PMEL) using more up to date data from the ARGO buoy system?

Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003. Note the highlighted period in yellow:

From PMEL at http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/

The plot shows the 18-year trend in 0-700 m Ocean Heat Content Anomaly (OHCA) estimated from in situ data according to Lyman et al. 2010. The error bars include uncertainties from baseline climatology, mapping method, sampling, and XBT bias correction.

Historical data are from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. Additional displays of the upper OHCA are available in the Plots section.

As Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say: “Bazinga!“

h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for the PMEL graph.


UPDATE: See the above graph converted to temperature anomaly in this post [reproduced in part, below].


Ocean Temperature And Heat Content
Posted on February 25, 2013by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Anthony has an interesting post up discussing the latest findings regarding the heat content of the upper ocean.

He notes that there has been no significant change in the OHCA in the last decade. It’s a significant piece of information. I still have a problem with the graph, however, which is that the units are meaningless to me. What does a change of 10 zeta-joules mean? So following my usual practice, I converted the graph to a more familiar units, degrees C. Let me explain how I went about that.

To start with, I digitized the data from the graph. Often this is far, far quicker than tracking down the initial dataset, particularly if the graph contains the errors. I work on the Mac, so I use a program called GraphClick, I’m sure the same or better is available on the PC. I measured three series: the data, the plus error, and the minus error. I then put this data into an Excel spreadsheet, available here.

Then all that remained was to convert the change in zeta-joules to the corresponding change in degrees C. The first number I need is the volume of the top 700 metres of the ocean. I have a spreadsheet for this. Interpolated, it says 237,029,703 cubic kilometres. I multiply that by 62/60 to adjust for the density of salt vs. fresh water, and multiply by 10^9 to convert to tonnes. I multiply that by 4.186 mega-joules per tonne per degree C. That tells me that it takes about a thousand zeta-joules to raise the upper ocean temperature by 1°C.

Dividing all of the numbers in their chart by that conversion factor gives us their chart, in units of degrees C. Calculations are shown on the spreadsheet.

Figure 2. Upper ocean heat content anomaly, 0-700 metres, in degrees C.

I don’t plan to say a whole lot about that, I’ll leave it to the commenters, other than to point out the following facts:

• The temperature was roughly flat from 1993-1998. Then it increased by about one tenth of a degree in the next five years to 2003, and has been about flat since then.

• The claim is made that the average temperature of the entire upper ocean of the planet is currently known to an error (presumably one sigma) of about a hundredth of a degree C.

• I know of no obvious reason for the 0.1°C temperature rise 1998-2003, nor for the basically flat temperatures before and after.

• The huge increase in observations post 2002 from the addition of the Argo floats didn’t reduce the error by a whole lot.

My main question in this revolves around the claimed error. I find the claim that we know the average temperature of the upper ocean with an error of only one hundredth of a degree to be very unlikely … the ocean is huge beyond belief. This claimed ocean error is on the order of the size of the claimed error in the land temperature records, which have many more stations, taking daily records, over a much smaller area, at only one level. Doubtful.

I also find it odd that the very large increase in the number of annual observations due to the more than 3,000 Argo floats didn’t decrease the error much …

As is common in climate science … more questions than answers. Why did it go up?
Why is it now flat? Which way will the frog jump next?

Regards to everyone,

w.

[meat suit]

Awesome Amzer!
I had never considered that... of course the oceans are a vast heat store...
and bearing in mind that 80% of the worlds volcanos are under the oceans, the graph also indicates that they havent been more heat that usual...

cheers!

meat

[Amzer Zo]

Ice breakers astounded at record spread of ice on the Baltic Sea

By Robert On April 6, 2013 · 3 Comments

Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record – Scientists say they have never seen anything like it.

“Since record keeping began in the sixties, we’ve never encountered anything like this before,” ice breaker Ulf Gulldne told the local newspaper Örnsköldsviks Allehanda.
On March 29th, 176,000 square kilometers of the Baltic Sea was covered in ice, a record for the time of year.

“I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season,” said Karl Herlin, captain of the icebreaker Atle, currently working off the coast of Luleå in northern Sweden.

This past week has been the busiest week for the Atle so far this winter.

The Swedish Maritime Administration (Sjöfartsverket) has all its five icebreaking crews in service at the moment.

“The cold is unusually stubborn, as normally the ice would have started to melt by now,” said Torbjörn Grafström at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI).

Forecasters had expected the Baltic ice to reach its maximum in late January,
http://www.thelocal.se/47154/20130405/#.UWAi7ZNJO30
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/06/b...in-the-season/


Thanks to Laurel, Kirk Myers and Sonya Porter for these links

[Amzer Zo]

Whether it's global warming or a new ice age, the culprit is still the same: CO2


From http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-s...s-atmosphere/:

NASA – New study shows that CO2 COOLS atmosphere
By Robert On April 20, 2013 · 60 Comments

Carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere, says new NASA report.



“NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun,” says to this article on principia-scientific.org.

“The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.”

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

Ain’t science great? First they “prove” that CO2 warms the atmosphere. Now they “prove” that it cools the atmosphere.
Either way, you’re the culprit, and you must pay higher taxes. What a racket!

See entire article:
http://principia-scientific.org/supp...4bXF4.facebook
Thanks to Steven Rowlandson and Jeff Rense for this link

[Amzer Zo]

Temperatures falling – CO2 levels rising

By Robert On April 26, 2013 · 30 Comments

But our leaders still insist that rising CO2 levels cause global warming. Where’s the correlation?


Worldwide temperatures have been falling since 1998 while CO2 levels have been steadily rising.

It is so obvious that CO2 levels do not cause global warming.

How can so many scientists be so blind? Does the fear of losing their funding affect them that much?

I love how Joe Bastardi puts it: All they have left is excuses, not reasons.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...01658-gr11.jpg

Thanks to meteorologist Joe Bastardi for this link

[Amzer Zo]

Joe Bastardi On Global Cooling: "The Fall Is Very Very Plain To See...You'll See This Trend Continue"

P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:45 CDT

© Joe Bastardi

I'm late this time around with meteorologist Joe Bastardi's Saturday Summary (4/20). If you haven't seen it, then do take the few minutes to do so. He has a short outlook for the coming years.

He starts by showing the global temperature for the last 4 years: "...you can see the fall that is occurring; it's very plain to see".

Image left: Snapshot of Joe Bastardi's Saturday Summary (4/20).

Of course four years do not make a trend. But they do come after 11 years of stagnation. After 11 years of no warming, one would think the warming would finally resume. Instead just the opposite has occurred - and it has been cooling amazingly fast (almost 0.4°C) - thus completely defying the models. Boy, the oceans must have one big appetite!

If the last four years had seen warming, all the alarmists would be jumping up and down right now, hollering that global warming has resumed and that we're all doomed.

Bastardi:

I've seen some outrageous statements being made lately, just simply denying the facts that the previous 12, 13 years have been level. And now you see it falling off. This is because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has flipped. Though there are much more important things facing our country today, and facing the globe in general, this issue has really been blown out of proportion compared to the importance of some other things. In my opinion, even though I'm involved in it, you might think: 'You get a lot of attention, why are you trying to downplay it?' Because it's a joke! Alright, the global temperatures respond to the sun, the ocean, the large-scale drivers, and not to the other things.

If you just watch as an objective person, if you watch over the coming years, you'll see this trend continue. Just like you can't deny it was going up when the oceans were warming up in the 80s - from the very cold levels of the 60s and 70s - you can't deny that it's going down now."

Are Rob Honeycutt and his buddy Dana listening?

Last I heard is that they've turned to blaming the oceans for eating up all the lost warming. Unfortunately for them, the bet was on RSS and UAH trends, and not the temperature down somewhere in the ocean depths.

They shouldn't take it too hard, though, because it's for charity. And besides, it should come to them as a relief that the world isn't going to burn up like they thought (or hoped?) it would.

[mahalall]

climate feedback loops and methane expulsion related to geoengineering might be one explanation

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhsbP7sRU4c