Global Cooling

[Iceberg]

Not at all we know far more about our oceans than space. !

I think people can believe whatever they like about why it was corrected but I think you would have to be quite hardened skeptic to believe it was deliberate.

[Solar Cycles]

Not at all we know far more about our oceans than space. !

I think people can believe whatever they like about why it was corrected but I think you would have to be quite hardened skeptic to believe it was deliberate.

Maybe Jethro would like to add to that Iceberg, seen as no one as of yet as answered her question!

[Methuselah]

Maybe Jethro would like to add to that Iceberg, seen as no one as of yet as answered her question!

An alternative question might be: why should one expect oceanic, atmospheric and landmass temperatures to remain static?

[tundra]

Not at all we know far more about our oceans than space. !

I think people can believe whatever they like about why it was corrected but I think you would have to be quite hardened skeptic to believe it was deliberate.

What nonsense i think i will refer to you as Mr gullible from now on.

[osmposm]

What nonsense i think i will refer to you as Mr gullible from now on.

There has been a good and informative discussion on here recently, tundra, with interesting arguments on both sides. I assume you've been reading it and learning something, like me. So can you please try for once not to spoil it with the silly little insults?

[Iceberg]

What nonsense i think i will refer to you as Mr gullible from now on.

What a superb way to prove my point.

[Cycles]

The tropical Atlantic ocean did cool during 2008-09, and the tropical south Pacific was cool until this past month. So it certainly does seem reasonable that oceans have cooled...not warmed.

[jethro]

So what everyone is saying is that because CO2 has risen and is expected to continue to rise, thus causing higher atmospheric temperatures, the oceans will continue to absorb that extra heat and retain it?

When the oceans enter their negative phase, there will be an inherent limit on the amount of cooling possible because there is extra warmth to begin with? The negative phase's will be insufficient in length to lose the extra heat? That still requires Terry Jones to be sat there with a watch; nothing in nature has a reference in time, ocean cycles are not governed by time, if they were, they'd be as regular as, well, clockwork. They're not.

Leaving CO2 out of this (not escaping facts, just it's irrelevant what actually causes the extra heat) if warmer oceans leads to long term or even permanent higher baselines in temperatures, then how come they cooled to the point of speculation of another ice age looming after the warm cycles in the early 20th century?

[Solar Cycles]

I'm far from convinced that CO2 can actually have an effect on ocean temperatures!!

[Methuselah]

Good morning Jethro.

I agree: we should leave CO2 out of the equation for the timebeing; it's only one of myriad potential perturbators...

All I can state with any certainty is that heat always moves from hotter to colder bodies irrespective of their heat capacities. It doesn't matter what the source(s) of heating (or cooling) are, once within the system the 2nd law of thermodynamics must be obeyed. I don't know how long it takes for the oceans to recirculate but I suspect it is more than 100 years? Anyway, I suspect the oceans contain within them (the memory of) many ancient climate-forcers that have nothing at all to do with AGW...

Now, whatever CO2 does, it does it primarily to the atmosphere; how that augments the natural cycles, I do not know! :lol:

[tundra]

There has been a good and informative discussion on here recently, tundra, with interesting arguments on both sides. I assume you've been reading it and learning something, like me. So can you please try for once not to spoil it with the silly little insults?

I have read the posts but i have found nothing new or informative as you claim unless of coarse you are counting some posters own pet theories that they have on the subject.

But hey thats great you can post away for the next millennium going round and round in circles while in realtime the real science and data moves forward.

All the information is out there there is no excuse for ignorance in todays internet age, unless of coarse for some posters it goes against their beliefs or home grown theories.

Oh by the way my last post was not ment to be insulting when you keep reading that sort of rubbish over and over it becomes nonsense.

[jethro]

I have read the posts but i have found nothing new or informative as you claim unless of coarse you are counting some posters own pet theories that they have on the subject.

But hey thats great you can post away for the next millennium going round and round in circles while in realtime the real science and data moves forward.

All the information is out there there is no excuse for ignorance in todays internet age, unless of coarse for some posters it goes against their beliefs or home grown theories.

Oh by the way my last post was not ment to be insulting when you keep reading that sort of rubbish over and over it becomes nonsense.

Well given all of that then Tundra, I'm sure you'll be able to put me out of my misery and answer the question I posed. Why would oceans retain heat, leading to an increased baseline in temperatures?

[Methuselah]

Well given all of that then Tundra, I'm sure you'll be able to put me out of my misery and answer the question I posed. Why would oceans retain heat, leading to an increased baseline in temperatures?

I think that you've raised an extremely valid question, Jethro. It's just a shame that it's 20 years' since I've studied ocean currents.

One thing I can assume would change the 'balance' would be relative changes to the amount of dense, cold, saline water that is the result of high latitude ice-formation - less ice-formation -> less deep cold water possibly slowing down the Ocean Conveyor system thus increasing residence time; and 'maybe' acting as an effective heat store...

Does that make any sense at all!

[jethro]

I think that you've raised an extremely valid question, Jethro. It's just a shame that it's 20 years' since I've studied ocean currents.

One thing I can assume would change the 'balance' would be relative changes to the amount of dense, cold, saline water that is the result of high latitude ice-formation - less ice-formation -> less deep cold water possibly slowing down the Ocean Conveyor system thus increasing residence time; and 'maybe' acting as an effective heat store...

Does that make any sense at all!

Hooray! An answer which does make sense, thank you Pete. I'll look into that one, see what I can find. Vague memories of bottom currents taking a hundred years or so to complete a circuit (could be wrong on that one though) if this is the case, wouldn't it be difficult to tell if warming was as a consequence of recent additional melt or whether we're reaping the rewards of long ago?

[Methuselah]

Hooray! An answer which does make sense, thank you Pete. I'll look into that one, see what I can find. Vague memories of bottom currents taking a hundred years or so to complete a circuit (could be wrong on that one though) if this is the case, wouldn't it be difficult to tell if warming was as a consequence of recent additional melt or whether we're reaping the rewards of long ago?

You're welcome, Jethro. And, I absolutely agree - see my post above.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hooray! An answer which does make sense, thank you Pete. I'll look into that one, see what I can find. Vague memories of bottom currents taking a hundred years or so to complete a circuit (could be wrong on that one though) if this is the case, wouldn't it be difficult to tell if warming was as a consequence of recent additional melt or whether we're reaping the rewards of long ago?

Hi Jethro

My post seems to have been completely overlooked and maybe because it cannot be answered using AGW/CO2 as the cause or no one has an answer or just plain ignored. :lol: I asked how can 0.7c of atmospheric warming LEAD to 0.7c warming of the oceans due to AGW over the same time period of 100years? That would seem wholly impossible. Now put the other way round, 0.7c ocean warming with slight lag IMO would see a very likely atmospheric increase of the same amount. CO2 is NOT warming the oceans, it doesn't add up.

As to your question...I would ask how can the 1000 deg C massive thermal eruptions in the deep ocean floor with more and more being discovered not be a cause. As more are being discovered is it getting more active down there? IMO it COULD/SHOULD make some impact.

BFTP

Edited July 4, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

Hi Jethro

My post seems to have been completely overlooked and maybe because it cannot be answered using AGW/CO2 as the cause or no one has an answer or just plain ignored. :lol: I asked how can 0.7c of atmospheric warming LEAD to 0.7c warming of the oceans due to AGW over the same time period of 100years? That would seem wholly impossible. Now put the other way round, 0.7c ocean warming with slight lag IMO would see a very likely atmospheric increase of the same amount. CO2 is NOT warming the oceans, it doesn't add up.

As to your question...I would ask how can the 1000 deg C massive thermal eruptions in the deep ocean floor with more and more being discovered not be a cause. As more are being discovered is it getting more active down there? IMO it COULD/SHOULD make some impact.

BFTP

Hi BFTP... :lol:

I can see whence you come, mate...But, given sufficient time, heat will flow from a hotter body into a cooler one until their respective temperatures are identical: that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Does the fact that many undersea volcanoes have yet to be discovered increase their collective imput (of heat) into the oceans? Unless increased discovery = increased activity, I doubt it???

But, either way mate, does such activity reduce water's effectiveness as a heat-storage/-transportation mechanism??? It wouldn't be used for district-heating systems if it couldn't store (and distribute) heat... :lol:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

More of the same for May.......cooling.

June 4th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS

2009 1 0.304 0.443 0.165 -0.036

2009 2 0.347 0.678 0.016 0.051

2009 3 0.206 0.310 0.103 -0.149

2009 4 0.090 0.124 0.056 -0.014

2009 5 0.043 0.043 0.043 -0.168

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/uah-...gain-near-zero/

BFTP

As per promised monthly update using UAH

Dr. Roy Spencer

July 3rd, 2009

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS

2009 1 0.304 0.443 0.165 -0.036

2009 2 0.347 0.678 0.016 0.051

2009 3 0.206 0.310 0.103 -0.149

2009 4 0.090 0.124 0.056 -0.014

2009 5 0.045 0.046 0.044 -0.166

2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003

As we can see there is no anomaly so the decadal fall/downtrend continues/remains.

BFTP

Edited July 4, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[stewfox]

I can see whence you comeDoes the fact that many undersea volcanoes have yet to be discovered increase their collective imput (of heat) into the oceans? Unless increased discovery = increased activity, I doubt it???

Probably by as much as putting a match to a very large lake.

[Methuselah]

Probably by as much as putting a match to a very large lake.

Precisely!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi BFTP...

I can see whence you come, mate...But, given sufficient time, heat will flow from a hotter body into a cooler one until their respective temperatures are identical: that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Does the fact that many undersea volcanoes have yet to be discovered increase their collective imput (of heat) into the oceans? Unless increased discovery = increased activity, I doubt it???

But, either way mate, does such activity reduce water's effectiveness as a heat-storage/-transportation mechanism??? It wouldn't be used for district-heating systems if it couldn't store (and distribute) heat... :lol:

Hi Pete

Yes the 2nd law shows that as the warmer body passes its heat it would itself cool unless the heat from the 1st body was continuously on the increase and we know that is not the case. Heat rises yes? So I would say that ocean warming has warmed the atmosphere not the other way round.

Each warm/cool/warm sector over the 20th century fits with the perturbation cycle [approx 36yrs] where atmosphere cooled in line with the cooler ocean cycle.

Now if one thinks that 1000+C vents on a massive scale have negligible effect then I will just scratch my head a little. The heat and scale of these are immense and i believe that with the magnetic field fluctations and the tectonic plate movements that there is at least an imput into the extra heat from these vents. Also we have no idea how many there are but what we do know is that there are many many more and active down there than what researchers thought and more are being found.

BFTP

Edited July 4, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

Hi BFTP

You'll see from my responses to Jethro, that I don't think that everything is settled - by a long chalk. I'll get back to you when the vodka's worn-off, ok? :o :o

[osmposm]

I have read the posts but i have found nothing new or informative as you claim unless of coarse you are counting some posters own pet theories that they have on the subject.

But hey thats great you can post away for the next millennium going round and round in circles while in realtime the real science and data moves forward.

All the information is out there there is no excuse for ignorance in todays internet age, unless of coarse for some posters it goes against their beliefs or home grown theories.

Oh by the way my last post was not ment to be insulting when you keep reading that sort of rubbish over and over it becomes nonsense.

Tundra, I think that some of of us on here think that describing intelligent, polite, researched, well-argued, carefully-composed posts as "that sort of rubbish" is inevitably a bit insulting.

I am surprised and envious that you already understood all the issues being discussed here so fully, and so "found nothing new or informative" from either side. Can I therefore add my support to Jethro's request to you: could you please try and explain clearly (to those of us who are not so up to speed) the way the thermodynamic balance of the earth's atmosphere and seas works - with particular reference to the long-term retention (or not) of heat by the deep oceans?

If you can't, then perhaps you'll forgive me if I choose to keep reading the 'round in circles' posts, rubbish and all.

[PeteG]

Now if one thinks that 1000+C vents on a massive scale have negligible effect then I will just scratch my head a little. The heat and scale of these are immense and i believe that with the magnetic field fluctations and the tectonic plate movements that there is at least an imput into the extra heat from these vents. Also we have no idea how many there are but what we do know is that there are many many more and active down there than what researchers thought and more are being found. BFTP

[Methuselah]

Now if one thinks that 1000+C vents on a massive scale have negligible effect then I will just scratch my head a little. The heat and scale of these are immense and i believe that with the magnetic field fluctations and the tectonic plate movements that there is at least an imput into the extra heat from these vents. Also we have no idea how many there are but what we do know is that there are many many more and active down there than what researchers thought and more are being found. BFTP

According to Wikipedia the oceans have a volume of 1,310,000,000 cubic kilometres. I don't know how many active vents would be needed to heat that volume of water by 1C, but I suspect the ones that exist have about as much effect as dropping a hot iron into Windermere would have.

Now, assuming that the number and activity of deep-sea vents has remained (more or less) constant over time, that particular system should have reached some kind of equilibrium many millions of years' ago?? It doesn't matter how many vents are still undiscovered.

BFTP, heat only rises where the thermal gradient says it must, if the air is warmer than the ocean, then heat will flow down...Heat flows, that's all.