tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post6356016951351076448..comments2023-07-29T05:11:23.558-04:00Comments on Climate Observations: August 2010 SST Anomaly UpdateBob Tisdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-11409330536170580272010-09-15T23:39:08.118-04:002010-09-15T23:39:08.118-04:00Ahhh! I see my error the news report is dated 2009...Ahhh! I see my error the news report is dated 2009 :)<br /><br />Forget the above post.HRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-18419199216063839952010-09-15T23:34:17.376-04:002010-09-15T23:34:17.376-04:00http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_...http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html<br /><br />Bob,<br /><br />The above is a press release from NOAA. I thought this was you're area. Can you confirm the claims here are accurate?<br />I looked at Climate Explorer, looking at ERSST v3b2 and Reynolds v2 SST and my amateur effort suggests that there have been warmer August global SST. I could easily be wrong. Do you know which data set they will be using?<br /><br />ThanksHRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-25703916351511490052010-09-14T06:15:54.421-04:002010-09-14T06:15:54.421-04:00Bob,
Thanks. Maybe I can come up with something af...Bob,<br />Thanks. Maybe I can come up with something after I look a little harder at what I think I'm seeing. Maybe my biggest problem is that I don't know enough to ask an intelligent question;-)Pascvaksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-28519685826497098052010-09-13T16:02:34.117-04:002010-09-13T16:02:34.117-04:00Pascvaks: Don't take silence on my part as di...Pascvaks: Don't take silence on my part as disagreement. If I could see what you're seeing, I'd be pleased, because then I could point it out to others. Unfortunately, I don't see what you're seeing. That doesn't mean it's not there.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-73244333669485903922010-09-13T13:27:24.648-04:002010-09-13T13:27:24.648-04:00Oh well. It look like there was something there. ...Oh well. It look like there was something there. Didn't want to waste your time. All this is very interesting. Nex time I'll try to think a little more before I open my mouth;-0Pascvaksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-32826487388078337682010-09-13T08:42:48.611-04:002010-09-13T08:42:48.611-04:00Only noticing a discerable trend in falls and rise...Only noticing a discerable trend in falls and rises from one global position to the next, the strength varies, but the variation in OHC from one part of the globe to the next tracks with the GOC and it's all the way around the globe --or so it seems. For example, the So. Atlantic was last graphed as down and the No.Atlantic as up. The next phase in the No. will continue to be down as that's what's coming from the So. Atlantic.<br />In the case of the No.Pacific (where it has a slight down tick now), the graph of the So. Pacific says that the No. Pacific will continue to fall.<br />Any previous graph (in the GOC flow sequence) only gives a direction it seems, not an accurate scale. It tells what's coming next.<br />The difference between the No. Pole and So. Pole graphs is more out of phase as the movement is from N to S, cold to colder, longer in distance and time, and very deep (not measured), but the difference between these also reflect the flow and the impact of anomolies received from the North.<br /><br />Am I making any sense?Pascvaksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-70062601564347873012010-09-13T08:00:21.698-04:002010-09-13T08:00:21.698-04:00Pascvaks said: Are you seeing the differences in ...Pascvaks said: Are you seeing the differences in response times to ENSO or changes in sea level pressure, for example, and then atttributing that to ocean circulation. <br /><br />If you're seeing OHC circulating, why doesn't the sudden major shift in the North Pacific appear then in the other ocean basins in sequence?Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-59632633980935574122010-09-13T07:47:40.289-04:002010-09-13T07:47:40.289-04:00Sorry for the mistake about 'temp' should ...Sorry for the mistake about 'temp' should have said 'OHC'. Using the graphs in sequence as the GOC moves around the globe, rises and dips in heat can be noted and followed. A ‘blip’ that is happening now in the South Pacific will soon be in the North Pacific. What is now in the South Atlantic will be in the North Atlantic, etc..<br /><br />(Don't have your education and experience in this area, you and others in the field have probably got a complicated explanation for what I think I'm seeing. No offense. It ‘looks‘ like the rises and falls in the OHC graphs reflect incoming and outgoing ‘patches‘ from down wind (so to speak) on the GOC, and that there is also, perhaps, a way to gauge the speed-up and slow-down to the GOC using OHC or something much like it. Any of this babble make any sense? Be kind;-)Pascvaksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-4166774117286785292010-09-12T15:34:37.256-04:002010-09-12T15:34:37.256-04:00Pascvaks said: "Seems you can guage GOC via y...Pascvaks said: "Seems you can guage GOC via your graphs..."<br /><br />You can? Feel free to mark up the graphs and write up something that explains what you're seeing. <br /><br />You wrote, "The temps go with the flow"<br /><br />OHC is not temperature.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-2771592559248372122010-09-12T10:47:35.303-04:002010-09-12T10:47:35.303-04:00Ref above - September 8, 2010 3:17 PM
Thanks for ...Ref above - September 8, 2010 3:17 PM<br /><br />Thanks for the recommendation. Went to referenced article and took a close look at the graphs there. Seems you can guage GOC via your graphs, I went from your So Pacific, to No Pacific, to Indian, to So Atlantic, to No Atlantic, to Arctic graph, and the shift via the GOC in temps stands out. The temps go with the flow;-)Pascvaksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-67319057046887538082010-09-09T09:13:35.505-04:002010-09-09T09:13:35.505-04:00Hi Bob -
Thanks for the links - I have to admit N...Hi Bob -<br /><br />Thanks for the links - I have to admit Nick Stokes' response is a touch over my head, but I believe I understand the basics. <br /><br />You'd think, with the use of something like the tanks they use to test large boats, they could at least make an approximate test and see how water integrates changes similar to those produced by changes in co2.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-59070019902695101062010-09-09T04:29:06.752-04:002010-09-09T04:29:06.752-04:00John, regarding your question 1, one of the skepti...John, regarding your question 1, one of the skeptical arguments against greenhouse gases and the ocean is that greenhouse gases only warm the top few millimeters of the oceans and that heat is released as evaporation. I used the argument at Lucia’s recently looking for responses. Nick Stokes provided one of the best I’ve seen to date. Refer to:<br />http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/hadley-giss-july-cooler-cooler/#comment-51229 <br />and <br />http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/hadley-giss-july-cooler-cooler/#comment-51231<br /> <br />And there’s my reply:<br />http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/hadley-giss-july-cooler-cooler/#comment-51278<br /> <br />Question 2: I believe it has to do with the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, which would keep the radiative forcing intact for decades more.<br /><br />Your third question: “Has anyone made the argument and shown that GHG emissions have caused a decrease in cloud cover, thus leading to more solar radiation hitting the ocean, causing the warming?” <br /><br />Isn’t that part of the argument and confusion about feedbacks? The increase in greenhouse gases are supposed to change the makeup of cloud cover, which amplifies the assumed effects of greenhouse gases. However, recent papers are pointing to negative feedbacks, not positive as required by the AGW hypothesis.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-71505956631157239732010-09-08T15:37:18.861-04:002010-09-08T15:37:18.861-04:00Sorry for the followup - should have included this...Sorry for the followup - should have included this in my first post.<br /><br />Has anyone made the argument and shown that GHG emissions have caused a decrease in cloud cover, thus leading to more solar radiation hitting the ocean, causing the warming?Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-81726301086963320642010-09-08T15:33:47.646-04:002010-09-08T15:33:47.646-04:00Hi Bob -
I was wondering if you could point me to...Hi Bob -<br /><br />I was wondering if you could point me to two (related) pieces of information. I'm trying to understand certain pro-AGW arguments and how your thoughts relate to them. <br /><br />1. I've read your descriptions of how pro-AGW people argue SST are supposed to incorporate the greenhouse effect - basically a turning-over of that small layer of water affected at the top of the surface. Is that really the only way? Do you happen to have any source with more detail? It just seems rather far-fetched.<br /><br />2. I've read comments in news stories in the past that discuss how the ocean is "slow" to absorb temperature changes and even if we stopped GHG emissions today, the ocean would continue to warm and sea levels rise. Why is that? I am not familiar with the reasons thermal expansion would continue.<br /><br />Thanks so much.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-7190020706264751222010-09-08T15:17:54.668-04:002010-09-08T15:17:54.668-04:00Pascvaks: I do a post on OHC when the NODC updates...Pascvaks: I do a post on OHC when the NODC updates their dataset:<br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/06/january-to-march-2010-nodc-ocean-heat.html<br /><br />In it, there are links to the posts that discuss the natural impacts on OHC. You'll find them under the heading of "Big Ifs".Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-28569793026719621692010-09-08T11:52:21.556-04:002010-09-08T11:52:21.556-04:00Guess so Bob. But there sure seems to be little s...Guess so Bob. But there sure seems to be little stops and goes in the short term, moving global heat around. Do we have a fairly good picture of the GOC and what it's doing from month to month, year to year. I'm not aware of it, but would think we ought to by this day and age.Pascvaksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-34923591900817906442010-09-08T11:38:57.885-04:002010-09-08T11:38:57.885-04:00Pascvaks: Isn't the ocean conveyor belt suppo...Pascvaks: Isn't the ocean conveyor belt supposed to have a timescale in terms of millenia?Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-6014194235047123132010-09-08T10:26:36.224-04:002010-09-08T10:26:36.224-04:00The more I look at these graphs it looks (to me;-)...The more I look at these graphs it looks (to me;-) that the GOC (?Global Ocean Conveyor) is having spits and spurts moving heat hither and yon. Am I anywhere close?Pascvaksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-69853439275806298642010-09-07T19:44:25.605-04:002010-09-07T19:44:25.605-04:00Thanks, John. Corrected that, too.Thanks, John. Corrected that, too.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-51195894927327742752010-09-07T15:53:16.723-04:002010-09-07T15:53:16.723-04:00Under the OIv2 map at the top of your post, you li...Under the OIv2 map at the top of your post, you list the anomaly as "August 2010 SST Anomalies Map (Global SST Anomaly = +0.25 deg C)"<br /><br />:)Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-1866139535542111312010-09-07T15:48:14.592-04:002010-09-07T15:48:14.592-04:00John wrote, "It may be my eyes, but for the f...John wrote, "It may be my eyes, but for the first graph (global SST), the line looks like it terminates at about .22c instead of the .25c that is this month's anomaly."<br /><br />John, what's the source of a 0.25 deg C global SST anomaly for Reynolds OI.v2 data? I just double checked the NOMADS website and it gave 0.22164 deg C for an anomaly.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-71771020033033502622010-09-07T12:37:27.055-04:002010-09-07T12:37:27.055-04:00Hi Bob -
It may be my eyes, but for the first gra...Hi Bob -<br /><br />It may be my eyes, but for the first graph (global SST), the line looks like it terminates at about .22c instead of the .25c that is this month's anomaly. <br /><br />Am I crazy?Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-33004402175970022762010-09-07T05:03:02.653-04:002010-09-07T05:03:02.653-04:00Thanks, Anonymous. I repaired that and I fixed th...Thanks, Anonymous. I repaired that and I fixed the weekly NINO3.4 graph.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-63066546480981903282010-09-07T00:11:55.261-04:002010-09-07T00:11:55.261-04:00Thanks for the update. You plotted the North Pacif...Thanks for the update. You plotted the North Pacific twice, tho.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com