tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post4416024650912581805..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Study finds global ocean warming has decelerated 50% over the past 50 yearsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-13934301844854212282015-10-24T10:07:00.194-07:002015-10-24T10:07:00.194-07:00Is the entire article by Roemmich et al. (Nature C...Is the entire article by Roemmich et al. (Nature Climate Change 2, 425–428 (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1461)? <br />Or, are there more results available behind the paywall?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07929757675001977821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-453540470679582062013-10-28T09:08:33.460-07:002013-10-28T09:08:33.460-07:00http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-ju...http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-22757932677368649982013-10-22T13:14:25.305-07:002013-10-22T13:14:25.305-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/radiative-fo...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/radiative-forcing-radiative-feedbacks-and-radiative-imbalance-the-2013-wg1-ipcc-report-failed-to-properly-report-on-this-issue/#comment-1454603MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-46040465830931251712013-10-10T10:40:09.578-07:002013-10-10T10:40:09.578-07:00That is correct: the pressure corrected line shows...That is correct: the pressure corrected line shows zero warming at that depth.FreewheelinFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02747785651547255621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-76406902408734127712013-10-10T10:11:56.150-07:002013-10-10T10:11:56.150-07:00Yes, unfortunately the paper doesn't provide t...Yes, unfortunately the paper doesn't provide the Challenger temperature difference for the 0-1800m depth, which would have been reasonably close to 0-2000m. From eyeballing fig 3 and making some rough calculations for 0-1800-2000m depth I get almost exactly the same warming rate of 0.0163C/decade over the past 135 years vs. past 55 years, so I withdraw the claim of deceleration.<br /><br />Nonetheless, based on the information available there doesn't appear to be acceleration in the rate of warming 0-1800 or 0-2000m over the past 135 years and the rate appears to be be quite stable.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-27602971487015828052013-10-10T01:37:23.106-07:002013-10-10T01:37:23.106-07:00"...it does appear from what is provided that..."...it does appear from what is provided that there has been a deceleration of warming from 0-2000m depth over the past ~50 years."<br /><br />I can't see anything in the paper to justify that statement.<br /><br />The paper gives a figure of 0.12 °C±0.07 at 914 m, which as you point out is not comparable with the Levitus figure for 0-2000m.FreewheelinFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02747785651547255621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19365551467668495592013-10-09T21:27:13.891-07:002013-10-09T21:27:13.891-07:00Ok you're correct for 0-700m depth
.33/13 = ....Ok you're correct for 0-700m depth<br /><br />.33/13 = .025<br />.18/5 = .033<br /><br />...an acceleration<br /><br />I was using 0-2000m depth change of 0.09C/55 years from Levitus 2012, but the Challenger data only goes to ~1800m apparently, so not a direct comparison, but the paper indicates significantly less warming with depth and even cooling over the past 135 years below ~1,500 m. Unfortunately, the paper doesn't indicate the temperature change of 0-1800m, but it does appear from what is provided that there has been a deceleration of warming from 0-2000m depth over the past ~50 years.<br /><br />for 0-2000 m depth<br /><br />0.09/5 = .018 from Levitus 2012<br /><br />a deceleration, but admittedly I shouldn't compare 0-700m data to 0-2000m data. Thanks for pointing out.<br />MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-20239631153792501822013-10-09T21:04:32.418-07:002013-10-09T21:04:32.418-07:00"The reference cited in this paper for the wa..."The reference cited in this paper for the warming over the past 50 years is Levitus 2009. A more recent update is Levitus 2012, which is the data I used in this post, and shows a warming of 0.09C over the past 55 years, or 0.016C per decade, a deceleration of 34%."<br /><br />Levitus 2012 actually gives a figure of 0.18 degrees for the equivalent 0-700m layer- the 0.09 figure is 0-2000m.<br /><br />http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml<br /><br />0.18 over 5.5 decades is 0.033 per decade.FreewheelinFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02747785651547255621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-71999008319009272462013-10-09T20:22:05.017-07:002013-10-09T20:22:05.017-07:00"The statement "The 0.33 °C±0.14 average..."The statement "The 0.33 °C±0.14 average temperature difference from 0 to 700 m is twice the value observed globally in that depth range over the past 50 years." is by definition equivalent to saying ocean warming has decelerated 50% over the past 50 years."<br /><br />This is simply incorrect: when you take the period of the two observations into account, the numbers show that warming has actually accelerated.<br /><br />The 0.33 increase is over a period of 13 decades, whereas the 0.168 increase from Levitus is over 5 decades.<br /><br />The oceans have warmed more per decade over the last 50 years than they did per decade since the Challenger expedition.<br /><br />To claim otherwise is a simple error of maths, a mistake.FreewheelinFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02747785651547255621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-59379895970030830192013-10-09T11:32:07.974-07:002013-10-09T11:32:07.974-07:00The statement "The 0.33 °C±0.14 average tempe...The statement "The 0.33 °C±0.14 average temperature difference from 0 to 700 m is twice the value observed globally in that depth range over the past 50 years." is by definition equivalent to saying ocean warming has decelerated 50% over the past 50 years.<br /><br />The reference cited in this paper for the warming over the past 50 years is Levitus 2009. A more recent update is Levitus 2012, which is the data I used in this post, and shows a warming of 0.09C over the past 55 years, or 0.016C per decade, a deceleration of 34%.<br /><br />Therefore, depending on the reference cited, ocean warming has decelerated 34-50% over the past 50-55 years.<br /><br />Whether it's 34 or 50% or something inbetween, it makes no difference to the fact that it contradicts the "ocean ate the man-made global warming" meme.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63764254612932109932013-10-08T14:31:47.839-07:002013-10-08T14:31:47.839-07:00"The 0.33 °C±0.14 average temperature differe..."The 0.33 °C±0.14 average temperature difference from 0 to 700 m is twice the value observed globally in that depth range over the past 50 years."<br /><br />The answer is in the paper, if you read it:<br /><br />"The larger temperature change observed between the Challenger expedition and Argo Programme... seems to be associated with the longer timescale of a century or more."<br /><br />0.33 degrees over 13 decades is a 0.025 increase per decade.<br /><br />0.165 degrees over 5 decades is a 0.033 increase per decade.<br /><br />This doesn't seem to justify the statement that "global ocean warming has decelerated 50% over the past 50 years".FreewheelinFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02747785651547255621noreply@blogger.com