One for Box: Atlantic causes global warming "haitus".

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-hiatus-deep-atlantic-ocean.html

Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, who was a UW visiting professor last year, used recent observations of deep-sea temperatures from Argo floats that sample the water down to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) depth. The data show an increase in heat sinking around 1999, when the rapid warming of the 20th century stopped.

"There are recurrent cycles that are salinity-driven that can store heat deep in the Atlantic and Southern oceans," Tung said. "After 30 years of rapid warming in the warm phase, now it's time for the cool phase."

Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface. When observations show the ocean cycle flipped, around the year 2000, the current began to draw heat deeper into the ocean, working to counteract human-driven warming.

The cycle starts when saltier, denser water at the surface northern part of the Atlantic, near Iceland, causes the water to sink. This changes the speed of the huge current in the Atlantic Ocean that circulates heat throughout the planet.

[...]

Changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years. Now that it is happening on top of global warming, however, the trend looks more like a staircase.

Cycles inside of cycles with a giant CO2+methane forcing on top...

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #393,508 by Another Scott 8/21/14 2:34:52 PM Reply	One for Box: Atlantic causes global warming "haitus". http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-hiatus-deep-atlantic-ocean.html Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, who was a UW visiting professor last year, used recent observations of deep-sea temperatures from Argo floats that sample the water down to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) depth. The data show an increase in heat sinking around 1999, when the rapid warming of the 20th century stopped. "There are recurrent cycles that are salinity-driven that can store heat deep in the Atlantic and Southern oceans," Tung said. "After 30 years of rapid warming in the warm phase, now it's time for the cool phase." Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface. When observations show the ocean cycle flipped, around the year 2000, the current began to draw heat deeper into the ocean, working to counteract human-driven warming. The cycle starts when saltier, denser water at the surface northern part of the Atlantic, near Iceland, causes the water to sink. This changes the speed of the huge current in the Atlantic Ocean that circulates heat throughout the planet. [...] Changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years. Now that it is happening on top of global warming, however, the trend looks more like a staircase. Cycles inside of cycles with a giant CO2+methane forcing on top... Cheers, Scott.
Post #393,512 by boxley 8/21/14 3:40:35 PM Reply	at least they are now acknowledging that there is more than agw in play. 5 years ago someone would have said deep ocean temps are like shoving a thermometer up a dog's ass to take your own temperature :-)with the peanut gallery shouting here, here Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,515 by drook 8/21/14 3:51:03 PM Reply	You do realize this supports AGW rather than refutes it, right? -- Drew
Post #393,516 by boxley 8/21/14 3:57:50 PM Reply	You do realize this a complex climate where AGW is not the sole driver right? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,518 by Another Scott 8/21/14 4:16:02 PM Reply	Careful of terminology AGW - anthropogenic global warming - describes an observed phenomenon. The causes of AGW, the various human-generated forcings, exist on top of lots of various natural forcing (and positive and negative feedback) mechanisms. The models try to include all of the significant forcings - human and natural. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ Modeling the oceans' contributions is in a relative infancy. This paper is a step in improving the models and understanding, but isn't the final word. HTH. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #393,523 by drook 8/21/14 4:51:55 PM Reply	Okay, more carefully ... There are three questions: 1. Is the global average temperature increasing? - if so - 2. Is human activity contributing to that increase? - if so - 3. Does the human contribution threaten to overcome existing negative feedback loops, causing a tip into runaway warming? Because global average temperature has seemed to level off recently, some people have claimed that the first answer in that series is now "No". This work shows that it's still "Yes". -- Drew
Post #393,529 by boxley 8/21/14 9:25:33 PM Reply	1. no 2.it is slowing the cooling 3. unknown still warmer in the 1930's Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,537 by malraux 8/21/14 11:22:47 PM Reply	The 1930s were hotter in the US That's not global. Oh, sorry... 'Murica! Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #393,541 by boxley 8/21/14 11:50:27 PM Reply	got a link to go with that? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,549 by malraux 8/22/14 8:51:55 AM Reply	Actually I was wrong. 1934 was the 4th warmest in the US: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/climatological-rankings/index.php?periods%5B%5D=12¶meter=tavg&state=110&div=0&year=1934&month=12#ranks-form 2007 was the hottest year on record across land and sea, globally: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1 Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #393,553 by boxley 8/22/14 11:03:46 AM Reply	is that from the real temps or the normalized ones? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,556 by malraux 8/22/14 11:30:08 AM Reply	Re: is that from the real temps or the normalized ones? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #393,560 by boxley 8/22/14 1:09:06 PM Reply	thanks, Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,548 by pwhysall 8/22/14 3:36:10 AM Reply	Re: 1. no 2.it is slowing the cooling 3. unknown still warmer in the 1930's http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism
Post #393,554 by boxley 8/22/14 11:07:36 AM Reply	nice, explained here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,555 by pwhysall 8/22/14 11:13:14 AM Reply	Incorrect, the answer to all 3 questions is "yes" Now if you can prove otherwise using non-wingnut data and methods, do so, and win yourself a Nobel.
Post #393,561 by boxley 8/22/14 2:31:41 PM Reply	http://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/274586/ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,562 by malraux 8/22/14 2:38:07 PM Reply	Peter is open minded, film at 11. ;-) Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #393,564 by Another Scott 8/22/14 2:41:35 PM Reply	Lots of us have modified our thinking on AGW over the years. I was much too skeptical of the science and too trusting of the critics for too long. I changed, too, once I understood the science better. Why haven't you? Back then, your position seemed to be: 1) We're adding too little CO2 for it to matter. 2) Sure, AGW is real, but: the models are crap, and scientists are corrupt, and warming in the Arctic is good anyway, and AlGoreisFatandWantsAllMyMoney, so I will fight tooth and nail to prevent an effective government response. 3) Volcanoes!!111 Is that still a good summary of your views? :-) If not, tell me please. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #393,565 by boxley 8/22/14 3:16:10 PM Reply	of course I have modified my postion as well greenhouse gas forcing by humans is a bad thing transferring the wealth of the west to the third world will not stop AGW taxing the west into poverty will not stop AGW the scientists are just starting to recognize that AGW alone will not predict a reliable climate model, they realize they don't know enough. The advice I gave a few years ago about stockpiling water in california is here 6 years ahead of time for example. volcanoes may be a good solution Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,542 by boxley 8/21/14 11:55:26 PM Reply	it was 5 years ago I pointed out that the deep ocean was affecting the climate and everyone here scoffed at that idea. Infancy no, acceptance yes, grudgingly Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,546 by Another Scott 8/22/14 12:41:59 AM Reply	Let's see the linky, please. I did some searching, but I'm not sure what thread you're talking about. Doing a google search for "site:forum.iwethey.org boxley ocean climate" didn't turn up anything obvious. I did find #281271 though, from 2007 (with some slightly different terms). HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #393,552 by boxley 8/22/14 11:01:58 AM Reply	cant find the dogs ass comment that was in the thread that is like shoving a thermometer up a dogs ass to take your temperature was one of the responses to my post Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #393,557 by Another Scott 8/22/14 12:14:06 PM Reply	Me neither. Somewhere else? Otherwise, find a different example please. :-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!