tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post2809340447207347898..comments2022-09-24T23:35:44.074+10:00Comments on moyhu: On partial derivativesNick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-28891209637616440832015-10-08T13:04:20.929+11:002015-10-08T13:04:20.929+11:00Thanks, fixed.Thanks, fixed.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-62333698438938088712015-10-08T08:17:51.063+11:002015-10-08T08:17:51.063+11:00Thanks! Typo: "calsulus"Thanks! Typo: "calsulus"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-12222439648173209722015-10-08T07:27:57.955+11:002015-10-08T07:27:57.955+11:00Thanks...
Thanks...<br />Flakmeisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-62884048830681084872015-10-08T06:46:27.450+11:002015-10-08T06:46:27.450+11:00Stuff that's in so far, AMO - major tick upwar...Stuff that's in so far, <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:2015" rel="nofollow">AMO - major tick upward.</a><br /><br />ONI went from 1.2 to 1.5.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-78770650098667536052015-10-08T05:52:16.012+11:002015-10-08T05:52:16.012+11:00Impressive!Impressive!Ned Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-60753842175682430842015-10-08T04:45:18.682+11:002015-10-08T04:45:18.682+11:00I have put up a new post on this. I have only calc...I have put up a <a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/10/rapid-rise-in-ncep-index.html" rel="nofollow">new post</a> on this. I have only calculated daily averages back to start 2014 - I'll extend. I've posted that data. It's about 0.2°C higher than anything in 2014.<br /> Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-70028784433251720582015-10-08T03:39:54.543+11:002015-10-08T03:39:54.543+11:00I presume that is the record?I presume that is the record?Flakmeisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-75707390697976482492015-10-08T03:04:57.304+11:002015-10-08T03:04:57.304+11:00And for 5 Oct, it is 0.782°C!.And for 5 Oct, it is 0.782°C!.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-50412274012465889422015-10-07T23:48:41.598+11:002015-10-07T23:48:41.598+11:00Thanks Nick. OK, but if he's just doing a conv...Thanks Nick. OK, but if he's just doing a conversion, his units don't make any sense:<br /><br />0.168C volume mean increase in ocean temp from 1955 - 2008 / 15.913 x 10 ^ 22j = 0.0106C per 10 ^ 22j. What kind of units are those?!<br /><br />So he's just doing it to make the number look less scary to the LOL WHUT?! innumerati :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-89804735008018575482015-10-07T22:05:19.670+11:002015-10-07T22:05:19.670+11:00Off topic...
Nick Stokes's web page writes:
&...Off topic...<br /><br />Nick Stokes's web page writes:<br />"NCEP/NCAR reanalysis surface temp anomaly area weighted global average made 2015-10-07<br />Recent days global anomaly<br />Oct 4 0.697"<br /><br />Whee!Ned Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-62964772652018761772015-10-07T21:47:04.759+11:002015-10-07T21:47:04.759+11:00Models are certainly black boxes for me, but it...Models are certainly black boxes for me, but it's possible to test the outcome and see if it makes sense...<br />Since you are discussing ocean heat content, models, etc. I have actually performed the ultimate test of models vs observations, and it looks like I have found Trenberths missing heat. Travesty no more... :-)<br />https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaaWtldTV6TTktSDQ<br /><br />To be precise, the heat accumulation during the ARGO-era is 13.4*10^22 J suggested by observations and 13,3 suggested by all models average. It is quite nice that Argo observations replicate the seasonal behaviour suggested by the models, at least during the recent years. Hence,I expect a downturn in heat content for the next quarter July-Sept. El Nino could also drain some of the ocean heat to the atmosphere and space. To be continued..Olof Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-26523603199123273552015-10-07T12:35:52.081+11:002015-10-07T12:35:52.081+11:00metzo,
I think he's just working out a convers...metzo,<br />I think he's just working out a conversion factor, as in his table. Like saying, if I did 400 miles in 8 hours, I'm can do 50 miles per hour. If he'd wanted a really small number, he could have worked out ° per Joule :)<br /><br />I think you are right with the Levitus calc.<br /> <br />The problem with all that is the non-uniformity of heating. The temperature gradient is steep at the surface and then diminishes. It doesn't suddenly change at 700m. I think 10^22 J would produce a much bigger rise in SST, and that would last a very long time. The heat will never be distributed uniformly down to 700 m. By the time (many years) 700 m has significantly warmed, al lot of heat will have gone on to lower depths. It may help with an order of magnitude calc, but no more.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-5225300018483778242015-10-07T11:46:13.629+11:002015-10-07T11:46:13.629+11:00I'm (just) an electrical engineer from way bac...I'm (just) an electrical engineer from way back. It's been 40 years or so since I had to mess around with differential equations. But I'm still pretty handy with the ol' algebra since I use it extensively in my current schtick as a programmer. And so it was that I caught out David Evens a few years ago trying to put one over on his partner Jo Nova's largely uncritical audience (though, of course they like to imagine themselves as being critical). Now, of course, I may be completely wrong about this. But Nick will tell me if I am :-) H/T to Sou at Hot Whopper for first bringing this to our attention. Apologies in advance for the rather large cut n' paste. But it is my original work. Here goes...<br /><br />In the article, Sou refers to Gavin Schmidt as saying:<br /><br /><i>Changing a unit to have a small sounding number doesn't actually change anything; neither the significance nor the accuracy. .... – gavin</i><br /><br />This reminds me so much of the time I caught 'rocket scientist' David Evans (Jo Nova's partner) doing something completely nonsensical in an effort to make a number look smaller. Towards the end of this article:<br /><br />http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/<br /><br />Evans quotes a number from Levitus et. al. 2009:<br /><br /><i>See NOAA's PDF, table T1 (on page 14): heat content change for the 0 – 700m layer of the world's ocean of 15.913 * 10^22 Joules corresponds to a change in mean temperature of 0.168 deg C, so an increase of 10^22 Joules in 0-700m of the world's oceans corresponds to a temperature rise of 0.168/15.913 = 0.0106 deg C.</i><br /><br />Why the heck would he take a number representing the volume mean ocean temperature increase from 1955 - 2008, and divide it by the number of joules (minus the 10^22 part)?! A volume mean temp increase in degrees C is what it is, an increase in temperature. Because Levitus refers to the .168 figure as: "TChange – total change in volume mean temperature [ºC]". Is there some difference between 'heat content' (in deg C) and 'temperature' (in deg C) that I am unaware of? Or is Evans just doing what tamino likes to refer to as 'mathturbation', in order to make a big number look less scary to the frightened AGW deniers?<br /><br />Anyway, for the lolz, I decided to try to replicate the Levitus et. al results for myself, just to make sure I understood it. I came pretty close on the first shot (and the numbers are scary. Look at the change in just 2 years!):<br /><br />Volume (1.37 * 10^9 km^3) and mean depth (4117m) of world oceans:<br /><br />http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780120885305/appendices/Web_Appendices.pdf<br /><br />So, percent of that in 0 - 700m layer is:<br /><br />700/4117 = 17%<br /><br />Then: .17 x 1.37 * 10^9 = 232,900,000 km^3<br /><br />1 km^3 of seawater weighs = 1,035,000,000,000 kilograms (seawater is denser than fresh water. Source: http://www.jconoverjr.com/html/global_warming__and_the_oceans.html)<br /><br />So weight of 0 - 700m layer is: 232,900,000 km^3 * 1,035,000,000,000 kg/km^3 ~= 2.41 x 10^20 kg<br /><br />Specific heat of seawater = 3900 j/kg (just for the lolz, specific heat of pure water = 4184 j/kg) is the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg of seawater 1 deg C (source: http://www.bickfordscience.com/03-05_State_Changes/PDF/Specific_Heat.pdf)<br /><br />So finally... change in volume mean ocean temp for 0 - 700m layer, 1955 - 2008 is:<br /><br />15.913 x 10^22 j/(2.41 x 10^20 kg * 3900 j/kg) ~= 0.169 C (Levitus et. al. 2009 says: 0.168 C)<br /><br />Revised calculation for 1955 - 2010 from Levitus et. al. 2012:<br /><br />16.7 X 10^22 j/(2.41 x 10^20 kg * 3900 j/kg) ~= 0.177 C (Levitus et. al. 2012 says: 0.18 C)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com