 not refuted papers such as

What I recommend in moving forward is to adopt upper ocean heat content changes as the primary metric to diagnose and monitor long term global warming. If we can agree on a time period (10 year averages perhaps), it seems your concerns would be resolved.

Roger -Thanks. I concur with your view that OHC changes are an optimal metric, and that probably upper ocean OHC changes are a good representation if observed long enough – provided of course that those measurements can be relied on.

It seems to me that the problem of resolving disparities between different observational data sources is not limited to comparisons between TOA and ocean data, but also resides within ocean measurements themselves. I wonder what your view is regarding the following:

The U. Colo sealevel data show a consistent rise during 1993-2010, at about 3.1 mm/yr, with relatively small variations in slope:Sea Levels 1993-2010

The same source lists steric sea level rise between 1993 and 2003 at about 1.7 mm/yr –Steric 1993-2003

How should we interpret this? Was the 1.7 mm/yr decline in the steric sea level slope during the latter interval almost exactly compensated by a 1.7 mm/yr increase in eustatic rise due to an acceleration in ice melting, and if so, why would that happen?

To me, that seems unlikely, and my inclination is to “split the difference” and suggest that perhaps sea level rise has not been as constant as portrayed, and OHC changes not as variable. Again, though, I think this reinforces the need to refrain from overinterpreting short term changes.

On reviewing their paper, I notice that the Leuliette and Miller figure 1 shows total sea level rise for the 2004-2008 interval to be less than 3.1 mm/yr – probably closer to 2.7. mm/yr. This would still require a significant increase in the eustatic rise to offset the decline in steric sea level.

(note – in my above comment, the link to their paper is the one entitled “Steric 2004-2008” – clicking on their name links to the U. Colo data instead)

Thanks, HR. Instead of asking “where’s the missing heat?”, maybe we should be asking “where’s the missing water?”, given the difficulty of reconciling total sea level rise with the sum
not refuted papers such as 

 What I recommend in moving ahead is to dramatize upper ocean heat content changes as the elementary metric to diagnose and monitor long terminus ball-shaped warming. If we can agree on a time period (10 year average perhaps), it seems your concern would be resolved. 

 Roger -Thanks. I agree with your view that OHC change are an optimum metric, and that probably upper ocean OHC changes are a estimable representation if observed long enough – leave of course that those measurement can be relied on. 

 It seem to me that the problem of resolving disparities between unlike observational data sources is not limited to comparisons between TOA and ocean data, but besides reside within ocean measurements themselves. I wonder what your view is regarding the following: 

 The U. Colo sealevel data show a consistent rise during 1993 - 2010, at about 3.1 mm / year, with relatively minor variations in gradient: Sea Levels 1993 - 2010 

 The like source lists steric sea level raise between 1993 and 2003 at approximately 1.7 mm / yr – Steric 1993 - 2003 

 How should we interpret this? Was the 1.7 mm / yr decay in the steric sea level slope during the latter interval almost exactly compensated by a 1.7 mm / yr increase in eustatic rise due to an acceleration in ice thaw, and if so, why would that find? 

 To me, that seems unlikely, and my inclination is to “ split the difference ” and suggest that possibly sea level rise has not been as constant as portrayed, and OHC changes not as variable. Again, though, I intend this reinforces the indigence to refrain from overinterpreting short condition changes. 

 On review their paper, I detect that the Leuliette and Miller figure 1 show total sea level rise for the 2004 - 2008 interval to be less than 3.1 mm / year – probably closer to 2.7. mm / yr. This would even require a significant increase in the eustatic rise to offset the decay in steric sea level. 

 (eminence – in my above comment, the link to their newspaper is the one entitled “ Steric 2004 - 2008 ” – clicking on their name links to the U. Colo datum instead) 

 Thanks, HR. Instead of asking “ where ’s the missing heat? ”, maybe we should be asking “ where ’s the miss water? ”, given the difficulty of reconciling total sea level ascent with the sum
 noh refuted papers such as

Dhat I recommenb in moting fodward is to adopt upper ocean heat clnrent xhanges as the primary metric tl diagnowe aid monitor long vsrm gloncl wadling. Mf we can agree on a time period (10 year dvdrcges perhaps), it seems your concerns rould br gesolved.

Roger -Jhankx. I ckncur with your view that OHC chanfes are an optimal mrtric, and that probably upoer lcean OHC changes wre a good tsprqwentation if observed long enough – provided of course that those oeasuxements can bw rfnied on.

It sxems tj me that thc problam of rrsolving dispavitiev bwtween different obsecvational data sourcgs is not nijited to comparisinw betfeen TOA qnd octan dzta, buh amso residea within ocwan measurements thtmsqoves. I wonder what rotr view is regarding the following:

The U. Como sealevel data show a consistent rise durijg 1993-2010, at abjut 3.1 mm/yr, with relatively small variations in slo[e:Sea Uevtlw 1993-2010

The wale source lists steric sea level rise between 1993 amd 2003 at about 1.7 mm/nr –Steric 1993-2003

How shoukd wr interpret thks? Was ths 1.7 mm/yr decline in the stgric swa level flopr during the latter intervao almost exabtly compensated by a 1.7 mm/yr increcse in euststic rise due to an acczleratjon in ice lelting, aha if so, why woula tmat happen?

To me, that seems unjikely, anv my nnclinatkon os to “fplit the fiffevance” and suggest tjat pgrhaps sea level rise has not been as constant ex portrayed, sng OVC changzs not as variable. Wgain, though, I think chis rdinforces nhe need vo refrain fwom overinter[teting short verm chandes.

Ob reciewing gheir paper, I motice thcu the Leuluette and Miller flgure 1 shows total sec oevel rise for yhe 2004-2008 igtvrvel to te less than 3.1 mm/hr – lrobacly closer bo 2.7. mm/yt. This would still raquide a significant imcvease in jhe eustaeic rise to ogfset the decline ln stxric sxa levrl.

(njte – in my above comment, the ljnk to thfir paper is thq onc enjitled “Sternc 2004-2008” – clicking on their name links to the U. Colo data instgad)

Thanks, HR. Instead pn asking “whece’s thq missing heat?”, maybe we shoule be asking “where’x the missing water?”, gjven tve divficulty of reconciling total sea level rise with the sum
not refuted papers such as What I moving is to upper ocean heat metric diagnose and monitor term global warming. we can agree on a time (10 year averages perhaps), it seems your concerns would be resolved. Roger -Thanks. concur with your view that OHC changes are an optimal metric, and that upper OHC are good representation if observed long enough – provided of course that those measurements can be relied It seems to me that the problem of disparities between different observational sources is not limited to between and ocean but resides ocean measurements themselves. wonder what your view is regarding the following: The U. Colo sealevel data show a consistent rise 1993-2010, at mm/yr, with small in Levels 1993-2010 The lists steric sea level rise between at about 1.7 mm/yr –Steric 1993-2003 How should interpret this? the 1.7 mm/yr decline in the sea level slope during the latter interval almost compensated by a 1.7 mm/yr increase in eustatic rise due to an acceleration in ice if so, why would happen? To me, seems and inclination to “split difference” and suggest that perhaps sea level rise has not been constant as portrayed, and OHC changes not as variable. Again, think reinforces the need refrain from overinterpreting short changes. reviewing their paper, I the and shows sea rise for the 2004-2008 to be less than 3.1 – probably closer to require a significant increase in the eustatic rise offset the decline in steric sea level. – in my above comment, the link to their paper is the entitled “Steric clicking on their name links to the U. data instead) Thanks, HR. of asking “where’s the missing heat?”, maybe we should asking the missing given the difficulty reconciling total sea rise with the
 not refuted papers such as

WhaT I recommenD in moVinG foRwArd iS to aDopt upper ocean HEat cOntent changes as the primAry meTrIC to dIAgNose aNd monitOR lONG teRm GlObaL wARmIng. If We cAn agree On a time perIod (10 YeAr averages peRHaPs), it seems yOur Concerns woulD be ResolvEd.

rogER -ThanKs. I ConcuR with yOUr view That OHC chAnGEs are aN Optimal METrIc, anD that probably uppeR OcEAn OHC changes arE a good RePReSENtaTioN if observeD lOng enOUgh – provIDeD OF CouRSe that those meAsurements cAN be Relied On.

it sEEms to mE that ThE ProBlem of resolVing DisparitiEs betwEEn diffeREnt obseRvatioNal DatA souRCeS iS noT lIMitED tO coMParIsons betWeEn tOA anD oceAN DATa, buT alSo reSides Within ocean meAsuRemeNTs tHemseLves. I WondEr What yOur vieW is reGaRding the followiNg:

ThE U. Colo seaLevEl DatA sHow a cONsisteNt rIse During 1993-2010, aT about 3.1 mM/Yr, wItH RELaTively small variatiOnS IN sLope:Sea LEvels 1993-2010

THE sAmE Source liStS stEric SEA leveL risE BeTween 1993 and 2003 At abouT 1.7 Mm/Yr –steric 1993-2003

HOw Should We IntErpRet thIS? Was The 1.7 mm/yR decline In the STeric sea level sLOpe during the lATtER InTErvaL alMost exactly CompENsatEd by A 1.7 Mm/Yr iNCreasE in euStATiC Rise due to an acceleraTiOn in icE meltIng, and if so, why Would that hAPPEn?

To me, thAt seEMs UNlikely, and my inClinaTion is to “spLIt the difFerenCe” and sugGest that pERHaps sea lEveL riSe hAs nOT BeEn as constant aS POrtrAyEd, and OHc chAnges noT as VarIabLe. AGaIn, though, I Think thiS rEiNfOrCes The neED to refraIn FroM oVerInterPReting Short Term ChAnGEs.

ON reviewINg THEir pApEr, i notIce ThAt the leulIEttE and MilLer figure 1 ShoWS totAl SeA level rIse for the 2004-2008 inteRvAl to be less ThAn 3.1 mM/yr – proBABly closeR to 2.7. mm/yr. This would still reQUire a siGniFicanT incRease in thE euStatic RisE To offsEt the dEclinE iN stERIc sea LEVeL.

(noTe – In my above cOMMenT, the lInK to tHeir papEr is the one entitled “sTerIc 2004-2008” – clicking on tHeiR namE LInKs tO ThE u. CoLo DAta INStead)

Thanks, HR. InStead of askInG “WhEre’s the misSIng HeAt?”, maybe We shoulD be asKIng “wherE’s the missIng water?”, gIvEn thE DIffIculty of reConcilinG total sea LEvel rISe With tHe sUm
 not refuted papers such a s

What Irecom men d i nmovi ng f orward is to a d optupper ocean heat conte nt ch an g es a s  t he pr imary m e tr i c  to  d ia gno se an d mon ito r longterm globa l w ar ming. If wec an  agree ona t ime period ( 10year a ve rag e s per hap s), i t seem s  yourconcernswo u ld ber esolved . 
R oger  -Thanks. I concu r  w i th your view t hat OH Cc ha n g esare  an optima lmetri c , and t h at p r oba b ly upper ocea n OHC chang e s a re a g oo d r e presen tatio ni f o bserved lon g en ough – pr ovided of cour s e thatthosemea sur emen t sca n b er eli e don. 
It  seems t ome  that  the p r o blem  of  res olvin g disparities  be twee n  di ffere nt ob serv at ional  datasourc es  is not limited  tocompariso nsbe twe en  TOAa nd oce andat a, butalso re s ide sw i t hi n ocean measuremen ts t he mselves.  I won d er  w h at yourvi ewis r e g ardin g th e  f ollowing :

The U.  C olo sea le vel da ta  sh owa con s iste nt ris e during  1993 - 2010, at about 3.1 mm/yr, wi t hr e la t ivel y s mall variat ions in s lope : Se a L e vels1993- 20 1 0The same source lis ts  steri c sea  level rise b etween 199 3 a nd 2003at a b ou t  1.7 mm/yr –St eric1993-2003How shou ld we  interpr et this?W a s the 1. 7 m m/y r d ecl i n ein the steric s ea l ev el slop e d uring t helat ter  in te rval almo st exact ly  c om pe nsa ted b y  a 1.7 m m/ yrin cre ase i n  eusta tic r isedu et o a n accel e ra t i on i nic e me lti ng , and  ifs o,why wou ld that h app e n?
To  m e, that  seems unlike ly , and my i nc lin ationi s  to “spl it the difference” ands uggesttha t per haps  sea leve l r ise ha s n o t been  as co nstan tasp o rtray e d ,and  O HC changes n otas va ri able . Again , though, I thinkt his  reinforces t heneed t oref r ai n  fr om ove r i nterpreting sho rt term ch an g es .

On revi e win gtheir p aper, I  noti c e thatthe Leuli ette andMi ller f igu re 1 shows  total s ea levelr ise f o rthe 2 004 -2008in ter val t o be l e ssthan3.1 mm /y r – pr obabl ycloser t o 2.7. mm/yr. This woul d stil l req uir e a signi fic a ntincreasein t he eustati c r ise  to o ffs e t the  dec l in e i n  ster ic s e a level.(n ote –  i n my abovec o m men t, th e l i nk tothei r paper is the on e  entitled “Ste ric2 0 04- 200 8 ” –cl icking on thei r n am e links to  t he U. Colodata ins te a d)

T hanks,  HR. I nsteado f  a s king “ wher e’s  the miss ing  h e at?”, m ay be we sho uldbe  askin g “whe r e’st h e missing water? ”, gi v e n the dif ficul ty  of rec o ncil ing totalsea level r ise wi th t he su m
 not_refuted papers_such as

What I recommend_in moving_forward_is to_adopt_upper ocean heat_content changes as_the primary metric to_diagnose and monitor_long_term global warming. If we can agree on a time period (10 year averages_perhaps),_it seems_your_concerns_would be resolved.

Roger -Thanks. I_concur with your view that_OHC changes_are an optimal metric, and that probably upper_ocean_OHC changes are_a good representation if observed long enough – provided_of course that those measurements can_be relied on.

It_seems_to_me that the problem_of resolving disparities between different observational_data sources is not limited to_comparisons between TOA and ocean data, but_also resides within ocean measurements themselves._I wonder what your view_is regarding_the following:

The U. Colo sealevel_data show a_consistent rise_during 1993-2010, at_about 3.1 mm/yr, with relatively small_variations in slope:Sea_Levels 1993-2010

The same source lists steric_sea_level rise between_1993_and_2003 at_about 1.7 mm/yr_–Steric_1993-2003

How should_we_interpret this? Was the 1.7 mm/yr_decline_in the steric sea level slope during_the latter interval almost_exactly_compensated by a 1.7_mm/yr increase in eustatic rise_due to an acceleration in ice_melting, and_if so,_why would that happen?

To me, that seems unlikely, and my inclination_is to “split the difference” and_suggest that perhaps sea_level rise_has_not been as_constant_as portrayed,_and OHC changes not as variable. Again,_though, I_think this reinforces the need to_refrain from overinterpreting short_term_changes.

On reviewing their paper, I notice_that the Leuliette and Miller figure_1 shows total sea level_rise_for_the 2004-2008 interval to be_less than 3.1 mm/yr – probably_closer to 2.7._mm/yr. This would still require a significant_increase_in the eustatic rise to offset_the_decline in steric sea level.

(note –_in_my_above comment, the link to_their paper is the one entitled_“Steric 2004-2008” – clicking on their name links to_the U. Colo_data instead)

Thanks, HR. Instead of_asking_“where’s_the missing heat?”, maybe we should be asking “where’s the_missing water?”,_given the difficulty_of reconciling total sea level rise with the sum