by Judith Curry
Yesterday, I started writing a post on air/sea fluxes. A new paper just published in Nature Climate Change changed my mind about what I want to write about.
Here is the paper just published in Nature Climate Change:
Human-Induced Global Ocean Warming on Multi-Decadal Time Scales
P.J. Gleckler, B.D. Santer, C.M. Domingues, D.W. Pierce, T.P. Barnett, J.A. Church, K.E. Taylor, K.M. AchutaRao, T.P. Boyer, M. Ishii, & P.M. Caldwell
Abstract. Large-scale increases in upper-ocean temperatures are evident in observational records. Several studies have used well-established detection and attribution methods to demonstrate that the observed basin-scale temperature changes are consistent with model responses to anthropogenic forcing and inconsistent with model-based estimates of natural variability. These studies relied on a single observational data set and employed results from only one or two models. Recent identification of systematic instrumental biases in expendable bathythermograph data has led to improved estimates of ocean temperature variability and trends and provide motivation to revisit earlier detection and attribution studies. We examine the causes of ocean warming using these improved observational estimates, together with results from a large multimodel archive of externally forced and unforced simulations. The time evolution of upper ocean temperature changes in the newer observational estimates is similar to that of the multimodel average of simulations that include the effects of volcanic eruptions. Our detection and attribution analysis systematically examines the sensitivity of results to a variety of model and data-processing choices. When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence.
Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1553 [link]
This paper is getting some press, see [here].
This paper looks at several different data sets of volume averaged temperature anomalies for the upper 700 m. They compare several different data sets that use different methods for correcting for XBT biases and infilling where data are not available. The authors state: ” substantial structural uncertainties remain. The impact of different XBT bias corrections is a major source of this uncertainty.” And “Bias corrections have a substantial impact on the time evolution of ΔT, particularly during the 1970s–1980s, when they markedly reduce spurious decadal variability.” CMIP3 20th century model simulations are then compared with these observations, in a detection and attribution exercise similar to that used in the AR4.
A very different perspective on recent ocean warming is provided by Yeager and Large:
On the Observed Trends and Changes in Global Sea Surface Temperature and Air-Sea Heat Fluxes (1984 – 2006)
W.G. Large and S.G. Yeager
Abstract. Global satellite observations show the sea surface temperature (SST) increasing since the 1970s in all ocean basins, while the net air-sea heat flux, Q, decreases. Over the period 1984-2006 the global changes are 0.28°C in SST and -9.1 W/m2 in Q, giving an effective air-sea coupling coefficient of -32 W/m2/°C. The global response in Q expected from SST alone is determined to be -12.9 W/m2, and the global distribution of the associated coupling coefficient is shown. Typically, about one-half (6.8 W/m2) of this SST effect on heat flux is compensated by changes in the overlying near surface atmosphere. Slab Ocean Models (SOMs) assume that ocean heating processes do not change from year to year, so that a constant annual heat flux would maintain a linear trend in annual SST. However, the necessary 6.1 W/m2 increase is not found in the downwelling longwave and shortwave fluxes, which combined show a -3 W/m2 decrease. The SOM assumptions are revisited to determine the most likely source of the inconsistency with observations. The indirect inference is that diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes played an important role in sustaining the observed positive trend in global SST from 1984 through 2006, despite the decrease in global surface heat flux. A similar situation is found in the individual basins, though magnitudes differ. A conclusion is that natural variability, rather than long term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over this 23 year period. On shorter time scales the relationship between SST and heat flux exhibits a variety of behaviors.
The implication is that natural variability dominates the SST and the order 10 W/m2 heat flux signals over 1984-2006 time period, with a significant contribution from the 1995-1996 shift from positive to negative NAO index. Also supportive of this possibility are the different ways SST and the various heat flux anomalies behave on decadal and shorter time scales. Although incomplete, the apparent much more steady behavior of SST and heat flux through the 1950s and 1960s is also consistent.
Abstract. Air-sea fluxes from the Community Climate System Model Version 4 (CCSM4) are compared with the Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments (CORE) dataset to assess present-day mean, variability, and late 20th Century trend biases. CCSM4 is improved over the previous version, CCSM3, in both air-sea heat and freshwater fluxes in some regions; however, a large degradation in net shortwave radiation into the ocean may contribute to an enhanced hydrological cycle. We provide a baseline for assessment of flux variance at annual and interannual frequency bands in future CESM versions and contribute a new metric for assessing any model’s planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme. Maps of CCSM4 variance ratio to CORE reveal that processes on annual timescales have larger variance error than those on interannual timescales and that different processes cause errors in mean, annual, and interannual frequency bands. Air temperature and specific humidity in the CCSM4 PBL follow the sea surface conditions much more closely than is found in CORE. Sensible and latent heat fluxes are less of a negative feedback to sea surface temperature warming in the CCSM4 than in the CORE data with the model’s PBL allowing for more heating of the 20 ocean’s surface.
doi:10.1029/2012GL051813 [link] to abstract [link] to full paper
This section proposes a nonlinear physical mechanism by which the noise-induced drift effect may operate when the air–sea fluxes contain a stochastic component. The conjectured mechanism permits stochastic fluctuations in the air–sea buoyancy fluxes to modify the time-mean mixed- layer depth. The mixed-layer depth is generally determined by the combined influence of surface buoyancy fluxes and turbulent winds, but only the surface buoyancy fluxes are invoked here, because the response to stochastic winds has been studied elsewhere. Note that the importance of surface buoyancy fluxes is not confined to the polar regions, where surface cooling triggers deep convective events, but extends to all latitudes.
The proposed mechanism relies on a fundamental asymmetry in the physics of the ocean mixed layer, as follows. In a statically stable water column in the mixed layer, dense anomalies at the surface (created by evaporation or cooling) can destabilize the water column, initiate convection and vertical mixing, and deepen the mixed layer. However, in contrast, buoyant anomalies at the surface (created by precipitation or heating) simply further stabilize the water column and cannot shoal the mixed layer. Therefore, the ocean mixed-layer depth responds asymmetrically to positive and negative surface buoyancy fluctuations. In short, positive fluctuations cannot undo the vertical mixing caused by negative fluctuations of equal magnitude. The mechanism has much in common with the mixed-layer demon of Stommel , who proposed that “there is some process at work that selects only late winter water for actual net downward pumping”, “a process much like that performed by Maxwell’s Demon”.
Stochastic fluctuations in the air–sea buoyancy flux are expected to have various impacts, in sequence, on the time-mean climate. First, because of the above mechanism, the mixed layer is expected to deepen systematically. Then, contact with deeper water is expected to cool the mixed layer, especially on the thermal equator where the mixed layer is shallowest. Then, the atmospheric Hadley circulation in each hemisphere is expected to weaken, because warm equatorial surface water provides the thermal energy for these circulations [e.g., Bjerknes, 1966]. Finally, the weakened Hadley circulations are expected to decrease precipitation in the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ), because of decreased horizontal convergence and decreased upward flow, and to increase precipitation in the subtropical high pressure regions at around 30 N and 30 S, because of decreased downward flow.
I have long been concerned by the issue of subgrid stochastic ocean surface fluxes, and the asymmetric effect of cool vs warm anomalies on the ocean. A recent paper by my research group illustrates this issue:
High-resolution Satellite Surface Latent Heat Fluxes in North Atlantic Hurricanes
Jiping Liu, Judith Curry, Carol Anne Clayson, Mark Bourassa
Abstract. This study presents a new high-resolution satellite-derived ocean surface flux product, XSeaFlux, which is evaluated for its potential use in hurricane studies. The XSeaFlux employs new satellite datasets using im- proved retrieval methods, and uses a new bulk flux algorithm formulated for high wind conditions. The XSeaFlux latent heat flux (LHF) performs much better than the existing numerical weather prediction reanalysis and satellite-derived flux products in a comparison with measurements from the Coupled Boundary Layer Air–Sea Transfer (CBLAST) field experiment. Also, the XSeaFlux shows well-organized LHF structure and large LHF values in response to hurricane conditions relative to the other flux products. The XSeaFlux dataset is used to interpret details of the ocean surface LHF for selected North Atlantic hurricanes. Analysis of the XSeaFlux dataset suggests that ocean waves, sea spray, and cold wake have substantial impacts on LHF associated with the hurricanes.
[Link] to paper
For hurricane domain comparisons, the XSeaFlux shows well-organized LHF structures and large LHF values in response to the hurricanes. By contrast, the other flux products (NCEP2, OAFlux, HOAPS3, and ERA-Interim) produce no discernible or weak LHF signals, and no distinct structure in response to the hurricanes.
The issue is this. The reanalysis products, even at a resolution of 100 km or so, miss the high latent heat fluxes associated with severe convective weather (even on the scale of a hurricane). Climate models presumably do an even worse job of capturing the high latent heat flux situations, which are associated with the largest buoyancy fluxes.
So, why does this matter? The issue is the feedbacks associated with changes in ocean mixed layer depth and also the surface latent heat fluxes, which have an important influence on sea surface temperature and upper ocean heat content. Feedbacks associated with the latent heat flux are also tied to the water vapor feedback. For further info on the feedbacks influencing upper ocean temperatures, see section 13.6 in the feedback chapter to my text Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans.
Yeager and Large have made a valiant attempt to pull together a lot of observations, but this effort highlights the deficiencies that we have in the data sets. Focusing on the period since 1983 makes sense because this is the period where we have the best satellite data sets, but there are still substantial problems with the ocean temperature data sets. Many people I talk to have little confidence in the ocean temperature analyses prior to 1980, and most people agree that there are very substantial problems prior to to 1960. “Infilling” is big problem; IMO it would be better just to compare models with observations in locations where there is reliable data.
I suspect that the reasoning behind the Gleckler et al. Nature Climate Change article will carry the day in the forthcoming IPCC AR5. However, in light of these other papers, climate models have documented deficiencies in simulating the relevant surface fluxes. Multi-decadal natural internal variability (which is poorly simulated by the climate models) may be the dominant cause of the recent ocean warming (in terms of changes in ocean mixed layer depth and changes in sensible/latent heat fluxes).
It is the unwarranted certainty, not the level of uncertainty, that is driving the AGW trainwreck. The AGW consensus is that there msut be extreme cliamte repsponses underway. So any study that manages to wring out a report that can be used to support that tenet is accepted.
Are you aware of the implosion of a major Australian climate study in the past week or two?
You are on target, Hunter, but damages greatly exceed . . .”the AGW trainwreck.”
“It is the unwarranted certainty, not the level of uncertainty, that is driving the” destruction of constitutional governments in the formerly “Free West” nations, including the United States, United Kingdom, Western Europe, and other former members of the British Empire – Canada, Australia, etc.
Government propaganda is highly effective and very dangerous for the public, as George Orwell realized in 1941-43 when he worked “for the BBC Eastern Service, mostly working on programmes to gain Indian and East Asian support for Britain’s war efforts. He was well aware that he was shaping propaganda, and wrote that he felt like “an orange that’s been trodden on by a very dirty boot.”
Eric Blair (alias George Orwell) was born 1903 in Motihari, Bengal when that was still part of the British Empire.
In 1944, George Orwell finished writing the book “Animal Farm” to warn of the danger of fascist communism. That was published in 1945, the year WWII ended and government propaganda took control of western science.
In 1946, Fred Hoyle published two papers that disrupted the natural evolution of western science and set the course of events that surfaced in 2009 as the Climategate scandal.
In 1948, George Orwell forecast the slide of western democracy into totalitarianism. The book was written in 1948, a date changed into the title, “1984” and published in 1949.
Quote from WUWT “Professor Nathan Bindoff is one of the world’s foremost oceanography experts, and has been a lead author on past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports.
“Ninety per cent of the temperature change stored in the whole of the Earth’s system is stored in the ocean, so global warming is really an ocean warming problem,” he said.
Professor Bindoff said the new research balanced the man-made impacts of warming greenhouse gases and cooling pollution in the troposphere against natural changes in the ocean’s temperature and volcanic eruptions.
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
And he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal.
“We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.”
How can one read this pathetic hyperventilation without realizing that climate science as it’s currently conducted is in deep trouble? So. “That’s it.” Case closed. We can all go home.
Might as well shut down the blog Dr. C. Nothing left to discuss it seems.
The earth warms and cools. There is not a global warming problem. There is a warming and cooling cycle. This is natural and necessary and very good. When earth is warm, it always cools. When earth is cool, it always warms. Look at the DATA!!!!!!
Does anyone out there have data that shows that the earth does not go through warm and cool cycles?
There are a lot of model projections that extrapolate toward things that just don’t really happen in the real data.
We are in a really short period in human history that has a huge amount of real time data. This is extrapolated to disaster. If a different time in history was chosen to gather data and invent computers the alarmist extrapolated disasters would likely have been different ones.
This is really stupid. Look at the data longer and decide what you believe a little slower.
The unintentional irony of the AGW promoters is breath taking. I believe that the false certainty these guys depend on in pushing their apocalypse will be used for decades to come, in teaching about the need for real critical review. Bindoff, et al will not be used as an example to emulate.
It’s just this kind of thing that opened my eyes a few years ago, back when I was a believer. As a layman, the nuts and bolts of papers like this are beyond me. But I can judge behavior as well as anyone, and the lack of honesty and honor among many establishment climate scientists is deeply troubling. Another recent example is Michael Mann’s note of congratulations to P. Gleick for being “exonerated.” Mann’s no dummy. He knows you can’t be exonerated from crimes to which you’ve already admitted.
Their willingness to say anything to get an edge, their foaming at the mouth self-righteousness and anger, their utterly bogus claims of certainty marks them as nothing but cut-rate conmen. Plain and simple. I wouldn’t buy a used car from any of them, that’s for sure.
Mann was on the right track when he congratulated Gleick for being “exonerated”. What Michael meant to say was he congratulated for Gleick for being “excused”. Excused.. exonerated… both words start with ex and end with ed so maybe it was just a typo on Mann’s part. Or stupidity. Or dishonesty. Personally I’m going with dishonesty due to pattern behavior of lying like a rug in the past…
My update of Hanlon’s Razor: “Attribute to malice whatever is inadequately explained by stupidity.”
Are we there yet? Long since, I think.
I think that’s a corollary not an update. But yes, we’re long past in this case.
When Mann and his ilk use the word “exonerated”, I think they probably mean what most of us would call “getting away with it”.
I happened to read Bart Verheggen’s blog from today that, among other things, makes a point out of ocean heating. The relevance of the plot showing ocean heating seems dubious if the data before 1980 is highly uncertain. Am I right or did I miss something?
Just in case this is confusing, I’m responsible for both of these comments. This one was done while logged in to a wordpress account. It was apparently caught by the spam filter. (I have an email address that seems to be blacklisted by a certain spam filter for no apparent reason.) Then I did a new one, using a different identity and deliberately phrasing it differently in case the spam filter might be smart enough to detect the similarity and blacklist the other identity.
I apologize for the inconvenience. ;)
So does the graph of ocean heating in this blog post from today have much relevance if the data from before 1980 are highly uncertain? Just asking.
Dagfinn: The discussion in the post of temperature readings before and after 1982 had to do with sea surface temperatures. Satellites have been used since 1982 to measure sea surface temperatures, providing much more complete coverage. Prior to that sea surface temperature data relied on strategically placed buoys and on measurements by ships. The graph you linked was in part showing ocean heat content. Ocean heat content is determined from ocean temperature measurements to depths of 700 meters, 2000 meters, etc. And there are very few of those before about 2003/04. That’s when ARGO floats were deployed to the point that there was reasonable coverage of all of the ocean basins. To illustrate how poorly the oceans were represented with the temperature measurements at depth, I created a gif animation, using maps from the NODC for depths of 1000 meters to 5000 meters, from 1982 to 2005. It’s animation 1 in this post:
So you have to take ocean heat content data with a great big grain of salt—a grain of salt around the size of a bendy-bus.
“Satellites have been used since 1982 to measure sea surface temperatures”
Are you sure?
I though that the satellites measured radiant heat, which isn’t temperature is it?
DocMartyn: Excuse the wording of that sentence. You’re correct. Sea surface temperature is a calculated value from AVHRR satellites.
Then we have imbeciles like Vaughn Pratt telling me that ships rounding Cape Horn in 1900 dipping buckets of water and taking the temperature are sufficient to establish global temperature trends with tenth degree per decade precision. Even the most sophisticated instruments we deploy today get “corrected” from time to time because some marginal error was found or invented that changes a decadal trend by hundreths of degrees per decade. Incredible. Climate change cheerleaders by and large lack any measure of integrity.
Vaughan can be a pain and inappropriately draw conclusions, but he is most certainly not an imbecile. He is an example of a smart person who draws incorrect conclusions
Okay. Mibad. Pratt draws some imbecilic conclusions but isn’t all around retarded enough to meet the clinical definition of imbecile. On the other hand maybe it’s just an expression and I didn’t mean it literally. Would failure to recognize the informal usage be (informally) imbecilic itself?
-> Vaughn Pratt telling me that ships rounding Cape Horn in 1900 dipping buckets of water and taking the temperature are sufficient to establish global temperature trends with tenth degree per decade precision <-
Did he really say that ?
Yes. He was presuming to lecture Wojick and me on the matter of higher precision in trends being obtainable from lower precision instruments though a statistical modeling of a large number of individual readings. I came back and said that a million readings in Cape Cod won’t increase the precision of a few readings in Cape Town. He then said we had enough SST temperatures taken by ships rounding the Horn to get the needed precision. I don’t think he’s stupid so my only alternative is to think he’s dishonest.
Dave, sea temperature increases for two reasons, nothing to do with the global temp! Reason 1: 96% of the ”faulty lines” are on the bottom of the sea – submarine volcanoes and ”hot vents” get more active = 100% of that heat is absorbed / distributed in the water. When water warms up -> evaporation increases; evaporation is cooling process. BUT:
2: cooking oils, fat from beef, pork, chicken quadrupled washing into the sea since WW2. Plus extra industrial oils end up in the sea. All those fats / oils spread on the top of the water – decrease evaporation -> less evaporation / cooling + less clouds as ”sun umbrellas” for the land / sea during the day. Usually, what heat clouds intercept on 7-9km altitude – there cooling is 10 times more efficient than on the surface. Smaller umbrella = more sunlight on the sea / land surface.
3] If it wasn’t for the ‘Carbon Bashers” real problems would have being addressed: those oils / fats remain on the surface of the water for weeks, and new arrive every day – they prevent water of replenishing by oxygen – the real reason of fish depletion: Water gets its oxygen by splashing + rain brings oxygen. More oils -> prevents collection of oxygen by splashing + by ”less” rain….
4]Reason the truth is silenced: ”only ALL the heat in the whole troposphere is the planet’s temperature”! b] sea temp + amount of ice on the polar caps have nothing to do with the global temp – it’s only trick, to confuse the already confused = Warmist & fake Skeptic’s SMOKING GUN. Do you still suffer from ”truth phobia”?
stefanthedenier | June 14, 2012 at 12:06 am | Reply
“Dave, sea temperature increases for two reasons, nothing to do with the global temp! Reason 1: 96% of the ”faulty lines” are on the bottom of the sea – submarine volcanoes”…
I don’t agree with this one unless there’s a LOT more internal heat generation from radioactive decay than estimated. If there were much more than several dozen milliwatts per square meter of internal heat from the earth being lost to space the core of the planet would not still be hot enough to melt iron at this late date and we’d have no magnetic field. One would need to show how and why underwater volcanic activity has increased in recent years vs. leaking heat at a more or less constant rate over geologic spans of time.
“2: cooking oils, fat from beef, pork, chicken quadrupled washing into the sea since WW2. Plus extra industrial oils end up in the sea. All those fats / oils spread on the top of the water – decrease evaporation”
This is one that I’ve thought about before but never investigated as much as I should to have a well founded opinion on it. What stopped me from further consideration is that probably the biggest single test case is shipping losses during WWII. German u-boats sank an ungodly number of ships, many of which were tankers carrying fuel, but even when they weren’t tankers a downed ship lost a lot of diesel oil from its fuel tanks. Global temperature fell during and after WWII so the spillage of evaporation retardants on the ocean didn’t result in warming. If warming had spiked I’d look into it further so I don’t consider this as having a high probability of exerting any warming influence.
RE: stefanthedenier | June 14, 2012 at 12:06 am
__shipping losses during WWII and spillage “
If you are interested in the impact of naval war during WWII, do not consider spillage and marine pollution but consider the turning over of the upper sea levels with regards to temperature structure and salinity.
See my further comment below: ArndB | June 14, 2012 at 4:28 am
Extract from the reference: The middle of the 19th Century marks two events, which have influenced weather and climate, ever since: The end of the Little Ice Age and the transition from sail to motor driven ships. Sea transport by propeller driven vessels is a very effective method to influence the sea surface structure over several meters depths. With the increase of ship traffic, the number of ships, and the size of ships, the influence has grown considerably over the years. More: http://www.seaclimate.com/a/a3.html
ArnDB – are you seriously saying the effects of propellers in ships has some significant effect on the entire wide ocean ??
It is a serious contributing (!) probability, which I can not prove, but investigated instead the extreme war winters 1939/40, 1940/41, 1941/42 (see A3c, of the given reference) with a convincing result, saying in the book’s conclusion (Chapter J, .201): “Demonstrating the effect of naval warfare, is not difficult, if one recognizes the seas as the dominating climate factor, and limits the investigation on the war winter seasons.”
Kindly offer a better explanation for the extreme war winters, the reason for the start of the global cooling (1940-1970), and the sudden start of the Arctic warming at the end of the 1st WW (book Ch. I, p. 189-200, or http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/), I would be happy to read about it.
I did some internet researching into the WW2 questions. I found a cite for ships sunk during WW2 – I believe it was ~8,000 ships. There was a Japanese paper that found nuclear testing above ground may have caused some of the mid-century cooling.
The sinking of ships, including pollution, is presumably a minor cause. Consider torpedoes, which could be 500’000 pieces. Aerial bombing with two to four times higher figures. Maybe more than 10’000 air planes fell into the sea, and many million (if not billion) shells. Submarine operated down to 200 meters. There was sea mines and sea mine sweeping, etc. etc.
I looked at the number of cities partially burned, the amount of explosives manufactured and detonated, refinery production, etc.. It’s interesting.
Well that’s great relief – seems all we have to do to fight global warming, is to fight world wars. Or maybe just keep sinking ships and tossing airplanes into the drink.
@ Tomcat | June 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Tomcat, you D/H; the propeller driven ships use oil, grease and diesel, some of that spreads on the surface of the water and prevents evaporation – evaporation is cooling process for the water + less evaporation = less clouds – clouds are the sun umbrellas for the sea / land. Less evaporation = smaller umbrellas
2] regarding propellers, if they are on the surface = they are replenishing the water with oxygen / if they are below – they are depleting the water from oxygen. I hope the truth will help you a bit.,
@@ ArndB | June 14, 2012 at 11:58 am
As long as you stick to: oceans / water controls ”the climate” but nothing to do with any phony GLOBAL warmings / GLOBAL coolings – you are spot on! Sea temp has NOTHING to do with the GLOBAL temp; global temp is ”all the warmth in the WHOLE troposphere.” Heat in the sea, in the plutonium, in the iron ore smelter, in your oven; only becomes part of the GLOBAL temp, when is released in the air!!! Sea temp is only used; to confuse the already confused, full stop! If you believe that: the Swindlers have ”correct” data of all the oceans temp from WW1, WW2 and after during the cold war – to compare it with today’s temp – my tiers will not help you much – you need a shrink…. Go to the sea snorkeling – you will notice 5 different temps in 50m radious.
The names above that were comparing the sea temperatures – they had their ”data and end result” ready, before started ”monitoring” One of them is prof. John Church / from the Australian CSIRO. he would con his own mother for taxpayer’s cash and for the ”sick ideology!” If they are told that: sea temp has NOTHING to do with the GLOBAL temp – no need to waist money in ”pretend” monitoring and telling lies.
submarine volcanoes / hot vents, depends on which locations are active – create El Nino / La Nina events (tectonic plates move same as you = left foot / right foot – not both feet in the same time) 2] Fats, oils are increasing the heat in the water, because they decrease evaporation. More important, they prevent oxygen replenishment in the water. But NOBODY picked on those – because – the Warmist & Fake’s blogosphere is suffering from ”honesty famine. I’m the Red Cross, with plenty honesty; unfortunately everybody has his head compacted with B/S, no space for the truth…! I have some on the ship’s spillage on my website and much more in my book, but as a comment, is not easy to fit the lot.
Let me see if I have this now.
(1) An oil film on the sea surface
-> reduces evaporation
-> fewer clouds
-> reduced albedo
-> global warming
(2) In WW2, a lot of oil from sunk ships and airplanes went into the sea.
(3) During WW2 there were very cold winters (implying global cooling?)
Mmm … I seem to have missed a bit somewhere…
@@Dave Springer | June 14, 2012 at 7:30 am
David, blaming U boats, but not war in Pacific = bias opinion.
2] ”sea-warming” from oils &fats is scientific; because it comes from me; fluctuation in sea temperature has nothing to do with the ”GLOBAL” temperature!!! Overall temp in the troposphere never fluctuates! 3] the data of ocean temp by those morons has nothing to do with the reality. Nobody has ever monitored the complete ocean’s temp during the cold war – for them to compare. 4] their data was predetermined to suit the propaganda, before they started plying in the sandpit monitoring. 5] by ‘coincidence” they are correct about the oceans getting warmer – same as ”blind chicken hits the corn ones in 50 attempts, not because of skill”.
Notice the people commenting; they comment on sunk ships – but avoid the oil / fat = it’s the ”honesty famine effect” people like that prof John Church from Australian CSIRO know about the number of B/S addicts they created = they need constant supply… otherwise some of them may start using their own brains..
David, if you calculate : the ”increase’ of untreated / semi-treated sewage going into the sea from Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, Danube rivers into the sea + from all the smaller rivers and creeks… Nothing wrong with sewage = is food for marine critters. But oils/ fats surface instantly from that mess and spread everywhere- take weeks to brake down – every day new arrives + oils from backyard mechanics washes into the sea. All that increases the REAL water temperature by preventing evaporation + less clouds; shouldn’t be compared V Swindler’s data. If you want to stick to the truth – you will be hated by both camps -use it as a compliment, that’s what I do. Comparing real science with fairy-tales from the misleading propaganda machine, is counterproductive. Atmosphere hasn’t accumulate enough EXTRA heat since WW2, to boil one chicken egg!!!
The submarine volcanoes / hot vents increase / decrease in activity – they create El Nino / La Nina events. Heat deep gown is produced constantly; but on some places is released spontaneously ( I will have on the subject many pages, in my second book. too complicated, to explain in a comment) Deluding yourself in their data, is a waste of time. When somebody tells you about the OVERALL sea or GLOBAL temp = he isn’t talking about the real temp, but about his integrity! They are NOT even guessing, but they always tell what fits the con industry. Crap and truth shouldn’t mix. Overall water temp is suitable for Tony Brown, lolwot, Vukcevic,Nosher; they are here to muddy the water; not to recognized the truth about the temperatures in water / troposphere. Because they have too many smelly skeletons in their closet. For them, the truth is the biggest nightmare/
David, can you guess what was the surface water temp on 4 of July 1956; 69km west of Vancouver? How about on may 1, 56km east of Vladivostok? Those SAME people know the ocean’s temp around Australia; before was discovered. If you see that somebody is a compulsive liar – you continue to use their data – it’s your choice, blame yourself, not the results.
Tomcat | June 15, 2012 at 1:37 am | said: ”Mmm … I seem to have missed a bit somewhere…”
WRONG again tomcat, you missed a lot!!! Ocean temp has nothing to do with the GLOBAL temp!!! The instant that heat is released into the atmosphere from the sea – it becomes part of the global temperature, not before!!! Heat into the sea, in the plutonium, in your oven, or in your butt becomes part of the global temp, only after is released . Using ocean’s temp as GLOBAL, is only to confuse the already confused; like you, for example. The instant is heat released from the sea, from volcano, from atom bomb -> troposphere expands instantly as much as necessary, and wastes / discharges the EXTRA heat in a jiffy. Q: do you know: why oxygen + nitrogen expand INSTANTLY, when warmed up? Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere? Q: do you think they shrink / expand, INSTANTLY, in change of temp, because they have nothing better to do; or the truth that: they are regulating the temp overall, to be same every day of every month and millenia and to make fools of all the Warmist & fake skeptics??? Cheers
@@ ArndB | June 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm
ArndB, those shells, exploded bombs, fallen aircrafts and sunken ships during the war; it’s a god given present to the marine critters -they are using them as reefs – to hide from bigger predators.
It’s the ”oil / grease from those sunken crafts that is the bad news for the sea.
“a grain of salt around the size of a bendy-bus.”
Heh. A “grain” is not a crystal, it’s a standard measurement:
the smallest unit of weight in most systems, originally determined by the weight of a plump grain of wheat. In the U.S. and British systems, as in avoirdupois, troy, and apothecaries’ weights, the grain is identical. In an avoirdupois ounce there are 437.5 grains; in the troy and apothecaries’ ounces there are 480 grains (one grain equals 0.0648 gram).
> a grain of salt around the size of a bendy-bus.”
Brian H > A “grain” is not a crystal
Yes it can be
2a (1) : a small hard particle or crystal
But not in the quote cited. It’s referring to a quantity. About 1/16 of a gram. Enough to taste.
Judith: You need to reestablish your link to Bates et al. You’ve got the “here”, with nothing attached,
Most probably, here:
Mean biases, variability, and trends in air-sea ﬂuxes and SST in the CCSM4
Susan C. Bates, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Steven R. Jayne, William G. Large, Samantha Stevenson, and Stephen G. Yeager.
thx, got it
This study has a fatal flaw. There is no proven GHG-AGW and the aerosol optical physics supposed to hide it is plain wrong.
[Rain clouds have highest albedo]
Correct the physics and most of this heating has probably been man-made aerosols reducing cloud albedo and the Arctic melt cycle’s phytoplankton blooms doing the same [the same mechanism is seen in palaeoclimate data at the end of ice ages long before CO2 appears].
So, let’s all allow the CO2 warmists to drift way as the grants dry up. It’s a busted flush. There is too little direct thermalisation and the heat transfer in the climate models has been really messed up by people who hadn’t the basic physics, including Houghton.who made mistakes..
It is amazing how different scientists can look at the same data, come to totally different conclusions and be equally certain they are correct.
Not much different than discussing politics :)
Isn’t it amazing how a Christian can look at a piece of toast and see Mary, and a Muslim looks at the same toast and sees “Allah” spelled out in Arabic?
I’m still trying to figure out how the ancients looked at stars and saw lions and bears and goats and virgins. Well, I think I get the virgin part.
Sailors of old saw at manatees and described mermaids. Either hormones or the type of rope they were using :)
@@capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 | June 11, 2012 at 3:53 pm said: Sailors of old saw at manatees and described mermaids. Either hormones or the type of rope they were using
It was the bottles of Gin, rum + self satisfaction was a sin.
For the source in antiquity see Joseph Seiss, The Gospel in the Stars
What’s really interesting is what the atheist sees when he looks at a piece of toast – an image of the big bang?
Of course, when I (as an agnostic) look at a piece of toast, I see an excuse to fry up some bacon! Yum.
Ironically the creation account in Genesis is a loose description of The Big Bang. This impresses me to a certain degree as the big bang is not intuitive from naked eye observations. A theory describing an empty void suddenly filled with light and matter is not something that happens in normal human experience. Where did that notion come from thousands of years ago?
No bang allowed during lunch – for a big bang, must get outside!!! It was Grandma’s command. England must be the most boring place in the galaxy; to have discussions about something like that… poor Poms…
There are some very strange people in Huddersfield….the TV show ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ was filmed close by and they crop up in that too. My old schoolchum lives there and he can be definitely odd!
I would treat all ‘Weird News from Huddersfield’ with some scepticism.
I don’t know what an atheist sees, but I see a piece of toast. Anyone saying something different has either a highly active imagination, an issue with their eyesight or perhaps a loose screw.
Good job that it doesn’t depict an image of the prophet, otherwise that piece of toast would be in big trouble:- As much trouble as a skeptic at a Greenpeace stunt.
But think what retribution would fall upon the toaster!
Thanks Judy, a very nice update. Do you have a link to your paper?
I really like the Bill Large paper; a classic process study trying to get at how the ocean and atmosphere are linked.
I have more reading to do now ;-)
Hi John, i’ve updated the post with the link, here it is
Note, we used Zhang’s wind speeds
I was ducking down the dark alley of uncertainty about this new paper and the second person I met was……! Well, that was enough for me.
There are some people whose footsteps I’ll no longer fear behind me.
It’s the footsteps in lockstep you need to worry about – it could be a member of the Doppler gang.
You can tell by the change of pitch whether this research is coming or going.
Good observations on latent heat being poorly tracked and modeled.
Does GWM underestimation of latent heat fluxes correspond to over estimating the CO2 sensitivity?
A meta analysis of the papers you abstract above would suggests high uncertainty with both natural and anthropogenic causes with an emphasis that natural cycles are poorly modeled.
By contrast, Scafetta’s modeling with natural cycles plus minor anthropogenic causes appears to give good forecasting/hindcasting.
Are any of the CR5 models capable of equivalent hindcasting/forecast?
If not, I continue to consider them “Not Proven”.
It’s a simple fact. The fact is based on easily knowable and understandable technology. Nominally, it’s the Sun, stupid.
Why are the oceans cooling?
■ 1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity (LSA) – i.e., Sporer minimum
■ 1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity (HSA)
■ 1610-1700 cold – (LSA) – i.e., Maunder minimum
■ 1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
■ 1810-1900 cold – (LSA) i.e., Dalton minimum
■ 1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
■ 2010+ Possibly 3-7 decades of global cooling
Why are the Oceans Cooling?
Unfortunately for your little model of reality, the oceans did not “start cooling” in 2010, but continued on with their 40+ year upward climb.
You of course will want to cherry pick around the 2010 El Nino event, where of course the oceans release more heat to the atmosphere, but even you must know that ENSO events have riding on top of longer-term forcing signal. During the period from Jan-March 2012, ocean heat content down to 2000 meters was at instrument record highs. An inconvenient truth that you, as a skeptic to AGW, will have to find a way to cherry pick around.
“Even when alarmist evidence is conclusively discredited (e.g. the hockey stick graph), the climate alarmists continue to use it, and to dismiss all conflicting evidence no matter how sound or voluminous it may be. When their own claims fail, they revise the evidence, not their hypothesis. Recent examples of this have involved the current global cooling trend, the absence of a signature tropical tropospheric hot spot, Antarctic cooling, oceanic cooling, unchanged rates of sea level rise, etc. All these phenomena have been subjected to dubious data manipulation trying to make a silk purse to suit GW out of a sow’s ear of empirical data which refuses to conform to their hopes.” (Walter Starck)
Again, your original post about ocean cooling beginning in 2010 is flat out wrong. Why did you change the subject?
Why do the AGW True Believers resist truth. Doesn’t their new Warmanist religeon see any utility in having a consicience or does that also get thrown out with the abandonement of Judeo/Christian ethics and morality? Climate change—it happens, with or without our help.
~Dr. Roy Spencer
Not sure what Judeo-Christian ethics has to do with whether or not humans are altering Earth’s climate. Conflating the two would indicate some other motivation in your post. I have found that some of the Christian faith can’t believe that God would allow humans to alter the planet so dramatically. I find this a puzzling perspective, as there is nothing logical in such a view, and certainly we know that we could turn this world into a nuclear wasteland in rather short order given the unrestrained use of our massive collective nuclear arsenal.
Somehow the notion that the human CO2 volcano, that has been erupting for several hundred years could not alter the climate as all volcanoes of this size certainly would. This eruption started out small, but is now reaching spectacular levels, whereby the species is taking carbon from the ground putting it into the atmosphere at rates that no natural feedback system can cope with over geological short time frames.
This carbon we place in the atmosphere, showing up primarily as CO2, but also as CH4, has interrupted the natural carbon cycle, impacting both ocean and atmosphere.
As this could (and I honestly mean could, not will) have serious implications for the ability of humans to continue to feed, clothe, house, and generally maintain the systems to support the some 7+ billion of us, it is probably a very good idea to come to understand exactly to what extent our collective alteration of the oceans and atmosphere is causing such an impact. Once that is discovered with some reasonable level of certainty, we can decide what the best or necessary courses of actions will be to either ignore, prevent, mitigate, or adapt to the consequences of moving from the Holocene to the Anthropocene.
Gates> “it is probably a very good idea to come to understand exactly to what extent our collective alteration of the oceans and atmosphere is causing such an impact” (our ability to survive on the planet)
Care to tell us your positions on motherhood and apple pie?
@@Wagathon | June 12, 2012 at 12:56 am ASK: ”Why do the AGW True Believers resist truth”?
Only because the Warmist have lots of Fakes; as Warmist’ roles of toilet paper – as long as the Fakes are doing the Warmist dirty job – Warmist are clean and flourishing. Warmist castle is built on the Fake’s lies – .only without Fake’s foundation – Warmist castle will collapse in less than 3 months.
Truth: Skeptic’s GLOBAL warmings are a mountain of crap – Warmist AGW is the top of that mountain. Same as Mt Everest is on the top of Himalayas. If it wasn’t for Himalayas – Everest would have being a small / irrelevant hill. Is that scientific / technical enough for you?! Because of the ”honesty famine” – the Warmist & Fakes sufferers; the rip-off continues. I’m like Red Cross, bringing lots of truth; unfortunately, the D/H from both sides of the sandpit have their heads jam-packet with B/S – no space for the truth
Apple pie: My favorite kind of pie (with Pumpkin being a close second). Apple pie great served warm with vanilla ice cream. Eat only for an occasional special treat as Apple Pie is loaded with empty calories and too much will make you fat.
Motherhood: Done correctly, it is (so I’m told) one of the most rewarding and difficult things a woman can do.
R. Gates is getting a bit testy, I think. He has run out of points and is now spending his effort talking about little world and simple views. Which is ironic considering how the AGW believers see the world.
The Climatists want us to take their little ‘red’ pill. We simply do not have the luxury to think like they think or no one will eat.
A “climatist”? What exactly is that? Someone who believes there is such as thing as climate? Makes about as much sense as the phrase “climate denier”, which would be someone who doesn’t believe there is such a thing as climate?
Wagathon | June 12, 2012 at 12:56 am asked: ”Why do the AGW True Believers resist truth”
They resist the truth; because the Fakes are more prolific liars. If one lies that he / she knows the strength of the sun 300-400 years ago – one shouldn’t;believe him as far as he can spit. Person when tells you that he knows what was the GLOBAL temp, or strength of the sun hundreds of years ago – if he tells you that Europe is in the northern hemisphere – you better take a map and double check.
Why would a Fake pretend to know about lots of phony GLOBAL warmings – to lose the battle against the Warmist?! It should be easier to say the truth: warmings / ice ages are NEVER GLOBAL = Warmist have no case anymore. Compulsive lying by the Fakes, is an insult to the one that created this planet and the laws of physics – laws of physics control / regulate the temp on the planet; not the Warmist & fake Skeptics
@ Wagathon, mate, which horse won in 1412 rises? Either your crystal ball is lying about the sun intensity for hundreds of years ago; or somebody else… The one who monitored sun intensity for hundreds of years ago; is guilty for the carbon rip-off; what’s his name?!!!
That is a question best put to John Huffman (aka Charles Dickens).
@ Wagathon, mate, you shouldn’t rubbish Charley Dickens; he is a genius. You should spank your lying crystal ball. Put a brown paper bag over it – don’t let him put your credibility; where you puled your crystal ball from. Those past sun intensity fairy-tales are only giving oxygen to the Warmist. At least Warmist tell lies for cash.
Sun intensity crap was concocted, to support the localized warmings / coolings in Europe; as GLOBAL. Because they were localized; Plimer’s GLOBAL warmings doo-doo woo-doo is making the Fakes to shoot themselves in the foot by a machine gun- instead of pistol. At least you should aim at your left foot – it might heart your masters. Sun not guilty!!! .
Do you know what do Charles Dickens and George Washington both have in common? They both lived during the Little Ice Age that occurred from about the mid thirteenth century to the 1860s. Dickens wrote about a “White Christmas”; and, our vision of Washington is crossing the Delaware afloat with chunks of ice.
Climate Change was NOT an Ideologcally-Driven Agenda for Charles Dickens
@@ Wagathon | June 14, 2012 at 10:33 am
Buddy, you should stick to getting your data from Merlin, direct from the Camelot. Exactly for the reason you mentioned: George and Dickens were honest greats. If some freak weather for 2weeks was recorded; ice on Delaware & Thames – shouldn’t be used by the Fakes as Ice Age for 150y!
If George & Dickens were recording today’s climate – they would have recorded: ”1000km closer to the equator, river Danube (10 times bigger river than Thames) was frozen close to Black sea – in 400y from now; the opportunist D/H Fakes would have declared: ” in 2012, Danube was completely frozen in Serbia, Romania = it was 300y of ”midi ice age”
When Delaware & Thames were frozen – in the SAME 6-7 DAYS, somewhere on the S/H was a bit warmer than normal – but the truth is boring. B]Two weeks after the Copenhagen flop, people were freezing to death in Europe / USA – but in SAME 10 days, from extreme ”HEAT” 170 people burned in extreme bushfires in Australia = Fake’s smoking gun.
I.e. if the truth is acknowledged from me – human can create milder climate / but not GLOBAL warming. Because of the Warmist & Fake’s despicable crimes, by lying about phony ”GLOBAL” warmings / ”GLOBAL” ice ages; weather will become even more extreme!!! Knowing what the ”GLOBAL”temp was in 1400, 1500, is a megaphone declaration of ignorance!!! If the Fakes lie for free, about past phony GLOBAL warmings; why shouldn’t the Warmist use those lies, to cash on one phony global warming in 2100? the Fakes are doing the Warmist dirty job. Ask them for pay increase, they will pay any money; Fakes to be their
shield from the truth. They are getting desperate
I suggest that it is past the time when we could use a group of professional statisticians and computational fluid dynamics types to audit the various models that are used to forecast the climate in 2100. In an ideal world funding could be found. Since we do not live in an ideal world, a crowd sourcing approach similar to Climate Audit should be adequate, with all of their data and code posted on the web.
Those who are interested in using GCMs to identify long term trends will not want to ignore statisticians like Wegman, McShane, Wyner, McIntyre and McKitrick and the debunking of MBH98/88/08 (the ‘hockey stick’ graph). Hans von Storch said, “Die Kurve ist Quatsch.” After McShane & Wyner, additional statisticians probably will not be breaking new ground with respect to debunking global warming alarmism. M&S found there was absolutely no signal in the data used by Mann and shouted out by our own little-hitler, Al Gore in his ‘Inconvenient Truth’ government propaganda.
Nature will have the last say not schoolteachers. Meanwhile, both China and Japan are buying coal.
Both China and Japan are expanding their nuclear power capacity while Western civilization is going into debt and America is printing the heads of dead presidents on pieces of paper and paying cash for clunkers as real people look for solutions to real problems and are expected to pick up the tab for all of the political and cultural weirding.
Al Gore, MADMANN-IN-CHIEF of the Outhouse
Great post Judith!
Thank you for the in-detail and rather encyclopedic related research! It was a fun read!
But … but… messrs Gleicken, Santer et al, isn’t this a study of virtual reality, isn’t it jest models all the way down?
It looks to me all natural => http://bit.ly/L5FSBg
Here is with the oscillations plotted separately from the secular trend =>http://bit.ly/LyJ9iw
Are we not allowed to believe our lying eyes?
From the Yeager et. al. paper:
“Global satellite observations show the sea surface temperature (SST) increasing since the 1970s in all ocean basins, while the net air-sea heat flux, Q, decreases.”
While it certainly could be the case that “natural variability” dominates this trend, with the inference stated by the researchers that “diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes” is the direct cause, what one would really have to at least consider is the potential of other not completely specified dynamics. Specifically, what possible role that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might play, and how these increases could impact “diminished ocean cooling”, while at the same time giving higher SST’s. If one is concerned with the mechanisms whereby the air-sea flux Q has been decreasing, rather than look at some “natural variability” in the oceans, why not begin with something we know is changing in air side of Q, and thus consider that the rapid increase in greenhouse gases might indeed result in higher SST’s, while at the same time, reducing the rate of heat flux from ocean to atmosphere by alteration of the thermal gradient across the ocean skin layer. This reduction in the thermal gradient, with higher temperatures at the very top of the skin (i.e. SSTs), would result in a reduction in Q. At least this might be a plausible place for further research, rather than just tossing it into the “natural variability” basket.
I’m not sure that stochastic related mixing depths can have much more than local climate implications.These papers do underscore the need to understand the long term effect of the permanent addition to world heat of the 1905-1940 atmospheric temperature rise (seemingly ignored by the IPCC) and how and when this extra heat percolated through the oceans and eventually raised the surface/ atmosphere heat flux.
Further to my comment above. ‘that natural variability, rather than long term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over this 23 year period.’ But no natural cause of the warmer surface of the oceans over the 23 year period has been identified. An unnatural explanation is available: The permanent atmospheric temperature rise due to CO2 during the period 1905 to 1940 had to work its slow way through deep ocean currents to eventually give the reported SST.
Can I ask a simple question?
Why not just get a 1 km long cable and place 1,000 thermometers, 1 meter apart, and place a weight on one end and a floatation device on the other. Drop it in the Pacific ocean. Stick a diode array spectrophotometer on the float, then stick it in the central pacific, the tropic of Cancer or Capricorn will be perfect.
Now measure the temperature at each depth during one whole year. At the bottom the temperature will be 4 degrees. At the top it will be high in summer and low in winter. You will get a series of sine-wave(ish) temperature changes. The peak-trough positions will deviate with depth, from this you can calculate the lag.
The dampening effect of depth will tell you the rate of heat transfer at each depth.
It’s not difficult. .
The rate of mixing can vary widely from location to location.
and that makes a difference how?
Getting different readings at different locations would matter I would think. If it didn’t the studies they have already done using observations would be considered adequate.
I did that recently with data that is available from the NOAA TAO.
The following is an interesting set of cross-correlation curves for a 75 meter depth reading against 100m, 125m 150m, 200m, 250m, and 300m depths.
Note the strong in-phase correlations at a daily pace. What this is telling us is that sunlight penetrates to great depths and can warm all these layers in unison.
There is the possibility of pulling out a lag as well, which would indicate a diffusive thermal motion downward. This is determined from looking at the asymmetry around t=0 in the cross-correlation:
This is a subtle effect but I think at least something is there. I am sure other people are doing this, unless there is something I don’t know concerning the reliability of the data. Who knows, it is possible that all these correlations are cross-contaminated by how the measurements were taken..
So maybe you want to pull up a chair and do some of the analysis yourself ?
Lots of data still available, its not going anywhere.
‘There is the possibility of pulling out a lag as well, which would indicate a diffusive thermal motion downward”
Web, you have some very nice plots, but I couldn’t find the time units of lags; hours?
You must be very careful about how you describe fluxes and a change in a steady state’s position. The heat fluxes go in both directions, however the rate that the steady state position changes is not the rate at which the heat moves; it is the sum of fluxes.
The other point is that as we know the heat source and sink shares the asymmetric vector. The bottom of the ocean loses heat to the surface (and then to space) and is heated from the surface (down to 10’s of meters).
We know this to be true as the bottom is colder than the top.
“The other point is that as we know the heat source and sink shares the asymmetric vector. The bottom of the ocean loses heat to the surface (and then to space) and is heated from the surface (down to 10′s of meters).
We know this to be true as the bottom is colder than the top.”
How can something cooler lose heat to something warmer.
Instead it seems to me, cooler dense water falls, warmer water [say from volcanic vent] rises.
Next one has slow conduction of heat- water doesn’t conduct heat well, and require a lot energy to warm or cool [high heat capacity].
There are vast rivers of different densities waters flowing in the ocean with major flows related to cold arctic water falling towards the tropics, and tropic water replacing it with surface water flowing towards the arctic.
This engine is powered gravity and means it’s engine powered by cold, rather than a heat engine.
This flow of cold water to tropic overwhelms the rate warming from conduction- so one has cold dense water in the depths at tropics and little difference deep tropic water and deep temperate or arctic water.
Though upper layer of ocean one greater differences of tropic, Temperate, and arctic water- where one mixing from winds, and conduction is not being overwhelmed by rivers cold dense water.
gbaikie, indeed many people have suggested that polar currents cool the oceans from 500m to 4500m.
I am yet to be convinced, I’m open minded, but unconvinced.
Supply the calculation how the top can average 15 degrees and the 4 km be at 4 degrees, cooled by water at 4 degrees.
Doc, “Supply the calculation how the top can average 15 degrees and the 4 km be at 4 degrees, cooled by water at 4 degrees.” The temperature of the super saline water sinking with sea ice formation is around -1C. The Antarctic sea ice melt/freeze cycle in an area the size of Australia. That’s not insignificant. The 4C by the way is for fresh pure water. The maximum density “disappears” with impurities.
My Good Captain, we have the situation where we have a total volume of 1.3 billion cubic kilometers, and a surface area of 361 million square kilometers.
Now the surface layer is in complete thermal dis-equilibrium with the depths. Call the top 500 meter about 0.18 billion cubic kilometers at 15 degrees and 1.22 billion cubic kilometers at 4 degrees.
A while ago, there were no polar caps. Then there must have been no polar water cooling, so at one stage the oceans must have been at thermal equilibrium.
Let us be generous an assume that the polar melt water is at -2°C; how much would you have to dilute 1.22 billion cubic kilometers of water at equilibrium with the surface temperature (15 °C) to get a final dis-equilibrium of 4 °C?
I think about 5.5 volumes or 6.1 billion cubic kilometers at -2°C.
The annual polar melt of the Arctic is about 0.007 billion square kilometers and the Antarctic is about the same.
So 900 years or so if there is no downward heat, but there is downward heat..
“A while ago, there were no polar caps. Then there must have been no polar water cooling, so at one stage the oceans must have been at thermal equilibrium.”
Wind in cold oceans regions could cool surface waters.
But generally even without polar caps one can the ocean freezing in the poles during winter- the freezing of Hudson bay has little to do glaciers being present.
Very warm oceans and warmish polar oceans could prevent ice from from forming in winter, but even then one still could have windy condions causing evaporation and cooling of cooler arctic water.
Doc, have you been reading Hansen? :) There is really no need to over complicate things. Heat still flows from warm to cold and gravity aids convection. The net rate of diffusion drops to zero, the down welling only has to match the Geothermal energy from below and the weak rate of diffusion from above.
“Let us be generous an assume that the polar melt water is at -2°C; how much would you have to dilute 1.22 billion cubic kilometers of water at equilibrium with the surface temperature (15 °C) to get a final dis-equilibrium of 4 °C?
I think about 5.5 volumes or 6.1 billion cubic kilometers at -2°C.”
You not cooling the +15 C part of the ocean, you cooling a 3 C part of ocean.
Roughly the whole ocean is about 3 C. The surface part of ocean is an insignificant part of the ocean.
“average depth is 3790 metres”
The warmer part of ocean is the thermoline:
“The mesopelagic is the uppermost region. Its lowermost boundary is at a thermocline of 12 °C (54 °F), which, in the tropics generally lies at 700–1,000 metres (2,300–3,300 ft)”
So tropic deep thermocline, temperate zone less depth.
And I think at current temperature, the ocean will warm and glacier will melt, [so I am CAGWer!!!:) ] but it will take centuries to thousands years.
And simply can’t warm as quickly as Al Gore claims it can. Or in other words, sea level will continue rise and it will never exceed a 1 meter per century. And probably 1 foot at most this and next century.
You can tell from the oscillation period that subsurface ocean measurements were taken 3 times an hour.
Web, being able to calculate the rate of diffusion from a to b is wonderful, but generally more productive if you have an over view of what the problem is before finding solutions. So think of the simplest model of a system in steady state internally and overall equilibrium.
If you have two objects in an insulated box that are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other, they will be in thermodynamic equilibrium with the ambient conditions outside of the box. If 50% of the objects are at one temperature or energy level higher than the rest, they determine the steady state condition of the thermodynamic equilibrium. So if the energy flux from the warmer half to the cooler half is 100Watts, the energy flow from the total of the interior to ambient will be 100Watts. You can vary the percentages anyway you like, the warmer will still determine the steady state condition if the system is in equilibrium. If you add insulation to the box, the energy flow from warmer to colder will increase proportionally to the decrease in energy flow to ambient until equilibrium between the interior objects is restored.
The link has a simple sensitivity curve for 3.7Wm-2 with the average ocean SST and the average land temperature.
I did something similar using ARGO data last year. Basically I calculated the zonal means by month of year and fit a sine curve to give the amplitude, phase lag, mean, and R2 of the fit. As for the lag, there is a noticible anti-phased relationship between the tropics and mid-latitudes, particularily between ~50-250M. I attribute this to seasonal differences in convection (overturning). I doubt that your experiment would yield anything useful as it seems to be based on the assumption that conduction is the primary mechanism that heat is transferred, whereas I believe that convection is king.
P.S. As not all locations had a good R2, the amplitude measure is questionable. The exercise still produced seemingly reasonable lags. As for measuring the power of the annual signal, instead of using amplitude, I switched to variance which seemed to produce more sensible results:
Aj, how do you get the energy for convection? A different way of looking at heat transfer is that latent and convection are buses, radiant and conduction are the drivers. That is why as wind speed increases, molecular contact between source and sink increases. Reynolds numbers increase heat transfer increases.
Any conduction in the atmosphere is insignificant and estimated/calculated with the convection. In mechanics, convective heat transfer take place through both diffusion – the random Brownian motion of individual particles in the fluid – and by advection, in which heat is transported by the larger-scale motion of currents in the fluid. In the context of heat transfer, the term “convection” is used to refer to the sum of advective and diffusive transfer. That’s how I learned it – no conduction in fluids.
Interesting point Edim.
I totally agree capt. I was merely suggesting that convection is most important when it comes to deeper transfer, even though it is the result of radiation and conduction on a fluid body.
I just mention that because it is the transfer between thermal boundary layers that is most uncertain. Small impact on the conductivity of the fluids can have large long term impacts.
Also an interesting point capt. Given the difficulties in assessing long term impacts, this makes me think that assessing the annual signal yields more bang for the buck. The average power in the annual signal at depth does seem to follow a distinct pattern and the models seem to have difficulty replicating this pattern below 250M. Then again, maybe it doesn’t matter.
Question for the board loosely related to this subject:
The zero feedback temperature change for a doubling of CO2 is widely accepted as around 1C. One degree C in what? Water? Air? Some percent of both? The physics of GHGs trap energy. How this extra energy manifests as a change in temperature depends into what this energy is deposited…………no? There must be an assumption how this extra energy is divided up within the mass that makes up our biosphere but have never seen it explicitly stated.
“The zero feedback temperature change for a doubling of CO2 is widely accepted as around 1C. One degree C in what? Water? Air? Some percent of both? The physics of GHGs trap energy. How this extra energy manifests as a change in temperature depends into what this energy is deposited…………no? There must be an assumption how this extra energy is divided up within the mass that makes up our biosphere but have never seen it explicitly stated.”
That is the deal with most of this so called science.
But if look at general hypothesis, one could guess it has to do with reducing the loss of heat during the night.
But the believer don’t seem very supportive of this. Instead they seem like the idea that it have something to do making heat waves worst or something.
Nor is does there seem to be much focus on looking at whether nites or winter nite temperature are warmer. These should be where one could find these famous fingerprints, because it should be where most of affect was, assuming there is effect from rising CO2 levels.
The difference is in the average graybody necessary to balance the incoming and outgoing radiation levels.
It’s not that hard a concept to grasp if you had a decent physics education.
1 C in surface air temperature, as measured by thermometers at the standard height of 2 meters, which also happens to be the same as the average ground temperature change that would cause this air temperature change. It is quite well defined.
It’s of course possible to determine the surface temperature in terms of the overlying air temperature, given constraints imposed by the surface energy budget. In the idealized no-feedback scenario, the 1 C is a uniform warming in the vertical throughout the whole troposphere. This is not really a scenario that can work out in a world where water vapor condenses however, and it is ultimately arbitrary what one considers to be a “no-feedback reference system” and what one calls the “feedbacks.” It is a natural starting point in thinking about the problem however because it is a well-understood response that emerges only from fundamental radiative physics.
This was actually a response to Doug, though for dbackie as well I suppose…
Thanks Chris, I do believe this is a simplification too far. It inaccurately describes the response to the public. I believe it would be better to stop talking after the change in energy is described.
Multi-decadal natural internal variability (which is poorly simulated by the climate models) may be the dominant cause of the recent ocean warming (in terms of changes in ocean mixed layer depth and changes in sensible/latent heat fluxes).
You described the oscillation in words.
I am describing it in a graph => http://bit.ly/LyJ9iw
There is no such thing as a global average temperature. We now have a good understanding of ocean temperature trends based on ARGO data covering a large part of the world but only since 1978 (Argo is an international collaboration of over 3,000 buoys installed throughout the word’s oceans whereby 50 scientific institutions in 26 different countries share crucial sea temperature data). And the oceans have been cooling for a decade. And, there is no end to the cooling in sight. And, when the oceans are cooling, there is no global warming.
In the White Mountains of California, for example, there has been no global warming for over 100 years. The global warming alarmists marginalize their credibility by failing to address the UHI effect and all of the fraud, corruption and manipulation in land-based temperature data that has been brought to light. The raw data for New Zealand and France, just for for examples, shows no global warming over the last 100 years.
“It is trivially true that the Earth has warmed over the last 20 thousand and also over the last 150 years. An alternative viewpoint is that the Earth has cooled over the last 10 thousand years; it all depends upon the length of your piece of string. But most importantly of all, and over the time scale that counts for testing the hypothesis of dangerous global warming, since 1998 the Earth has failed to warm at all despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of more than 5 per cent.” ~Bob Carter, 23-Nov-2010
And, there obviously has always been natural causes for both warming and cooling. Taking account of these natural variables–e.g., ENSO effects, solar activity, etc.–leaves no room for human-produced CO2 to have a role.
Fear mongering is not science. As Dr. Roy Spencer observed, “Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science.” He concluded that AGW True Believers, “can simply assert that there are no natural causes of climate change, and as a result they will conclude that our climate system is precariously balanced on a knife edge. The two go hand-in-hand. Their science thus enters the realm of faith. Of course, there is always an element of faith in scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, in the arena of climate research the level of faith is unusually high, and I get the impression most researchers are not even aware of its existence.”
As the heat content of the ocean has clearly increased and unrelentingly so, then the average temperature has to also have increased. Unless the volume has expanded significantly to average out this excess heat or caused a
significant ice-to-water phase change (where the temperature can remain fixed), the laws of thermodynamics says the temperature must increase.
The huge thermal mass of the ocean is crushing the arguments of the skeptics, especially those that don’t understand elementary physics.
Part of being a global warming alarmist is being blinded by ideology. What we see is that Observational evidence in the real world simply does not support the data and the adjustments to the data and all of the variables and parameters that are used to capture ‘reality’ in the GCM world.
“The observed ocean heat content trends were calculated by Josh K. Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Craig Leohle of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Loehle’s calculations have a smaller margin for error than Willis, because Willis only uses annual average data. The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2. Indeed, the radiative imbalance was negative, meaning the earth was losing slightly more energy than it absorbed.
“Since the oceans are the primary reservoir of atmospheric heat, there is no need to account for lag time involved with heat transfer. By using ocean heat as a metric, we can quantify nearly all of the energy that drives the climate system at any given moment. So, if there is still heat ‘in the pipeline’, where is it? The deficit of heat after nearly 6 years of cooling is now enormous. Heat can be transferred, but it cannot hide.” (William DiPuccio)
Curious to which William DiPuccio this is:
William DiPuccio, Ph.D. is the Director, Institute for Classic Christian Studies. or the William DiPuccio a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician.
Probably the second, but the first sounds intriguing. Maybe he moonlights.
Maybe his wife gave birth to children in a Catholic hospital, oh my!
You are of course correct– the oceans don’t lie. They are by far the largest repository of non-tectonic energy on the planet and have a such a large thermal inertia, that no short-term variations will tip longer-term trends. The oceans are gaining energy (or at least the air-sea flux Q has been reduced). The most interesting line of research for those so inclined would be to discover exactly by what process or processes the oceans might simultaneously show higher SST’s, but also be retaining energy. After many decades of this, it seems some longer-term (beyond natural variability) process is in play. This process would also then need to be consistent with the other major effect occurring in the ocean-cryosphere domain, which is of course the dramatic reduction in annual Arctic sea ice (especially volume), which would necessarily go hand in hand with increase ocean heat content, as the largest mass of Arctic sea ice is under water.
The oceans are losing heat. We have numerous ARGO OHC studies through 2008 so we’re not confused about. The only real question — at least for global warming alarmists — is if the oceans’ loss of heat is due to global warming.
Sounds silly but what do they have left? It is of course obvious skeptics of global warming alarmism that in a period when the oceans are losing heat there is no global warming during that period. Even global warming alarmists would admit that if the facts did not directly contradict their preconceived notions.
0 to ~700 meters.
There are some early papers that claimed to have observed a negative trend in the ARGO based OHC data. Some of them were based on far too short period of ARGO data, some data had errors before the errors where corrected, and one paper has also explicit errors in statistical analysis. All those papers are by now known to be erroneous.
It remains true that the positive trend over the ARGO period has been rather weak for the top 700 m heat content, which must be significantly more reliable than the data for top 2000 m. The trend is, however positive, not negative also for the ARGO period.
You are free to ignore the findings of Willis, Loehle, Pielke, Douglass and Knox, all of which show a declining ocean heat content for the 2003-2008 period. Obviously, global warming alarmists cannot dispute these findings.
The AGW True Believers can either ignore the facts or like Trenberth, acknowledge them but claim the missing heat must be hiding–i.e., somewhere deep, deep down in the cold ocean depths lies waiting all the heat just waiting to spring forth and cause hell on Earth. Facts are facts: Trenberth’s missing ocean heat is still missing.
And the reason government science authoritarians of global warmism alarmism continue to ingore the facts and try to figure ways to manipulate and hide the date also is obvious. It is the same reason for all of the baseless fearmongering–> global warming alarmists cannot admit the truth.
When the weather hits the fan, it’s always wise to remember (and, I think Drs. Spencer and Pielke, Senior will agree): global cooling is not evidence of global warming. The oceans are cooling and there is no end to the cooling in sight. And, in a period when the oceans are cooling, there is no global warming during that period.
I prefer to use actual data. Ocean heat content down to 2000 meters at the highest level on instrument record for the period Jan-Mar. 2012.
Really Wag, your fabrications are astounding!
Loehle paper was written too early and later data told that it’s conclusions were wrong.
Douglass and Knox the one that got it’s result from erroneous statistical analysis. It used also the correct method and that resulted in slight warming trend.
Analysis that has been done with the whole data presently available tells that there has been a weak warming trend. You just insist on using outdated and erroneous analysis although better is available.
Global warming alarmists should first find the missing ocean heat content before glibly throwing up the specter of a couple of years of warming against the mast that more thoughtful persons must scrapes off, sweep up and clamor over like all of the other feckless global warming confabulations that weather underground has described that have since been debunked.
Wagathon, the oceans have warmed, stop denying it.
Do you have any appreciation for how foolish you sound? How long is your string? The oceans have warmed and not just since the last ice age. There have been five periods of global warming preceding the present.
And, all of these warm periods are separated by 1,000s of years of glacial temperatures. The oceans warm throughout the geological history of the Earth. And, the oceans cool. Leftist government science authoritarians have no say in this process whatsoever. Stop denying it.
Agree, the oceans are gaining heat and to argue against is meaningless twaddle.
As someone decidedly untrained in Science, I have a question.
If the warming of the ocean is caused by influences from above its surface (not by volcanic or other geothermal influences, then it seems that the question of what warms the ocean is something that can be put to the empirical test.
1. Build a sufficiently large and deep pool in an enclosed space.
2. Provide mechanisms to control the atmosphere in the building such that green house gases can be introduced and maintained in the PPM levels.
3. Provide a mechanism to irradiate the surface of the pool in the same manner as the sun.
4. Provide other devices to approximate the environment of the open ocean (waves, wind, etc.)
Compared to many scientific endeavors, this should cost mere pocket change. Not to mention be useful for a variety of other things later.
One would think that gathering hard facts, based in reality rather than abstract models would be much more compelling than a computer model.
This is more like a college student project. As a starting point, would you hypothesize that as you made the temperature of the whole room warmer, the water would follow with it over time? I would. When you get to ocean-scales however, there are problems concerning how that warming is distributed amongst basins, the vertical heat transfer rate of warming, etc that cannot be readily tested in a laboratory setting.
I don’t pretend to understand all the stuff that was discussed my Judith. But I see three variables here. The heat provided by the sun, atmosphere with one level of co2 and one with a higher level.
Provide a temperature controlled tank that will hold the water to a temp within a hundredth if a dregree on an airtight enclosure.
Fill with a highly controlled atmosphere with x ppm of co2. Irradiate with a sun lamp (or whatever would be suitable) carefully measure water temperature at many depths…the higher resolution the better.
Repeat with a higher concentration of co2
Compare. Rinse and repeat.
The only problem is you are not testing anything remotely close to AGW theory.
I believe the subject if this particular post is whether the increasing ocean temps are driven by increased air temps or the sun. Isn’t that the bottom line question?
What Mosh is driving at is that scale matters. To do anything that approximates the system here, you might be able to get away with a pool of water of less than 100 feet, but you’d need a column of atmosphere 100 miles up.
It’s hard enough to detect the AWG signal in the real atmosphere; doing it in a lab doesn’t work. And Bill Nye should have know that before he tried that dumb stunt.
No but it’s interesting that there doesn’t exist the analogue of the USACE waterways experiment station for climate. I guess because there is only one climate.
Don, with respect, the experiment you propose doesn’t really have much purpose in the present context.
To begin with, the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not just determined by the greenhouse content of the atmosphere, but by the vertical temperature contrast between the surface and top of the atmosphere, and works fundamentally on a planet that receives energy from a persistent, external source (e.g., the sun). Moreover, the time evolution of how the radiative forcing has been applies is not that well understood because of factors (largely non-solar, non-CO2, such as aerosols) which we don’t fully understand.
In any case, there are much more interesting scientific questions than whether the oceans warm when you dial up the knob on CO2 or the sun. Answering that question would not advance the science in any way, which is ultimately the point of a proposal to NSF for example. In contrast, there is substantial interest in the structure of how that warming is distributed in space and time between the various ocean basins, and as a function of depth. To the extent natural variations play a role in the time-evolution of SST, it is desirable what modes of natural variation are of primary importance and where extra energy has gone to allow the observed structure of ocean and atmospheric warming.
And while I’m asking questions…
Much has been made of tree ring rings and paleoclimate. It’s my understanding that the data supporting the Hockey stick is largely based on one tree.
Regardless, I am curious if there has every been an actual study on the question of how good of a proxy tree rings actually are?
Has anyone provided a blind sample of cores, from a known location with an impeccable record of temperatures, to a group of tree guys (Dendrologists?) and asked them to deduce the temperatures of the environment the trees grew in?
I ask this because it seems to me that the notion of being able to deduce the temperature to a 10th of a degree from a core of a tree is absolutely ridicules.
By the way, I presume you are Irish. Why restrict it to tree guys? How about four, or even five?
Apologies for the execrable pun.
Live well and prosper,
Kim @12/06 12.53am:
Can you see a red shift?
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.
Funny how many times you can dismiss a paper just from reading the first line; either via an erroneous initial assumption or a statement that renders the remainder of the work untestable.
Dr. Curry – 1,000 watts/m2 is a lot, but the Sun beats down relentlessly on half the Earth all time, every day; whereas a hurricane lasts a matter of days on a limited surface area. Is the effect of hurricanes on the global heat balance minimal just as the effect of aerosols may be likewise minimal?
Hurricanes leave a pretty big swath of much cooler ocean surface in a persistant trail behind them. I tend to agree with you that hurricanes in and of themselves aren’t responsible for much in the way of large scale temperature change in the global ocean but I’d probably want to see that quantified before betting the farm on it. What’s probably not insignificant is a constant parade of unorganized storms some of which have convection so strong they penetrate the stratosphere. That’s gotta leave a mark.
This study indicates much more of a mark than previously believed.
@@Dave Springer | June 12, 2012 at 8:59 am said: ” What’s probably not insignificant is a constant parade of unorganized storms some of which have convection so strong they penetrate the stratosphere”
Davo!!! Clouds only go 1/3 up in the troposphere; if it happens that at lunch time the sun/moon lining is above -> their combined gravity pulls those clouds ”just little bit further up- and we get hailstorm”… what I’m saying is: on the 2/3 of the upper ”troposphere” is no clouds to be seen. Clouds never go into the stratosphere – take it easy on the bottle – because if your clouds get above the stratosphere -> will steam the windscreens and telescopes on the satellites – NASA and the Russians will blame you and your bottle; they will take your bottle away, no bull…
In other words: I have repeated so many times that: when it gets warmer than normal on some area – oxygen + nitrogen expand INSTANTLY – penetrate into the stratosphere -> collect extra coldness – > that extra coldness falls somewhere west and make it colder than normal; to balance. I’ve given even example so many times: ”release a tennis-ball on the bottom of the swimming pool -> the ball is not just going to surface – but will even jump above the water” (as top of nuclear mushroom) Extra hot air up -> intercepts extra coldness in 3,5 seconds = become heavier than any other O+N below – therefore they fall as shotgun pellets to the ground with enough extra coldness, to cancel the extra heat. But, because the planet is spinning fast eastwards – in that ”jiffy” the coldness falls far west – on the way down, by the winds gets distributed all over some other places. That’s NOT global warming, or GLOBAL cooling You are ignoring my real proofs regarding O+N, you are substituting with clouds; which never even go close in the stratosphere = double guilt!.
David, one bottle a day – and remember O+N does that, NOT h2o! You will be spot on. Otherwise, you put yourself as low as Eli Rabbet. He was lying that: methane in the stratosphere destroys ozone -> turns into water – than planet will lose that water flying out off earth’s gravity” That was a nugget, produced by active Warmist, please don’t take his top place
You are a bit better person than Eli, I like to see him keeping the record as ”the top B/S Artist – on the bottom of the septic tank”..
Hurricanes are just the named part of the issue. The Antarctic has hurricane strength storms all the time.
That link has wave height and direction, big seas are pretty common. That means big winds are pretty common. Even cold air can suck up a lot of moisture and sensible heat.
The average temperature of the global ocean is 4C. It is critical that it be understood that our warm climate is due to a thin layer of warm water floating atop a bucket of ice water due to warm water being less dense than cold and thus stratification. Anything that disturbs the degree of stratification can have serious consequences. Mixing between the mixed surface layer and the frigid bulk of the ocean below it is largely by the oceanic conveyor belt which transports warm tropical surface waters to the poles where they cool and sink and return along the bottom to the tropics where they upwell when driven against the sides of rising bottom features. The speed and course is largely set by the earth’s rotation (coriolis force) and layout of continental plates and by those factors should be quite stable except over geologic spans of time long enough for continental drift to change the plate layout substantially. However maybe not so much when critical regions like narrow passages from the Atlantic to Arctic ocean are in play. Substantial sea level change can also increase/decrease the volumetric capacity of narrow passages. Another factor that effects the amount of water transported is the temperature difference between tropics and poles. Moving water from one place to another is work (in the physics sense) and the amount of work that can be done is limited by energy gradients where the steeper gradient allows more work to be done. I say energy gradients instead of temperature so we don’t forget that humid air has a lot more energy in it than dry air at the same temperature but in water there is no change in humidity so it’s all about temperature gradient.
Where the atmosphere can cause some changes that aren’t as obvious as clouds throttling how much shortwave energy from the sun reaches the ocean to warm it is wind speed. Evaporation does the heavy lifting by insensibly transporting solar energy out of the ocean and boosting it thousands of feet into the air before it becomes sensible again by condensing into a cloud. Most readers here are probably aware that El Nino has climate consequences that span the globe. Fewer are probably aware that El Nino and La Nina are caused by slower or faster trade winds respectively which in turn slow or increase the evaporation rate. Slow the evaporation rate and El Nino appears. Speed it up and La Nina appears. This and clouds are the two ways where the tail (the atmosphere) can wag the dog (the global ocean). Non-condensing greenhouse gases and especially anthropogenic changes in concentration can be ignored in at least the first approximation.
Arctic sea ice cover is also critical as it acts like a flow-control valve not too unlike a thermometer in an automotive cooling system. Ice free water in the arctic can dump heat to space fast enough to spin heads. Ice covered water is well insulated. So when it warms up in the tropics and that water makes it to the arctic it melts more ice than cooler water would and thus the radiator to space opens up and the warmer water cools faster. Cool down the tropics and a year or two later the opposite thing happens. One can easily see this in the 1998 El Nino which was huge. About 18 months later arctic sea ice melt accelerated and over the next several years a step change took place and arctic sea ice extent stabilized at 90% of what it was before the mother of all El Ninos. Unsurprisingly when the arctic sea ice retreated global temperature stabilized along with it and we haven’t had any significant global warming since then.
Arctic sea ice has not “stabilized” at 90% of what it was before the “mother of all El Ninos”. The continual increases in ocean heat content as well as warmer tropospheric tempertures in the Arctic are altering that ecosystem very rapidly. We will have an ice free summer Arctic ocean this century. Why the denial?
Just stating the facts, Gates. You on the other hand are making predictions. There has been no statistically significant decline in Arctic sea ice extent since 2006. There was no statistically significant decline before 2000. A step change ocurred. Why the denial of the facts, Gates?
If AGW believers would like at paleo records of Arctic ice, they would not say the things you say.
Arctic ice has been highly variable over long periods of time.
We have muddled through, as have the polar bears and seals.
We will muddle through this period as well, if the AGW community does not impose too many of their silly ideas.
Paleo records are very useful and I think many AGW “believers” such as myself, have studied them extensively. You are right, the Arctic does display a great deal of variability over time, but the key to science is not just noting that variability, but attempting to match it up with potential causes. Every global climate model shows the Arctic to be specfically warming faster than the rest of the planet, and the data over the past few decades seems to be confirming that general finding. Every effect does not have to have the same cause, thus, what warmed the Arctic during one period, may or may not be what is warming it now. Only rigourous application of the science will tell us that, and it seems to be saying, “it’s mostly human activity”. Weclome to the Anthropocene.
You may be interested to read this link:
The models are too bad to rely on, the obs don’t even agree with each other, never mind the models and rigorous aapplication of the science is not saying “mostly human activity” in the least: It is saying welcome back to the warming we had in the 30’s; prepare for the cooling half-cycle.
We probably should wait for the AMO to go negative before we place too much meaning on Arctic sea ice levels. Figure 3 shows the phase changes involved.
Detrended AMO: Hiding the incline?
AMO may not be just an internal climate variability – it seems to be associated with solar activity, solar cycle frequency for example. If the relation is real, AMO should go negative soon.
@@ Dave Springer | June 12, 2012 at 8:06 am said: ”The average temperature of the global ocean is 4C”
WRONG!!! Most of the seawater is in permanent darkness -average temp is much, much, much COLDER than 4C!!! I can’t tell precise; because I always criticize / ridicule the con artists that ”harvest with PRECISION, from thin air”’ .Dave, 4C average; is wrong by a country mile!!! Stefan
“Multi-decadal natural internal variability (which is poorly simulated by the climate models) may be the dominant cause of the recent ocean warming (in terms of changes in ocean mixed layer depth and changes in sensible/latent heat fluxes).”
It is my understanding that sensible heat flux refers to conduction between surface and atmosphere. It is also my understanding that sensible heat flux at the ocean/atmosphere interface is less than 10% of total heat flux at that interface due there usually being very little difference between ocean surface temperature and air temperature in contact with it. Without little or no difference in temperature there is corrspondingly little or no conduction.
Using a term “sensible/latent” then in this context makes me think you’re referring to the water cycle where sensible ocean heat becomes latent heat in the atmosphere which then becomes sensible heat in a cloud.
Please clarify what you mean by “sensible/latent”.
Still air is a very fine insulator – I don’t know why some call it conduction, between surface and atmosphere. Without the bulk movement of air, there’s practically no sensible, non-radiative heat flux between surface and atmosphere. It’s a convection (heat transfer by fluid motion).
Should read “It’s convection”.
Edim. There is a difference between heat transfer in a fluid and between fluids. In a fluid, there is convection primarily with diffusion secondarily. Between fluids it is conduction and radiant, convection and latent just carry the energy away from the boundary after it is transferred. Energy only moves from one molecule to another by contact or emission/absorpsion.
I know what you mean, but I still think it doesn’t make sense to call it conduction – it basically stops when air motion (natural or forced) stops. It’s usually (maybe not in all fields) called convection and it includes both advection (predominant) and diffusion (basically negligible).
It is important to stick with the basics. CO2 for example also has a non-linear conductive impact. With more CO2, it is easier to transfer heat between molecules conductively as well as radiantly. Since conductive heat transfer drives convection, there would be an increased rate of convection. A doubling of CO2 doubles its conductive impact, a doubling of CO2 increases its radiant impact by ln(2). The math tends to reduce the radiant impact a touch :)
Edim here is a little thought experiment on why to never lose site of the basics.
There are a lot of ways to set up a problem. In politics it is follow the money, in thermo it is follow the energy.
Climate science is the same as politics in that respect – follow the money (almost all of which is from government, which is why it always seems to be justifying more government). Explains why climate science is actually 95% politics, 5% science. Climate Political Science we might as well call it.
This is misleading. Diffusion describes a motion that doesn’t have a preferred direction, and so a random walk often works as a useful model. So when ocean movements are described by terms such as eddy diffusion, what we are seeing is large scale random walks without a preferred direction. As it turns out, eddy diffusion is not “basically negligible” or “secondary”.
Web, there are eddy currents, generally the result of currents. In general, the rate of diffusion in an open system is lower than the rate of convection. In steeping my tea, diffusion dominates :)
Convection in dry air is a consequence of conduction. There’s very little of that kind of convection on a global basis because it only happens to any significant degree over dry land when the sunshine is strong. Think about heat waves you can see rising off tarmac or a desert in the heat of the day. That’s dry convection. You don’t see that when it’s wet because water vapor carries the heat away in latent form and doesn’t cause the optical distortion that temperature gradients do. The real workhorse when it comes to convection is convecting water vapor and why extreme weather events involve strong convective cells. The power in that convection doesn’t come from hot air rising it comes from humid air rising where that humid air isn’t any warmer than the surface that’s feeding the water vapor to it.
David said, “The power in that convection doesn’t come from hot air rising it comes from humid air rising where that humid air isn’t any warmer than the surface that’s feeding the water vapor to it.”
Interesting. So water miraculously leaps from liquid to gas. Do have a patent on that?
thermal conductivity = thermal diffusion times volumetric heat capacity. So as the heat capacity of a volume increases the conductivity increases. As the pressure increases the heat capacity increases. Conductivity would be higher at the surface. As thermal diffusion increases, conductivity would increase. VHP=Tc/Td, so as conductivity increased, VHP increases, as VHP increases, specific humidity would increase if water is available. As density increases looks to me like conductivity is an important player.
There needs to be a temperature difference between surface and air before any sensible heat transfer occurs. I don’t care how fast you move 70F air across a dry 70F surface neither one of them (discounting friction) will change in temperature. Over the ocean there is very little difference in air and surface temperature. Over land there can be a great deal of difference. You can get a better picture of this across the globe by spending some time studying this:
“5.6 Geographic Distribution of Terms in the Heat Budget”
One can’t really begin to figure out what’s happening without a good knowledge of sensible, latent, and radiative heat flows vary in amount and over all latitudes and on the same latitude land versus ocean. This is critical 411.
->This study says that the increase in ocean temperatures are not driving by radiative forcing <-
Does this not anyway follow from the non-increase in atmospheric temperatures for the last 12 or so years ?
Not really. Oceans absorb the IR directly into the water. It’s a different analysis.
But over at Realclimate they seem to have dismissed the ‘backradiation’ idea, which would preclude IR skipping the CO2-enhanced atmosphere and directly heating the oceans.
If a CO2 molecule absorbs IR, and then reemits it, surely it will just be absorbed by some other CO2 molecule.
And if you want to say some of this reaches the oceans – avoiding heating the atmosphere – by a series of such knock-on effects (like a row of billiard balls), are you saying greenhouse warming doesn’t warm the atmosphere at all ??
Think of CO2 as only effecting a micro think top layer of the oceans, lakes and rivers that cover most of the Earth. And, even this amount of transferred energy — ‘heat’ — will quickly be lost through the process of evaporation.
Not really. In the big picture the sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the atmosphere. The ocean has warmed so slightly that you can’t dig the signal out of the noise in the atmosphere. The atmosphere has such a tiny heat capacity compared to the ocean that if there really is an energy imbalance you will only be able to find it in the ocean because the atmosphere is too noisy. Hence the focus on the ocean. The ocean evidently, if we trust the latest instruments, is warming at a rate of 0.2C per century which is almost an order of magnitude less than surface air temperature over land i.e. the instrument record i.e. thermometers in Stephenson screens. Anthropogenic global warming is pretty much absent from the ocean and the signal over highly populated continents is iffy when you consider that removing SHAP and TOBS modelling adjustments from the raw thermomometer record all land based warming disappears. I’m inclined to agree there’s been some modest GHG warming in high northern latitudes over land but there appears to be next to none elsewhere.
“Not really. In the big picture the sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the atmosphere. ”
Ocean causes most of “Greenhouse Effect”.
If the question is why isn’t London or Paris freezing, it’s because of the Ocean. Everyone knows this.
Or the reason the Earth average temperature is as high as it is [about 14 C] is because large area of the planet is ocean and the ocean is warm.
Again everyone knows this [and for whatever reason it is ignored].
If look at land areas, the biggest countries are Canada and Russia- both have average temperature below freezing, and you have Antarctic which would be a large country if it was one, and makes cold seem warm.
But one ignore these large countries temperatures, because the ocean area dominates the planet. Or the average average temperature of Earth has little to do with average land temperatures of Earth, and is mostly about average ocean temperature of Earth.
Or if had country called the Tropical Ocean, it’s has more surface area than all the surface area of all land masses on Earth. And the biggest and warmest *country* would be the Tropical Ocean.
We look at Moon, and one thing that seems obvious, there is no “greenhouse effect”. The Moon is both hotter and colder then anyplace on Earth. And places on earth that get nearest to Moon temperatures are locations on land. The highest land temperatures of cooler the land areas on Earth- Russia or Canada can [in their summers] have higher temperature than any Ocean surface- sand or sidewalks could be over 30 C, even air temperatures approach these temperatures. But what these places are cold in regard to the night time and winter temperatures. These countries coldest temperatures would even colder, if not warmed by a sometimes very distant ocean. Or roughly how far from the Ocean and winds that transfer heat, determines how cold they can get. So at same latitude that can have -50 or -80 C air temperature, the ocean at same latitude are always above freezing.
So in terms of night time and winter temperatures in temperate and arctic zone the ocean is significantly warming that air.
The second largest “country” would be the southern temperate zone Ocean, and third would be the northern temperate zone Ocean.
And these also the warmest “countries” in terms doing their part in increasing the average of average global temperature.
The moon? The moon?
He does not mention the most critical aspect of the moon after all that babble.
It is really all pseudo-scientific word salad at this site, isn’t it?
“He does not mention the most critical aspect of the moon after all that babble.”
There isn’t a ocean covering 7/10th of the Moon.
Mars also lacks an ocean. Mars probably has 1000 times more water than the Moon. Mars has trillions and Moon has billion of tonnes of water..
Mars also has around ~2.5 x 10^16 kg of mostly CO2 [+95%].
Earth’s atmosphere’s mass is 5.1 x 10^18 kg
Mars has 1/200th of Earth atmosphere. But Mars smaller planet
and so it’s atmosphere is about 1/100th of Earth or similar to atmosphere
on Earth at about 100,000′ [30 km] attitude.
Mars has more CO2 than the Earth has in it’s atmosphere
Earth about 400 molecules of CO2 in every million molecules of air.
Or two molecule of CO2 molecule for every five thousand
2/5000 is a smaller number than 1/200 [12 1/2 times smaller]
Mar atmosphere would similar to earth having 10,000 ppm.
Doubling pre-industrial, of 280, it’s 560, 1120, 2240, 4480, and finally
8920 ppm. So 5 doubling, which if adds 1.6 C would increase Mars temperature by 8 C.
Or added 1 C per doubling and started from say 70, 140, 280, 560, 1120, 2240, 4480, and finally 8920 . That also is 8 C.
Of course Mars is very cold. Because of distance from the Sun it receives about 60% less sunlight, but because of it very thin atmosphere, it receives about the same solar energy per square meter as Earth does at it’s surface.
gbaikie is beyond hopeless.
I question him on the moon and he goes to mars.
As Chapelle would say:
“I question him on the moon and he goes to mars.”
No, you didn’t. You said:
“He does not mention the most critical aspect of the moon after all that babble.”
This isn’t a question.
It is stating that I didn’t mention the most critical aspect about the moon.
Which is as silly as a movie clip. I seriously doubt, that even though I may have mentioned what is the most critical aspect of the Moon, that WebHubTelescope could get close to guessing what was the most critical aspect of the Moon.
More word salad by gbaikie. He actually doesn’t know it.
My point here is one actually of analysis rather than facts.
If only for the sake of the argument, let us take it that the upper ocean layers are indeed warming, however slightly.
Now AGW is supposed to work by heating the rising ppm of co2, and hence the broader atmosphere. For this to be implicated in the abovementioned ocean warming, there would need to be the atmospheric warming that is driving it. But we aren’t. Which suggests the ocean warming is down to nature rather than man.
(The suggestion that downwelling LW acting directly on the ocean has been mentioned above, but I don’t think this has wide credence).
I’m noticing a habit I’ve developed to be suspect of any paper with Ben Santer’s name attached. Perhaps I’m spending too much time following climate blogs.
You’ve got to be suspicious of someone claiming to be a scientists who says he can make Nature do tricks.
You are right Timg. Santer has published a long string of papers that go to great, often speculative, lengths to explain away anomalies with AGW. This looks like what is called “theory saving.” A little theory saving is good science but too much actually weakens the hypothesis being protected. It is like adding circles to circles to keep the Earth in the center of the universe.
Me too. Santer is a cheerleader. He might just as well be waving pom poms.
Ocean warming explained (Santer)
THIS TELLS THE STORY !!!
When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence.
1 % CONFIDENCE ???????????
NetDr | June 12, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
You’ve confused significance with confidence. While not exact complements, 1% significance is like 99% confidence, in that the chances that there is a drop or no rise is 1% or less for a 1% significance level.
The English language says that if you are 1 % confident in something you aren’t very confident of it being true
Does statistics define it the opposite ?
NetDr | June 16, 2012 at 8:50 am |
I’d recommend trusting a good source on the jargon of any specialized field over some stranger (like myself) on the Internet.
However, typically the lower the significance, the more likely the hypothesis; likewise, the higher the confidence, the higher the likelihood a statement is true. “Confidence” and “significance” are not the same words, and in this case have almost (but not exactly) opposite meanings.
For instance, I’m confident earwax build-up might be an excuse to ask someone to repeat a perfectly plain statment; I find it significantly unlikely that earwax can be the issue of someone making the same mistake twice in a row on a blog and demanding the explanation be repeated all over again.
See the difference?
The source indicated a very low “confidence of 1 %”
Even you said “the higher the confidence, the higher the likelihood a statement is true. “
NetDr | June 16, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level)
The source indicated a very low “confidence of 1 %”
Perhaps we’re discussing different quotes?
Perhaps but either 1% confidence or 1 % significance means the author isn’t confident and the amount isn’t significant.
simple English ?
Up to 2005 when the Argos system went on line there seemed to be significant warming but since better measurements were taken there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING. .
NetDr | June 16, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
It’s like banging one’s head against a wall. Whatever. I’m moving on.
When you are obviously wrong moving on is wise.
Being 1 % confident is just not very confident.
I will never believe it is !
Moving on is wise.
Telling me that something that is 1 % significant is significant or 1 % confident is probably true is a waste of time.
It simply isn’t true is it ?
I don’t believe anyone with an IQ greater than a gerbil believes 1 % confidence or 1 % significance is probably true.
You aren’t a gerbil are you ?
NetDr | June 17, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
OK I was wrong. [You don’t see that admission often do you ?]
The problem is that the confidence that something isn’t due to natural causes [chance] isn’t known.
The Vostok ice cores show that the recent warming is entirely normal and natural and has happened frequently in the past. Same or greater amount and duration.
Seems the author is ignorant of the past.
Link to Jo Nova is suspended today.
The delusion that the modern warming is somehow unusual is the heart of the global warming religion.
It simply isn’t true !
If you have a link it might as well be the one that explains it.
The simple FACT that it warms and cools as much as the modern warming every few hundred years is apparently known by skeptics but true believers keep forgetting
“The simple FACT that it warms and cools as much as the modern warming every few hundred years is apparently known by skeptics but true believers keep forgetting”
It doesn’t warm and cool as much every few hundred years.
Sorry but it DOES WARM AND COOL the same amount as the modern warming several times in a thousand years without any change in CO2.
BTW: I agree that there isn’t that much warming by CHANCE.
Coming out of a little ice age and increased sunspots in the 20 th century are not CHANCE ! Increased sunspots seem to cause more warming than mere change in radiation would cause. [decreased ionization ] seems to cause warming. No CHANCE involved.
Skeptics know the modern warming DOES OCCUR several times in a thousand years without CO2 ?
NetDr | June 18, 2012 at 2:28 pm said: ”The delusion that the modern warming is somehow unusual is the heart of the global warming religion”.
NetDr, the truth is completely, COMPLETELY the opposite!!! TRUTH: ”for the past 140y, people involved in climatology – when discover some unusual weather imprint somewhere – they declare it as GLOBAL warming / or GLOBAL ice age…. They were not scrutinized – went in education books – became official; even though it was ALL lies. Than by the Berlin Wall falling down-> western Reds realized that they cannot oppress the democratic west by Kalashnikovs – jumped on the Warmist wagon = end result is obvious.
Before that, for the last 130y – the few con artist involved in ”climatology” predicted 8 GLOBAL warmings – 7 GLOBAL coolings, and one Nuclear Winter for year 2000; because of CO2 dimming effect. Before you even defrosted from their nuclear winter for year 2000 – they joined forces by the western Reds. Their GLOBAL warming for 2100 is same as their Nuclear Winter for year 2000. The laws of physics don’t permit extra warming of the WHOLE planet – those laws say: if one part gets extra warm / another part MUST get extra cold!!! The whole planet simultaneously cannot get warmer, or colder; for more than 8-9minutes! That means: if the Fake Skeptics like you; face the reality that: localized warmings can and always happen/ GLOBAL warming is impossible; the laws of physics and I have proven it; beyond any shadow of a doubt = Warmist don’t have a case. Case would be closed – leading Warmist locked up.
Therefore, the Fake Skeptics like YOU, are the precursor of all evil. Without the Fakes promoting the past anomaly in weather as their ”phony GLOBAL warmings” = Warmist castle would have collapsed in few months; therefore, please don’t be proud when telling lies about past GLOBAL warmings – all you are doing is: distributing prof Plimer’s dysentery…!!!
We saw with the sea-level rise thread that the Levitus paper showed that the ocean heat content rose significantly over the last nearly 60 years. The people keeping quiet are the proponents of the 60-year cycle. Perhaps they would admit now that ocean warming does not show this 60-year cycle as much as they might hope? It may be somewhat smaller than other heating mechanisms, and it could be considered insignificant in the big picture, perhaps even a red herring?
they’ll just add more epicycles
The only warming deemed AGW took place during the period 1940 to 1978 and the PDO was 100 % positive.
From 1940 to 1978 there was cooling and the PDO was negative.
From 1998 to the present there has been no warming and the PDO switched from positive to negative around 2005.
There has never been any AGW when the PDO was negative.
Why is that ?
You talk as though there was no enhanced greenhouse effect from 1940 to 1978. What turned it off? If atmospheric CO had been 280 ppm from 1940 to 1978, what would the temperature graph look like?
I’ll help you out. If the 20th century had 280 ppm throughout, it would look way more like this than like this.
That is a belief not a fact.
The only warming happened when the PDO was positive.
So the PDO was AWOL in the 19th Century? Lol.
The following hypothesis is purely spoof; has anyone worked out the figures for ocean warming being due to the return of whales and other warm-blooded marine mammals from the edge of extinction? ;)
I mean, there must be ten times as many warm-blooded animals in the oceans now as there were a century ago. That’s got to add something to the heat.
And don’t forget, with 95% of all shark populations eradicated, sharks being cold-blooded, there’s less active cooling of the oceans by the sharks fanning the waters with their radiator-like fins. :D
From what I read on blogs, there are apparently (that’s a red herring!) way more red herrings in the oceans than ever before, so according to your theory they’re warm blooded?
BartR you can’t get anything right. Whales have a larger volume! They displace more water causing sea level rise. Since Greenpiece has take to saving the whales, they have grown more obese exacerbating the situation by displacing more volume while providing more insulation. It those pesky fur seals causing the warming. ;)
Its not hard to see that for some there is a great expectation brewing, that to provide any degree of catastrophic global warming/climate change/weird weathering, the ocean is the last plausible place to gain time if not traction – seems more like a rear gaurd fall back position, or maybe just bury the whole thing. My humble observation, after reading/wading through these polararized comments.
Sure, it’s all academic except for the general whose army is freezing — just trying to survive an ice age winter — like Napolean and Hitler and George Washington… or for the elderly in the UK burning books to survive winter before last. But, show me the Leftist global warming alarmist who doesn’t want to live as high on the hog as Al Gore.
How can it be the last place to look when it holds more than 90% of the accessible heat capacity of the earth?
Hansen has been pointing to the ocean as a transient store since the early 1980’s, if not earlier.
Cold blooded sharks fanning the water, I can picture it, lol. It could work!
By the way, the timing of this paper and its tedious predictable claim of “the science is settled” simply shows that it was written as agitprop for the Rio conference: Like the melting Himalayan glaciers, like the oceans turning to acid, like the storms that were predicted to be lashing us with historic intensity and frequency, this paper is just so much expensive wall paper to serve as a prop for yet another cliamte conference.
expensive wallpaper–i.e., government propaganda. Only, C02 us blamed on business and evil corporations instead of Jews.
”substantial structural uncertainties remain” NOP! Nothing is uncertain! Not even the Warmist & Fake’s ”smocking guns.
Everything is known!!! Sincere / honest thinking; will tell you what Stefan knows: 1] ”for the last 50y, population increased / economies improved. 2] more and more olive, canola oils end up into the sea from the sewage treatment plants – pork, chicken, beef fat + industrial oils end up in the sea. Those oils + fats spread as an invisible film on the surface of the sea -> prevent evaporation. 3] EVAPORATION IN COOLING PROCESS. 4] less evaporation = less cooling, less evaporation = less clouds (clouds are the sun umbrellas for the sea) less clouds = rain; rain brings coldness from high up and is cooling the ocean. Rain replenishes the seawater with oxygen – many places the water for big part of the year is oxygen deficient; cannot sustain fish – fishermen cop it. WHO IS GUILTY? WHAT ”substantial structural uncertainties remain”?!?!?! Z E R O! ! !
Because of the obsessional ”carbon bashing” by both camps, the real problems cannot be minimized. It’s on record that I have ALL, in details – the fundamentalist from both camps are doing everything to silence me and the truth. Everything is KNOWN; fundamentalist are suffering from ”truth phobia” Too many ”smoking guns” Solution.Take the fundamentalist Warmist & Fakes to Guantanamo / the Bay of Pigs – where they belong! Cheers, brothers! At least I’m honest – you guys are naughty! .
We heard it here first folks.
I just figured out what bothers me about this entire debate.
I was just over at RealClearPolitics reading a column by Noam Scheiber. In it, he is carrying on about Health Care and the economy and recovery, etc. It’s not important what he was saying but what got my attention was the fact that he was taking the exact same facts as others and coming to different conclusions. His conclusions, while based in “facts”, were the result of his interpretation of the facts.
And so it is with the AGW. While the arguments are based on “facts”, the conclusions are all over the place because they are based on the interpretation of facts. I have not seen or heard of any experimental data that would definitively say what would happen if CO2 (or, pick your favorite pollutant) reached a given PPM.
You can say that if you heat some metal to some temperature, it will melt. You can say that if you remove all the air from a room, any occupant not protected from the vacuum will die. You can say that if you heat unadulterated water to 212 degrees at sea level, it will boil.
But the AGW discussion isn’t about these kinds of facts, it’s about “if this happens, then that may happen, which means something else could happen and by the way something else is happening so we must be right.”
This disconnect from hard experimental data is palpable (for good reason, the complexity of the system).
Current AGW theory seems like the Geocentric model of planetary orbits. It apparently explains what we are seeing, but they keep having to tack epicycles onto it as we make more accurate observations and refine our understanding of the complete system.
The question is, when will the Kepler of AGW come along? Let alone Newton and Einstein.
In case of moving from Geocentric model to later understanding a new simple explanation could explain the whole issue reasonably accurately and completely new physical theories led to further understanding and more accurate results. A small number of simple equations describe the Newtonian mechanics and gravity.
It appears almost certain that science has known for long the basic equations of physics that Earth system including the atmosphere as well as other subsystems. We don’t expect that any new laws of physics would be needed top replace the known ones. Neither do we expect that modeling the Earth system will ever become simple.
A lot is known on what’s going on but it’s not possible to describe all the details, not even all important details. The knowledge and understanding is going to improve gradually but it’s unlikely that a new Kepler will ever come along to revolutionize the climate science.
I think my greater point is that while it *appears* that the Climate models explain what we are seeing, so did the Geocentric model. Only to discover later that it was patently wrong.
I understood and my answer was based on that understanding.
The atmosphere is a physical system that should behave according to the laws of physics that have been tested very extensively in highly variable situations. All this empirical evidence tells that the same laws apply everywhere: very often classical physics, but sometimes quantum mechanics or relativistic mechanics.
Physical models explain many details of atmosphere and physicist know pretty well when the physical models should work. Full scale atmospheric models and in particular climate models are a different issue. Theoretical considerations cannot tell how well such complex models work. Practical experience from the use of such models tells more but leaves still very much open.
There’s nothing unexpected in this state of matter. The complexity of the Earth system is of such nature that it’s not likely that the situation would change fundamentally. There will be better models and there will be more empirical data to test the models, but the fundamental situation is likely to remain the same.
The models are not correct but they are not either patently wrong. They are some between these extremes and will almost certainly remain between these extremes.
And the annoying AGW true believers take the position that if you disagree with their apocalyptic clap trap interpretation then you are beneath contempt.
The reason for ocean warming or cooling is the energy imbalance at TOA. The data for that is from Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) and before that the Earth Radiant Budget Satellite (ERBS).
Yes, and the fact that the imbalance has been one sign for so long implies a net forcing of that sign. An unforced system could not maintain such an imbalance for decades.
But of course, we don’t have an “unforced system”. CO2, methane, N2O continue to increase rapidly. These warming forcings can only be balanced by cooling from natural aerosols, human aerosols, less active sun, ocean cycles etc., all of which operate on different time scales and can “mask” to some extent the underlying warming from the long-term growth of greenhouse gases. But when it comes to the longer-term forcing from greenhouse gas increases…you can run, but you can’t hide, as Foster-Rahmstorf 2011 and other papers have so nicely showed.
But of course an appreciation of the nature and extent of natural variability changes much. It is why the data is important.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of NH climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Foster & Rahmsdorf 2011. This is the paper where they pretend to have a fix on all forcings other than Co2, and then say the unaccounted bit is therefore down to Co2 ?
CERES is not accurate to a half-watt per square meter for average global power output. The so-called energy imbalance is calculated (modelled) not measured.
Different attempts to measure global average albedo are notoriously out of agreement with each other. One of the latest and greatest was called Earth Shine which measured the illumination of the new moon from month to month over a period of 5 years. Base albedo used in GCMs varies by 7% from low to high 30% range. In engineering lingo we call this a fudge factor because we get to plug in whatever value we want between the high and low estimates to help produce a desirous result to a calculation.
Depends on whether you are looking at absolute or anomalies. The changes in SW and IR are very illuminating and are known with great accuracy. Thick as 2 short planks.
A root cause the whole problem/debate, right?
And btw how accurately do we know the tectonic heat input to the oceans?
RE: JC summary : “Focusing on the period since 1983 makes sense because this is the period where we have the best satellite data sets, but there are still substantial problems with the ocean temperature data sets. Many people I talk to have little confidence in the ocean temperature analyses prior to 1980, and most people agree that there are very substantial problems prior to 1960. “
The time period 1940 to 1970 is marked by a global cooling, which started with three extreme cold winters in Europe together with the 2nd World War. It should not be so difficult to find out, whether the huge penetration of the North- and Baltic Sea, and the North Atlantic (and Pacific since December 1941) by naval war activities did contributed. This is at least my conclusion that I presented first in a book 2005 here: http://climate-ocean.com/ , and this year (2012) here: http://www.seaclimate.com/ .
capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 | June 13, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
David said, “The power in that convection doesn’t come from hot air rising it comes from humid air rising where that humid air isn’t any warmer than the surface that’s feeding the water vapor to it.”
Capt. Dumbass said: “Interesting. So water miraculously leaps from liquid to gas. Do have a patent on that?”
Yes. It’s called evaporation. I’m pretty sure I can’t patent evaporation. Do you have a patent on stupid?
Actually evaporation is just one of several miraculous properties of water which is an exceedingly unique compound. Being a universal solvent is another of its miraculous properties. The solid being less dense than the liquid which allows oceans, lakes, rivers, and ponds to freeze from the top down instead of the bottom up is yet another miraculous property of H2O.
Reading the summaries of these papers makes it clear that we are living in an immense Rube Goldberg machine. Mechanism after interlocking mechanism, with seemingly small causes generating big effects and seemingly big causes doing not much of anything (until some threshold is reached). I’m waiting for a paper to come out discovering a cascade of marbles traveling down a chute in the Himalayas that subsequently causes a bowling ball to fall in the ocean, sink to the bottom, and press the switch on a giant heating element.
Would these be the marbles that the Warmists have lost? Maybe the missing marbles are equal to Trenberth’s missing heat.
This might explain why they seem to be missing the point, and the whole global warming paradigm is about to go missing in action.
In the meantime, Everest is leaping towards the stratosphere somewhere in the region of 5 mm per year. Zeno’s paradox would indicate that the marbles cannot reach the bowling ball, the oceans will not warm, Everest will grow so far as to unbalance the Earth, and we will all get dizzy and fall down from the resultant oscillatory movement.
In the meantime, live well and prosper.
@@ ozzieostrich | June 15, 2012 at 1:19 am
OZ, this one is even better than yours: sooo much iron ore is shifted from Australia, South Africa and Brazil to the northern hemisphere – will tilt the planet -> the equator will be in Europe. Panic, BOO!!! What about if I’m correct? In that case, don’t panic; before you calculate; where Australia will end up…? (in any case, you as an ostrich, should learn to fly)
Do you know that: ” Euro” was originally supposed to be called ‘European Monetary Unit” EMU for short – until somebody in the commission informed them that: EMU is some kind of Australian bird; stupid bird cannot even fly, but runs like sheep in the bush. That was the reason for them to change it to EURO
Highly unlikely that anthropogenic global warming paradigm is “about to go missing.”
It’s the Anthropocene Mike. 7+ billion humans are having an impact on the Earth. To not readily see it, with ample evidence in every sphere (ocean, atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere), is to simply move from skepticism to denial. Not a good place to be Mike.
“Highly unlikely that anthropogenic global warming paradigm is “about to go missing. It’s the Anthropocene Mike”.
True enough, it will stay as long as credulous half-wits keep repeating things like “It’s the Anthropcene” to cover the lack of hard evidence.
Mmm, missing heat in the pipeline, missing tree samples, missing medieval warming period, missing hot spot and missing marbles. Hope yer right, Ozzie, that the global warming paradigm is about to go missing in action.
So “Ocean temp has nothing to do with the GLOBAL temp!!! The instant that heat is released into the atmosphere from the sea – it becomes part of the global temperature, not before!!!”
OK I get it now – the oceans are not part of the globe, they are a separate planet or something.
Now, getting back to my actual question :
If oil on the sea causes warming by reducing evaporation and cloud cover, and WW2 put a lot more oil into the ocean, how come the WW2 winters were so cold ?
Any human influence on global climate is highly questonable and even if real/significant, it should be easily dwarfed by non-anthropogenic (so-called natural) climate change.
@ Tomcat: “how come the WW2 winters were so cold ?”
If the summer heat of the North- and Baltic Sea is released in autumn earlier than usually, a subsequent cold winter in Northern Europe is likely. That happened since 1st September 1939. Over the first couple of war months naval war was concentrated here and around Great Britain. In central Europe is became the coldest winter for more than 100 years.
Actually the world was still warmer than usually, only the south-east of the USA had an record January 1940 (still a record cold for the last 100 years; details here: http://www.seaclimate.com/c/c4/c4.html ). In Europe the extreme winter continued well into spring.
HERE the global temperature map for winter 1939/40: http://www.seaclimate.com/c/c1/images/buch/big/C1-6-TM4.png
Edim, “Any human influence on global climate is highly questonable” is a platitude worthy of the alarmists.
Maybe I overstated it, but no evidence for it so far and to me it seems unlikely (will be overwhelmed by natural change anyway). For some reason, if there’s climate change, the usual suspect is humans. I don’t understand it. If it’s warming, it’s humans, cooling, volconoes or aerosols (AGW version).
Every global climate model includes both warming and cooling influences from humans– greenhouse gases warm, human aerosols cool. Of course, natural forcings do the same thing, cool or warm. The biggest difference between human and many of the natural forcings is the length of time over which they operate. Greenhouse gas increases from human activity has been going on for centuries, whereas cooling events, such as from volcanoes, typically last only a few years for large volcanoes, up to many decades for really large volcanoes or a series of really large volcanoes (such as during the 13th century that likely kick started the LIA).
R. Gates, I am not convinced of any of this. Global climate models are a joke and a perfect example of cargo cult science. GHGs from human activities only got significant in the ~1960s (consensus) and even since then, the growth in atmospheric CO2 seems to be governed by climatic factors. Volcanoes are mostly epicycles in the official explanation. Volcanoes didn’t start LIA – it was the reduced solar activity.
It’s embarassing, that after two climategates and direct insight into the pseudoscience of the AGW consensus, some still believe.
Yes the search for the “missing” evidence continues … It does warrant being studied though, since there is equally no falsifying evidence.
So the fact remains that as oil started getting added to the oceans in WW2, temperatures went down rather than up.
Then why the blip?
Tomcat | June 15, 2012 at 3:06 am asked: Stefan So “Ocean temp has nothing to do with the GLOBAL temp!!! OK I get it now – the oceans are not part of the globe, they are a separate planet or something”.
Tommy, if ”that heat” BEFORE RELEASED by a volcano, belongs to another planet = should apply to you about ocean heat, or stored heat in plutonium before kaboom – or heat in your butt, before you make kaboom! Actually, your butt must be on another planet; because obviously you keep your brains in it.
Q2:’If oil on the sea causes warming by reducing evaporation and cloud cover, and WW2 put a lot more oil into the ocean, how come the WW2 winters were so cold ”?
A: Tommy boy, your question is back to front. Oil, grease, fat on the surface of the sea, makes the WATER warmer, NOTHING TO DO WITH AIR TEMP!
B] when was ”cold winter in Europe – it was summer in Australia (the battles in pacific spilled more oils. grease! C] ”cloud cover”..means: cooler days / warmer nights!!! The propaganda is back-to front; I’ll give you real science
Tomcat, go to my website and read the lot; it’s not much – it’s all you need, to know everything correctly. In few days I will put another 2-3-4 posts; but get the basic, now. You will have all your questions answered – then you will have solid questions to ask others; instead of asking if the sea-heat is on another planet.,
Miskolczi’s “Saturated Greenhouse Effect” explains some things. It the earth’s average temperature is already running close to the maximum it can obtain and keeps it pinned there in meta-stable state then if the temperature goes down in one place it goes up in another.
I have a lot of personal experience with this as where I live our average temperature is effected by the surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean many thousands of miles distant. El Nino, abnormally warm water in the Pacific, gives us abnormally cool wet weather. La Nina, abnormally cool ocean water causes us to have abnormally hot, dry weather.
Given there’s a fixed amount of energy to warm the earth and a fixed cosmic background temperature to cool it, and then if we presume there’s some truth in Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse theory then when it warms in one place it cools somewhere else to make up for it.
Dave Springer | June 19, 2012 at 8:52 am said: Miskolczi’s “Saturated Greenhouse Effect”
David, what that ”Miskolczi” of yours, has plagiarized from me, is irrelevant – here is for you; first hand explanation:. temp in the troposphere is same as: ”water in the bucket under a waterfall” no matter if is more or less water coming; bucket will have same amount of water all the time.
2] example: when Canada gets warmer than normal by 2C -> troposphere above Canada expands by 1km into the stratosphere – releases extra heat, or intercepts extra coldness, if you will… Because of fast spinning of the planet eastwards, that EXTRA coldness falls somewhere west = somewhere west, EQUALLY colder than normal. On the way down gets distributed by the winds in every direction; overall planet has SAME warmth units every day of every year and millenia!!! It’s the laws of physics that everybody ignores; otherwise, wouldn’t be any talk about GLOBAL warmings, or GLOBAL Ice ages. Mild / extreme temperature, dry / wet climate – they are climatic changes; nothing to do with any PHONY GLOBAL warming.
In the comment above, I point about the effects of oils / fats on sea temp… you are comparing my honest science with I think was Lindzen or Hansen; they should be in jail for misleading that warmings / coolings are GLOBAL.! David, what comes from me, is original / honest; my book has being published / copyrighted January 2010. For few years before that, numerous corespondents to bureaucrats, media, academics – my transcript and all the proofs. When enough people on the street know about my facts, formulas, proofs = those idiots will start talking. For now, the hysteria is still on the front pages; but days are numbered
I’m confused here. Is oil on the seas supposed to have a warming or cooling effect on overall temperatures ?
I have read a non-scientific report about rice paddies being warmed by the addition of a little oil, but I don’t know if the effect was ever measured. The Gulf oil spill was in an unfortunate area as the MIssissippi run-off means the surface there is already highly smoothed — road run-off from a city of 5 million people is the equivalent to a major oil tanker disaster (NASA). However, I think I can see a reduction in cloud cover in a SEAWIFS image at the time. It is unfortunate that no-one measured the effects on aerosols. The Braer disaster showed that oil can clear cloud — there was a long clear region downwind of the spill if my memory of the news videos is correct after all this time.
OIl reduces ocean albedo directly (fewer ripples), stratifies the surface layers and reduces planktonic activity (and hence DMS production), reduces wave breaking aerosols, lowers emissivity, reduces evaporation, slows CO2 pulldown from bubble incorporation. Less engagement by wind with the surface slows turnover and hence nutrient replenishment, reduces turbulence in the boundary layer and lofts fewer aerosols up to the level where cloud formation begins. Oily water droplets coalesce more readily and fall out, lowering cloud albedo.
Summation: oil spill lowers albedo, decreases emissivity and reduces cloud cover. And biological activity. And CO2 incorporation.
If you look at temperatures during WWII in the old graphs, e.g. Hadcrut3, you will see a pronounced hump somewhat smeared out by the bucket correction. This hump is being addressed by later data sets and will shortly be replaced by… well, what would you like it to be?
Lindzen thinks that the Kriegesmarine effect is not large enough to make a difference. I flew this year to Madeira and for an hour we passed over an area of the Atlantic that was smoothed from horizon to horizon, the glassy surface striped by long meandering rivers where the wind could still engage the surface. There was hardly any stratocu. My conservative estimate of its area is 20,000 square miles. Interesting that the windspeed was about Force 4 judging by the waves as there is an FAO graph of windspeeds during WWII which shows a curious windspeed blip to go with the temperature blip, Force 4 at it greatest: perhaps the effect breaks down about then as the wind overwhelms the smooth. However, the wind blip will no doubt be explained by the change from leather anemometers to plastic. Or something. Anything.
A grossly polluted Atlantic would push fewer clouds over a winter Europe. Would that lower winter temps? I don’t know.
But this is all handwaving. To answer your question: fill a tanker with oil and take it somewhere far from land, spill the oil and watch what happens. This is, I believe, called ‘doing research’ as opposed to sitting in front of a computer and playing games. Tahiti would be nice and I have already got dibs on the bag-carrying contract. Or I’ll make the tea. Cook? Clean shoes?
@@Vassily | June 15, 2012 at 3:50 am ask: ” Is oil on the seas supposed to have a warming or cooling effect on overall temperatures ?”
Vassily, you are missing the point, same as the rest of them. Oils / fats on the surface of the sea don’t increase or decrease the temperature in the atmosphere. They affect the temp in the ocean; by doing the ”lead on the pot effect”. When you put the lead on, water in the pot warms up faster; because the lead decreases evaporation = prevent cooling, same as oils & fats on the surface of the water!!!
Nothing can increase / decrease ”OVERALL” temp in the atmosphere!!!
Decreased evaporation in the sea, creates another phenomena: day temperature on land becomes hotter / night temp colder.
b] ice on polar caps / glaciers melt from below, by the geothermal heat – needs replenishing every year …… less evaporation = less raw material for replenishing the ice = bad for the planet / good for the ”extremist” Warmist & Fakes. Because the Warmist & Fake Skeptics are presenting ”water vapor” as bad for the climate… the Sods are back to front on everything; both sides of the sandpit are barking up the SAME WRONG tree!!!!
Oog. Stephan, for future reference, the word is “lid”. A pot does not have a “lead”. That’s meaningless.
What about an electric pot ?
“Oils / fats on the surface of the sea don’t increase or decrease the temperature in the atmosphere. They affect the temp in the ocean”
And the ocean tempt has no effect on the atmosphere temp? I think you must be mistaken.
“Nothing can increase / decrease ”OVERALL” temp in the atmosphere!!!”
Nothing? Why do you believe this?
Vassily | June 20, 2012 at 2:15 am commented / asked
“Nothing can increase / decrease ”OVERALL” temp in the atmosphere!!!”
Nothing? Why do you believe this?
Vassily, because: as soon as the troposphere warms up -> expands appropriately, INSTANTLY upwards -> intercepts EXTRA coldness – that extra coldness shrinks the O+N and falls down to equalize in a jiffy. Part of the planet can and always does get warmer – but, the laws of physics say: ”on the condition that other part MUST get colder, simultaneously!!!”
Vassily, go to my website, you will get in details why. Ps. the fundamentalists from both camps are scared from real proofs – will start warming you, not to discus with me. They know that I have all the real proofs – they have being telling too many lies in the past – only way to cover up their lies; is to prevent people of getting real proofs, facts and formulas from me. Try to resist ”schoolyard gang bullying, from the nutters. The truth will win
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
ArndB 15/06 3,28am cites Sea Climate re the Winter of 1939:
‘As long as the northern hemisphere jet stream smoothly circles the Earth, within middle to northern latitudes everything goes on as usual, it is a westerly flowing from west to east and it circumnavigates the Earth in a few weeks time.
Westerly winds? About the weather, they were seldom wrong,* the people who lived in old agricultural societies, out in the fields in all weather, dependent on the weather to stay alive.
In The Norton Anthology of Poetry, page 66, anonymous lyrics of the fifteenth century, there’s this:
‘Western wind, when will thou blow,
The small rain down can rain?
Christ, if my love were in my arms
And I in my bed again.”
* H/t W H Auden, Musee des Beaux Arts.
Dust in the Wind by Kansas.
I have some questions for Pekka Pirila. You said “Douglass and Knox the one that got it’s result from erroneous statistical analysis. It used also the correct method and that resulted in slight warming trend.”
Were you referring to our paper “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts” published in Physics Letters A vol 376 pp1226-1229 (2012)? If so, we actually said
In an earlier study of ocean heat content (OHC) we showed that Earth’s empirically implied radiation imbalance has undergone abrupt changes. Other studies have identified additional such climate shifts since 1950. The shifts can be correlated with features in recently updated OHC data. The implied radiation imbalance may possibly alternate in sign at dates close to the climate shifts. The most recent shifts occurred during 2001–2002 and 2008–2009. The implied radiation imbalance between these dates, n the direction of ocean heat loss, was −0.03 ± 0.06 W/m , with a possible systematic error of[−0.00, +0.09] W/m2
Also, what was the “erroneous statistical analysis”?
Dept of Physics
University of Rochester
Thinking, thinking, thinking … ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I didn’t notice the above message, at least in part because I was not at home at that time and also exceptionally busy for about one week after the message was written.
The paper that I had in mind was not published in Physics Letters A, but in some less known journal.
The error that I was referring to was due to a two step statistical analysis, where the first step was calculating 12 month moving averages and then using these averages to calculate a trend. This procedure is explicitly wrong and it led to the result that regular annual variability created a spurious trend in the final results.
I necessary to compose an individual one particular very small remark
too ultimately thanks a lot greatly once more for ones pleasing information you could have mentioned on
this website. It’s been really open-handed along with individuals like you allowing very easily juat just what a few people will often have offered as an electronic digital book to assist along with doing several cash because of their very own stop, most importantly considering the fact that you have tried using it in case you wished. The following tips likewise behaved such as an alternative way to have an understanding of a lot of people have related interest exactly like my own unique to find out more and more according in this make a difference. I believe there are numerous more fun scenarios in the beginning for individuals that start reading through the wood write-up.