Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 Next
Comments 39101 to 39150:
-
Vonnegut at 01:51 AM on 3 February 2014There is no consensus
Is there any hope of getting the true facts bout the mythical 97% like just how many climate scientists there are and which way they voted?
Moderator Response:[JH] Read Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature. if you have further questions on this topic, post them there.
-
DavidFaubion at 01:30 AM on 3 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5
> Climate and vaccine deniers are the same: beyond persuasion, by Clive Hamilton
The author's argument compares apples and cauliflower. The site proctor ought to remove the piece for that reason and others. The piece uses the same old divisive us and them mentality. It attacks what the author of it has to rely upon his own source to prove; thus, the piece has a gratuitous sense implied onto it. The piece distracts us as it reduces the site to a tabloid or at best a newspaper opinion column. In fact, the site would do well to leave out all mention and attention to the climate denying minuscule minority and their personality disorders.
-
Vonnegut at 01:25 AM on 3 February 2014CO2 is coming from the ocean
But Oceans outgas co2 also where does this fit in the equation?
Moderator Response:[TD] The exchange rates of CO2 going in and coming out of the oceans are known, along with the factors that influence those two rates. The net effect currently still is much more going in that coming out. See installment 9 of the OA is Not OK series.
-
michael sweet at 00:21 AM on 3 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
The argument that the warming of the deep ocean is heat removed from the system is obviously bunkum. Where do you think the energy that is currently melting the bottom of Antarctic Ice cap and Greenland is coming from? Warmer water at depths of 500-2000 meters. Upwelling water in various locations, including the west coast of North America (thats the USA) will be warmed from this absorbtion of energy. If the upwelling water is warmer, that will result in more warming of the adjacent land. It may be decades or centuries before the final effect is felt from this warming, but the upwelling water is warmer now than it was 50 years ago from this effect. It is simply false to claim that the heat is gone.
-
michael sweet at 00:20 AM on 3 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
Vonnegut:
The ocean is cold because cold water is denser than warm water. Cold water forms in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and sinks to the bottom. More warm water from the tropics flows at the surfce to the poles where it cools and sinks. This cold polar water eventually returns to the surface in a variety of different ways. The density difference between cold, salty bottom water and the warm surface prevent effective mixing. This is basic High School Science, no need to ask the experts.
-
Vonnegut at 23:03 PM on 2 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
Nobody is arguing that the heat sequestered in the deep ocean will suddenly return to the surface. Some fraction of it, from the upper ocean, may reappear as an El Niño event, but some is irreversibly mixed and forms part of the inevitable warming and equilibration of the ocean to a warming climate.
So what is the big issue?
I would suggest the best approach would be to ask that, given these folk are so well informed about how the oceans operate, could they explain why the oceans are so cold? The air above has an average temperature of about 14ºC and the rocks beneath sit on the planet's core with a temperature of 5,000ºC. So why are the oceans only 1ºC?If the experts dont know why, why should anyone else?
Moderator Response:[JH] Please lose the sarcastic tone.
-
chriskoz at 20:41 PM on 2 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
grindupBaker@36,
Which lecture by Dan Lubin are you referring to? Is it related to the latest dark snow project by Jason Box? Is Dan's research indeed new, not considered by AR5?
In any case, I disagree it would have 'deserved its own line'. Perhaps it is already factored in 'cloud adjustment' component, because I see that component changed from -0.7 in AR4 to -0.55 in AR5...
However this can be OT here so I if you want further discussion maybe it should be moved to another thread.
-
MA Rodger at 20:25 PM on 2 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
I reckon that invoking the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics within climatology is aboutas daft as invoking Newton's 3rd Law within road safety. I assume Judy Curry considers herself an 'expert' on thermodynamics becasue she understands it beter than the Skydragon Slayers, a bunch of grade-A air-heads who make a great deal of the 2nd Law & who Curry has crossed swords with in the past.
Curry usually adds the 'if it's well mixed' caveat to her assertion which is strange because the deep ocean isn't well mixed. I understand this is mostly due to the isostatic pressure being the major factor in the ocean's density profile resulting in a lot of stratification. (Note that inlike the one here, a lot of 'density v depth' graphs ignore the isostatic element.)
It is also strange that Curry, a strong believer in big natural variation, is here dismissing the role of the deep oceans in such variation.mgardner @7.
The denialist argument that deep ocean warming is harmless - Beyond ENSO as per @8, I would suggest the best approach would be to ask that, given these folk are so well informed about how the oceans operate, could they explain why the oceans are so cold? The air above has an average temperature of about 14ºC and the rocks beneath sit on the planet's core with a temperature of 5,000ºC. So why are the oceans only 1ºC?
-
chriskoz at 20:07 PM on 2 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom@33,
You convinced me that the number we've looked at (0.3W/m2/decade) can be overestimated: the data we've considered confirms your conclusion. Indeed, using the Foster and Rahmstorf figures is more appropriate in my method @29 and leads to a lower value, thanks for pointing that.
Re my integrity: thanks. All I care about is the correctness of science. That's an obvious bottom line all users of this blog should follow.
-
Rob Painting at 16:55 PM on 2 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
David Sanger @ 34 - though not negligible, only a small amount of warming is occurring below the 2000 metre depth. For the effects of warming on the expansion of seawater for 0-700 & 0-2000 metre depth ranges, see the image below from the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC).
-
rajeshagarwal at 15:48 PM on 2 February 2014There is no consensus
Following on 581 Steve B, I would like to know how many of the abstracts explicitly endorse that humans caused most of the global warming? From what I understand of the data, there were only 75 such abstracts. Correct me if I am wrong. I am a newbie and not terribly scientific, but I understand numbers. Would someone care to explain?
-
grindupBaker at 15:41 PM on 2 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
KR #22 chriskoz #29 I see histogram graphs show net aerosol -ve forcing. I found Dr. Dan Lubin lecture interesting. He says aerosols constrained in Arctic through winter by Polar Night Jet alter clouds to give a forcing of +3.4 w/m**2. If he means from latitude 70N (he doesn't say) at 6% of Earth surface that would be +0.20 w/m**2 of aerosol forcing which I would have thought deserved its own line because of its contrary effect to aerosols elsewhere.
-
grindupBaker at 15:13 PM on 2 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
davidsanger #34 I made the same mistake 4 weeks ago because I just assumed salt water and pressure have negligible effect, but they have important effect. I found variation in quoted numbers and not a full set, but roughly I found like:
Volumetric thermal expansion coefficient of sea water (various salinities) at atmospheric pressure
Pure 20 25 30 35 40
H2O ---- grams salt / kg -----
Volumetric coefficient γ at 25 °C (*10**−6/K) 264 270 278 282 288 **
Volumetric coefficient γ at 20 °C (*10**−6/K) 207 241 248 256 263 270
At 4,000m depth pressure at 20 °C 280
Volumetric coefficient γ at 15 °C (*10**−6/K) 192 201 211 221 230
Volumetric coefficient γ at 10 °C (*10**−6/K) 88 136 148 160 171 182
Volumetric coefficient γ at 5 °C (*10**−6/K) 15 73 88 101 115 128
Volumetric coefficient γ at 0 °C (*10**−6/K) -67 40 56 70 84/52 100 **
At 4,000m depth pressure at 0 °C 130
** Very approximate because do not have values above/below. At a depth of 4000 m the bottom water (about 0 °C, salinity 35 g kg−1)My table format didn't align in this post. Bottom line is that thermal expansion coefficient is +ve, even below 0C.
-
davidsanger at 14:00 PM on 2 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
This may be elementary physics, but I have seen one argument that the thermal coefficent of water is close to zero for water nearo freezing, and can even be negative for water between 0 and 4ºC. Can someone clarify if heating of the deep ocean volume contributes much to sea level rise? Does it relate to the pressure?
-
Jonas at 12:39 PM on 2 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5
>Climate and vaccine deniers are the same
No, they are not: science depends on who pays, because those who pay determine the questions asked.
In case of climate science, it's world wide govenrments with no interest in promoting a problem which potentially cuts their energy supply. Deniers are the money makers (world wide oil bill is 365 d/y * 90 million barrels / d * 100 $/barrel = 3 285 000 million $ / y = 3285 billion $/y = 3,285 Trillion $/y. Research money and renewable energy is peanuts. There is way more conflict of interest to take care of on the denier side than on the science side.
In case of medical science, basic physical facts like immunization are clear, but enhancements via aluminium and other (secret) ingredients and their side effects are not (in my opinion, I am just a lay person). And here (as opposed to climate science), research questions are payed for more by the money makers, i.e. the ones who are interested in not getting any critical results.
I believe in the scientific method, but I do not beleive in humans, especially if they make money from a thing and if they are talking about it. I am a skeptic and I will remain so: I think climate change is happening, man made and has bad (even very bad) consequences, because I tried to study evidence and skeptic arguments, but I am not convinced that the medical industry is researching everything it should research in the general interest, nor do I think genetic engineering industry does: too much money at stakes ... (they might come to the conclusion that vaccine amplifications like aluminium only harm a low percentage of the population, but this should be openly discussed/researched and the costs have to be assumed (via developing other enhancement methods): health is not a good like any other good, just as water, food, shelter and other basic goods are not: freedom is not the freedom to harm others for ones own profit).
-
chriskoz at 11:37 AM on 2 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5
I note two different pieces in this roundup reporting on the same news: Mike Mann's lawsuit against CEI & NRO. First by Newsweek (A change in the legal climate) and second by Al Jazeera (Prominent scientist suing climate change deniers for libel). It's revieling to compare them.
Newsweek text is somewhat bloated (twice as long as Al Jazeera text) and full of spurious in-line comments (like 'this is ugly stuff', etc). Al Jezeera reports only the facts & who said what, leaving all interpretation to the reader; their minimal use of spurious words makes text streamlined and easy/fast to read/understand.
But more notably, Newsweek's article title is just meaningless: it sound like random word rambling rather than a careful sentence drawing reader's attention to the contents as a good title should be. Al Jazeera's title is good in that respect.
Further, and most apaulingly, Newsweek's photo shows Mann applauding former President Bill Clinton during a rally for Democratic gubanatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe. Excuse me, what that photo has to do with the topic at hand? IMO, the author was extremely careless (if not biased by some hidden agenda) in showing something he should not have shown in that context. Al Jazeera's photo is neutral and apropriate.
In summary, Newsweek has lot to learn from Al Jazeera about good, accurate journalism to deliver simple and unbiased news to the reader. Meanwhile, if given a choice I'm about to turn to Al Jazeera as my future news source.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thanks for the feedback.
-
paisiello at 10:38 AM on 2 February 20144 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
Nevermind, I worked it out. I realize that, obviously, if you know the energy rate then multipyling it by the time gives you the total energy directly. The area under the curve would give you the Joule*years of the system which I am not sure if that can be interpreted as anything significant.
-
paisiello at 10:19 AM on 2 February 20144 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
Thanks for this informative website.
I was trying to derive the 2 billion atomic bombs number. I can see where the rate comes from the slope of the global heat accumulation graph:
8x10^22 J / 10 years = 8 x 10^21 Joules per year
=2.5 x 10^14 Joules per second
Now over a 17 year period this should be equal to:
(8 x 10^21 Joules per year )(17 years) x 1/2 = 6.8x10^22 J total
= 1.08 billion atomic bombs
or 1/2 of the 2 billion number since we are trying to determine the area under the curve to determine the total heat energy.
What mistake am I making?
of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'.
-
grindupBaker at 09:08 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
I did some sample numbers for a "cool skin" post comment 18 October 2011 by Rob Painting but since there's some OHC numbers questions & answers here, I'm using it as an excuse to re-post my thoughts.
Minnett & Kaiser-Weiss GHRSST 12-Jan-2012 has a graph of ocean skin temperature variation. Here are my sample or average global ocean numbers, derived backwards to give the Sun's 161 w/m**2 exiting but nonetheless illustrative and legitimate as nearly as matters (because I trust the competency of ORAS4).
temperature:
1,000m depth temperature = 5C
thermal conductivity of seawater 0.58 W/mK
ocean-air interface = 17.000C
1.441mm depth temperature = 17.400C (the warmest spot in the ocean depth though the "few metres" of depth below it is only a miniscule bit colder, all warmed by Sun SWR)
this top 1.441mm depth is the "skin" and "sub-skin"
100m depth temperature certain in range 16.090C to 17.400C but virtually certain >17C because of mixing top ~90m
temperature gradient of top 1.441mm of ocean is 277.6 Celsius/metre
By conductivity, temperature gradient pushes 161.00 w/m**2 up from 1.441mm depth to ocean-air interface which precisely removes the Sun's 161 w/m**2 going into the top few metres depth and leads to no ocean warming.AGW increases downward LWR and air temperature directly above ocean with extreme rapidity of a few decades, which warms ocean-air interface by 0.700C, so:
ocean-air interface = 17.700C
1.441mm depth temperature = 18.097C
temperature gradient of top 1.441mm of ocean is 275.5 Celsius/metre
By conductivity, temperature gradient pushes 159.79 w/m**2 up from 1.441mm depth to ocean-air interface which leaves 1.21 w/m**2 of the Sun's 161 w/m**2 going down into the ocean below and leads to ocean warming of 13.8 ZettaJoules / year (the billions of atomic bombs in sks widget). So, the difference of 0.003C in the warming over the top 1.441mm of ocean causes ocean warming that is 7.5 times as fast as the average post-glaciation ocean heat gain that moved the ecosphere from an ice age with glaciers down to New York State and today's climate and ecosphere warming that is 4.5 times as fast including all the "ice-age" glacier melt that happened.If the 1.441mm depth had warmed by 0.700C same as the ocean-air interface then oceans would gain no heat, but the massive colder oceans below will only let 1.441mm to <several tens-to-hundreds of metres> depth warm by 0.697C and only when the entire ocean has warmed by 0.700C in a few thousand years will it let that 1.441mm depth warm the final 0.003C and stop heat gain with 4,100 ZettaJoules of heat having been added to the oceans, enough to melt 13,666,666 cubic kilometres of ice. Of course, that will never happen because the ocean-air interface is going to keep warming with the +CO2 that will keep happening and it's all going to accelerate.
Temperature gradient from 1.441mm (18.097C) to 1,000m (5C) depth is 0.01310 Celsius/metre
By conductivity, temperature gradient pushes 0.0076 w/m**2 down from 1.441mm depth to 1,000m depth.
This is only 0.6% of the actual heat transport of 1.21 w/m**2 because 99.4% is transported down by water circulation, mostly natural with shark & whales & krill helping a bit.Year 2013: surface skin has wamed a tiny fraction of 1C (not shown for comparison simplicity) and ocean mixing will not permit it to balance within 0.003C at the sub-skin (maybe also ocean happens to mix heat down a tad faster due to a natural variation), now will only let 1.441mm to <several tens-to-hundreds of metres> depth warm by 0.69462C instead of prior 0.697C (ocean-air interface at 0.70000C). Repeat above computation gives 158.834 w/m**2 up from 1.441mm depth to ocean-air interface which leaves 2.166 w/m**2 of the Sun's 161 w/m**2 going down into the ocean, giving increased warming rate of 24.65 ZettaJoules / year.
Values such as 0.70000C are not known with this precision but precision is irrelevant because it is the residual of the 0.7C anomaly (computed here as 0.003C per 1.441mm of near-surface depth for 2000-2010, 0.00538C for 2013) that is adding the ocean heat, so if actual at ocean-air interface were, say, 0.726C then it must be 0.723C at 1.441mm depth to reduce upward flux by 1.21 w/m**2 and cause the measured +138 ZettaJoules / decade. It's illustrative, you have to modify with the best data you can find.
-
BBD at 08:08 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
Rob Painting
Thanks for this and I very much look forward to your forthcoming series of posts on this topic. It seems little known and ripe for a wider audience. -
tcflood at 07:28 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
Thanks Rob. I'll read the two posts you reference.
-
Rob Painting at 07:14 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
tcflood - See these SkS posts:
1. New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
2. Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
The acceleration in ocean warming is matched by an acceleration in sea level rise, even when taking into account the increased loss of land-based ice over the recent decade. The trend is complicated though, with slowing in heat uptake after about 2005 - as can be seen in the Hiroshima widget.
Of course, the amusing part is that the fake-skeptics were proclaiming the ocean heat content data were the greatest thing since sliced bread about 4-5 years ago. That probably stemmed from the fact that only the upper 700 metre layer data was available, and that seemed to show ocean cooling - in contradiction to our understanding of Earth's energy imbalance. Of course we now know that much of the heat from above 700 metres was being pumped down into deeper layers below (Ekman pumping), and that the Earth was indeed still warming.
With the addition of 4-5 years more data the fake-skeptics are now proclaiming we don't have enough data. This is only because they don't like the implications, and simply demonstrates their pseudo-scientific approach to the issue.
-
tcflood at 06:46 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
I don’t understand how it can be said so authoritatively that the rate of ocean heating has been rapidly accelerating recently. If you look at the table of ocean heating rates at various depths as a function of time given in the posting directly below this post, it seems that from 0-700 m the rate of heating since 2004 has slowed compared to 1983-2004, and we don’t have any good data below 700m until the Argo data started flowing in (2005-2008?).
With so little data, where does the confidence of the heating acceleration claim come from?
-
Rob Painting at 06:28 AM on 2 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
mgardner - the heat returns from the oceans (so-to-speak) virtually everytime El Nino occurs. Are they denying that that happens too?
One way of looking at this is to consider that we will eventually return to a period dominated by El Nino. During El Nino heat stored in the upper layers of the ocean (mainly the western tropical Pacific) surfaces and then is exchanged with the atmosphere, thereby making it (global surface temperatures) warmer-than-average.
The graphic below (Roemmich & Gilson [2011] - The Global Ocean Imprint of ENSO) is derived from ARGO subsurface temperature observations for the region 60°N-60°S, the red line denotes the positive/negative phases of ENSO, and the black line is the sea surface temperature anomaly. Note the change from 2007-2008 (La Nina) to 2009-2010 (El Nino) - sure looks like heat coming back to the surface.
-
Rob Painting at 05:59 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
BBD - I am working on a series of posts explaining the wind-driven ocean circulation, whose mean state is characterised by the sea surface temperatures evident in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation Index, but I'm kind of stuck on illustrating the Coriolis Effect. Hope to have that finished within a couple of weeks.
I can direct you toward scores of research papers on the subject, but I'm not sure how much sense they would make without understanding of the Coriolis force, particularly the east-west component, and Ekman pumping. The textbook; Atmosphere, Ocean and Climate Dynamics an Introductory Text by John Marshall & Alan Plumb is useful, as is the MIT GFD lab - where the 'weird properties' of rotating fluids is demonstrated in simple lab experiments.
The Zhang & McPhadden papers do indeed highlight the spin-down and then spin-up of the wind-driven ocean circulation, but one place to start is: Interaction between the Subtropical and Equatorial Ocean Circulations: The Subtropical Cell - (McCreary & Lu 1994). Typing either 'subtropical cell' or 'Pacific decadal variability' into Google Scholar will yield lots of papers on the subject.
-
BBD at 03:34 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
@ Rob Painting
WRT your comment here can you provide some suggested reading? It sounds like you may be basing some of this on McPhadden & Zhang (2002) and (2004)? Is there more?
This is a particularly fascinating phenomenon and I find myself completely (ahem) at sea. Any and all pointers welcome. -
Matt Fitzpatrick at 01:30 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
@14
It'd be better to say the oceans gained about 50 ZJ (zettajoules) of heat from 1980 to 1998, then about an additional 150 ZJ of heat from 1998 to 2013.
I'll admit I had to look up the "zetta-" prefix. Big numbers.
-
JCSmith0007 at 00:50 AM on 2 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
Is it correct to say that the amount of heat absorbed into the oceans since 1998 until now....is more than 4 times what it was in 1998? (ie 5 joules to 20 joules).
Moderator Response:(Rob P - all caps removed)
-
mgardner at 23:20 PM on 1 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
I registered with SKS (great blog) specifically to request that you guys do a piece (in precise, simple language, with graphics,) on this crazy meme about "the heat can't return from the oceans". It isn't just Curry, and every time I see it it grates like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Phil and chriskoz, It doesn't even rise to the level of misunderstanding the Second Law. In fact, the language used (even by some trying to debunk) smacks of the 19th century concept of heat as a mysterious fluid flowing through hypothetical pores in all materials.
Although the ocean systems are complex, and time scales are a confounding factor in visualizing effects, I think a simple diagram or animation would show that of course mechanical transfer of warmer water to a lower stratum is going to eventually result in warmer upper layers.
Thanks to anyone who takes this on-- I don't have the graphic skills myself. I will do my best to constructively critique any effort in the language department, although I doubt it will be necessary. -
Tom Curtis at 21:13 PM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
My apologies, I made the same mistake that Chriskoz corrected for @31. Correcting, and using the Foster and Rahmstorf figures leads to an energy imbalance increase of 0.12 W/m^2 per decade. (Calculated as 0.35 - (0.17/0.75) W/m^2 per decade.)
Chriskoz, thanks for your integrity in reporting corrections regardless of their impact on the argument you are trying to make. That sort of integrity is too rare, and I greatly appreciate it.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:05 PM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
chriskoz:
1) My post was primarily to illustrate that a growing energy imbalance is consistent with, and indeed required (on average) with a constantly growing forcing. Pluging realistic figures into the equations, however, reveals a probable discrepancy in the OP which had been commented on, and which therefore I also reported. I did not claim that my estimate was accurate. Only that the discrepancy was sufficiently large that a 0.3 W/m^2 figure was dubious.
In general, to have a mean decadal increase in energy imbalance of 0.3 W/m^2, it must be the case that the growth in forcing times (1-TCR/ECS) = 0.3 Even with ECS and TCR at, respectively the upper and lower end of the likely range from AR5, that requires a decadal growth of forcing of 0.39 W/m^2, significantly more than the figure you derived from the AR5 chart. Alternatively, with a decadal increase in forcing of 0.35 W/m^2, you need a ratio of TCR/ECS = 0.14, ie, that the ECS by 7 times the TCR. Neither of these conditions is plausible. Therefore I can be confident that the increase is not 0.3 W/m^2, without pretending to know how much less than 0.3 W/m^2 it is.
I note with interest your calculation using GISTEMP data, but unless you are committing to the belief that the current low temperatures relative to trend represent an actual reduction in the trend rather than the effects of transient features such as ENSO fluctuations, using the actual temperature value will lead to a poor estimate of the further evolution of the energy imbalance. Using the Foster and Rahmstorf adjusted GISTEMP trend of 0.17 C/decade, we get a temperature increase over three decades of 0.51 C, with short term fluctuations eliminated. That drops your figure to 0.22 W/m^2 per decade, which is certainly reasonable, but not definitive.
2) Rather than Fig 1, which only shows model outputs, I will show Fig 7, which shows emperical (reanalysis) estimates along with the model outputs from Fig 1:
I note two things. First, the energy imbalance according to the model has been declining since 1995. Over that period, with a decadal increase of 0.3 W/m^2, it should have risen to about 1.5 W/m^2, which is noticably outside the montly standard deviation. That strongly suggests that a trend rate of 0.3 W/m^2 is inconsistent with the model over the last two decades.
Second, the reanalysis values are very eratic on both monthly and 1-3 year time scales. That means estimating the decadal trend from that data will be very hard. However, overall it follows the models quite will, which does not support a 0.3 W/m^2 per decade increase.
To summarize, energy imbalance will increase on average with constantly increasing forcing. With current forcing changes, the increase is likely less than 2.5 W/m^2, and possibly much less. Consequently, it is a mistake to say it is 0.3 W/m^2. I remain interested to see if Rob Painting or Kevin Trenberth (in particular) can give us a more accurate estimate.
-
chriskoz at 20:37 PM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
I'm ammending my post @29 because I've just noticed I made an arithmetic mistake therein.
The amount of forcing neutralised by dT in 3 decades of 1980-2010, should be calculated as 0.4/0.75 = 0.53W/m2. Therefore, the imbalance remaining from IPCC forcing of 1W/m2 is 0.47W/m2 which yields imbalance increase of 0.18W/m2/decade, not 0.23 as I erroneously reported @22.
That correction softens my original conclusion (that 0.30 is indeed the latest imbalance trend) but does not negate it: it is still possible that an average trend of 0.18 over 3 decades may be aproaching an external value of 0.30 at present.
-
Philip Shehan at 18:32 PM on 1 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
While it is good to sea evidence that heat is indeed being taken up by the oceans, the “pause” in atmospheric temperatures is indeed a myth based on a poor understanding of statistics. Permit me to reproduce part of argument I posted at Jo Nova’s blog.
The first rule of statistics is make sure your sample size is big enough for your result to be meaningful.
"That is where end points come in. It’s not really the end points that matter as such, but the number of years between the endpoints, or how big the data set. That is why I harp on about short data sets. Because of the “noise”, relatively minor variations in temperatures between different data bases can lead to significant differences between linear fits for short time frames. With longer time frames the signal to noise ratio improves and there is good agreement between the linear fits.
When comparing the two satellite data bases UAH and RSS which began in 1979, the regression lines are quite different for 15 years but very similar since 1979.
But the real problem is not apparent from just looking at the regression lines. They do not show how the error margins blow out for short data sets.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
For both the RSS and UAH data from 1979, there is a statistically significant warming trend.
UAH Trend: 0.138 ±0.070 °C/decade (2σ)
RSS Trend: 0.125 ±0.069 °C/decade (2σ)For data since 1999, the error margins are so large that it cannot be said with any confidence that the data shows warming, cooling or a pause.
UAH Trend: 0.146 ±0.212 °C/decade (2σ)
RSS Trend: 0.027 ±0.211 °C/decade (2σ)Although the linear regression line values are quite different, the error margins mean that there is considerable overlap between the 95% confidence limits so the two data sets are in fact in statistical agreement.
Returning to the matter of end points. If moving an end point by a single year makes a large difference to the trend line, it is a sure sign that your data set is too short and the results not statistically meaningful.
From 1999 UAH Trend: 0.146 ±0.212 °C/decade (2σ)
From 1998 UAH Trend: 0.060 ±0.223 °C/decade (2σ)Note again that the large error margins means the trends are statistically in agreement, but cannot tell whether the data shows a warming or cooling trend."
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed links that were breaking page format.
-
grindupBaker at 18:07 PM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
I think if it's handy to have a faux-factor for ocean heat gain %age then it's either from sea water melt/freeze temperature or the average ocean temperature during previous glaciation. Former makes sense because we live in a water-world and there's a big rift in the aspects of liquid vs solid water that's pertinent to us. Latter has some rationale. A species living on a liquid-cheese planet will think we're incompetent and don't know Absolute Zero, but that's their problem.
-
Rob Painting at 17:58 PM on 1 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
Chriskoz - See the NODC data referred to in the blog post - specifically this data. I understand that the mid-range estimate for the Hiroshima bomb of 6.5x1013 joules is used in the Hiroshima widget. The oceans gained 2.463x1022 joules in 2013. Divide that by the Hiroshima estimate above = 378,923,076 joules. Divide by (31,536,000) seconds per year = 12.01 Hiroshima bombs per second. Near enough for our purposes.
Why the sudden escalation? Pass. However, as noted in my comment @7, three of the subtropical ocean gyres were very active during the year. The active wind-driven ocean circulation should have drawn down a lot of extra heat into the ocean via the subtropical gyres. The persistent upwelling of cold water in the eastern tropical Pacific would have reduced cloud cover there, via reduced oceanic evaporation, and thus allowed more of the sun's energy to enter the tropical ocean - this would have aided the ocean warming process, as generally the case when the tropical ocean is cooler-than-normal.
-
grindupBaker at 17:49 PM on 1 February 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Me @ 55. Nuts! Penultimate sentence should end "pushes 0.0076 w/m**2 down from 1.441mm depth to 1,000m depth."
-
grindupBaker at 17:43 PM on 1 February 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
guinganbresil #34 I think you don't understand because your thermocline graph lacks the detail that's the entire topic of discussion, the ocean "skin" and "sub-skin" that's shown in the
posting, but without scales that might give a clearer picture of what is happening. Sample numbers below will make it clear, I'm quietly confident.
Minnett & Kaiser-Weiss GHRSST 12-Jan-2012 has a graph of ocean skin temperature variation. Here are my sample or average global ocean numbers, forced to give the Sun's 161
w/m**2 exiting but nonetheless illustrative as nearly as matters.
temperature:
1,000m depth temperature = 5C
thermal conductivity of seawater 0.58 W/mK
ocean-air interface = 17.000C
1.441mm depth temperature = 17.400C (the warmest spot in the ocean depth though the "few metres" of depth below it is only a miniscule bit colder, all warmed by Sun SWR)
this top 1.441mm depth is the "skin" and "sub-skin"
temperature gradient of top 1.441mm of ocean is 277.6 Celsius/metre
By conductivity, temperature gradient pushes 161.00 w/m**2 up from 1.441mm depth to ocean-air interface which precisely removes the Sun's 161 w/m**2 going into the top few metresdepth and leads to no ocean warming.
AGW increases downward LWR and air temperature directly above ocean with extreme rapidity of a few decdes, which warms ocean-air interface by 0.700C, so:
ocean-air interface = 17.700C
1.441mm depth temperature = 18.097C
temperature gradient of top 1.441mm of ocean is 275.5 Celsius/metre
By conductivity, temperature gradient pushes 159.79 w/m**2 up from 1.441mm depth to ocean-air interface which leaves 1.21 w/m**2 of the Sun's 161 w/m**2 going down into the oceanbelow and leads to ocean warming of 13.8 ZettaJoules / year (the billions of atomic bombs in sks widget). So, the difference of 0.003C in the warming over the top 1.441mm of ocean
causes ocean warming that is 7.5 times as fast as the average post-glaciation ocean heat gain that moved the ecosphere from an ice age with glaciers down to New York State and
today's climate and ecosphere warming that is 4.5 times as fast including all the "ice-age" glacier melt that happened.
If the 1.441mm depth had warmed by 0.700C same as the ocean-air interface then oceans would gain no heat, but the massive colder oceans below will only let 1.441mm depth warm
by 0.697C and only when the entire ocean has warmed by 0.700C in a few thousand years will it let that 1.441mm depth warm the final 0.003C and stop heat gain with 4,100 ZettaJoules
of heat having been added to the oceans, enough to melt 13,666,666 cubic kilometres of ice. Of course, that will never happen because the ocean-air interface is going to keep warming
with the +CO2 that will keep happening and it's all going to accelerate.
Temperature gradient from 1.441mm (18.097C) to 1,000m (5C) depth is 0.01310 Celsius/metre
By conductivity, temperature gradient pushes 0.0076 w/m**2 up from 1.441mm depth to ocean
This is only 0.6% of the actual heat transport of 1.21 w/m**2 because 99.4% is transported down by water circulation, mostly natural with shark & whales & krill helping a bit. -
chriskoz at 16:28 PM on 1 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
bjchi@11,
I concur.
Changes in temperature are opposite to the changes in radiative imbalance. Deniers would love us to spell out which effect is "worse" and then label us the exaggerating "extremists and alarmists" or accuse us of "conflicting story". Such accusations are of course baseless and ignorant rhetoric & based on flawed ethics.
AFA ethics are concerned, I think radiative imbalance is bigger problem than the observed dT. That's because dT is felt directly by those who would like to delay the action to reverse AGW prompting them to reconsider their stance. While radiative imbalance is not felt and the action to reverse AGW is likely to be pushed into the future among bogus statements by deniers: "global warming has stopped in last xxx years", in an attempt to escape from the responsibility of their own actions.
-
chriskoz at 15:49 PM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
KR@22,
For your method of verifying the TOA imbalance changes, it's better to check the newer graph from AR5:
(yeah, I finally learned how to insert imgs!)
where you can see the A forcing increased in last 3 decades (1980-2011) by about 1W/m2 (2.29 - 1.25 = 1.04 is exact central estimate).
The increase in global surface temperature (land + ocean) for that period can be seen for example from NOAA. I estimate dT increased from 1980 to 2010 by about 0.4K. Given equilibrium climate sensitivity of 0.75K/Wm2, the amount of forcing neutralised by said dT is; 0.4*0.75 = 0.3W/m2.
Therfore, out of 1W/m2 forcing in last 3 decades reported by IPCC above, 0.7W/m2 was not neutralised by dT and stays as radiative imalance increase. That yield about 0.23W/m2/decade which is slightly lower than quoted figure (0.30) because we just calculated an average of last 3 decades. 0.30, as the boundary value of current, increasing forcing, seems consistent with our result.
-
bjchip at 14:33 PM on 1 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
I think that the point John Wise is making needs to be given some prominence in any discussion of ocean "heat". That we should not expect that heat, as such, in that location, to have any substantive effect on climate... as it corresponds to fractions of a degree over the entirety of the ocean and has no effect on the energy balance.
(We do NOT however know if the heat is in fact evenly distributed down there. I'd guess it is NOT, simply based on the fact that it is not evenly distributed on the surface, so there may be risks to Clathrate formations we do not know about)
We should include it because some accuse us of hiding that issue. When it shifts back we will see even faster rises in temperature and while it continues we are getting a continuously worse imbalance built up. As Rob points out in his response.
Just saying.... it'd be good that we make sure everyone knows we are telling the whole story.
-
chriskoz at 14:18 PM on 1 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
In this paragraph:
Long-term the oceans have been gaining heat at a rate equivalent to about 2 Hiroshima bombs per second, although this has increased over the last 16 or so years to around 4 per second. In 2013 ocean warming rapidly escalated, rising to a rate in excess of 12 Hiroshima bombs per second - over three times the recent trend
the part emphasised is unknown to me. Can you give more details why such sudden escalation in OHC and provide a reference?
Thanks, Chris.
-
chriskoz at 13:55 PM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
scaddenp@16,
Celsjus scale is interval scale only. It is not ratio-scale because it does not have meaningful zero point, al least in relation to saltwater temperature, therefore you cannot use it to calculate a ratio.
So you cannot answer the question "by what percentage the oceans are warming" with "0.9%". There is no answer to this question because the question is ambiguous: it does not specify the relation with respect to what the "warming percentage" is sought.
If the question specified, e.g. relation to the molecular kinetic energy, then Kelvin scale (which has meaningful zero point in this case) would have been appropriate to calculate the ratio.
Read more for example here (Quantitative data).
-
ubrew12 at 13:26 PM on 1 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
Rocketeer@1 said: "Easy calculation if I knew the mass of the ocean." I googled 'mass of the ocean'. Hope that helps.
-
chriskoz at 13:03 PM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom@20,
In your estimate you first assume:
assume that the forcing increases by 0.3 W/m^2 per decade
then, by deducting TCR of 2/3 of assumed forcing, to obtain TOA imbalnce increase, you conclude:
[...] the energy imbalance increases by 0.1 W/m^2 per decade [...] Given this, it is likely that the 0.3 W/m^2 figure quoted in the article is a mistake...
That conclusion came up as the result of your assumption, which is just your assumption not supported by any data. The quoted figure most likely comes from different assumption so I don't understand by what logic you can call it a "mistake".
Myself, I'm proposing a different method to verify the quoted figure.
Looking at Trenberth et al. (2014) fig. 1, it'd be nice to paste it here but I dunno how :( , which shows he net TOA radiation (down) from CCSM4, I eyball that from 1960 to 2000 (4 decades), the imbalance grew from 0 to about 0.7W/m2, which is roughly 0.17 per decade.
At the same time, the mean growth reate of CO2 from NOAA increased from just under 1ppm/y to 2ppm/y. Current growth (2010+) is 2.5ppm/y. So, assuming CO2 is the only long term forcing agent here, we can say that the forcing is growing almost twice as fast (2.5ppm) as it used to in 1960-2000 on average (1.5ppm). Given that quoted figure (0.30) and my figure (0.17) eyeballed from Trenberth et al. (2014) fig. 1, are roughly in the ame proportion (almost twice as fast), I conclude that quoted figure (0.30) is correct. Obviously, my method (likewise yours) ignores other long term forcings - specifically CFC emissions that stopped in late 80s + human aerosols seems to be important players here - inclusion of other forcings may change the result.
-
rab at 11:01 AM on 1 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
@rocketeer, Quick calculation: 360 million km^2 is ocean surface area, times 2000m comes to 72 times 10^22 cm^3. Divide this from 20 times 10^22 Joules (since 1980). This is 0.28 Joules per gram. Divide this from heat capacity which is 4.2 Joules per g per degreeC. This gives about 1/15 degreeC. Sounds like not much, but calculate thermal expansion. For water at the average temperature this is 0.0002 per degreeC (in volume), but 0.0006 per degreeC for linear. It's linear we want since surface is constant. Multiply by 1/15 degreeC and multiply by 2000m. Result is 8cm. This is a lot!
-
Riduna at 10:56 AM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
The author notes that … “warming oceans account for about 35–40% of that rate of sea level rise over the past two decades, according to the IPCC AR5”.
I have long found it difficult to believe that thermal expansion of seawater is responsible for 40% of SLR. Recent research reports that melting ice sheets and mountain glaciers are about three times larger than steric influences on SLR.
That conclusion seems much closer to reality but may be unwelcome in some circles since the implication is that, if true and with SLR now at 3.4mm/annum, loss of land-based ice must be considerably greater than hitherto reported.
-
Rob Painting at 10:51 AM on 1 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
John Wise - it seems to a be natural phenomenon tied to the poleward transport of heat. Stronger easterly trade and midlatitude westerly winds spin up the subtropical ocean gyres.
As the tropical surface water is pushed westward in opposition to the Earth's eastward rotation it decelerates, and thus has slower rotational velocity than the Earth below, and relative to other 'parcels' of seawater which are rotating at the same speed as the Earth. The Coriolis force points the decelerating parcel of seawater poleward. At the midlatitudes, the westerly winds push surface seawater eastward in the same direction as Earth's rotation. Relative to the Earth and other parcels of seawater, the wind-affected parcel is now accelerating, and is therefore directed equatorward by the Coriolic force. These two near-surface currents converge in the centre of the subtropical ocean gyres and, with nowhere else to go, the water is directed downward into the ocean interior (known as Ekman pumping).
This is where the majority of deep ocean warming is occurring in the last decade or so - in the subtropical gyres. A near-coherent spin-up of all five subtropical ocean gyres was observed from the early/mid 1990's through to about 2004, when a peak was reached. They have remained in a relatively intense state since then, with a little bit of a lull between 2006-2008.
The North Pacific subtropical gyre spun up intensely in the middle of the 2013 year, and the South Pacific subtropical gyre intensified leading up to the end of 2013. Both appear to have spun down substantially since then. The South Atlantic subtropical gyre seems still to be in a spun-up state. Based on our physical understanding of this wind-driven ocean circulation, these intense spin-ups should have transported more heat to the deep ocean.
When this wind-driven ocean circulation moves into its sluggish phase (the positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation [IPO]), surface warming is likely rise abruptly. There are some tentative signs that this process may already be underway, but I'll have to do a bit more digging to confirm this.
Moderator Response:[TD] Rob, maybe you could write a post about this? Perhaps a rebuttal to the myth "deep oceans can't gain heat unless surface oceans do first"?
-
John Wise at 09:44 AM on 1 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
One Planet @ 5
I am aware of and have a basic understanding of the greenhouse effect,ocean acidification etc. What I am not clear on is what has changed in the last few years to cause more heat to be captured by the oceans and less in the atmosphere with the resultant slower rate of surface or atmospheric warming.
Moderator Response:[TD] La Nina: Trade winds push warm surface water to the west, which causes deeper, colder water to rise to replace it. See this post.
-
chriskoz at 08:35 AM on 1 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
Phil@4,
Curry's nonsense statement involving 2nd law of thermodynamics appears to be the result of misunderstanding (or intentional misleading given her expertise) of the processes involved.
"Heat" does not come from the ocean. It comes from the sun. The GHG influence is to retain the incoming sun heat (due to TOA radiative imbalance), not procude it. Where in the OA system said retained heat goes, depends on local variations in insolation, weather etc. Those variations exists now and will always be. And they are unpredictable (weather), i.e. the energy flows between parts of the system may go back and forth depending on the differing amounts of heat said parts recieve, eg. due to variations in isolations. 2nd law of thermodynamics does not aply here. It applies to an isolated system in terms of energy flow. OA system is not isolated in that respect as everybody enjoying bathing in sunshine knows.
I'm sure Curry (climate scientist) understands the basics of OA system and 2nd law of thermodynamics better than I do (my degree is in unrelated discipline) so I think she applies said basic law of physics bogusly to intentionally mislead the listener. It is far less likely that she screws the science up because she does not understands it.
-
michael sweet at 07:55 AM on 1 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
KR,
I had lost track of the discussion above.
Prev 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 Next
