Notes on ocean “warming”

I don’t have much time for research or writing these days, more’s the pity. So I must make do with snippets when they’re available. My favourite oceanographer made a few comments the other day on the ocean “heating” being discussed in the blogosphere. I’d like to pass them on.

He made some interesting and helpful remarks for the benefit of those of us not intimately acquainted with oceanography. However, to quieten the discussion which was threatening to get out of control he said pointedly, “I don’t have time to waste on Skeptical Science distortions.” We must hope that doesn’t make John Cook feel too inadequate.

Anyway, this is what he had to say about warming between 700–2000 m in the oceans.

1. The data below 700 m is very sparse — even with the increase in ocean drifters such as Argo. Therefore, the extremely small change in temperature associated with the very small heat content change is not reliable.

2. The main thermocline in the oceans lies between 500 and 1500 m on average depending on latitude. This is where the steepest gradient in temperature occurs in the bulk of the ocean. Note that I said on average. The position of the thermocline does vary over time. Best known example is the changes associated with ENSO — La Nina, thermocline depressed; El Nino, thermocline rises across the equatorial Pacific. There is evidence of shifts associated with the PDO. Doesn’t take much of a shift to account for an apparent global change in the 700–2000 m depth as low latitudes have higher sampling density than high latitudes — a change in the frequency of El Nino and La Nina events could do it.

3. Warm water doesn’t need to sink vertically to reach depth when dealing with intermediate waters (those around the thermocline). It is easier to move sideways along a density boundary than down through it. The main density boundary (pycnocline) is associated with the steepest temperature gradient (thermocline). It is not a flat surface — it is bowl-shaped; shallower at high latitudes and equator, and deepest around the tropics. Water at high latitudes sinks (subducts) by sliding sideways along the pycnocline. So warming of the Southern Ocean and Bering Sea eventually appears at 700–2000 m depth in the Central Pacific. Two little things though (1) the warming is solar driven and (2) it takes time to move (we think the shallowest parts may be of the order 50–70 years = PDO, and the deeper parts 100–500 y). So it is most likely a reflection of solar heating decades to centuries ago.

This is all basic stuff we teach in the introductory oceanography course — we don’t tend to get many atmospheric chemists attending.

So it’s no surprise they don’t understand this stuff.

I would emphasise the general unreliability of ocean temperatures. We don’t know enough about them to make a case for anything much. Also the amazingly long periods required for energy to move through the oceans.

129
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
116 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
NickAndyRichard C (NZ)Climate contrarians/deniers are cherry picking again | Open ParachuteKen Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Rob Painting
Guest

Just comments on your “mystery” oceanographer’s claims:

1. Yes, the data below 700 metres are less robust. It’s not like the oceanographic community doesn’t know about that. The data do, however, show strong warming in the layer 700-2000mtrs. The continued rise of global sea level is ample supporting evidence that this is indeed occurring. Your “oceanographer” is simply hand-waving here.

2. I don’t know how your oceanographer friend thinks heats is going to get uniformly distributed around the oceans, both vertically and horizontally, through changes in ocean circulation. The pattern of observed warming is very smooth. See Sedlacek & Knutti (2012).
Maybe an explanation from your unnamed oceanographer is in order. I’m interested in how the magic is supposed to work.

The observed pattern of warming is, however, very consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing of the ocean’s cool-skin layer.

3. I pity the students that may be led astray by your oceanographer friend, if the so-called reasoning highlighted above is any indication of his knowledge base. Is this person based in New Zealand?

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Hi Rob, thanks for visiting. ” It’s not like the oceanographic community doesn’t know about that.” Hmm. One expects firm conclusions, especially radical or alarming conclusions, to be watered down according to the reliability of the data, but one sees no evidence of that from certain quarters. We’re being driven to despair by talk of rising seas which are actually deeply doubtful. “The data do, however, show strong warming in the layer 700-2000mtrs.” But they do not demonstrate it for the whole ocean. “The continued rise of global sea level is ample supporting evidence that this is indeed occurring.” No, it isn’t; it’s been rising monotonously for about 6000 years from natural causes. The pattern of warming might seem “smooth” – what does that mean? What does it matter? Can sparse data be relied on for an accurate picture? “The observed pattern of warming is, however, very consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing of the ocean’s cool-skin layer.” But does not demonstrate it. I have not heard a convincing explanation of how that can possibly occur. It must be magic. I don’t know Sedlacek & Knutti; I’ll take a look some time. Never… Read more »

Ken
Guest

“Never mind who my friend is” – Oh how familiar – part of your anonymous “science team”, eh, Richard. Don’t say it’s Manfred? You seem to be just as ashamed of this person as you were of Manfred.

Or, my guess it’s Mad Monckton. You have to be away with the birds to acknowledge him as a reference.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Oh look, it’s Ken. We need some comic relief, methinks.

Welcome back, although I should point out that if Richard was ashamed of me he does a good job of hiding it, what with all the beers we’ve shared down at the pub. Good pub too.

That reminds me, RT, I’ve got some time free now, how about another pint or two?

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Great idea. Check your txts.

Andy
Guest

Here’s a clue Ken

This is all basic stuff we teach in the introductory oceanography course — we don’t tend to get many atmospheric chemists attending.

So probably an academic?
Rules out Monckton, and all us evil fossil fuel funded deniers.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Hi Ken. If you have nothing to say about the topic, I’ll delete this piece of nonsense, and any further pieces. I’ve lost patience with your pointless sniping — although I’m happy to leave it for long enough that people see the content of your mind. You really should open your parachute.

Rob Painting
Guest

Richard Treadgold – I understand your friend’s desire to remain anonymous. Who’d really want to be publicly associated with such nonsense? ” We’re being driven to despair by talk of rising seas which are actually deeply doubtful.” Global sea level has risen by around 20 mm in less than two years. See the AVISO website. Much of this is due to the natural exchange of water between the land and ocean (ENSO-related). Nevertheless, it shows your comment to be a gross departure from reality. This is normally the point where a delusional person claims the actual sea level experts are either incompetent, or malfeasant. Why? Because they have no scientific argument to make. “No, it isn’t; it’s been rising monotonously for about 6000 years from natural causes. Sorry Richard, the magical natural causes claim just doesn’t cut the mustard. That’s like saying “because!”. And it’s wrong anyway. You’re just further illustrating your ignorance here. The Holocene sea level highstand occurred thousands of years ago because sea level was static. With ocean volume no longer increasing, the subsidence of areas uplifted by the presence of the Great Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, and continental levering,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Humans warmed the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels And this is a statement of fact because you stated it Rob? I think there’s a Latin term that Monckton uses a lot for this type of argument. >”…and the oceans warmed too…” They warmed sure but so did solar luminosity. But solar luminosity reached a peak and so did atmospheric warming. So too has ocean heat now. The fossil fuels are still burning however. >”…increasing in volume through thermal expansion and the melting of land-based ice” As they would from Grand Maximum solar levels. >”This is normally the point where a delusional person claims the actual sea level experts are either incompetent, or malfeasant. Why? Because they have no scientific argument to make.” Actually there are a number of contra-consensus scientific arguments being made Rob it is just that you deny their right to be heard in a rational manner. There will be no choice for you and the IPCC but to the longer the IPCC’s projections diverge from reality though. Not sure that quoting the results of a CO2-forced-model-based SSL projection accelerating out to 2100 and further conveys any sort of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…and so did atmospheric warming”

21st century atm standstill just being a negative phase of the 60 yr cycle coinciding with the end of the 1920 – 2012 solar Grand Max but that doesn’t alter the solar case at all, the vastly more important fall of bicentennial component from Grand Max levels having just kicked in.

Clarence
Guest
Clarence

“Global sea level has risen by around 20 mm in less than two years.”

Really? Well it obviously wasn’t caused by icemelt or other results of global warming – which hasn’t occurred at all this century.

If the origin of this additional water is rivers, and the earlier origin of the river water was precipitation from the seas, then this is clearly part of the everlasting natural cycle.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

What he didn’t say was that it went done before it went up:-

2010.468238 5.651944e-02

2011.364108 4.855022e-02 <=

2013.047256 6.790903e-02

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Rob Painting – your Aviso graph you link to displays a trend over the last 20 years of 6cm sea level rise. Which equates to the expected 30cm rise per century that has been witnessed since records began. Wow – a whole foot of rise over a hundred years. Sell your beachfront property now, Rob!

Your claim of 2cm rise over the past 2 years is called cherry picking.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Rob, you say:- >”The data do, however, show strong warming in the layer 700-2000mtrs.” But it’s not consistent in the 3 ocean basins is it? Over the last 7 years:- http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html Basin time series (Oct-Dec data ×10^22 Joules) – World: 0 – 2000 metres , 0 – 700 metres 2005.875 , 12.637 , 7.849959 2012.875 , 16.630 , 10.641594 – Atlantic: 0 – 2000 metres , 0 – 700 metres 2005.875 , 6.256 , 4.896 2012.875 , 6.882 , 4.491 – Pacific: 0 – 2000 metres , 0 – 700 metres 2005.875 , 4.188 , 3.291 2012.875 , 4.227 , 2.858 – Indian: 0 – 2000 metres , 0 – 700 metres 2005.875 , 2.194 , 1.094 2012.875 , 5.520 , 3.923 Over the last 7 years from mid October 2005 to mid October 2012, 70% (2.8×10^22 Joules) of the global 0 – 2000 meters ocean heat increase (4×10^22 J) was in the upper 700 m layer of the Indian Ocean and 12% (0.5×10^22 J) was in the 700 – 2000 m layer of the Indian Ocean which accounts for 82% of the total increase i.e. global ocean warming has been largely restricted… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”He doesn’t say “uniformly” or “changes” ” – I mean in respect of one for the other. What he actually says is this:-

“There is evidence of shifts associated with the PDO. Doesn’t take much of a shift to account for an apparent global change in the 700–2000 m depth as low latitudes have higher sampling density than high latitudes — a change in the frequency of El Nino and La Nina events could do it.”

In other words, a regional change (“shift”) can give the impression of an “apparent global change”, the latter not being in any way “uniformly”.

Rob Painting
Guest

Hi Richard Cumming. I’m glad you’ve moved on from your “magical undersea volcanoes are warming the ocean” idea.

Some advice; rather than link-spamming entire threads with scientific papers that you don’t understand, how about translating these into clearer language. It does mean you have to actually comprehend what those scientists are discussing, but it might not prove quite so boring to the other resident climate science contrarians here.

Andy
Guest

Hi Rob,
I hope you appreciate the links to SkS I have been providing
🙂

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Rob, I hope you appreciate my links to SKS as well as those by Andy. SKS proving there’s been no statistically significant warming for between 16-23 yrs – wonders never cease.

http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Andy
Guest

Hi Magoo
How do you drive that calculator? If I enter a date such as 1/1/1998 to 1/1/2010. i get “insufficient data”

Note to SkS. Maybe put some date time pickers on the date textboxes?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Hey Andy. Just enter the years, not the days or months eg. 1980 and 2013. Tick the ‘advanced options’ below if you want to adjust the ‘autocorrelation’ dates to coincide with your chosen dates.

Andy
Guest

Hi Magoo
Thanks

Too simple for my puny cold ridden brain this morning

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I’m glad you’ve moved on from your “magical undersea volcanoes are warming the ocean” idea.” Think you’re labouring (as is Rob Taylor) under the collective Hot Topic inability to differentiate between undersea volcanoes and hydrovents (I do have that entire thread saved to disk as a record Rob). But just out of interest, I’m curious as to why you think sea-floor seismic activity is “magical”? That’s the second time in this thread you’ve used that word to characterize what you disagree with (or is that don’t understand or just wish to misconstrue?), is it some sort of defense mechanism that kicks in?. And why don’t you think superheated water (up to 400 C) gushing up from around 2000 – 2500m depth has no introductory heat effect whatsoever? Seems reasonable to me. And how can exposed molten magma not transfer at least a little heat to sea water? Just curious. As for the odd undersea volcano that we hear about in the news (at least most people do, you don’t obviously – Taylor thinks they’re “undetectable”) I can’t think why that would have the lasting effect that you (scurrilously and erroneously) say I think… Read more »

Rob Painting
Guest

Richard Cumming – oceanographers do appreciate that the oceans exhibit short-term variability, as heat circulates around, but all ocean basins exhibit long-term warming due to the persistent nature of the greenhouse gas forcing of the cool-skin layer . Hence the observations and modelling in Sedlacek & Knutti (2012).

Also note that there is a new paper just out on ocean heat, which affirms the findings of Nuccitelli (2012) of which I was a co-author. There has been a large increase in ocean heat in the layers below 700 mtrs. This tentatively supports the modelling in Meehl (2011) – ocean heat being funnelled down to the depths. The observations suggest this is occurring in the mid latitude ocean gyres, and is most likely driven by increased wind speeds.

Anyway, I’ll leave you and your fellow contrarians to bask in each other delusions………

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Rob Painting:

…the findings of Nuccitelli (2012) of which I was a co-author.

My understanding is that this “paper” was in fact just a Comment on someone else’s paper (Douglass and Knox, 2012) and was easily ‘debunked’ by the original authors here:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/DK_reply_PLA_2012.pdf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”….all ocean basins exhibit long-term warming due to the persistent nature of the greenhouse gas forcing of the cool-skin layer” Except that’s not the IPCC’s mechanism and as shown up-thread, there’s been no basin-specific and consistent basin-to-basin “persistent” warming (some cooling) especially over the last 7 yrs. This is not necessarily short-term variability and wholly consistent with solar change. If the atm/OHC standstills continue until AR5 release Sept 2014 or thereabouts it will be evident there’s a new climate regime in place (not predicted by the IPCC) and the awkward questions will only increase in number and volume. As for funneling, there’s an observational paper on this down-thread that studies some relatively tiny and sporadic occurrences in the Atlantic that are very much conditional on the right seasonal conditions occurring and non-anthropogenic. And again I point out that the 700-2000 gain in the planet’s largest ocean (the Pacific) is only 1% of total ocean gain and besides, the IPCC AR5 SOD makes the anthropogenic attribution to 0-700m-only and only for the 20th century. Ocean warming is not a globally consistent phenomenon, it is now (82%) largely confined to the Indian Ocean. SLR is… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

no basin-specific [except Indian] – should be.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Hey Andy. Just enter the years, not the days or months eg. 1980 and 2013. Tick the ‘advanced options’ below if you want to adjust the ‘autocorrelation’ dates to coincide with your chosen dates.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Hansen (2005, p1432): The observed annual mean rate of ocean heat gain between 1993 and mid-2003 was 0.86 ± 0.12 W/m2 per year for the 93.4% of the ocean that was analyzed. Assuming the same rate for the remaining 6.6% of the ocean yields a global mean heat storage rate of 0.7 x  0.86 = 0.60 ± 0.10 W/m2 per year or 6 ± 1 W year/m2 for 10 years, 0.7 being the ocean fraction of Earth’s surface. This agrees well with the 5.5 W year/m2 in the analysis of Levitus et al. for the upper 700 m that was based only on in situ data. … On average for the five simulations, 85% of the ocean heat storage occurred above 750 m, with the range from 78 to 91%. The mean heat gain below 750 m was ~0.11 W/m2. So in 2005, Hansen & Co. were very happy to use just the top 700m of ocean to justify their hypothesis for 1993 to mid-2003, since the models and observations agreed well. Bear in mind that the period analysed was only ten years. However, since ARGO was deployed in 2003, the wheels… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Hansen et al (2005) Model Mean Trend vs Observations

http://oi56.tinypic.com/9amivl.jpg

Fail

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…no sensible mechanism…”

Magoo suggested “osmosis via Tardis”. Turns out that, as reported by SkS, Meehl et el (2011) modeled the process:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Deep-Ocean-Warms-When-Global-Surface-Temperatures-Stall–.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Follow-up:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Heat-Poised-To-Come-Back-And-Haunt-Us-.html

“The vertical profile shows heat (the warm-coloured areas in figure 3) accumulating in the subsurface ocean during the hiatus periods. At the same time the ocean surface, particularly the top 100 metres, shows a cooling trend. It’s this La Niña-like cooling trend in the surface layers which stalls global surface temperatures, even though the layers underneath are gaining heat.”

“In the warm-coloured oceanic regions, heat is converging in the surface layers, and is being forced down to the deep ocean. An example of this strong downwelling of heat in the model is shown, for the upper Pacific Ocean, in Figure 5 below:”

Osmosis via Tardis it is.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

“…heat is converging in the surface layers, and is being forced down to the deep ocean.”
Ah well, it’s the old ‘warm water sinks’ meme. Good to know.

I note also that Meehl et al. assumes a priori that the TOA imbalance is 1W/m2. This result (as we’ve discussed previously) ultimately comes from Hansen’s models (he actually modelled 0.85W/m2 and Trenberth rounded it up).

But in the meantime Hansen has modified his position to 0.75W/m2, then to 0.58W/m2 over recent times.

Looks like the imbalance is reducing, not increasing as expected. Well well.

Andy
Guest

I sometimes wonder how many of these questions we could resolve by doing an actual physical experiment.

For example, provide a source of longwave radiation shining onto a body of water, and measure the changes.

Similarly, we are told that aerosols are a great unknown, and there are no satellites available to measure the parameters needed to get a better handle on the issue

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

It seems to me that if there were huge masses of warm water sinking to the ocean depths we should have noticed it by now.

If the science was settled, that is…

Andy
Guest

James Cameron has got a very impressive submarine, and he is “concerned” about climate change

Can we get him to look for the heat?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I sometimes wonder how many of these questions we could resolve by doing an actual physical experiment. For example, provide a source of longwave radiation shining onto a body of water……”

‘Optical Absorption of Water Compendium’,

http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/abs/index.html

Results from Hale and Querry (1973),

http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

>”….and measure the changes”

Well yes, that would be the sensible thing to do. The changes would need to mimic DLR changes but they go up and down and I don’t think a tiny incremental change in intensity commensurate with anthropogenic forcing would make any difference to the spectroscopy results anyway (those commercial studies were for medical laser use). The anthropogenic component of DLR (if any) is miniscule as we can calculate from dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and completely gazumped by measured total DLR fluxes. And I think we can safely assume DLR is an ineffective heating agent otherwise solar collectors would be effective at night in proportion to DLR intensity wrt to solar in the day.

The spectroscopy has been around since at least 1973 (H&Q73 now 2024 citations – seems to go up every week) but cutting-edge climate science hasn’t caught up with it yet, let alone progress it for climate application.

Andy
Guest

Richard C:

The anthropogenic component of DLR (if any) is miniscule as we can calculate from dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and completely gazumped by measured total DLR fluxes

There were comments about the 5.35 ln(C/Co) formula on BH a couple of days ago. Steven Mosher stated that this formula is well established by experiment. However, others claim otherwise and that McIntyre cannot find any reference to its origins

Other than that, the other DLR fluxes are from water vapour, I presume?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”It seems to me that if there were huge masses of warm water sinking to the ocean depths we should have noticed it by now.”

>”James Cameron has got a very impressive submarine, and he is “concerned” about climate change. Can we get him to look for the heat?”

According to Meehl et al’s Tardis, the place to look is 30 Deg N in the Pacific:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/OHCMeehl2011-circulation.gif

Not sure what longitude. Maybe it’s across the entire latitude which would make it easy although Rob P at SkS uses the term “funneling” so it might be some sort of vortex. I did look up “funneling” in the “Look up a term” facility but just got ” ‘funneling’ was not found in the dictionary of terms.”

Andy
Guest

RC – Sks has a page referencing the C/C0 formula with links to follow

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”There were comments about the 5.35 ln(C/Co) formula on BH a couple of days ago. Steven Mosher stated that this formula is well established by experiment. However, others claim otherwise and that McIntyre cannot find any reference to its origins” Vincent Gray documents the origin, https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gbvMIwQpRYMJ:http://www.john-daly.com/bull-121.htm%2BIPCC+forcing+formula+gray&hl=en-NZ&gbv=2&gs_l=heirloom-hp.12…1604.10181.0.12020.20.20.0.0.0.0.612.5356.5j4j0j6j2j3.20.0…0.0…1c.1.ina4iEqYZa0&ct=clnk Synopsis goes something like this – they took a log simplification of lower CO2 levels and extrapolated it to accommodate 2xCO2 but there was no experimental justification. Mosher is flat wrong. The IPCC version is a simplification of simplifications that WERE actually verified by experiment (I can dig out the paper from here at CCG proving that). Those original simplifications were by Hottel, Leckner and another I can’t remember but the important thing being they are log-log not log. This is the Eggert issue I bang on about from time to time:- http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png >”Other than that, the other DLR fluxes are from water vapour, I presume?” And clouds, and other GHGs, natural and anthropogenic. WV and clouds (“all sky”) being the larger components by far and cloudiness levels are the major determinant of dimming/brightening. Slayers say some specific instruments are just detecting warm air masses but I’m… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

‘Funneling’ is term associated with Tardising. The effect can be seen in action here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcP0g-JeJA

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber
1996

http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf

3. CORRELATIONS FOR PREDICTING THE TOTAL EMISSIVITY AND ABSORPTIVITY OF COMBUSTION GASES

3.2. Polynomial Approximations

The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckne2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCURACY OF SEVERAL TOTAL EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS (HOMOGENOUS CALCULATIONS)
4.1. Generalities
In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-145449

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Aha! I knew I was onto something there.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Been trying to find a recent observational deep convection paper or lecture that might give us a lead on what the SkS “funneling” processes actually are in the real world, came up with this:- OPEN-OCEAN CONVECTION: OBSERVATIONS, THEORY, AND MODELS http://www.math.nyu.edu/caos_teaching/ocean_dynamics/reading/marshall_schott99.pdf 1.1. Background and Scope The strong vertical density gradients of the thermocline of the ocean inhibit the vertical exchange of fluid and fluid properties between the surface and the abyss, insulating the deep ocean from variations in surface meteorology. However, in a few special regions (see Figure 1) characterized by weak stratification and, in winter, exposed to intense buoyancy loss to the atmosphere, violent and deep-reaching convection mixes surface waters to great depth, setting and maintaining the properties of the abyss. This paper reviews observational, modeling, laboratory, and theoretical studies that have elucidated the physics of the convective process and its effect on its larger-scale environment Figure 1. The major deep convection sites of the North Atlantic sector: the Labrador Sea (box a), the Greenland Sea (box b), and the western Mediterranean (box c). Detailed descriptions and discussions of the water mass transformation process occurring in the three “boxes” are reviewed here.… Read more »

Andy
Guest

So Myhre, G., E.J. Highwood, K. Shine and F. Stordal, 1998. New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys Res Letters 25 (14) 2715-2718

appears to be the definite (?) paper on the forcing parameters

Climate sensitivity is a separate issue of course, which is the delta T for a given increase in forcing (from whatever source)

Andy
Guest

by which I mean, these are the starting points that the “consensus” is built upon

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Yes, definitely what the consensus is built on, after a bit of tweaking. I think the issue though is, given the LBL results, what is the rationale for selection of that particular representative expression (irrespective of the evolution of it)? Eggert’s critique is here:- An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming Part 1: Scientific Discussion John Eggert P. Eng. http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf Mosh says “this formula is well established by experiment” (or similar) but people did the establishing – not the (LBL) experiment. N. Lallemant, A. Sayret and R. Weber (1996) up-thread verified (established) some representative expressions too so I suppose it’s them against Myhre, G., E.J. Highwood, K. Shine and F. Stordal, (1998), combustion engineering vs climate science. I might be wrong but just intuitively the fact that the IPCC expression is a straight line on a log-log graph and the Eggert expressions are more nuanced curves indicates to me that the selection of combustion engineering’s representative expressions had a finer resolution (a more careful rationale). Keeping in mind too that the combustion engineering curves are applied to a far greater range of temperatures than climate science will ever deal with… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Except that the combustion engineering curves don’t go below 0C. Since most of the atmosphere is cooler than this I’m surprised that you and Eggert think they are appropriate.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Eggert:-

“A review of Leckner’s curves shows that in the range of temperatures of the atmosphere (293K to 216K) a single temperature will suffice for estimating emissivity. The temperature chosen was 273K. Note that the area below 273K is a projection beyond Leckner’s curves and may be in error.”

Most of the forcing occurs near the surface Nick (Nichol08). That’s within 9 C at 2km:-

http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/temperature-profile-troposphere.png

For what range of temperature is the IPCC’s 5.35 ln(C/Co) valid for Nick (citation and quote please)?

You seem to be saying that what is a curve at O C on a log-log graph becomes a straight line at -1 C. What is the rationale for this?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

within 13/14/15 C at surface to 0 C at 2km should be

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

In other words, selection of 273K is a curve typical of 2 km altitude. That seems reasonable to me given the troposphere ranges in thickness from 8km at the poles to 16km over the equator but that CO2 forcing is greatest in the lower troposphere. Perhaps 286K would better represent the strongest forcing but you’re arguing for a figure less than 273K?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

O C corresponds to altitudes about 1.5 km polar, 4 km mid-latitude and 5.5 km in this graph:-

http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~tbw/wc.notes/1.atmosphere/tropopause.height.differences.jpg

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Definitive for use as a simplified approximation for IPCC methodology – yes that would be it. Models have different implementations though from what I can gather. For example, NCAR’s CAM uses an out-sourced radiative transfer module (RTM) that was extensively verified and validated against observations and LBL calcs. The models are spun up with the historical GHG levels (Law Dome – Mauna Loa for CO2) to 2000 or so. There’s some latitude as to how much of the LD-ML series to use. Then the RCP concentration scenarios take over with specified levels for each year and each scenario when the simulation is run. Not sure though if those increasing RCP concentrations are then the input for that specific 5.35 ln(C/Co) formula. More likely the RTM has a massive look-up table or something that may even correspond to curves closer to Eggert’s than 5.35 ln(C/Co) for all I know. I might be wrong about the model aspect because it’s been a while since I’ve had my head in it but I don’t recall actually finding a model formula sheet that actually documents use of that formula in particular. It might be for Hansen’s GISS… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Via email feed:-

Author: Joanne Nova
Comment:
Mrs Nice, who is “we”? (Who are you? Still not confident enough to name yourself? Sorry to hear that.)

Sure look, you might be right, lets use your “colder water at the bottom” logic. CO2 at 10,000m above the Earth is at what — minus 60C? And your theory is that it’s more likely to be heating the ocean from 700m – 2000m down (but not the layer above that). Right? Me, I’m thinking of hydrothermal vents at 400C (average depth 2100m), not to mention black smokers, chimneys, warm diffusing undersea ridges, and I wonder if they increased their activity by 0.01% whether they might affect the water directly around them?

Good luck with your theory.

See all comments on this post here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#comments

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Author: Nice One Comment: Mrs Nice, who is “we”? (Who are you? Still not confident enough to name yourself? Sorry to hear that.) Yeah, I’m not really wanting the attention of the type of men you attract on this forum. Thanks for understanding. You’re such a sweetie! CO2 at 10,000m above the Earth is at what – minus 60C? And your theory is that it’s more likely to be heating the ocean from 700m – 2000m down (but not the layer above that). Right? No I don’t suggest that top layer of the atmosphere is solely responsible for the warming. But the blanket of GHGs that is dispersed throughout the atmosphere does. Let me quote yourself: The point is that YES, obviously in the real world, blankets keep us warm. Pink batts “lift the temperature of your home in cold weather”. They don’t do it by supplying energy, they do it by blocking energy loss. The cooler item is not supplying a single new joule of energy, but there another mechanism of increasing an objects temperature. It’s called insulation. It’s a reality we all know and use every single day. Why deny it?… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Replying to Nice one, Popeye links to this article:- ‘DIY ocean heating’ by Mark Imisides, December 7, 2009 Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming. Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges. In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter! This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot? The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nice one’s reply to this article:- @Popeye, it’s not me measuring the heat, it’s the fleet of Argo buoys. Off the cuff I can spot several problems with your blogger science. – the heat goes in during the day and the heat flow from ocean to air is restricted by increased thermal layer of atmosphere redirecting the energy back down. And yes his dozens of heaters WILL result in water temperature that would higher than without heaters. – His calcs regardin “The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water!” are incorrect because we’re not suggesting that the entire ocean has increased by that much. – His “Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective.” comment seems pretty stupid given it’s not the energy from our homes heating the oceans, its sun. – His comment “Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. “. So what, we’re not extracting the energy from the air, the additional energy that would otherwise go back out to space is being redirected downwards by GHG. I’ll stop there because frankly thats enough wasting time on shit science. Come back when you… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Original comment by Nice one is here (thread header #87):-

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#comment-1238234

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ve joined in but won’t copy any more of the JoNova thread to here.

[Thanks Richard. – RT]

Andy
Guest

Off topic, but has anyone noticed any references to Earth Hour recently? It seems to have gone off the radar a bit

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Hi Andy – I came across this, hope it helps….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/21/dont-turn-off-the-lights/

Andy
Guest

Hi Mike
Continuing our off topic sub-thread on Earth Hour, I remember pre-earthquake days when this was a really big deal in Christchurch NZ – there were claims to be the “first city to see Earth Hour” etc. There was a major Earth Hour event in Cathedral Square

Maybe a few actual disasters and power outages have put a bit of a dampener on boutique suffering.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

I would call it the Real-Stuff-Interruption. For example,

In Northern Ireland schools were closed because of heavy snow, and many forced to rely on candles after electricity supplies were affected. More than 200,000 homes were without power on Friday night at the height of the mass blackout.

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/heavy-snow-rain-causes-chaos-in-uk-5378537

Or this:

The prolonged cold snap has sparked fears that the UK will run out of stored gas, but the National Grid has said there is “plenty of gas available”, and the Department of Energy and Climate Change has said gas needs are being met.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21907837

Anyone wanna turn your lights out?

Andy
Guest
Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

I think we could have a new trademark in the offing:
Real-Stuff-Interruption-Of-Boutique-Suffering

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Rob Painting@March 21, 2013 at 8:00 pm, Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the trouble you went to. My apologies for the slow reply, but I had to research some things to understand them, and I’m also busy with other things. I believe you haven’t answered my questions and I disagree with some of your assertions. First, though, let me clear up a small misunderstanding. I said: ”We’re being driven to despair by talk of rising seas which are actually deeply doubtful.” You replied: “Global sea level has risen by around 20 mm in less than two years. See the AVISO website. Much of this is due to the natural exchange of water between the land and ocean (ENSO-related). Nevertheless, it shows your comment to be a gross departure from reality.” I should have said “future” rising seas – my mistake. Still, you employ blatant cherry-picking to refute my statement. The AVISO graph you cite http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.gif shows mean sea level falling maybe 9 mm before rising the 20 mm you claim (as Richard C refers to in comments above). Your claim that this is an observation of rising sea levels is deceptive, because… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Bravo. We await Rob Painting’s response with bated breath. Failing that, he is completely undone.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

That’s right. Thanks, Mike.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Wow, comprehensive riposte and shameful to elbow in on it but the solar nerd in me saw this from you RT:- >”Nor is it acceptable simply to say that you can’t think of anything else that might cause warming” And this from Rob:- “This trend reversed after the dawn of the Industrial Revolution through the burning of fossil fuels.” I’ll assume that Rob means that the reversal coincided with the dawn of the industrial revolution (transition 1760 to some time between 1820 and 1840) and there was a continuous positive sea level trend “after” the reversal. I disagree entirely, the sea level reversal occurred prior to that at about 1600 to 1700:- http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/mwp/loehle-midieval-midieval-warming-period.gif The sea level reversal coincides with solar reversal at that time (Maunder Minimum), http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/its-the-sun-stupid-the-maunder-minimum.jpg Sea level 1700 – 1930 (rise-fall-rise) coincides with solar output over that period. At 1930 there was an inflexion in the sea level trend:- http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/sea-level.jpg From John A. Church and Neil J. White, “20th Century Acceleration in Global Sea-Level Rise.” Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006): L01602 [doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.] The 1930 sea level inflexion (not strictly an “acceleration” in physics terms) coincides with the onset of the modern… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I’m glad you’re on our side, Richard.

Ken
Guest

Me too, Richard. Me too.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Yes, Ken, thanks (again) for the sniping troll-drive-by without any substance whatsoever. We get that you think this is an echo chamber for people on “our side”. Yes, thank you for pointing out that we should not be seen to agree with each other, but really Ken – if my parachute is as open as you would apparently exhort it to be, then I would be open to scientifically based rebuttal rather than troll drive-bys. Do you have any such scientific rebuttal, which we might rebut?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dang, the Loehle graph is temperature not sea level, the graph I had in mind is this:-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/clip_image002_thumb.gif?w=600&h=393

Vividly shows the early 1700s sea level reversal and 1934 inflexion.

From ‘Back-testing the Solar – Sea Level Relationship’ – by David Archibald

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/22/back-testing-the-solar-sea-level-relationship/

Quoting:-

“This is a little bit amusing. In February, I had a post on the solar – sea level relationship which quantified the sea level fall to come to the end of Solar Cycle 25:

[links]

The site “Skeptical Science” has to date carried two pieces in response to that February post:

[links]

My February post was 624 words and 6 figures. The Skeptical Science responses to date total 3,446 words and 17 figures. The relationship I found between solar activity and sea level is 0.045 mm per unit of annual sunspot number. The threshold between rising and falling seal level is a sunspot amplitude of 40. Below 40, sea level falls. Above that, it rises.

So let’s apply that relationship to the know sunspot record back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum and see what it tells us. This is the result:”

Continues>>>>>>>>>>

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The Archibald SL reconstruction derived from the solar correlation isn’t that great 1700 – 1930 compared to other SL reconstructions I have to admit.

Archibald reconstruction,

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/clip_image006_thumb1.jpg?w=836&h=629

SL reconstruction back to 1700 from Jevrejeva et al

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/clip_image006_thumb1.jpg?w=836&h=629

Assuming Jevrejeva et al is the better that is.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dang again, wrong link to the Archibald SL reconst. Should be;-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/clip_image002_thumb.gif?w=600&h=393

SL reconstruction back to 1700 from Jevrejeva et al

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/clip_image006_thumb1.jpg?w=836&h=629

SL reconstruction back to AD 200 from Jevrejeva et al

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c015433ac485d970c-pi

Archibald’s reconstruction actually compares much better to the Jevrejeva et al AD 200 reconst than the two Jevrejeva et al graphs do to each other, and the AD 200 reconst shows the SL reversal began in the early part of 1700 at the same time as Archibald’s does. Definitely prior to Rob Painting’s (I assume) 1760 – 1820 “dawn” of the industrial period from which I would expect some time lag to SL response if that was the SL driver.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The source of the AD 200 graph is Grinsted; Moberg et al 2005 and Jevrejeva 2006, obtained from a pdf at curryja.files (see source http link under the graph).

The AD 200 reconst effectively kills the notion that fossil fuel emissions drive sea levels because it shows Medieval Warm Period sea levels much higher than present and both much higher than 1750. Whereas, CO2 levels were little changed MWP – MM (1200 – 1750) relative to present in the Law Dome CO2 series:-

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/lawdome.GIF

But MWP TSI was much higher than MM:-

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l3_nearabiansea.gif

AD 200 SL again:-

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c015433ac485d970c-pi

Solar explains sea level maximum and minimum over the last 1000 years but CO2 doesn’t.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The source of the AD 200 graph is Grinsted; Moberg et al 2005 and Jevrejeva 2006, obtained from a pdf at curryja.files (see source http link under the graph).” ‘Historic variations in Sea Levels Part 1- from the Holocene to Romans’ [by Judith Curry (???)] Introduction Due to a printing error, the information that puts modern sea level rise into its historic context was accidentally omitted from Chapter Five of AR4. The missing section-reproduced below should have been included in appendix 5a here; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf Alright a confession. This is the section that SHOULD have been there but wasn’t, so I have helpfully written it on the IPCC’s behalf. ‘Historic variations in sea levels’ is in three parts. Part 1 covers the Holocene to Roman times. Part 2 traces sea level changes to the Medieval Warm Period. Part 3-the modern age from 1700 to today. http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf Can’t find Part 2 but it doesn’t matter. The AD 200 compilation is on page 24 and the source is linked:- ‘Sea level rise: what has happened so far’ http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1240 Figure 1. Global sea level from 200 A.D. to 2000, as reconstructed from proxy records of sea level… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I didn’t realise there had been such variation in sea level since the last glaciation. My impression previously had been of a fairly constant rise — varying, but rising. I heard not a whisper from any of the scientists I’ve read of any substantial decline. I should apologise to Rob Painting for not believing him, for sure.

But if you don’t know a thing, and then you find out about it, you’re probably better off.

So thanks again, Richard.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

That Moberg/Grinsted reconstruction is probably not universally accepted RT (I don’t think the IPCC would have anything to do with it). I see in the Judith Curry (?) pdf this (quoting):- In private email correspondence that he has given me permission to reproduce, Dr Simon Holgate of Proudman Oceanographic Observatory refers to sea level reconstructions back to 200AD-which covers several warm periods such as the Roman Optimum and MWP- and remarks; “It seems plausible that sea level would be higher in a warmer period (how warm and how much of the Earth was actually affected by the warm period is debated) but it isn’t clear how sea level would respond. So maybe it was higher than today, or maybe it wasn’t. We have no observations and we just don’t know. For me, there is far too much uncertainty in the ‘reconstructions’ of sea level for them to be very useful…Overall I would say that the evidence from the (Roman) fish tanks etc suggests that there has been no real change in the average height of sea level over the last c. 2000 years prior to the mid to late 1800s.” + + +… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”My impression previously had been of a fairly constant rise — varying, but rising”

And you were right. The last 2000 years is just the “varying” bit at the end of this post-glacial series:-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The Moberg/Grinsted reconstruction is within 0 – 2000 years ago – barely a ripple on the top of a tidal wave.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The “varying” over the last 2000 years (and similar for the last 8000 years) is +/- 0.2 metres with at most a 2 – 5 metre rise over 6000 – 8000 years, The post-glacial rise is 120 metres:-

http://icons.wunderground.com/data/climate_images/sealevel200-2000.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Here’s a better graphic for the last 8000 years:-

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/holocene_sea_level.png

More “varying” than Moberg/Grinsted. Not really a steady rise either from 7000 but a rise nevertheless.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Meaningless OHC study by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Källén because they don’t analyze ocean basins individually and wrt each other (and nothing we didn’t know anyway):-

‘Missing Energy Claimed to be Found’

A paper just out in GRL by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Källén claims to have affirmed the location of the “missing energy” in the climate system — it’s (as suspected) in the deep ocean (the 300-2000 m layer, and especially below 700 m).

http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/missing-energy-claimed-to-be-found.html

“…it’s been on “haitus” during the last decade…”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

700-2000m OHC World gain last 7 yrs 1.967×10^22 J (Oct – Dec data)

Atlantic 1×10^22 (50.8%)

Pacific 0.47×10^22 (23.9%)

Indian 0.497×10^22 (25.26%)

Apparently the Skydragon is forcing more than twice as much heat below 700m in the Atlantic as he/she is in the larger Pacific. Odd really because the Skydragon appears to live near New Guinea and rarely ventures over to the Atlantic to breathe fire into the ocean – and he hasn’t been across to the eastern Pacific for the last 20 years:-

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif

Either that or there’s other phenomena to consider.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Rob Painting is spruiking the Balmaseda paper at HT and Nuccitelli’s starry-eyed non-critique at SKS. Apparently, global warming has “accelerated”:- http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html >”The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security” No, we just understand the cycles operating. >”So what’s causing this transfer of heat to the deeper ocean layers? The authors suggest that it is a result of changes in winds related to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and more frequent La Niña events.” Hmmm….. So the least amount of heat has gone below 700m in the Pacific (the largest) over the last 7 yrs and the most (more than twice as much) has been in the Atlantic, but Pacific conditions explain the Atlantic situation. I’m not sure that I follow this. >”So the slowed warming at the surface is only temporary, and consistent with the ‘hiatus decades’ described by Meehl et al. (2011).” “slowed warming”? “hiatus”? Both the upper Pacific and Atlantic are cooling in the ARGO era, the upper Indian warming significantly (but only to 4Q2010/3Q2011), the aggregate at standstill last 4 yrs:- http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png?w=960&h=623 http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/images/OHCA_curve_2012.png >”Perhaps… Read more »

trackback

[…] grand scale. Climate change deniers like Slater (and his mates at the local contrarian/denier blog Climate Conversation Group) seem to spend the New Zealand summer and autumn in the northern hemisphere, intellectually anyway. […]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“Huge patches of warm air over the Arctic” ?

Weather for Barrow, Alaska
‎Sun, Mon, Tue, ‎Wed
‎-18° ‎-24°, ‎-21° ‎-27°,-18° -26°,-16° ‎-22°

Weather for Oymyakon, Siberia
‎Mon,Tue, ‎Wed,Thu
-8° ‎-16°,-5° -20°,‎-6° ‎-24°, ‎-9° ‎-32°

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ve asked Ken if he knows what an “anomaly” is.

Andy
Guest

Ken, maybe you should fly over to the UK and stand on a street corner in Yoorkshire or Scotland where e people are without power and cannot move became of the snow. Tell them they are dishonest liars.

See how long it is before you are lynched.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
Just wondering if you could comment a bit more on why you think the sun is causing the current accelerating global warming when Total Solar Irradiance is declining?

Perhaps you could address why the correlation between TSI and temperature has broken down over the last 30 years or so.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Illustrates what I’m talking about.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

Shows continued accelerating warming once ocean heat content to 2000m is considered.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

Demonstrates that the effect of TSI is minor and currently negative which is the opposite of what would be expected if your theory is correct.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”if you could comment a bit more on why you think the sun is causing the current accelerating global warming when Total Solar Irradiance is declining?” Certainly, but what “accelerating global warming”? Atmospheric temperature is at a standstill (no acceleration) primarily due to the negative phase in the 60 yr climate cycle and the small decline in solar output since bicentennial peak just prior to 1990, the effects of which are lagged 8 to 20 years due to planetary thermal inertia so were still contributing to ocean heat accumulation up to 2012 after which the bicentennial component is going over a cliff. Solar output since 1990 here:- http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/tsixsa_eng.jpg http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2-tsi-variations.png?w=640&h=475 There’s been little relative change from the peak level i.e. although output declined slightly it was still at similar elevated levels to 1990 up until 2012. The significant solar output change however, occurred around 1920 – 1830:- http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/its-the-sun-stupid-the-maunder-minimum.jpg That corresponds to the inflexion in sea level at the same time:- http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/sea-level.jpg The GHG inflexion however, didn’t occur until 1950. The SkS graph is of one of the highly contentious TSI composites from different and disconnected satellite series, the SkS example being PMOD and an… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Correction – “but all the metrics are consistent with the [solar] scenarios from the much wider scientific community (includes astrophysics BTW)”

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,

1 – How do you determine that the lag between TSI and atmospheric temperatures is 8-20 years? I would have figured it to be in days or weeks
2 – How is it that TSI is able to heat the oceans unevenly but AGW is not?
3 – What feedbacks are associated with TSI and are they the same as those for AGW?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

1 – How do you determine that the lag between TSI and atmospheric temperatures is 8-20 years? I would have figured it to be in days or weeks See the planetary inertia calculation in Abdussamatov (2012), also Scafetta in one of his papers. You obviously don’t understand the oceanic heat sink at all Nick. 2 – How is it that TSI is able to heat the oceans unevenly but AGW is not? I didn’t say either. Read again:- “Balmaseda et al is only a study of aggregate OHC. They do not analyze basin-by-basin. If they had done that they would discover that the upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling in the satellite era and that more than twice as much heat has accumulated in the Indian ocean below 700m as has in the same layer of the Pacific over the last 7 yrs i.e. there’s been basin-to-basin heat transfer by the circulatory heat transport currents, primarily from Pacific to Indian but the upper Pacific is not being replenished by solar heating (or GHGs obviously).” I’m a bit wrong here. 70% of TOTAL gain has gone to the upper Indian Ocean (explained largely… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
1 – you misunderstand the question. TSI peaked in the 80s, why did atmospheric temperatures continue to increase?

2 – How do changes in circulation result in an increase in energy? It has to come from somewhere

3 – Abdussamatov lists CO2 as one of the feedback effects that will amplify TSI changes. It appears that he agrees that increasing CO2 will have a warming effect

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

1.TSI peaked in the 80s, why did atmospheric temperatures continue to increase? TSI peaked late 80’s, atm temp hasn’t risen statistically significantly for 16 – 23 yrs or from 1990 – 1997 (depending on series). TSI was still at elevated levels close to peak up until 2012, continuing to pump energy into the ocean thereby increasing planetary enthalpy to maximum at around that time (2012). Think of boiling water in a pot, you don’t have to keep turning up the element, just turn it up and leave it. The ocean heats the atmosphere via lagged solar output by 8 – 20 yrs so atmospheric temperatures 1994 – 2006 were a result of 1986 peak solar output (very roughly). But don’t forget, the major influence on the inflexion from 80s/90s rise to 2000’s and present temperature standstill was the change from positive to negative phase of the 60 yr cycle, not TSI. The major TSI influence is only just kicking in 2013 with the plunge in the quasi-200 yr solar cycle. Don’t forget too that atmospheric temperature has been falling slightly (not statistically of course) since about 2002:- http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss-land/from:2002/plot/rss-land/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp-dts/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend Not much hope for Foster… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Richard C,
Can you also please confirm the source of your data for TSI from 1600. The scale appears wildly different from this:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Can you also please confirm the source of your data for TSI from 1600″

Abdussamatov (2012) [Bicentennial Decrease Of The Total Solar Irradiance Leads To Unbalanced Thermal Budget Of The Earth And The Little Ice Age, APPLIED PHYSICS RESEARCH, 4(1):178-184]

Head of the Russian half of the International Space Station BTW and focussed very much on solar luminosity as is their mission.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The scale appears wildly different from this:http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm

4.2 Variations in total solar irradiance

Figure 21View Imagea presents all existing satellite measurements of TSI and it is clear that significant uncertainties remain related to the calibration of the instruments and their degradation over time. For example, data from the newest instrument, the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on the SORCE satellite, is giving values approximately 5 Wm–2 lower than other contemporaneous instruments which disagree among themselves by a few Wm–2. This uncertainty is a serious problem underlying current solar-climate research. The variation in TSI over the past two 11-year cycles is known to greater accuracy showing approximately 0.08% (∼ 1.1 Wm–2) peak-to-peak over the solar cycle.

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=articlesu7.html

New Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) baseline value [SORCE]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/total-solar-irradiation-tsi-value-lower-in-2008/

A new, lower value of total solar irradiance [SORCE]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045777/pdf

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C, thanks for looking at this. I agree that there are likely some offset issues for the various data sets. What I don’t understand is why Abdussamatov shows over 6 W/m^2 between 1600s and today but http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm shows less than 2 W/m^2 variation over the same period.

It is a pity that Abdussamatov is not clear about where his data is derived from (as far as I can tell)

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”What I don’t understand is why Abdussamatov shows over 6 W/m^2 between 1600s and today but http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm shows less than 2 W/m^2 variation over the same period.” TSI reconstructions are a moveable feast and I’m not clear on the disparity either. Neither are necessarily correct. I should point out that it is an evolving science and I don’t necessarily subscribe to Abdussamatov’s scenario which is at the extreme end of all the alternatives. The reason I consider Abdussamatov’s work to have at least some cred though is firstly the fact that Pulkovo Observatory where he works and the Russian side of the ISS that he heads both specialize in solar luminosity, and secondly the radical difference in climate conditions 1600 vs 1990, minimum vs maximum. I doubt 2 W/m^2 variation max to min would be enough for prevailing conditions such that the Bosporus freezes to a thickness that enables people to walk across at Constantinople as happened in the Maunder Minimum for example. >”It is a pity that Abdussamatov is not clear about where his data is derived from (as far as I can tell)” I agree with you again here too. I… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I doubt 2 W/m^2 variation max to min would be enough for prevailing conditions such that the Bosporus freezes to a thickness that enables people to walk across at Constantinople as happened in the Maunder Minimum for example”

Wang, Lean, and Sheeley would have us believe that solar output only varied about 2 W/m^2 1600 – 1990 (on average 1990 level) but SC’s 21, 22, and 23 (late 1970s to late 2000s) varied by more than 1 W/m^2 in all TSI composites.

ACRIM TSI composite:-

file:///C:/DOCUME~1/User1/LOCALS~1/Temp/78999070.png

Note the ACRIM composite does NOT have TSI peaking at 1986 but at 1996 and 2009 is higher than 1986 too.

PMOD TSI composite (Skeptical Science and IPCC favourite – 1986 peak):-

http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig27.jpg

IRMB TSI composite (Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium):-

http://remotesensing.oma.be/meteo/download/en/3833255/image/scaletomax-516-516/composite_irmb_2009.png

Note that IRMB does NOT have TSI peaking at 1986 but that 1997 and 2009 are fractionally higher on the same level.

I don’t believe Wang, Lean, and Sheeley.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Abdusamatov believed Wang, Lean, and Sheeley in 2009

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Different series from the same paper. It’s not the SORCE/TIM plot that you linked to up-thread. It has a greater variation (3 W/m2) with a (?).

He didn’t “believe” Wang et al and he says nothing to indicate he does e.g. that plot appears in the ‘Inconstancy of the TSI’ section.

Page 9:-

“By the middle of this century the shortage of solar energy received may be on the order of 0.2% of its maximum average level in the 1980’s; thus, about 3 W/m2.”

Note the word “may”. He’s moved on since 2009 obviously, his 2012 paper says 4.75 W/m2 or something. Not necessarily going to be Maunder conditions just because he says so of course but I’m inclined to think that 2 W/m2 1600 – 1990 (Wang et al’s latest) is too low given the 11 yr cycle varied over 1 W/m2 1970s – 2000s.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Balmaseda et al omit the most recent 3 yrs of data:-

“Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009”

://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

By doing that they didn’t have to address the inconvenient 4 yr standstill in upper ocean OHC (“recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus” in their words), soon to be followed by a similar deep ocean standstill post 1Q2012.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
Since total OHC has continued to increase post 2009 I don’t think the most recent data would change Balmaseda et al’s results significantly.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Since total OHC has continued to increase post 2009 I don’t think the most recent data would change Balmaseda et al’s results significantly.” That’s the problem Nick, Balmaseda have missed the significant change in trajectory (to flat) occurring in the aggregate upper ocean since 2009. This is the same situation that caught out the climate scientists when atmospheric temperatures went flat. They’re just not applying the appropriate analysis required of the exercise so they’re behind everyone else that is. They are also oblivious to upper Pacific and Atlantic cooling since 2003 that everyone knows about except AGW-aligned climate science. And they miss the change in trajectory (to flat) below 700m occurring 1Q2012. If there’s no warming occurring in the upper layer of 2 of the 3 ocean basins, what is going on below 700m (or even 300m) is irrelevant because it cannot be either solar nor GHG related i.e. no anthro attribution can be made to ocean warming for the 21st century – which the IPCC don’t make anyway, their attribution is only to the 20th century. All that’s happening is that heat in the upper Pacific and Atlantic is propagating to the… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
In 2012 OHC was at it’s highest point ever measured. As indicated by Balmaseda et al wind has likely cause a redistribution in the energy causing deep ocean warming and slight surface cooling. Nonetheless total OHC has continued to increase. Where is this additional energy coming from given TSI is at it’s lowest point in 15 years?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”In 2012 OHC was at it’s highest point ever measured.” The aggregate peaked 1Q2012 (no rise since then) as I’ve pointed out elsewhere but due to 82% of the gain occurring in the Indian ocean. >””As indicated by Balmaseda et al wind has likely cause a redistribution in the energy causing deep ocean warming and slight surface cooling. Whaaaat? The upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling progressively since beginning of ARGO 2003. Did wind do that (why did it suddenly take effect and continue 9 yrs)? I don’t think so. Wind has an effect from time to time even overturning to depth but not a constant effect over that 9 yr period – weird. There’s plenty of other transport mechanisms >”Nonetheless total OHC has continued to increase.” Wrong again. I’ve explained this several times, it’s getting tiresome. The upper ocean aggregate has been at standstill for the last 4 yrs, 0-2000m peaked 1Q2012 (no increase since then and unlikely to anymore now for decades). The maximum planetary enthalpy coincided with the END of the modern solar Grand Maximum 1920/30 – 2012. Downhill from here. >”Where is this additional energy coming from given… Read more »

Andy
Guest

Just wondering if you could comment a bit more on why you think the sun is causing the current accelerating global warming

Excuse those of us living in the real world, planning trips to Europe and preparing to deal with the abundance of snow. I must have missed the memo about “accelerating global warming”

Can someone provide some evidence for this, preferably other than from the tree hut guys at “Skeptical Science”?

Nick
Guest
Nick
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

You’ll have to imagine the “accelerating global warming” unfortunately Andy.

Imagine yourself in the ocean about 1000m deep – but before 2012.

That should give you about the right warming mindset for your trip to snow-blanketed Europe.

Andy
Guest

Are there any sharks that deep that climate scientists can jump over?

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
Do you have a graphic somewhere that puts TSI and atmospheric temperatures side by side to illustrate your point? The Skeptical Science graph shows that the two are diverging suggesting that TSI is not responsible for the recent warming but if you have a better graphic I would love to see it.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Do you have a graphic somewhere that puts TSI and atmospheric temperatures side by side to illustrate your point?”

Yes I do, but remember elsewhere I pointed out that the 60 yr cycle was the influential effect over and above TSI in terms of the inflexion from 80s/90s trajectory to 2000s trajectory.

Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

Sunspot integral being a proxy for solar activity.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Bob Tisdale at Watts Up claims that you cannot combine the ocean oscillations as has been done in the blog post you cite.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/on-the-amopdo-dataset/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
Are you saying that AMO is driving the recent surface warming but TSI is driving the current accelerating increase in total OHC? Do you have a graphic demonstrating the correlation between TSI and OHC?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Are you saying that AMO is driving the recent surface warming but TSI is driving the current accelerating increase in total OHC? ” No (not sure where you got that idea from). I’ve already pointed out that Balmaseda et al stopped their aggregate analysis (not basin-by-basin) at 2009 therefore the “acceleration” is not “current”. Upper ocean OHC has been at standstill last 4 yrs and 0-2000m peaked 1Q2012. The influences of ocean oscillation on the global GAT metric are in descending order of ocean size PDO, AMO, NAO, AO etc. Obviously too, a local oscillation influnces local temperature the most e.g. AO and Arctic warming, and PDO in cold mode so Pacific SST is cooling. TSI and OHC are inextricably linked in the planetary energy system i.e. input -> heat sink -> output, and in terms of enthalpy and inertia i.e. lagged maximum enthalpy (2012) occurs at the end of maximum input (2012). >”Do you have a graphic demonstrating the correlation between TSI and OHC?” No, OHC only goes back to 1955, let alone 1600. Neither does OHC cover the onset of the modern solar maximum 1920 -1930. SLR does however and the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Update.

>”0-2000m peaked 1Q2012″

Not saying it wont go higher, in fact I think it already has. Just that with upper Pacific/Atlantic cooling there’s not much reason for below 700 to go much higher. Both upper and lower OHC metrics are being skewed by the Indian Ocean anyway.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Both upper and lower OHC metrics are being skewed by the Indian Ocean anyway”

Not quite right again, should be:-

“The 0-2000m OHC metric is being skewed by the Indian Ocean anyway (70% of the gain is in the upper Indian over the last 7 yrs).”

Nick
Guest
Nick

TSI stopped increasing in 1980 but OHC continued to accelerate. If OHC lags TSI by 6-20 years as you suggest we would have expected to see OHC level off in 2000, why has this not happened?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”TSI stopped increasing in 1980″

Only in PMOD, see the ACRIM/PMOD/IRMB comparison here:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/03/notes-on-ocean-warming/#comment-183636

And clearly the level after 1986 was still at basically the same elevated level in all the composites. That’s where the analogy of boiling a pot of water comes in, all you do is turn it up full for a while and the water gradually gains heat. Even if you turn it down slightly (PMOD), the water will continue to gain heat.

>”If OHC lags TSI by 6-20 years as you suggest we would have expected to see OHC level off in 2000, why has this not happened?”

It has happened in the upper Pacific and Atlantic and more than just leveling off, both have cooled in the ARGO era (since 2003) consistent with thermal lag. Even the global aggregate stalled 2004:-

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/images/OHCA_curve_2012.png

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”TSI stopped increasing in 1980″

The peak is 1986 in PMOD, not 1980.

>”…consistent with thermal lag [from peak input levels].”

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
If there is a 6-20 year lag then you would expect the output (temperature) to stabilise 8-20 years after the initial forcing (TSI) stabilised. The same will happen with your pot of water. If you turn up the heat the water will increase in temperature for a while but then stabilise.

This is not what happened. TSI stabilised in the 80s relative to the sharp rise that preceded it yet total (0-2000m) OHC continued to rise post 2000. It doesn’t matter if there is local cooling, it is the net energy of the system that matters and this clearly continues to increase into at least 2012.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…total (0-2000m) OHC continued to rise post 2000″ What you are seeing is largely the Indian Ocean (82% last 7 yrs). And as I pointed out before, the elevated solar level didn’t just go away, it’s just that the “acceleration” of total gain is now over i.e. OHC is stabilizing consistent with maximum enthalpy being attained at the end of the modern solar Grand Max 1920 – 2012. >”It doesn’t matter if there is local cooling” The upper Pacific and Atlantic is “local” cooling Nick? Get real. >”it is the net energy of the system that matters and this clearly continues to increase into at least 2012″ But not for much longer now that max TSI has plummeted 2013. that will be the test of time over the next year or two. I wont be surprised if there’s some more increase but it wont be continued “acceleration” that’s for sure considering upper ocean OHC is at standstill (also in the Indian now). Last 4 yrs 0-2000m World:- 2009-3,12.811517 2009-6,12.374052 2009-9,13.947054 2009-12,15.183682 2010-3,16.048752 2010-6,13.671132 2010-9,14.129639 2010-12,15.070600 2011-3,15.453777 2011-6,14.812579 2011-9,17.095699 <<<<<<<<<< near peak 2011-12,14.983609 2012-3,17.434353 <<<<<<<<<< most recent peak 2012-6,15.622717 2012-9,15.494756 2012-12,16.831072 <<<<<<<<< near peak… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”OHC lags TSI by 6-20 years”

The “6” comes from an Atlantic study. Abdussamatov calculates 14 yrs +/- 6 (8 – 20), Scafetta approx 12 yrs from memory.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Looks like the CO2 feedback effect against falling solar has already begun (Magoo I hope you see this).

James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato (2013)

“…the huge post-2000 increase of uptake by the carbon sinks implied by figure 3”

“…the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks”

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/hansens-mea-culpa-says-man-made-global.html

Hansen attributes it to coal use of course.

Post Navigation