Losing Your Imbalance

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

People have upbraided me for not doing an in-depth analysis of the paper “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications“, by James Hansen et al. (hereinafter H2011). In that paper they claim that the earth has a serious energy imbalance, based on the change in oceanic heat content (OHC). Here’s my quick analysis of the paper. A more probing discussion will follow.

Figure 1. What could happen if the ocean gets warm. Dangers include increased risk of lassitude, along with augmented consumption of intoxicants and possible loss of clothing, accompanied by mosquito bites in recondite locations.

Here’s how I proceeded for a quick look at the H2011 results. The paper says that during the period 2005 – 2010, the warming of the entire global ocean, from the surface down to the abyssal depths, is the equivalent of 0.54 W/m2 of energy.

When I read that, the first thing I did was make the conversion to degrees per year of oceanic warming. I wanted to see what they were saying, but measured in meaningful units. A half watt per square metre of energy going into the global ocean means nothing to me. I wanted to know how fast the ocean was warming from this rumored imbalance. The conversion from watts per square metre to degrees Celsius ocean warming per year goes as follows.

We want to convert from watts per square metre (a continuous flow of energy) to degrees of warming per year (the annual warming due to that flow of energy). Here’s the method of the calculations. No need to follow the numbers unless you want to, if you do they are given in the appendix. The general calculation goes like this:

An energy flow of one watt per square metre (W/m2) maintained for 1 year is one watt-year per square metre (W-yr/m2). That times seconds /year (secs/yr) gives us watt-seconds per square metre (W-secs/m2). But a watt-second is a joule, so the result is joules per square metre (J/m2).

To convert that to total joules for the globe, we have to multiply by square metres of planetary surface, which gives us total joules per year (J/yr). That is the total joules per year for the entire globe resulting from the energy flow in watts per square metre.

That completes the first part of the calculation. We know how many joules of energy per year are resulting from a given number of watts per square metre of incoming energy.

All that’s left is to divide the total joules of incoming energy per year (J/yr) that we just calculated, by the number of joules required per degree of ocean warming (J/°C), to give us a resultant ocean warming in degrees per year (°C/yr).

The result of doing that math for the 0.54 W/m2 of global oceanic forcing reported in H2011 is the current rate of oceanic warming, in degrees per year. So step up and place your bets, how great is the earth’s energy imbalance according to Hansen et al., how many degrees are the global oceans warming per year?  … les jeux sont fait, my friends, drumroll please … may I have the envelope … oh, this is a surprise, there will be some losers in the betting …

The answer (if Hansen et al. are correct) is that if the ocean continues to warm at the 2005-2010 rate, by the year 2100 it will have warmed by a bit more than a tenth of a degree … and it will have warmed by one degree by the year 2641.

Now, I don’t think that the Hansen et al. analysis is correct, for two reasons. First, I don’t think their method for averaging the Argo data is as accurate as the proponents claim. They say we can currently determine the temperature of the top mile of depth of the ocean to a precision of ± eight thousandths of a degree C. I doubt that.

Second, they don’t use the right mathematical tools to do the analysis of the float data. But both of those are subjects for another post, which I’ve mostly written, and which involves the Argo floats.

In any case, whether or not H2011 is correct, if the ocean wants to change temperature by a tenth of a degree by the year 2100, I’m certainly not the man to try to stop it. I learned about that from King Canute.

w.

APPENDIX:  Some conversion factors and numbers.

One joule is one watt applied for one second. One watt applied for one year = 1 watt-year * 365.25 days/year * 24 hrs/day * 60 minutes / hour * 60 seconds / minute =  31,557,946 watt – seconds = 31.56e+6 joules.

Mass of the ocean = 1.37e+18 tonnes

It requires 3.99 megajoules (3.99e+6 joules) to raise one tonne of sea water by 1°C

Joules to raise the entire ocean one degree Celsius = tonnes/ocean * joules per tonne per degree = 5.48e+24 joules per degree of oceanic warming

Surface area of the the planet = 5.11e14 square metres

1 W/m2 = 1.60e+22 joules annually

So the whole calculation runs like this:

    .54 W/m2 *1.6e+22 joules/yr/(W/m2)

------------------------------------------------   =  0.0016 °C/yr

       5.48e+24 Joules/°C
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

210 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dan
December 30, 2011 11:42 pm

Willis, I think the warming is only half of your result as the sun only heats half the globe.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead
December 30, 2011 11:49 pm

Then you have to factor in the angle of incidence all over the globe… which really throws the average into disarray. Polar Energy input will be vitually nil compared to torrid zone input. No pina coladas in Alert, Nunavut. So tell me, why would Hansen publish something like this, anyway?

Editor
December 30, 2011 11:55 pm

Hi Willis
As always thorough and thought-provoking.
But a question? I presume warming wil not only be for the ocean – the calculation you have as 1.37e+18 tonnes. But what about the terrestrial surface? Warming of frozen tundra? Increased heat in the deserts, better climate here in New Zealand etc. How much mass can we expect to see heated in the continents?….and to what depth??
Andy

Leon Brozyna
December 30, 2011 11:58 pm

I’m still waiting for the West Side Hwy to flood … if I stick around till it does, I may become a record-setting centarion.

AleaJactaEst
December 30, 2011 11:58 pm

mmmm, took a while to drudge through the paper, littered with pops at human “smoking guns” (he actually used this term) etc and lots of inferences, models and maybes…but finally got to the money shot, so to speak, at the end regarding the explantion for aerosol impact (which became an excuse in the paper for observed cooling in the last decade and his all important energy imbalance)….”Such a mission concept has been well-defined (Hansen et al., 1992) and if carried out by the private sector without a requirement for undue government review panels it could be achieved within a cost of about $100M….”
Please sir may I have a shed load of grant money?

Adam Gallon
December 31, 2011 12:03 am

“So tell me, why would Hansen publish something like this, anyway?”
Because he’s convinced that we’re destroying the world by warming it.
Anything that looks like it supports this hypothosis, he’ll write up and get published.

Dave in L.A.
December 31, 2011 12:06 am

Don’t you also have to adjust for the fact that a lot of those joules (30%-ish) warm land, most of which has no effect on ocean heat content? Some of it also melts the Pina Coladas.

Brian H
December 31, 2011 12:10 am

Minor adjustment, 70% of the globe is ocean, not 100%. Trivial, really.
😉

Julian Braggins
December 31, 2011 12:12 am

I would like to defend poor maligned King Canute, he demonstrated his inability to stop the incoming tide to demonstrate to his sycophantic court and populace that he was not omnipotent 😉

Brian H
December 31, 2011 12:16 am

Oops, I see in your appendix you use the ocean mass, which accommodates area and volume quibbles.
As for Hansen, it’s a Truly Trenberthian Travesty that anyone still pays him any mind. Not to mention any money.

December 31, 2011 12:16 am

“Surface area of the the planet = 5.11e14 square metres”
Shouldn’t we rather use surface area of the oceans?

December 31, 2011 12:20 am

Thanks Willis. A couple of years ago I attempted to calculate the amount of land ice that must melt to raise global sea levels by 1 metre. I arrived at the figure of 400,000 cubic kilometres (only slightly rounded). I then attempted to calculate the energy required to raise the temperature of that quantity of ice from an average of -10C to 0.01C and arrived at horrendous figures. I then attempted to use energy from the air only and gave up as no ways could I meet the target date of 2100. At this point I gave up as I found that the Australian site Dome A, now closed, was reporting sub surface ice temperatures in excess of -30C. I was unable to find any “official” report on this subject so I concluded sea levels would not rise by 1 metre by the year 2100 and all reports of sea level rise were scare mongering BS. Al Gore convinced me when he bought his sea front condominium which was at about the time I was curdling my octogenarian brain. 🙂

R.M.Barclay
December 31, 2011 12:29 am

Surface tension is the major player in this argument about heat “budgets” and it is being ignored. Try heating the surface of water in a bucket with a heat gun. Even though you are applying 450deg to the surface no heat is transferred immediately. It takes just over 10 mins of heating the surface before the surface tension is sufficiently reduced to allow the water to absorb heat. I don’t have the resourses to take this any further but the result convinces me that surface tension definitely interferes with heat transfer. I strongly suspect that the atmosphere does not have enough heat to overcome the surface tension and therefore no physical heat can be transferred from the atmosphere into the ocean. The ocean only accepts energy from the sun’s rays which penetrate the surface tension no problem. The ocean and the sun are therefore in lock step. Graphs of temperature against sun activity tend to bear me out. It also cures Trenberth’s “missing heat” problem.

Lawrie Ayres
December 31, 2011 12:30 am

I like the simplicity of maths. But doesn’t ARGO show cooling of late and envirosat shows sea level falling which would indicate to this poor fool that the oceans are losing heat. But then I’m not a NASA scientist.
Happy New Year to everyone here especially Anthony. Will 2012 be the end of the hoax? I hope so so we can get on with the real problems in the world. First step: defund the UN.

December 31, 2011 12:32 am

Comments on surface area above made me wonder about water runoff from the land into the sea. Is there any heating effect from this?

jaymam
December 31, 2011 12:35 am

Dan says:
December 30, 2011 at 11:42 pm
“Willis, I think the warming is only half of your result as the sun only heats half the globe.”
The sun heats a quarter of the globe.

Svein S
December 31, 2011 12:40 am

What really is a travesty is that this naiive analysis does not even consider the fact that the warming of the ocean is uneven, and that most of it remains in the surface layer (since it is heated from above) where in fact the warming ocean interacts with the rest of the climate system. To argue on the basis of averaging everything over the entire ocean volume is ridiculous, and has no meaning. To argue against Hansen´s analysis one needs to do better than this futile attempt.

December 31, 2011 12:45 am

Oh sure…you just do the math. How mean is that?
The heat is down there somewhere, suppressed by the echos of a twenty year old volcano.
Enough of this math business: you have to believe!
Death trains depend on you ignoring the math.

Rick Bradford
December 31, 2011 12:50 am

*So tell me, why would Hansen publish something like this, anyway?*
Is it getting near funding application time again?

alcheson
December 31, 2011 12:56 am

Lawrie Ayres says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:30 am
“I like the simplicity of maths. But doesn’t ARGO show cooling of late and envirosat shows sea level falling which would indicate to this poor fool that the oceans are losing heat. But then I’m not a NASA scientist.”
Lawrie, I think sometihng is up with Envirosat as of late. Was looking yesterday for updated sea level data from it yesterday and seems its all disappearing from the web. I’m thinking the drop in sea level data it is showing is causing to much heartburn for the warmists so am expecting an “update” soon myself.

Isonomia
December 31, 2011 1:05 am

“To argue against Hansen´s analysis one needs to do better than this futile attempt.”
It’s just a bit of fun. Hansen is an idiot. Worse he is a partisan idiot. The only thing we need to see to know that this paper is worthless is his name on it.
What we are really laughing at is the people who still take him seriously.

Dan
December 31, 2011 1:09 am

Jaymam, I suppose you are thinking of the effect of twilight and dawn on the incoming radiation. However, Willis is using an average figure which takes this into account.

Richard S Courtney
December 31, 2011 1:24 am

Svein S:
I really, really want to write a refutation of your silly post at December 31, 2011 at 12:40 am. But I am constraining myself because Willis normally gives his own reply to nonsense like yours.
I await Willis’ response with as much anticipation as you should have trepidation. I will give your post a blast if Willis does not give us the pleasure of blasting you with his usual combination of charm and wit.
Richard

1 2 3 9
Verified by MonsterInsights