The WUWT Hotsheet for Wednesday, Sept 25th

WUWT_hot_sheet8

Stephan Rahmstorf hatches an egg at RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming

The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.

If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source.

The only heat source? There’s also undersea volcanic activity, which we can barely track, and we are just now discovering the largest undersea volcano on Earth. Has there been an increase in global undersea volcanic activity? We simply don’t know. However, thanks to satellites, we are just beginning to see:

Now some may ask why didn’t Argos detect the upwelling deeper (1000m)? The answer is in fluid dynamics. The hot spot is very narrow above whatever thermal vents are the source of this warming. The Argo floats are not very dense in this region. So the warm column of water upwelling has to spread out as it rises, making it more likely to be detected by the Argos floats. By the time it hits the surface the warm water really spreads out over top of the cooler layers below.

As this March 2009 surface image shows there are two upwellings in the area, but the one off Costa Rica is missed at the lower depths (again likely due to the density of sensors being so low in this area). And there appears to be a 3rd upwelling off the coast of Peru.

The activity of Nicaragua and Costa Rica is right along the Cocos Plate.

Read more about this observation here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/do-underwater-volcanoes-have-an-effect-on-enso/

But there are other issues. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. suggests that:

  1. The analysis of ocean heating should also be presented in terms of the ocean and global averaged Watts per meter squared, as this provides a measure of the climate system global average radiative imbalance. e.g. seePielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf
    Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf
    See also Ellis et al. 1978: The annual variation in the global heat balance of the Earth. J. Geophys. Res., 83, 1958-1962.http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ellis-et-al-jgr-1978.pdf
  2. Their claim of transport of heat into deeper layers needs to
    i) discuss how this heat transfer can occur without being sampled in the upper ocean andii) the significance of this sequestered heat (if it is real) in terms of muting global warming within the atmosphere, since this heat (as I have come to realize) cannot coherently and quickly come back upwards as it would be smeared horizontally and vertically at depth. This means there is a negative feedback to surface and tropospheric global warming (i.e. which would necessarily reduce the so-called (and mislabeled) “climate sensitivity” based on the global average surface temperature trend.I discuss this issue in terms of how it affects the use of the global average surface temperature trend in my posthttp://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/torpedoing-of-the-use-of-the-global-average-surface-temperature-trend-as-the-diagnostic-for-global-warming/

================================================================
From “stopthefrackattack.org” comes this emailed press release. I have to wonder, if they are harmed by fracking, how can they muster the strength to go protest?

Today: People Harmed by Fracking Protest Outside White House, Demand Obama’s EPA Reopen Investigations into Fracking-Related Pollution

Washington, DC – On Wednesday, September 25th, people harmed by fracking will gather in front of the White House, march to the EPA headquarters and deliver 250,000 signatures from concerned citizens across the United States. The signatures demand that the EPA reopen investigations into fracking-related pollution in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

When: 2pm, Wednesday, September 25th

Where: Lafayette Park, Washington, D.C., EPA headquarters/Ariel Rios Building, Washington D.C.

Livestreaming of the event at: http://new.livestream.com/earthworks/investigations

================================================================

Meanwhile the Union of Concerned Scientists decides to fight the EPA with a membership drive. Kenji was not impressed.

Dear UCS supporter,

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exists to protect our environment and keep our land, water, air, and health safe.

But when the EPA’s own scientists found evidence that fracking was contaminating water, the EPA stopped or slowed down its scientists’ work in three states.1

Why would the EPA back away from its own science?

Simple. Fierce pressure from industry and politicians interfering at every step—from a former Democratic governor reportedly hired by drilling industries to pressure the agency, to a U.S. Senator delaying scientists by demanding constant financial reports, even asking how many dollars were spent on individual lab tests.2

As the fracking boom continues, the EPA can expect even more interference. We can’t sit by and watch. We’re looking for 750 new UCS members to stand up this month to help counter misinformation, demand accountability, protect whistleblowers, and defend our health.

=============================================================
Britain’s Energy Chaos
Shares Plunge Amid Warning Of 1970s-Style Blackouts

A promise by Britain’s opposition leader Ed Miliband to freeze gas and electricity bills provoked warnings last night of blackouts, job losses and a threat by one leading energy company to leave Britain. –Francis Elliott, The Times, 25 September 2013

Shares in leading energy firms dropped by up to five per cent today as the markets reacted to Labour’s 1970s-style plan to freeze power bills. Energy firms said capping prices would halt the investment needed to avoid blackouts and lead to gas and electricity shortages. –James Chapman and Matt Chorley, Daily Mail, 25 September 2013

In our April 2013 report ‘A Crisis in UK Energy Policy Looks Inevitable’ we argued that the inherent contradictions and implausibility of UK energy policy would eventually trigger a crisis. We pointed out that the political risk faced by the sector would undoubtedly rise as these forces played out. Yesterday those concerns crystallised with the announcement by the leader of the Labour party of a 20 month price freeze for power and gas bills across both the domestic and business sectors should Labour win the May 2015 General Election. –Peter Atherton & Mulu Sun, Liberum Capital, 25 September 2013

Centrica’s largest shareholder has accused Ed Miliband of “economic vandalism” and said that energy companies should pull investment out of the UK, putting the country at risk of the “lights going out”. Neil Woodford, the head of equities at Invesco Perpetual and one of the UK’s most influential fund managers, said that Labour plans for a price cap on energy bills would damage the investment case for the UK and block the billions of pounds of new money the Government admits it needs. “If Centrica and SSE cannot make any money supplying electricity to the retail market then they won’t supply it. The lights will go off, the economy will shut down. –Kamal Ahmed, The Daily Telegraph, 25 September 2013

Ed Miliband wants to cap gas and electricity prices for 20 months. Yet price controls have been tried thousands of times throughout history in hundreds of different markets and always fail. And what would happen were wholesale prices to shoot up, bankrupting firms? What would happen to competition? Wouldn’t companies all hike their prices on the last day before the new rules came into place? And why should firms assume that the cap wouldn’t be permanently extended? Why would anybody want to bother investing in Britain? –Allister Heath, City A.M. 25 September 2013

==============================================================

Germany is rethinking “green”:

Germany’s top economic adviser has called for a radical rethink of the country’s energy policies, warning that the green dream is going badly wrong as costs spiral out of control. The concerns were echoed by Germany’s powerful industry federation, the BDI, which said it can longer remain silent as green romanticism plays havoc with German power supply. The group said in a new report that the costs of the so-called “Energiewende” have already gone beyond tolerable limits. “The international competitiveness of German industry is in danger,” it said. –Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Daily Telegraph, 22 September 2013

==============================================================

Mind-blowing tweet from the Stockholm IPCC negotiations:

This seems a little late, don’t you think?

IISDRSA contact group was formed to consider drivers of climate change #IPCCAR5 http://bit.ly/1bAKK4a

h/t to Tom Nelson and Marc Morano

56 thoughts on “The WUWT Hotsheet for Wednesday, Sept 25th

  1. Govt enacts programs that drive up the price of electricity, and their reaction when citizens complain is to institute a freeze on electricity prices.
    Politicians not only never learn, I don’t believe they actually want to learn.

  2. The stopthefrackattack dot org is very representative of the disease – affluenza. Cheap energy has given them the leisure time to protest against what gave them the leisure time.

    Very self defeating and suicidal when you think about it.

  3. good news: my comment at Realclimate passed moderation:

    As we have typically expressed energy in the atmosphere on a degrees C scale, I thought this might be useful from the UK Met Office, for context.

    Met Office: What do observations of the climate system tell us? – July 13

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

    “…Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the heat content:of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 1022J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012),equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer. To put this into context, if the same energy had warmed the lower 10km of the atmosphere, it would have warmed by 36°C! While this will not happen, it does illustrate the importance of the ocean as a heat store. ”

    finding a rate <2oooths of a degree C per decade.
    (ref increase in 0.09C in 55 years) is that really measurable?
    ie one ARGO buoy per how many thousand cubic kilometres of ocean. (and we've only had ARGO, for a decade, or less at depth)

  4. A contact group was formed to consider drivers of climate change…..

    ROTFL….you mean they still don’t know

  5. OHC has risen because asian aerosols decreased cloud albedo. This saturated in about 2000.

    There has been no significant CO2-AGW because its climate sensitivity is <~0.1 K (from the atmospheric control system).

  6. I wonder if the anti-frackers are going to demand proof that fracking is not harmful? It would be interesting, trying to prove a negative, which is why we have the “innocent until proven guilty” idea in law (a principle that is under ever-greater attack) – it is often not possible to prove you did not do it, i.e. to prove your innocence. Also, how will they react when asked to provide proof of harm?

  7. “Scientists trying, for instance, to account for a “hiatus” in the pace of global warming this century are only allowed to consider peer-reviewed literature from before mid-March 2013.”

    I love the famous Reuters scare quotes around the word “hiatus”. It’s all very Pythonesque. Anything to avoid admitting that the parrot is dead.

  8. From the Reuters report mentioned by Tom Rude:

    Many experts instead favor more frequent and targeted reports, for instance about droughts, floods and heatwaves in the preceding year, to see if climate change is influencing their frequency or severity.

    For instance, a report on floods could be released just after a major flood, etc. How convenient. Got to keep the propaganda running.

  9. In addition to all the excess heat, the bottom of the ocean is also accumulating an impressive pile of dead unicorns too. Just because nobody happened to notice them swimming from the beach out into ocean, drowning and sinking doesn’t prove that they are not down there piled up on the bottom. If you wondered why no one sees unicorns anymore well, duh, – that’s why!

  10. It seems increasingly certain that IPCC and its apoligists will make the OHC graph into this years Hockey Stick with little more evidence than Michael Mann had

    Ocean Heat Content trend studies don’t have an accurate leg to stand on. They have not been measured long enough, nor widely enough, nor with enough precision for the phenomena measured.

    Here is a chart of Ocean Heat content from 1955 to 2012, with an overlay of measurement program history: http://i41.tinypic.com/2rrwj5u.jpg (Refs: Willis Eschenbach, May 10, 2012 and Ocean Heat Content and History of Measurement Systems (WUWT 7/24/13)

    Only since 2007 have we 300 profiles a day for the entire ocean surface down to 2 km — which is barely 50% of the water column. We averaged 100 profiles per day from 2004-2007 while the ARGO fleet was growing. From 1988 to 2004 the ALACE program provided maybe 50 profiles per day down only to 1 km and its primary mission was ocean circulation, not temperature measurement. Prior to 1988, the measurement of ocean temperatures was experimental and very clustered. Honest error bars priors prior to 2004 are gigantic and swamp any measured signal. One tree at Yamal has as much significance to global temperatures as Ocean Temp measurements in 1960.

    Even today, we ask each ARGO float to give us the average temperature of 240000 km^3 of ocean, reporting once every 10 days. On average they are 350 km apart, which means 1000 km apart between each day’s reports. Does that sound well sampled to you? George E Smith thinks ARGO doesn’t pass the Nyquist test. See this website from Univ. of Miami on the Gulf Stream Currents.

    It is quite ironic that just now satelites seem to be pointing out heat plumes from undersea volcanos. Egg on the face of ARGO researchers if true. Nyquist strikes again.

  11. Doesn’t it bother anyone else that RealClimate is using only 58 years of ocean data to draw conclusions regarding AGW?
    Maybe they have some way to know what the historical variability is…. and that the 58 years of data shows us something unprecedented???

  12. Real Climate still like to control the narrative.

    They have no interest in actual science, just the PR and staying on message.

    The ‘useful idiots’ that populate the site are not allowed to read anything that might cause an original thought in their head.

    I posted this but of course it was not allowed through. The questions it raises are not going to be allowed to be aired on there as it shows what nonsense they and Rahmstorf are spouting.

    “Well if the meme is now that mans contribution to the greenhouse effect is that we are now and will in the future, cause increased energy input into the oceans which is being distributed there rather than immediately coming out to heat the troposphere, why should we be concerned?

    Given the total energy content of the oceans, the result could only ever be minimal overall warming of that part of the ocean that exchanges energy with the troposphere.

    Energy enters the ocean in an highly organised form and becomes disorganised as it is distributed. The Laws of Thermodynamics mean that this energy cannot just reorganise itself and emerge in concentrated pulses. It seems to me, that once distributed, it is going to take centuries to re-emerge and that cannot be a problem for the troposphere and man.

    Are we to expect that from now that this situation is to continue? What would cause this process to change in the future? Indeed what caused the energy to be absorbed in the first place, rather than exchanging quickly with the troposphere?

    This fast exchange is what caused the prediction of rapid warming of the troposphere this century after all.”

  13. Central to the whole ocean heat content (OHC) recent record is the Argo bouy dataset. When Josh Willis at NASA looked at the first 2-3 years of real data 2002-2005, he saw distinct and quite pronounced cooling. He reported this openly, and came under pressure as a result of it.

    Later of course Willis recanted and claimed that his cooling result was wrong due to various issues. This article at the NASA website tells the story:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

    To sum up briefly, here are the arguments and data that formed the basis of the Willis recantation:

    First: loss of coherence with the ERBE (earth radiation balance experiment) net flux. There was correlation between OHC (non Argo) since 1994, then separation in 2002-2003 of net flux from Argo OHC.

    Second: There was a claimed lack of agreement of Argo OHC with GRACE gravitational data.

    Third: Willis claimed that some cool-reporting bouys were faulty, and he removed / edits them out of the dataset. This removed much of the reported cooling. There were evidently no warm-reporting bouys.

    Fourth: It was claimed that older “XBT” (expendable bathythermographs) – deviced towed from ships – had been reporting too warm and exaggerating ocean warmth prior to the Argo measurements. This difference between over-warm XBT and Argo gave a spurious cooling signature.

    Fifth: disagreement with computer modeling results by the group of Sydney Levitus at the NOAA climate laboratory at Silver Spring, MD.

    I am less than overwhelmed by the strength of the basis for the Willis recant. It is not on the basis of any convincing and experimentally demonstrated fault with the Argo bouys technically or the statistical sampling methods. Instead, it is based on comparison with other datasets that are, by themselves, MUCH LESS GOOD at providing OHC data. A bison dragged down by a pack of snapping wolves. In particular disagreement of sound experimental data with computer modelling calls into question the latter, not the former.

    When different sources of data are combined, the errors and uncertainties of the combined result increase multiplicatively more than the errors of the individual methods. This is the fundamental weakness of the Willis recant. The combination of all the above listed sources of atmospheric and ocean data hugely increases, not decreases, the potential for error in a concluding story which grows monstrously in complexity, decreases reciprocally in trustworthiness.

    The Willis recant is really not convincing and not good science.

    The lurking suspicion is that the whole climate establishment converged on Argo to smother its testimony of cooling and replace it with a fictitious distortion, corrected to death.

    So I dont see that there is real evidence to counter the initial direct reading by pre-recant Willis of Argo showing steep cooling.

  14. Re: StopTheFrac
    Dave Pursell wrote to the anti-frack crowd, by way of Col. Jessup, the whole thing printed in Forbes, Aug 8, 2010. Extracts:

    “You can’t handle the truth! …..You have the luxury of not knowing what we know. That fossil energy fuels economic growth. And the existence of frac’ing, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, powers our economy… We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to someone who takes a hot shower every morning using the natural gas that we provide, and then questions the manner in which we provide it. .. Otherwise, we suggest you pick up a pipe wrench, and meet us on location. We have wells to frac!”

  15. It appears from this graph at Roy Spencer’s site that the Levitus et al observations from the pre-ARGO era only go down to 700 meters and the temps below 700m are simulated with models:

    ‘Missing’ phytoplankton found, but Trenberth’s imaginary heat remains ‘missing’

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/missing-phytoplankton-found-but.html

    New paper finds world’s oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over past 55 years

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-paper-finds-worlds-oceans-have.html

    However, ‘the ocean ate the global warming’ excuse claims the ‘missing’ heat went into deep oceans below 800m where there are no observations to speak of in the pre-ARGO era, only modelled temperatures. How convenient.

    http://www.dw.de/climate-change-remains-a-threat-despite-slowdown-in-global-warming/a-17113546

    see also:

    Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible increase

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html

  16. It seems to me that volcanoes move heat from deep in the earth to the surface where it can radiate out into space. Absent volcanic activity, heat stored deep in the earth transfers to the surface though a slow process of conduction. But when a volcano erupts, heat transfers to the surface nearly instantly. During periods of high volcanic activity, more heat moves to the surface, and becomes immediately available to radiate out into space. (Another way to say this is that during period of high volcanic activity, the surface temperate of the earth increases). During periods of low volcanic activity less heat moves to the surface. So the *rate* of overall heat transfer into space is a function of volcanic activity. Under water volcanoes present a further modelling challenge because the heat transfers to the deep ocean, mixes through convection and then radiates. Since the heat capacity of the oceans is large relative to the atmosphere, I imagine the ultimate radiative transfer rate of the heat dumped into the ocean by a volcano is slower than the heat dumped from land into the atmosphere (meaning volcanic heat is stored longer in the oceans than in the atmosphere). Do we have a reliable record of how much heat is transferred to the surface of the earth over time by volcanoes? Are there models for this? Or do the climateers simple ignore this as well.

  17. @Picker at 9:46 am
    Doesn’t it bother anyone else that RealClimate is using only 58 years of ocean data to draw conclusions regarding AGW?

    As I wrote at 9:37am, it bothers me greatly that RC represents that have 58 years of worthwhile data. They don’t even have 7. Any Ocean Heat Measurments or Temperatures prior to 1990 are no better grounded than Yamal justified the Mann Hockey Stick. Between 1990 and 2007 the error bars swamp the signal.

  18. Pielke Sr. nailed the big problem with the Trenberth OHC excuse for the pause. ARGO didn’t find the heat in the upper layers ( mixed and thermocline) first. There is no transport mechanism to depth. And unlike volcanos that could be missed by the Nyquist under sampling problem, this heat is diffuse.
    Trenberth’s papers on this are overwhelmed by the error bars he did not, but Levitus and others have published.

  19. “A contact group was formed to consider drivers of climate change…..”

    Latitude says: “ROTFL….you mean they still don’t know?”

    Rest assured, all the major potential drivers will be considered by the committee:
    Carbon dioxide
    Oxidized carbon monoxide
    Pyrocarbonic acid
    Carbonite dioxide
    Graphite dioxide
    C¹⁴O2
    C¹³O2
    C¹²O2
    Other carbon isotope dioxides
    Rain god angry.
    Sun god angry.
    Sea god angry.
    Baal angry
    Marduk angry
    De debbil angry
    Gaia angry
    Mumbo-Jumbo, god of the Congo, angry
    Oogah-Doo angry.
    Voldemort angry.
    Sauron angry.
    Great Spirit angry.
    Rastifer angry.
    Jupiter Pluvius angry.
    Vulcan angry.
    Great Community Organizer in Sky angry.
    Carbon dioxide….

  20. It seems to me that the larger percentage of the worlds population think of travelling over oceans quickly at 30,000 feet so they don’t seem very big. Those of us who were used to taking a week on a liner to get across the Atlantic and very much more across the Pacific over fifty years ago …. realise they are pretty big. As there are a lot of airports with jet airliners taxying about making the thermometers rise may well acount for the rise in temperatures during the same period; and why it has levelled off from 1990ish as the number of aircraft has steadied. See previous reports by Anthony Watts.

  21. Rud Istvan says: “…Trenberth’s papers on this are overwhelmed by the error bars he did not…[publish].”

    Now THAT is truly a travesty.

  22. “A promise by Britain’s opposition leader Ed Miliband to freeze gas and electricity bills provoked warnings last night of blackouts, job losses and a threat by one leading energy company to leave Britain.”

    Price fixing,how quaint; like in 1936’s Germany. Coming to an EU near you in 2013. Now what leftist thinker said that history repeats two times, first time as a tragedy, second time as a farce.

    Next up; confiscation of toilet paper factories.

  23. philjourdan says:
    September 25, 2013 at 8:55 am
    “The stopthefrackattack dot org is very representative of the disease – affluenza. Cheap energy has given them the leisure time to protest against what gave them the leisure time.
    Very self defeating and suicidal when you think about it.”

    Controlled opposition.

  24. I wish someone at RealClimate would graph the ocean heat increase with a reasonable scale, like even zero to 10 deg C. The graphs of “heat” only made it onto RC because,,,,,hockeysticks!!
    Lubos calculates .065deg C in the last 45 years, my my, that IS WORRISOME. /sarc
    Gavin apparently thinks is still significant why again?

  25. “stopthefrackattack” is going to turn out to be an astro turf organization. They will have to lie to find people ‘harmed by fracking’, unless they are goin gto include workman’s comp claims and people in auto accidents related to trucking fracking equipment and supplies to welll sites.
    Fracking consists of water, sand, guar (a natural edible product in gum), and things like that.
    This protest will be as phony as that movie with the burning water in it.

  26. jorgekafkazar says:
    September 25, 2013 at 10:17 am

    It’s hard to prevent myself from thinking that you added some of your own potential climate drivers there:

    “…De debbil angry
    Gaia angry…”

    I suspect that you are secretly working on a grand unified theory of climate.

  27. Google “correcting ocean cooling willis” from 2008 and you will see, what NASA JPL had done to Argo data. They shown Atlantic cooling, so that.. man deleted all buoys which seemed to him “too cold”. Despite that, Atlantic OHC peaked around 2005 and goes down since. I have no faith in massaged Argo data.

  28. Anthony,
    Probably should remove the reference to the ” we are just now discovering the largest undersea volcano on Earth” in any explanation to current explanation of sea ocean heat content as that volcanic complex is Cretaceous-aged and 135-145 million years old.

  29. Regarding millivolt and his electoral nonsense. Truth to be told, despite the horrendous increase in hidden taxes, nothing much has changed CO2 wise. In reality our energy bills have increased because every politician understands that they would never be elected if those taxes were made obvious to the public.

    Take the UK ‘floor price’ for Carbon at £16 (around $26) per ton. This simply works its way through the system and becomes an increased sales tax (VAT in the UK). When one adds up all the ‘green taxes’ it would become obvious that a politician, were it ever honest, should have just stood for election on a platform of more tax. The reason there is so much support for ‘green taxes’ is that they are hidden taxes. No Politician ever has to use the phrase ‘tax increases for everyone’ at election time. Prices just rise and, like Millivolt, everyone blames ‘evil big business’.

    Here is the UK ‘democratic’ process in action (with another Millivolt). (0:5:45 for the meat).

    Truth is that HMG has interfered, over decades, at every level with UK power provision and now that it is all going horribly wrong they want to blame the companies involved. There was an old lady (politician who interfered with the energy market) who swallowed a fly … I don’t know why, perhaps she’ll die …

  30. Here is the most relevant Ocean Heat Content graph.

    Or one can take Trenberth’s “missing energy” chart and extend its numbers to 2013.

    The “net radiation” line has moved up to 2.3 W/m2 (according to the numbers which will be used in the upcoming IPCC AR5 report next week – the net negative aerosols impact has been reduced from what was assumed before and GHGs continue to increase)

    Furthermore, Trenberth’s chart did not include the feedbacks that are supposed to be showing up of water vapour and cloud albedo reduction (add another 1.7 W/m2 for a total of 4.0 W/m2).

    But Trenberth did show it in this chart. [Note the bar called “radiative feedback” is really the missing energy and the increased OLR].

    The newest Ocean Heat Content trends are a little higher than Trenberth had and are now at 0.53 W/m2 in the 0-2000 metre ocean. Land and ice-melt are 0.03 W/m2 for a total of 0.56 W/m2.

    So the “missing section” should really be twice as big now as it is shown here.

    The warmers take solace in a rising OHC number but it is far lower than predicted and at a far lower rate than would provide for dangerous global warming.

    ———-

    Let’s convert the 10^22 joules and W/m2 numbers/heat going into the oceans numbers into TempC.

    The 0-2000 metre ocean has warmed by 0.05C so far and is warming currently at 0.002C per year. In 87 years (the year 2100), it will have increased to 0.22C.

    +0.22C is far from the 3.25C predicted for the year 2100 in the theory.

    The surface has warmed by 0.75C and is roughly increasing at 0.0045C per year (in the long-term and accounting for the ENSO, volcanoes etc and ignoring the recent temperature standstill). In 87 years, (the year 2100), it will have increased to 1.14C

    Land, Atmosphere year 2100 –> 1.14C

    Oceans, year 2100 –> 0.22C

    The 3.25C appears to be missing.

  31. It’s occurred to me that in all the contrafibularity over how green energy would work so much better if only we could find a way of storing energy….why bother, when the sun/atmosphere/AGW is doing it for us by storing so much in the oceans! (/sarc)

  32. 3×2:

    Concerning political disruption of UK energy supply, in your post at September 25, 2013 at 11:56 am you say

    Truth is that HMG has interfered, over decades, at every level with UK power provision and now that it is all going horribly wrong they want to blame the companies involved. There was an old lady (politician who interfered with the energy market) who swallowed a fly … I don’t know why, perhaps she’ll die …

    She has died. Her name was Margaret Thatcher.

    Richard

  33. Bill Illis and Hockey Schtick,

    Thanks for those excellent charts and graphs. They show clearly that none of the IPCC’s predictions are anything but climate alarmism.

  34. I will be using this image for a post on fuel poverty in the UK, but in light of the proposed “freeze” in energy prices, this seems the appropriate time for its unveiling. Here’s a nice link about the dramatic rise in hypothermia deaths (also note the hockey sticks below in the graph of rising energy price indices). They want to blame the energy companies, but as MarkW notes in the first comment, they need to point their fingers at the inept politicians who led the UK to this dire position. Another hockey stick I’ll be introducing in my post is the one depicting the unforgivable rise in fuel poverty, reportedly up to 6.3 million households, or almost a full quarter of all UK households. Inadvertent or not, is the UK culling its costly pensioners? I need to do more research and find more time, but hopefully will have more to share soon. Cheers!

  35. Re: 3 x 2 (today, at 11:56am) — you are apparently also unaware that Margaret Thatcher discovered that she had made a mistake and ended up rejecting CAGW.

    “The truth behind this story is much more interesting than is generally realised, … In bringing this {CAGW scam} about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

    {emphasis mine}

    {Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html }

  36. I’ve just been watching a bit of Al Gore on with Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose on PBS. Gore is stark raving mad! He’s absolutely nuts! He is not in control of his cognitive processes. I haven’t watched him for awhile, but he’s now quite bizarre. He quite literally is a raving lunatic. Rose can’t figure what questions to feed him and Clinton is looking uncomfortable, and he doesn’t answer what Rose does ask. Wow!

  37. I haven’t had time to read all the posts, but the seas are a lagging indicator and would continue to warm for years with the atmosphere absorbing no more heat than before (or even less).. Nothing unexpected here- and how many times need it be repeated- there is so little historical data that inferences about faster or slower ocean heating at any depth is mostly speculation. Oh, but the models show…….!

  38. Of course, we wouldn’t be in this pickle if Miliband hadn’t screwed the pooch and forced the energy companies (and us consumers) down the path of renewables and the green ‘fear machine’ when he was Secretary for Energy and Climate Change. Of course, the whole energy ‘crisis’ could easily be flipped along with rising energy costs by cutting the 15% additional green taxes, subsidies, halting the closure of power stations leaving a shortfall etc. All that has to be done is reverse gear out of the mess. Too obvious and sensible an option? Yeah, probably. That would mean admitting they were wrong and green politicians won’t even admit that in court in front of a jury.

  39. Mike MacCracken the Climate Institute director is finding excuses for the models failures to replicate reality:
    “The models make projections (conditional if-then simulations), not predictions. So, the models were run assuming only anthropogenic GHG emissions (gases and some aerosols, etc.–but not solar or volcanic influences as these cannot be predicted) would be changing, whereas observed climate is affected by all factors.

    Also the observed climate is one path out of a range of possible paths that are generated by internal variability (chaos). If models could actually predict year by year or month by month fluctuations several years to a decade in advance, that would mean one could predict despite the chaotic effect (and would win a big prize for that). So, your expectation that everything is so deterministic on a short-term basis is just not in accord with what we understand.

    What the paper shows, even though a few years old, is that the past record shows pauses in the warming at certain points, yet over the last 50 years has moved up (if, for example, one did a linear regression to get a trend line).

    Mike”

    MacCracken, either your models were borne out of understanding climate or not. You guys claimed it all along, the science was settled and yet, you now look for excuses. Also funny that solar had no influence on warming and now it has influence on cooling… What’s the new process that was not at work then –skeptics were ridiculed daring to suggest the sun as an influence- that is now affecting global temperatures adversely?

    Oh and now climate is chaos… Chaos is the lamest excuse for those who do not understand their subject. Climate is the sum of weathers over an arbitrary 30 y period supposed to be long enough to reflect a meaningful evolution. Invoking chaos when you’ve been plastering the Yahoo climateskeptic blog with your science is settled BS is simply showing bad faith.

    Finally, coming out of the LIA will show the same trend than your latest trendy excuse.
    Time to retire Mikey!

  40. Alan Millar says:

    September 25, 2013 at 9:55 am
    ////////////////////

    No surprise that your comment did not pass moderation on Realclimate.

    I have made your point (but no so eloquently) many times before when articles appear on OHC and/or the claim that the deep ocean is somehow being heated due to AGW.

    But there is a further point and that is that the deep ocean is very cold. For this purpose, it does not matter whether it is 2 or 3 or 4 degC. For the purpose of discussion lets say it is 3degC. Now if the deep ocean warms by 1/1000th of a degree pa to become 3.001degC, and then over time by a further 1/1000ths of a degree to become 3.002degCand so on. What stays in the deep ocean does not and cannot heat the atmosphere. The heat exchange is at the surface, so the only concern can be if circulating trends alter such that the deep ocean resurfaces quicker than the present millenia period that it currently takes.

    But what happens when the deep ocean resurfaces? Well when it does, it means that cold water will be coming up from depth. This water may now be say 3.008degC, instead of 3degC, but the important point to note is that whatever be its temperature (even if it has been heated to say 3.7degC) it will still be significantly cooler than the surface water and will act to cool the surface water. It is important to bear in mind that the surface is going to get colder not warmer by the reemergence of the deep ocean, so far from eventually heating the atmosphere, it would cool the atmosphere. We see this on a different scale in La Nina events where there is an upwelling of cool water resulting in surface cooling which in turn leads to cooling of the atmosphere.

    The upshot is that either the heat going into the ocean has been diluted by dissipation and rendered completely harmless, or if by some chance the system was to change so that the deep ocean could resurface quicker than it presently does, it will not lead to global warming, but to global cooling. Either way, AGW would be over if the effect of CO2 is now no longer to warm the ocean but instead it is to heat the deep ocean.

  41. mpaul says:
    September 25, 2013 at 10:03 am

    Do we have a reliable record of how much heat is transferred to the surface of the earth over time by volcanoes? Are there models for this?

    Here is a paper that tackles your question in a general way. According to the paper the heat flux into the oceans from the mantle beneath them is ~63mW/m² (30 – 32 TW total). I don’t think this figure includes point sources such as volcanos.

    http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hofmeister2005.pdf

  42. I’ve been at a frac sand conference in Minneapolis over the last two days and of course protesters rented the room next door and we heard a lot of bongo drums and the like. They were otherwise polite and somewhat shy. I was born in Manitoba to the north and I recall that folks there were much the same all those years ago. I think the long winters and the type of people that voluntarily put up with them have that kind of personality. I came from homestead stock that built sod houses on the prairies in the 19th Century. I guess with daily lives that were fraught with real survival challenges, the fluffier concerns of folks in more temperate and affluent parts never sank in too deep with the northern Great Plains people.

  43. Hey, Gary Pearse, glad you’re back. Just today, I was wondering where you’ve been and hoping all is well (no, no, nothing to worry about, I think about a LOT of WUWT people on a regular basis). LOL, I think I mis-read your post just above. Are you equating bongo-drum playing protesters with the reticent, hardworking, real data types that were the Manitoba pioneers?? I don’t think those bongo drummers’ ancestors were anywhere NEAR a long, cold, winter — or, well, there just wouldn’t be any protestors. “Goin’ where the weather suits my clothes” is what their ancestors essentially sang (with drums, of course).

  44. Janice Moore says:
    September 25, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    “Hey, Gary Pearse, glad you’re back. Just today, I was wondering where you’ve been and hoping all is well (no, no, nothing to worry about, I think about a LOT of WUWT people on a regular basis). LOL, I think I mis-read your post just above. Are you equating bongo-drum playing protesters with the reticent, hardworking, real data types that were the Manitoba pioneers?? ”

    Hello Janice. Yes you do show concern about others, but I’m going to be personally touched anyway! We geologist/engineers in the mining field take a lot of abuse from the planet-savior militia. No I was expecting hooded fang protesters for a diabolical practice like fracking – these Minnesotans at their angriest were a rather nice bunch.

  45. Hi, Gary,

    Well, you are sort of right, I only remember about .1 (if that many)% of the 1,000 or so (just a guess — at least I admit it!) regular posters. You’ve written some extra cool things. Re: phlegmatic Minnesotan protestors: Oh, NOW, I get it. Thank you for explaining.

    Enjoy being home with your wife and all those great kids,

    Janice

  46. RoHa says:
    September 25, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Not me. I’m pretty sure Godzilla can only be awakened & strengthened by atomic radiation. IMO Godzilla risk has lessened since post-Fukushima rejection of nuclear power. But I must defer to your superior Godzilology expertise.

  47. I saved a copy of the second diagram of the ocean heating item at the top.
    4th March 2009, sea temperature at 0m in front of my place (opposite end of the image from the Costa Rica upwelling) was 28C? I think I would have remembered that.
    When I have time, I’ll dig out the local stats for that day …

  48. RoHa – it’s not just Godzilla that we have to worry about. Think giant squid, ugly fish with enormous teeth, huge sandworms, mutant bivalves – the list goes on.

    It’s The Apocalypse*, I tells ya!

    *Movie rights are available and negotiable.

  49. Undersea volcanoes have about the same effect on ocean temperature as urban heat islands on Antarctic temperature readings.

  50. Simon says:
    September 26, 2013 at 1:01 am
    “Undersea volcanoes have about the same effect on ocean temperature as urban heat islands on Antarctic temperature readings.”

    Maybe, or maybe not.
    Water has higher thermal conductivity. How much energy is moved by the undersea volcanoes? As long as we don’t have good numbers on that, it’s impossible to say. Similar the OHC/Willis adjustment – as long as they meddle with the numbers, no assessment about OHC trend is credible.

  51. richardscourtney says:
    September 25, 2013 at 12:15 pm
    3×2:

    Concerning political disruption of UK energy supply, in your post at September 25, 2013 at 11:56 am you say

    Truth is that HMG has interfered, over decades, at every level with UK power provision and now that it is all going horribly wrong they want to blame the companies involved. There was an old lady (politician who interfered with the energy market) who swallowed a fly … I don’t know why, perhaps she’ll die …

    I would have thought that would have been at least back to Clement Atlee and the nationalization of the coal industry? By the time ot Thatcher the idea of an energy market wrt coal was a joke, political interference in the market was being perpetrated by the NUM, to call what theThatcher government did to resist the political interference of the union ‘interfering with the energy market’ is ridiculous.

    She has died. Her name was Margaret Thatcher.

Comments are closed.