Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
A number of people have said Hey, in your previous post, the missing forcing is going into the ocean, so it’s still “in the pipeline”. I had considered that, but it didn’t make sense. I’ve taken a closer look, and it still doesn’t make sense.
According to the IPCC calculations in that post, about 0.7 W/m2 was missing. Let us assume that it is going into the ocean. Here’s my numbers, please check them. The spreadsheet doing the calculations is here.
CONSTANTS
Specific Heat Seawater 3.85 Joules/gram/C
Ocean Volume 1.3E+18 m3
Ocean Area 3.6E+14 m2
Global Surface 5.1E+14 m2
Average Ocean Depth 3700 m
Ocean Density 1.025 tonnes/m3
Year To Seconds 3.2E+07 seconds/yr
INPUTS
"Missing" Incoming Radiation 0.7 W m-2 over earth's surface
OUTPUTS
Equiv. Incoming Radiation To Ocean 1.0 W m-2
Annual Energy 3.1E+07 Joules/yr
Warming Ability 8.2E+06 grams C-1 / yr
1 m2 Column Weight 3793 tonnes
Column Weight 3.8E+09 grams
Warming since 1850 0.11 C (from spreadsheet)
Current Warming Rate 0.22 C/century
Time To Warm 1° at current rate 465 years/C
The reason that it didn’t make sense to me is that if that is the case, if the imbalance over the last 150 has warmed the ocean a tenth of a degree, and heat in the pipeline (assuming the 0.7 W/m2 imbalance continues) is going to give us a degree of warming in just under five hundred years … I just couldn’t believe that people were seriously thinking that was an issue.
So I suppose that’s possible, that the IPCC is right, and that half of the incoming energy is going into the ocean, warming it at the rate of one measly degree every half a millennium … But if that is so, does that mean that for practical purposes (neglecting the one degree by the year 2565, which is meaningless in human terms) we cut all of the IPCC warming forecasts (excuse me, scenarios) in half? Doesn’t that make the effective climate sensitivity in the real world, for our Grandchildren, by the year 2050, half of the number promulgated by the IPCC? Because the heat in the pipeline from the 0.7 W m-2 imbalance (0.22 C/century) will give us a whopping nine hundredths of a degree of ocean warming by 2050, unmeasurably small.
What am I missing here?
[UPDATE] Bob Tisdale graciously provided a link downthread to the oceanic heat content numbers. His graph shows the global heat content increasing by 7.8 MJoules per year per square meter.
If my numbers are correct (please check), this corresponds to a heat uptake (global average) of 0.17 W/m2. That would warm the ocean by a degree in 1900 years, so I think we can neglect that … and surely that’s enough time to do the mixing.
The missing heat is on the order of 0.7 W/m2. The evidence doesn’t show anywhere near that amount of heat going into the ocean. Including the ocean warming as explaining part of the missing heat, that still leaves on the order of a half a watt per square metre missing in the IPCC-based estimate … the ongoing mathematical mystery continues. All assistance solicited.
My own feeling is that the climate sensitivity is not fixed, but is a function of T, the temperature. It decreases with increasing T. This can be seen clearly in the tropics.
In the morning the ocean is cool, and the skies are clear. As a result, the surface warms rapidly. Climate sensitivity (degrees of temperature change for a given change in forcing) is high.
By about 10:30 or so, the ocean surface has warmed significantly. As a result of the rising temperature, cumulus clouds form. Despite increasing solar forcing, the surface does not warm as fast. Climate sensitivity is lower.
In the afternoon, thunderstorms form. These bring cool air and cool rain from aloft, and move warm air from the surface aloft. They cool the surface, bringing climate sensitivity near to zero.
Finally, thunderstorms have a unique ability. They can drive the surface temperature underneath them below the starting temperature. In this case, we have local areas of negative climate sensitivity – the forcing can be increasing while the surface is cooling.
As you can see, in the real-world context the idea that the temperature is some mythical constant “climate sensitivity” times the forcing change simply doesn’t hold water. Sensitivity goes down as temperature goes up in the tropics, the area where the majority of solar energy enters our climate system.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Heat lost during condensation/freezing of water vapor at very high altitude beyond most of the CO2 maybe? What happens when water vapor goes directly from vapor to ice crystals at extremely high altitude? Where does that heat go? Or what happens when it goes from water to ice at the tops of extremely high thunderstorms and tropical storms?
I believe it goes directly into space for the most part. It is at that point well beyond nearly all the CO2 in the atmosphere. You are above 85% of the atmosphere at 30,000 feet and those cloud tops can exceed that altitude. I believe there is a lot more radiation bypassing atmospheric CO2 and being radiated directly into space than they are calculating. Evaporation at the surface (and on the way up as it meets rain drops on the way down), transport to high altitude, and a phase change to water or ice transports a HUGE amount of heat every day to the upper reaches of the atmosphere completely bypassing most of the CO2.
We can talk all we want about why we think any of this is right, wrong, or indifferent. The bottom line has never changed. The empirical data is not well explained by any of the theory. Therefore the theory can not be trusted and is unable to demonstrate a skill beyond a relatively short term, that is significantly better than chance.
The only thing that has kept this “science” going for the last ten years has been the strangle hold that the IPCC and their backers, the environmental movement, have kept on publishing studies that show the world does operate the way they need to make their models “truthy”.
Five years ago I thought McIntyre’s work would blow the lid off the scam. I was wrong, but it has taught me to be patient.
Keep up the steady barrage Willis. Its kind of like cannons balls on the walls of fortress during a 15th century siege.
I like and agree with your calculations. I believe that the delta is known in climatological terms as ‘A Travesty’ (sadly I wasn’t able to point that out first).
If a major catastrophe were imminent, due to the rate of human CO2 production, it would be possible to write down the relevant equations and prove the point.
Actually, currently the relevant equations (as Nick Stokes points out) are complex, the uncertainties large, the answer too close to zero to readily discern, and therefore a conclusion cannot be obtained with any certainty.
But don’t despair. There are some facts in climatology. The Hockey Stick is based on cherry picking and bad statistics, FOI requests have been stymied illegally, people have had their careers threatened for attempting to speak the truth, and many climatological papers and text books are simply cut-and-pasted regurgitation. (To restate a few of those facts).
Charlie A says:
October 23, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Testing the AGW Hypothesis by George White.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html
A very interesting article… thank you… the following quote is interesting:
QUOTE
According to HITRAN based simulations, the atmosphere captures 3.6 W/m² of additional power when the CO2 is increased from 280ppm to 560ppm.
Of this, the atmosphere radiates half of this up and half down.
When the 1.8 W/m² of forcing power directed down is treated the same as 1.8 W/m² of additional solar forcing, the systems response is to increase the surface power by 2.88 W/m².
From the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the starting temperature of 288K corresponds to a surface energy of 390.1 W/m². If the surface power increases by 2.88 W/m², the corresponding temperature increase is only 0.55°C and not the 3°C predicted by the AGW hypothesis.
UNQUOTE
Mr. Tisdale (October 23, 2010 at 2:23 pm) puts forward a convincing argument that it is not going into the oceans. This brings us back to Mr. Eschenbach’s original hypothesis ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/23/a-strange-problem-with-the-ipcc-numbers/#more-26886 ) that IPCC future temperature delta scenarios are about double what their own theory says they should be. Any other theories as to where it is hiding?
More like this please.
I’m sorry but you’re ocean volume number is completely wrong and off the charts so to speak.
That so called volume is based on pretty much a level ocean floor, but the ocean floor is so far from level and flat and can be had. Even if this fact where taking into consideration the calculation of the volume doesn’t take into effect neither the slopes of continental plates nor blue whales and every other creatures that takes up volume in the ocean or mere coral islands.
When you can correctly calculate the, at least, about correct volume of the oceans you ought to be able to use it to your own advantage I’m sure.
Well, I have been saying that there is no way you can cram a century’s worth of IPCC forcing and feedback garbonzos into 0.7C warming. (Not to mention that the raw data will probably show less than half that — if we could even see it.) Not to mention all the non-CO2 related causes.
@1DandyTroll: Dandy, I’m glad someone else pointed out the incaccuracies, from my own calculations, taking into account shoaling, and including nuclear submarines as well as wrecked ships (the Titanic has a significant effect) Willis’ calculation for ocean volume is out by a whopping 0.00000000000053%. I am off to realclimate to report this egregious error, where brighter minds will no doubt tell me that errors of this size are typical of the output from humans, which is why we should rely on computer models. They’re smart cookies over there and will no doubt produce a rebuttal paper in short order highlighting that the temperature rise by 2050 will be a staggering 0.0010000001C, not the trivial 0.001C reported by Willis. The MSM will have a field day with this.
Gerry
Phil’s Dad says:
October 23, 2010 at 4:13 pm
“Mr. Tisdale (October 23, 2010 at 2:23 pm) puts forward a convincing argument that it is not going into the oceans. ”
It’s true that the Ocean Heat Content has risen very slowly (or declined slightly) over the last 6 or 7 years, but the 40 to 60 year record shows significant increase. Even though the data gathering was relatively sparse, the overall weight of evidence is pretty clear that OHC is higher than it was back in 1970. See http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Not only would I like to find the “missing heat” from the last 7 years, I’d also like to find out what mechanism is changing the effective radiative forcing over the time period of a few years.
It’s probably just a case of me not noticing it, but I have yet to see any reasonable hypothesis put forward to explain the apparent changes in net radiative forcing that took place in 1970 and around 2003. (These are points where the slope of the OHC line changes significantly. The slope of the OHC is net radiative forcing/effective thermal mass of the oceans. Indeed, some OHC graphs are labeled in units of w/m-2.)
Slightly off-topic, but can anyone explain why the deep oceans are so cold? They appear to be sandwiched between a surface at approx 15C, and a mantle that’s even hotter.
I’ve found numerous documents that state that the deeps are cold as there is no sunlight. But where do they lose heat to to get so cold?
WUWT?
nice calc Willis but there seems to be a problem with the original hypothesis.
all physics phenomenon is going to work against heating the oceans from the top. while there may be some minor limited effect going on in specific regions, far from the tropical zone, the rest is going to work to oppose any transfer. Since that .7w/m^2 has to be over all the water and not just a small area with lower insolation, it is a massive problem. The difference in added atmospheric absorption of IR (and hence added atmospheric IR emitted downward) between the magical mystery equilibrium of the pre industrial days and now is that there is added IR now and that is going nowhere downward into the ocean. A build up of thermal energy at the surface – caused by IR means that either the outer skin of the ocean heats up (to boiling) or that energy must be going into a phase change – converting the water to vapor and putting more power into convection of the water vapor cycle.
Of course, all that extra water vapor that supposedly only contributes to more ghg feedback (BS) is going to contribute to forming additional clouds – in that fun way that is so ‘well understood’ that no warmista can quite explain it well enough to conclude that clouds reduce temperature overall. All those extra clouds from the extra water vapor cycle result in a lowering of the visible light coming down to the surface which reduces that light energy that can penetrate any depth into the oceans to warm the lower layers. OOPs
richard telford says:
October 23, 2010 at 1:17 pm
The oceans are not well mixed!
=========
Thus the currents.
1DandyTroll says:
October 23, 2010 at 4:17 pm
1DandyTroll, this being a scientific website, you won’t get any traction without numbers. If you think my number for the ocean volume of 1.3 E+18 cubic metres is wrong, you need to provide a better number and a citation.
That’s the number I had, I didn’t check it. Let me see … here’s hypertextbook, which says 1.3 billion cubic kilometres, which is 1.3 E+18 cubic metres. Which is what I used.
Also related to the general discussion of simple models to determine climate sensitivity is Roy Spencer’s post on the response to Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
Revisiting the Mt Pinatubo Eruption as a Test of Climate Sensitivity.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/revisiting-the-pinatubo-eruption-as-a-test-of-climate-sensitivity/
He discussed the problem of trying to determine sensitivity by assuming that the climate changes from one equilibrium state to another. Instead he tried to model the changing state of the climate as the forcings (and feedbacks) from Mt. Pinatubo changed over a period of 2 or 3 years.
For the best fit of observed forcings and global temperatures, the heat mass was equivalent to the world’s oceans having a mixed layer of 40 meters deep.
The end result of his calculations is that the net feedback is slightly negative, resulting in an equivalent sensitivity of around 1 C for the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 levels.
Re: Nick Stokes
I think what you’re missing is there’s never really been an equilibrium, hence glacial cycles and the smaller oscillations like MWP/LIA. Proxies show this. If we were tidally locked to the Sun, climate models would be so much simpler. We’re not, so there are too many variables to model accurately. Pub conversation was orbital peturbations due to mass imbalances from NH construction work, general consensus after several beers was it’s not significant unless the NH imports a lot of mass from the SH.
Does the earth’s heat producing core have any effect on the climate?
Bob Tisdale, many thanks for your link to the oceanic heat content numbers. Your graph shows the global heat content increasing by 7.8 MJoules per year.
If my numbers are correct (please check), this corresponds to a heat uptake (global average) of 0.17 W/m2. Since the missing heat is on the order of 0.7 W/m2, you can see that your estimate was right. The evidence doesn’t show anywhere near that amount of heat going into the ocean. Including the ocean warming, that leaves on the order of a half a watt per square metre missing in the IPCC-based estimate … the ongoing mathematical mystery continues. All assistance solicited.
steveta_uk says:
October 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm
I think the simple answer is this: water is at it’s most dense at 4C therefore it’s a gravitational thing.
I’m heading offshore to work on a deep water (1500m) oil exploration well on Monday. The temperature at that depth is already 4C.
steveta_uk says:
October 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Slightly off-topic, but can anyone explain why the deep oceans are so cold? They appear to be sandwiched between a surface at approx 15C, and a mantle that’s even hotter.
I’ve found numerous documents that state that the deeps are cold as there is no sunlight. But where do they lose heat to to get so cold?
WUWT?
==================
I second the motion, WUWT?
My understanding is that the IPCC calculations and “missing” 0.7 W/m2 are predicated entirely on the net of incoming solar radiation and outgoing LWR. Trenbreth has suggested/alleged that the “missing” energy has been stored in deep oceans.
Seems to me your calculations and the IPCC miss a non-solar energy input or ‘forcing’ that goes under the name of geothermal. The earth’s crust conducts thermal energy into ocean water and the atmosphere while hydro-thermal vents, mid-oceanic ridges and submarine volcanoes transfer additional heat energy into the oceans. This geothermal energy contribution may not be large, but it is great enough to measure/estimate and is most definitely non-negative. One might say the IPCC leaves more than just 0.7 W/m2 of energy unexplained.
The missing energy is being taken up by plantlife and used in photosynthesis
steveta_uk says:
October 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Slightly off-topic, but can anyone explain why the deep oceans are so cold?
My understanding is that the most dense water is 4 C, so it sinks at the poles, after it has dumped its heat, then gets circulated worldwide by the deep ocean currents.
The equatorial region works hard to warm the ocean, but the frigid polar regions are huge, and it only takes a minor reduction of incoming solar radiation to launch us back into another ice age.
Finding the missing energy is predicated on the assumption that it is in fact missing. Given that we don’t actually have accurate numbers for either in going or out going in the long term record, in fact not in the short term record either, we don’t even know if we are searching for something that exists. Consider:
1. In the original post Willis uses the IPCC estimate of a change in solar forcing of o.12 w/m2 over the last 250 years. That seems like an awful small number to me. Given that the raw output of the sun is in the range of 1365 w/m2, and for the sake of averages we divide that by 4 to get an “effective” forcing of 342 w/m2, a change of 0.12 w/m2 implies a change of only 0.03%. It has been a while since I looked at any papers on solar output, but my recollection is that 0.03% would easily be at the extreme low end of most papers. Now I would hate to be accusing the IPCC of cherry picking papers on solar forcing without good foundation, so perhaps Leif or someone more familiar with the matter can comment?
2. Even if the raw output of the sun hasn’t changed much, this says nothing for the mix of frequencies that the sun emmits. Sun spots change the mix of frequencies that mess up ham radio operators, and I believe various studies have also shown large rises in certain UV ranges that are associated with sun spots. So the matter is more complex than just looking at the average output over all. Suppose the output were exactly the same over all, but that the lower frequencies bordering on the IR range dropped 1% and the higher frequency UV increased 1%. The change in the amount of energy going into the ocean would be massive because of the increased UV that can penetrate the ocean at far greater depths while the decrease in low frequencies would not change much in terms of energy balance. And vicey versey also.
3. Do we really know how much energy the earth radiates to space? Even the current satellite measurements leave something to be desired. Take a quick look at the AMSU-A image for the day
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/AAT_Browse.php?chan=4&satnum=15&aord=a
notice that the extreme north and extreme south latitudes are black? The satellite can’t see them, so there are no colors there, no data at all. How much of the planet does that represent? 5%? 2%? Can we extrapolate from the rest of the data? Sure. But we keep getting told that the poles will heat up more than the rest of the planet, perhaps by a factor of 8 to 1. So the parts of the planet with the most variability are the parts of the planet for which we have the least data. Suppose our measurements of outbound earth radiance are out by just 0.1%. That would be 0.34 w/m2, almost half of the missing energy being looked for.
Not much use in looking for something that is missing when we aren’t even certain it is missing in the first place.
Dave says:
October 23, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Thanks, Dave. Unfortunately, that’s going the wrong way. We have extra energy now. We don’t know where it is going. Adding energy doesn’t help.
However, I’ve run the numbers, and geothermal averaged out over the globe seems to be a few hundredths of a watt per square metre. Might be a bit more since sub-sea smokers and volcanoes and such along the suboceanic rifts seem more plentiful than early estimates. But it’s still not a lot because it happens in so few places on the planet …