Jeff wrote to me with this article which visually illustrates his point quite well. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has given his take on it here, saying:
The post on The Air Vent is worth adding to the reasoning why we need to move away from the use of the global average surface temperature anomaly as the metric to diagnose global warming and cooling.
I decided to make this graphic to put it all in perspective:
Background image from Tiago Fioreze via Wikipedia, values from the calculations below.
================================================================
Global Temperatures and Incomplete Rationale of My Own Skepticism
Guest Post by Jeff Id
Ok I admit it! Apparently I can’t quit blogging completely, but doing software calculations is way beyond the scope of my time abilities. There is a detail which may interest some here that has too little discussion in the ‘climate wars’ . It’s a matter of reason, again which doesn’t disprove AGW but which seems to me should be cause for pause in the alarmist message.
Heat capacity of ocean water: 3993 J/kg/K
Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/K
This is the number of Joules (energy) to raise temperature 1 degree Kelvin which is the same as 1 degree Celcius. Energy cannot be created or destroyed to my knowledge so these are physically knowable values. Since they are in kilograms, we only need to look at kilograms atmosphere vs kilograms of ocean to make the following graphs.
From Wikipedia – The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg
From Wikipedia – The total mass of the hydrosphere is about 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons (1.5×1018 short tons) or 1.4×1021 kg,
So multiplying out, the energy content of the atmosphere is – 1005 *5×1018 kg =5 x1021 Joules/Degree Kelvin
Energy content of the ocean is – 3993 *1.4×1021 =5.6×1024 Joules/Degree Kelvin
So we know increasing CO2 captures more heat in the lower atmosphere and we know that this heat is claimed to be the cause of global warming. Where everything gets real fuzzy is when the energy content of the ocean is taken into consideration. Models do use the ocean heat content, but in order to demonstrate warming, only the energy of the surface ocean layers can be considered. Of course there are layers and layers (pun intended) of papers that discuss the issues, but in reality very little is actually ‘known’.
Why is it important that climate models only look at surface layers? Because subsurface ocean temps exhibit little variance and even with the worst IPCC scenario’s would exhibit little variance from AGW. It is assumed that all ‘significant’ heat comes and goes from the ocean surface. I wonder though if anyone would be able to demonstrate a tenth of a degree change in the deep ocean over the last 100 years? The answer again is we don’t know if it did, but we do know that a 0.1C release of oceanic subsurface energy would measurably change the surface temperature of the earth in that time period. All that would be required would be ocean current changes but we really don’t have a clue if deep ocean current’s have changed. CO2 atmospheric temp change depends on the assumption of stability 0f heat flow from the deeper oceans. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this but in case you wonder why many of us are skeptics of catastrophic global warming:
Click for full size Fig1
So when they show you the scary graphs of UHI contaminated surface temperature as compiled by Zeke, including graphs from myself using what I believe are superior anomaly combination methods developed by Roman M:
Global Land Air Temps Fig 2
Remember, they/we are showing you the increase in atmospheric energy of the near zero thickness PANCAKE on the left side of Figure 1, the huge energy column on the right is not included in air temperature graphs of Fig 2 or on the left side of Fig 1. When you see the reconstructions of global temperature including ocean surface temps, the energy pancake on the left isn’t much thicker.
If you were to transfer enough ocean energy directly to the atmosphere to create 4 degrees of atmospheric warming, how much would that change the average temperature of the Earth’s water?
Would you believe – 0.001 Degrees C of ocean temp change? The left side pancake wouldn’t look any different in Fig 1! Hell, it wouldn’t change if we were in another oceanic current inspired ice age — think about that.
It’s just math folks. The ocean contains so much energy that a thousandth of a degree change can throw 1C into our air temp instantaneously. Unfortunately the discussion is more complex than this because we need then to look at what happens to the release of that heat to space. The real balance is about energy flow vs content rather than instantaneous heat, but realistically tenths of a degree C of atmospheric warming over 30 years are absolutely NOT proof of CO2 global warming doom.
Of course climate models take all of this into account. They also take Hadley cells and cloud formation into account. They take convection, conduction, evaporation, precipitation etc. all into account. The whole exercise is layers of guesses and estimations. Some with less scientific honesty than others but before chucking them all to the wind, some of these people are good people and even good scientists.
I’ve spent enough time on this today, but continued overconfidence in the meaning of UHI contaminated surface temperatures IS one of the main reasons I’m a skeptic of catastrophic global warming. Every time you see a plot of surface temperatures, we should shoulder shrug and ask – what about total oceanic energy?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Love this post as I have done similar calculations.
The bottom line – The atmosphere itself has very little to do with it’s own temperature in this context.
Isn’t this the basic theory behind those open top freezers at the supermarket ..
the heat content of the air is far lower than the contents of the freezer
Just wondering about the 3993 value for ocean water. Is it different than what Engineering Tool box has at 15 C of 4.186 Kj/kg K for water. Small difference but wondering.
This goes back to what I was told a long time ago. The drake equation ruined science. The introduction of unfalsifiable ideas via guesswork equations into the scientific culture (via SETI) has ruined science.
The problem with dumping the GMST is that it effectively concedes the argument for thirty years.
That is: There are a long list of more-applicable or better-accuracy or better-coverage types of information to be gathering or studying. I’m all for using and granting money for all of them. But they generally haven’t been sufficiently accumulated -historically-. The thirty years of the satellite record is barely adequate.
The hundred-fifty years of surface data is “long enough” – even conceding the complete inadequacy of the error bars – that people like Mann can apply hockey-stick-finding filters to it.
This has the effect of (erroneously IMNSHO) eliminating the MWP/LIA from the entire memescape of the climatologists.
We already know that “just” using the satellite data and reapplying Mann’s method to that would be discarded out-of-hand by the climatologists: The trees his method picked out during the ‘instrumental period’ are the exact same trees that are the decline under the satellite period. Mann’s own method would invert those proxies if it was applied during just the satellite period.
I happen to think the method of “fixing” the ground stations isn’t optimal though. Take an individual ground station and cross-calibrate it with the best calculation from the satellite data of the value for that exact site. This should allow the determination of the actual error of using a point measurement to determine a grid temperature – as opposed to the insane propagation of the instrumental error.
A 4000 to 1 ratio, for heat transfer to total atmospheric mass from total oceanic mass….
Thanks! I had not thought of it that way, but it illustrates the point that ‘There are much greater ‘sensitivities’ betwixt heaven and earth (including the oceans, Horatio!), than are dreamt of in the AGW philosophies!
I think the same approach as chart one should be taken with the temperature changes over time . . . here (where I live) the temperature over the seasons is is about 20 degrees in the lows of winter to about 110 in the highs of summer that a 90 degree change, on a thumbnail, . . . and if you are talking about a one or two degrees over 100 years that is insignificant .
Thus the deceit of the hockey stick . .
Anyone can make anything look like a hockey stick.
4.18 j = 1 cal sounds more accurate to me.
Thanks Jeff
A few years ago for a class, I calculated that there are 200,000,000 tonnes of ocean water for every person on earth. A family of five “owns” enough sea water to fill a lake 10 km by 10 km by 10 m deep. (That’s 40 square miles by 33 feet deep! A decent sized lake.)
And I ask myself what conceivable effect can that family have on that mass of water by heating their home, driving, eating and just living compared to the sun. and we know the answer. Nada. Nil. Zip.
Thanks again!
Clive
“Energy content of the ocean is – 3993 *1.4×1021 =5.6×1024 Joules/Degree Kelvin”
I think you mean heat capacity. But the figure is meaningless without some notion of heat transfer rate, which determines the timescales. The heat capacity of the Earth will be about 5×1027 Joules/Degree Kelvin, but that is equally meaningless, because the time requiresd to heat it is billions of years.
And so it is with the ocean. The time taken to transfer heat in the depths is extremely long.
ummm…. sorry for the double posting, but maybe the difference has to be with salty water versus pure water. After all it is not much of a difference.
Something similar came up in a discussion I was in regarding the removal of heat from oceanic ridges ( really long volcanoes that are in a constant eruptive phase somewhere along the track ). Basalt has a heat capacity that is roughly one quarter that of water. This means that for every degree of cooling that 4 kg of basalt experiences, 1 kg of water takes on that energy and rises one degree.
Salt water vs. fresh water. See: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-fluids-d_151.html
On the matter of the heat transition for the ocean-air boundary it is important to discuss what is meant by ‘surface layer’. For example, satellites only measure the top few millimeters, which can be quite warm depending on what is in the water (e.g., are we talking the Sargasso Sea and its floating biomass). The mixing depth for the ocean ‘surface layer’ is highly dependent on wave action, etc.
Water tends to set up Bernoulli layers where mixing is limited, and the osmotic path of temperature transport is limited. In seas with high turmoil (wave action, etc) the Bernoulli layers break down in the upper meters. At some point meters down there is a more challenging current/Temperature boundary.
In addition, there are currents, which pipe water of one temp through regions of water with another temp. Think of the Gulf currents which traverse the North Atlantic. This is an example of a lateral Bernoulli like boundary.
The point is mixing promotes temperature dissipation, these currents (surface and subsurface) all play another role in that they can inject heat well into a cold sink, which if you only measure the current and not the sink (below the surface) then you have an incorrect model of the total water heat content and transport mechanism.
Atmosphere and ocean capture, transport and dissipate heat/energy differently.
How much ocean heat gets dissipated in wave energy? If the ocean model is a thin layer without any transport to the massive heat sinks below and at high latitudes, and accelerated with waves or slowed by biomass, it is so far off as to be useless.
Is anyone sure that the albedo of the ocean is exactly the same as it was 50 years?
Of course not.
Is anyone sure the amount of bright sunshine is exactly the same as it was 50 years ago?
Of course not. In fact there is a lot of evidence that bright sunshine is up. How much extra energy is that?
So . . . . how much has the ocean heated up in the last one hundred and fifty years . . . If they are still talking about anything like the bull hockey stick of air temperature . . . I rest my case . . . for now . . .
And, I will make one prognostication . . . . it wouldn’t really matter because 150 years ago the data would be sparse . . . so I’ll not bait the de-bate.
EXACTLY! RIGHT ON! and AMEN! When I was taught about how to design experiments, it was drummed into us time and time again to focus on the variables that had the largest, direct, and measureable impact on the system under study. Its all about scale. Focus attention on the variable that CONTROLS the system – or in this case buffers the system to limit any significant deviation from a fixed set point.
The world’s oceans are the most insanely huge energy buffer, how can any sane scientist even think any other variable has a chance of affecting change . . . .and you’ve only illustrated the heat content contained in liquid water. It becomes even more insanely stabilizing when you consider the massive amounts of energy necessary to affect change when phase change comes into play! There is good reasons why all successful cooling towers, and nearly all heat exchangers rely on water’s amazing properties instead of CO2’s mythical IR absorbing magic. As an energy storage buffer water is king. CO2? – insignificant and even necessary for life.
Equatorial energy content in the world’s oceans drive local and even distant weather. Likewise the long term systemic energy content of oceans drive climate – period.
What about the solid surfaces of the earth? Common materials such as brick, asphalt, granite, sand, limestone etc have a Cp of about 800 J/Kg/K but a density around 8 times that of water. What depth of the earth’s landmass is considered coupled to atmospheric/global temperatures?
A couple quick comments. They are little things, but little things can make the difference between sounding correct and sounding incorrect.
“Heat capacity of ocean water: 3993 J/kg/K”
This is officially the “specific heat capacity”
“So multiplying out, the energy content of the atmosphere is – 1005 *5×1018 kg =5 x1021 Joules/Degree Kelvin”
1) this quantity of J/K is the heat capacity, not the “energy content”.
2) the unit is “Kelvin”, not “degree Kelvin”
“The left side pancake wouldn’t look any different in Fig 1! Hell, it wouldn’t change if we were in another oceanic current inspired ice age — think about that.”
Since Fig 1 plots J/K, changes in temperature, by definition, will not change the figure. Whether the atmosphere changed 0.001 K or 1K or -10 K, the left side will still be 5 x10^21 J/K.
Forget common sense, it’s tipping points we want.
Steven Chu: climate modelers should fabricate lots of tipping points
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/04/steven-chu-climate-modelers-should.html
This is an excellent point – the ocean makes up the major mass for the climate, and we should be watching that.
Here’s a link to the on ocean heat content, 1955-present.
Oddly enough, it looks very much like the surface air temps – increasing. It appears that the air temps are closely tracking the oceanic heat content. I’m not reassured.
Actually Jeff it’s 1.12°C/0.001°C.
5.6 x 10^24/(5 x 10^21)
Unless I’ve messed up that is.
DaveE.
Scrub that. I’ve messed up!
DaveE.
I once read the the Navies of the major powers have many mega gobs of temperature data on all of the oceans, and they use these data for calculating the speed of sound at various depths and temperatures which is important for their sonar systems.
They also use these data to find locations in the ocean to hide their submarines to avoid detection by sonar whose sound waves can be reflected off of a layer of deep ocean water whose density and temperature are much different for shallower layers.
D. J. Hawkins says:
April 6, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Thanks.