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
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
210 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 31, 2011 10:15 pm

Kevin Kilty said December 31, 2011 at 9:30 pm
“The ARGO Buoys, which I knew of, but knew little about, are pretty fascinating. I now know a bit more about them. Back in the days I was logging wells for heat flow or other information, I knew that getting temperatures reliably to repeat to 0.05C was difficult.”
Looking at the Argo spec. I don’t see the range over which the claimed accuracy prevails. And if I recall correctly, the precision of the instrument would need to be 0.0001C. That is quite remarkable.

John F. Hultquist
December 31, 2011 10:20 pm

Willis,
@10:10 am I asked A physics if statements made @3:29 am implied CO2 residence times were greater than 1357 years. I got no answer and now we have posts by A physicist. This second person is claiming WUWT mods are censoring material. Sounds like the same person but who knows? Not a nice thing to do – changing names in the middle of a posting! Maybe I am mistaken. Still no answer to my question though. So,
Maybe here:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
Or here:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/24/co2-discussion-thread/

LazyTeenager
December 31, 2011 10:46 pm

Most recent envisat data.
Summary: seal level measured by this instrument is heading back up again.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png

LazyTeenager
December 31, 2011 10:57 pm

A physicist says
but not exactly the same, because the coefficient of thermal expansion of water varies slightly with pressure
———-
The thermal expansion coefficient of water also varies with temperature with a minimum around 4C. The deep ocean is very cold ,so it is likely that this variation needs to be taken into account. It makes the calculation a whole lot more difficult.

AndyG55
December 31, 2011 11:06 pm

I vaguely recall seeing an old Chinese (or was it Japanese?) sea level measurement somewhere, (and I mean old)
Its showed a clear cyclical sea level trend of some 300 (or was it 600) year period.
I remember thinking that we were getting pretty close to the top of another peak in the cycle.
Has anyone seen the graph I’m referring to ?

LazyTeenager
December 31, 2011 11:24 pm

Willis says
The issue I raised above is not whether that 0.009°C is “broadly correct”. It is whether it makes a scrap of difference in the real world if it is correct. I say no.
————–
Willis where it makes a “scrap of difference” depends on what this calculation is applied to,
It’s important for evaluating the energy budget of the planet, since if the energy budget does not balance, we can infer there is some factor that has not been properly accounted for.
It is relevant for cross checking ocean thermal expansion theory and experiment.
Conceptually distributing the heat throughout the ocean is not directly relevant to climate change as that is affected by the surface layer temperatures and that is where that heat will really be located in any case. It’s going to take a long time to distribute the surface heat into the deep ocean.

December 31, 2011 11:26 pm

John F. Hultquist says:
December 31, 2011 at 10:20 pm
I asked A physics…..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Maybe he didn’t want people to know what a “physic” is? physic = enema -= hydro-colonic 🙂

LazyTeenager
December 31, 2011 11:47 pm

Kevin Kilty says
How can any recent 8-year period, with a serious ” energy imbalance” indicating anything but “not exceptional”, lack an obvious warming trend?
————-
This is really hard to parse.
I think what is missing is a notion that ocean circulation varies randomly, including the vertical part of that circulation. If there is an event that exchanges warm surface waters with cold deep waters the consequence will be a temporary drop in the global average SST. And also an increase in deep ocean heat content.
So a short term drop or short term rise around a long term trend is perfectly reasonable.
The WUWT crowd get really excited by these short term drops and go really quiet when the short term rise happens. I prefer to ignore the short term variations and focus on the long term.

Joachim Seifert
Reply to  LazyTeenager
January 1, 2012 4:53 am

All these studies are not official IPCC. Better look at IPCC AR4 spm or wg1 chapter 2, where it clearly says: GLOBAL WARMING is 0.2 C per decade and half of it [0.1 C] arises due to
WARMING of the oceans….. there is nothing of a flat temp plateau since 2001 for 8 years…
You read too much climate heredicts who calculate a flat temp plateau due to ocean cooling…..
this is not what the compacted wisdom of the IPCC says…..

LazyTeenager
December 31, 2011 11:56 pm

Dan in California,
And while I am being snarky, any engineer can tell you that measuring temperature to an absolute accuracy of .008 C is just plain silly. Precision, yes, accuracy, no.
————
Nominally correct but measuring temperature differences of this magnitude is routine.
I don’t know what the Argo floats do but this kind of precision and accuracy is in the ball park of platinum resistance thermometry.

LazyTeenager
January 1, 2012 1:17 am

And a link for platinum resistance thermometry calibration by the NIST, to verify my initial guess was correct.
http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/upload/sp250-81.pdf

tty
January 1, 2012 1:20 am

With heat flow figures as low as this (0.54 W/m2) the geothermal heat flow into the ocean from the ocean bottom becomes significant (it is about 0.10 W/m2). Did H2011 take this into account? It would decrease the heat flow “from the top” by about 20%.

Peter
January 1, 2012 3:58 am

@A Physicist:
You seem to think that you can extrapolate the accuracy of measuring samples of ocean water at moments in time to the average temperature of the entire ocean.
It’s like measuring the average length of a box full of elastic bands to an accuracy of 1 micron.

Peter
January 1, 2012 4:34 am

Erinome says:

Except Willis’ calculation assumes that the heat from above immediately dissipates throughout the oceans’ volume, which, of course, it does not. The thermohaline circulation takes about 1,600 years to complete. There is stratification in the ocean, and currents, that have a significant impact on heat flow.

Well let’s just assume for a moment that all the short-term heating takes place within the topmost few metres, and gradually dissipates through the rest of the ocean.
How long would you say the 0.5W/m2 imbalance would take to heat the topmost metre by 1C? That would be in the order of 1.5 years.
But hang on, if the surface was 1C warmer, it would be radiating around 3.8W/m2 more into the atmosphere, not to mention the extra energy leaving the surface by way of evaporation and convection.
So, in fact, that 0.5W/m2 imbalance would disappear within a couple of months, with a surface temperature increase of around 0.1C
Also, as this is an ongoing process, with only a relatively tiny annual increase in radiative forcing due to CO2, it’s arguable as to whether the 0.5W/m2 imbalance actually exists in the first place.

Joules Verne
January 1, 2012 6:19 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 31, 2011 at 10:57 pm

The thermal expansion coefficient of water also varies with temperature with a minimum around 4C. The deep ocean is very cold ,so it is likely that this variation needs to be taken into account. It makes the calculation a whole lot more difficult.

That’s true for water but not for seawater. Seawater keeps decreasing in density right up to its freezing point which about -2C. It makes the calculation quite easy because the deep ocean is about 3C which is way above freezing.

lazyoldman
January 1, 2012 6:27 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 31, 2011 at 10:57 pm

The thermal expansion coefficient of water also varies with temperature with a minimum around 4C. The deep ocean is very cold ,so it is likely that this variation needs to be taken into account. It makes the calculation a whole lot more difficult.

That’s true for water but not for seawater. Seawater keeps decreasing in density right up to its freezing point which about -2C. It makes the calculation quite easy because the deep ocean is about 3C which is way above freezing.

ferd berple
January 1, 2012 9:52 am

Joachim Seifert says:
January 1, 2012 at 4:53 am
GLOBAL WARMING is 0.2 C per decade and half of it [0.1 C] arises due to WARMING of the oceans..
Here are some new plots of Argo showing E and W hemispheres 60N to 60S, 2004 thru 2011. These were made with the latest “Global Argo Marine Atlas” viewer, downloaded from their website.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57706237@N05/6613084529/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57706237@N05/6613108605/lightbox/
Spot the trend anyone? There is ZERO warming of the oceans in the Argo data. There is a very slight warming in the eastern hemisphere surface waters that is offset by a very slight cooling in the western hemisphere surface waters.

Bill H
January 1, 2012 10:00 am

This is probably a stupid observation but isn’t .0016 Deg C. within the margin of error? and thus a non factor?
Just askin……

Erinome
January 1, 2012 10:21 am

LazyTeenager says:
Most recent envisat data.
Summary: seal level measured by this instrument is heading back up again.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png

Exactly. And that big decline in 2010 is due to the shift from an El Nino to strong La Nina, which took a lot of water out of the oceans and rained it onto land. (Remember the Australian floods?) NASA discusses the water transfer here:
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=53

Erinome
January 1, 2012 10:33 am

Peter says:
So, in fact, that 0.5W/m2 imbalance would disappear within a couple of months, with a surface temperature increase of around 0.1C
That’s not how heating works. The extra 0.54 W/m2 is continuous — it doesn’t stop and then radiate out of the water. Yes, a warmer ocean radiates more, but that just warms the air above it and the water below it, which itself radiates more and heats the ocean and so on. It reaches equilibrium and everything is warmer.
If there is an additional forcing of 0.54 W/m2, that’s an extra 0.3 PW of heating. That’s not a negligible amount — natural heat transfer from the tropics is 3.2 PW.

Pat Moffitt
January 1, 2012 10:34 am

Peter says:
@A Physicist:
“You seem to think that you can extrapolate the accuracy of measuring samples of ocean water at moments in time to the average temperature of the entire ocean.
It’s like measuring the average length of a box full of elastic bands to an accuracy of 1 micron.”
That’s a great analogy! We don’t know what percentage of the sensors are in regions where cold water is being upwelled from below sensor depth and we don’t have a handle on sensor spatial coverage where temperatures are being expanded from thermal inputs from rain, wind/atmosphere in the surface layer. And we don’t know enough about the ocean cycles (especially the longer ones we only suspect) to know whether minute delta T warming or cooling trends have anything to do with atmospheric temperatures. (One would think the top 30m would have the best chance of giving some idea but is
While most of our Argo measurements are in the 30 to 1000m the ocean is continually stretching or contracting these temperatures from the 0-30 and >1000m depths. As a result we can’t know to a fine level level of temperature precision that the Argo coverage is adequately capturing this effect.

Kevin Kilty
January 1, 2012 10:36 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 31, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Bob says
I’m an old chemical process guy. I got lost at “imbalance”. Mass and energy always balance.
————–
You are misunderstanding the usage of imbalance here. If you measure the heat going into a reaction vessel and the heat coming out of the reaction vessel and they are not equal, then you know there is an imbalance. Conservation of energy allows you to infer that the contents of the reaction vessel have retained the heat, possibly via an endothermic reaction or phase change.
That’s all imbalance means and it is not hard to figure out.

Bob the chemical process guy is right, mass and energy always balance. The imbalance in energy in versus out is simply the product of specific heat times change in temperature. Hansen et al look at this product, see that it is not zero, and conclude there is an imbalance between energy in and energy out.

Kevin Kilty
January 1, 2012 10:50 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 31, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Kevin Kilty says
How can any recent 8-year period, with a serious ” energy imbalance” indicating anything but “not exceptional”, lack an obvious warming trend?
————-
This is really hard to parse…

Well I looked at that sentence last night and said to myself, “… it is messy, but it is also late so just push the post button.” What I mean to say is that the claim that “…an eight year period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional” which you emphasized in one of your posts, rests on two pillars. One is that a “non-exceptional” lack of warming cannot occur in the midst of an exceptional energy “imbalance”; second, proof of lack of warming also rests on precision of measurement, which at one time was very poor, but now seems to be quite a lot better with this ARGO array. I’d say an eight year period of no warming in the current circumstance is exceptional.

I think what is missing is a notion that ocean circulation varies randomly, including the vertical part of that circulation. If there is an event that exchanges warm surface waters with cold deep waters the consequence will be a temporary drop in the global average SST. And also an increase in deep ocean heat content….

This is what I’ve been saying. The system you are trying to measure itself keeps changing. The distribution of buoys changes, and all sorts of other factors keep changing the distribution of temperature in the ocean. It is not enough to have high precision sensors, and then claim you can measure a bulk factor like ocean heat content to the same precision because of sensors alone.

richcar1225
January 1, 2012 10:51 am

I have seen estimates of anywhere from .3 to 1.3 mm/yr for the estimate of the steric component of sea level rise supposedly due to the radiative imbalance. But evidently the imbalance only works at selected warm pools as most of the globe has seen declining sea level over the past 18 years.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-level-trends
It is very interesting that the various sea level sites never plot sea level rise rate vs year. I suspect because it would revel the decline in SLR rate since 1998 and thus embarrass scientists who were predicted accelerating SLR.
The plot can be found on the following site.
http://www.climate4you.com/

Kevin Kilty
January 1, 2012 11:01 am

thepompousgit says:
December 31, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Kevin Kilty said December 31, 2011 at 9:30 pm
“The ARGO Buoys, which I knew of, but knew little about, are pretty fascinating. I now know a bit more about them. Back in the days I was logging wells for heat flow or other information, I knew that getting temperatures reliably to repeat to 0.05C was difficult.”
Looking at the Argo spec. I don’t see the range over which the claimed accuracy prevails. And if I recall correctly, the precision of the instrument would need to be 0.0001C. That is quite remarkable.

If you look at this site, you will notice that the calibration tests were over the range 1C to 33C. And my reading of those charts would say that repeatability of the sensor is 0.001 to 0.0015C (one sigma) , and from the re-calibration of recovered sensors, they appear to have a drift over 5 years of about -0.001C plus or minus 0.001C (one sigma again).

Peter
January 1, 2012 11:05 am

Erinome:

The extra 0.54 W/m2 is continuous…If there is an additional forcing of 0.54 W/m2, that’s an extra 0.3 PW of heating. That’s not a negligible amount — natural heat transfer from the tropics is 3.2 PW.

Yes, it is continuous, as I said, and is enough to increase the SST by 1C in about 1 and a half years, in fact every one and a half years.
But, as we all know, that isn’t happening. So what gives?
Also, how come, according to Trenberth, Hansen, etc, has this 0.5C imbalance only come about within the last few years? (hence Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’)
Think it through properly.