Over at The Conversation Andrew Glikson asks Fact check: has global warming paused? citing an old Skeptical Science favorite graph, and that’s the problem; it’s old data. He writes:
As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans (since 1950, more than 20×1022 joules), the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4×1022 joules.
…
To summarise, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.
Hmmm, if “…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…” I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory (PMEL) using more up to date data from the ARGO buoy system?
Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003. Note the highlighted period in yellow:
From PMEL at http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
The plot shows the 18-year trend in 0-700 m Ocean Heat Content Anomaly (OHCA) estimated from in situ data according to Lyman et al. 2010. The error bars include uncertainties from baseline climatology, mapping method, sampling, and XBT bias correction.
Historical data are from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. Additional displays of the upper OHCA are available in the Plots section.
As Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say: “Bazinga!“
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for the PMEL graph.
UPDATE: See the above graph converted to temperature anomaly in this post.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
D.B. Stealey says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:59 pm . .
THANK for the compliment D.B . . . the way that that ‘martian moon man’ (for those astronomy buffs out there) was going on about all that additional energy, my thought was ‘so what ?’; and it should be easy enough to calculate a temp change . .
Even his comment a little later about the ocean being a *HUGE* heat reservoir is misleading in my opinion, and I take exception to it. Now in terms of ‘joules’ and energy, it may be considered huge; HOWEVER, from a practical (and probably even a thermodynamic standpoint), an increase of ocean water from, say 84F to 84.03F (using his 0.014 C, and roughly converting it to F) in the tropics, or maybe 70 to 70.015 toward the ‘temperate zone’ latitudes, and , say 40 to 40.015 at higher latitudes, it has ZERO MEASURABLE EFFECT on the system – to evaporate any measurable amount of water, or somehow thermodynamically to do any measurable ‘work’ such as affecting ocean currents, relative to the heat energy (the enthalpy) already there.
Gary Hladik, even more interesting to see how Josh Willis of NASA corrected the ocean cooling to ocean warming from the first ARGO paper.http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
Bart says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Phobos says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:27 pm
“— much more relevant than just the 0-700 m level — “
How so? IR from CO2 backradiation does not penetrate nearly that far. How are you supposing the heat gets there, when there is no change in the waters above?…”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Before one considers how much DWLWIR penetrates the oceans to depth, one has to consider whether any and, if so, how much DWLWIR even reaches the very top surface layer of the ocean.
The optical absorption of LWIR in water is such that 20% of LWIR is fully absorbed within 1 micron, 40% is fully absorbed within 2 microns, and 60% is fully absorbed within 4 microns. About 83% of it is fully absorbed within the first 10 microns. See for example http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/ This website cites a plot taken from Wiki.
For all practical purposes water is a LWIR block, much like a parasol is a sun block, or a high factor sun cream block is a powerful harmful UV block.
The first question that arises is, given that water is such an effective LWIR block, how does any DWLWIR reach the top surface of the oceans? This question arises because the ocean model referred to in Wiki (and the like) is an example of an ideal ocean, far divorced from the realities of life. The ocean considered is the ocean that is as flat as a mill pond. But in real life, this is not earth’s oceans.
According to a study conducted by Stanford University, the average wind speed over water is Beaufort 4 (see http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html) Of course, averages can be misleading due to variability, and in the Atlantic and South Pacific, the wind speed is greater (see http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/ResourceMap/index-world.html). I have spent approximately some 30 years studying ship’s logs covering trading worldwide, and I can confirm that it is rather rare to see wind conditions of less than force 4 being recorded on ocean voyages, and such a review would suggest an average more like force 5 (on worldwide ocean trading routes).
NOAA gives a description of sea conditions as follows; http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html. It will be noted that at force 3 “crests begin to break, scattered whitecaps” and at force 4 there are “numerous whitecaps”. What does this mean? Well it means that already at force 3 the wind is drawing off the very top surface of the water which can be seen by the naked eye as crest beginning to break. The optical resolution of the human eye is not high, and the fact that the unaided human eye can, from a distance, see white crests means that more than a few microns of water is being ripped off. The human hair is between 17 to 180 microns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair) perhaps on average approximately 50 microns (consider when standing say 5 metres from a person, how easy is it to see individual strands of hair?). The fact that the human eye can see white crests, which by force 4 are “numerous” in number, suggests that not less than about 50 microns of water is being ripped off the oceans and lies immediately above the oceans, particularly within say ½ metre above the ocean, as wind swept spray and spume.
Accordingly, before any DWLWIR can reach the oceans it has to first find its way through the wind swept spray and spume which lies immediately above the oceans. Given the optical absorption of LWIR in water, for practical purposes if there is even just 6 microns of wind swept spray and spume lying above the oceans at most only about 25% of DWLWIR even gets to reach the top surface of the oceans. If there is more than 6 microns of windswept spray and spume, even less than 25% of DWLWIR could penetrate this barrier. This is an issue which seems to be overlooked by those promoting the AGW meme.
It may well be the case that in force 5 conditions and above, none of the DWLWIR even reaches the very top layer of the oceans because it cannot penetrate the IR block consisting of the wind swept spray and spume that exists immediately above but divorced from the ocean below.
It is only once the DWLWIR has penetrated the spray and spume, that one has to ask how does that residual element (ie., such DWLWIR that is not absorbed by the windswept spray and spume which exists and lies immediately above the top surface of the ocean) heat the deep ocean? ie., the point to which Bart alludes. It is not easy to see by what mechanism DWLWIR can effectively heat the ocean, for a number of reasons:
1. Little if any DWLWIR actually reaches the top surface of the ocean since, for reasons detailed above, in the real world, most of it must surely be fully absorbed by the windswept spray and spume that lies immediately above the ocean (ie., say within ½ metre or so above the ocean).
2. Of the residual DWLWIR that has found its way past the windswept spray and spume some 60% of it is fully absorbed within 4 microns of the top surface of the ocean. But what happens to the DWLWIR so absorbed? Absorption of IR photons is essentially a light speed event, and theoretically (assuming the K&T energy budget is correct) there is so much energy absorbed within the first 4 microns of the top surface of the ocean that there would be copious amounts of evaporation (perhaps so much as to provide approximately 15 metres, or so, of global rainfall). This would arise unless in some way the energy received could be dissipated downwards into the deeper ocean before the top 4 microns are heated to evaporation point by DWLWIR being absorbed in the top 4 micron layer. But how is the energy dissipated downwards? What is the mechanism that dissipates this energy downwards?
3. It is not easy to see by what mechanism the LWIR absorbed in the first 4, or so, microns is dissipated downwards. It would appear that it cannot be conducted downwards since the energy flux is upwards not downwards at the top of the ocean and there is no known mechanism whereby conduction can take place against the direction of energy flux. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature from which it will be seen that the top surface of the ocean is cooler and that the ocean temperature increases from the top 10 microns through to about 5 metres, and only as from a depth of about 5metres onwards does the ocean begin to cool. It follows from this that energy flux is upwards not downwards, so how can any energy absorbed within the first 4 or so microns be conducted downwards?
4. The only other method that I have seen suggested is ocean overturning. However this is a slow mechanical method measured in many hours (about half a day). It is not clear that ocean over turning can effectively wrap and drag down the very top micron layer 9this is a problem in itself) but even if it could, this is slow mechanical process cannot dissipate energy downwards at a speed greater or nearly equal to the speed and rate at which DWLWIR is absorbed in the top 4 micron layer. Given the speed of photonic absorption in the top 4 or so micron layer, the mechanical process involved in ocean over turning cannot dissipate that energy down to depth before the energy absorbed in the top 4, or so, microns would raise the temperature in the first 4, or so, microns of the oceans to a temperature sufficient to drive evaporation form the top microns of the ocean.
I have asked Willis a number of times to explain the process by which energy from DWLWIR absorbed in the top few microns of the oceans can be dissipated downwards to depth before the energy absorbed in those microns heats those microns of water to a temperature driving evaporation. Despite many requests being made of him, he has at no time explained the mechanical process involved. He has not explained how heat can be conducted to depth against the direction of energy flux, nor how ocean overturning can dissipate the energy absorbed in the top microns before that energy would drive evaporation of those very microns of water.
As I see matters there is a significant problem with respect to the behavoir of DWLWIR and its interaction with the oceans which presently is not fully addressed, or even addressed at all, by those that support the AGW meme.
PS. I do not like referencing Wiki, but I consider that on the aspects covered above it is not contentious.
PPS. As noted I have studied ship’s logs for approximately 30 years. Today, ships record ocean temperature by taking the water temperature at the inlet manifold of the engine cooling system. This water is drawn at depth. Depending on the design and configuration of the vessel (to what extent it is laden and how it is being trimmed), an ocean going ship will draw water from a depth of between say 5m and 13m. A depth of 8m to 10m is probably quite typical (if there is such a thing). It will therefore be appreciated that when a ship records water temperature it is measuring water temperature drawn at a depth of say about 8 to 9m, not surface temperature. In practice, there is for the main part relatively little difference between the water temperature at about 8m and surface, but of course, ship’s logs, since they are not recording surface temperature, will understate what the surface temperature of the ocean is.
James Sexton says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:02 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Absolutely. Even if the coverage was increased a thousand fold, we would still not have an accurate assessment of ocean heat content. ARGO is to be welcomed, but its coverage is far too sparse to draw any firm conclusions.
The point applies equally to all data sets being used in climate science. They are not fit for the purpose to which they are being put, the uncertainties are significant and are not sufficiently recognised by those promoting the AGW meme..
Bob, even more interesting; sea level budget including GRACE was used as justification for the corrections to bring OHC more in line. That leads me to believe ARGO is not based purely on empirical data by and of itself. Josh Willis had an epiphany.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page2.php
Martin C says: “Even his comment a little later about the ocean being a *HUGE* heat reservoir is misleading in my opinion, and I take exception to it. Now in terms of ‘joules’ and energy, it may be considered huge; HOWEVER, from a practical (and probably even a thermodynamic standpoint), an increase of ocean water from, say 84F to 84.03F (using his 0.014 C, and roughly converting it to F) in the tropics, or maybe 70 to 70.015 toward the ‘temperate zone’ latitudes, and , say 40 to 40.015 at higher latitudes, it has ZERO MEASURABLE EFFECT on the system.”
Here is an exercise for you. Estimate, to the nearest order of magnitude, the change in average ocean temperature between a glacial and interglacial phase of an ice age. It is closer to:
a) 10 C
b) 1 C
c) 0.1 C?
Re: Berényi Péter at 2:20 pm
To continue with Berenyi’s numbers,
if Mass of the Ocean, upper 2 km = 6.50E+20 kg
Specific heat of water is about = 4200 J/kgK
1 ZetaJoule is 1.00E+21 J
Heat to raise upper 2km Ocean 1 deg K = 2730 ZJ / deg K
Heat to raise 0-700m Ocean 1 deg K = 960 ZJ/K
Fig. 3 Y-Axis Range = 250 ZJ = 0.092 deg K (over 2 km depth)
Last Figure 0-700 m Anomaly = 180 ZJ = 0.188 deg K
Error bar height = 30 – 40 ZJ = 0.03 – 0.04 deg K.
We should also annotate these graphs to show when the Argo units were started to be deployed (mid 1990s?) when there were 1000, when 2000. The year 2007 saw the 3000 unit constellation in place. So frankly, the 0.1 deg K rise from 1993 to 2003 might be no more than inadequate spatial sampling, with error bars not accounting for the undersampling.
Which leads us back to Nyquist sampling as discussed in Decimals of Precision – Trenberth’s missing heat WUWT Jan 26, 2012.
See also:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/argo-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/ –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/06/where-in-the-world-is-argo/ – On spatial sampling of Argo data.
.
I have asked Willis a number of times to explain the process by which energy from DWLWIR absorbed in the top few microns of the oceans can be dissipated downwards to depth before the energy absorbed in those microns heats those microns of water to a temperature driving evaporation.
Strawman argument. Nobody is claiming DWLWIR reaches the deep ocean. To the extent one can separate one packet of energy from another.
The oceans gain energy from visible light penetrating the oceans as much as 100 meters. In order for there to be no ocean warming. This energy gain must be lost at the surface.
Thus the oceans warm or cool due to factors that affect ocean heat loss at the surface, assuming constant solar insolation. One of those factors is DWLWIR, which increases the energy content of the atmosphere just above the surface (higher temps and increased humidity). Thus impeding energy loss from the ocean surface.
still ignoring that the ocean is not 700m depth and the sks graphs goes down to 2000m.
Phobos,
“Here is an exercise for you. Estimate, to the nearest order of magnitude, the change in average ocean temperature between a glacial and interglacial phase of an ice age. It is closer to:”
And you would know the correct answer how? 18O in carbonate shells? Oh wait, I thought that measured meltwater influx.
The reality is we have only the crudest notion what average ocean temperature is today. Guesstimates of glacial/interglacial average atmospheric change range from 4.5 to 10 degrees.
For the measures covered by the yellow line, the first half readings are all below the yellow line and the second half are above it. That’s not ‘flat’. (This isn’t the first time I’ve seen people making that mistake and I don’t expect it will be the last.)
REPLY: and again as answered previously and made clear in the story, it isn’t a trend line (though you want it to be) it is simply a yellow highlight to draw attention to the section of interest, just like I use the same highlight tool on sections of text or tables I post. – Anthony
Phobos says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:34 pm
So, let me see if I have this right. You are saying that the deep ocean is being heated because the upper waters have a layer a few microns thick which absorbs IR backradiation from CO2, and this causes the upper waters to lose heat, apparently extremely, less rapidly than they otherwise would, and this excess heat is somehow being wicked to the depths without increasing the heat content of the upper waters.
Is that what you are saying?
Richard verner
Feb 25 2013 at 9:01PM
I like what you have to describe what happens out in the open ocean. However, if the wind is at force 4, the spray and spume you speak of is in a continuous transit state. It doesn’t matter what 4 micron absorbes the heat, a vast majority of that spray, spume and water surface, will churn within seconds by the wave action and the spray falling into the water. Not knowing more about how deep, waves mixes the surface, I am guessing, the top 5-10 meters, in the open ocean is quite well mixed. It will warm a little on a sunny windy day, it will cool a little on rainy dark days.
I grew up in an area where the tides are very small and the ocean is frequently covered in winter ice, but by late July and August the water is warm down to 4-5 meters, without any wind around. In fact, if it gets windy, then all that nice warm water we would go swimming in would be mixed out.
It cannot be that heating ends at the top 4 microns and everything below doesn’t warm somehow. It is not transferred through convection, currents or wind action. If it was, we’d freeze our butts off, instead of enjoying relatively warm 16-18C water 2-3meters down. With the sun up 18-19 hours a day in summer, the heat must simply be conducted down in such a stable environment. Discounting currents and wave action, some heat will conduct downwards. Not much but some.
The more interesting question is, how much would reach 700 meters down. I’d say nearly none. The layer is permanently stable, measured in geologic time. In other words, temperature changes if any happen due to tectonic changes, not much else.
The ARGO bouys are not tethered (?) so what stops them from “congregating” in the oceans like the pacific garbage patch?
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/ocean-trash-plaguing-our-sea
Rehardless, we know the data is “adjusted”.
davidq says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:27 am
Richard verner
Feb 25 2013 at 9:01PM
I like what you have to describe what happens out in the open ocean. However, if the wind is at force 4, the spray and spume you speak of is in a continuous transit state. It doesn’t matter what 4 micron absorbes the heat, a vast majority of that spray, spume and water surface, will churn within seconds by the wave action and the spray falling into the water. Not knowing more about how deep, waves mixes the surface, I am guessing, the top 5-10 meters, in the open ocean is quite well mixed. It will warm a little on a sunny windy day, it will cool a little on rainy dark days.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree that the spray and spume is in continuous transit and I agree that without knowing more about how deep waves mixes the surface, it is not easy to draw firm conclusions. What I have raised is what I perceive to be an issue on which more research and consideration is required. I consider it to be a factor that is overlooked.
I am sceptical that there is much interaction between windswept spray and spume and the water surface churning. The spray and spume is divorced from the very surface of the ocean; it is stripped off it and is airborne. At this juncture, convectional forces work upwards and away from the top surface ocean layer below, making churning difficult. Further, the airborne windspeed is say 7 to 9 metres per second (say 12 to 19 knots) whereas the speed of the ocean wave is perhaps only a couple of metres a second. The mechanical churning is at a slower rate and it is therefore difficult to see how it can effectively capture the windswept spray and spume and drag it back into the ocean surface below.
I have no definitive answers. I merely suggest that this is an area that needs much consideration of the physical processes involved since it may well be the case that relatively little DWLWIR actually finds its way into the top surface layer of the oceans and if that is indeed the case (even if only 10% of DWLWIR is absorbed in spray and spume and does not penetrate the top surface of the ocean) then reconsideration needs to be given as to whether DWLWIR is keeping the oceans from freezing (as Willis and others would assert), or whether it is solar energy received in the tropical ocean which is preventing the oceans from freezing (the amount of solar energy received in the tropical oceans being capable of raising the tropical oceans to well above 30 degC but this excess energy rather than heating the tropical oceans to a temperature above 30 degC is distributed to the non tropical oceans (thereby warming the non tropical oceans) by way of ocean currents etc.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:14 pm
The ONLY correct answer is to modestly admit in all due humility ” We don’t know.”
———————————————————–
I agree. To that end, 75% of all Climate funding should be immediately diverted to real world problems, h0w about we start with hunger in the USA? There should not be a man, woman or CHILD that goes to bed hungry. The other 25% can be divied up by people who’ve shown to be, and use the scientific method in their research.
Peter in MD
The deep ocean heat content argument is rather desperate since the models DON’T predict that the deep oceans should warm before everything else. No physical mechanism has been proposed which would concentrate heat down there. Indeed the time frame for ocean processes looks completely wrong for deep ocean warming (if such is occurring) to be caused by CO2. I remind you all that the deep ocean is still warming in response to the end of the last ice age! Not a sign of a system which responds quickly to changes in conditions.
The alarmists are arguing a highly inconsistent position here. If there is no mechanism to channel heat rapidly into the deep ocean then any observed warming down there can have nothing to do with recent changes in atmospheric CO2. On the other hand if such a mechanism did exist then it would pretty much kill any possibility of CO2 induced warming being dangerous. A mechanism of this type would mean that the two degrees of atmospheric warming which we are all supposed to be so concerned about would manifest instead as a 0.0005 degree change in deep ocean temperatures. If we have trouble even measuring it, how can it be a catastrophe.
Yes that tiny amount of ocean warming does involve an impressive amount of heat. If you could somehow take that heat back out of the deep ocean and put it into the atmosphere you would see some significant temperature changes. But the second law of thermodynamics forbids this. It is absolutely impossible for that 0.0005 degree change in deep ocean temperatures to ever convert itself back into a 2 degree rise in atmospheric temperatures for much the same reason that you can’t boil a pot of water on a block of ice. Heat just doesn’t flow in that direction.
Phobos says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:43 pm
…[the] vast majority of the Sun’s 120,000 trillion watts comes in and then leaves, of course. The 45 trillion watts is what’s sticking around (in just the top 1/5th of the ocean)…
You were writing about the 0-2000 m depth. If the average ocean depth is 4 km then the 45 trillion watts is coming from half of the oceans and not 1/5.
Well, it appears my pleas to Phobos to help us get the source codes for the data he referred to in the first link he posted went unheeded. Given subsequent feeble responses to other simple questions, I think he/she is in over their head now…typical of our CAGW alarmists [sigh]. I’ll stop here…
THe picture I see shows heat increasing. Maybe more slowly, but I see nothing I would call a pause. Be fair, or the site turns into worthless propaganda, easily cut down by the opposing viewpoint.
OK, let me rephrase the question: what best correlates with the rise in temps since the start of the industrial revolution?
****
Phobos says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:43 pm
****
Nice wordsmithing! Reminds me of CO2 effects measured in nuclear bomb-blasts per unit area.
@frank K: I have no special access to any code. You can pursue it as well as I could.
Phobos’ claim makes my crap detector go off. Now that surface temperatures have been flat for 16 years we are to believe that by some unknown process CO2 greenhouse effect has stopped heating the atmousphere and started to heat the oceans?
It would appear to be good news as there is plenty of potential heat storage in the oceans that by the time CO2 doubles, we’ll have hardly noticed.
Champagne anyone?
Phobos says:
February 26, 2013 at 7:39 am
Well, it was YOUR link. Too bad you don’t want to help out…apparently your not too curious.