Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
According to the current climate paradigm, if the forcing (total downwelling energy) increases, a combination of two things happens. Some of the additional incoming energy (forcing) goes into heating the surface, and some goes into heating the ocean. Lately there’s been much furor about what the Levitus ocean data says about how much energy has gone into heating the ocean, from the surface down to 2000 metres depth. I discussed some of these issues in The Layers of Meaning in Levitus.
I find this furor somewhat curious, in that the trends and variations in the heat content of the global 0-2000 metre layer of the ocean are so small. The size is disguised by the use of units of 10^22 joules of energy … not an easy one to wrap my head around. So what I’ve done is I’ve looked at the annual change in heat content of the upper ocean (0-2000m). Then I’ve calculated the global forcing (in watts per square metre, written here as “W/m2”) that would be necessary to move that much heat into or out of the ocean. Figure 1 gives the results, where heat going into the ocean is shown as a positive forcing, and heat coming out as a negative forcing.
Figure 1. Annual heat into/out of the ocean, in units of watts per square metre.
I found several things to be interesting about the energy that’s gone into or come out of the ocean on an annual basis.
The first one is how small the average value of the forcing actually is. On average, little energy is going into the ocean, only two-tenths of a watt per square metre. In a world where the 24/7 average downwelling energy is about half a kilowatt per square metre, that’s tiny, lost in the noise. Nor does it portend much heating “in the pipeline”, whatever that may mean.
The second is that neither the average forcing, nor the trend in that forcing, are significantly different from zero. It’s somewhat of a surprise.
The third is that in addition to the mean not being significantly different from zero, only a few of the individual years have a forcing that is distinguishable from zero.
Those were a surprise because with all of the hollering about Trenberth’s missing heat and the Levitus ocean data, I’d expected to find that we could tell something from the Levitus’s numbers.
But unfortunately, there’s still way too much uncertainty to even tell if either the mean or the trend of the energy going into the ocean are different from zero … kinda limits our options when it comes to drawing conclusions.
w.
DATA: Ocean temperature figures are from NOAA, my spreadsheet is here.
Trick says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Thanks, Trick. You’d be right if the English language were logical, but it’s not. As a result, in climate science the amount of thermal energy in the ocean is called the “ocean heat content” and is known far and wide by its acronym, OHC. Go figure.
Me, I’m not one to butt my head against walls, but if you want to try to convince the planet you’re right and established usage is wrong, well, be my guest …
w.
Willis wrote:
I’ve shown that in excruciating mathematical detail above.
No, you’re applied some formulas, without understanding what they meant or their limitations.
In particular, the Nychka equation is inapplicable here. The document you referenced even says it doesn’t work when n_eff < 6.
Willis wrote:
Now you have me stumped.
Oh please. The example OHC(Y)=kY clearly shows that your methodology is incorrect. It predicts a forcing trend of zero, when clearly the OHC is increasing.
It doesn’t get simplier than that.
Willis wrote:
What I said in the post and the comments is that the data are inadequate to determine a trend in either the OHC, or in the forcing responsible for the changes in the OHC.
Where did you calculate the statistics for the trend in OHC?
All I see is the trend in its annual change. Very different.
Ximinyr says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:19 pm
You appear to have glossed over what Willis has written without paying attention.
“The first one is how small the average value of the forcing actually is. On average, little energy is going into the ocean, only two-tenths of a watt per square metre. In a world where the 24/7 average downwelling energy is about half a kilowatt per square metre, that’s tiny, lost in the noise. Nor does it portend much heating “in the pipeline”, whatever that may mean.
The second is that neither the average forcing, nor the trend in that forcing, are significantly different from zero. It’s somewhat of a surprise.
The third is that in addition to the mean not being significantly different from zero, only a few of the individual years have a forcing that is distinguishable from zero.”
So, no, he is not saying what you and Appell (unless you are the same person) claim he is saying.
Willis wrote:
So my methodology doesn’t predict anything about the trend in forcing.
Does your own spreadsheet (cell P6) not say,
“”Mean: 0.2 ± 0.3 W/m2 (95%CI)
Trend: 0.1 ± 0.2 W/m2 per decade (95%CI)
Neither mean nor trend is statistically significant.””
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Levitus%20Forcing.xlsx
Willis wrote,
Heck, since the trend is not statistically distinguishable from zero, we cannot even say yet if there is a trend in the OHC.
You are calculating the trend in the ANNUAL CHANGE IN OHC, not in OHC.
Surely you can see that.
My OHC(Y)=kY example above makes this very clear.
Bart says;
,I.The first one is how small the average value of the forcing actually is. On average, little energy is going into the ocean, only two-tenths of a watt per square metre.
Willis isn’t calculating any “forcing.” For one thing he ignores heat moving into or out of the 2000 m layer of the ocean. In any case, heat transport is a “forcing” — it is just an exchange of heat. Forcings happen at the TOA.
Bart says:
The second is that neither the average forcing, nor the trend in that forcing, are significantly different from zero. It’s somewhat of a surprise.
It’s not a surprise. As the OHC(Y)=kY example shows, the ocean can steadily and monotonically gain heat when the “forcing” as defined by Willis has a trend of zero.
That immediately tells you that his interpretation of what he’s calculating is wrong. Period.
Ximinyr says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:38 pm
You appear to somehow be editing out the part you don’t want to see. The average of what Willis calls “forcing” is indistinguishable from zero. Thus, the slope in OHC is indistinguishable from zero, too. What Willis is saying is that, as in the random walk example I provided earlier, there is no assurance that the slope in OHC is not a spurious, statistical artifact. At least, that is how I read it.
Willis then goes on to say that the trend is also statistically indistinguishable from zero. But, that is just icing on the cake.
I have not delved into Willis’ calculations, and am not vouching for them. It just appears to me that your line of attack is unfounded.
Willis
I’ve just downloaded and had a very quick look at your spreadsheet. I’ll have a closer look later. But something caught my attention. Now It’s possible I’ve misunderstood exactly what each part of SS is calculating but I notice that Cell F3 contains the value 5.11E+14. Cell P3 contains the text “m2/surface” which I assume refers to the value in F3.
It’s just that the total surface area of the earth, I believe, is about 510 million sq km which looks pretty close to your F3 value. Is this what you intend – or do you really want to use the surface area of the ocean which is about 70% of this value.
sorry if I haven’t understood what’s going on. .
Bart says:
The average of what Willis calls “forcing” is indistinguishable from zero. Thus, the slope in OHC is indistinguishable from zero, too.
Absolutely not.
The example OHC(Y)=kY explicitedly shows your claim is untrue — that a zero trend in “forcing” does not mean a zero trend in OHC(t).
John Finn says:
It’s just that the total surface area of the earth, I believe, is about 510 million sq km which looks pretty close to your F3 value. Is this what you intend – or do you really want to use the surface area of the ocean which is about 70% of this value.
It’s somewhat a matter of taste. Over 90% of the Earth’s extra heat is going into the oceans, so dividing by the total area of the Earth would seem to make sense. On the other hand, it’s explicitedly going into the ocean, so why not use it’s area?
It’s easy to transition between the two, so it’s really a mote point.
Bart says:
I have not delved into Willis’ calculations, and am not vouching for them. It just appears to me that your line of attack is unfounded.
Simply consider the case OHC(Y)=kY, which I wrote about it detail above.
Willis’s method finds, clearly, that the trend in “forcing” for this function is zero.
But obviously the ocean is steadily gaining heat.
Hence, Willis’s interpretation of “forcing” is clearly wrong. It’s obviously wrong. It can’t be made clearer.
ferd berple says:
June 20, 2013 at 6:37 am
Last time I dipped my toe in the ocean it was way too cold. Maybe if you live in the tropics the oceans are barely warm enough to go swimming. Everywhere else and you risk dying of exposure with anything more than a quick dip.
——————————————————-
Not quite true, Ferd. I have been in the ocean off Perth, Western Australia (31.9 degrees S) in summer, and the water was tepid. Summer currents bring this water a long way beyond the tropics.
It is certainly true that there is a lot of cold and dangerous ocean on the planet. But, given that the Pacific is the largest of them all, and most of it is in tropical or temperate zones, things are not quite as bad as you claim. The Indian Ocean – which Perth adjoins – is also substantial, and contains significant amounts of (to me) water which is like a bath you need to get out of.
Ximinyr says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:22 pm
“The example OHC(Y)=kY explicitedly shows your claim is untrue — that a zero trend in “forcing” does not mean a zero trend in OHC(t).”
What a curious blind spot. Please read more carefully.
From Eric H. on June 20, 2013 at 10:58 am:
Actually that comes from what you said just before, “So the sun and clouds (drivers) are responding to CO2 (bad alignment)? How does that work exactly?” You mangled my clear analogy and assigned “sun and clouds” as drivers. My apologies for fleshing out my analogy as I intended rather than address the mangling.
Frankly, after reading this stuff for this long, I doubt there’s any particular thing that can be called a “driver”. Sure, the Sun provides the energy, but there are many feedback mechanisms, with many interconnections, that regulate how much solar energy is absorbed, rejected, and re-emitted. There are compensation mechanisms, including biological, that adapt to variances in solar output over time and maintain temperatures.
The climate travels in a rut. Unless it drops into the deeper rut of glaciation, where it’ll travel much longer.
It’s feedbacks on feedbacks, feedbacks all the way down.
I look for the quirks, the snags, where what should be the smooth flow of logic gets hung up. I comment to show those glitches, make them apparent to those who don’t realize they’re there.
Thus you imply I am both an idiot and a pig. But you have done so respectfully, as is your wont when posting. I appreciate your respectfulness.
Gee, I have about that long myself, but I do it for survival, couldn’t and can’t afford to run to the repair shop every time. I remember putting up a new power rack on my 1978 Ford Fairmont, in winter, with snow so deep outside I had to cut a path through the snow, it was up to the door handles, to get it to the front of the garage, where I worked underneath on a tarp on snow while wearing several layers. Fun times. It’s much better to break out the engine hoist and rebuild an engine in summer.
So you couldn’t point to anything specifically wrong with what I said? Oh well, thanks for the employment advice. You presented it quite respectfully.
Bart says:
What a curious blind spot. Please read more carefully.
I have read all your comments. Certainly you are much smarter than me, so you will have to provide more detail here, or just the same detail for dumb people like me.
Is Willis really going to ignore the OHC(Y)=kY example, that disproves his method?
Really Ximinyr your really struggling with this cool graph that shows a huge change in energy 200×10^23. But this change is really insignificant depending on what unit of measure your using. I think Willis has shown that the forcing that is “causing it” is actually indistinguishable from zero. Additionally the source data your referring to is not raw data but massaged data. No one has actually determined in water accuracy of the multitude of instruments that created that data set. So the Data is somewhat suspect. another 20 years of ARGO with some expansion and a few in water experiments would nicely let us know what is actually going on.
The oceans of the world may be cooling or heating and cooling. We don’t know based on these data sets. The Data has been massaged because some folks didn’t like what it said compared to some models. Some ARGO’s were pulled out because they were too cool without doing anything other than tossing the cold readings other older instruments were adjusted cooler without any real onsite analysis. So time will tell.
David Riser wrote:
I think Willis has shown that the forcing that is “causing it” is actually indistinguishable from zero.
Wow — is there not a single person here who understands how to do basic functional algebra?
A “forcing” trend of 0 says nothing about the change in Ocean Heat Content.
The example OHC(Y)=kY shows this explicitedly.
Did anyone here study calculas, or at least algebra?
David Riser wrote:
The oceans of the world may be cooling or heating and cooling. We don’t know based on these data sets.
Utterly, completely, totally false.
Look at the graph of the data. Does it look like anything but an increase to you??
David Riser wrote:
Some ARGO’s were pulled out because they were too cool without doing anything other than tossing the cold readings other older instruments were adjusted cooler without any real onsite analysis.
Which buoys? Serial numbers? Where can I read a report on the particular buoys that were allegedly pulled?
Please let me know. Thanks.
Willis 2:15pm: LOL, I know, I know, & you’re welcome. But ohhh…the electrons, the electrons… Not physical…
Ban heat, no more use for it, bury it with the the caloric. One small step for a top post, one giant leap for modern science.
Ocean energy content. So much more meaningful. Physical too. OEC. Take the lead. Sounds great.
You could be the one to stop a lot of the irritating heat discussion here or your next post, just don’t use the word heat, ban it, save your own time too. Use energy in joules ALL the time instead of heat in the same joules. You could put a whole organization out of business (you know the one…). Out.