Dana Nuccitelli published an article today in The Guardian Does the global warming “pause” mean what you think it means?…a play off a line by Inigo Montoya from “The Princess Bride”. Dana has expressed his misunderstanding of one of the most commonly used metrics of global warming—the surface temperature record. And he continues to display his unwillingness to accept that the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead.
Nuccitelli presents Box 3.1 Figure 1 from Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (my Figure 1).
Figure 1
(See the approved Chapter 3 (Observations: Ocean) of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.)
Nuccitelli writes:
The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That’s the only part of the climate for which the warming has ‘paused’.
Nuccitelli is correct that the halt in global warming applies to surface temperatures, but he’s incorrect that it applies only to it. The warming of the top 700 meters has also slowed to a crawl, and is nonexistent in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, but more on that later.
The global surface temperature record includes land surface air temperature (measured at 2 meters from the surface) and sea surface temperature measurements. And as a reference, the GISS, NCDC and UKMO global surface temperature products show little (GISS) to no (UKMO & NCDC) warming since January 2001, based on the linear trends. (See Figure 2, which is from the post here.)
Figure 2
Nuccitelli refers his readers to “tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure” (my Figure 1), which is identified by the IPCC as “Atmosphere” in the illustration—not the surface of the oceans.
In their discussion of “Atmosphere” for their Box 3.1, Figure 1, the IPCC explains that the atmospheric component is estimated from lower troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures, based on satellite measurements. The lower troposphere temperature measurements are from the layer that is approximately 3000 meters above sea level.
The IPCC has NOT presented the heat content for the surface of the oceans in their Box 3.1, Figure 1. The ocean surface warming is included in top 700 meters of ocean warming—not in the atmosphere.
# # #
Further to the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1, Dana Nuccitelli forgot to advise his readers that the data in the IPCC’s graph have been smoothed with a 5-year filter, and that the smoothing would hide the slowdown in warming of the oceans at depths of 0 to 700 meters and 700 to 2000 meters. And he has elected not to tell his readers that the quarterly NODC ocean heat content data for the North Atlantic during the ARGO era continues to show very little warming for depths of 0-2000 meters and cooling at depths of 0-700 meters. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3
He’s overlooked the fact that the ocean heat content data for the North Pacific show cooling at both levels, with the 0-2000 meter data cooling at a lesser rate than the 0-700 meter data. (See Figure 4.)
Figure 4
(Figures 3 and 4 are from the post here. And the data are available here from the NODC website.)
CO2 is supposed to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas. Obviously, increased CO2 emissions in recent years have had no impact on the ocean heat in the Northern Hemisphere.
# # #
Nuccitelli uses the tired and misleading “atomic bomb” metric:
As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.
The IPCC doesn’t mention Hiroshima atomic bombs anywhere in their Chapter 3; the words “Hiroshima”, “atom”, and “bomb” do not appear in Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s AR5; so don’t think the IPCC is responsible for this nonsensical claim. One would have to assume Nuccitelli is referring to the 0.6 watts/meter^2 imbalance at the surface found in papers like Stephens et al (2013). See Figure 5.
Figure 5
As I wrote in Climate Models Fail:
The total of the downward shortwave (solar) radiation and longwave (infrared) radiation is about 534 watts/meter^2, so the estimated imbalance of 0.6 watts/meter^2 is only about 0.1% of the total downward radiation at the surface. Or, in other words, the total amount of downward radiation at the surface is about 890 times more than the difference. Also note the uncertainty in the imbalance. The estimated imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/meter^2. That is, the uncertainties are 28 times greater than the estimated value. Bottom line: the surface imbalance may exist or it may not.
Note: Radiative imbalance is the metric that alarmists like to portray in terms of atomic bombs. What the alarmists fail to tell their readers is that sunlight and natural levels of infrared radiation at the surface are almost 890 times the number of atomic bombs they’re claiming, and that the uncertainties in radiative imbalance are 28 times the radiative imbalance.
# # #
Nuccitelli continues to mislead his readers in that article:
Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected.
As I noted in the post Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State, the modelers had to double the rate of the warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 31+ years in order to get the modeled land surface air temperatures even close to the observed warming. (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6
So let’s look at the difference between modeled and observed global sea surface temperatures since 1990 to put it into the time period Dana Nuccitelli prefers, Figure 7. “Climate scientists and their models expected” the surface of the global oceans to have warmed at a rate that was almost 3 times faster than observed since 1990.
Figure 7
Three times as fast must mean “as fast as climate scientists and their models expected” in the new climate change doubletalk of global warming enthusiasts.
# # #
Nuccitelli and the global warming enthusiasts from the IPCC like to present global warming in terms that are meaningless to most people, in Joules with lots of zeroes after it. The units in the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1 (my Figure 1) are in Zettajoules or Joules*10^21. But as we’ve illustrated and discussed recently, the warming of the oceans takes on a whole new perspective when we present it in terms familiar to people: deg C. (See Figure 8, which is from the blog post here.) Surface temperatures stopped warming, the warming of the top 700 meters of the oceans has slowed to a crawl, so if there is continued warming at depths of 700 to 2000 meters, it is so miniscule that it’s not coming back to haunt anyone at any time in the future.
Figure 8
# # #
After a long discussion of multidecadal variations in surface temperatures, Nuccitelli’s final paragraph begins:
In terms of the threat from long-term global warming and climate change, it really doesn’t mean anything. It just means that at the moment, more global warming is being absorbed by the oceans, but the next time ocean cycles shift, we’ll experience accelerated surface warming just like we did in the 1990s.
But Nuccitelli misses the obvious. We discussed this in the post Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?:
Most people will also envision the multidecadal variations extending further into the future. That is, they will imagine a projection of future Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures repeating the slight cooling from 1945 to the mid-1970s along with the later warming, followed by yet another slight cooling of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, in a repeat of the past “cycle”. That is, they will envision the surface temperature record repeating itself. And in their minds’ eyes, they see an ever growing divergence between the models and their projections, like the one shown in Figure [9].
Figure 9
FURTHER READING
In my book Climate Models Fail, I have collected my past findings about climate model failings, and illustrated others, and I’ve presented highlights from the research papers critical of climate models—and I “translated” those research findings for persons without scientific or technical backgrounds. And as noted earlier, there is also a discussion of the natural warming of the global oceans. The free preview of Climate Models Fail is available here. It includes the Introduction, Table of Contents and the Closing. Climate Models Fail is available in pdf and Kindle formats. Refer to my blog post New Book: “Climate Models Fail” for further information, the synopsis from the Kindle webpage and purchase/download links.
Ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans warmed via natural ocean processes, not from manmade greenhouse gases. This has been addressed in dozens of blog posts here and with cross posts at WattsUpWithThat for almost 5 years. I further discussed this in minute detail in my book Who Turned on the Heat? It is only available in .pdf form. A preview is here. Who Turned on the Heat? is described further in, and is available for sale through, my blog post “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About El Niño and La Niña”.
CLOSING
The hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead. Global warming enthusiasts like Dana Nuccitelli and the IPCC just haven’t come to terms with their losses. They should be burying it with dignity, and moving on to greener pastures, but they’re not. They’ve chosen to parade around a failure of science like a pull toy.
The Ocean Heat Content is derived from the temperature of the water.
The Argo floats do not measure joules – they measure temperature of the water which is then converted into joules for the whole ocean or for a particular volume of water, across a m^2 whatever. The energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 C is 4.1840 joules.
We also know that a joule/second is a Watt so it can also be determined how many Watts/m2/time are being absorbed in the ocean.
Ocean Heat can be measured into TempC or Joules or W/m2/yr – they are all equivalent type measures. You just need the right conversion formulae.
Obviously Brian does not know that.
Some conversion factors for the 0-2000 Metre Ocean.
0.01C rise in the 0-2000 metre Ocean = 3.03 x 10^22 joules
1.0 W/m2/year absorbed in the Oceans = 1.13 X 10^22 joules
——–
Other comparisons
The Sun provides the Earth with 386.4 x 10^22 joules per year.
The 0-2000 metre Ocean is absorbing 0.59 x 10^22 joules per year.
The Land, atmosphere and ice-melt is absorbing 0.057 x 10^22 joules per year
Gareth Phillips says:
October 18, 2013 at 6:37 am
Dana N. sets out his rationale on Skeptical Science, http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-global-warming-pause-mean-what-you-think.html I’ll also link Bobs response on that site. I’d be very interested to see Dana’s response to Bobs analysis of the situation.
It would not make any sense for Bob to answer on that unreliable site just to see answers being changed and adapted to fit the narative – check why the respective site is specifically mentioned “unreliable” in the blog roll at WUWT.
Brian says:
October 19, 2013 at 11:17 am
So Bob says AGW is dead because he thinks ocean heat is “not coming back to haunt anyone at any time in the future.” So despite all of his graphs that do not show heat content of the global oceans, Bob’s point comes down to this unsupported belief. Good luck actually persuading anyone who is not already a WUWT true-believer.
there is no such “WUWT true believer”. There is only a forum for conversation and opinions of peoples trying to analyze logically using the tools of the scientific method various claims.
There are no beliefs here except the trust that the scientific method can help us understand various phenomena – or at least I could not see anything else – if you see any please highlight and discuss.
I am very thankful to WUWT & Anthony in particular, and the whole WUWT team and commenter for this special forum.
To my understanding Bob says something different to your derived conclusions of what he said, so I conclude you did not took the time to read and understand what he says.
If you have something to say you should say the rationales – you jump to conclusions without basing it on anything, only on words that have been potentially fed to you somewhere else.
The ocean heat content for the pre-ARGO era is a stretch and using it on a graph with the ARGO data is in my view wrong. One should not mix different ways of measuring as it may lead to totally wrong conclusions – or at least make the clear separation in the overview graph.
Secondly the 5 years smooth almost completely removes the ARGO data from the ocean heat content.
The error margins are so large that these are not even shown in the graph.
Taking many measurement in different location points does not reduce the error margin as some would like to make us believe.
The ocean heat content is very different to what the models expect which is a very important message that you seem to have missed.
@Bill Illis
My book says the sun provides irradiation to earth of ca. 1.5 x 10^22 J per 24 hours.
That would be 547 x 10^22 joules per year.
ca. 30% of that is lost to space due to deflection/ note why/because reduction/increase of O3/peroxides/nitric oxides TOA
may cause great differences.
An interesting aspect that many AGW believers seem to forget is that almost a a quarter of that is used for evaporation of water.
\
only about 0.023% is used by flora, i.e. plant/trees/crops etc (1975)
Since 1975 there has been a great increase in vegetation…
which traps heat….
This is why my only station showing an increase in mimina, pushing up means, was in Las Vegas.
Other places, like where people have been cutting trees shows a sharp decline in minima.
Makes you think, does it not?
( I am a greenie: make earth earth green even if it does cause more warming…..)
Barry and Brian,
Somehow you are attempting to suggest that the energy stored in the ocean as an increased temperature of a few thousandths of a degree could somehow manifest as an an atmospheric temperature of some few degrees sometime later. By doing this you are implicitly asserting that there is some mechanism for this, but there is not. The mechanism for the transfer of thermal energy is driven by the difference in absolute temperature. At best an ocean that is 0.001 degree warmer can impart 0.001 degrees of warming more than it would have if it hadn’t warmed. Once entering the ocean entropy dissipates the energy throught the volume of the ocean, the energy at the surface that is available is only that stored in a few microns at the surface for a medium 0.001 degrees hotter that It would have been. Essentially once the energy enters the ocean system thermal capacity means that energy is effectively lost. Not only that, any stored energy can only be released when the atmosphere is colder than the ocean because Nett thermal transfer only goes from hot to cold. Oceans therefore could only succeed in making winters and cold nights warm by releasing heat. On the whole any heat release by the ocean is likely to be very good for us
If global warming heat goes into the ocean, then it’s all over – global warming will never be a problem because than energy can never be released back at a rate or in a way that could cause any additional problems.
John Edmonston,
It is not strictly true to say energy received must equal energy emitted. What must be true it that energy in must equal energy out – of all forms. heat energy does change form and some of it is, some of the incoming energy is converted to kinetic energy and is expended in the gravitational system as pertubations in spin and orbit, rain expends kinetic energy converted from heat, lightning expends heat energy as electricity, light, sound etc. Plants turn some incoming energy into carbohydrates. These losses mean that the emission out will be less than the incoming energy by an amount equal to these losses. Climate models ignore the loss, or rather they missattribute these losses to CO2.
It really surprises me frankly that the climate industry claims that gigatonnes more water is cycling through the atmosphere then ignore the energy expended by gigatonnes of water hitting the eath at termjnal velocity.
Brian says:
October 19, 2013 at 11:17 am
So Bob says AGW is dead because he thinks ocean heat is “not coming back to haunt anyone at any time in the future.” So despite all of his graphs that do not show heat content of the global oceans, Bob’s point comes down to this unsupported belief. Good luck actually persuading anyone who is not already a WUWT true-believer.””
Brian, you’re an idiot and a know nothing one at that!
You just parrot the alarmists current, totally unproven, meme that extra energy is entering and hiding away in the deep oceans.
Even if this unproven meme was correct, you are too stupid to realise that, if this is the new hypothesised effect of increasing atmospheric CO2, then the global CAGW scare is dead as a Dodo.
Energy enters the oceans in a highly organised form and must become more disorganised as it dissipates amongst the deep oceans. There is no way for this energy to become highly organised again without breaching the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it cannot be released in ‘heat pulses’ it can only just cause a minor fractional increase in the Oceans surface temperature, where it interfaces with the troposphere and that can have no discernible effect on tropospheric temperatures.
So silly boy you can now move onto some other man made global catastrophe, I am sure that there will be one along soon. Unless of course you now want to disown the meme that increasing CO2 is causing the extra energy to go into the deep oceans.
Alan
@richardscourtney (and others saying something similar)
“I am ignoring the simple fact that you and Nuccitelli are ‘moving the goal posts’: global warming was always about rising surface temperature and NOT ocean heat content until the surface temperature stopped rising.”
This is plain wrong. From the Charney Report (1979, i.e. nineteen hundred seventy nine!):
“If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. The conclusions of prior studies have been generally reaffirmed. However, the study group points out that the ocean, the great and ponderous flywheel of the global climate system, may be expected to slow the course of observable climatic change. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late”
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf
And every IPCC report discusses the hydrosphere. Oceans have always been a part of the AGW theory. You may have a point if you would say that media attention always focussed on surface temperatures and only recently started including the hydrosphere.
Sisi:
Your post addressed to me and others at October 20, 2013 at 3:11 pm says
No, you are plain wrong.
I am holding in my left hand the First IPCC Report.
Its Figures 5.4 summarise temperature, Figures 5.6 summarise precipitation, and Figures 5.8 summarise soil moisture projections.
Section 7 discusses Observed climate variation and change.
Section 7.4 deals with Surface Temperature Variations and Change. It deals with temperature from pages 207 to 229 inclusive with an additional short Subsection on temperature (7.11.1) on pages 231 and 232. Droughts and Floods are covered in the single paragraph which is Subsection 7.11.2 on page 232. And precipitation changes obtain only a single sentence in the Section’s Conclusions.
If you think the hydrological cycle is discussed in any detail in that Report then please state which of its 362 pages provides that.
The IPCC has always focused on global temperature. The oceans have now become of interest because global warming has stopped and imagined ‘heat going in the oceans’ is being used as an excuse for that.
Deluded fools are swallowing propaganda such as “We have always been at war with Eurasia” or “every IPCC report discusses the hydrosphere”.
Richard
Sisi says:
October 20, 2013 at 3:11 pm
If the IPeCaC has always assumed that “global warming” driven by CO2 & other GHGs meant warming other features of the planet than the lower atmosphere, especially the ocean depths, please explain then why its GC models have never reflected this supposed recognition. Instead, they showed steadily rising air temperature in lock-step with CO2 concentrations, which is of course what the worse than worthless GIGO shams were programmed to show.
@richardscourtney
From: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_1990_and_1992_Assessments/English/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_overview.pdf
the first three occurrences of “ocean” in the text (13 in total in the overview):
“The human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are much smaller than the natural exchange rates of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the oceans, and between the atmosphere and the terrestrial system. The natural exchange rates were, however, in close balance before human-induced emissions began; the steady anthropogenic emissions into the atmosphere represent a significant disturbance of the natural carbon cycle.”
“Land surfaces warm more rapidly than the oceans, and higher northern latitudes warm more than the global mean in winter.”
“The oceans act as a heat sink and thus delay the full effect of a greenhouse warming. Therefore, we would be committed to a further temperature rise which would progressively become apparent in the ensuing decades and centuries. Models predict that as greenhouse gases increase, the realized temperature rise at any given time is between 50 and 80% of the committed temperature rise.”
This alone proves my point that the hydrosphere (not: hydrological cycle) is included in AGW theory. Sure, we can go through all other mentions in the full first IPCC report, but that wouldn’t change the fact that your statement:
“I am ignoring the simple fact that you and Nuccitelli are ‘moving the goal posts’: global warming was always about rising surface temperature and NOT ocean heat content until the surface temperature stopped rising.”
is plainly wrong, which I already showed by quoting from the Charney report. By the way, your quote:
“The IPCC has always focused on global temperature. The oceans have now become of interest because global warming has stopped and imagined ‘heat going in the oceans’ is being used as an excuse for that.”
doesn’t make any sense unless you mean that ‘focused on global temperature’ does not include the hydrosphere in your definition of ‘global’. There is me thinking I live on a wet planet…
@ur momisugly milodonharlani
I think I recently mentioned that I will not discuss with you because of your discussion style. Again you show that I am probably right with that. Your comment is uninformed and you ask me to do something that has no bearing on the point I made with respect to a comment from richardscourtney. The information you want can be found by a few internet searches. Regarding me explaining it to you, I’ll pass! 😉
Sisi says:
October 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm
IOW, just as before, you’re totally clueless as to the subject upon which you presume to comment.
********, I presume?
@Sisi
note that the ocean’s surface temperatures never go above a maximum of around 35C. I observed the same in my pool. It seems that above this temperature the top layers of water (molecules) start boiling at around 1 atm, which gives a cooling effect downwards. (it takes energy to evaporate)
Hence the formation of water vapor and clouds. Without that, there would be nothing really. So, if some more heats ends up in the oceans, eventually this just translates into more clouds and more rain.
What makes you think that some extra heat coming in would go and stay in the ocean rather than cause more clouds and precipitation?
Sisi:
Your post at October 20, 2013 at 4:19 pm is risible.
The hydrological cycle is process (not the hydrosphere) so the hydrological cycle (not the hydrosphere) must be included in any putative disruption to global climate.
You say that the 1992 SUPPLEMENT to the 1990 IPCC Report included 13 mentions of the hydrosphere. So what? That does NOT demonstrate the 1990 IPCC Report discussed the hydrological cycle and/or the hydrosphere, and it did not.
You claimed – and in your post I am answering, you repeat your claim – that the (now disproved) AGW hypothesis includes the hydrological cycle. Your post I am answering says
There are two falsehoods in that.
Firstly, items in a Supplementary report published two years later do NOT demonstrate that something absent from the original Report was important to the subject of the original Report.
Importantly, those supplementary mentions do not explain why something you claim is included in the now disproved AGW hypothesis (n,b, it is not and never was a theory) was not discussed in the 362 page original IPCC Report.
Secondly, most of the Earth’s surface is covered in water but that does not mean mention of the hydrosphere demonstrates that the hydrosphere “is included in AGW theory”. It merely demonstrates the Report was discussing changes to planet Earth and not planet Mercury.
Similarly, if you think a mention in the Charney Report was important in the early days of the AGW scare then perhaps you can explain why the First IPCC Report did not include it?
As I said
Richard
Richard returns to high school and posits: “The oceans are cooler than the air so please explain how that heat could escape the oceans at a rate and in a manner which could have discernible effects.”
Richard didn’t do his homework on the topics of latent heat or advection.
Brian says:
October 21, 2013 at 8:58 am
Richard didn’t do his homework on the topics of latent heat or advection.
Brian, answering at the level of a kid that tries to show himself smart is not supporting a dead hypothesis. Please try a bit harder if you want to be taken seriously…
I’m just a layman, so bear with me. I’ve heard arugments from the AGW proponents to the effect that “the warmth is hiding in the deep ocean”. So please tell me, how can you add heat to the deep ocean without warming the surface? I mean, these folks make it sound like, at 500 meters of depth the water is boiling or something, and that we’re all doomed if it makes its way to the surface!
Bill Ryan says: “I’ve heard arugments from the AGW proponents to the effect that “the warmth is hiding in the deep ocean”. So please tell me, how can you add heat to the deep ocean without warming the surface?”
It’s entirely possible for that to happen. Think of the Gulf Stream carrying warm tropical waters to the north. The trade winds in the tropical North Atlantic are pushing the water from west to east, where all that water encounters land, so the water is forced poleward along the east coast of the U.S. There are also winds at high latitudes that can either enhance to poleward migration of water by the Gulf Stream or resist it. If the high latitude winds are resisting it, the warm water that normally migrates north will “stack up” along the Gulf Stream, warming the oceans to depth. But that warming would be very slight in terms of temperature, as we’ve illustrated in Figure 8, above. I’ll save you the trip:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/08-fig-3-temp-anom-comparison-a.png
Regards
Brian says: “Richard didn’t do his homework on the topics of latent heat or advection.”
And Brian has contributed nothing, nada, zilch, to the discussions on this thread–other than to exposed his obvious lack of understanding of the subjects being discussed.
Have a nice day.
bill ryan asked: how can you add heat to the deep ocean without warming the surface
henry@Bill ryan
I am not saying Bob is wrong.
the point is: how did the warmth (less or more of it) get into the oceans in the first place.
The UV from the sun is carrying most energy even though you cannot feel “its heat” on your skin.
UV is absorbed by the water, eventually, at greater depth, where it converts to heat/warmth, mostly.
Now read my comment earlier on:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/dana-nuccitelli-cant-come-to-terms-with-the-death-of-the-agw-hypothesis/#comment-1454209
Natural variation of the UV (coming in), or rather: (that UV which is let through the atmosphere), is what is causing cooling and warming periods because this is where earth receives most of its energy… But don’t worry about any catastrophes: the period of warming is over and the period of cooling has begun.This is really all because of that variation in the UV coming in.
here is my take on it:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
@HenryP
“What makes you think that some extra heat coming in would go and stay in the ocean rather than cause more clouds and precipitation?”
What makes you think that I would think that?
@richardscourtney
“The IPCC has always focused on global temperature. The oceans have now become of interest because global warming has stopped and imagined ‘heat going in the oceans’ is being used as an excuse for that.”
my debolding. What global temperature?
Global temperature yes, because of the recordings that exist. Who denies climate is about atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and so on?