Anne M Stark, LLNL,
LIVERMORE, California — Using satellite observations and a large suite of climate models, Lawrence Livermore scientists have found that long-term ocean warming in the upper 700 meters of Southern Hemisphere oceans has likely been underestimated.
“This underestimation is a result of poor sampling prior to the last decade and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimated temperature changes in data-sparse regions,” said LLNL oceanographer Paul Durack, lead author of a paper appearing in the October 5 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change.
Ocean heat storage is important because it accounts for more than 90 percent of the Earth’s excess heat that is associated with global warming. The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. The Southern Hemisphere oceans make up 60 percent of the world’s oceans.
The team found that climate models simulate the relative increase in sea surface height — a leading indicator of climate change — between Northern and Southern hemispheres is consistent with highly accurate altimeter observations. However, separating the simulated upper-ocean warming in the Northern and Southern hemispheres is inconsistent with observed estimates of ocean heat content change. These sea level and ocean heat content changes should be consistent, and suggest that until recent improvements occurred in the observational system in the early 21st century, Southern Hemisphere ocean heat content changes were likely underestimated.
Since 2004, automated profiling floats (named Argo) have been used to measure global ocean temperatures from the surface down to 2,000 meters. The 3,600 Argo floats currently observing the global ocean provide systematic coverage of the Southern Hemisphere for the first time. Argo float measurements over the last decade, as well as data from earlier measurements, show that the ocean has been gradually warming, according to Durack.
“Prior to 2004, research has been very limited by the poor measurement coverage,” he said. “By using satellite data, along with a large suite of climate model simulations, our results suggest that global ocean warming has been underestimated by 24 to 58 percent. The conclusion that warming has been underestimated agrees with previous studies, however it’s the first time that scientists have tried to estimate how much heat we’ve missed.”
Given that most of the excess heat associated with global warming is in the oceans, this study has important implications for how scientists view the Earth’s overall energy budget, Durack said.
The new results are consistent with another new paper that appears in the same issue of Nature Climate Change. Co-author Felix Landerer of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who contributed to both studies, says, “Our other new study on deep-ocean warming found that from 2005 to the present, Argo measurements recorded a continuing warming of the upper-ocean. Using the latest available observations, we’re able to show that this upper-ocean warming and satellite measurements are consistent.”
Other Livermore authors include Peter Gleckler and Karl Taylor. The study was conducted as part of the Climate Research Program at Lawrence Livermore, which is funded by the Department of Energy’s Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program. Work at NASA is a part of the newly formed NASA Sea Level Change Team (N-SCLT) and is supported by a NASA ROSES Physical Oceanography grant.
Good thing they have climate models to tell us there is heat there – god forbid we use data alone.
It’s the new postmodern science: if the data doesn’t agree with the expectations, the data must be wrong…
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/
hockeyschtick – Monday, August 20, 2012
“New paper finds Southern Oceans are losing heat ”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-paper-finds-southern-oceans-are.html
NoTricksZone
Southern Ocean Cooling Since 1996 … Global Warming Scientists Deny Logic That Cold Causes More Ice!
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/01/southern-ocean-cooling-since-1996-global-warming-scientists-deny-logic-that-cold-causes-more-ice/
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Caryl_1.png
Jimbo October 6, 2014 at 11:14 am
Stephen Wilde has a very good comment to the linked article. Southern ocean and Antarctica cool the southern hemisphere. Meanwhile the Arctic Ocean is pumping the heat out of the north Atlantic into space.
So the southern hemisphere cools as the northern hemisphere appears to warm, but is really just the conduit for heat loss from the planet. This is not looking good.
PS: To be clear: Stephen Wilde has a very good comment to the linked hockeyschtick article. Should have been more careful initially.
Michael Wassil October 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm
This interhemispheric heat movement which Steven describes is well known to oceanography, by terms such as heat piracy and the bipolar seesaw. Cross-equatorial currents are where the piracy occurs (near the Carribbean – where else?)
“we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results.”
——
“Adjust…estimates…consistent with … Modelled results”
No facts here!
The data didn’t match the models? The data must be underestimating things right?
These people have no end to their arrogance
Like all the warming in the ocean just happens to be hiding between detectors in the southern oceans.
AND THE 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL IS….?
“The team found that climate models simulate the relative increase in sea surface height — a leading indicator of climate change — between Northern and Southern hemispheres is consistent with highly accurate altimeter observations.”
Each altimeter measurement has a precision of +/- 13mm. The uncertainty in the rate of sea level rise is estimated to be +/-0.5mm/year with the rate in the last 10 years being 2.4mm/year (after adjustments and no extra uncertainty added).
The 95% confidence interval is probably not shown because it doesn’t fit on the plot.
“Southern Hemisphere oceans has likely been underestimated”, in other words they don’t know! So they modeled what they wished to see to support the cAGW narrative of fear.
Looks pretty benign. The southern hemisphere is cooling, and the northern is about where it started 12 years ago. The ’98 mega El-Ninio transferred some heat out of the water, and we are dithering about since then.
Once heat goes into the ocean, due to the massive heat capacity difference (water >> air), the heat is entropically degraded, and cannot heat the air more than the water temperature.
And what happened to Trenberth’s deep ocean hypothesis? What’s up with this ” warming in the upper 700 meters of Southern Hemisphere oceans has likely been underestimated.”.
-Jay
All together now . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . .
“It’s worse than we thought!!!”
I saw this and I don’t get the hyperventilation. This is exactly the same reason we “see” more tornadoes now than we did 100 years ago: We have the ability so SEE EVERYTHING now. Just because we didn’t see the heat before doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
Clear observational bias. It is obvious from the ARGO data that the oceans are in fact NOT warming as much as projected.
“Keep torturing the data! It will eventually tell us what we want.”
From the Durack, et al, paper referenced above comes this statement in the abstract:
” … the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results.”
So yes, they used models to adjust “observed in situ-based OHC estimates.” In others words we used the model to adjust the “observed” data.
New phrase of the Church of Climate Change: data is now called “observed in-situ estimates.”
Ya’ know, these are, ya’ know, PHYSICAL MODELS, so they, ya’ know, must be ya’ know, REAL!!!!
This should set off a whole new round of “adjustments”. The southern oceans are huge and a small upward trend would eliminate the flat trajectory globally. They had so much fun with the unmonitored arctic area, and this is fertile ground for years of “playing”. The fact that they doubt what observations we have, and believe the models says it all.
We can’t make sense of the forgone conclusions of our models with the data we measure from the ocean.
But since the conclusion is already a fact, that some trace gas with an fractional increase is responsible for the warming, we present the fact that the fact of data is wrong.
The science is settled.
….
Soon they will utterly forgo any measurements, and models will be absolute.
This means more hidden cooling.
If temperature increases and then levels off, like global temperature 18 years ago, and there is a big heat sink, then the incoming heat has to decrease in order for temperature to stay constant, because the sink will retain some heat.
It is like a low pass filter. At a step respons, output will raise and gradually flatten out. To get it to flatten out faster, signal must be driven down after step starts.
Well, duh! In academia, models are always right. (Said sarcastically)
First rule of climate ‘science’ , when models and reality differ in value its reality which is in error .
“However, separating the simulated upper-ocean warming in the Northern and Southern hemispheres is inconsistent with observed estimates of ocean heat content change.”
So the simulations don’t match the guesses? Really?
And I relly love that “observed estimates”….. How does one “observe” an “estimate”? Does one not MAKE an estimate and OBSERVE data? Sigh…
I also seem to recall that all the climate models were terrible at simulating ocean processes. So there is that to add to the confusion.
Yes, it’s enough to make one’s head explode! You have the term psychobabble. Well, this is climobabble!
“The observed ……… warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Observed warming”. What observed warming?
“is a result”. Sez who? Well, sez who who knows what they are talking about?
“Ocean heat storage is important because it accounts for more than 90 percent of the Earth’s excess heat that is associated with global warming.”
========
Where do they get these percentage from? And how much more than 90? One or 10?
Lord help us.
Does this mean that sea level has increased more than we thought?
This paper does not pass the common sense test.
It is true that the sea is not level due to global gravimetric anomalies measured by GRACE. Itmis also true that some of those are over the Southern ocean. Gogle images of Earths gravimetric geoid for images.
It is not true that connected oceans can maintain differential surface level beyond gravimetric anomalies. Something about water seeking its own level. Increasingly desperate attempts to find missing heat which isn’t missing except in pause falsified models. Increasing desperation leading to increasing foolishness as the ‘science’ self destructs on Mother Nature’s facts.
My thoughts exactly. My analysis shows that the models do, by and large, show more heat going into the SH ocean (and less heat going into the NH ocean) than the observational data sets show. It is my suspicion that this may have come about as follows: first, the too-high climate sensitivity caused the modeled world as a whole to warm too fast; that was then “fixed” by assuming a large negative aerosol forcing to cancel out some of the global warming; however, that assumption led to another problem – since the aerosols were mostly in the NH the high negative aerosol forcing caused the modeled NH to cool relative to the SH, where observations showed the opposite; that problem was then “fixed” by increasing SH ocean mixing enough to cool off the SH warming sufficiently to (sort of) be consistent with observations. Problem solved – all you need do is ignore the pesky data! The patches continue to multiply.
@Rud Istvan October 6, 2014 at 11:03 am:
++++++++++
Doesn’t the wind pile up water significantly as in the ENSO processes with the Easterlies and Westerlies across the equatorial regions of the Pacific? Maybe you imply this, I’m just asking.
‘and a large suite of climate models’
Try has much as you might , but you will find the tables of Vegas will not allow you to use your own dice , for the very good reason they know who they can be loaded .
In further new priests claims image of god in Mrs Smith morning toast proves his existence , and has ‘experts ‘ who are we to say they are wrong or that they may have strong self interest in getting the ‘right results ‘
Back in the world of reality, the continued cooling of the Southern Ocean and the ALARMING growth trend of southern sea ice could lead to the glaciation of the southern tip of South America by the middle of this century.
I don’t believe in linear trend matching, so I hope you were being sarcastic. There are a number of physical reasons that would indicate that won’t happen – unless we really are at the end of the Holocene, in which case we are all in deep trouble.
Thermal expansion has begun! The acceleration is here and it’s all your fault.
“1.8 +/-0.9mm” You’ve really got to love making predictions based on measurements where the stated tolerance range is the same as the entire measurement. What other industry would even consider using measurements like that? Can you see Ford coming out with an ad touting their new electronic dashboard. “Our new gas gauge is accurate to +/- half a tank!” … yea, that would sell.
That contradicts Pierrehumbert’s screed against Koonin. Good.
Missing some heat? Hypothesize a heat hole in the Southern Ocean that isn’t there and imply that must be the missing heat. Cool . . . but not anymore.
The so-called global warming has been so lucrative and so compelling that those working the climate industry can’t let it go.
“A large suite of climate models” Well, isn’t that suite? The more you use, the suiter it gets… for those who have a suite tooth for warming.
The southern ocean heat is being estimated and not measured because of what? This sounds too convenient to be science. Why cannot these people just say “we don’t know”?
To summarize: The models inform us that an unknown quantity of energy is changing at an unknown rate in an unmeasurable abyss and it presents the greatest human crisis in the long history of hyperbole. Knowing this we need to stop burning coal and other fossil fuels immediately. Impoverished third world nations cannot be allowed to develop affordable energy and enjoy post-stone age comforts, health, and longevity, and the at-risk elderly in Great Britain can just freeze to death in the dark this winter. It’s not like that hasn’t happened before, wot. And any malcontent climate denying whingers can just sod off.
Did I get that right?
You forgot the part where all that official hyperbole was bought and paid for with our taxes along with hundreds of millions of dollars and pounds charged to our children’s credit cards.
The Northern Hemisphere has much more land than the southern. About 7/8 of the world’s land area is in the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore we should look at the weighted average of ocean heat changes. If the souther hemisphere is cooling, that means the majority of the oceans are cooling.
Please look at the oceans in this August 1998 RSS image of global T vs RSS August 2014 It is clear that 1998 was far warmer.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/us-government-agencies-just-cant-stop-lying/
OK
What we need is some serious cold to turn the ‘pause’ into a decline and then see them try and argue that out with a straight face. Mind you, given all the data fiddling going on, perhaps they are already ‘hiding the decline’.
Just in from NASA for oceans.
From Bob Tisdale.
that graph ends in mid-2011, here’s a more updated one, doesn’t look like the heat content rise has flattened off to me? http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
Look! Look!!
Watch the pea! Watch the pea! Now it’s there, now it isn’t.
They certainly did not begin the study with open minds, nor an adherence to science.
The sea levels that have 3mm+ added each year to account for Colorado’s opinion that sea level should be rising? And these ‘scientists’ claim that their models model this successfully? Let me guess, they’ve used a straight 3mm per year increase.
This 2004 stuff allows us to truly cherry pick a very narrow range of temperatures.That Trenberth kook can’t find the heat, so we’re finding it for him using our fresh chosen cherries! Well, the cherries almost help us find the heat; previous studies found tiny fractions of a joule which happen to be well within instrumental error so we rounded up to tenths of a degree.
No pressure applied at all huh? Co-author on both studies couldn’t have one of the studies not fit a particular line of assumptions?
Supported by NASA, that honest branch of Government that goes to great lengths ensuring open honest data archival, open honest temperature announcements, worldwide science cooperation, independent research replication? No! Of Course not! NASA, to the shame of rocket, astronomers and space scientists everywhere pursues a very twisted concept of climate science.
Perhaps it is a good thing that NASA goons refuse to debate climate science face-to-face as that helps mitigate the shame of any decent scientist being seen with abusers of science.
NASA Not Anything Scientific Anymore
NASA has been publicly repudiated by astronauts and others of past employment there. I have lost all respect for an institution that is nosing for the global warmer feed bucket.
So all the underestimated ocean warming would have been responsible for releasing an extremely large amount of CO2 previously dissolved in colder ocean water. So if increased solar activity over the 20th century caused decreased cloud formation which resulted in increased surface heating, how much heating would it take to release the amount of CO2 necessary to go from about 360-something ppm in the first millennium of this interglacial to the almost 400ppm now?
I see just now a paper showing CO2 levels of about 425 ppm around 13,000 years ago, and the warming necessary to have raised ocean levels by 400 feet would eventually have caused a release of dissolved CO2 once the melted ice started to warm.
now its ‘war’ between JPL and ARGO versus LLNL. Which are you going to believe, the actual measurements, or a ‘re-estimation’ of what was admittedly a bad estimation in the forst place? I know what the scientific method tells me to do…
“I know what the scientific method tells me to do…”
Um, maybe homogenize?
Not quite… apply for a grant to research re-estimating how to homogenize the bad estimation or apply for a grant to create a model that would estimate the re-estimation anomalies from the bad estimation to estimate how much re-estimated heat they missed on the first (second?) estimation from the suite of models. (fyi Pictures of models in suites included with the application go a long way to ensuring you actually get the grant.)
When air temp at the poles is colder than the sea water below it how much heat is lost? When sea ice at the poles melts, how much heat is lost from the sea water? When sea ice is formed and melted right away, how much heat is lost from the ocean?Sea water that is chilled to minus 1.5 C will drop how far from the surface?At the poles, how much heat is received from the sun and how much heat is lost from the oceans over the year? We hear about earth’s energy balance but are there any temperature sensors under the ice? Cold water sinks and warm water stays on the surface. Sea surface temp can go up while the net energy of the oceans can be going down.
They’re relying on “random” samples from the unguided ARGO floats that spends most of their time at 1,000m with a brief drop down to 2,000m and then the rising profile back to the surface. 200 data points in 10 days according to their site and 71 of those on the 2,000m to surface rise. Since the abyssal plains and long distance convection currents are well below 2,000m they’re sampling less than half of the overall depth on average and far less in the subduction areas, canyons and trenches where cold is king. Considering that the SH oceans have the deepest areas on the planet I’m not convinced that ARGO data can be extrapolated to include the whole ocean volume… but they do it anyway.
Again.
people complained that the ocean was poorly sampled. The worry was that the sampling was biasing the result.people complained that the land was undersampled and worried the sampling would bias the result.
Yup. undersampled. If you increase sampling you will find out that the present is warmer than we think
I see the same thing in air temperature records.
Steven Mosher
You say
Please explain how you know that an increase to sampling will reveal the present is warmer than we think and not cooler than we think?
And why bother to take any measurements when you say you know the result of obtaining measurements from missing samples?
And how does one obtains the deific omniscience which your assertion claims you have?
Richard
Mosher knows this because the models say so.
People? Or do you mean the data torturers?
Undersampled means the present is warmer than we (I) think it is? By my thermometer along with fifty plus years keeping an eye on thermometers plus several decades spending much of the day outside; either working the garden delivering mail or harvesting and splitting firewood. I am seeing temperatures roughly similar to the seventies and early eighties.
Memories could be faulty, though one who lugs a burden for hours outdoors gets very good at estimating both temperature and humidity. I am left with the curious sensation that government institutions are not surveying and tracking weather for our benefit; but so they can make their odd CAGW case in spite of data and real life.
Go ahead, find a farmer or sailor who actively lives outdoors that believes they can discern global warming effects.
More to the point; CO2 has risen, Temperatures are quite flat, the climate models are falsified, besides the very rough idea of CO2 capturing apparently infinite IR, where are the direct observations that every 10ppm of CO2 are directly related to air temperature? Add in that temperature should also matches any declines in CO2 whether daily, regional or global.
Steven – what should we do to increase a sampling rate? How much would it cost?
So Mr. Mosher, that’s why they keep reducing the number of stations included in USHCN and GHCN and ACORN-SAT? Too many stations made it too hot? Funny, it looks more like they’re dumping rural stations and keeping urban stations and that’s why the “… present is warmer than we think…” [no punctuation in original]
It all depends on what you are using to increase your sample count and why you are making those choices. Dumping well sited rural stations and keeping urban stations with laughable -0.1°C UHI corrections is not science, it’s politics. When that doesn’t work, keep adjusting as NASA and NOAA keep doing.
Stevn
I used to buy into the idea that if we samapled more we would get more warming. Not any longer. Australia and NZ show that the record is fudamentally corrupted and that thehmogenization process reduces good information. There is no reason to believe that the US record is any better. Far too many highly motivated self serving interests are playing with the numbers.
Every now and again Mosher’s words expose his inner warmist beliefs… obviously he has ignored that
This is post normal science at work. Thermometers and field work are so last century and anyway, they don’t produce the desired results. Don’t forget to feed the tip jar on your way out – The LLNL Climate Comedy Club
Doesn’t the ARGO data show a flattening of ocean heat content relative to the older incomplete data?
Are they suggesting that the ARGO data is wrong in favor of their modeled virtual reality or are they saying that the old data is wrong and the discrepancy between the old data and the ARGO data is even larger?
… and ARGO skips all the places where they say the heat is hiding, depths > 2,000m. ARGO’s a nice start, but it doesn’t measure enough of the oceans to allow for decent guesses at total ocean heat.
Except now the first study I know of that has looked at abyssal heat content has shown that the oceans at >2,000 m depth has not warmed since 2005.
I am still confused as to what the authors of this paper — that this article is about — are suggesting is wrong about what we think the data suggests about the southern oceans.
So the net net of this is that due to the excessively warm southern ocean where all that lost heat has been hiding (waiting for The Lost Boys of climate science to find it?) has been so amazingly heated that it is making more sea ice than Ever before and a lowest ever Antarctic measured temperature Ever?
It must be a cold heat….
Well put E.M.
E.M. Smith, the missing heat has been found to have supernatural properties.
Maybe I’m missing something but where is the data coming from for the four “reanalysis/analysis datasets” that they are analyzing again? Do they actually have some relationship to the 11 station SAT or are they just four, triple deep (I/O to I/O to I/O) model runs? They need this to prove that cold makes more sea ice? … and we’re paying for it? Arghhhhh!
The term “re-analysis” is a sinister one and shows that the game if fraud from the very outset.
It simply means “we don’t like this data and so we are going to change it”.
Is Dr. Paul Durack (Postdoctoral Researcher Program for Climate Model Diagnosis) of a Russian ancestry?
It seems that this Livermore study is an example of the proverb that if the only tool one has is a hammer, then all problems look like nails.
They simply assume that both hemispheres should be showing the same temperature trend and ‘correct’ the southern hemisphere measurements to match the Northern hemisphere ones. And this in the face of very low Arctic ice with record Antarctic ice levels (face palm). I await their next paper with interest. No doubt they will attempt to address this problem by correcting the record Antarctic sea ice measurements to make them match the Arctic ice loss. Actually no – they wouldn’t get away with that. We have photographs. Yet they do think they can get away with doing the exact same thing with deep sea temperature measurements because there are no photos of those.
With most of the population and most of the large cities and industrial areas being in the Northern Hemisphere, UHI is always likely to increase temperatures more than in the Southern Hemisphere, which is mainly water. No surprises here….no need to adjust the data.
As the temperature record enters the realm of mythology, some opportunities present themselves. I am looking for backers for a new horror story “Carbnado.”
“By using satellite data, along with a large suite of climate model simulations ….”
No observations, really, just calculations based on models with assumptions ….
If Tisdale’s graph is correct, then the warming and cooling trends beyond 2010 are very, very pertinent. The split in N & S hemispheres is that the North is warming while the South is cooling, which means a neutral situation globally.
Redistribution, not necessarily new energy.
“our results suggest that global ocean warming has been underestimated by 24 to 58 percent”
So the models should be made more sensitive to carbon dioxide… with makes their failure during the last 18 years even worse. It’s better than we thought.
Does this study mean that from now on all data from the ARGO system will be “adjusted” by US Govt agencies before it is released to researchers and the general public?
Will we have to wait for China or India to set up their own system of sensors before we can get unbiased real- world data?
How did we get to a situation in the West, with hundreds of years of successful scientific exploration behind us, that one needs to ask such questions ?
“How did we get to a situation in the West, with hundreds of years of successful scientific exploration behind us, that one needs to ask such questions ?”
As you pile on the lies it becomes harder and harder to come clean. Game theoretically, a Ratchet Effect. It’s easier to just issue the next lie.
I find it amusing. It also means that we won’t smoothly return to an equilibrium with less lies and more truth; but that the pile of lies will collapse violently.
So, increase the pressure, ask nagging questions, make them lie more. Drive them all the way to the endpoint.
“Ocean heat storage is important because it accounts for more than 90 percent of the Earth’s excess heat that is associated with global warming. ”
Well, 100% is more than 90%. Or roughly speaking more than 90% is just about everything.
One thing about something say 35 C [95 F] is doesn’t heat anything hotter. And 35 C is about as hot as ocean gets. Or warmest the ocean get is lukewarm. Only a small part of ocean gets lukewarm, most of ocean is cold- average temperature of ocean is about 3-4 C. Or most of the heat of the ocean is about 3-4 C. Exposure to water colder than 10 C will kill a human swimming in the water in about 1/2 hour or so- though people can get sort of use to it, as with winter swimming:
“Winter swimming can be dangerous to people who are not used to swimming in very cold water. After submersion in cold water the cold shock response will occur, causing an uncontrollable gasp for air. This is followed by hyperventilation, a longer period of more rapid breathing. The gasp for air can cause a person to ingest water, which leads to drowning. As blood in the limbs is cooled and returns to the heart, this can cause fibrillation and consequently cardiac arrest. The cold shock response and cardiac arrest are the most common causes of death related to cold water immersion…
Hypothermia poses a smaller risk. According to Tucker and Dugas, it takes more than approximately 30 minutes even in 0 °C water until the body temperature drops low enough for hypothermia to occur. Many people would probably be able to survive for almost an hour.[13] There is no consensus on these figures however; according to different estimates a person can survive for 45 minutes in 0.3 °C water, but exhaustion or unconsciousness is expected to occur within 15 minutes. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_swimming
So something to keep in mind- global warming is largely about warming water which is about 3 to 4 C. And idea it cause you to sweat is ridiculous.
The online magazine Science has an interesting note at the bottom of their report on this story:
“*Correction, 5 October, 7:30 p.m.: The headline and text have been corrected to make it clear that past observations, not models, may have underestimated ocean warming. The description of the first study’s results has been altered in the interest of clarity.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/10/past-measurements-may-have-missed-massive-ocean-warming
[Right] in line with the first rule of climate [‘science ‘] it cannot be the models which are wrong it must be reality . [And] they wonder why [they’re] often seen has a joke.
Limitations in the analysis of data-sparse regions is the whole point of science.
But instead, the “scientists” remove the “limitations” of their “analysis,” and “data-sparse regions” then become data-rich regions.
This was done with the assistance of a suite of computer models.
Look on the bright side: at least they didn’t consult a medium to confirm their theories. At least this is post-modern science, not post-materialist science. There’s such a huge difference between computer models and mediums. Oh wait….
The problem, in my opinion, is that there is a generation which truly despises the limitations of science on their personal analysis of data-poor regions.
NASA is launching plenty of new instruments, but the questions they are asking are loaded, and the way that the data will be adjusted, interpreted, and presented will fit the Anthropocene Age Paradigm.
Notice CATS, which should help NASA to make good on its promise to gain the capability of linking events in the atmosphere directly to some aerosol or emission from human activity very quickly;
Notice ECOSTRESS. Note OCO-2. GEDI also will allow “scientists” to “detect how forests and ecosystems are affected by climate change.”
As Josh says, “So many tipping points to choose from!”
” However, separating the simulated upper-ocean warming in the Northern and Southern hemispheres is inconsistent with observed estimates of ocean heat content change. These sea level and ocean heat content changes should be consistent”
++++++++++++
Uhm – I have a problem with this statement. Could it be that the simulations are just wrong? Of course not, because the models are always right, the hell with observations. /do I need to leave a sarc’ tag here?
The problem is there have been measurements of sea level rise that show it is not in accordance with the models, that in fact it is following instead the slowdown in temperature rise:
Slowing sea level rise.
Posted on April 24, 2014 |
by Judith Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/24/slowing-sea-level-rise/
Then it is invalid to use sea level rise to conclude the data must be wrong and the models right when it is actually saying the reverse.
Bob Clark
Surely everyone can see what is going on here. Livermore is Santers stomping grounds. He has been harpooned over the past year over the flat temps reaching over 18 years, a year past the point that Santer stated they would have to rethink the theory. Well, they all have tried to edge recent temps up a bit but are constrained by satellite measurements. Note recently, Dr. Meare of RSS has emerged to talk about the ‘pause’ but assures the heating is still going on.
1) look for RSS to be adjusted. Meare will have been under a lot of haranguing by his colleagues because of its deadly flat temp record.
2) Santer is not going to reinvestigate the theory, of course not! So he is reinvestigating the data. This will be helpful for Meare (who may have instigated it) and signalled that somebody has got to do something. Remember this is “progressive” post normal science we are dealing with. Trenberth, in his frustration, was the first to blink and state the heat is hiding in the ocean for which he has been the butt of jokes.
You will see, they will get this all straightened out. How much do they have to add on? They can use Hansen’s exponential function to ease it in gradually. Everyone has been arguing the climate isn’t linear anyway.