Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts:
The comment referred to in the title is the following by Kevin Trenberth regarding heat in the deep oceans:
“The centre of action is the Pacific Ocean but the main places where heat goes deep into the ocean are the Atlantic and Southern Oceans rather than the Pacific,”
The following equation demonstrates how the temperature change of an object relates to the number of joules applied to the object versus the mass and specific heat capacity of the object. The equation is H = mcdt where H is the energy in joules; m is the mass in kilograms; c is the specific heat capacity in joules/(kilogram x C); and dt is the change in temperature in C.
Assume we have a 4.0 kilogram shot put made of iron and a 4.0 gram marble made of the same iron, illustrated by the image above. Now let us assume we apply the same quantity of heat to each. In this case, H will be the same and c will also be the same. The same amount of heat that will raise the temperature of the 4.0 kilogram shot put by 1.0 C, while it will raise the temperature of the 4.0 gram marble by 1000 C.
What would happen in a closed system if just the shot put was raised by 1.0 C and it then touched the marble? Answer: The marble would go up in temperature by 1.0 C and the affect on the shot put would not be measurable.
What would happen in a closed system if just the marble was raised by 1000 C and it then touched the shot put, once equilibrium was reached? Answer: The shot put would go up in temperature by 1.0 C and the marble would go down by 999 C ignoring significant digits for now.
Now we will apply the above equation to Earth’s air. The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^18 kg. We will assume the specific heat capacity of air is 1000 J/(kg C). Now, we will calculate how much heat it would take to raise the temperature of the air by 1.0 C. H = mcdt = 5.1 x 10^18 kg x 1000 J/(kg C) x 1.0 C = 5.1 x 10^21 J.
Now we will apply the above equation to Earth’s oceans. The total mean mass of the oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg. We will assume the specific heat capacity of the oceans is 4000 J/(kg C). Now, we will calculate how much heat it would take to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1.0 C. H = mcdt = 1.4 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/(kg C) x 1.0 C = 5.6 x 10^24 J.
Keeping the ratios simple, we see it takes about 1000 times as much energy to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1.0 C than to raise the temperature of the air by 1.0 C.
What would happen to Earth’s air temperature if we warmed Earth’s oceans 1.0 C? Answer: The air temperature could stay the same (See next paragraph.) or it could go up by 1.0 C at the most.
At the present time, the deep oceans are at about 3 C. Let us just for discussion sake assume it warmed by 0.1 C in 60 years. And let us further assume the average air temperature is 14 C. That would mean the deep oceans need to warm by about 10 C before they start affecting the air temperature. At the rate of 0.1 C in 60 years, it would take 6000 years for the oceans to warm by 10 C.
And what would happen if we were to raise the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere by 10.0 C? Answer: The oceans would act as a huge heat sink and would warm by 0.010 C once equilibrium was reached. Of course, this may takes decades or centuries. However the greater the difference in temperature, the faster the hotter object loses heat.
I am fully aware of the fact that I am making many assumptions here. For example, I am assuming the average human emissions of CO2 over the next 6000 years will the same as for the last 60 years. As a result, rising temperatures in the oceans could accelerate if it were not for the logarithmic affect of additional CO2. This also assumes that there will be enough fossil fuels to last that long.
But regardless of any other unstated assumptions you may find fault with which could push things in either direction, I believe it is clear that my grandchildren (two so far) and the grandchildren of James Hansen will not be negatively affected by heat going into the deep oceans:
“The title of the book, Storms of My Grandchildren, refers to the ferocious and stormy weather events that will occur next generation if fossil fuel use continues in the way it has.”
In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how January of 2015 compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. Note that WFT has not updated Hadcrut4 since July and it is only Hadcrut4.2 that is shown.
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since February 2009 or an even 6 years. (goes to January using version 5.6 and based on Walter Dnes’ calculation.)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 18 years, 2 months (goes to January).
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 14 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
Dr. Ross McKitrick has also commented on these parts and has slightly different numbers for the three data sets that he analyzed. I will also give his times.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH: Since July 1996: CI from -0.019 to 2.225
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 16 years on UAH.)
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.000 to 1.753
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 26 years on RSS.)
For Hadcrut4.3: Since June 1997: CI from -0.015 to 1.132
(Dr. McKitrick said the warming was not significant for 19 years on Hadcrut4.2 going to April. Hadcrut4.3 would be slightly shorter however I do not know what difference it would make to the nearest year.)
For Hadsst3: Since April 1995: CI from -0.006 to 1.710
For GISS: Since August 2000: CI from -0.007 to 1.412
Note that all of the above times, regardless of the source, with the exception of GISS are larger than 15 years which NOAA deemed necessary to “create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.
Section 3
This section shows data about January 2015 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.
2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.
10. McK: These are Dr. Ross McKitrick’s number of years for three of the data sets.
11. Jan: This is the January 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
12. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 5 minutes into a game.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.14ra | 3rd | 6th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
| 2.14a | 0.27 | 0.255 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.68 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2014 | 2014 | 2014 |
| 4.ano | 0.42 | 0.55 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.68 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Aug14 | Jan07 |
| 6.ano | 0.663 | 0.857 | 0.835 | 0.644 | 0.93 |
| 7.y/m | 6/0 | 18/2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8.sig | Jul96 | Dec92 | Jun97 | Apr95 | Aug00 |
| 9.sy/m | 18/7 | 22/2 | 17/7 | 19/10 | 14/6 |
| 10.McK | 16 | 26 | 19 | ||
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 11.Jan | 0.351 | 0.367 | 0.686 | 0.440 | 0.75 |
| 12.rnk | 3rd | 3rd | 1st | 2nd | 1st |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.6 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.5 however this version was last updated for December 2014 and it looks like it will no longer be given.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.6.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.3.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2014 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that Hadcrut4 is the old version that has been discontinued. WFT does not show Hadcrut4.3 yet. As well, only UAH version 5.5 is shown which stopped in December. WFT does not show version 5.6 yet.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2014. This makes it easy to compare January 2014 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since December, 1996 or 18 years, 2 months. (goes to January)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1992: CI from -0.000 to 1.753.
The RSS anomaly for January 2015 is 0.367. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.255 and it was ranked 6th.
UAH
The slope is flat since February 2009 or an even 6 years according to Walter Dnes. (goes to January using version 5.6)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since July 1996: CI from -0.019 to 2.225. (This is using version 5.6 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH anomaly for January 2015 is 0.351. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.663. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.27 and it was ranked 3rd.
Hadcrut4.3
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1997: CI from -0.015 to 1.132.
The Hadcrut4 anomaly for January 2015 was 0.686. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.835. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.564 and this set a new record.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since April 1995: CI from -0.006 to 1.710.
The Hadsst3 anomaly for January 2015 was 0.440. This would rank 2nd if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 2014 when it reached 0.644. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.479 and this set a new record.
GISS
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since August 2000: CI from -0.007 to 1.412.
The GISS anomaly for January 2015 is 0.75. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.68 and it set a new record.
Conclusion
For all intents and purposes, the deep ocean is an infinite heat sink. And if some of our presumed AGW ends up there, that is good news. Or am I missing something?
About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m guessing the point he is making is that if the heat stops going into the atmosphere and switches to the deep ocean, then in the future it will switch again from the deep ocean and return to heating the atmosphere (at some stage, eventually). So be afraid, very afraid. Or something like that. Obviously no case can be made to worry about the heat that went into the oceans.
What I find amusing about all this is that when Pielke Snr., was making the case for measuring global warming by ocean heat content, RC poo poo’d the idea and only wanted to consider the atmosphere. Now that the atmospheric warming has stopped, all that RC wants to talk about is the heat going into the ocean. If so much money wasn’t being wasted and so many bad policies implemented, the situation would make a great comedy.
The Surface of the ocean is 22˚ and the temperature of the air above the surface is 14˚. Why does anyone think a cold object can heat a warmer object?
The authors analysis is a piece of crap.
Trenberth talked about the deep ocean where it is about 3 C.
Trenberth needs to explain how the atmosphere can warm the bottom of the ocean without first warming the surface of the ocean, which is already warmer than the atmosphere.
Trenberths assertion that the warming is hiding in the ocean is absurd.
This might interest you by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
Then consider that none of this is occurring in a closed system. The Earth is continuously loosing heat to space and the more heat the planet retains the faster the rate at which it will loose the heat to space. This most basic fundamental of radiative physics is never mentioned by the AGW cultists because it completely quashes their already weak argument.
“Why does anyone think a cold object can heat a warmer object?”
So what’s been measured here (hot water moving under cold water) is physically possible?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif
Maybe the observations are wrong, or maybe someone is not very bright.
Keep in mind that certain things happen because more salty hot water could be denser than less salty cold water.
WB, thanks for the link to Spencer. I had been looking for that earlier without success.
Why does anyone think a cold object can heat a warmer object?
As with most discussions of temperature and “heat”, I believe misunderstandings arise because the word “heat” means different things to different people. As I recall, the physics definition of heat is: “heat” is the transfer of internal energy from one object to another object because the objects are at different temperatures. Without work being done, heat is always in the direction from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object. In this sense, a colder object (object at a lower temperature) cannot heat a warmer object (object at a higher temperature); and if that’s what you mean by “heat a warmer object,” then I agree it is nonsense to think a cold object can “heat” a warm object. In my opinion, however, when Trenberth talks about the “missing heat,” he is using the word “heat” in the sense of energy, not in the sense of energy transfer from a higher-temperature object to a lower-temperature object.
In the Trenberth sense of “heat”, I believe if there is a source of energy other than the internal energy of two objects at different temperatures, the fact that heat always moves from a higher-temperature object to a lower-temperature object doesn’t mean the presence of a lower temperature object can’t affect (and in some cases, cause an increase in) the temperature of a higher-temperature object. How is that possible you say?
Suppose you have a large refrigerator maintained at a temperature of 2C. You put a low-wattage electrical heating element in a small pot of water, turn on the heating element, and put the pot of water/heating element in the refrigerator. After several hours you note that the temperature of the water reaches 10C and remains at that temperature. Now you adjust the temperature setting of the refrigerator so that the refrigerator is maintained at 7C. After a sufficient time the water will reach a stable temperature greater than 10C. Since at no time was the temperature of the refrigerator greater than the temperature of the water, it seems to me a situation has been created where changing the temperature of a lower-temperature object (the refrigerator, which is always colder than the water), we have increased the temperature of a higher-temperature object (the water). Thus, in the sense that “heat” is the exchange of internal energy from a higher-temperature object to a lower-temperature object, I think it’s fair to say a lower-temperature object can’t “heat” a higher-temperature object. However, I think it’s incorrect to say that a lower-temperature object can’t affect the temperature of a higher-temperature object; and if this is what you mean by “heat” a higher temperature object, then I think a lower-temperature object can “heat” a higher-temperature object..
In the case of the Earth’s atmosphere/oceans, the sun acts as an external energy source. Thus, I believe it is theoretically possible for a change in the temperature of the water deep within the ocean to have a positive effect on the atmosphere’s temperature. I’m not claiming that this is the case. I am claiming that statements like “a colder object can’t heat a warmer object,” may be correct for the physics definition of “heat”; but they are not correct for the common man’s definition of “heat.”
Genghis, your average body temperature is 37C. Say that the ambient air temperature is 10C. Your skin temperature drops and you put on a sweater. The temperature of the sweater is 10C, the same as ambient. But it reduces the heat loss from your skin to the atmosphere and your skin becomes warmer.
If the sea surface temperature is 22C and the air temperature is 14C, the nett flow of energy is from sea to air. Energy is moving from sea to air, and somewhat less energy is moving from air to sea. Increase the air temperature and the energy flow from air to sea will increase. That will cause the nett flow of energy from sea to air to decrease and the sea will become warmer.
I would be surprised if someone reads a reply after 24 hours. Except for me since I wrote the article and I need to see if I am addressed.
Werner Brozek
Read. Replied. 8<)
I have said 1000 times, if the oceans are warming co2 is not cause
Not buying it. Apparently nobody understands the difference between weather and climate, unless of course we are going to continue to partition climate areas down to 100×100 meter blocks. UHI certainly impacts local weather, but we are a long way of knowing whether it impacts the regional climate, partly because there is no consistent standard for what constitutes a “climate”. We don’t have near enough data to determine whether a few decades of changing UHI can change a climate, which has an unknown variable cyclicity measured in what – decades, centuries, aeons? You can make a case for UHI altering micro-climates, but we are a very long way from determining whether UHI affects continental climate zones.
Crap! Wrong post. Ignore this comment in this post. Sigh.
Sorry…too late!
LOL!!!
Thank you for a very interesting analysis. I always thought there was something extremely simplistic about the “radiative forcing” model behind the IPCC (and others) analysis of CO2 impact.
I can’t bring myself to call that fraud “global warming”, when it hasn’t warmed for 18 years.
While heat transfer from a shot putt to a marble may be near instantaneous, I doubt the same could be said for transfer between air and ocean. Fortunately, I don’t foresee the hypothesis being put to the test.
BdtP, perhaps it already has been put to the test – as in the 1975 to 2000 increase in air temps taking several years before the ocean heat absorption rate got to the point that the air temps stabilized.
Depending on what happens such as a volcanic eruption and the temperature difference between the air and water, some transfer close to the surface could happen very quickly, but it could easily be decades or centuries for heat to make it to the deep ocean. That is why CO2 often peaked 800 years AFTER the temperature went up in ice cores.
The best thing about the deep oceans is that there is very little actually know about them despite them covering large parts of the planet , therefore you can claim they hid , UFO’s , lost cities and ‘missing heat ‘ knowing you cannot be proved wrong .
Now normally that approach is rejected has worthless within science , but remember Trenberth desire to reverse the null hypothesise and climate ‘sciences’ settled science claims and you can see what is unacceptable in any other field of science is perfectly acceptable within climate ‘science’ . Which in my view ,given the behaviour of its ‘prophets’ , has as much right to be called a ‘science’ has feeling peoples bumps on their head to tell you their IQ does.
The attempt at reversing the null hypothesis was really just Trenberth admitting he knows he’s wrong and deciding that wrecking the scientific method was better than wrecking his pay packet.
And speaking of Lost Cities, did you see this in the Telegraph?
You’ve pretty much nailed it , You can hide any number of imaginary threats where no-one can actually look , personally I thought Trenberth could have tried little harder and included UFOs and Lost Cities in His scary stories on sentient and malevolent heat just to give it a bit more zing , something like :
First he could not find it. The he said after a lull it would go boo!
If this did happen, it certainly would not be from the deep ocean. Extra heat does not just get together and decide to bite you all of a sudden. It would be way too dilute. (And Trenberth knows this as well as he has said that some heat is permanently lost that may have ended up in the deep ocean.)
” I thought Trenberth could have tried little harder and included UFOs and Lost Cities in His scary stories”
Great idea for satirical sci-fi novel. The evil humans neglect their planet with their wicked ways and the deep oceans heat up, angering the merfolk and ocean dwelling aliens, who then team up with “the team” on the surface to fight back at the evil corporations and their private armies who have been secretly ruling the world.
Quite so. It is little appreciated that the Illuminati have placed giant bar-radiators in the depths of the ocean in an attempt to create definite Global Warming, thus justifying their attempts to create a World Government (capitals optional). The last thing they want is a scientific investigation of the ocean depths!
Why is the second year in a row the Pacific does not give heat over the North America? Because the circulation is shifted over the the Bering Strait. How will be your next winter?
Extremely fundamental and valuable point: if the oceans have warmed by x degrees, their maximum potential of warming the atmosphere is also x degrees C. Nicely explained.
My take from that point is that there is no way that heat “hidden” in the deep oceans can come back to suddenly warm the atmosphere, since it is now at a lower temperature than the atmosphere.
Seems to me like a v. good point.
I can never figure out how this supposed extra heat gets down into the deep oceans. Leaving aside the obvious objection of “heat rises”, if currents take the heat down then what mechanism allows the heat to be left down there, but not nearer to surface?
Trenberth is fortunate that there are few or no direct readings of deep ocean temperatures, possibly more important he is extremely lucky there are no reliable records to provide inconvenient data.
I would imagine exactly that happens at 4 degrees. Heat rising would presuppose that there is an upward force once the temperature rises above that level. Even within the heavier saline flows of the deep oceans the heat within, if above 4 deg, will rise to the top and start to transfer its heat into the next layer by surface mixing and conduction.
Or have I over simplified my opinion
Mwh
If the deep oceans are 3 deg C then heating them one degree will cause sea level to drop because water is more dense at 4 thab3 degrees.
Heating another degree will bring sea level back to where it is now. So another ‘dire prediction’ bites the dust.
So two degrees of all-globe warming will bring sea level back to where it is now. And that might take 12,000 years. Well haul up the red flag and turn on the sireeeen.
Trenberth’s heat is not missing. It is also not in the clouds or the ocean. It is in outer space. Instrument inaccuracies and imprecise adjustments easily explain any total discrepancies in measurements.
@Crispin in Waterloo
Instrument inaccuracies and imprecise adjustments easily explain any total discrepancies in measurements.
———————————————
That means heat is “Not missing”, means it “never was”.
As the old saying goes, “What happens on the abyssal plain, stays on the abyssal plain.”
It’s called the thermohaline circulation. Seawater density depends on temperature and salinity, and does not have a maximum density at 4ºC (that’s only true for fresh water), for any given salinity the maximum density is at the freezing/melting point.
Thank you! Here is more information:
Ocean water with all of its salt is densest at its freezing mark of -1.94 C. See:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/density.html&edu=high
This might interest you by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
You can’t warm just the oceans, they are not isolated in a thermos bottle. They are in direct contact with the earth (i.e. the bottom of the ocean). If you think the oceans are going to warm, then a lot of that heat is also going to flow into the earth and warm it too. Lots of mass there.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I understood that the underlying earth is already a heat source for the bottom of the ocean – i.e. it’s already warmer, from internal heat.
Where the bottom of the ocean contacts the underlying earth, the temperature is the same. Then the deeper you go in the earth, the hotter it gets (radioactive decay and all that….) But the earth also acts as an insulator, which is what keeps the core from boiling the oceans, but it works both ways. Heat can flow in either direction. If you claim that the oceans warmed one degree, then heat must flow into the earth, which used to be one degree cooler.
The point is, it is invalid to assume that the interface between the oceans and the earth is a perfect insulator.
I am not saying Trenberth is right, nor am I saying he is wrong. But if he is right, it will actually benefit us. As for the bottom of the ocean also warming, that would be true and it just makes my case stronger.
There is evidence this hypothetical ocean “retardation” of air temperature changes occurs in real life.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/climate-change-not-so-global/
Thank you for confirming my point.
I don’t understand the first bit. You are saying that heat is a thing rather than an attribute of something else ?
Heat can flow through objects. Heat can alter the physical characteristics of some objects, for example you can change the tensile strength and the brittleness of iron depending on what temperature you heat it to and how fast and at what temperature you quench it in oil. So is heat a thing instead of an attribute? How about energy? Joules is the quantity for energy. Heat units are called temperature. If I raise a 10Kg mass by one meter, it has gained potential energy, but you don’t see the potential energy, but you can feel it if you drop it on your foot.
I probably shouldn’t write when it is well past my bedtime.
Let me refresh everybody on the fundamental units used in physics. I can’t find my original copy so I will just write a short list:
1. Candela
2. Mol
3. Temperature
4. Distance
5 Mass
6 Time
7 Electric Charge
In the US Customary system Force is used instead of Mass as a fundamental unit.
All other units are derived from these 7.
Heat is a ‘thing’ as you put it. Temperature is an attribute.
heat is not a thing. a thing can feel hot or a thing can feel cold
When I talk about “heat” I use it in the same sense as Trenberth with “heat going into the deep ocean”. The temperature of the mass goes up when heat is applied to a mass.
A nice explanation Werner! If I went out on a winter’s day, leaving a bath full of cold water and the central heating on, I would not expect to come home at night to find the house, freezing cold but the bath warm and ready to step into. Trenberth and his cronies must be desperate if this is the only explanation they can find for the “missing heat”. Common sense doesn’t get a lok in!
Bur imagine how ‘useful’ it is to be able to claim that it is a problem is not existence of ‘the heat ‘ but one of where it is. In one shot you got everyone to accept that their is ‘heat’ in the first place., so your increased CO2 increased heat claim is validated without ever having to show any increase in temperature.
The concept of heat transfer from a gas to a liquid at an interface of air to water is insane. Yes, it can be done if the air is 10s or 100s of degrees above the liquid temperature. That is not the situation on earth.
You can either do it with a large delta T or a large volume change at the surface contact. How do you get the cool sea breezes without heat transfer from the air to the water at the interface? As the article points out it is mass and heat capacity.
However if something such as air and water is in equilibrium at a certain air temperature, and if the equilibrium is then upset with the air becoming 2 C warmer by any means, then a new equilibrium is established eventually.
Not to get to deep in the old can of worms (Why, because it is usually argued in absolute sense like this…LWIR cannot heat the Oceans. Counterpoint, yes it can.) A more scientific question to answer is how much of the additional LWIR is used up in evaporation, and acceleration of the water cycle, verses somehow transporting itself to the deep oceans as heat>
Of course, besides LWIR, there is always conduction between two surfaces.
Werner, of course, but that is a small part of the picture. SW radiation penetrates up to 800′. The residence time of the energy is cogent to the warming potential. (Think about that one for a bit)
The GHE is predicated on the same principle. LWIR eergy leaving the surface towards space is redirected to stay in the atmosphere, or even go back to the surface. In the mean time (residence time) incoming TSI continues, thus more total energy in the system (atmosphere-land-oceans) Of course if that same GHG molecule receives conducted energy, and directs it to space, the residence time is shortened and the GHG is cooling, (Warren, if you have a engineering format analysis on how much additional GHG CO2 molecules cool vs. warm at disparate elevations and concentrations in the atmosphere, I would love to see it)
The residence time of SW radiation entering below the ocean surface is not infinite, (but up to 800 years as energy can never be destroyed) but relative to the portion (what is the portion, that is the question) of LWIR absorbed in the latent heat of evaporation, and sent up towards space, it almost is.
Water Vapor in clear sky conditions can and does limit surface insolation.
There is currently far more questions then answers, and many of the right questions are not even being asked.
True, and I believe that one reason that lots of sunspots mean more warmth is that the extra UV penetrates deeper into the oceans and with more energy.
Yep. I’ve never seen the warmies even attempt to answer the statement “so we have a negative feedback that reduces warming by 1000x?”
I see a bit of a problem in assuming that the oceans and atmosphere are uniform bodies. The natural variations in heat distribution are what makes “global average temperature” a non sequitur. As I understand the AGW argument, deep ocean upwelling near the poles actually brings water to the surface that is far warmer than the local atmosphere. When sea ice covers the water, less heat can be transferred to the atmosphere. When ice is absent, more heat is transferred to the atmosphere. This process can explain the warming of surface temperature measurements around the Arctic in recent decades.
So the fact that the deep oceans have (for human time frames) an infinite heat sink capacity does not necessarily mean that the deep oceans will therefore prevent “global” warming. While your overall point is important, I suspect the official response will be that it is irrelevant.
However is Trenberth not in effect claiming the oceans prevented global warming over the last 18 years?
How can “heat” go deep into the ocean unless it’s very cold/dense? Seems more like a process of storing cold (compared to avg global sea-surface temps) than storing heat.
This might interest you by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
I’d just like to make the observation, in an amateur psychology sort of way, that there appear to be people ( Greens ) who seem to think that the ” Everything that is to be seen ” is some benign creation which humans just need to fit in with for everything to be all nice and cuddly. Whereas it may be that humanity is hanging on to reality by it’s fingernails as say a tiny, tiny speck of dust on a bowling ball and is fortunate to have survived in this temporary peaceful time.
On the other hand why are all these massive carved structure lying about ? Why do guys spend their entire lives sat in meditation ? Why do people think human consciousness is a special thing?
Or should we adopt a “fvck you, nature” attitude and go for universal domination ?
I believe things were created this way to allow us to use the hydrocarbons now and produce more CO2 just when that was required to feed so many more people.
Heidi de Heat and Heidi de Klein should get together and compare notes. They might find they have a lot in common.
Since the “forcing” mechanism from CO2 (DWLIR) is fully absorbed at 1 micron and does not penetrate at depth, there is zero chance changes in CO2 would effect deep ocean temperature by .1 degree in a billion years. As Willie Soon would attest, it is the sun.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how this CO2 fairy tale survives. It is the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme of science.
The marble and shot put analogy doesn’t quite work. There you are talking about the temperatures after the system has come to equilibrium. That is never the case for ocean or atmospheric temperatures. As such, the claim that the deep oceans would have to warm by 10C to affect the atmosphere doesn’t make sense.
Of course, the heat capacities of the oceans and atmosphere are right, but differentiating between static and dynamic systems is important.
Yes, I was assuming a closed system that reached equilibrium. I am aware of many simplifying assumptions, but that does not change the main point that if heat is indeed going into the deep oceans, we have nothing to worry about for thousands of years.
You can’t heat the deep parts of the ocean and not heat the intervening layers. Sorry, you actually can. You use ‘heat pipes’. Good luck designing one that is effective over a kilometre. I am not aware of these being widely distributed over the ocean so I will make the assumption that it is not possible to bypass various surface levels of the ocean and heat the deeper parts.
This might interest you (Alex) by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
Para 4.
“Answer: The marble would go up in temperature by 1.0 C and the affect on the shot put would not be measurable.”
Typo: effect.
Bruce Cobb@5:04 Like it!
“In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.”
But you have the wrong relationship of CO2 to temperature.
Try: δCO2/δt = λT
i.e. relate the rate of change of CO2 concentration to temperature. Like this.
It shouldn’t need pointing out that despite consumption of fossil fuels accelerating, the rate of change of CO2 has remained static (i.e. has not accelerated) over the hiatus period either. But there are some who must believe that the Mt Pinatubo and Mt Hudson eruptions sequestered CO2. Or the Amazon basin, etc. held its breath for a couple of years. Maybe all SUVs, planes and powerplants were mothballed but I can’t say I noticed that 🙂
And the Amazon basin has only about 6% peat soils by area, with the bulk of the watershed consisting of lateritic soils with minimal humus/leaf litter layer. If the organic component of the soil does not increase, and you have a mature rainforest/jungle in steady state, then there cannot be any carbon sequestration. You might ask about the presence of dissolved organic compounds in the run-off water. The little literature I have found indicates this is insignificant.
The example of the shot put and the marble is way oversimplified. The atmosphere is a gas and that makes counter intuitive things possible.
With a heat pump I can take BTUs from the ground and put them into my house. The ground will hardly cool at all and my house will be toasty warm. In fact, my house will be quite a few degrees warmer than the ground.
In theory it is possible that the atmosphere could warm by more degrees than the ocean cools. I think Dr. Trenberth’s problem is to show a mechanism whereby that could happen.
Unless you’ve invented a revolutionary technology, your heat pump requires quite a bit of energy from an external source. Where would that come from in Earth’s climate?
If Dr. Trenberth can’t answer that then we don’t have to worry about any heat hiding in the ocean depths.
To put a finer point on that, according to the 2nd law, WORK is required. Not mere energy. That’s the critical difference that sinks the theory that the heat is going to come springing out of the deep ocean spontaneously.
Since heat pump relies entirely on the phase change temperatures (and pressures) of the transport medium you will need to translate that into the real world of natures phase change temperatures( and pressures).
Reminds me of this (First clip, just replace “car” with “heat”);