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.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
First remember that there is nothing happening today that hasn’t already happened many times before. There is simply no evidence that anything related to the overall earth climate is changing any differently that it always has.
Second, do the math. Mr. Brozek does the basics for us here, and he makes it clear. Get the facts. Do the math. There is no denying that humans just cannot control the weather.
If the oceans are now absorbing the heat that the land was previously, we should see recent increases in temperature on the islands isolated by ocean water such as Aruba or Hawaii. After all, these island temperatures are highly moderated by ocean temperature. I would be willing to study this further with several on-site visits with a suitable grant.
Spot on! This has always perplexed me about people who worry that “heat is going into the oceans”.
1. Even if your worst assumption about the heat uptake is right, it is causing almost imperceptible rise in temperature due to the huge heat sink effect of the oceans. I made that argument on Tamino’s blog a couple of years back and he did not have an answer – just ignored the point.
2. Most of the heat energy (aka Infrared) directed at the sea surface simply causes evaporation, whereby the heated water molecule ends up in the air, not the sea.
3. It is sunlight, not the atmosphere, that heats the ocean. Solar short wave UV radiation penetrates the sea and is absorbed as it passes through the upper layers. So it is more likely that if the ocean is rising in temperature it is caused by a reduction in cloud cover (and hence an increase in UV reaching the sea) rather than long wave IR back radiation from the atmosphere which cannot penetrate further than the top fraction of a millimeter
In fact reduced cloud cover is a rather better explanation for the warming seen since the 1970s than CO2 as it is a good explanation for rising ocean temperatures as well as rising air temperatures over land whereas the “greenhouse effect” can only ever explain warming over land, and then only if you include massive positive feedback effects.
In a rational world we would be directing research grants into the study of ocean circulation patterns and long-term changes in cloud cover rather than trying to stretch the tiny extra greenhouse effect from fossil fuel emissions to cover the large swings in temperature seen over the last 150 years.
Warmer ocean temperatures have effects on the weather, as anybody living in California during an El Nino will testify. But it is always a contrast between warm and cool that causes it. The absolute temperature is irrelevant. If the whole of the ocean and atmosphere the world over was one uniform temperature then there would be no weather! There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the weather on the Earth can be just as bad, if not worse, in a colder world as in a warmer world. After all we get “winter storms” don’t we?
It is the failure of these AGW quacks to recognize the logical outcome of their arguments that makes me weep for the death of science.
For the “heat is in the oceans” claim, standard logic says:
A. CO2 traps heat and generates DWLIR (according to IPCC quacks)
B. Heat from DWLIR is stored in the ocean
C. DWLIR cannot penetrate below 1 micron
D. Visible Sunlight is the only force that can warm the ocean
Thus,
There is no missing heat
A is false. CO2 does not “trap heat”
The sun and clouds determine temperature and CO2 is a chimera.
Essentially, the “heat is in the oceans” claim proves there is no AGW as defined by the IPCC.
TLM, you have made the points that I was going to make, and I think they are extremely important, as is Werner Brozek’s point. I would just add one more item to the list, using Brozek’s analogy. All of the warmer that can occur due to CO2 increases must originate in the atmosphere. Right now, they would have us believe that the marble is heating the shot put despite the fact that the marble has not increased in temperature. That clearly is impossible. Any increase in the ocean temperatures now must come from direct heating from the sun, and is not CO2 related. Honestly, this argument in it’s entirety pretty much disproves AGW theory. CO2’s effect on planetary temperatures has been wildly over-estimated.
If air can heat water how come they have to heat their swimming pools in Phoenix when it’s 105 F? That pool loses heat through evaporation a hundred times faster then the sensible heat of the air heats it. It’s the water vapor cycle that runs the climate, CO2 has abut as much impact as a bee fart in a hurricane.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
I grew up in Arizona in both Phoenix and Tucson and in summer no one heated their swimming pools, we wanted them cool, for crying out loud. If it is hot outside and the pool is warm, it is yucky.
By the way, evaporation of water to cool was the main way to cool homes back in the 1940-1960’s. The added bonus was, the air was more humid inside when humidity was near 0.
But during the monsoon season, it would be sweaty, of course. We used to cool the inside of mom’s station wagon via hanging towels in the window (she had a string screwed in above the windows for this) and getting these wet periodically and the wind blowing into the car would be cool.
I’m a huge fan of Captain BeeFart.
There are a number of projections on where the world’s population will level off. The UN says 2100 while others, such as Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations Population Division, disagree and argue it will peak before that. Sanjeev Sanyal, Global Strategist for Deutsche Bank, says it will peak at 2050. Our co2 output may well head south along with population THIS century. Then we will have to face other problems.
Basically, the oceans warm slower than the air and by extension, the land masses and then cools slower, too. Therefore, it is a ballast that prevents our planet from being like the moon or Mars which heats fast when the sun shines and becomes bitter cold very rapidly when the sun sets.
There is no ‘missing heat’. This is why we look to land masses to detect sudden directional changes in temperature. If the Pacific Ocean is still sort of warm while Hudson Bay doesn’t see any ice melt in summer, this means we are going into another Ice Age.
This is why tracking Ice Ages via tracking the Pacific Ocean is stupid. That doesn’t cool until long after the Ice Age has begun to grip the North American Continent and is reflecting heat from the sun back into space due to all the white ice covering many thousands of square miles.
“The oceans would act as a huge heat sink and would warm by 0.010 C once equilibrium was reached.”
repeat: once equilibrium was reached, once equilibrium was reached, once equilibrium was reached
Granted, that may take 800 years. And since things are always happening and not standing still, we will never reach equilibrium. However the first 5 degrees would be lost to the oceans very quickly. And/or it would melt a lot of ice quickly.
No-one seems to take into account the transport of water by the deep ocean currents which have been quite well surveyed.
OK. Let’s take them into account. What might they be doing?
Moving large quantities of cold water long distances at seabed level.
A question for grammar enthusiasts: should the title use the subjunctive form of the verb?
It Would Not Matter If Trenberth Were Correct …
I say “yes.”
If you disagree, could you kindly explain your answer. Thanks.
Yes. That bothered me, too, but I didn’t want to quibble.
Using the indicative mood, as the head-post does, is grammatically coherent but it conjures up a scenario that is slightly different from what the subjunctive would suggest.
“…if Trenberth was correct…” would indicate a point in the past, that is viewed as finite for some reason;
for example, the occasion on which he declared his opinion, or perhaps the fact that he has since changed his opinion. (unlikely, I’ll admit). In any event, it’s in the past and only the speculation as to whether he was right is taking place in the present.
The subjunctive is appropriate when it refers to an ongoing, hypothetical situation that persists till the present moment. Trenberth still believes what he believed before (more fool, he).That is the main use of the subjunctive mood; to give a flavour of uncertainty.
Other European languages employ it much more than English does.
The equation contains specific heat C but where is the correction for the water content, assuming relative humidity of 80%?
The specific heat capacity of water vapour is 1846. If we assume 3% of the air is water vapour, then the specific heat capacity rises to 1026 from the 1000 I used. It does not affect the basic thrust of my argument.
RSS Update:
The RSS anomaly for February was 0.328. As a result, the average for January and February is 0.348 and the ranking stays at third. However the time for a period of a slope less than 0 increases to 18 years and 3 months.
UAH Update:
The UAH anomaly for February was 0.296. As a result, the average for January and February is 0.324 and the ranking also stays at third.
Could we just simplify the ocean heat question by saying that during the 30 yr warm cycle it releases heat and during the 30 yr cool cycle it absorbs heat. Dr Bill Gray explains how heat is buried during the cool cycle because of high salinity areas sinking even when they are warmer because of higher density. The current PDO cool cycle will contain less heat for the future because of the lower sunspot activity( total solar irradiance) if it continues long term. A big factor may be sulfur dioxide aerosol pollution from Asia reflecting solar radiation if pollution controls are not installed on all coal plants including 1200 planned for the future. Some scientists are saying aerosol pollution is causing cold winters in the USA plus volcanic activity which is hard to predict. We need models that incorporate all factors. Removing sulphates from the atmosphere after 1975 contributed to the warming but that is reversing now with Asian pollution?
These are good questions, but they are beyond what I am comfortable discussing.
Regarding this: “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.”
The oceans would not need to warm by 10 degrees C in order for the equatorial Pacific ocean upper layers to get warmer than they are now. Therefore, ocean warming less than 10 degrees C would result in El Ninos warming the atmosphere more, and/or La Ninas cooling the atmosphere less.
True. I was focusing on the “deep” part of Trenberth’s statement. I agree it is much more complicated. But does this have a huge affect on my basic argument and relative time?
Trenberth’s heat going into the deep oceans is contradicted by the IPCC’s latest report. The models did not underpredict warming in the oceans, and instead may have overpredicted, particularly for the deep oceans. So the missing heat cannot be there.
Crispin in Waterloo said on March 6, 2015 at 4:26 am:
“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 than 3 degrees.
Heating another degree will bring sea level back to where it is now. So another ‘dire prediction’ bites the dust.”
This statement of thermal contraction/expansion of water is only true for fresh water. Sea water expands with increasing temperature throughout all temperatures above 0 C.
A rise from 3 to 4ºC in ocean water will give a reduction in density of 0.01%, at an average depth of 4000 ft that would be about a 4 foot rise.
And should that happen over the next 600 years, we should be able to cope with it.
Heat going into the deep ocean is just an attempt to keep the case for climate alarm alive. I agree with Dr. Richard Lindzen, “So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating”.
If heat can go into the ocean it means that it can also come out during the warm cycles which makes the skeptics case that it was not just Co2 warming the planet. It was 2 oceans in warm PDO and AMO cycle at the same time plus other factors like the Sun and cooling pollution removal. Co2 being just a small part.
4.13 x 10^17 joules / KM^3. What does that number represent? That is the energy it takes to convert one cubic kilometer of continental ice from -30 oC to water at 4 oC
Useful information:
heat of fusion of water = 334 J/g
heat of vaporization of water = 2257 J/g
specific heat of ice = 2.09 J/g•°C
specific heat of water = 4.18 J/g•°C
Step 1: Heat required to raise the temperature of ice from -30 °C to 0 °C (for temp see average profile temp Antarctica) http://www.pnas.org/content/99/12/7844.full Use the formula
q = mc?T Per Kg 1000 x 2.09 x 30 = 62700 Joules
Step 2: Heat required to convert 0 °C ice to 0 °C water
q = m•?Hf Per Kg 1000 x 334 = 334000 Joules
Step 3: Heat required to raise the temperature of 0 °C water to 100 °C water
q = mc?T per Kg 1000 x 4.18 x 4 = 16720 Joules
Total -30 oC ice to +4 oC water per Kg = 413420 Joules / KG
Where
q = heat energy
m = mass
c = specific heat
?T = change in temperature
?Hf = heat of fusion
One metric tonne of water has a volume of one cubic meter (1 tonne water(1,000 KG = 1 m³)
One gagatonne of water has a volume of one billion cubic meters, or one cubic kilometer.(1 Gt water = 1 km³)Of course, one gigatonne of ice has a greater volume than one gigatonne of water. But it will still have a volume of 1 km³ when it melts.
413420 Joules/KG x 1000 KG/t x 1,000,000,000 t/KM^3 = 4.1342E+17 Joules / KM^3
But you say ‘DD’ how does this compare to the well known ‘Hiroshima bomb’ measurement.
By today’s standards the two bombs dropped on a Japan were small — equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT in the case of the Hiroshima bomb and 20,000 tons in the case of the Nagasaki bomb. (Encyclopedia Americana. Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995: 532.)
In international standard units (SI), one ton of TNT is equal to 4.184E+09 joule (J)
Hiroshima bomb TNT 15000 x TNT to Joules 4.18E+09 = Joules total 6.276E+13 =>
or 1 KM^3 of ice melt (4.1342E+17 / 6.276E+13) = # HiroBmb per Km^3 = 6587
That is correct. Place one Hiroshima bomb in a grid every 54 meters apart to melt the ice.
How about all that ‘Missing Heat’? Ocean heat content has increased by about 2.5 X 10E23 Joules since 1970 (IPCC AR5).
So 2.5 X 10E23 Joules / 4.1342 x 10E17 Joules/KM^3 = 604,712 KM^3
Well that sounds like a lot of ice, but Antarctica has between 26 and 30 million and Greenland has 2.5 million of those KM^3, so in reality it works out to 604,712 / 30,000,000 = 2.02% of the total. It was measurement error.
If you apply heat to an ice-water mixture, the temperature will stay at 0 C until all the ice is melted. So does that mean we have to wait for all of the ice in Antarctica to melt before temperatures can really shoot up? So besides the cold in the deep ocean, all of the ice in Antarctica would be another huge heat sink.
Slight Correction:
the density of ice at -30C is 920Kg per cubic meter, not 1000. Also the current ocean heat accumulation is closer to 3 X 10E23 Joules, not 2.5
So the estimate is off by about 10% and is actually about 660,000 cubic KM of ice equivalent. This is enough meltwater to raise the average sea level by 2 meters and if most of this mass is lost from west Antarctica, the additional gravity effect in North America would produce closer to 2.5 meters of sea level rise.
It should be noted here that the intensity of the energy being reflected down to earth from the surface of the atmosphere, called Top of Atmosphere Radiation Imbalance has increased from .2 Watts per meter Squared in 1965 to 1.1 Watts per meter Squared today. Therefore, the majority of the accumulated heat in the earth’s oceans occurred in the last two decades.
This increase in accumulation rates will continue so that the next 20 years will produce an additional 660,000 KM^3 of equivalent warming.
So where is the magic partial mirror Jai? Sounds a lot like diffusion confusion to me.
I’m not sure what you mean AJ?
“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.” –James Hansen
If his Lysenkoism continues to infect Science the way it has, Hansen should be calling his book Stormtroopers of My Grandchildren
The salient point in this to me, and obvious to any thermodynamicist, is that even if the atmosphere could transfer heat to the oceans, there is a minimum of three orders of magnitude amounts of heat capacity in the heat sink – making it appear as nearly infinite in its ability to absorb atmospheric heat.
Of course, if you think that a couple of degrees of air temperature can lead to calamity, then all of these animals roaming the earth today evolved in a relatively short period when you consider that the Holocene Interglacial Period is only about 12,000 years to date. What happened to all those tasty animals from the deep freeze of the Pleistocene Epoch? Oh yea, buffalo burgers for everyone!
“is that even if the atmosphere could transfer heat to the oceans”
What is all this “even if” business? Since we have countless observations of sub surface temperature anomalies which show this happening all the time.
Recognizing that I’m referring to averages, the overall average air temperature is lower than the overall average sea water surface temperature. Since heat flux is directly related to the differences in temperatures of fluids in direct conflict, your discussion regarding sub-surface temperature anomalies is meaningless. You are proposing that that heat can flow countercurrent to flux. Silliness on your part, and betrays a general lack of understanding thermodynamics.
contact, not conflict… A Freudian I suppose.
Nitschke:
You forgot the sarc tag.
Have you invented the perpetual motion machine?! I suggest you patent it right away!/sarc
What I am saying is that if the deep ocean goes from 3 C to 4 C, it will not affect the atmospheric temperature.
Werner, I am calling out Nitschke on his insistence that heat can flow from colder fluids to hotter fluids. How can the atmosphere, a colder fluid transfer heat through the ocean’s surface, which is a warmer fluid?
The net heat transfer is always from hot to cold unless work is done on the system. But keep in mind that above open waters at the poles, very different things may happen than at the equator depending on whether the air or ocean is colder.
UAH update:
Version 5.5 is officially gone. You cannot see the numbers on any website but you can see the numbers to December 2014 on WFT. Its period of no slope was an even 10 years according to Walter Dnes.
With the February numbers for version 5.6, the time for no slope decreases from an even 6 years to 5 years and 11 months.
(In case you missed the earlier update for RSS: The time for a period of a slope of less than 0 increases by a month to 18 years and 3 months.)
Hello Werner,
Thanks for this month’s update.
The negative slope on UAH V 5.6 is looking increasingly precarious. It’s only by selecting a start date sometime in 2009 that you can find a negeative slope, and another year or so of similar anomalies to those of January and February will see it disappear altogther.
The RSS negative slope will survive from 1997 until well into 2016, unless there is an increase in the monthly anomalies to around 0.4 deg C.
See:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
The slope is still negative to February 2010 so we have a ways to go on version 5.6.
Considering ocean heat certainly complicates what to expect for near-surface temperatures. But two points to keep in mind. The oceans receive most of their heat from direct solar radiation (low albedo) and little from the atmosphere. However, ocean surface temperature can influence atmosphere temperature. The big unknown is the degree of ocean mixing and the time of that mixing. Without understanding details of the ocean’s influence, it is difficult to predict future surface temperatures.
“http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/”
With all due respect to Roy spencer, all he is saying here is, “Well, if the ocean mixed, and I have no idea if it does or not, then it could warm the bottom water.”
Quite so, Dr. Spencer, quite so.
Werner, your “shot put” .vs. “marble” analogy is quite apt. Now, if you expand it just a bit you would find that the thermal capacity of the Oceans is more like the volume of an “Astrodome” and the thermal capacity of the “greenhouse gases” is more like a “spit ball”. If all of the gases in the atmosphere (i.e. those that absorb IR radiation and those that do not) cannot “budge” the temperature of the Ocean’s what person of sound mind would believe that the “IR absorbing” gases could raise the temperature of the Oceans by 30 some degrees all by themselves ????
Technically speaking the mass of the mosquitoes striking the windshield of an 18 wheeler barreling down an interstate highway at 70 mph does “force” the velocity of the truck to change, but who in their right mind accepts that the total mass of the mosquitoes “determines” the velocity of the vehicle ??? Substitute temperature for velocity and “backradiation” for mosquito mass and you can quickly see that the whole “GHE” hypothesis is, at best ,“seriously flawed”.
Do you have a source for “iron marbles”? I seem to have misplaced a few of mine and it seems like solid Iron ones might be a good long lasting replacement, ha ha ha.
Cheers, KevinK.
Go to a junk yard and get ball bearings with the size of steel marbles that you wish. Then smash the ball bearings on the sidewalk about 20 times or until it breaks. Then you have the steel marbles. I remember doing that as a kid.
Hadsst3 Update:
Hadsst3 just came out for February and with a value of 0.417 the average is 0.429 it remains in second place. There is no flat period worth mentioning.
(So all three February values so far (UAH, RSS, and Hadsst3) are lower than January, but not low enough to change the ranking from January.)
In principle the “missing heat” is the supposed amount of the man-made warming, the AGW, or the warming effect due solely to man, which actually we fail to measure anywhere or see it anywhere in atmosphere, where it should be if it was real.
Now, the likes of Mann and Trenberth, out of desperation are trying to claim that such heat has been buried in the depth of oceans, And in time will come somehow out and be a big problem.
Otherwise there is no case at all left for AGW.
The first problem is that even contemplating for a moment that such a thing has being buried, as claimed, there still should be, or should have being a measurement in the natural system of it’s birth, a significant “fingerprint” of such a “birth” . Also there should have being significant changes observed in regard to the transfer of that heat to the depths of oceans.
So basically the claim of “the missing heat gone to the depth of oceans” is a claim of “something buried kicking and a life while actually there is no sign of it ever being born”.
The second and the major problem with that claim is that according to the earth system natural variation, the natural functioning, the oceans/atmosphere coupling, there is so much that the oceans can sink heat from the atmosphere. There is a natural limit to it.
It is somewhere at ~0.4C (atmospheric warming) at a max for a period just about over a century, and at a min of a period just about a millennium.
Any more sinking than that will show as a non natural variation of SST in long term. An increase of SST clearly above the natural variation.
Coming around again to the point that if the oceans were sinking more warming, like in the case of AGW, still there should be some measurable AGW in the atmosphere, or there should still be some hotspot observed in the tropics, or at least there should have being enough SST variation ABOVE THE NATURAL EXPECTATIONS.
While the oceans have a play in the case of the hiatus, the impact is no big enough to explain the hiatus.
The hiatus means that there never was an unnatural accumulation of heat in the atmosphere, and now that still holds true, plus that possibly the atmosphere is losing heat to the space out there more than during the 0.8C warming period up to 1998.
The AGW stands for an amount of warming that never managed to be accumulated in the atmosphere, the real missing heat. Is already lost and never to show up. There never was an accumulation of such a warming in atmosphere.
The bigger problem seems to be that the atmosphere and the surface are in a cooling signal, towards the possible loss of even that observed 0.8C warming up to 1998.
Probably shortly, the missing heat will not consist only of the supposed AGW but also of the natural observed warming. It will grow and still missing..;-)
cheers
A change from 3.0 C to 3.1 C, if that actually happened, would not show a “significant fingerprint” of any type.
Ok, I could be wrong yes, but please do try to run the numbers that will drive the 3.0C to become a 3.1C.
And then tell me how much SST temp variation expected in such a case to be real, only the SST variation increment that should be there if such the case……forget about the hotspot and any thing else like that.
Let see what you come out with the numbers for SST.
cheers. .
To cause an increase of 0.1 C could be done in two ways. Using H = mcdt, H = 1.4 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/(kg C) x 0.10 C = 5.6 x 10^23 J.
Or it could come by Dr. Spencer’s method that I have alluded to several times. Or it could be a combination of the two.
Werner Brozek
March 7, 2015 at 1:15 pm
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.
—————
Naturally the Earth’s atmosphere temperature does not raise more than ~4.5C for about a 10K years, the max climatic swing.
In climatic equilibrium that is at about 0.4C per millennium, in a transient climate it is at max for just about above 100years at ~0.4C. That is the natural relation of the oceans/atmosphere coupling as far as the natural exchange of energy concerned. Either way of the energy direction that is the natural limit.
At such as a condition, naturally, the SST variation is so small that for all purposes is considered as a constant.
A higher energy transfer in between atmosphere and oceans will result in a higher SST variation.
Strangely enough that is not observed even when considering the 0.8C warming of the last century, which is about the double of that natural transfer limit considered.
That is the main problem of AGW.
The explanation is simple, the oceans are not sinking any more heat than supposed to.
And the max atmosphere tolerance seems to be, at least for now, at ~0.8C (the double of the observed natural limit), and any other amount of heat, like the missing heat has being already thrown out there to the deep freezing space.
No any significant SST variation, neither for an AGW or a hotspot and neither for an extra oceans warming.
You see, we to a degree know the atmospheric long term temp swings, through observation of actual data, paleo climate data, and in the same time can calculate the oceans warming, or oceans temp swing, as per your above method.
And that is at ~4.5C for atmosphere and very probably at 0.0045C for the oceans, with a very little SST variation..
Any unnatural further swing, like in the man-made climate will produce a measurable change in the system, like a higher observed SST.
There can not be a man made atmospheric warming without the SST fingerprint,,,,,and same holds true if that warming had to be going down to the depths of the oceans.
Neither the atmosphere or the oceans will warm beyond the natural limit without it showing an impact on the SST.
cheers
Even the monthly variations in SST are relatively large for one reason or another. And animals have no trouble coping.
Werner Brozek
March 8, 2015 at 7:19 am
Even the monthly variations in SST are relatively large for one reason or another. And animals have no trouble coping.
————–
“Even the monthly variations in SST are relatively large”
Sorry Werner, but that is actually how some bright persons like you lose me some times.
The above selected has no any chance or meaning at all to be translated in the climatic terms, in the long term atmospheric behavior.
Monthly variation has not whatsoever a meaning, in its own, in the angle of climate and long term atmospheric variation.
Let me paste copy from my reply to you, as far as SST CONSIDERED:
”
—-
You see, we to a degree know the atmospheric long term temp swings, through observation of actual data, paleo climate data, and in the same time can calculate the oceans warming, or oceans temp swing, as per your above method.
And that is at ~4.5C for atmosphere and very probably at 0.0045C for the oceans, with a very little SST variation..
——-
Is a long term point of view, no days, no weeks , no month, no years, not even decades…… is in the scale of millennia, or at max in scale of centuries.
Let me correct my exact point of view.
For the sake of being politically correct I offered a ~4.5C atmospheric swinging in temps which will mean something like 0.0045C temp swing for the oceans if your calculating method applied.
But from my point of view that is even smaller, a ~0.3C atmospheric temp swing, which will make the oceanic temp swing at most a 0.003C for the same period. And if I would have to apply the CO2 impact in atmosphere that oceanic temp swing reduces even further in accordance to the atmosphere heat content.
It ends up to be no more than ~0.002C, for a time period of about 10k years in climate equilibrium, and for max possible in a time frame at about150 years, in a not climate equilibrium.
That 0.002C temp swing is very very little for any SST variation to be considered any other way than constant, in climatic meaning always, IN A LONG TERM VIEW POINT……..
In a climatic point of view it does not really matter how much the SST varies in daily weekly, monthly or even yearly scales, what matters is how much it varies in millennia or century scale, the long term variation.
It does not really matter, in long term and climatic term, how much energy is the atmosphere subjected to in hourly, daily, weekly or even monthly bases, either due to CO2 emission or any other cause/
What matters is how much of that energy is accumulated in the long term, during a longer term.
Please do forgive me if I may have come across as a bit “harsh” in this one..:-)
cheers
I am not sure I am following you. Where I live, the temperatures can go from + 30 C to – 30 C in 6 months. And people survive well. As well, people from my area often go to Hawaii in winter and thoroughly enjoy going from – 30 C to + 30 C in 7 hours.
Yet having an increase of even 4 C in 100 years is somehow bad? I would have no trouble adapting to a range from – 26 C to + 34 C if that happened next year.
@Werner Brozek March8 at 1:04pm
Hi again Werner.
First we not actually arguing or debating what the actual problem of climate change could or would be for us or other life species, either in the case of that being natural or man made, not at this point.
We are some how debating how proper and reasonable the claim of Trenberth is.
4C in 100 years is not even possible, let alone it begin contemplated as bad or not.
Let me correct for you the numbers in my previous reply to you, as I see now that maybe the error there may have lead you to consider a 4C warming for a 100 year period, instead of it being considered as supposed to at 0.4C for a ~100 years period.
The correction:
“It ends up to be no more than a ~0.002C, for a time period of about 10K years in climate equilibrium, and at
~0.0002C variation as max possible for a time period ~150 years in climate not in equilibrium.”
Sorry about that, especially if that is the case for your mentioned 4C variation in a 100 years.
Also, I see another error in my previous reply.
The ~0.3 C climatic swing is meant actually to be a ~3C climatic swing.
Sorry about that one error too.
Cheers