Seth Borenstein: "Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997"

Guest post by David Middleton


WASHINGTON (AP) — The amount of man-made heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997, a study released Monday showed.

Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world’s oceans instead of the ground. And they’ve seen ocean heat content rise in recent years. But the new study, using ocean-observing data that goes back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s and including high-tech modern underwater monitors and computer models, tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years.

The world’s oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

To put that in perspective, if you exploded one atomic bomb the size of the one that dropped on Hiroshima every second for a year, the total energy released would be 2 zettajoules. So since 1997, Earth’s oceans have absorbed man-made heat energy equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for 75 straight years.

“The changes we’re talking about, they are really, really big numbers,” said study co-author Paul Durack, an oceanographer at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. “They are nonhuman numbers.”

Because there are decades when good data wasn’t available and computer simulations are involved, the overall figures are rough but still are reliable, the study’s authors said. Most of the added heat has been trapped in the upper 2,300 feet, but with every year the deeper oceans also are absorbing more energy, they said.




WTF is “man-made heat”???

The source of Mr. Borenstein’s latest exercise in scientific illiteracy is this paper


On what planet is “ocean heat content” synonymous with “man-made heat”?

Even if, the rise in ocean heat content was entirely due to the rise in atmospheric CO2, the “heat” wouldn’t be “man-made.”

Ocean heat content is measured in joules, usually expressed as gazillions of joules  (J).  It takes 4.186 J to raise the temperature of 1 g of water 1 °C.  Since the oceans are composed of a rather large volume of water, it takes a lot of joules to warm it just a little bit.  Without a rather large heat content, the oceans would be frozen solid.

Sargasso Sea SST (Keigwin, 1996) compared to instrumental SST record.  How many gazillions of joules were gained and lost from 1200 BC through 1850 AD?  How many of those gazillions of joules were man-made?



Addendum: Gazillions of Joules Under the Sea

Gazillions of joules!

A five degree rise for just the first inch of ocean, for a static area 900 miles in diameter (the size of hurricane Sandy) requires 95-million terajoules of energy. If we assume it gets used the most efficiently it can be, a ton of coal gets you about 35 gigajoules. That means we’d need a cube of coal .9 of a mile/side to generate the energy needed to heat just that first inch of water five degrees. All that energy is a fraction of the heat being trapped, just a fraction. We’re going to see a lot more storms get charged up this way.

The best way to alarm the scientifically illiterate is to convert 0.8°C into eleventy gazillion joules.

Ocean Heat Content for the upper 700 meters of the oceans increased by about 16 gazillion (10^22) Joules over the last 40 years or so! 16 gazillion is a huge number! Unfortunately for Warmists, 16 gazillion is a very tiny number relative to the volume of the top 700 meters of the oceans and the heat content that normally resides in the oceans…

Figure 6. Change in Ocean Heat Content from Levitus et al., 2009 via Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations (

16 gazillion Joules is enough heat to increase the average temperature of the upper 700 meters of ocean by a whopping 0.168 degrees Centigrade.

The average temperature of the upper 700 meters of ocean is somewhere in the ballpark of 10 degrees Centigrade…

Figure 7. Approximate average oceanic thermocline (Windows to the Universe).

How much heat content is required to raise the temperature of the upper 700 meters of ocean from 0 to 10 degrees Centigrade?

A bit less than 950 gazillion Joules.

16 gazillion is less than 2% of 950 gazillion.

More fun with gazillions of Joules

This is a graph from a Skeptical Science post…

Figure 8. An unreliable representation of recent changes in Earth’s total heat content (Skeptical Science).

Frightening, right?

In addition to lacking any context, the title of the graph is amazingly and ignorantly wrong. There’s a lot more to the Earth than water, ice and air… There’s that whole solid(ish) thing in the middle.

The heat flow at the surface (the coolest part of the solid Earth) of the Earth is ~47 Terawatts (TW). A Joule is 1 Watt*second of power. 47 TW is 47,000,000,000,000 joules per second (47*10^12 J/s). Over the 40-yr period (1969-2008) the Earth’s heat flow transferred 6 gazillion (10^12) Joules of heat from the interior to the surface. That 6 gazillion is a very tiny fraction of the total heat content of the Earth (~12,600,000,000 gazillion Joules). So the SkepSci graph doesn’t even come close to capturing the “change in the Earth’s total heat content.”

Here’s a little more context… Unsurprisingly, ocean heat content and sea surface temperature are highly correlated…

Figure 9. Cross-plot of ocean heat content (Levitus, 2009) and sea surface temperature (Hadley/CRU via Wood for Trees).

So, we can very easily estimate OHC from SST to see what the OHC was

doing before we started measuring it…

Figure 10. Historical ocean heat content calculated from HadSST and OHC (Levitus, 2009).

Wow!!! The OHC had to have increased by 13 gazillion Joules from 1910-1941. How did that happen? CO2 was mired in the “safe” range of 310-320 ppmv (assuming Antarctic ice cores are accurate sources of paleo-CO2 data).

Frankenstorm-itis: Five degrees of Separation from Reality and Eleventy Gazillion Joules Under the Sea


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 19, 2016 8:15 am

Why did the heat that was warming the atmosphere suddenly start warming the oceans instead?
If you can’t tell us that then it’s just as justifiable to say the energy from the oceans was warming the atmosphere (due to random changes) and the effect of man’s CO2 output is negligible.
Indeed, as the correlation with CO2 output is so poor it is more justifiable to take these Ocean heat claims as disproof of newsworthy AGW.

Reply to  MCourtney
January 19, 2016 8:29 am

The impact of the ocean on land temperatures only extends a hundred or so miles inland. (Rapidly decreasing as you go.)
The idea that heat going into the oceans is preventing temperature changes in places hundreds, of miles inland should be laughable.

Reply to  MCourtney
January 19, 2016 10:16 am

MCourtney January 19, 2016 at 8:15 am
Why did the heat that was warming the atmosphere suddenly start warming the oceans instead?

Why and HOW? How does energy transferred from CO2 to the atmosphere, NOT heat the atmosphere? How does energy re-radiated by CO2 NOT heat the land? How does… oh never mind. Discussion of the science is a waste of time.

Bryan A
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 19, 2016 12:23 pm

Perhaps the Land isn’t playing right anymore, or perhaps it just didn’t get the e-mail
Or the land has simply reached saturation.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 19, 2016 4:59 pm

davidmhoffer askes, “How does energy transferred from CO2 to the atmosphere,…”
Does CO2 contain energy which is transferred to the atmosphere?

Reply to  spock2009
January 19, 2016 5:33 pm

“Does CO2 contain energy which is transferred to the atmosphere?”
Co2 heated by long wave radiation from the surface in the atmosphere WILL exchange energy with other molecules in the atmosphere through collision and emission.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 20, 2016 1:24 pm

You do realise that, for all of our logic and empirical views on all of this… we are LOSING the battle against the religion of ACC.
There is far too much ££$$ involved in it – ACC is now at the same position as petrol engined cars and a (mythical) new engine technology…the car makers and the trillion ££$$ oil people will block it.
ACC is now that trillion ££$$ wealth-creation scheme. They will stop at nothing – brainwashing, calling for criminal charges for sceptics, etc – to protect their vested interests.
Scepticism is losing to stupidity.

Reply to  Casey
January 20, 2016 2:02 pm

Casey its not over until the fat lady sings, or the fat scientists cry like little girls…or something. The only way we lose is by giving up. And I don’t think anyone here intends to.
The ACC’ers aren’t winning. Public opinion of science and scientists has never been so low. The public is losing faith in science. People aren’t becoming more convinced of ACC, they are becoming less convinced. And the more we tell them about WHY it’s failing, the more they turn away from it.
I don’t know where you live, but where I live, people laugh about “global warming” all the time. They simply do not believe it.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 21, 2016 11:45 am

Aphan said:
“Casey its not over until the fat lady sings, or the fat scientists cry like little girls…or something. The only way we lose is by giving up. And I don’t think anyone here intends to.
The ACC’ers aren’t winning. Public opinion of science and scientists has never been so low. The public is losing faith in science. People aren’t becoming more convinced of ACC, they are becoming less convinced. And the more we tell them about WHY it’s failing, the more they turn away from it.
I don’t know where you live, but where I live, people laugh about “global warming” all the time. They simply do not believe it.”
Well stated. And this is the beauty of the whole AGW affair; these idiots are exposing themselves for all to see. But the ultimate goal should be to help the general public generalize from this fiasco – to make them see that these are the sort of people who have sequestered themselves in positions where they can have a significant impact on the future of our society.

Reply to  MCourtney
January 19, 2016 11:55 am

YOU ARE 100% CORRECT. Sort of. What we can say is that the magnitude of these energies are NOT what anybody thought 30, 20, 10 years ago. The fact that we don’t know how the energy is getting into the deeper ocean, if it is, how long it will stay there, how long the process can continue or if it is even happening.
They bandy about numbers for deep ocean heat content for 150 years as if that could be knowable. We are talking hundredths of a degree. We had NO instruments to measure this and proxies would have to be awfully sensitive to notice this minor temperature change. It is not clear how they could identify that layer of the ocean. They say the results are reliable. I doubt it. They have trouble saying if there was a mideival warming period and it is reliable there was a 0.01 degree change in temperature? Really?
We don’t know deeper ocean temperatures. Even today we don’t know that. The ARGO floats only cover about half the ocean volume. We’ve only been doing that for 14 years.
You’re point is my point. This is all stuff they didn’t know that is large enough to impact their assumptions and results. That means IT WAS NOT ALL SETTLED. It was not all “fact.” It still isn’t because they still don’t understand this. They don’t understand the 60-70 year cycle of El Ninos called the PDO and AMO which also majorly affect the climate. They can’t model this cycle because they don’t know what causes it. They have said it will stop.( PDO, AMO, El Ninos, …) because it isn’t in their models. Well, it didn’t.
Failure failure failure. I document all this in my article: the 50 + failures and deceptions of climate scientists

DD More
Reply to  logiclogiclogic
January 19, 2016 1:39 pm

Logic –
Expedition – of 1872–76
On her 68,890-nautical-mile (127,580 km) journey circumnavigating the globe,[1] 492 deep sea soundings, 133 bottom dredges, 151 open water trawls and 263 serial water temperature observations were taken. Also about 4,700 new species of marine life were discovered.
Here is the route
Note the Niño 3.4 Region got one pass, N-S. Was that a El Niño or La Nina year?
But good enough to record the whole ocean temperature to hundredths of a degree.

Jay Hope
Reply to  MCourtney
January 19, 2016 2:44 pm

Don’t they mean ‘Mann- made heat’??

Alan the Brit
January 19, 2016 8:15 am

On what planet is “ocean heat content” synonymous with “man-made heat”?
Precisely! Presumption upon presumption upon presumption!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
January 19, 2016 10:24 am

presumably a gazillion times!

Reply to  fossilsage
January 19, 2016 12:53 pm

“Eleventy gazillion”! My new favorite number!

January 19, 2016 8:17 am

“Man-made heat” (energy released from burning fuels of various kinds) goes into the air and then into space. It doesn’t go into the oceans. The ignorance of journalists would be astonishing if it weren’t so common.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2016 9:59 am

Advanced courses

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2016 11:50 am

Progressive Core subjects!

Reply to  David Middleton
January 21, 2016 7:08 am

“How to Lie with Statistics” was a supplemental seminar at my university. … in the 80’s. The intent was to show how to spot deceptive representations, and tease out the truth … not a ‘how to’ manual.

Reply to  Gary
January 19, 2016 9:52 am

I heard a story the other day about some AGWers who all drove their cars down to the beach, connected long hoses to their exhausts and were trying to pump the exhaust into the ocean to try to prove this theory. Can you believe it? They’ll go to such lengths to just be right once in awhile…
/Sarc. Maybe

Reply to  Dahlquist
January 19, 2016 9:55 am

Was that a Jouls Verne story, about the jouls in the seas? Fiction.
Ok, Dumb joke.

Reply to  Dahlquist
January 19, 2016 10:39 am

..No dumber than their research !!

Reply to  Gary
January 19, 2016 12:54 pm

Oh it’s still astonishing. Astonishingly common. 🙂

Reply to  Aphan
January 20, 2016 9:10 am

I named my female cat Joulie since she had so much energy as a kitten. Now she’s a fat cat and sort of lazy. NOW I know where her energy went, right into Puget Sound.

January 19, 2016 8:22 am

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
When the earths atmosphere refuses to warm, at all, over the past 18+ years, despite record ‘man-made’ CO2 emissions over the same period, why wouldn’t you default to the old Trenberth “the missing heat is hiding in the oceans” theory?
Still no mention of the sun’s energy causing warning anywhere to be seen.
What a joke.

January 19, 2016 8:23 am

This is great news!
As predicted, the ginormous heat sink of the world’s oceans is tempering the thermal balance of the planet.
But wait, I’m confused…aren’t sea level changes mostly due to ocean heat content? If the Borenstein digest of this work is to be believed, wouldn’t sea level have increased by the same amount since 1997 as it did from 1865 until 1997? I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with this claim or its interpretation. As a journal editor, I’m often left wondering, who reviews this crap? Where are the editors? Nature Publishing Group continues to cover itself in (not glory).

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  genesdoc
January 19, 2016 12:41 pm

Yes, the ocean should have expanded in volume just as much since 1997. It is claimed that melting of land ice has increased, (not decreased) and that the oceans are expanding because of added heat. Now, don’t spoil the fun: If a lot of ice were melting and running into the oceans, it would be bloody cold when it got there. Does that decrease the total ocean heat?
It takes about 720 cubic km/yr to raise the ocean level 2mm per year. That sort of melting isn’t happening so sea level rise must be from heat more than putting land-ice into the oceans.
If it is from heat expanding the water and the numbers from the authors above are correct, then the rise in sea level should match (pretty much) the heat absorbed. Water isn’t squishy so there is no way out of their argument. Sea level didn’t rise like that since 1997, so the claim for added heat must be false.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 19, 2016 12:58 pm

Naw…see…when Co2 molecules get cold in the ocean, they shrink or contract…making them skinnier and then ocean pressure make them flat. Then when they pile up on the ocean floor, they do it in organized stacks, one layer at a time. So they won’t raise the sea level at all until the ocean floor is covered with them several layers deep. So all that heat is in there, it’s just thinner and stacked neatly so it’s not affecting sea levels yet.
See? I’m a climate scientist!!!

DD More
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 19, 2016 2:02 pm

A point I made earlier, that the excess heat cannot be 2 places at once.
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 °C to water at 4 °C
See maths here (the 0 C to 100 C should be 0 C to 4 C)
So for 150 zettajoules in the last 18 years, not only do they have to calculate the ocean temps, but must include Antarctica and Greenland Ice mass too.
How about all that ‘Ocean Heat Content Change’? Ocean heat content has increased by the noted 1.50 X 10E23 Joules in the next 18 years.
So 1.50 X 10E23 Joules / 4.1342 x 10E17 Joules/KM^3 = 363,000 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 628,930 / 30,000,000 = 1.21% of the total.
Since the heat cannot both melt the ice and heat the water, please tell me to what accuracy in percentage has the volume of ice has been measured in the last 18 years?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 19, 2016 9:44 pm

Heat’s still missing, then I reckon! Or it’s just those “inhuman” numbers that are beyond our imagining! Sigh. I’m a biologist. I’m supposed to be one of them scientist types who’s not good with math..but these climate clowns take the cake.

Reply to  genesdoc
January 19, 2016 11:35 pm

Yes, that is a correct interpretation. Other sources seem to think that about 75% of all the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, but then they say it is only ~0.55 mm per year?
How do you get from 0.55 mm being 75% of the total to the total being the 3.3 mm per year they like to cite?
Also, I did a back of the envelope calculation and a temperature increase of 0.138 C throughout the ocean should cause ~36 cm of sea level rise. Even the inflated 3.3 mm per year number they like to cite is nowhere near 36 cm since 1997.
If someone has a more accurate calculation of what +0.138 C should do to sea level, I’d love to see it.

Reply to  genesdoc
January 20, 2016 3:18 pm

Good catch. If the sea has been absorbing all this heat how is it that the sea level hasn’t soared? 0.1C times the entire mass of the ocean and the thermal expansion ratio would yield a fantastic amount of increased volume. Granted they are only talking a fraction of the ocean but a significant fraction. Let’s see. Water expands linearly by a factor of 6.9*10^-6 * height of water column heated, so if we are saying 500 meters of water is warmed 0.1C then we would see a sea rise of 3.45mm. Since we normally see 2-3mm/year of sea level rise if the last 20 years have seen this rise it would be a significant contributor to sea level rise. If it is more water maybe twice as much then we might have seen 7mm or more. Still all in all not sure if that makes any difference.

Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2016 8:25 am

I prefer the mathematical term “bazillion” to gazillion. It gives it more oomph.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2016 8:59 am

WTF is a “zettajoule?” Something they just made up? /sarc

Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2016 9:15 am

I went out with a girl named Zetta, once.

Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2016 9:33 am

Zetta is an official metric SI unit prefix.
See this link

Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2016 9:56 am

I once had a threesome with Zetta and Joules – maybe that’s where all the heat came from?

Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2016 9:59 am

Bet Zetta had a lotta joules. Did she wear them a lot?

Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2016 10:12 am

WTF is a “zettajoule?”
Something with a lot of zeros after it used to make a few thousandths of a degree (well below the limits of our ability to measure it accurately) look scary.
But they’ve missed a trick, if they’d used ergs they could have squeezed another seven orders of magnitude of scariness out of it.

Sean Peake
Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2016 10:27 am

She’s Michal Douglas’ wife

Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2016 12:26 pm

I think they’re referring to that old pop band “Jules and the Polar Bears.” 😉

Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2016 1:00 pm

It is how the French ask if your jewelry is real or fake. “Pardon moi….is zettajoule?”

Tom Judd
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2016 9:33 am

How about Godzillaion? (I can’t pronounce it either.) Or, maybe Titanicatillion? Do we have a Colossusaquillion? Maybe a Triple D Cupatillion? Extremewowasillion?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Judd
January 19, 2016 10:47 am

Why not just say a whole shit load.

Reply to  Tom Judd
January 19, 2016 3:01 pm

Because dinosaurs went extinct.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2016 2:16 pm

I like the rerm Braziian as in when the general told GW a “Brazilian died in Iraq” he wept for such great loss of life.

January 19, 2016 8:26 am

Does anybody ever take into account that the ocean warming could be coming from the bottom of the ocean from cracks in the earth’s crust?

Reply to  Elmer
January 19, 2016 8:30 am

As long as the crack doesn’t circle the earth, we should be OK. If it does, we can always put a nuke in a volcano to stop it.

Reply to  MarkW
January 19, 2016 10:05 am

What was the name of that movie. Okay, you meant the cracks that circle the earth going to Climate Change conventions, like Paris, right. Put a nuke in their cracks and stop all that hot methane from polluting our atmosphere…

Reply to  MarkW
January 19, 2016 5:36 pm

Pacific Rim?

Reply to  MarkW
January 20, 2016 6:00 am

“Crack in the World” (1965)

Reply to  Elmer
January 19, 2016 8:38 am

Don’t broadcast it, or else someone’s bound to abuse it!

Reply to  Elmer
January 19, 2016 5:37 pm

Yes Elmer. But it’s hard to find anyone that wants to talk about it. There’s some good discussion on it in the Snowball Earth thread here.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Elmer
January 19, 2016 6:30 pm

At one point I thought you were talking about builders cracks. That is where most of this kind of carp comes from.

January 19, 2016 8:27 am

These readings were originally taken in degrees C, then converted to joules so that they could have big scary numbers.
Had they left the numbers in C, nobody would get scared of a 0.01C increase. Especially when the accuracy of the probes doing the measuring is only 0.1C. (And don’t get me started about the idiocy of using a few hundred probes to measure the temperature of the oceans.)

Reply to  MarkW
January 19, 2016 8:40 am

°C is temperature, Joules measure heat energy. They are different things. Temperature and heat are different. Heat is conserved, temperature is not. If a block of hot metal is immersed in a tank of cold water, the only way to work out the equilibrium temperature is to work out the heat content from the temperature of the different materials. This is not “converting” temperature to heat, it is using temperature and heat capacity information to calculate heat. It is not the same as converting F to C.
I agree that the term “man made heat” is poor terminology. The heat mostly comes from the sun.

Reply to  seaice1
January 19, 2016 8:52 am

heat and joules are flip sides of the same coin, as long as you are consistent in what material you are measuring.
A change in temperature of X will directly result in a change of energy of Y and the reverse is also true.
Nice of you to try and change the subject with another of your irrelevancies. Again.

Reply to  seaice1
January 19, 2016 8:53 am

Absent a phase change, of course.

Reply to  seaice1
January 19, 2016 10:26 am

Yes, Joules are a measure of heat – heat is measured in Joules, like temperature is measured in °C or K or F. Heat and temperature are not the flip side of the same coin. I was not changing the subject, but reponding to the comment that the “readings were originally taken in degrees C, then converted to joules so that they could have big scary numbers.” Heat and temperature are not the same. For the same substance the same heat change will result in about the same temperature change, but for a different substance the temperature change will be different. The calculation is not to produce scary numbers but so that different substances such as water and air can be compared in the same units.
In fact, heat capacity is not totally independent of temperature, so the same energy input will not raise the temperature by the same amount at different temperatures. We usually ignore this as the difference is small over “normal” temperatures. Water has a specific heat capacity of 4.182 J/g at 20°C but at 99°C it is 4.214 J/g.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  seaice1
January 19, 2016 12:48 pm

Actually energy is measured in Joules. It might be heat, it might not. If you heat a bunch of molecules to a high temperature, some suddenly drop (a lot) in temperature and each one split into 2 x CO molecules wit some O2 left over. You can get that energy back in the form of heat if you want. The temperature on its own ‘don’t mean squat’. Lots of chemical reactions are endothermic.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  seaice1
January 19, 2016 6:33 pm

“seaice1 says: January 19, 2016 at 8:40 am
The heat mostly comes from the sun.”
It certainly does not!

Reply to  seaice1
January 20, 2016 4:39 am

Yes Crispin, you are correct. Heat is energy, but not all energy is heat. As you say, temperature don’t mean squat – we must calculate energy to do useful stuff. Energy is conserved, temperature is not.
PatrickMJD. Where does the heat mostly come from if not the sun?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  seaice1
January 20, 2016 6:58 pm

“seaice1 says: January 20, 2016 at 4:39 am”
Earth receives energy, not heat, from the sun. The Earth uses that energy to warm the planet. No heat ever arrives on Earth from the sun.

Reply to  MarkW
January 19, 2016 10:25 am

“Most of the added heat has been trapped in the upper 2,300 feet, but with every year the deeper oceans also are absorbing more energy, they said.”
Heat or energy?… And just how is the heat getting to the depths? Passing through the dense colder water…Or filling it all the way from surface to seafloor?

Reply to  Dahlquist
January 19, 2016 12:03 pm

Sounds like a gazillion dollar grant is needed to study this.

Reply to  Dahlquist
January 21, 2016 7:30 am

Perhaps via a previously unknown wormhole in the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Med Bennett
January 19, 2016 8:30 am

Thanks for the chuckles this morning!

January 19, 2016 8:35 am

Eleventy gazillion is an awesome term. I love it.

Reply to  Logoswrench
January 19, 2016 9:07 am

Eleventy gazillion was my mom’s favorite exaggeration.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
January 19, 2016 12:49 pm

Pogo featured a sign that read, “Watermelons: Lebenty-leben cents per each”. That’s my favourite.

January 19, 2016 8:37 am

Are you sure this wasn’t written by Seth Rogen?

January 19, 2016 8:37 am

How much of any past recorded atmospheric temperature rise is due to man-made CO2 emissions and how much to man-made heat emissions from transport, industrial and domestic heating including fossil fuel burning, industrial processes, even breathing etc. etc. How do the CAGW zealots account for this other man-made input in their claimed Temperature/CO2 relationship?

mike g
January 19, 2016 8:38 am

Slight beef: “A Joule is 1 Watt*second of power.” Joules are units of energy, not power.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  mike g
January 19, 2016 12:53 pm

Right on Mike g
One Joule-second is one Watt. Converting something to Watt-seconds is just a way of stating the number of Joules involved, presumably for something that took place of a different time period. ‘Power’ requires units of both time and energy.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 19, 2016 5:40 pm

“Watt did you say?”…”I said give me your joules!”

January 19, 2016 8:39 am

The world’s oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years,……and no one could find it on a thermometer

Reply to  Latitude
January 19, 2016 9:52 am

2 X 0 = 0.

Tom O
January 19, 2016 8:41 am

It really amazes me how “scientists” today solve everything – the missing energy solved, the missing mass solved, the missing brain, solved, well maybe not. Todays scientists are just so good at solving puzzles – with the help of computer simulations, of course, yet science itself has never solved a damn thing, only suggested possibilities. and science will continue to only suggest possibilities while the lamebrains calling themselves scientists continue to solve the worlds puzzling situations. hurricanes? Solved. Volcanoes? Well, let’s leave that one alone along with earthquakes. Have to leave some puzzles for the next generation of “solvists.”

January 19, 2016 8:43 am

What Seth Borenstein should do is get a source of heat like a heat gun and actually try to put heat through the SURFACE of water

son of mulder
January 19, 2016 8:45 am

There was a related article in today’s Times behind the paywall.
An interesting section says,
” The theory that the oceans accounted for the slowdown in the rate of global warming was mocked last year by the Conservative MP Peter Lilley. He told a BBC Radio 4 programme that scientists were putting forward “a sort of new version of ‘the deep oceans swallowed my homework’ thesis”.
The BBC deleted the programme from its iPlayer service after the BBC Trust ruled that it had breached guidelines on accuracy and impartiality. ”
BBC thought police strike again.

Reply to  son of mulder
January 19, 2016 9:42 am

The Times article concludes with:
‘John Shepherd, a professor at the National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, said that the ocean took up an enormous amount of heat, but that the rate of warming was now likely to return to its previous level……’
Well, there we have it – the rate of ocean warming is likely to reduce. So it can’t have anything to do with CO2 concentration, which continues to increase.

Pat Smith
Reply to  Old'un
January 19, 2016 10:18 am

I think that the oceans hold about 1000 times the heat that the atmosphere does. So, to prove that the 0.1 to 0.2 deg C warming that should have but hasn’t taken place in the atmosphere over the last 20 years actually went into the seas, you would have to measure the temperature of the oceans to 0.0001 deg C accuracy (give or take a bit if you are only talking about the top 700 metres). This seems unlikely. However, this stuff matters. The Times article referred to above is promoted as a slam-dunk ‘OK, the pause has been explained’ and the deniers are wrong again. It is not linked in any way to two other stories in the UK this week (1,000 jobs go at Tata Steel in the UK, partly as a result of very high energy costs imposed by Government to reduce CO2 and WHO ‘reveal deadly toll of air pollution, 3.3 million premature deaths due to poor air quality’, again made worse by government drives in favour of diesel cars and wood burning stoves). The steamroller just goes on, destroying jobs and lives and the screwed up science does not seem to matter.

Reply to  Old'un
January 19, 2016 12:40 pm

Pat Smith – Sadly, you are right. It matters not that no credible, quantified, mechanism has been proposed for long wave down welling radiation to warm the oceans. The implication of the article is that the increased rate of ocean heat is due to CO2. It is simply hand waving, but unfortunately it sticks.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Old'un
January 19, 2016 1:02 pm

Pat, if you check those numbers from the WHO you will find there are no actual data behind them. They model the fuel combustion, then model dispersion of the emissions. Then they model exposure to those emissions, then model the disease reactions from the modelled exposure. Then they model the deaths that may have occurred from those modeled diseases. The global burned of disease (GBD) caused by outdoor air quality is unknown, i.e. what would be the impact of totally removing all outdoor air pollution on the death rate? There are no realistic studies to know how to separate indoor air pollution from frying fish and smoking ciggies from outdoor air pollution. They use models five layers deep as a substitute for knowledge.
A good question to anyone touting the figure ‘3.3m’ is: “What would be the impact on the GBD if the outdoor air pollution were reduced by 50%?” They have not a clue, and anything given in reply is literally fabricated, because no one knows.
[“Global burned of disease” ? Should that not be “Global cost of disease and injuries caused NOW by burning bad fuels? .mod]

January 19, 2016 8:47 am

OK. I run a cold bath in a hot bathroom. How long does it take for the water to warm up? I run a hot bath in a cold bathroom. How long does it take for the air to warm up? Don’t scientists ever bathe?

chris y
January 19, 2016 8:50 am

“It takes 4.186 J to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water 1 °C.”
Should be 1 gram of water.

Philip Dean
Reply to  chris y
January 19, 2016 9:30 am

From Wikipedia:
4.184 joule of heat energy (or one calorie) is required to raise the temperature of a unit weight (1 g) of water from 0oC to 1oC, or from 32oF to 33.8oF

son of mulder
Reply to  Philip Dean
January 19, 2016 9:44 am

It gets confusing because when a calorie is used in the context of dieting they are actually talking about Kilocalorie.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  chris y
January 19, 2016 1:04 pm

Chris Y
Why are you concerned about an error of a few orders of magnitude? Three is a really small number. This is climate science. If it is scary, it must be true. It has to be wrong by a gazillion orders of magnitude before it will be corrected. Anything less is for wimps.

John Robertson
January 19, 2016 8:53 am

Seething is an art.
Borenstein is another product of the times
As a propagandist for the cause, he has few peers.As the CRU emails revealed.
As a man severely confused by science he is beyond parody.
Wonder how long it took his helpers to explain how tiny a joule is.?
Or did they even try?
Then the incredible nature of this missing heat, so now the oceans are absorbing heat at an unprecedented rate?
What did these mystic waters do before man released the magic gas?
In a way this is progress, the Alarmed Ones appear to realize the oceans stabilize our climate, which of course makes their previous panic even more pathetic.
Cue up Tiny Tim;The Ice Caps Are Melting.

Mark from the Midwest
January 19, 2016 8:55 am

“good data wasn’t available … the overall figures are … still are reliable,”
I kind of recall that one cannot even begin to talk about reliability until one tests a number of replicates against real data … oh wait, we’ll just assume that the missing data fit the pattern without error.

January 19, 2016 8:57 am

Not sure about your units. I believe 1 cal is the heat required to raise 1 gm of H20 1 C, and = 4.184 Joules. To raise 1kg 1C would require 4184 Joules.

Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2016 8:59 am

Seth Borenstein is paid to write frightening but totally unscientific garbage articles. If he let journalism ethics and scientific knowledge stand in his way of writing scare-mongering garbage, his bosses would find someone else who would. Which is likely how he got hired in the first place.

January 19, 2016 9:02 am

Fun post. It only misses one thing. Eleventy bazillion joules will never leap back out of the oceans to warm the atmosphere as Trenberth implied. Essay Missing Heat. The laws of thermodynamics guarantee that heat flows from hot to cold. The polar sea ice driven thermohaline circulation guarantees that oceans are comparatively a LOT colder (except for in some places the shallowest mixed layer) than the atmosphere except at the poles in winter.. Eleventy bazillion joules gone forever, disappeared by the ocean’s diffusive thermocline.

Robert Austin
Reply to  ristvan
January 19, 2016 9:56 am

Amen! The oceans are for all practical and human scale purposes, an infinite heat sink. A minuscule portion from ocean absorbed short wavelength radiation is returned in el nino / la nina type phenomena but most disappears into the Davey Jones locker. As long as earth remains a water world, we will benefit from the vast climate flywheel of the deep oceans.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Robert Austin
January 19, 2016 1:07 pm

The oceans are, for all practical purposes and confirmed by all observational analyses, full. Now you are saying they are an infinite heat sink. If they are, for practical purposes, an infinite heat sink, can they also be infinitely full for those same purposes? If they are infinitely full, logically they cannot get fuller than they already are. Why all the fuss?
If more people thought like me there would be more space at the dinner table.

Reply to  ristvan
January 19, 2016 11:59 am

Not content with trying to eradicate the MWP, the ecoloons appear to be gunning for the four laws of thermodynamics as well.

Reply to  phaedo
January 19, 2016 6:51 pm

Logic was drawn and quartered by the loons many years ago. No advancement of mankind is safe from these pseudo-science charlatans.

Reply to  ristvan
January 19, 2016 2:16 pm

FYI, the air-sea temperature difference is negative on a global scale; thus the ocean surface is transferring heat to the atmosphere–not vice versa. And THC is driven not by polar sea ice formation or melting as such, but by gravity acting upon very slight density differences of seawater in a column. Its extremely sluggish action has negligible impact upon surface climate in the course of human lifetimes. Likewise, diffusion of heat into depths below the thermocline is extremely weak, depending upon episodic second-order mixing mechanisms The upshot is that the relatively shallow mixed layer above the seasonally varying thermocline is the principal oceanic heat source.

Reply to  1sky1
January 19, 2016 2:27 pm

Ocean heat content must be considered relative to average, not in absolute terms. While the surface stores heat in excess of average, the deep ocean is colder than average and the temperature at the middle of the thermocline is approximately the average temperature of the planet. The net energy stored relative to average is close to zero and this is why the oceans respond far faster to change than is conventionally believed.
As the ocean warms or cools, the whole ocean doesn’t change temperature and only thin slices of water above and below the thermocline need to adapt.
While we don’t think of water as an insulator, even steel can insulate at a sufficient thickness and when you look sat the temperature profile of the thermocline (defined by inflection points), its the same temperature profile you would expect through the cross section of an insulated wall separating deep ocean cold from warm surface waters.

Reply to  1sky1
January 19, 2016 4:48 pm

co2isnot evil:
OHC must be considered in relation to its effect upon surface climate. Unsurprisingly, it’s the variable near-surface mixed layer that dominates in that regard. While total heat storage there is certainly far less than in the nearly constant deeper, colder layers, it is very far from zero. And it’s the difference in absolute temperatures that determines the direction of heat flow. That’s why the oceans act as a flywheel on global average air temperatures.

Reply to  1sky1
January 19, 2016 7:05 pm

There is little, if any, heat flow from hot to cold down through the thermocline and most of the transfer between hot and old occurs as weather and surface circulation currents. Note that the atmosphere is the primary connection between hot and cold and as I said before, the thermocline is acting like an insulator consequential to gravity acting on the density/temperature profile of water. Otherwise, how can you explain the existence of 0C water in the deep ocean directly under the equator an how can you explain the inflection points that define the thermocline?
There’s a small flow upward of about 1 W/m^2 which is the average heating from the solid surface below and of course, warmer water is less dense and rises which is counter to the expected flow from hot (surface) to cold (deep). The thermohaline circulation is the hydraulic action of cold water sinking at the poles, connecting at the equator and pushing water up, replacing that which was evaporated since the net flow of surface water via evaporation and rain is from the equator to the poles.
If you think of the planets energy storage as a temperature difference between warm surface waters and the deep ocean cold separated by an insluator (thermocline), the planet stores energy much like an electrical capacitor. The math works out the same as well, if Pi(t) and Po(t) are the instantaneous incident and emitted power of the planet, when the instantaneous difference is > 0, the energy stored by the planets surface increases and it warrms and when it’s < 0, the energy stored by the planets surface decreases and it cools. If E(t) is the instantaneous total energy stored by the surface relative to average, its also linearly proportional to the surface temperature, T(t). We can write this as,
Pi(t) = Po(t) + dE(t)/dt
If we now define an arbitrary amount of time, tau, such that all of E can be emitted at the rate Po in time tau, we can rewrite this as,
Po(t) = E(t)/tau
Pi(t) = E(t)/tau + dE/dt
which should be recognized as the LTI that describes an RC circuit with a time constant of tau. Note that in an electrical circuit a DC voltage bias on both plates of a capacitor is irrelevant to the stored energy, just as the average temperature 'bias' of the planet does not effect the stored energy. There's one additional constraint arising from the heat capacity and Stefan-Boltzmann where,
Po(t) = k*E(t)^4
The constant k combines the effective emissivity, the SB constant and the heat capacity. This illustrates a second order effect similar to a temperature dependent dielectric constant where tau must decrease as E increases which in this case, is a result of Stefan-Boltzmann, which is that Po(i) is proportional to T^4, thus E^4 and since k is mostly constant (1 cal, 1 gm water, 1C), tau must decrease as E (and T) increases. This simple set of equations can then be extended to account for cloud dependent emissivity and albedo on a gridded basis and becomes a very good predictor of the planets thermodynamic response to variable TSI and quantifiably establishes a sensitivity well below the lower bound claimed by the IPCC.
Note that the cold side of this 'capacitor' (the water below the thermocline) remains constant between about 0C and 4C regardless of the surface temperature and this will true as long as the poles provide a source of cold, dense water. The delta T and hence energy stored by the planet is then proportional to the average ocean surface temperature where a thermocline exists minus 4C which is the temperature at the bottom of the thermocline.

Reply to  1sky1
January 20, 2016 2:43 pm

Nowhere do I claim that there’s significant transfer of heat “down through the thermocline” to deeper levels. On the contrary, I point to the principal physical reasons why that is NOT so! There’s no need to resort to hand-waving analogies with thermal insulators and/or electrical capacitors, when the direct effects of well-known mechanisms can be deduced accurately from first principles. That is usually done in physical oceanography, but very seldom in “climate science.”

Reply to  1sky1
January 20, 2016 4:16 pm

There’s no more hand waving involved with the LTI model of the climate system then there is for using it to model an RC circuit. The operation of an RC circuit can also be quantified in terms of more primitive first principles at many levels of abstraction all the way down to statistical Quantum Mechanics. For an RC circuit, the LTI model is an exact representation of the averages underlying the most primitive statistical behavior of the molecules comprising the circuit and is provable so by its macroscopic conservation requirements. In the same way, COE constrains the LTI climate model to be an exact representation of the climate system, moreover; superposition tells us that the only way the climate state can behave, where the state variable is the stored energy required to establish the instantaneous surface temperature, E(t), is as the sum of solutions to the aforementioned differential equation, Pi(t) = E(t)/tau + dE(t)/dt.
The thermal conductivity of water is about 0.58 W/(m K). While it’s no where near as good a conductor of heat as copper at about 400 W/(m K), nor as good an insulator as air at about .024 W/(m K), it becomes a good insulator at a sufficient thickness and 24 meters of water insulates as well as 1 meter of air. To be clear though, while the thermocline is behaving like an insulator separating deep cold from a warm tropical surface, it got that way as a consequence of gravity organizing water by its physical properties It’s interesting to note that the poles are also thermally connected to each other by a path going underneath the tropics.

Reply to  1sky1
January 21, 2016 1:16 pm

I tried to steer you toward serious oceanographic comprehension…to no avail. Oh, well.

Reply to  1sky1
January 22, 2016 8:41 am

I’ve tried to lead you towards the powerful concept of equivalent modelling where systems are modelled at the highest level of abstraction that fits the data. In this case, its a very simple differential equation that’s analogous to an RC circuit and the physical structure of the ocean explains why this works so incredibly well as a predictor of the planets response to change.
I see this a lot on both side of the science where people get hung up on a very narrow aspect of the system that is related to their specific area of expertise and fail to grasp the big picture by getting hung up on the low level details of what they do understand.

Reply to  1sky1
January 22, 2016 10:34 am

You seem unaware that where you lead vis a vis modeling analogies is ground that many of us covered 50 years ago. Such modeling analogies may impress novices, but are no substitute for science based on first principles.

Reply to  1sky1
January 22, 2016 4:05 pm

Conservation of Energy is about as first principles as you can get, and this is the only constraint, in fact the only possible constraint, on the LTI model of the planets climate system that I’ve described. What happens at lower levels of abstraction is meaningless unless you can also account for this overriding top level constraint and conforming to this top level constraint is something that pedantic climate science does not do. If as you say, this kind of modelling was explored 50 years ago, then climate science would have been settled long ago in favor of the skeptics. Either you are wrong about this being considered in the past, or it was never given the due consideration it deserves The predictive power of this approach is to much to ignore, especially seasonal and diurnal variability.
Here’s a simple though experiment. Start with an ideal gray body representation of the planet (emissivity = 0.62), all aspects of which can be completely quantified by first principles (SB is also a first principles LAW) and then explain how the planet can exhibit the outward behavior of an ideal gray body, which the data is unambiguously clear about, yet manifest bulk properties far different from that of a gray body (the consensus claims a sensitivity 3-4 times larger)?

Reply to  1sky1
January 23, 2016 3:54 pm

I prefer real-world oceanography at the research level to academic thought experiments at the student level.

Reply to  ristvan
January 20, 2016 8:11 am

Actually the SST is except in a few places (upwelling) always warmer than the atmosphere. The ocean warms the atmosphere, not the reverse, and this is why they are wrong.comment image
The only places the atmosphere can warm the oceans are the white areas of below zero flux in the lower panel.

January 19, 2016 9:03 am

Presumably man made CO2 radiates smart IR that knows which direction to go? Towards the ocean when over land, then down once over the ocean?

Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2016 9:05 am

Poor heat. First it gets “trapped” in the atmosphere by man’s evil CO2. With nowhere else to go, it decides to hide in the oceans. But even then it can be “found”, so in desperation it decides to hide in the deep oceans, where it can’t be found. Peace at last, but can it escape from the Models?
Can’t we give the heat a break?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2016 10:03 am

I’ve been hoping the cold will break. Brrrrrr.

January 19, 2016 9:05 am

WTF is a zeta Joule?
In meters…5.125E+14…m^2
W/m^2 power flux…..2.0 1750 to 2011
Btu/ 132 y….….1.685E+20
150zJ………….1.42173E+20 Btu
IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011 (Fig TS.7, SPM Fig 5.). In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitudes and uncertainties (Graphic Trenberth et. al. 2011) of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedos of clouds, snow and ice, reflection, absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle. (IPCC AR5 Ch 8, FAQ 8.1)

Dan Davis
January 19, 2016 9:06 am

A local “Medeorawlajust” was spouting this stuff as a closer to last night’s “weather show” There’s yer Global Warming, folks!

Reply to  Dan Davis
January 19, 2016 9:13 am

A local “Medeorawlajust”
Around here it sounds like they’re saying meat-eating-urologist and cheap-meat-eating-urologist.
probably just my old ears.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
January 19, 2016 9:22 am

Maybe they’re saying ‘Mediaologists’… or ‘Media-all-adjusts’?

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
January 19, 2016 5:46 pm

Dawg, that was my thought too…”Media…I’ll adjust” Or “Meet T, your all adjust”

January 19, 2016 9:09 am

These asinine claims of great heat retention and dangerous climate change will not stop until the graphing scales “proving” it are expanded to an actual real world temperature range.

January 19, 2016 9:15 am

Hi Anthony
This is what I tweeted on the paper
Roger A. Pielke Sr ‏@RogerAPielkeSr 49m49 minutes ago
If >1/3 heating below 700m, this below thermoclime, and thus is a negative feedback in terms of affecting SSTs and atmospheric heating.
Roger A. Pielke Sr ‏@RogerAPielkeSr 50m50 minutes ago
“~1/2 increases ..OHC occurred in recent decades; >1/3 of accumulated heat occurring below 700 m..steadily rising”
Authors missed this consequence if their analyses are correct.
See also my weblog post on this subject
Roger Sr.

Reply to  rpielke
January 19, 2016 10:05 am

Hi Dr. Pielke,
Thanks for the link to your blogpost. I have a couple of questions if you have the time:
1. You make the point that the Argo floats have yet to detect the movement of heat from the upper ocean to the deep ocean. I assume you mean from the 0-700 m range to the >2000 m range. Looking at the graph that everyone is talking about – % Change OHC versus year, I judge the deep ocean OHC to have changed by about 15% since around 1947. To me, this seems a very slow process. Are the Argo floats really capable of detecting this rate of heat transfer? (Admittedly I haven’t tried performing my own calculation of the order of magnitude of heat transfer we are talking about, but I would probably foul it up anyway.)
2. You state that if heat is really deposited in the deep oceans, it will likely not be released on short time periods. But, again referring to the graph, this might be true for only a small fraction of the heat, right?
I appreciate any information.

Reply to  cgs
January 19, 2016 10:26 am

Since you asked for more information, here are some ARGO charts.
0 – 1900+ meters depth. Oceans cooling:
Ocean heat content, declining:
The models were wrong …again:
OHC has been steadily declining for a long time:

Tom Judd
January 19, 2016 9:23 am

“The changes we’re talking about, they are really, really big numbers,” said study co-author Paul Durack, an oceanographer at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. “They are nonhuman numbers.”
Oh my god, he’s right about that. They’re nonhuman numbers. And, not just nonhuman, but…I can barely type it…really big nonhuman numbers. And, and, not just really big, but…whew…really, really big nonhuman numbers. I mean they are supercalifragilisticexpialidocious numbers that are really quite atrocious. Ferocious.
Or, maybe they’re a symptom of alarmism that’s a serious psychosis.

Reply to  Tom Judd
January 19, 2016 10:36 am

Actually, using terms like these will defeat their purpose. The folks will tune out quickly. Numbers like these are “non-human”. They should reduce these to 1 it’sworsethanwethoughtillion.

Reply to  Tom Judd
January 19, 2016 10:51 am

Tom Judd. + 1 and Mary Popping musta really stuck with you. Also, thanks…It’ll take days for me to stop it going round and round repeatedly in my mind. I’ll be whistling it in line at the market and such.

January 19, 2016 9:43 am

“When good data wasn’t available and computer simulations are involved, the overall figures are rough but still are reliable,” said no scientist, ever.

Reply to  James Hastings-Trew
January 19, 2016 3:02 pm

That is + a shed load, James.

Peter Sable
January 19, 2016 9:49 am

Can we get a serious article about this?
If the heat is indeed going in the ocean, then at 2W/m^2 of net extra flux over the earth it will take 800 years to heat up the ocean 1degC, according to my calculations. If evenly distributed. Based on the heat capacity of a cubic meter of salt water and a rough calculation of the volume of the oceans.
That’s fodder for a serious article, and the above one completely misses this in all its sarcastic glory.
I’d write it but my knowledge of thermocline is near zero. I don’t know why it exists, what its heat flow characteristics are, or any of that. So an expert would need to write it. I would love to read it, as I’d learn something.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Peter Sable
January 19, 2016 11:20 am

The thermocline exists because the source of bottom water everywhere on the planet is the surface of the polar oceans where the water is “global warming challenged”. Oh, there are sources of intermediate water in places, but the source of bottom water is the big effect. Note that the thermocline in places actually disappears during some seasons.

Peter Sable
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 19, 2016 12:53 pm

so what’s the global average turnover rate and how did they measure it?

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 20, 2016 8:42 am

Peter Sable, As I indicated in a posting below, the turnover has a time scale of thousands of years. The bottom waters sink in the polar oceans, and eventually rise to the surface in many places, subtropics and tropics for a variety of reasons. “1sky1”, below speaks of the absorption of solar heating in the first few tens of meters at the surface, and that eddy diffusion pushes warm surface water to a few hundreds of meters, which is all so, but there is no thermocline without a source of cold bottom water.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 20, 2016 8:47 am

Sorry, Peter, I forgot to tell you how they go about measuring it. It is done on the basis of mass balance calculations using what is known of surface and subsurface flows. There is a good book by Henry Stommel entitled “A view of the sea” that will tell you about the early and long-term efforts to quantify the ventilation of the oceans in their overturning. The book is at least 30 years old at this point, so you can find it on alibris or amazon for next to nothing i’ll bet.

Peter Sable
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 20, 2016 11:05 am

It is done on the basis of mass balance calculations using what is known of surface and subsurface flows.
“what is known” about the Ocean, given the density of measurement instruments, appears to be extremely small…
We get upwelling events on the entire US northwest coast that can drop the water by 4-5degC for weeks at a time during the summer. That warm water went somewhere, and the cold water after a couple of weeks is definitely getting warmer in the long summer days.
So again, how do they measure it? Not model it, but measure?
I’m going to guess that the error bars on ocean heat flow estimates are rather large…

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 20, 2016 3:02 pm

Kevin Kilty:
FYI, thermoclines develop in lakes and ponds–where there is no “source of cold bottom water”– through the well-understood mechanisms that I mention. Don’t let the peddlers of the oceanic “conveyor belt” fiction of climate science mislead you.
Peter Sable:
Despite the development of tri-orthogonal flow meters, both mechanical and electromagnetic, direct scientific measurements of THC are virtually nonexistent. Aside from the orbital velocities of various waves, the vertical component of flow in the oceans is extremely weak and subject to practical difficulties of sensing, You are correct in surmising that what we know of vertical flow rates is largely the product of theory and computer modeling.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 21, 2016 8:34 am

1sky1 – The source of cold bottom water in lakes are surface waters cooled during the cold season. The bottom water is produced in place in this instance. In the oceans the bottom water is produced in polar regions where it sinks and extends throughout the ocean basins. Bottom water throughout the world’s oceans is near or slightly below zero centigrade. This is no reasonable local means to produce such cold water in most places. Instead it sinks at near zero in the polar oceans and maintains this temperature until even thousands of years later as it rises in the subtropics and tropics.
Peter Sable- undoubtedly there was a very large uncertainty in knowledge of ocean circulation at the time that oceanographers like Sverdrup and Stommel were measuring what they could from surface ships and buoys, and then inferring the rest from mass balance.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 21, 2016 8:49 am

Sorry guys, I can’t let this go as it stands.
1sky1 – i don’t know what you mean by the fiction of the conveyor belt. What is known of three-D flows in the ocean grew over a very long period of observation (starting perhaps with Ben Franklin when he was Postmaster General) coupled with mass balance calculations and assuming that temperature and salinity of water are “conserved” quantities. It is not infected with climate science’s political needs.
Peter Sable-when there is an upwelling of cold water near shore it usually results from a strong wind running parallel to shore (northwest to southeast). The resulting Ekman flow (coriolis acceleration) draws warm surface water to the west, away from the shore, and cold water from the thermocline, or below it, takes its place at the surface. The warm water doesn’t just disappear, it moves west.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 21, 2016 1:11 pm

Kevin Kilty
The formation of oceanic bottom waters is well-known to oceanographers. It is also quite irrelevant to the various boundary-layer processes that produce the thermocline. Unlike oceans, whose bottom waters remain virtually unchanged in the course of a year, ponds and lakes typically experience wholesale overturning during the seasonal cycle as a result of those processes.
Climate science has taken the concept of thermohaline circulation, which is extremely weak and regionally localized, and misconstrued it along the lines of limnological behavior. Thus it portrays coherent currents, such as the Gulf Stream, sinking in the polar sears, with the resulting bottom water unaccountably rising to the surface eventually, usually in the Indian Ocean. This, of course, is dynamical nonsense, easily recognized as such by oceanographers. In fact, Carl Wunsch calls the whole concept of the great conveyor belt “a fairy tale for adults.” You can google his phrase to familiarize yourself with the issue.

Reply to  Peter Sable
January 19, 2016 5:02 pm

Very briefly, the thermocline comes into existence as a result of insolation being virtually totally absorbed within tens of meters of the surface and turbulent mixing (eddy diffusion) by variable winds seldom extending more than a few hundred meters. Buoyancy forces alone segregate the water column into characteristic temperature strata (salinity being the far-less-variable determinant of density in the open ocean), with a sharp gradient where the effect of the aforementioned factors practically terminates.

Bob Weber
January 19, 2016 9:56 am

It’s incredible that this paper ever got published. It took me five minutes to to find the facts to refute the foundation of this paper, that the ocean heat content is so much higher now than in 1997. The facts say otherwise, from
Here’s a comparison of 1997 to recent OHC figures, where it’s plainly evident that OHC for December of 2015 are similar to December of 1997, and January of 1997 is close to the same as in December 2014. Commas added in case the table doesn’t format:
1996, 12, .08, -.17, -.30
1997, 1, .54, .49, .56
1997, 2, .84, .85, 1.00
1997, 3, 1.09, 1.26, 1.17
1997, 4, 1.49, 1.87, 2.17
1997, 5, 1.38, 1.82, 2.01
1997, 6, 1.55, 2.01, 2.25
1997, 7, 1.34, 1.77, 1.83
1997, 8, 1.07, 1.50, 1.79
1997, 9, 1.25, 1.85, 2.38
1997, 10, 1.35, 2.05, 2.56
1997, 11, 1.19, 1.94, 2.30
1997, 12, .56, 1.15, 1.02
1998, 1, -.24, .16, .00
2014, 12, 0.50, 0.48, 0.54
2015, 1, 0.28, 0.22, 0.15
2015, 2, 0.54, 0.65, 0.83
2015, 3, 0.85, 1.17, 1.52
2015, 4, 1.05, 1.42, 1.74
2015, 5, 1.03, 1.42, 1.53
2015, 6, 0.87, 1.27, 1.51
2015, 7, 0.92, 1.36, 1.69
2015, 8, 0.99, 1.43, 1.97
2015, 9, 1.04, 1.48, 1.80
2015 10, 1.04, 1.51, 1.91
2015 11, 0.92, 1.41, 1.78
2015, 12, 0.58, 1.04, 1.20
January 1998 was just about the turning point into a deep La Nina, quickly followed by higher solar activity during the next few years, whereas within months we are about to plunge into the inevitable La Nina phase following this now-peaked El Nino, only this time temperatures aren’t going to be supported by a solar cycle maximum as in the years following 1998, but by lower solar minimum conditions lasting at least into the early 2020s. I expect temperatures and OHC to drop until the rising phase of the solar cycle, just like they did after the solar cycle 23 maximum years, until cycle 24 TSI started its rise.
2015 was a warm year because of the second TSI peak of solar cycle 24 in February that kicked off the El Nino, followed by a fall spike that pushed temps into record territory. From, yearly averages, 2016 as of this morning:
2015, 1361.4321
2014, 1361.3966
2013, 1361.3587
2016, 1361.3204
2012, 1361.2413
2011, 1361.0752
2003, 1361.0292
2004, 1360.9192
2010, 1360.8027
2005, 1360.7518
2006, 1360.6735
2007, 1360.5710
2009, 1360.5565
2008, 1360.5382
There is no significant man-made ocean or global warming. SSTs and OHC rise and fall on TSI alone.

January 19, 2016 9:58 am

Ah, the always reliable “Hiroshima bomb dropped ever second for……” to get the tribe gnashing their teeth and spittle flying.

son of mulder
Reply to  nickshaw1
January 19, 2016 10:03 am

But clearly much, much, much, much……much less effective than an Hiroshima bomb

January 19, 2016 10:05 am

This is one of the major errors in the global warming scam. It is simply impossible for the observed increase in downward LWIR flux from a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to heat the oceans. The increase in flux from CO2 is nominally 2 W.m^-2. The oceans are heated by the sun – up to 25 MJ m^-2 per day for full tropical or summer sun. About half of this solar heat is absorbed in the first 1 m layer of the ocean and 90% is absorbed in the first 10 m layer. The heat is removed by a combination of wind driven evaporation from the surface and LWIR emission from the first 100 micron layer. That’s about the width of a human hair. In round numbers, about 50 W.m^-2 is removed from the ocean surface by the LWIR flux and the balance comes from the wind driven evaporation. Over the Pacific tropical warm pool the wind driven cooling rate is about 40 W.m^-2.m.s^-1 (40 Watts per square meter for each 1 m/sec change in wind speed). This means that a change in wind speed of 20 cm.s^-1 is equivalent to the global warming heat flux. (20 centimeters per second). There is a lot of useful information on ocean surface evaporation on the Woods Hole website
The ocean warming fraud goes back to the early global warming models. In their 1967 paper, Manabe and Wetherald used a ‘blackbody surface’ with ‘zero heat capacity. They created the global warming scam as a mathematical artifact of their modeling assumptions. These propagated into the Charney Report in 1979. Then an ‘ocean layer’ was added to the model. The layer had thermal properties such as heat capacity and thermal diffusion, but the CO2 flux increase had to magically heat the oceans. This is computational climate fiction. Any computer model that predicts ocean warming from CO2 is by definition fraudulent. The fraud can be found in Hansen’s 1981 Science paper and has continued ever since.
Hansen, J.; D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell Science 213 957-956 (1981), ‘Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide’

Wim Röst
Reply to  R. Clark
January 19, 2016 12:34 pm

“This means that a change in wind speed of 20 cm.s^-1 is equivalent to the global warming heat flux.”
“The ocean warming fraud goes back to the early global warming models. In their 1967 paper, Manabe and Wetherald used a ‘blackbody surface’ with ‘zero heat capacity. Etc.”
WR: R. Clark, impressing and usefull information. Thanks!

Reply to  R. Clark
January 19, 2016 3:54 pm

The CAGW theory drowns in the first 5 microns of the ocean. Along with the 33C greenhouse effect.
How can water vapor (the most powerful GHG):
Evaporate, losing energy in the phase change
Lower the temp of the ocean left behind
Burn energy while rising
And then turn around and magically warm the water below by 33C?
It makes the magic bullet from JFK seem mundane.

Gary H
January 19, 2016 10:25 am

“tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years.”
“150 years?”
The consensus of the climate warmist community is that the human footprint in global warming is not potentially observable until somewhere in the 1950’s to 1970’s period. 150 years goes back a lot further than that. From NASA’s Global Climate Change page:
From their: Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations [note: 16 of the 18 say nothing about prior to 1950]
American Geophysical Union (ACS): “Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.”
American Meteorological Society: “that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases . .
The Geological Society of America : . . “that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”
International academies: Joint statement from 11 academies: “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).”
U.S. Global Change Research Program: “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.”
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due . .”
However, at the top of the page, NASA says, “over the past century.” And, of course, they quote Cook’s 97% nonsense to boot.

Reply to  Gary H
January 19, 2016 3:45 pm

150 years give or take a 100. Reminds me of the line.
“Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?” – Animal House
Leave these climate guys alone. They are on a gazillion joule roll…

January 19, 2016 10:27 am

” Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world’s oceans instead of the ground.”
Really? So only 10% of the rise in temperature can be attributed to co2? I guess that explains the pause, but then they also proved there wasn’t a pause. So which is it, a pause occurred because 90% of the heat went in the oceans or there was no pause, and there was so little retained heat that there was a pause. How does this information fit with the math that shows catastrophic warming? I see a lot of people blow the math off, but that’s like the MWP they are trying to disprove. Let’s not talk about the math at all. Le bottom line, the math describing CAGW is the only thing they have. Otherwise, it’s spotty, like the one glacier that disproves the MWP. This week a brutal snowstorm is to hit most of the US. I remember headlines ” Winters last hurrah! ” Somehow, this was suppose to be an exciting and rare occurrence rather than another one.
I saw on here a comment about how even skeptics of AGW seem to focus on only one thing, whether its its the sun or orbital changes or space dust that hangs out in a geo stationary orbit or the sun burbing out a super cold cloud of helium .. Without exception it’s the CAGW crowd that can’t accept any other variable besides the one and only co2..
I have seen little research from the IPCC that isn’t so convoluted and twisted that much of it makes no sense. No explanation of how that heat gets into the ocean. What’s the process ?

Bill Illis
January 19, 2016 10:34 am

Since 1997, the 0-2000 metre ocean has risen in temperature by …
… 0.07C
In Kelvin, which would measure the total energy content, the 0-2000 metre ocean has risen
… from 277.75 K to 277.82 K
That is not doubling anything. That is only an increase of 0.02% in heat content.comment image

Reply to  Bill Illis
January 19, 2016 6:03 pm

Bill, maybe he meant that the warming prior to 1997 was 0.035…and we doubled that? LOLOL 🙂
0.035 in 18 years…about the same as the increase in the 18 years before that….and the 18 years before that…How is it that the ocean knows how to heat so evenly even with “all that increased Co2”?

Physics Major
January 19, 2016 10:55 am

Anyone who owns a heated swimming pool can attest to the fact that the heat transfer rate from air to water and water to air is quite rapid. Here in south Florida, the average air temperature suddenly dropped about 10 F in the last 48 hours. My pool heater is off, and the water temperature is already down by 8 F.
Any heat added to the atmosphere will transfer to the oceans until the temperatures equalize and this process is rapid.

Peter Sable
Reply to  Physics Major
January 19, 2016 10:56 am

Have the equations for heat transfer down through the thermocline? your pool doesn’t have much of a thermocline…

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Peter Sable
January 19, 2016 11:29 am

Peter, I see you raised the issue of transfer through the thermocline and into the the bulk of the ocean in another comment above, so I thought I’d add another comment of my own here. There are places in the oceans where surface water generally sinks (sources of bottom water) and this water must rise back to the surface again in other places (like the tropics). The scale size of the ocean is so large that thermal conduction is an ineffective means of transferring heat. In fact, equilibration (thermal and dissolved salt content) are so slow in the oceans that the temperature and salinity of water combined are useful in identifying the source of water. These are considered to be conserved quantities in the short term.
Instead of conduction, most ocean heat is transferred by eddy diffusion–advection of water masses. The largest scale “eddy” is the overturning of the ocean which has a time scale of a couple thousand years.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Physics Major
January 19, 2016 11:09 am

OK physics major. What is the difference in scale between your pool and the oceans? Does this different scale size mean the transfer mechanisms might be different? If scale size means nothing, then maybe I should just note that my coffee cools to room temperature almost instantaneously.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 19, 2016 3:42 pm

(Preheat the mug and it will stay warm a bit longer ; )

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
January 20, 2016 8:17 am

… Or tell the heat it shall hide.

Reply to  Physics Major
January 19, 2016 12:48 pm

The transfer from water to air is rapid, but from air to water is not. I assume you do not have a screen over your pool. A pool in FL with a screen and significant shade will struggle to reach 80F in summer. It reaches equilibrium with the ground temp (about 68F) more readily than the air temp.
It is the summer sun that heats it, not the air. Air can’t heat water effectively due to its limited heat capacity.

Richard G.
Reply to  Physics Major
January 19, 2016 1:08 pm

Physics Major
What I see you describing anecdotally is HEAT LOSS from your pool, not GAIN. Let us establish the experimental parameters please.
-How are you differentiating between RADIANT heat loss, EVAPORATIVE heat loss, and CONDUCTIVE/CONVECTIVE heat loss? (Is your pool covered with any evaporative or conductive barrier?)
-Do you heat your pool using a blanket of CO2 enriched air? A heat exchange loop that pumps water through a solar radiant energy collector? Or a gas fired boiler? Or a passive solar (radiant transmissive) pool cover (which also stops evaporative cooling)?
It is my understanding that the predominant pathway for Ocean Heat Uptake is through absorption of full spectrum solar radiant energy. Can you tell me what percentage of this total radiant energy uptake is theoretically contributed by CO2, and what percentage is actually measurable ?

Reply to  Physics Major
January 19, 2016 1:29 pm

And if the atmosphere warms 10 degrees, I’m pretty sure it will take longer than 48 hours to warm it up 8 F. It’ll take even longer if it’s not in the direct sun. The ability of air to warm water is a lot harder than water to warm air…

Physics Major
Reply to  rishrac
January 19, 2016 3:17 pm

Are you sure about that? I thought the heat transfer equation is dT/dt=-k*delta(T) with the same k whether delta(T) is positive or negative.
I agree with the comments that there is more going on with my pool that just heat transfer with the atmosphere. There is radiant cooling, solar heating (not enough!), evaporative cooling and other effects. But I’ll let you know how fast it warms when the air warms.

Reply to  Physics Major
January 20, 2016 2:47 pm

Impedance is not in your equation. Which is the 4 lane highway and which is the 2? The change in time related to the change in temperature is not the same in all substances that interface with each other or spatial dimensions.

Reply to  Physics Major
January 19, 2016 4:47 pm

Evaporation! Powerful stuff! 1,000 Btu/lb.

Reply to  Physics Major
January 19, 2016 6:16 pm

How long has your poor heater been off? JUST for the past 48 hours? Or weeks? If it’s been off for weeks, then you just proved that the water temperature is STILL warmer than the drop in air temperature. Your pool water will probably stay at about that temperature even as the day temps fluctuate above and below that, because air conducts heat faster and more efficiently than water does.
The ocean mixes by gravitational pull of the moon-tides, winds, and other currents. Not to mention that a heated pool maintains a constant water temperature, whereas the ocean does not. The only thing that equalizes between the atmosphere and the ocean is the layer in which they are in constant contact and the heat is transferred by conduction/convection.

Chad Jessup
Reply to  Physics Major
January 19, 2016 7:09 pm

“Any heat added to the atmosphere will transfer to the oceans until the temperatures equalize and this process is rapid.” You are correct if you mean the heat transfer process from the atmosphere to the oceans is rapid, i.e. the IR warms the top one mm of the ocean; otherwise the statement is ambiguous, as you could also intend to signify that the atmospheric and oceanic temperatures rapidly equalize.
Since the oceans contain 1k times the energy of the atmosphere, there won’t be any temperature equalization any time soon.
” My pool heater is off, and the water temperature is already down by 8 F.” Thermodynamically speaking, that indicates the pool water is losing energy to the atmosphere.
“…heat transfer rate from air to water and water to air is quite rapid.” Depends on the ratio of the portions of the involved substances – so it can be quite slow also.

January 19, 2016 11:28 am

Perhaps someone can explain (I am definitely not a scientist and am genuinely curious): If warm water rises and cold water sinks how does this not cause deep sinks to cool as surface temperatures rise?

Reply to  Thom
January 19, 2016 12:05 pm

I’m no expert but the ocean is mostly divided in layers, the deeper you go the colder it is because cold water is denser and sinks. A thermocline is a separation of colder and warmer water, generally horizontal, depending on many things, including currents. If I continue I may steer you wrong, so someone else may be of assistance to you with better descriptions of ocean conditions concerning temps at various depths.

Reply to  Dahlquist
January 19, 2016 12:42 pm

Studied up on this to write Missing Heat. Surface waters in the mixed layer can approach air temperatures (until polar sea ice forms, or tropical evaporative cooling sets in). Mixed lauer depth varies mostly thanks to wave/wind/current action. At the bottom of the mixed layer, the thermocline zone sets in. It can be a sharp transition in a summer freshwater Canadian lake, but in the oceans it is usually a transition zone complicated by salinity differences. (saltier water is heavier, so colder less salty water can ‘float’. Zonal Depth varies by season and by latitude: greatest depth in tropical summer, virtually zero depth in polar winter. The thermocline transition zone where heat moves down toward colder lower water layers is mainly diffusive rather than conduction driven, complicated by inverted ‘turbulent’ convective cells, called eddies. The region below the thermocline is always real cold thanks to waters enormous specific heat capacity and the sheer volume of ocean water.

Reply to  Thom
January 19, 2016 8:44 pm

Hypothermia induced Tourette syndrome
The following video contains language of a sort that is entirely unbecoming of any self-respecting ichthyologist , or, for that matter, any self-respecting scientist of any field or discipline.

Gary Pearse
January 19, 2016 11:57 am

Seth says 90% of the sun’s energy goes into the oceans and this has doubled since 1997? So it’s 180% now going into the oceans. That’s gotta hurt.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2016 12:10 pm

“Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world’s oceans instead of the ground”.
The article leaves no doubt that the atmosphere has no role to play in dispersing heat to space. It’s only the ocean or the ground for the ‘man made heat’. No word about the natural stuff. That must go into next summers warming and also packed into atomic bombs.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Dahlquist
January 19, 2016 12:45 pm

Since the heat energy from man-mad global warming is zilch, 90 percent of zilch is less than zilch.

January 19, 2016 11:58 am

“It takes 4.186 J to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water 1 °C. ”
Actually, this is supposed to read It takes 4.186 J to raise the temperature of 1 GRAM of water 1 °C…. or °K if you want to be scientific.

charles nelson
January 19, 2016 12:19 pm

This ‘heat’ which magically passes through the atmosphere without warming it and then cannot be found?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  charles nelson
January 20, 2016 9:43 am

It must be the same heat that magically passes from the 0-700 meter zone to the 2000 meter zone without warming the water in between.

Ron Clutz
January 19, 2016 12:21 pm

It should be evident that the energy flow is from the sun to the ocean to the atmosphere.

Joel Snider
January 19, 2016 12:36 pm

I noticed yesterday that they were re-running this angle in the press. I think someone saw Stephen King’s Firestarter, where Drew Barrymore ‘put the heat in the water’ and thought – ‘hey, suspension of disbelief’ – appropriate for any good boogeyman story.
Keep in mind, all this supposed ocean-warming is also at the same time the polar ice caps are supposed to be melting all that ice into the sea.

January 19, 2016 12:43 pm

As far as I see, we all know this one to be bogous.
No-one would try to cook water by taking the can away from the stove, leave the heat on, and use a lid to try and reflect the heat from the plate through the air, up to the lid in ones hand, and then back down into the water,
And no-one would after this tedious excersise expect the water to magically start boiling, without it’s temperature rising, from it’s current average temp of 18 deg C.
The oceans are not warmed by reflected CO2 radiation, from its’ own surface, they are warmed directly by infrared rays from sunlight.
So it’s a fools exersise to refute this one.
Only a hysterical warmer with no scientific or practical sense would fall for this.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Lars Tuff
January 19, 2016 1:10 pm

What advocates of IR warming oceans claim is that the additional IR from the atmosphere at the surface will slow the cooling process from what it would have been without the additional IR from the atmosphere. They conclude that slowing the cooling is akin to warming. So it’s a question of semantics. Does keeping it warmer equate to making it warmer?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 19, 2016 7:00 pm

But according to the “theory”, the greenhouse effect increases the temperature 33C. So the advocates are saying that it slows the cooling to a temperature 33C higher than it started at.

Bill Partin
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 20, 2016 3:08 pm

Is that something like ‘saved’ jobs?

January 19, 2016 12:54 pm

If you filter the satellite data on only ocean pixels, the global average temperature varies by about 2C on a yearly basis with as much as 0.5C in difference between year to year averages. The monthly average temperature of N hemisphere oceans seasonally varies by about 6C while S hemisphere oceans seasonally vary by about 4C (hence the 2C global variability since the hemispheres don’t exactly cancel).
Anomaly analysis cancels out the massive seasonal temperature swings which provides the illusion that the planet responds to changes in total forcing far slower than it actually does. The average time constant of the 2 hemispheres to seasonal variability is the order of 1 year, meaning that about 2/3 of the final effect from a change in average forcing will manifest in the steady state within 12 months, although the 2 hemispheres have significantly different time constants with the S being longer than the N.
Conventional analysis blindly combines the hemispheres, which is wrong since the average net flux that crosses the equator is close to zero and the p-p energy flux that crosses the equator is dwarfed by the p-p energy flux arriving at each hemisphere from the Sun, moreover; the significantly different responses of the hemispheres, owing to different fractions and placement of land and water is ignored, yet this asymmetry is responsible for amplifying the effects of the precession of perihelion.
If again you filter on ocean pixels and subtract the output power of the planet from the solar input power, the p-p variability is about 200 W/m^2 for the S hemisphere and 150 W/m^2 p-p for the N hemisphere on a seasonal basis. This p-p variability is centered on zero and half the year each hemispheres oceans receive more power than they emit and warm and during the other half the opposite happens and they cool. Given this massive p-p variability, establishing an average that’s a fraction of a W/m^2, vs. an average of zero is impossible within the accuracy of the available data which at its best is within about 5%.

January 19, 2016 1:14 pm

With this kind of bold guesstimate work, he should be able to break out the heat added by cows, pigs, and pets too.

January 19, 2016 1:16 pm

Boringstone is never dull to read, however inaccurate he is. I love the idea that the ‘heat’ suddenly decided to stop going into the atmosphere and instead, go into the World’s Oceans, for a change or holiday. I also love the accompanying Trenberth idea that it will suddenly change again and come ‘roaring’ out like a Haboob to fry us all.
I also just love the term ‘gazillion’, I had no idea it had become an official term, I will use it frequently.

January 19, 2016 1:21 pm

If the Planet gains more heat than it radiates away then planetary temperatures rise
If the Planet gains same heat as it radiates away then planetary temperatures do not change
If the Planet gains less heat than it radiates away then planetary temperatures fall.
So its the imbalance that causes the temperature change.
Now we are told that on average there is a 0.58w/m^2 gain over the recent past
So use this to find out how long the Oceans would take to increase the Ocean temperatures by one degree Kelvin or Celsius
Scientists calculate that the total mass of the oceans on Earth is 1.35 x 1018 metric tonnes, which is 1/4400 the total mass of the Earth. In other words, while the oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface, they only account for 0.02% of our planet’s total mass.1 Dec 2014
Approximately 360 million square kilometers (140 million square miles), or 71 percent, are represented by the oceans and marginal seas.”
one metric ton = 1000Kg
10^9 cubic metres = one metric kilometre
10^6 sq metre = one sq kilometre
Formula used P.A.t = C .M. deltaT
P = imbalance of power/unit area = .58w/m^2 A = surface area of Ocean
t = how long the Oceans would take to increase the Ocean temperatures by one degree K
C = specific heat capacity of water = 4180 J/kgK
M = mass of Ocean water = 1.35 x 1018 metric tonnes
deltaT =temperature change of water =1 K
Plug in the numbers and calculate t = 870 years
Readers can try this easy formula for yourselves
If this is correct then this level of global warming is completely negligible

Curious George
January 19, 2016 1:54 pm

Fortunately, the heat intake by the oceans can not be measured. A golden (and lifesaving) opportunity for models.

January 19, 2016 1:54 pm

The Abstract of the paper:

Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades
Peter J. Gleckler, Paul J. Durack, Ronald J. Stouffer, Gregory C. Johnson & Chris E. Forest
Nature Climate Change (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate2915
Received 14 October 2015 Accepted 09 December 2015 Published online 18 January 2016
Formal detection and attribution studies have used observations and climate models to identify an anthropogenic warming signature in the upper (0–700 m) ocean[1, 2, 3, 4]. Recently, as a result of the so-called surface warming hiatus, there has been considerable interest in global ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the deeper ocean, including natural and anthropogenically forced changes identified in observational[5, 6, 7], modelling[8, 9] and data re-analysis[10, 11] studies. Here, we examine OHC changes in the context of the Earth’s global energy budget since early in the industrial era (circa 1865–2015) for a range of depths. We rely on OHC change estimates from a diverse collection of measurement systems including data from the nineteenth-century Challenger expedition[12], a multi-decadal record of ship-based in situ mostly upper-ocean measurements, the more recent near-global Argo floats profiling to intermediate (2,000 m) depths[13], and full-depth repeated transoceanic sections[5]. We show that the multi-model mean constructed from the current generation of historically forced climate models is consistent with the OHC changes from this diverse collection of observational systems. Our model-based analysis suggests that nearly half of the industrial-era increases in global OHC have occurred in recent decades, with over a third of the accumulated heat occurring below 700 m and steadily rising.

January 19, 2016 2:16 pm

Borenstein’s article is risible to anyone with training in thermodynamics and heat/mass transport. Amazingly enough the New York Times still publishes him. My sister, an English teacher and no dummy, buys every word. She is on her second Prius and thinks that because I currently work in the auto industry I am lying about the Bad Science rampant with the Warmistas.
I am not sure there is anything to be done about this, as the universities and academics have all decided to lie, in furtherance of their AGW Climatism…

January 19, 2016 2:37 pm

What do they think the sun has been doing to land, ocean, and air all this time? They must be assuming that source of energy has remained constant in there “modeling”.

Jaroslaw Sobieski
January 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Credibility of the entire article underlying this discussion is undermined by the use of the term ‘gazillion” as if it was a defined unit of measurement. It is not. It is a colloquial term that means “extremely large” but has no numerical value attached to it. This is in contrast to “zetta” which is a prefix standing for 10^21 (10 raised to power 21).
Jaroslaw Sobieski, Hampton, VA

Roger Taguchi
January 19, 2016 3:06 pm

The literature is wrong about “emission from the troposphere”, since non-polar N2, O2 and Ar, the main components of the atmosphere (99.9%) cannot and do not absorb or emit infrared (IR) radiation. There IS emission from the stratosphere, as shown by IR spectra obtained by satellites in space looking downward on a cold thunderstorm anvil at 210 K, too cold to power the observed 220 K CO2 and ozone emissions, which total only 16 + 3 = 19 W/m^2, nowhere near the 240 W/m^2 needed for energy balance. The bulk of the IR radiated to outer space is that part of the surface (solid and liquid) emission NOT absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, water vapor and methane in the troposphere. Since N2, O2 and Ar molecules outnumber CO2 by a factor of 2500:1, most of the energy absorbed by CO2 is transferred during non-radiative collisions to non-emitting molecules whose translational and rotational energies are increased. I.e. the troposphere warms up, the greenhouse effect. The power in W/m^2 emitted as IR in a Planck black body spectrum depends only on the surface temperature (by the Stefan-Boltzmann law). So as CO2 increased over the last 18 years, if it significantly increased the greenhouse effect, decreasing the amount of IR emitted to outer space, it should have increased the surface temperature of both land and water in order for energy balance to be approached (the Sun’s incoming radiation being constant on average, yearly). The mechanism of hiding “heat” in the deep ocean is not only difficult to understand, but is irrelevant, since it is the temperature of the emitting surface skin that is important in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. OK, then maybe the non-warming of the oceans was compensated for by a disproportionate warming of the third of the Earth’s surface that is land. But there are questions about land surface temperature measurements being overestimated as it is, especially near urban heat islands, at busy airports, etc. Appealing to a mysterious cause in a lag between increasing CO2 and actual measured temperatures contradicts the assumption of immediate or close cause-and-effect for the measured warming between 1950 and 1998. Time for a paradigm shift: the standard model of the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) or Climate Change establishment is irreparably wrong and must be abandoned.

Walt D.
January 19, 2016 3:27 pm

The volume of the oceans are 1.37 billion km^3 = = 1.37 * 10^24 cc
Hiroshima bomb = 20 kilotons of explosive (producing 1000 cals /gm) = 2*10^13 cals
Multiply by 75*365*86400 to get 4.73 * 10^22 calories
Assumption a specific heat of 1 , the warming would be about 0.034 C over 18 years.
No wonder we can’t find any warming of the whole ocean.

January 19, 2016 4:42 pm

According to IPCC AR5 atmospheric CO2 increased by 40%, from 278 ppm around 1750 to 390.5 ppm in 2011, a difference of about 240 GtC. The foregone assumption is that this cannot possibly be caused by natural sources therefore it can only be due to mankind.
In the same time frame anthropogenic sources produced about 555 +/- 85 GtC (+/- 15%!!). That’s twice the increase and a problem IPCC et al have been trying kick under the rug. Suggesting that it’s not anthro, just natural variability doesn’t cut it.
IPCC AR5 Table 6.1 attempts to partition this 555 Gt anthro source (375 +/- 30 FF & Cement, 180 +/- 80 land use) through the various sinks (rugs).
IPCC AR5 Table 6.1………GtC……..+/- GtC……..+/- %
Anthro Generation………555………….85……….15.3%
FF & Cement……………….375………….30…………8.0%……..67.6%
Net land use………………..180…………80……….44.4%……..32.4%
Anthro Retained………….240…………10…………4.2%………43.2%
Anthro Sequestered……-315……………………………………-56.8%
Ocean to atmos…………..-155………..30……..-19.4%
Residual land sink……….-160…………90……..-56.3%
So the CO2 increase between 1750 & 2011 cannot possibly be ‘splained by natural processes (Considering the huge uncertainties how would they even know?), but sinking half of the anthro contribution under the rug can be easily explained by natural processes. That 1/3rd of the anthro CO2 has nothing to do w/ FF doesn’t get much play.
Same for the missing heat. Have to dry lab it or admit to being wrong.

NW sage
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
January 19, 2016 6:19 pm

“WTF is “man-made heat”???” is a rhetorical question of course and the equally rhetorical answer is: “the opposite of man-made cold!”

Bill Partin
Reply to  NW sage
January 20, 2016 3:22 pm

Thank you NW. I think it’s time for some Theroflu.

January 19, 2016 6:22 pm

Light on evidence, heavy on models. Par for the course.

Pamela Gray
January 19, 2016 6:24 pm

Lordy. There are no other words to describe my opinion of climate science.

January 19, 2016 8:01 pm

The oceans contain 1,000x+ the energy of the atmosphere, how could the atmosphere ever warm the oceans? Made made warming comes from CO2 which absorbs between 13µ and 18µ, which doesn’t penetrate the oceans, and I’ve seen no evidence that those wavelengths warm water at all. Visible light penetrates and warms the oceans. I’d love to see someone provide evidence that the 13µ and 18µ at 1.3 W/M^2 can warm the oceans, especially considering that the air above the oceans is humid, negating any additional radiation absorption of CO2. The warming oceans is the smoking gun that CO2 isn’t causing the warming. What is warming the oceans is warming the atmosphere above it. Record high day time temperatures also aren’t caused by CO2, so warmer days are proof of a natural cause of the warming.

January 20, 2016 1:20 am

The world’s oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years,

1) There isn’t that much heat in the atmosphere
2) CO2 only traps a small fraction between 13µ and 18µ
3) That energy has to come from the visible spectrum
4) Record daytime temperatures prove more visible radiation is reaching the oceans

Ron Clutz
January 20, 2016 10:55 am

As it happens, there is some man-made ocean warming, but it’s not CO2.

January 20, 2016 4:14 pm

The world’s oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years,

BTW, doesn’t that imply the temperature increase over the past 18 years is equal to the previous 150 years? Assuming the layers warm the same. Anyway, how could they know the heat content of the ocean back then? They don’t even now it today?

January 20, 2016 4:18 pm

The facts are conclusive. “Global Climate Change” cannot cause a special rise in temperatures in Northern Europe, neither in the North Sea nor the Baltic or beyond.
I’ve made that point a 1,000x. How can a constant cause local variations? This entire AGW theory, based on regional temperature changes makes no sense. The physics of CO2 are constant, the concentration of CO2 is constant, so it can’t cause these local anomalies.

%d bloggers like this: