From the INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES and the “worse than we thought” mind of climate activist John Abraham comes this study, that frankly, isn’t very believable, especially when you invoke the word “consensus” as part of your proof.
Oceans are warming rapidly, study says
More than 90% of the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean and consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) is increasing. Therefore, OHC is one of the most important indicators of global warming. During the past 30 years, many independent groups worked to estimate historical OHC changes. However, large uncertainty has been found among the published global OHC time series. For example, during the current surge of research on the so-called “hiatus” or “slowdown”, different scientific studies draw quite different conclusions on the key scientific question such as “Where is the heat redistributed in the ocean?” This motivates us to give a detailed analysis about global and basin OHC changes based on multiple ocean datasets.
A just released study, led by Ph. D student WANG Gong-jie from National University of Defence Technology, cooperating with Professor LI Chong-yin and Dr. CHENG Li-jing from Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP)/ Chinese Academy of Sciences, Professor John P. ABRAHAM from University of St. Thomas (USA), comprehensively examined the OHC change on decadal and multi-decadal scales and at different ocean basins. Through three different objectively analyzed ocean datasets (Ishii from Japan, EN4 from Met. Office and IAP), they found that the oceans are robustly warming, regardless of which data was used. In addition, the heat among global oceans experienced a significant redistribution in the past several decades.
During 1998-2012, which was famous for global warming slowdown period, all of these basins had been accumulating heat, and there was no clear indication of which ocean basin dominates the global OHC change. In other words, below 100-m depth in the Atlantic and Southern Ocean, and between 100-300m depth in the Pacific and Indian Ocean, there was statistically significant warming and they all contributed to global ocean warming. The discrepancy results from previous studies are due to the difference of depth ranges used in calculating OHC as well as the uncertainty in subsurface temperature datasets.
Why are there substantial differences among different datasets? This study shows that Ishii analysis underestimates the heating rate in the southern hemisphere in the past century. And EN4 analysis cannot correctly reconstruct the sea surface temperature (SST) during the past 30 years and underestimates the warming rate by ~90% compared with an independent SST datasets such as ERSST and OISST. This indicates the Ishii and EN4 analyses may underestimate the ocean warming rate.
“In plain English, it will be important that we keep high-quality temperature sensors positioned throughout the oceans so in the future we will be able to predict where our climate is headed,” explains co-author ABRAHAM. “We say in science that a measurement not made is a measurement lost forever. And there are no more important measurements than of heating of the oceans.”
###
The press release: http://english.iap.cas.cn/RE/201706/t20170629_179178.html
The paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3751-5
Consensuses and discrepancies of basin-scale ocean heat content changes in different ocean analyses
Inconsistent global/basin ocean heat content (OHC) changes were found in different ocean subsurface temperature analyses, especially in recent studies related to the slowdown in global surface temperature rise. This finding challenges the reliability of the ocean subsurface temperature analyses and motivates a more comprehensive inter-comparison between the analyses. Here we compare the OHC changes in three ocean analyses (Ishii, EN4 and IAP) to investigate the uncertainty in OHC in four major ocean basins from decadal to multi-decadal scales. First, all products show an increase of OHC since 1970 in each ocean basin revealing a robust warming, although the warming rates are not identical. The geographical patterns, the key modes and the vertical structure of OHC changes are consistent among the three datasets, implying that the main OHC variabilities can be robustly represented. However, large discrepancies are found in the percentage of basinal ocean heating related to the global ocean, with the largest differences in the Pacific and Southern Ocean. Meanwhile, we find a large discrepancy of ocean heat storage in different layers, especially within 300–700 m in the Pacific and Southern Oceans. Furthermore, the near surface analysis of Ishii and IAP are consistent with sea surface temperature (SST) products, but EN4 is found to underestimate the long-term trend. Compared with ocean heat storage derived from the atmospheric budget equation, all products show consistent seasonal cycles of OHC in the upper 1500 m especially during 2008 to 2012. Overall, our analyses further the understanding of the observed OHC variations, and we recommend a careful quantification of errors in the ocean analyses.
The study was co-authored by John P. Abraham, this guy:
For those of you that don’t know, he’s part of the wrongheadedly named “skeptical science” crew of 97% consensus baiters. He’s also an activist, writing political commentary for The Guardian.
For example:
Climate change will have very long lasting consequences that we will be dealing with long after he is gone. Long after other issues like immigration, the economy, debt, jobs, terrorism, or new words like “covfefe” have passed from our minds, the implications of our climate effect will linger. Frankly, no challenge we are facing (except perhaps a potential nuclear war) presents the consequences that climate change does.
And this, sadly, will be the legacy of conservatives in my country. As we wake up to more severe weather, more droughts, heat waves, rising seas, severe storms, the world will remember that these issues could have been solved long ago but for an ideology and tribalism.
Talk about misguided, even the IPCC doesn’t think we are getting more severe weather..
He’s also not a climate scientist, nor even a meteorologist, but rather a mechanical engineer.
Just like the antics of of his buddies John Cook and Stephan Lewandowski, I don’t trust this guy to come up with accurate and unbiased science. The key red flag is the sentence in the abstract:
“Inconsistent global/basin ocean heat content (OHC) changes were found in different ocean subsurface temperature analyses…”
Abraham is playing the “order out of chaos” game, setting himself up as the unifier of all these “inconsistent” pieces of data to fit a theory. Just reading the paper makes me think it’s another one of those “conclusions first, justifications second” type paper.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The global ocean temperature has seasonal variability on the order of several degrees C which belies the idea that the ocean heat content responds slowly to change. Figure out how many Joules it takes to change the global ocean temperatures by 2-3C and now try and explain where this energy is hiding?
Yes, did they provide a mechanism? In any scientific endeavor a conclusion should end or begin with a mechanism. I might have missed it.
Why carbon dioxide is the mechanism kid… are you some kind of science denier? lol!
In other news South Dakota corn and wheat crops experienced a frost this morning. To be fair to global warming scientists around the world… they never said anything about snow and frost being a rare event in summer… just winter.
http://wnax.com/news/180081-frost-damages-corn-and-wheat-in-sully-county-south-dakota/
If he’s a mechanical engineer, he should know something about mechanisms.
Well,whatever OHC increase we may have had, CO2 is not the cause. Per IPCC dogma surface warming is a RESULT of the troposphere warming; a sort of top down cascade. The problem is the heat is MIA in the troposphere. Therefore most surface T increase is not a result of CO2, ergo any OHC increase is likewise not from top down GHG warming.
Most likely the surface record is FUBAR, and OHC as well.
That might be true of surface temperatures, but I have a hard time believing that the temperatures of the deep ocean vary much at all seasonally. The changes this study discusses are dwarfed by the total heat content stored in the oceans, so maybe the point should be more precisely made that, if the ocean’s surface waters respond to seasonal changes to the tune of 2-3C by interaction with the boundary conditions at the surface, and deep water shows insignificant changes in temperature compared to that at the surface, how can heat disappear undetected into the depths without first being reflected in temperatures at the ocean surface and in the air above it?
Yes, the temperatures of the deep ocean do not exhibit any diurnal or seasonal variability which gives the argument of ‘heat hidden in the depths’ about as much legitimacy as the Earth centric Universe hypothesis.
On Earth, the deep ocean temperature is set by the density/temperature profile of the water separating the solid surface beneath from the virtual surface of the planet in DIRECT equilibrium with the Sun above (ocean surface and bits of land that poke through). As long as the poles provide cold water from melting ice, the deep ocean will remain close to 0C, even at the equator.
It’s also important to note that the transmission of heat down through the thermocline (based on the thermal conductivity of water) is only 1 W/m^2 or so which is not enough flux to cool the surface, while the flux being emitted from the top of the ocean is between 300 and 400 W/m^2.
All the Joules you need come from deep sea tectonic plate seepage. Could not find the theory advanced by a Geologist on these pages last year (?). Can somebody resurrect the article as I am not using the right keywords to pull up the link?
Here is the link I was looking for. http://climatechangedispatch.com/further-proof-el-ninos-are-fueled-by-deep-sea-geological-heat-flow/
ALL THE JOULES ANYBODY NEEDS.
When that boogie monster of trapped heat ever rises to the surface and says “BOO!” We are doomed as Frazer (Dad’s Army) would say: “We’re doomed, doomed.” !
Steve, that is about the level at which this ‘study’ is aimed. It seems to me that the Chinese have extended their ‘hacking’ program and, having found a useful idiot in Professor Abraham, have decided to tap into the fears and phobias of a segment of the Western populace regarding ‘deadly climate change’.
Considering the respect the Chinese regime extends to presumption of innocence, the political system in Hong Kong, the rights of ethnic Chinese of other nationalities, the law of the sea as applies to the South China Sea etc etc its not like they would not take advantage of such evangelical fools as Abrahams.
Well, right now according to Ryan Maue’s NCEP CFSR/CFSv2 (air) temp anomaly chart that is comprised of the initialization temps to the global models, the global anomaly compared to 1981 – 2010 climatology is just .2C above. We are also less than .1C above for the southern hemisphere, which if I judge the map right, is mostly water!
So after 37 years we are just about where we started. So if the oceans are so full of heat, just where is it? (hint- in outer space).
I seem to remember a step change in OHC data as the Argo buoys came on line. There was a ramp during the 5 or so years as they came on line and it’s been flattish ever since. Maybe re-plot the data after full deployment and see what that says, eh?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
That was an interesting sidebar. The article is from 2008, and full deployment of Argo didn’t happen until November of 2007. There was barely a full year of data available at the time the article was published. What has happened since then?
It showed that one method of measuring temperature had a bias against an other method of easing temperature. This is often the case. The earlier method was reading higher than the new method. This is a 50/50 probability (unless they are both have equal biases) so it was either going to be hotter or cooler when the method was switched. The conclusion if you had read thar far was that the oceans are warming up and the water level is rising at a faster rate.
From the NASA article (how to make ocean cooling go away):
“First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”
There is also a step change in the rate of sea level rise due to the shift from tide gauges to satellite measurements. Both the OHC measurements and the rate of increase in SLR are distorted due to the change in the method of measurement. Try to explain that concept to the real science deniers
We have plenty of data for the Antarctic Ocean. /sarc
Tide gauges are still collecting data, so if there has been a “shift” it has been completely voluntary. Frankly, I see no advantage whatsoever to measuring sea level by satellite. Sure, satellites give you coverage in remote places where we don’t have tide gauges, but we only care about sea level rise on the coasts where we can just put a tide gauge.
If you remember, there were a number of buoys showing cooling ocean temperatures. Rather than send a mission out to collect those buoys and check their calibration, they simply removed them from the dataset.
If you have a Gaussian distribution about a mean, but remove all the readings below the mean or even just those beyond one standard deviation below the mean, you can create the desired warming of your dataset.
If there were some that “failed” low without explanations, wouldn’t that imply there were likely units that “failed” high as well? If one only removes data contrary to expectations, one reinforces those expectations nicely, but is it real?
The very first sentence of this piece :
“More than 90% of the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean and consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) is increasing. ”
Am I mistaken in thinking that the second half of this sentence does not follow from the first at all?
MCEA,
Yes, nothing about that sentence makes sense. First of all, during half the year, the planet is receiving more incident energy than its emitting, the energy imbalance is positive and the planet warms. For the other half, the planet is emitting more energy than its receiving, the imbalance is negative and the planet cools. This should be obvious regarding the seasonal variability of an individual hemisphere, but what’s not obvious is owing to significant asymmetries in the positioning and amount of land and water and the fact that little energy can be transported between hemispheres is that the N hemisphere has significantly more seasonal variability than the S hemisphere, even in the oceans, so the net effect is that the planet exhibits the signature of the N hemisphere which is to heat up during the N hemisphere summer and to cool down during the N hemisphere winter with a p-p variability of about 5C for the planet as a whole and between about 2 and 3 C for the oceans themselves.
The idea that the ocean heat content is out of balance and monotonically warming is so contradictory to the physics, logic and data it’s bizarre how an ostensibly peer reviewed study would deviate so far from the ground truth. This is yet another indication of how distorted and broken ‘consensus’ climate science has become.
Well said .
Good explanation co2isnotevil. Here is a graphic illustrating your point. I also did an analysis looking for any residual buildup of heat across the transitions from summers to winters, and found none. Granted I studied land station records since they are more volatile and any warming more likely to show up. It did not.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/when-is-it-warming-the-real-reason-for-the-pause/
CO2
Atmospheric pressure is transferred between the hemispheres. This is particularly noticable in warmer years when atmospheric pressure is higher.
This year due to the cooling pressure is lower in the NH, and lower still in the SH, that is why there had been no hurricanes or cyclones of substance.
They call it fluid dynamics.
ozonebust,
Yes, there’s a small transfer, but the atmosphere isn’t capable enough to transfer the amount of heat required to manifest the seasonal change the temperature of a hemisphere’s oceans, even if we’re only talking about the top few 100m. If you examine the global ocean and atmospheric circulation currents, they’re all parallel to the equator which is the condition that minimizes the transfer of energy across the equator due to atmospheric winds or ocean currents.
CO2
My comments were divided above sea surface.
Ron Clutz
Nice article. Your chart can also be used as guide to the pressure balance between the hemispheres as a result of the September Equinox. Late September the NH pressure peaks, at almost exactly the same time as the SH pressure release.
I am referring to hemisphere pressure.
CO2
My comments were about above sea surface. For clarity.
Regards
Well it is possibly an assumtion that the earth cools in the SH summer. Yes the atmosphere cools, yet the atmospher holds about .1% of the oceans energy. In the SH summer the earth is closer to the Sun and receiving immensely more daily energy. ( about 90 w per sq M )
Yet the SH is over 80 percent ocean. So perhaps, depending on cloud cover, the SH summer recharges the oceans, and this SW radiation, penetrating up to 800`, is lost to the atmosphere for a time.
As to rhe net annual OHC and any change, I agree and consider our current estimates to be a WAG, heavily seasoned with confirmation bias.
With increased NH albedo and increased ocean absorbtion of insolation into the oceans, the atmosphere definitely cools. But I have never seen the net balance quantified. ( let alone modeled by GCMs)
The wording is incorrect for what they are trying to imply. The end of the sentence should have read “…consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) (HAS) increas(ed). ”, for their statement to make sense. If 90% of the supposed imbalance entered into the oceans, then the heat content of the oceans has increased.
Outside of that imo, global warming is always about the oceans gaining heat. That is the cause of Warm Periods.
Here we go again, the steel marble is heating up the cannon ball- and quicker than ever! How does “honest Abe” explain away that the oceans can hold 1000 times the heat the atmosphere can?
Specific heat per unit volume is over 1000 times greater for water than air
How do the mid depth temperatures increase of the layers above and below do not increase. Does the heat magically transport there?
Yes, no, and maybe.
We call it “The FM priciple”, Friggin’ magic.
the mid depth stole the heat from the upper and lower layers … the mid depth is obviously a white male conservative …
From the summary of the paper:
“Since one can never re-observe the ocean in the past, some synthetic data should be used, for instance high-resolution model outputs, sea level data, etc.”
Yup, and RSS just announced their new TLT data which is also “improved” with model input. This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
Note the author… Zeke Howsyourfather, he of the ‘revise the bouy data up to match the ship data, Karl was right’ department. No further analysis required though worth noting that every AGW revision of any data always makes things warmer… fancy that
Nobody understood the crossing-times of these satellites before.
Its not like NASA knew how to track their own satellites or put them into orbit for 10 years or so.
Its clear all the data must be adjusted up because all 15 satellites they used over the years tended to underestimate the warming.
Yes. The key statement when you read it is:
“and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments”
In other words they used the excuse of adjusting for orbital decay impacts (a real problem) to adjust the satellite record using a combination of their own heavily adjusted “homogenized” surface temperature record and heavily biased climate models.
What an absolute crock.
This is obviously some strange new meaning of the word “correction” I wasn’t previously aware of . . .
Oh, and wasn’t Carl Mears of RSS on that video with Mann & Schmidt about 6 months ago claiming that the land-based temp. data were more reliable than the satellites?
Not suspicious at all.
(I seem to remember several predictions here that an “adjustment” to RSS was on its way!)
John Christy and Roy Spencer seems to be the last independent providers of satellite temperature data sets (UAH). They have informed that they will not be doing that forever, eventually they will retire. I hope United States administration ensures that their work will be continued in an independent way:
“Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years. ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
… “synthetic data” — well, that’s a new one on ME. Is that anything like fake data?
Off to read some CNN “synthetic news” now.
They have been using synthetic data in the Land Temperarture sets for years.
Nest generation science standards in the United States:
«Models can be used to predict the behavior of a system, but these predictions have limited precision and reliability due to the assumptions and approximations inherent in models. (HS-PS3-1)» Ref.: Disciplinary Core Idea Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards
The authors of this study seem to be below high school standard in that respect.
However, I got 455 hits on the word «model» in that standard, but only one warning as cited above.
Let us hope that the teacher remembers to mention that warning, and that the students are not asleep. The United States might get a next generation with a blind belief in models.
Just focus on the first part of that quote for a second: “Since one can never re-observe the ocean in the past, some synthetic data should be used . . . ” The press release stated that “[w]e say in science that a measurement not made is a measurement lost forever.” Which is it?
Second, taken literally, the phrase “synthetic data” is an oxymoron – practically, it’s being used as a euphemism for “fabricated data.” These guys are actually advocating that made up measurements should be used to substitute for measurements that weren’t made in the past.
That was very well observed and phrased. 🙂
The masthead figure gives energy expressed a w/m^2. However, it is supposedly for the volume of water from the surface to 2,000 m. It seems to me that the appropriate unit should be w/m^3.
John P. Abraham seems to be as well qualified as Bill Nye! 🙂
Only the top layer of the ocean stores heat. Anything below about the mid point of the thermocline is colder than the average temperature of the planet, thus stores ‘negative’ heat relative to the average surface temperature.
This explains why the ocean responds so much faster than claimed. Most of it’s volume stores cold, not heat, at least relative to the average and the average is all that really matters relative to climate change.
CO2evil,
Unless you are talking about a layer one molecule thick, it should still be expressed in units of volume, not area!
If what you say is true, why are they looking below the thermocline? I know, I should ask them.
Clyde,
They’re looking below the thermocline because there’s no where else for the heat to ‘hide’.
When I look at the thermocline, I see a layer of insulation between the deep ocean cold and warm surface layers. Water is not a particularly good insulator, but it’s R value is finite and at a sufficient thickness, for example the thickness of the thermocline, it can and does act as an insulator. Compare the temperature profile of the ocean with the temperature profile across an insulating wall.
This tells me that the planet stores solar energy as the temperature difference between the deep ocean cold and warmer surface, analogous to how a capacitor stores energy in an electric field. This means that the charging and discharging of this thermal reserve, one side of which is fixed at near 0C and the other side fluctuating around the average surface temperature of the surface, happens at much shorter time scales then the consensus believes since only the thickness of the thermocline and temperature of the top layer is varying and not the ‘temperature’ of the entire mass of the oceans volume.
We can even express this with the same math used to express the charging and discharging of a capacitor. It Pi is the instantaneous input from the Sun (after albedo) and Po is the instantaneous emissions by the planet, their instantaneous difference is either added to or subtracted from the energy stored by the system. If we call the energy stored by the system E, which is linearly proportional to T, the instantaneous difference between Pi and Po is equal to the rate of change in E, or dE/dt.
Pi = Po + dE/dt
If we arbitrarily define an amount of time, tau, such that all of E can be emitted at the rate Po, we can rewrite this as,
Pi = E/tau + dE/dt
Which you can recognize as the same form of the differential equation that describes the charging and discharging of an RC circuit, where tau = R*C.
The unacknowledged complication is that while E is linearly proportional to T, dE is not linearly proportional to dT since Po is dependent on T raised to the forth power. It doesn’t really matter whether you consider T to be the average 255K temperature of the planet or the 288K average temperature of the surface. In the former case, the calculated sensitivity becomes about 0.3C per W/m^2 (which the consensus considers the ‘no feedback’ sensitivity) while at 288K, it turns out to be closer to 0.2C per W/m^2. For reference, the IPCC claims a sensitivity of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2, where even their lower limit is larger than what an energy driven analysis can support, moveover; most of the results from skeptics fall into the range of between about 0.2 and 0.3C per W/m^2.
CO2
A stratification layer. The difference in temperature resists mixing.
ozonebust,
It’s also interesting that if you look at the downward energy flux though the thermocline based on the thermal conductivity of water and temperature difference, it almost exactly offsets the W/m^2 or so of average emissions from the surface below due to the internal heat of the planet.
Then it makes absolutely no sense to put “0 – 2000m” in your chart, yes? Taking their “data” at face value, and their obvious possibly mistaken assertion that the increase is being stored by all of the ocean between 0 and 2000 meters – that is 0.001 Watts per cubic meter. In the “hottest” regions.
I’m afraid that I have become more than somewhat jaded. What this looks like is that they: 1) discarded every data set that doesn’t show any warming (and, in fact, may show cooling); 2) tortured the surviving data sets mercilessly to ensure that they would show warming; 3) ran it over with averages (miraculously obtaining far more precision than any instrument could possibly measure, a common “trick” of the trade); and 4) came up with 0.001 W/m^3 of warming for all their efforts.
“Damn it! THAT won’t get us any press, or grants! Wait a minute – tell you what we’ll do, we’ll publish it as W/m^2! That gives us a good alarming number! Call up the media department, Fred, we need to make some adjustments here.”
Clyde Spencer – It is reasonable to use Wm-2 for the amount of energy reaching/entering/leaving/etc the ocean. In this paper, they appear to have used OHC to calculate how many Wm-2 it would have needed to generate it. The idea is reasonable – ie. it is OK to express it in Wm-2 – but everything else in the paper appears to be very suspect indeed: dodgy assumptions, dodgy data, dodgy models, dodgy estimates, dodgy logic.
The parts of the ocean coloured bright red supposedly represent warming of the order of 2 Wm-2. Over just a part – 1983-2009 – of the period, the amount of direct solar energy penetrating the ocean increased by about 4.5 Wm-2 thanks to changing cloud cover. This dwarfs the amount of energy that could possibly have been delivered into the ocean from increased levels of atmospheric CO2. [NB. This “4.5” and their “2” are different beasts. The “4.5” is energy entering the ocean, while the “2” represents energy entering minus energy leaving].
W m-2 is a heat flux which is appropriate for heat entering via the surface. That is how the heat gets in. W m-3 would be appropriate for the integrated enthalpy rise over say 2000m depth. They are obviously talking of a heat flux because your suggested figure of 3 W m-3 would heat the ocean some 30’C in a year!
“More than 90% of the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean and consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) is increasing. ”
Did anyone tell the surface temperature modelers this ??
I like the notion of sequestering an imbalance .
Does that mean that “the jury is still out”?
I thought it was Jasper Sitwell… The SHIELD agent who was actually working for HYDRA…
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvelmovies/images/d/dd/AgentSitwell-Item47.png
Looks at first glance like Sitwell’s glasses have S&H Green Stamps stuck to them.
He could not be redeemed…
Compliance will be rewarded.
“A just released study, led by Ph. D student WANG Gong-jie from National University of Defence Technology…”
I can’t think of a better institution than the “National University of Defense Technology” to come out with a study designed to support lemmings in other countries as they spend massive amounts of Defense dollars on combating climate change while the Chinese spend their yuans building up actual defense capabilities
Here’s a WUWT article from 2015 based on the Argo buoys that shows the opposite of what Wang et al assert.
Since when do PhD students get to be lead authors? What’s this clown’s supervisor doing? Does this mark a change in Chinese government policy?
He doesn’t even mention the Argo buoys in his article (probably wise, from his angle).
All Phd students have to write papers, one paper per year, one conference per year, and your Professor is always the second named author on each paper.
That is how it is….
My post was not as funny as I thought it was.
Speaking seriously, it is very possible to get one’s PhD with zero first author papers and zero conferences … and zero chance of a tenure track position.
Depends on the Journal. Most go alphabetically. So a student called Aaron has a tremendous advantage
De Brownie and Moessbauer did
A meta-analysis, that is, working off other published studies? And claiming that the other quoted studies were wrong, without using any new evidence?
Chinese scientists paired with leading catastrophic anthropogenic global warming proponent and activist John Abraham makes for an etirely unbelievable and highly suspect paper.
A paper that not surprisingly attempts to debunk recent papers, including by leading warmists Ben Santer, Michael Mann et all, who admitted the pause was real and climates models were failures – due to flawed assumptions – greatly overstating climate sensitivity to increased CO2
This ranks right up there with Lewandowsky and Cooks retracted Moon Landing smear…
Chinese scientists paired with leading catastrophic anthropogenic global warming proponent and activists gave us this:
“The American scientific film “the Day After Tomorrow”, which demonstrated “the breath-taking catastrophe brought to mankind by climate change”…
Wow, Trump is right.
Once again, Chicken Little speaks, and the world hasn’t yet learned.
With all due respect, listening to this man’s science invokes everything I tell my students what NOT to do when designing and performing an experiment.
Does this mean that wetsuits will become obsolete? Oh happy day! One less stinky thing to deal with.
It also means Trump was right… the Chinese ARE making this up!
I found it strange that a 56-year period of ocean temp was used, when Climategate told us that the Southerrn Hemisphere data was sparse, and mostly interpolated (like, ‘made up’.)
Interpolated and extrapolated
deep ocean measurement back to 1960 are virtually non existent. Pretending that they can calculate a global OHC that far back is simply stupid and dishonest. Like most of Abraham’s politically motivated garbage.
The oceans did warm. The oceans now appear to be now cooling.
Based on the paleo record (if the warming in the last 150 years was natural and based on what has happened cyclically before) the current cooling will intensify in the same cooling region (note the cooling is not global it is latitude specific/concentrated, which is one of the observational facts that can be used to determine the solar cycle mechanisms).
Obviously if the cooling does occur, a significant climate modulation mechanism is increasing back to its normal strength.
The cyclic cooling and warming in the paleo record is centered around a band of the earth, between 40 to 60 degrees latitude, both hemispheres.
The cooling in the North Atlantic is around 10C, for the largest events.
It is super weird that no one has solved this problem of what the heck causes the cyclic warming and cooling, in the paleo record.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.6.29.2017.gif
China pulling ahead.
Or a leg.
Why are you pulling China?
Yikes, is that like “turning Japanese”?
Pat Frank in ‘Systematic Error in Climate Measurements: The surface air temperature record’ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/systematic-error-in-climate-measurements-the-surface-air-temperature-record/
“More recently, Argo buoys were field calibrated against very accurate CTD (conductivity-temperature-depth) measurements and exhibited average RMS errors of ±0.56 C.”
WR: how many W/m2 do you need to get a difference of 0.56C for 0-2000m?
Over 57 years : 2.606882252 Wm-2 (approx)
Thank you Mike. Would you like to give us the calculation?
More than 90% of the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean and consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) is increasing.
This is such a horrible use of language that I have to add my own two cents to the bucket of criticisms.
An imbalance is a relationship, NOT a quantity or an entity. To be sequestered is to be hidden away.
How can a non-entity/non-quantity, then, be hidden away? Does this mean that it is hidden away even better?
Oh, but I guess if we incorporate it into an acronym (i.e, EEI), then this makes it okay. So, we have a non-entity/non-quantity hiding in the ocean causing an addition to the measure of something else. Great.
Also, how do you assign a percentage to a relationship. Wait, let me give it a shot here: “30% of my intellectual integrity balance (IIE) is decreased, every time I read a sentence like this.”
I think you could change it to “90% of the earth’s net energy imbalance (ENEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean” — then it answers all of your questions. Most of us understand the concept as “net”.
What he is trying to say is that 90% of the energy imbalance they EXPECT to see from their climate models is not found. Therefore it must “sequestered” ( hidden ) somewhere. It’s basically Trenberth’s “missing heat” which he is trying to find.
Since the early record for deep ocean temperatures is very sparse, this is a good place to do some data massaging and extrapolating to get the desired result.
It’s not a horrible use of language it is a deliberate twisting of language to suggest that something unproven actually exists and is ‘hidden’ somewhere.
Start with the assumption that there is an “imbalance” and then use that to “prove” that that the SST records which do not show it must be incorrect. Defective logic. This is not science, it is politics.
Robert, your just going to have to live with the fact that you live in a world full of illiterate boobs. (sadly, we don’t possess your literary flare) i take it that you are the same Kernodle that wrote the ice core piece that dr curry oft refers to. Have you other such writings? i really enjoyed reading that piece. (i always wondered what cold dark ice cave the lone commentor came crawling out of)…
Well, I just blew another attempt at wit. [Maybe you should just give it up, Kernodle.]
… should have been “My intellectual integrity imbalance is increased by 30%, every time I read a sentence like this.”
If you told me to close my eyes and picture a political commentator for the Guardian, his is pretty much the image I would conjure up. Talk about stereotype..
Must be a highly intelligent boffin, he’s got an egg-head.
Unless you have an egg-head at least as good has his, you should just bow down and listen. It’s a visual form of appeal to authority.
Let’s try to be fair…let’s suppose that these guys are trying an “honest’ approach with their little new hypothesis or their so called scientific analyzes…by trying to offer something for the first time in the proper scientific criteria, the context of falsification….let\s consider that these guys ore trying to at least approach the conversation honestly….
According to a very simple explanation of the scientific method, a so simple one that it is in the context of one for dummies……if the experiment disagrees with your theories or hypothesis or the conclusion of a given analyses, then you know all of it remains falsified, regardless of ones IQ, beauty, authority or the uniform, it still remains falsified….
The problem of Abraham, in this case,and his companions is that the EEI that he refers to, in the way he refers to it , is actually played in the very expensive experiment, the GCMs, at which even the policy to change the global future economy is based at.
The experiment does not produce anything remotely close to what these guys try to imply by their analyses, with no any data to actually support it, about the OHC increase.
Actually the experiment, a very expensive one at that, produces Hot Spots in Atmosphere, no any hot spots in the depth or any where in the oceans…… no any OHC increase as claimed by their analyses…..
Tough, but in this context, their claims and “conclusions” remain falsified, and with any other merit than that in the scientific criteria…
But still, the benefit of the doubt requires that at least the approach may to a degree be considered as with an intent towards a honest conversation…..hopefully….
Please don\t mind much any writing or linguistic errors, as I have typed this quickly and not double or triple checked..:)
Thanks Anthony..:)
cheers
Whiten, don’t worry so much about your english, the gist of what you say always gets through. (english is my native tongue and nobody ever understands a word that i say… ☺) Let me ask you here, to your knowledge, do climate models predict a warming ocean at all? i take it from your comment that the answer is NO. That’s always been a mystery to me as to whether or not climate models actually do. My take on things is that if you raise SSTs above an equilibrium state temperature, then the oceans warm for centuries. Oceans have a temperature gradient. If you raise the surface temp, then a whole new gradient has to be established taking hundreds of years. If models don’t account for this, then they are going to be way off. (the oceans becoming a great big heat sink)…
afonzarelli
June 30, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Thank you for your reply…..
Your question…..
“Let me ask you here, to your knowledge, do climate models predict a warming ocean at all?”
—————-
Let’s keep the argument in the context of OHC.
Simple answer will be that to my understanding and knowledge……first the GCMs are no climate models, these models do not do climate…….second the variation of SST temps and other deeper layers temp variation do not clearly and certainly point to the actual OHC variation and the direction of it.
It can be contemplated that some time the OHC variation can be in a different sign to such other temp variations over time, so in its own the relying in the SST and other deeper layers in estimating which way the OHC is varying, if at all, is not good enough….(As with generally the climatic cooling trend, where for some considerable time the oceans may be sequestering heat from atmosphere but the SST may be going down.)
The OHC in this aspect shows that its variation does not happen solely or mainly due to the function of the oceans sequestrating heat from the atmosphere.
The GCMs exist as result of an understanding of the Atmosphere-Earth’s surface coupling in accordance to energy circulation, where the oceans surface is the main and dominant surface considered….
So as far as this goes, my point and my understanding is that no, GCMs do not do any oceans warming when we have to consider that in the aspect and relation to OHC as going up or not, regardless of any SST variation in the GCMs…..
But what actually, what GCMs do, as is expected in the case of the warming solely caused by the radiation imbalance, is the warming and the increase of the Atmospheres Heat Content with a very distinguished feature….hot spots in Tropics….with no any significant or detectable increase of OHC.
So simply relying in SST variation or other deeper oceanic layers variations, by not considering the Atmosphere-Ocean coupling and its functioning correctly, it is not good enough and more than not can lead to incorrect conclusion, when actually there is a huge room for such mistakes to happen…
There is no way to address correctly the OHC and its variation so superficially and directly, and claim that the estimations and the conclusions are right or supposedly correct….especially when it comes to the illogical AGW approach…
Another side explanation why GCMs may and could not do any OHC increase…….
The GCMs do not do climate equilibrium, or what more correctly can be termed as atmospheric thermal equilibrium, therefor GCMs can have an atmospheric warming and an atmospheric thermal expansion without the oceans triggered to do any meaningful sequestration of the atmospheric warming…free to keep the atmosphere warming to the max possible atmospheric thermal expansion without the oceans getting in any meaningful heat sequestration…..with clear tropical hot spot.
So when considering these guys analyzes and the conclusion of the ocean heat sequestration and the OHC increase, as claimed, than there not only the hot spots required to be real, but also the hot spots in tropics should be more significant, as in reality versus GCMs the system has a climate equilibrium, and to push it to a new one as claimed, more energy and heat should be manifested in the tropics, for the HOC to be considered as increasing due to the oceans heat sequestration….
The main thing that AGW still relies on is the portraying and assessment of climate equilibrium, or the atmospheric thermal equilibrium as very weak and flimsy….
From my understanding the GWP (Global Warming Potential) is estimated to somewhere around 8-16 times more potent than it actually is, where the RF increment due to CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration increment is considered as an amplification of warming….very wrongly and incorrectly so.
And this among many other assessments make the climate equilibrium, or the Atmospheric thermal Equilibrium as very very easy to influence and shift as required by the AGW concept.
It is already gone too long……when probably considering my understanding being wrong and incorrect, so I just stopping here and hoping that at least my explanation and point made in this reply is understood or makes some sense, regardless of correctness….
Thanks for asking, and hopefully I have some how answered in a comprehensible way….
cheers