Sometimes, you just have to laugh at the sheer desperation of claims being made. Such is the case of the agitprop known as “Climate Central” which is privately funded to produce slick graphics and scare stories about climate change. Case in point, their recent graph that purports to show why the atmosphere hasn’t warmed as expected:
h/t to Frank Strzalkowski on Facebook for bringing it to my attention. He writes:
Too Funny
According to this graph, the oceans have warmed up over 10 times more than the air. It’s the latest excuse as to why the air temperatures have been flat for almost 20 years. “The Oceans Ate It Up”.
This is one of those graphs that really try and deceive as there is no -y- axis scale. So who knows what the difference is between 1970 and 2015. Could be 10C or .1C
Climate Central captions the graphic with this:
Where’s the global heat? Check the oceans
You can watch the video here: https://www.facebook.com/climatecentral/videos/10159605183015024/
First, let me point out (as Frank does) that the graph is unitless on the Y axis, it’s only listed as a percentage, with no reference to a baseline for comparison, though it could be assumed that they mean since 1970.They claim they Y axis (which has no tickmarks) is in “zettajoules”, which if you look it up, says this:
Gosh, 10 to the 21st power of joules! That seems huuuge, but then there’s this for comparison:
Wow, 5.5 x10 to the 24th power joules strikes the surface of the Earth each [year] as energy from the sun, that’s roughly 3 orders of magnitude larger than the claimed heat increase in the oceans since 1970. In other words, in the scheme of things, not a lot of heat energy by comparison to Earth’s yearly heat budget from the sun.
They reference chapter 3 of the 2013 IPCC AR5 report “Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 3” as the source for the graph data. You can download it direct from the IPCC here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf
Unfortunately, that reference cited by Climate Central” appears to be in error as there is no chapter 3 “”Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis” as listed in the table of contents:
There also doesn’t appear to be any Ocean Heat Content figure like Climate Central Claims in that report, however, there is a figure like it in the AR5 IPCC Synthesis Report: http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resources/pdf/IPCC_SynthesisReport.pdf
Looking at that graph, the idea that increasing CO2 heated the oceans 10x more than the land or atmosphere is just preposterous. Try warming a pot of water by making the room temperature a degree warmer.
What’s even more preposterous is the claimed precision in being able to define this heat content gain, which has it’s basis in sea surface and at depth temperature measurements. Willis Eschenbach has already dealt with this before in a WUWT post: Ocean Temperature And Heat Content
Some excerpts:
Anthony has an interesting post up discussing the latest findings regarding the heat content of the upper ocean. Here’s one of the figures from that post.
Figure 1. Upper ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA), 0-700 metres, in zeta-joules (10^21 joules). Errors are not specified but are presumably one sigma. SOURCE
He notes that there has been no significant change in the OHCA in the last decade. It’s a significant piece of information. I still have a problem with the graph, however, which is that the units are meaningless to me. What does a change of 10 zeta-joules mean? So following my usual practice, I converted the graph to a more familiar units, degrees C. Let me explain how I went about that.
To start with, I digitized the data from the graph. Often this is far, far quicker than tracking down the initial dataset, particularly if the graph contains the errors. I work on the Mac, so I use a program called GraphClick, I’m sure the same or better is available on the PC. I measured three series: the data, the plus error, and the minus error. I then put this data into an Excel spreadsheet, available here.
Then all that remained was to convert the change in zeta-joules to the corresponding change in degrees C. The first number I need is the volume of the top 700 metres of the ocean. I have a spreadsheet for this. Interpolated, it says 237,029,703 cubic kilometres. I multiply that by 62/60 to adjust for the density of salt vs. fresh water, and multiply by 10^9 to convert to tonnes. I multiply that by 4.186 mega-joules per tonne per degree C. That tells me that it takes about a thousand zeta-joules to raise the upper ocean temperature by 1°C.
Dividing all of the numbers in their chart by that conversion factor gives us their chart, in units of degrees C. Calculations are shown on the spreadsheet.
Figure 2. Upper ocean heat content anomaly, 0-700 metres, in degrees C.
So, in reality, that OHC increase depicted by Climate Central is actually a tiny temperature increase of a few hundredths of a degree C, and one that is likely below the resolution and the precision of the thermometers measuring water temperature to resolve.
As Willis states in that post:
I find the claim that we know the average temperature of the upper ocean with an error of only one hundredth of a degree to be very unlikely … the ocean is huge beyond belief. This claimed ocean error is on the order of the size of the claimed error in the land temperature records, which have many more stations, taking daily records, over a much smaller area, at only one level. Doubtful.
So since the temperature increase is tiny and probably within the error band of measurements, it’s no wonder Climate Central resorts to scary looking heat graphs with what looks like huge numbers.
In reality, it’s the proverbial mountain from a molehill, but isn’t that what most climate claims are anyway?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What is the error band of the measurements?
In zettajoules, preferably, of course
CAGW Marketing Dept -> M Courtney.
Error Band?? We produce marketing graphics for a confederation of CAGW alarmist outfits and for reasons to do with the basic psychology of marketing a particular message, we distil or material to focus on the core message. If we added error bars and other such technical details then we would clutter the visual effect of our graphics and only confuse the message. We would very quickly be out of a job on that basis.
This is Marketing Psychology 101 sort of stuff.
I trust this makes sense and I hope you have absorbed the key message because it is so important it gets out. Without a broad belief in CAGW by the general public it will be very, very difficult to market all the new, shiny technology in the pipeline like Lithium Ion batteries, electric cars, wind generators let alone all the apps that make you feel conneceted and part of the whole thing. And lets face it that is the big deal here from a marketing point of view.
🙂
CAGW Marketing Services Inc.
(a subsidiary of Green Blob Inc.)
No paper was used in generating this message.
I wonder if paper was used after the message.
Soft tissue paper.
Triple ply, available in several pastel shades?
Sure it was /Snarc.
And mine may be, too . . . . .
Auto.
Auto
never mind the /snarc
just feel the truthiness.
“In zettajoules, preferably, of course”
Wouldn’t it be better in tens of thousands of yottaergs?
One small correction:
“Wow, 5.5 x10 to the 24th power joules strikes the surface of the Earth each day as energy from the sun,”
The graph actually states that it’s the energy that strikes the earth every year, not day.
Typo fixed, thanks for catching it.
So increased back radiation, which can only interact directly with the skin of water around the planet, hasn’t changed how much vaporization takes place, but has instead bypassed this process and has directly heated the entire body of waters? That CO2 molecule sure is magical, or the heat content data is wrong, or the increased heat content is a manifestation of an entirely different process, pick one but not all three.
I think door number 2 is the likely answer, just like Willis says
Actually, when LWR causes surface evaporation, it leaves a thin 1mm skin about 0.3ºC COLDER than below
Sure, but you can’t cool water by replacing cooler air with warmer air.
@ur momisugly talldave2 December 1, 2017 at 1:03 pm
Actually, humid air is lighter than dry air as H2O is lighter than N2 and O2, so it convects away from the surface to be replaced by drier air. No need for it to be warm. You will also find that water is cooled by evaporation with warm air – that is why your wet hands feel cold in a hot-air drier – until they are dry only then do you feel the heat. The cooling is due to the evaporating molecules taking with them the latent heat of evaporation.
Ian,
Good analogy 😉
I’ll use that for the more, casual, conversations of CAGW.
Thanks
Sure Ian… but that still doesn’t mean warmer air makes water cooler.
… try turning off the heating element in a hand dryer and see if you feel warmer 🙂
RWTurner,
You say: So increased back radiation, which can only interact directly with the skin of water around the planet, hasn’t changed how much vaporization takes place, but has instead bypassed this process and has directly heated the entire body of waters?
This is nonsense. The radiation asserted downwards by the atmosphere (333W/m^2) is less than the radiation asserted upwards by the surface (396W/m^2). Therefore the actual net flow of radiative energy (63W/m^2) is upwards not downwards. There is no way the cooler atmosphere could heat the warmer waters.
The fault in your reasoning is to treat the downward radiative flow as if it can act separately from the upward radiative flow. Actually they are inextricably linked by the geometry of the two facing surfaces. It’rather like trying to pretend that the north and south poles of a magnet are independent. For exactly the same reason of co-dependence, nobody has been able to isolate a magnetic uni-pole!
It’s more complicated. During the day the air+sun is usually warmer than the ocean and at night it is cooler. Looking at averages is not always the best idea.
Richard M December 1, 2017 at 8:59 pm says: It’s more complicated. During the day the air+sun is usually warmer than the ocean and at night it is cooler. Looking at averages is not always the best idea.
You haven’t responded to my point about radiation but have moved on to an entirely different topic (temperature inversion, involving sensible heat). Is this really an adult way of trying to save yourself embarrassment from your ‘back radiation’ bloomer?
David,
RWTurner was asking a question, not making a statement. I think your response was a little heavy handed given he was incredulous to the idea you think he believes.
David,
Same with your reply to Richard (who isn’t RWTurner, and thus your reply to him was a non-sequitor).
Just my opinion, please take a second to review what you think someone is saying before replying.
“but has instead bypassed this process and has directly heated the entire body of waters”
That would be a very “magical/fantasy” piece of mumbo-jumbo mechanism..
It really is a “make-believe” world these clowns live in.
I think what people are missing is that irrespective of the process by which oceans and atmosphere are exchanging heat, or the current direction of the resulting net heat transfer, if an object is warming with respect to another, then the change in heat transfer between the two due to the warming cannot result in more heat transfer to the warming object.
It might be true that the change in heat transfer is smaller than measurement error (likely) or even irrelevant due to other factors acting on either body, but 2LOT is still a safe bet.
I have yet to find anyone that can show me where measurements of oceans were adequately taken before 2003.
But hey.. just make it up.. or use an assumption driven model of some sort.
I’ve had email exchanges with Dr. Pielke Sr. (aka RPS) on OHC since he started his website and a few times after he stopped it. He agreed with your statement, and also had direct correspondence with Josh Willis who admitted OHC data prior to ARGO is dubious and even before 2005 as I recall.
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=ocean+heat+content
Thanks for the link DR
Climate Central is funnier than Comedy Central. Note, Funny has two common meanings.
Should the sentance ‘5.5 x10 to the 24th power joules strikes the surface of the Earth each day’ actually be ‘each year’, as stated in the graph, and later in the same paragraph?
[yes, typo has been fixed – Anthony]
One more time. The mass of the oceans is 24 times the mass of the atmosphere, and water holds 4.2 times as much heat energy as does air, or even pure CO2. In determining the climate, the oceans are the dog and the atmosphere is the tail. — of a Newfoundland Dog with a docked tail. In the last graph tou show above. The uncertainty bars are far bigger than the atmosphere’s contribution. Remember the following relationship. Oceans = 1000 | Atmosphere = 1 | CO2 = .0004
I think you need to recheck your math – oceanic mass = 1.35 x 10^21 kg, atmospheric mass = 3.5 x 10^18 kg, so that’s a factor of 385.
Better recheck mine, too… Atmospheric mass = 5.15 e 10^18, so that’s a factor of 262.
Yes, so the heat capacity of the oceans is around 1000x that of the atmosphere.
You know Walter and Stephen, this type of nonsense is brought to us by people who undoubtedly fill their bathtubs with cold water and then heat it up with a hair dryer. Same relationship. Do you suppose they cheat and fill the bathtub up with hot water and the air temperature in the bathroom goes up? The dog wags the tail.
Ron Long,
Another excellent analogy! Actually that’s fantastic.
“Can you heat your cold water tub with only a hair dryer? (Or a dozen)?”
I am sorry, I dropped a zero the first time. The last line is correct:
Oceans = 1000 | Atmosphere = 1 | CO2 = .0004
re-basing that so CO2 = 1, we get:
C02 =1 | Atmosphere = 2500 | Ocean = 2,500,000
In my mind, heat bypassing the atmosphere and being deposited in the ocean suggests that solar output and not CO2 is the cause of warming.
By tying to find excuses for their failure, they are providing evidence against themselves.
RWTurner,
You say: So increased back radiation, which can only interact directly with the skin of water around the planet, hasn’t changed how much vaporization takes place, but has instead bypassed this process and has directly heated the entire body of waters?
This is nonsense. The radiation asserted downwards by the atmosphere (333W/m^2) is less than the radiation asserted upwards by the surface (396W/m^2). Therefore the actual net flow of radiative energy (63W/m^2) is upwards not downwards. There is no way the cooler atmosphere could heat the warmer waters.
The fault in your reasoning is to treat the downward radiative flow as if it can act separately from the upward radiative flow. Actually they are inextricably linked by the geometry of the two facing surfaces. It’rather like trying to pretend that the north and south poles of a magnet are independent. For exactly the same reason of co-dependence, nobody has been able to isolate a magnetic uni-pole!
It points to the oceans being in a warming phase from the Sun.
Typo? “Wow, 5.5 x10 to the 24th power joules strikes the surface of the Earth each day” But the table says “year”.
[yes, typo has been fixed – Anthony]
I saw that too. One of them must be wrong.
Please, someone post a satellite thermal plot of the Gulf Stream off the US east coast to show the ridiculousness of using a few individual point measurements for ocean temperature. Look at the image and then tell me you know the ocean temperature to within even 1 degree…
That’s a very good point. Water masses mix slowly which is why we can see the temperature profile of the Humbolt Current and the Gulf Stream which stream discrete and intact throughout their passage. And was I taught a lie when I was taught that heat flows from hotter masses to cooler? So how on earth can heat “accumulate” in the deep oceans? For this to happen Antarctic water would have to be colder than the antarctic air (it isn’t, I assure you from personal experience). Then, following the usual deep currents from the Antarctic, the cold water mass would have to thrust down to the depths and creep northwards to the deep oceans of the Northern Hemisphere. As we say in my country: “pull the other leg.”
So can I ask the proponents of this theory how does it happen? What’s the mechanism? And where is the real evidence?
detnumblog asked
What’s the Mechanism?
The process is known as thermohaline circulation. It is driven by a process occurring at the interface of sea ice and water below during the ice forming stage so is an annual process in both hemispheres.
During the formation of sea ice, salt is ejected so the water below the ice becomes more saline. That increases the surface water density. The higher density due to increased salt concentration is sufficient to carry hotter surface water to depths of 1000m and more. This form of circulation is a significant factor in distributing heat across the globe.
This line of argumentation is very problematic for them anyway, since the average ocean temperature has changed by .1 degrees since 1950, or about what the measurement error should probably be, and the hydrosphere is 300x more massive than the atmosphere. This has two pretty strong implications:
1) net heat transfer to the oceans should be generally increasing if the atmosphere is warming (2LOT)
2) the ocean’s overall temperature will not move significantly nearer to equilibrium on any timsecales of interest
Warm air does not heat cool water. Water evaporates and cools the air.
If the dewpoint of the air is warmer than the the cool water, water vapor will condense on the surface and release its latent heat to the water.
Walter — you’re conflating “warm” with “wamer” — warmer air must lead to warmer water, not cooler. 2LOT.doesn’t have a lot of wiggle room here.
There actually seems to be no end to the degree(s) of stupidity….
“stupidity”? I don’t think so – except for their assumptions that the public is stupid.
This is “dishonesty” and/or “duplicity” and/or “deception” and/or etc….
“Oceans to Boil Away in Just 15,500 Years”
NASA Climate Scientists point to Trump/Russia connection as contributing factor.
So just throw Hillary into the ocean. That will cool it back down.
Certainly not. It will raise the SL a bit though.
Just a slight wonderation about the ARGO boys…
They ‘float’. yes?
Not tied to anything – go where they like OR where the water/ocean likes?
Wouldn’t they tend to gravitate (floatitate?) (isn’t English great) into the same sort-of of water?
Looking at density here and am struggling to think if it would be dense/cool water or less dense warmer water but surely, they’d ‘prefer’ one over the other.
Even before we get into the business of saltiness
How is that accounted for – are these ARGO boys quite all they’re cracked-up to be?
Lemme guess, a Computer Model sorts it all.
(Please no, say it ain’t so)
You can see them all on a layer of Google earth, and where they’ve been during their deployment.
Mostly the are submerged to 300m or something like that, they surface while taking measurements, send the info then sink again.
Actually they drift at 1000 meters depth, so not affected by surface winds and currents. Every 2 weeks they wake up, dive to 2000 meters depth, sample temperature and salinity, then start rising to the surface sampling along the way. They reach the surface, transmit data and GPS location to satellite, then drop back down to 1000 meters and sleep another 2 weeks. The GPS location lets us know that the ~3000 ARGOs remain fairly evenly distributed across the oceans.
Even if they remain fairly evenly distributed, this would not mean their changes in location of readings and or location of disparate ocean currents which do move has not biased the readings. Certainly, beyond their sparsity in attempting to measure the very deep oceans, these movements would increase the error bars.
No. Learn. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html
Why do your graphs always end four or five years ago?
“always”? No. And the graph used as an example, if you had bothered to follow the link, you’d see it was from a post in 2013.
Ditto for the IPCC AR5 graph, published in 2013.
I don’t see you griping about the Climate Central graph, which ends in 2015…hmmm?
Question for you” Why are your comments here “always” negative attacks?
Let me guess. There is a discussion somewhere on this blog entry, where people of the cause get together. They sneer there the every aspect of this blog in the SkS style. Every now and then, they end up doing remarks here. But not only so. They also have shifts and the most active of them come here to troll their talking points so that they can reduce the pain of enlightening the heretics.
I’m pretty sure there is an organized attempt to neutralize wuwt as a platform. I don’t know much it works, probably not, but I’ve paid attention to the pretty constant flow of crackers like commenters who appear not to be reading daily, but still appear regularly.
Anthony – there is some point in complaining onold stuff. The commenters do post old graphs as well, not only bloggers. One of the reasons for old graphs is the unerring reality that skeptics have little money to produce up to date ‘global warming art’, and warmists tend to not update graphs that point down — you can see that in Wikipedia as a striking feature. If it does not bleed anymore, there is no interest on the subject. Thus, a bias appears. We needed global warming art from the skeptic view, but unfortunately Heartland is not paying me millions to do it. I wonder why since they bath in Koch money.
Perhaps you could post newer graphs then post insults about how they don’t follow whatever pattern the old ones had.
“So, in reality, that OHC increase depicted by Climate Central is actually a tiny temperature increase of a few hundredths of a degree C, and one that is likely below the resolution and the precision of the thermometers measuring water temperature to resolve.”
Actually ARGO thermometers are accurate to 2/1000ths C.
And at depth water temp will be extremely stable
From:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/pdf
“The accuracy of temperature and pressure measurements
is that of the attached CTDs (0.002°C, 2.4 dbar).”
You are confusing precision of thermometers with the accuracy of the measurements of ocean temperatures, a common mistake.
Just because you can measure the temperatures of a tiniest part of the oceans to a few thousandths of a degree does not mean that you can do the same with all of the world’s oceans as a whole.
But then again, I suspect you already knew that
“You are confusing precision of thermometers”
It isn’t Toneb’s confusion. He quoted the article:
“and one that is likely below the resolution and the precision of the thermometers measuring water temperature to resolve.”
and gave the relevant information.
“Just because you can measure the temperatures of a tiniest part of the oceans to a few thousandths of a degree does not mean that you can do the same with all of the world’s oceans as a whole.”
Neither can we the atmosphere, nor any large system.
But as Nick shows (and Mosher) sampling can and does get us to a damn good answer.
From page 476
“With respect to (ii), even with the advances to the observing system culminating in the Argo array, more than 50% of the ocean is without routine observations. Important areas such as boundary currents, which are responsible for large poleward heat transport, need higher-frequency observations than are currently provided by Argo.”
You make a claim “And at depth water temp will be extremely stable”
and link to a 34 page report, while neither defining the depth where this stability manifests, nor discussing any possible errors from float drift or ocean current flux.
Think about it.
Below the thermocline/halocline especially, what’s going to give large variability with no input or output of energy?
Any thermal differences will have been mixed out via convection and diffusion.
So, the oceans aren’t quite boiling yet?
Why only 93% of the heat? Shouldn’t it be 97%?
I’m sure it will be next week.
So, taking the following:
1,347,000,000 cu km – Volume of oceans
1 gigatone of water = 1 petagrams (10×15 grams) of water
Number of grams of water in oceans = 1,347,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams
300,000,000,000,000,000 Joules (300Zj) – Energy entered into oceans
It takes 4.18 joules per gram of water to raise the temp 1 Kelvin.
A little conversion journey takes us down this path:
10×3 – 4.180 Kjoules per kgram water kelvin – Amount of energy to raise temperature of 1 kgram of water, 1 degree kelvin.
10×6 – 4.180 Mjoules per 1 Mkg water kelvin – Amount of energy to raise temperature of 1 Mg of water, 1 degree kelvin.
10×9 – 4.180 Gjoules per 1 Gg water kelvin – Amount of energy to raise temperature of 1Gg of water, 1 degree kelvin.
10×12 – 4.180 Tjoules per 1 Tg water kelvin – Amount of energy to raise temperature of 1Tg of water, 1 degree kelvin.
10×15 – 4.180 Pjoules per 1 Pg water kelvin – Amount of energy to raise temperature of 1Pg of water, 1 degree kelvin.
10×18 – 4.180 Ejoules per 1 Eg water kelvin – Amount of energy to raise temperature of 1Eg of water, 1 degree kelvin.
10×21 – 4.180 Zjoules per 1 Zg water kelvin – Amount of energy to raise temperature of 1Zg of water, 1 degree kelvin.
300 Zj is enough energy to raise 300 Zg water 1 kelvin. However, we have just over 4 times that volume of water in the ocean. This makes the warming of the ocean roughly one quarter of a degree kelvin.
This one quarter degree kelvin is supposed to be 93% of the warming? To whom is this a concern.
“This one quarter degree kelvin is supposed to be 93% of the warming? To whom is this a concern.”
Well if instantaneously transferred to the atmosphere that 0.25C would heat it to 250C.
Does that help to conceptualise it?
So given that the top 3 metres of ocean contain more energy than the whole of the atmosphere, then it is easy to see the warming effect 0.25C can have on said atmosphere (mainly via LH realease aloft).
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/climate-variability
” then it is easy to see the warming effect 0.25C can have on said atmosphere (mainly via LH realease aloft).”
And that latent heat release causes convection and the heat escapes to space. The entire atmosphere and hydrologic cycle are a heat engine (cf Willis) which takes heat away from the oceans and delivers the heat to space. Occasionally when there s surplus heat the heat engines move into overdrive and mere storms become hurricanes which shift huge amounts of energy from the surface to space. The surface and said atmosphere near the surface is cooled by these storms.
“Well if instantaneously transferred to the atmosphere “
And by what hallucinogenic FANTASY mechanism do you presume that could happen?
And yes, we saw what happens when the ocean has a slight burp from too much solar input.
Called an El Nino
Did you see the solid La Nina starting to form ?
“Well if instantaneously transferred to the atmosphere that 0.25C would heat it to 250C.”
That’s just plain stupid.
Well you got me. With logic like that cagw must be true.
Well if instantaneously transferred to the atmosphere that 0.25C would heat it to 250C.
Does that help to conceptualise it?
No, it does not. That is not conceptualizing, that is deceptionizing.
You are presenting the concept that you can hard boil an egg by putting it in a pot of ice water, because the water certainly contains enough energy – if it was instantaneously transferred to the egg.
SR
Ian has the relationship correctly. The temperature of the atmosphere is determined by the energy content of the oceans. There is no mechanism to move energy between the oceans and the atmosphere instantaneously. What happens is evaporation, expansion of the warmed air, its rise, adiabatic cooling, condensation of water vapor, precipitation, wind, etc. What we call weather.
Ian:
Given that an El Nino (deltaT of a degree or two) heats the atmosphere (can see in on UAH) yet is only a small area of the world’s oceans, then why wouldn’t the entire ocean surface when 0.25C warmer?
And not cooling between via a La Nina.
The normal state of affairs with SW in = LW out – is for an EN and LN to balance out. Cyclic. As does the 11 yr solar cycle.
The OHC graph tells you why a -PDO/LN only causes a slow down in GMT rise now, and hence an EN seemingly only causes “steps” up.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2013/01/GISTEMPjan13.gif
“There is no mechanism to move energy between the oceans and the atmosphere instantaneously.”
I didn’t say there was Walter – as obviously there isn’t!
Notice the little word “if” in my post.
BIG La Nina starting to form.
Try not to PANIC too much, little tone.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.11.30.2017.gif
And your continued use of the farce that is GISS.. so funny !!!
“Notice the little word “if” in my post.”
Yes.. we KNOW you live in a world of fantasy and make-believe, devoid of reality !!
AGW…… hypoPATHETICAL.
“Try not to PANIC too much, little tone.”
Thanks for your concern.
So touching.
However 2 things.
“And by what hallucinogenic FANTASY mechanism do you presume that could happen?”
And what “hallucinogenic FANTASY do you suppose that little word “if” means?
And it’s natural variation.
Which, by the way used to drop the rising long-term trend of GMT in the old days. (as the graph shows).
Wonder why it doesn’t now.
Mmmmm maybe Tyndall and Arrhenius knew the answer ~ 150 years ago.
My dog ate my homework, and then washed it down with the missing heat.
So how do we design a chart that puts all the scary charts in context?
Something like this.
Average global temperature in 2017 14.6 degrees C. (ooh, that’s too hot)
Average temperature in Singapore 26.5 degrees C. (or is this too hot?)
Average temperature in Moscow 5.5 degrees C. (ooh, that’s so cold – range -8 to +19))
Average temperature in Nuuk, Greenland -1 degrees C. (no, this is too cold).
What is just right when we have daily variations, seasonal variations, yet animals and plants thrive?
Even if this is true, then it had be true for the MWP as well. If the Oceans at up the warming today, the also had to in the past. So without eating up the warming, the MWP had to be even warmer.
Obviously all the fish boiled. Or the penguins baked. Or something.
They assume their intended readership is innumerate (probably justifiably).
Here is the relevant metric about 90% of the energy is going into the oceans.
Compared to the atmosphere/ice-melt, oceans are absorbing the vast majority of the earth energy accumulation, but compared to what is supposed to be showing up under the global warming supposition, the ocean warming is just a drop in the bucket compared the missing “CO2 forcings” and “expected feedbacks”.
And the latest numbers on ocean heat content have slowed right down, so one could actually say there has been only 0.02W/m2/year of energy accumulation in the last two years compared to the 4.0 W/m2/year of forcings and feedbacks which are supposed to be there. I don’t know if we can put that into percentage terms because it rounds to 100% missing.
Thank you Bill. Nice graphics, especially the first one.
The forcing figure of 4W/m^2 is based on doubling of CO2. If the ocean temperature was at equilibrium at the beginning of this year the increased forcing over the year would be 5.2*ln(403.8/402) equals 0.023W/m^2. Obviously much lower than the CERES and ARGO measured/inferred value of 0.5W/m^2.
The reason for this is the thermal inertia of the oceans. The current temperature is lagging that required to achieve thermal equilibrium.
An excess heat input of 0.5W/m^2 implies a forcing value of 2.1W/m^2 for doubling of CO2 on the basis that CO2 is the only contributor to the present thermal imbalance and heat is being stored in the top 2000m of the oceans.
As stated below the globe will be 0.3K hotter than now by 2100 if the rise in CO2 remains on current linear trend of 1.8ppm/yr.
The forcing function is logarithmic with CO2 increase while the cooling function is 4th power of temperature so as time progresses equilibrium gets closer. The current heat imbalance of 0.5W/m^2 is reducing as time progresses.
I have considerable doubt about CO2 is having any influence on ocean temperature but assuming it is the only factor causing the measured thermal imbalance in the last 15 years it is not going to cause any serious consequences in the next 100 years. There is compelling evidence that the ocean temperature is self regulating through cloud formation and sea ice extent. However there is some trend thermal imbalance as the ARGO and CERES data demonstrate.
I think the bigger problem for this argument is that the more the atmosphere warms, the more warmth the oceans should be sucking down to places where it troubles us not (and indeed can scarcely be measured at all). That means there’s not only a giant heatsink operating, but it’s going to be an ever-larger negative feedback as the atmosphere warms.
I would imagine that sea level would be a proxy for the heat content of the oceans and since there’s no acceleration in that rate and even a recent down-tick in the acceleration there is nothing to see here. Any supposed human induced increase in ocean heat that somehow bypassed the atmosphere is ludicrous on it’s face and not plausible when cross-referenced to the sea level or to the Earth’s rotational rate which is yet another proxy not cooperating with the meme of increased ocean heat.
The heat content anomaly in Figure 1 does not match the KNMI temperature data for the top 700m:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_temp700_0-360E_-90-90N_n.png
The 0-2000m data has the same upward trend:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_temp2000_0-360E_-90-90N_n.png
Although it has levelled out in the last two years, which is not uncommon.
If all ocean heating since 1980 was due entirely to atmospheric CO2 the oceans will be 0.3C hotter than now by 2100. That is on the basis that CO2 continues to increase at the current almost linear trend of 1.8ppm/yr.
The high thermal inertia of the oceans means the current temperature is lower than equilibrium IF the sole cause of ocean heating is due to CO2 increasing. The heating function is logarithmic so is reducing in time because the CO2 rise is approximately linear. The cooling function is the 4th power of temperature so the gap between current temperature and equilibrium temperature is closing with time.
If you click on the source link for Fig 1, you get this rising plot:
Please show us all places where OHC was measure before 2003.
Yes – the two additional years make the difference. The SOURCE appears to have the same trend as the KMNI temperature data.
seen the dramatic heat increase i went outside in short and T shirt yesterday…
i woke up in ER with a near death due to hypothermia…
i didn’t know that this white thing outside blanketing everything was so damn cold
that happens when you don’t know anymore what snow is….
/sarc
And the error bars of old data has changed also.
And the error bars of old data has changed also.
RickWill,
In case you can’t read a chart, the temperature anomaly in the 0-2000 metre ocean changed from 0.108C in 2015 to 0.109C in 2017.
So, over two years, an increase of 0.001C.
At that rate, the anomaly will increase by a grand total of 0.04C over the next 80 years to the year 2100.
The alarmist people just don’t ever get the math which is why they are so worried. OMG, the line is going up by 0.0005C/year which means by the year 2100, it will be …. Well it will be YUGE and we will all die.
So, RickWill, how many people will die if the ocean goes up by 0.04C ??? Will it be only 100 million people or will it be 100,000,000 million people.
My forcing model is based on matching the rise in temperature of the top 2000m during the ARGO era from 2005 to 2017. The rise over that time is 0.05 degrees K.
I am not simply extrapolating that because the gap between current ocean temperature and equilibrium temperature is closing due to the logarithmic form of the heating and 4th power of the cooling. Extrapolation would give 0.35K rise whereas I get 0.3K rise if CO2 is the only factor.
My point is that even if atmospheric CO2 does cause heating there is sufficient data from ARGO or CERES to simply show that the rate of heating is necessarily very slow due to the thermal mass and, while CO2 only increases linearly, the ocean temperature is slowly approaching equilibrium due to the form of heating and cooling functions.