Friday Funny – Climate Central’s scare graph excuse: ‘The oceans ate the warming’

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

Figure 1.2 | Energy accumulation within the Earth’s climate system. Estimates are in 1021 J, and are given relative to 1971 and from 1971 to 2010, unless otherwise indicated. Components included are upper ocean (above 700 m), deep ocean (below 700 m; including below 2000 m estimates starting from 1992), ice melt (for glaciers and ice caps, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet estimates starting from 1992, and Arctic sea ice estimate from 1979 to 2008), continental (land) warming, and atmospheric warming (estimate starting from 1979). Uncertainty is estimated as error from all five components at 90% confidence intervals. {WGI Box 3.1, Figure 1}

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.

pmel 0-700m heat content anomalyFigure 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.

degrees pmel 0-700m heat content anomalyFigure 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?

Advertisements

147 thoughts on “Friday Funny – Climate Central’s scare graph excuse: ‘The oceans ate the warming’

    • 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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

    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

      • @ 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.

    • 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.

  3. 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.

  4. ‘5.5 x10 to the 24th power joules strikes the surface of the Earth each day as energy from the sun.’

    The table from which this was taken says that it is an annual figure. I haven’t had a chance to check the calcs – is ‘day’ a typo?

  5. 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]

  6. 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.

    • 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

  7. 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!

  8. 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]

  9. 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.

  10. 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

      • 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.

    • “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….

  11. “Oceans to Boil Away in Just 15,500 Years”
    NASA Climate Scientists point to Trump/Russia connection as contributing factor.

  12. 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.

    • “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.

  13. “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.

  14. 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 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.

      • “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.

        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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

    • 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.

  18. 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.

  19. The heat content anomaly in Figure 1 does not match the KNMI temperature data for the top 700m:

    The 0-2000m data has the same upward trend:

    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.

    • 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.

  20. Ah, yes … climate scientists with their temperature data
    ‘be afraid’ they can jump up, they can jump down, even do a somersault but eventually will fall flat on their faces

    not a laughing matter

  21. So, the “global heat” just decided – “hey, I’m tired of heating the atmosphere so I think I’ll take a little vacay and go hang out in the oceans for a while”. I’ll come out when I’m good and ready. Toodles.”

  22. ” 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:”

    If you download the SummaryVolume, you get summaries. There is indeed a Chapter 3, it is here

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

  23. The cold is coming up from depth.

    see for example…

    Time-depth temperature diagram along 59 N, 0-800 m depth, across the North Atlantic Current. Temperatures in Degrees Celsius. Source: Global Marine Argo Atlas. Latest month shown: October 2017. Last diagram update: 27 November 2017.

    at…
    http://climate4you.com/

  24. “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.”

    That is a very dodgy argument. The heat capacity of the ocean is 1000 times greater than that of the atmosphere, so you only have to warm it by a little to absorb a great deal of heat energy. If the ocean was at say 10 deg C, and the atmosphere in contact with it was at 11 deg C then increasing the temperature of the ocean by 0.01 deg C would use the same energy as heating the atmosphere by 10 deg C.

    Even that may be irrelevant, perhaps most of the heating of the ocean is not via conduction from the atmosphere, but from direct absorption of the sunlight falling on it. I dunno.

    Also you’ve got a typo “Wow, 5.5 x10 to the 24th power joules strikes the surface of the Earth each day” should be year. You sort it out later on.

    [yes, typo has been fixed – Anthony]

    • Maybe the analogy would be better suited by using an indoor pool instead of a pot of water. It’s the sheer size of the ocean that enhances its heat sinking capacity. Personally, i don’t know why warmists touch this argument with a ten foot pole. If heat sinks into the ocean, then it doesn’t show up in the atmosphere. In theory, we could actually have significant cooling at the surface as the ocean continues to warm. That would be an agw public relations disaster. Does anybody know how the climate models handle ocean warming (and at a rate of 93%)? This alone is enough to kill the notion that co2 will cause the claimed projected rise in surface temps…

    • “Even that may be irrelevant, perhaps most of the heating of the ocean is not via conduction from the atmosphere, but from direct absorption of the sunlight falling on it. I dunno.”

      Not conduction as the oceans are nearly always warmer than the air above.

      The ocean surface is always radiating more away than it receives via back-radiated LWIR.
      What happens is the top mm or so cools a little less as a result and the deltaT to the warmer waters just below is reduced. Hence (as we know?) heat flux from there to the surface mm is reduced and hence so to space.
      BTW: the ocean surface is not a glass surface – it is turbulent right down to molecular level, to some of the impinging LWIR heated water can mix down a little.

      ” the idea that increasing CO2 heated the oceans 10x more than the land or atmosphere is just preposterous.”
      Why?
      Argument by incredulity?
      The oceans are largely transparent to SW and so they heat a good depth. Land is not and does not.
      Then the LWIR adds a small “lid” that keeps more of it in.

  25. How long and just when will it dawn on these “climate scientist” that CAGW’s the “missing heat” they projected isn’t in the oceans.
    It’s just not there.
    They were wrong.
    Live and learn.
    Go back to being a real scientist.
    (Might require a pay cut though. But they’ll be able to sleep better at night.)

  26. Air, land, and water took in 93% of (CO2 caused) excess heat. The other 7% (that even Climate Central is afraid to talk about) is being held by the Big Oil interests (and the Koch brothers) so as to hide the impact to their greedy capitalistic activities.

    When natural global cooling occurs, and they try to sell the heat back to us at exorbitant costs & with massive profit, all of you will then realize what their real plan was all along.

    We need to stop them now … Exxon Knows!
    (help me out here griff … we need to spread the word)

  27. Is the ocean some new phenomena? Seems to me it has always been a factor. Could it be that the earth has its ways of counteracting such things as increase in heat? When you believe in intelligent design you recognize the designer may have put in place means to handle problems we humans get in a twist about.

    • You don’t have to believe in a creator to see that the earth’s climate is self-correcting. We would have long since joined Mars in the frozen lifeless club, or Venus in the lifeless molten lead club as the atmosphere hit some kind of a tipping point one way or the other.

      Having said that I do happen to believe in a creator. The odds that such an incredible thing as intelligent life arising by accident are stupendous to the point of ridiculousness.

      • The odds of anything at all in the Universe happening are stupendous to the point of ridiculousness. I’ve no problem with anyone believing whatever they want to believe but probably best to steer clear of justifications based on probability. Or math and science of any kind.

      • Um no. Many scientists are believers. The Bible tells us to learn as much as we can about the world. In fact, if the Catholic Church hadn’t been so corrupt science would have flourished much sooner. In my opinion William of Ockham is the father of science.

  28. So where did this “missing heat” come from in the first place?
    It was created! Actually, is was created by a fellow who works at NASA by the name of Josh Willis.
    Here is the whole story:
    Correcting Ocean Cooling
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
    (read the whole thing, horrifying.)
    You will never find a more clear cut case of confirmation bias anywhere. Here, almost to the point of delusion.
    The short story is they were looking for the heat the models said should be there and they could not find it.

    Step 1) They went through the ARGO data and threw out all buoy data that showed cooling instead of warming. That was good but still did not get them to where they needed to be.
    Step 2) They decided that measurements prior to ARGO *must* have been systematically biased hot. So they ex post-facto cooled the earlier data. Now they has the extra heat and warming trend they needed.

    Hmmm…. Creating a warming trend by cooling the historical data. Where have we seen that before?
    And that is the story behind the ocean heat content charts featured here.

    • Now that is actually pretty stunning.

      The article does point out that the XBT data set was “too hot” and that they “corrected” it, but clearly the ARGO data was much cooler since adjusting that data set upwards resulted in the entire composite going from cooling to warming. So, basically, adjusting the one data set down was just enough to satisfy his conscience. This guy Willis is, as you said, totally delusional. I also noted that other data sets were then revised on the basis of this manufactured ocean temperature data set.

  29. Bad arithmetic is the hallmark of Al Gore’s pseudo scholarship. What about ManBearPig half man, half bear, half pig.

  30. Why are we even entertaining these ideas by discussing joules and the heat capacity of the oceans as opposed to the atmosphere. There simply is no physical process in which increasing CO2 in the atmosphere could cause the oceans to warm without first warming the atmosphere. It is just stupid to suggest that it happened, but almost as stupid to run the numbers to show that they don’t work out. The ‘numbers’ are irrelevant when the entire process is physically impossible!

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there was some magical process that would allow atmospheric molecules to heat the oceans while maintaining a steady temperature the whole time. Then we are saved! the atmosphere cannot warm much at all if the ‘extra’ heat is going right into the oceans. It would take 1,000 times longer to warm the atmosphere the supposedly catastrophic and horrific 3 degrees C, or about another 100,000 years.

    There are only 2 possibilities here: Climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is far less than the warmests believe. OR Natural variability is far greater than the warmests believe. ‘Both’ is also a strong possibility, but it is not possible that the atmosphere is warming the oceans without warming itself.

    • jc, i think it is possible… The oceans have a temperature gradient. If you raise the surface temp (and maintain that temp), then the ocean forms a new temperature gradient over time all the while warming. It may not be as simple as i’ve laid out because of the saline content of the oceans causing sinking as well. But, in theory it could happen and presumably does, the oceans acting like a big a.c. unit for the atmosphere…

      Dr Spencer elaborates on this heat sinking into the ocean (and its interruption) in the context of el nino:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/

      • My problem is not with an energy exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere. That is constantly happening in ways that, I am sure, we do not completely understand. What is impossible is for greenhouse gases to warm the oceans when the temperature of the atmosphere isn’t increasing. The additional heat first shows up in in the molecules of the air. It cannot skip that part. If the air is not warming, it cannot be that this ‘heat’ captured by additional CO2 molecules decided to show up in a water molecule in the ocean instead.

        What is possible is that, in the absence of additional CO2 molecules, the atmosphere would be naturally cooling right now, and that natural climate variation has shown itself to be equal to, if not stronger than any anthropogenic effect; a direct contradiction of the prevailing theory. It would end the climate change threat, or at least dramatically reduce it.

        Remember, the IPCC’s climate sensitivity was based on late 20th Century warming, which they argued could only be caused by humans, because they knew of nothing else that could do that (an astounding logical fallacy called the ‘argument from ignorance). Immediately after that, we have the ‘pause’, which cannot be explained in their world, further destroying the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. They don’t know what else could have caused the late 20th Century warming and they also don’t know what stopped it in the early 21st Century. I do. It is called natural climate variability. It is destroying their paradigm, and they are making up nonsense to try and save it.

  31. Solar short wave electromagnetic radiation is what has increased the ocean heat content. The ISCCP cloud data shows the decrease in high albedo low level cumulus from mid 80’s, particularly at Tropic latitudes where the greatest multidecadal decrease has occurred. When did ocean heat content really start to increase (as far as the ohc data is concerned)?
    Answer – the mid 80’s.

  32. The “Ocean Ate it Up”….right…

    just like the “Ocean Snaps Back” after a tide.

    *headdesk* these people need to stop foraging into waters they know nothing about—seriously.

    • I sent this email to RPS in May 2012:
      Dr. Pielke,
      I am a bit puzzled by the OHC report from NOAA as discussed at WUWT and your blog here:
      http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/selective-news-report-by-the-economist-on-global-warming-metric/

      also reported at “Science” magazine.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021144716.htm

      Shouldn’t there be other climate metrics supporting the NOAA analysis? What does? I routinely use KNMI to create my own graphs etc. and can’t find anything; SST, SAT, lower troposphere…..nothing….that does. There are two up to date sources for OHC, NODC (0-700m) and UKMO (several including 0-2000m) at KNMI.

      Really. Look at SST using Reynolds v2. And as you’ve noted, the LT over the tropics has barely warmed at all for 30 years and definitely stable/cooling for well over a decade. How could all that heat slip by the upper 700m of ocean undetected or not show up in the lower troposphere? If anything, the data shows the “greenhouse effect” is not responsible at all for the OHC rise, but by increased exposure to solar radiation via stronger solar activity and/or reduced cloud cover. Further, even the upper 700m according to NODC doesn’t agree with SST or anything else for the last 8-10 years, including the UKMO for recent years.

      0-2000m OHC per UKMO EN

      Why is there such a huge divergence between NOAA and UKMO 0-1200m? There is no resemblance whatsoever. What is UKMO using for their analysis? Is there that much heat being found by NOAA et al in the regions not covered by UKMO? Surely nobody has 100% coverage, so there must be some assumptions being made!

      I know you will probably disagree with this, but IMO NOAA data is either a result of confirmation bias, something in addition to ARGO data is used to arrive at their OHC numbers, or it is pure fudging. I mean, how can NOAA possibly justify these SAT adjustments for the U.S.?

      http: //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
      http: //stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/screenhunter_689-apr-22-14-37.jpg
      I’ve been following OHC since 2006 when you first reported on your blog. At that time IIRC it was first thought there was a huge drop in OHC, but I’ve lost count for how many times the data has been adjusted upward since then, including a very large one by NODC recently.

      Anyway, thanks for your blog. I’ve been a faithful reader for 5+ years.

      ============================================================================
      His response:

      Hi

      Thank you for your e-mail. I am also puzzled by the NOAA analysis, and have asked Josh Willis to update his [he told me last week he would in a few days, and if he does, I will post if he okays that.

      Even with the NOAA data, however, the diagnosed radiative imbalance still is well below that of the models, and this, by itself, is a really important finding.

      On the topic of your e-mail, would you like to do a guest post on it?

      Best Regards

      Roger

  33. 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.

    Therefore since 1970 over 47 years this energy accumulates to 2.6 x10 to the 26th power joules. (x10^26)

    This translates to the energy from the sun over the same period being actually 258,500 times larger.

    The solar energy only needs to change by 0.0039% to accumulate the so called missing ocean energy since 1970. (x10^21)

    Satellites had detected declining cloud levels and this value easily fits in any tiny change in solar energy reaching the oceans. When you look at the maths in more detail it is easy to see the change in solar energy caused it not the increase in CO2.

  34. Your text seems to confuse heat with temperature. Thus you write:

    “So who knows what the difference is between 1970 and 2015. Could be 10C or .1C”

    The graph doesn’t claim to show temperature change but change in heat content. The heat capacity of the ocean is much larger than that of the atmosphere, so a .1°C change in the average temperature of the ocean represents more heat than a 1°C change in the average temperature of the atmosphere.

  35. Hi there.

    YOU are paying taxes so THEY can study how anthropological CO2 emissions warm up: fist the land and then the oceans. Why not the entire Solar System?
    YOU must _believe_ THEM: they must not prove their calculations or methods; YOU must obey and pay their jobs.
    YOU must never deny any of the “scientifically proven” graphs. If you do, you are an HERETIC!

    The new “Dark Middle Ages” with its new Inquisition is coming faster than the Global Warming.
    Prepare yourself for an exile…
    dadofcomputer

  36. Seeing this report of overheated, heat-devouring oceans I do wonder a little bit why the fishes don’t drift around, belly up and well boiled. Nobody told them, eh?

  37. If we would shutdown all this big project, IPCC/Climate Change how many grants and jobs would be up, in Nirvana?
    Is anyone ho have numbers on this?
    Just wondering… maybe half of them are breathing too much CO2. Can we tell them to stop expelling that much CO2 in order to get a world?
    dadofcomputer

  38. If we would shutdown all this big project, IPCC/Climate Change how many grants and jobs would be up, in Nirvana?
    Is anyone who have numbers on this?
    Just wondering… maybe half of them are breathing too much CO2. Can we tell them to stop expelling that much CO2 in order to get a _cooler_ world?
    dadofcomputer

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s