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.
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
https://youtu.be/WcbGRBPkrps
not a laughing matter
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.”
” 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
Well http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ is the site
The reports are large pdf’s, lets say so.
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/
“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.
“Then the LWIR adds a small “lid” that keeps more of it in.”
Fantasy FIZZICS from ToneB
Make-believe non-science.
Whatever you are smoking.. I suggest you stop.
Please stop wasting my pixels.
“Fantasy FIZZICS from ToneB
Make-believe non-science.”
No, basic radiative and thermodynamical physics.
But if it it makes you happy … then I believe you.
I really do.
However for those intersted …..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
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.)
Has anyone got that Phil Jones quote about just how little data they have of the SH oceans?
Not all of it, but I know the words, ” mostly made up” are in it.
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)
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.
And his razor is still sharp and busy.
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.
Bad arithmetic is the hallmark of Al Gore’s pseudo scholarship. What about ManBearPig half man, half bear, half pig.
no way cartman, that doesn’t make any sense….
Well you know what they say – “there are three kinds of people in the world, those who are good at math and those who aren’t”.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who do not.
There are 103 kinds of people…
Darn subindex 3 doesn’t print!
97% agreed.
Wait. So the least reliable data set produces the vast majority of global warming? I’m shocked and stunned.
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.
I’m looking forward to swimming in the tropically warm seas off the beaches in a couple of years time. But I feel they’ll be just as empty of people and the sea the same temperature for the rest of my life.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-5132651/Can-guess-idyllic-beaches-are.html
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.
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.
Anyone interested can read Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.’s weblog before he closed it. He has a treasure trove of information on Ocean Heat Content including direct discussions with Josh Willis who “found” the missing heat one day while cleaning out his closet.
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=ocean+heat+content
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
RE: “My global warming is hiding in the ocean.”
Can we call this “The Godzilla Effect”?
“It’s hiding in the ocean! Be very afraid!”
Ayah! Godzillaaa!!!
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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