Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
As a result of industrialization, the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased continuously over the past 100 years, which is considered as the main reason behind global warming. However, the observational global mean atmospheric temperature leveled off over the first decade of the 21st century, in contrast to the rapid warming during the late 20th century. This phenomenon, known as the “atmospheric warming slowdown” or “global warming hiatus”, has attracted great attention worldwide owing to its ostensible contradiction of the human-induced global warming theory.
The changes in ocean heat content might have a tight relationship with the atmospheric warming slowdown. Dr Changyu Li, Prof. Jianping Huang and their colleagues, a group of researchers from the Key Laboratory for Semi-Arid Climate Change of the Ministry of Education, College of Atmospheric Sciences, Lanzhou University, have had their findings published in Advances of Atmospheric Sciences.
In their paper, they explore the energy redistribution between the atmosphere and ocean at different latitudes and depths by using observational data as well as simulations of a coupled atmosphere-ocean box model.
“Imagine the energy transport in our climate system as a water flow”, Dr. Li says. “Let’s turn on a tap at the top of the system, the feed rate of which represents the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative imbalance caused by the greenhouse effect. A bucket below the tap can be an analogue of our atmosphere, and its water level is analogous to atmospheric warming. There is also a sinking flow at its bottom, draining into a larger bucket (i.e. the ocean). Now, here comes the key point. Generally, the water level of the atmospheric bucket rises as a result of global warming. However, if the drain rate approximately equals the feed rate of the tap, the water level of the bucket will not increase (the occurrence of the warming slowdown). That’s the basic idea of our coupled box model.”
“A rapid increase in the global ocean heat content has been detected in observations during the warming slowdown period, at a rate of about 9.8 × 1021 J yr-1. That is, from the energy point of view, there is no slowdown in global warming if we take the ocean into consideration”, he adds. “Furthermore, the increase of heat content provides a worrisome picture of the ocean. This rapid oceanic warming could lead to serious degradation of marine ecosystems, eventually becomes a great threat to the ocean biodiversity.”
###
No Richard, look at the graphs. The slope doesn’t change even though the scale does. The so-called “instrument record” part of those graphs has obviously been faked to fool people like you and David. All too easy isn’t it.
Loydo,
When there is more than one fool, usually the loudest is the biggest.
Loydo,
For benefit of those who don’t have a clue what you are talking about, in a post above in this thread, I wrote,
“Global temperature anomaly has no agreed definition and if it were an agreed parameter then there is no possibility of an independent calibration standard for it.
These problems enable the teams who compile global temperature data sets to alter the definitions they use to obtain whatever values of global temperature they want to create, and they each vary their unique definition almost every month. The affect of this can be seen instantly by clicking this link
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
(When shown these graphs, representatives of NASA GISS say the graphs “show different things” – which is true, they do – but those “different things” were published by NASA GI|SS as being the same thing; viz. global temperature anomaly time series.)”
Your reply denies reality.
Nothing was faked. Those graphs are photocopies from NASAGISS publications.
You have been fooled to even think such a thing.
As I also said in my post you purport to be answering,
“More detail of this matter together with a report of its ‘cover up’ can be obtained by reading this document especially its Appendices
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we02.htm ;
(Incidentally, I would have been jailed for perjury of Parliament if this item were untrue.)”
Clearly, you have not read it.
Richard
I was referring to the fake graphs posted davidmhoffer above. It compares apples with oranges: a single site to global average but worse; the slope of the “instrument record” portion should change as the scale changes, it doesn’t. Its fake, but no one questioned it and this site
was happy to publish it – so called skeptics, lol.
Did you mean unemployable? This is a brilliant qualitative summary of the energy and climate change topic from someone who clearly knows the facts. But it has mistakes that need correcting to be attributable w/o the distractions…. I would love the copy edited… brian.catt@deconfused.com
Loydo,
Your post I answered said in full,
“No Richard, look at the graphs. The slope doesn’t change even though the scale does. The so-called “instrument record” part of those graphs has obviously been faked to fool people like you and David. All too easy isn’t it.”
I understood you writing, “No Richard, look at the graphs.” to be you disputing the three graphs I presented to you in this thrread.
Following my pointing out that you were wrong in every way you have written, “I was referring to the fake graphs posted davidmhoffer above.”
It is hard to imagine a more clear example of pointless trolling that wastes space in a thread than your ridiculous attempt to dispute the informative graphs provided for you in this thread by both David Hoffer and myself.
Richard
The magic of CarbonHeat™ is truly amazing.
The “heat is going into the oceans” climatespanation is a dead parrot, and has been for quite some time. But the warmists keep trying to tell us it’s not dead, just sleeping.
The heat hiding in the oceans falsifies CAGW.
If the hear isn’t the upper troposphere then it isn’t causing the massive non existent water vapour positive feedback that the theory is dependant on.
I thought this might have worth but is basically ‘the oceans are hiding the heat’ myth rehashed. Still, filled their days and they got paid.
I stopped reading when I saw ‘From Eurekalert!”.
But that was too late 😉
Well, I know, the relevance of a document should be judged on its contents only.
But sometimes knowing what is the news outlet is an helpful shortcut…
This closely matches the findings of the Finnish scientists. They found a reduction in low clouds. This would allow the sun to heat the oceans which then share some of that energy with the atmosphere. Nothing else is required.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
I can see this as useful propaganda for the Chinese government and its windmill manufacturing business made profitable, in part, by coal.
Have you noticed that on the black body curve of the atmosphere CO2 centred at 15 micron is just an inverted smaller black body curve. When you think about it, it is just a black body curve for something at 193K. If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the centre frequency remains the same but the band width increases. Weins Displacement Law states that the peak frequency is directly proportional to the temperature. Therefore I would conclude that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t increase the temperature of CO2 and therefore doesn’t increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
It is true that the atmosphere transfers heat into the ocean in places, but I believe the predominant direction of transfer is oceans to atmosphere. I suppose that it is possible for a 0.6C temperature rise to have reversed the dominant direction of heat transfer in the past 40 years or so, but I suppose it’s possible that this is all just grasping at straws.
The most remarkable property of missing heat is its skill at finding places to hide where it can’t be observed or measured with sufficient accuracy to be quantified.
Huge upward adjustment of global temperatures is going on to conceal cooling since 2016.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Aug-2019.png
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/V4-monthly-adjustments.png
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9142
Such interventions are needed more and more frequently to keep the alarmist show on the road.
Which is why they now need to get rid of UAH satellite observations, the last bastion of science in Marxism-replacement climate ideology.
Albert Einstein, in his 1917 paper:
http://inspirehep.net/record/858448/files/eng.pdf
says this about radiative heating of a gas:
During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule
per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation eld of temperature T be
kT / 2
this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.
“Regardless if the nature of the molecules and independent of the frequencies at which molecules absorb and emit.”
It’s clear why Arrhenius’ CO2 warning nonsense hid in the shadows while Einstein was alive.
Where has this paper been hiding all this time? It’s not looking like a good future for anyone who quotes Arrhenius at me, although to be fair, It’s usually me who sends the Arrhenius paper to the strident and confident know-nothings, for them to pretend to read (for the first time).
The “researchers” claim the Ocean Heat Content increases (by warming from the air no less, but that’s a different, but equally fatal flaw in their “research”) 9.8 x 10²¹ J/year. If that amount of heat takes 20 years to raise the temperature of the ocean by 0.027° C that’s an amount too small to be measured, by any instrument yet developed. So how do they know the OHC increases by that amount each year? I fear these “researchers” have, like so many other “researchers”, taken model output and called it data. So their conclusion, “… there is no slowdown in global warming…” is a merely wishful thinking.
CO2 did not cause the increase in planetary temperature as it can be shown unequivocally that humans did cause the majority to the increase in atmospheric CO2 …
Anyway …
In reply to the physical cause of the thermal heating of the oceans ….
…. it is an amazing observational fact that there was a sudden and unexplained (300% to 400%) increase in in mid-ocean ridge earthquake frequency (earthquake magnitude 4 to 6, the earthquakes are not larger they just happen more often) that correlates with the planetary temperature changes …
There is a massive amount of thermal heat from magma that comes out at the mid-ocean ridges when the ocean ridge is pushed apart…
The mid-ocean ridge earthquake frequency over the entire planet, increased by 300% in 1994 and continued at that unexplainably high rate for the entire warming period…
Using the change in frequency of mid-ocean earthquakes as a proxy for the amount of magma that is flowing at the ridges …
It was shown in this paper that regional deep heating of ocean affects surface temperatures (small temperature changes are amplified) with a two year lag ….
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf
Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic [2,3]. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe (Table 1) [4,5].
Also interesting is planetary cloud cover also abruptly changed in 1994, where previously cloud cover closely tracked GCR in the high latitude regions and after the change in 1994 which physically caused the increase in mid-ocean earthquakes…..
…Temperature no longer tracked GCR ….
This makes sense … something physically happened to cause the change in earthquake frequency and weirdly the North geomagnetic pole drift velocity also at the same time increased by a factor of five ….
This is almost like we are watching something live happening ….
You would almost think what we are observing has happened before…
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-possible-connection-between-ionization-in-the-Pall%C3%A9a-Butlerb/4ad159e3523889be89dce82297271472d4c024bc
The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds
Fig. 2 shows the global annual averages of GCR induced ionization in the atmosphere and low cloud amounts for the period July 1983–June 2000 (ionization data is only updated to December 2000). A quick look at the data reveals the good agreement between those two quantities from 1983 to 1994, however, from 1995 to 2000 the correspondence b
Mark of 1st October sums it up. When we pass the maximum temperature of the MWP, then we can say that the temperature is increasing.
Now what about the logarithmic effect on the CO2. As stated in numerous books I have read as the amount of CO2 in ppm increasing, the amount of heat energy re-radiated decreases. If that us so, then we will see a slow decrease in any increase in the atmospheric temperature.
MJE VK5ELL
And speaking of measurement errors, did anyone ever pull the ARGO floats that produced the results that Josh Willis deleted, to determine if they were malfunctioning? I think not. And if not, then who cares what temperatures are actually deemed true based on his “careful” calculations? Seriously, who cares? If the side that wants to PROVE WARMING just deletes adverse data, as Willis did, as Mann and the hockey team did with Keith Briffa’s tree ring data, then the correct lesson of following science of these men (and women, don’t want to appear sexist, I’m looking at YOU, Camille Parmisan) is that we can’t trust the results of activists and liars. We are fools for listening to them, and even bigger fools for giving them more money with which to lie to us. How many times do I have to pay the grants of Mann, the salaries of people like Trenberth and the infernal economists who say that changing from high quality, dense, reliable energy, to intermittent, sparse and highly dispersed, “renewable” energy will provide millions of net new jobs? You should be disqualified from every working as an economist, if you believe that crap.
I’m begging you CAGW climate alarmists to please go and find a new career right now. Get out, before your climate “science” credentials thoroughly stain your resumes and makes you permanently employable. Get out, like that portal from hell told the priest with his face covered in flies in the Amityville Horror movie.
No need to worry about Global Warming then. The seas will buffer us for many centuries until oiö has run out.
I will try again re ocean heating above. Atmospheric warming is minimal compared to the 100W/m^2 direct solar radiative warming of the surface that is kinda important and varies with the known solar cycles – BUT that misses what drives serious climate change over ice ages, versus the interglacial noise people are so worried about, equally obviously and natural on the empirical evidence . And the reality of climate change causes we can detect versus modellers guesses we cannot is also important.
1. A better more empirically based climate model based on Fourier analysis of the actual variability has determined three solar cycles as causal with no CO2 effect, and backcasts very accurately, also predicts that the current warming, normal within an interglacial ups and downs, and steep through positive reinforcement of two strong solar cycles.
Importantly, this suggests the current warming should reverse and cool towards 2050 on its next downwards cycle. Hence the end of warming is about now. What will the warmist climate “scientists” do when the evidence proves their models so wrong, their science false, reality is right and delivered by solar variability, unaffected by CO2, and their multi trillion $$$$ remedies for climate change are wholly false and comprehensively regressive on the science and electrical engineering facts? As eminent retired meteorologist Prof Weiss explains here, the reality of the observations is clear. No evidence of CO2, “All we see is cycles”.. Paper is easy to find, but this explains it faster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-E5y9piHNU
2. FACTS? As readers may recall the record of NASA data from the UHA already shows the real, measured, greenhouse effect, versus the wildly over amplified guesses of climate “scientists” models for their easy UN IPCC and taxpayers money. Not happening in measured fact. but must still be believed
3. ITS UNDERNEATH YOU!:Another short term regional variable is ocean warming from below. This is at more localised extremes of actual eruptions, not averages as below, from large scale SUBMARINE volcano building , such as the Mayotte volcano which grew from nothing to 5Km^3 in 6 months and pushed enough heat into the ocean to change the local climate = extreme weather in East Africa and Mozambique in early 2019, the scan of the mass and its plume in the link below is worth a look, BTW.
The heat liberated from the mantle in the 6 months of 5Km^3 of crystallising magma would be 20 ExaJoules, or 5.5PWh, about the whole US electricity consumption for a year, or 5,000 Megatonnes of nuclear weapons liberated in the ocean surface. From one volcano. We believe around 100,000 of these exist on the ocean floors with AVERAGE outputs of 28Km^3 x 10^6 pa. The rest is maths and physics 101. Where 25,000 Pacific atolls have come from, 3Km high on average, etc.
AS far as short term climate perturbations this is enough to raise a large area of surface water a few degrees, and which probably altered the Indian Ocean temperature balance and caused unusual weather around Australian coasts. Do your own sums with 20 Exajoules in 6 months. Assuming your own depth and area.
I further suggest the El Nino is caused by such events on a roughly cyclic basis TBD. As with the combinations of different Milankovitch and solar emissive cycles, the combined effect can vary with time, but is overtly cyclic on a multi annual basis. The details of the actual volcanic formation and the associated unusual weather are in a short paper by Prof Wyss Yim.
https://saltbushclub.com/2019/07/16/climatic-impacts-of-the-southwest-indian-ocean-blob/
4. SERIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE: But that’s the short term solar cycle “solar noise” of actual single volcanic eruptions we observe over few lifetimes of a short few hundred years periodicity.. This is superimposed upon the more planetary scale climate cycles volcanoes erupt over, and oceans mix well in over a few hundred years, through their Coriolis and convection currents (not the reverse convection of climate science, but the one where hot water and hot air rises due to density difference under gravity, respecting old style provable physics)).
Milankovitch cycles are mostly represented in Earthly climate record by first the effects of the 41Ka and then the ten less intense but more prolonged 100Ka ice ages. I explain below how these cycles can cause the necessary ocean warming by their gravitational effects on the Earth’s thin and mobile oceanic crust.
To address the calculations regarding heat entering the oceans from volcanoes and its variability w.r.t ice ages I have written a paper quantifying this very real effect, massively underestimated and highly variable over time, from the combined output of 100,000 submarine volcanoes. These are known to produce ten times then output of surface volcanoes through the 7Km thin basalt ocean floor, directly heating the ocean with 1,200 degree molten rock, roughly 1W/m^2 in average effect today, over 10 times more power than the internal conducted heat of the 50TW that is considered as the volcanic effect and disregarded as small and invariable in climate models.
Wrong again, on both the easy to check science facts.
All this is real, measured empirically and highly variable in Milankovitch time scales. Numbers?
The heat entering the oceans from submarine volcanoes currently is 1×10^22 Joules pa from c.2,800 cubic kilometres pa of emissions. Yes, like the supposed effect from CO2, 1W/m^2 is tiny. But, unlike atmospheric effects, it cannot be offset by the response of evaporation and clouds changing solar insolation to balance the SST effect, and just keeps coming over millennia, so must cause an eventual higher equilibrium SST to be established in our 0 deg K environment. How? Eventually, enough reduction of insolation caused by the natural SST response of evaporation and insolation and radiation increasing at T^4 that finally flat lines the interglacial warming at the new stable interglacial peak, set by the total enregy delivery of each overall cyclic volcanic effect, balanced by the natural feedback control of the ocean/atmosphere insolation control. Why was the last one was hotter? More intense combination of the three MIlankovitch cycle’s effect.
The varying combinations of the three MIlankovitch cycles determine the magnitude and duration of each different interglacial, and the temperature profile between peaks, also well demonstrated by real physics based climate science in deconvolution from the observed record by Fourier analysis.
I calculate that will warm the entire ocean mass by 0.001deg pa. Wow! See attached table from my paper. It may be small, but its relentless and the world doesn’t work on human time scales. If this sustainably doubles over a short 7Ka period of a Milankovitch maximum and the oceans and atmosphere do the job of maintaining SST stability, as they have against all perturbations since there were oceans, that is enough additional heat entering the Earths largest surface heat sink, that controls its climate, to deliver 7 degrees K average interglacial warming of the entire ocean mass, not just a layer.. Easy sum to do. So I did. 6×10^25 Joules more energy into the oceans in 7Ka to deliver one interglacial.
The necessary doubling of current magma emissions is more than delivered at 100Ka Milankovitch maximums in the measured fact of the Fourier power spectrum analysis of their record, but is no longer enough at the 41Ka Milankovitch maximums (when temperatures only dipped by about half as much from roughly the same interglacial plateau/peak. That said, all three Milankovitch cycles are proven to contribute to the level of variability of individual ice ages by their varying combinations.
To really get a feeling for this, look at the Younger Dryas event in the last interglacial warming. While SSTs return to glacial levels in the middle of the interglacial warming event itself, the oceans keep rising, without a reversal at any time throughout, barely affected by what the low thermal content of the atmosphere or solar heating of the surface was doing. So what was relentlessly heating the oceans then? Smoking volcano time! (submarine type). Younger Dryas was no problem for the warming oceans, atmosphere had a bit of a wobbler, but the oceans controlled that wobble eventually, as usual. (Younger Dryas might be from major cyclic increase in surface volcano activity having the opposite effect on the atmosphere by reducing insolation, perhaps? Whatever, oceans not bothered))
I submit the empirical evidence of volcanic emissions, and their variability, synchronous with MIlankovitch cycles, and the physically unavoidable seismic activity increase that must arise from the gravitational solid tide effects of these cycles , PLUS the slam dunk of the minimal Younger Dryas effect on interglacial ocean warming, is fairly conclusive.
However small the annual effect, this is how planetary size objects change, slowly and relentlessly. Unless you’re a rock, that is.
SUMMARY: Nowhere else is there a plausible cause and effect explanation for the ice age cycle linkage to the Milankovitch cycles. I suggest a large increase in submarine volcanicity is the primary and dominant cause of interglacials, caused by the gravitational variability induced by the combination of all three MIlankovitch cycles , hence inducing increased solid tides hence seismicity, and a periodic maxima in emissions . It’s not the MIlankovitch insolation effects, which are anyway wholly inadequate and desperately seeking amplification of the modeller kind in dust, etc. Nah. Not real.
It’s underneath you! All the heat you need, and at the time you need it. Planetary clockwork.
SHORT TERM NOTES FOR INSIGNIFICANT CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS: You only existed as super animals for a tiny 10,000 years because of a short friendly warm interglcial climate. Warm is good. Soon be back in the next hunter gatherer ice age, coming soon now. 10,000 years is at the Indian Summer of an interglacial, from the record.
Something we can observe in a short lifetime? Significant random and cyclic submarine volcanic effects, not average output but once every few thousand years or whatever, heating the oceans locally, are more than enough to be a cause of regionalised extreme weather events around oceans that are significantly active volcanically. Like Mayotte. Some may be cyclical controlled by the many smaller gravitational variations of the planetary system that vary solid tides in the crust, etc. Here is the Table of data from my paper. Rational physical law and evidence based comment welcome. This isn’t climate science. Its real. Mistakes of fact will be corrected with thanks. E&OE
The paper is here: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379
The short answer, if you prefer the predictions arising from Fourier analysis of the actual temperature record, and its conclusions as to accurately identifiable solar variability cause, is YES.
I posted a long fact based answer elsewhere, as to actual physical factors, evidence based physics, versus the guessed effects of preselected causes making partial or inadequate allowance for many other interactions with variable cases, the IPCC atmospheric models that have none of these difficulties of experimental validation to overcome, through preferring proof by consensus that requires no observational proof, and rejects it when it shows them to be wrong..
As far as our current interglacial noise on the longer ice age cycle, the answer on the analysis of the recent few thousand years of ups and downs , temperature is now declining to 2050.
Global temperature is probably its past the peak it reached after rising from the little ice age, is now on its way down. Per the fact based physics of Ludecke & Weiss, a more credible empirical model of reality than hopelessly partial and presumptive guesses of UN IPCC models designed to frame CO2 for their grant money and political beliefs.
In the real world of provable physics, reality is observed to be driven by 3 main solar cycles. Temperatures are now declining from a very clear and mutually reinforcing cyclic peak, perhaps to the next “little ice age”, 300 yrs or so ahead? Simples!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-E5y9piHNU
PS If this forecast is correct, I may yet live to see these liars for their grants, and the creators and operators of the massively wasteful and pointless renewable protection racket exposed, for what it is, and what they are.
Cynical liars, scaring the ignorant with wholly fake “science”, for which there was never any proof, just a theory proven wrong by the hard evidence of measurements, for their own profit at our expense. I hope they can be made to suffer in disgrace, with regular public disclosures of the deliberate way their carefully constructed fraud on the people they supposedly served was imposed by law. The UN has lost its way as a protector of human rights and world peace and development, this delivers all the opposites, extortion, corruption, avoidable enrgy poverty – and distracts its posing politicians from their real job.
Has global warming stopped?
The tap of incoming energy cannot be turned off.
____________________________________
No, charles the moderator –
Since the begin of project “Planet Earth” that began with installing solar system some 4.571 billion years ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+system+age&oq=solar+system+age&aqs=chrome.
global warming neither began nor stopped.
While the tap of incoming energy cannot be turned off. And needs in no way “to be turned off”.
Suns and Planets obviously found other ways to cope with that nasty “energy problem”.
____________________________________
There’s an old scientists saying:
– religious, moral or justice laws start with “Thou shalt not”.
– Laws of Nature start with “you can not”.
You can not win against the laws of nature.
____________________________________
– While you, charles the moderator, can fiddle around with terms like “thou shalt not” “warm global” or “income turned on energy”
– the real world says you, charles the moderator, can’t win against the reliability of our solar system that operates on the 4 Laws of Nature:
– The Gravitation, Matter, & Light. All interactions in the Universe are governed by four fundamental forces.
On the large scale, the forces of Gravitation and Electromagetism rule, while the Strong and Weak Forces dominate the microscopic realm of the atomic nucleus.
https://www.br.de/mediathek/video/alpha-centauri-was-sind-naturgesetze-av:5bd0c6701145970018ec8a69