From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I sometimes see comments to the effect that recent ocean warming could be due to deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Of course, what they mean is an INCREASE in hydrothermal vent activity since these sources of heat are presumably operating continuously and are part of the average energy budget of the ocean, even without any long-term warming.
Fortunately, there are measurements of the heat output from these vents, and there are rough estimates of how many vents there are. Importantly, the vents (sometimes called “smokers”) are almost exclusively found along the mid-oceanic ridges, and those ridges have an estimated total length of 75,000 km (ref).
So, if we had (rough) estimates of the average heat output of a vent, and (roughly) know how many vents are scattered along the ridges, we can (roughly) estimate to total heat flux into the ocean per sq. meter of ocean surface.
Direct Temperature Measurements Near the Vents Offer a Clue
A more useful observation comes from deep-sea surveys using a towed sensor package which measures trace minerals produced by the vents, as well as temperature. A study published in 2016 described a total towed sensor distance of ~1,500 km just above where these smokers have been located. The purpose was to find out just how many sites there are scattered along the ridges.
Importantly, the study notes, “temperature anomalies from such sites are commonly too weak to be reliably detected during a tow“.
Let’s think about that: even when the sensor package is towed through water in which the mineral tracers from smokers exist, the temperature anomaly is “too weak to be reliably detected”.
Now think about that (already) extremely weak warmth being mixed laterally away from the (relatively isolated) ocean ridges, and vertically through 1,000s of meters of ocean depth.
Also, recall the deep ocean is, everywhere, exceedingly cold. It has been calculated that the global-average ocean temperature below 200m depth is 4 deg. C (39 deg. F). The cold water originates at the surface at high latitudes where it becomes extra-salty (and thus dense) and it slowly sinks, filling the global deep oceans over thousands of years with chilled water.
The fact that deep-sea towed probes over hydrothermal vent sites can’t even measure a temperature increase in the mineral-enriched water means there is no way for buoyant water parcels to reach up several kilometers to reach the thermocline.
Estimating The Heat Flux Into the Ocean from Hydrothermal Vents
We can get some idea of just how small the heat input is based upon various current estimates of a few parameters. The previously mentioned study comes up with a possible spacing of hydrothermal sites every ~10 km. So, that’s 7,500 sites around the world along the mid-oceanic ridges. From deep-sea probes carrying specialized sampling equipment, the average energy output looks to be about 1 MW per vent (see Table 1, here). But how many vents are there per site? I could not find a number. They sampled several vents at several sites. Let’s assume 100, and see where the numbers lead. The total heat flux into the ocean from hydrothermal vents in Watts per sq. meter (W m-2) would then be:
Heat Flux = (7,500 sites)x(100 vents per site)x(1 MW per vent)/(360,000,000,000,000 sq. m ocean sfc).
This comes out to 0.00029 W m-2.
That is an exceedingly small number, about 1/4,000th of the 1 W m-2 estimated energy imbalance from Argo float measurements of (very weak) ocean warming over the last 20 years or so. Even if the estimate is off by a factor of 100, the resulting heat flux is still 1/40th of global ocean heating rate. I assume that oceanographers have published some similar estimates, but I could not find them.
Now, what *is* somewhat larger is the average geothermal heat flux from the deep, hot Earth, which occurs everywhere. That has a global average value of 0.087 W m-2. This is approximately 1/10 of the estimate current ocean heating rate. But remember, it’s not the average geothermal heat flux that is of interest because that is always going on. Instead, that heat flux would have to increase by a factor of ten for decades to cause the observed heating rate of the global deep oceans.
Evidence Ocean Warming Has Been Top-Down, Not Bottom-Up
Finally, we can look at the Argo-estimate vertical profile of warming trends in the ocean. Even though the probes only reach a little more than half-way to the (average) ocean bottom, the warming profile supports heating from above, not from below (see panel B, right). Given these various pieces of evidence, it would difficult to believe that deep-sea hydrothermal vents — actually, an increase in their heat output — can be the reason for recent ocean warming.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If these are mineral-rich waters, might they be much denser than seawater, even though they are hot?
Would the hot water be creeping along the sea-floor rather than percolating upwards to the towed arrays?
Unless I am mistaken these Vents have been active for epochs. Not just decades, centuries or millennia. For them to be the cause of increasing ocean temperatures they would need to either dramatically increase in output or number to cause ocean warming
Epochs has to be true, because the many unique organisms that evolved to exist around these vent ecosystems would have taken millions of years to so evolve and find ways to propagate to active vents.
However, we know that volcanic events are episodic. There is evidence that Black Smoker fields become dormant after becoming discovered, and new fields start up where they were previously unknown. Therefore, the contribution of heat from diverging plates can be expected to be variable.
It appears that Roy limited his ‘back-of-envelope’ analysis to spreading centers. There is more to localized heat sources than just spreading centers and Black Smoker fields:
https://www.science.org/content/article/it-s-just-mind-boggling-more-19-000-undersea-volcanoes-discovered
The difficulty in detecting warm spots from vents is revealing.
In any case, black smokers should cut down for their health.
Unfortunately they can’t switch to Evapes as the batteries don’t perform well under saltwater and at pressure
Apparently these smokers live a long time. I wonder if they like malt liquor.
“In any case, black smokers should cut down for their health.”
No, the woke wakners won’t let you call them ‘black smokers’ …
they must be ‘Gender Neutral Smokers of Colour’ !!
umm.. “black” is actually a lack of colour !
For light, yes; for pigments, black is a combination of many colors.
black is a total lack of reflected colours.. ie no colour.
Way back in elementary school art class I was taught that pure black and white are not colors They’re shades. All primary colors can be mixed to produce other colors, But black & white only change the shade of colors. Gray, any combination of black and white, is also a shade.
How is people of color different than colored people?
Everyone is a person of some color, except maybe albinos — are they people of no color?
Naw, if you look at photos of albino people, they still have color. Anything from pink to ivory or just slightly off white…
As indeed should white smokers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFExaMByzYw
And champagne vents should probably dial it back a bit too:
I thought seismic activity has increased recently. If that actually is the case it would preposterous to say there has been no contribution to ocean heat content.
It hasn’t, globally. You should have looked that fact up.
It has in Indonesia as well as South America. I am not suggesting that means very much but it is there.
You have to wonder how much of that is actual increase, vs. better and more thorough monitoring picking up seismic events which wouldn’t have been recorded previously…
The discovery of new vents and active volcanoes has increased since the 1990s. Not much is known about oceans deeper than 2000 meters
The relatively new Deep Argo project is motivated by the substantial oceanographic variability found in the 50% of ocean volume that lies below 2000 meters
I have seen grainy videos of pillow basalts forming and quickly quenching at a ridge. (However, I just searched, and could not find any awesome “power of nature” lava videos.)
Are there any active ridges with roiling lava (like the surface flows on Iceland) that continually expose magma to seawater, or is what we term “an active seafloor spreading ridge” just a series of mostly quiescent hydrothermal vents?
New crust is created by submarine volcanism, with lava flows, at spreading centers:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GC005632
Yep, I understand that fact.
I just thought there would be some impressive video. The lack of video makes me suspect that what is considered a “continuous process” on a geologic time scale, is somewhat discontinuous on a human time scale?
So, Milo, you have touched on the missing ingredient in Dr. Roy’s analysis of black smokers heat flux: the black smokers are a symptom, the cause is nearly continuous eruption of basalt, at around 1,000 deg C, onto the gap where the oceanic crust is spreading. So, there is 75,000 km of new oceanic basalt crust forming semi-continuously and moving away from the spreading event, and cooling due to interaction with very cold sea water. As regards towing a temperature sensor above black smokers (and by association over the new crust), the temperature enhancement might well be significantly offset by ocean currents. This whole theme is more complex than it seems. I talked to Tanya Atwater about this once, she was such a pixie geologist! But very smart.
The other missing ingredient is the mean residence time of all geothermal flux into the oceans. The residence time is critical to understanding how much energy a given flux can generate within a system, (this article refers to the ocean system) over TIME. If the residence time is decades, then a decadal increase will add the increased flux daily for the entire resdience time, before equalibrium occurs!
The other missing ingredient is, as always with “climate science”, what are the error bars on the claimed increase in OHC?
I would add that the residence time of disparate solar radiation w/l is highly variable, yet the influx of any LWIR, hypothetically due to GHG increase, is extremely short relative to geothermal input. LWIR is entirely absorbed at the surface layer where evaporation occurs, thus it is highly likley to accelerate ocean heat flux to the atmosphere, and thus be a negative feedback to its own minor input, as far as overall system energy of the earth, land surface, oceans, and atmosphere.
Indeed, not all watts are equal, and residence time is critical to understand the net effext within a system over time.
Let’s not forget the huge, deep subduction zones that cause huge numbers of ocean volcanoes and release huge amounts of energy.
“huge numbers of ocean volcanoes and release huge amounts of energy.”
Define “huge” with a specific number, brainiac.
And now tell us how many underseas volcanoes are currently active, and how many are currently erupting. Mr. Volcano El Nino Nutter.
How many submarine volcanoes are there 2023?
In April 2023, a new seamount catalog was published that used data collected from radar satellites. Yet, there is still more to be done. While the catalog detected more than 43,000 submarine volcanoes in the Earth’s waters, only 16,000 have been charted in detail by sonar tools.
Nov 28, 2023
When was the last known underseas volcano eruption?
In December 2021, an eruption began on Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai, a submarine volcano in the Tongan archipelago in the southern Pacific Ocean. The eruption reached a very large and powerful climax nearly four weeks later, on 15 January 2022.
-1 penalty for unnecessary roughness at the beginning of your comment.
The rest deserves a plus but you spoiled it.
Why the insults? You could have asked him/her to follow up his comment with some data since he brought it up, without attacking him.
“Define “huge” with a specific number,”
Way more than the 10 you are capable of counting to !
Are you still heating your water using dry-ice above, rather than a heating element underneath?
It would be just the sort of anti-science idiocy we would expect from you.
Like this?
Amazing video!
Like so many good questions, the answer to this one is: We Don’t Know.
It must have some effect, not nothing, but not much.
Now you are just splitting hairs. It is like claiming that we don’t know the value of pi because we have only calculated the first trillion digits or so. The whole post shows that we know the answer with error bars (like all measurements) and that the answer is as close to zero as to not to be worth worrying about.
We don’t know if they measure just tiddling little vents or major magma vents…
… from the word “smokers” we can assume only tiddlers.
They certainly didn’t measure above ocean-floor volcanoes.
Also, only going down to 1500m. ??
The big active trenches are much deeper.
Argo buoys simply don’t go deep enough. That big plume of warm water that appeared suddenly off the east coast of Australia is 3 C warmer than the surrounding waters. Nobody forecasted it was coming. Where did it come from?
Trenberth’s missing heat has finally been found!
A lot is missing from Dr Spencers article….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
They haven’t scoured the sea bottom enough to really but bounds to the answer – but I’m more comfortable in the “probably not a contributor to the proported ocean warming” camp than in the “must be undersea volcanoes” side – the deep ocean has been a pretty constant 4°C (as far as it’s been measured) so I don’t see the volcanes having much variability – though there are some years where the earth is very active and a chain of eruptions and earthquakes will echo throughout the “Ring of Fire.”
Isaak, you hit the CO2 answer/conclusion right on the head.
Mr. Walton: I wonder if your analysis applies to other questions? Does CO2 emitted by humans warm the atmosphere? Can the answer be “we don’t know”, which you would call splitting hairs? You’d then say it’s not zero, but so close to zero = no worries?
I’m asking you because, based on your response to Mr. Hansen, you are some kind of expert on splitting hairs.
“the answer to this one is: We Don’t Know.”
No. Your answer is “I Don’t Know.”
OK. It’s easy to not know if you don’t want to.
OK, the corollary would seem to be that Nick Does Know.
Please tell me what is the inter-decadal variability of the heat flow from these hydrothermal vents? Make sure to show your data.
I am a good enough scientist to know that I Don’t Know the degree of recency bias of these current measurements.
“It’s easy to not know if you don’t want to”
Yet you remain blissfully ignorant…. especially about your own ignorance. !
Spoken as one of the world’s foremost experts on not knowing.
Who does then Nick….. tell us who.
Mr. Stroker knows and will send you the answer for $1 donated to his favorite charity: The Nick Stroker Big Fat Cuban Cigar Fund
Dr Roy Spencer
You are an idiot, Nick !!
The study looks a small number of small vents.
Oh dear, all the petty and juvenile gang of “I have no counter” are here…
…. boldly giving red thumbs as their only possible response.
Pathetic !!
Mr. Stokes: Hey, wouldn’t it be great if Dr. Spencer wrote up an article on what is known (using the word “rough” alot)?
and then you could read it.
This article is missing much needed information…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
So Nick, feel free to fill in the MIA resdence time of geothermal heat flux to the oceans and the total energy increase of a multidecal increase in geothermal flux.
Where does Kip Hansen say that he doesn’t want to know, Nick?
Mr. Stokes: Are there no “unkowns” in your world, even those things you want to know but don’t? Must get dull.
Trouble with Nick, is that a whole lot of things he pretends to know…
…are provable WRONG. !!
A sort of “negative” knowledge… just like dickie.
Izaak W below is quite incorrect with out understanding the residence time of disparate inputs into the ocean system. The missing ingredient in Dr Spencers article is the mean residence time of all geothermal flux into the oceans. The residence time is critical to understanding how much energy a given flux can generate within a system, (this article refers to the ocean system) over TIME.
If the residence time is decades, then a decadal increase will add the increased flux daily for the entire resdience time, before equalibrium occurs!
The other missing ingredient is, as always with “climate science”, what are the error bars on the claimed increase in OHC?
I would add that the residence time of disparate solar radiation w/l is highly variable, yet the influx of any additional LWIR, due to increased GHG, is extremely short relative to geothermal input. LWIR is entirely absorbed at the surface layer where evaporation occurs, thus it is highly likley to accelerate ocean heat flux to the atmosphere, and thus potentially be a negative feedback to its own minor input, ( including portential increase in clouds) as far as the overall system energy of the earth, – land surface, oceans, and atmosphere.
Indeed, not all watts are equal, and residence time is critical to understand the net effect within any system over time. If the ocean residence time of geothermal input is 30 years ( it may be far longer) and the ocean resdence time of LWIR is one day, then a 30 year increase in geothermal will accumulate DAILY for 30 years before equalibrium for that energy source, whereas the net equalibrium increase for the LWIR will be one day, or less if it only acclerates evaporation at the surface.
One of the most active vent sites is near Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
This is due to several tectonic plates subducting each other.
Temperature logging over large areas of that site, might reveal local increases in water temperature, which would locally warm the Pacific, especially during periods with high seismic activity and high venting, that could lead to El Niños, weak to very strong
That area is one of the most geologically active regions on Earth
It is home to the junction of five extremely active major fault systems, the second-largest, ocean-floor lava plateau on Earth,
It has hundreds of ocean floor volcanoes, and a large number of ocean-floor hydrothermal vents.
In general, it would appear that submarine volcanoes or seamounts are more widespread and abundant than the hydrothermal fields that Roy described:
Here’s a link to a paper that supports what you say, and provides a lot of source data. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22439-y
Thank you for the link.
With significant continuous venting in that area, it is likely the water will be warmer than elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean, i.e., any significant increase of venting due to plate movements will add heat to that already warmer water
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
My articles show, with elementary calculations, even the IPCC could do, the huge role water vapor plays compared to CO2, which is a pigmy
EXCERPT from:
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
Water Vapor Compared With CO2 in the Atmosphere
.
CO2 in atmosphere was 423 molecules of CO2/million molecules of dry air at end 2023, or 423 ppm, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4990
.
Water vapor, worldwide basis: Water vapor is highly variable between locations, from 10 ppm in the coldest air, such as the Antarctic to 50,000 ppm (5%), such as in the hot, humid areas of the Tropics.
Water vapor in atmosphere, worldwide average, weight basis, is 1.29 x 1016 kg, or 7.1667 x 10^14 moles
Atmosphere weight, dry, is 5.148 x 10^18 kg, or 1.7752 x 10^17 moles
Water vapor percent, weight basis, is 1.29 x 10^16 / 5.148 x 10^18 = 0.002506, or 0.2506%
Water vapor fraction in atmosphere, mole basis, is 7.1667 x 10^14 / 1.7752 x 10^17 = 0.004037, or 0.4037%, or 4037 ppm
Water vapor molecules, worldwide average, are 4037/423 = 9.54 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
Water vapor in temperate zones, north and south of the equator, where most of the world’s population lives, is more prevalent, than the worldwide average of 4037 ppm.
Water vapor, in temperate zones, is about 9022 ppm, at 16 C and 50% humidity
Water vapor molecules, in temperate zones, are about 9022/423 = 21.33 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
Water vapor in Tropics, with high temperatures and high humidity, is much higher than elsewhere
Water vapor, in the Tropics is about 29806 ppm, at 30 C and 70% humidity
Water vapor molecules, in the Tropics, are about 29806/423 = 70.46 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html
NOTE: The lower-atmosphere temperature usually has a 15 C up and down with day and night, which is a lot of energy lost by the lower-atmosphere to space at night, to be regained the next day, when it faces the sun again.
That huge energy gain would not be possible without:
1) significant IR photon absorption by water vapor in high humidity/high temperature areas, such as the Tropics, and
2) significant mass transfer of energy within the lower-atmosphere to distribute that energy
The Earth would be a cold place without that energy.
CO2 play almost no role
Spreading the assumed heat over the entire world is disingenuous to say the least, something the IPCC and co-conspirators would do
Significant local heating affects local areas of the Pacific, which, in turn, disturb local normal weather patterns, etc.
Heating the Entire Atmosphere by 0.3 C
.
This study shows, based on UAH satellite measurements started in 1979, lower-atmosphere temperatures have been increasing, step-by-step, and are pre-dominantly due to El Niños, and volcanic eruptions, such as Hunga Tonga, and their after effects.
.
Calculation: Image 7 shows, an increase of the lower-atmosphere temperature of about 0.3 C in late 2023.
This was due to:
1) A strong El Niño peaking in late 2023, which increased water vapor, over a period of time (months) in the
lower-atmosphere
2) The after-effects of the Hunga Tonga eruption, which temporarily increased water vapor by 10 to 15%, in a very short time, in the lower-atmosphere
Q = mass x Cp x delta T = (5.148 x 10^18 kg) x (1012 J / kg.C) x (0.3 C) = 1.563 x 10^21 = 1563 exajoules
Almost all of that energy was IR photons, absorbed by water vapor molecules
Human primary energy production for all uses in 2022 was estimated at 604 exajoules
NOTE: The lower-atmosphere temperature usually has a 15 C up and down with day and night, which is a lot of energy lost by the lower-atmosphere to space at night, to be regained the next day, when it faces the sun again.
The regain energy is about 15/0.3 x 1563 = 78150 exajoules during a 12-h daytime, which compares with human primary energy production of 604/365 x 1/2 = 0.83 exajoules per 12-h
Human daily energy use is totally insignificant compared to solar daily input
The Earth would be a cold place without that solar energy.
That huge energy gain would not be possible without:
1) significant IR photon absorption by water vapor in high humidity/high temperature areas, such as the Tropics, and
2) significant mass transfer of energy within the lower-atmosphere to distribute that energy
One needs to understand residence time of geothermal flux into the oceans to begin to contemplate the contribution of said flux. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
If undersea volcanoes heated the ocean very much, then on-land volcanoes should be able to heat the much lower mass atmosphere a lot…but they don’t. The pyroclastic flows can be 1500 C but 20 km away, outside the sun blocking ash cloud, your thermometer is safe from over-heating…or showing anything unusual.
Yea, everyone knows that air has the same capacity to retain thermal energy as water. Right? Sorry, I couldn’t help it.
From my article
El Niños get their impetus energy from the deep ocean seafloor located east of Papua New Guinea and west of the Solomon Islands. See Image 5.
That about 9000-meter-deep trench has major periodic, volcanic activity, that influences the world’s weather. See Image 1A
The heat source area covers about 150,000 square miles, which is a mere 0.23% of the Pacific Ocean’s 64,092,958 square miles.
That area is one of the most geologically active regions on Earth
It is home to the junction of five extremely active major fault systems, the second-largest, ocean-floor lava plateau on Earth,
It has hundreds of ocean floor volcanoes, and a large number of ocean-floor hydrothermal vents.
It is important to understand, the periodic El Niños have been occurring for many millions of years.Undersea volcanos heat the LOCAL Pacific water
During more-active seismic times, the already-warm water gets warmed more and rises.
It goes towards Peru with prevailing currents and warms the LOCAL Pacific more than normal, evaporating more water than normal.
That water vapor absorbs IR photons, that warms the air. which radiates more IR photons to the water surface, which evaporates more water.
EXCERPT
H2O
H2O molecules, as water vapor, on worldwide average, are about 9.54 times more prevalent in the air than CO2 molecules, about 21.3 times, in temperate zones and 70.5 times in the Tropics
Water vapor has a much wider fingerprint spectrum than CO2
IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers are mostly absorbed by H2O, which has:
1) about a three times wider spectrum than CO2, and
2) absorbs more much IR photons at wavelengths smaller than 14.9 micrometers; short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths. See Image 11A and c/f = y equation.
.
It is obviously dishonest to officially claim water vapor does 39 to 62% of the Greenhouse Effect, when H2O molecules, on worldwide average, absorb up to 9.54 x 3 = 28.6 times more IR photons, with many energies, than CO2 molecules; 21.3 x 3 = 63.9 times more in temperate zones, and 70.5 x 3 = 211.5 times more in the Tropics.
This means water vapor absorbing IR photons totally swamps whatever CO2 does.
See dark areas regarding IR absorption in Image 11A
You need to understand the resdidence time of ocean geo thermal verses land geothermal.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
We have no idea how many or how big these ‘vents’ are and therefore no idea of the heat effect on the oceans. However the hot water will naturally rise and the cold water will fall eventually, mixing all the way. If seismic activity rises, so will venting.
Which raises some interesting questions about the graphic that Roy used for subsurface temperatures:
An alternative explanation is that the water was heated at the bottom, episodically, and is rising to the surface, leaving a trail behind where it rises through the colder water.
I’ll even consider explanations from Stokes.
What is critical to understand, and what we do not know is the ocean resdence time of geothermal flux ino the oceans. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Very informative.
The Sun is forcing most of the ocean heat. The solar contribution is vast. I think what we know about geothermal heat contribution to ocean temperatures is far exceeded by what we don’t know.
Spencer is making a reasonable argument from what we know. But the real problem with climate modeling is we don’t know, so the variables are out of control.
Nobody doubts that the sun heats the oceans, as it heats everything else. The question is, why is ocean heat increasing; both sea-surface temperature and ocean heat content?
Just a few hours ago on this very site there was an article suggesting that solar output has been low, historically, for the past couple of decades.
So how can reduced solar output be increasing ocean temperatures if the sun is forcing most of the ocean heat?
It can’t be. It’s something else….
Well we know for sure, your pathetically weak CO2 cannot warm the oceans.
All ocean warming is totally natural
If you think otherwise, then produce evidence
..
And you obviously weren’t paying any attention or didn’t understand the solar thread. F10.7 Flux has been quite high.
And the cause is….?
Still no evidence of human causation.
Why is that, fungal !!
No one knows the cause. But it is not back radiation from a bit more co2.
“And the cause is….?”
Most likely instrument error along with expanding the range of the test gear…A steel tube slipping into the depths containing temp sensors is obviously unable to show repeatability of its sensor readings, except back in the lab many long months and many deep dives ago…with much possible human decision making as to which sensors are considered in error….
Ah, and ArtStudent™ who thinks Mankind isn’t natural.
Bless!
Arsonist Weako-terrorists in North America and Europe have admitted under extreme duress to spending their spare time intentionally heating the oceans with their hair dryers; just like the way they heat their bath and tea water! All in on “all electric!”
They had hoped to maintain secrecy until after Elon came out with the new Turbo battery pack powered models, but wet noodles applied diligently forced the issue!
You believe ‘something else’ is GHE. I tend to disagree, for three basic reasons.
I wouldn’t say I believe it; I would say it appears to me to be the overwhelming scientific consensus and that it also appears to be a reasonable hypothesis (unlike the solar explanation).
A plaintive appeal to anti-science of consensus.. roflmao. !
And no, it is a scientific nonsense hypothesis, always was, and remains that way.
1…There is absolutely NO WAY they could accurately measure the OCH in 1950.
2…You have zero evidence of CO2 warming anything.
3… You have no evidence of CO2 warming anything. It is just a fetish of a brain-washed little mind..
See that little wiggle at the end of the graph below.. that is the non-measured OHC increase during the most recent period.
Warning
CO2 Does Nothing Nutter
bnasty2000 is on the loose
Do not offer him food.
Says dickie-bot of “I have no evidence of CO2 warming” nuttery !
Still an empty mind for my vacant possession, I see dickie-boy !!
Still no evidence.. just red thumbs from the low-IQ juveniles.
Warning
Warning
This is a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter Zone
Comment with care
Watch your back
Wear a steel hard hat
Vacant possession !
Poor dickie. !
Still waiting for your evidence of CO2 warming the atmosphere.
Hey. Tell me what causes a pendulum to swing?
So when are those permanent hot spots in upper troposphere going to appear over the tropics?
“After ARGO, sea level rise closes exactly with estimated Ice Sheet melt plus estimated thermosteric rise, which implies anthropogenic CO2 increase does diddly”
Your logic does diddly
If SLR can be explained by warmer oceans and some glaciers melting, thenyou can NOT rule out more CO2 as a possible cause of oceans warming and some glaciers melting.
The reason SLR is not accelerating is because most of Antarctica has a permanent temperature inversion and can not melt from an increased greenhouse effect.
There is some melting of the small peninsula and some ice shelves, which happen to be near underseas volcanoes and/or could be affected by ocean currents. But the total ice mass has barely changed since the 1970s.
The global warming since 1975 did not, and can not, melt most of Antarctica, holding up to 90% of ice on land on our planet.
Your comment contains absolutely diddly.
It is another empty rant., pertaining to nought.
Why are you still playing diddly with yourself !??
The say you will go blind… to go with you being extremely DUMB !
TheFinalNail;
Actually, solar insolation is INCREASING, because continuing Clean Air and Net Zero activities are removing SO2 aerosol pollution from the atmosphere, and the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get!
(NASA/GMAO Re-analysis SO2 Chem Maps show the declining levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere)..
The oceans, unlike the land and the atmosphere, can store up their heat for hundreds of years. So just a little extra heat added each month for hundreds of years can make a big difference.
Bingo….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Two likely answers. Changes in ocean current speeds or salinity. Both of these can affect the energy levels of the mixed layer. Could be both.
…a direct effect on the critical information missing in Spencer’s article…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Is ocean heat increasing?
Where is it increasing?
By how much is it increasing?
Where is it decreasing?
By how much is it decreasing?
Why cannot this simply be multidecadal chaotic variations in the earths overall heat flows?
These are scientific questions. ‘Why are the oceans getting warmer’? is an ArtStudent™ leading question.
That’s funny! Months ago here at this forum when discussing the incredibly high CO 2 levels of 500 million years ago. And noting that during that time there was an explosion in the quantity and diversity of sea life, I was told by alarmists that low solar output was the reason ocean acidification didn’t have the effect they claim it is now.
And we won’t really know the answer to the questions without exploration and research. But instead the government showers its grants on “studies” and “research” into fields where they’ve repeatedly declared “the science is settled”. And everyone with a few functioning brain cells knows why.
I think Spencer is missing the most critical information…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Good post. Lays a speculation to rest.
There is an easier way to generally think about this. A change in ocean heat requires a change in ocean heat input. There is NO seismic indication that anything on the ocean floor is changing (smokers, volcanism) over the climate relevant (short geologically) time scales. So change in ocean heat isn’t geologically driven.
Yup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbDbA32fNek&t=1167s
Tom Nelson “podcast” interview “Viterito/Kamis/Yim/Catt: Impacts of Geothermal Energy on Climate | Tom Nelson Pod #181” “1 month ago”
I’m skeptical, but these four guys (credited and credible scientists) seem to think that there is a case for not only greater undersea and seismic activity but that there is a link to weather events.
Note that “all osceanic vulcanism” is not only geothermal vents, which is all the good Dr. Roy coverered here, and for that much, the actual observations are sparse.
Better to say that “we don’t know” as Kip Hansen has, than to declare the possibility dead.based on little actual evidence and sparse, unfocused research.
There are other reasons to say, “We dont know” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Also Rud did not define the timesclaes he is referring to at all.
I disagree. Roy only speaks to the hydrothermal fields at spreading centers. He leaves out the ubiquitous submarine volcanoes. As the still-active seamounts episodically heat the surrounding waters, coastal up-welling can bring that warm water to the surface faster than it would rise just because of its temperature. From the coast of South America, prevailing westerlies will then spread the warmed surface waters to Indonesia.
You are assuming that the seismicity associated with the heating is detectable. It may not be if the lava is very fluid (basaltic) and has low gas content.
There is isn’t much beyond guessing at this stage, it is clear this is an area begging serious research to be done so far Roy is one who made some rough estimates in specific area of the ocean floors but a lot more coverage is needed to include more data to see how much more heating can be discovered.
…and much greater understanding is needed then what this article refers to.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
I think this refutes your assertion about seismic activity. It varies significantly very short periods.
https://earthquakestoday.info/
Rud, indispuable, if known. How well do we know the net geothermal flux into the ocans, and what are the error bars? Also consider and define the time scales required, as geological time scales are generally very long, and not fine. …
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Thank you for this great information. AND there has ZERO increase in seismic activity. The attached chart by Arthur Viterito falsely promotes a huge increase from 1979 to 1997 when the increase was confirmed to be from an increase in monitoring stations during that time, not actual seismicity.
David, I do not think there is adequet information in that chart to tell? And I am quite certain there is not nearly adequet information in Dr Spencer’s article to answer the question on geothermal heat flux into the oceans.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
That’s a really interesting peak leading up to the 2015/16 El Nino. 😉
While grightstone asserts, without citation, that the step-up around the late 1990s was due to an increase in monitoring stations, it is perhaps more than coincidence that the 1998 El Nino occurred just after that increase, with about the same lag as the 2016 El Nino .
What triggered that sudden increase in seismic monitoring, and where were the stations located? Were they standard stations (in the middle of the ocean) or were they stations with enhanced sensitivity? So many questions, so little time.
So you are saying we don’t know how much seismic activity increased before 1997 because there wasn’t sufficient monitoring.
Then how can you say there was zero increase? That is just dumb !
You then give a meaningless linear black line which clearly shows 1998 and 2015/16 as well above that line.
South American Andes…..
https://earthquakestoday.info/
Look at the chart at the bottom left corner of the page.
There appears to be no trend, true, but significant variation in the number per year. And how that translates to the magnitude of heat released for individual earthquakes is anyone’s guess.
A question that hasn’t been asked, let alone answered, is, “What magnitude earthquakes are associated with submarine vulcanism, particularly quiescent flows?” It is obvious that a Tambora type explosive event will produce strong seismic activity. However, is it possible that, at spreading centers, one can have relatively quiet outpourings of very fluid lavas?
There is relatively little reason that I can see for there to be seismic activity at hydrothermal fields. As I understand them, sea water infiltrates the rock, gets heated and dissolves minerals, and then rises and leaves in a continuous cycle, under relatively low pressure. I doubt that a Black Smoker will have much if any seismic activity associated with it. If it did, it would destroy the brittle edifice that forms around the vent.
Hydrothermal fields are a red herring. It is the episodic eruptions associated with active and dormant seamounts that have the potential for injecting lots of heat into the ocean floor.
To estimate the energy flowing into the oceans from geothermal sources I use the following:
1- the ~100 mW/m^2 geothermal flux takes ~5000 year to warm ALL ocean water 1K
2- it takes ~1million km^3 magma cooling into the oceans to warm them also 1K
So to match the flux every year ~200 km^3 has to erupt into the oceans.
We have some 65.000 km of oceanic spreading ridges. Depending on your assumptions for the crust thickness and the spreading speed they are good for some 10-20 km^3 magma every year.
So the small geothermal flux still seems the biggest player in this case.
Consider this: “By comparing to pre-eruption maps of this area’s topography, including GLISTIN-A data collected in 2017, the USGS researchers were able to calculate the size and volume of the lava flow. Over the roughly 14-day eruption, Mauna Loa erupted more than 8.8 billion cubic feet (230 million cubic meters) along a lava flow that extended up to 12.1 miles (19.5 kilometers) from the vent, according to the USGS.”
If it takes about one million cubic meters to warm the oceans 1 K, then a single underwater volcano erupting like Mauna Loa did in 2022, would produce over 2k of ocean warming in fourteen days. There are about thirty active land volcanoes on any given day of the year.
The submarine volcanoes at mid-ocean ridges alone are estimated to account for 75% of the magma output on Earth.”
Seems to indicate a lot of ocean heating is going on.
It takes ~1million cubic KILOmeter for that 1K warming 😉
So the 230 million m^3 although impressive is just 0,23 km^3 towards the mentioned 1 million. The total heat capacity of the oceans is incredible.
Largest eruption I’m aware of is the Ontong-Java event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontong_Java_Plateau
Total ~80 million km^3, with yearly rates up to ~22 km^3.
At the end of the event the deep ocean temperatures were 15-18K warmer than today. We have on average been cooling down since then.
Ah, apologies. Completely missed the ‘k’. Still have to wonder how much the total heat is from all the submarine geothermal heat sources. There’s just so much of the ocean floor for which we have no data. Not enough to be responsible for the total sst rise, but maybe sufficient to produce El Ninos?
It takes ~200 km^3 magma each year to match the continuous geothermal flux through the ocean floor. Don’t see this happening.
The flux plus all erupting magma are not capable of maintaining the deep ocean temperature.
Actually since the peak temperatures some 85 million years ago the deep oceans have cooled to their present low temperatures, which kept us in the current ice age for the last 30+ million years.
It takes very large eruptions like the Ontong-Java one to get us out of the current ice age.
El Ninos can well be explained by wind driving warm surface waters to the west Pacific, and the subsequent back flow when the winds drop.
You must then know the critical answers to my questions here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Interesting, yet that is the issue with geological time scales, they are not fine relative to energy residence time of more minor changes in flux.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
For comparison, it takes about 100 Mauna Loa’s every year to match the ~22km^3 flow of the Ontong-Java event, and that for millions of years.
Ben, we are missing critical information to quantify the OHC from geothermal…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
I’m still waiting on some background information on your claim that there was an increase in the monitoring stations. How many were added? How long did the installations take? Where were they placed? Were they standard seismographs, or high-sensitivity?
Besides thermal vents, which logic says is pretty small, and ongoing forever (thus not contributing to ‘warming’), there are also underwater volcanos AND seafloor spreading as in the mid-atlantic ridge that passes through Iceland. There are several places where the seafloor is spreading, just as there are subduction zones where plates override other plates. Seafloor speading exposes the ocean to the heat of the interior of the earth along the splits.
But, as we know, heat rises, so the ability to detect heat changes not at the bottom or the top, but in the mid-range would be needed to know if there is any change from rising heat. As an ex-submariner, I know about the layers, etc, but this would probably have to be below any thermal layers, say, a few thousand feet where it is isothermal.
Recently, I read of several newly discovered underwater volcanoes around Antartica which some are suggesting can affect ice thickness. There is a lot we don’t know, but logic can lead us to find answers.
But, considering that the sun is shining on earth, and its 70% water coverage at all times, I think the underwater heat sources would be easily swamped by the sun itself.
The geothermal flux effect on ocean warming is probably non-negligible… However, it’s not currently significant. Could it have been significant or even a dominant factor in the Mid-Miocene and/or Paleogene? Maybe… Because CO2 clearly wasn’t the driving factor back then, or today.
What’s your basis for this claim, given the above article? Where do you get the “probably” from?
Me: “probably non-negligible”
Dr. Roy: “That is an exceedingly small number, about 1/4,000th of the 1 W m-2 estimated energy imbalance from Argo float measurements of (very weak) ocean warming over the last 20 years or so. Even if the estimate is off by a factor of 100, the resulting heat flux is still 1/40th of global ocean heating rate.”
Do I need to provide a definition of “probably” or “non-negligible”?
If you think that “an exceedingly small number” is ‘non-negligible’ then your and my understanding of that term differs.
I don’t know why you chose to say ‘an exceedingly small number’ was ‘probably non-negligible’; that’s for you to explain.
If you know the difference between none, one, a few and many then you know the difference between zero, one, non-negligible and significant. If you don’t then you probably need to educate yourself.
Dr Spencer’s entire article above completely dismisses, I would even say ridicules, the commonly-stated belief here among posters at WUWT, suggesting that the observed increases in ocean heat content and sea surface temperature can mostly be attributed to warming from ocean vents, or mysterious under-sea volcanoes.
He makes it clear that their impact is utterly negligible on ocean heating, even if you allow for an error margin by a factor of 100!
It is ‘negligible’ – at best. And that’s on the warming, not on the observed increase in warming.
So to suggest, given the content of this article, that the miniscule impact of these vents on ocean warming is somehow ‘non-negligible’ flies in the face of the very point Dr Spencer so plainly makes.
No, he only looked at small relatively shallow “smokers”.
Did NOT look at the huge number of deep sea volcanoes and huge lava vents.
Yes, small vents will have not much impact.
But FAR MORE than CO2 is capable of.. which is nada, zip.. nothing..
Again, Roy is discussing hydrothermal fields and ignores the much more abundant seamounts.
You sure say a lot of words but say nothing anyone can discover that you said anything of substance.
Do you eat a lot of Pretzels?
Not negligible is the heating from the extremely active seismic and venting and volcanic area near Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Island, with at least 4 plates subducting each other.
It affects LOCAL areas of the Pacific which upset normal weather patterns, as happens during weak to very strong El Niños
Looking at other, benign venting areas, and making declarations is disingenuous
The posts below bring up many flaws to your assertion, and this comment brings up more. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Please educate yourself…
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/85577
David, do I misunderstand, or do the statements, “… demonstrate that the geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the solid Earth into the ocean plays a non-negligible role in determining both abyssal stratification and circulation strength,” and “The enhanced circulation ventilates the GHF derived heating to shallow depths, primarily in the Southern Ocean.” weaken your position?
This was my position before Final Nail started quoting me out of context…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3858213
Model BS
No data presented oin the comment
No number to define changes in ocean surface temperature
Irrelevant for this article.
“Model BS”
WOW. Dickie finally comes up a heading for Chapter 5 of his autobiography !
Yes, dickie, basically everything you say is a great model for “complete BS”.
David, that may be correct, but without answering these questions, we simply do not know…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
This is going to upset the El Nino Volcano Nutters who may become very depressed.
When I say there is no evidence the heat release from underseas volcanos could even be measured at the ocean’s surface, i get insults and character attacks.
I have frequently upset El Nino Volcano Nutters with the correct claim that data for annual average global underseas heat releases do not exist. So we have no idea if global average underseas heat releases are in a rising, falling or steady trend. And then I get the usual Bronx cheers from the peanut gallery of CO2 Does Nothing Nutters here.
Incorrect. When you state your opinion with zero facts to back it up you get asked for proof which usually provokes insults and character attacks from you. If you had backed up your opinion with any proof whatsoever then it might have been a different matter entirely. Moral of the story – prove your claims and opinions, don’t just lob insults like ‘bronx cheers’ ‘peanut gallery’ or ‘nutters’.
When people make volcano claims here I say they have no data to make those claims.
They NEVER respond with data in an attempt to refute my true statement because such data do not exist.
I challenge the El Nino Volcano Nutters and all they have is insults, which is exactly what is expected from Nutters. They are used to this comment section being an echo chamber safety zone, and I don’t go for that.At least until I get banned from this website for Nutter identification.
Science requires data
Not data free theories.
“Science requires data…”
We are still waiting.
No evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
Talk about a DATA-FREE zone !!
Seems all you have is a DATA-FREE baseless conjecture.
You truly are identifying YOURSELF as a complete AGW NUTTER.
And the low-IQ dickie-brigade STILL can’t produce evidence.
… only red thumbs
“They NEVER respond with data”
Dickie must live in a house full of mirrors…
… just for preening himself.
Still waiting for evidence of CO2 atmospheric warming, little-dickie !
When I ask for evidence of CO2 warming…
…. I get nothing but mindless dickie-bot rants and calls to faked consensus.
Only “nutter” here is dickie-bot, and all he can muster as evidence is a Bronx cheer.
Dickie-bot still heats his water from above using dry-ice !!
99.9% of published peer reviewed climate science studies support AGW. Have someone read a few papers to you.
You might learn something, ALTHOUGH I DOUBT IT.
Poor dickie.
In the TOTAL ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE..
He still relies on a totally fake consensus.
watch out for the “S” bend dickie. !
Thanks for proving me correct, YET AGAIN..
.. by NOT producing any scientific evidence.
Doing a great job.
Great to know I can count on you. 😉
Wow, spend some time on the thousands of skeptical papers. That you say such nonsense is to discredit your self and show critical failure to understand science on a most basic level.
We need a proxy for underseas vent and volcano heat releases. Too difficult to measure.
I suggest the Michael Mann tree rings used to create his famous hockey puck chart, which elevate him to become the best scientist in the world today. Just ask him.
Perhaps you can find a low-IQ 10-year-old to act as a proxy for your brain.
Would be a vast improvement.
Your insults have deteriorated to a third grade level. Your IQ is declining several points a day. You will soon be a vegetable. Probably an eggplant
Poor dickie.. such a loser. !!
Still looking for a proxy brain. !!
“Your IQ is declining several points a day”
Yours can’t do that…. not without going into negative territory.
You have none to lose. !!
What about the contribution of the sea floor to heating the oceans? The earth’s crust is not a perfect insulator so the vents and volcanoes are dramatic examples of heat being added but the entire ocean floor must add some amount, no?
Much is not quantified, and yes the earths crust is considerably thinner under the oceans, and any overall change in said flus is not known, or currently knowable. There is even some heat from decaying maringe life settled on the ocean floor. Other then small insect and bird life, the surface has most all life on the surface, wheras marine life is far more three demensional, and there are vast quantities of decaying marine life on the ocean floors.
What heat the marine compost generates is simply a curious question, with likely little change in flux relatice to energy residence time, so very little likely effect. However, consider this… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
Viterito…
“ there is a 95% probability that global temperatures in 2019 will decline by 0.47°C ± 0.21°C from their 2016 peak. “
And they did. !
AGW cultists can only wish to get a prediction correct !!
oh dear.. red thumb doesn’t like facts… is that dickie or fungal, I wonder
Or are they one and the same, just with different fetishes.
dickie, fungal, and the simpleton
What a trio !!
Of one mind.. 1/3 each.
The El Nino ended, dimwit.
so it was dickie-bot.. can’t handle the fact that Viterito got his prediction 100% correct
Isn’t it you that keeps saying that El Ninos don’t cause warming.. ???
Poor dickie.. faceplants in his own BS yet again. !
This post is IMO important for those who unscientifically have tried to show via geothermal activity that CO2 has ‘no’ GHE. The ‘correct’ GHE answer is that it must have some, but is relatively insignificant and unalarming.
Some additional deep ocean information for WUWT readers. The deep ocean (below thermocline ~700 meters, comprising ~90% of seawater volume) is very consistently cold and salty (0-3C, ~3.8% salt by weight) for a very fundamental reason. Sea ice forms in the Arctic in NH winter, and in the Antarctic in NH summer. Sea ice is relatively fresh water, so during formation exudes brine. That causes the surrounding ocean to become ‘salt heavy’, which causes it to sink (at a near sea ice formation temperature of -1.8C) to the ocean floor. Below 700 meters, the deep ocean is remarkably salt constant and temperature constant for this reason—everywhere.
Against those powerful annual deep ocean refresh dynamics, any change in geothermal seafloor activity over, say, past fifty years is seismically below measurement rounding error.
What about the deep ocean currents moving heat over long periods of time? The Gulf Stream is not very deep but is famous for moving heat to the North Atlantic but there are currents all around the planet and at depths.
A reasonable question. I would add that Rud is describing a massive system holding immense energy relative to the atmosphere, and one where we currently have no real capacity to measure a change in. ( Say the mean depth of this entire mass below 700 meters changes by a foot ( or some such ) or by a fraction of a degree, we simply dont monitor any of this, or answer these critical questions…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/#comment-3860351
No one is saying that co2 has no GHE. What they/we ARE saying is that it has not been observed let alone measured. So to continuously bring up the notion that the ”correct” (whatever that means) answer is that it is relatively small is not only meaningless, it perpetually feeds the co2 warming twonks like Greene et al. At this stage, the human co2 warming hypothesis is nothing more than a mind fart. There is no point in being a luke warmer until someone comes up with something to show us.
“At this stage, the human co2 warming hypothesis is nothing more than a mind fart.”
You just had a brain fart
At least he still has a brain. !
Yours is as vacant as your evidence for CO2 warming… sort of a total vacuum.
More relevant, the heat content of the deep oceans is entirely of geothermal origin. Since their boiling hot creation the deep oceans have stabilized at the temperature where geothermal warming balances the cooling by sinking cold (and salty) water, in our times eg.AABW.
Comparable to the reason deep mines are so hot, while the geothermal flux through continental crust is only ~65 mW/m^2
Ocean surface temperature is the sum of the deep ocean temperature plus what the sun can add.
see image.
Given the deep ocean temp. of ~275K, sun adds on average ~13K to reach the observed avg. surface temp.
Geothermal warming is indeed not noticeable on human timescales.
The ~100 mW/m^2 flux through the ocean floor is capable of warming the avg. ocean column 1K every ~5000 year.
It takes ~1 million km^3 magma cooling down in the oceans to warm all ocean water 1K.
So to match the flux every year ~200 km^3 magma has to erupt into the deep oceans.
It should be clear that the sun is very well capable of increasing the temp. of the mixed surface layer a bit. No GHE needed to explain our surface temperatures.
The atmosphere does reduce the energy loss to space, so without atmosphere it would be colder on earth, but NO warming of the surface.
Yes, to any unthinking dill but anomalies and global averages are the stuff of scammers. It is much more likely to be due to reduced bottom up cooling than top down warming.
Have a look seasonally and actual temperature. The image does not even have any bar to explain what the colours mean.
I know the oceans are retaining more heat regionally. Specifically where summer evaporation is slowing sown bottom up cooling in the NH. This is very noticeable in the northern portion of the Indian Ocean where the 30C limit is maintained for almost 6 months.
The area of warm pools in the Northern Hemisphere in September is increeasing at 2.5% per decade. That means more open ocean surface in the NH is reaching the 30C surface temperature limit where rainfall exceeds evaporation. These zones always experience steepening thermocline. The September warm pools are expanding on the western side of the Pacific up to Japan and both sides of Mexico. In fact some of the Mediterranean is already reaching the 30C limit. The entire Gulf of Mexico is now hitting the 30C limit.
So we have a global increase in percipitation?
Yes – Impossible to heat ocean at 2000m depth in decades from the surface. Bottom up cooling is reducing predominantly in the NH so there is greater heat retention.
Oh well there goes another treasured theory/hope of mine. Looks like it’s the Sun wot did it, again.
Dr Roy has limited his thoughts here to hydrothermal vents. If we move thoughts sideways, there is the granite problem.
Granite is a major rock type. The largest surface expression of a granite batholith is in Saskatchewan, some 900 km long. It is an old one. The youngest reported granite is in Japan, some 0.8 million years old. Most geologists consider that basalts move into place on formation by the displacement of older rocks. There does not seem evidence of a granite forming at the present time. Also, most granites have been mapped intruding into continental rocks, not seafloor rocks. Most geologists believe that granites were once molten, at temperatures around 1,000 deg C, which implies a heat source large enough to have a dramatic effect on earth surface temperatures, if their heat made contact with materials close to the surface. Many are cold and at the surface now, which implies a large depth of erosion to reveal them.
The genesis of granites is a classic example of unsettled science. There is a text book that lists many reasons why granite formation involves colloidal fluid processes rather than melting, but it has got the cold shoulder treatment from the wiser establishment set.
J.N. Elliston, “The Origin of Rocks and Mineral Deposits”, Connor Court Publishing, Australia. (Disclosure – I get a mention in it. John died 2 years ago.)
…….
It is entirely likely that hot rocks contribute to the temperature of both the oceans and the air at times. It is probable that major events like the emplacement of a new large granite batholith happen only now and then. Much current global warming research concentrates on deviations from a former temperature. The assumptions made about former temperatures are many and varied, even going to hockey sticks made from trees.
If you believe that a granite event will never again affect global warming, you might be right but history and probability are not on your side.
Geoff S Geochemist
You may be aware of the Ontong-Java event, ~80 million km^3 magma erupting into the deep oceans. Small wonder the deep oceans were 15-20 K warmer than today at the end of the event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontong_Java_Plateau
Cool Post!!
It is estimated that there are more than a million submarine volcanos in the world and as many as 75,000 rise above 1/2mile. It is estimated there are 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean.
Some would assume that whatever variation there is in global volcanism is the variation in submarine geothermal heating.
Geothermal vents seem like a good proxy for measuring submarine geothermal heating and maybe even it’s variation.
Yet it is quite possible that ambient geothermal heating through the sea floor crust dwarfs geothermal vent heating by a huge magnitude. No way to measure directly so no one knows. So vents are the only proxy measurement we have because the GRACE and GOCE programs are long defunct and there has been nothing to replace them since 2013 and 2017
I grew up in Hawaii, at Pearl. The Island itself, without known geothermal venting ambiently heated the ocean for miles around it. I have seen GRACE Satellite studies demonstrating the plumes of heat flowing from the island via sea current.
The Grace and GOCE Satellites (both defunct) were sent up to study sea level using gravitational variance and other tools and metrics. Increased crustal mass (density and mountains) and magmatic mass under the crust increase gravity in those regions…creating gravitational anomalies. What they found was gravity and heat and the lack of heat and -gravitational anomalies were a significant variable in sea levels both global and regional.
+ Gravitational anomalies under the ocean seemed to correlate with sea surface anomalies even in volcanically quiet areas. Unfortunately, my information is old and a bit rusty… both GRACE and GOCE are defunct
Many on WUWT have speculated that solar variance is linked to global volcanism even gravitational variance….(increased Cosmic radiation entering the mantle, Weak Solar App may allow for more focused subcrustal magnetic vortexes increasing magma pressure in the crust etc).
Tonga… 2009 (SM 23rd), 2014, 2021 (SM-24th) Tonga sits in the middle of a very high concentration of submarine volcanos… probably the highest in the world. During the 2009 eruption there was a very strong sea surface heat anomaly that moved across the Pacific into the northern edge of the Antarctica Pacific ice shelf. A year or two later there was a huge cry that global warming was melting the Antarctica ice cap.
Regional geothermal vent and ambient ocean heating variables are clearly a relevant issue keeping the climate changers honest.
Too bad the GRACE defunct 2017 and GOCE defunct 2013, are defunct, they may very well be excellent tools for studying regional geothermal ocean heating.
Just within the last month or two, at Nature.com I think, I read an article about an estimated 100,000 ocean floor volcanos – most of them un-charted. Most of those volcanos are dormant, but the active volcanos certainly pump exponentially more heat into the ocean than smoker vents do.
Also, one more ocean heat issue I have never understood. The average depth of the great oceans is about 10,000 feet, or 2 miles. South Africa has several mines that are 10,000 feet below the land surface. The natural temperature, at max depth, in those mines, is 150 degrees F.
Why is the sea floor temperature, at 10,000 feet below sea level, not 150 degrees F?
Why does your car have a radiator filled with water? It has to do with the specific heat capacity of water.
Continental crust is more or less fixed, so the heat flow from Earths interior to the surface is uninterrupted, giving a nice (more or less) steady gradient.
Water warmed at the ocean floor will become less dense and can rise to the depth with matching density. Once it leaves the ocean floor it will not receive heat any more from the floor.
There are two issues. First is an increase in ocean heat content due to smokers. I agree with Dr. Spencer, you’d have to have an overall increase in activity to observe warming, which is highly unlikely.
Second is LOCALIZED anomalies due to underwater volcanoes, such as areas around Antarctica. Clearly a large area of melted ice surrounded by thick sea ice is not due to globull warming.
Yet there are many historic changes in geothermal heat flow.
Some years ago, when there was concern that the Arctic might be ice-free in the near future, the nations that border the Arctic (Russia, Canada, Norway, the USA, and Denmark, which owns Greenland) sent submarines into the Arctic to explore for mineral deposits in the Arctic, and discovered some underwater hydrothermal vents.
Did the people who did the temperature study cited in the article do any sampling in the Arctic? The Arctic Ocean has a much smaller area and volume than the Pacific or Atlantic oceans, but if it has a high concentration of hydrothermal vents, some of the ice could be melted from below.
There have also been reports of underwater volcanos near Antarctica, which could be melting sea ice near them.