The story so far: the scientifically and climatically inept Dr Jarrod Gilbert pontificated hysterically that it should be a crime merely to discuss ambiguities in the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW), taking the view that only “those who deny climate change” cause doubt. He says reasonable doubt doesn’t exist, which of course is flagrant nonsense—just as no sceptics deny that climate change exists.
Dr Chris de Freitas responded, rebuking the academic for wanting to silence his critics by trampling on free speech—make it an actual crime? De Freitas pointed out: “Four billion years of global climate history shows that negative feedbacks prevail.” Earth has never experienced unbridled warming or cooling. It’s called “runaway warming” for good reason—because it would only happen once.
Renwick is “puzzled” there’s nothing to worry about.
Then Dr James Renwick sent a letter to the Herald that accuses de Freitas of “misinforming people to downplay the risks they face”, blatantly ignores the fact that runaway warming can only occur once and wonders how de Freitas can see nothing to worry about.
My post, Renwick weak in climate quarrel, then attacked the four points Renwick put forward as “evidence” that we need to worry about climate change.
So Simon jumped in to attack my comments and, although he came up with a few good points, he makes mistakes. Others have given good and interesting responses, but here is my tuppence-worth. He says:
If the long-term rate of sea level rise is around 1.8 mm/yr and the current rate is over 3 mm/yr then there probably has been acceleration 🙂
All right, he gives us a little smiley face here, to show he’s tongue-in-cheek, for the simplicity of the logic. Nice. But the two figures come from different instruments, so there’s no acceleration (sorry). Tide gauges report about 1.8 mm/yr and the satellite altimeters about 3.2 mm/yr. Nobody knows why, but in the middle of the ocean, where only the satellite altimeters operate, sea level is rising faster. Along the coast where people live it’s been half that for about 140 years. Neither series shows recent acceleration and you can’t logically join them.
There is no reason why sea level rise or ice melt should be linear, evidence suggests it is not.
Actually, evidence says it is linear, but why do you think it’s important?
If you do a test on the full range of UAH data you will find a statistically significant rise.
The rise is greater on the Earth’s surface, where we all live.
Even if you provide evidence for that, I don’t believe you’ll give us reason to worry.
Greenhouse warming from increased water vapour is an observable positive feedback.
This has taken most of my time to investigate. First, it’s a theoretical feedback, from climate models. But, although the evidence is mixed, atmospheric water vapour has not been seen to rise, but to fall. In any case, as global mean surface temperature has not risen significantly, if atmospheric water vapour rose, temperature increase could not have been responsible.
Extremely likely means > 95% probability in general statistics and AR5, not ‘it’s possible’.
Yes, but a probability means it’s possible, but it is not certain. The probability of an apple falling to the ground after I drop it is 100%, not 95%. Extremely likely it may be, but that means, by definition, that it’s uncertain. So the point is that if they’re not prepared to say it’s certain, it’s not evidence and they can keep their filthy hands off our electricity bills.
Climate models are constantly being validated and refined.
That would be nice. So why are they so wrong?
Views: 200
‘Jupiter’s Giant Red Spot is red hot & explained by the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect ‘
THS, July 29, 2016
A new paper published in Nature finds Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is red hot at about 2,420°F or 1,330°C (i.e. almost hot enough to melt steel at 1425°C) and that this observation,
“could solve the mystery of the unusually high temperatures observed throughout Jupiter’s upper atmosphere, which can’t be explained by solar heating alone. [nor by a radiative greenhouse effect]”
[…]
In other words, the very hot atmospheric temperatures on Jupiter cannot be due to an Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect. The atmosphere of Jupiter is mostly comprised of the non-greenhouse gases hydrogen and helium, but does contain small amounts of the IR-active ‘greenhouse’ gas water vapor. However, the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal greenhouse effect perfectly explains the observed atmospheric temperature profile of Jupiter, making Jupiter the ninth planet in our solar system to follow the simple Poisson relationship of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure to temperature. The Poisson relationship was demonstrated in another recent paper:
[…]
and once again demonstrates that the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) theory is a myth, that atmospheric temperatures are controlled by mass/gravity/pressure and are independent of greenhouse gas concentrations on any of these 9 planets with atmospheres, including Earth. Adding additional CO2 plant food to the atmosphere will undoubtedly green the Earth, but Earth’s climate sensitivity to CO2 is effectively zero.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2016/07/jupiters-giant-red-spot-is-red-hot.html
# # #
Something for James Renwick, Jarrod Gilbert, Simon, and the IPCC to ignore.
>”Something for James Renwick, Jarrod Gilbert, Simon, and the IPCC to ignore.”
And Lukewarmers like Dr Roy Spencer:
The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?
July 30th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
Spencer:
Complete nonsense from Spencer. The “no-greenhouse effect people”, including his ex-employer NASA, have done exactly that. It was done by the US Air Force Labs in 1963 fot the space race. The validated standard atmosphere temperature profile was published long before the “greenhouse” effect gained prominence. It neglects IR absorption and emission gasses like CO2 (insignificant trace gasses) and any “greenhouse” effect.
And upthread “Jupiter’s Giant Red Spot is red hot & explained by the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect” – NOT by a radiative greenhouse effect because “the atmosphere of Jupiter is mostly comprised of the non-greenhouse gases hydrogen and helium, but does contain small amounts of the IR-active ‘greenhouse’ gas water vapor”.
Roy Spencer is challenging “the no-greenhouse effect people” to do what has already been done for earth 53 years ago and 8 other planets in the solar system since.
Roy Spencer is completely out of touch on this.
Spencer:
Well Dr Spencer, here it is, the 1976 Revision:
US Standard Atmosphere Model
“The entire 241 page 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document and database (which still remains the gold standard today and has not changed despite 39 years of greenhouse gas emissions) is posted below. It is an absolute goldmine of detailed information on the physical derivation of the standard atmospheric model and confirmatory observations. It thus provides overwhelming physical proof and overwhelming observational evidence that the Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C “greenhouse effect” is correct, and would necessarily falsify any significant “radiative forcing from greenhouse gases” affecting the lapse rates or various atmospheric temperature gradients, and thus as well negate the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Only one of these two competing greenhouse theories can account for the 33C greenhouse effect, since if both were true, the Earth would be an additional 33C warmer than present.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html
“Hand waving arguments” since 1976? I don’t think so.
You lose Dr Spencer.
Spencer:
Simply because TRANSFER is passive.
And Jupiter (see above) has minimal IR absorbing/emitting gasses (just WV) i.e. no radiative greenhouse effect. Temperature there is explained by gravito-thermal greenhouse effect. This goes for 9 planets including earth.
If you are genuinely interested in the validation and refinement in climate models then a new blog post today from Victor Venema is worth reading: http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.nz/
The main issue is not that the models are ‘wrong’ but whether they sufficiently explore the full range of short-term chaotic behaviour that can occur. The key paragraph for those who don’t want to delve too deeply is:
‘Due to tuning models that have a low climate sensitivity tend to have stronger forcings over the last century and model with a high climate sensitivity a weaker forcing. The forcing due to greenhouse gasses does not vary much, that part is easy. The forcings due to small particles in the air (aerosols) that like CO2 stem from the burning of fossil fuels and are quite uncertain and Kiehl (2007) showed that high sensitivity models tend to have more cooling due to aerosols. For a more nuanced updated story see Knutti et al. (2008) and Forster et al. (2013).’
None of this is relevant if you don’t actually believe there is a greenhouse effect 😉
Simon
>”None of this is relevant if you don’t actually believe there is a greenhouse effect”
Belief? Why “believe” in a redundant propossition?
The earth’s temperature profile from surface to TOA was fully explained back in 1963 – 1976 WITHOUT a [radiative] greenhouse effect.
I challenge you Simon, to produce a validated surface to TOA temperature profile calculated using radiative greenhouse theory.
Simon
[Venema] >”The forcing due to greenhouse gasses does not vary much, that part is easy”
The THEORY is easy. Unfortunately application of the theory to the critical criteria is impossible. The observed earth’senergy balance is only +0.6 W.m-2 (IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2). But theoretical GHG forcing is far more than that:
0.6 W.m-2 Actual 2000 – 2010 trendless
1.83 W.m-2 CO2 theoretical AR5 (1.9 W.m-2 2015 @ 400ppm) increasing
2.33 W.m-2 Total ERF including solar AR5
Theory is 4 times actual
There has been NO warming of any kind attributable to “Greenhouse” gasses. Theoretical GHG forcing is totally ineffective. Murphy et al (2009) and Nordell & Gervet (2009) and the earth’s energy budget together demonstrate this.”
That’s all covrered here
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/07/pontificating-piffle-on-climate/#comment-1502732:
And here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/07/pontificating-piffle-on-climate/#comment-1503105
There is no surface heating agent apart from solar:
Earth’s Energy Budget IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
Besides,
Epic Failure of the Canadian Climate Model – October 24, 2013
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/epic-failure-of-the-canadian-climate-model/
CanESM2: Summary of Trend Errors
The table below summarizes the model trend to observation trend ratios. Model Trend to Observations Ratios (1979 to 2012)
Location/Altitude, Model/Satellite, Model/Balloon, Model/Surface
Global Surface 254% 209% 220%
Global 400 mb 650% 315%
Tropics Surface 304% 364% 249%
Tropics 400 mb 690% 467%
Tropics 300 mb Blank 486%
South Surface 3550% -474%
The table shows that the largest discrepancies between the model and observations are in the tropical mid-troposphere. The model error increases with altitude and is greatest at the 300 mbar pressure lever at about 9 km altitude. The ratio of the modeled tropical mid-troposphere 300 mbar warming rate to the surface warming rate is 200%, and is a fingerprint of the theoretical water vapor feedback. This enhanced warming rate over the tropics, named the “hot spot”, is responsible for 2/3 of the warming in the models. The fact that the observations show no tropical mid-troposphere hot spot means that there is no positive water vapor feedback, so the projected warming rates are grossly exaggerated.
Model results with large history match errors should not be used for formulating public policy. A model without a good history match is useless and there can be no confidence in its projections. The lack of a history match in the Canadian model output shows that the modeling team have ignored a fundamental requirement of computer modeling.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/epic-failure-of-the-canadian-climate-model/
Venema:
Heh – “hopefully”. Jeff Patterson is way ahead of them on this.
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 9 expressly admits natural variability is neglected in the models. That’s one of the reasons they offer as to why the models are not modeling 21st century surface temperature. 2100 predictions are of no account until they get natural variability incorporated.
The UKMO’s annual “decadal” 5 yr forecasts are hopelessly wrong every year except when they caught a break with the latest El Nino.
But by the end of this year their Dec 2015 prediction will be wrong as usual.
RT
>”Tide gauges report about 1.8 mm/yr and the satellite altimeters about 3.2 mm/yr. Nobody knows why, but in the middle of the ocean, where only the satellite altimeters operate, sea level is rising faster.”
Not in the middle of the Pacific ocean it isn’t:
Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?
H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024/meta
Figure 1. (a) Observed altimetry based sea level spatial trend pattern and (b) IPO contributed sea level spatial trend pattern (uniform global mean has been removed) in the Pacific Ocean over 1993–2013. Stippling indicates regions of non-significant trend (p-value > 0.05).
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/8/084024/downloadHRFigure/figure/erl518509f1
ALL of the blue area in Figure 1 right smack in the middle of the ocean is sea level FALL.
Satellite sea level rise is largelyconfined to the Indo=Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) north of Australia.
Thanks RC. So over 20 years, there’s a small area of sea level fall surrounded by quite a large more-or-less static area. Not that it probably matters much until they find signs of a human hand in the rising or the falling.
‘AGW Theory: Back Radiation Insignificant for Surface Temperature’
by Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. Materials physicist and owner of a materials analysis laboratory
27 March 2014 updated through to 27 June 2014.
[…]
How Much Down-Welling Radiation is Absorbed by the Surface?
[…]
Consider the surface of the Earth for a moment. The density of atoms per cubic meter in the surface is about 1 gram per cubic centimeter for the water that covers about 71% of the Earth’s surface and even greater for land materials or if considering the salts in the oceans. Expressed as a density per cubic meter of water, this is 1000 kg per cubic meter. A cubic meter of water has 3.34 x 10^28 molecules. Infra-red emission and absorption in a surface occurs mostly in the outer 2 micrometers of the surface. Consequently, there are about 6.7 x 10^22 water molecules emitting infra-red at most from the surface. These are the same surface molecules that absorb any incident infra-red radiation on the water surface.
The density of the atmosphere near the surface at sea level is 1.225 kg per cubic meter in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere at 288.15K. The number of molecules per cubic meter at sea level in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere is 2.55 x 10^25/m3. The important infra-red active gas near the surface is water vapor and its density per cubic meter is commonly between 10 g/kg to 14 g/kg of air as shown in Fig. 7. below. At a specific humidity of 12 g/kg, the number of water molecules/m3 of air is about 4.9 x 10^23. Therefore, there are more water molecules in the first cubic meter of air above 1 m2 of water surface emitter or absorber molecules by a factor of 7.3. This should mean that radiation that can be absorbed by water vapor will be absorbed in the first meter of air above the surface at a humidity near the Earth average humidity.
Fig. 7. The average specific humidity of air is shown as a function of latitude. The specific humidity is the weight of water in grams in one kilogram of air.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NOAYYjQ0Odc/U648gWItBvI/AAAAAAAABnA/6I_GiTOJI3g/s1600/Humidity+Specific+Average+g+per+kg+of+air.png
In comparison, at the current 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, there are 1.0 x 10^22 molecules of CO2 /m3. There are 49 water vapor molecules for every carbon dioxide molecule at a specific humidity of 12 g.kg. In addition, the emissivity of CO2 molecules is less than 40% that of water vapor molecules. Many of the carbon dioxide molecule absorption peaks are largely or mostly already absorbed by overlapping water vapor absorption lines, so the effect of CO2 near the surface is very minimal compared to that of water vapor. This is less true at altitudes above 4 km when water vapor is very low, but carbon dioxide maintains a proportional mixing with nitrogen and oxygen. However, such altitudes have nothing to do with the back-radiation issue.
Returning to the back-radiation caused by water vapor, we find that the temperature difference over the 1 meter absorption range for the dry air of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere is only about 0.0065 K. For humid air, the temperature gradient is even less. So if the water surface and the water vapor in the first meter of air above the surface are treated as gray bodies, we have a power transfer from the surface to the water vapor in the atmosphere of PW
PW = σ (εs Ts4 – εa Ta4) ,
for the surface s and the atmosphere water vapor a and if we take the emissivities to be 0.95, this is equal to 0.033 W/m2.
However, water vapor does not absorb infra-red across the entire surface emission spectrum which has a black body radiation distribution with energy. It actually absorbs only about 65% of it. So the actual water vapor absorbed infra-red radiation is only about 0.021 W/m2. But because of the 6.9 x 10^9 collisions/s, most of this energy is transferred to non-radiating nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Only about 20% is re-radiated and half of that is radiated toward space. Consequently, the total back-radiation, PB, is about
PB = (0.2) (.5) (0.021 W/m2) = 0.002 W/m2
Thus, the absorbed back-radiation has an upper limit of about 0.0006% of the average solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere (342 W/m2 ) ! For all intents and purposes, the absorbed back-radiation is zero.
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/agw-theory-back-radiation-insignificant.html
# # #
>”the effect of CO2 near the surface is very minimal compared to that of water vapor”
Only 2% of DLR attributable to CO2, Wang & Liang (2009),
RT
>”So over 20 years, there’s a small area of sea level fall surrounded by quite a large more-or-less static area”
No RT. Look at the chart of the Pacific again:
Palanisamy et al (2015) Figure 1.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/8/084024/downloadHRFigure/figure/erl518509f1
If anything it is excatly opposite to what you are seeing. A very large area (maybe more than half of the Pacific) of sea level FALL surrounds a similar area of sea level rise.
The sea level FALL is statistically significant (stippled area), (-ve) 2 to (-ve) 4+ mm/year. So at the middle of the range (-ve 3mm/yr) over 20 years there has been 60mm (6cm) of FALL.
“Static” i.e. no rise or fall, is not an area. It is the boundary between rise (blue) and fall (yellow). You can easily trace that line around at the yellow/blue boundary.
There is not even a sea level rise signal in Pacific satellite data – let alone anthropogenic signal.
RT
[You] >”So over 20 years, there’s a small area of sea level fall surrounded by quite a large more-or-less static area”
[Me] >”If anything it is excatly opposite to what you are seeing. A very large area (maybe more than half of the Pacific) of sea level FALL surrounds a similar area of sea level rise.”
What I’m getting at is that you have to compare the area of fall including statisiically significant (blue+stippled) to the area of rise (yellow+red). The stippled area of fall is certainly not “a small area”, it is very large. The statistically insignificant area of fall is “a [very] large” area too.
Combined, the statistically significant plus insignificant area of fall is as large, if not, larger, than the area of rise of which the area of yellow corresponds to insignificant fall.
RC,
Couple of things. The paper notes: “Stippling indicates regions of non-significant trend (p-value > 0.05).” So whether blue or yellow doesn’t seem to matter, it means static. You note: “It is the boundary between rise (blue) and fall (yellow).” From the legend, yellow is rise and blue is fall. To save us having to reverse a couple of elements in your comments to understand them, you might be kind enough to rewrite them? I think I know what you’re getting at, but there’s nothing like hearing from the author.
RT
>”The paper notes: “Stippling indicates regions of non-significant trend (p-value > 0.05).”
OK, I missed the “non” part – my bad. Indicates that non-stippled areas are statistically significant then. That would be the areas of fall from 0 to (-ve) 2 mm/yr, all of the (-ve) 4+ mm/yr areas, and all of the rise areas.
>”So whether blue or yellow doesn’t seem to matter, it means static.”
No. As you’ve rightly pointed out, only the stippled areas are non-significant trend. So unstippled must be significant by default. Both yellow and light blue are unstippled therefore the respective areas must be either statistically significant rise or fall:
Statistically significant rise or fall either side of 0 mm/yr boundary line
0 to (+ve) 2 mm’yr rise, yellow area. 0 to (+ve) 40mm over 20 years. Mid range (+ve) 20mm
0 mm/yr boundary of rise or fall, a line
0 to (-ve) 2 mm/yr fall. light blue area. 0 to (-ve) 40mm over 20 years. Mid range (-ve) 20mm
Dark blue, (-ve) 4+ mm/yr areas, are unstippled therefore statistically significant fall by default.
80+mm fall over 20 years.
>”you might be kind enough to rewrite them?”
Corrected and combined as as above rather than rewrite.
I’m struggling to work out how they can say (-ve) 2 to (-ve) 4 mm/yr is mostly statistically insignificant but the areas of greater and lessor fall either side of that are significant. Doesn’t make sense to me. Might be clear in the paper. I better read agaim.
>”Might be clear in the paper. I better read again.”
Nothing on statistical significance but turns out that much of the paper is a regurgitation of a previous and far more instructive paper, Palanisamy et al (2015) in the introduction:
The Palanisamy et al 2015 paper referred to is this paper:
Spatial trend patterns in the Pacific Ocean sea level during the altimetry era: the contribution of thermocline depth change and internal climate variability
H. Palanisamy & A. Cazenave & T. Delcroix & B. Meyssignac (2015)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45669757/Spatial_trend_patterns_in_the_Pacific_Oc20160516-14827-1h2uzig.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1470299407&Signature=Tb9dXb%2B5KkMLhqmDAbk%2B9fbCzA8%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DSpatial_trend_patterns_in_the_Pacific_Oc.pdf
See,
Fig. 3 Longitude–depth distribution of the 20° N–5° N (a), 5° N–5° S (b), and 5° S–20° S (c) averaged temperature vertical gradient (color contours) over 1993–2012. The 20 °C isotherm mean [D20mean] position is represented as a solid black line in the figure. The white stripe in (c) corresponds to the continental surface
Fig. 5 Longitude–depth distribution of the 20° N–5° N (a), 5° N–5° S (b), and 5° S–20° S (c) averaged temperature trend pattern (color contours) over 1993–2012. The 20 °C isotherm mean [D20mean] position is represented as a solid black line in the figure. The white stripe in (c) corresponds to the continental surface
Sea level is rising in the Western Pacific because sea temperature is rising 0 – 550m depth.
Sea level is falling in the Eastern Pacific because sea temperature is falling 0 – 400m depth.
4 Analysis of sea level trend patterns in the tropical Pacific Ocean
4.2 Thermocline-attributed steric sea level spatial trend patterns
[D20mean is the 20 °C isotherm mean]
# # #
Just looking at surface sea level trends is a superficial exercise. It is the sea temperature trends below the surface that explain the surface sea level trends, both positive (rise) and negative (fall).
And there is obviously no human signal (or even a rise signal) in below surface sea temperature trends in Figure 5, therefore no human signal (or even a rise signal) in surface sea levels.
There can never be a human signal in Pacific sea level trends while there is below surface sea temperature cooling trends in the Eastern Pacific. Why they went looking in the subsequent paper is a mystery. It was a fools errand.
AVISO: Mean Sea Level product and image selection
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/mean-sea-level/products-images.html?typeFig=Serie&zones=NorthPac&satellite=ALL&corrIbWt=IB_RWT&seasonVar=&gia=No
Time Series graphs – Multi Mission (mm/yr)
Global
+2.90 GIA not applied
+3.20 GIA applied
North Hemisphere, North Pacific, North Atlantic
+2.68, +2.44, +2.72
South Hemisphere, South Pacific, South Atlantic
+3.07, +2.44, +2.98
Indian
+3.31
Note that although N Pacific and S Pacific are exactly the same (+2.44), the data profiles are very different. And in the South Pacific there was no rise at all 2003 -2011 but 2cm rise in the SH over the same period:
North Pacific +2.44
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_ALL_NorthPac_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
South Pacific +2.44
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_ALL_SouthPac_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
South Hemisphere +3.07
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_ALL_South_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
More useful would be for AVISO to provide West Pacific and East Pacific options. That is where the radical difference is, (+ve) vs (-ve).
But that would spoil the story.
Subsurface Equatorial Pacific Temperatures – JUNE 2016
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/CDB_Archive_html/bulletin_062016/Tropics/figt17.shtml
Subsurface Equatorial Pacific Temperatures – JUNE 2008
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/CDB_Archive_html/bulletin_062008/Tropics/figt17.shtml
Subsurface Equatorial Pacific Temperatures – JUNE 2000
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/CDB_Archive_html/bulletin_0600/figt17.gif
CPC Archive
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/CDB_Archive_html/CDB_archive.shtml
Select Year/Month > Tropics > Mean & Anomaly Fields > Subsurface Eq. Pacific Temp T17
120E is just east of Borneo. 80W is the South Americam coast. Pacific is only the middle section.
Global 0 – 2000m OHC is down considerably, North Pacific is up.
Graphs http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Basin data
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_tsl_data.html
Pacific 3-month 0 – 2000 meters (Apr-Jun) 10^22 Joules
YEAR PO NP SP
2005.375 11.039 15.070 7.735
2006.375 14.439 19.223 10.519 << Similar to 2016.375
2007.375 9.109 14.388 4.782
2008.375 12.022 17.200 7.777
2009.375 13.734 19.404 9.086
2010.375 10.937 15.404 7.275
2011.375 9.532 7.738 11.002
2012.375 13.284 16.522 10.630
2013.375 15.233 19.521 11.718
2014.375 16.989 14.648 18.907
2015.375 19.806 14.947 23.788
2016.375 14.109 19.071 10.041 << Similar to 2006.375
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month_sl/a-mm-p0-2000m4-6.dat
World 3-month 0 – 2000 meters all months 10^22 Joules
2014-6,19.914608
2014-9,18.526079
2014-12,21.123238
2015-3,23.416958
2015-6,22.368597
2015-9,21.546423
2015-12,22.271896
2016-3,22.931677
2016-6,19.944710 << Back where it was 2 years ago
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
# # #
Confounds anthropogenic attribution but Liu, Xie,and Lu manage it nonetheless:
'Tracking ocean heat uptake during the surface warming hiatus'
Wei Liu, Shang-Ping Xie, and Jian Lu (2016)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821003/
Discussion
They had to lever it in some how. Odd that human heat only enters the Atlantic and Southern Oceans though. And only at 700–1,500 m.
Figure 2 is worth a look (Global, Atlantic, Southern, Pacific and Indian Oceans):
Figure 2: Observed and simulated OHC. [1970 – 2012, 10^23 Joules]
OHC integrated from the surface to indicated depths in global oceans, the Atlantic, Southern Ocean, Pacific and Indian Ocean from the Ishii data (a,d,g,j,m) and the ensemble means of the CESM Hiatus (b,e,h,k,n) and Surge (c,f,i,l,o) groups. All the curves are shown as a 12-month running mean by subtracting the annual mean value of the first year (year 1970).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821003/figure/f2/
There is nothing in common in the 4 obs profiles: a Global, d Atlantic, g Southern, j Pacific, m Indian.
But you can see the human heat in d and g /Sarc.
Note that the anomaly is from start date 1970 – not as per the NODC data above.
Good to have this OHC basin breakdown, even if it is only to 2012.
Should be:
“There is nothing in common in the 4 obs profiles: d Atlantic, g Southern, j Pacific, m Indian.
But you can see the human heat in d and g /Sarc.”
The BS is flowing thick and fast now:
Climate scientists’ diagnosis of Earth: “Fever rises” – CBS/AP , WTSP August 03, 2016
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-scientists-diagnosis-of-earth-fever-rises/
[NOAA oceanographer Gregory C. Johnson], summed up Earth’s climate in a haiku, published deep inside the report:
So it’s haiku’s now. What next?
And here’s the bogus miss-attribution again, unsupported by actual thermodynamics in any scientific literature anywhere including the IPCC AR5 report. Only speculation:
This is as bogus as it gets. Oh no, wait there’s more:
Except now in 2016 OHC is down considerably (see comments just above). Global OHC is back where it was 2 years ago, Pacific OHC is back where it was 10 years ago.
>”NOAA highlighted one of the lesser-known measurements, ocean heat content [hotlink – see next comment]”
That’s this:
‘Man-made heat absorbed by oceans has doubled since 1997’ – AP/ January 18, 2016
WASHINGTON — The amount of man-made heat energy [hotlink to “Heat-trapping pollution from U.S. power plants” article] absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997, a study released Monday showed.
Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world’s oceans instead of the ground. And they’ve seen ocean heat content rise in recent years. But the new study, using ocean-observing data that goes back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s and including high-tech modern underwater monitors and computer models, tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years.
The world’s oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
To put that in perspective, if you exploded one atomic bomb the size of the one that dropped on Hiroshima every second for a year, the total energy released would be 2 zettajoules. So since 1997, Earth’s oceans have absorbed man-made heat energy equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for 75 straight years.
“The changes we’re talking about, they are really, really big numbers,” said study co-author Paul Durack, an oceanographer at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. “They are nonhuman numbers.”
Because there are decades when good data wasn’t available and computer simulations are involved, the overall figures are rough but still are reliable, the study’s authors said.
Most of the added heat has been trapped in the upper 2,300 feet, but with every year the deeper oceans also are absorbing more energy, they said. But the study’s authors and outside experts say it’s not the raw numbers that bother them. It’s how fast those numbers are increasing.
“After 2000 in particular the rate of change is really starting to ramp up,” Durack said. This means the amount of energy being trapped in Earth’s climate system as a whole is accelerating, the study’s lead author Peter Gleckler, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore, said.
Because the oceans are so vast and cold, the absorbed heat raises temperatures by only a few tenths of a degree, but the importance is the energy balance, Gleckler and his colleagues said. When oceans absorb all that heat it keeps the surface from getting even warmer from the heat-trapping gases spewed by the burning of coal, oil and gas, the scientists said.
The warmer the oceans get, the less heat they can absorb and the more heat stays in the air and on land surface, the study’s co-author, Chris Forest at Pennsylvania State University, said.
“These finding have potentially serious consequences for life in the oceans as well as for patterns of ocean circulation, storm tracks and storm intensity,” said Oregon State University marine sciences professor Jane Lubchenco, the former chief of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
One outside scientist, Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also has been looking at ocean heat content and he said his ongoing work shows the Gleckler team “significantly underestimates” how much heat the ocean has absorbed.
Jeff Severinghaus at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography praised the study, saying it “provides real, hard evidence that humans are dramatically heating the planet.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-made-heat-put-in-oceans-has-doubled-since-1997/
# # #
>Jeff Severinghaus at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography praised the study, saying it “provides real, hard evidence that humans are dramatically heating the planet.”
Actually, no it doesn’t. It is a miss-attribution.
In the earth’s surface energy budget cited by IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2, there is NO net “air-sea fluxes” as speculated in Chapter 10 Detection and Atribution:
Earth’s Energy Budget IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
Solar heating is the sole source of the ocean heat because it is the only net downwards flux. Ocean warming by GHGs is an impossiblity because there is no net GHG flux down and the Atm-Ocean (AO) radiation-matter physics prohibits it anyway. As does the calcs by Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D upthread.
This is a monumental scientific fraud.
>Jeff Severinghaus at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography praised the study, saying it “provides real, hard evidence that humans are dramatically heating the planet.”
There has been NO warming of any kind attributable to “Greenhouse” gasses. Theoretical GHG forcing is totally ineffective. Murphy et al (2009) and Nordell & Gervet (2009) and the earth’s energy budget together demonstrate this.”
That’s all covrered here
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/07/pontificating-piffle-on-climate/#comment-1502732:
And here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/07/pontificating-piffle-on-climate/#comment-1503105
There is no surface heating agent apart from solar:
Earth’s Energy Budget IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
>Jeff Severinghaus at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography praised the study, saying it “provides real, hard evidence that humans are dramatically heating the planet.”
But the primary, and critical, criteria for climate change (i.e. theory compared to fact) is totally ignored:
IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf
>”The world’s oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.”
WOW! Sounds humungous – 300 zettajoules 1865 to 2015, 150 since 1997.
Except that comes up far far short of theoretical GHG forcing PLUS solar forcing. 300 zettajoules is 300 x 10^21 Joules.
Murphy et al 2009 (see link upthread) estimate that of their 1700 x 10^21 Joules of theoretical TOA forcing for the much shorter period 1950 – 2004, only 10% (170 x 10^21 Joules) went to heating the earth’s surface i.e. 90% of theoretical forcing is ineffective as a surface heating agents. 100 of that 170 10% residual is solar forcing by their estimation.
Problem is: only solar radiation can actually heat the ocean. And there’s no net longwave down anyway.
Think about this:
1700 x 10^21 Joules of theoretical TOA forcing 1950 – 2004 (including solar)
170 x 10^21 Joules of theoretical TOA forcing 1950 – 2004 (including 100 solar) went to surface heating
150 x 10^21 joules of heat went to the ocean 1997 – 2015.
Even in this forcing paradigm solar is by far the greater surface heating agent.
And the earth’s surface energy budget precludes any other heating agent than solar anyway.
Doncha love this graphic?
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-08-at-10.29.51-777×437.png
[AP] >”The amount of man-made heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997, a study released Monday showed.”
Liu, Xie, and Lu (2016) Figure 2 makes a complete mockery of this attribution claim:
Liu, Xie, and Lu (2016) Figure 2: d Atlantic, g Southern, j Pacific, m Indian
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821003/figure/f2/
In respect to 1997.
d Atlantic: No effective change 0 – 700m. 700 – 1500m rose but fell after 2005
g Southern: 0 – 700m only rose minimally after 2010. 700 – 1500 rose considerably.
j Pacific: 2012 less than 1997.
m Indian: No change 1970 – 2005. Minimal rise 2005 – 2012.
That just leaves 2 man-made attribution possibilities that Liu et al snaffle with alacrity:
Atlantic: 700 – 1500m
Southern: 700 – 1500m
Atlantic is eliminated because OHC fell 2005 – 2012 i.e. impossible to attribute man-made heat storage.
So the only possible global man-made OHC attribution is to the Southern Ocean 700 – 1500m layer. In other words, all of the GHG-“trapped” heat from all over the world that went into the ocean, was somehow sucked into the 700 – 1500m layer of the Southern Ocean.
There can be no credibility attached to this attribution whatsoever.
Again, this is a monumental scientific fraud.
>”So the only possible global man-made OHC attribution is to the Southern Ocean 700 – 1500m layer. In other words, all of the GHG-“trapped” heat from all over the world that went into the ocean, was somehow sucked into the 700 – 1500m layer of the Southern Ocean. There can be no credibility attached to this attribution whatsoever.”
If vertical heat transport [GHG forcing] is to be invoked rather than horizontal heat transport, there is no evidence of this. Southern Ocean net flux is largely outgoing but where there is a downwelling flux it is SW solar:
‘New Approaches for Air-Sea Fluxes in the Southern Ocean’
Air-Sea Fluxes for the Southern Ocean: Strategies and Requirements for Detecting Physical and Biogeochemical Exchanges; Frascati, Italy, 21–23 September 2015 [Report]
https://eos.org/meeting-reports/new-approaches-for-air-sea-fluxes-in-the-southern-ocean
Fig. 1. Time-averaged net air-sea heat flux from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis Interim for 2008–2010; the colored field is measured in watts per square meter (W m−2). Blue indicates ocean heat loss to the atmosphere. Symbols show surface flux moorings: The large star is the Ocean Observatories Initiative mooring at 55°S, 90°W, and the large circle is the Southern Ocean Flux Station at 46.75°S, 142°E. Dots show available winter ship observations over all July months within an example 5-year period (2000–2004) with sufficient information (wind speed, air temperature and humidity, sea surface temperature) to estimate the latent heat flux (determined using reports in the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set, http://icoads.noaa.gov/). Note the sparseness of ship observations. Credit: Sarah Gille and Simon Josey
https://eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/time-averaged-net-air-sea-heat-flux-southern-ocean.png
Where there is a positive flux into the ocean 2008–2010, it is in the order of 100 W.m-2.
So what is the source?
Toward a Balanced Net Heat Flux at the Ocean Surface
Lisan Yu Woods Hole Oceanographic Ins?tu?on
With input from:
Xiangze Jin (WHOI)
Simon Josey (NOC, UK)
Eric Schultz (BoM, Australia)
Sachiko Yoshida (WHOI)
Paul Stackhouse (NASA)
Al Pluddemann (WHOI)
Bob Weller (WHOI)
NASA CERES Science Team MeeKng Newport News, Virginia, May 1‐3, 2012
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2012-05/18_YU-NASA-CERES-2012.pdf
Page 32 pdf,
(ii) What are Surface Air‐sea Fluxes in the Southern Ocean?
Page 34,
Flux observations from research ships – One example Feb 8 2011 – Mar 17 2011 [SH Summer/Autumn]
From above: Where there is a positive flux into the ocean 2008–2010, it is in the order of 100 W.m-2.
So what is the source?
It is perfectly obvious that Feb/Mar 2011 Qnet +50 W.m-2 is attributable to solar SW +150 W.m-2. There is no other net downward flux.
An anthropogenic attribution of “man-made heat” storage in the Southern Ocean is impossible)
Again (again), that attribution is a monumental scientific fraud.
‘New paper finds Southern Oceans are losing heat’
THS Monday, August 20, 2012
A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds from observations that the Southern Oceans show an annual net heat loss of -10 Wm-2. The paper is the first to study annual heat flux between the atmosphere and the Southern Oceans, a “key component of the global climate system: insulating the Antarctic polar region from the subtropics, transferring climate signals throughout the world’s oceans and forming the southern component of the global overturning circulation.” The finding contradicts warmist claims that the oceans are gaining ‘missing heat’ due to an increase in greenhouse gases.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/new-paper-finds-southern-oceans-are.html
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L16606, 8 PP., 2012 doi:10.1029/2012GL052290
First air-sea flux mooring measurements in the Southern Ocean
Schulz, Josey, and Verein (2012)
Full paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052290/full
E. W. Schulz
Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
S. A. Josey
National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, Southampton, UK
R. Verein
Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Abstract
The Southern Ocean is a key component of the global climate system: insulating the Antarctic polar region from the subtropics, transferring climate signals throughout the world’s oceans and forming the southern component of the global overturning circulation. However, the air-sea fluxes that drive these processes are severely under-observed due to the harsh and remote location. This paucity of reference observations has resulted in large uncertainties in ship-based, numerical weather prediction, satellite and derived flux products. Here, we report observations from the Southern Ocean Flux Station (SOFS); the first successful air-sea flux mooring deployment in this ocean. The mooring was deployed at 47°S, 142°E for March 2010 to March 2011 and returned measurements of near surface meteorological variables and radiative components of the heat exchange. These observations enable the first accurate quantification of the annual cycle of net air-sea heat exchange and wind stress from a Southern Ocean location. They reveal a high degree of variability in the net heat flux with extreme turbulent heat loss events, reaching −470 Wm−2 in the daily mean, associated with cold air flowing from higher southern latitudes. The observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm−2, with seasonal extrema of 139 Wm−2 in January and −79 Wm−2 in July. The novel observations made with the SOFS mooring provide a key point of reference for addressing the high level of uncertainty that currently exists in Southern Ocean air-sea flux datasets.
# # #
Souther Ocean observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm−2.
An anthropogenic attribution of “man-made heat” storage in the Southern Ocean is impossible.
Again (again, and again), that attribution is a monumental scientific fraud.
Schulz et al:
And,
Massive heat loss due to wind forcing (“reaching −470 Wm−2”) but nothing regarding a miniscule and ineffective GHG forcing. But apparently, in other accounts, the Southern Ocean is one of the main destinations of “man-made heat”.
Not just wind forcing either:
When there is sensible heat gain it is relatively minor.
Overall sensible and latent heat are both heat losses,
That just leaves radiation.
So the surface heat budget with all terms is:
+130 Wm−2 SW solar radiation
−76 Wm−2 LH
−19 Wm−2 SH
−45 Wm−2 LW Outgoing radiation
−10 Wm−2 Mean net heat flux (Loss)
The Southern Ocean at this location experiences a long-term net heat loss to the atmosphere. Over the full period, the daily mean net heat flux varies from a peak ocean heat loss of −360 Wm−2 to a gain of 267 Wm−2.
There is no “man made heat” entering the ocean in this budget. The heat is arriving via horizontal heat transport from solar heating elsewhere e.g. the tropics. It is then dissipated out from the surface at this location.
Any anthropogenic attribution of “man made” Southern Ocean “heating” is bogus.
Schulz, Josey, and Verein (2012)
3. Results
3.1. Air-Sea Exchanges
[10] Daily mean values for the wind stress, radiative and turbulent heat flux components and the net heat flux are shown in Figure 2 for the full deployment period: 17 March 2010 to 6 March 2011.
Figure 2.
Mean daily (lines) and monthly (circles) fluxes derived from SOFS 1-minute observations: (a) wind stress, (b) turbulent sensible (black) and latent (red) heat, (c) net long- (red) and short-wave (black) radiation, and (d) net heat flux. Periods when the turbulent heat flux (sum of latent and sensible) exceeds 200 Wm−2 are indicated by grey shading (in Figure 2b). Heat fluxes are positive for ocean heat gain. (e) The integrated energy gain (E) by the ocean from the atmosphere (black line, left axis). The corresponding temperature change calculated for a 90 m deep mixed layer is shown by the same black line according to the right axis scale. Also shown is the observed mean sea temperature over 160 m (red line, right axis scale).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2012GL052290/asset/image_n/grl29437-fig-0002.png?v=1&s=0ba2a3aac9bad79292e157094d9827fe12252622
3.2. Ocean Response
[14] The integrated net air-sea heat exchange, starting from a zero reference value at the beginning of the deployment, is shown inFigure 2e(left-hand axis). From March through to the beginning of October, the ocean loses heat to the atmosphere reaches a maximum integrated loss of 1.4 GJm−2. Subsequently, there is a net gain by the ocean during the austral summer months that offsets much of the heat previously lost such that the integrated net heat loss from the ocean is 0.3 GJm−2 over the deployment period. Also shown in Figure 2eis the change in the observed average sea temperature over the top 160 m relative to the start of the period
# # #
Figure 2 demonstrates how amazingly brainless the idea of “man made heat” storage in the Southern Ocean really is.
Should be:
“There is no “man made heat” entering the [Southern Ocean] in this budget. The [excess] heat [(10 Wm−2)] is arriving via horizontal heat transport from solar heating elsewhere e.g. the tropics. It is then dissipated out from the surface at this location.”
Surface Heat Budget Comparison:
Tropical Pacific (Fairall et al) vs Global (Stephens et al) vs Southern Ocean (Shulz et al).
Tropical Pacific, Global, Southern Ocean (Wm−2)
+191.5 ……. +165 ………. +130 …………… SW solar Radiation
-103.3 ……….. -88 …………. -76 ……………. Latent Heat
-7.7 …………… -24 …………. -19 ……………. Sensible Heat
-57.1 …………. -52.4 ………. -45 ……………. LW outgoing Radiation
+23.4 …………. +0.6 ………. -10 ……………. Mean net heat flux Q (Gain/Loss) W.m-2
The Pacific Ocean gains heat in the tropics and loses heat north and south in the high latitudes.
There is no heat gain in either tropical Pacific, or Global, or Southern Ocean from “man made heat”.