For years we’ve been fed the propaganda that only warming causes less ice (and oh, what a shame!) and now we learn that it causes more ice as well (and oh, what a shame!).
Whether the warmists predict more ice or less ice, it’s still all caused by warming. Amazing.
More ice is bad, it’s caused by our evil kind of warming and our punishment is to give all our toys to the poor people living near the sea. Or far from the sea, so long as they’re poor. The old ice that sinks the earth’s crust into the magma which requires thousands of years to rebound after melting is not evil ice. But this ice is evil. Nor was that old ice caused by warming. But our evil ice is.
Amazing. I’m almost speechless.
Story from Seth Borenstein at the AP, via the Herald, a few hours ago.
This subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising, they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.
Translation: we’ve had time to cook up some theories.
“A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising consequences.”
Of course.
The “scientific” description of how warming creates more ice is non-existent. This story is bunkum, yet the Herald gives it some antipodean mileage. Shame on them. Shame.
University of Colorado researcher Katherine Leonard, who is on board the ship with Maksym, says in an email that the Antarctic sea ice is also getting snowier because climate change has allowed the air to carry more moisture.
That makes no sense considering the absence of global warming this century.
Views: 496
Climate Depot’s take on it
Central Antarctica only gets the water equivalent of 50mm snow per year, making it a desert. Auckland gets about 1,240mm, for reference. The ice sheet here is about 4,000m thick (yes, that’s 4km!). 90% of the planet’s ice is bound up here.
Antarctica is normally well below zero, and it’s been cooling slightly over the last 50 years. So the increase in sea ice wasn’t caused by more snow arising from more water vapour due to a “warmer” atmosphere.
The warmists claim the Southern Ocean is warming up, so it should be melting the sea ice, no? After all, that’s apparently what’s happening in the Arctic.
So in the North, the warmer ocean causes less ice.
But in the South, apparently the same warmer water causes (insert rapid arm-movements here) more ice.
Who’da thunk it?
Antarctica’s climate is more complex than you imagine and there is still more to learn. http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/25-3_maksym.pdf
Well of course climate is more complex than we imagined.
However, everything can be explained by “global warming”. This is written in the scriptures according to the Prophets Mann and Hansen.
Behead those who mock the prophets Mann and Hansen!
By the way, this drivel by Sorenstein doesn’t really do ‘The Cause” any good. Most people can see it is male bovine excrement
Such a considered analysis, Andy; I can see that you are a well-practiced onanist and coprophiliac.
[Your word, Rob Taylor, to behave well is not to be trusted. Goodbye, you filthy man. – RT]
Our old mate Richard Christie cannot see the inherent contradiction in assigning opposing effects to the one cause. He says cleverly:
He’s happy to see warming as a cause both of melting and of freezing, though it’s illogical. The proper analogy is with a gearbox: the engine will go in any direction. But I can’t make it work — how could global warming behave as a gearbox? Anyone?
Comparing climate scientists with motor mechanics is unrealistic, since it attributes them with far more knowledge of their subject than they claim for themselves.
The issue is not whether CO2 can cause warming or cooling. It may be possible to come up with plausible hypotheses to explain these phenomena within the framework of CO2AGW
The issue is how does this fit in with what we call “the scientific method”?
The IPCC never claimed that CO2AGW would increase sea ice in Antarctica. They claim the exact opposite in fact (see my link to climate depot above)
When the likes of Borenstein try to shoehorn every phenomenon into their AGW-centric viewpoint, it is not science, it is religion.
A more honest viewpoint is to say “sure, there are lots of unusual and unknown parts of the climate system we are trying to learn about. We think CO2 and other human induced actions might have an effect, but we are not sure of the scale of those effects at this stage”
We rarely hear this point of view, which is unfortunate because I think more people would be likely to listen to them than to the zealots
>”When the likes of Borenstein try to shoehorn every phenomenon into their AGW-centric viewpoint”
Also ‘Tabloid Climatology’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/11/tabloid-climatology-may-be-the-real-reason-for-the-marcel-leroux-william-connolley-wikipedia-dustup/
And ‘Climate spin is rampant’ (Roger Pielke Jnr)
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21752735
Pielke Jnr’s article addresses the Munich Re findings.
Pielke Jr writes:
and then goes on to say
Which brings us nicely back to the subject of the post
Richard North picks up on this too
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83227
It’s me and the penguins….
Nuff said
Hey you guys,I have faith in these scientists,so I’m going to put my beer in the oven to get cold.Oh, and I have a leg of lamb in the fridge cooking nicely.Many years ago I served my time as a motor mechanic.(1962)and only today I learn that by draining all the coolant from the engine it will actually run cooler.All those years and study working with marine engines and making sure they were kept at their ideal operating temps.to find out that I should have let them run out of coolant,and they would have frozen in no time.Have a good night,Have to go check the cold/hot leg of lamb.Keep up the good work RT
Makes no sense according to whom, RT? Yourself, a scientific illiterate who cannot distinguish between heat and temperature?
NZCSC, who recently executed a massive public face-plant in the High Court?
Or the usual mishmash of failed meteorologists, fossil fuel geologists, aging loons and paid-for journalists bellowing on the internet?
http://hot-topic.co.nz/prat-watch-7-5-no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion/#comment-34808
Rob,
No global warming has occurred this century, so it has not allowed the air to carry more of anything for about 15 years.
RT, it only takes a few seconds to disprove this fatuous claim, given that the 2 warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010, and that, of the 12 warmest years on record, only one was in the 20th century (1998).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
Here are the figures – read them and weep!
20 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)
Year Global Land Ocean
2005 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896
2010 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885
1998 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090
2003 0.5832 0.7735 0.5108
2002 0.5762 0.8318 0.4798
2006 0.5623 0.8158 0.4669
2009 0.5591 0.7595 0.4848
2007 0.5509 0.9852 0.3900
2004 0.5441 0.7115 0.4819
2001 0.5188 0.7207 0.4419
2011 0.5124 0.8189 0.3970
2008 0.4842 0.7801 0.3745
And that’s just the atmospheric temperature anomaly; the upper ocean heat anomaly is even more striking:
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
So, will you withdraw this egregious falsehood and apologise to your readers, in line with your stated aims – or is that too much to expect?
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/about/
I think most of us can figure out the difference between a trend and absolute values.
Oh hang on, we have a paper submitted to Physics Letters that shows us that “global warming continues”, by those well-known
activistsclimate scientists Dana Nuccitelli, Rob Painting and John Cook.This article also introduces a new term for the lexicon: “pre-bunked”
There’s all sorts of fishhooks turning up re Josh Willis/OHC and Levitus et al 2012 that have the potential to blow up in the faces of Nuccitelli, Way, Painting and Cook. I don’t think they know what they’ve got themselves into.
Examples:-
A) Josh Willis has been discarding ARGO floats that are “impossibly cold” (too cold compared to models) without actually retrieving the floats and checking the calibration. See Willis testimony ‘Correcting Ocean Cooling’:-
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
That was for the last round of OHC update. If it turns out that in the current round even more floats are returning data that’s “impossibly cold” what’s he going to do? Toss them out too? Or do some calibration tests on the offending floats? If calibration tests found the floats where in-spec, wouldn’t he have to reinstate what he had discarded previously?
B) David Stockwell had an April 2012 post ‘Levitus data on ocean forcing confirms skeptics, falsifies IPCC’:-
———————————-
What commentary on Levitus do we hear from the alarmists? Skeptical Science ignores that the IPCC has been exaggerating the net forcing, and attempts to save face:
http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/
————————————
Followed up by Roger Pielke Snr ‘Comment On “Levitus Data On Ocean Forcing Confirms Skeptics, Falsifies IPCC” At Niche Modeling’:-
————————————————————-
The Levitus et al 2012 data provides a measure of the global average radiative imbalance for 1955-2010 which is ~+0.3 Watts per meter squared.
If one accepts the IPCC radiative forcing values of anthropogenic radiative forcings of +1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) Watts per meter squared and/or the solar radiative forcing of +0.12 (+0.06 to +0.30) Watts per meter squared as correct, what the Levitus et al data shows is that the global radiative feedback is negative (and this necessarily would include the water vapor, sea ice etc radiative feedbacks). That is
global radiative feedback < global radiative forcing.
Alternatively, the IPCC anthropogenic radiative forcings and/or the solar radiative forcing could be in error.
Either way, the 2007 IPCC WG1 report has a serious error in it.
———————————————————————————–
Krivova, Vieira and Solanki (2010) find a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity (including 50% rise in UV) since the Maunder minimum (IPCC 0.12 W/m2).
Willis Eschenbach chips in with 'An Ocean of Overconfidence':-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/#more-61861
And 'More Ocean-sized Errors in Levitus et al.':-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/more-ocean-sized-errors-in-levitus-et-al/
C) The turbulent (mixed) layer is only so deep and the thermocline defines the layering:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermocline.jpg
Heat storage at depth is on different time scales depending on layer depth and location (not homogeneous) but the upwards flux from the bottom of the turbulent well-mixed layer can be computed (see below). The mixed layer is no more than about 100m, is it then reasonable to consider 0 – 2000m as homogeneous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_layer (dodgy info, see paper below)
Computation of thermal profiles and graphed figures here:-
The ECCO Report Series 1, Report Number 38
'Ocean mixed layer depth: A subsurface proxy of ocean-atmosphere variability'
K. Lorbacher, D. Dommenget, P.P. Niiler and A. Kohl, 2005
Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California, San Diego,
http://ecco.mit.edu/pdfs/reports/report_38.pdf
Of course, we all look forward to the publication of your forthcoming ‘How I Proved Everything Was Actually Caused by Cosmic Rays and Hitherto Unidentified Submarine Volcanoes and Was Home in Time For Tea’ paper, Dixie.
I mean, if that lot can do it, it must be easy. Oh, I forget, the SkS boys have the advantage that not only does the team have, um, qualified people in it, they also read the papers they cite. Almost cheating, really…
I love this part:
Oh yes? And which measurements would those be? CERES? You know, the one that measured -6.4W/m2?
In fact, nobody measured the radiative imbalance, it comes simply from a modelled result in Hansen (2005), based on Hansen’s guess at climate sensitivity of 0.75 ± 0.25°C per W/m2.
And also, while we’re on the subject, it would be nice if Mr Cook could explain why his value of the radiative imbalance in the years around 2005 is so at variance with Hansen’s (0.5W/m2 versus Hansen’s 0.9W/m2).
And if the radiative imbalance is in fact only about half as great as Hansen’s 0.9W/m2, what does that say about the climate sensitivity in Hansen (2005)? Surely it must be significantly lower, which means Hansen’s model in his Fig. 1. is shot to pieces.
Oops.
Just to emphasize how silly Cook et al. are to suggest that satellites could have measured the TOA energy imbalance, I refer you to none other than James Hansen:
So we know that Cook’s “top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance measurements” were not made by satellite.
I wonder what made those measurements, then?
That’s at TOA Bob, and it doesn’t get any better down in the ocean.
Nucitelli et al 2012 (N12, I missed Church previously):-
Abstract
A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately −0.03±0.06 W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change.
Relevant highlights
► DK12 did not consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase below the upper 700 meters.
# # #
Firstly top-down. Levitus et al 2012 came up with a radiative imbalance of 0.27 Wm-2 per unit area of earth’s surface.
We had Krivova, Vieira and Solanki, 2010 saying 1.25 W/m2 solar forcing (IPCC 0.12 W/m2). So the solar ocean forcing alone (if KV&S10 is anything to go by and applying Hansen’s losses if that’s TOA) is 0.75 Wm-2 (1.25*0.6), Pielke Snr gives us the expression for imbalance:
global radiative imbalance = global radiative forcing + global radiative feedback.
0.3 = 0,75 + (-0.45)
Negative global radiative feedback and no room for anthropogenic forcing whatsoever (correct me if I’m wrong).
# # #
That’s long-term but in the period of DK12 study, TSI, geo and CO2 forcing flux is treated thus in DK12:-
“The change in total solar irradiation (TSI) from 2003 to 2010 is −0.49 W/m2 [23]. When averaged over the surface (a factor of 1/4) and assuming an albedo of 0.70, this represents a solar forcing of −0.086 W/m2. The geothermal flux is +0.087 W/m2 [4,24], so that TSI and geothermal contributions just about cancel each other. For this same period, CO2 increases from 375.8 to 389.8 ppm [25]. Using dF = 5.35 ∗ ln(C/C0), the predicted no-feedback CO2 forcing is 0.196 W/m2, compared with −0.034 ± 0.06 W/m2, well outside the uncertainty in the observations. Therefore, the CO2 forcing feedback would have to be negative to obtain agreement, whereas the models apparently have positive feedback”
# # #
Now bottom up. Douglas and Knox provide 7 radiative imbalances for different climate-shift time segments in Figure 2, never greater than 0.5 Wm-2 and the most recent implied radiation balance (IRI) −0.03±0.06 W/m-2.
Relevant highlights
► IRI between climate shifts of 2001–2002 and 2008–2009 was −0.03±0.06 W/m2.
► Geothermal flux is relevant to analyses of radiation imbalance.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/PLA_21192_proofs_plusFigs1_2.pdf
Quoting:-
“Using 700-m OHC data in Eq. (1) involves the assumption that other sources of rates of change of climate system heat content such as those of the atmosphere and the deep ocean are negligible. This assumption is discussed in the supplementary material of paper [4] and in Section 4 below”
And from 4.3,
“Purkey and Johnson [21], in a recent deep-ocean analysis based upon a variety of time periods generally in the 1990s and 2000s, suggest that the deeper ocean contributes on the order of 0.09 W/m2. To account for this we suggest that a systematic error of −0.0 to +0.09 W/m2 be attributed to all the flux values”
# # #
But now (but without having free access to the paper yet) N12 seem to be saying that the deep ocean (below 700m to 2000m) matters MORE than 0.09 W/m2. But here’s the thing: is even 700m the depth from which to calculate upward flux?
Instructive to this question is Lorbacher, Dommenget, Niiler and Kohl 2005 ‘Ocean mixed layer depth: A subsurface proxy of ocean-atmosphere variability’:-
http://ecco.mit.edu/pdfs/reports/report_38.pdf
Figure 18: Time series of simulated mixed layer depth hmix=d (dT=0.8 C) and hmix=c (blue and green line, respectively) as well as (red line) the modeled oceanic planetary boundary depth hpbl at three di fferent grid points: a) mid-latitudinal central Paci c, b) equatorial central Pacifi c and c) Southern Ocean; dotted lines indicate the model levels.
[10m min to 500m max]
Figure 19: Distribution of the depths described in Fig. 18 for the complete model domain (depth bins 5m); vertical dotted lines represent the model levels.
[1160m max depth, bulk less than about 200m]
Abstract
A new criterion, based on the shallowest extreme curvature of the near surface layer density or temperature pro flles, is established for demarking the turbulent oceanic surface layer depth, hmix.
1 Introduction
The mixed layer of the ocean is commonly considered as the region near its surface with vertically quasi-uniform oceanic tracers (temperature, salinity and density) above a layer of more rapid vertical changes. The intense vertical turbulent mixing near the surface
penetrates a short distance into the top of the pycnocline and is the cause of the observed
vertical uniformity. The vigorous vertical turbulence is generated mainly by the action of the horizontal momentum and the vertical buoyancy fluxes derived from the atmospheric energetic motions. Variations of these fluxes are well documented (e.g., Kalnay et al., 1996; Roads et al., 2003) and these force variations of the mixed layer depth, hmix, on daily to interannual time scales. The heat budget of hmix is of particular interest because it governs the evolution of the sea surface temperature (SST), which is the most important ocean parameter influencing the atmosphere. It is important to know not only the SST evolution but also how deep the homogeneous thermal energy column penetrates into the strati ed ocean. The main objectives of this paper are to present a new computation of the global distribution of hmix, to verify the skill of this method based on both global observations and the output of ocean general circulation models (OGCMs) and to analyze the e ffect of hmix anomalies on seasonal-to-interannual ocean-atmosphere interaction.
# # #
I’m thinking Nuccitelli, Way, Painting, Church and Cook are going to have some difficulty convincing Lorbacher, Dommenget, Niiler and Kohl that they (N12) are right and Douglas and Knox are wrong because that would mean the Lorbacher et al Report Number 38 to the ECCO Project (a consortium of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and funded through a grant from the US National Oceanographic Partnership Program) was a waste of time and money.
Lorbacher et al 2012 use the following range of points for hmix c, d, and pbl ocean depths:-
0 – 15m, 115,000 – 10,000,000
25 – 100m, 1,100,000 – 1,400,000
100 – 200m, 120,000 – 1,200,000
200m – 1160m, 10,500 – 10,600 (c and pbl), 110,000 – 1,000,000 (d)
Clearly, 0 – 200m contains the most datapoints (ocean depths). To use 700m (Douglass and Knox) as the representative level from which to obtain the flux at the surface is questionable, to use 2000m (Nuccitelli et al) is OUT of the question.
Lorbacher et al page 25:-
5 Characteristics of ECCO simulated mixed layer depth relative to hmix=c
ECCO uses the “K-profi le parameterization” (KPP) for near-surface vertical di ffusion coefficients (Large et al., 1994). The KPP scheme diagnoses an “oceanic planetary boundary layer depth” (hpbl) that is de fined as that depth where the “bulk Richardson number” exceeds a critical value
(>0.3) (Menemenlis et al., 2004). This is the “depth of mixing due to turbulent velocities of unresolved eddies” (Large et al., 1994). Below this depth, in the ocean interior, the K-mixing profiles of the KPP-model depend on a number of processes which are: shear instability, background internal wave activity, and static instability. These processes enhance the mixing coefficients and therefore may lead to larger hmix than predicted by hpbl alone. Thus ECCO model computes the time evolution of vertical profi les of upper ocean temperatures both from assimilation of the instrumental observations, like T/T-array data, and from the direct application of the KPP upper ocean mixing scheme.
# # #
The Lorbacher paper is a process of refinement to determine realistic hmix depths. The hmix depth is calculated by a MATLAB routine (reproduced below) in the appendix page 32 described by comments at the top here:-
% function [mld, qe, imf] = func(z,t)
% input:
% z= depth in meter is negative and decreasing with depth.
% z(1) = level closest to the surface
% t= temperature in Celsius or Kelvin
% output:
% mld = mixed layer depth (negative) (our $h_{mix/c}$)
% qe = quality index QI_mix; a measure of the stratification
% ifm = logical; ifm=1: mld found within the profile [typo, ifm should be imf]
……………………. ifm=0: mld not found in the profile [typo again]
Routine:-
function [mld, qe, imf] = func(z,t)
% gradients; resolution; 30m variance
[gt res sig30]=gradients(z,t);
% hit bottom if no significant variability is in the profile
if (max(sig30)<.025)
mld=min(z); qe=0; imf=0; return
end
# # #
This demonstrates the difference between the approximations of Knox and Douglass (700m) and Nuccitelli et al (2000m), and actually trying to refine the process of hmix depth determination using a combination of global ocean observations and modeling at 1 deg x 1 deg cell resolution (see 2.1 Data Set, page 6).
A primer on the evolution of ocean surface flux modeling from the ECCO report series (Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean):-
http://www.ecco-group.org/report_series.htm
Stammer, D., K. Ueyoshi, W.G. Large, S. Josey, and C. Wunsch: Global sea surface flux estimates obtained through ocean data assimilation. Report No.13, November 2001.
http://www.ecco-group.org/pdfs/reports/report_13.pdf
Fig. 2: Top row: The mean net surface heat (left) and freshwater flux fields to/from the atmosphere (right) as they result from the optimization over the period 1992 through 2000. Middle row: Mean changes in net surface heat exchange relative to the prior NCEP fields estimated over the one-year period 1993 (in W/m2; left panel), and for the net freshwater exchange (in W/m2; right panel). Bottom row: Mean difference LN01 – NCEP net surface heat flux from 1993 (left panel) and for fresh water flux (right panel).
Fig. 3: Zonally integrated heat (top) and and surface fresh water fluxes (bottom), evaluated globally (blue curves) and over the Atlantic, Pacifi c and Indian Ocean sectors (green, red and magenta), respectively.
# # #
Next, ECCO2.
ECCO2
To increase understanding and predictive capability for the ocean’s role in future climate change scenarios, the NASA Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction (MAP) program is funding a project called Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean, Phase II (ECCO2): High-Resolution Global-Ocean and Sea-Ice Data Synthesis. ECCO2 aims to produce increasingly accurate syntheses of all available global-scale ocean and sea-ice data at resolutions that start to resolve ocean eddies and other narrow current systems, which transport heat, carbon, and other properties within the ocean.
ECCO2 data syntheses are obtained by least squares fit of a global full-depth-ocean and sea-ice configuration of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology general circulation model (MITgcm) to the available satellite and in-situ data. ECCO2 data syntheses are being used to quantify the role of the oceans in the global carbon cycle, to understand the recent evolution of the polar oceans, to monitor time-evolving term balances within and between different components of the Earth system, and for many other science applications.
http://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/
Manuscripts & Publications [selection of relevance to surface flux]
2012
A. Chaudhuri, R. Ponte, G. Forget, and P. Heimbach, 2012: A comparison of atmospheric re- analysis products over the ocean and implications for uncertainties in air-sea boundary forcing. J. Climate, submitted.
C. Piecuch and R. Ponte, 2012: Importance of Circulation Changes to Atlantic Heat Storage Rates on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales. J. Climate, 25, 350-362.
R. Ponte 2012: An assessment of deep steric height variability over the global ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett., in press, doi:10.1029/2011GL050681.
N. Vinogradova, R. Ponte, C. Piecuch, and P. Heimbach, 2012: The role of ocean dynamics in sea surface temperature variability on climate timescales. J. Clim., submitted.
2011
J. Campin, C. Hill, H. Jones, and J. Marshall, 2011: Super-parameterization in ocean modeling: Application to deep convection. Ocean Modelling, 36, 90-101, doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.10.003.
Roquet, F., C. Wunsch, and G. Madec, 2011: On the patterns of wind-power input to the ocean circulation. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 41, 2328-2342, doi:10.1175/JPO-D-11-024.1.
2010
P. Heimbach, G. Forget, R. Ponte, and C. Wunsch (lead authors), 2010: Observational Requirements for global-scale ocean climate analysis: Lessons from ocean state estimation. Community White Paper in Proceedings of OceanObs09: sustained ocean observations and information for society, ESA publication WPP-306, doi:10.5270/OceanObs09.cwp.42.
2008
G. Forget, B. Ferron, and H. Mercier, 2008: Combining ARGO profiles with a general circulation model in the North Atlantic. Part 1: Estimation of hydrographic and circulation anomalies from synthetic profiles, over a year. Ocean Modelling, 20, 1-16.
G. Forget, H. Mercier and B. Ferron, 2008: Combining ARGO profiles with a general circulation model in the North Atlantic. Part 2: Realistic transports and improved hydrography, between spring 2002 and spring 2003. Ocean Modelling, 20, 17-34.
2007
R. Ponte and S. Vinogradov, 2007: Effects of stratification on the large-scale ocean response to barometric pressure. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 37, 245-258.
2005
C. Wunsch, 2005: The Total Meridional Heat Flux and Its Oceanic and Atmospheric Partition. J. Clim., 18, 4374-4380.
Questions begging re the 2 part series:
‘Combining ARGO profiles with a general circulation model’
1) Do these guys discard any floats as Josh Willis has?
2) If they do, are they exactly the same as those Willis discards?
3) If they don’t, why don’t they?
Nothing in the ARGO news archive about floats too cool. Just this about a pressure problem:-
May 5, 2009 Problem with SBE CTD pressure sensors on Argo floats,
recommendation to stop float deployments and return CTDs to Sea-Bird for repair
December 8, 2008 Important notice to Argo users (pressure drift in APEX floats)
If there was a problem with “impossibly cold” floats there would have been a similar notification and a recommendation for some kind of remedial action.
The Willis-cold-floats story goes back a while and is not necessarily the case at present although Dr David Evans warns:-
“Don’t be surprised if the Argo data for the last few years is “revised” at some stage to show warming instead of slight cooling.”
That from page 14 of:-
OCEAN TEMPERATURES: THE NEW BLUFF IN CLIMATE ALARMISM
by Dr. David Evans | July 21, 2009
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/ocean_temps.pdf
Quoting:-
“The Argo data originally showed a strong cooling trend. Josh Willis was surprised at the results: “every body was telling me I was wrong”, because it didn’t agree with the climate models or satellite observations of net radiation flux. Willis decided to recalibrate the Argo data by omitting readings from some floats that seemed to be giving readings that were too cold. The Argo results shown above (Figures 12 and 13) are for the new, current data, after those recalibrations were made.”
And,
“Finally, the Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet: there is no official or unofficial website showing the latest global ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graphs above come from Craig Loehle, who got the data from Willis, analyzed it, and put the results in a peer reviewed paper available on the Internet.”
# # #
SkS show ARGO era values in Table 1: Global Flux Imbalance During Selected Periods. From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
2002-2008, 700 – 2,000m, 0.26 W/m2
http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html
The ECCO modelers don’t consider temperature below 1160m and depth consideration drops off markedly below 200m due to the “oceanic planetary boundary layer depth”. This is the “depth of mixing due to turbulent velocities of unresolved eddies”. Douglass and Knox in 4.3 add 0.09 W/m2 as the flux from below 700m but only as an error:-
“Purkey and Johnson [21], in a recent deep-ocean analysis based upon a variety of time periods generally in the 1990s and 2000s, suggest that the deeper ocean contributes on the order of 0.09 W/m2. To account for this we suggest that a systematic error of −0.0 to +0.09 W/m2 be attributed to all the flux values”
SKS also shows Figure 1: Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter OHC increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
The 700m OHC increase (dark blue) is smoothed by pentadal average (5 yr) that eliminates the 3 month and yearly averages shown by NOAA here:-
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
The peak in 2003 that Nuccitelli eliminate is the start of the ARGO era when sea temperature was first measured extensively on a global spatial scale. The Evans article shows the following for that era:-
Figure 12: The ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0 – 700 meters.
Figure 13: The Argo data of Figure 12, smoothed, with a line of best fit. The line is dropping at -0.35 x 10^22 Joules per year (about 0.035°C per decade).
Since 2008, OHC – as handed down by Willis – has risen considerably. Or not, one wonders.
A look at OHC by GODAE comparing observation climatologies.
Modelers produce OHC in far more detail than the NOAA/Willis presentations – global AND regional. As was shown up-thread, 700m and 2000m are out of the range of defining parameters. Refer to the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) ‘List of poster abstracts’:-
http://www.godae.org/PA-authors-M-O.html#46
HEAT AND SALINITY VARIABILITY OVER THE UPPER-OCEAN IN TWO GLOBAL RE-ANALYSES [1960 – 2006, 0 – 300m, 0 – 500m]
S. Masina, S. Dobricic, P. Di Pietro, N. Pinardi
http://www.godae.org/~godae-data/Symposium/posters/S4.36-046_S_Masina-INGV-CMCC.pdf
Fig 4: Integrated Heat Content Anomaly time series, top 300m (A) and top-bottom [0 – 500m] (B)
Global 0 – 300m (cyclical, 2006 at early 1960s level)
Global 0 – 500m (compare (B) to NOAA 0 – 700m http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ ……..different profiles, GODAE cyclical, large differences 2000 – 2006 climatologies)
North Pacific (no increase, cyclical)
North Atlantic (spectacular increase)
Indian (no increase since 1980)
A similar but more recent paper updates that analysis:-
‘GLOBAL OCEAN RE-ANALYSIS FOR CLIMATE APPLICATIONS’
Simona Masinaa Pierluigi Di Pietrob, Andrea Stortoa and Antonio Navarraa, 2011
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377026511000145)
Shown is the 0 – 700m Global Ocean (cyclical), North Atlantic (spectacular rise) and North Pacific (cyclical) differences starkly contrasted:-
Fig. 12. Heat content (0–700 m) time series (10^22 J) calculated as anomalies with respect to each climatology for the global ocean (a), North Atlantic (b) and North Pacific (c).
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0377026511000145-gr12.jpg
This Figure 12 is completely at odds with NOAA/Willis/Levitus et al/Nuccitelli et al
# # #
>”Simona Masinaa Pierluigi Di Pietrob, Andrea Stortoa and Antonio Navarraa, 2011″
Should be:-
Simona Masina, Pierluigi Di Pietro, Andrea Storto and Antonio Navarra, 2011
Roy Spencer has a post comparing radiative imbalance by OHC change to Hansen’s GISS estimate. He gets an average of 0.2 Wm-2 but assumes (pointedly) accurate Levitus climatology and 0 – 2000m parameterization:-
‘Weak Warming of the Oceans 1955-2010 Implies Low Climate Sensitivity’
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/weak-warming-of-the-oceans-1955-2010-implies-low-climate-sensitivity/
Spencer radiative imbalance plot:-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif
Hansen radiative imbalance plot:-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif
Quoting:-
Let’s assume, for the sake of illustration, that Hansen is correct for all of these forcings. In that case, the average of the all-forcings curve over the period 1955-2010 is about 0.8 W m-2.
Now let’s compare these 2 numbers for the period 1955-2010:
Average Radiative Forcing from CO2, aerosols, volcanoes: 0.8 W m-2
Average Radiative Imbalance from increasing ocean heat content: 0.2 W m-2
Assuming the ocean heat content data and Hansen’s forcing estimates are accurate, how could the average radiative forcing be 4 times the average radiative imbalance? The answer is FEEDBACK:
Radiative Imbalance = Forcing – Feedback
As the system GAINS energy (and warms) from forcing, it LOSES energy from feedbacks: e.g., changes in clouds, water vapor, and most importantly the extra loss of IR energy directly to space from warmer temperatures (which is usually not considered a feedback per se, but it is THE main climate stabilizing influence, and for purposes of discussion I will treat it as a “feedback”).
If there was no feedback (which would indicate a borderline unstable climate system), then the ocean heat content-inferred radiative imbalance (0.2 W m-2) would equal the forcing (0.8 W m-2), which it clearly doesn’t since there is a 4x difference.
Of course, some believe that CO2 forcings do not even exist (although I’m not one of them). Here I am simply trying to determine what might be concluded about climate sensitivity if we assume Hansen’s forcings and the OHC increases are correct. As we will see, the large difference between forcing (0.8) and radiative imbalance (0.2) implies an insensitive climate system.
Continues >>>>>>>
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/weak-warming-of-the-oceans-1955-2010-implies-low-climate-sensitivity/
Just realized that Spencer’s forcing-feedback post did in May 2011 what Nuccitelli et al did in 2012 with their paper (Duh!). They both used 0 – 2000m OHC parameterization except that rather than prove positive CO2 feedback, a negative feedback arises using Hansen’s average forcing (0.8 W m-2)
Spencer:-
UPDATE (1:20 pm. CDT 5/13/11): Since the issue of deep ocean warming (below 700 m depth) has been raised in the comments section, I have re-run the forcing-feedback model for the following two observations: 1) a net 50 year warming of 0.06 deg. C for the 0-2000 meter layer, and (2) a surface warming of 0.6 deg. C over the same period. The results suggest a net feedback parameter of 3 W m-2 K-1, which corresponds to a climate sensitivity of 1.3 deg. C from 2XCO2, which is below the 1.5 deg. C lower limit the IPCC has placed on future warming.
[-3 W m-2 feedback opposes Knox and Douglass’ average 3 W m-2 forcing graphed by Nuccitelli et al’s DK12 derived plot here http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0375960112010389-gr002.jpg and Hansen’s 2010 3 W m-2 GHG no-forcing feedback http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif%5D
Spencer further down:-
If we run this model, we can adjust the feedback parameter λ until we get the kinds of radiative imbalances inferred from the ocean heat content changes. The following shows what seemed to provide a reasonable match:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Simple-model-match-Hansen-forcings-0-700m-OHC-1955-2010.gif
The feedback parameter λ used here is 4 W m-2 K-1, which implies a climate sensitivity of only 1 deg. C warming from a doubling of CO2. This is much less than the IPCC’s estimate of 2.5 to 3 deg. C of warming.
In particular, note from the above model simulation how the strong feedback mostly offsets the forcing, leaving a small radiative imbalance, consistent with the large discrepancy between Hansen’s average forcing (0.8 W m-2) and the ocean heat content-inferred energy imbalance (0.2 W m-2).
The bottom line is that the ocean has not warmed nearly as much as would be expected based upon the climate sensitivities exhibited by all of the climate models tracked by the IPCC
[and contrary to Nuccitelli et al’s claims]
Spencer at bottom:-
Also, note that I have not even addressed any natural sources of warming. If Mother Nature was also involved in the ocean warming during 1955-2010, then this would imply an even LOWER climate sensitivity than I have estimated here.
# # #
Knox and Douglass:-
The change in total solar irradiation (TSI) from 2003 to 2010 is −0.49 W/m2 [23]. When averaged over the surface (a factor of 1/4) and assuming an albedo of 0.70, this represents a solar forcing of −0.086 W/m2. The geothermal flux is +0.087 W/m2 [4,24], so that TSI and geothermal contributions just about cancel each other.
For this same period [2003 – 2010], CO2 increases from 375.8 to 389.8 ppm [25]. Using dF = 5.35 ∗ ln(C/C0), the predicted no-feedback CO2 forcing is 0.196 W/m2, compared with −0.034 ± 0.06 W/m2 , well outside the uncertainty in the observations. Therefore, the CO2 forcing feedback would have to be negative to obtain agreement, whereas the models apparently have positive feedback
[23] J. Lean, private communication, 2011.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/PLA_21192_proofs_plusFigs1_2.pdf
So the updated no-feedback forcing comparison is:-
+0.204 W/m2 IPCC CO2, 2001 – 2008 (370.40 to 384.79)
–0.034 W/m2 Douglass and Knox, 2001 – 2008, 0 – 700m OHC
+0.450 W/m2 Nuccitelli/Spencer, 2001 – 2008, 0 – 2000m OHC (8 datapoints est from graph)
By adding 700 – 2000m OHC, the no-feedback OHC forcing 2003 to 2010 has gone from -0.034 to +0.45, the latter being a factor of 2.2 x CO2 no-feedback forcing (0.45/0.204).
This is bizarre and I don’t know how Nuccitelli et al reconcile this given how the ECCO2 O-GCM modelers don’t use 1160 – 2000m (and little or none from 500 – 1160m) to derive OHC forcing and the absence of +0.246 W/m2 (other than GHGs) in the GISS forcings to make up +0.45 (0.45 = 0.204 + 0.246). See http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif
This will get VERY interesting when certain people get hold of Nuccitelli et al 2012.
Issues relevant to Nuccitelli et al 2012 addressed by Alec Rawls (indirectly) here:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/14/raimund-muscheler-says-that-a-steady-high-level-of-forcing-cant-cause-warming/
Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, part 4
[…]
It doesn’t matter that solar activity was at grand maximum levels from 1920 to 2000. Only the continued turning up a forcing can cause warming according to Dr. Benestad.
Here is a list of a dozen more top consensus climate scientists all making similar statements, and as I discovered from my “expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5, this is now the IPCC’s official grounds for dismissing a solar explanation for late 20th century warming.
Would Muscheler add himself to the list? I had to give him a chance and he very graciously took it, thanking me for pointing to the obvious error in the transcription while confirming that, yes, he too looks at the wrong derivative. He should be looking at the zero derivative (the level of solar activity) but is instead looking at the first derivative (the rate of change in solar activity, or the trend).
[…]
The hidden (and completely untenable) assumption of rapid ocean equilibration
[…]
Last year I emailed the dozen climate scientists from my list of those who have made these kinds of claims and suggested that they must be assuming that that by 1980 or so the oceans had already equilibrated to whatever temperature forcing effect high 20th century solar activity might be having, otherwise the continued high level of forcing would cause continued warming.
[…]
Several confirmed that they were indeed assuming rapid ocean equilibration to any change in climate forcing. One was Mike Lockwood, whose 2007 paper with Claus Fröhlich had opened with a strong assertion that it is the trend in a forcing, not the level of a forcing, that causes temperature change:
If the paper was assuming rapid ocean equilibration it really ought to have said so, but better late than never. In his response to me Lockwood offered evidence that ocean equilibration takes at most a decade, but his estimate does not stand up to scrutiny. It was derived from an energy balance model (Schwartz 2007) that represents the oceans by a single heat sink.
This is a highly unrealistic simplification (having the whole ocean change temperature at once). If a more realistic 2-heat-sink model is used, where it takes time for heat to transfer from one ocean layer to another (Kirk-Davidoff 2009), then rapid temperature adjustment of the upper ocean layer tells us next to nothing about how long it takes for the ocean to equilibrate to a long term forcing. (Full discussion in Part 2 of my “solar warming and ocean equilibrium” series.)
The Lockwood and Fröhlich paper acknowledges that there was a long natural warming from the bottom of the Little Ice Age (punctuated by notable downturns when solar activity fell during the Dalton Minimum and around the beginning of the last century), and they say themselves that this long natural warming was probably caused by increasing solar activity, yet we are supposed to be confident, on the basis of a completely unrealistic one-heat-sink model, that this long warming just happened to end in 1980, when the whole idea of a long period of solar warming is fundamentally inconsistent with that model. Crazy.
Workshop participant Isaac Held: “equilibration takes centuries”
[…]
To clarify, when there is a long term change in forcing it isn’t 40-70 percent of the eventual deep ocean heat storage that is achieved within four years. Here Held is talking about the time-response of GMAST (the Global Mean Air Surface Temperature), which is largely driven by ocean surface temperature, and the ocean surface warms up quickly in response to an increase in forcing.
If elevated forcing persists for decades or centuries this warmed-up upper ocean layer will all-the-while be transferring heat to deeper ocean depths, causing the temperature differential between the upper and lower layers to shrink which in turn causes a slowing of the heat loss from the upper ocean to the deeper ocean. That slow decrease in heat loss from the upper ocean layer causes the upper ocean layer to slowly get warmer, which in turn causes a slow increase in atmospheric surface temperatures (the remaining 30-60 percent of the GMAST increase that Held is referring to). This continued warming can go on for centuries.
So I must appeal to Dr. Held: you really need to point out to your colleagues the implications of moving to a more realistic “two box model” (never mind a 3 or 4 box model) where it takes time for heat to accumulate in deeper ocean layers. If prolonged forcing can cause the oceans to warm for centuries (and GMAST to continue to rise for centuries) then no, we cannot be confident that by 1980 the oceans had equilibrated to the 20th century’s grand maximum levels of solar activity.
This is regardless of whether those levels were pre or post peak. It’s the level that matters, not the trend.
A helpful diagram
If anyone has trouble understanding why they should be looking at the level of a hypothesized solar-magnetic forcing, not just the trend, here is a helpful diagram from Ken Gregory:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mchN9FRz9NE/UHohmcAw22I/AAAAAAAAAOI/e6LgkoPh2CQ/s1600/Gregory,+climate+smoothing,+contra-Lockwood+PNG.png
From A Critique on the Lockwood / Frohlich Paper in the Royal Society proceedings
by Ken Gregory
August 2007
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen8/GregoryLockwood.html
Temperature falls only when the level of forcing falls below that needed to maintain the current temperature. With typical cyclical behavior, temperature peaks often lag considerably behind peaks in forcing. Everybody is familiar with this phenomenon from daytime temperatures, which do not peak at noon but peak in the mid-afternoon. So too with longer period forcings and deeper heat sinks.
So no, if temperature continues to rise after solar forcing has peaked it does not indicate that the continued warming is not caused by solar forcing. On the contrary, it is exactly what we would expect from a solar driver of climate.
In the case of late 20th century solar forcing there really was no discernable peak but rather a 50-year plateau, in which case temperatures should continue to rise until equilibrium is reached. There is no reason to think the oceans would have equilibrated to high 20th century forcing by 1980, and so no reason to dismiss a solar explanation for post 1980 warming.
Continues……..
# # #
The application by Nuccitelli et al (and Roy Spencer) of 2000m OHC is a “one-heat-sink model”.
As Alec Rawls says – “Crazy”.
Ocean Heat Content (7 data series)
Domingues et al. (2008)
Ishii et al. (2009)
Willis et al. (2004)
Lyman and Johnson (2008)
Palmer et al. (2007)
NODC, Levitus et al. (2009)
Gouretski and Reseghetti (2010)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/figures/synth_single_panel_3.png
Note the differences on the ARGO era (2003 onwards):-
Rising spectacularly – Palmer
Rising marginally – Willis, Gouretski and Reseghetti
Falling – Levitus, Ishii, Lyman and Johnson
From: Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/11keyindicators.html
After 47 comments from the SkS faithful # 48 cuts to the chase, identifying the same reconciliation issue that I did up-thread (see below). Reference:-
‘Comment on Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts
Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, and John Cook
2012
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf
——————————————————————————————————————————–
# 47
JoeRG at 18:29 PM on 14 October, 2012
Dear Mr. Nuccitelli
As I understand it, the Table 1 of the paper only consists of the OHC and LAI anomalies converted into the necessary forcings.
First, the link to the NOAA OHC data [11] in your paper is a dead link. It ends with the error 550: No such file or directory.
Second, using the data available under http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html (I cannot imagine that NOAA hosts different data series for just one subject) and recalculating your OHC forcing brings the following results:
Time 0-700 m [W/m²] 700-2000 m [W/m²]
1970-2008 0.335 0.137
1980-2008 0.276 0.187
1990-2008 0.401 0.228
2000-2008 0.450 0.217
2002-2008 0.383 0.197
Third, how can the standard errors of the greater time ranges be smaller although the standard error of the origin data for e.g. 1970 (+/-0.94*10^22 J) is larger by a factor of 5 compared to 2008 (+/-0.161*10^22 J)?
So, what have I missed?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html#86510
# 48
dana1981 at 05:13 AM on 15 October, 2012
JoeRG @48 – as you note, the source link from which we obtained our data is no longer available, and the link you provide seems to have somewhat different numbers. Perhaps NOAA updated the dataset over the past 6 months. Regardless, the main conclusions remain unchanged
——————————————————————————————————————————
Note firstly, that JoeRG’s ’02 – ’08 700 – 2000m figure (0.197) corresponds ALMOST EXACTLY to the IPCC CO2 forcing (0.204) ’01 -’08 allowing for the extra year but JoeRG’s 0 – 700m figure (0.383) ’02 – ’08 does NOT correspond to Douglass and Knox (–0.034) ’01 – ’08 because ’01 had very low -1.6 imbalance which pulls down D&K’s figure. However, JoeRG’s 0 – 2000m figure (+0.580) DOES correspond to Spencer’s (+0.450) allowing for Spencer’s extra year of low imbalance as for D&K.
Refer Spencer’s radiative imbalance plot:-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif
Refer previous comparison up-thread:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/10/at-last-warming-creates-more-ice/#comment-123964
Confining the question to the 2001 – 2008 period, the 0 – 2000m no-feedback OHC forcing comparisons are (note JoeRG and Nuccitelli period is 2002 – 2008):-
–0.034 W/m2 Douglass and Knox, 2001 – 2008, 0 – 700m OHC
+0.204 W/m2 IPCC CO2, 2001 – 2008 (370.40 to 384.79)
+0.450 W/m2 Spencer, 2001 – 2008, 0 – 2000m OHC
+0.580 W/m2 JoeRG (0.383 + 0.197) 2002 – 2008
+0.700 W/m2 Nuccitelli et al 2012 Table 1 (neglecting LAI) 2002 – 2008
+0.730 W/m2 Nuccitelli et al 2012 Table 1 (including LAI) 2002 – 2008
This is even MORE bizarre than my previous assessment in which there was an error corrected here:-
That assessment was for D&K time period 2001 – 2008. Now confining the comparison to the Nuccitelli 2002 – 2008 period using JoeRG’s figures:-
+0.175 W/m2 IPCC CO2, (372.42 to 384.79. global marine surface)
+0.383 W/m2 JoeRG 0 – 700m
+0.440 W/m2 Nuccitelli 0 – 700m
+0.580 W/m2 JoeRG 0 – 2000m
+0.700 W/m2 Nuccitelli 0 – 2000m (neglecting LAI)
The assessment for the 2001 – 2008 period using the previous format is:-
Nuccitelli et al DO NOT EVEN CALCULATE CO2 FORCING so are oblivious to their +0.700 W/m2 OHC no-feedback forcing being 4 x CO2. They get further inaccuracy by using 5 yr smoothed imbalance data justifying it thus:-
I don’t think so. A 5 yr smoothing obscures the difference even 1 yr can make as we see above.
# # #
Next comment at CCG, a look at how Nuccitelli et al justify using 2000m OHC data which is far below the planetary boundary layer (pbl) and not used by O-GCM modelers to compute OHC surface flux (see up-thread). Nuccitelli et al justify it thus:-
Palmer et al. (2007) came up with a spectacular ARGO era OHC outlier:-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/figures/synth_single_panel_3.png
Correction, should read:-
“The assessment for the 2002 – 2008 period using the previous format is:-”
Posted this following comment at JoNova here:-
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/#comment-1134500
——————————————————————————————————————————
Those quizzical of what my long winded OHC comment above is getting at, please dissect this:-
Radiative Imbalance = Forcing – Feedback
Using Spencer’s radiative imbalance graph
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif
For 2002 – 2008:
Average OHC imbalance: 0.76 W/m2 (up) (est of 7 graph points)
Nuccitelli et al OHC forcing: 0.73 W/m2 (up)
IPCC CO2 forcing (marine level): 0.175 W/m2 (down)
Neglecting other forcings:
0.76 = (0.73 – 0.175) – Feedback
0.76 = 0.555 – Feedback
Therefore, either there is a 0.205 (up) forcing to consider with no feedback, or there is a 0.205 feedback to consider with no other forcing, or a combination of both.
Hansen’s GISS Radiative Forcings Estimates show no other forcings changing by 0.205 over the 2002 – 2008 period
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif
So the expression becomes:
0.76 = 0.555 – (-0.205)
i.e. a 0.205 W/m2 feedback (down) – what is it? Nuccitelli et al say nothing of this because they do not do this calculation in their paper, they just point to other papers saying their results are “consistent” with them:-
Are all those papers “consistent” with a 0.205 W/m2 2002 – 2008 feedback I wonder?
BUT BY NEGLECTING CO2 FORCING ENTIRELY, the expression could more easily be:
Radiative Imbalance = Forcing – Feedback
0.76 = 0.73 – Feedback
0.76 = 0.73 – (-0.03)
Or (no feedback but additional forcing)
0.76 = (0.73 + 0.03)
0.03 could equate to aerosol forcing. Why didn’t Nuccitelli et al do THIS simple calculation?
Have asked for pointers at JoNova:-
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/#comment-1134890
—————————————————————————————————————————–
I may have CO2 forcing (assuming it exists) acting in the wrong direction, can someone help me out?
My problem is that I know there’s no mechanism for CO2 LWIR to heat the mixed layer and deep ocean (not a heating agent) but even so, I’m trying to fit CO2 into the equation as Nuccitelli et al should have done. But in doing that I’ve come up with a mysterious 0.555 W/m2 OHC forcing contribution (another heating agent) that can only be solar.
Given there’s not actually a 0.555 W/m2 solar forcing over the period 2002 – 2008, I cannot make sense of the imbalance equation.
Going back to this:-
Should I instead be making CO2 forcing a CONTRIBUTION (a heating agent) to the OHC forcing so that the expression looks like this:-
0.76 = 0.73 – Feedback
Where 0.73 = 0.175 CO2 plus some other forcing?
If so, then:-
0.76 (TOA) = [0.175 (CO2) + 0.555(???)] – (-0.03)
0.76 (TOA) = 0.73 (OHC forcing) + 0.03 (feedback)
# # #
My explanation for this unrealistic situation is that neither CO2 nor ’02 – ’08 solar is responsible for the TOA imbalance but that ’02 – ’08 OHC forcing is the lagged effect of solar input in the years and even decades and centuries prior to this period.
Alec Rawls addresses this solar-ocean activity at WUWT here:-
‘Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, part 4’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/14/raimund-muscheler-says-that-a-steady-high-level-of-forcing-cant-cause-warming/
Anyone got a better clue on this than me (I’m hoping)?
A look at how Nuccitelli et al justify using 2000m OHC data which is far below the planetary boundary layer (pbl) and not used by O-GCM modelers to compute upper layer internal flux. Nuccitelli et al justify it thus:-
# # #
Roy Spencer did exactly the same exercise of using 0 – 2000m in a blog post a year prior (May 2011) to the Nuccitelli et al 2012 paper except that Spencer’s exercise was the result of requests in comments for him to do so – not by any supposed justification from literature.
Nucciteli et al cite Palmer et al and Loeb et al as their justification but let’s look at what a couple of O-GCM modeling papers have to say (e.g. ECCO, GODAE) but first an introduction:-
Time Scales for SST 1 over the Global Ocean
Barron, Kara, Gentemann and Loh, 2008
http://www.ssmi.com/papers/gentemann/barron_submitted.pdf
OK, so what is the mixed layer depth? It actually varies from about 10m to just over 1000m but is mostly confined to the upper 500m
A primer on the evolution of ocean surface flux modeling from the ECCO report series (Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean):-
http://www.ecco-group.org/report_series.htm
Global sea surface flux estimates obtained through ocean data assimilation.
Stammer, Ueyoshi, Large, Josey, and Wunsch
Report No.13, November 2001.
http://www.ecco-group.org/pdfs/reports/report_13.pdf
The deepest consideration is 1160m
HEAT AND SALINITY VARIABILITY OVER THE UPPER-OCEAN IN TWO GLOBAL RE-ANALYSES [1960 – 2006, 0 – 300m, 0 – 500m]
S. Masina, S. Dobricic, P. Di Pietro, N. Pinardi
(date unknown)
http://www.godae.org/~godae-data/Symposium/posters/S4.36-046_S_Masina-INGV-CMCC.pdf
From GODAE
http://www.godae.org/PA-authors-M-O.html#46
The deepest consideration is 500m
It is only occasionally that the mixed layer drops down below 1000m so that inclusion of these depths is rare and the boundary varies significantly 10 – 1000m. Nuccitelli et al however, claim that 0 – 2000m MUST be used even though O-GCM modelers don’t.
Problem is: if Nuccitelli has over estimated OHC upper layer flux by a factor of 2 (using 1000m) or 3 (using 700m), what is a better estimation and what does that do to the imbalance equation?
For 2002 – 2008, 0.73/2 = 0.37, 0.73/3 = 0.24
TOA imbalance = forcing – feedback
0.76 = 0.37 – (-0.39) for factor 2x (0.37 = 0.73/2)
0.76 = 0.24 – (-0.52) for factor 3x (0.24 = 0.73/3)
Given IPCC CO2 forcing 2002 – 2008 is:
0.175 W/m2 (372.42 to 384.79. global marine surface)
There are 2 unresolved forcings (assuming CO2 forcing):
2x 0.37 = 0.175 + 0.195 (what is this 0.195 forcing?)
3x 0.24 = 0.175 + 0.065 (what is this 0.065 forcing?)
Doesn’t make sense. It would be more sensible to say the 0.37 or 0,24 forcing is lagged solar heat accumulation and the feedback is aerosols, cloudiness and suchlike.
# # #
Next a look at Palmer et al and Loeb et al, Nuccitelli et al’s justification for 0 – 2000m.
A look at Palmer et al – one of Nuccitelli et al’s justifications for 0 – 2000m – in view of Nuccitelli et al’s criticism of Douglass and Knox (page 6):-
“The CO2 feedback is effectively a constant value, and thus should not be
calculated using such a short timeframe when data over a longer period are available.
The DK12 feedback calculation is invalidated by focusing on noisy short-term data and
failing to account for all radiative forcings at work, as well as all heat reservoirs, in
particular the oceans below 700 meters”
Now their justification for 0 – 2000m and a longer time-frame than D&K’s 2002 – 2008:-
‘Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance’
Palmer, Douglas, McNeall and Dunstone, 2011.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/sst-et-temp-mondiales.pdf
Page 2:-
“This large internal variability in SST could easily mask the
anthropogenic warming signal for a decade or more, consistent
with the findings of previous studies [Easterling and
Wehner, 2009; Knight et al., 2009]. Conversely, trends in
total energy are typically an order of magnitude less than the
1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 estimated radiation imbalance for the
period 1970–2000 [Murphy et al., 2009; see also Hansen
et al., 2005].
This suggests that under a global warming
scenario, we would expect to see a more monotonic increase
in total energy than for SST (and, therefore, global surface
temperature)”
BIG problem. Roy Spencer plotted total energy imbalance inferred from 0 – 2000m OHC 1955 – 2010:-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif
The running 10 yr average (twice as long as Nuccitelli’s 5 yr OHC smoothing) is anything but monotonic rise and therefore not anthropogenically forced – sorry guys.
Rob painting has stumbled upon my Nuccitelli et al critique at JoNova here:-
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/#comment-1138421
Rob Painting
October 17, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Richard C2 – our paper is somewhat removed from the topic of this post. Maybe when a relevant post arises, and I happen to be around, it can be discussed then.
How the Skeptical Science team: Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, and John Cook (with the prior 2011 assistance of Roy Spencer), by the publication of their 2012 paper, effectively ended the notion that OHC (and TOA imbalance inferred from it) is anthropogenically forced.
Nuccitelli et al reference Palmer et al 2011 who suggest that “under [an anthropogenic] global warming scenario, we would expect to see a more monotonic increase in total energy”. Total energy required being 0 – 2000m OHC (at least) instead of the 0 – 700m layer that Douglass and Knox applied. Nuccitelli et al stipulate 0 – 2000m as the appropriate depth to ascertain radiative imbalance – OK fine, we’ll do that.
Nuccitelli et al dictate that D&K’s 8 yr time-frame was too short and the D&K data was “noise”. Nuccitelli et al instead stipulate a longer time-frame and 5 yr smoothing – OK fine, we’ll do that too but with 10 yr smoothing.
Refer Roy Spencer’s 10 yr smoothed radiative imbalance inferred from OHC:-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif
Our period is 1961 – 2006 (46 yrs). Now to calculate Palmer et al’s “more monotonic increase in total energy” as a result of (supposed) CO2 forcing using the IPCC forcing expression:
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
2006 C: 381.90 (Mauna Loa)
1961 Co: 317.64 (Mauna Loa)
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
dF = 5.35(381.90/317.64)
dF = 0.99 W/m2
If OHC was in fact CO2-forced, according to Palmer et al we should see a “more monotonic rise” of about 1 W/m2 from 1961 to 2006 (46 yrs, Nuccitelli et al’s required longer time-frame). Instead we see a non-linear oscillation, minimums around 1965 and 1985, maximums around 1975 and 2000, with the 2006 level at about 0.4 W/m2, well short of 1 W/m2.
When the entire unsmoothed 1956 – 2010 55 yr period is considered, it is clear that there is no rise but instead the period starts at about the 0.2 W/m2 average and ends at about the 0.2 W/m2 average.
The moral of this story is to be careful what you stipulate in your attempted rebuttal because it might backfire on you.
Exactly. So even though there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years (which is a short enough time period to be affected by cyclic variations), the mean temperature is at its highest level for hundreds if not thousands of years.
If you publish a paper in a reputable scientific journal you can call yourself a scientist in my book. What’s happened to Watt’s paper?
>”If you publish a paper in a reputable scientific journal you can call yourself a scientist in my book”
Does that include Lewandowsky et al and Gergis et al?
And will it include Dedekind et al if ‘Statistical Audit’ is published?
I think most of us can tell the difference between the observed truth and a foolish lie, Andy.
At least, that’s the way I was raised.
So, Treaders, are you lost for words,, or will you withdraw your egregious falsehood and apologise to your readers, in line with your stated aims – or is that too much to expect?
we aim to be a credible voice in the global warming wilderness. We bring a simple message: listen, ask for evidence, trust reason and avoid conclusions not justified by facts.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/about/
Apologise for what?
Simon above repeated the statement that there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years (with the usual caveats)
This is quite different to statements about “the warmest year on record”
Are you Treader’s minder now, Andy?
Here’s his falsehood again:
If there has been no global warming this century, Andy, then why have 11 of the 12 warmest years on record happened this century?
Why has this century seen the two warmest years on record?
Why has the ocean heat content kept on breaking records this century?
And how does Treaders reconcile his obvious falsehood with his pious words on the intro to this site, namely:
Yeah, right!
Bob D kindly provided a graph that can, I hope, reconcile the statement that there has been no warming and certain years are “the warmest on record”
Matt Briggs also explained the “safe but misleading” statement about the warmest year on record
I’m almost speechless. lol
Cheeky 😉
Spare me the weasel words, guys, Treadgold’s statement was unambiguous:
This is a completely and utterly false, as any child can see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
C’mon, Treadgold, front up and apologise to your readers, and retain whatever shreds of credibility you might have left – at least until you come up with another schoolboy howler like this one!
So, Taylor, instead of making much of how warm it’s been this century, you can tell us when it warmed and by how much, please.
********************************
[When did it warm, and by how much? – RT]
NASA GISTEMP data of combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomalies: 2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
RSS 2000 – 2012, about 0.01 C
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
GISTEMP 2000 – 2012, about 0.08 C
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend
This statement is correct. The warming stopped in the late 1990s, and the trend this past decade is negative.
Nonsense, Bob, as you well know:
The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
You seem to have reading comprehension problems, Rob. Once again the statement
is entirely correct. I suspect you’re getting confused by the term “this century”. In English, when we refer to “this century” we mean “since the turn of the century”, not “over the last one hundred years”.
Confusing, I know. Still, you’ll pick it up sooner or later.
By the way, your real problem is explaining why there has been no warming in the last 15 years, as Hansen (1997) quite clearly predicted that this past decade would be the period when, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability.
In other words, there should have been no doubt whatsoever about the warming trend. You know, the trend we’re seeing that’s negative?
Oops.
By the way, Rob, love the links to Wikipedia!
So, Gareth was right about you all along, Treadgold:
When did it warm, and by how much?
Are you, perhaps, incapable of clicking on the links I have provided?
Here they are again (hint: the trick is to move the mouse onto them before clicking):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
Noaa:-
“Recent estimates are based primarily on Argo profiling CTD float data”
After Josh Willis has thrown out the floats reading too cold for his liking.
What are you trying to do? I must admit that it’s an uncommon technique of inquiry to treat your respondent with such deep contempt. You encourage nobody, you praise nobody, you treat everyone with derision. People are filling with this contempt and feel nothing else for you. So, what are you trying to do?
I already saw the graphs you linked to. They don’t support your assertion of warming in the 21st century. I’m uncertain about the estimates in Lyman et al. (2010) of ocean heat content down to 700 m (the data for which is now 4 years old) because we’re talking about temperatures. Perhaps the rise in heat content from 1997 to 2003 was some kind of lagged response to earlier AGW, which has, as you know, stopped this century? But there’s this graph from the CRU that shows actual sea surface temperature. It’s clear that, since about 1999, there’s been little, if any, warming.
Now provide a reference to support your assertion of warming this century. You expect it of us, so you should expect it of yourself.
This is quite wrong. Some commenters become agitated and angry at your unscientific taunting, but not all of them. Some are happy to respond and do respond to your challenges, as far as they can be responded to and are not completely ad hominem attacks. It is incorrect to characterise us here generally as intolerant.
Gareth:-
“Their epistemic closure is complete, and can’t tolerate challenge”
Hmmm.
Richard C2 October 5, 2012 at 8:49 am
I challenge you Gareth, to produce a correlation of the anthropogenic component of DLR to any climate metric you choose e.g. SAT, mid/upper troposphere AT, SST, OHC, PDO, AMO, ENSO etc that betters Zhong’s Gleissburg cycle/OHC450 correlation of 0.6 or an SAT/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation of 0.96.
The meaningless SAT/CO2 concentration correlation is only 0.4 – 0.44 but concentration alone is useless unless corroborated by empirical observations of DLR. That hasn’t turned out so well (Francis and Hunter, Gero and Turner) but feel free to come up with something yourself
Gareth October 5, 2012 at 10:36 am
Sorry mate, you don’t get to issue challenges based on your worldview.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/prat-watch-7-the-unbearable-rightness-of-being-wrong/#comment-34710
When you’ve got nothing and accept – as he puts it – “the mainstream view, based as it is on 150 years of scientific research” (the cutting-edge radiative heat transfer physics of the 1800s – “luminiferous aether”, “carbonic acid”, and a misunderstanding of Fourier by Arrhenius), it is wise not to brook challenges.
But in doing so he adopts his characterization of us as his own self-epithet, apparently unwittingly.
Richard C:
Almost certainly unwittingly. 😉
For our edification, Rob Taylor tried to comment thus (but I intercepted it):
To which I say to him: Which part of “warming doesn’t mean warmest” do you not understand? No warming has occurred this century. That means the temperature hasn’t gone up. How can he not see that warming occurs only when the temperature actually rises?
He gave links to a Wikipedia article. Examining the graphs, it’s obvious that the “20 warmest years” achieve their position by virtue of outranking other years by merely a few thousandths of a degree. How laughable, to call a temperature a record when for all practical purposes it’s identical with many others.
Yet he calls this science and mocks us for being undismayed.
Rob is getting exasperated because you are confusing trend with variation. You have intentionally chosen a high base and twelve years is probably insufficient time to establish a reasonable trend. Time to go back to Climate Modelling 101:
http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/page_1_1.php
Looks like IPCC CMIP5 Class of 2012 will be coming back for Climate Modelling 101 next year:-
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622
Simon, the conventional climate period is 30 yrs. In the last 30 yrs there have been 2 climate regime shifts (statistically significant breaks), 1987 (0.1 C), and 1997 (0.25 C) giving 0,35 C over the 30 yr period:-
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ClimateRegimeShift_files/image003.jpg
Those climate regime shifts are related to the solar cycle:-
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ClimateRegimeShift_files/image005.jpg
The regime shifts over the last 30 yr climate period are solar driven – not CO2 driven.
By the way, from the “weather is not climate” department, it is sleeting heavily outside (in South Canterbury). If it carries on we won’t have to drive far for our planned ski touring mission tomorrow
There was a hurricane at the bottom of the Indian Ocean beginning of this week, stirred things up a bit. This in SMH:
‘Snow falls on coldest October day in 40 years’
“Snow has fallen on Melbourne’s surrounding hills in the coldest October day in 40 years”
And these comments at JoNova (appropriately ‘Man Made Global Warming Disproved’ post):
Mark
October 12, 2012 at 7:05 am #70
Well here we are on October 12 at about 8:00 am and my outside temperature sensor is telling me that it’s 7.6 deg. This is in the Illawarra region of NSW. Snow has been reported in Moss Vale as well as around Goulburn and Gunning.
Don’t ya just know how Flim-flam Flummery will sum this up.
KinkyKeith
October 12, 2012 at 7:19 am
Hi Mark
We had global warming here in Newcastle too.
It was bloody freezing before the sun rose.
Mark
October 12, 2012 at 7:35 am
Hey KK, temp. here is now 6.6.
Waaaah. Gimme back my Global Warming!
Mark
October 12, 2012 at 7:59 am
Weather update:
Seems that there has been light snow at Sussex Inlet on the NSW South Coast.
Unbelievable.
News from the “it’s worse than we thought” department
Antarctic climate facing ‘rapid’ changes: chief scientist
Interesting article on how GISS gets it’s Antarctic warming trend. You have to laugh at the people who believe Hansen and his bunch of merry men.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/roger-andrews-how-nasa-giss-manufactures-warming-in-the-antarctic/
Classic, Magoo. NIWA wouldn’t leave the Base Orcadas 1950 discontinuity (breakpoint) unadjusted but GISS does:-
http://oi46.tinypic.com/2vjpunk.jpg
TB’s helpful NIWA/NZCSET-style adjustment :-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/3145o52.png?w=1228&h=870
GISS uses an out-of-territory station (Base Orcadas) as a proxy for the entire Antarctic. Best does the same for the first decade of its NZ record (1840s), using Hobart. But Hobart is much cooler than the composite NZ record, hence pronounced warming in the BEST NZ record.
Australia’s Antarctic supply ship icebound
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-23/antarctic-supply-ship-icebound/4329708
So the ice was caused by winds? Who’d have thought?
A bit more on the Icebreaker story from Autonomous Mind
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/where-are-you-great-oden/