After reading Bob Tisdale at WUWT I made my first visit yesterday to HotWhopper to examine a post on ocean heat content. (Though this doesn’t concern the report from our Commissioner for the Environment, it addresses the fundamental science, so please bear with me.) Miriam O’Brien (a.k.a. Sou) writes:
The oceans absorb more than 90% of the extra energy that’s being built up in the system.
This caught my attention as lying at the centre of her argument. But we need to ask where the heat comes from and how it gets into the ocean.
As we know, the oceans warm from the direct heat of the sun. The hypothesis (and it’s still only an hypothesis, it’s not yet a theory) that the oceans also warm from the effects of man-made global warming depends on heat energy reaching them by radiation from atmospheric gases (the so-called greenhouse gases).
Trouble is, physics is against it.
The only explanation I’ve seen of a possible mechanism for atmospheric ocean heating was at Skeptical Science in 2011, based on a highly speculative guest post in 2006 by Dr Peter Minnett at Real Climate, and those are indeed cited in Miss O’Brien’s reply to my inquiry, though the explanation is no more convincing now than it was back then.
If the scientists supporting AGW alarm were sincere in wanting to know their subject, some at least would have tried harder to perform further experiments in this area, because it’s so very vital to the danger they predict. Since human activities can only heat the air, if the air cannot heat the water, much of the threat of dangerous AGW vanishes because the water is not expanding and rising through our influence.
But since they have not investigated, they do not wish to know.
Courtesy of our industrious friend Richard Cumming, we described the skin layer phenomenon and its deficiencies last year. Clearly, repetition is needed.
In the mechanism as described at Real Climate, an immeasurably small temperature gradient across the sub-millimetre skin layer of the ocean (except across the vast regions of turbulence, which destroys the skin layer) holds at bay a portion of the gigantic quantity of solar heat energy wanting to rise again from the water and escape to space, warming the air as it goes.
It was an experiment on board the New Zealand research vessel Tangaroa in 2004 that measured the temperature gradient across the skin layer. It seems to have been 0.002°K (W/m2)-1—astoundingly small. Since they couldn’t vary the amount of carbon dioxide above the ship, they measured the amount of infrared energy emitted by changing cloud cover.
Experiment did not prove CO2 warms the ocean
The serious limitations of this experiment are given away by Dr Minnett’s honest admission at the end of the post (by which frankness nevertheless he reveals his genuine scientific heart):
Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship.
Unfortunately that doesn’t prevent him from using the following weasel words in an utterly misleading conclusion that the experiment has proved what all the warmists wish to believe, which is that human activity is heating the ocean (you’ll notice that he doesn’t actually say that):
To conclude, it is perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed.
(Note that what was being observed was warming, not the method of warming.) No attempt was made to quantify the effect in terms of the real-world ocean. We want to know how much heat energy is prevented from leaving the water, how much the water thus warms and, crucially, how much atmospheric cooling is caused by the energy being withheld in this way.
As the atmosphere warms more and more, the amount of heat energy blocked in this way (if significant) constitutes a hitherto unsuspected negative feedback. This, of course, calls for further research, since it further reduces the impact of ‘dangerous’ AGW.
It strikes me today on rereading that this is not so much scientific revelation as it is the attempted birth of a legend.
Considering the minuscule addition by CO2 radiation to the temperature of the skin layer and the amount of thermal energy the skin layer is attempting to block, we’re being asked to believe that an ant might significantly impede a charging lion.
Yet nobody at HotWhopper seems to mind this.
————————
Postscript
I’ve posted this response here because it makes a few good points, and Miss O’Brien has declined to publish it at HotWhopper, which confirms her ill intentions towards a proper discussion. By implication, she declares that I’m telling whoppers (lies) but refuses to assist by describing them.
My reply at HotWhopper
Sou, thank you for your courteous response.
You confirm what I could not have known without asking (never mind the allegation of ‘faux curiosity’), as I neither know everything, nor do I read minds, that you rely upon the Skeptical Science post and the Real Climate article by Dr Minnett to support your assertion that greenhouse gases significantly warm the ocean.
Unfortunately, the experiment described by Dr Minnett does not support you, substantially because they didn’t measure the warming influence of CO2, they measured the varying amount of infrared radiation from clouds, which intercepted the infrared as it tried to leave the surface.
Contrary to what you say, there is no evidence that the minuscule radiation from CO2 molecules might have a significant effect on the temperature of the ocean. The experiment was designed, as Dr Minnett explains, not to quantify the effect, but only to demonstrate it. It’s surprising, in light of its apparent success in doing so, that no further experiments appear to have been conducted in this area, including nothing to establish its magnitude.
Perhaps that lack of interest springs from the fact that the experiment discovered yet another hitherto unsuspected negative feedback to increasing radiative forcing.
Because the skin layer, as it warms, prevents a little thermal energy from escaping the oceans. That heat no longer warms the atmosphere, which rather defines a cooling influence.
Still, without knowing the magnitude of the warming effect on the skin layer and the consequent reduction in heat flux from the water, we can’t be sure how important this is, can we? There is of course no reason to believe it will destroy us by 2100.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold.
Views: 233
>”It strikes me today on rereading that this is not so much scientific revelation as it is the attempted birth of a legend.”
Exactly. The Minnett conjecture is an insulation effect (supposedly) i.e. energy that left the surface uninhibited returns as radiation to inhibit further energy loss – daft obviously. And the IPCC doesn’t run with it anyway.
AR5 does not actually posit an anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism in Chapter 8:
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
Page 712 pdf :
8.7.1.3 The Global Temperature change Potential Concept
“By accounting for the climate sensitivity and the exchange of heat
between the atmosphere and the ocean, the GTP includes physical processes
that the GWP does not. The GTP accounts for the slow response
of the (deep) ocean, thereby prolonging the response to emissions
beyond what is controlled by the decay time of the atmospheric concentration.
Thus the GTP includes both the atmospheric adjustment
time scale of the component considered and the response time scale
of the climate system.”
But,
“The GTP values can be significantly
affected by assumptions about the climate sensitivity and heat uptake
by the ocean. Thus, the relative uncertainty ranges are wider for the
GTP compared to GWP (see Section 8.7.1.4). The additional uncertainty
is a typical trade-off when moving along the cause–effect chain to an
effect of greater societal relevance (Figure 8.27). The formulation of the
ocean response in the GTP has a substantial effect on the values; thus
its characterization also represents a trade-off between simplicity and
accuracy.”
Firstly, in their narrative there is only an implicit link between CS and ocean heat but on which they don’t elaborate (no science or citation). Even so they are simply stating “exchange of heat between the atmosphere and the ocean”. That is not an insulation effect because the inference is that if there is anthropogenic forcing of ocean heat it is simply an air-to-sea energy transfer ([problematic even for the IPCC – see Chapter 3 below).
Secondly, their implicit link is only based on their “assumptions” anyway.
Chapter 3, is more explicit on page 274 pdf:
Observations: Ocean
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf
3.4 Changes in Ocean Surface Fluxes
3.4.1 Introduction
“The net air–sea heat flux is the sum of two turbulent (latent and sensible)
and two radiative (shortwave and longwave) components. Ocean
heat gain from the atmosphere is defined to be positive according to
the sign convention employed here.”
Except ocean heat gain is by the heating agent – solar shortwave radiation (DSR) change modulated by cloudiness change – not the atmosphere. Downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) is not the ocean heating agent. DLR enhances evaporation which is the major oceanic heat loss mechanism (i.e. a cooling effect). The IPCC makes the respective major gains and losses clear – solar gain, evaporative loss:
3.4.2 Air–Sea Heat Fluxes
3.4.2.1 Turbulent Heat Fluxes and Evaporation
“The latent and sensible heat fluxes have a strong regional dependence,
with typical values varying in the annual mean from close to zero to
–220 W m–2 and –70 W m–2 respectively over strong heat loss sites”
3.4.2.2 Surface Fluxes of Shortwave and Longwave Radiation
“The surface shortwave flux has a strong latitudinal dependence with
typical annual mean values of 250 W m–2 in the tropics. The annual mean
surface net longwave flux ranges from –30 to –70 W m–2.”
This is all conventional and non-contentious. The problem(s) for the IPCC is that it is impossible to detect a net air-sea flux change – let alone a net air-to-sea flux (an anthropogenic fingerprint):
3.4.6 Conclusions
“Uncertainties in air–sea heat flux data sets are too large to allow detection
of the change in global mean net air–sea heat flux, on the order
of 0.5 W m–2 since 1971, required for consistency with the observed
ocean heat content increase. The accuracy of reanalysis and satellite
observation based freshwater flux products is limited by changing data
sources. Consequently, the products cannot yet be reliably used to
directly identify trends in the regional or global distribution of evaporation
or precipitation over the oceans on the time scale of the observed
salinity changes since 1950.”
In other words, simply, no anthropogenic ocean heating detected.
# # #
Thing is, CO2 already makes up 6 W.m-2 of DLR (Wang & Liang, 2009) which in the tropics can be around 400 W.m-2. A 1 W.m-2 CO2 forcing (Sfc – not TOA) in the 2xCO2 scenario (say 700ppm) will not make an iota of difference in the above fluxes i.e. it would be undetectable then just as it is undetectable now. The other 300+ W.m-2 DLR is air temperature, clouds, and water vapour.
Almost the entire solar vs CO2 OLR/DLR and ocean heat gain argument is now in a thread at Robin Pittwood’s Kiwi Thinker post (which is also particularly salient – OLR not decreasing in accordance with AGW). DLR starts about here:
http://www.kiwithinker.com/2014/10/an-empirical-look-at-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-9909
Eventually links back to CCG to a similar thread on DLR from a while back.:
[From Update] >”Contrary to what you [Miriam O’Brien] say, there is no evidence that the minuscule radiation from CO2 molecules might have a significant effect on the temperature of the ocean.”
This is a(nother) major failing of the climate models – they impute far too much heat to the ocean, See graph:
‘Climate Models vs ARGO data’
Global Ocean Temperature, 0-700m
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/argo/argo-0-700m-v-models-sept-2013-update.png
Note this is simply temperature (degrees Celcius) – not heat content (Joules).
And the apparent global average ocean heat gain (Joules) is only due to the Indian Ocean:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png
Pacific and Atlantic are cooling on average. So unless CO2 forcing is only active in the Indian Ocean, there is no anthropogenic ocean heating.
Not sure where to post this, but I recently wrote a short piece for another blog on the Wellington City Councils stupid report on what would happen if sea level rise doubled or indeed increase 5 fold from the historic trend. It may or may not get posted.
In the process I noticed that the last 8000 year trend is remarkable flat. Presumably that record is fairly reliable but why does it not show undulation for little ice ages and warm periods? The trend seems to go right through them.
Last 8000 years is out of my zone Hemi. I’m settling with the historical trend since 1945 at Wellington. Dr Jan Wright’s projection implies a 3.5 fold increase over the next 35 years, which had better start next year, pronto, to make the target. I don’t think so.
The WCC’s T&T report is much the same. hardly likely. What is needed is some “fresh advice” – like this:
‘Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report’
by Carter R.M., de Lange W., Hansen, J.M., Humlum O., Idso C., Kear, D., Legates, D., Mörner, N.A., Ollier C., Singer F. & Soon W.
NIPCC, September 24, 2014
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NIPCC_Report_on_NSW_Coastal_SL_-_9z_%28final%29_%281%29_%281%29.pdf
1. Introduction
“The issue of sea-level change, and in particular the identification of a speculative human contribution to
that change, is a complex topic. Given the scientific and political controversy that surrounds the matter,
the Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven Councils are to be congratulated for seeking fresh advice on the topic.”
Yes, congratulations. But not for the MfE or WCC.
From the previous thread:
Wellington 2013.5 – 2050 (3.65 decades)
@ 0.252m/century: 9.2cm (historical PSMSL)
@ 0.6m/century,: 21.9cm (T&T)
@ 0.85714m/century: 31.29cm (Dr Jan Wright, MfE projection [applied to T&T scenario])
@ 1.0m/century: 36.5cm (T&T)
@ 1.5m/century: 54.75cm (T&T)
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/11/herald-obeys-the-clamour/#comment-1253980
At no stage in the report did Tonkin & Taylor consider the historical Wellington Harbour PSMSL data.
>”@ 0.85714m/century: 31.29cm (Dr Jan Wright, MfE projection [applied to T&T scenario])”
This is wrong as is the WCC/T&T comparison above. It is difficult to know what Dr Wright is conveying because she is so imprecise. The correction is below if she is implying either the 30cm rise starts end of 2014 as per report date or at 1990 as per IPCC base which she doesn’t state.
According to Dr Jan Wright, it is only AFTER 2050 that SLR becomes “increasingly dependent on the
actions taken to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions”. Except, rather than Wright’s implication that SLR of 30cm by 2050 is expected from Nov 2014, the IPCC expectation is actually from the IPCC’s 1990 base. There has already been a natural 60mm (6cm) rise at Wellington since 1990 but Wright omits to mention this and it is probable she hasn’t thought about it anyway given the missing historical data. So at the historical rate of 25.224mm/decade, the expectations from 1990 are:
Say 7057 base at 1990
@ 25.224mm/decade (PSMSL historical from 1990) x 6 decades
= 150mm + 7057 = 7207mm
@ 50mm/decade (Wright/IPCC “20 to 40cm” from 1990) x 6 decades
= 300mm +7057 = 7357mm
@ 60mm/decade (Wright 85.714/decade from 2015 implied + 1990 to 2014 historical) x 6 decades (3.5 decades projection + 2.5 decades historical)
= 360mm (300mm + 60mm) + 7057 = 7417mm
So according to the IPCC there should be an acceleration in SLR 1990 – 2050 (double the historical rate at Wellington). There is no evidence of that occurring after 2.5 decades so far. So not only is Wright wrong when she states “has already become evident” (see below), she hasn’t made the 1990 base level clear. Leaving the impression that the 30cm rise starts now i.e. inadvertently adding another 60mm to the projection.
The WCC/T&T report makes to 1990 base and the timeframe to 2090 clear on page 16 pdf:
2 Sea level rise
2.1 Current projections
Sea level rise projections for the next 100 years are based on the outputs of global emissions
models. These models assume a range of emissions scenarios. Current government advice for
responding to sea level rise is for New Zealand Councils to use a risk management approach and
consider a 0.5 m base value of sea level rise by 2090 relative to the 1980 – 1999 average sea
2.3 Scenario selection
A range of published sources were consulted to determine five reasonable scenarios for the more
detailed values assessments. Four of the scenarios represent ‘baseline’ sea level rise scenarios, so
represent a new high water springs mark. The fifth scenario that was considered includes the
effects of storm surge and waves (combined wave set up and run up as explained in Section 2.3.1)
along the coast, modelled in addition to Scenario 4 (a sea level rise of 3 m). Table 2-1 summarises
the development of the scenarios used in this study, their source and their level relative to the
Wellington Vertical Datum (WVD). WVD is based on the Mean Sea Level (MSL) recorded in 1953.
Totals are rounded to one decimal place. The development of the storm effect is discussed
further in Section 2.3.1.
http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/services/environment-and-waste/environment/files/61579-wcc-sea-level-rise-options.pdf
Dr Wright does not make the 1990 base clear from page 44 pdf,
Rising seas
A major impact of climate change that has already become evident is the rising level
of the sea. On average, sea levels around the world have risen around 20 centimetres
since the beginning of the twentieth century.
[…]
In its latest report, the IPCC predicts that sea levels will rise by a further 20 to 40
centimetres by the middle of this century. This increase is ‘locked in’ – it is forecast
under all IPCC scenarios.87 New Zealand, like other countries, needs to adapt.
After 2050, the forecast rises in sea level become increasingly dependent on the
actions taken to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. Under IPCC’s ‘Businessas-
Usual’ scenario, the mean sea level is forecast to be as much as a metre higher in
2100 than it is now. But this is not inevitable. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
will make a difference in the future.
http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Changing-Climate-and-Rising-Seas-Web.pdf
The correction is then:
Wellington [1990] – 2050 ([6] decades)
@ 0.252m/century: [15] cm (historical PSMSL)
@ 0.5m/century: [30]cm (Wright/IPCC “20 to 40cm” from 1990)
@ 0.6m/century: [36]cm (Wright implied by report from 2015 plus historical 1990 to 2014)
@ 0.6m/century,: [36]cm (WCC/T&T/MfE/IPCC)
@ 1.0m/century: [60]cm (WCC/T&T/IPCC)
@ 1.5m/century: [90]cm (WCC/T&T/IPCC)
Turns out that a 30cm projection from 1990 to 2050 is below the lowest WCC/T&T scenario (36cm) which happens to be the MfE recommendation (see T&T Table 2-1 above). Only if Wright’s very wooly implied rate is applied does Wright match T&T/MfE’s 36cm.
In any event, SLR commensurate with RCP scenarios is not evident in the Wellington observations i.e. a 30cm rise is not yet ‘locked in’ contrary to Wright’s assertion. Only 15cm appears to be locked in.
>”In the mechanism as described at Real Climate, an immeasurably small temperature gradient across the sub-millimetre skin layer of the ocean (except across the vast regions of turbulence, which destroys the skin layer) holds at bay a portion of the gigantic quantity of solar heat energy wanting to rise again from the water and escape to space, warming the air as it goes.”
In the Kiwi Thinker thread “Frank” tried to invoke the Minnett/RC mechanism too (as did Rob Painting at Hot Topic a while ago). But their rationale is totally flawed as laid out above because there is only so much energy that can be released from the surface in the tropics irrespective of any posited cool-skin effect (negligible anyway). I tried to get this through to Frank at Kiwi Thinker:
“…the heat gain in the tropical mixed layer is already constrained by the AO interface conditions. That is why, at 20N and 20S, there is between 1 and 2 PW of heat moving horizontally towards the poles. In the tropics Rns (+Q, 191.5) overwhelms the ability of the ocean to release heat (-Q, -168.1), the excess heat (+23.4) must then be released somewhere else and that is exactly what happens – the excess heat moves from hot (tropics) to cold (poles). A teensy change in the warm-layer to cool-skin gradient, even if it did occur [in the tropics in this case], is immaterial, and negligible, to this process.”
http://www.kiwithinker.com/2014/10/an-empirical-look-at-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-10441
The CO2 component of DLR would be impossible to detect over decades (see IPCC AR5 Chapter 3 upthread) so any attribution is highly problematic (to say the least).
# # #
And your photo of a turbulent surface RT (especially if wind-swept), shows how the formation of an ocean skin is only possible in the tropics, or the “Doldrums”, or a calm sea anywhere i.e. “by no means ubiquitous”. And the noonday sun overwhelms the cool-skin in the tropics, rendering it non-existent anyway.
These people are grasping at a very thin, and non-IPCC supported, straw.
Have none of you heard of gyres or Ekman transport?
>”Have none of you heard of gyres or Ekman transport?”
Yes I have. What’s your point Simon?
If you want to invoke “gyres or Ekman transport” to explain ocean heat uptake being CO2-forced then you will need to refer us to the relevant IPCC passages that support you – good luck with that (FYI see AR5 Chapter 8 and Chapter 3 upthread – no “gyres or Ekman transport”, or anything else for that matter).
And you will also have to defer to literature that quantifies the observed ocean heat gain in terms of “gyres or Ekman transport” – I wish you very good luck with that too (the IPCC apparently gave up looking).
But you’ll need more than exceptionally good luck (actually an ability to perform the impossible) to reconcile your “gyres or Ekman transport” case with basin heat gain/loss 3-month from 1955 to present here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
For example, Pacific in the ARGO era:
2003.875 4.680
2004.875 3.905
2005.875 3.291
2006.875 4.023
2007.875 2.933
2008.875 3.769
2009.875 3.374
2010.875 2.007
2011.875 3.505
2012.875 2.858
2013.875 3.828
That’s a heat loss Simon, in a period of rising CO2 levels. The respective basin trends were upthread, graphed by Bob Tisdale:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png
Did you miss that in your haste to put your foot in your mouth?
Presumably you missed this too:
‘Climate Models vs ARGO data’
Global Ocean Temperature, 0-700m
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/argo/argo-0-700m-v-models-sept-2013-update.png
The IPCC’s CO2-forced RF methodology imputes far too much heat to the ocean irrespective of “gyres or Ekman transport”.
This from Wiki. My point is that post glacial era the sea level rise does not seem to be subject to little ice age etc, If that is the case how could AGW possibly influence sea level.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Ok, I see what you’re getting at now Hemi. Here’s a graph, after Grinstad et al (2009) that shows estimated GMSL over the last 1000 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image004_thumb5.png?w=602&h=455
That 0.5m SL variation is not discernible over the last 8000 years. But estimated SLF from the MWP to the LIA puts the modern SLR after the LIA in perspective.
Begs the question as you say: what caused the SL rise-fall-rise over the last 1000 years? It wasn’t CO2/AGW.
Ans: solar forcing:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/20clim_crowly00.jpg
El Nino years are invariably warmer than non El Nino years. Where do you think this additional heat comes from?
What ARE you on about Simon?
>”El Nino years are invariably warmer than non El Nino years. ”
So what? How does that relate in any way to anything in the post or thread? The post is about ocean heat ACCUMULATION over the historical record that spans numerous El Nino’s as per this graph:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
This is the point being addressed:
“The oceans absorb more than 90% of the extra energy that’s being built up in the system.”
The post debunks the notion that CO2 is the cause of the accumulation of energy (“extra energy”) in the ocean. This has nothing to do with El Nino’s, or gyres, or Ekman transport which you would have known if you had read the IPCC AR5 links I provided for you to Chapter 3 and Chapter 8.
Where do you think this additional heat comes from?
Solar forcing:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/20clim_crowly00.jpg
And if you had been following Hemi’s comments you would have seen that the same solar forcing is the cause of the SL rise-fall-rise over the last 1000 years (i.e. that’s not CO2 either):
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image004_thumb5.png?w=602&h=455
So we all agree that there is heat interchange between the atmosphere and the ocean?
>”So we all agree that there is heat interchange between the atmosphere and the ocean?”
Predominantly from the ocean to the atmosphere+space. The Fairall et al (1996) data for the tropics was upthread (see Kiwi Thinker link):
Rns 191.5 Fairall et al (1996) tropical west Pacific
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-168.1 = -57.1 -7.7 -103.3
191.5 – 168.1 = 23.4 W/m2 ocean heat gain in the tropical west Pacific
The AR5 data was upthread (see Chapter 3):
3.4.2 Air–Sea Heat Fluxes
3.4.2.1 Turbulent Heat Fluxes and Evaporation
“The latent and sensible heat fluxes have a strong regional dependence,
with typical values varying in the annual mean from close to zero to
–220 W m–2 and –70 W m–2 respectively over strong heat loss sites”
3.4.2.2 Surface Fluxes of Shortwave and Longwave Radiation
“The surface shortwave flux has a strong latitudinal dependence with
typical annual mean values of 250 W m–2 in the tropics. The annual mean
surface net longwave flux ranges from –30 to –70 W m–2.”
In neither case is there a net atmosphere-to-ocean longwave, latent, or sensible heat flux (Rnl, Hl, Hs). In both cases the DSR flux from the sun to the ocean (Rns) is the greatest therefore there is oceanic heat gain in the tropics.
During El Nino there is a greater release of energy to atmosphere+space from the ocean hence the atmospheric temperature spikes. The source of the energy is accumulated solar energy (DSR).
>”The source of the energy is accumulated solar energy (DSR)”
‘New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2’
From The Hockey Schtick
“We [Zhou & Feng, 2014] find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.
The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun’s role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year “pause” of global warming).
Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the “sunspot integral.” The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable [correlation] with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).
Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the “pause” and cooling since.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html
# # #
1958 was the SSN peak of SC 19 (an exceptional cycle):
http://sunspotwatch.com/share/201407_wolfmms.jpg
But the peak bicentennial component of TSI was 1986 – 1996. Generally accepted to be 1986:
“The Sun and the Earth’s Climate”
by Joanna D. Haigh
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=articlesu7.html
Thanks RC
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image004_thumb5.png?w=602&h=455
Actually this gives an interesting scale to the potential movement in sea level caused by temperature change. Total movement of 0.4m over 700 years between the two temperature extremes.
Amazing that the Muppets hypothesise movements at 20 times that rate over the next 100 years.
>”Amazing that the Muppets hypothesise movements at 20 times that rate over the next 100 years.”
And amazing how they can attribute GMST and SLR 1951 – 2010 to CO2 but ignore the MWP and post LIA to 1950. Not for nothing did Jay Overpeck, senior scientific advisor to the IPCC, say in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.
Thing is, graphs similar over the last 1000 years don’t appear in Jan Wright’s report or Tonkin & Taylor’s report. I think that is despicable.
Other thing is, they (Wright/MfE, T&T/WCC) are prattling on about rates of rise from 1990 that just are not happening after 24 years but they don’t tell anyone about that – also despicable. It’s not always what is said that matters, it is also what is not said.
The closer we get to 2050 the more silly their scenario becomes so that’s some recompense.
The lie keeps rolling on:
‘It takes just TEN YEARS for CO2 to damage the climate: Impact of global warming will be felt by current generation, claims study’
‘Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration,’ said lead author of the study Dr Katharine Ricke.
“The results showed that the average time between a single CO2 emission and maximum warming was 10.1 years, and reaffirmed that most of the warming persists for more than a century. The reason for this time lag is because the upper layers of the oceans take longer to heat up than the atmosphere, the scientists say. As the oceans take up more and more heat which causes the overall climate to warm up, the warming effects of CO2 emissions actually begin to diminish as CO2 is eventually removed from the atmosphere.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2857863/It-takes-just-TEN-YEARS-CO2-damage-climate.html#ixzz3Ks7RqF4Z
# # #
There has been no warming over the last 10.1 years to “feel”.
The time lag is sun => ocean => atmosphere and “the oceans take up more and more heat which causes the overall climate to warm up” when solar input increases. On a millennial timeframe, the lag is 30 – 40 years. CO2 is a bit player, not contributing to ocean warming contrary to the lie.
Conversely, “the oceans take up [less] and [less] heat which causes the overall climate to [cool down]” when solar input decreases. Again, the time lag over 10 – 100 years but discernible at 30 – 40 years. More immediate effects are centred on the planetary thermal inertia of around 14 years +/- 6 i.e. 8 – 20 years.
So expect a small but perceptible temperature fall on average around the end of this decade, 14 years after solar input started decreasing after 2005. The big fall will be 2035 – 2045.
This sounds scarey
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/west-antarctic-ice-melt-triples-in-10-years/story-e6frg90f-1227144281403
“The total amount of loss averaged 83 gigatons per year”
At the current rate that is going to cause SLR of 2.3 cm over the next 100 years !!!!!!!
The Hockey Schtick ran with the post above:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/why-greenhouse-gas-missing-heat-cannot.html#comment-form
Model ocean heat (PCM) vs Observations
Observations
Rns 191.5 Fairall et al (1996) tropical west Pacific (from link upthread)
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-168.1 = -57.1 -7.7 -103.3
191.5 – 168.1 = 23.4 W/m2 ocean heat gain in the tropical west Pacific
Model PCM (but see also HadCM3
‘Anthropogenic Warming of the Oceans: Observations and Model Results’
Pierce, Barnett, AchutaRao, Gleckler, Gregory (2005)
Abstract
Analysis of PCM’s heat budget [a model] indicates the warming is driven by an increase in net
surface heat flux that reaches 0.7 watts m-2 by the 1990s; the downward longwave flux [DLR]
increases by 3.7 watts m-2, which is not fully compensated by an increase in the upward
longwave flux of 2.2 watts m-2 [resulting in a net LW increase by about 1.5 watts m-2 (Rnl) ]
Latent and net solar heat flux each decrease by about 0.6 watts m=2 [decrease?]
The sensible heat flux increases by about 0.6 watts m-2.
Figure 6 [page 46]: Time series of yearly global volume average temperature anomaly (0-700 m), at
dd sampled points only. Left panel: from observations (bottom, thick line) and 12 PCM
ensemble members with anthropogenic forcing estimated over the historical period. Right
panel: from the PCM control run with natural internal climate variability alone. Curves are
offset by 0.12 C; ensemble member case IDs are given along the right edge.
Figure 13 [page 53]: Components of the surface heat flux, by ocean (and world: lower right) from
the PCM anthropogenically forced runs. Values are anomalies relative to the first 40 years,
averaged by decade. For all components, positive values act to warm the surface. The
whiskerplots show the mean, interquartile range, and minimum/maximum of the ensembles.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/docs/pierce_et_al_jcli939_rev2B.pdf
# # #
1) PCM DLR increase of 3.7 W.m-2 globally is from 1880. Observations vary radically by site over just the last 2 decades:
Wild et al (2009)
Observed changes at BSRN sites since early 1990s:
25 longest BSRN records (totally 353 years) covering period 1992-2011
• 19 stations (76%) with increase in LW down (9 significant)
• 6 stations (24%) with decrease in LW down (3 significant)
• Average change all sites: +2.0 Wm-2dec-1
http://www.gewex.org/BSRN/BSRN-12_presentations/Wild_FriM.pdf
2) Typical net longwave (Rnl) from Fairall et all is -57 by the 1990s (tropics). Applying PCM changes from above we get initial 1880 state assuming realistic solar change of about +3 W.m-2 (see 4 below) instead of -0.6:
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-166.6 = -55.6 -8.3 -102.7
188.5 – 166.6 = 21.9 W/m2 ocean heat gain in the tropical west Pacific (1880)
Includes the unrealistic latent heat decrease.
23.4 (1990s) – 21.9 (1880) = 1.5 W.m-2 increase over 120 years using a combination of model and observation assumptions, IPCC atmospheric forcing from 1750 is 1.6 W.m=2 but which cannot heat the ocean.
With latent remaining the same: 23.4 – 22.5 = 0.9 W.m-2 tropical ocean heat gain 1880 – 2000. No part to play for anthropogenic forcing once solar and latent heat forcing is realistic.
3) PCM model 0-700m temperature anomaly runs far too hot (from 0.1 to 1.5 C too hot). PCM bypasses the physics of the AO interface by radiative forcing of DLR which imputes heat to the ocean spuriously, hence the overheating.
4) Observed Rns (solar) change since early 1990s: +2.7 Wm-2/decade from Wild et al (2009) above. Not -0.6 from 1880. This +2.7 is obviously not accounted for in the model when estimated solar forcings were applied from Meehl et al. (2003). So the miss-attribution is to DLR +1.5 W.m-2, only a fraction of which is C02 anyway (say 2% @ 6/300).
5) PCM heat flux components are garbage in view of the observations and realism.
In view of 1 – 5, The PCM model results cannot be used as an anthropogenic attribution to ocean heat gain. Which is impossible anyway.
>”3) PCM model 0-700m temperature anomaly runs far too hot (from 0.1 to 1.5 C too hot [since 1880]). PCM bypasses the physics of the AO interface by radiative forcing of DLR which imputes heat to the ocean spuriously, hence the overheating.”
Climate models predict the top 700m is warming at 0.07C per decade [from JoNova]
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/
The climate models predict that ocean heat content is increasing at about 0.7 × 10^22 Joules per year. (See Hansen et al, 2005: where the increase in ocean heat content per square meter of surface, in the upper 750m, according to typical models, is around 6.0 Watt·year/m2 per year, which converts to 0.7 × 10^22 Joules per year for the entire ocean as explained at Bob Tisdale’s site [hotlink]. Converting to temperature, this corresponds to about 0.7 × 0.01C = 0.007 C per year.)
Graphed over just the ARGO era from 2003 to 2013:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-models-argo.gif
# # #
The (imaginary) anthropogenic ocean warming is the red line.
Reality is the blue line as denoted.
Needless to say but projected SLR is the exact same situation, which Dr Jan Wright (MfE) and Tonkin & Taylor (WCC) regurgitate.
Corrections to 2). -103.3 latent (Hl, 1990s) was after a decrease of 0.6 (according to PCM). Therefore
Rns 188.5 (1880 assumed)
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-167.8 = -55.6 -8.3 -103.9
188.5 – 167.8 = 20.7 W/m2 ocean heat gain in the tropical west Pacific (1880)
With unrealistic latent decrease: 23.4 (1990s) – 20.7 (1880) = 2.7 W.m-2 increase over 120 years using a combination of model and observation assumptions, IPCC atmospheric forcing from 1750 is 1.6 W.m=2 (included in DLR, therefore net Rnl)) but which cannot heat the ocean.
With latent remaining the same: 23.4 – 21.3 = 2.1 W.m-2 tropical ocean heat gain 1880 – 2000. No part to play for anthropogenic forcing once solar (+3) and latent heat forcing becoming realistic.
With latent increasing +0.6 more realistically: 23.4 – 21.9 = 1.5 W.m-2 change. No part to play for anthropogenic forcing because solar is +3 i.e. an increase of +3 solar means an increase of +1.5 ocean heat gain because, realistically, increased DLR of +3.7 increases latent heat of evaporation (ocean cooling contrary to spurious model heating) rather than impossibly heating beyond the surface as modeled.
Willis Eschenbach on ‘Argo And Ocean Heat Content’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/04/argo-and-ocean-heat-content/
“Now, there were several interesting things in the presentation. The first was a total surprise to me. We hear a lot about how the heat is “hiding” in the ocean. But what I didn’t know was that according to the Argo floats, every bit of the warming is happening in the southern extratropical ocean, while the oceans of both the tropics and the northern hemisphere are actually cooling … color me puzzled.”
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/argo-change-by-hemisphere.png?w=720
And the Indian looks to be the culprit:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png
Apparently the Skydragon lives there.
Pingback: Arguments For and Against Human-Induced Ocean Warming * The New World
AN ACT TO STUDY AND MODIFY CERTAIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011
HOUSE BILL 819
RATIFIED BILL *H819-v-5* [passed 2012, effective to July 2016]
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 2.(a) Article 7 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
Ҥ 113A-107.1. Sea-level policy.
(a) The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level policy or the definition of rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes.
(b) No rule, policy, or planning guideline that defines a rate of sea-level change for regulatory purposes shall be adopted except as provided by this section.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a county, municipality, or other local government entity from defining rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes.
(d) All policies, rules, regulations, or any other product of the Commission or the Division related to rates of sea-level change shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.
(e) The Commission shall be the only State agency authorized to define rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes. If the Commission defines rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes, it shall do so in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management of the Department. The Commission and Division may collaborate with other State agencies, boards, and commissions; other public entities; and other institutions when defining rates of sea-level change.”
SECTION 2.(b) The Coastal Resources Commission and the Division of Coastal Management of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall not define rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes prior to July 1, 2016.
SECTION 2.(c) The Coastal Resources Commission shall direct its Science Panel to deliver its five-year updated assessment to its March 2010 report entitled “North Carolina Sea Level Rise Assessment Report” to the Commission no later than March 31, 2015. The Commission shall direct the Science Panel to include in its five-year updated assessment a comprehensive review and summary of peer-reviewed scientific literature that address the full range of global, regional, and North Carolina-specific sea-level change data and hypotheses, including sea-level fall, no movement in sea level, deceleration of sea-level rise, and acceleration of sea-level rise. When summarizing research dealing with sea level, the Commission and the Science Panel shall define the assumptions and limitations of predictive modeling used to predict future sea-level scenarios. The Commission shall make this report available to the general public and allow for submittal of public comments including a public hearing at the first regularly scheduled meeting after March 31, 2015. Prior to and upon receipt of this report, the Commission shall study the economic and environmental costs and benefits to the North Carolina coastal region of developing, or not developing, sea-level regulations and policies. The Commission shall also compare the determination of sea level based on historical calculations versus predictive models. The Commission shall also address the consideration of oceanfront and estuarine shorelines for dealing with sea-level assessment and not use one single sea-level rate for the entire coast. For oceanfront shorelines, the Commission shall use no fewer than the four regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled “North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management Plan” published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In regions that may lack statistically significant data, rates from adjacent regions may be considered and modified using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques to account for relevant geologic and hydrologic processes. The Commission shall present a draft of this report, which shall also include the Commission’s Science Panel five-year assessment update, to the general public and receive comments from interested parties no later than December 31, 2015, and present these reports, including public comments and any policies the Commission has adopted or may be considering that address sea-level policies, to the General Assembly Environmental Review Commission no later than March 1, 2016.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H819v5.pdf
>”The Commission shall also compare the determination of sea level based on historical calculations versus predictive models.”
‘North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report’
March 2010
Figure 2. This chart illustrates the magnitude of SLR resulting from differing rates of acceleration. The most likely [GHG] scenario for 2100 AD is a rise of 0.4 meter to 1.4 meters (15 inches to 55 inches) above present.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=724b16de-ef9f-4487-bddf-e1cb20e79ea0&groupId=38319
‘A Controversial Law Is Threatening The Future Of Coastal North Carolina Communities’
Chelsea Harvey Yesterday at 8:27 AM
The law places three major limitations on the way North Carolina can prepare for the effects of climate change, at least for another two years:
1. It bans state policy-makers from using the most scientifically accepted sea-level projections in their decisions.
2. In their place, it promotes a climate prediction method most scientists regard as grossly inaccurate — those based only on historical data, not future projections based on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released.
3. It limits the next state-sponsored report to only analysing what will happen during the next 30 years, severely limiting its scope and usefulness for long-term decision making and planning.
[Reproduces Figure 2]
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/north-carolina-state-hiding-climate-science-2014-12
# # #
I don’t know where “limits the next state-sponsored report to only analysing what will happen during the next 30 years” comes from, possibly the Management Plan.
Entirely sensible, seems to me.
Pingback: Arguments For and Against Human-Induced Ocean Warming | Watts Up With That?
“limits the next state-sponsored report to only analysing what will happen during the next 30 years”
We tend to do a lot of talking to ourselves on this site.
Here is something the very sensible resident with a coastal property at Kapiti recently featured on TV would support. The government has to take a lead on this perhaps through the Local Authority Commission.
Planning Rules based on datum levels need to be limited to 30 year forecasts. 30 year forecast should take proper regard for both hypothetical global models of sea level rise and the long term sea level trends at the site nearest the particular local authority .
Sounds sensible to me.
Not sure how you see it, of course, Hemi, but when I talk to you I include everyone. 🙂
Let me say that you make some sensible suggestions about planning. Are they your own ideas or have they come from North Carolina?
RC,
Your three posts on ocean heating mechanisms are cited by Bob Tisdale at The New World. Nice work.
>”Your three posts on ocean heating mechanisms are cited by Bob Tisdale at The New World”
And at WUWT (see the ping-back upthread):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/09/arguments-for-and-against-human-induced-ocean-warming/
As is this post of yours RT. There will be hard questions for the IPCC from now on. I gave them 18 months to 2 years from the time of writing March 2013 i.e. elapses Sept 2014 – March 2015 which is right now.
If ocean heat fails to rise appreciably then their conjecture fails with it. Here’s the OHC progression since March 2013:
3-month from 1955 to present – World: 0 – 700, 0 – 2000 all months
0 – 700m
2013-3,13.534068
2013-6,12.048531
2013-9,11.164961
2013-12,13.655460
2014-3,14.183445
2014-6,12.935547
2014-9,12.117544
0 – 2000m
2013-3,20.317980
2013-6,17.425900
2013-9,16.296843
2013-12,20.558161
2014-3,20.900511
2014-6,19.894621
2014-9,19.081686
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
That global metric is skewed by the Indian Ocean (Pacific and Atlantic cooling). Nevertheless, what we are seeing is the start of a standstill in globally averaged ocean heat just as the standstill in atmospheric heat started over a decade ago. The ocean heat is simply conforming to millennial peak solar levels but that peak has passed. It will be impossible for further accumulation and the metrics above support that. 2015 onwards, once the SC 24 peak has passed, will not be kind to the IPCC.
This is the “acid test” as I described it in Part 2 2013. The IPCC has no wriggle room now. No ocean heating means no heating by any agent, whether solar or anthropogenic.
I meant that the WUWT ping-back is to your post – not to my articles.
I’m increasingly seeing cross-linking – Bob Tisdale’s articles, Judith Curry’s articles, The Hockey Schtick, CCG, Kiwi Thinker, etc and those are spilling over into online news media. That just means wider dissemination and increased understanding. There’s a realization of the key issues developing over time and how to communicate them but it’s not centred on WUWT. Not a lot of understanding gets through in the WUWT comments unfortunately but key communicators don’t get bogged down there anyway.
The solar issues have yet to really break though. I sent a screed to Jo Nova yesterday in the hope she will make something of it. But that’s a tricky one.
This is the big one:
‘US Standard Atmosphere Model & Observations Prove Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is Correct & Falsifies CAGW’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html
Part of a series at The Hockey Schtick. Impossible to ignore. This will not go away. Already there’s articles emanating from it e.g. this by Jonathan DuHamel (who doesn’t miss much):
‘What keeps the Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?’
http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/12/03/what-keeps-earth-warm-the-greenhouse-effect-or-something-else-2/
Basically, CO2 is negligible and insignificant.
Sure. Bob Tisdale seemed very interested in linking to your articles.
I love the comments you make on the wider story of CAGW scepticism and hope you’re right. I’m working on Jan Wright’s travesty of a sea-level report and I won’t spare time just yet for the greenhouse debunking you mention. But soon…
>”I’m working on Jan Wright’s travesty of a sea-level report”
I’ll kook forward to that. Those predictions (MfE, T&T/WCC, NiWA’s temperature prognosis) need to be re-visited from time to time to see how they are tracking over a clearly defined period and baseline. Wright has been sloppy in that respect so she deserves whatever criticism ensues until she makes herself clear (and even then there will be criticism).
At least the T&T/WCC report was clearly defined as being from 1990 – not left implied to be from the date of the report. NIWA temperature is clearly from 1990 too.
My personal bugbear is this paper cited in AR5 Chapter 8 (I’ve elicited some comment from Mike Lockwood on this but not as much as I’d like to):
‘What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?’
Gareth S. Jones, Mike Lockwood and Peter A. Stott (2012) [all 3 are AR5 authors]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017013/full
Click on,
Figure 5. Global annual mean near-surface temperature anomalies, with respect to the 1961–1990 period, for EBM_ALL (blue line) and (top) EBM_L00, (middle) EBM_K07, and (bottom) EBM_L09. The solid red line represents the mean of the TSI projections [CO2-forced with least-case TSI change implemented] …….Four different global annual mean temperature observational series are also included (green lines); HadCRUT3 [Brohan et al., 2006], NASA GISS [Hansen et al., 2006], NOAA NCDC [Smith et al., 2008], and JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency)…..
The observations to 2010 (green line) are now well out of date. For example HadCRUT3 now looks like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997
The addition of 2010 – 2014 data puts the green line well outside the blue band i.e. the blue band has no credibility.
Me, I believe the green line. The nut-case blue line is a physical impossibility in a solar recession and already wrong enough to disqualify the paper’s conclusion and all of the IPCC AR5 assessment related to it.
No my thoughts are not original and are based on the above material. I was just pulling out the essence in a form that a wider population might get behind.
I increasingly think that the war has to be won with PR and Politics rather than with logic. That means sound bites.
Hemi,
I agree. We have many people clever with telling the science and mathematics. Now we need people clever with telling the stories. Is that the same as PR and politics?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/greenlands-ice-melt-models-may-too-sunny-223038647.html
“The new research found that an average of 243 gigatons (or 66.5 cubic miles) of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted each year from 2003 to 2009. (The scientists had the most comprehensive data for this period.) That’s enough meltwater to raise oceans by about 0.027 inches (0.68 millimeters) per year, the researchers said.”
Adding that to the Antarctic loss of mass 129? GT per annum over same period gives almost exactly 1 mm per year or extrapolated 10 cm per century.
Pingback: Why “90% of the missing heat” cannot be hiding in the oceans | ss_site_title