Al Gore explains "snowmageddon"

[WeatherRusty]

I don't think that's the point...the problem is that Gore and many others were claiming that AGW was making winters milder, and now that winters in the mid-latitudes have become colder/snowier, the AGW crowd is trying to spin this as another effect of anthropogenic climate change due to Siberian precipitation patterns regardless of the fact they just said a few years ago that the weather would be less cold and snowy because of carbon emissions, not more so. It's another example of the theory being manipulated constantly to fit the newest trends, instead of sticking to actual scientific findings/observations. Gore and others devoted to the cause are consistently altering the theory to fit with whatever happens, therefore it can never be wrong.

The science behind AGW is not changing. That's a bunch of bull. I don't know where some of these ideas come from. I will encapsulate AGW to the following. 3.7W/m^2 or ~1.2C of warming influence enhanced to between 2C-4.5C by feedbacks. That's it.

Now from that one can logically assume that the cryosphere will degrade, that sea level will rise, that species will be forced to migrate, that arable land for particular agricultural practices will shift with the climate etc. Weather patterns will change in the long term just as they change now due to interactions with short term surface differences. When the global temperature is 2C warmer than today I would have no problem expecting lesser cold and snowy winters in New England.

You need to expand the scope in time and temperature change for radical changes to take place. You don't get catastrophic consequences with 0.8C change but you would increasingly along the way to 4C+ of change.

[skierinvermont]

Even the Shuckmann study, however, shows something surprising to those who believe seriously in AGW: 0-2000m OHC wasn't increasing at all during the 07-08 La Niña event. I'm not sure if much of the response to ENSO changes is only felt initially in the shallower waters, but you'd think there would be a serious increase in OHC with the 07-08 La Niña which peaked at -1.4C on the ONI scale. I wonder if this may be related to the fact that surface temperatures were also much quicker to cool during the 07-08 La Niña than in 98-99, despite the events being of similar strength, referring to the UAH analysis that showed the global temperature anomaly dipping below -.1C on the old baseline. This may indicate that another factor such as the solar minimum is starting to have a bigger impact on global climate, which could be key in invalidating the IPCC computer models showing a warming rate of over .2C/decade.

Do you have a chart for 0-2000m OHC this year? It will be interesting to see how the 10-11 strong Niña affects OHC; in theory, one would think that a significant increase would be seen since less energy is being radiated to the atmosphere in a -ENSO event that buries heat in the world's oceans. If we don't see this tendency, we'll have to consider more seriously the idea that the low solar activity is halting global warming in its tracks; January's sunspot number was only 19, and activity remains near the levels of the Maunder Minimum and well below NASA predictions from just a few years ago. In addition to creating local change in the mid-latitudes due to the -AO/-NAO, the decline in solar may have bigger ramifications in the long term. A new study of OHC after this La Niña ends would be warranted...

You must be reading it wrong.. 0-2000m OHC was a good bit higher in 08 than in 07 on average. There's a little peak in Feb-March '07 but that's just a blip.

Either way, the data does not have the precision you are trying to use it for.

The study does not surprise me in the slightest, in fact it confirms what we already knew to be the case: the earth is rapidly accumulating heat.

[Ottawa Blizzard]

I don't think that's the point...the problem is that Gore and many others were claiming that AGW was making winters milder, and now that winters in the mid-latitudes have become colder/snowier, the AGW crowd is trying to spin this as another effect of anthropogenic climate change due to Siberian precipitation patterns regardless of the fact they just said a few years ago that the weather would be less cold and snowy because of carbon emissions, not more so. It's another example of the theory being manipulated constantly to fit the newest trends, instead of sticking to actual scientific findings/observations. Gore and others devoted to the cause are consistently altering the theory to fit with whatever happens, therefore it can never be wrong.

I agree with this.

[ORH_wxman]

I agree with this.

There's a lot of blame game that goes around with any anomalous tick in weather and they usually like to blame it on AGW. There was talk about 5-6 years ago (I'm not sure if a paper was written though) on how global warming would favor a +NAO/+AO....but ever since the huge -NAO/-AO regime the past 2 years, the tune has completely changed.

There was never talk about a "global warming paradox" until now. The only talk about any paradox was the Day After Tomorrow scenario with the North Atlantic current, but that was a totally different concept than the AO/NAO going extreme negative.

We are pretty lacking still in our understanding of ocean circulations and climate oscillations on the decadal scale or longer.

[tamarack]

I don't think that's the point...the problem is that Gore and many others were claiming that AGW was making winters milder, and now that winters in the mid-latitudes have become colder/snowier, the AGW crowd is trying to spin this as another effect of anthropogenic climate change due to Siberian precipitation patterns regardless of the fact they just said a few years ago that the weather would be less cold and snowy because of carbon emissions, not more so. It's another example of the theory being manipulated constantly to fit the newest trends, instead of sticking to actual scientific findings/observations. Gore and others devoted to the cause are consistently altering the theory to fit with whatever happens, therefore it can never be wrong.

I'm not sure that "altering the theory" is totally accurate, but what the Goracles (and a few of the scientists) are doing is classic "heads I win, tails you lose". Mild winters and cold winters are each certainly possible within a warming climate. What gags me is when, first, mild winters are offered as demonstating the validity of current AGW theory, then cold winters are likewise given as supportive evidence - kind of resembles circular reasoning. Not all those who buy into the current projections do this, but those that do tend to shout the loudest and get the most attention. A lot of the polarity which unfortunately pollutes the climate change discussion comes as a result of such opinionating.

[Clifford]

Any Weather/Climate theory has to include an element of variability.

I.E. You have to expect some winters to be cooler, some to be warmer, as well as tropical warming and arctic cooling.

One should not say that a ½°C surface temperature drop is Predicted by a Warming model.

But, rather one should say that it is not inconsistent with the model, as well as pointing out that there are some slow-reactor heat sinks that can store energy, which may not be immediately evident with surface temperature measurements.

Since there can be rapid transfer of heat/cold to and from the Arctic&Antarctic, they should be better tracked in the global temperature records and models.

[bobbutts]

It's pretty simple. The theory (co2 as a forcing agent) is strong as ever. Specific predictions and associated activism are a complete wreck.

Bottom line is we changed the atmosphere and it will affect climate but nobody knows with much certainty exactly how. I used to put some faith in these predictions, but the track record of them thus far has been horrendous. The fundamental problem with Gore movement is that it's based on these flawed specific predictions.

[Mencken_Fan]

He may be an independent, but he is still a political activist. Not necessarily the best position for a scientist to be in.

Right....keep scientists in the closet where they belong.

Heck, we could even start a new Inquisition.

I wonder what Galileo would say?

[BethesdaWX]

Actually I am quite familiar with the literature on OHC and have read many of the recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject including those from which the figures were drawn.

1) You are citing a 2008 paper that has since been rejected in the primary literature. The more recent analyses of ARGO data say the oceans have warmed since 2003 (see Schuckmann 2009, Cazenave 2009, and Leuliette 2009). You are citing Willis 2008. I doubt very much whether Willis still stands by his 2008 study that was the basis for the NPR link you provided from 2008.

2) The chart I posted doesn't show 2002 because ARGO was not fully operational until around 2003-2004 and their are major calibration issues early in the data set. It doesn't show 2009 or 2010 because it was published in 2009.

3) The long-term graphs of OHC are based on steric sea level rises. There has been a well documented rise in global sea levels attributable to steric sea level rise. In other words, the oceans expanding as they warm.

ARGO was partially functional in 2002, so, just using the functional data that was used in 2002....with no additions through 2003-2010, gives the same trend of a flatline. Whats even worse, using sea level rise as a base proxy for SURFACE Temperature.....that cannot be done with any certainty or accuracy. 95% of the heat has been stored below 6000m at the deepest sections).

This doesn't change whether the warming is Natural/Solar, Or Co2/GHG related.

You need to use the 2002-2010 dataset as a whole, there are no excuses. ARGO was in use in 2002. So, if it was only partially operational, only extend data used in 2002 for the rest of the study..........just like you compare the satellite data to the station data to claim the warming of the baseline is higher than is shown on satellites. If different data is needed to complete a trend, it can be done so in this case as well.

Remember this.

[Mencken_Fan]

Its the Sun, and the magnetic field changes which started in the 19th century. Well, thats my hypothesis....yours is CO2 and other human activities.

How would you break down (percentage-wise) the causes of post-1880 warming?

It seems to me only solar and man's activities can explain warming (or cooling) on an extended time scale because ocean cycles are just that, cycles.

Being that over the long term, La Ninas, El Ninos, AMOs, PDOs, etc. all balance out; something else must lead to a sustained trend (in either direction.)

I would certainly contribute the Sun to the up and down trends over the last few thousand years but does the Sun explain all the warming since 1880? Overlapping solar charts with temperature charts does not make a great match over the past 130 years.

Why would you not allow that man is contributing in a significant way?

[BethesdaWX]

How would you break down (percentage-wise) the causes of post-1880 warming?

It seems to me only solar and man's activities can explain warming (or cooling) on an extended time scale because ocean cycles are just that, cycles.

Being that over the long term, La Ninas, El Ninos, AMOs, PDOs, etc. all balance out; something else must lead to a sustained trend (in either direction.)

I would certainly contribute the Sun to the up and down trends over the last few thousand years but does the Sun explain all the warming since 1880? Overlapping solar charts with temperature charts does not make a great match over the past 130 years.

Why would you not allow that man is contributing in a significant way?

In my view, man kind is responsible for about 0.1C of warming since 1850, due to activities such as deforestation, Co2 emissions, urbanization, etc.

Heres how it all went down with me............................

I actually was once an AGW follower...until I looked at the science behind it. I spoke to several scientists, and did plenty of research....I was only 16 at the time, and am still young.

Data/correlations behind natual/supernatural forcings such as the Sun/Muli Century Solar Activity, the Earth's Magnetic Field decrease of an astonishing 10-15%, and Multi century Deep Ocean Current Changes....and these Correlations to temperature, were absolutely HUGE.

Then I took a look at Co2 and the other trace gases + their impacts. Knowing IPCC "projections" were based off Co2 increase predictions by computer modeling of Co2'simpact on the atmosphere, I looked at what Natural cycles had been doing during the timeframe of interest. Given that we had been barely scraping the bottom of the "cone of confidence" given by the IPCC (we have since fallen below the projections ), I was astonished to find that every natural driver we know of had been in its Warm Phase, which should have been boosting warming to unprecedentad values. We had been in a Solar Max, +PDO/+AMO, 70% El Nino Dominance with 3 super Ninos during the warming phase. Also, knowing the 15% decrease in the Earth's MF, and the Increase in Solar Activity since the LIA....correlated perfectly with our warming. We did not need ANY additional CO2 warming to match our current anomaly!

Problem was....with everything so aligned warm.....we have been flatlining,and now we have entered a cooling trend (excluding the strong ENSO spikes), as is to be expected. I fully expect the cooling trend to increase starting between 2015-2020,and continue full fledge until 2045-2050 or so.

[skierinvermont]

ARGO was partially functional in 2002, so, just using the functional data that was used in 2002....with no additions through 2003-2010, gives the same trend of a flatline. Whats even worse, using sea level rise as a base proxy for SURFACE Temperature.....that cannot be done with any certainty or accuracy. 95% of the heat has been stored below 6000m at the deepest sections).

This doesn't change whether the warming is Natural/Solar, Or Co2/GHG related.

You need to use the 2002-2010 dataset as a whole, there are no excuses. ARGO was in use in 2002. So, if it was only partially operational, only extend data used in 2002 for the rest of the study..........just like you compare the satellite data to the station data to claim the warming of the baseline is higher than is shown on satellites. If different data is needed to complete a trend, it can be done so in this case as well.

Remember this.

There is very little ARGO data from 02-03 and as such it has been deemed much less accurate by ALL of the scientists familiar with the data.

There is essentially unanimous agreement that OHC has continued to rise 02-08 (see Leuliette 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Cazenave 2009). I challenge you to find one peer-reviewed article that disputes this besides the retracted Willis paper from 2008. Knox and Douglass doesn't count because it's not peer-reviewed, contains blatant flaws, and does not respond to any of the other peer-reviewed literature of the last two years. This trend 02-08 continues the steady rise we have witnessed the last 75+ years.

Nobody uses sea level rise as a proxy for surface temperatures. I have no idea where the hell you got this idea from.

Scientists use sea level rise, after subtracting off the sea level rise due to melting glaciers and melting Greenland, as a proxy for ocean heat content, because as the oceans warm they expand.

Also, very little if any heat has been stored below 6000m because very little of the oceans are actually 6000m deep.

[Mencken_Fan]

In my view, man kind is responsible for about 0.1C of warming since 1850, due to activities such as deforestation, Co2 emissions, urbanization, etc.

Heres how it all went down with me............................

I actually was once an AGW follower...until I looked at the science behind it. I spoke to several scientists, and did plenty of research....I was only 16 at the time, and am still young.

Data/correlations behind natual/supernatural forcings such as the Sun/Muli Century Solar Activity, the Earth's Magnetic Field decrease of an astonishing 10-15%, and Multi century Deep Ocean Current Changes....and these Correlations to temperature, were absolutely HUGE.

Then I took a look at Co2 and the other trace gases + their impacts. Knowing IPCC "projections" were based off Co2 increase predictions by computer modeling of Co2'simpact on the atmosphere, I looked at what Natural cycles had been doing during the timeframe of interest. Given that we had been barely scraping the bottom of the "cone of confidence" given by the IPCC (we have since fallen below the projections ), I was astonished to find that every natural driver we know of had been in its Warm Phase, which should have been boosting warming to unprecedentad values. We had been in a Solar Max, +PDO/+AMO, 70% El Nino Dominance with 3 super Ninos during the warming phase. Also, knowing the 15% decrease in the Earth's MF, and the Increase in Solar Activity since the LIA....correlated perfectly with our warming. We did not need ANY additional CO2 warming to match our current anomaly!

Problem was....with everything so aligned warm.....we have been flatlining,and now we have entered a cooling trend (excluding the strong ENSO spikes), as is to be expected. I fully expect the cooling trend to increase starting between 2015-2020,and continue full fledge until 2045-2050 or so.

A reasonable hypothesis; though I'd be troubled by the great warmth of 2010.

I lean towards near-term cooling (the next few decades) but have reservations.

It's been several years since the solar minimum began; however much the lag effect, it has to be fading and I cannot keep using it as an excuse for lack of noticeable cooling; especially with a -PDO and La Nina out there. Should 2011 turn out to be yet another 'hot' year; my stock in cooling will drop a dollar and my AGW stock will go up a dollar.

I'm very glad to have been born in 1951; it was a good time (for an upper middle class white male in Sumner/Bethesda, Md.) to be growing up, but I envy you in that you'll see the climate of the second half of this century while I won't. At least i think I envy you, ha-ha. (Who the heck knows, you may suffer an economic and climatic meltdown!)

[Clifford]

Cazenave 2009

Nobody uses sea level rise as a proxy for surface temperatures. I have no idea where the hell you got this idea from.

The 2008 Cazenave Article attempts to calculate the contributions of Ice Melt + Thermal Expansion to get an estimate of temperature change via thermal expansion. No, it isn't surface temperatures... we can measure those easily enough with satellites, ships, and buoys, but using thermal expansion to estimate deep sea temperature changes.

http://sciences.blog...al_GPC_2008.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

A reasonable hypothesis; though I'd be troubled by the great warmth of 2010.

I lean towards near-term cooling (the next few decades) but have reservations.

It's been several years since the solar minimum began; however much the lag effect, it has to be fading and I cannot keep using it as an excuse for lack of noticeable cooling; especially with a -PDO and La Nina out there. Should 2011 turn out to be yet another 'hot' year; my stock in cooling will drop a dollar and my AGW stock will go up a dollar.

I'm very glad to have been born in 1951; it was a good time (for an upper middle class white male in Sumner/Bethesda, Md.) to be growing up, but I envy you in that you'll see the climate of the second half of this century while I won't. At least i think I envy you, ha-ha. (Who the heck knows, you may suffer an economic and climatic meltdown!)

haha, well, I'm not sure I'll live past 30 on the road I'm heading down in the past yr

As for the Solar Min, there are Huge errors/misconceptions being thrown around by a few people. The Lag time being described represents the 11yr solar cycle & its effect on the atmosphere, which represents only minimal cooling....not extended solar minimums which provide massive cooling.

So of course we should not see any real cooling yet!

Multi-century changes in the solar cycles themselves & resulting solar activity is another world compared to the 11yr cycle, and would take the course of at several low solar cycles to give us the kind of cooling seen in earlier times.

Also....the peak monthly anomaly in 1998 was higher than anything in 2010......although 2010 was warm longer than 1998 since the +AMO repercussion was clearly evident in the atratosphere for much of the Autumn season.

[BethesdaWX]

There is very little ARGO data from 02-03 and as such it has been deemed much less accurate by ALL of the scientists familiar with the data.

There is essentially unanimous agreement that OHC has continued to rise 02-08 (see Leuliette 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Cazenave 2009). I challenge you to find one peer-reviewed article that disputes this besides the retracted Willis paper from 2008. Knox and Douglass doesn't count because it's not peer-reviewed, contains blatant flaws, and does not respond to any of the other peer-reviewed literature of the last two years. This trend 02-08 continues the steady rise we have witnessed the last 75+ years.

Nobody uses sea level rise as a proxy for surface temperatures. I have no idea where the hell you got this idea from.

Scientists use sea level rise, after subtracting off the sea level rise due to melting glaciers and melting Greenland, as a proxy for ocean heat content, because as the oceans warm they expand.

Also, very little if any heat has been stored below 6000m because very little of the oceans are actually 6000m deep.

There is certainly less data from ARGO before mid 2003, but data beforehand is still useful....kind of how the "hockeystick" implements the surface station record in into the proxy data, instead of leaving the station data out....after all, its a reconstruction.

And dude......here is your quote

Quote by Skier.......

3) The long-term graphs of OHC are based on steric sea level rises. There has been a well documented rise in global sea levels attributable to steric sea level rise. In other words, the oceans expanding as they warm.

That is likely twice as error filled as any modern study. No one gives a crap about peer reviewed sh*t you bring up.

[Clifford]

As far as sea level rise.

There are some estimates that the sea level has never stopped rising since the beginning of the Holocene.

http://en.wikipedia...._sea_level_rise

When you look at the articles discussing sea temperature increase, and resulting sea level rise... For example, if you look at the Also Schucmann 2009 graph above, everything has been converted to watts per square meter.

With an estimate of a temperature increase of about 0.77 watts per square meter.

Is that annually? or per decade?

Anyway, he is looking at a column, 2000 meters tall...

0.77 watts per square meter is a very odd way to measure the temperature of a volume, but good for comparing to something like TSI measured in watts per square meter. With a TSI of about 1361 to 1362, it is about 0.05% of the total sun's output, and close to the maximum TSI variation in the recent solar cycles.

For the column of water.

0.77 watts (over a year) * 24 * 365 = 6745.2 Watt Hours = 6.7542 KWH (per square meter per year).

1 watt hour = 0.86042065 kilocalories

so...

We have:

6745.2 watt hours x 860.4 calories/watt hour

And we get about 5803709 calories per square meter.

100x100x100 cm³ per m³ = 1,000,000 cm³/m³

1,000,000 cm³/m³ * 2000 m depth = 2,000,000,000 cm³ in a 2000 m column, 1 m²

5803709 calories per m² / 2,000,000,000 cm³

And we get a whopping average temperature change of about 0.0029 degrees.

Or, about 2.9 ºC per thousand years.

However...

If the average depth of the ocean is 3790m (over the same wattage).

we get about half that...

5803709 calories per m² / 3,790,000,000 cm³

or about 0.0015 ºC, or 1.5ºC per thousand years.

Multiply that out to 10,000 years, and we're a little high....

But, it is likely that there is a HOLOCENE contribution to the sea level rise and ocean temperature increase.

If you look at the blue (whole Holocene) graph above, there are likely 2 phases in the sea level rise.

The early sea level rise would be primarily driven by meltwater.

The later phase would be driven by thermal expansion, and is likely a very slow process due to the very large heat sink being warmed.

This heat sink effect would also likely be a contributor for the downward sloping temperatures during the glacial periods.

Your oceans, in fact, have a very odd temperature distribution.,

http://www.windows2u...e_transfer.html

Then, from the floor of the ocean, deeper, the temperatures actually warm up again.

You might be tempted to blame this thermocline on the arctic, but it is more likely that it is a remnant of ice age temperatures.

Keep in mind, if the environmental temperature was constant, then the thermal gradient of the earth would have to reach either uniformity, or at least be monotonous in direction, Hot Core --> Cool surface. A non-uniform thermal gradient, Hot Core --> Cool Subsurface --> Hot surface is most likely caused by remnants of cool past temperatures.

Whether or not we ever loose the Methane Hydrates or Methane Clathrates will be more dependent on whether we can maintain Holocene temperatures for the long-term, than whether we have a very slight boost in Holocene temperatures.

This also gives one an estimate of the exraordinary amount of energy it takes to increase the ocean's temperature by as little as 1ºC. As estimated above, that would likely take us between 5,000 and 10,000 years to do. Our deep sea Methane Clathrates/Hydrates aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[skierinvermont]

The 2008 Cazenave Article attempts to calculate the contributions of Ice Melt + Thermal Expansion to get an estimate of temperature change via thermal expansion. No, it isn't surface temperatures... we can measure those easily enough with satellites, ships, and buoys, but using thermal expansion to estimate deep sea temperature changes.

http://sciences.blog...al_GPC_2008.pdf

Which is exactly what I said. Thank you for repeating.

Steric sea level rise is a proxy for OHC, NOT surface temperatures. BIG difference. No idea where Bethesda got that idea from.

[skierinvermont]

As far as sea level rise.

There are some estimates that the sea level has never stopped rising since the beginning of the Holocene.

http://en.wikipedia...._sea_level_rise

When you look at the articles discussing sea temperature increase, and resulting sea level rise... For example, if you look at the Also Schucmann 2009 graph above, everything has been converted to watts per square meter.

With an estimate of a temperature increase of about 0.77 watts per square meter.

Is that annually? or per decade?

Anyway, he is looking at a column, 2000 meters tall...

0.77 watts per square meter is a very odd way to measure the temperature of a volume, but good for comparing to something like TSI measured in watts per square meter. With a TSI of about 1361 to 1362, it is about 0.05% of the total sun's output, and close to the maximum TSI variation in the recent solar cycles.

For the column of water.

0.77 watts (over a year) * 24 * 365 = 6745.2 Watt Hours = 6.7542 KWH (per square meter per year).

1 watt hour = 0.86042065 kilocalories

so...

We have:

6745.2 watt hours x 860.4 calories/watt hour

And we get about 5803709 calories per square meter.

100x100x100 cm³ per m³ = 1,000,000 cm³/m³

1,000,000 cm³/m³ * 2000 m depth = 2,000,000,000 cm³ in a 2000 m column, 1 m²

5803709 calories per m² / 2,000,000,000 cm³

And we get a whopping average temperature change of about 0.0029 degrees.

Or, about 2.9 ºC per thousand years.

However...

If the average depth of the ocean is 3790m (over the same wattage).

we get about half that...

5803709 calories per m² / 3,790,000,000 cm³

or about 0.0015 ºC, or 1.5ºC per thousand years.

Multiply that out to 10,000 years, and we're a little high....

But, it is likely that there is a HOLOCENE contribution to the sea level rise and ocean temperature increase.

If you look at the blue (whole Holocene) graph above, there are likely 2 phases in the sea level rise.

The early sea level rise would be primarily driven by meltwater.

The later phase would be driven by thermal expansion, and is likely a very slow process due to the very large heat sink being warmed.

This heat sink effect would also likely be a contributor for the downward sloping temperatures during the glacial periods.

Your oceans, in fact, have a very odd temperature distribution.,

http://www.windows2u...e_transfer.html

Then, from the floor of the ocean, deeper, the temperatures actually warm up again.

You might be tempted to blame this thermocline on the arctic, but it is more likely that it is a remnant of ice age temperatures.

Keep in mind, if the environmental temperature was constant, then the thermal gradient of the earth would have to reach either uniformity, or at least be monotonous in direction, Hot Core --> Cool surface. A non-uniform thermal gradient, Hot Core --> Cool Subsurface --> Hot surface is most likely caused by remnants of cool past temperatures.

Whether or not we ever loose the Methane Hydrates or Methane Clathrates will be more dependent on whether we can maintain Holocene temperatures for the long-term, than whether we have a very slight boost in Holocene temperatures.

This also gives one an estimate of the exraordinary amount of energy it takes to increase the ocean's temperature by as little as 1ºC. As estimated above, that would likely take us between 5,000 and 10,000 years to do. Our deep sea Methane Clathrates/Hydrates aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

W/m2 is a unit of power, not a unit of energy. It is a rate of energy gain/loss. The oceans are gaining energy at a rate of .77W/m2 on average over the period 2003-2008.

You asked whether it is 1 watt per year or per decade? It's not a rate of watts since watts are already a rate of energy conversion.

1 watt = 1 joule per second

So we have:

.77J / s^-1 m^-2 X (the surface area of the ocean) X (the number of second in a year) = the total energy gained by the oceans.

Or if you want to calculate the rate of temperature change per year we have

.77J s^-1 m^-2 X (the number of seconds in a year) * (.239 calories/J) / (20,000,000,000 cubic centimeters/ square meter of ocean) * (1 calorie to warm 1 cubic centimeter of water) = .0029C/yr

which is incidentally the same answer you got even though you started off confused about the units.

The study was only conducted down to a maximum depth of 2000m so you can't switch to 3800m because there would be some small amount of energy gained even deeper. However, other estimates say that the oceans on a whole are gaining about ~.80W/m2 so you can divide this by the average depth of the ocean, which is 3800m as you said. Kevin Trenberth has written some analyses of the global energy budget you could read.

However, keep in mind that most of the energy gain is occurring in the top 300m or so, and the rate of temperature increase is much faster than .0029C/year. The rate of temperature increase is fastest on the surface where the oceans have warmed ~.13C/decade.

Also, I don't think that you are correct that eventually the oceans would end up at a temperature between the core and the surface. Remember energy can be transferred in other ways than conduction. (Convection, radiation). I believe that most deep ocean water originally has its source in the Antarctic or Arctic where it sinks to the bottom and then flows towards the equators. This would explain why it is so cold.

Finally, sea level has not been rising throughout the holocene. It was stable the last 2,000 years before beginning to rise again due to AGW.

[BethesdaWX]

Apparently you don't know what a watt is. The units are .77W/m2.. you got that part of your correct, but the rest of your post is a disaster because you didn't understand those units and got carried away. Slow down take a breather, pay attention to units, and perform the calculations properly. I know you're a smart guy from your posts on here and the fact that you are able to even attempt calculations like this, but you've got to slow down and think.

W/m2 is a unit of power, not a unit of energy. It is a rate of energy gain/loss. The oceans are gaining energy at a rate of .77W/m2 on average over the period 2003-2008.

1 watt = 1 joule per second

So we have:

.77J / s^-1 m^-2 X (the surface area of the ocean) X (the number of second in a year) = the total energy gained by the oceans.

Umm, why are you describing energy absorbtion by the oceans?

Tell me, what do you think clifford was trying to convey? I'm looking forward to hearing this, if you respond.

FYI, do you know what part of the oceans are used for the OHC anomaly?

[BethesdaWX]

Finally, sea level has not been rising throughout the holocene. It was stable the last 2,000 years before beginning to rise again due to AGW.

Sea Level has been rising throughout the holocene, rising since the LIA, predominately since the end of the Maunder Minimum.

You cannot inter-exchange between proxy & measurement data, which is why proxies do not show the the sea level rise being measured, especially on a long-termscale, since there are frequents "jumps", or altering trends within a long term trend.

Since Solar is the predominate cause of our warming, its not surprising there is a correlation.

[skierinvermont]

Sea Level has been rising throughout the holocene, rising since the LIA, predominately since the end of the Maunder Minimum.

You cannot inter-exchange between proxy & measurement data, which is why proxies do not show the the sea level rise being measured, especially on a long-termscale, since there are frequents "jumps", or altering trends within a long term trend.

Since Solar is the predominate cause of our warming, its not surprising there is a correlation.

This is false. Sea level did not change significantly over the last 1,500 years until the 20th century. Since 1900 it has risen at 1.8mm/yr and has accelerated to 3.0mm/yr. Sea level, like temperature, is likely at its highest in the last 1,500 years.

During the last 2,000 years sea level rose approximately ~100mm prior to 1900. Since 1900 it has risen ~200mm. This makes the rate of sea level rise in the last 100 years 100X faster than the 2000 years prior.

[BethesdaWX]

This is false. Sea level did not change significantly over the last 1,500 years until the 20th century. Since 1900 it has risen at 1.8mm/yr and has accelerated to 3.0mm/yr. Sea level, like temperature, is likely at its highest in the last 1,500 years.

During the last 2,000 years sea level rose approximately ~100mm prior to 1900. Since 1900 it has risen ~200mm. This makes the rate of sea level rise in the last 100 years 100X faster than the 2000 years prior.

What?

Our measurements began in in the mid/late 1800's, we do not have measurement data before then, and we have been rising the entire time of our measurements.

Our sea level rise began beforehand, after the LIA.......since our warming began after the LIA. Thats another mis-representation being thrown around, our warming actually began after the LIA, flatlined around the maunder minimum, then began rising with the Modern Max. The warming did not begin at the Industrial Revolution. Warming has now flatlined, and is beginning to head downward.

The proxies we use to make the multi-thousand year reconstructions do not show the recent increase in sea level rise (the past 200yrs+), so there is a divergence.

[nzucker]

This is false. Sea level did not change significantly over the last 1,500 years until the 20th century. Since 1900 it has risen at 1.8mm/yr and has accelerated to 3.0mm/yr. Sea level, like temperature, is likely at its highest in the last 1,500 years.

During the last 2,000 years sea level rose approximately ~100mm prior to 1900. Since 1900 it has risen ~200mm. This makes the rate of sea level rise in the last 100 years 100X faster than the 2000 years prior.

Time to get the buckets out. I have a low pond in the woods behind my house, maybe can help out by bringing in some of the Atlantic waters. That will reduce the nasty AMO as well.

Geoengineering FTW

[A-L-E-X]

Time to get the buckets out. I have a low pond in the woods behind my house, maybe can help out by bringing in some of the Atlantic waters. That will reduce the nasty AMO as well.

Geoengineering FTW

Hell, I love geoengineering. While we're at it, let's do something about the nasty Pacific.

[Clifford]

You asked whether it is 1 watt per year or per decade? It's not a rate of watts since watts are already a rate of energy conversion.

1 watt = 1 joule per second

Right... I calculated it as a rate.

However, Schuckmann reports the Y axis in J/m², and the X axis in years.

So, about 2 J/m² over a period of 6 years does not equate to about 0.77 W/m²

.0029C/yr

which is incidentally the same answer you got

incidentally?

Well, it never hurts to have someone else check the work.

Also, I don't think that you are correct that eventually the oceans would end up at a temperature between the core and the surface. Remember energy can be gained and lost in other ways than conduction.

As far as "goals"...

While Watts/m² is useful to compare to TSI, as well as the total global energy consumption, it doesn't really tell me that much.

0.0029°C/yr gives me a much better idea of the overall impact on the oceans.

Yes, the top 100 feet is important for the marine ecosystem... but we need to keep the surface changes in perspective with the oceans as a whole. It may also help one understand the role in the oceans as a CO₂ sink, both in temperature, and rate of transfer of surface to deep.

Realizing that the sea level has been rising for the last 14,000 years (levelling off for the last 7,000 years), a portion of the annual sea level increase, and the deep sea ocean temperature increase is attributable to to the Holocene warming, 14,000 years ago (and continuing today). The oceans have never reached a steady state.

Also, if the ocean continues to increase in temperature by 2.9°C/1000 years... the deep sea methane hydrates/clathrates would eventually collapse if we just managed to maintain the current Holocene temperatures. However, the estimated ½°C surface temperature increase in the oceans poses little immediate threat to them now, or any time this century.

As far as a temperature gradient.

One would need a mechanism to go from High-->Low-->High.

Difference in conduction won't work. So, say you had a hot iron ball embedded in an aluminium sphere. You won't find a cold spot in the middle. Same thing if you took your iron ball, aluminium sphere, covered by an silicate shell... the silicate might insulate the aluminium, but you still would not get a cold spot in the middle. The only way to account for it would be a heat-tube leading to the surface, but that seems unlikely with the large area of ocean surface, and even so, the heat tube would have to end in a thermal minimum (poles).

So, that leads you back to polar cooling. One would need a wicked current to explain an average ocean surface temperature of about 21°C, polar temps of no less than about 0°C, and most of the subsurface ocean at about 4°C (including, say, the Gulf of Mexico).

All animals are exothermic

Most bacteria are exothermic (I.E. the little critters that can cause spontaneous combustion).

Those bacteria clustered around heat vents may be endothermic.

Chlorophyl seems to absorb poorly in the IR spectrum, so while it can change sunlight into chemical energy, it doesn't do so with the earth's EM radiation, thus I don't believe algae are endothermic. See below.

It might be interesting to hunt for endothermic algae/bacteria. One should look at shaded levels of the ocean, for example at the 500m level of the ocean where shade increases, and the temperature decreases quickly.

While we might be able to breed/design endotherms... that would be very very dangerous to do. If they don't exist in nature, there is probably a reason why.

There are, of course, endothermic chemical reactions, for example CO₂+H₂O --> Hydrocarbons + O₂, but other than organic synthesis, it doesn't seem plausible as a cause for the ocean temperature gradient.

That leaves us back with polar cooling, as well as slow warming of an ice age gradient.

No matter what the Alarmists say...

We can still conclude that the Methyl Hydrates and Clathrates are perfectly safe, although we may wish to plan for their collapse in 50,000 years.

[skierinvermont]

It wouldn't take much current at all. The rate of conduction from 3000m to the surface would be extremely slow. Therefore a tiny flow of 0-3C water into the deep ocean would be enough to maintain deep ocean temperatures of 3-4C, given the rate of heat gain from the surface is extremely slow. And besides, I don't know about the antarctic but in the Atlantic there is a pretty substantial overturning current coming out of the arctic.

I see your point about the units on the Y axis. I did some googling and I believe there is a caption to the figure which says the units are 10^8 J/m2 as I came across a couple blogs which included this caption. That would explain the discrepancy. So, the top 2000m of the oceans gained about 1.5X10^8 J/m2 between 2003 and 2008. You can check it if you want but I imagine that matches up with the calculated rate of .77W/m2.

[skierinvermont]

What?!

Our measurements began in in the mid/late 1800's, we do not have measurement data before then, and we have been rising the entire time of our measurements.

Our sea level rise began beforehand, after the LIA.......since our warming began after the LIA. Thats another mis-representation being thrown around, our warming actually began after the LIA, flatlined around the maunder minimum, then began rising with the Modern Max. The warming did not begin at the Industrial Revolution. Warming has now flatlined, and is beginning to head downward.

The proxies we use to make the multi-thousand year reconstructions do not show the recent increase in sea level rise (the past 200yrs+), so there is a divergence.

I can see the problem you are referring to about the switch from proxies to instruments at the year 1900. The proxies are obviously not as precise as the instruments are. But it doesn't matter because there was clearly very little net change in sea level the last 2,000 years and then a sudden acceleration. If sea levels had been rising steadily the last 2,000 years there would have been a large net change.

Here is a reconstruction of sea level the last 2000 years combined with the instrumental record through 2000. Obviously there is more uncertainty with the reconstructed sea level, as denoted by the large error bars, however it doesn't matter. The general picture is clear - no net change in sea level the last 2000 years, but we are rising rapidly already near record levels in the last 2000 years.

This graph comes from a study by researchers at the Proudman Oceanography Laboratory, the University of Copenhagen and the University of Lapland.

http://planetearth.n...ory.aspx?id=293

[Clifford]

This is false. Sea level did not change significantly over the last 1,500 years until the 20th century. Since 1900 it has risen at 1.8mm/yr and has accelerated to 3.0mm/yr. Sea level, like temperature, is likely at its highest in the last 1,500 years.

During the last 2,000 years sea level rose approximately ~100mm prior to 1900. Since 1900 it has risen ~200mm. This makes the rate of sea level rise in the last 100 years 100X faster than the 2000 years prior.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venice/solutions.html

"Sixteen hundred years ago, around the time of Venice's founding, the Adriatic's standard sea level was almost six feet below what it is today. For a millennium and a half, Venetians were able to cope with the problems associated with living in a water-dominated environment. As late as 1900, for example, water at extreme high tide covered St. Mark's Square only seven times a year."

For Amsterdam data since 1700...

I think it is:

.13mm/yr for 1700 to 1800.

.81mm/yr for 1800 to 1900

.14mm/yr for 1900 to 2000

http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html

http://www.psmsl.org/data/longrecords/

http://www.psmsl.org/data/longrecords/ancill_rep.htm

http://www.psmsl.org/data/longrecords/amsterdam.sea.level

I don't know why the 1800's seemed to be changing so quickly.

Earthquakes? It seems to go up in a stepwise fashion.

From the Wikipedia Holocene chart, the trend was 0.2mm/yr extrapolating from 4000 yrs BP to today.

Some of the current sea level rise is due to glacial melt (verified by GRACE).

Some is due to thermal expansion of deep water, likely very old expansion.

Some is due to thermal expansion of shallow water.

[Clifford]

Maybe I should rethink my idea about heat/cold.

Convection might be about to account for some of the ocean heat distribution, with deep cold currents.

It still would take thousands of years to make a serious dent in deep water temps.