OHC making huge jump in 2013

[The_Global_Warmer]

They will have to change the graphics so the 0-2000M doesn't rise off the page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top 100 meters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nflwxman]

Thanks for the update, Friv. This is truly the best way to measure AGW. Looks like both 0-2000m and 0-700m both made the largest jump since the early-mid 2000s. i wonder if we are starting to see the deep ocean is beginning to not absorb heat as quickly.

[skierinvermont]

Thanks for the update, Friv.  This is truly the best way to measure AGW.  Looks like both 0-2000m and 0-700m both made the largest jump since the early-mid 2000s.  i wonder if we are starting to see the deep ocean releasing some of that stored up heat.  It's too early to tell for sure, obviously.

 

Technically the deep oceans probably aren't releasing heat. Doing so would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They probably are just absorbing it more slowly than before which would cause a faster increase in OHC in the layers above. 

[LithiaWx]

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/40327-ohc-explodes-upwards-to-record-levels/#entry2376721

So we really need multiple threads for the same topic?

[nflwxman]

Technically the deep oceans probably aren't releasing heat. Doing so would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They probably are just absorbing it more slowly than before which would cause a faster increase in OHC in the layers above. 

I may have mispoke when I said heat, I meant energy. However, Redistribution of energy does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Circulation of the oceans change SST and lower level temperatures all the time even at equilibrium state depending where the energy is transferred to.  By "releasing", I meant circulating out.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It should be noted it appears there have been upward revisions for earlier this year or maybe even late 2012.

[skierinvermont]

I may have mispoke when I said heat, I meant energy. However, Redistribution of energy does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Circulation of the oceans change SST and lower level temperatures all the time even at equilibrium state depending where the energy is transferred to.  By "releasing", I meant circulating out.

 

It doesn't matter if you meant heat or energy. We are both talking about thermal energy ie heat. The deep oceans are cooler and warming is occurring from the surface. To maximize entropy (2nd law) thermal gradients dissipate to equilibrium. Thus, heat is constantly being transferred deeper as the surface warms. What has likely gone on the last decade is an increase in the rate or proportion of heat that is being transferred lower due to currents. The last year might be an indication that the rate or proportion being transferred deeper has reduced and returned to a more normal rate, thus leading to a faster accumulation of heat in the upper ocean, since less of it is being transferred to the deep.

 

In short, since the deep ocean is colder than the upper ocean, it would be impossible for the deep ocean to warm or add OHC to the upper ocean. The deep ocean can only, perhaps by some massive change in currents, cool the upper ocean or reduce the rate of its warming. It cannot warm it.

 

 

This is also why the term 'warming in the pipeline' in reference to deep ocean OHC increases is misleading. That heat is never returning to the surface (unless we enter a cooler climate somehow). It will be stored there forever. Rapid oceanic heat storage does, however, indicate that the earth is in a large energy imbalance. Even if CO2 stopped rising, the earth's thermal energy would continue to increase until the surface had warmed to a high enough temperature that the energy balance was eliminated due to increased radiation from the surface of the earth to space. This energy imbalance, not the energy stored in the deep oceans already (and forever), is the 'warming in the pipeline.'

[nzucker]

It doesn't matter if you meant heat or energy. We are both talking about thermal energy ie heat. The deep oceans are cooler and warming is occurring from the surface. To maximize entropy (2nd law) thermal gradients dissipate to equilibrium. Thus, heat is constantly being transferred deeper as the surface warms. What has likely gone on the last decade is an increase in the rate or proportion of heat that is being transferred lower due to currents. The last year might be an indication that the rate or proportion being transferred deeper has reduced and returned to a more normal rate, thus leading to a faster accumulation of heat in the upper ocean, since less of it is being transferred to the deep.

 

In short, since the deep ocean is colder than the upper ocean, it would be impossible for the deep ocean to warm or add OHC to the upper ocean. The deep ocean can only, perhaps by some massive change in currents, cool the upper ocean or reduce the rate of its warming. It cannot warm it.

 

 

This is also why the term 'warming in the pipeline' in reference to deep ocean OHC increases is misleading. That heat is never returning to the surface (unless we enter a cooler climate somehow). It will be stored there forever. Rapid oceanic heat storage does, however, indicate that the earth is in a large energy imbalance. Even if CO2 stopped rising, the earth's thermal energy would continue to increase until the surface had warmed to a high enough temperature that the energy balance was eliminated due to increased radiation from the surface of the earth to space. This energy imbalance, not the energy stored in the deep oceans already (and forever), is the 'warming in the pipeline.'

Nflwxman is clearly another mostly ignorant, global warming alarmist who tries to spin every fact into an argument that the Earth is warming in a rapid and dangerous fashion with more warming coming due to Trenberth's "missing energy" and "warmth in the pipeline". His comments in the last few posts have showed tremendous misunderstanding: how can energy and heat be two different things? And how can a much colder deep ocean warm a much milder upper ocean? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the ocean is warmest where the sun hits it and coldest where the sun's rays don't penetrate, and energy must always be moving from source to sink so the deep ocean can't be warming anything. 

 

I am a bit surprised at the large increases in OHC given the trend away from -ENSO/-PDO. We have robust warming of the PDO regions in the North Pacific during much of this year, and yet OHC has just begun to decline. I wonder if this also means that we should start heading back towards more La Niña conditions as the oceans absorb more energy, leaving SSTs a bit cooler. However, some meteorologists are saying the warm Pacific, especially N PAC, is due to the lack of typhoons and typhoon recurves which would churn up the water. 

 

In any case, you can clearly see a plateau in OHC in the last few years which has to be related to the halt in surface temperature change. 

[nflwxman]

Nflwxman is clearly another mostly ignorant, global warming alarmist who tries to spin every fact into an argument that the Earth is warming in a rapid and dangerous fashion with more warming coming due to Trenberth's "missing energy" and "warmth in the pipeline". His comments in the last few posts have showed tremendous misunderstanding: how can energy and heat be two different things? And how can a much colder deep ocean warm a much milder upper ocean? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the ocean is warmest where the sun hits it and coldest where the sun's rays don't penetrate, and energy must always be moving from source to sink so the deep ocean can't be warming anything.

I am a bit surprised at the large increases in OHC given the trend away from -ENSO/-PDO. We have robust warming of the PDO regions in the North Pacific during much of this year, and yet OHC has just begun to decline. I wonder if this also means that we should start heading back towards more La Niña conditions as the oceans absorb more energy, leaving SSTs a bit cooler. However, some meteorologists are saying the warm Pacific, especially N PAC, is due to the lack of typhoons and typhoon recurves which would churn up the water.

In any case, you can clearly see a plateau in OHC in the last few years which has to be related to the halt in surface temperature change.

Thanks buddy. I'm so glad you chimed in with such grace. Please point out where I was being an alarmist? Because I think the earth is warming? Oh my Lordy. How dare I. I would like to think the satellites measuring the energy imbalance of our planet are on to something. Nowhere did I suggest ASI is going to disappear tomorrow, or we are seeing 4 degrees of warming by 2100. Never said a darn thing about CAGW. And yes heat and energy are two separate entities, is a tidal wave hitting you considered a massive source of heat or kinetic energy? I already acknowledged my mistake above. Try to avoid the bashing. We are on a weather message board, not shooting missiles, friendo.

Back on topic- the OHC graph is only updated until June, which I believe, but am not certain was before the bulk of the N PAC warming. The area has seemingly begun to cool off a bit this month (at least in terms of SSTs).

[The_Global_Warmer]

Thanks buddy. I'm so glad you chimed in with such grace. Please point out where I was being an alarmist? Because I think the earth is warming? Oh my Lordy. How dare I. I would like to think the satellites measuring the energy imbalance of our planet are on to something. Nowhere did I suggest ASI is going to disappear tomorrow, or we are seeing 4 degrees of warming by 2100. Never said a darn thing about CAGW. And yes heat and energy are two separate entities, is a tidal wave hitting you considered a massive source of heat or kinetic energy? I already acknowledged my mistake above. Try to avoid the bashing. We are on a weather message board not shooting missiles, friendo.

Back on topic- the OHC graph is only updated until June, which I believe, but am not certain was before the bulk of the N PAC warming. The area has seemingly begun to cool off a bit this month (at least in terms of SSTs).

 

 

No you are correct the bulk of the warming is seasonally from July-Sept.  This year it's just been very long and very warm. 

 

 

 

I presume the argo floats just go wherever the currents take them?  Never the less.  The data for the North Pacific in the AMJ period compared to any other part of the large oceans is much more sporadic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The one cool area continues to be the East Central Pacific.  But it's gaining heat as well overtime. 

 

 

 

 

[chubbs]

Warming of the 700-2000 ocean layer indicates that heat is being received from the upper ocean and atmosphere.  Without AGW the atmosphere and upper ocean would be cooling as this heat is transferred to the deep ocean. Eventually this will reverse  Its not that the deep waters will release heat. They just will no longer serve as a heat sink.

[blizzard1024]

How long will the deep ocean continue to be a heat sink? The oceans are vast and the troposphere is minuscule compared to

the amount of water in the oceans. This transfer of energy to the deep ocean is in effect damping the present warming trend.

In fact, if you add up the energy that has been accumulated into the oceans with the changing OHC it would equal .09C.

Apply this to the troposphere it equals 36C! (calculations from the realclimate website).   But with the deeper oceans increasing

faster than the upper ocean you can see this is not much to be concerned about. When the climate is forced in either

direction, the oceans damp such changes. This could be one reason why the climate sensitivity is far less than the current

climate models project to any external forcing.  

 

In the distant past, rapid climate changes occurred when there were large NH conitential ice sheets due to various processes including

rapid melt water intrusions into the oceans which shut own oceanic currents, major changes in albedo, changes in ice sheet

topography etc. The holocene has seen a much more stable climate and this is due in part to the large dampening quality of our

vast oceans.  This OHC is clearly one indicator of this. When is all this warming "in the pipeline" going to show up? 

It could be centuries as inferred from ice core data and the lags seen in this dataset. 

[Jonger]

 

Would it be crazy to be skeptical of past records, considering the above? 2003 was the beginning of the ARGO era.

[blizzard1024]

Argo Era.jpg

 

Would it be crazy to be skeptical of past records, considering the above? 2003 was the beginning of the ARGO era.

I wasn't even going to go there. In climate science this is SOP, comparing different data-sets spatially, 

temporally and even methodology using statistics and climate models. I am sure you saw that paper that reconstructs 

upper tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures back to 1860 using climate models!

[LocoAko]

Nflwxman is clearly another mostly ignorant, global warming alarmist who tries to spin every fact into an argument that the Earth is warming in a rapid and dangerous fashion with more warming coming due to Trenberth's "missing energy" and "warmth in the pipeline". His comments in the last few posts have showed tremendous misunderstanding: how can energy and heat be two different things? And how can a much colder deep ocean warm a much milder upper ocean? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the ocean is warmest where the sun hits it and coldest where the sun's rays don't penetrate, and energy must always be moving from source to sink so the deep ocean can't be warming anything.

Sheesh... overreaction much?

[andyhb]

And yet not a single major NATL cane to use it!

[chubbs]

How long will the deep ocean continue to be a heat sink? The oceans are vast and the troposphere is minuscule compared to

the amount of water in the oceans. This transfer of energy to the deep ocean is in effect damping the present warming trend.

In fact, if you add up the energy that has been accumulated into the oceans with the changing OHC it would equal .09C.

Apply this to the troposphere it equals 36C! (calculations from the realclimate website).   But with the deeper oceans increasing

faster than the upper ocean you can see this is not much to be concerned about. When the climate is forced in either

direction, the oceans damp such changes. This could be one reason why the climate sensitivity is far less than the current

climate models project to any external forcing.  

 

In the distant past, rapid climate changes occurred when there were large NH conitential ice sheets due to various processes including

rapid melt water intrusions into the oceans which shut own oceanic currents, major changes in albedo, changes in ice sheet

topography etc. The holocene has seen a much more stable climate and this is due in part to the large dampening quality of our

vast oceans.  This OHC is clearly one indicator of this. When is all this warming "in the pipeline" going to show up? 

It could be centuries as inferred from ice core data and the lags seen in this dataset. 

 These cycles appear to last a few decades. This is probably at least partially related to PDO cycle which currently favors La Nina, and more tropical upweilling. .

[f2tornado]

And yet not a single major NATL cane to use it!

 

Lack of storms means less heat energy getting redistributed to the atmosphere. This should help increase OHC.

[skierinvermont]

Argo Era.jpg

 

Would it be crazy to be skeptical of past records, considering the above? 2003 was the beginning of the ARGO era.

 

You've made this argument before, but have failed to dealt with any of the substance of the issue. Instead, you blindly accept maps which you know very little about which you have no doubt found on a denier website. 

 

Again, please offer us a substantive critique of the dozens of papers on 20th century OHC.

 

Also, while you're at it please offer us a substantive explanation for why sea levels rose 8" in the 20th century, other than thermal expansion.

[f2tornado]

You've made this argument before, but have failed to dealt with any of the substance of the issue. Instead, you blindly accept maps which you know very little about which you have no doubt found on a denier website. 

 

Again, please offer us a substantive critique of the dozens of papers on 20th century OHC.

 

Also, while you're at it please offer us a substantive explanation for why sea levels rose 8" in the 20th century, other than thermal expansion.

 

In his defense...

 

By 2005 the ocean observing system had reached new capabilities, providing regular temperature soundings of the upper 2000 m, giving considerably greater confidence in the OHC assessment. However, the pre-Argo and Argo eras may not be compatible for inventory analysis in determining changes over time. Other observing systems in place can nominally measure the major storage and flux terms, but owing to errors and uncertainty, it remains a challenge to track anomalies with confidence. -J.P. Abraham1, M. Baringer2, N.L. Bindoff3, 6, 8, T. Boyer4, L.J. Cheng5, J.A. Church6, J.L. Conroy7, C.M. Domingues8, J.T. Fasullo9, J. Gilson10, G. Goni2, S.A. Good11, J.M. Gorman1, V. Gouretski12, M. Ishii13, G.C. Johnson14, S. Kizu15, J.M. Lyman16,14, A. M. Macdonald17, W.J. Minkowycz18, S.E. Moffitt19, M.D. Palmer11, A.R. Piola20, F. Reseghetti21, K. Schuckmann22, K.E. Trenberth9, I. Velicogna23,24, and J.K. Willis24

[Jonger]

Argo Era.jpg

Would it be crazy to be skeptical of past records, considering the above? 2003 was the beginning of the ARGO era.

You've made this argument before, but have failed to dealt with any of the substance of the issue. Instead, you blindly accept maps which you know very little about which you have no doubt found on a denier website.

Again, please offer us a substantive critique of the dozens of papers on 20th century OHC.

Also, while you're at it please offer us a substantive explanation for why sea levels rose 8" in the 20th century, other than thermal expansion.

How much did the sea rise from 1830-1860?

How about 1450 to 1500?

Who the hell knows what SLR is "supposed" to be normal coming out of the LIA.

You base too much of shoddy records... Look at those year to year bounces on that chart, do you really think we have resolution high enough to pay any attention to that?

[nzucker]

Sheesh... overreaction much?

Maybe I should have been kinder to nfl; after all, he is a Giants fan who lives in Virginia, a rarity. I even have a NY Giants credit card so we share one thing in common, if not much else. However, the denial and ignorance of basic physics governing the planet's energy is frustrating given the amount of reading material available to clear up these misconceptions. Also, comments about "warming in the pipeline" and "warming from the deep oceans" have long been used to obscure the slower trend in surface temperatures than what was predicted by computer modeling. A lot of AGW believers and alarmists simply do not want to accept the fact that the warming has been slower and less dramatic than originally thought, and that IPCC estimates of 100-year warming have been revised downwards. 

[nflwxman]

Maybe I should have been kinder to nfl; after all, he is a Giants fan who lives in Virginia, a rarity. I even have a NY Giants credit card so we share one thing in common, if not much else. However, the denial and ignorance of basic physics governing the planet's energy is frustrating given the amount of reading material available to clear up these misconceptions. Also, comments about "warming in the pipeline" and "warming from the deep oceans" have long been used to obscure the slower trend in surface temperatures than what was predicted by computer modeling. A lot of AGW believers and alarmists simply do not want to accept the fact that the warming has been slower and less dramatic than originally thought, and that IPCC estimates of 100-year warming have been revised downwards.

Well, I'm glad that we both support the same terrible team. However, I think you are driving a syntax error a bit too far. Everyone who deals with basic science understands how heat generally distrubuted in a water body. "Warming in the pipeline" is the phenomenon that skier outlined quite well earlier in this thread.

As far as the current warming is concerned, it's too easy to say the models have overestimated warming, without investigating why. Tamino had a great post about how a 15 year period between 1991 and 2007 saw warming well higher than model projections (.28/decade). Most can acknowledge natural variability played some part in enhancing the warming in the 1990s. Skeptics drawing trends lines using super niño of 1998 to present shows a 15 year period arguably even more impacted by natural variability than the early to mid 90s. Its absurd. Of course natural variability of TSI and ocean oscillations can make a difference in short term temperatures. But that's the key- the impact is short term and generally evens out in the long term. In 2008 the PDO flipped and solar slumped. Since then, 75% of the months have been ENSO negative. Thats not sustainable. It's 2013, only about 4-5 years since the PDO flipped, wait a few more years before jumping to conclusions.

The IPCC dropped their bottom end of climate sensitivity 2 to 1.5 deg, but the upper end remains the same. It's shouldn't exactly be all Champaign and confetti for skeptics.

Edit: check out the mid 40s last time the PDO flipped. The 5 year running mean dropped almost 0.2 deg celsius in the decade following.

[ORH_wxman]

Well, I'm glad that we both support the same terrible team. However, I think you are driving a syntax error a bit too far. Everyone who deals with basic science understands how heat generally distrubuted in a water body. "Warming in the pipeline" is the phenomenon that skier outlined quite well earlier in this thread.

As far as the current warming is concerned, it's too easy to say the models have overestimated warming, without investigating why. Tamino had a great post about how a 15 year period between 1991 and 2007 saw warming well higher than model projections (.28/decade). Most can acknowledge natural variability played some part in enhancing the warming in the 1990s. Skeptics drawing trends lines using super niño of 1998 to present shows a 15 year period arguably even more impacted by natural variability than the early to mid 90s. Its absurd. Of course natural variability of TSI and ocean oscillations can make a difference in short term temperatures. But that's the key- the impact is short term and generally evens out in the long term. In 2008 the PDO flipped and solar slumped. Since then, 75% of the months have been ENSO negative. Thats not sustainable. It's 2013, only about 4-5 years since the PDO flipped, wait a few more years before jumping to conclusions.

The IPCC dropped their bottom end of climate sensitivity 2 to 1.5 deg, but the upper end remains the same. It's shouldn't exactly be all Champaign and confetti for skeptics.

Edit: check out the mid 40s last time the PDO flipped. The 5 year running mean dropped almost 0.2 deg celsius in the decade following.

 

And 1991 isn't a cherry pick? Starting from the Pinatubo eruption which dumped global temps by about 0.2C will obviously give a huge upward trend.

 

 

There's been no warming since late 2000 or early 2001 on all surface datasets. Obviously natural variability is a big player with ENSO and there's some solar in there too. However, even if we resume 1980s/1990s warming, we are still going to fall woefully short of IPCC projections by mid-century. We'd need to see something about 50-60% higher than the warming rate in the 1980s/1990s. Thats assuming we start warming right away too...if we slump until about 2020, then it will have to be even more with finding a way to warm 1.2-1.3C from 2000 temps by 2050. It would be hard to reconcile that.

[nflwxman]

And 1991 isn't a cherry pick? Starting from the Pinatubo eruption which dumped global temps by about 0.2C will obviously give a huge upward trend.

There's been no warming since late 2000 or early 2001 on all surface datasets. Obviously natural variability is a big player with ENSO and there's some solar in there too. However, even if we resume 1980s/1990s warming, we are still going to fall woefully short of IPCC projections by mid-century. We'd need to see something about 50-60% higher than the warming rate in the 1980s/1990s. Thats assuming we start warming right away too...if we slump until about 2020, then it will have to be even more with finding a way to warm 1.2-1.3C from 2000 temps by 2050. It would be hard to reconcile that.

Well, that was the point I was making. It's like a cherry pick as using 1998 or 2002 as a starting period for a trend. You may be right about future warming, but all it takes is a few years of fairly rapid warming like the 90s-mid 2000s to "catch up". It's way to early to suggest future temps (in 2100) should be revised downward significantly IMO. If we are still slumping in 2020 and the PDO remains relatively constant, then I think we may certainly need to reevaluate, but we are still awfully close to that PDO flip and low solar activity. Also, we need to understand what influence anthropogenic aerosols are having on all this.

That being said, it's clear the modeling is woefully poor with large scale climate shifts and must be improved in that sense. I'm in total agreement with you there.

[skierinvermont]

How much did the sea rise from 1830-1860? How about 1450 to 1500? Who the hell knows what SLR is "supposed" to be normal coming out of the LIA. You base too much of shoddy records... Look at those year to year bounces on that chart, do you really think we have resolution high enough to pay any attention to that?

 

It doesn't matter what it is "supposed" to be. The question is where is the water coming from if it's not coming from thermal expansion. Perhaps you don't quite realize quite how much water 8" of sea level rise actually is. Sea level rise has always been considered a very good proxy for OHC.

 

The current mass exodus of ice from Greenland the past 10 years has been enough to raise sea level less than a quarter inch.

[skierinvermont]

In his defense...

 

By 2005 the ocean observing system had reached new capabilities, providing regular temperature soundings of the upper 2000 m, giving considerably greater confidence in the OHC assessment. However, the pre-Argo and Argo eras may not be compatible for inventory analysis in determining changes over time. Other observing systems in place can nominally measure the major storage and flux terms, but owing to errors and uncertainty, it remains a challenge to track anomalies with confidence. -J.P. Abraham1, M. Baringer2, N.L. Bindoff3, 6, 8, T. Boyer4, L.J. Cheng5, J.A. Church6, J.L. Conroy7, C.M. Domingues8, J.T. Fasullo9, J. Gilson10, G. Goni2, S.A. Good11, J.M. Gorman1, V. Gouretski12, M. Ishii13, G.C. Johnson14, S. Kizu15, J.M. Lyman16,14, A. M. Macdonald17, W.J. Minkowycz18, S.E. Moffitt19, M.D. Palmer11, A.R. Piola20, F. Reseghetti21, K. Schuckmann22, K.E. Trenberth9, I. Velicogna23,24, and J.K. Willis24

 

I think you are misinterpreting that statement.

 

I believe all they are saying is there might some discontinuities between the two sources which contributes to some small amount of uncertainty in the long term trend. However there is still high confidence that OHC rose rapidly during the MBT and XBT time period (pre-2003) and then continued rising during the ARGO time period (post-2003). 

 

The same study also states:

 

Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multidecadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflects the impact of anthropogenic warming. With respect to sea level rise, mutually reinforcing information from tide gauges and radar altimetry shows that presently, sea level is rising at approximately 3 mm yr⁻¹ with contributions from both thermal expansion and mass accumulation from ice melt. The latest data for thermal expansion sea level rise are included here and analyzed.

[skierinvermont]

Argo Era.jpg

 

Would it be crazy to be skeptical of past records, considering the above? 2003 was the beginning of the ARGO era.

 

What is the "above" purporting to show? SST increase has slowed almost to a complete stop since 2003, but ARGO is still detecting a steady and fairly large OHC increase of .3W/m2 2005-2012 (von Schuckmann and LeTraon 2011). 

 

The period of faster SST increase appears to coincide with a period of faster OHC increase. Is that your point? That would seem to be expected.

 

Also, the lack of global coverage at 1500m prior to 2003 does not prevent a reasonable estimate of OHC changes prior to 2003. Most of the change in OHC is at the 0-700m depth, which has been reasonably well sampled going back to 1967 and the invention of XBTs. Estimates of OHC during this period likely either underestimate the increase by leaving out the increase that was likely occurring below 700m, or have methods of estimating the increase at those depths.

 

 

And I would still like to know where all the water came from that raised sea levels 8" over the 20th century if it wasn't thermal expansion? Did it come from Mars? Elephant urine?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Argo Era.jpg

 

Would it be crazy to be skeptical of past records, considering the above? 2003 was the beginning of the ARGO era.

 

That looks like a snap shot of a small portion of the Far North Atlantic.  those SSTA are upwards of 2.0C.  So it must be a very small region.  Yet the other two images are images of the Earths oceans.

 

 

How insanely misleading are you going to get? 

 

 

You do understand that GISS, UAH, NCDC, Hadley centre, and the reynolds SST set all show the same peak around 2003-2005 then a leveling off as the deep solar min took over.  And PDO completely tanked. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

This a post from Skeptical Science which rehashes an old paper that when I read the excerpt I assumed it was from 2013 and the feeling I got towards the end was the Deniers will eat this up and try to call it alarmist backpedaling.  But it turned out quite different when I saw the actual date written and contributors.
 

 

 

Global Warming’s Missing Heat: Look Back In Anger (and considerable disbelief)… Posted on 12 September 2013 by gpwayne

Probably the most frustrating argument on climate science in the public discourse is about the hiatus in surface temperature rise, and the failure of the models to predict it. The persistent hyperbole, the seeming logic validated largely by a disregard for some basic laws of physics, is merely a prelude to the frenzy that the next IPCC report (AR5) is likely to fuel. There are trying times ahead.

To better gird ourselves before the onslaught, it seems like a good time to review another important report, which speaks very clearly to the current arguments about the rate of global warming and the accuracy of the climate models. Here’s a taster from the foreword:

“If

carbon dioxide

continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that

climate change

s will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. The conclusions of prior studies have been generally reaffirmed. However, the study group points out that the ocean, the great and ponderous flywheel of the global

climate system

, may be expected to slow the course of observable climatic change. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late”.

Sage words then. Anyway, delving into the detail, we find a clear statement about likely temperature increases for a doubling of CO2 - or climate sensitivity - based on global circulation models (GCMs):

"When it is assumed that the CO

2

content of the

atmosphere

is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes".

And then we come to the part so relevant to topical argument:

“One of the major uncertainties has to do with the transfer of the increased

heat

into the oceans. It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer. The standard assumption has been that, while

heat

is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well- mixed

surface layer

of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the trans­fer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so…It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb

heat

has been seriously underestimated, especially that of the intermediate waters of the subtropical

gyre

s lying below the mixed layer and above the main thermo­cline. If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these inter­mediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb

heat

.

“Our estimates of the rates of vertical exchange of mass between the mixed and intermediate layers and the volumes of water involved give a delay of the order of decades in the time at which thermal equilibrium will be reached. This delay implies that the actual warming at any given time will be appre­ciably less than that calculated on the assumption that thermal equilibrium is reached quickly. One consequence may be that perceptible temperature changes may not become apparent nearly so soon as has been anticipated. We may not be given a warning until the CO

2

loading is such that an appreciable

climate change

is inevitable. The equilibrium warming will eventually occur; it will merely have been postponed".

The capacity for taking up heat is also discussed:

“…the upper­-

thermocline

reservoir

communicates effectively with the mixed layer on time scales of several decades. Therefore, the effective thermal capacity of the ocean for absorbing

heat

on these time scales is nearly an order of magnitude greater than that of the mixed layer alone”.

Damn, that sounds like a lot of heat storage to me. A lot of energy down there with nothing to do. Yet.

Anyway, it’s a good report addressing topical issues clearly. What it doesn’t address is why the oceans might have started taking up more heat recently, and there’s a good reason for that.

It was published in 1979.

 

It’s the Charney Report; “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”, drawn up by a National Research Council study group led by Jule Charney, at the behest of the US National Academy of Sciences. They also took advice from experts in the field, James Hansen and Richard Lindzen among them.