New Paper: Recent Energy Balance of Earth (Knox and Douglass)

[BethesdaWX]

The only reason some scientists don't believe in the power of the oceans is because the IPCC 2007 report essentially disregarded the PDO/ENSO factors in order to harp on anthropogenic signals. Will Schwartz, one of the best meteorologists on this forum, just told you that one of the biggest uncertainties in climate modeling is how the Earth will react to the ocean cycles being in a cold phase for the next 20-30 years, allowing us to store more heat in the deep ocean. He also pointed out that the IPCC had taken a careless approach in disregarding the potential signs of a colder regime via the -PDO. So you think you know more than a skilled met?

When Bethesda talks about the oceans preventing global warming, I think it's safe to assume he means they will mitigate the warming to a point that it's not nearly as threatening to our society. Having 30 years of -PDO/-ENSO will probably mean that warming at the surface occurs much more slowly than modeled, which allows more time for ecosystems and human civilization to adapt to a gradually milder climate. This is especially true if the solar minimum also contributes to the -PDO and La Niña. If we are only accumulating heat in the 700-2000m level of the ocean and not 0-700m or the surface, we have less to be concerned about. Also, if the warming at the surface is reduced, this can allow for more arctic sea ice and snow cover, changing the Earth's albedo in a fashion that allows for more radiation to the atmosphere of incoming solar energy, which there will be less of due to the solar minimum anyway. I think Bethesda's point stands.

In the 1950s, we saw quite significant drops in global surface temperatures despite CO2 rapidly rising....remember, that was the error of Levittown and the move to the suburbs, the interstate highway system, increasing availability of consumer goods...so there was a lot more pollution entering the atmosphere. With a -PDO and moderate/strong La Niñas in 48-49, 49-50, 50-51, 54-55, and 55-56, we manged to cool despite the increasing anthropogenic interference. There's no reason to believe this can't happen again especially when you throw a dramatic solar minimum into the mix. We're already seeing very impressive drops in global SSTs and surface temperatures with much colder winter conditions prevailing in the Eastern US, central Siberia, and Europe.

You can't just make demeaning remarks about people's posts without offering substantial evidence, Andrew. The lack of warming since 1998, which flies in the face of UN computer modeling and constant suggestions of "accelerating warming", suggests that ocean cycles are a very important part of our climate that the models haven't accounted for properly. We also have an incredibly cold Pacific regime right now...take a look at the SSTA maps, it's quite impressive with nearly all the Pacific being below average in temperature. So it's quite reasonable to question how much heat the oceans can store, especially when only 700-2000m OHC seems to be rising, and that's what Bethesda is doing. His commentary is very reasonable and should not be approached in a condescending manner with demeaning one-liners. I'm on his side on this one, sorry.

Thankyou.

Yes, I never meant that the oceans will completely stop warming...whatever the source is. I've always believed there is a small amount of AGW (Maybe on the order of 0.1-0.2C per century)...

[stellarfun]

This is not an attempt to abrogate the laws of thermodynamics, but Bethesdaboy seems to postulate that heat sinks like a stone through the ocean water column until it reaches the deep abyss where it can be benignly stored, and thus mitigate the extent/effect of global warming. Such a premise ignores ocean circulation and stratification regimes.

Warming of the oceans is not benign in the Arctic, and the Arctic is not a closed reservoir. (There are inflow currents from both the Pacific and the North Atlantic.)

The issue with the Arctic is that the methane hydrates are stored in relatively shallow water, where temperature is more a factor in keeping them stable and stored than is pressure.

The Arctic submarine temperatures at 300 meters or so are about within >one degree C. of the point where the methane hydrates start to release.

The total area of submarine permafrost within the Siberian Arctic shelf is estimated

to be more than one and half million square kilometers. Amount of methane hydrate

deposited beneath and/or within submarine relic permafrost is estimated to be at least

540 Gt. Amount of free gas, accumulated beneath the hydrate deposits, is expected to

be about 2/3 of the amount of hydrates or 360 Gt. Additionally as much as 500 Gt of

carbon could be stored within as minimum as a 25 m-thick permafrost body of this

type. The total value of ESS carbon pool is, thus, not less than 1,400 Gt of carbon.

Since the area of geological disjunctives (fault zones, tectonically and seismically

active areas) within the Siberian Arctic shelf composes not less than 1-2% of the total

area and area of open taliks (area of melt through permafrost), acting as a pathway for

methane escape within the Siberian Arctic shelf reaches up to 5-10% of the total area,

we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly

possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause 12-times increase of modern

atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

(bolding mine)

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

A 50 gigaton release -- only a small percentage of the stores in just the Siberian Arctic -- would have the effect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I am not saying this is going to happen, but anyone who posits that the oceans can be a safe and benign sink for atmospheric heat overlooks the peril of a minor warming of the Arctic submarine shelf producing an immediate and catastrophic outcome. In the Arctic stores of methane hydrates, there is very little margin, given the importance of temperature as the critical stabilizing variable.

[skierinvermont]

The only reason some scientists don't believe in the power of the oceans is because the IPCC 2007 report essentially disregarded the PDO/ENSO factors in order to harp on anthropogenic signals. Will Schwartz, one of the best meteorologists on this forum, just told you that one of the biggest uncertainties in climate modeling is how the Earth will react to the ocean cycles being in a cold phase for the next 20-30 years, allowing us to store more heat in the deep ocean. He also pointed out that the IPCC had taken a careless approach in disregarding the potential signs of a colder regime via the -PDO. So you think you know more than a skilled met?

When Bethesda talks about the oceans preventing global warming, I think it's safe to assume he means they will mitigate the warming to a point that it's not nearly as threatening to our society. Having 30 years of -PDO/-ENSO will probably mean that warming at the surface occurs much more slowly than modeled, which allows more time for ecosystems and human civilization to adapt to a gradually milder climate. This is especially true if the solar minimum also contributes to the -PDO and La Niña. If we are only accumulating heat in the 700-2000m level of the ocean and not 0-700m or the surface, we have less to be concerned about. Also, if the warming at the surface is reduced, this can allow for more arctic sea ice and snow cover, changing the Earth's albedo in a fashion that allows for more radiation to the atmosphere of incoming solar energy, which there will be less of due to the solar minimum anyway. I think Bethesda's point stands.

In the 1950s, we saw quite significant drops in global surface temperatures despite CO2 rapidly rising....remember, that was the error of Levittown and the move to the suburbs, the interstate highway system, increasing availability of consumer goods...so there was a lot more pollution entering the atmosphere. With a -PDO and moderate/strong La Niñas in 48-49, 49-50, 50-51, 54-55, and 55-56, we manged to cool despite the increasing anthropogenic interference. There's no reason to believe this can't happen again especially when you throw a dramatic solar minimum into the mix. We're already seeing very impressive drops in global SSTs and surface temperatures with much colder winter conditions prevailing in the Eastern US, central Siberia, and Europe.

You can't just make demeaning remarks about people's posts without offering substantial evidence, Andrew. The lack of warming since 1998, which flies in the face of UN computer modeling and constant suggestions of "accelerating warming", suggests that ocean cycles are a very important part of our climate that the models haven't accounted for properly. We also have an incredibly cold Pacific regime right now...take a look at the SSTA maps, it's quite impressive with nearly all the Pacific being below average in temperature. So it's quite reasonable to question how much heat the oceans can store, especially when only 700-2000m OHC seems to be rising, and that's what Bethesda is doing. His commentary is very reasonable and should not be approached in a condescending manner with demeaning one-liners. I'm on his side on this one, sorry.

The oceans cannot mitigate the heat long-term. The only way to rebalance the energy imbalance is for the surface to warm thereby re-radiating more energy to outer space. I said specifically the PDO could influence temperatures slightly for a couple decades. If ORH thinks the PDO can mitigate long term climate change (I don't believe he's said this) well then he is wrong because there is no evidence to back this up and it contradicts basic physics.

[salbers]

Thankyou.

Yes, I never meant that the oceans will completely stop warming...whatever the source is. I've always believed there is a small amount of AGW (Maybe on the order of 0.1-0.2C per century)...

This seems on the low side given he radiative forcing of 1.2C per CO2 doubling and the water vapor feedback (with a doubling effect).

[BethesdaWX]

This seems on the low side given he radiative forcing of 1.2C per CO2 doubling and the water vapor feedback (with a doubling effect).

Hypothesis are not answers...what CO2 does in controlled experimental impounds & what it does in the atmosphere are completely different.

[BethesdaWX]

This is not an attempt to abrogate the laws of thermodynamics, but Bethesdaboy seems to postulate that heat sinks like a stone through the ocean water column until it reaches the deep abyss where it can be benignly stored, and thus mitigate the extent/effect of global warming. Such a premise ignores ocean circulation and stratification regimes.

Warming of the oceans is not benign in the Arctic, and the Arctic is not a closed reservoir. (There are inflow currents from both the Pacific and the North Atlantic.)

The issue with the Arctic is that the methane hydrates are stored in relatively shallow water, where temperature is more a factor in keeping them stable and stored than is pressure.

The Arctic submarine temperatures at 300 meters or so are about within >one degree C. of the point where the methane hydrates start to release.

(bolding mine)

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

A 50 gigaton release -- only a small percentage of the stores in just the Siberian Arctic -- would have the effect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I am not saying this is going to happen, but anyone who posits that the oceans can be a safe and benign sink for atmospheric heat overlooks the peril of a minor warming of the Arctic submarine shelf producing an immediate and catastrophic outcome. In the Arctic stores of methane hydrates, there is very little margin, given the importance of temperature as the critical stabilizing variable.

Holy Crap....dude, what the heck? This again has nothing to do with my post above about global heat energy....global heat energy. Look what ENSO does, Cold SST's, do to the temperatures,and tell me that the oceans do not affect global temperatures.

Example, if you live by water...daytime highs will be Colder....Overnight lows warmer. The Difference between the thermal profile of land & water, temp wise, will automatically compensate...even if the SST's are warmer, the effect will still be there.

The very large Majority of Heating is going into the Deep Oceans...............having no surface impact in being down there. Again... The vast Majority of Heat energy is below 700M, being absorbed by the Oceans.........NOAA states "Oceans are absorbing alot of the heat" Do you know how long the ocean can hold it there, globally? Try 5000 years..............we'll only be releasing Fossil fuels for another 100yrs.....

Anyone who argues that the oceans are not a major heat sink doesnlt understand science.

[BethesdaWX]

The oceans cannot mitigate the heat long-term. The only way to rebalance the energy imbalance is for the surface to warm thereby re-radiating more energy to outer space. I said specifically the PDO could influence temperatures slightly for a couple decades. If ORH thinks the PDO can mitigate long term climate change (I don't believe he's said this) well then he is wrong because there is no evidence to back this up and it contradicts basic physics.

Wrong. NOAA has said themselves, the reason the warming has "slowed", is because the Oceans are absorbing the heat, anf that its found building primarily in the deep oceans.

The oceans can do this for 5000 years, maybe more, its basic science. We'll only be releasing mass GHG for another 100....

[salbers]

Hypothesis are not answers...what CO2 does in controlled experimental impounds & what it does in the atmosphere are completely different.

Well the atmosphere might have other things in mind, but the radiative forcing is physically pretty solid - and has even been observed out "in the field". The physics is the same regardless of the impoundment.

Even the water vapor feedback is hard to dismiss.

[salbers]

Wrong. NOAA has said themselves, the reason the warming has "slowed", is because the Oceans are absorbing the heat, anf that its found building primarily in the deep oceans.

The oceans can do this for 5000 years, maybe more, its basic science. We'll only be releasing mass GHG for another 100....

I thought the ocean mixing time was closer to 1000 years. Anyway, some of the emitted CO2 will still be in the atmosphere then. So we're looking at a long term warming here.The oceans may absorb heat for a long time, but they will retain heat and CO2 in some balance with the atmosphere, thus keeping elevated values of heat and CO2 in the atmosphere for a very long time.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong. NOAA has said themselves, the reason the warming has "slowed", is because the Oceans are absorbing the heat, anf that its found building primarily in the deep oceans.

The oceans can do this for 5000 years, maybe more, its basic science. We'll only be releasing mass GHG for another 100....

To your first line: I guess you didn't read what I wrote.

To your second line, you're just wrong.

[nzucker]

The oceans cannot mitigate the heat long-term. The only way to rebalance the energy imbalance is for the surface to warm thereby re-radiating more energy to outer space. I said specifically the PDO could influence temperatures slightly for a couple decades. If ORH thinks the PDO can mitigate long term climate change (I don't believe he's said this) well then he is wrong because there is no evidence to back this up and it contradicts basic physics.

There could be a feedback mechanism though between the extreme solar minimum and strong -PDO/-ENSO regime. This is not purely scientific but just a hunch I have given the extreme things the atmosphere seems to be doing lately, and looking back at the cooling in global temperatures during the low solar/-PDO era of the 1950s and even more dramatic cooling during the Maunder and Dalton Minimum. Certainly the -PDO is slowing down the warming we see, since the surface has warmed somewhat less than expected since 1998, when the switch towards a colder Pacific began.

[stellarfun]

Holy Crap....dude, what the heck? This again has nothing to do with my post above about global heat energy....global heat energy. Look what ENSO does, Cold SST's, do to the temperatures,and tell me that the oceans do not affect global temperatures.

Example, if you live by water...daytime highs will be Colder....Overnight lows warmer. The Difference between the thermal profile of land & water, temp wise, will automatically compensate...even if the SST's are warmer, the effect will still be there.

The very large Majority of Heating is going into the Deep Oceans...............having no surface impact in being down there. Again... The vast Majority of Heat energy is below 700M, being absorbed by the Oceans.........NOAA states "Oceans are absorbing alot of the heat" Do you know how long the ocean can hold it there, globally? Try 5000 years..............we'll only be releasing Fossil fuels for another 100yrs.....

Anyone who argues that the oceans are not a major heat sink doesnlt understand science.

I take it you understand science because you have a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a scientific field, or are matriculating with a science major at an accredited institution.

Please find in my posts where I asserted that the ocean was not a heat sink, or that the oceans do not affect global temperature,

My point exclusively was that having the oceans be a heat sink to ameliorate atmospheric warming may not be without consequence. You, like a contemporary Luddite, choose to dismiss that point, or. because you can't find the info in the many scripts you parrot, ignore it.

http://www.nature.co...ature09043.html

[BethesdaWX]

I take it you understand science because you have a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a scientific field, or are matriculating with a science major at an accredited institution.

Please find in my posts where I asserted that the ocean was not a heat sink, or that the oceans do not affect global temperature,

My point exclusively was that having the oceans be a heat sink to ameliorate atmospheric warming may not be without consequence. You, like a contemporary Luddite, choose to dismiss that point, or. because you can't find the info in the many scripts you parrot, ignore it.

http://www.nature.co...ature09043.html

Can you read a f**king post? That is 0-700m, the huge majoirty of heat is below....between 1000-2000m. You are taking my argument and distorting things absurdly. Even so, heat energy at even 500m has little surface effect. We run out of fossil fuels in under 100yrs, oceans can hold & absorb heat (YES, They ABSORB Heat energy, NOAA reference), and can hold it for over 5000yrs.

You also Forget....about 95% of all that energy is between 300m-2000m, and can be held there for longer than we can imagine.

Again, its basic science.

[WeatherRusty]

Wrong. NOAA has said themselves, the reason the warming has "slowed", is because the Oceans are absorbing the heat, anf that its found building primarily in the deep oceans.

The oceans can do this for 5000 years, maybe more, its basic science. We'll only be releasing mass GHG for another 100....

The oceans are always absorbing energy. They don't absorb heat, they absorb energy mostly from sunlight. The radiative energy absorbed becomes kinetic energy of molecular motion. In other words, the water is warmed as it absorbs sunlight. Since the albedo of water remains nearly constant, the oceans always are absorbing solar energy at near a constant rate, varying slightly due to the opacity of the atmosphere in addition to the intrinsic output from the Sun. The oceans are not absorbing more energy than at other times.

The oceans do however, vary somewhat more in the rate at which they release energy to the atmosphere and ultimately outer space. Overturning of sea water in the vertical column sometimes brings cooler water to the surface from depth and warmed surface water to depth. When the SST is warmer than normal, the ocean surface is radiating GREATER energy to the atmosphere and when SST are cooler the sea surface radiates LESS energy to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmed primarily by the surface it resides over. Cooler seas result in a cooler atmosphere while warmer seas cause a warmer atmosphere.

Since the rate of energy absorption is near constant for the oceans, when they are releasing less energy (cool phase), they are actually warming more rapidly as the net of input/output is positive. If we add a strengthening greenhouse effect to the equation, the atmosphere radiates to space more slowly still. This allows the ocean surface to loose energy more slowly and as a result the sea surface will be warmer than when the greenhouse was weaker. In this way the enhancement to the greenhouse effect results in warmer seas even during the cool phases. The cool phases will be warmer in general relative to the past as the greenhouse effect strengthens due carbon emissions and deforestation.

While this is taking place there will be noticed at the top of atmosphere, a positive imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation over all wavelengths. Nature abhors a lack of balance and seeks equilibrium, ie. the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[BethesdaWX]

The oceans are always absorbing energy. They don't absorb heat, they absorb energy mostly from sunlight. The radiative energy absorbed becomes kinetic energy of molecular motion. In other words, the water is warmed as it absorbs sunlight. Since the albedo of water remains nearly constant, the oceans always are absorbing solar energy at near a constant rate, varying slightly due to the opacity of the atmosphere in addition to the intrinsic output from the Sun. The oceans are not absorbing more energy than at other times.

The oceans do however, vary somewhat more in the rate at which they release energy to the atmosphere and ultimately outer space. Overturning of sea water in the vertical column sometimes brings cooler water to the surface from depth and warmed surface water to depth. When the SST is warmer than normal, the ocean surface is radiating GREATER energy to the atmosphere and when SST are cooler the sea surface radiates LESS energy to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmed primarily by the surface it resides over. Cooler seas result in a cooler atmosphere while warmer seas cause a warmer atmosphere.

Since the rate of energy absorption is near constant for the oceans, when they are releasing less energy (cool phase), they are actually warming more rapidly as the net of input/output is positive. If we add a strengthening greenhouse effect to the equation, the atmosphere radiates to space more slowly still. This allows the ocean surface to loose energy more slowly and as a result the sea surface will be warmer than when the greenhouse was weaker. In this way the enhancement to the greenhouse effect results in warmer seas even during the cool phases. The cool phases will be warmer in general relative to the past as the greenhouse effect strengthens due carbon emissions and deforestation.

While this is taking place there will be noticed at the top of atmosphere, a positive imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation over all wavelengths. Nature abhors a lack of balance and seeks equilibrium, ie. the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You also get a emoticon

Heat is energy dude, and when theres more energy, there will most likely be more heat... Its a cause effect relationship (aka, the enormous amount of "missing heat"). Its actually not rocket science when it comes to the oceans being heat sinks. If you understand the basic principles of the GHE, then you shold understand that, If this "missing heat" exists, it is in the deep oceans. The Majorty has shown to reside between 1000-2000m down in the oceans. That doesn't have a surface impact. The oceans can hold, absorb, & accumulate this heat energy for many thousand years down deep like that. In that timeframe, it is transformed, recycled...etc, while we run ot of fossil fuels in only 100yrs. The Earth Recycles everything in its realm... everything is a cycle on this planet. Earth Hates Straight lines, everything is an oscillation, its how things work.

With Earth's CO2 being upwards of 6000ppm before, and generally has been over 500ppm in its existance, not only is our current ppm below average earth wise, but we expect THIS 390ppm to end the world & melt 75% of global ice? There was ice even in the dinosour age.

Our "science" behind AGW is nothing but hypothesis, theres no validation behind it.....yet. I honestly don't give a crap about what our "equations of doubling CO2 w/ feedback" are, because what CO2 does in a controlled impound means nothing to its behavior in the atmosphere. We Can Hypothesize all we want, about whatever feedbacks will come of this, & that, & then, & what.......... but using our HYPOTHESIS as evidence that we're about to warm is outragious.

You don't base conclusions off HYPOTHESIS.

[Saggy]

T

The Arctic submarine temperatures at 300 meters or so are about within >one degree C. of the point where the methane hydrates start to release.

I am just trying to follow along here. I have no desire to jump into this argument and ask only out of curiosity.

Do we know how long it has been within >one degree C of release?

[LakeEffectKing]

The oceans are always absorbing energy. They don't absorb heat, they absorb energy mostly from sunlight. The radiative energy absorbed becomes kinetic energy of molecular motion. In other words, the water is warmed as it absorbs sunlight. Since the albedo of water remains nearly constant, the oceans always are absorbing solar energy at near a constant rate, varying slightly due to the opacity of the atmosphere in addition to the intrinsic output from the Sun. The oceans are not absorbing more energy than at other times.

The oceans do however, vary somewhat more in the rate at which they release energy to the atmosphere and ultimately outer space. Overturning of sea water in the vertical column sometimes brings cooler water to the surface from depth and warmed surface water to depth. When the SST is warmer than normal, the ocean surface is radiating GREATER energy to the atmosphere and when SST are cooler the sea surface radiates LESS energy to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmed primarily by the surface it resides over. Cooler seas result in a cooler atmosphere while warmer seas cause a warmer atmosphere.

Since the rate of energy absorption is near constant for the oceans, when they are releasing less energy (cool phase), they are actually warming more rapidly as the net of input/output is positive. If we add a strengthening greenhouse effect to the equation, the atmosphere radiates to space more slowly still. This allows the ocean surface to loose energy more slowly and as a result the sea surface will be warmer than when the greenhouse was weaker. In this way the enhancement to the greenhouse effect results in warmer seas even during the cool phases. The cool phases will be warmer in general relative to the past as the greenhouse effect strengthens due carbon emissions and deforestation.

While this is taking place there will be noticed at the top of atmosphere, a positive imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation over all wavelengths. Nature abhors a lack of balance and seeks equilibrium, ie. the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If our atmosphere is warming (which it is) the oceans will absorb heat. I'm not trying to be be insulting, but here's a simple example: take a glass of water at room temperature, then turn the heat up a couple degrees in the room....within an hour or so (depending on how big the glass is and how full it is) it will reach the "new" room temperature, and remove some heat from the air in the room (not much, but some)....Now take the oceans and do likewise, on a much larger scale and HUGE timeframes, the oceans will remove heat from the atmosphere.

Our oceans are one of our greatest assests in buffering drastic variability within our climate.

[BethesdaWX]

If our atmosphere is warming (which it is) the oceans will absorb heat. I'm not trying to be be insulting, but here's a simple example: take a glass of water at room temperature, then turn the heat up a couple degrees in the room....within an hour or so (depending on how big the glass is and how full it is) it will reach the "new" room temperature, and remove some heat from the air in the room (not much, but some)....Now take the oceans and do likewise, on a much larger scale and HUGE timeframes, the oceans will remove heat from the atmosphere.

Our oceans are one of our greatest assests in buffering drastic variability within our climate.

Exactly

I keep trying to re-hash this point over and over again, and yet its like people have been brainwashed ........ "oceans cannot remove heat from the atmosphere"....

The oceans effect on temperature is of higher confidence than CO2 warming actually.

[BethesdaWX]

You also get a emoticon

Heat is energy dude, and when theres more energy, there will most likely be more heat... Its a cause effect relationship (aka, the enormous amount of "missing heat"). Its actually not rocket science when it comes to the oceans being heat sinks. If you understand the basic principles of the GHE, then you shold understand that, If this "missing heat" exists, it is in the deep oceans. The Majorty has shown to reside between 1000-2000m down in the oceans. That doesn't have a surface impact. The oceans can hold, absorb, & accumulate this heat energy for many thousand years down deep like that. In that timeframe, it is transformed, recycled...etc, while we run ot of fossil fuels in only 100yrs. The Earth Recycles everything in its realm... everything is a cycle on this planet. Earth Hates Straight lines, everything is an oscillation, its how things work.

With Earth's CO2 being upwards of 6000ppm before, and generally has been over 500ppm in its existance, not only is our current ppm below average earth wise, but we expect THIS 390ppm to end the world & melt 75% of global ice? There was ice even in the dinosour age.

Our "science" behind AGW is nothing but hypothesis, theres no validation behind it.....yet. I honestly don't give a crap about what our "equations of doubling CO2 w/ feedback" are, because what CO2 does in a controlled impound means nothing to its behavior in the atmosphere. We Can Hypothesize all we want, about whatever feedbacks will come of this, & that, & then, & what.......... but using our HYPOTHESIS as evidence that we're about to warm is outragious.

You don't base conclusions off HYPOTHESIS.

Bump

Its similar rehashing for those who do not believe the oceans remove heat from the atmosphere Long term........ "Missing heat FTW!"

[BethesdaWX]

heres more on it

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/missing-heat-hides-climate-scientists

Climate scientists have decided that as much as half of the heat energy, believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, is hiding somewhere it can not be found. By measuring the radiative energy input at the top of Earth's atmosphere, scientists have a pretty good idea of how much energy is entering the planetary environment—the problem is figuring out where it goes. The most likely place is in the deep ocean, whose waters form a huge potential storage place for heat. Because energy is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, this heat can resurface at a later time to affect weather and climate on a global scale. It has been suggest that last year’s rapidly occurring El Niño may be one way the “missing” solar energy has reappeared—the implication being more sudden El Niño events may be on the way.

Oceans contain around 80% of the climate system's total energy, so ocean heat is a good measure of what is happening with Earth's climate. According to a Perspectives article in the April 16, 2010, issue of Science, “Tracking Earth's Energy,” science has been unable to to properly track energy within Earth's environmental system. Kevin E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo , both scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat. They fear that it may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system. “The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”

As noted on the NCAR site, a Science Perspectives piece is not formally peer-reviewed, but is reviewed by editors of the journal. Science reportedly invited Trenberth to submit the article after an editor heard him discuss the research at a scientific conference. Trenberth and his co-author, Fasullo, focused on what they call a central mystery of climate change. Why, since 2003, have scientists been unable to determine where much heat energy Earth receives from the Sun is going. According to the NCAR site:

Satellite measurements indicate that the amount of greenhouse-trapped solar energy has risen over recent years while the increase in heat measured in the top 3,000 feet of the ocean has stalled. Although it is difficult to quantify the amount of solar energy with precision, Trenberth and Fasullo estimate that, based on satellite data, the amount of energy build-up appears to be about 1.0 watts per square meter or higher, while ocean instruments indicate a build-up of about 0.5 watts per square meter. That means about half the total amount of heat is unaccounted for.

Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions on Earth that are not adequately measured. One such place is the deepest parts of the oceans. Compounding the problem, Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. This inability to properly track energy has implications for understanding the way climate works and most definitely on predicting future climate. Obviously, if scientists are at a loss to identify the hiding place of the missing heat climate modelers are unable to include its possible future effects in their programs. With as much as half of the suspected heat energy buildup gone missing, it must be asked how well science understands Earth's climate.

Where does the energy go?El Niño, periodic events in which the upper ocean waters across much of the tropical Pacific Ocean become significantly warmer, are seen by many as a mechanism for dumping heat, stored in the ocean, back into space. Trenberth and Fasullo explain the relationship between the ENSO, the El Niño Southern Oscillation, and delayed release of ocean stored energy this way:

To understand how energy is taken up and later released by the climate system, consider the natural variability from El Niño Southern Oscillation. The cold sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific present in normal or La Niña conditions create conditions favorable for fewer clouds and more sunshine and a build-up of heat in the ocean as a precursor of El Niño. The spread of warm waters across the Pacific, together with changing winds, in turn promotes evaporative cooling of the ocean, moistening the atmosphere and fueling tropical storms and convection over and around the anomalously warm waters. The changed atmospheric heating alters the jet streams and storm tracks and controls weather patterns for the duration of the El Niño event. The loss of heat can in turn lead to La Niña.

A strong La Niña event in 2007–2008 extended into the 2008–2009 northern winter, causing cooler than normal weather across much of the Northern Hemisphere. By June 2009, the situation had reversed as the next, comparatively moderate El Niño emerged. Multiple storms barreled into Southern California in January 2010, consistent with expectations from the El Niño. These storms also caused significant snowfall and precipitation across the American Southwest, South and up the Eastern Seaboard.

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding ocean temperatures these days. Recently, new estimates of the past temperatures have been published. On in particular, that shows a sudden jump in the 2002-2003 time, prompted Real Climate to post a plot of ocean heat content. This is a contradiction of a 2009 paper by Craig Loehle in Energy & Environment that found global ocean cooling since 2003. The linear component of the model used showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 10²² Joules per year, shown in the plot below.

The Loehle study showed an unambiguous cooling trend.“The model, fit to the smoothed data, gave an excellent fit (r = 0.922, R2 = 0.85) and showed clearly that there is an annual periodicity in the data, probably due to the north-south asymmetry in ocean area and the effect of orbital variations over the year,” the study states. The Loehle study was based on ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA) data compiled by Josh Willis et al. Indeed, it was the 2008 paper “Assessing the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales,” by Willis, Chambers and Nerem, that prompted this comment by Roger Pielke Sr.:

Global warming, as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content has not been occurring since 2004. It is impossible to know if this lack of warming will continue but these observations are inconsistent with the predictions of long-term global climate predictions, such as reported in the 2007 IPCC report.

Since then, the debate over ocean heat and ocean levels has raged. Claims and counter claims, studies finding warming and studies finding cooling. Now it looks like the warming proponents are throwing in the towel on surface temperature increase (this is the temperature trend, not normal, cyclic variability). In a reply to questions from Dr. Pielke, Dr. Willis said:

There is still a good deal of uncertainty in observational estimates of ocean heat content during the 1990s and into the early part of the 2000s. This is because of known biases in the XBT data set, which are the dominant source of ocean temperature data up until 2003 or 2004. Numerous authors have attempted to correct these biases, but substantial difference remain in the “corrected” data. As a result, the period from 1993 to 2003 still has uncertainties that are probably larger than the natural or anthropogenic signals in ocean heat content that happen over a period of 1 to 3 years. However, the decadal trend of 10 to 15 years seems to be large enough to see despite the uncertainties.

So, despite the confusion caused by changing from XBT (Expendable Bathythermograph) measurements to measurements by the Argos satellite-based location and data collection system, it still looks like the upper portions of the ocean are cooling. Such data discontinuities when changing sensor types or measurement methods is not new, the same type of flap erupted over radiosonde data a decade ago. Even so, the debate about the missing ocean heat is far from over.

The new claim is the missing heat, that climate change supporters so desperately want to find, has gone deep. Dr Pielke has exchanged a series of comments with Dr. Trenberth over his recent paper on the Climate Science website:

<P align=justify>Trenberth’s [and co-author, NCAR scientist John Fasullo], however, are grasping for an explanation other than the actual real world implication of the absence of this heat.

• First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean.
• Second, the melting of glaciers and continental ice can be only a very small component of the heat change (e.g. see Table 1 in Levitus et al 2001 “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system”. Science).

Thus, a large amount heat (measured as Joules) does not appear to be stored anywhere; it just is not there.

“I do not agree with your comments. We are well aware that there are well over a dozen estimates of ocean heat content and they are all different yet based on the same data,” said Dr. Trenberth in reply. “There are clearly problems in the analysis phase and I don’t believe any are correct.” Clear admission that climate scientists are groping in the dark here.

“I do not see how such large amounts of heat could have transited to depths below 700m since 2005 without being detected.,” responded Pielke, adding in a conciliatory way: “I am very supportive, however, of your recognition that it is heat in Joules that we should be monitoring as a primary metric to monitor global warming. Our research has shown significant biases in the use of the global average surface temperature for this purpose.”

Research done over the last several years has found that the return currents of the meridional overturning current (MOC) do not behave as previously thought (see “Conveyor Belt Model Broken”). More recently, it has been shown that the great ocean conveyor belt varies in ways unpredicted and previously unsuspected (see “Ocean Conveyor Belt Confounds Climate Science”). During the first 1-year period since new deep sea sensors became operational (measurements from March 2004 through March 2005) the strength of the MOC varied by more than a factor of 8. It still remains unclear how much the meridional overturning circulation varies from year to year, but the old model was clearly wrong.

New sensors reveal unsuspected behavior. Source CSIRO.Now, the ocean is suspected of harboring hidden heat that scientists claim has gone missing. Some claim the heat is not there, while others, like Trenberth and Fasullo, fear that the missing heat will “come back to haunt us.” One thing is certain—those old claims of “settled science” and a “consensus among the world's scientists” seem to have come back to haunt their originators. The overstatements made by the IPCC and its supporters in the past stand revealed for the empty lies they always were.

Trenberth and Fasullo state that it is imperative to get better measurements of the energy flowing through Earth’s climate system. Improved analysis of energy in the atmosphere and oceans might help researchers better understand and possibly even predict unusual weather patterns, such as the unexpectedly cold weather across much of the United States, Europe, and Asia over the past winter. But for now, no scientist can claim that we truly understand what is going on in Earth's oceans—and that means climate science cannot claim to understand what is going to happen to Earth's climate.

[stellarfun]

I am just trying to follow along here. I have no desire to jump into this argument and ask only out of curiosity.

Do we know how long it has been within >one degree C of release?

Probably a very, very long time, which could argue that if it hasn't released in hundreds of thousands (or more) of years, through warm interglacial periods, why ought it release now?

The average temp of the deep ocean is about 2C. Sea water freezes at 28.5F when salinity is 35 parts per thousand. The freezing point is higher when the water is less saline. The saline levels in the Arctic prevent any mixing of lighter (less saline, less dense)) surface water with deeper water. If this were not the case, i.e., no halocline in the Arctic, there would be no surface ice, because the entire column of water would have to be chilled to 28.5 before surface ice could form.

^^^^ The surface water temperature is much lower in the higher latitudes.

Yellow is -200 meters, orange is -50 meters. blues are around -2000 meters, purples are around -5000 meters.

I think one concern is if a subsurface warming of the North Atlantic current reaches the shallow shelf off the Siberian coast, and/or there is enough surface solar heating of open water in the summer to elevate the temperature of the entire water column in the shelf area.

[skierinvermont]

If our atmosphere is warming (which it is) the oceans will absorb heat. I'm not trying to be be insulting, but here's a simple example: take a glass of water at room temperature, then turn the heat up a couple degrees in the room....within an hour or so (depending on how big the glass is and how full it is) it will reach the "new" room temperature, and remove some heat from the air in the room (not much, but some)....Now take the oceans and do likewise, on a much larger scale and HUGE timeframes, the oceans will remove heat from the atmosphere.

Our oceans are one of our greatest assests in buffering drastic variability within our climate.

I think Rusty is pointing out that technically the mechanism whereby the oceans gain heat is via radiation from the sun, not conduction via warm surface air. The process of conducting heat from the atmosphere is quite slow compared to absorbing solar radiation.

Perhaps Rusty can clear this up but I would still say the ultimate mechanism whereby the oceans are gaining heat is via warming of the surface air since the amount of SW radiation entering the oceans is fairly constant. So even though radiation represents the large majority of the heat exchange for the oceans, the conduction of heat from the surface air is what is changing in a warming world. The delta value is the surface air temperature not SW radiation from the sun.

[BethesdaWX]

I think Rusty is pointing out that technically the mechanism whereby the oceans gain heat is via radiation from the sun, not conduction via warm surface air. The process of conducting heat from the atmosphere is quite slow compared to absorbing solar radiation.

Perhaps Rusty can clear this up but I would still say the ultimate mechanism whereby the oceans are gaining heat is via warming of the surface air since the amount of SW radiation entering the oceans is fairly constant. So even though radiation represents the large majority of the heat exchange for the oceans, the conduction of heat from the surface air is what is changing in a warming world. The delta value is the surface air temperature not SW radiation from the sun.

Oceans remove heat from the atmosphere as well as solar energy, Lakeffectking have a surprising sufficient example through a glass of water, which addresses the point. Not the same as the atmosphere, but the point stands. The "Missing Heat" has to be somewhere.....If it doesn't exist, than our CO2 warming/energy accumulation formula Hypothesis are wrong already. The Oceans actually currently hold abot 80% of the energy on this planet.

[LakeEffectKing]

I think Rusty is pointing out that technically the mechanism whereby the oceans gain heat is via radiation from the sun, not conduction via warm surface air. The process of conducting heat from the atmosphere is quite slow compared to absorbing solar radiation.

Perhaps Rusty can clear this up but I would still say the ultimate mechanism whereby the oceans are gaining heat is via warming of the surface air since the amount of SW radiation entering the oceans is fairly constant. So even though radiation represents the large majority of the heat exchange for the oceans, the conduction of heat from the surface air is what is changing in a warming world. The delta value is the surface air temperature not SW radiation from the sun.

The Great Lakes demonstrate quite a dramatic overall change in seasonal temperatures, and I don't think it is mostly due to radiative effects. Now take the oceans (some billion or so times the volume and tens or hundreds of thousands of times the areal size) and put that "extra" heat (generated from ever climbing CO2 forcing) into the atmosphere, and you have a 24/7/365 buffering effect, squarely countering the forcing (or at least "burying" it) And with the heat sequestering capacity of the vast oceans, it would be a blip in the oceanic temperature mean.....

[WeatherRusty]

I think Rusty is pointing out that technically the mechanism whereby the oceans gain heat is via radiation from the sun, not conduction via warm surface air. The process of conducting heat from the atmosphere is quite slow compared to absorbing solar radiation.

Perhaps Rusty can clear this up but I would still say the ultimate mechanism whereby the oceans are gaining heat is via warming of the surface air since the amount of SW radiation entering the oceans is fairly constant. So even though radiation represents the large majority of the heat exchange for the oceans, the conduction of heat from the surface air is what is changing in a warming world. The delta value is the surface air temperature not SW radiation from the sun.

Let's remember one fundamental reality here. It is primarily the surface that warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere warms or cools the surface very, very little. The reason is that in general the atmosphere is cooler than the surface. The atmosphere is transparent to most short wave radiation. Since it does not absorb a substantial amount of SW, the troposphere is not warmed substantially by direct incident sunlight.

The surface on the other hand absorbs a large portion of the sunlight incident upon it. It is thus warmed, but only to a short depth. Land surfaces warm relatively quickly depending on their albedo, amount and type of vegetation and such. The land also gives up it's warmth quickly. Water absorbs sunlight and is warmed to considerably greater depth as the sunlight penetrates much deeper into the water column. A body of water therefor takes much longer to warm and much longer to cool than the solid surface. A great deal more mass must gain or loose heat per unit surface area than the land surface.

So, Earth's surface being generally warmer than the atmosphere lying above it radiates and conducts heat to the atmosphere. The surface warms the atmosphere rather than the other way around in general. The atmosphere then convects the warmed surface air aloft where it eventually releases the energy to space at an average temperature of 255K.

The Great Lakes give up their heat by radiating and conducting to the atmosphere. A warm glass of water does the same. A cold glass of water absorbs energy from the air and slowly warms extracting energy from the air and the wall surrounding the room again by radiation and conduction. The overall heat flow is always from warm to cold. Since the atmosphere is generally cooler than the sun warmed surface, the air does not directly warm the oceans. Solar short wave radiation warms the surface which then warms the atmosphere by conduction, infrared radiation (which is absorbed by the atmosphere) and convection..

The atmospheric greenhouse effect maintains the oceans and solid surface at a higher temperature not because it warms the surface. Remember it is colder than the surface. It does so by slowing down the loss of energy through the atmosphere to space, and the atmosphere does not warm the oceans. Radiation does.

[skierinvermont]

Let's remember one fundamental reality here. It is primarily the surface that warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere warms or cools the surface very, very little. The reason is that in general the atmosphere is cooler than the surface. The atmosphere is transparent to most short wave radiation. Since it does not absorb a substantial amount of SW, the troposphere is not warmed substantially by direct incident sunlight.

The surface on the other hand absorbs a large portion of the sunlight incident upon it. It is thus warmed, but only to a short depth. Land surfaces warm relatively quickly depending on their albedo, amount and type of vegetation and such. The land also gives up it's warmth quickly. Water absorbs sunlight and is warmed to considerably greater depth as the sunlight penetrates much deeper into the water column. A body of water therefor takes much longer to warm and much longer to cool than the solid surface. A great deal more mass must gain or loose heat per unit surface area than the land surface.

So, Earth's surface being generally warmer than the atmosphere lying above it radiates and conducts heat to the atmosphere. The surface warms the atmosphere rather than the other way around in general. The atmosphere then convects the warmed surface air aloft where it eventually releases the energy to space at an average temperature of 255K.

The Great Lakes give up their heat by radiating and conducting to the atmosphere. A warm glass of water does the same. A cold glass of water absorbs energy from the air and slowly warms extracting energy from the air and the wall surrounding the room again by radiation and conduction. The overall heat flow is always from warm to cold. Since the atmosphere is generally cooler than the sun warmed surface, the air does not directly warm the oceans. Solar short wave radiation warms the surface which then warms the atmosphere by conduction, infrared radiation (which is absorbed by the atmosphere) and convection..

The atmospheric greenhouse effect maintains the oceans and solid surface at a higher temperature not because it warms the surface. Remember it is colder than the surface. It does so by slowing down the loss of energy through the atmosphere to space, and the atmosphere does not warm the oceans. Radiation does.

Ok yes so technically the oceans warm because their heat loss through the atmosphere is slowed. That's what I was trying to say but you put it much better. If you want to get even more technical and break things down by time, then sometimes the oceans are losing heat to the atmosphere and sometimes they are gaining heat. But on average I take it you are saying the oceans primarily lose heat to the troposphere and warm it.

[WeatherRusty]

Ok yes so technically the oceans warm because their heat loss through the atmosphere is slowed. That's what I was trying to say but you put it much better. If you want to get even more technical and break things down by time, then sometimes the oceans are losing heat to the atmosphere and sometimes they are gaining heat. But on average I take it you are saying the oceans primarily lose heat to the troposphere and warm it.

Cooler SST's simply radiate less and conduct less heat to the atmosphere so the atmosphere cools. Cold air does not cool the surface either. The surface simply warms the lowest layer of cold air in direct contact with it very efficiently and that warmed air rapidly convects the heat away and the surface cools.

[skierinvermont]

Cooler SST's simply radiate less and conduct less heat to the atmosphere so the atmosphere cools. Cold air does not cool the surface either. The surface simply warms the lowest layer of cold air in direct contact with it very efficiently and that warmed air rapidly convects the heat away and the surface cools.

Ok so let me try and put it this way.

The surface is ALWAYS re-radiating the SW radiation from the sun as LW radiation which warms the air of the lower troposphere. Thus we say that the surface warms the atmosphere.

But conduction will occur in the direction of whichever is cooler the surface or the atmosphere. Usually the surface is physically warmer than the air, but not always. So conduction of heat could go either way.

Now, speaking in NET terms because of the LW radiation released by the surface, the NET energy transfer is away from the surface and towards the atmosphere (and then from the atmosphere to space).

However, I still think that if you break this net process down temporarily and spatially it is possible that in a major heatwave at high latitudes (for example the 850mb temperature is well above zero over part of the arctic ocean currently) the atmosphere would actually warm the surface. The surface is receiving no radiation from the sun.. so it can't be radiating very much heat. Then you have very warm air which is rapidly conducting heat towards to the surface (and causing melt of the Bering strait currently). So at least in this isolated example, the atmosphere is warming the surface.

[nzucker]

However, I still think that if you break this net process down temporarily and spatially it is possible that in a major heatwave at high latitudes (for example the 850mb temperature is well above zero over part of the arctic ocean currently) the atmosphere would actually warm the surface. The surface is receiving no radiation from the sun.. so it can't be radiating very much heat. Then you have very warm air which is rapidly conducting heat towards to the surface (and causing melt of the Bering strait currently). So at least in this isolated example, the atmosphere is warming the surface.

This is partially true, although I think a lot of the ice loss is from compaction on southerly winds...you can see there's a strong inversion, as is common in the arctic, and the surface is MUCH colder than 850mb temperatures.

850s:

Surface:

[Saggy]

Probably a very, very long time, which could argue that if it hasn't released in hundreds of thousands (or more) of years, through warm interglacial periods, why ought it release now?

The average temp of the deep ocean is about 2C. Sea water freezes at 28.5F when salinity is 35 parts per thousand. The freezing point is higher when the water is less saline. The saline levels in the Arctic prevent any mixing of lighter (less saline, less dense)) surface water with deeper water. If this were not the case, i.e., no halocline in the Arctic, there would be no surface ice, because the entire column of water would have to be chilled to 28.5 before surface ice could form.

^^^^ The surface water temperature is much lower in the higher latitudes.

Yellow is -200 meters, orange is -50 meters. blues are around -2000 meters, purples are around -5000 meters.

I think one concern is if a subsurface warming of the North Atlantic current reaches the shallow shelf off the Siberian coast, and/or there is enough surface solar heating of open water in the summer to elevate the temperature of the entire water column in the shelf area.

Thanks. And yes my next question would have been why would it release now...