Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Zeta Reticulum

Global warming stopped 16 years ago

69 posts in this topic

It is the oceans as a whole which have warmed - concentrating on the first 700m is a distraction. You should look at the thread on the Atlantic deep ocean circulation to see why it has probably gone deeper. More energy equals more mixing.

Br Cornelius

you are not responding to the point being made.

any heat from co2 re radiation would be detected in the 0-700 meter depth measurements. any heat from co2 starts at the ocean skin surface, it does not avoid detection by instantly moving to the lower depths. you say "probably gone deeper", how did you work out this probability? you are protecting your belief with unsupported speculation.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is what NOAA said in 2008:

"El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

http://www1.ncdc.noa...2008-lo-rez.pdf

so there you have it - NOAA says if there is more than 15 years of no warming, then the global climate models fail, and so too does the catastrophic man made warming hypothesis fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are not responding to the point being made.

any heat from co2 re radiation would be detected in the 0-700 meter depth measurements. any heat from co2 starts at the ocean skin surface, it does not avoid detection by instantly moving to the lower depths. you say "probably gone deeper", how did you work out this probability? you are protecting your belief with unsupported speculation.

"Probably" - because the mechanism is still been investigated. The heat is there in the deep oceans - the exact mechanism of deep mixing is still been investigated. It is probable that the increased strength (energy) of the ocean convey is increasing mixing sending it deeper when it meets the barrier of the continental shelves.

Knowing that it is there - but not knowing exactly how it got there, without further empirical investiagtion is not a real issue - its what science is all about - ansewring the questions that arise from the ongoing research.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the first most salient bit you ignored:

you are not responding to the point being made.

any heat from co2 re radiation would be detected in the 0-700 meter depth measurements. any heat from co2 starts at the ocean skin surface, it does not avoid detection by instantly moving to the lower depths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is what NOAA said in 2008:

"El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

http://www1.ncdc.noa...2008-lo-rez.pdf

so there you have it - NOAA says if there is more than 15 years of no warming, then the global climate models fail, and so too does the catastrophic man made warming hypothesis fail.

As I have shown - the warming is swtill there - just not in the place you would like it to be. The evidence is supportive of continued warming.

This is a problem of complex systems - as they become more energetic they also become more unpredictable and at certain critical boundary conditions the "predictable" outcome breaks down and is replaced with a more difficult to predict outcome.

What is critical here is that the Global system as a whole has continued to accumulate heat at a steady rate - the models all about anticipating where this heat will end up - but they are not good at predicting these complex boundary conditions where the meta state of the whole system flips into another meta-stable state. This is why I have always maintained that climate models are only useful into the short to medium term.

Let me restate the important point here - increasing energy in the system will produce climate change whatever form that may take.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

What NOAA is saying is that between 1999 and 2008, warming was insufficient to overcome the ENSO component. It doesn't say that there was no warming. The statistics used cannot say that given the weak trend. Were the error 15% greater, or the estimate 13% smaller, NOAA could not say that the ENSO component was not zero. That's a pretty slim margin to hang your hat on. One or two random fluctuations could completely destroy it.

Since 2008, we have set another all-time record temp (2010). We have also undergone a solar minimum and are now a little over a year from a solar maximum. We have undergone a La Nina event which is not even considered by this report, as it was written before the event and we are entering a new El Nino event. Although, NOAA has accounted for ten years of climate stability, we must remember that the earth is nevertheless, a lot warmer than it was in 1975 or in 1908. This paper takes that as given. Far from disproving warming, the paper simply assumes it.

We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

I note that you are making use of a climate model to support your contention. Previously you have said that these models are not reliable. Time to decide which side of that fence you're on. Life as a mugwump doesn't become you.

The paper is discussing a decade-long event. Climate is determined using 30-year averages because decade-length fluctuations are common and tend to disapear rather easily - so much so, that you can count on it.

The part you have bolded says that at least fifteen years of zero temperature change is needed to overcome the expected present-day warming (The paper covers a ten-year period.). Temperatures will have to remain stable through the end of next year to make this true, and as we've already seen, we set a new record in 2010.

http://www1.ncdc.noa...2008-lo-rez.pdf

so there you have it - NOAA says if there is more than 15 years of no warming, then the global climate models fail, and so too does the catastrophic man made warming hypothesis fail.

This paper doesn't say what you think it does. NOAA did not say that there has been fifteen years without warming. It said it would need that to conclude that warming had temporarily ceased. It only had ten years to work with.

You are employing circular reasoning, using a climate model to present your case, then saying that they fail. If that is so, then your case fails, too, because it is based on a climate model.

Sorry, but you have not made your case.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This paper doesn't say what you think it does.

the paper says what it says, its not difficult to understand. you are just constructing a fabricated strawman argument with intent to obfuscate.

NOAA did not say that there has been fifteen years without warming.

and I did not claim that NOAA made that statement in the paper, you are appealing to your imagination.

It said it would need that to conclude that warming had temporarily ceased. It only had ten years to work with.
yes that is correct, it said that then, and since that paper we have had 16 years of no warming, ergo the failure of the man made global warming hypothesis has since come to pass.
You are employing circular reasoning, using a climate model to present your case, then saying that they fail.
the NOAA paper does not use circular reasoning and nor do I, the paper states that a period of 15 years or more of no warming observations is required to create a discrepancy between real life temperatures and the expected warming rate of the GCM models, so the 16 year period of no warming in the observations means that it did not warm as expected and the no warming period cannot be dismissed due to natural effects. now if it did not warm "as expected" then the IPCC assumed magnitude of warming from co2 built into the models is overestimated, which means the catastrophic man made global warming hypothesis has failed. I should not have to write so much to explain something that is self evident in NOAAs statement.
If that is so, then your case fails, too, because it is based on a climate model.
the 16 years of no warming is based on the temperature datasets, not climate models.
Sorry, but you have not made your case.

Doug

you wish Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have shown - the warming is swtill there - just not in the place you would like it to be. The evidence is supportive of continued warming.

This is a problem of complex systems - as they become more energetic they also become more unpredictable and at certain critical boundary conditions the "predictable" outcome breaks down and is replaced with a more difficult to predict outcome.

What is critical here is that the Global system as a whole has continued to accumulate heat at a steady rate - the models all about anticipating where this heat will end up - but they are not good at predicting these complex boundary conditions where the meta state of the whole system flips into another meta-stable state. This is why I have always maintained that climate models are only useful into the short to medium term.

Let me restate the important point here - increasing energy in the system will produce climate change whatever form that may take.

Br Cornelius

let's make some assumptions that favour your position.

let's assume that all the warming of the oceans to a depth of 2000 meters is from co2 re radiating its long wave infra red.

let's assume that this infra red radiation is not somehow picked up in the recent widespread 0-700 meters ocean temperature depth measurements, but just instantly moves to a depth of 700-2000 meters in the ocean.

according to Levitus et al 2012 who measured the ocean heat to a depth of 2000 meters, the equivalent Watts/square meter as spread out across the ocean surface would be equivalent to a co2 forcing of 0.39W/m2 which is 3 times lower than the IPCC climate sensitivity estimate, which means there is no cause for alarm over man made global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple question here is - Has the Global system stopped accumulating energy, or has it continued to accumulate energy ?

The data says the Global system has continued to accumulate energy over the last 16yrs, and that energy has to have come from outside the Global system itself. Since the solar input has declined we must conclude that the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere is still out of equilibrium - which in plain words means that the Globe is warming.

The fact that it is not manifesting as predictable linear surface warming is frankly immaterial.

Can I suggest that those who fail to understand these concepts go away and read up on Chaos theory. James Gleick's book Chaos : the making of a new science is a very good primer. Until you understand Chaoes thory you cannot understand climate science.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's make some assumptions that favour your position.

let's assume that all the warming of the oceans to a depth of 2000 meters is from co2 re radiating its long wave infra red.

let's assume that this infra red radiation is not somehow picked up in the recent widespread 0-700 meters ocean temperature depth measurements, but just instantly moves to a depth of 700-2000 meters in the ocean.

according to Levitus et al 2012 who measured the ocean heat to a depth of 2000 meters, the equivalent Watts/square meter as spread out across the ocean surface would be equivalent to a co2 forcing of 0.39W/m2 which is 3 times lower than the IPCC climate sensitivity estimate, which means there is no cause for alarm over man made global warming.

If you fail to account for ice melt and overestimate the current forcing component given by the IPCC, your complacency might be justified - but when you do I would say not.

Just to reassure you that I am not just blowing hot air - here is an article confirming what I have said;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

An interesting article discussing why the ENSO bifibralation (complex chaotic thermodynamic system) has acted to conceal the real trend over the last 16yrs;

If you disregard the trend lines and stare at the data points over just the last decade or so (or just look at the time series at the top of this post), you see little to no warming. But when the data points are grouped according to whether they’re La Nina years, El Nino years, or neither (neutral years) and trend lines are drawn through them, you see La Nina, El Nino, and neutral years are all inescapably trending warmer. 2011, for example, was

the warmest La Nina year on record

.

http://www.washingto...WtAhT_blog.html

Statistical trickery you might claim - but that would reveal your ignorance of complex chaotic systems.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low and behold the climate models predict exactly what is observed;

There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period). However, the observed energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere for this recent decade indicates that a net energy flux into the climate system of about 1 W m−2 (refs 2, 3) should be producing warming somewhere in the system4, 5. Here we analyse twenty-first-century climate-model simulations that maintain a consistent radiative imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m−2 as observed for the past decade. Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades. The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates that a hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and may be linked to La Niña-like conditions.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/full/nclimate1229.html

Failure to understand what the ENSO actually is would lead you to think that the heat had simply disappeared into thin air.

You are also confusing energy flux through the ocean profile with its temperature profile - the two are not the same.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's make some assumptions that favour your position.

let's assume that all the warming of the oceans to a depth of 2000 meters is from co2 re radiating its long wave infra red.

let's assume that this infra red radiation is not somehow picked up in the recent widespread 0-700 meters ocean temperature depth measurements, but just instantly moves to a depth of 700-2000 meters in the ocean.

according to Levitus et al 2012 who measured the ocean heat to a depth of 2000 meters, the equivalent Watts/square meter as spread out across the ocean surface would be equivalent to a co2 forcing of 0.39W/m2 which is 3 times lower than the IPCC climate sensitivity estimate, which means there is no cause for alarm over man made global warming.

The simple question here is - Has the Global system stopped accumulating energy, or has it continued to accumulate energy ?
this says nothing to the issue raised.

"While, the lower diagnosed value of radiative imbalance raises questions on the skill of the models (and the IPCC reliance on them), it is important to distinguish between the three terms radiative imbalance, radiative forcing, and radiative feedback. In terms of global averages their relationship can be written as

global radiative imbalance = global radiative forcing + global radiative feedback.

The Levitus et al 2012 data provides a measure of the global average radiative imbalance for 1955-2010 which is ~+0.3 Watts per meter squared.

If one accepts the IPCC radiative forcing values of anthropogenic radiative forcings of +1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) Watts per meter squared and/or the solar radiative forcing of +0.12 (+0.06 to +0.30) Watts per meter squared as correct, what the Levitus et al data shows is that the global radiative feedback is negative (and this necessarily would include the water vapor, sea ice etc radiative feedbacks). That is

global radiative feedback < global radiative forcing.

Alternatively, the IPCC anthropogenic radiative forcings and/or the solar radiative forcing could be in error.

Either way, the 2007 IPCC WG1 report has a serious error in it."

http://pielkeclimate...niche-modeling/

so if you accept the findings of Levitus and you accept the forcings as stated by the IPCC, then the global radiative feedback is negative which means man made global warming is nothing to worry about - Catastrophic AGW has been falsified.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pielke and yourself ignore that Ice consumes a considerable element of the forcing. He simply assumes that the ocean is the only heat absorber in effect - which is entirely incorrect.

Pielke has made a basic error here. Why would a supposed expert make such a basic omission from his calculations ??

Also, by choosing to focus on the time period that he has - he has made the error bar far to large to draw the sort of conclusion which he attempts. This is the folly of cherry picking data intervals to support a bogus claim - and is something which Pielke does time and time again. We use the longest time intervals possible to overcome these inherent weaknesses in the data - and this is especially so when dealing with relatively weak data.

This is the stuff of undergraduate level statistics - for none statisticians.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not even true to say that the upper 700m has not accumulated heat;

In another blog post, Dr. Pielke said that the upper 700 meters of ocean have accumulated no heat since 2003. However, we examined the data from several studies on the subject (provided by NOAA), and found that between 2003 and 2009, the upper 700 meters accumulated between 1.1 x 1021 Joules (Levitus - though this reference may be slightly out of date), and 5.6 x 1022 Joules (Palmer), with Willis et al. falling in between at 5.1 x 1021 Joules.

http://www.skeptical...-questions.html

Only by focusing on the most conservative estimate can the statement approach reality.

The reality is even Pielke acknowledges that there has been heating of the Oceans;

will Dr. Pielke agree that his previous assessment of zero Joules accumulated during this period was incorrect, and that the timeframe (since 2003) and depth (700 meters) is insufficient for a suitable assessment of the climatological trend?

I agree it is positive from http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ but relatively small. In my Waterloo talk, I used a value of 1/4 of the rate in the early decade.

I would, however, like to also convert this to the heating rate in Watts per meter squared and assess how close it is to Jim Hansen's estimate from GISS of o.6 Watts per meter squared [see http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf].

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pielke-sks-disagreements-open-questions.html#64819

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The summery of my position on this is;

-Even the 700-2000m meters layer of the ocean is still a relatively small proportion of the actual ocean, and concentrating on it as the sole recipient of forcing energy is grossly misleading

-The estimate calculated by Pielke Sn is not far off the estimate given by many of the model estimates which average 0.5w/m2 for the top 2000m. given the uncertainties this is well within the boundary of standard error.

-The time frame employed by Pielke is grossly to short to make any meaningful statement about an inherently uncertain dataset.

-Concentrating on Levitus (2012) alone is cherry picking the best case scenario from at least 5 similar studies.

-La Nina is the process of deep sequestering of heat into the ocean and the La Nina events have dominated the ENSO over the study period chosen. As such any discrepancy between incoming and outgoing energy is likely to be found in an imperceptible rise in the bulk of the oceans which reside within the lower oceans.

-Once a strong El Nino returns we can expect to see a significant spike in surface air and 700m ocean temperatures - from an already anomalously high level.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The summery of my position on this is;

-Even the 700-2000m meters layer of the ocean is still a relatively small proportion of the actual ocean, and concentrating on it as the sole recipient of forcing energy is grossly misleading

kawano et al 2010 say only 5% of Ocean Heat Content is below 3000m which suggest your "grossly misleading" statement is grossly misleading. if Kawano 2010 is correct then it is right to focus on the top few thousand meters of ocean depth since that is where 95% of ocean heat would be found.
-The estimate calculated by Pielke Sn is not far off the estimate given by many of the model estimates which average 0.5w/m2 for the top 2000m. given the uncertainties this is well within the boundary of standard error.
to be clear it is Levitus 2012 which calculates 0.39 W/m2.

"The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 1.9 1022 J (2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39Wm2"

"The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955."

http://data.nodc.noa...S/grlheat12.pdf

-The time frame employed by Pielke is grossly to short to make any meaningful statement about an inherently uncertain dataset.

-Concentrating on Levitus (2012) alone is cherry picking the best case scenario from at least 5 similar studies.

there is good reason to use Levitus since it is most recent, uses data unavailable to other studies and it uses more accurate data, remember ARGO was only fully deployed in 2006.

it is hardly cherry picking to use the best and most recent data, why would you want to dilute the best study with a bunch of (metphorically) crap studies, which seems to always be the MO of your SKS website.

-La Nina is the process of deep sequestering of heat into the ocean and the La Nina events have dominated the ENSO over the study period chosen.

As such any discrepancy between incoming and outgoing energy is likely to be found in an imperceptible rise in the bulk of the oceans which reside within the lower oceans.

-Once a strong El Nino returns we can expect to see a significant spike in surface air and 700m ocean temperatures - from an already anomalously high level.

Br Cornelius

the study period of Levitus 2012 is 1955-2010, are you claiming la nina has dominated over the last 55 years? <confused>

so where did the heat go that was supposed to come from co2 heating?

the ocean?

the ocean accounts for 93% of warming of the earth system (Levitus 2012), and 95% of that warming occurs in the top 3,000 meters (Kawano 2010) which roughly corresponds to a forcing of 0.39W/m2 - which is too small to be consistent with catastrophic AGW.

a simple calculation reveals that the warming in the top 2000 meters only accounts for a small fraction of what the IPCC claims co2 is supposed to be responsible for. so where did the rest of the warming go? you previously speculated ice, despite your quantifying as "considerable" it only accounts for a very small insignificant fraction. I think it either doesn't exist (the IPCC has exaggerated co2 warming) or it has radiated out into space.

the bottom line here is, if you think the warming has gone below 2000 meters in the ocean, then produce some data to back it up, otherwise there is no data to support the catastrophic man made global warming that you are propagating.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just show you what the IPCC actually says is their estimate for the OHC;

For the period 1993 to 2003, the Levitus et al. (2005a) analysis has a linear global ocean trend of 0.42 ± 0.18 W m–2, Willis et al. (2004) has a trend of 0.66 ± 0.18 W m–2 and Ishii et al. (2006) a trend of 0.33 ± 0.18 W m–2. Overall, we assess the trend for this period as 0.5 ± 0.18 W m–2. For the 0 to 700 m layer and the period 1955 to 2003 the heat content change is 10.9 ± 3.1 × 1022 J or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m–2 (data from Levitus et al., 2005a). All of these estimates are per unit area of Earth surface. Despite the fact that there are differences between these three ocean heat content estimates due to the data used, quality control applied, instrumental biases, temporal and spatial averaging and analysis methods (Appendix 5.A.1), they are consistent with each other giving a high degree of confidence for their use in climate change studies. The global increase in ocean heat content during the period 1993 to 2003 in two ocean models constrained by assimilating altimetric sea level and other observations (Carton et al., 2005; Köhl et al., 2006) is considerably larger than these observational estimates. We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1°C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m–2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

.......

There is a contribution to the global heat content integral from depths greater than 700 m as documented by Levitus et al. (2000; 2005a). However, due to the lack of data with increasing depth the data must be composited using five-year running pentads in order to have enough data for a meaningful analysis in the deep ocean. Even then, there are not enough deep ocean data to extend the time series for the upper 3,000 m past the 1994–1998 pentad. There is a close correlation between the 0 to 700 and 0 to 3,000 m time series of Levitus et al. (2005a). A comparison of the linear trends from these two series indicates that about 69% of the increase in ocean heat content during 1955 to 1998 (the period when estimates from both time series are available) occurred in the upper 700 m of the World Ocean. Based on the linear trend, for the 0 to 3,000 m layer for the period 1961 to 2003 there has been an increase of ocean heat content of approximately 14.2 ± 2.4 × 1022 J, corresponding to a global ocean volume mean temperature increase of 0.037°C during this period. This increase in ocean heat content corresponds to an average heating rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 for the Earth’s surface.

......

To place the changes of ocean heat content in perspective, Figure 5.4 provides updated estimates of the change in heat content of various components of the Earth’s climate system for the period 1961 to 2003 (Levitus et al., 2005a). This includes changes in heat content of the lithosphere (Beltrami et al., 2002), the atmosphere (e.g., Trenberth et al., 2001) and the total heat of fusion due to melting of i) glaciers, ice caps and the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets (see Chapter 4) and ii) arctic sea ice (Hilmer and Lemke, 2000). The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods. Ocean heat content variability is thus a critical variable for detecting the effects of the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere and for resolving the Earth’s overall energy balance. It is noteworthy that whereas ice melt from glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets is very important in the sea level budget (contributing about 40%), the energy associated with ice melt contributes only about 1% to the Earth’s energy budget.

figure-5-4.jpeg

Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth system for two periods (1961–2003 and 1993–2003). Blue bars are for 1961 to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003. The ocean heat content change is from this section and Levitus et al. (2005c); glaciers, ice caps and Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from Chapter 4; continental heat content from Beltrami et al. (2002); atmospheric energy content based on Trenberth et al. (2001); and arctic sea ice release from Hilmer and Lemke (2000). Positive energy content change means an increase in stored energy (i.e., heat content in oceans, latent heat from reduced ice or sea ice volumes, heat content in the continents excluding latent heat from permafrost changes, and latent and sensible heat and potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere). All error estimates are 90% confidence intervals. No estimate of confidence is available for the continental heat gain. Some of the results have been scaled from published results for the two respective periods. Ocean heat content change for the period 1961 to 2003 is for the 0 to 3,000 m layer. The period 1993 to 2003 is for the 0 to 700 m (or 750 m) layer and is computed as an average of the trends from Ishii et al. (2006), Levitus et al. (2005a) and Willis et al. (2004).

.......

Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF and should not be used to compare forcing agents (see Section 2.8.1). Nevertheless, it is a useful diagnostic, particularly for aerosols (see Sections 2.4 and 2.9).

2.8.1 Vertical Forcing Patterns and Surface Energy Balance Changes

The vertical structure of a forcing agent is important both for efficacy (see Section 2.8.5) and for other aspects of climate response, particularly for evaluating regional and vertical patterns of temperature change and also changes in the hydrological cycle. For example, for absorbing aerosol, the surface forcings are arguably a more useful measure of the climate response (particularly for the hydrological cycle) than the RF (Ramanathan et al., 2001a; Menon et al., 2002b). It should be noted that a perturbation to the surface energy budget involves sensible and latent heat fluxes besides solar and longwave irradiance; therefore, it can quantitatively be very different from the RF, which is calculated at the tropopause, and thus is not representative of the energy balance perturbation to the surface-troposphere (climate) system. While the surface forcing adds to the overall description of the total perturbation brought about by an agent, the RF and surface forcing should not be directly compared nor should the surface forcing be considered in isolation for evaluating the climate response (see, e.g., the caveats expressed in Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; Ramanathan, 1981). Therefore, surface forcings are presented as an important and useful diagnostic tool that aids understanding of the climate response (see Sections 2.9.4 and 2.9.5).

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...s2-8.html#2-8-1

Not using the right metric will get you into trouble Little Fish.

The Surface Forcing is not the same as the Radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. The Surface forcing used by the IPCC is in broad agreement with what Pielke uses and is based upon Levitius study among others. You have proven nothing other than your lack of understanding.

However this stuff is complex and not always intuitive so we all make mistakes (me to) - its OK to admit you made a mistake :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a detailed explanation of the difference between radiative forcing and surface forcing;

http://scienceofdoom...energy-balance/

The estimated increase in warming of the surface is given as 1W/m2 for a doubling of CO2 - so current estimates of the forcing are well within line with what we would expect considering we are still a considerable way off a doubling of CO2.

However remember that various feedbacks go into making up the IPCC estimate - and most of them have only just begun to take effect. Take for example the Methane shotgun which has only recently been observed to have started to have begun to accelerate. then there is reduced albedo associated with the rapid decline of the arctic sea ice.

What is currently happening is only of marginal interest to what is likely to happen in the next century when all of the factors come into play at full force.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Surface Forcing is not the same as the Radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. The Surface forcing used by the IPCC is in broad agreement with what Pielke uses and is based upon Levitius study among others. You have proven nothing other than your lack of understanding.

this is what Pielke and Levitus say to that:

"Assuming that there is a direct one-to-one comparison on annual timescales to TOA imbalance is not valid." - Gavin Schmitt

Gavin is in error as shown in the paper

Ellis et al. 1978: The annual variation in the global heat balance of the Earth. J. Geophys. Res., 83, 1958-1962

and as I have discussed in my paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335."

There is a direct relationship between ocean heat content changes and TOA radiative imbalances even on the annual time scale."

http://pielkeclimate...-gavin-schmidt/

and here is a chart showing a direct relationship between the TOA radiative imbalance and ocean heat content over an annual period as published by Levitus

ellis-et-al-jgr-1978_fig1.jpg?w=500

http://pielkeclimate...al-jgr-1978.pdf

For a detailed explanation of the difference between radiative forcing and surface forcing;
that article is based on a study which itself is based on a model which is not based on actual observations based in reality. for actual observations of reality, see above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.