Articles on this Page
- 01/13/19--14:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/13/19--15:39: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/13/19--16:50: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/13/19--17:00: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/13/19--17:20: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/13/19--17:47: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/14/19--06:47: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/14/19--07:55: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/14/19--08:26: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--08:33: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--08:46: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--08:51: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--08:51: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--08:54: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--08:55: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--08:59: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--09:19: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--09:27: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--09:28: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/14/19--09:29: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/13/19--14:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dave Fair
- 01/13/19--15:39: Comment on Week in review – science edition by angech
- 01/13/19--16:50: Comment on Week in review – science edition by sheldonjwalker
- 01/13/19--17:00: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 01/13/19--17:20: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 01/13/19--17:47: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 01/14/19--06:47: Comment on Week in review – science edition by jeffnsails850
- 01/14/19--07:55: Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
- 01/14/19--08:26: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Joseph Ratliff
- 01/14/19--08:33: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Hifast
- 01/14/19--08:46: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Jeff Norman
- 01/14/19--08:51: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ron Clutz
- 01/14/19--08:51: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by frankclimate
- 01/14/19--08:54: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by frankclimate
- 01/14/19--08:55: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Al Neipris
- 01/14/19--08:59: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by climatereason
- 01/14/19--09:19: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by cerescokid
- 01/14/19--09:27: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert Clark
- 01/14/19--09:28: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by cerescokid
- 01/14/19--09:29: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ulric Lyons
On average, how many Hiroshima-sized bombs does the Sun deposit in the tropical Pacific Ocean per second on a typical day at noon?
Zeke, Changing the Past?
"Diligent observers of NCDC’s temperature record have noted that many of the values change by small amounts on a daily basis. This includes not only
recent temperatures but those in the distant past as well, and has created
some confusion about why, exactly, the recorded temperatures in 1917 should change day-to-day. "
Why Adjust Temperatures?
"Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record."
That backs up the adjusted warming narrative.
I only wanted a few statues of me, in major cities. I don't want to destroy society. In fact, I quite like society (as long as they don't make too much noise, on the weekends).
One dimensional answers from one dimensional minds. All ocean warming is SW - and that changes very substantially on an annual basis due to orbital eccentricity - but also as a result of clouds changes principally in the upwelling regions of the eastern and central Pacific. I have given links on the latter above. Independent processes.
But in there somewhere is a local thermodynamic equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere. The oceans warm enough to restore energy equilibrium at the surface and ultimately at TOA. Argo has a slightly shorter record - generated yesterday with the latest data available in the Argo global marine mapper. I recommend it if you like visualizing data.
Ocean heat does seem to mirror atmospheric heat anomalies as the zeroth law would dictate. The only parameter of interest here is how long it takes oceans and atmosphere to equilibriate? Not long given the other very substantial warming and cooling processes.
The cumulative CERES record shows - as above - constant warming this century. But what would you believe? The intercalibrated - using an average ocean warming from Argo - CERES record or the ocean warming record itself?
Renewed warming since about 2008? The post hiatus spike btw is mostly cloud changes associated with ENSO.
I deliberately used the Scripps Institution data that uses the Roemmich-Gilson Argo Climatology. Got a problem? Tell someone who cares.
And here's the CERES data downloaded again just now. All SW warming and IR cooling.
From the link on electric buses. Apparently they are fantastic, if you don't expect to be able to use buses, are willing to pay 40% more for buses you can't ride, and don't count emissions from the electricity used to charge the batteries. As an aside, I think Californians are becoming accustomed to paying more for services that aren't intended to be a service to them. And the rest of us are getting tired of "solutions" that don't solve.
"California is now the first state in the nation to mandate all emission-free buses by 2040, allowing time to phase out gas and diesel buses. But, California mass transit users need to realize that the reliability of bus service may no longer be a priority and that they may be forced to delay their arrival time or not make it to their destination at all."
In short, California's plan pushes people into cars with ICE engines.
My local town, Torquay in Devon, uk, had its first electric tram system in 1907 it was removed in 1934 as were many other tramways, as the petrol omnibus became more prevalent.
Many towns especially in Europe still have electric trams. Diesel/petrol Buses are more flexible as to where they can physically go, but trams in their fixed tracks, can have extra cars added when needed and have unlimited power via the generating stations.
Of course these days it would need to be generated in a green manner which might present problems.
Reblogged this on <a href="https://quaererepropterverum.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/ocean-heat-content-surprises/" rel="nofollow">Quaerere Propter Vērum</a> and commented:
Finally, the oceans are getting their due as part of the explanation for a changing climate. I have always thought it was ridiculous to assume human activity could be the sole (singular) cause of warming in the complex climate of an entire planet. Influence, perhaps, but not the sole cause. Now that will hopefully be confirmed.
Reblogged this on <a href="https://hifast.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/ocean-heat-content-surprises/" rel="nofollow">Climate Collections</a>.
I once read a paper that discussed the timing for transporting surface water and heat into the abysmal oceans, it was on the order of 500 to 1,000 years. I wish I'd kept a link for the paper.
Worth noting that Cheng et al. also relies on Resplandy et al., which Nic Lewis has critiqued here in 4 posts last November.
A few words relating the Gebbie et al paper. The take home message is also good to deduce from the Fig.S5 ( supplements):
The warming from the LIA is transported in the deeper (around 2000m depth) layers of the pacific with a delay of some hundret years. This influences the OHC during the LIA up to now. Some parts of some warming of the upper 1000 m comes from "lifting up" from heat generated by the MWP. Included: The MWP was a global phenomenon because it influences the global OHC , see the cited fig. 4b in the mainpost. If one declares an equilibrium around 1750 ( as estimated up to now for models) this "lifted warming" would be seen as impact from the top. This is the problem: A good part of the global heatuptake is attributed to the warming of the MWP which seems to be huge.
The model estimate of the ocean warming since 1750 is too high.
For "The warming from the LIA..." please read: The warming from the MWP... sorry!
“Proxy records show that before the onset of modern anthropogenic warming, globally coherent cooling occurred from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age."
No one seems to talk about it much, but it seems M.M.'s murder of the MWP and LIA by hockey stick blunt force trauma has been cancelled. Seems to me that's something Mark Steyn might use as a defense in Mann's lawsuit, unless that too's been cancelled.
Abysmal? Is that a Freudian slip?
The baseline temperatures referenced in recent papers apparently have come from the HMS Challenger expedition 1872-76. This link is the report from that expedition. They used some ingenious devices to record the water temperatures at depth and this report provides some fascinating discussions of the methods used in their measurements. As much as they tried to get accurate readings they realized limitations in the devices. But let’s be honest about what is being used as a baseline for “ocean temperatures “. They made measurements at 360 locations. The oceans are 330 million sq kilometers and have a volume of 1.3 Billion cubic kilometers.
They recorded a temperature at depths at one location at one time. What were the temperatures at that location at varying depths during the previous decades or following decades? They had no knowledge of stratification or circulation or the oscillations at play or how those locations had been affected.
Even with the massive improvement in technology and huge gain in coverage there are still reasons to question today’s claims about OHC. How many more questions should we have about a baseline ocean temperature from the 1870s.
I thought it was an enjoyable read.
My interpritation of the Vostok Ice and my interpritation of the Ice Ages.
There are three methods of heat transfer. They are conduction, convection, and radiant heat. Heat transfer to or from the earth can only be done by radiant. All material contains heat and is radiating it to cooler surfaces or absorbing it from warmer surfaces. The difference is the heat gain or loss of the material.
The earth gains heat radiated from the sun and loses heat it radiates to outer space, called black sky radiation. Outer space is considered absolute zero.
The amount of radiant heat hitting the earth from the sun daily is relatively constant. The radiant heat lost daily by the earth thru black sky radiation is constant since absolute zero is constant. The amount of heat gained by the earth’s surface depends on the surface area of the earth covered by water relative to that covered by land. Land area absorbs a larger percent of the radiant heat relative to the water area since the surface of the water reflects a percentage of the radiant heat back to outer space. The daily access heat, or loss of heat, is transferred to the oceans thru conduction and convection where it works its way to the poles and it freezes water adding to the polar ice caps or melts the polar ice caps thus keeping the surface temperature of the oceans, thus the earth, relatively constant. As the polar ice caps grow or melt, the surface area of the earth covered by land relative to that covered by water changes. This is the definition of global warming. I call it Global Ice making and Global Ice Melting.
That radiant heat absorbed by oceans and land masses is transferred to the atmosphere thru conduction and convection. When it is winter in one hemisphere it is summer in the other and the same with spring and fall. I would think the average temperature of the lower 5,000 feet of the atmosphere changes about 10’F to20’F each day. This probably takes more heat than man has added to the earth in the last 50 years. That heat man adds to the atmosphere each day is radiated to the black sky and the infinitesimal amount left helps melt the ice during global warming, should be called Global Ice Melting.
Absolute Zero is -459.68’F and the average surface temperature of the sun is between 7,300’F and 10,000’F. If we could go back in time 18,000 years, the end of the last ice age, we would probable see that the average daily temperature of the earth was in the mid 60’F as it is today. You must understand the amount of heat gained every 24 hours is almost equal to that lost during the same 24 hours. Angle of the earth’s axis is 23.5’.
The average surface temperature of the earth is about 63.5’f. The heat loss to black sky radiation every 24 hours is constant. The average radiant heat striking the surface of the earth is relatively constant. Because the sun is an active star the average temperature will change over centuries. As the surface area of the earth covered by water increases, the more radiant heat is reflected back to the black sky increases. When the daily radiant heat gained by the earth from the sun in 24 hours became less than that lost by black sky radiation we began ice making. Looking at the ice core from the Antarctic we can see that the earth began the new Ice Age about 18,000 years ago.
The Vostok Ice core shows 4 Ice Ages in the last 4 hundred thousand years. I will assume that during that time the CO2 emitted by the actions of nature is relatively constant. The lowest CO2 level is about 190 and frozen during the Ice Making somewhere in the middle of the Ice Making cycle, but the actual end of the Ice Making cycle is much later. The beginning of the rise in CO2 is actually the beginning of the next Ice Making cycle.
The last Ice Age began about 140 thousand years ago. The Ice Making stage and Ice Melting Stage each lasted about 60 thousand years. During the Ice Making stage the land mass grows and as it grows the green foliage grows thus lowering CO2 percentage in the atmosphere. When the Ice melting stage begins the rise in the water level kills the green foliage. When it gets to the 190 mark the green foliage is over 6o thousand years old plus. That foliage can still overcome the CO2 produced by nature and it took about 10 thousand years to kill the foliage to get the level of foliage that overcomes nature.
Our weather right now is nature taking heat out of the oceans and sending it to the poles to make ice.
The Weather Channel just had a piece on a very large section of ice is about to break off a peninsula in the Antarctic. This is be because of the fact that 18,000 years ago the earth switched from Global Ice Melting to Global Ice Making. Since then the Ocean levels may have dropped a foot and the ice has risen around 250 meters in the Antarctic. It seems like that would be a tremendous amount of leverage attempting to break off that ice. The Ocean level was some 400’ lower at the changeover and the 39’ water has been melting the bottom of that ice shelf for the last 78,000 years as the ocean rose. The shoreline has been receding below the glacier for 80+ thousand years. During Global Ice Making, the thickness of the ice, which eventually becomes a glacier is getting thinner from the bottom and replaced with 39’F water. The weight of the new ice is what makes it become a glacier and break off. As the glaciers break off the new ice melts slowing the drop of the ocean level. Eventually, as the new ice continues to melt, we will get to the point where the glaciers will stop breaking off and the lowering of the oceans will accelerate.
The AntArctic ice core chart also shows the top 500’ is the beginning of the man’s discovery of fire, thus the increase of CO2 percentage rise in the atmosphere. The chart also shows that as the ocean level drops the CO2 level in the atmosphere drops. This is because the land surface area grows, thus the green foliage increases, thus the photosynthesis, which is how nature removes the CO2 from the atmosphere, lowers the CO2 level. Oceans were about 400’ lower than they are now at the peak of the ice age and global ice melting began. The last ice age lasted about 120 thousand years. That means it took about 60 thousand years to melt the ice, thus the oceans rose an average of 6.67 feet per thousand years.
The only thing I haven’t explained is how they get the date of the end of the Ice ages. It has to do with the ice melting from the top down. I say the last Ice Age ended about 18 thousand years ago. I say that point was ice deposited before the peak of the ice making and which was about 80+ thousand years ago.
As the ice melts the water flashes from solid directly into vapor and is absorbed into the cold, very dry air (SUBLIMATION).
I assume they date the ice by using carbon dating. This is on the solids they find in the ice core. As the ice is evaporated the solids are left behind. There is no way nature can take 110,000 thousand years to make the ice and melt it all in 10 thousand years.
About 18000 years ago the new ice age began. Until the land mass grew enough the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere kept growing. About 18000 years ago the green foliage was not enough to stunt the growth of carbon dioxide and as the land mass grew the carbon dioxide level began to drop. About 16000 years ago the land mass, and green foliage, was enough to overcome nature. 8000 years ago, man plus nature began to make more carbon dioxide than the growth of green foliage could overcome and the carbon dioxide began to rise until present.
ALL YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND FROM THIS IS THAT THE NEW ICE AGE BEGAN ABOUT 18,000 YEARS AGO!!!!!
The ice at the poles is not melting off. The ice at the poles is breaking off.
The section on temperatures is Chapter III, page 83.
So there are upper OHC gains during a warm AMO phase, and upper OHC losses during a cold AMO phase, because of changes in low cloud cover. And a warm AMO is normal during a centennial solar minimum. That is a profound negative feedback.