Is global warming hiding underwater?

[ScienceRocks]

Is global warming hiding underwater?

Satellite observations of global sea-surface temperature show that a 30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years. Climate scientists say this is not the end of global warming, but the result of a rearrangement in the energy flow of the climate system and, in particular, how the ocean stores heat.

Read more at: Is global warming hiding underwater?

I am starting to think that the aerosols of China and India are a lot stronger then the ipcc is thinking. There's a lot of error within our understanding of these so I feel it is possible.

Look at the 1960s and 1970's before the clean air act.

As fore melting glaciers and sea ice within the arctic. I believe hit the tipping point for this amount of melting within the 1990s....Just that melting doesn't all happen at that moment but melts until you're below that point again....We can clearly see that we haven't want below it.

So how can you argue that is warming?

 

[Abraham3]

I'm sorry Matthew but I'm not sure what you're saying. How can we argue that WHAT is warming?

The entire Arctic ice cap is sitting on molten water. It is entirely possible to melt it all. The PIOMAS data clearly show we are headed for an ice free summer within 20 years at the current rate.

Aside from the article to which you linked, a number of scientists are beginning to believe that long term changes in tropical wind patterns have driven the warmed surface waters into the deep ocean. And, having done that, those previously warmed surface waters are being replaced with colder deep water, reducing the rate of global surface heating.

The precipitation that we didn't see in the Antarctic has certainly shown up other places. England and northern Europe is flooding with rains not seen since record keeping began in the mid-1700s. So much rain fell on Australia that the evaporation that put it up there to fall made a measurable change in the world's sea level.

ENSO effects, globally, are altering and becoming more intense. A warming deep ocean could well be the cause.

 

[westwall]

Is global warming hiding underwater?

Satellite observations of global sea-surface temperature show that a 30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years. Climate scientists say this is not the end of global warming, but the result of a rearrangement in the energy flow of the climate system and, in particular, how the ocean stores heat.

Read more at: Is global warming hiding underwater?

I am starting to think that the aerosols of China and India are a lot stronger then the ipcc is thinking. There's a lot of error within our understanding of these so I feel it is possible.

Look at the 1960s and 1970's before the clean air act.

As fore melting glaciers and sea ice within the arctic. I believe hit the tipping point for this amount of melting within the 1990s....Just that melting doesn't all happen at that moment but melts until you're below that point again....We can clearly see that we haven't want below it.

So how can you argue that is warming?

As soon as they can demonstrate which Law of Physics allows such behavior I will pay attention.

 

[Abraham3]

Is global warming hiding underwater?

Satellite observations of global sea-surface temperature show that a 30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years. Climate scientists say this is not the end of global warming, but the result of a rearrangement in the energy flow of the climate system and, in particular, how the ocean stores heat.

Read more at: Is global warming hiding underwater?

I am starting to think that the aerosols of China and India are a lot stronger then the ipcc is thinking. There's a lot of error within our understanding of these so I feel it is possible.

Look at the 1960s and 1970's before the clean air act.

As fore melting glaciers and sea ice within the arctic. I believe hit the tipping point for this amount of melting within the 1990s....Just that melting doesn't all happen at that moment but melts until you're below that point again....We can clearly see that we haven't want below it.

So how can you argue that is warming?

As soon as they can demonstrate which Law of Physics allows such behavior I will pay attention.

Water at the ocean's surface is warmer than the water below. Generally, everywhere in the ocean, temperature descends with depth.

Now lets drive the surface water against a continental margin by steadily increased winds. The warmer surface water will be subducted. But, as those scientists love to say, nature abhors a vacuum. What will replace the subducted warm water? Swiss cheese? Mice? Neutrinos? NO!!! DEEP water. And what are the relative temperatures of that deeper water. C'mon, you know it. I just told you. Yeah... yeah yeah...COLDER.

This is a process that has been taking place to a certain extent since it all began. It is simply that - as has been bandied about for many years - increased global temperatures actually DO cause changes to the weather. Tropical wind speeds have increased significantly. Thus wind-driven subduction and the forced upwelling of colder deep water to replace it have increased steadily. With an increase in the rate of upwelling cold water, there is no longer time for the sun to warm it as it once did and the sea surface temperature falls - or at least slows its rate of warming.

Now, pray tell, what laws of physics did that violate?

 

[IanC]

Is global warming hiding underwater?

Satellite observations of global sea-surface temperature show that a 30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years. Climate scientists say this is not the end of global warming, but the result of a rearrangement in the energy flow of the climate system and, in particular, how the ocean stores heat.

Read more at: Is global warming hiding underwater?

I am starting to think that the aerosols of China and India are a lot stronger then the ipcc is thinking. There's a lot of error within our understanding of these so I feel it is possible.

Look at the 1960s and 1970's before the clean air act.

As fore melting glaciers and sea ice within the arctic. I believe hit the tipping point for this amount of melting within the 1990s....Just that melting doesn't all happen at that moment but melts until you're below that point again....We can clearly see that we haven't want below it.

So how can you argue that is warming?

Matt - I know you love science and you relish every new paper that comes out, every shiny new idea that comes to the forefront. but they cannot all be correct! and sometimes even when they are trivially true they are of inconsequential size.

a decade ago it was all about the atmosphere with CO2 as the control knob and all the other variables ignored because they were deemed static. all the models had beautiful correlation with the rise in CO2 and any problems were removed just by tweeking the way aerosols were included.

ten years ago the correlation was falling apart and ever increasing 'adjustments' were being made to all sorts of data to keep up appearances because everyone knew that temps would start rising again any-day-now.

five years ago the models, temps, correlations and everything else was in shambles. not only that, but someone leaked personal emails from climate scientists that showed how they had private doubts and how they had used very questionable methods to suppress dissenting data and opinions. all in the name of 'The Cause', of course. frantic brainstorming for some spot where the heat could be hiding has brought out ever more unlikely, outlandish, and unmeasurable claims. along with renaming the problem from global warming>climate change>extreme weather.


I totally agree that the oceans have more heat capacity, orders of magnitude more. if we are looking at tenths of a degree change in the atmosphere then we are looking at thousandths of a degree change in the ocean. we dont have the realistic capability to do that. judging by the way surface temps can be altered by tenths so easily, are you willing to believe that ocean temps are accurate to a thousandth?

the large changes in OHC would be easily observable by us, that is a lot of energy going in and out. speaking of energy, backradiation has essentially zero ability to heat oceans as it is completely stopped within the first mm or so. 160w of highly ordered sunlight has the capacity to do work on the oceans, 300w of diffuse, low temperature differential backradiation does not, all it can do is impede energy loss. if the ocean loses some radiation loss then it simply uses another method, like evaporation to convection to clouds to albedo change. the ocean doesnt get warmer than 31C, when it starts getting close to that it simply pumps out heat by thunderclouds.

the warmers love their proxy reconstructions. a while back there was a paper stating that the rate of increase in OHC was the largest on record. (I will leave aside whether the proxies were capable of that resolution). but what everyone seemed to be ignoring was that the OHC was at its lowest point during the 20th century! why pick out one part that supports your theory but ignore other parts that refute it? should we be worried that we are headed back towards a LIA configuration?


Matt - there are a lot of crazy ideas brought out in science because if you are the first then you become famous. most dont pan out so try to be a bit discerning with what you accept as the truth.

 

[IanC]

Is global warming hiding underwater?


Read more at: Is global warming hiding underwater?

I am starting to think that the aerosols of China and India are a lot stronger then the ipcc is thinking. There's a lot of error within our understanding of these so I feel it is possible.

Look at the 1960s and 1970's before the clean air act.

As fore melting glaciers and sea ice within the arctic. I believe hit the tipping point for this amount of melting within the 1990s....Just that melting doesn't all happen at that moment but melts until you're below that point again....We can clearly see that we haven't want below it.

So how can you argue that is warming?

As soon as they can demonstrate which Law of Physics allows such behavior I will pay attention.

Water at the ocean's surface is warmer than the water below. Generally, everywhere in the ocean, temperature descends with depth.

Now lets drive the surface water against a continental margin by steadily increased winds. The warmer surface water will be subducted. But, as those scientists love to say, nature abhors a vacuum. What will replace the subducted warm water? Swiss cheese? Mice? Neutrinos? NO!!! DEEP water. And what are the relative temperatures of that deeper water. C'mon, you know it. I just told you. Yeah... yeah yeah...COLDER.

This is a process that has been taking place to a certain extent since it all began. It is simply that - as has been bandied about for many years - increased global temperatures actually DO cause changes to the weather. Tropical wind speeds have increased significantly. Thus wind-driven subduction and the forced upwelling of colder deep water to replace it have increased steadily. With an increase in the rate of upwelling cold water, there is no longer time for the sun to warm it as it once did and the sea surface temperature falls - or at least slows its rate of warming.

Now, pray tell, what laws of physics did that violate?

and yet in 2006 CO2 was blamed for slowing down the winds. it seems like CO2 is a wonder molecule capable of doing all things at all times.

From NCAR/UCAR:

Slowdown in Tropical Pacific Flow Pinned on Climate Change

May 3, 2006

BOULDER, Colorado—The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change. The findings appear in the May 4 issue of Nature.

 

[westwall]

Is global warming hiding underwater?


Read more at: Is global warming hiding underwater?

I am starting to think that the aerosols of China and India are a lot stronger then the ipcc is thinking. There's a lot of error within our understanding of these so I feel it is possible.

Look at the 1960s and 1970's before the clean air act.

As fore melting glaciers and sea ice within the arctic. I believe hit the tipping point for this amount of melting within the 1990s....Just that melting doesn't all happen at that moment but melts until you're below that point again....We can clearly see that we haven't want below it.

So how can you argue that is warming?

As soon as they can demonstrate which Law of Physics allows such behavior I will pay attention.

Water at the ocean's surface is warmer than the water below. Generally, everywhere in the ocean, temperature descends with depth.

Now lets drive the surface water against a continental margin by steadily increased winds. The warmer surface water will be subducted. But, as those scientists love to say, nature abhors a vacuum. What will replace the subducted warm water? Swiss cheese? Mice? Neutrinos? NO!!! DEEP water. And what are the relative temperatures of that deeper water. C'mon, you know it. I just told you. Yeah... yeah yeah...COLDER.

This is a process that has been taking place to a certain extent since it all began. It is simply that - as has been bandied about for many years - increased global temperatures actually DO cause changes to the weather. Tropical wind speeds have increased significantly. Thus wind-driven subduction and the forced upwelling of colder deep water to replace it have increased steadily. With an increase in the rate of upwelling cold water, there is no longer time for the sun to warm it as it once did and the sea surface temperature falls - or at least slows its rate of warming.

Now, pray tell, what laws of physics did that violate?

Yeah, cute little tale, now tell us what Law of Physics allows heat to remain heat when it is surrounded by COLD! Sorry to make it sound so simplistic but that is required in this case.

Heat changes to cold very quickly, when surrounded by cold, so your tale violates several Laws of Physics.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah, cute little tale, now tell us what Law of Physics allows heat to remain heat when it is surrounded by COLD! Sorry to make it sound so simplistic but that is required in this case.

So your defense is to claim subduction and ocean circulation is a myth?

Good luck with that. Maybe you can write a paper on it. There's a Nobel in it for sure, if you can prove your new theory.

Anyways, La Nina explains what's happening now. If you plot a temperature curve separately for data points from El Nino, neutral and La Nina years, the rate of climb is the same in all 3 curves. That would be why no rational scientists have fallen for the "The warming has stopped!" nonsense. The only question is what drives the ENSO cycles.

 

[mamooth]

speaking of energy, backradiation has essentially zero ability to heat oceans as it is completely stopped within the first mm or so.

That makes no sense. It's like saying the sun can't warm my roof, because the solar energy is all absorbed in the first mm.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, cute little tale, now tell us what Law of Physics allows heat to remain heat when it is surrounded by COLD! Sorry to make it sound so simplistic but that is required in this case.

So your defense is to claim subduction and ocean circulation is a myth?

Good luck with that. Maybe you can write a paper on it. There's a Nobel in it for sure, if you can prove your new theory.

Demonstrating why we no longer take ANYTHING you say seriously anymore!

 

[mamooth]

England et al, 2013
"Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus"

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html
---
Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming. A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing. Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake. The extra uptake has come about through increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, enhancing heat convergence in the equatorial thermocline. At the same time, the accelerated trade winds have increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific, lowering sea surface temperature there, which drives further cooling in other regions. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.
---

That paper is about actual data. The Vecchi 2006 paper referenced by Ian is about one person's model prediction (which was clearly wrong), and not actual data.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7089/abs/nature04744.html

 

[flacaltenn]

speaking of energy, backradiation has essentially zero ability to heat oceans as it is completely stopped within the first mm or so.

That makes no sense. It's like saying the sun can't warm my roof, because the solar energy is all absorbed in the first mm.

Solar radiation is BROADBAND. Everything from UV to IR. Back-Radiation is very narrow spectral spikes in the IR bands. There's a DIFF in how the photon energy penetrates the surface of water.. Nobody's lying to you here.. Besides --- net flow of Back Rad IR is skyward. It's got no source of energy to deliver to the oceans in the first place. The only role of CO2 is to IMPEDE COOLING outbound to the TOA. So solar irradiation IS UNARGUABLY the source of ANY ocean warming..


BTW -- I love the "molten water" under the ice comment from Abraham.. Very cool..

 

[mamooth]

Solar radiation is BROADBAND. Everything from UV to IR. Back-Radiation is very narrow spectral spikes in the IR bands. There's a DIFF in how the photon energy penetrates the surface of water.. Nobody's lying to you here.

Didn't said they were. However, I am seeing a lot of red herrings up there.

If the radiation is absorbed the water, that's all that matters. Shallow or deep, it gets absorbed, turns to heat, and the warmer water mixes, warming all the water nearby. Energy doesn't just magically vanish because it only penetrated a millimeter.

Besides --- net flow of Back Rad IR is skyward.

"Net flow" being another red herring.

 

[SSDD]

Solar radiation is BROADBAND. Everything from UV to IR. Back-Radiation is very narrow spectral spikes in the IR bands. There's a DIFF in how the photon energy penetrates the surface of water.. Nobody's lying to you here.

Didn't said they were. However, I am seeing a lot of red herrings up there.

If the radiation is absorbed the water, that's all that matters. Shallow or deep, it gets absorbed, turns to heat, and the warmer water mixes, warming all the water nearby. Energy doesn't just magically vanish because it only penetrated a millimeter.

Besides --- net flow of Back Rad IR is skyward.

"Net flow" being another red herring.

If you want to find your missing heat, look to the ToA....Outgoing radiation into space has been increasing for a good long while now in direct opposition to the claims of climate pseudoscience.

 

[Locke11_21]

Is global warming hiding underwater?

Yeah, it's hiding underwater right next to the Loch Ness monster and Poseidon.

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar radiation is BROADBAND. Everything from UV to IR. Back-Radiation is very narrow spectral spikes in the IR bands. There's a DIFF in how the photon energy penetrates the surface of water.. Nobody's lying to you here.

Didn't said they were. However, I am seeing a lot of red herrings up there.

If the radiation is absorbed the water, that's all that matters. Shallow or deep, it gets absorbed, turns to heat, and the warmer water mixes, warming all the water nearby. Energy doesn't just magically vanish because it only penetrated a millimeter.

Besides --- net flow of Back Rad IR is skyward.

"Net flow" being another red herring.

I don't toss herring to random stray cats. From the Trenberth "Energy" cartoon, amount DOWN is about 20W/m2 less than the amount UP.. Radiative Thermo says that's a NET LOSS to the sky. THUS, the classical heat flow is UP.. (bigger issue is TrenBerths GLOBAL average assumption on this independent of surface type, season, or region)
A thermal energy path NOT in equilibrium conducts heat in ONE direction.

So the CO2 is in control of the NET Loss. Does NOT contribute EM energy to the surface.
(what happens if that ever reaches a NET GAIN is a bit frightening)

In the case of water -- penetration depth is a function of wavelength. The likelihood of the energy STAYING in the water column is much higher if the penetration depth increases. Especially by orders of magnitude.

That said -- any back-rad that DOES get into the water column (storage) reduces the net flow differential. But that heat energy is taken out of the surface temp budget and is likely to be fairly constant over time and invariant except for the seasonal, regional differences I mentioned above.

Let's all learn some things here.. And make SURE no herrings were tossed...

http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1440&context=oa_theses

Figure 1.1 shows a conceptual temperature versus depth profile of the ocean’s nearsurface
layer. The thermal skin layer, or cool-skin layer, is the layer of about a tenth of a
millimeter thickness at the surface of the ocean. The surface temperature is cooler than
the temperature just below by a value ranging from ⇠ 0.1 #C during high wind speeds
to ⇠ 0.6 #C during low wind conditions (Ward, 2006). This seemingly unconventional
temperature gradient in the thermal skin layer in which the lower layers are warmer
than the upper surface layers occurs because the direction of heat fluxes is mainly from
the ocean to the atmosphere. Heat loss by infrared (IR) radiation, latent heat, and
sensible heat takes place at the interfacial layer of the ocean and results in the ocean
releasing heat to the atmosphere rather than the reverse. Thus, the temperature gradient
in the thermal skin layer is of great interest since the thermal skin layer is where
most, if not all, of the ocean’s thermal energy is transferred into the atmosphere and
may play a key thermodynamic role in the warming of the ocean by greenhouse gases
(i.e. not the kinetic energy of currents and eddies).

There are two skin layers at the ocean surface: the thermal skin layer and the
electromagnetic (EM) skin layer. SNIP SNIP


The EM skin layer absorbs and re-emits IR radiation while the heat provided by molecular conduction down the temperature
gradient in the thermal skin layer provides energy to sustain the latent and
sensible heat losses at the interface and makes up the difference between the absorbed
and emitted IR radiation within the EM skin layer. The SW radiation penetrates to deeper depths and the greater part (> 99%) is absorbed in layers beneath the skin layer. An increase in greenhouse gases would cause an increase in incoming LW radiation
which gets absorbed in the EM skin layer, thus increasing the temperature of the
thermal skin layer and resulting in a surplus of energy. The surplus of energy could
now be fed to the outgoing LW, latent and sensible heat fluxes at the air-sea interface
which was previously supplied by the energy from absorbed SW radiation beneath the
thermal skin layer. The SW radiation would therefore be trapped beneath the thermal
skin layer resulting in a temperature rise in the bulk of the ocean. If the temperature in
the bulk of the ocean increases while the temperature at the surface varies slightly, the
only way that this temperature difference can be supported is by changes in the gradient
of the thermal skin layer.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW:

The "oceans are eating our warming" crowd surely ought to read that dissertation. It'll explain how the heat got there and how unlikely it is that heat at 700m is EVER gonna contribute to surface temp. rise in the future..

 

[IanC]

speaking of energy, backradiation has essentially zero ability to heat oceans as it is completely stopped within the first mm or so.

That makes no sense. It's like saying the sun can't warm my roof, because the solar energy is all absorbed in the first mm.

actually it is more like saying, "the sun doesnt directly heat my basement because the roof doesnt allow the sunlight to penetrate".

but even that doesnt tell the story. I have radiant heating in my house. the small temperature differential and lack of forced convection means that it takes a longgggggg time to make any substantial change in ambient temperature. forced air furnaces can quickly warm the air inside the house even if the walls, furniture, etc are still cool.

sunlight is composed of radiation from a 5000 degree source, oriented in a single direction. back radiation is diffuse and from a 300K source. the difference in ability to do work is immense between the two, even if the perceived wattage is similar.

 

[Abraham3]

Do you suggest there is no movement within the atmosphere of its constituent gasses Ian? No wind? No updrafts, downdrafts, fronts, storms, precipitation, simple freaking DIFFUSION?

And the while it is correct that a single photon's energy will decrease as it goes from transfer to transfer, but you forgot about the infinite supply of photons following right behind. Our CO2 is not sitting out there waiting for that single magic photon to come by to start it's eternal life together. It is BATHED in an unending flux of photons that raise its temperature higher and higher and higher. It will have no problem radiating away the energy it receives.

You seem to have one of the better science educations out of the deniers here, but this idea - or perhaps more accurately, this claim - that thermal radiation is stopped by a layer of the atmosphere and STAYS THERE is complete and utter nonsense and I am seriously disappointed that you would push it.

 

[SSDD]

And the while it is correct that a single photon's energy will decrease as it goes from transfer to transfer, but you forgot about the infinite supply of photons following right behind.

If you acknowledge that the photon's energy decreases, then you should grasp that you have just acknowledged that once emitted, no other CO2 molecule can absorb it since its energy will be outside the absorption band of CO2.