Latest oceanic heat content shows warming of our oceans!

[ScienceRocks]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL. Mr. CrusaderFrank, stick with your hollow moon. In real science, your opinions are baseless, and worse than useless. The scientists use real evidence, not silly opinions based on rumor and maybe's. The warming of the ocean is real, measured by scientists from all over the world.

Actually C-Frank.. The warming power of CO2 is well-known as a greenhouse gas. There's an example in every atmospheric physic book I've seen working out the rough cut warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration. It's nothing but BASIC physics, some chemistry and a few simplified geometric assumptions. Not difficult at all..

The answer is --- a doubling of CO2 will increase surface warming by about 1degC.. So I could calculate that back to any concentration amount you wanted to test. Problem is that's for the 1st doubling.. Say from 280 to 560ppm. You do not get the NEXT degree of warming until you hit 1120ppm !!! Because it's a logarithmic relation.. All this started with those dead white scientists that GoldiRocks loves to quote.

But that is NOT Global Warming theory. The part that CANNOT be tested is all the superpowers that are attributed to CO2 BEYOND the basic science. Like the Magic Multipliers and the "residency" assumptions.. So at 1deg/doubling --- we wouldn't be here every day arguing because it's not a calamity or a prescription for doom.

When you have the BASIC calculations, you might STILL check them with an experiment. But you're on pretty solid as long as your calculations don't make wild ass assumptions.

 

[flacaltenn]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

Second time you've made this assertion that ENSO doesn't add or take away heat from the Climate system.
It certainly DOES and it affects the Global temperature as a result.. When the warm waters pool at the surface, the heat is drawn off by convection and disipated rather efficiently into the upper atmosphere. During El Nina -- the cooler waters more readily take up heat from the atmos. Thus there is a HUGE exchange of "stored ocean heat" with the atmos during these events.


El Niño, La Niña & ENSO FAQ | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

During El Niño, a deep pool of warm water usually restricted to the western tropical Pacific is replaced by a much larger, more shallow pool of warm water that covers most or all of the tropical Pacific. The expanded zone of warm sea surface temperatures allows more heat to be conveyed from the ocean into the atmosphere for months at a time. As a result, globally averaged temperatures often rise by a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit during the latter stages of a strong El Niño event. Conversely, global temperatures can drop by a similar amount during a La Niña event.

NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth has likened El Niño to a “pressure valve” that releases built-up heat from the oceans into the atmosphere. The oceans cool during El Niño events, while the global atmosphere warms.

It's likened to a pressure valve because "trapped ocean heat" has no real escape from the oceans WITHOUT this mixing and atmos interaction.. Once IN the atmosphere thru weather and convection the net exchange to space is ALWAYS a net loss. So El Nino essentially opens a window and lets the breeze in to COOL the oceans.

 

[IanC]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

Matthew- what do the proxy reconstructions say about OHC?

The last one I saw put OHC as much higher in the past. What is your understanding of the position?

 

[Crick]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

That's not quite true, Matthew. Heat energy held in shallow water will leave the planet more quickly than energy held in deeper water. Moving heat energy from the surface to the depths will slow the rate at which the Earth radiates heat and, all other things being held the same, will cause the Earth's total heat content to rise at an accelerated pace.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

That's not quite true, Matthew. Heat energy held in shallow water will leave the planet more quickly than energy held in deeper water. Moving heat energy from the surface to the depths will slow the rate at which the Earth radiates heat and, all other things being held the same, will cause the Earth's total heat content to rise at an accelerated pace.

You're right! Just that the earth doesn't make any noticeable amount of heat as the deniers appear to believe. So you're left with either the green house effect or the sun for inputs of energy to explain the graph.

 

[IanC]

Matthew- I am always surprised that someone who professes their love of science such as yourself, can so easily shirk any realistic discussion of it.

you have started dozens of threads on ENSO, warmest (____) evah, OHC, etc but you always disappear. Flac pointed out that El Nino moves heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere, cooling the ocean and warming the air. once in the air the heat leaves through the TOA. I personally like the analogy of a battery, where La Nina charges and El Nino dissipates although the two versions dont have to be equal.

this thread is about OHC. so I asked you about what you knew about past OHC levels. you ducked the question. two years ago Rosenthal13 came out and made a big splash in the media because it claimed OHC was rising faster than in the last 10,000 years. what was never mentioned, even though it was the main point of the paper, was that OHC was higher in the whole of this interglacial with the exception of the LIA.

Pacific Ocean Heat Content During
the Past 10,000 Years
Yair Rosenthal,1
* Braddock K. Linsley,2 Delia W. Oppo3
Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global
warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment
cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record.
We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer
by 2.1 T 0.4°C and 1.5 T 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum
than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm
period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although
documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are
relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

here is a non-paywalled copy... https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/yair_2013.pdf

should we be happy that CO2 induced warming or whatever the cause, has interrupted the slow decline into the next ice age? I dont know. do you trust the proxies in this paper? it provides pretty distinct evidence for both the MWP and the LIA. do you agree that it was disingenuous that the press releases focused on the recent OHC increases while ignoring the past higher levels? do you see a similarity to the much worse case of Marcott, where the media made of big fuss over only the recent part of the graph, that proved to be 'not robust' although the authors took a long time to finally disclose that fact.

my point is..... do you read these papers with a discriminating eye, and draw your own conclusions? or do you simply accept what they ( or the media) say? until the next paper comes out, supposedly fixing the latest problem with global warming theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

That's not quite true, Matthew. Heat energy held in shallow water will leave the planet more quickly than energy held in deeper water. Moving heat energy from the surface to the depths will slow the rate at which the Earth radiates heat and, all other things being held the same, will cause the Earth's total heat content to rise at an accelerated pace.

You're right! Just that the earth doesn't make any noticeable amount of heat as the deniers appear to believe. So you're left with either the green house effect or the sun for inputs of energy to explain the graph.

What is this belief "that the earth produces heat" that supposedly I believe???

The only mechanisms for the planet to produce heat is CHEMICALLY or MECHANICALLY.. Both actually happen, but are largely local effects.. A massive amount of biomaterial decomposition or escaping heat from the magma core can cause hots spots that vent to the atmos. Plate motion also converts friction to heat. Planet rotational energy can also have a heat generating component attached to it as it is a major source of weather on the planet. ..

So don't think that these sources DON'T exist -- but I don't know a single person that thinks these sources are being confused with a Global warming signature...

 

[IanC]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

Matthew- what do the proxy reconstructions say about OHC?

The last one I saw put OHC as much higher in the past. What is your understanding of the position?

Matt- have you seen the new PAGES2K paper on SSTs for the last 2000 years? Does it fit into your understanding of OHC?

 

[Crick]

Link?

 

[IanC]

Link?

Matthew knows how to Google.

 

[IanC]

ngeo.2510-s1.PDF

The paper is paywalled but there is the SI

 

[waltky]

Granny likes it when the water's warm...

... Uncle Ferd don't like it when the water's cold...

... `cause it makes his 'special purpose' shrivel up...

... possum likes it when the water's just right...

... not too hot, an' not too cold.

 

[Old Rocks]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

That's not quite true, Matthew. Heat energy held in shallow water will leave the planet more quickly than energy held in deeper water. Moving heat energy from the surface to the depths will slow the rate at which the Earth radiates heat and, all other things being held the same, will cause the Earth's total heat content to rise at an accelerated pace.

You're right! Just that the earth doesn't make any noticeable amount of heat as the deniers appear to believe. So you're left with either the green house effect or the sun for inputs of energy to explain the graph.

What is this belief "that the earth produces heat" that supposedly I believe???

The only mechanisms for the planet to produce heat is CHEMICALLY or MECHANICALLY.. Both actually happen, but are largely local effects.. A massive amount of biomaterial decomposition or escaping heat from the magma core can cause hots spots that vent to the atmos. Plate motion also converts friction to heat. Planet rotational energy can also have a heat generating component attached to it as it is a major source of weather on the planet. ..

So don't think that these sources DON'T exist -- but I don't know a single person that thinks these sources are being confused with a Global warming signature...

Really Mr. Flacaltenn, that statement ignores all the posts on this forum that yap about the heat from the volcanoes in the ocean. However, as a source of surface heat, they are dwarfed by the energy from the sun, and that retained by our planet.

 

[Crick]

FCT, you missed radioactive decay.

Hot spots from "biomaterial decay"?

Bad news for you son, life doesn't create heat. The exothermic reactions involved in the decay of organic material can release no more energy than was absorbed directly and indirectly by the processes responsible for the growth of that material while it was alive. And, in the majority of instances, it is far, far less. Over the long run, a stable population of lifeforms is a zero sum game regarding heat. We take in food whose energy content originated from the sun. We release it in processes which produce power and growth. At the end, that growth decomposes and releases the energy it held in chemical potentia.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Mr. CrusaderFrank, stick with your hollow moon. In real science, your opinions are baseless, and worse than useless. The scientists use real evidence, not silly opinions based on rumor and maybe's. The warming of the ocean is real, measured by scientists from all over the world.

Explain how a wisp of atmospheric CO2 heats the oceans 2000m deep

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Mr. CrusaderFrank, stick with your hollow moon. In real science, your opinions are baseless, and worse than useless. The scientists use real evidence, not silly opinions based on rumor and maybe's. The warming of the ocean is real, measured by scientists from all over the world.

What "evidence" have you ever presented and remember, computer models based upon altered data and Mann's one tree ring would be tossed out of any court or real scientific institution as "Evidence"

 

[IanC]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

That's not quite true, Matthew. Heat energy held in shallow water will leave the planet more quickly than energy held in deeper water. Moving heat energy from the surface to the depths will slow the rate at which the Earth radiates heat and, all other things being held the same, will cause the Earth's total heat content to rise at an accelerated pace.

You're right! Just that the earth doesn't make any noticeable amount of heat as the deniers appear to believe. So you're left with either the green house effect or the sun for inputs of energy to explain the graph.

What is this belief "that the earth produces heat" that supposedly I believe???

The only mechanisms for the planet to produce heat is CHEMICALLY or MECHANICALLY.. Both actually happen, but are largely local effects.. A massive amount of biomaterial decomposition or escaping heat from the magma core can cause hots spots that vent to the atmos. Plate motion also converts friction to heat. Planet rotational energy can also have a heat generating component attached to it as it is a major source of weather on the planet. ..

So don't think that these sources DON'T exist -- but I don't know a single person that thinks these sources are being confused with a Global warming signature...

Flac- I actually disagree a little. The west side of Antarctica has a strong of active volcanoes under the ice. It has been claimed that the ice shelves are collapsing because of the few tenths of a degree warming, while ignoring seismic heat and liquid water lubrication at the ice/rock boundary where it matters.

 

[flacaltenn]

The enso cycle shouldn't add or take away any energy out of the climate system at the global level! Enegy will just move around. Energy from the sun or the green house effect are the only two way to explain this graph....

That's not quite true, Matthew. Heat energy held in shallow water will leave the planet more quickly than energy held in deeper water. Moving heat energy from the surface to the depths will slow the rate at which the Earth radiates heat and, all other things being held the same, will cause the Earth's total heat content to rise at an accelerated pace.

You're right! Just that the earth doesn't make any noticeable amount of heat as the deniers appear to believe. So you're left with either the green house effect or the sun for inputs of energy to explain the graph.

What is this belief "that the earth produces heat" that supposedly I believe???

The only mechanisms for the planet to produce heat is CHEMICALLY or MECHANICALLY.. Both actually happen, but are largely local effects.. A massive amount of biomaterial decomposition or escaping heat from the magma core can cause hots spots that vent to the atmos. Plate motion also converts friction to heat. Planet rotational energy can also have a heat generating component attached to it as it is a major source of weather on the planet. ..

So don't think that these sources DON'T exist -- but I don't know a single person that thinks these sources are being confused with a Global warming signature...

Really Mr. Flacaltenn, that statement ignores all the posts on this forum that yap about the heat from the volcanoes in the ocean. However, as a source of surface heat, they are dwarfed by the energy from the sun, and that retained by our planet.

That's TRUE.. My point is --- they do exist.. ESPECIALLY bio decomposition which in whole is NOT a trivial effect on the atmos.. It's convective heat component might be insignificant in this era -- but certainly wasn't in pre-Historic times. AND --- the GH gases RELEASED from that decomposition absolutely DWARF anything that man emits..

 

[ScienceRocks]

my point is the earth compared to the sun simply doesn't matter in the heating of all but maybe a few hotspots on the bottom of the oceans. The top 2,000 meters is 99% warmed by the SUN Or the Green house effect readmitting the ir radiations back towards them.

Loserterians live on a planet that thinks totally opposite of me. Living out in the outback somewhere or some swamp that believes we don't need our science institutions. jeezzzzzzzzzzzz