Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[ScienceRocks]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

 

[Politico]

Cool. More gnarly waves.

 

[flacaltenn]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

Well, if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ---- I'll eat the sediment core sample..

Let's see --- did they survey the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME?
--- do they have a proxy as accurate as THOUSANDS of autonomous buoy recorders at all depths?

C'mon.. Let's get a REAL PAPER on the NEW data from BTK before we launch into all this mudbug stuff..

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you read the abstract for this one Matthew??

It's not all it's press release says it is.. Put the violins on hold..

 

[flacaltenn]

Ok.. no other comments.. Can we rename this press release then?

New Study Confirms the Medieval Warm Period was a Global Event with higher Pacific Ocean Temperatures than Today.

Reposted from Judith Curry is the Abstract Below..

Pacific Ocean Heat Content for the Past 10,000 years | Climate Etc.

Abstract: 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 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 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.


Andy Revkin NYTimes
And Revkin has a post on this: 10,000-Year Study Finds Ocean Warming Fast, But From a Cool Baseline. He has a video chat with the authors, which is quite interesting.
Excerpts:
The paper also finds that several significant past climate fluctuations — including a warm spell that peaked around 1100 A.D. called the medieval warm period and the so-called little ice age from the 1400s through the 1700s — were global in scope. This finding is in sync with some other recent work, but challenges some previous conclusions that these changes were constrained Northern Hemisphere phenomena.

THAT --- seems NOT to have been emphasized in these typical AGW inspired, muckraking headlines..
This young sector of science is gonna learn some important things about public relations and politics -- versus their reputations as serious scientists.. In a recent poll, only 40% of "climate scientists" thought that the climate proxy studies were convincing evidence, but THESE jerks keep on making claims BEYOND the level of the evidence they uncover..

Also from that Judith Curry link...

<<Judith Curry comments.. >>

It seems a substantial portion of the new insights we are gaining (over the past year) are coming from paleo proxy analyses. The real significance of this is as a baseline for understanding recent climate change, and assessing whether the recent change is natural or anthropogenically forced. The flat handle of the hockey stick has been substantially misleading in this regard. The key issue for AGW detection is to get paleo proxy resolution at decadal time scales. If the temporal resolution of the paleo time series is a century or lower, but sees an &#8216;uptick&#8217; at the end of the time series, to me this doesn&#8217;t say anything about AGW detection, which at best is detectable since about 1975.

BTW: If this study finds warmer water 1200 years ago at INTERMEDIATE LEVELS, then there is MORE to the BTK "peekaboo" OHC chart that we haven't seen yet. Since this would suggest that OCEAN STORAGE has kicked in many times in the past.. AND with greater results..

GREAT STUDY MATTHEW.. Thanks a lot for posting it... TODAY -- I LOVE mudbugs and tree rings. But they should NOT be over-interpreted as accurate proxies for temperatures.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

Evidence that you've been played for a AGW sucker

 

[Abraham3]

BTK 2013 was published by Geophysical Research Letters in Volume 40, Issue 9, pages 1754&#8211;1759, 16 May 2013. GRL is a refereed, peer-reviewed journal. The repeated accusations from your side that BTL 2013 is no more than some sort of letter to the editor show only your ignorance or your dishonesty. Or both.

As to the OP's reference paper: where did you get the idea that ocean temperatures for the last 60 years would be determined in the same manner in which one would determine it for the last 10,000? We HAVE more than 60 years of BT data.

The BTK results show precisely the same results as do these sediment core analyses: Ocean heat content is rising at an exceptionally high pace. The Earth's acquisition of thermal energy has not slowed in the least and it has very, very little to do with TSIs.

The current temperature rise (the last 150 years) does not share causes with the Medieval Warm Period. So whether or not the MWP was global in extent (which I do not believe to be demonstrated by cores from a single location or even from the northern Pacific extrapolation the lead post's authors make) is irrelevant. The MWP was not anthropogenic. The MWP was not caused by GHGs. The current reality is the product of AGW.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTK 2013 was published by Geophysical Research Letters in Volume 40, Issue 9, pages 1754–1759, 16 May 2013. GRL is a refereed, peer-reviewed journal. The repeated accusations from your side that BTL 2013 is no more than some sort of letter to the editor show only your ignorance or your dishonesty. Or both.

OR -- you left out the most LOGICAL explanation.. Which is that you're not that familiar with Scientific Journal submissions. Please apologize AFTER you learn...

In the good old days, when REAL scientists prepared their manuscripts with an exacto knife, elmers glue and a couple secretaries --- "Letters" were included in the front sections of "Journals" as sort of the "breaking news" items. BRIEF descriptions of work in progress that were RESTRICTED in length and content. Often, 2 to a page. Later -- some Orgs split their Letter sections and published separately and allowed EXPANSION of the letters (as have the GeoPhys guys).. BUT as you can easily find out from the difference in submissiion rules --- "LETTERS" are still subject to less rigorous review and completeness..

When you strip away the Abstract, Conclusions, References and the charts, there is LESS than 3 pages of description.. GeoPhys DOES publish a JOURNAL --- still waiting for the REAL SCIENCE to be documented there.

Now's a good place to apologize for the "ignorant or dishonest" comment..

As to the OP's reference paper: where did you get the idea that ocean temperatures for the last 60 years would be determined in the same manner in which one would determine it for the last 10,000? We HAVE more than 60 years of BT data.

Don't think you understand the process of how proxies are validated. A proxy is WORTHLESS unless you continue the data to the Common Era. Otherwise, you have no way to twiddle the data and align it to MEASURED TRUTH. So in the case of THIS mudbug study -- they HAD to see "a blip" indicating the CEra warming. Now that blip is not significant because the proxy has neither the TIME RESolution or the Temp Resolution to accurately resolve the CE data. But it does have to be there to "align" the proxy with CE data. What the Significance of this study is that when those proxies are ALIGNED with CE data like BTK --- it shows MUCH MORE OCEAN STORAGE occurring in the middle layers of the ocean in the RECENT past. Like say 1000 years ago. But it does NOT have the RES to make specific comments about the DURATION or RATES of that observation relevent to a 50 or 60 year period. Thus the SCREAMING headline for the study is a DEFLECTION from its REAL VALUE.

The BTK results show precisely the same results as do these sediment core analyses: Ocean heat content is rising at an exceptionally high pace. The Earth's acquisition of thermal energy has not slowed in the least and it has very, very little to do with TSIs.

No -- BTK study has a problem.. If the OLDER PROXIES are gonna show MORE OHC just a thousand years ago -- we may never KNOW exactly HOW FAST that heat accumulated or dissipated because of proxy res.. So -- the BTK CLAIM that CE OHC increase is UNIQUE -- is gonna fall on the cutting room floor.

The current temperature rise (the last 150 years) does not share causes with the Medieval Warm Period. So whether or not the MWP was global in extent (which I do not believe to be demonstrated by cores from a single location or even from the northern Pacific extrapolation the lead post's authors make) is irrelevant. The MWP was not anthropogenic. The MWP was not caused by GHGs. The current reality is the product of AGW.

That's a problem for YOUR theory to resolve then.. THe LIA might have been TOTALLY a solar cause.. But CO2 does not explain how the middle oceans were 0.5 or 0.65degC WARMER than today. For heat to get "stored" -- there must have been an imbalance.
And it WASN'T CO2...

((And as the OP paper asserts -- that heat was THERE for a very long period of time in an otherwise COOL history of deep ocean temps.))

 

[flacaltenn]

I chuckle everytime I see that paper summarized as BTK 2013...

Heeeee'sss BACK !!!!! The Bind, Torture, Kill serial killer. And he's coming to a Journal near you soon.

Betcha Trenberth took second billing just to get that acronym...

 

[Abraham3]

BTK 2013 was published by Geophysical Research Letters in Volume 40, Issue 9, pages 1754&#8211;1759, 16 May 2013. GRL is a refereed, peer-reviewed journal. The repeated accusations from your side that BTL 2013 is no more than some sort of letter to the editor show only your ignorance or your dishonesty. Or both.

OR -- you left out the most LOGICAL explanation.. Which is that you're not that familiar with Scientific Journal submissions. Please apologize AFTER you learn...

In the good old days, when REAL scientists prepared their manuscripts with an exacto knife, elmers glue and a couple secretaries --- "Letters" were included in the front sections of "Journals" as sort of the "breaking news" items. BRIEF descriptions of work in progress that were RESTRICTED in length and content. Often, 2 to a page. Later -- some Orgs split their Letter sections and published separately and allowed EXPANSION of the letters (as have the GeoPhys guys).. BUT as you can easily find out from the difference in submissiion rules --- "LETTERS" are still subject to less rigorous review and completeness..

When you strip away the Abstract, Conclusions, References and the charts, there is LESS than 3 pages of description.. GeoPhys DOES publish a JOURNAL --- still waiting for the REAL SCIENCE to be documented there.

Now's a good place to apologize for the "ignorant or dishonest" comment..

As to the OP's reference paper: where did you get the idea that ocean temperatures for the last 60 years would be determined in the same manner in which one would determine it for the last 10,000? We HAVE more than 60 years of BT data.

Don't think you understand the process of how proxies are validated. A proxy is WORTHLESS unless you continue the data to the Common Era. Otherwise, you have no way to twiddle the data and align it to MEASURED TRUTH. So in the case of THIS mudbug study -- they HAD to see "a blip" indicating the CEra warming. Now that blip is not significant because the proxy has neither the TIME RESolution or the Temp Resolution to accurately resolve the CE data. But it does have to be there to "align" the proxy with CE data. What the Significance of this study is that when those proxies are ALIGNED with CE data like BTK --- it shows MUCH MORE OCEAN STORAGE occurring in the middle layers of the ocean in the RECENT past. Like say 1000 years ago. But it does NOT have the RES to make specific comments about the DURATION or RATES of that observation relevent to a 50 or 60 year period. Thus the SCREAMING headline for the study is a DEFLECTION from its REAL VALUE.

The BTK results show precisely the same results as do these sediment core analyses: Ocean heat content is rising at an exceptionally high pace. The Earth's acquisition of thermal energy has not slowed in the least and it has very, very little to do with TSIs.

No -- BTK study has a problem.. If the OLDER PROXIES are gonna show MORE OHC just a thousand years ago -- we may never KNOW exactly HOW FAST that heat accumulated or dissipated because of proxy res.. So -- the BTK CLAIM that CE OHC increase is UNIQUE -- is gonna fall on the cutting room floor.

The current temperature rise (the last 150 years) does not share causes with the Medieval Warm Period. So whether or not the MWP was global in extent (which I do not believe to be demonstrated by cores from a single location or even from the northern Pacific extrapolation the lead post's authors make) is irrelevant. The MWP was not anthropogenic. The MWP was not caused by GHGs. The current reality is the product of AGW.

That's a problem for YOUR theory to resolve then.. THe LIA might have been TOTALLY a solar cause.. But CO2 does not explain how the middle oceans were 0.5 or 0.65degC WARMER than today. For heat to get "stored" -- there must have been an imbalance.
And it WASN'T CO2...

((And as the OP paper asserts -- that heat was THERE for a very long period of time in an otherwise COOL history of deep ocean temps.))

BTK 2013 is a research paper, not a letter to the editor. It was peer reviewed by the selected editors of GRL, a peer reviewed, refereed science journal. No apology coming your way - though my comment about ignorance and dishonesty was not aimed at you.

I have more than sufficient understanding of the use of proxies in paleoclimatology. Too bad there's no paleo- in BTK 2013. The output of their runs was OHC from 1958 to 2009. The input was:

ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalsys fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations. These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) profiles from the Hadley Centre's EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table 1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo pro&#64257;lers (T/S), and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals, T/S). Altimeter-derived along track sea level anomalies from AVISO are also assimilated. Gridded maps of SST from NOAA are used to adjust the heat &#64258;uxes via strong relaxation, and altimeter global mean sea-levels are used to constrain the global average of the fresh-water&#64258;ux.

Direct temperature measurements as well as measurements of salinity/conductivity and precision local sea level. No proxies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where is the JOURNAL LENGTH -- full research description VERSION of BTK?

I have never seen so much fuss and authority heaped upon a short-cut "LETTER" report..

Maybe YOU still don't get the diff between a Letter and a Journal Article.. Because you still are calling it a "letter to the editor" But it IS important. AND there was NOT sufficient discussion in that first publication to replicate or analyze the results..

Maybe on PURPOSE? To give the IPCC cover for their failed predictions? To avoid a more intense GENERAL critique of their work? Ask THEM when they intend to write the full Journal submission.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Doubling down on the stupid "the ocean ate my AGW" theory

 

[flacaltenn]

Doubling down on the stupid "the ocean ate my AGW" theory

Maybe not "doubling down".. Could be a bluff and a fold..

 

[Abraham3]

I don't give a rat's ass what happened during the MWP or the LIA or any other pre-human period. WE are the cause of the current temperature rise. All this MWP crap is 100% worthless distraction.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Doubling down on the stupid "the ocean ate my AGW" theory

Maybe not "doubling down".. Could be a bluff and a fold..

It's moving all in with pocket 2s; best case you're looking at a whole deck of overcards

 

[orogenicman]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

Well, if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ---- I'll eat the sediment core sample..

Let's see --- did they survey the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME?
--- do they have a proxy as accurate as THOUSANDS of autonomous buoy recorders at all depths?

C'mon.. Let's get a REAL PAPER on the NEW data from BTK before we launch into all this mudbug stuff..

Do you want relish with that?

 

[flacaltenn]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000


Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

Well, if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ---- I'll eat the sediment core sample..

Let's see --- did they survey the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME?
--- do they have a proxy as accurate as THOUSANDS of autonomous buoy recorders at all depths?

C'mon.. Let's get a REAL PAPER on the NEW data from BTK before we launch into all this mudbug stuff..

Do you want relish with that?

I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs...

Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...

 

[orogenicman]

Well, if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ---- I'll eat the sediment core sample..

Let's see --- did they survey the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME?
--- do they have a proxy as accurate as THOUSANDS of autonomous buoy recorders at all depths?

C'mon.. Let's get a REAL PAPER on the NEW data from BTK before we launch into all this mudbug stuff..

Do you want relish with that?

I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs...

Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...

Fine by me. Have at it.

 

[whitehall]

Winter is six weeks away and it's snowing a foot of snow in the Rockies. Let us know when palm trees start growing in Fargo.

 

[orogenicman]

Winter is six weeks away and it's snowing a foot of snow in the Rockies. Let us know when palm trees start growing in Fargo.

As soon as you explain to the rest of us why you equate local seasonal weather variations with global climate.