Deep Oceans Cooling?

[SSDD]

Two papers have recently been published in Nature Climate Science that suggest that the deep oceans have not eaten Trenberth's missing heat. This whole missing heat meme is getting to be more entertaining than Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html

and

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

The fact of the matter is that climate science doesn't have a clue...if they want to find the missing heat, they need to look to where it really went...out into space. It is apparently hard to crush a political idea masquerading as science but the weight of evidence is slowly doing it's job. What will the next "crisis" be?

 

[Crick]

I don't think those articles say what you'd like them to say. If there's been no warming, how do you explain this graph from the first article to which you linked?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/nclimate2387-f3.jpg

 

[Crick]

Neither of these articles are saying there's been no deep ocean warming. They're saying that more warming is taking place above 700 meters than previously believed.

Where did you get the idea that these would support your claims?

 

[SSDD]

I don't think those articles say what you'd like them to say. If there's been no warming, how do you explain this graph from the first article to which you linked?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/nclimate2387-f3.jpg

If you could read a graph, you would realize that the rate of warming has slowed down...and the time frame of your graphs just keeps getting shorter and shorter doesn't it. Do you think that no one notices that you keep showing smaller and smaller parts of the big picture and do you think no one knows why?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html

• 
  
• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information

As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change. Here, we infer deep-ocean warming in the context of global sea-level rise and Earth’s energy budget between January 2005 and December 2013. Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000 m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise. Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise and agree with the upper-ocean estimate to within the estimated uncertainties. Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise and −0.08 ± 0.43 W m−2 to Earth’s energy balance. The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m−2 from 2005 to 2013.

And you think it said what?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming1, 2, 3, 4. Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data-sparse regions5, 6, 7. We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results. These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

Deep ocean cooling? Where do you get that out of this paper? Not only that, but the last sentence seems to be a bit alarmist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ocean stores 90% of the heat so why are we bothering with droughts in CA and floods in AZ as "Evidence" of Global Googly Moogly?

 

[jc456]

I don't think those articles say what you'd like them to say. If there's been no warming, how do you explain this graph from the first article to which you linked?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/nclimate2387-f3.jpg

hahahaahahahahhahahahaha..........wrong!!!!!

 

[jc456]

The ocean stores 90% of the heat so why are we bothering with droughts in CA and floods in AZ as "Evidence" of Global Googly Moogly?

this.....oh god.....this!!!!!!!

 

[rdean]

Republicans constantly looking for something to disprove something.

They look desperately for something that says vaccines are dangerous.

They desperately look for something that disproves evolution.

They desperately look for something that disproves......well......pretty much everything they don't want to believe.

Instead, they could do research themselves. Only the don't believe in research, or science, or education.

 

[jc456]

Republicans constantly looking for something to disprove something.

They look desperately for something that says vaccines are dangerous.

They desperately look for something that disproves evolution.

They desperately look for something that disproves......well......pretty much everything they don't want to believe.

Instead, they could do research themselves. Only the don't believe in research, or science, or education.

this....oh god this.......

It's so funny, you have everything figured out except how to implement it!! Too bad for you,eh?

 

[SSDD]

Republicans constantly looking for something to disprove something.

They look desperately for something that says vaccines are dangerous.

They desperately look for something that disproves evolution.

They desperately look for something that disproves......well......pretty much everything they don't want to believe.

Instead, they could do research themselves. Only the don't believe in research, or science, or education.

this....oh god this.......

It's so funny, you have everything figured out except how to implement it!! Too bad for you,eh?

rdean thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with him is automatically a republican... because democrats all move about in perfect lockstep and engage in actual groupthink....if you don't think like he does, you are a republican...and he thinks that republicans walk about in perfect lockstep and engage in groupthink just like him....he can't imagine any other way of life and never notices the raging arguments that go on between actual thinking people as opposed to the near perfect agreement that is typical among those he considers his peers.

 

[Crick]

The Mainstream science view of your two papers

Both these papers were discussed in an October 6th article at ScientificAmerican.com.

Oceans Are Getting Hotter than Anybody Realized
The upper 2,300 feet of the Southern Hemisphere's oceans may have warmed twice as quickly after 1970 than had previously been thought, committing Earth to a warmer climate
Oct 6, 2014 |By John Upton and Climate Central

An Argo float.
Credit: Alicia Navidad/CSIRO
The RV Kaharoa motored out of Wellington, New Zealand on October 4, loaded with more than 100 scientific instruments, each eventually destined for a watery grave. Crewmembers will spend the next two months dropping the 50-pound devices, called Argo floats, into the seas between New Zealand and Mauritius, off the coast of Madagascar. There, the instruments will sink and drift, then measure temperature, salinity and pressure as they resurface to beam the data to a satellite. The battery-powered floats will repeat that process every 10 days — until they conk out, after four years or more, and become ocean junk.

Under an international program begun in 2000, and that started producing useful global data in 2005, the world’s warming and acidifying seas have been invisibly filled with thousands of these bobbing instruments. They are gathering and transmitting data that’s providing scientists with the clearest-ever pictures of the hitherto-unfathomed extent of ocean warming. About 90 percent of global warming is ending up not on land, but in the oceans.

Research published Sunday concluded that the upper 2,300 feet of the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans may have warmed twice as quickly after 1970 than had previously been thought. Gathering reliable ocean data in the Southern Hemisphere has historically been a challenge, given its remoteness and its relative paucity of commercial shipping, which helps gather ocean data. Argo floats and satellites are now helping to plug Austral ocean data gaps, and improving the accuracy of Northern Hemisphere measurements and estimates.

“The Argo data is really critical,” said Paul Durack, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher who led the new study, which was published in Climate Nature Change. “The estimates that we had up until now have been pretty systematically underestimating the likely changes.”

Durack and Lawrence Livermore colleagues worked with a Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist to compare ocean observations with ocean models. They concluded that the upper levels of the planet’s oceans — those of the northern and southern hemispheres combined — had been warming during several decades prior to 2005 at rates that were 24 to 58 percent faster than had previously been realized.

That rapid ocean warming has consequences for the Earth’s climate and its shorelines.

“We continue to be stunned at how rapidly the ocean is warming,” said Sarah Gille, a Scripps Institution of Oceanography professor. Gille was not involved with this paper, nor was she involved with a similar one published Sunday that examined the role of ocean warming in rising sea levels. She described both of them as “tremendously interesting” studies.

“Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today, we'd still have an ocean that is warmer than the ocean of 1950, and that heat commits us to a warmer climate,” Gille said. “Extra heat means extra sea level rise, since warmer water is less dense, so a warmer ocean expands.”

Ocean warming is exacerbating flooding caused by the melting of glaciers and other ice. Seas have risen 8 inches since the industrial revolution, and they continue to rise at a hastening pace, worsening floods and boosting storm surges near shorelines around the world. Another 2 to 7 feet of sea level rise is forecast this century, jeoparizing the homes and neighborhoods of the 5 million Americans who live less than 4 feet above high tide, as well as those of the hundreds of millions living along coastlines in other countries.

The other ocean temperature study, also published Sunday in Climate Nature Change, used Argo and other data to tentatively conclude that all of the ocean warming from 2005 to 2013 had occurred above depths of 6,500 feet. During the same period, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists who wrote the paper concluded, the expansion of those warming waters caused a third of the planet’s 2.8 millimeters of annual sea-level rise.

Sunday’s papers joined more than 1,000 others published so far that have used Argo float data to improve science’s understanding of waterways that are climatically influential but difficult to measure manually. “This research covers a very broad range of topics including ocean circulation, water mass formation and spreading, mesoscale eddies, interannual variability such as El Niño, decadal variability, and multi-decadal climate change,” said Scripps Institution of Oceanography professor Dean Roemmich, who was in New Zealand last week preparing Argo floats for deployment by the RV Kaharoa’s crew. “The program has revolutionized large-scale physical oceanography.”

Steve Rintoul, a researcher at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or CSIRO, said findings of ocean warming above 6,500 feet in the Jet Propulsion Lab’s study explain the recent slowdown in warming at the Earth’s surface, which is sometimes called global warming hiatus, or warming pause.

“An important result of this paper is the demonstration that the oceans have continued to warm over the past decade, at a rate consistent with estimates of Earth’s net energy imbalance,” Rintoul said. “While the rate of increase in surface air temperatures slowed in the last 10 to 15 years, the heat stored by the planet, which is heavily dominated by the oceans, has steadily increased as greenhouse gases have continued to rise.”

That extra heat isn’t expected to swim with the fishes forever. Some of it will eventually rise from the deep, raising temperatures in places that more directly affect us landlubbers.

Just how rapidly the oceanic heat will resurface to warm the land is “something that we struggle with,” said Scripps’s Gille. But she said heat is constantly shifting between oceans and the atmosphere. “A warmer ocean will mean a warmer atmosphere.”

Not quite the interpretation your sources provide. And since much of this article's points come from the authors, hard to dispute.

 

[Crick]

I don't think those articles say what you'd like them to say. If there's been no warming, how do you explain this graph from the first article to which you linked?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/nclimate2387-f3.jpg

If you could read a graph, you would realize that the rate of warming has slowed down...and the time frame of your graphs just keeps getting shorter and shorter doesn't it. Do you think that no one notices that you keep showing smaller and smaller parts of the big picture and do you think no one knows why?

Surely you jest. I can hardly believe you could have the balls to attempt to make such a claim. Your dishonesty is amazing. You and yours have been spouting and spewing about nothing but the last 15 years for the last 15 years. I and the other mainstreamers around here have been consistently pointing out the longer term trend.

The graph I posted came from one of the articles at YOUR LINKS asshole. You shoot at the same people you throw up here when you think they're helping.

 

[flacaltenn]

First paper only says that deep ocean doesn't contribute to "steric" sea level rise (the 1/3 of the sea level rate currently to warming water).

It also is a waste of fucking time with numbers like this..

Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise and −0.08 ± 0.43 W m−2 to Earth’s energy balance.

You gotta have balls to be publishing numbers as ambiguous as that..

 

[Crick]

Could you explain what you believe to be wrong with those numbers? Does it bother you that the magnitude of the range is larger than the absolute value of it's mean?

What is the difference in significance between reporting a change of "0.8C +0.43C" and, say, "11.8C +0.43C"? Do you think there's something magical about 0C in the context of a reported change?

 

[Billy_Bob]

First paper only says that deep ocean doesn't contribute to "steric" sea level rise (the 1/3 of the sea level rate currently to warming water).

It also is a waste of fucking time with numbers like this..

Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise and −0.08 ± 0.43 W m−2 to Earth’s energy balance.

You gotta have balls to be publishing numbers as ambiguous as that..

If I calculate the error bars correctly it should be +/-0.82 Deg C... They are making huge assertion on their part. Calculating this down to hundredths of a degree C is shear lunacy. This miniscule amount of transferred or absorbed energy is just mind numbing..

Considering that all areas of ocean react differently due to salinity and particulates these numbers are meaningless.. Even Cricks warming is bogus... Where are the recorders for temps below 2000 meters?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Could you explain what you believe to be wrong with those numbers? Does it bother you that the magnitude of the range is larger than the absolute value of it's mean?

What is the difference in significance between reporting a change of "0.8C +0.43C" and, say, "11.8C +0.43C"? Do you think there's something magical about 0C in the context of a reported change?

...and then the ocean ate my global warming

 

[Crick]

Even Cricks warming is bogus... Where are the recorders for temps below 2000 meters?

Warming below 2,000 meter is not mine. It has been published in multiple peer reviewed studies.

Are you attempting to suggest that it's impossible to build a temperature sensor that will go below 2,000 meters?

 

[Crick]

...and then the ocean ate my global warming

The next time you find yourself to be intellectually incapable of making a pertinent comment, don't bother with the attempt.