‘The Oceans Ate Global Warming?’ – ‘Why was there a 20-year period of warming without the oceans sponging any of it up back then?’
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/the_oceans_ate_global_warming.html…
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke: ‘Deep ocean cannot become hotter than the surface!’ – Rips Economist Mag. For ‘scientific error’
An error in the Economist article http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21613161-mystery-pause-global-warming-may-have-been-solved-answer-seems?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/davy_jones_s_heat_locker See my comment http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/30/week-in-review-25/#comment-623285 Deep ocean cannot become hotter than the sfc!
https://twitter.com/RogerAPielkeSr/status/506138141787299840…
Magic Gas: AGW increases winds – AGW decreases winds
…NYT: ‘The warming of the earth’s surface has slowed sharply over recent years…scientists have been struggling to explain it’
…Analysis: Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times
Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-ipcc-exaggerates-greenhouse-forcing.html
A new paper finds the deep oceans have cooled contrary to alarmist claims of deep ocean warming by Trenberth’s “missing heat” from carbon dioxide. Trenberth’s theory, one of at least 14 excuses for the ~18 year ‘pause’ of global warming, now appears to be dead in the water.
Data from the new paper can be used to derive that the world’s oceans have warmed only about 0.008°C over the past 19 years from 1992-2011, and imply that the IPCC exaggerates net greenhouse forcing on the oceans by at least a factor of 2.5 times.
According to the author Dr. Carl Wunsch, one of the world’s most respected oceanographers,
“A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012).”
Although the paper does not compare these estimates to those of the IPCC, using the “IPCC formula” for forcing from CO2 [which includes alleged positive feedback from water vapor], we find that over the same 19 year period studied by Dr. Wunsch that greenhouse gas forcing allegedly increased by 0.505 W/m2 given the increase in CO2 levels from 356.38 ppm in 1992 to 391.63 ppm in 2011:
5.35*ln(391.63/356.38) = 0.505 W/m2
However, Dr. Wunsch notes above that over the same period the world oceans warmed by only 0.2 ± 0.1 W/m2, or 2.5 times less than the IPCC alleged forcing from greenhouse gases. Note this is assuming that all ocean warming over that period was from greenhouse gas forcing and none from ocean oscillations, solar amplification mechanisms, clouds, global brightening, natural variability, etc. The actual greenhouse forcing on the oceans after feedbacks and natural variability is thus most likely to be a minimum of 2.5 times less than the IPCC claims.
Dr. Wunsch also finds a forcing of 1 W/m2, if continuously maintained, would change global mean ocean temperature by only …
More Heat about Ocean Heat – another nail in the AGW coffin
More Heat about Ocean Heat – another nail in the AGW coffin
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/07/more-heat-about-ocean-heat-another-nail.html
Anthony CoxI have previously written about the fact that the heat in the ocean isn’t there. A Facebook commentator produced some excellent graphs based on the ARGO data which showed NO heat accumulation at any level in the world’s oceans. This lack of warming contradicts completely (Anthropogenic Global Warming) AGW theory as put forward by such AGW stalwarts as Trenberth and England. It also has Hansen scrambling for weird and whacky explanations.So it is plain in the ARGO era that the oceans are not warming and this contradicts AGW.In my articles I noted that NODC graphs were shown in joules which allowed a steeper slope compared to a temperature trend. Mischievously I suggested an ulterior motive for this. Alarmism.Another blogger has taken me to task. Rob Ryan has defended the NODC graphs and pointed out that they do indeed have temperature graphs. Indeed they do:Thanks Rob. By way of comparison here is the same graph in joules:Well to me the trend slope in the joules graph looks steeper and more alarming than the temperature graph. But Rob doesn’t like OHC as a measure of the energy; it is poor terminology according to Rob. Hey Rob, don’t blame me, argue with NODC and indeed AGW in general; they’re the ones using and relying on it.What really is poor is the notion that by any measure the oceans are heating. The estimable Bob Tisdale does a comparison of all OHC measures and produces this graph:Plainly Hansen’s model on behalf of AGW is off with the pixies while the MET and the NODC show the opposite trend!A couple of things about this. Firstly the ARGO data is adjusted before it is presented. Obviously NODC and the MET adjust it differently. In fact in another post Bob Tisdale examines the NODC adjustment procedure:At the 700 meters range NODC have increased the trend by 19%. The NODC adjustments increase the trend at 2000 meters by 36%!Secondly the ARGO data, even though it is the best we have ever had, is vastly insufficient. Willis Eschenbach notes:The sampling of the oceans is by no means as uniform as I had expected. Part of the ocean is under sampled, sometimes badly so, compared to other areas. Half of the global ocean has been sampled less than 20 times per 10,000 sq. km, and 14% has …
New paper finds solar activity explains abrupt slowdown of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation [AMOC]
New paper finds solar activity explains abrupt slowdown of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation [AMOC]
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/06/new-paper-finds-solar-activity-explains.html
A paper under review for Climate of the Past finds low solar activity explains an abrupt slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation [AMOC] during the period 1915-1935. According to the authors, the modeled mechanism is
“The weakened AMOC can be explained in the following. The weak total solar irradiance (TIS) during early twentieth century decreases pole-to-equator temperature gradient in the upper stratosphere. The North polar vortex is weakened, which forces a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) phase during 1905–1914. The negative phase of NAO induces anomalous easterly winds in 50–70° N belts, which decrease the release of heat fluxes from ocean to atmosphere and induce surface warming over these regions. Through the surface ice–albedo feedback, the warming may lead to continuously melting sea ice in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, which results in freshwater accumulation. This can lead to salinity and density reductions and then an abrupt slowdown of AMOC.”
The AMOC and NAO ocean oscillations in turn have profound effects on other ocean and atmospheric oscillations and the global climate. The paper joins many other peer-reviewed publications linking solar activity to lagged effects on ocean and atmospheric oscillations and may represent yet another solar amplification mechanism.
Clim. Past Discuss., 10, 2519-2546, 2014
www.clim-past-discuss.net/10/2519/2014/
doi:10.5194/cpd-10-2519-2014
An abrupt slowdown of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation during 1915–1935 induced by solar forcing in a coupled GCM
P. Lin1, Y. Song1,2, Y. Yu1, and H. Liu1
1State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics (LASG), Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China2College of Earth Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Abstract. In this study, we explore an abrupt change of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) apparent in the historical run simulated by the second version of the Flexible Global Ocean–Atmosphere–Land System model – Spectral Version 2 (FGOALS-s2). The abrupt change is noted during the period from 1915 to 1935, in which the maximal AMOC value is weakened beyond 6 Sv (1 Sv = 106 m3 s−1). The abrupt signal first occurs at high latitudes (north of 46° N), then shifts gradually to middle latitudes (∼35° N) three to seven years later. The weakened AMOC can be explained in the following. The weak total solar irradiance (TIS) during early twentieth century decreases pole-to-equator temperature gradient …
Mark Steyn on global warming standstill: Warmists ‘preferred answer is that the 21st century warming is hiding somewhere – most likely in the depths of the Pacific, next to that Malaysian plane’
http://www.steynonline.com/6288/a-deviant-from-state-ideology…
Scientists concede global warming ‘pause’, but now say global temp is wrong thing to measure
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/apr/20/weatherwatch-global-warming-ocean-heat-trade-winds
Has global warming come to a halt? For the last decade or so the average global surface temperature has stabilising at around 0.5°C above the long-term average. Can we all relax and assume global warming isn’t going to be so bad after all?
Unfortunately not. Instead we appear to be measuring the wrong thing. Doug McNeall and Matthew Palmer, both from the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, have analysed climate simulations and shown that both ocean heat content and net radiation (at the top of the atmosphere) continue to rise, while surface temperature goes in fits and starts. “In my view net radiation is the most fundamental measure of global warming since it directly represents the accumulation of excess solar energy in the Earth system,” says Palmer, whose findings are published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
So why aren’t surface temperatures keeping pace with ocean heat content and net radiation? The answer, according to a recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change, may be some unusually strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean, which have buried the surface heat deep underwater, reducing the amount of heat flowing back into the atmosphere. Once the trade winds relax again that heat will likely be released and surface temperatures will bounce up again. In the meantime we’d be wise to keep a closer eye on ocean heat content (using the Argo array of ocean profiling floats) and net radiation (using satellites). Like it or not Earth’s future is looking hot.…
Wild claim: More CO2 makes FISH fearless, ‘GUNG-HO’ & vulnerable 2 predators. ‘THREATENS ENTIRE MARINE FOOD CHAIN.’
Wild claim: More CO2 makes FISH fearless, ‘GUNG-HO’ & vulnerable 2 predators. ‘THREATENS ENTIRE MARINE FOOD CHAIN.’ http://goo.gl/kDbR69