A new analysis of top-to-bottom (0-5000 m) ocean heat content changes since the mid-1990s reveals that (a) large regions of the global ocean have undergone cooling, and (b) the overall net temperature change for 1994-2013 was a modest 0.02°C. In contrast, during the Holocene the oceans naturally warmed at a rate and magnitude several times greater than the last few decades, undermining claims that the modern era change is unusual or unprecedented.
Image Source: Wunsch, 2018
Global Warming = Ocean Warming
According to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the atmosphere accounts for only 1% of the heat energy change in the Earth system, whereas the 0-2000 meter layer of the ocean is where 93% of the globe’s overall heat/temperature change has occurred in recent decades.
“Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on average from 1971 to 2010 (high confidence). The upper ocean (0-700 m) accounts for about 64% of the total energy change inventory. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.” (IPCC, 2013)
Deep Ocean Temperatures Cooling Since The 1990s
The IPCC chooses to exclude the layer of the ocean below 2000 meters in their energy change inventories, even though about “52% of the ocean lies below 2000 m and about 18% below 3600 m” (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014). Perhaps the reason the deep ocean is disregarded is because recent analysis has revealed that the deep oceans below 2000 meters have been cooling since 1993.
“A very weak long-term [1993-2011] cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth [2000 m], including the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin.” (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014)
Image Source: (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014)
Because of the cooling (thermal “retraction”) occurring below 2000 meters, the deep ocean removes a very uncertain -0.13 mm per year from global sea level change estimates (Llovel et al., 2014).
“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 … the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise.” (Llovel et al., 2014)
Top-To-Bottom Global Ocean Temps Have Changed By 0.02°C Since 1994…Large Regions Have Undergone Cooling
In a new paper, Harvard oceanographer Carl Wunsch provides an analysis of the overall temperature, salinity, and surface elevation changes in the global ocean for the 20 years between 1994-2013. He focuses on the profound uncertainties in the data analysis, and cautions that we still have much to learn about the ocean system.
Wunsch provides a novel assessment of the temperature data for the whole ocean (0-5000 m), as the record doesn’t end at the 2000 meter depth.
The results reveals that the global ocean has been cooling in some regions and warming in others for the last few decades, with an overall net change of 0.02°C (~0.001° per year) during 1994-2013.
Wunsch, 2018
Towards determining uncertainties in global oceanic
mean values of heat, salt, and surface elevation
“Lower-bounds on uncertainties in oceanic data and a model are calculated for the 20-year time means and their temporal evolution for oceanic temperature, salinity, and sea surface height, during the data-dense interval 1994–2013. … Trends [in temperature] are estimated as […] 0.0011 ± 0.0001 °C/y, with formal 2-standard deviation uncertainties. The temperature change corresponds to a 20-year average ocean heating rate of 0.48 ±0.1 W/m2 of which 0.1 W/m2 arises from the geothermal forcing. … The mean slope implies a change over 20 years [1994-2013] of 0.0213 ± 0.0014 °C.”
Image Source: Wunsch, 2018
2016 Paper Revealed Oceans Naturally Warm At Several Times The Magnitude/Rate Of Recent Decades
According to the IPCC, the global ocean temperature changed by just 0.015°C per decade at depths of 700 m in the 40 years between 1971-2010.
“In the upper 75 m of the ocean, the global average warming trend has been 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13]°C per decade over this time [1971-2010]. That trend generally lessens from the surface to mid-depth, reducing to about 0.04°C per decade by 200 m, and to less than 0.02°C per decade by 500 m. … decreasing to about 0.015°C per decade by 700 m.” (IPCC, 2013)
In contrast to these modern ocean temperature changes, a Geophysical Research Letters paper from 2016 revealed that during the Holocene the oceans naturally warmed by more than 2°C in a span of just 200 years — 0.1°C per decade — at the deeper 0-1000 m layer (Bova et al., 2016). This is several times the rate and magnitude the ocean is reported to have warmed during 1971-2010 (0.015°C per decade) at the shallower depth of 700 m.
In fact, (Bova et al., 2016) concluded that deep ocean temperature changes for the last 200 years are apparently so insignificant they are “below the detection limit”.
“The observational record of deep-ocean variability is short, which makes it difficult to attribute the recent rise in deep ocean temperatures to anthropogenic forcing. Here, we test a new proxy – the oxygen isotopic signature of individual benthic foraminifera – to detect rapid (i.e. monthly to decadal) variations in deep ocean temperature and salinity in the sedimentary record. We apply this technique at 1000 m water depth in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during seven 200-year Holocene intervals. Variability in foraminifer δ18O [temperature proxy] over the past 200 years is below the detection limit, but δ18O signatures from two mid-Holocene intervals indicate temperature swings >2 °C within 200 years.” (Bova et al., 2016)
Comparing past “natural” changes to the recent changes in ocean temperature therefore would undermine claims that the modern version of “global warming” is unusual, unprecedented, or even remarkable.
Instead, perhaps we are merely witnessing “natural variability”.
“an overall net change of 0.02°C ”
Oh No, we are all like lobsters in a pot !! 😉
Leaving everything else aside, but that is not what the Bova paper is saying. Read the quote you chose to publish more closely. It’s a proxy taken from a depth of 1000 m . I can’t find the full paper, so maybe you can add how many locations in 1000 m depth they investigated?
I hope you can see the difference between an average temperature increase of a layer 1000 m deep and a temperature variation at a certain depth in possibly one location only.
From the linked paper: “Of that total amount, approximately 10% is the contribution from below 2000 m”
No it doesn’t, that is just a pseudoskeptic fantasy …
[-snip, you’ve neem getting overly snarky lately. Please moderate it. -PG]
“I hope you can see the difference between an average temperature increase of a layer 1000 m deep “
Yep, we have established that its less than 0.1ºC in 55 years… Like the little squiggle on this graph.
https://s19.postimg.cc/bbiicubg3/OHC_rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png
We have also established that there is absolutely no evidence of any human cause for this very slight warming.
Except the Rosenthal OHC graph doesn’t display the average temperature of a 1000 m deep layer of the ocean. Someday you will understand … until then I will LOL pretty hard whenever I read something like this from you.
NOAA puts the average temperature change as just about 0.1C
.. Just like in the graph.
Your manic DENIAL of actual data is quite hilarious,
… but nowhere near as HILARIOUS as your headless chook routine in avoiding answering two simple questions.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
I guess even headless chooks need to beg for attention.
Again, it is NOTED BY EVERYONE, that you are totally unable to provide any evidence of human cause for this TINY amount of warming.
EVERYONE is LOL at your child-like ineptitude and headless chook evasions of producing any evidence.
“pseudoskeptic fantasy”
What is this pseudo-skeptic crap you keep coming up with?
Someone who PRETENDS to be sceptical, but is actually a deeply brain-hosed AGW apostle, only reacting to things that don’t support the AGW mantra ??
You certainly live in a fantasy, anti-science world, without a single self-thinking cell in your body.
Your mind is perpetually trapped in the Land of Make-Believe, without any chance of escape.
I’d appreciate it if you would moderate your “hounds” too … thank you.
Cry me a river..
poor seb.
bitter, sour, crock-tears.. always.
SebastionH,
‘Sceptical’ is a pretty well defined and simple word.
You can be skeptical of ANY statement or position, whether it is true or not.
The invention of words such as ‘pseudo sceptic’ surel reeks of some sort of righteous desperation.
sceptical
ˈskɛptɪk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
adjective: skeptical
1.
not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
“the public were deeply sceptical about some of the proposals”
synonyms: dubious, doubtful, having reservations, taking something with a pinch of salt, doubting, questioning;
“reeks of some sort of righteous desperation. “
You NAILED seb to a “t”
I doubt you could come up with a more APT take on his lack of character.
A self-righteous, attention seeking prat.
School boy error to think that oceanic heat capacity doesn’t dominate climate compared to 400ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Indeed David Nunn,
However as our host puts it —
Comparing past “natural” changes to the recent changes in ocean temperature therefore would undermine claims that the modern version of “global warming” is unusual, unprecedented, or even remarkable.
Instead, perhaps we are merely witnessing “natural variability”.
We skeptics, who are constantly on the the look for observed data that shows otherwise, have yet to successfully find any legitimate evidence. Certainly there is no direct evidence that humans have had much of an impact on the climate, the climate has and will impact humans.
This ocean cycling is, by all accounts been what’s it’s ever been, unless someone knows where there is observed evidence to the contrary. In fact oceans, just like the atmosphere, appears to be perfectly within natural bounds, and all this man-made climate change nonsense does not stack-up.
The UN-IPCC mandate to find ‘manmade climate change’ (aka Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW) is just another corrupt UN inspired scurrilous shakedown operation. An operation to give fake legitimacy to the idea that humans are guilty of changing the climate for the worse, when there is very, very little evidence (maybe none) to support it. A fake legitimacy that the UN requires to lay claims to being the final arbiter and World Government authority in science, economics, and law.
[…] False Alarm: New Study Finds Global Ocean Warmed By 0.02°C From 1994-2013, With Cooling Below 3600m By Kenneth Richard on 20. July […]
Since the 3,800 ARGO ocean temperature monitoring devices have only been in operation for about 15 or so years, trying to draw and meaningful trends or conclusions from the data so far received seems to be a bit premature.
True, but they are helpful in pointing out that modelers and data adjusters are most likely wrong. That in and of itself is a very important result.
Sounds to me like the behavior of the oceans, deep and shallow, is poorly understood, certainly in any quantitative sense. What constitutes ‘natural’ and what constitutes ‘man-made’ ocean heat content variation, in individual basins and globally? Can anyone separate the two?
Kurt, just the scale of the oceans versus potential human influence emphasises that the small empirically observered changes are indeed natural. There is no carbon dioxide correlation.
On that subject but perhaps because my ignorance…
Looks to me as if the sea level rise calculations always consider a pillar. 0-20m heats x, 20-200m heats y and 200-700m heats z. deeper than 700 is almost 0 so skip it…
Based on that pillar you can apply fancy formulas including pressure, temperature and salt levels. The calculated pillar than result in a possible sea level rise of Xmm. That figure might look scary at first but the rise will level out over shallower waters before reaching shore. The “rise” will actually decrease dramatically as it spreads out.
Anybody knows of a paper that instead consider increased volume spread on the 361 100 000 km2 the oceans occupies.
Thank you
The calculated rise from thermal expansion is already an average rise for the whole ocean surface.
Can you explain why you think it “levels out over shallower waters”? You aren’t doing the Mörner thing of imagining water mountains, right?
Poor seb , doesn’t understand ANYTHING about thermal expansion.
No sign of any acceleration of sea level rise at coastal tide gauges.
In fact, looks like deceleration..
https://s19.postimg.cc/vbe9vvo4z/Sea_level_slows_Puls_1.jpg
… so where is the thermal expansion from 0.1C warming in 50 or so years, seb?
Its great that you realise there is something VERY WRONG with the satellite data, seb
These slightly larger trends and accelerations ONLY EXIST in the middle of the oceans, NOT at coastal sites.
Would love to LAUGH at your explanation of how that works. Please provide such an explanation.
And also provide any REAL evidence you have of human cause.
OR..
.. you could adopt your usual hilarious cowardly headless chook evasion routine.
I was actually asking if you could provide some pointer for my education.
Correction *observed*
OHC increase occurs when total downwelling radiation ( LW or SW or both) increases. This will reflect some combination of change in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) through a change in albedo and a change in bulk atmospheric emissivity, i.e. the greenhouse effect. The time series behaviour of the ratio of the mean surface flux to OLR points to the former (albedo decrease) as the driver of the surface flux increase. Meanwhile, the greenhouse effect has in fact weakened slightly since 1980, as the increase in non-condensing greenhouse gases may be offset by a decrease in atmospheric water vapor. Such decrease is seen in the ISCCP Total Water Vapor data from the D2 dataset, but not fully supported by NVAP-M data. Albedo decrease has caused an increase in ASR of around 3 W/m2 since 1980. Because DWLIR has a significant component (around 80 W/m2) of atmosphere absorbed solar reemitted as LW, this results in an increase in DWLIR not caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect.
No, OHC DOES NOT increase from downwelling LW radiation.
Wow, you got something right. OHC indeed increases when there is less upwelling LW radiation, not because the downwelling part increases … as we all know the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface (usually) it just prevents the heat from escaping to space.
“it just prevents the heat from escaping to space.”
That is a load of UNSUBSTANTIATED FANTASY and BS.
You know you have ZERO evidence for that baseless ANTI-SCIENCE supposition.
CO2 has ZERO effect on slowing heat transfer.
Its radiative properties make for faster transfer of energy than conduction and convection.
It really is quite BIZARRE that you haven’t figured out that if there is any increase in DLWLR, that would cause increased evaporation, and convection.
And we all KNOW from measurements that evaporation COOLS the ocean surfaces, and that CONVECTION is a great COOLING mechanism.
But wilful ignorance was always your thing.
“OHC indeed increases when there is less upwelling LW radiation”
Now that’s just DUMB
A rise in OHC causes an INCREASE in upwelling LW radiation.
basic radiative physics..
no, NOT seb fantasy fizzics.
Mr. Spike is correct!
Yes Luke all theory and not observed evidence that CO2 has done anything.
You should tell the expert that they are missing this. What are the odds? Someone from this comment section should always be asked before publishing major new findings in climate science since they are obviously more knowledgeable in the field …
Maybe seb could publish something proving CO2 warming using empirical data instead of anti-science fantasy?
Still that EVIDENCE is TOTALLY LACKING
Radiative GHE has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
Poor little trollette STILL can’t answer two simple questions.
Same old headless chook evasion routine every time. 🙂
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Meanwhile, the greenhouse effect has in fact weakened slightly since 1980
New Paper Documents Imperceptible CO2 Influence On The Greenhouse Effect Since 1992
“The oceanic Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]exhibits a notable increasing trend with a rate of 0.21 W m−2 yr−1 in 1979–1991, whereas its rate of change (−0.04 W m−2 yr−1) during 1992–2014 is not statistically significant.”
“increasing trend with a rate of 0.21 W m−2 yr−1 in 1979–1991”
That was a time of INCREASING solar input
“during 1992–2014 is not statistically significant”
Followed by a time of STEADY then DECREASING solar input.
Great you found a paper that seemingly has measured the change of the greenhouse effect. Why aren’t you skeptical towards the results when in other instances you claim the uncertainties are too high and/or this effect can’t be measured at all?
In other words: when something supports your opinion you aren’t “skeptical”, when it doesn’t it’s all fake and a hoax. Got it.
I would ask you to stop making up phrasing and word choices that I don’t use in a deceptive attempt to marginalize, which seems to be all you have left to do to “rebut” the presentation of scientific papers.
I’ve claimed the uncertainties are too high for what? Specify your made-up position.
And what’s “this effect” in your made-up phrasing “this effect can’t be measured at all”? Specify your made-up position.
I just wrote two days ago that I don’t use the word “hoax”, nor do I use the absolutist phrasing “all fake”. But do specify what it is you’re making up that I’ve written is “all fake and a hoax”. Provide clarification for your made-up position that you have disingenuously attributed to me.
You wrote 3 sentences in this one comment. Somehow you’ve managed to make up wording and phrases that I don’t use and have not written 3 times. You have been asked to directly quote the actual word choices I actually use. You rudely refuse to do so. Why are you even here?
Observed evidence? Upward surface flux exceeds absorbed solar flux, so something is going on. That is the greenhouse effect, the atmospheric amplification of surface temperature. Gravito-thermalists such as N&Zeller would have us believe that gravity and pressure are responsible for this effect. As far as I can tell, andyspike55 is also a fan of this theory. I used to think there may something in it, but now I don’t accept gravitothermalism at all. It is only by fully embracing mainstream greenhouse theory that I can demonstrate the increase in upward surface flux was caused by an albedo change and not an enhanced greenhouse effect. You should try it andyspike55!
Upward surface flux exceeds the ~250 W m-2 downward shortwave that directly heats the upper 2 meters of the ocean by 2 K over a 12-hour period?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Edson/publication/215721709_Cool-skin_and_warm-layer_effects_on_sea_surface_temperature_J_Geophys_Res/links/0c96051af2eab81df4000000.pdf
“On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m-2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours. Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m. In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. … Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.”
So the atmosphere heats the surface of the ocean? It’s the other way around, Luke.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL011133/pdf
“…net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.”
—
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223950477_Measurements_of_the_oceanic_thermal_skin_effect
“The surface skin layer of the ocean, much less than 1 mm thick, is nearly always cooler than the underlying water because the heat flux is nearly always from the ocean to the atmosphere“
—
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698184901185
“The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the “explanation” as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do.”
The Nikolov and Zeller paper is an explanation for relative planetary temperatures (i.e., What are the physical mechanisms causing Venus’, Mars’, and Earth’s temperature gradients?). Instead of pivoting to the gravito-thermalist theory for why the oceans warm or cool, why not assume that direct shortwave radiation, moderated by albedo changes (i.e., cloud cover), dominates as the heating agent for the ocean?
Irvine, 2015
Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156
“This paper examines the possibility that a change in short wave solar forcing may more readily contribute to ocean heat content (OHC) than a similar change in long wave GHG forcing. If this hypothesis is shown to be correct, then it follows that equilibrium restoration times at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are likely to be considerably faster, on average, for a change in GHG forcing than for a similar change in solar forcing. … What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not.”
“It is established physics that the oceans are opaque to the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs while short wave solar radiation readily transports energy to a depth of many meters. Long wave GHG radiation is quickly returned to the atmosphere and, eventually, space as latent heat of evaporation as is demonstrated in “Appendix 1”. If established, this fact can only lead to the conclusion that a Radiative flux imbalance at the TOA caused by increasing GHGs will likely be restored to balance more quickly than a similar sized flux imbalance caused by changes in solar radiation. It follows that climate sensitivity to changes in GHG forcing is likely to be considerably lower than for similar changes in solar forcing. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no model, with a solid physical basis, can accurately track the slope of the temperature increase from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1970, the slope of the increase from 1970 to 1998, and the current temperature hiatus without assuming E(GHG) is considerably lower than E(Solar).”
How about an increase in absorbed downwelling solar radiation due to the effect of albedo changes (cloud cover)?
Yes luke, you are still just quoting theory!
“Upward surface flux exceeds absorbed solar flux, so something is going on.”
Then follows BLATHER! NOT Observed science! No, just sophistry wrapped guesswork!
YOU HAVE NOTHING!
Now get your head out of your nether regions and understand that as long as cAGW advocates can not show CO2 warms the atmosphere, all you have is theory! As long as there is no real understanding of how clouds work Your THEORY is trash! As long as you can not explain why historically CO2/temperatures do not track, you are full of just theory.
A theory that the UN-IPCC wishes to use to destroy progress, destroy western life.
DWLWR cannot warm the ocean,
NOR can it slow down the lost of energy from the oceans.
It is all a load of anti-science nonsense, and has NEVER been measured or observed anywhere on this planet or any other.
Yeah, if one is sloppy and ignores conservation of energy…otherwise no.
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2014/03/agw-theory-back-radiation-insignificant.html
Not my fault is you can’t comprehend basic physics.
DENIAL of the pressure/gravity based thermal gradient and its compressional effect on surface temperatures is basically a denial of observed physics.
Feel free to fully embrace whatever you want to.
Does not mean you are correct.
There is NO EVIDENCE that enhanced CO does anything except enhance plant growth.
Yes Ken, your last sentence is the same thing as the quote, absorbed solar (ASR) being controlled by albedo, that is my position also.
But not so fast with ocean heat. ASR is not sufficient to heat the oceans to their present temperature. Just not enough watts going in averaged over the globe to maintain that temperature. Atmospheric downward emission is therefore required to explain the surface temperature – that is the greenhouse effect, more or less.
Base of atmosphere and earth surface temperature are nominally the same, variations of course exist and net heat flow will be from warmer to cooler, whichever that may be.
I think N & Z are also wrong about the other planetary surface temperatures too. All of the other planetary surface temps can be explained with a greenhouse effect as well.
The what mechanism, if not the Sun, “fills in” to provide that additional wattage? What’s the other energy source? Please provide citations from the scientific literature/observations that support this position, Luke. ASR is capable of directly heating 30 meters of ocean water during the daytime. At what depth does DWLR heat down to?
http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/25313
“The incoming solar irradiance, which is absorbed by the upper ocean, is the main energy source in the ocean heat budget, and hence strongly impacts the oceanic thermal structure, heat transport and the global circulations. Shortwave radiation is attenuated exponentially with depth. The attenuation depth (e-folding depth) depends on the wavelength and biogenic components of the water. Traditionally, the water types are classified Jerlov I, IA, IB, II and III (Jerlov, 1976). The shortwave attenuation depth (SWAD) in open oceans (almost Jerlov I) is about 20–30 m, and it decreases with increasing water turbidity, particularly in coastal regions.”
—
http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/~davey/MyPapers/Siegel_etal_JGR1995_COARE.pdf
“Solar radiation is the dominant heat source for the ocean. First, the penetration of solar radiation through the [Pacific warm water pool] mixed is large and is an important component of the [Pacific warm water pool] heat budget. The cruise observations indicate that 9.8% of the incident solar radiation penetrates to a depth of 30 m (the mean mixed depth for the [Pacific warm water pool]).”
While not dismissing this possibility, it sounds very theoretical. Has “atmospheric downward emission” been observed heating the ocean? If so, how much does it do so relative to the direct shortwave forcing? Provide quantification. Are the W m-2 values observed, or theoretical?
I think it’s likely that you know very little about the Nikolov and Zeller paper(s). Dr. Nikolov regularly debates people who challenge him on his twitter page (link below). Feel free to do so yourself…but I encourage you to really bone up on what the theory says before taking him on to critique it.
https://twitter.com/NikolovScience
Kenneth:
The what mechanism, if not the Sun, “fills in” to provide that additional wattage?
Easy! Here are the static facts:
Received at TOA: 1366W
25% reach globe: 341.5W
Reflected by Atmosphere: 77W
Reflected by Albedo: 23W
Absorbed: 241.5W
At surface: 189.48W
The last figure is 0.58W above what it should be for balance. We know because we have measured the rate at which the oceans heats with amazing precision.
Summary:
The 0.58W must come from CO2.
Please don’t try to invalidate this by applying some stupid tolerance approach on the Atmosphere or Albedo estimates… If you still do please accept we cannot possibly be more that 0.25% wrong on those. (Because I say so)
Mr.Z wrong,
how is only a quarter comes to Earth? You not understand basic sun shine.
Sun shine on one side of Earth only. Always half is lit up.
Not quarter.
Mr.Z rest rethink after understand that half Earth has sun shine!
Some ABC here for you.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
Sorry if you where joking and I did not get it 😎
Its all to do with the area.
The area of the surface is 4лr² but the Sun illuminates a disc of a circle with area лr²
Of course the whole ‘divide by 4’ meme is nonsense anyway, because it doesn’t take into account angle of incidence, travel through the atmosphere etc etc etc.
But hey.
Good enough for “climate non-science”.
.. or should that be NONSENSE
Why Mr. Spike unfriendly?
If says he:
“So “on average” the surface only gets 25% of the sun’s energy”
this not same as Mr Z says:
“25% reach globe: 341.5W”
There difference!
End of story!
Mr Z wants not to quote Wiki.
He says wrong:
“25% reach globe: 341.5W”
This wrong!
Half of Earth gets most of all the sun shine!
see above
I now get it. You are joking…😂
Mr. Z says:
“I now get it. You are joking…”
John would prefer the word
Correcting.
John,
What time of day is it warmest where you are and why?
Do you think it is on average warmer closer to the equator, if so why?
You see, you actually knew the 25% all the time.
Mr. Z Explain.
He making statement that wrong.
John corrects and he thinks its joke.
Mr. Spike has explained already. Mr. Z reads Mr. Spike comment please?
John resay:
The sun always shines on the half of the Earth. This 50% of area but all sunshine.
Mr. Z wrongly said 25% of sun radiance but on all Earth. He missing half of energy.
Oh John you don’t even understand that Spike and I are of the same opinion that the earth energy imbalance is only known with very high error bars.
Let’s try in another way.
What do you want to prove by stating I am wrong? That the earths energy balance is exactly as estimated?
Honestly, I think you missunderstood my irony earlier in this thread and you think I am a guy from the “wrong side”.
You and I are almost in agreement if you think a bit.
50% of the earth is lit at any one time. The other side has night.
We agree.
If the month is December the sun will be brightest around latitude 23 south. Stockholm will then receive much less light/energy than Cairo. It is the Cairo / Stockholm difference that makes up the other 50% ie how different parts of earth are lit in relation to the suns zenith.
OMG, we are talking to an mathematical IMBECILE.
John, The sun sees the Earth as a disc.. area лr²
The surface area is 4лr²
Yes, half the Earth “sees” the sun, but that half of the Earth has a surface area of 2лr²
while the Sun illuminates a disc with area лr²
So “on average” the surface only gets 25% of the sun’s energy.
Get it !!
The BIG error of the climate pseudo-scientists is in the fact that the atmospheric thickness is very different from the centre to the outside sides.
and temperatures are NOT linear with incoming energy..
so using 25% as any sort of value for determining temperatures is complete and utter nonsense.
There is no need for an additional energy source. Perhaps you are not aware of how physics work, but you can easily warm something up to hundreds of degrees Celsius with only 10 W of input and you can also not warm something up significantly with only 10 W of input. Someday you might realize that and accept that a constant energy source (the Sun) can cause very different temperature distributions on planets depending on atmospheric compositions and how the radiative heat transfer works inside those atmospheres. Until then I call you “pseudoskeptic” because you are arguing against something you don’t fully understand.
😉 N&Z are basically saying that a bicylce tire that got warm from pumping air into it stays warm forever because it is under continued compression power or however they call this. You know … the atmosphere gets compressed by gravity and therefore it is warm. You’d know this is BS if you had any clue.
Have a nice sunday …
The Sun’s absorbed solar heat (oceans) is not “constant”. It is modulated by changes in cloud cover and volcanic aerosols, the former of which are affected by subtle changes in the Sun’s output/sunspot variations.
I invite you to go ahead and attempt to “challenge” Dr. Nikolov directly with your massacred “take” on what he is “basically saying”. I doubt he would agree with your rendition. Go ahead. He’d love to take you on.
https://twitter.com/NikolovScience
The Sun’s output is pretty much constant. The radiation arrives at a planet and the same amount of radiation will leave the planet. The planet is a black box to the universe. What happens inside the planet and its atmosphere is what determines the distribution and accumulation of that incoming energy and ultimately determines temperature at the surface.
Clouds play a role, volcanoes play a role and the greenhouse effect plays the largest role of how the constant energy from the Sun accumulates to reach an equilibrium state with the universe.
The Sun’s absorbed solar heat (oceans) is not “constant”. It is modulated by changes in cloud cover…
Notice that I didn’t write that the Sun’s output is not constant. I wrote that the absorbed solar heat by the oceans is not constant because it is modulated by non-constant cloud cover.
ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
“Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources.
There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.”
Goode and Palle, 2007
ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
“The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.”
“In this paper we have reviewed the physical mechanisms behind solar irradiance variation, and we have reviewed how on the timescale of solar evolution, the Sun cannot have been any dimmer than it is at the most recent activity minima. We have also shown how concurrent changes in the Earth’s reflectance can produce a much larger climate impact over relatively short time scales. Thus, a possible Sun–albedo link, would have the potential to produce large climate effects without the need for significant excursions in solar irradiance. These could provide an explanation for the apparently large climate response to apparently small solar changes, as well as how the 11/22 year solar cycle is imprinted on Earth. Regardless of its possible solar ties, we have seen how the Earth’s large scale reflectance—and the short wavelength part of the Earth’s radiation budget—is a much more variable climate parameter than previously thought and, thus, deserves to be studied in as much detail as changes in the Sun’s output or changes in the Earth’s atmospheric infrared emission produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
“You’d know this is BS if you had any clue.”
Ah, The CLUELESS IGNORANCE of basic physic that is seb, continues in all its hilarity.
The atmosphere is ALWAYS being compressed.
What is it that you DO NOT COMPREHEND, little-mind seb ???
Apart from basically everything.
As usual SebastianH reinterprets other people research VERY poorly when saying —
“N&Z are basically saying that a bicylce tire that got warm from pumping air into it stays warm forever because it is under continued compression power or however they call this. You know … the atmosphere gets compressed by gravity and therefore it is warm. ”
Nikolov & Zeller paper “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model” (link) is obviously beyond SebastianH’s understanding, no doubt just as much as Robinson & Catling “Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency” (link) from which Nikolov & Zeller’s ideas are built.
Poor SebastianH, he regards Nikolov & Zeller ideas as equating the dynamic atmosphere of this planet as a bicycle tire which is NOT what is their paper said. The 2 references I give above may be useful for you, SebastianH, to read and attempt to understand. If you come away with the same idea as you have stated above, then I am correct in assuming that Nikolov & Zeller (and Robinson & Catling) papers are beyond your ability to comprehend fully and critique properly.
Poor SebastianH, he regards Nikolov & Zeller ideas as equating the dynamic atmosphere of this planet as a bicycle tire which is NOT what is their paper said.
Interestingly, the Nikolov and Zeller paper did say this in “4.2. Potential Limitations of the Planetary Temperature Model”:
“Equation (10b) describes the long-term (30-yr) equilibrium GMATs of planetary bodies and does not predict inter-annual global temperature variations caused by intrinsic fluctuations of cloud albedo and/or ocean heat uptake. Thus, the observed 0.82 K rise of Earth’s global temperature since 1880 is not captured by our model, since this warming was likely not the result of an increased atmospheric pressure.”
“Recent analyses of observed dimming and brightening periods worldwide (e.g. Wild 2009; Herman et al. 2013; Stanhill et al. 2014) suggest that the warming over the past 130 years might have been caused by a decrease in global cloud cover and a subsequent increased absorption of solar radiation by the surface.”
Yes, and currently the global cloud cover is, er, patchy…
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=322.87,32.73,288
maybe it’s all that CO2 heating us up,….
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=322.87,32.73,288
Umm, probably not!
Sure … says the guy who thinks the definition of the second is a circular one.
Nope that is not what I am saying.
I think there is a lot beyond your abilities … come down from you high horse and stop defending the nonsense that is this ridiculous N&Z theory. Be skeptical! Ask the right questions! (or just read some analysis by more knowledgable – than you – people). And you will know it’s BS.
Kenneth:
So if the main point of a paper is wrong you can nevertheless take some sub-claims from it. Got it.
Kenneth: Interestingly, the Nikolov and Zeller paper did say this in “4.2. Potential Limitations of the Planetary Temperature Model”:
No, that’s not the purpose of my quote from the paper. It’s to show that Nikolov and Zeller do not attribute the temperature change in the modern era to gravitational/pressure, which is something you have previously claimed (wrongly) that they have written. They attribute the relative temperature of planets to the solar irradiance/distance from the Sun and atmospheric pressure.
Instead of just calling this theory “nonsense” and “ridiculous”, why not take advantage of the opportunity to take on the lead author himself? He’s on twitter everyday, debating people like you. Perhaps you can be the first to show just how insane Dr. Nikolov is. My recommendation: read and understand what the theory is actually about. No bike tire analogies, in other words. No making up positions that are not there. In other words, behave differently than you do here.
Have at it, SebastianH. Take him on. Are you up for it?
https://twitter.com/NikolovScience
Hi Kenneth!
I hope you did not take offense from my post above. I was trying to be ironic.
My point was that the influx and outflux (not in my post) assumptions just need to be a little bit off <1% to make up the 0.58W imbalance. They say the energy at TOA is so stable it can not explain the imbalance. But, reflections in atmosphere and albedo plus how it’s finaly split between atmosphere and surface and those error bars covers 0.58W more than well. I read somewhere that uncertainty is around 17Watts/m2.
Actually, the imbalance was 0.02 W m-2 higher than that, +0.6 W m-2. They’re that accurate. The uncertainty range for that value was +/-17 W m-2, meaning the imbalance could possibly be -16.4 W m-2. But never mind about that uncertainty stuff.
http://planck.aos.wisc.edu/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf
“The current revised depiction of the global annual mean energy balance for the decade 2000–2010 is provided … For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 Wm–2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005.”
“This small imbalance [0.6 W m-2] is over two orders of magnitude [100 times] smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux.”
“The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude [10 times] larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
“The quoted value of the sensible heat flux is a combination of the land and ocean sensible heat fluxes with a simple weighting based on land/ocean surface area. The flux value of 24 Wm–2 is also larger than previously assumed and remains highly uncertain, as exemplified by the range of 14–34 Wm–2 that results from different land flux estimates. No definitive measure of the uncertainty of this flux exists and the uncertainty range given merely reflects a judgement on where the value most likely lies.”
Thanks Kenneth!
Imagine you have a thermometer with a scale next to the expanding/contracting liquid. One step on that scale equals 0.1°C, but you don’t know the exact absolute value and can only estimate it to currently be somewhat around room temperature. Question: can you use this thermometer to accurately (to 0.1°C) measure the temperature difference between night and day without ever knowing the exact absolute value for the temperature?
This is a bit of a simplificationn, but since you think uncertainty doesn’t allow you to make certain observations … it’s good enough as an example.
Seb,
I wonder how the imbalance could stay at 0.58W (or 0.60W, Kenneth’s ref) while the TOA input value suddenly changed from 1366.x to 1361.x in 2011? The sun output had not changed but they “perfected” the measurement equipment on the satellites.
“Atmospheric downward emission is therefore required to explain the surface temperature “
Only if you are ignorant about the effect of UV penetration into oceans, and do not comprehend the gravity thermal mechanisms.
Then you just have to make crap up.
“Atmospheric downward emission is therefore required to explain the surface temperature – that is the greenhouse effect, more or less.”
And its a load of bollocks.
The radiative GHE has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter.
The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.
The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature.
The gravity thermal effect allows the near surface atmosphere to retain the energy that gives our current surface temperature. That energy comes ONLY from the SUN (and maybe some internal volcanic activity)
Ken, thanks for the responses. When I treat the atmosphere and surface as radiative grey bodies, consideration of depth of penetration of radiation is not important – be it microns or tens of meters, it doesnt matter. The radiation is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted, nothing else happens. DWLIR is observable, and of sufficient magnitude to fill the energy gap required to maintain sea surface temperatures – see Wild et al. (2013, 2015), provides an excellent summary. There is a global network of observation points measuring DWLR from the surface too.
“When I treat the atmosphere and surface as radiative grey bodies”
You show yourself as a mindless twit.
A grey body is one where α, ρ and τ are uniform for all wavelengths.
The atmosphere and the surface, especially water, most definitely ARE NOT.
A grey body is defined as a body with constant emissivity over all wavelengths and temperatures.
Water most definitely DOES NOT have constant emissivity over all wavelengths, not by a LONG shot.
So yes, it DOES matter how much penetration there into the oceans
Shortwave penetrates and warms the oceans.
Long wave DOES NOT.
End of story.
Measurements of ocean emissivity are around 0.984, refer to Konda et al. 1994 J Oceanography. They also describe the temperature variation of the skin layer, the one which andyspike55 mistakenly likes as proof that DWLR cools the ocean. In fact the opposite is true: without DWLR, the oceans would be frozen solid because ASR is not powerful enough to maintain, on average, without DWLR, a liquid ocean. Forget the miniscule difference in the skin layer temperature.