Deep ocean NOT Warming ,ocean holds No missing heat

Thanks for the correction re: the 'iris effect.'

That bit of physics you mention does not require me to leave my home. It is enough to stand by a window before and after I draw the blind.

Doug,

What allowed Rasmussen in his recent ice core studies to close the CO2 to air T time gap, vs earlier ice core studies ?
FWIW I don't think it much matters in the AGW context but I'm curious what method or local condition changed the results.

Hmm... this from Wikipedia

 

This?
S. O. Rasmussen (2006) A new Greenland ice core chronology for the last glacial termination.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 111(D6) DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006079

SageBrush, see you can do better than to rely on me. Lesson.

Anyway I am declaring a temporary unilateral cease fire here. Must prepare for a trip to the jungle (cure dramatic music) tomorrow. Y'all keep addressing the world's problems here. I must go feed the leeches. The real ones. no metaphor. Only blood-feeders that don't pass diseases to humans. Wiki 'hirudin' if ya get bored.

 

I thought the article was much more recent than 2006, I'll have to dig a bit.

Hirudin is well known in my part of town. Synthetic analogues have been used in medicine for years when heparin is best avoided.

For laypeople, a very nice over-view of Lindzen's 'Iris effect' and the question of clouds in a warming world:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

 

. . . off topic . . .

 

Nice line

I was surprised by Greg's threat to squelch you; I figured he meant me but quoted you. If I'm wrong then I have to protest at being unfairly ignored.

 

Without respect for your opponent, there can be no debate.

 

Wasting respect on an obvious troll is akin to repeatedly rolling a square rock uphill, and the troll is pleased.

 

I don't know what partition you are thinking of, but the Earth has been accumulating heat steadily since, oh, the start of the industrial revolution.

I think you need a reminder from Richard Lindzen, a pre-eminent climate change scientist; Chair of Meteorology at MIT; darling of the handful of skeptic, and denialist hordes; and honored visitor to the Cato and Heartland institutes, who also

Got that, Mojo ? The one'ish scientist who is a climate change skeptic worth listening to thinks you and Greg are nutty.

 

"Steam Tables" are one of basic lessons taught mechanical engineering students 45 years ago but there is also a water density table:

The line we are interested in for this discussion is surface density, the bottom line. What happens over a body of water, the water at 5C (~39F) is densest so it sinks. Warmer and colder water, especially ice, rise where it is exposed to the surface where the solar radiant heat is found. This density feature of water means the surface will have either floating ice or the warmest. For example, TVA lakes in the mountains of Tennessee can have a population of bass near the shores but 30 m out and down 30 m, large trout are alive and well (just not biting that day.) Water density and surface heat stratifies the lake. A similar mechanism works with ocean salt water using a different set of tables. So those who have had occasion to go diving noticed it gets awful cold very quickly.

With liquids that separate by density, the densest will be at the bottom and less dense at the top. Add to that the solar radiation comes from the top of the column, the temperature difference can be significant. But in the case of water, colder water will not migrate to the top, get warmed, and descend. Warmer water will layer on top as will ice . . . that melts.

This property of water means it would have been remarkable (Nobel Prize class) to have deep water hold significant heat and be any warmer. Surface water, yes. So it is small wonder that Arctic sea ice is melting because it is exposed to the solar heat and solar heated air. But the water gradient should become deeper as point out earlier:

Now with recent posts: about bore hole temperatures that showed the Little Ice Age record; the Northern hemisphere higher concentrations of CO{2}, and; Northern hemisphere larger portion of land masses that would warm the surface air versus Southern hemisphere sea water that absorbs instead of heating the air. We have physical properties that makes sense why "Deep ocean NOT Warming" makes sense. The "ocean holds No missing heat" because it is the upper, surface layers, again nothing remarkable considering the engineering properties of water.

For me, man-made, global warming is just application of undergraduate, mechanical engineering lessons learned so many years ago.

Bob Wilson

 

And for me, the greenhouse effect is undergrad physics/chemistry.

So unless a mechanism can be found that increases heat loss to outer space equal to the additional green-house effect, I have no basis to think anything other than that the Earth is warming. The rest are interesting details that do not change the basis science.

 

We are seeing the same problem in the denial advocates:

Their pattern suggests:

1. Exclusive references to 'analysis' sites rather than specific papers.
   1. In contrast, many of us advocate "read the paper", a take-off of Galileo's lament about look through the telescope.
2. Substitute a 'conclusion' without modeling the physics.
   1. Discussing the basic science, math, and engineering analysis, in effect completing the education so often missing. I was impressed with the Utube IR demo.
3. Inability to change their point of view . . . reverting to 'belief' when painted in a corner.
   1. The ability to change one's understanding based upon a better explanation. So I have a finer appreciation of shear in generating a tornado. I used to think it was overhead jet streams 'sucking up' the tops of thunderheads.

So when our climate-change, global warming, denial advocates post some "hair on fire" proof, a better answer is to prepare a science, math, or basic physics 'lesson plan.' Then citing original papers, patiently, calmly reply with the facts and data. Let them in effect serve as the instigator of a lesson plan. We'll be able to use these later when discussing the same at a bar or with friends and family.

Bob Wilson

 

Some very new publications related to our topics here. As ignoring is held in such low esteem here, I hope these won’t be.

Surface warming hiatus caused by increased heat uptake across multiple ocean basins
S. S. Drijfhout, A. T. Blaker, S. A. Josey, A. J. G. Nurser, B. Sinha, and M. A. Balmaseda
Geophysical Research Letters DOI: 10.1002/2014GL061456

Abstract The first decade of the 21st century was characterized by a hiatus in global surface warming. Using ocean model hindcasts and reanalyses we show that heat uptake between the 1990s and 2000s increased by 0.7 ± 0.3Wm−2. Approximately 30% of the increase is associated with colder sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. Other basins contribute via reduced heat loss to the atmosphere, in particular, the Southern and subtropical Indian Oceans (30%) and the subpolar North Atlantic (40%). A different mechanism is important at longer timescales (1960s–present) over which the Southern Annular Mode trended upward. In this period, increased ocean heat uptake has largely arisen from reduced heat loss associated with reduced winds over the Agulhas Return Current and southward displacement of Southern Ocean westerlies.


Comparison of decadal global water vapor changes derived from independent satellite time series
S. Mieruch, M. Schröder, S. Noël, and J. Schulz
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres DOI: 10.1002/2014JD021588

Abstract We analyze trends in total column water vapor (TCWV) retrieved from independent satellite observations and retrieval schemes. GOME-SCIAMACHY (Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment-Scanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for Atmospheric CHartographY) measurements are carried out in the visible part of the solar spectrum and present a partly cloud-corrected climatology that is available over land and ocean. The HOAPS (Hamburg Ocean Atmosphere Parameters and Fluxes from Satellite Data) product, provided by EUMETSAT’s Satellite Application Facility on Climate Monitoring is based on passive microwave observations from the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager. It also includes the TCWV from cloudy pixels but is only available over oceans. The common observation time period is between 1996 and 2005. Due to the relatively short length of the period, the strong interannual variability with strong contributions from El Ni ˜no and La Ni ˜na events and the strong anomaly at the start of the common period, caused by the 1997/1998 El Ni ˜no, the observed trends should not be interpreted as long-term climate trends. After subtraction of average seasonality from monthly gridded data, a linear model and a level shift model have been fitted to the HOAPS and GOME-SCIAMACHY data, respectively. Autocorrelation and cross correlation of fit residuals are accounted for in assessing uncertainties in trends. The trends observed in both time series agree within uncertainty margins. This agreement holds true for spatial patterns, magnitudes, and global averages. The consistency increases confidence in the reliability of the trends because the methods, spectral range, and observation technique as well as the satellites and their orbits are completely independent of each other. The similarity of the trends in both data sets is an indication of sufficient stability in the observations for the time period of ≈ 10 years.

+++

The second abstract was tough sledding! Their Figure 5 indicates 3% increase in total column water vapor between 1988 and 2006 (18 years). Can't think how to make it any simpler than that.

 

Perhaps you might explain it?

In contrast, there are two, somewhat dated reports:

• "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997", John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges, March 2001. This Nature letter compares the earth's satellite measured, spectrum to the earth's black-body spectrum distribution:
• 'Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface', W.F.J. Evans, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quesbec, 2006. This paper presents ground based observations of greenhouse gas emissions:

So we have these reports showing a loss of CO{2} emissions to space, 2001, and a gain of CO{2} emissions found on the surface, 2006. In effect, the CO{2} contribution to earth's global warming but these were an initial set. Fortunately, the OCO-2 mission will provide more current and higher resolution of earth's CO{2}:

Source: Missions - OCO-2 - NASA Science

What is interesting are references to two previous missions, SOURCE and GALEX. I look forward to seeing their measurements.

So what is the counter evidence that the greenhouse effect has changed? What are the physics involved?

Bob Wilson

ps. Darn it Doug! I have a draft report to get out by noon today and now I have a third mission to review. <GRINS>

 

I kind of like curry's analysis here
Has Trenberth found the &#8216;missing&#8217; heat? | Climate Etc.

So what at first sounds like a gaff by trenberth, really turns into a good scientific queestion, and the answers may help determine better long range (longer than 10 day) weather forecast.

We have a number of possible hypothesis now on how to correct global climate models.

1) (Trenberth) simply better accound for heat in deep oceans (>700 meters)
2) (IPCC V) account better for ocean oscilations and their effects on temperature and precipitation (<700 meter) ocean study. sensitivity may be too high in the models or natural variation considered too low. ENSO may have been responsible for a temperature spike in 1998.
3) (no warming) The pause is the trend and all the difference is simply natural variation not ghg
4) (null) problems in models are somewhere other than oceans

 

OK Bob, write your reports, watch the big rocket tomorrow morning, and we shall reconvene later on recent things in earth system science.

Spoilers: GRACE finds uptick in Greenland and Antarctic melt. and where.
The notion of 'wetter gets wetter, drier gets drier' in future climates (mentioned here by me) is not borne out by recent decades of rainfall patterns.

Self-correcting enterprise.

 

I've been looking at Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and started looking at the solar bands only to find a near linear, very small, 10-**3 scale increase in the 650 nm band. This is not a significant radiance but I had never considered measurable changes in the solar spectrum in the 11 years of this mission. SOURCE gives solar radiance and spectrum with an 11 year record from 2003 to now. Then I began to wonder about the mechanics of solar radiance capture.

I soon moved to CO{2} lasers and realized there may be a nitrogen-to-CO{2} transfer mechanism . . . the pump energy transfer in a CO{2} laser. Now to understand more about how CO{2}, H{2}O, N{2}, O{2} and the trace gasses deal with the solar influx and heat transfer. What a nice puzzle . . . later.

For our lay readers, the molecules that make up our atmosphere have absorption and emission bands and these don't always match. The difference leads to thermal activity, heat. Fortunately, these bands are well known and with SOLAR, we have the Suns spectral, radiance measured. Yes, clouds have an effect as does reflectance and other optical characteristics. But it is a fun problem.

Bob Wilson