IPCC climate report 2013

[UV-RAY]

But, there is no 'victory' to claim, SI...Heat in > heat out, and the global temps are more-or-less constant; ergo, there's an amount of heat that remains unaccounted-for?? So, all we can do (IMO) is to put-forward refutable hypotheses that might explain the situation...If something is indeed 'unknown' it's surely in everybody's interest if we try to know it? Arguments along the lines of, 'God works in mysterious ways' don't wash in science...

An educated guess for a better word Pete, hence my comment being a valid one, the oceans cannot suddenly start hiding the heat content as if that was the case then why now?

[Methuselah]

An educated guess for a better word Pete, hence my comment being a valid one, the oceans cannot suddenly start hiding the heat content as if that was the case then why now?

Unless they've always been 'hiding' some of the heat? Which, to me, has always been one of the sceptics' better arguments, concerning climate sensitivity... 

[UV-RAY]

Unless they've always been 'hiding' some of the heat? Which, to me, has always been one of the sceptics' better arguments, concerning climate sensitivity...

Stephen Wilde's hot water bottle theory springs to mind, I remain unconvinced as did all proponents of AGW at the time, amazing how all of a sudden it's an acceptable theory now. Edited October 16, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

Stephen Wilde's hot water bottle theory springs to mind, I remain unconvinced as did all proponents of AGW at the time, amazing how all of a sudden it's an acceptable theory now.

I am also 'unconvinced'; but, then, there can be no doubt that ocean-currents do take warm water into the deeps...The questions remaining is: how much?

[Gray-Wolf]

Why is it wrong to change your understanding as sciences understanding increases? I thought that was how science worked and how people gain broader understanding?

 

Do we do things different over in the Sceptics camp? Do we just pick an understanding and stand by it however dated and disproven it becomes?

[VillagePlank]

Why is it wrong to change your understanding as sciences understanding increases? I thought that was how science worked and how people gain broader understanding?

 

Do we do things different over in the Sceptics camp? Do we just pick an understanding and stand by it however dated and disproven it becomes?

 

(i) Of course

(ii) Strawman

[Methuselah]

An educated guess for a better word Pete, hence my comment being a valid one, the oceans cannot suddenly start hiding the heat content as if that was the case then why now?

But better an educated than an uneducated guess?

[Methuselah]

Digesting the latest sheaf of info from the IPCC won't shed any more light on these problems, nor provide answers; it's evident from the research done since the last report, and what has been released in the journals since that the answers remain elusive.

Isn't that a self-fulfilling prophesy, J? 

[UV-RAY]

But better an educated than an uneducated guess?

Is there a difference when trying to find the unfindable?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Is there a difference when trying to find the unfindable?

 

We have instruments on the argo floats to help find that particular unfindable. Is it that you think they aren't of any use?

[UV-RAY]

They aren't when looking for lost heat content BFTV.

[BornFromTheVoid]

They aren't when looking for lost heat content BFTV.

 

Could you explain a bit further? How are they not any good for that?

[UV-RAY]

Could you explain a bit further? How are they not any good for that?

Lol, because they haven't found any and I highly doubt they will, still until we can have closure on this I won't rule it out entirely just yet.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Lol, because they haven't found any and I highly doubt they will, still until we can have closure on this I won't rule it out entirely just yet.

 

But they have?

 

 

Do you think the data is false then?

[UV-RAY]

Indeed I do, as the oceans as well as being vast are deep also and Argo just isn't up to the task of measuring this missing heat. If it was them the heat wouldn't be missing now, would it. Measuring the top 700m shows us what exactly?

But they have?

Do you think the data is false then?

Indeed I do, as the oceans as well as being vast are deep also and Argo just isn't up to the task of measuring this missing heat. If it was them the heat wouldn't be missing now, would it. Measuring the top 700m shows us whatever exactly? Edited October 16, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

Sorry for the confusing post, trying to edit on my iPad on the move.

[Methuselah]

Indeed I do, as the oceans as well as being vast are deep also and Argo just isn't up to the task of measuring this missing heat. If it was them the heat wouldn't be missing now, would it. Measuring the top 700m shows us whatever exactly?

Now now, SI - why would anyone, of an open mind, take your word over properly-collected data? 

 

And, on the subject of the 'unfindable' - what you're suggesting sounds too similar to 'God works in mysterious ways' for my liking? It is hardly scientific...it is certainly not sceptical, in the true sense of the word... It seems as if you've made up your mind, already?

[stewfox]

 

 

it's believed that the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation plays a large role in this and is linked to ENSO and the PDO. Basically changes in wind patterns drive the warmth deeper into the ocean.

 

 

 

 

I have seen this theory before

 

How does 'the wind' directly effect the oceans at 700m to 2000m ?. The graph you have , which I assume you have altered shows if I believe I am correct a section of the ocean such as the width of the Atlantic.

 

I could be 40m under water and not feel a Hurricane, so how does this work ? I can see 'wind' mixing up surface water but ?

 

Its just a question

[Fergus Brown]

Sorry, SI, you have me confused. Are you saying that the many pieces of research based on the ARGO data have failed to notice that it isn't working? Or that the people running the program have missed this? Seems rather counter-intuitive to me.

 

You keep mentioning 'missing heat', but now you have been shown where the heat is in the system, you seem to be suggesting that the tools which have measured this are somehow unreliable.

 

Measuring the ocean's temperature at all levels shows us what that temperature is, which allows us to run a time series and compare measurements over an extended period of time. The upper layer is most relevant because it responds most rapidly to atmospheric changes, and because it is where that temperature (or a proportion of it, is released back into the atmosphere. These measurement over time show clearly that there is more heat in the ocean now than there was before - ie, it is warming. 

 

Not by coincidence, when you add the amount of the increase in Ocean Heat Content to the amount of the Atmospheric Heat you end up with a result which matches the Global heat imbalance very closely. Hence my statement ; 'there is no 'missing' heat'.

 

[UV-RAY]

Sorry, SI, you have me confused. Are you saying that the many pieces of research based on the ARGO data have failed to notice that it isn't working? Or that the people running the program have missed this? Seems rather counter-intuitive to me.

 

You keep mentioning 'missing heat', but now you have been shown where the heat is in the system, you seem to be suggesting that the tools which have measured this are somehow unreliable.

 

Measuring the ocean's temperature at all levels shows us what that temperature is, which allows us to run a time series and compare measurements over an extended period of time. The upper layer is most relevant because it responds most rapidly to atmospheric changes, and because it is where that temperature (or a proportion of it, is released back into the atmosphere. These measurement over time show clearly that there is more heat in the ocean now than there was before - ie, it is warming. 

 

Not by coincidence, when you add the amount of the increase in Ocean Heat Content to the amount of the Atmospheric Heat you end up with a result which matches the Global heat imbalance very closely. Hence my statement ; 'there is no 'missing' heat'.

 

Hi Fergus sorry for the confusion, posting on iPads and travelling sometimes results in poor posting. Let me try and correct my previous post, firstly ARGO has an uncertainty of around 0.1c so even when utilising  all of ARGO'S buoys this doesn't make that uncertainty any less likely, it would if all the buoys measured the same area but seen as how they are spread afar and the oceans do not have a singular global temp then we are basing the data on yet more assumptions. Climate models predict that oceanic heat content is increasing at about 0.7 x 10^22 Joules per year, however the deeper 700m-2,000m layer has warmed at the same rate as the upper 0-700m layer. This contradicts what we are told about the deeper oceans are warming faster, it is correct that the heat content of the deeper layer is rising faster but once converted  to temp it turns out that both of these layers have warmed at the same rate. 

 

The extra warmth would therefore have to pass from the atmosphere through the top layer to reach the 700-2000m layer without warming the first 700m, which to me seems a little odd as warmer water rises not sinks.

I have seen this theory before

 

How does 'the wind' directly effect the oceans at 700m to 2000m ?. The graph you have , which I assume you have altered shows if I believe I am correct a section of the ocean such as the width of the Atlantic.

 

I could be 40m under water and not feel a Hurricane, so how does this work ? I can see 'wind' mixing up surface water but ?

 

Its just a question

I would like to know this also as if you try heating a jug of water with an hairdryer, the net result is no change in temperature.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Indeed I do, as the oceans as well as being vast are deep also and Argo just isn't up to the task of measuring this missing heat. If it was them the heat wouldn't be missing now, would it. Measuring the top 700m shows us whatever exactly?

 

So you don't think it's capable of doing the job it was intended to do? Yet the many studies and thousands of scientists think it works just fine.

 

The 0.1C uncertainty (have you a link for that) doesn't apply when averaged out over 3,000 floats, it just doesn't work like that.

 

How to deny data

 

Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics†know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements. Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible†– the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’†web sites even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes is the same as that from each individual one.  Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

 

I have seen this theory before

 

How does 'the wind' directly effect the oceans at 700m to 2000m ?. The graph you have , which I assume you have altered shows if I believe I am correct a section of the ocean such as the width of the Atlantic.

 

I could be 40m under water and not feel a Hurricane, so how does this work ? I can see 'wind' mixing up surface water but ?

 

Its just a question

 

The graph comes from the realclimate page which we both linked to in the past. It's also similar to how ENSO operates.

 

The ocean is known to be thermally stratified, with a warm layer, some hundreds of meters thick, lying on top of a cold deep ocean (a).  In the real world the transition is more gradual, not a sharp boundary as in the simplified diagram.  Panel b shows what happens if the wind is turned on. The surface layer (above the dashed depth level) becomes on average colder (less red), the deep layer warmer.  The average temperature changes are not the same (because of the different thickness of the layers), but the changes in heat content are – what the upper layer loses in heat, the lower gains. The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.

 

Incidentally, that is the well-known mechanism of El Niño: (a) corresponds roughly to El Niño (with a warm eastern tropical Pacific) while b is like La Niña (cold eastern tropical Pacific). The winds are the trade winds.  The figure greatly exaggerates the slope of the layer interface, because in reality the ocean is paper thin.  Even a difference of 1000 m across the width of the Pacific (let’s say 10,000 km) leads to a slope of only 1:10,000 – which no one could distinguish from a perfectly horizontal line without massive vertical exaggeration.

 

Now if during the transition from (a) to b the upper layer is heated by the greenhouse effect, its temperature could remain constant while that of the lower one warmed.

 

 

Info on ENSO, to show how it's similar http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml

[jethro]

Isn't that a self-fulfilling prophesy, J? 

 

No Pete, it's called keeping an eye on recent developments whilst living a very busy lifestyle. Not all of us have the luxury of endless hours to spend reading every detail, of every new paper released. As you know, I've been combining jobs 200 miles apart for most of the summer (no laptop with no time to use it if I did have one), a family, and a home to finish renovating. I'm only around now because I'm off after an op, it'll soon be back to the manic, headless chicken lifestyle I live.

[UV-RAY]

So you don't think it's capable of doing the job it was intended to do? Yet the many studies and thousands of scientists think it works just fine. The 0.1C uncertainty (have you a link for that) doesn't apply when averaged out over 3,000 floats, it just doesn't work like that. How to deny data Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics†know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements. Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible†– the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’†web sites even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes is the same as that from each individual one.  Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/  The graph comes from the realclimate page which we both linked to in the past. It's also similar to how ENSO operates. The ocean is known to be thermally stratified, with a warm layer, some hundreds of meters thick, lying on top of a cold deep ocean (a).  In the real world the transition is more gradual, not a sharp boundary as in the simplified diagram.  Panel b shows what happens if the wind is turned on. The surface layer (above the dashed depth level) becomes on average colder (less red), the deep layer warmer.  The average temperature changes are not the same (because of the different thickness of the layers), but the changes in heat content are – what the upper layer loses in heat, the lower gains. The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings. Incidentally, that is the well-known mechanism of El Niño: (a) corresponds roughly to El Niño (with a warm eastern tropical Pacific) while b is like La Niña (cold eastern tropical Pacific). The winds are the trade winds.  The figure greatly exaggerates the slope of the layer interface, because in reality the ocean is paper thin.  Even a difference of 1000 m across the width of the Pacific (let’s say 10,000 km) leads to a slope of only 1:10,000 – which no one could distinguish from a perfectly horizontal line without massive vertical exaggeration. Now if during the transition from (a) to b the upper layer is heated by the greenhouse effect, its temperature could remain constant while that of the lower one warmed.  Info on ENSO, to show how it's similar http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml

So you don't think it's capable of doing the job it was intended to do? Yet the many studies and thousands of scientists think it works just fine. The 0.1C uncertainty (have you a link for that) doesn't apply when averaged out over 3,000 floats, it just doesn't work like that. How to deny data Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics†know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements. Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible†– the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’†web sites even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes is the same as that from each individual one.  Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/  The graph comes from the realclimate page which we both linked to in the past. It's also similar to how ENSO operates. The ocean is known to be thermally stratified, with a warm layer, some hundreds of meters thick, lying on top of a cold deep ocean (a).  In the real world the transition is more gradual, not a sharp boundary as in the simplified diagram.  Panel b shows what happens if the wind is turned on. The surface layer (above the dashed depth level) becomes on average colder (less red), the deep layer warmer.  The average temperature changes are not the same (because of the different thickness of the layers), but the changes in heat content are – what the upper layer loses in heat, the lower gains. The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings. Incidentally, that is the well-known mechanism of El Niño: (a) corresponds roughly to El Niño (with a warm eastern tropical Pacific) while b is like La Niña (cold eastern tropical Pacific). The winds are the trade winds.  The figure greatly exaggerates the slope of the layer interface, because in reality the ocean is paper thin.  Even a difference of 1000 m across the width of the Pacific (let’s say 10,000 km) leads to a slope of only 1:10,000 – which no one could distinguish from a perfectly horizontal line without massive vertical exaggeration. Now if during the transition from (a) to b the upper layer is heated by the greenhouse effect, its temperature could remain constant while that of the lower one warmed.  Info on ENSO, to show how it's similar http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml

Thanks for the rather patronising link on sceptics. Onwards and upwards though, the data from the 3000 buoys still doesn't give you an accurate representation of the temps for the very reasons I cited. Like I've stated until scientist can find all this missing heat, something by the way a leading sceptic claimed anyway ( Stephen Wilde ) then all this talk of hide and seek heat content is nothing more than a bloggers theory which you candidly state is not science.

[Midlands Ice Age]

BFTV and othersI,

 

As SIis unavailable, I will attempt to put what I think are is questions about the accuracy of the temperature readings into context.

Over the last 7 days I have done a bit of reading around the sublect (including BFTV's reference as well as the recent Judith Curry report and bloggs and work presented by Landscheif et al).

 

My problem and I think SI's is that it is known that the top 700meters have warmed by an average of 0.4C. I dont dispute the figures  by the way.

 

I have seen figures on realclimate wihich say that this if averaged out of the top 2000meters  gives an average warming of only 0.04C....

 

But the intersting figure I have seen quoted was an average of 0.009C if the estimated total ocean content is included.

Furthermore it is reported that under high pressure (the  very bottom of the southern hemiphere depths are taken into account)  this average averages out at a warming of only 0.001 - 0.003C when averaged out over the total volume. This is because apparently that the specific heat of water increases rapidly under high pressure and density.

 

So my question is  Can ARGOS record values of this order of magnitude? How do we measure the changes at these amazing depths? Particularly as the report you have included suggests that heat is transported easily through water?.

 

 

Midlands Ice Age

[Fergus Brown]

Hi MIA,

 

I am sure that you know really that the average of a series can be expressed in decimals larger than those expressed in the individual data.

 

Alternative context: amount of heat/energy being absorbed into the ocean = about 4 Hiroshima bombs a day.

 

Can I modestly suggest that the material you appear to be reading is not necessarily 'balanced' without being accused of something? 

 

Are you going to do the free course on climate change?