Wednesday, May 16, 2012

New paper finds world's oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over past 55 years

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds the oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over the 55 year period from 1955-2010. According to the authors, this resulted in a sea level rise of 0.54 mm per year [only 2.12 inches per century] and corresponds to  0.39 Watts per square meter of the ocean surface. However,  the IPCC claims the increase in CO2 from 1955-2010 'should' have warmed the oceans by 1.12 Watts per square meter [5.35*ln(389.78/312) = 1.12 W/m2]. Thus, even if one assumes all ocean warming is due to increased greenhouse gases, the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of almost 3 times [1.12/0.39]. [This is why Trenberth can't find his "missing heat"-it never existed in the first place]. In reality, greenhouse gases cannot warm the oceans at all because they radiate infrared which only penetrates the surface of water a few microns to cause evaporative cooling. 


GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10603, 5 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL051106
Key Points
  • A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955
  • One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
  • The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs
S. Levitus
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
J. I. Antonov
UCAR Project Scientist, National Oceanographic Data Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
T. P. Boyer
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
O. K. Baranova
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
H. E. Garcia
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
R. A. Locarnini
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
A. V. Mishonov
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
J. R. Reagan
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
D. Seidov
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
E. S. Yarosh
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
M. M. Zweng
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.

25 comments:

  1. Robert of OttawaMay 16, 2012 at 4:30 PM

    This is an example of a new fallacy, available only through advanced statistics, that of false precision. 55 years ago, were people measuring global ocean temperature to an accuracy of greater than 0.01 degrees Centigrade?

    No, they were not. They were +/- 2 I suspect, if they were lucky. And even then, only in a small geographical sample, not the whole oceans of the world, or the deep either, where Trenbeth likes to pack his "Heat".

    All these stats are hokus, pokus, bogus. The precision fallacy disavowes the warmistas claim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not even getting into the discussion about the nature of ocean temperature measurements 30-50 years ago, a question regarding the third point (The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs):

    How can they be so certain about this? Isn't it possible that a slight reduction in cloud cover allowed more solar radation to the sea surface?

    Just wondering . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They can't be certain about this. Just another example of genuflecting to the CAGW gods.

      Isn't it possible that a slight reduction in cloud cover allowed more solar radation to the sea surface?

      Absolutely

      Delete
  3. "the IPCC claims the increase in CO2 from 1955-2010 'should' have warmed the oceans by 1.12 Watts per square meter"

    Where?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The embarrassing "IPCC formula" for radiative forcing is hidden in the footnotes of AR4

    CO2 forcing = 5.35*ln[ending CO2 level/beginning CO2 level]

    I simply plugged in the CO2 levels in ppm for 1955 and 2010 to calculate the forcing claimed by the IPCC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is a totally different matter.

      Delete
    2. Forcing is about radiative imbalance at top of atmosphere. Ocean energy accumulation is about imbalance at sea surface. Totally different things.

      Delete
    3. Even if one uses the IPCC formulas for conversion from TOA forcing to surface temperature change, the alleged effect of CO2 from 1955-2010 would be about 0.9C at the surface.

      The oceans have warmed 0.09C, one order of magnitude less.

      Delete
    4. and sea surface and oceans are totally different things.

      Delete
    5. No, they are of course, intimately related, and there has been trivial warming of both, neither due to GHGs.

      Delete
  5. Key Points

    A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat contentsince 1955
    One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
    The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs

    Authors:

    Sydney Levitus

    John I. Antonov

    Tim P. Boyer

    Olga K. Baranova

    Hernan Eduardo Garcia

    Ricardo Alejandro Locarnini

    Alexey V. Mishonov

    James Reagan

    Dan Seidov

    Evgeney S. Yarosh

    Melissa Marie Zweng

    We provide updated estimates of the change of heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0-700 and 0-2000 m layers of the world ocean for 1955-2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data. The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased by 24.0x1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.39 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09ºC. This warming rate corresponds to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-700 m layer increased by 16.7x1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18ºC. The world ocean accounts for approximately 90% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The thermosteric component of sea level trend is 0.54 mm yr-1 for the 0-2000 m layer and 0.41 mm yr-1 for the 0-700 m layer of the world ocean for 1955-2010.

    See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml

    This took 3 mins with google to locate.. Clearly states GHG's are to blame.. You can't have your cake and eat it too..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This took 3 mins with google to locate.. Clearly states GHG's are to blame.. You can't have your cake and eat it too.."

      If you had taken 3 seconds to look at the post you would have found this same abstract is in fact the subject of the post. It does, incorrectly, state GHGs are to blame for less than one-tenth of 1 degree warming over past 55 years. GHGs cannot warm the oceans for the reasons linked to above.
      Alarmists want to have their cake & eat it too by claiming there is no other explanation besides GHGs despite multiple similar warming periods in the past with stable GHGs, ocean oscillations, solar grand maximum at the end of the 20th century, solar amplification via ozone & possibly cosmic rays, changes in cloud cover, etc. etc.

      Delete
  6. A lot has been said about the melting of the ice caps in the Antartica and how it is going to impact the sea level. But these statistic tells us there is nothing to worry about the rise in sea level. Any opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no need to worry about sea level. Sea levels have been rising for the past 20,000 years since the peak of the last ice age. The rate of sea level rise was much faster up until 8000 years ago and has continued to decelerate, inlcuding over the 20th century [Holgate 2007].

      Delete
  7. Related to this post & my comments above:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/an-interesting-admission-and-an-error-by-gavin-schmidt/

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/grappling-with-reality-a-comment-on-the-skeptical-science-post-by-dana1981-modeled-and-observed-ocean-heat-content-is-there-a-discrepancy/

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheClimateScamSE/~3/mFFQZYbcuo0/

    ReplyDelete
  10. This implies low climate sensitivity to CO2

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/weak-warming-of-the-oceans-1955-2010-implies-low-climate-sensitivity/

    ReplyDelete
  11. damik says:
    November 13, 2013 at 11:02 am
    Gavin from RealClimate admits the sea temps increased by crazy 0.04ºC. We will all die !!!

    Could someone translate 10^23 joules into degrees, for those of us afraid to slip a digit figuring the volume of the ocean?
    [Response: 10^23 J in the ocean = 2.8 x 10^8 J/m2 = 1.4 x 10^5 J/m2 over 2000 m depth ~= 1.4 x 10^2 J/kg ~= 0.04ºC (averaged over the whole depth). Much bigger changes are near the top though. - gavin]

    ReplyDelete
  12. Werner Brozek says:
    November 13, 2013 at 9:12 am

    We have all of this talk about huge numbers of Hiroshima bombs and about all of the 10^22 Joules the oceans are taking up. But when converting to degrees C, there seems to be almost nothing left as was pointed out in this article. I will illustrate the facts in another way.
    I will use Figure 5 and assume it is true.
    According to this diagram, the total heat increase is about 25 x 10^22 J over about 55 years.
    The total mass of the ocean above 2000 m is 48% of the total mass of the ocean.
    The total mass of the ocean is 1.37 x 10^21 kg.
    The specific heat capacity of ocean water is 4000 J/kgK.
    Applying H = mct, I get a change in t of
    25 x 10^22 J/(0.48 x 1.37 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/kgK) = 0.1 K. Is that correct? If so, it would take over 100 years for the top 2000 m to go up by 0.2 C. Is that supposed to be a problem for us?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/comments-on-stefan-rahmstorfs-post-at-realclimate-what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#comment-1474228

    Vince Causey says:
    November 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    “Applying H = mct, I get a change in t of
    25 x 10^22 J/(0.48 x 1.37 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/kgK) = 0.1 K. Is that correct? If so, it would take over 100 years for the top 2000 m to go up by 0.2 C. Is that supposed to be a problem for us?”

    I doubt it. This is the second law of thermodynamics at work – the entropy is increasing. Useful heat is being degraded into a more diffuse, low grade form.

    It’s like taking a red hot poker and dropping it in a bath of cold water. The heat of the original red hot poker can be used to do some work, but once the heat is transferred to the bath, the temperature becomes that of the bath, whose temperature has risen by only a tiny amount.

    The important point is that the heat, once diffused to a lower temperature, can never result in a subsequent rise in temperature, which would be contrary to the first law. Therefore, any heat, once sequestered by the oceans, can never reverse its thermodynamic pathway, and reheat the atmosphere to the temperatures that caused it to be absorbed in the first place.

    It is an admission that the problem (if it ever existed), is being solved by nature once and for all.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/comments-on-stefan-rahmstorfs-post-at-realclimate-what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#comment-1475425

    ReplyDelete
  13. The study, “World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010, by S. Levitus et al. estimated that the mean warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean between 1955 and 2010 was .09oC and that if all of that heat was instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36oC.

    The average depth of the world's oceans is 3,682 metres thus there is nearly as much ocean volume again into which the heat absorbed by the upper 2,000 can further dissipate as the second law of thermodynamics dictates it will.

    Levitus et al. acknowledge that the instantaneous transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere will not happen but point to their computation as a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955.

    I suggest it also highlights the fact the oceans have a great capacity to absorb heat to limited effect. The principle impact of this .09 oC rise is thermal expansion, leading to sea level rise but here too a movement of surface heat to the depths mitigates the problem. The thermal coefficient of expansion of ocean water at 4 oC and a pressure of 1000 meters, half that of the tropical ocean’s surface.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Important prior post relating to the Levitus paper which falsifies the IPCC radiative forcing assumptions:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/new-paper-confirms-ipcc-exaggerates.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. This result is consistent with Roy Spencer's model of heat diffusion:

    URL: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/

    I explained the logic here:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.tw/2014/09/new-paper-debunks-claims-that-global.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. The oceans are very selective about what radiation enters and what radiation leaves. And it depends a lot on how clear the water is.

    Clear water admits short wave radiation (visible light) to a hundred meters or so, which is why you can see the bottom of the sea from above the surface. But clear water does not radiate medium long wave radiation, below about 15 cm, above which it becomes thermal radiation.

    When we want to map a coastline we make a boolean (black and white) image from one medium long-wave band (Landsat ETM band 5 or 7). Seawater shows up as black because no radiation escapes seawater in the medium long wave part of the spectrum. Land shows up as visible light in the blue, green, red and near infrared (Landsat bands 1 to 4). After processing we can get a nice clean shoreline after smoothing the pixels and increasing the contrast.

    The technique was used to make this movie of the change in sea level during deglaciation.
    http://www.geoscience-environment.com/es551/indexsunda.html

    You can see how satellite image bands match up with the solar radiation spectrum here:

    http://www.geoscience-environment.com/es771/spectral_figure.htm (Thermal bands not shown.)

    When you examine the second figure on Dr Spencer's blog, you see the observed curve flatten before dropping off exponentially to the left. This difference in the shape of the temperature curve probably displayed two processes. Diffusion gives the exponential shape while the flattened part of the curve probably shows the lag before equilibrium is reached.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/

    Most recent papers on ocean heat content and solar activity are consistent with the paper by a group of Israeli economists. Based on an econometric technique called polynomial cointegration analysis an Israeli group concluded,

    "We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period."

    Beenstock, Reingewertz, and Paldor, Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 3, 561–596, 2012

    URL: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/esdd-3-561-2012.html

    This group revised their conclusion to say that their work does not falsify the AGW hypothesis.

    In an earlier draft of their paper they claimed that the ACCELERATION in GHG production appeared to be cointegrated with global temperature but that the RATE of GHG was not related.

    They argued that the acceleration in GHG production would decline as economies reach a plateau in development, a well-known phenomenon and that therefore, even if GHG hypothesis were true, the effect would decline as the world economy develops at a slower rate..

    The relevance for the shape of Dr Spencer's curve is that rapid economic growth during the second half of the 20th century may have caused the curve to flatten, but the decline in the RATE of world economic growth will causes the curve to gradually conform to its equilibrium shape (negative exponential) according to the diffusion law, which is just Newton's Law of Cooling in reverse.

    Not only is the ocean absorbing most of the excess heart (whatever is causing the heating) but also, the mass of the oceans is so big in relation to the atmosphere that the rise in temperature is almost negligible.

    But the physics is not enough on its own to test the AGW hypothesis, which relies on human activities to explain the observed global warming between about 1975 and 1997 and its projection into the future. (Or the warming between 1950 and 2000, depending on your methodology.)

    As the world economy reaches a plateau in growth, the vertical temperature profile of the oceans will conform to a shape that is more moderate than under the accelerated rate characteristic of the early stages of industrialization.

    ReplyDelete