Comments on: Global Warming and Ocean Heat

By: Nikolaj

Nikolaj — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:39:27 +0000

But, there is no “increase in melting”. Global sea ice is not changing, Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets are not melting, but rather gaining ice. There is no “melting” to be accounted for in. Melted ice cannot artificially lower ocean heat content simply because it doesn’t exist!

By: John Cook

John Cook — Wed, 27 May 2009 04:16:44 +0000

The article http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mystery-of-the-vanishing-ocean-heat.html is a little outdated. An updated post that directly addresses William DiPuccio’s article is http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html

It makes two points. Firstly, over the past 40 years of warming in the upper ocean waters, there are many short periods where the ocean cools for several years. This is due to internal variability, the most dominant cycle being the El Nino Southern Oscillation – where heat is exchanged between the upper ocean, the atmosphere and deeper waters.

Secondly, there is some uncertainty in the Argo data due to biases introduced by pressure sensor issues. Some reconstructions of Argo show a slight cooling, some show a slight warming. How to know which are more accurate? One paper calculates ocean heat through 3 different independent methods and finds an overall warming trend over the past 5 years.

Nevertheless, the warming is less than the long term 40 year average. This brings us back to point 1 – short term variations in ocean heat. We’re currently in La Nina phase which imposes a cooling influence on global ocean heat.

By: JP

JP — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:19:46 +0000

MarkM,

For what it’s worth, ocean heat content is measured in Joules, and is derived from Agro bouys that take both near surface and deep ocean measurements. Lyman from the JPL has published a number of papers that calculated heat content for the last 15-18 years.

As far as the “change of states” (or phase changes) in water (liquid-vapor, vapor-liquid,liquid-solid, and solid-vapor/liquid), I was always taught that the net energy is conserved, and balance is reached through the water cycle. If we even take oceanic heat content into account, the oceans are constantly in flux, transporting warmer waters poleward, cool waters equatorward, or radiating the surface heat back into space. A net increase in energy (measured in Joules) would occur if more “energy” was getting to the earth, and being added to the budget. I do agree that surface or near surface temperatures is a very poor proxy to measure this energy balance. That’s why I’ve always held little stock in any of the temp trends. The oceans can hold more heat, as the land radiates most of its heat back into space. Ergo, we should be spending more time and effort looking at our oceans.

So, much for my rant.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 13 May 2009 09:00:09 +0000

Hunter wrote that the graph was mostly fiction. If true, where’s the non-fiction stuff?. You know, the unfalsified, unbiased data that use to be presented back when we all worked together to better our understanding of Atmospheric Science/Climate? We’re living in great time with all that is going on. Do ya all have to keep clubbing each other over the head? Oh well, there’s still astronomy.

-Dave

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 09 May 2009 16:59:34 +0000

Here is another recent paper attempting to resurrect a warming trend from ocean temperature data. The problem here is that they include a multitude of corrections to various temperature measurement methods thereby finding a warming trend. I see no reason not to rely on the Argo data which agrees with the modern and global satellite data.

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:50:55 +0000

I apologize for the multiple posts. I found another reference to the 2009 work on the Argo floats. Looks like we have bone here…

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:47:23 +0000

The Argo data problem was written up in 2007, so if there is a “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean” paper from 2009, it would be significant.

Here is a link to the correction paper.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:52:11 +0000

Here’s the thing. The link provided by Climate skeptic cites the paper below as being from 2009. This link cites a paper from 2006 with the same title. Soooo, what’s up with that?? Which is right.

Here’s the link and a quote from it below:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mystery-of-the-vanishing-ocean-heat.html

“First, to clear up one common misconception. One paper oft quoted is Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean (Lyman 2006). This found a rapid drop in ocean heat from 2003, as measured by the Argo network deployed in 2000. Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 metres of the ocean.”

By: hunter

hunter — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:14:47 +0000

Jim,
Notice how when AGW predictions are proved wrong, it is never because their theory needs correcting, but rather because the instruments were wrong, or the evil companies were misleading people?
No other science is ever immune to mistakes like AGW.
Then again, that is one of the important evidences taht AGW is not science in the first place.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 09 May 2009 01:51:56 +0000

Climate Skeptic – Is the study cited by the link later than the evidence in the discussion in the link below? The AWG alarmists here are presenting evidence the Argo floats were mis-calibrated and the cooling was instrumental error. Climate Skeptic, anyone, which is it?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mystery-of-the-vanishing-ocean-heat.html