Oceans are warming dramatically faster, new study warns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apples to oranges–in the 1970s we didn’t have the capability to measure oceanic temps the way we do now.
 
www.sciencedaily.com

The long memory of the Pacific Ocean

Cold waters that sank in polar regions hundreds of years ago during the Little Ice Age are still impacting deep Pacific Ocean temperature trends. While the deep Pacific temperature trends are small, they represent a large amount of energy in the Earth system.
www.sciencedaily.com

I wish they would make up their minds.
 
Average temperature is of little value if you have one foot in dry ice and the other foot in boiling water.

I remain neutral on the subject.
 
Typical of Roy Spencer to portray in the facts in the most unflattering way possible for other climate researchers. One example of his stretching the truth is this:
It also raises the question of why energy content? We don’t do that for the atmosphere. Instead, we use what is measured — degrees. The only reason I can think of is that the ocean temperature changes involved are exceedingly tiny, either hundredths or thousandths of a degree C, depending upon what ocean layer is involved and over what time period.
Click to expand...
Now I am no climate scientist. But even I know why energy content is the more relevant parameter and not temperature, and I’m sure Roy knows too, but isn’t saying because it doesn’t fit the narrative he is spinning.

The reason is that in air-water interaction, the thing that is conserved is energy, not temperature. The interaction goes both ways. Energy is transferred into the ocean when the air is warmer and energy is transferred out of the ocean when the air is cooler. The factor that determines how much temperature responds to energy is called “specific heat.” It is not an esoteric concept. “Specific heat” is taught in high school physics. But why did Roy say “The only reason I can think of” when he knows the real reason very well?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Typical of Roy Spencer to portray in the facts in the most unflattering way possible for other climate researchers. One example of his stretching the truth is this:
Click to expand...
If it’s unflattering, it’s only because the +40% claim was frankly dishonest alarmism

The recently reported upward adjustment in the 1971-2010 Ocean Heat Content (OHC) increase compared to the last official estimate from the IPCC is actually 11%, not 40%. The 40% increase turns out to be relative to the average of various OHC estimates the IPCC addressed in their 2013 report, most of which were rejected.

Even if the IPCC came out on the report, they would agree with Spencer that it shows an 11% increase.
 
Last edited:
Alarmism? Really? If one is not alarmed by an 11% increase in the rate of ocean warming, I doubt that they would be alarmed by a 40% increase. Also, the distinction you make regarding the baseline argues against this report being alarmism. It assumes that people are already well aware of the rate reported in the “last official estimate” from the IPCC and would automatically assume the increase was with respect to that baseline. Nope. Most people have no idea what the “last official estimate” is, and to them, using the average of previous reports makes just as much sense. I don’t think anyone who was alarmed by the 40% figure would suddenly become “not alarmed” when informed that this revision was 11% higher than the “last official IPCC report”.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Alarmism? Really? If one is not alarmed by an 11% increase in the rate of ocean warming,
Click to expand...
Why did you say he was stretching the truth and presenting in the most unflattering way when he was just presenting the real facts. The authors referenced the IPCC but then chose to fabricate their own baseline by including what the IPCC had said was wrong.

Your question on alarmism are better asked of the people who misrepresented an 11% difference as a 40% difference.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The reason is that in air-water interaction, the thing that is conserved is energy , not temperature. The interaction goes both ways. Energy is transferred into the ocean when the air is warmer and energy is transferred out of the ocean when the air is cooler. The factor that determines how much temperature responds to energy is called “specific heat.” It is not an esoteric concept. “Specific heat” is taught in high school physics. But why did Roy say “ The only reason I can think of ” when he knows the real reason very well?
Click to expand...
How is the amount of energy transferred into the ocean measured? How is that calculation done? If I say the amount of increased energy absorbed by the ocean is one zetajoule how would I know that…except by comparing the temperature now with the temperature before? So if we have to start with the temperature increase, which is in units (degrees C) everyone can understand, what is the reason to convert those into units (zetajoules) that even scientists would struggle with?
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The reason is that in air-water interaction, the thing that is conserved is energy , not temperature. The interaction goes both ways. Energy is transferred into the ocean when the air is warmer and energy is transferred out of the ocean when the air is cooler. The factor that determines how much temperature responds to energy is called “specific heat.” It is not an esoteric concept. “Specific heat” is taught in high school physics. But why did Roy say “ The only reason I can think of ” when he knows the real reason very well?
Click to expand...
How is the amount of energy transferred into the ocean measured? How is that calculation done? If I say the amount of increased energy absorbed by the ocean is one zetajoule how would I know that…except by comparing the temperature now with the temperature before? So if we have to start with the temperature increase, which is in units (degrees C) everyone can understand, what is the reason to convert those into units (zetajoules) that even scientists would struggle with?
Click to expand...
Do you really want to find out how scientists can measure heat content of oceans? If so, become a climate scientist, do the research, and find out. Do not challenge random forum participants like me to obtain this information.

However, if your question is actually an implied statement of impossibility, then you still need to do the research to back up your claim of impossibility. My inability to explain the details of the method to your satisfaction is not evidence of impossibility. I am also unable to explain how scientists can predict the total eclipse of the moon that is coming up this Sunday night. But that does not mean they are unable to do it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Do you really want to find out how scientists can measure heat content of oceans? If so, become a climate scientist, do the research, and find out. Do not challenge random forum participants like me to obtain this information.
Click to expand...
These are simple concepts, as you said they are taught in high school. Specific heat is (more or less) a constant for a particular substance. Heat is energy. To measure the amount of energy added to a substance one needs to know the amount of the substance (its mass), its specific heat (a constant), and the temperature change. That is, to know how much heat is added to a system you have to be able to measure the temperature change. Then you multiply that times the mass (in this case of the ocean) times the specific heat of sea water…which varies depending on pressure and salinity, so you have to calculate all that as well. You can go through that very complex (estimated) calculation to report the energy added to the ocean in a value (zetajoules) that no one can really fathom, or you can do the simple thing and report the increase in temperature which everyone can immediately grasp.

So, one can go through a very complex computation and report that energy has increased an impressively immense (although otherwise incomprehensible) amount, or do the simple thing and report an obviously minuscule (but readily understandable) temperature change. I guess one would have to be a climate scientist to understand why they would do that.
 
Since the ocean is a heat sink, I get the change in measurement from temp to joules.

What I find inappropriate is presenting of guesses on the energy stored as reliable fact. Before the argo buoys were deployed (early 2000s), we were not sampling broadly and consistently below the surface. Their estimates on heat storage 50+ years ago are a complete swag easily tweaked to give the results they want.
 
Theo520 said:
What I find inappropriate is presenting of guesses on the energy stored as reliable fact. Before the argo buoys were deployed (early 2000s), we were not sampling broadly and consistently below the surface. Their estimates on heat storage 50+ years ago are a complete swag easily tweaked to give the results they want.
Click to expand...
Again, lack of measurement history rears its inconvenient head.
 
Ender said:
or do the simple thing and report an obviously minuscule (but readily understandable) temperature change
Click to expand...
Theo520 said:
we were not sampling broadly and consistently below the surface
Click to expand...
I am not sure how the scientists baseline the heat content. But the point that you make responds nicely to @Ender: Oceans may have some value of temperature at a specific location and depth; heat content integrates over that position-to-position variation, in a way that is far better than reporting an average temperature.
 
Two questions

What year did we start recording temperatures throughout the world ?

What year did we start recording temperatures of the oceans ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top