Cold Water? The Oceans and Climate Change.

Dr. David Whitehouse introduces his new report on ocean warming.

[keithalcorn]

Thank you for the truth, Dr. Whitehouse.

[dkeota]

Any increase in the heat content of the oceans should translate into an acceleration of sea level rise due to thermal expansion. So far, no acceleration has been detected.

[vossierebel]

I learned one adage many years ago... "the only certainty in life is change..."
I wish we could get the so-called climate liars of the Greta type to understand this...

[TIMESAYEAR]

It takes a long time for ponds and lakes to "turn over". Not sure the oceans ever do - if they do, the time scale has to be enormous.

[jeffgibson]

In the 70s the scientists were telling folks we were going into an ice age caused by a hole in the ozone.

[guppy]

How dare you? Greta nows it all. She says the world will end in 11 years. Let's grab a beer and see the Climate Change soap opera develop.

[jbmbryant]

Facts are irrelevant. This is religion to certain people and if you mess with their religion you'd better be ready for a fight.

[fwcolb]

I agree with David Whitehouse that it is the world ocean, not the atmosphere, that accounts for fluctuations in climate. The atmosphere accounts for weather but does not have the heat capacity to account for climate variations. The world ocean is used as a calorimeter to assess imbalances in energy flux at the top of the atmosphere. (Several research scientists also agree with Dr Whitehouse.)
Stephens, Graeme L., et al. “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 69
“For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 – 239.7 – 99.9 Wm-2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13, 14). This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm-2 (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12, 15. Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.”

The figure estimated by Stephens et al (0.58+/-0.4 Wm-2) was refined by Loeb et al in 2012.
“Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50+/-0.43 Wm-2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”
Loeb, Norman G., et al. “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.” Nature Geoscience 5.2 (2012): 110-113.

My Comment: The estimates of energy imbalance seem to have been decreasing from 2005 to 2013, from 0.85 Wm-2 (Hansen, 2005) to 0.58 (Stephens) to 0.50 Wm-2 (Loeb). But looking at the error bars and reading the reservations concerning the uncertainties, I do not believe the numbers tell us much for certain and I believe that the authors are trying to tell us this the best way they know how without being subject to ostracism. For example: “This small imbalance is over * two orders of magnitude * smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux.” (Stephens)
One order of magnitude means 10 times. Two orders of magnitude means 100 times. It doesn’t get much plainer than this: the imbalance in energy flux at the top of the atmosphere cannot be measured using current technology. Ergo, there is no robust empirical evidence that a positive long-term trend in such energy imbalance actually exists.
These authors have been as candid as they can be given their personal circumstances and the reluctance of journals to publish the uncertain nature of the results of climate research.

I note that James Hansen was lead author of a similar paper in 2011 that claimed,
“The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during the 6-yr period 2005–2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change.”
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., and von Schuckmann, K.: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449

This strikes me as delusional as it gets. As Stephens implied, the equation, 0.6 = 340.2 – 239.7 – 99.9 Wm-2 requires that the errors of estimate of the fluxes be less than existing technology is capable of measuring.

We understand "empty resolution", what you see if you keep magnifying a digital image. What these scientists are getting is "empty resolution" of the data for the climate system. They get numbers that have error bars so big that the numbers do not describe the real world they intend to measure.

The 2019 paper of Resplandy et al was retracted because the error bars were set too fine. "...between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface...". The retraction stated the error was underestimated by a factor of 4, (0.83+/-0.44 Wm-2)

The comment by Stephens is the one to focus on. The equation 0.6 = 340.2 – 239.7 – 99.9 Wm-2 is not much different from what it would be at 0.83 Wm-2. Instead of two orders of magnitude (100 times) we would have 1.5 orders of magnitude, 75 times. The precision and accuracy of the measurements of heat flux at the top of the atmosphere would have to be greater than is possible with existing technology, but the error bars are little different from what they were in 2012.

Resplandy, L., Keeling, R.F., Eddebbar, Y. et al. Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition. Nature 563, 105–108 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8

P.S. The full text of these papers except the 2019 paper is available via Google Scholar. Click on the right side of your screen where the links to the PDF files are listed.

P.P.S. Almost the first thing I was taught in my applied mathematics class at university is the danger of relying on the result from subtracting one big number from another big number. You need to consider the PERCENTAGE errors in Y and Z in the equation: X = Y-Z. If we get X = 0.6 we need to consider what percentage that is of Y and Z. If Y = 300, then 0.6 is 6 divided by 3000, about 2 in 1000 or 0.2%. The energy fluxes at the top of the atmosphere cannot be measured to an accuracy of 0.2%. The heat content of the world ocean cannot be measured to this accuracy.

We have theory of global warming that is elegant and supported by eminent scientists, but it cannot be tested empirically. We cannot know if the theory is correct or incorrect. Flip a coin instead.

[Weskeyonetwo]

This video also shows, so-called, peer review literature inaccurate, yet published.

[pipsantos]

Give me the power to dispense grant money and I will find you cooling. Or even the effect of cooling on the sex hormone level of some endangered hermit crab in the Himalayas.

[ttmallard]

The ocean heat budget must include Arctic seaice volume and extent as they are critical to total heat estimates.

HEAT GAINED in the 2007 retreat was some 95, 000-Twh over average.

Closing all Steam-Age power plants 250Mwh and above is a one-time save of 36, 000-Twh in emitted wasteheat.

That's 2•1/2-times TOO LITTLE to balance the gain compared to the 1980-2000 average ice extent.

Losing the seaice is "game-over" on RUNAWAY GREENHOUSING in the Arctic, this is what brings the extremes in weather vs assuming it'd get tropical for midwest farmers, eh?

Also, the Arctic Ocean is at the aragonite saturation point, all that a local marine biologist saw flying over the newly opened water were jellyfish, millions of them.

There is no fishery there as it becomes open water, this zone expands south, in 60yrs the upper half of the Bering Sea will have few pteropods, there's no replacement species.

If one includes the cold-storage, albedo losses being gained ocean heat the Arctic seaice represents, and, the ocean heat expended melting glaciers & ice shelves from below is where the acceleration is occurring.

It's hard to avoid a stat like this of the 15, 000 glaciers in N.America only 2 are normal, the rest ablating or retreating from glaciologists tracking such.

[geraldfrost]

Wow! Actual science! I thought this would be more political BS, but someone is actually pointing out that the data is inconclusive. Keep collecting data.

[Mandoflash]

Your volume units are wrong. They should be Km³

[robertschaeffer]

So what is the end game for these scare tactics
Control freaks keep shoving in our faces...

[fairwind]

What is the difference between ice that melts and ice that doesn't.
One degree celcius.

[rickprice]

Anybody else getting the stupid YouTube banner?

[rickmatz]

This hoax is becoming a threat to our ability to maintain a better life.

[sunrayker]

No matter want people say or have do, it doesn't change the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased to past 400 ppm, the mean global temperature is rising, that CO2 is now the main driver of the change, and that man burning fossil fuels is the cause of the increase in CO2 concentrations. Climate change is occurring. The only thing is that we can't predict how this is all going to pan out in the future apart from looking back into the past at what the climate was like with different levels of CO2 concentrations.