• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oceans Warming Faster than Predicted

"Fake News!"... (someone was going to go there.)
 

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]A Sea-Surface Temperature Picture Worth a Few Hundred Words![/h][FONT=&quot]We covered this paper when it was first released, here is some commentary on it – Anthony Guest essay by By PATRICK J. MICHAELS On January 7 a paper by Veronika Eyring and 28 coauthors, titled “Taking Climate Model Evaluation to the Next Level” appeared in Nature Climate Change, Nature’s journal devoted exclusively to this one obviously under-researched subject. For years,…


Perspective | Published: 07 January 2019
[h=1]Taking climate model evaluation to the next level[/h]
Nature Climate Change (2019) | Download Citation


[h=2]Abstract[/h]Earth system models are complex and represent a large number of processes, resulting in a persistent spread across climate projections for a given future scenario. Owing to different model performances against observations and the lack of independence among models, there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal. This Perspective discusses newly developed tools that facilitate a more rapid and comprehensive evaluation of model simulations with observations, process-based emergent constraints that are a promising way to focus evaluation on the observations most relevant to climate projections, and advanced methods for model weighting. These approaches are needed to distil the most credible information on regional climate changes, impacts, and risks for stakeholders and policy-makers.


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]The ‘Little Ice Age’ hundreds of years ago is STILL cooling the bottom of Pacific, researchers find[/h][FONT=&quot]From The Daily Mail The Little Ice Age brought colder-than-average temps around the 17th century Researchers say temperatures in deep Pacific lag behind those at the surface As a result, parts of the deep Pacific is now cooling from long ago Little Ice Age By Cheyenne Macdonald For Dailymail.com As much of the ocean responds…
[/FONT]

2 days ago January 9, 2019 in Ocean Heat Content.

[h=5]Read the full Daily Mail story here.[/h]H/T David L Hagen and MarkW
And the from Phys.org.
Researchers find bottom of Pacific getting colder, possibly due to Little Ice Age
[h=5]January 4, 2019 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report[/h]“The model showed that the Pacific Ocean cooled over the course of the 20th century at depths of 1.8 to 2.6 kilometers. The amount is still not precise, but the researchers suggest it is most likely between 0.02 and 0.08° C. That cooling, the researchers suggest, is likely due to the Little Ice Age, which ran from approximately 1300 until approximately 1870. Prior to that, there was a time known as the Medieval Warm Period, which had caused the deep waters of the Pacific to warm just prior to the cooling it is now experiencing.”


More information: G. Gebbie et al. The Little Ice Age and 20th-century deep Pacific cooling, Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aar8413
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-bottom-pacific-colder-possibly-due.html#jCp



 


Science: The Deep Ocean Plays A ‘Leading Role’ In Global Warming. It’s Colder Now Than During The 1700s.

By Kenneth Richard on 10. January 2019


Authors of a new paper published in the journal Science (Gebbie and Huybers, 2019) insist the deep ocean ultimately plays a leading role in the planetary heat budget.” The global deep ocean has much less heat today than it had during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Global-Ocean-Heat-Content-last-2000-years-Gebbie-and-Huybers-2019.jpg


Image Source: Gebbie and Huybers, 2019




 
When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.
In this case, the numbers don't add up.

ARGO data
A Small Margin Of Error

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I see that Zeke Hausfather and others are claiming that 2018 is the warmest year on record for the ocean down to a depth of 2,000 metres. Here’s Zeke’s claim: Figure 1. Change in ocean heat content, 1955 – 2018. Data available from Institute for Applied Physics (IAP). When I…

And in the event, I found what I suspected I’d find. Their claimed accuracy is not borne out by experiment. Figure 4 shows the results of a typical run. The 95% confidence interval for the results varied from 0.05°C to 0.1°C. . . .

[FONT=&quot]Finally, Zeke says that the ocean temperature in 2018 exceeds that in 2017 by “a comfortable margin”. But in fact, it is warmer by only 8 zettajoules … which is less than the claimed 2018 error. So no, that is not a “comfortable margin”. It’s well within even their unbelievably small claimed error, which they say is ± 9 zettajoule for 2018. . . . [/FONT]



 

Pretty telling article.

A new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Science, found that the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago. The researchers also concluded that ocean temperatures have broken records for several straight years.

“2018 is going to be the warmest year on record for the Earth’s oceans,” said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst at the independent climate research group Berkeley Earth and an author of the study. “As 2017 was the warmest year, and 2016 was the warmest year.”
 
How about a little history about when they sky will fall and we all die.
Just another history of the foolishness of man to think we are the masters of the earth.

ClimateRecap.jpg
 
"Fake News!"... (someone was going to go there.)

Sheesh, did you have to invoke Jack Hays? Now we have to wade through all his copied and pasted pseudoscience conspiracy blog posts.


*Nah, I'm kidding, he does that anyway without being invoked.
 
Ocean Heat Content Surprises

Posted on January 14, 2019 by curryja | Leave a comment
by Judith Curry
There have several interesting papers on ocean heat content published in recent weeks, with some very important implications.
Continue reading

. . . After reading all of these papers, I would have to conclude that if the CMIP5 historical simulations are matching the ‘observations’ of ocean heat content, then I would say that they are getting the ‘right’ answer for the wrong reasons. Not withstanding the Cheng et al. paper, the ‘right’ answer (in terms of magnitude of the OHC increase) is still highly uncertain.
The most striking findings from these papers are:

  • the oceans appear to have absorbed as much heat in the early 20th century as in recent decades (stay tuned for a forthcoming blog post on the early 20th century warming)
  • historical model simulations are biased toward overestimating ocean heat uptake when initialized at equilibrium during the Little Ice Age
  • the implied heat loss in the deep ocean since 1750 offsets one-fourth of the global heat gain in the upper ocean.
  • cooling below 2000 m offsets more than one-third of the heat gain above 2000 m.
  • the deep Pacific cooling trend leads to a downward revision of heat absorbed over the 20th century by about 30 percent.
  • an estimated 20% contribution by geothermal forcing to overall global ocean warming over the past two decades.
  • we do not properly understand the centennial to millennia ocean warming patterns, mainly due to a limited understanding of circulation and mixing changes
These findings have implications for:

  • the steric component of sea level rise
  • ocean heat uptake in energy balance estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity
  • how we initialize global climate models for historical simulations
While each of these papers mentions error bars or uncertainty, in all but the Cheng et al. paper, significant structural uncertainties in the method are discussed. In terms of uncertainties, these papers illustrate numerous different methods of estimating of 20th century ocean heat content. A much more careful assessment needs to be done than was done by Cheng et al., that includes these new estimates and for a longer period of time (back to 1900), to understand the early 20th century warming.
In an article about the Cheng et al. paper at Inside Climate News, Gavin Schmidt made the following statement:
“The biggest takeaway is that these are things that we predicted as a community 30 years ago,” Schmidt said. “And as we’ve understood the system more and as our data has become more refined and our methodologies more complete, what we’re finding is that, yes, we did know what we were talking about 30 years ago, and we still know what we’re talking about now.”
Sometimes I think we knew more of what we were talking about 30 years ago (circa the time of the IPCC FAR, in 1990) than we do now: “it aint what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just aint so.”
The NASA GISS crowd (including Gavin) is addicted to the ‘CO2 as climate control knob’ idea. I have argued that CO2 is NOT a climate control knob on sub millennial time scales, owing to the long time scales of the deep ocean circulations. . . .

 
The NY Slimes isn't a publication that prints studies.

Anyway, if they are finally discovering the oceans are warming faster than their models say, then what does that say about their models?

Guess what...

It's the solar radiance that drives the ocean temperatures. Not greenhouse gasses...

The NYTimes is a publication that prints news of studies, which would appear to be news to you.

Perhaps the scientists who performed the study would be gratified to have a Libertarian known as Lord of Planar inform them of their error. You should contact them.
 
The NYTimes is a publication that prints news of studies, which would appear to be news to you.

Perhaps the scientists who performed the study would be gratified to have a Libertarian known as Lord of Planar inform them of their error. You should contact them.

Yes, I know.

Point is, you should link and quote the study.

Not the NY Slimes...
 

[h=2]Media Reports of +40% Adjustment in Ocean Warming Were Greatly Exaggerated[/h]January 16th, 2019
Holmes-meme-550x309.jpg
Summary: 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. Curiously, the new estimate is almost identical to the average of 33 CMIP climate models, yet the models themselves range over a factor of 8 in their rates of ocean warming. Also curious is the warmth-enhancing nature of temperature adjustments over the years from surface thermometers, radiosondes, satellites, and now ocean heat content, with virtually all data adjustments leading to more warming rather than less. . . .
 
The NYTimes is a publication that prints news of studies, which would appear to be news to you.

Perhaps the scientists who performed the study would be gratified to have a Libertarian known as Lord of Planar inform them of their error. You should contact them.

That's kinda what WUWT does and you complain about it.
Except WUWT is actually familiar with the studies and material it refers to.
 
Looks like almost no warming since about 1998, as expected.

The upward trend is obvious. Oceans warm very slowly. It's an incredible amount of mass. The flip side is that oceans cool very slowly. That's the scary part. Your point just demonstrates that there is a point of no return, and our children and grandchildren will inherit that.
 
The upward trend is obvious. Oceans warm very slowly. It's an incredible amount of mass. The flip side is that oceans cool very slowly. That's the scary part. Your point just demonstrates that there is a point of no return, and our children and grandchildren will inherit that.

Virtually no warming since about 1998. As I have said before, the peak has been passed.
 
Virtually no warming since about 1998. As I have said before, the peak has been passed.

I understand that you don't have a scientific education, but didn't they teach you how to read a graph in business school.
 
I understand that you don't have a scientific education, but didn't they teach you how to read a graph in business school.

I never set foot in business school. The graph clearly shows virtually no warming after about 1998.
 
You're prognosticating again! :naughty:liar Or maybe you're just visually impaired. :wow:I'll try to help you...

OceanTemps_Doctored.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom