Hvad oceanernes opvarmning afslører om den globale opvarmning

Og hvor meget er 10^23 Joules så?

Luica,
"What does the fact that temperatures have been steadily rise roughly 0.08C since the 60s mean?"
.
Not much, especially absent a meaningful estimate of potential cyclical contribution, which is almost certainly non-zero. What is pretty clear is that most heat accumulation is in the top several hundred meters (not in the deep ocean), and the total rate of accumulation seems reasonably constant, with a very slight acceleration, over several decades. Most people would be hard pressed to perceive 0.08C if they dunked their hands into water, so it is a little hard for me to get worked up about 0.08C change in average water temperature since I was 10 years old. The change in ocean surface temperature is more important in terms of potential impacts.
.
The RC folks seem to be getting desperate... which explains their recent posts about how warming continues at the same rate as before... in spite of 'the pause'. This too shall pass; the end is neigh, whether via comedy, tragedy, or by grown-ups kicking out the delusional. It will be interesting to see which way it goes.

kristofferszilas skrev:
Og hvor meget er 10^23 Joules så?

Den global opvarmning fortsætter lystigt til trods for alle skeptikerne på denne klimadebat.

Er det ikke tilladt at argumentere for sine synspunkter ved hjælp af teorier og data ? Er det netop ikke det naturvidenskab drejser sig om ?

Curve fits are rubbish... as is the F&R paper. Correlation is not causation.

Jeg er ikke enig i dine meget voldsomme følesmæssig udbrud vedr. F&R, hvor du faktisk anklager dem for at være nogen uvidende personer uden kendskab til en videnskabelig metode. Der er næsten noget lektor Blomme over din reaktion !

F&R's artikler indgår i en diskussion, hvor også Troy Masters analyse indgår. Troy Master antager, at der en en 60 års cyckel mht. klimaet. Denne cykel har være diskuteret, men jeg mener ikke at der koncensus om denne cycle.

Der er et paradoks i Troy Masters analyse, idet han selv bruger en multiple regressionanalyse til at vise, at F&R ikke kan anvende en multiple regressionanalyse.

Jeg afventer en reaktion fra F&R på Troy Masters analyse.

Troy Master antager, at der en en 60 års cyckel mht. klimaet. Denne cykel har være diskuteret, men jeg mener ikke at der koncensus om denne cycle.

Den global opvarmning fortsætter lystigt til trods for alle skeptikerne på denne klimadebat.

This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.

N A Nielsen skrev:

Jeps, eller..... Ifølge ARGO-projektets egen hjemmeside er de øverste 2000 m af oceanerne opvarmet med ca 0,06C siden 60'erne eller ca 50 gange mindre end den temperaturstigning på 3C i overfladetemperaturer, som IPCC (indtil den nyeste rapport) har hævdet, at vi vil opleve med en fordobling af CO2 i atmosfæren:

Alt peger på, at det er de kendte faktorer(Solen, areosoler, vulkaner,PDO,ENSO), der har forårsaget den iagttagne pause i atmosfærens opvarmning.

SRJ skrev:

N A Nielsen skrev:

Jeps, eller..... Ifølge ARGO-projektets egen hjemmeside er de øverste 2000 m af oceanerne opvarmet med ca 0,06C siden 60'erne eller ca 50 gange mindre end den temperaturstigning på 3C i overfladetemperaturer, som IPCC (indtil den nyeste rapport) har hævdet, at vi vil opleve med en fordobling af CO2 i atmosfæren:

Du kan ikke sammenligne på den måde. Oceanerne har en større varmekapacitet end atmosfæren så det skal man tage højde for når man sammenligner den forventede opvarmning.

kristofferszilas skrev:
Uanset hvad, så er den observerede temperaturændring i oceanerne betydeligt mindre dramatisk end den som modellerne lægger op til:


Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It's Stacked Up to Be?


En anden meget vigtig detalje er at alderen af det havvand som findes i de dybde dele af oceanerne er mange hundrede år gammelt og derfor kan temperaturen af dette ikke tilskrives antropogen opvarmning.

Gebbie, G., & Huybers, P. (2012). The mean age of ocean waters inferred from radiocarbon observations: sensitivity to surface sources and accounting for mixing histories. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 42(2), 291-305:
"...the deep North Pacific waters are 1200–1500 yr old, which is more in line with existing numerical model results."


Khatiwala, S., Primeau, F., & Holzer, M. (2012). Ventilation of the deep ocean constrained with tracer observations and implications for radiocarbon estimates of ideal mean age. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 325, 116-125:
"We estimate the mean transit time from the surface to the deep North Pacific at 1360 ± 350 y, intermediate between two widely used radiocarbon-based estimates."

...og er helt med på at usikkerhederne på data fra før 2003 er så store at de er så godt som ubrugelige?

kristofferszilas skrev:
KFL, jeg går ud fra at du allerede har læst Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It's Stacked Up to Be? og er helt med på at usikkerhederne på data fra før 2003 er så store at de er så godt som ubrugelige?

"With all of the problems with the ocean heat content data, they still indicate the oceans warmed naturally. And the recent plateau was not anticipated by climate modelers, so there is a growing disparity between the ocean heat content observations and models.

I'm going to end the post with the summary of an early section, where I quoted Raymond Schmitt of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

With ocean heat content data before the ARGO era, the measurements are so sparse we are unable "to observe the motions of thermal anomalies in the mid- and high latitude oceans", and since the introduction of the ARGO floats, there are "issues of missing and erroneous data and calibration". Phrased other ways: ocean heat content is not a reliable dataset—and—it's not a dataset in which we should have confidence."

Alt peger på, at det er de kendte faktorer(Solen, areosoler, vulkaner,PDO,ENSO), der har forårsaget den iagttagne pause i atmosfærens opvarmning.

The deep ocean is really massive and even for the large changes in OHC we are discussing the impact on the deep temperature is small (I would guess less than 0.1 deg C or so [0,06C siden 1960 i de øverste 2000 m, NAN]). This is unlikely to have much of a direct impact on the deep biosphere. Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is 'in the pipeline' is erroneous).

N A Nielsen skrev:
Dette citeret, hvis nogen skulle være nervøs for, at denne "varme" kommer tilbage og "hjemsøger os" (Kevin Trenberth).

Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this "missing" heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.

"The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later," says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author.

N A Nielsen skrev:
Døm selv. Men hans udtalelser herunder kan vel vanskeligt forståes anderledes end at det er "varmen" i dybhavet, som som han tror, vil hjemsøge os?

N A Nielsen skrev:
Gavin Schmidt, Realclimate:

The deep ocean is really massive ...

Dette citeret, hvis nogen skulle være nervøs for, at denne "varme" kommer tilbage og "hjemsøger os" (Kevin Trenberth).

Det Gavin Schmidt siger er, at det ikke har nogen praktisk betydning for fremtidig global opvarmning, at temperaturen i de øverste 2000 m af oceanerne er steget med 0,06C siden 1960C (i realiteten den periode, hvor den menneskelige nettoforcing har haft betydning for jordens temperatur)

I also disagree with Trenberth's comment that the estimates of ocean warming are all over the place. All the estimates that I am aware of agree quite well over the period from 2005 to the present, which is dominated by the Argo data. It is true, however, that there are still large uncertainties for the period before 2005 due to unresolved biases in the XBT data. But even with these biases, it is still possible to see the human-caused signal over a long enough period of time–like 15 to 20 years

The Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) has been used by oceanographers for many years to obtain information on the temperature structure of the ocean to depths of up to 1500 meters