Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean

Aug 21, 2014
(Top) Global average surface temperatures, where black dots are yearly averages. Two flat periods (hiatus) are separated by rapid warming from 1976-1999. (Middle) Observations of heat content, compared to the average, in the north Atlantic Ocean. (Bottom) Salinity of the seawater in the same part of the Atlantic. Higher salinity is seen to coincide with more ocean heat storage. Credit: K. Tung / Univ. of Washington

Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth's surface. At first this was a blip, then a trend, then a puzzle for the climate science community.

More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. New research from the University of Washington shows that the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and south Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle. The study is published Aug. 22 in Science.

Subsurface warming in the explains why global average air temperatures have flatlined since 1999, despite greenhouse gases trapping more solar heat at the Earth's surface.

"Every week there's a new explanation of the hiatus," said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics and adjunct faculty member in atmospheric sciences. "Many of the earlier papers had necessarily focused on symptoms at the surface of the Earth, where we see many different and related phenomena. We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause."

The results show that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most of the previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade.

"The finding is a surprise, since the current theories had pointed to the Pacific Ocean as the culprit for hiding heat," Tung said. "But the data are quite convincing and they show otherwise."

Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, who was a UW visiting professor last year, used recent observations of deep-sea temperatures from Argo floats that sample the water down to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) depth. The data show an increase in heat sinking around 1999, when the rapid warming of the 20th century stopped.

"There are recurrent cycles that are salinity-driven that can store heat deep in the Atlantic and Southern oceans," Tung said. "After 30 years of rapid warming in the warm phase, now it's time for the cool phase."

Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface. When observations show the ocean cycle flipped, around the year 2000, the current began to draw heat deeper into the ocean, working to counteract human-driven warming.

The cycle starts when saltier, denser water at the surface northern part of the Atlantic, near Iceland, causes the water to sink. This changes the speed of the huge current in the Atlantic Ocean that circulates heat throughout the planet.

"When it's heavy water on top of light water, it just plunges very fast and takes heat with it," Tung said. Recent observations at the surface in the North Atlantic show record-high saltiness, Tung said, while at the same time, deeper water in the North Atlantic shows increasing amounts of .

The authors dug up historical data to show that the cooling in the three decades between 1945 to 1975 – which caused people to worry about the start of an Ice Age – was during a cooling phase. (It was thought to be caused by .) Earlier records in Central England show the 40- to 70-year cycle goes back centuries, and other records show it has existed for millennia.

Changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years. Now that it is happening on top of global warming, however, the trend looks more like a staircase.

The temperature oscillations have a natural switch. During the warm period, faster currents cause more tropical water to travel to the North Atlantic, warming both the surface and the deep water. At the surface this warming melts ice. This eventually makes the surface water there less dense and after a few decades puts the brakes on the circulation, setting off a 30-year cooling phase.

This explanation implies that the current slowdown in global warming could last for another decade, or longer, and then rapid will return. But Tung emphasizes it's hard to predict what will happen next.

A pool of freshwater from melting ice, now sitting in the Arctic Ocean, could overflow into the North Atlantic to upset the cycle.

"We are not talking about a normal situation because there are so many other things happening due to climate change," Tung said.

Explore further: Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds

More information: "Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration," by X. Chen et al. Science, www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/… 1126/science.1254937

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds

Aug 03, 2014

New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed ...

Large sea ice changes North of Swalbard

Jun 12, 2014

During the last decades warmer Atlantic water has caused a retreat of the ice edge north of Svalbard. In contrast to other areas of the Arctic Ocean, the largest ice loss north of Svalbard occurred during ...

Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

Jul 02, 2013

From 1975 on, the global surface ocean has shown a pronounced-though wavering-warming trend. Starting in 2004, however, that warming seemed to stall. Researchers measuring the Earth's total energy budget-the balance of sunlight ...

Recommended for you

Icelandic volcano sits on massive magma hot spot

Oct 24, 2014

Spectacular eruptions at Bárðarbunga volcano in central Iceland have been spewing lava continuously since Aug. 31. Massive amounts of erupting lava are connected to the destruction of supercontinents and ...

NASA sees Tropical Storm Ana still vigorous

Oct 24, 2014

NASA's TRMM satellite saw that Tropical Storm Ana was still generating moderate rainfall is it pulled away from Hawaii. The next day, NASA's Aqua satellite saw that wind shear was having an effect on the ...

User comments : 80

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
2.3 / 5 (35) Aug 21, 2014
For the longest time, even as late as last year, I was told very Adamantly there is no Hiatus in Global Warming.
Now, even if it is begrudgingly can everyone on this board that said I was wrong now agree that there has been a Hiatus?
Come on AGW believers...... say it with me, Freethinking was right, there has been a Hiatus in Global Warming.

Now, since we can agree that the science isn't settled, lets get back to doing real science.
orti
2.1 / 5 (28) Aug 21, 2014
It's the Atlamtic, not it's being hidden in the deep Pacific, no it's the sun, no it's the wind in the Southern Sea, no it's aerosols … and on and on and on. But definitely, not our models – 95% certain.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (31) Aug 21, 2014
Q: What's changing faster than the climate?
A: The "science"..er...excuses...er...lies coming from the AGW Cult.

So tell me Chicken Littles which of these dozen theories..er..excuse me..lies, do you believe or would you like to stay in denial and claim that the globe has not stopped warming.
Toiea
2 / 5 (28) Aug 21, 2014
For the longest time, even as late as last year, I was told very Adamantly there is no Hiatus in Global Warming. Now, even if it is begrudgingly can everyone on this board that said I was wrong now agree that there has been a Hiatus?
Apparently you deserve to be downvoted again for your impertinence...;-) It's funny, that the AGW fighters still didn't mention this hiatus as a success of the existing carbon tax strategy. They apparently don't expect, it could really work.
freeiam
2.3 / 5 (22) Aug 21, 2014
Seems like excellent work.
The best explanation I have read.
When true it halves the human contributed warming, so we have only .23 degrees Celsius left.
Of that a significant part is due to black carbon.
So the CO2 net result will be almost null (it all adds up to nothing), and that is something I can believe, the end of the CO2 myth.
Tektrix
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2014

. . . Now, since we can agree that the science isn't settled, lets get back to doing real science.


Science isn't affirming your primacy in the matter. Is that because of you, or because of science?
runrig
4 / 5 (24) Aug 21, 2014
It's the Atlamtic, not it's being hidden in the deep Pacific, no it's the sun, no it's the wind in the Southern Sea, no it's aerosols … and on and on and on. But definitely, not our models – 95% certain.

Yep, correct - AGW is 95% certain.
Atlantic deep ocean, pacific deep ocean, low solar, increased aerosols .... are all contributing to a natural climate hiatus (in the atmosphere).
What remains is the basic imbalance in the Solar SW absorbed minus LWIR emitted at TOA.
Inescapable accumulation of heat in the climate system, of which the oceans comprise ~94%.

Get over it. FFS.
runrig
4 / 5 (25) Aug 21, 2014
Seems like excellent work.
The best explanation I have read.
When true it halves the human contributed warming, so we have only .23 degrees Celsius left.
Of that a significant part is due to black carbon.
So the CO2 net result will be almost null (it all adds up to nothing), and that is something I can believe, the end of the CO2 myth.

What??
Since when does storing heat in the ocean mean that it's not happening (heat due anthro CO2 back-radiation).
We are talking of where the excess is going here - it's NOT escaping to space. It is just being rearranged in the Ocean/air system.
FFS
antigoracle
2 / 5 (27) Aug 21, 2014
The temperature oscillations have a natural switch. During the warm period, faster currents cause more tropical water to travel to the North Atlantic, warming both the surface and the deep water. At the surface this warming melts ice. This eventually makes the surface water there less dense and after a few decades puts the brakes on the circulation, setting off a 30-year cooling phase.

So, if the brakes are on in the circulation and subsequent transfer of tropical heat, how does this result in cooling. Furthermore, where is all the heat caused by increasing CO2 going.
Perhaps a "genius" from the AGW peanut gallery could enlighten us.
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (23) Aug 21, 2014
Sorry GW-ers, I've telling you they'd pull the rug out from under you, and you be slinking in dark corners, wondering, "What happened?"

You believed the hype, which was temperature and CO2, instead of hydro-thermal effects. You do that you can predict anthropomorphic global effects, easily and intuitively.

Now the deniers have you on the ropes. The Sun is cranking out power, CO2 is at a max. Conditions are perfect... and yet another of my prophesies comes true.

The Earth's ice and oceans buffer the Earth's temperature. @Runrig, isn't that practically the definition of the effect of a Marine climate? The simple explanation is that since the Earth's temperature doesn't change fast, the Ice has the time it needs to cool the planet. Just like ice in your Coke on a hot Summer day.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (21) Aug 21, 2014
The temperature oscillations have a natural switch. During the warm period, faster currents cause more tropical water to travel to the North Atlantic, warming both the surface and the deep water. At the surface this warming melts ice. This eventually makes the surface water there less dense and after a few decades puts the brakes on the circulation, setting off a 30-year cooling phase.

So, if the brakes are on in the circulation and subsequent transfer of tropical heat, how does this result in cooling. Furthermore, where is all the heat caused by increasing CO2 going.
Perhaps a "genius" from the AGW peanut gallery could enlighten us.


Another example of your inability to read and comprehend.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (25) Aug 21, 2014
So vietvet, I guess you did not notice, I did not ask for a turdy tard from the AGW peanut gallery to respond. So, why don't you float back down to the bottom of that cesspool of ignorance, from whence you came. Many thanks.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (21) Aug 21, 2014
So vietvet, I guess you did not notice, I did not ask for a turdy tard from the AGW peanut gallery to respond. So, why don't you float back down to the bottom of that cesspool of ignorance, from whence you came. Many thanks.


The article was self-explanatory. I'll say it again, another example of your inability to read and comprehend.
peter_piasecki_92
1.7 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2014
Seems like excellent work.
The best explanation I have read.
When true it halves the human contributed warming, so we have only .23 degrees Celsius left.
Of that a significant part is due to black carbon.
So the CO2 net result will be almost null (it all adds up to nothing), and that is something I can believe, the end of the CO2 myth.

What??
Since when does storing heat in the ocean mean that it's not happening (heat due anthro CO2 back-radiation).
We are talking of where the excess is going here - it's NOT escaping to space. It is just being rearranged in the Ocean/air system.
FFS
so how cold outside must it get before the energy is released from the ocean? and by the way it is escaping to outer space NASA reported that many years ago, NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 21, 2014
Hmm.. viet... still floating... now sink...sink ... like a nice turd.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (19) Aug 21, 2014
Hmm.. viet... still floating... now sink...sink ... like a nice turd.


You really need to seek professional help to overcome your excrement fetish.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 21, 2014
A big problem with their explanation is that before Argo there were no robust (err, reliable) sea temperature data. Authors may try to counter this argument by pointing out that North Atlantic probably had OK coverage (due to substantial traffic). Yet, it is small portion of the entire ocean, and water currents do transport heat. To summarize, when one group of researchers points to pacific ocean as a culprit, and another to Atlantic, the issue is far from settled.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 21, 2014
@runrig,
Are you finally coming over to the dark side?

I am not sure about the article, but it is certainly in line with my minority report. Ice has retreated far enough that liquid water's temperature gradient is coming to predominance.

Of course I hope everyone understands the difference in the cooling power of water vs ice. It is over three hundred times.
Toiea
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2014
MikPetter
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2014
http://www.wmo.in..._en.html
WMO Annual Climate Statement Highlights Extreme Events

"Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record. The average global land and ocean surface temperature in 2013 was 14.5°C (58.1°F) – 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 1961–1990 average and 0.03°C (0.05°F) higher than the 2001–2010 decadal average. Temperatures in many parts of the southern hemisphere were especially warm, with Australia having its hottest year on record and Argentina its second hottest."
TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2014
"...Temperatures in many parts of the southern hemisphere were especially warm..."

Did you care to look into southern hemisphere sea ice area recently? What you are describing is weather, sea ice is climate.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2014
@Toiea,
Not for nothing, but the sea level is rising.
Fresh water is lighter than saline...

Odd such a respectable source posted that?

KDK
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2014
"Global Warming" is a total fraud based on Agenda 21. But climate change exists and it is global COOLING that we better be afraid of at this point, based on Solar Cycle 24 and/or the Milankovitch ice-age cycle. Just check what happened to European populations during the Medieval Warm Period vs. the Little Ice Age!
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 22, 2014
"...Temperatures in many parts of the southern hemisphere were especially warm..."

Did you care to look into southern hemisphere sea ice area recently? What you are describing is weather, sea ice is climate.


Still spouting that science free bollocks Tegri.
In a region where ice is free the expand - temperature most certainly is not is the indicative driver of any expansion.
Have you noticed the continuing downward trend (decadally) in Arctic ice shrinkage. Again near 2 sigma blow the long term trend line.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2014
...To summarize, when one group of researchers points to pacific ocean as a culprit, and another to Atlantic, the issue is far from settled.

Each group of researchers are likely specialising - what this all means is that where ocean currents are descending to depth and have strengthened or cycled back.... then the atmosphere has heat removed and a stalling in the AGW driven warming occurs.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2014
so how cold outside must it get before the energy is released from the ocean? and by the way it is escaping to outer space NASA reported that many years ago, NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal


Heat removed to depth by ocean currents is *hidden* from the atmosphere.
Please provide supporting evidence for the above assertion.
I am unaware of any such.
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2014
So here we have it again folks the anti warming clowns expressing their dumb opinions to the fullest.. yet again... lil O'l.. gory and the rest of his clownpuppets really showed us today how dumb they truly strive to be, expressing their ability of uncomprehendedness and ever so unintelligent nature.

It's funny how they can't seem to get enough rubbing themselves insults in the nuts with every post they make, but hey... it makes for a good sitcom... they made me laugh since the first time they started commenting.. ("cough..cough"..fortunately they don't know that it's hurting them and their big dirty boss's image too... "cough" ;)

That's the kicker.. and the reason it's even more funny... keep pushing the no brainer comments, it enhances the truth of all true scientific work and peer reviewed evidence of global warming even more. ;)
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2014
More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus......... Every week there's a new explanation ....

The AGW Cult is a parasite whose head and ass can't keep track of the lies each is spewing.
When the dust finally settles on the cult's CO2 lies, I hope these morons find a cold prison cell.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2014
The comments are a pretty good textbook case of how some people don't understand the difference between net contributions, cyclic systems and buffer systems (and how the effects of cyclic/buffer systems do not solve a problem in the least).

The scientific illiteracy displayed with such fervor is actually quite frightening.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2014
Hmm.. so the country that led the world in GHG emissions actually got cooler during this period, while the rest of the world warmed.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2014
The comments are a pretty good textbook case of how some people don't understand the difference between net contributions, cyclic systems and buffer systems (and how the effects of cyclic/buffer systems do not solve a problem in the least).

The scientific illiteracy displayed with such fervor is actually quite frightening.

The article, typical of AGWite propaganda, does little to point out the limits of the data and its uncertain effects upon THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL.
Except for this disclaimer: "This explanation implies that the current slowdown in global warming could last for another decade, or longer, and then rapid warming will return. But Tung emphasizes it's hard to predict what will happen next."

And no mention of water conditions below 2000 m.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2014
The article, typical of AGWite propaganda, does little to point out the limits of the data and its uncertain effects upon THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL.

Again: we're talking here about a cyclic contribution (i.e. a temporary buffer system at best). So it doesn't change the issue at hand one bit.

Evan after getting explained to you that there is adifference between a net contribution and a buffer system you persist in not understanding what these words mean.

1) Net contribution: a fire hose that drenches you
2) Buffer system: a container that catches some of the water until it overflows and drenches you at the EXACT SAME RATE as 1)

Read: Problem not solved in the very least and therefore this effect gives no cause for downgrading the urgency of action (much less the scope of needed action) by one bit.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2014
76% of the ocean volume is between 3000 and 6000 meters.
Life in the World's Oceans: Diversity, Distribution, and Abundance
If over 76% of the ocean is below 2000 meters, and its temperature is 4C or less, how much heat is sunk into the water below 2000m?
freeiam
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
[
What??
Since when does storing heat in the ocean mean that it's not happening (heat due anthro CO2 back-radiation).
We are talking of where the excess is going here - it's NOT escaping to space. It is just being rearranged in the Ocean/air system.
FFS


'When true' referred to " Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface. " in the article.
So, the measured temperature rise of .45 degrees Celsius is in part due to the here to unknown phenomenon of (30 year) periodic temperature rise.

(And yes, any heat added to the system is eventually cycled back...)
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2014
More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus

They say it takes 20 lies to coverup 1, so stayed tuned, lots more to come from the AGW Cult.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2014
76% of the ocean volume is between 3000 and 6000 meters.
Life in the World's Oceans: Diversity, Distribution, and Abundance
If over 76% of the ocean is below 2000 meters, and its temperature is 4C or less, how much heat is sunk into the water below 2000m?
... Excepting the Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas, the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (60.009) W m2 applied over the entire surface of the earth. Deep (1000–4000 m) warming south of the Subantarctic Front of the ACC adds 0.068 (60.062) W m2. The abyssal warming produces a 0.053 (60.017) mm yr
increase in global average sea level and the deep warming south of the Subantarctic Front adds another 0.093 (60.081) mm yr. Thus, warming in these regions, ventilated primarily by Antarctic Bottom Water, accounts for a statistically significant fraction of the present global energy and sea level budgets.

http://uwpcc.wash...ts/PCC/p
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2014
...what a show, i'm loving it ... :)

Fortunately in reality the infinite lies from big oil is uncoverable and exposed each day (especially here ) and the trillions upon trillions they raped from the earth
will not be enough to save the planet, unless they start to actually develop signs of intelligence and change their ways. but apparently for them (it's a sensitive issue i know ;) ) intelligence is something that is hard to comprehend.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2014
the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (60.009) W m2 applied over the entire surface of the earth.


How does anyone know?
Very few data are collected below 4000 meters.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (60.009) W m2 applied over the entire surface of the earth.


How does anyone know?
Very few data are collected below 4000 meters.


Try reading the paper, and you may find out.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (60.009) W m2 applied over the entire surface of the earth.


How does anyone know?
Very few data are collected below 4000 meters.


Try reading the paper, and you may find out.

Try your link.
howhot2
4 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus......... Every week there's a new explanation ....

The AGW Cult is a parasite whose head and ass can't keep track of the lies each is spewing.
When the dust finally settles on the cult's CO2 lies, I hope these morons find a cold prison cell.
This is such BOZO speak. Are you having a hard day there @al-gore-acle.

And @R2, the dude can't even figure out how deep the ocean is. These damn denier cults are just parasites on civilization. They are worst than drug dealers, in that deniers just deal stupid to generations unborn!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
So, how would you designate yours howhot, Turd speak.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
So, how would you designate yours howhot, Turd speak.


I see you still have your excrement fetish.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
I see you still have your excrement fetish.

And like a nice turd, I see you are here to appease that fetish.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
I see you still have your excrement fetish.

And like a nice turd, I see you are here to appease that fetish.


No, I can't to anything about your needing shit for sexual gratification.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (60.009) W m2 applied over the entire surface of the earth.


How does anyone know?
Very few data are collected below 4000 meters.


Try reading the paper, and you may find out.

Try your link.


Apologies.....

www.uwpcc.washing...2010.pdf
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
@HeloMenelo
Well said, keep the faith.
xstos
4.9 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2014
Why don't we just stop polluting and destroying our effing biosphere instead of arguing about global temperatures and climate models. It's all irrelevant when contrasted against humanity's gargantuan impact on our biosphere. All you nincompoops are missing the forest for the trees (assuming the trees haven't been clear-cut already). Sustainable stewardship of our planet. Period.
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
&xstos-
That's right our media has us chasing wild geese and red herrings. Meanwhile we're "polluting and destroying our effing biosphere..."
Well said, I'm loving these new guys.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2014
"However, since
the deepest known studies of ocean heat uptake of which
we are aware extend only to 3000 m (Levitus et al. 2005)"
"We make three large assumptions in constructing the
abyssal basin estimates of heat gain and SLR below
4000 m"
eachus
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
What remains is the basic imbalance in the Solar SW absorbed minus LWIR emitted at TOA.
Inescapable accumulation of heat in the climate system, of which the oceans comprise ~94%.

Get over it.


Get over it yourself. The most important GW gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is second. Modeling the interactions between water vapor and heat in the atmosphere requires getting clouds right--which no global model yet does correctly. (Some regional models seem pretty good, but the problem is the parts of the earth that are not covered by water.)

BTW, I think that we need to control global CO2 levels because they are already affecting human health--but through breathing problems in infants and the elderly. Most other GHG (other than water vapor and CO2) are just noise in the atmosphere, and in global atmospheric models. (If you have ever watched a thunderhead forming on a summer day, you have seen heat transport over several miles in a few minutes--straight up.)
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
All you nincompoops are missing the forest for the trees (assuming the trees haven't been clear-cut already). Sustainable stewardship of our planet.
@xstos
whereas I can agree whole heartedly that we need to have sustainable stewardship... I think you are being misled.
We've not been IGNORING pollution elsewhere to study climate science... there is alsready a large infrastructure in place taking care of those studies and science and research, and the PEOPLE are fairly well behind this issue....
but climate science is ANOTHER TYPE OF POLLUTION
that is all it is
BUT the people seem to IGNORE THIS, thinking that it will go away or that it isn't real...
let me tell you, it is VERY real!
and it is CAUSED BY POLLUTION

you can't have it both ways... if you fight pollution, you are fighting for the planet and for climate science which is the same thing
fighting AGAINST climate science is fighting AGAINST pollution,the planet & sustainable stewardship

some people need love
i prefer O2
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
BTW, I think that we need to control global CO2 levels because they are already affecting human health--but through breathing problems in infants and the elderly
@eachus
well, supporting evidence would make your argument much stronger... but that is not ALL rising CO2 does
Most other GHG (other than water vapor and CO2) are just noise in the atmosphere, and in global atmospheric models
so you are suggesting that CO2 is just "noise"? Please provide the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE proving this statement
there is AMPLE evidence that CO2 provides warming in conjunction with other GHG's and water vapor
http://www.giss.n...midt_05/

and there are studies exploring how clouds and GHG's in conjunction with H2O create this warming cycle
try reading up on it and posting some empirical evidence
THANKS
MandoZink
5 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2014
This is perplexing. Those who have been gloating because the heating seemed to stop are now gloating because we found out where the heat was going. I cannot even think of an appropriate analogy for that.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2014
Get over it yourself. The most important GW gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is second. Modeling the interactions between water vapor and heat in the atmosphere requires getting clouds right--which no global model yet does correctly. (Some regional models seem pretty good, but the problem is the parts of the earth that are not covered by water.)

I don't need to get over it my friend, as I express the science accepted. You provide evidence supporting your view ... or get over it.
5 gold stars, WV is indeed the most important GHG - however it is self policing, in that the hydrological cycle ensures any one molecule is only present in the atmosphere ~10 days. - so it's concentration is dependent only on temp.
Clouds too are largely self policing and will not change globally to give a persistent rising temp. That would require greater high cloud ... everywhere.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
@eachus-you're awesome, forgive me if I "preach to the choir"...
The amount of CO2 is going to be some exponent higher inside your house than outside. My CO2 meter can easily read 3000ppm.

Although you notice NO beneficial effects from "warming" insulating your house, you may notice, stiff necks and poor sleep because of it.

Water contributes to the environment overwhelmingly from condensation, evaporation and phase change, and much less through being a GHG.
Current science claims 70% of GHG effects are from water, but... water is about 40x more active, and 50x more prevalent.
It has also increased by 400ppm.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2014
Get over it yourself. The most important GW gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is second. Modeling the interactions between water vapor and heat in the atmosphere requires getting clouds right--which no global model yet does correctly. (Some regional models seem pretty good, but the problem is the parts of the earth that are not covered by water.)

I don't need to get over it my friend, as I express the science accepted. You provide evidence supporting your view ... or get over it.
5 gold stars, WV is indeed the most important GHG - however it is self policing, in that the hydrological cycle ensures any one molecule is only present in the atmosphere ~10 days. - so it's concentration is dependent only on temp.
Clouds too are largely self policing and will not change globally to give a persistent rising temp. That would require greater high cloud ... everywhere.


Well said.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2014
@eachus-you're awesome, forgive me if I "preach to the choir"...
The amount of CO2 is going to be some exponent higher inside your house than outside. My CO2 meter can easily read 3000ppm.

Although you notice NO beneficial effects from "[global] warming" insulating your house, you may notice, stiff necks and poor sleep because of it.

Sorry for clarity-
Water contributes to the environment overwhelmingly from condensation, evaporation and phase change, and much less through being a GHG.
Current science claims 70% of GHG effects are from water, but... water is about 40x more active, and 50x more prevalent than CO2.
Water aka humidity has also increased by 400 ppm, CO2 a measly 120 ppm.

So you be the judge.
eachus
3 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
I said:
Most other GHG (other than water vapor and CO2) are just noise in the atmosphere, and in global atmospheric models


so you are suggesting that CO2 is just "noise"? Please provide the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE proving this statement there is AMPLE evidence that CO2 provides warming in conjunction with other GHG's and water vapor http://www.giss.n...midt_05/


Read what I said, not what you think I said... There is plenty of evidence that water vapor AND CO2 cause local heating effects. For OTHER GHGs there is laboratory evidence, but there is only anecdotal evidence that say, methane, significantly affects (local or global) temperatures anywhere.

And the devil in the details of what I said is that the behavior of water vapor (and rain, and snow) often dominates the local heat balance. For example, a hurricane is a giant heat engine driven by water vapor. Heat from sea level can be lofted to the stratosphere in minutes..
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2014

Sorry for clarity........
Water aka humidity has also increased by 400 ppm, CO2 a measly 120 ppm.

So you be the judge.

Water.....
Should this be true - then why do you not realise that humidity (absolute not relative) has risen precisely because CO2 has risen by your correctly stated 120ppm??
WV has FOLLOWED CO2. It is called a feedback effect. This is one of the dangers of GHG's that THE most powerful GHG follows on it's coat tails.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2014
Sorry for clarity-blah blah PERSONAL CONJECTURE blah-
So you be the judge
@waterbaby/hydrocephalus
ok.
no empirical evidence or links to supporting studies/empirical evidence supporting your post

therefore: it is BS personal conjecture

Read what I said, not what you think I said
@eachus
My mistake
your noise reference was to most other GHG's
My apologies. I DID read that wrong

it still doesn't change the issue of evidence supporting your conclusions.
it would be helpful for proper logical discourse and to insure details/comprehension.
Please provide links to studies/proof

THANKS
eachus
not rated yet Aug 25, 2014
It still doesn't change the issue of evidence supporting your conclusions... Please provide links to studies/proof


First, on CO2 levels killing people, how much of a medical education do you have? The foundation is fairly well built, and non-controversial. The breathing "reflex" is triggered by CO2 levels in the blood. As CO2 levels go up, you (and most normal people) breathe slightly more often, which actually results in more oxygen in the blood. However, if your health is marginal, you may not be able to spend that energy on breathing. This is why oxygen tents and newborn incubators can be found in hospitals. (Increase the O2 and decrease the CO2 to maintain the same blood O2 level with less work by the patient.)

In areas where modern medical care is unavailable, those patients die. How many per year? Does it matter? Some deaths are due to higher CO2 levels, and the number is increasing. Get to 3% CO2 which happened millions of years ago, and we are all dead.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2014
First, on CO2 levels killing people, how much of a medical education do you have?
@eachus
don't see how it is relevant, but I am assuming you mean medical as in the a&p and not the business side?
paramedic Truck Captain with 20 yrs experience, PHTLS, BCLS/ACLS, and a few other specialty courses. Taken OLD school, before they switched the curriculum to the new EMT-A curriculum that is now being used, started circa 1994-1996 or thereabouts

so like I said: how is it relevant?
so we see the correlation between rising CO2 and health?
you also need supporting evidence to establish that CO2 is responsible for modern "breathing problems in infants and the elderly"

there is a much stronger case for environmental particulates causing more damage (asthma)
http://www.med.um...thma.htm

now please note that I give you a LINK with supporting evidence as well as references to studies as well (bottom of page under Citation)
NOTE additional comments #1 as well
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2014
eachus had a wild thought with
BTW, I think that we need to control global CO2 levels because they are already affecting human health--but through breathing problems in infants and the elderly.
I have an interest in this since I did my post grad at Curtin University in Western Australia in 2010...

There is a minor effect re CO2 levels with certain types & variances of alzheimers however, these by far occur indoors where CO2 levels might be higher than 400ppm.

For those levels outside they would be downwind of fossil fuel power plants & highly sporadic, in any case you did report these issues are currently ameliorated by medical equipment.

Certainly I also wish to see a reduction in CO2 emission rates but, the far longer term problem is CO2 as a greenhouse gas because not only does it add resistivity of heat flow to space but, it also may trigger runaway heating effect as we are also adding heat to the system.

Stats are disturbing, we are burning ~230,000 Litres petrol/sec !
Dug
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2014
Aren't there some minor problems in the theories here? If polar ice caps are melting, then wouldn't tend to dilute surface waters as well? Wouldn't the lighter lower salinity surface waters - made even lighter by their comparative higher heat not sink into the depths? Wasn't the aforementioned diluted lower salinity polar regions the basis for interrupting the Gulf Stream and stopping its heat transfer a few years ago as a contributor to major global warming?

While I agree that anthropogenic CO2 and other heat inputs have the potential scales of affecting climate, I'm not at all convinced we have a clue regarding how much and over what periods of time. Or as this paper evinces - that "climate experts" and particularly their models have an accurate handle on the earths natural mechanisms and their capacity for heat dissipation - you know the ones that have taken care of the planet so far.
Dug
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2014
Aren't there some minor problems in the theories here? If polar ice caps are melting, then wouldn't tend to dilute surface waters as well? Wouldn't the lighter lower salinity surface waters - made even lighter by their comparative higher heat not sink into the depths? Wasn't the aforementioned diluted lower salinity polar regions the basis for interrupting the Gulf Stream and stopping its heat transfer a few years ago as a contributor to major global warming?

While I agree that anthropogenic CO2 and other heat inputs have the potential scales of affecting climate, I'm not at all convinced we have a clue regarding how much and over what periods of time. Or as this paper evinces - that "climate experts" and particularly their models have an accurate handle on the earths natural mechanisms and their capacity for heat dissipation - you know the ones that have taken care of the planet so far.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2014
ah @runrig
Why don't I realize...
Because water is 40x more powerful and much much more prevalent, you are certainly putting the cart before the horse. 400 ppm of water has 40 x 400/120 = 133 times the GH effect of CO2 rise.

You are essentially claiming the Earth goes around the moon...

WV increase is more likely due to the minor rise in the Earth's temperature.

Hey here is an interesting tid-bit: The amount of energy required to melt the ice required to raise the oceans 6cm is the same as required to raise the average temp of the Earth the .85C.
I have an idea, anybody got anything on why?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2014
@ thermostumpy, everytime you call me out we see just how invalid your input based on education, facts, and journals really is, whether Quantum Mechanics or Water Vapor:
Sorry, Stumped, water vapor has gone up 2.2%

https://wiki.brow...etherley
Water has 3 modest but wide peaks, AND never really goes to zero. Since it never really goes to zero, which means even if water has 4% in a certain range, it has 27000/400 the concentration, and thus far more absorbency.
Though I'll grant 40x is arguable, could be 35, could be 50.

You lose again.
None so blind as those who will not see. Seems my personal conjecture beats you every time.
:D
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2014
Sorry, it ate my links, and part of my post...:
Water absorbency:
http://www.sensea...s/water/
CO2 has two modest narrow peaks:
http://sustainabi...1903.php
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2014
Dug asked
If polar ice caps are melting, then wouldn't tend to dilute surface waters as well? Wouldn't the lighter lower salinity surface waters - made even lighter by their comparative higher heat not sink into the depths?
This is a very complex area as influences arise from; ocean currents, tidal forces & winds affecting flow whilst also mixing.

Dug added
I'm not at all convinced we have a clue regarding how much and over what periods of time.
This is why calculus of Integration in conjunction with precisely well known properties of 'specific heat' is so important as main foundations & despite chaotic nature of motion can offer probabilities commensurate with the certainty we do have more heat in the system due to green house gases,

Eg. Thermal properties of CO2 irrefutable & known for 100+ years

@Dug, no one seems to have been looking after the planet as such.

@Water_Prophet
H20 has easy and quick path back to earth, CO2 accumulative, does not & continues to rise.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2014

ah @runrig
Why don't I realize...
Because water is 40x more powerful and much much more prevalent, you are certainly putting the cart before the horse. 400 ppm of water has 40 x 400/120 = 133 times the GH effect of CO2 rise.


Water... it's quite simple, and not a matter of lifting yourself off the ground by your own braces - which is what it would be in your interpretation.

WV is stable in the atmosphere (in a macro, generalised way) at a given global temperature. It doesn't/cannot increase in absolute humidity without said global temp increasing and allowing it to.
That is what CO2 (and CH4,O3 etc) is doing.
If you still maintain your increase in WV is the driver - could you please explain, or better (as your explanations quite frankly I find impenetrable) provide the published science for it.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2014
The problem is that if a 120ppm increase in CO2 drove a temperature increase that drove a 400ppm increase in water vapor. The 400ppm increase of a MUCH stronger GHG should cause an even worse increase in temperature, which should drive even worse temp increase.

Not observed.

Now if temperature drove a 400ppm rise in WV, and the effect was smaller than the effect of evaporation/condensation. Well, it's feasible.

Thanks for the civility, it's refreshing.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2014
@Mike,
Interesting point about persistence.
I've checked this out pretty thoroughly, but maybe you can shed some light I haven't gleaned...

One of the fundamentals of modern physics is called indistinguishably. http://en.wikiped...articles
Which should mean concentrations, not how long a given CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere is the relevant factor.

Persistence, should have nothing to do with it. Maybe the IPCC and its definition of GWP is using a definition I don't understand, but I am pretty sure it's BS. It seems to be completely ignoring modern physics.

So the backdrop should be a 400ppm raise in H2O and 120ppm increase in CO2 is apples to apples, due to equilibrium, indistinguishably and other physical arguments.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2014
The problem is that if a 120ppm increase in CO2 drove a temperature increase that drove a 400ppm increase in water vapor. The 400ppm increase of a MUCH stronger GHG should cause an even worse increase in temperature, which should drive even worse temp increase.

Not observed.

Now if temperature drove a 400ppm rise in WV, and the effect was smaller than the effect of evaporation/condensation. Well, it's feasible.

Thanks for the civility, it's refreshing.

no problem, name calling is counter productive anyway ... which we see on here.

But it has driven an even stronger rise in (heat retention) - and it cannot be observed as you cannot separate out (observationally) heat retained by WV vs heat retained by CO2. It's all in the mix. WV and CO2 go hand in hand. The GHG physics of CO2 comes first and due to it accumulating in the atmosphere (at any temp) the driven temp rise allows more WV to evaporate and the atmosphere and still maintain the same absolute humidity.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2014
We should also take into account that while water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas it is also MUCH shorter lived in the atmosphere. CO2 is causing us a long term problem, water vapor only a short term one. The former issue is much more dire as it keeps compounding.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2014
To put this a bit more in perspective:
If we solve the CO2 problem then any CO2 caused, associated water vapor problem will be solved 10 days later (which is the residence time of water vapor in the troposphere.)

CO2, on the other hand, has a residence time is on the order of several hundred years (some sources give it as more than 1000 years)

Trying to derail climate discussions with posts about water vapor being such a "big issue" is just a red herring.

And if you're really concerned about humanity's addition to the water vapor balance then you may be surprised to learn that combustion reactions of gasoline, methane, etc. produce up to twice as much water vapor as CO2...and that even coal and nuclear powerplants produce copious amounts of water vapor due to the need for the steam generators. Ever note those big towers spouting white plumes? All water vapor. So you should be doubly motivated to move towards a fossil- (and nuclear-) free future)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2014
@runrig, Try order of magnitude analysis: I think you'll find the up and downs of humidity in a single day far overwhelm any impact of CO2. The deltas completely overwhelm it.

@antialias, please check out my last post to Mike. It is not residence time, but its concentration. There has been water in the air "forever," just as there has been CO2 in the air "forever." It is average concentration levels, not how long it will be there.
Complete agreement with the water vapor waste comment. It would seem to be a perfect storm; CO2 (piff), Water (hmmm) and heat (SHAZAM).

Of interest: It is "Dead Zones" in the ocean that have caused CO2 to spike. NO one seems to want to call attention to this...
http://en.wikiped...ology%29
Low O2 must equal high CO2, photosynthesis.

runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2014
@runrig, Try order of magnitude analysis: I think you'll find the up and downs of humidity in a single day far overwhelm any impact of CO2. The deltas completely overwhelm it.

Water...
But it doesn't "overwhelm" it.
It's analogous to a pot of boiling water in that the whole thing is, at the micro level, in a different state to a region close by but the whole will arrive at boiling point given a known amount of heat, at a known pressure - repeatedly in exactly the same time.
The 10 day residency for WV molecule ensures that. It averages out.
WV/H2O is following the lead created by CO2 (and other GHG's).
Water_Prophet
not rated yet Sep 01, 2014
@runrig,
Either I am not understanding you, or your analogy is way off.
You can't compare a single phase transition to a triple point...
If that is where you are going...?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2014
"The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over
the past 15 years or so. Measuring the duration of the hiatus has implications for determining if
the underlying trend has changed, and for evaluating climate models. Here, I propose a method for
estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and
autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints. For the specific case of global average temperatures I also add the requirement of spatial consistency between hemispheres. The method makes use of the Vogelsang-Franses (2005) HAC-robust trend variance estimator which is valid as long as the underlying series is trend stationary, which is the case for the data used herein. Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration...
http://dx.doi.org...14.47050