Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Energy content, the heat is on: atmosphere -vs- ocean ( Graphic Illustration )
Watts Up With That? ^ | April 6, 2011 | Anthony Watts

Posted on 04/07/2011 6:49:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Jeff wrote to me with this article which visually illustrates his point quite well. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has given his take on it here, saying:

The post on The Air Vent is worth adding to the reasoning why we need to move away from the use of the global average surface temperature anomaly as the metric to diagnose global warming and cooling.

I decided to make this graphic to put it all in perspective:

Background image from Tiago Fioreze via Wikipedia, values from the calculations below.

================================================================

Global Temperatures and Incomplete Rationale of My Own Skepticism

Guest Post by Jeff Id

Ok I admit it!  Apparently I can’t quit blogging completely, but doing software calculations is way beyond the scope of my time abilities.   There is a detail which may interest some here that has too little discussion in the ‘climate wars’ .  It’s a matter of reason, again which doesn’t disprove AGW but which seems to me should be cause for pause in the alarmist message.

From this link:

Heat capacity of ocean water: 3993 J/kg/K
Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/K

This is the number of Joules (energy) to raise temperature 1 degree Kelvin which is the same as 1 degree Celcius. Energy cannot be created or destroyed to my knowledge so these are physically knowable values.  Since they are in kilograms, we only need to look at kilograms atmosphere vs kilograms of ocean to make the following graphs.

From Wikipedia - The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg

From Wikipedia – The total mass of the hydrosphere is about 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons (1.5×1018 short tons) or 1.4×1021 kg,

So multiplying out, the energy content of the atmosphere is – 1005 *5×1018 kg =5 x1021 Joules/Degree Kelvin

Energy content of the ocean is – 3993 *1.4×1021 =5.6×1024 Joules/Degree Kelvin

So we know increasing CO2 captures more heat in the lower atmosphere and we know that this heat is claimed to be the cause of global warming. Where everything gets real fuzzy is when the energy content of the ocean is taken into consideration.  Models do use the ocean heat content, but in order to demonstrate warming, only the energy of the surface ocean layers can be considered.    Of course there are layers and layers (pun intended) of papers that discuss the issues, but in reality very little is actually ‘known’.

Why is it important that climate models only look at surface layers?   Because subsurface ocean temps exhibit little variance and even with the worst IPCC scenario’s would exhibit little variance from AGW.   It is assumed that all ‘significant’ heat comes and goes from the ocean surface.  I wonder though if anyone would be able to demonstrate a tenth of a degree change in the deep ocean over the last 100 years?   The answer again is we don’t know if it did, but we do know that a 0.1C release of oceanic subsurface energy would measurably change the surface temperature of the earth in that time period.  All that would be required would be ocean current changes but we really don’t have a clue if deep ocean current’s have changed. CO2 atmospheric temp change depends on the assumption of stability 0f heat flow from the deeper oceans. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this but in case you wonder why many of us are skeptics of catastrophic global warming:

Click for full size Fig1 

So when they show you the scary graphs of UHI contaminated surface temperature as compiled by Zeke, including graphs from myself using what I believe are superior anomaly combination methods developed by Roman M:

Global Land Air Temps Fig 2 

Remember, they/we are showing you the increase in atmospheric energy of the near zero thickness PANCAKE on the left side of Figure 1, the huge energy column on the right is not included in air temperature graphs of Fig 2 or on the left side of Fig 1.  When you see the reconstructions of global temperature including ocean surface temps,  the energy pancake on the left isn’t much thicker.

If you were to transfer enough ocean energy directly to the atmosphere to create 4 degrees of atmospheric warming, how much would that change the average temperature of the Earth’s water?

Would you believe –  0.001 Degrees C of ocean temp change?  The left side pancake wouldn’t look any different in Fig 1!   Hell, it wouldn’t change if we were in another oceanic current inspired ice age — think about that.

It’s just math folks.   The ocean contains so much energy that a thousandth of a degree change can throw 1C into our air temp instantaneously.  Unfortunately the discussion is more complex than this because we need then to look at what happens to the release of that heat to space.  The real balance is about energy flow vs content rather than instantaneous heat, but realistically tenths of a degree C of atmospheric  warming over 30 years are absolutely NOT proof of CO2 global warming doom.

Of course climate models take all of this into account.  They also take Hadley cells and cloud formation into account.  They take convection, conduction, evaporation, precipitation etc. all into account.  The whole exercise is layers of guesses and estimations.  Some with less scientific honesty than others but before chucking them all to the wind, some of these people are good people and even good scientists.

I’ve spent enough time on this today, but continued overconfidence in the meaning of UHI contaminated surface temperatures IS one of the main reasons I’m a skeptic of catastrophic global warming.   Every time you see a plot of surface temperatures, we should shoulder shrug and ask – what about total oceanic energy?


TOPICS: Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax

1 posted on 04/07/2011 6:49:26 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; SunkenCiv; Paul Pierett; neverdem; I got the rope; ...

Thought this info would be useful to add to our quiver of questions for the AGW believers.


2 posted on 04/07/2011 6:54:11 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Normandy; TenthAmendmentChampion; FrPR; ...
Thanx for the pinf Ernest !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

3 posted on 04/07/2011 6:56:12 PM PDT by steelyourfaith ("Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
One of the items "they" weren't counting in their models is the amount of CO2 collected by Antarctic sea and glacial ice just recently exposed to the air.

That CO2 gets absorbed into the facia of the raw ice, then plunged into the ocean as the burg melts and twists and turns. The plankton pick up the CO2 dissolved in the water.

All very complex but just discovered!

4 posted on 04/07/2011 6:57:04 PM PDT by muawiyah (Make America Safe For Amercans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanx for the pinf Ernest

He gave you the pinf? How come you get the pinf?

5 posted on 04/07/2011 7:04:30 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: decimon

He might have a wacked up keyboard like mine....spilled tea on some weeks agoe....hasn’t done what its suppose to since.


6 posted on 04/07/2011 7:09:11 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Ernest!


7 posted on 04/07/2011 7:28:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Thanks for the ping!


8 posted on 04/07/2011 7:59:24 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Some people collect pinfs hoping there will be a market for them in the future.


9 posted on 04/07/2011 8:02:18 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Some people collect pinfs...

Pinfheads. ;-)

10 posted on 04/07/2011 8:20:21 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

You ain’t kidding. I have 200,000 pinfs sitting in storage right now that I can’t even give away.

Damn pyramid scheme. I can’t believe I fell for it.


11 posted on 04/07/2011 8:21:24 PM PDT by FortWorthPatriot (Obama is no Hitler; Hitler got the Olympics!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Pimfing A Tweety Bob!


12 posted on 04/07/2011 8:31:13 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FortWorthPatriot

Hang in there. Buy low, sell high!


13 posted on 04/07/2011 8:32:06 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Pimfing A Tweety Bob!

Pimf? It's no wonder you fall for pyramid schemes when you don't know your pimf from your pinf. ;-)

14 posted on 04/07/2011 8:35:05 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: decimon
I never was very good with numbers. Or spelling. Or things.

Wanna buy a brij? Only used once.

15 posted on 04/07/2011 8:46:47 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks for the post. I once tried to napkin calc. this for one of the "believers". They glazed over and my hand got cramped.

For the majority of believers it is impossible to explain this very obvious relationship without educating them from the bottom up. Units of measure, energy, basic math and constants are generally beyond some of the "believers" grasps. What to do?

I have found a simpler method that gets the point across. I take two beers. One of the beers is near frozen and the other is warm. I shake them up and demand they play "beer hunter" with me. I take the cold beer and hand them the warm one. I think you get the picture. This is my method for explaining how CO2 is a lagging indicator and not the cause.

This is a keeper. Thanks again for the post.
16 posted on 04/07/2011 9:01:37 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Time to beat the swords of government tyranny into the plowshares of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I don’t know about you Ernie, but I am becoming burned out. I’ll bookmark the WUWT post for future going through. It does appear to have significant points that fit into the key to discovering just where the real heat transfer mechanisms lie within the complicated physics of trying to determine how this wonderful planet operates.


17 posted on 04/07/2011 9:35:05 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....Duncan Hunter Sr. for POTUS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decimon
He gave you the pinf? How come you get the pinf?

Ha !!! Keep up the good work and maybe, in time, you too can know the gift of total consciousness that comes with getting the pinf.

18 posted on 04/08/2011 3:34:49 AM PDT by steelyourfaith ("Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson