tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8261883533795875501..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Funny peculiar: #Climate "guru" Anthony Watts' doesn't know the oceans accumulate energySouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15759876585810463292017-12-09T14:30:51.218+11:002017-12-09T14:30:51.218+11:00Sou, why do you block me on Twitter?Sou, why do you block me on Twitter?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64164321331862242262017-12-07T13:03:45.204+11:002017-12-07T13:03:45.204+11:00"I think you're attacking a strawman. Yes..."I think you're attacking a strawman. Yes, if scientists were claiming that the heat were going into the deep oceans, you'd have a point. They're not. "<br /><br />Of course he is, he is using rhetorical tricks. He is a propaganda writer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872802685104293884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10513204455472041872017-12-07T05:46:33.122+11:002017-12-07T05:46:33.122+11:00"Chase, the slow overturning of oceans is a g..."Chase, the slow overturning of oceans is a good reason to be skeptical of claims that the deep ocean is swallowing the missing heat."<br /><br />What claims? <br /><br />I'm serious. Who claims that the abyssal oceans -- the part of the ocean with a temp of ~4C -- are swallowing the heat? <br /><br />The vast majority of the heat is going into the top 700 meters, not the remaining ~3 kilometers below it. That's what the measurements show. <br /><br />I think you're attacking a strawman. Yes, if scientists were claiming that the heat were going into the deep oceans, you'd have a point. They're not. <br /><br />And note that your point about slow overturning doesn't apply to the upper oceans. <br /><br />Trenberth's "missing heat" was about a lack of non-surface measurements, mostly the first few hundred meters, before we got the ARGO buoy data. Now that we have that data, that heat transfer is no longer missing. We're *observing* it going into the oceans. Windchasershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554275410734284781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62093225778850643182017-12-05T22:19:10.033+11:002017-12-05T22:19:10.033+11:00I love Eric's pretence to be so ignorant that ...I love Eric's pretence to be so ignorant that his crime would be heresy rather than something based on the consequential harm associated with an organised campaign to hinder action to prevent climate catastrophe.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41742737425806002342017-12-05T17:20:28.599+11:002017-12-05T17:20:28.599+11:00"JCH said...
All I know is to find useful gra...<i>"JCH said...<br />All I know is to find useful graphs on Google it is mandatory to type -Tisdale into the earch box."</i><br /><br />I get it, "-Tisdale" is an exclusionary option. <br /><br />This brings up a good point. Scientific Google searches have been polluted by garbage from these crackpot sites. Also can use Google Scholar to reduce the fake information.@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39797710499329644572017-12-05T14:19:52.315+11:002017-12-05T14:19:52.315+11:00Heads-up, Anthony Watts is doxxing people again. T...Heads-up, Anthony Watts is doxxing people again. The term "denier" has set him off.<br /><br />Any sort of distraction from the point of Tamino's article of course. And a dog-whistle to his hounds...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872802685104293884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83543401886862633492017-12-05T08:26:32.067+11:002017-12-05T08:26:32.067+11:00Ignorance is not a crime, but it's nothing to ...Ignorance is not a crime, but it's nothing to brag about.Puffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18117870242919790635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22709024998619896432017-12-05T08:25:46.585+11:002017-12-05T08:25:46.585+11:00All I know is to find useful graphs on Google it i...All I know is to find useful graphs on Google it is mandatory to type -Tisdale into the earch box.<br />JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55651855255994177732017-12-05T07:32:39.813+11:002017-12-05T07:32:39.813+11:00Noting the name Eric Worral from that crank site i...Noting the name Eric Worral from that crank site is commenting, whatever happened to the El Nino diarrheist Bob Tisdale? <br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30817777748760827792017-12-05T04:44:06.124+11:002017-12-05T04:44:06.124+11:00"Chase, the slow overturning of oceans is a g..."Chase, the slow overturning of oceans is a good reason to be skeptical of claims that the deep ocean is swallowing the missing heat"<br /><br />Again, you seem not to understand what the oceans do. They moderate our climate, without them this planet would be uninhabitable. Why are you proposing we do away with this moderation?Chase Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04659478289426350280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35852657381525536702017-12-05T00:29:59.401+11:002017-12-05T00:29:59.401+11:00As far as I know heresy is no longer a criminal of...As far as I know heresy is no longer a criminal offence, even if its climate heresy. But who knows, we live in interesting times.Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20441456381163907952017-12-05T00:25:12.354+11:002017-12-05T00:25:12.354+11:00Treat climate revisionism like you would Holocaust...Treat climate revisionism like you would Holocaust denial and other hate speech: delete and ban forever at FIRST sight.<br /><br />Prosecute climate revisionism.<br /><br />When is Worrall's trial, again?cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35113679284987548802017-12-04T21:07:12.879+11:002017-12-04T21:07:12.879+11:00Sou,
It seems that Anthony Watts is just plai... Sou,<br /> It seems that Anthony Watts is just plain ignorant of the science. Here's the science right here...<br />https://4hiroshimas.com/<br />See, there it says plainly...4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat accumulates in the ocean every second. It says..."This warming is due to more heat trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"<br />The only thing that bothers me is whether , the next time I go for a dip in the sea, I'll be irradiated or cooked. Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9009773510412588212017-12-04T20:04:47.131+11:002017-12-04T20:04:47.131+11:00Don't hold your breath, Millicent. I asked the...Don't hold your breath, Millicent. I asked the same question and Eric didn't (couldn't) answer. My highly informed guesstimate is that Eric doesn't know what it means let alone could explain the basis for his claim. He's not fishing, he's trolling using very unsophisticated techniques (avoiding answering my question by asking me to answer it, which is not possible).<br /><br />Instead, I'll call on a scientific source so that he can understand why I disputed his claim:<br /><br />The expectation is that ocean heat uptake efficiency will <b>reduce</b> with global warming, not increase. However there may be other periods when it will increase again for a short while, like it did a few years ago.<br /><br />"...the decrease of κ [<i>ocean heat uptake efficiency</i>] represents a physically based response of the climate system to GHG increase, as inferred from the results in GCMs. Therefore, unless models miss effects of other forcing agents, it is likely that this process will occur and act to accelerate surface warming in coming decades."<br /><br />From this paper, which explores the complexities in the context of the slower global warming that happened for a few years some time ago now:<br /><br />Watanabe, Masahiro, Youichi Kamae, Masakazu Yoshimori, Akira Oka, Makiko Sato, Masayoshi Ishii, Takashi Mochizuki, and Masahide Kimoto. "<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50541/full" rel="nofollow">Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus</a>." Geophysical Research Letters 40, no. 12 (2013): 3175-3179.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60003781272775967482017-12-04T19:41:26.717+11:002017-12-04T19:41:26.717+11:00"the thermal efficiency of heat transfer into..."the thermal efficiency of heat transfer into the ocean"<br /><br />Could you define exactly what it is you mean by that?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9828322283509881542017-12-04T18:51:10.581+11:002017-12-04T18:51:10.581+11:00Sou, you still haven't figured out why the the...Sou, you still haven't figured out why the thermal efficiency of heat transfer into the ocean would likely increase mildly with greater global warming. Perhaps Chase can explain it to you.Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39734504877974880712017-12-04T18:28:33.351+11:002017-12-04T18:28:33.351+11:00Good to know what Eric's version of climate mo...Good to know what Eric's version of climate modelling is. I have to say that words like simplistic, or even moronic, would be rather generous to him.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39714052978629280192017-12-04T17:09:42.223+11:002017-12-04T17:09:42.223+11:00Eric is "amused" in the manner of an ins...Eric is "amused" in the manner of an insecure pimply teenager smothering a snigger behind a sweaty paw at the achievements of a knowledgeable, successful adult. If it evokes any response, it may be a raised eyebrow, pity or perhaps contempt.<br /><br />The rest of the world thinks it's absurd that know-nothing science deniers regard multiple findings of numerous world-renowned experts "absurd". What makes it especially absurd is that the Eric's of the world don't understand the first thing about the science that they say amuses them.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83893695406985479342017-12-04T17:05:47.580+11:002017-12-04T17:05:47.580+11:00Lol. Who was it that said the missing heat may hav...Lol. Who was it that said the missing heat may have been reflected back to space? Trenberth.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74525511068311472522017-12-04T16:39:21.154+11:002017-12-04T16:39:21.154+11:00Chase, the slow overturning of oceans is a good re...Chase, the slow overturning of oceans is a good reason to be skeptical of claims that the deep ocean is swallowing the missing heat. But it amuses me sometimes to argue the absurdity of alarmist claims on the basis of their own assumptions..Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81847389161462822632017-12-04T14:43:24.028+11:002017-12-04T14:43:24.028+11:00"At this rate the oceans as a whole could abs..."At this rate the oceans as a whole could absorb several centuries worth of heat before we could even measure it."<br /><br />Not only is the timescale incorrect but this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how global thermohaline circulation works. In fact we’ve gone out and measured the age at which seawater last touched the atmosphere. A commonly cited number is that the ocean overturns about once every 2000 years. Broecker, 1985 looked at radiocarbon ages at 3 kilometers of depth at locations all around the world and found the youngest in the North Atlantic (North Atlantic Deepwater formation at 105 years) and the oldest in the North Pacific at 1900 years essentially confirming the existence of global thermohaline circulation.<br /><br />https://s8.postimg.org/noj7in50l/broecker_age.jpg<br /><br />In any case, that’s just how the oceans work. They are much larger and deeper than something which would overturn in “several centuries”.<br /><br />"Accepting the figures in your AR5 diagram (despite my reservation that much of that is an "estimate"), that 300 zetajoules (300 x 10^21 joules) that have allegedly been added to the ocean system since 1971”<br /><br />Here’s where if you had read the section where the figure Sou referenced would have helped. Here’s what it says,<br /><br />"For the oceans, an estimate of global upper (0 to 700 m depth) ocean heat content change using ocean statistics to extrapo- late to sparsely sampled regions and estimate uncertainties (Domingues et al., 2008) is used (see Section 3.2), with a linear trend from 1971 to 2010 of 137 TW. For the ocean from 700 to 2000 m, annual 5-year running mean estimates are used from 1970 to 2009 and annual estimates for 2010–2011 (Levitus et al., 2012). For the ocean from 2000 m to bottom, a uniform rate of energy gain of 35 [6 to 61] TW from warming rates centred on 1992–2005 (Purkey and Johnson, 2010) is applied from 1992 to 2011, with no warming below 2000 m assumed prior to 1992.”<br /><br />In other words, they chose the best research on OHC while trying to estimate global OHC. The paper goes on to say…<br /><br />"It is virtually certain that the Earth has gained substantial energy from 1971 to 2010 — the estimated increase in energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 is 274 [196 to 351] ZJ (1 ZJ = 1021 J)"<br /><br />Note the difference in units (watts versus joules)<br /><br />"Accepting the figures in your AR5 diagram (despite my reservation that much of that is an "estimate"), that 300 zetajoules (300 x 10^21 joules) that have allegedly been added to the ocean system since 1971, that still only translates to a 0.05 degree rise in temperature for the entire ocean since 1971 - 2010, 0.0125C / decade.”<br /><br />Watts have a time component (joules per second) and none of the units you cite have a time component except for the rate you cite at the end. Also your heat estimate is off by 25 ZJ. <br /><br />"As for the future, if the oceans are dragging global warming, they will also act to cap future warming.”<br /><br />No, you don’t understand how the oceans work. They already work to moderate our climate on a 2000 year timescale, the sea level rise we already see (not to mention Ocean Acidification, changes in organism distributions, coral bleaching, etc.) are just from the parts of the ocean that have interacted with the atmosphere since we’ve been increasing greenhouse gases. Planets without oceans (like what you’re describing) are hostile to life, you need the massive heat budget the ocean provides to keep temperatures within a certain range across a large geographic area. Literally that’s what the oceans do for us. <br /><br />Ask me anything about the ocean, I’m a Physical Oceanographer. Chase Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04659478289426350280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12151375187039552612017-12-04T13:38:02.615+11:002017-12-04T13:38:02.615+11:00The role of deep sea heat storage in the secular r...<i><br /><br /><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC085iC11p06667/full" rel="nofollow">The role of deep sea heat storage in the secular response to climatic forcing (1980)</a><br /><br />Abstract<br /><br />The influence of the world oceans on climatic response is considered here with emphasis on the heat transferred to waters beneath the well-mixed surface layer and to polar bottom water forming zones. ...<br /><br />To study the carbon dioxide climate problem, a more realistic time-dependent forcing function is used based on the historical growth of fossil fuel CO2 and a logarithmic scaling law for the temperature increment which would obtain at any instant if the system were in radiative-convective equilibrium. Our results suggest the influence of deep sea thermal storage could delay the full value of temperature increment predicted by equilibrium models by 10 to 20 years in 1980 to 2000 A.D. time frame. Also considered is the model response to periodic forcing, the sensitivity of the results, and the implications of the model results with regard to climatic changes on a decadal to millenial timescale. </i>JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83719973572979408052017-12-04T13:09:47.086+11:002017-12-04T13:09:47.086+11:00I'm curious, Eric, can you point to the scienc...I'm curious, Eric, can you point to the science on which you are basing this statement, and what do you think it means?<br /><br /><i>"As the Earth's surface warms, the efficiency with which heat is delivered into the oceans will also increase..."</i><br /><br />What will cause a change in efficiency? If the ocean becomes more "efficient" at absorbing energy, is there any reason why the atmosphere would not also become more efficient? If not, what is the difference? What about the land surface. Will it also become more "efficient" at absorbing energy? Wouldn't that mean the world would heat up even faster in your future?<br /><br />But first, what would cause your purported change in efficiency? Why would warmer water absorb energy more "efficiently" than colder water and what do you mean by "efficiency" in that context?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76059419608096189422017-12-04T12:53:11.224+11:002017-12-04T12:53:11.224+11:00Eric: " It wouldn't take much of an incre...Eric: <i>" It wouldn't take much of an increase in the thermal efficiency of heat transfer into the ocean to cap surface warming completely."</i><br /><br />All it would take is nature violating the laws of physics for the first time in cosmic history. But then, science deniers like Eric don't "believe in" physics, do they :(Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82525273010638997552017-12-04T12:29:29.768+11:002017-12-04T12:29:29.768+11:00Ah, good old "boiling oceans" Hansen...
...Ah, good old "boiling oceans" Hansen...<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ACHLayfA6_4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/embed/ACHLayfA6_4</a>Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.com