Karl's paper says that from 2000 - 2014, the 15 - year period that includes the 11 years for which we have ARGO data, the surface warming rate was equivalent to 0.116 degrees per decade — more or less exactly five times
the measured ocean warming rate....
Not exact matches
If the rising
ocean levels caused by global
warming force us to build dikes and relocate people away from delta regions, that, too will add to what we
measure as Gross Domestic Product.
«The beauty of this study is that easily acquired
measures of reef complexity and depth provide a means of predicting long term consequences of
ocean warming events,» Dr Wilson says.
Scientists can
measure how much energy greenhouse gases now add (roughly three watts per square meter), but what eludes precise definition is how much other factors — the response of clouds to
warming, the cooling role of aerosols, the heat and gas absorbed by
oceans, human transformation of the landscape, even the natural variability of solar strength — diminish or strengthen that effect.
Researchers can
measure annual changes in how the melt rate occurs, for example, or the effects of a single pulse of
warm deep -
ocean water.
With the threat that a
warmer world would melt glaciers, NASA wanted his group to
measure the
ocean's height and track sea level rise.
Velicogna and her colleagues also
measured a dramatic loss of Greenland ice, as much as 38 cubic miles per year between 2002 and 2005 — even more troubling, given that an influx of fresh melt water into the salty North Atlantic could in theory shut off the system of
ocean currents that keep Europe relatively
warm.
WHITEHOUSE: I do come from an
ocean state, and we do
measure the rise in the sea level and we
measure the
warming of Narragansett Bay and we
measure the change in PH. It's serious for us, Senator.
This new
measure of
ocean warming is also more robust to some sources of error in the
ocean observing system.
We also have various tools which have
measured the
warming of the Earth's
oceans.
The deep
ocean warming has been
measured.
Now scientists have
measured a rapid recent expansion of desert - like barrenness in the subtropical
oceans --- in places where surface waters have also been steadily
warming.
But their findings, if potential intensity is a valid marker for hurricane activity is any
measure, are quite clear: hurricane activity isnt going to change much even with 3C
warming in the
oceans.
Instead, they discuss new ways of playing around with the aerosol judge factor needed to explain why 20th - century
warming is about half of the
warming expected for increased in GHGs; and then expand their list of fudge factors to include smaller volcanos, stratospheric water vapor (published with no estimate of uncertainty for the predicted change in Ts), transfer of heat to the deeper
ocean (where changes in heat content are hard to accurately
measure), etc..
While such a «missing heat» explanation for a lack of recent
warming [i.e., Trenberth's argument that just can not find it yet] is theoretically possible, I find it rather unsatisfying basing an unwavering belief in eventual catastrophic global
warming on a deep -
ocean mechanism so weak we can't even
measure it [i.e., the coldest deep
ocean waters are actually
warmer than they should be by thousandths of a degree]...
The «
warming» of the troposphere as
measured by sensible heat is only one very small part of the energy in the overall climate system, and the part with the very lowest thermal inertia and very sensitive to very small changes in
ocean to atmosphere sensible and latent heat flux such as we see in the ENSO cycle.
The data are what they are - we've
measured the deep
ocean warming, including with reliable Argo buoys for close to a decade now.
Warmer oceans increase d13C of the atmosphere (
measured!)
This
warming can be seen in measurements of troposphere temperatures
measured by weather balloons and satellites, in measurements of
ocean heat content, sea surface temperature (
measured in situ and by satellites), air temperatures over the
ocean, air temperature over land.
Most interesting is that the about monthly variations correlate with the lunar phases (peak on full moon) The Helsinki Background measurements 1935 The first background measurements in history; sampling data in vertical profile every 50 - 100m up to 1,5 km; 364 ppm underthe clouds and above Haldane measurements at the Scottish coast 370 ppmCO2 in winds from the sea; 355 ppm in air from the land Wattenberg measurements in the southern Atlantic
ocean 1925-1927 310 sampling stations along the latitudes of the southern Atlantic oceans and parts of the northern; measuring all oceanographic data and CO2 in air over the sea; high ocean outgassing crossing the warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly av
ocean 1925-1927 310 sampling stations along the latitudes of the southern Atlantic
oceans and parts of the northern;
measuring all oceanographic data and CO2 in air over the sea; high
ocean outgassing crossing the warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly av
ocean outgassing crossing the
warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic
ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly av
ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic
Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly av
Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea);
measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly average
Coby, if the earth is
warming as a result of increased periodic solar activity (or some other more complex reason) as suggested by the long term cycles mentioned above
measured before man was on earth or industrialized, is it posssible that the observed increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are simply coming from
warmer oceans, since liquids can not hold as much gas at a higher temperature than they can at lower temperature?
Callendar in the 1930's (AGW a factor in early 20th
warming), Plass (radiation balance) and Revelle (
oceans won't absorb all anthropogenic CO2) in the 1950's, Keeling
measuring CO2 in the 1960's, Manabe and others in the 1970's modelling GHG effects, etc - all contributed to the body of evidence.
But on the contrary, the Southern
Ocean has
warmed by around 0.5 °C in the three decades since satellites began
measuring sea ice trends.
There is some correlation between changes in temperature due to global
warming in different parts of the
ocean, so there might be some reduction below 0.1 C, but how much and how has it been
measured?
The same thing about
measuring two cats and finding the same weight can be said of recent
warming caused by rise in CO2 and rise of CO2 happening to be coincident with
warming caused by a natural
ocean cycle (AMDO).
Together, these effects explain a
measured decline in the upper
ocean warming of 0.02 degrees Celsius since 2003, say climate researchers of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute KNMI.
Its
warming effect, however, is simultaneously amplified and dampened by positive and negative feedbacks such as increased water vapor (the most powerful greenhouse gas), reduced albedo, which is a
measure of Earth's reflectivity, changes in cloud characteristics, and CO2 exchanges with the
ocean and terrestrial ecosystems.
The
measure of «climate» sensitivity by looking at only tropospheric temperature sensitivity might need to be examined a bit, especially, if turned out to be the case (as some research seems to indicate) that CO2 at 400 ppm induces a permanent La Niña state in the Pacific, while still allowing for rapid
warming in other parts of the
ocean and climate system.
The deep
oceans are
warming rapidly in every data set that
measures them (including those referenced by Curry).
We also have various tools which have
measured the
warming of the Earth's
oceans.
This is no exaggeration: NASA is the leading agency in studying the effects of global
warming on the planet, in
measuring the changes in our atmosphere, our
oceans, the weather, and yes, the climate as temperatures increase.
According to the paper, «arguably,
ocean heat content — from the surface to the seafloor — might be a more appropriate
measure of how much our planet is
warming.»
Perhaps we can move on from your (and my) ignorance of
ocean thermal dynamics onto the more substantive and controversial area of whether and how much of the
measured warming is due to CO2.
the
warming has just paused and is sure to return at a later date, or the missing warmth is hiding in the deep
oceans — where we can't
measure it).
The reason scientists use dozens of satellites, and thousands of
measuring stations and
ocean floats and balloons and aircraft and other such
measuring operations, over many decades, is so they can say more than a post-Ice Age Cro - Magnon man — «We are in a
warming period».
With a dominant internal component having the structure of the observed
warming, and with radiative restoring strong enough to keep the forced component small, how can one keep the very strong radiative restoring from producing heat loss from the
oceans totally inconsistent with any
measures of changes in oceanic heat content?
Add in the fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to
measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979, when satellite records began, and there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic
Ocean now than at any time since a particularly
warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age.
His dataset for the adjacent chart comes from the ARGO system, which is the most sophisticated technology in use for
measuring ocean depth
warming.
We have directly
measured warming of the
oceans, for example, where about 90 percent of the human - caused heat has gone.
The rate of
warming as
measured by
ocean heat content changes over the last 4 years shows that we have DOUBLED the top - of - atmosphere energy imbalance from 0.6 watts per meter squared to 1.1 watts per meter squared in the last 7 years.
Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest
warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other
measures and indicators of climate change from
ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..
Arguably, the most appropriate single variable in the Earth's system that can be used to
measure global
warming is
ocean heat content - from the surface to the seafloor.
To point out just a couple of things: —
oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to
warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that
oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water
warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside
oceans, so no latent heat) or
oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while
oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands»
warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters
warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often
measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small
warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very
warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of
measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).
«If you aren't
measuring heat content in the upper
ocean, you aren't
measuring global
warming.»
and see if the sun keeps getting cooler... but in the meantime, the
measured energy budget keeps getting
warmer... the energy continues to go into the
ocean.
After that you claimed «HOW you will
measure the immeasurable», and I pointed out that the link I already provided was
measuring the temperature of the
oceans and finding a
warming trend.
This time period is too short to signify a change in the
warming trend, as climate trends are
measured over periods of decades, not years.12, 29,30,31,32 Such decade - long slowdowns or even reversals in trend have occurred before in the global instrumental record (for example, 1900 - 1910 and 1940 - 1950; see Figure 2.2), including three decade - long periods since 1970, each followed by a sharp temperature rise.33 Nonetheless, satellite and
ocean observations indicate that the Earth - atmosphere climate system has continued to gain heat energy.34
However, more recent research modelling the impacts of using microbubbles to address global
warming found that the technique would not affect
ocean primary productivity, a
measure of the activity of primary producers.
Answer: if
warming releases CO2 from the
ocean, whether coming out of an ice age or when initiated by ACO2, it upsets IPCC's model that the bulge in atmospheric CO2
measured at MLO is all due to man.
On the other hand the satellites really do
measure the troposphere and they show no significant
warming 1978 - 1997 nor 2001 - today, just a small step
warming in between these two flat periods and that is coincident with a big
ocean event.