Climate Change Banter

[Clinch Leatherwood]

If the much deeper vertical mixing in the ocean actually exists (compared to what is currently thought), then even if the ECS is high, its almost a moot point since it will take so long for it to be realized.

The TCR (Transient Climate Response) is what we really care about. That is where we'd see "rapid changes" that are the most damaging. The IPCC projections (and others) that policy proposals are based off of assume that most of the ECS is realized in the TCR...which is why they forecast temperature rises in the 21st century of near 3C in a business as usual scenario.

If we have a 3C equilibrium sensitivity but only half of it is realized in the TCR and the rest takes hundreds of years to achieve, then its much more easily adaptable. Its definitely a question that needs to be answered, because its far different than if most of a 3C ECS is realized in the TCR.

IMO the models are all going to be wrong and as of right now what's being observed can't entirely be explained.

Jeffrey Runge, a biological oceanographer for University of Maine and Gulf of Maine Research Institute, said recently that temperatures in the gulf in the past few years have increased “dramatically higher” than the historical rate of 1 degree every 100 years. Evidence suggests that the average sea surface temperature in the gulf has risen 1.5 degrees from 2011 to 2012, he said, and that in the past four years it has risen between 2 and 3.5 degrees, depending on how one looks at the data.

“It’s pretty striking,” Runge said. “We can’t explain it.”

http://bangordailynews.com/slideshow/alarmingly-warm-water-in-gulf-of-maine-bringing-changes/

[ORH_wxman]

IMO the models are all going to be wrong and as of right now what's being observed can't entirely be explained.

Jeffrey Runge, a biological oceanographer for University of Maine and Gulf of Maine Research Institute, said recently that temperatures in the gulf in the past few years have increased “dramatically higher” than the historical rate of 1 degree every 100 years. Evidence suggests that the average sea surface temperature in the gulf has risen 1.5 degrees from 2011 to 2012, he said, and that in the past four years it has risen between 2 and 3.5 degrees, depending on how one looks at the data.

“It’s pretty striking,” Runge said. “We can’t explain it.”

http://bangordailynews.com/slideshow/alarmingly-warm-water-in-gulf-of-maine-bringing-changes/

 

 

Most climate models are likely too sensitive in at least their TCR. This is the most plausible explanation for most of them being far too warm. Though there are other explanations such as temporarily decreased forcing due to aerosols and a solar minimum...and that we will make up the "lost" temperature rise since 2000.

 

 

As for the gulf of Maine, local effects can be extreme when we have an extreme year such as 2012 (when that article was printed)...that was coming pretty recently after another warm year for Maine in 2010. The current SST analysis shows that we're currently 1-2C colder now in the gulf of Maine relative to average than at the end of 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't mean there hasn't been warming in that area overall...just that its easy to get caught up in short term local warmth when much of it is due to weather.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Most climate models are likely too sensitive in at least their TCR. This is the most plausible explanation for most of them being far too warm. Though there are other explanations such as temporarily decreased forcing due to aerosols and a solar minimum...and that we will make up the "lost" temperature rise since 2000.

As for the gulf of Maine, local effects can be extreme when we have an extreme year such as 2012 (when that article was printed)...that was coming pretty recently after another warm year for Maine in 2010. The current SST analysis shows that we're currently 1-2C colder now in the gulf of Maine relative to average than at the end of 2012.

That doesn't mean there hasn't been warming in that area overall...just that its easy to get caught up in short term local warmth when much of it is due to weather.

Sst's. versus deep column warmth. The cod and other ground fish have been shifting northeast for years because the lower water is warming. IMO this is where the science and predictions are failing us. I am betting there are significant surprises in the deep.

[ORH_wxman]

Sst's. versus deep column warmth. The cod and other ground fish have been shifting northeast for years because the lower water is warming. IMO this is where the science and predictions are failing us. I am betting there are significant surprises in the deep.

 

 

Don't disagree with you there...but that article was focused on mostly shallow water.

 

North Atlantic OHC has been in decline since 2005...at least 0-700m OHC. Who knows what is going on deeper down with such poor (to non-existent deep enough) measuring.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Don't disagree with you there...but that article was focused on mostly shallow water.

North Atlantic OHC has been in decline since 2005...at least 0-700m OHC. Who knows what is going on deeper down with such poor (to non-existent deep enough) measuring.

There's another good article I will find Friday. It's kind of fascinating. Fishermen and those that have been on the water for generations are great resources but they want nothing to do with scientists because it usually means they lose the right to fish when they come around.

My guess is science focused too much on SSTs but we will find out is oceans are able to more efficiently trap heat through the column in ways we don't fully understand yet. Warming the entire column a degree or two over a decade may have a much greater effect than sst's going up a similar amount plus it's probably a much longer lasting impact. In this I mean SSTs may see a modest change that shouldn't be damaging itself....but down on the bottom in hundreds of feet of water a similar increase may dramatically effect the Eco system and in the end us.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am not sure what the fishing levels are.  But the OHC charts show the coast is torching 0-100M.

 

[AvantHiatus]

Don't disagree with you there...but that article was focused on mostly shallow water.

 

North Atlantic OHC has been in decline since 2005...at least 0-700m OHC. Who knows what is going on deeper down with such poor (to non-existent deep enough) measuring.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/atlantic-ocean-east-coast-was-warmest-ever-recorded-2012/64737/

 

As you have alluded, OHC is different from SST but 2012 holds the record for warmest surface waters in some areas. Can you post data proving that OHC is on the decline and how it changes in certain areas? For example, the Gulf Stream versus the Coastal Waters.

 

Unless by North Atlantic you meant the area way off the east coast south of Greenland, which has experienced a steady decline of SSTs perhaps caused by diminished overturning? I'm under the impression that OHC content greatly affects the strength of upwelling and there would be a general correlation.

 

Constantly warm SSTs should equal to stable or rising OHC below the surface as observed along the East Coast in the past few years.

[skierinvermont]

 

Not necessarily. Other studies show sensitivity possibly being lower with greater ocean heat uptake. But it will take a long time

to know which set of studies are correct.

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1770-4

 

Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models

 

 

Abstract

Climate sensitivity is estimated based on 0–2,000 m ocean heat content and surface temperature observations from the second half of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century, using a simple energy balance model and the change in the rate of ocean heat uptake to determine the radiative restoration strength over this time period. The relationship between this 30–50 year radiative restoration strength and longer term effective sensitivity is investigated using an ensemble of 32 model configurations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), suggesting a strong correlation between the two. The mean radiative restoration strength over this period for the CMIP5 members examined is 1.16 Wm⁻²K⁻¹, compared to 2.05 Wm⁻²K⁻¹from the observations. This suggests that temperature in these CMIP5 models may be too sensitive to perturbations in radiative forcing, although this depends on the actual magnitude of the anthropogenic aerosol forcing in the modern period. The potential change in the radiative restoration strength over longer timescales is also considered, resulting in a likely (67 %) range of 1.5–2.9 K for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and a 90 % confidence interval of 1.2–5.1 K.

 

 

I don't believe this is saying what you think it is. I believe it is saying that observed surface temperature increase has been more effective at restoring radiative equilibrium than modeled by CMIP5 (heavily dependent on accurately knowing radiative forcing over the period X and also on knowing the radiative balance of the earth at the start and end of that same period X). 

 

If the oceans are currently (ie at the end of this period X) absorbing faster than thought, then surface temperature increase has been less effective at radiative restoration, the current imbalance is larger, and ECS is higher (more in line with CMIP5). 

[skierinvermont]

 

Not if the deeps ocean heat faster than the surface during -PDO intervals like we are in now.

 

 Abraham_2013.png

 

Yes, even if the oceans heat faster than the surface during -PDO intervals like we are in now. In fact, precisely because of that.

 

If the oceans are absorbing heat at a faster rate than thought in the deep, as recent evidence has suggested, (due to the -PDO perhaps) it necessarily means we are farther from equilibrium than previously thought, and that climate sensitivity is higher than thought.

 

If today, with 400ppm of CO2, you thought the earth's energy imbalance was .4W/m2, then that means the earth is .4W/m2 away from equilibrium and if the atmosphere were to remain completely unchanged for the next 1000 years you would see only another ~.3C of surface warming. But, if tomorrow we found out that the earth's energy imbalance was actually .8W/m2 and OHC was rising faster than thought because of the -PDO storing it in the deep oceans, then that would mean if the atmosphere were to remain unchanged for the next 1000 years you would see another ~.6C of surface warming. This is in addition to the .9C of surface temperature warming that has already taken place.

 

In both cases radiative forcing was exactly the same 2.3W/m2 (1.1-3.3)* but in the former the total surface temperature response was 1.2C while in the latter it was 1.5C. In the former ECS is 1.9C (1.3-4.0) but in the latter it is 2.4C (1.7-5.0) per doubling CO2.

 

*Note the primary uncertainty is aerosol forcing.

 

 

The bottom line is the surface must reach radiative balance. If the oceans are currently rapidly absorbing heat, that is because the surface is far from balance and there is 'warming in the pipeline.'

 

When Trenberth says 'the heat will come back to haunt us' that is a very poor and conceptually incorrect way of phrasing it. The heat is not ever coming back to the surface. But if the earth is gaining heat more rapidly than thought, that means the surface is far from equilibrium, and there is much warming remaining. 

 

This is not 'a problem' or 'something that invites more study in the future to try and solve.' It is a basic logical fact. If the oceans are gaining heat faster than thought, it means the earth is farther from equilibrium than thought, more surface warming will occur before equilibrium is reached, and ECS will be higher. 

 

The oceans can't effect what the eventual ECS actually is. They can only alter the pace at which ECS is reached. All that matters is the surface reach radiative balance. If the oceans are rapidly absorbing heat, the surface is a long ways away from radiative balance and have much warming remaining. 

 

It will probably be a problem that invites more study in the future to try and solve.

 

 

From a National Science Foundation article on April 15th, 2010:

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”

If the heat is well mixed in the deep ocean below 700 m, exactly how could that heat return to the surface?   The second law of thermodynamics suggests that a well mixed heat reservoir in the deep ocean would actually be very inefficient at returning heat to the surface.

We need to understand how the ocean exchanges heat vertically, between the upper ocean and deep ocean, and whether mixing in the deep ocean is more efficient than currently thought.  Until we understand this, we won’t know to what extent this heat will remain sequestered in the deep ocean.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/18/ocean-heat-content-discussion-thread/

[skierinvermont]

And ORH is right, the flip side of the higher ECS is a lower TCR. But ORH, SoC, and I are all agreeing that if OHC uptake is faster than thought, it means ECS is higher. This is a basic logical fact about which there is no debate. Only poor communication due the vastly oversimplified (to the point of being fallacious) 'heat in the pipeline' fallacy. 

 

 

If the -PDO has been slowing surface warming over the last decade, it means that ECS is higher than one would otherwise (ignoring the -PDO) conclude. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

On a side note.  December was up quite a bit year to year.  I have seen some say we may max out around 450.  But I highly doubt that.  So far we are not slowing down at all.

 

 

Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO₂

December 2013:     396.81 ppm
December 2012:     394.28 ppm

 

Weekly CO2:

 

Week beginning on January 5, 2014:     398.06 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:     395.67 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     376.34 ppm

 

 

And year to year changes:

 

2000   1.62
2001   1.58
2002   2.53
2003   2.29
2004   1.56
2005   2.52
2006   1.76
2007   2.22
2008   1.60
2009   1.89
2010   2.43
2011   1.84
2012   2.66
2013   2.44
 

 

[skierinvermont]

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/atlantic-ocean-east-coast-was-warmest-ever-recorded-2012/64737/

 

As you have alluded, OHC is different from SST but 2012 holds the record for warmest surface waters in some areas. Can you post data proving that OHC is on the decline and how it changes in certain areas? For example, the Gulf Stream versus the Coastal Waters.

 

Unless by North Atlantic you meant the area way off the east coast south of Greenland, which has experienced a steady decline of SSTs perhaps caused by diminished overturning? I'm under the impression that OHC content greatly affects the strength of upwelling and there would be a general correlation.

 

Constantly warm SSTs should equal to stable or rising OHC below the surface as observed along the East Coast in the past few years.

 

All else equal, warmer SSTs = cooler OHC. 

 

In the short term, warm SSTs are likely a product of reduced vertical mixing due to less wind. Reduced vertical mixing would mean more heat accumulates in the upper portion of the ocean and especially the surface where it is more effectively radiated to space and thus reducing overall OHC. 

 

Now if all else is not equal, warmer SSTs and warmer OHC could be a byproduct of something else (surface air warming, increased sunlight, or increased ocean heat transport from outside the region) 

[The_Global_Warmer]

All else equal, warmer SSTs = cooler OHC. 

 

In the short term, warm SSTs are likely a product of reduced vertical mixing due to less wind. Reduced vertical mixing would mean more heat accumulates in the upper portion of the ocean and especially the surface where it is more effectively radiated to space and thus reducing overall OHC. 

 

Now if all else is not equal, warmer SSTs and warmer OHC could be a byproduct of something else (surface air warming, increased sunlight, or increased ocean heat transport from outside the region) 

 

 

Shouldn't we expect both to rise regardless of the export/import of heat into the oceans?

 

I suppose this would be easier to be seen over a longer period of time.  While in the short term they could "inverse" each other pending on spatial and depth distribution of heat/mixing.

[skierinvermont]

Shouldn't we expect both to rise regardless of the export/import of heat into the oceans?

 

I suppose this would be easier to be seen over a longer period of time.  While in the short term they could "inverse" each other pending on spatial and depth distribution of heat/mixing.

 

Yes over a long enough period surface warming will cause both to rise. But that's why I said "all else equal."

[AvantHiatus]

Yes over a long enough period surface warming will cause both to rise. But that's why I said "all else equal."

I have always imagined the additional positive forcing is keeping up with the vertical mixing to the surface, equating to OHC that is rising with SSTs.

 

As well one has to consider how changes in ocean currents will affect heat transport. If the labrador current is not there the region would become stagnant and OHC would steadily rise.

 

Some have proposed the Gulf Stream will become severely disrupted by the reduction of ocean temperature contrasts between the arctic and tropics and the associated changes to salinity caused by ice melt. In effect, this would cause the warm current to pile up onto the East Coast and raise local sea levels while cooling down parts of the North Atlantic and Europe.

 

http://www.wunderground.com/news/east-coast-rising-seas-slower-gulf-stream-20130213

[skierinvermont]

I have always imagined the additional positive forcing is keeping up with the vertical mixing to the surface, equating to OHC that is rising with SSTs.

 

 

Except over very long periods, especially at the regional level, natural variability will drown out radiative forcing. 

[FreeRain]

Senator Inhofe says Obama ‘just made up’ claim that ‘the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/17/senator-inhofe-says-obama-just-made-up-claim-that-the-climate-is-warming-faster-than-anybody-anticipated-five-or-ten-years-ago/

[AvantHiatus]

Senator Inhofe says Obama ‘just made up’ claim that ‘the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/17/senator-inhofe-says-obama-just-made-up-claim-that-the-climate-is-warming-faster-than-anybody-anticipated-five-or-ten-years-ago/

 

Politicians are not scientists and generally have a poor understanding of the processes that warm the planet. Using the IPCC as a reference is kind of a strawman because they are generally unrealistically conservative but more-so in the short-term and do not factor in non-linear climate effects.

 

I have a hard time seeing how the Earth warms more than 5c in 100 years (some have proposed up to 26c runaway venus conditions), however if things are already bad at 0.8c then that gives you an idea of what we are facing.

[FreeRain]

Politicians are not scientists and generally have a poor understanding of the processes that warm the planet. Using the IPCC as a reference is kind of a strawman because they are generally unrealistically conservative but more-so in the short-term and do not factor in non-linear climate effects.

 

I have a hard time seeing how the Earth warms more than 5c in 100 years (some have proposed up to 26c runaway venus conditions), however if things are already bad at 0.8c then that gives you an idea of what we are facing.

What reference is Obama using?

[AvantHiatus]

What reference is Obama using?

I do not know, i'm not a mind-reader. He's probably just extrapolating from recent research and theories that have not yet been fully reflected in the IPCC report. Case in point, the ice-free state in September was not expected until the 2080's in the 2007 IPCC report.

 

Right now there is data to back up Obama's claims but you will not find it in UN IPCC. The most recent iteration IPCC 2013 does little to address key issues and non-linear responses.

[New Englander]

Definitely something to consider, the significant feature of recent NAEC SSTs is that they have remained warm even in colder years like 2013, albeit the east coast was not as cold as the central US.

 

Overall, it appears to be a heat transport phenomenon either from the disappearance/weakening of the Labrador current or an intrusion of the Gulf stream. Perhaps a culmination of both processes.

 

As a result, I do not think one year of stormy weather will fix the problem. I've read that deeper parts of the ocean are also warming so eventually up-welling will be less effective as a mitigation factor.

 

Definitely something to consider, the significant feature of recent NAEC SSTs is that they have remained warm even in colder years like 2013, albeit the east coast was not as cold as the central US.

 

Overall, it appears to be a heat transport phenomenon either from the disappearance/weakening of the Labrador current or an intrusion of the Gulf stream. Perhaps a culmination of both processes.

 

As a result, I do not think one year of stormy weather will fix the problem. I've read that deeper parts of the ocean are also warming so eventually up-welling will be less effective as a mitigation factor.

The warming in the colder yrs does cause concern....I have focused a lot of my thinking on the Gulf Stream, perhaps too much for I have not looked at the Labrador Current much lately. As you say, perhaps a combination of both. Right now mitigating factors, in my opinion, is what is keeping us from having a climate that should be warmer than what it is... from what I understand given the amount of CO2 etc in the atmosphere which is a very broad, simplified statement. To know that eventually the ocean, which is our BIg Friend right now, will get tol a point where it will no longer mitigate to the extent it is......gives me scary scenarios. So much data, observation, theory and the kitchen sink to look at with the interaction of the land/ocean. We live in a very fasinating time but one in which we may be on the cusp of something that people are not going to want in the long run.....Thanks Weatherguy701. I'm the last person who wants climate change. 

[New Englander]

 

On a side note.  December was up quite a bit year to year.  I have seen some say we may max out around 450.  But I highly doubt that.  So far we are not slowing down at all.

 

 

Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO₂

December 2013:     396.81 ppm

December 2012:     394.28 ppm

 

Weekly CO2:

 

Week beginning on January 5, 2014:     398.06 ppm

Weekly value from 1 year ago:     395.67 ppm

Weekly value from 10 years ago:     376.34 ppm

 

 

And year to year changes:

 

2000   1.62

2001   1.58

2002   2.53

2003   2.29

2004   1.56

2005   2.52

2006   1.76

2007   2.22

2008   1.60

2009   1.89

2010   2.43

2011   1.84

2012   2.66

2013   2.44

 

 

 

I remember thinking to myself about 25 yrs ago "wow, 400 would be really high" Here we are.....

[FreeRain]

I do not know, i'm not a mind-reader. He's probably just extrapolating from recent research and theories that have not yet been fully reflected in the IPCC report. Case in point, the ice-free state in September was not expected until the 2080's in the 2007 IPCC report.

 

Right now there is data to back up Obama's claims but you will not find it in UN IPCC. The most recent iteration IPCC 2013 does little to address key issues and non-linear responses.

 

Sorry, but "probably" doesn't mean definitely, and one shouldn't have to be a"mind reader" to find out the supposed "source" of a president's data...especially on such an important subject...and especially since this president already has a credibility problem.

 

Your graph seems to be dated(2010) and it only covers one pole and it of course only covers a limited amount of time during several active solar cycles.

 

Here are two poles.

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

Why are you cherry-picking data? November has the highest trend in antarctic sea ice growth. Averaged throughout the year, antarctic sea ice extent is changing not nearly as fast as Arctic sea ice extent and has not increased significantly in the last decade. 

 

 

 

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth'senergy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

Let us also not forget that we live in the Northern Hemisphere, and temperatures trends show the Northern Hemisphere is warming about twice the rate of the Southern Hemisphere.

 

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/in-global-warming-northern-hemisphere-is-outpacing-the-south-15850

[FreeRain]

Why are you cherry-picking data? November has the highest trend in antarctic sea ice growth. Averaged throughout the year, antarctic sea ice extent is changing not nearly as fast as Arctic sea ice and has not increased significantly in the last decade. 

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

Don't know what you mean by your reference to "November" and "cherry picking data".  The graph that I posted  is for a 12 month running mean. 

 

And speaking of things that haven't "increased significantly in the last decade", that would be the earth's temperature as seen with real RSS data.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I wouldn't reference any Antarctica sea ice data as a reason AGW is less than it's expected to be for simply there is some spurious growth due to observation error that is currently being worked out.

 

Funny because it may be at both poles which would make the Arctic sea ice have a sharper decline.

 

Secondly Antarctica is extremely cold.  As the region warms and more precip falls it's still well cold to see the sea ice expand because of fresh water expansion on the edges of the ice pack. 

 

Overall the land ice loss has been accelerating downward.

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

We are now using arctic sea ice as the main metric to decide if we are "warming faster than anybody anticipated 5-10 years ago" ??

 

That is laughable.

 

Using the IPCC's temperature projections from AR4 and TAR is perfectly valid in deciding what scientists thought 5-10 years ago.

[AvantHiatus]

Don't know what you mean by your reference to "November" and "cherry picking data".  The graph that I posted  is for a 12 month running mean. 

 

And speaking of things that haven't "increased significantly in the last decade", that would be the earth's temperature as seen with real RSS data.

Again cherry-picking by only using RSS and excluding GISS and UAH. Just wait a few more years and we will see who is right.

[AvantHiatus]

We are now using arctic sea ice as the main metric to decide if we are "warming faster than anybody anticipated 5-10 years ago" ??

 

That is laughable.

 

Using the IPCC's temperature projections from AR4 and TAR is perfectly valid in deciding what scientists thought 5-10 years ago.

The abrupt climate change is not entirely visible in the global average. It is most apparent in the Arctic Amplification and changes in OHC. Please keep laughing and downplaying everything.

 

[ORH_wxman]

Again cherry-picking by only using RSS and excluding GISS and UAH. Just wait a few more years and we will see who is right.

 

 

None of the major temperature datasets have increased significantly in the last decade-plus. In fact, the only one even with a slightly positive trend is UAH. All others are either slightly negative or in the case of RSS, sharply negative.