tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post5742478486297600376..comments2023-07-29T05:11:23.558-04:00Comments on Climate Observations: The Warming Of The World Oceans (0-700 Meters) In Degrees CBob Tisdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-27788278403315983282010-01-22T19:30:36.221-05:002010-01-22T19:30:36.221-05:00You said:
"The point I was trying to make wit...You said:<br />"The point I was trying to make with my earlier question about deleting the 2008 data from von Schuckmann is (...)<br />The change from the strong La Nina had no influence."<br /><br />I did NOT said that after deleting the Oceanic Heat Content data after 2007 there will be a strong influence in the OHC trend.<br /><br />I was talking about SEA LEVEL RISE.<br />And to make it more clear, NOT THERMO-steric SLR but TOTAL(altimetric) SLR.<br /><br />The the Cazenave et al. paper "Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo" uses a TOTAL sea level rise of 2,5 mm/yr.<br /><br />And is this value(2,5 mm/yr) that was affected by La Niña. As I said before, this could be caused by:<br /><br />1)transient cooling that cause a reduction in thermo-steric SL<br />2)Increased rainfall in La Niña events that causes mass transfer from the Global Ocean to the Global Land.<br /><br />You, as Von Shuckmann did also, found no great influence on OHC from the 2007-2008 La Niña. This rules out the possibility 1) above leaving us with the possibility 2) above.<br /><br />Whatever the cause is, the SLR value of 2,5 mm/yr used in the Cazenave et al. paper is OBSOLETE, as new measures show a rebound in SLR after the 2007-2008 La Niña, so the trend has returned to the "old" value, near 3,2 mm/yr.<br /><br />And when you follow the Cazenave method of substracting the ocean mass SLR from the Cazenave paper(between 2 mm/yr and 2,2 mm/yr)from the Total(altimetric) SLR, we have, as I done above, a thermo-steric SLR between 1 mm/yr and 1,5 mm/yr. <br /><br />And this is consistent with the Von Shuckmann value around 1 mm/yr (Actually Von Shuckmann maybe slightly UNDER-estimated thermo-steric SLR).<br /><br />I hope to have clarified my line of reasoning. By the way, you could repeat the "post-2007 truncation" using TOTAL (altimetric) SLR data to show how the 2007-2008 sea level transient dip skewed the SLR trend downwards, and how that effect now have disappeared.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />From Lima, Peru.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-57840002039760919032010-01-22T05:42:26.220-05:002010-01-22T05:42:26.220-05:00Anonymous from Lima: The point I was trying to ma...Anonymous from Lima: The point I was trying to make with my earlier question about deleting the 2008 data from von Schuckmann is this. If I can use the NODC OHC data as an example, the additional variations due to the switch from a significant La Nina makes no difference to the linear trends. Here’s the linear trend from 2003 to the end of 2007:<br />http://i45.tinypic.com/2who2vn.png<br />And here’s the linear trend from 2003 to the end of 2008:<br />http://i45.tinypic.com/97l1ds.png<br /><br />The change from the strong La Nina had no influence.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-48104645193310005052010-01-22T05:11:58.522-05:002010-01-22T05:11:58.522-05:00Anonymous from Lima, Peru: If you were to exclude...Anonymous from Lima, Peru: If you were to exclude the 2008 data from von Schuckmann so that you were comparing the same time period as Cazenave, would the von Schuckmann trend drop down into the ranges of the other papers?Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-51725985787288069462010-01-21T22:51:17.767-05:002010-01-21T22:51:17.767-05:00You asked me:
"Please describe from that grap...You asked me:<br />"Please describe from that graph how the La Nina impacted steric sea level between the end of 2007 and the end of 2008"<br /><br />Well, there is a fall in (total)Sea Level at mid-late 2007 that is likely the result of La Niña. <br /><br />This could be caused by either:<br />1)transient cooling that cause a reduction in thermo-steric SL<br />2)Increased rainfall in La Niña events that causes mass transfer from the Global Ocean to the Global Land.<br /><br />Whatever the cause for late 2007 Sea Level drop, my point is that the 2007-2008 La Niña biased the value of TOTAL SLR trends, giving a misleading value of 2,5 mm/yr for the period 2003-2007 that is used in the Cazenave et al paper "Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo"<br /><br />When UPDATED TRENDS OF SLR (until September 2009) are used, we have values around 3.2 mm/yr in altimetric SLR.<br /><br />After using this data one gets the numbers calculated above for thermo-steric SLR trends, that are quite consistent with the Von Shuckmann ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-48457580450756084402010-01-21T21:37:06.614-05:002010-01-21T21:37:06.614-05:00Anonymous from Lima, Peru (9:05PM): Refer to the ...Anonymous from Lima, Peru (9:05PM): Refer to the steric sea level graph in von Schuckmann et al (2009). It's cell c of Figure 11. Please describe from that graph how the La Nina impacted steric sea level between the end of 2007 and the end of 2008. I don't see what you're claiming.<br /><br />RegardsBob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-8436208945688049112010-01-21T21:05:35.026-05:002010-01-21T21:05:35.026-05:00Mr Bob Tisdale:
You said:
"Table 1 of Antono...Mr Bob Tisdale:<br /><br />You said:<br />"Table 1 of Antonov et al(2005) “Thermosteric sea level rise, 1955–2003” <br /><br />Thermo-steric SLR(1993-2003): 1.23mm/yr. <br /><br />For the period of 2003 to 2008, Cazenave et al (2009) then list:<br /><br />Thermo-steric SLR(1993-2003):0.3 mm/yr (altimetry-based)<br />Thermo-steric SLR(1993-2003): 0.37mm/yr (ARGO-based) <br /><br />But von Schuckmann have found it to be 1.01mm/year"<br /><br />Well, in my previous comment I substracted the Von Shuckmann et al. value for thermo-steric SLR from the total to ontain the non-thermosteric SLR:<br /><br />Total(altimetric) SLR: 3,3 mm/yr<br />Thermo-steric SLR : 1.01mm/yr(+-0,13mm/yr)<br /><br />and found values(the difference):<br /><br />3,3-1,01-0,13= 2,16 mm/yr<br />3,3-1,01+0,13= 2,42 mm/yr<br /><br />consistent with the found by Cazenave et al.(2008) that used GRACE data:<br /><br />Ocean mass (GRACE; 2003–2008) 1.9 +/−0.1 mm/yr<br />Sum of ice and waters: 2.2 +/−0.28 mm/yr<br /><br />Well, let's now follow the method of Cazenave et al.(2008)to find the Thermo-steric SLR:<br /><br />Total SLR:3,3 mm/yr<br /><br />Thermo-steric SLR (Total-GRACE(2003-2008)): <br /><br />3,3 mm/yr - (1.9 +/−0.1 mm/yr) = 1,4+/-0,1 mm/yr<br /><br />Thermo-steric SLR (Total-Sum of ice and waters):<br /><br />3,3 mm/yr - (2.2 +/−0.28 mm/yr) = 1,1+/−0.28 mm/yr <br /><br />Why Cazenave et al estimated a value for thermo-steric SLR of just 0,3-0,4 mm/yr?<br /><br />Because the paper was written in 2008, and thanks to the strong 2007-2008 La Niña, the Total SLR trend nearly flattened between 2006and 2008, introducing a strong bias in the 2003-2008 trend, that was estimated to be 2.5 +/−0.4 mm/yr. <br /><br />Now that such La Niña is over, the new Jason-2 data shows the value of 3,3 mm/yr for total(altimetric)SLR that I used in the above calculations.<br /><br />A link to updated altimetric SLR trends:<br />http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />From Lima, PeruAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-59544502210797649752010-01-21T19:00:18.978-05:002010-01-21T19:00:18.978-05:00Anonymous from Lima, Peru: Regarding your 4:32PM ...Anonymous from Lima, Peru: Regarding your 4:32PM comment, the IPCC notes that the steric component of the rise in Sea Level from 1993 to 2003 represents ~50% of the 3.1mm/year trend. Or steric sea level from 1993 to 2003 is ~1.55mm/year. That’s from Cazenave et al (2009) “Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo”:<br />http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/Docs/SeaLevelRise2008.pdf<br /><br />Table 1 of Antonov et al (2005) “Thermosteric sea level rise, 1955–2003” lists the thermosteric sea level rise over that period as 1.23mm/yr. <br />http://i47.tinypic.com/23vkb5g.png<br /><br />For the period of 2003 to 2008, Cazenave et al (2009) then list the altimetry-based sea level rise as 0.3mm/year and the ARGO-based sea level rise as 0.37mm/year. But von Schuckmann have found it to be 1.01mm/year. Referring again to the Pielke post…<br />http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/further-comments-on-the-inadequate-epa-response-to-reviewer-comments-on-ocean-heat-content/<br />…von Schuckmann is the outlier.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-21577901241800489212010-01-21T16:32:45.125-05:002010-01-21T16:32:45.125-05:00Jovian: You said:
"Deep waters accumulating...Jovian: You said: <br /><br />"Deep waters accumulating heat?<br />(...)<br />2003–2008:<br />Steric sea level rate 0.3 mm/yr <br /><br />Source:<br />Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo<br /><br />The paper you cite assumes a SLR rate of aproximately 2,5 mm/yr of total sea level rise. This result was an artifact of the 2007-2008 La Niña.<br /><br />Now that that Stronmg La Niña is over, the updated data of SLR from the TOPEX/POSEIDON-Jason1-Jason2, the value of SLR rate is near 3,3 mm/yr.<br /><br />Substactring the von Schuckmann value for thermo-steric SLR rate of 1.01mm/yr(+-0,13mm/yr) from this:<br /><br />3,3-1,01-0,13= 2,16 mm/yr<br />3,3-1,01+0,13= 2,42 mm/yr<br /><br />This rate is SLR from melting land glaciers and land freshwater.<br />Very close to the GRACE values for Non-thermal SLR that aapear in the paper (where it was near 2 mm/yr)<br /><br />Von Shuckmann was right!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-8050207143597848992010-01-11T21:51:08.943-05:002010-01-11T21:51:08.943-05:00d: Sorry about the late reply to your comment. Got...d: Sorry about the late reply to your comment. Got side tracked with the visit from the alarmist. <br /><br />You asked, "Note the large pools of cold waters surrounding NINO 3.4 region. How does that compare to previous El Nino years, and will it render it neutered?"<br /><br />I was going to point you to a post about an animation about global SST anomalies since 1981, but then I realized I hadn't posted it anywhere. Maybe in the next couple of days. Then you can just stop the animation during the El Nino events.<br /><br />Will those cool spots neuter it? The surrounding cool spots may be a product of the convection taking place. That is, is the rising warm air drawing the surface waters toward it, revealing the cooler waters below? And a quick look at the response of global SSTs for December reveals that it hasn't been neutered.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-4670787700997321782010-01-08T09:03:11.899-05:002010-01-08T09:03:11.899-05:00Jovian: Thanks for the reference. von Schuckmann...Jovian: Thanks for the reference. von Schuckmann continues as the outlier. <br /><br />To save some time for those reading through the comments, here's a link to Cazenave et al (2009):<br />http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/Docs/SeaLevelRise2008.pdfBob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-64466934374175940422010-01-08T08:09:46.949-05:002010-01-08T08:09:46.949-05:00Deep waters accumulating heat?
Steric sea level d...Deep waters accumulating heat?<br /><br />Steric sea level data:<br /><br />1993–2003<br />Ocean thermal expansion contributed by 50% to the 3.1 mm/yr observed global mean sea level rise during the decade.<br /><br />2003–2008<br />Steric sea level rate 0.3 mm/yr <br /><br />Source:<br />Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo<br />Global and Planetary Change, Volume 65, Issues 1-2, January 2009, Pages 83-88<br />A. Cazenave, K. Dominh, S. Guinehut, E. Berthier, W. Llovel, G. Ramillien, M. Ablain, G. LarnicolJoviannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-42643520204324759102010-01-06T20:27:31.340-05:002010-01-06T20:27:31.340-05:00Anonymous from Lima: You wrote, “The Shuckmann et...Anonymous from Lima: You wrote, “The Shuckmann et al. paper is an oulier BECAUSE he includes ARGO measurement down to 2000 meters, while most of papers only use data down to 700 meters.”<br /><br />Your comment only addresses the OHC portion of my comment. It does not address the steric sea level portion, which reflects the thermal expansion and salinity changes. Steric sea level serves as a proxy for OHC from the surface to the bottom of the oceans. Refer to Pielke Sr discussion here about von Schuckmann et al:<br />http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/further-comments-on-the-inadequate-epa-response-to-reviewer-comments-on-ocean-heat-content/<br /><br />You wrote, “And if deep waters accumulate heat and surface waters not, then evidently the Thermohaline Circulation subduct the warmer waters with high efficiency, so the heat had not time to accumulate in upper waters before being subducted by the Thermohaline Circulation-driven downwelling currents.”<br /><br />And again I’ll repeat, if the upper waters (0-700 meters) show no sign of greenhouse gas forcing, and if the upper waters are being downwelled by THC or MOC as you suggest, then the downwelled waters cannot have any greenhouse gas forcing either.<br /><br />The increases in OHC regardless of the depth do not result from a gradual increase in longwave radiation. I've linked the OHC posts that discussed this many times above.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-29108886867824182762010-01-06T17:59:38.527-05:002010-01-06T17:59:38.527-05:00The Shuckmann et al. paper is an oulier BECAUSE he...The Shuckmann et al. paper is an oulier BECAUSE he includes ARGO measurement down to 2000 meters, while most of papers only use data down to 700 meters.<br /><br />So the upper 700 meters almost didn't warmed, while the waters below accumulated the "missing warming".<br /><br />And if deep waters accumulate heat and surface waters not, then evidently the Thermohaline Circulation subduct the warmer waters with high efficiency, so the heat had not time to accumulate in upper waters before being subducted by the Thermohaline Circulation-driven downwelling currents.<br /><br />Greetings, <br />From Lima, PeruAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-68719649234036087672010-01-06T17:21:57.977-05:002010-01-06T17:21:57.977-05:00Mr Bob Tisdale:
How you know my location?
If you ...Mr Bob Tisdale:<br /><br />How you know my location?<br />If you like, I will firm "From Lima, Peru" as I have not a google account.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-67729615945474008692010-01-06T17:18:09.725-05:002010-01-06T17:18:09.725-05:00Mr Bob. Tisdale:
You said "And how did you ...Mr Bob. Tisdale: <br /><br />You said "And how did you come to that conclusion?"<br /><br />Because this 0.77 ± 0.11 W/m^−2 had not warmed the surface still, and until the surface warms enought to increase the OLW to outer space by this same amount(that is, until thermal equilibrium is restored), the surface will continue to warm.<br /><br />Well, unless a series of BIG VOLCANOS create a strong negative forcing that last long enought to cancel this (positive) energy imbalance <br />(and this seems very unlikely, as Big Eruptions like Pinatubo are rare events and their effects last only few years)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-81838500835746383432010-01-06T17:14:02.769-05:002010-01-06T17:14:02.769-05:00Anonymous (3:59PM): In your reply to Steve Fitzpa...Anonymous (3:59PM): In your reply to Steve Fitzpatrick, you referred to von Schuckmann (2009).<br /><br />von Schuckmann is the outlier. With the exception of von Schuckmann, recent OHC and steric sea level studies show little to no rise in the data since 2003.<br /><br />BTW, my friend from Peru, you're a regular commenter here. If you'd identify yourself, I wouldn't have to call you Anonymous. That would save me a few clicks to see if it again you, the constant referrer to von Schuckmann or if someone else is jumping on your bandwagon.<br /><br />And again, we've been through the fact that since the upper 700 meters of the ocean show no signs of anthropogenic warming, longwave radiation from greenhouse gases cannot bypass the upper layers and warm the oceans below it.<br /><br />RegardsBob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-35054594031653172482010-01-06T16:57:32.398-05:002010-01-06T16:57:32.398-05:00Anonymous (4:31PM): You wrote, "So with most ...Anonymous (4:31PM): You wrote, "So with most of the oceanic warming sequestered in the deep oceans, nearly all of those 0.77 ± 0.11 W/m^−2 are still waiting for heating the surface!"<br /><br />And how did you come to that conclusion?Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-28331962772916217982010-01-06T16:31:11.530-05:002010-01-06T16:31:11.530-05:00So with most of the oceanic warming sequestered in...So with most of the oceanic warming sequestered in the deep oceans, nearly all of those 0.77 ± 0.11 W/m^−2 are still waiting for heating the surface!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-69024148852823407212010-01-06T15:59:02.433-05:002010-01-06T15:59:02.433-05:00Steve Fitzpatrick:
You said:"If the top 700 ...Steve Fitzpatrick:<br /><br />You said:"If the top 700 meters warmed at a rate of about 0.042 degree per decade while the top 300 meters warmed at a rate of about 0.009 degree per decade, then this implies the fraction of warming from 700-3000 meters probably represents less than 10% of the total ocean heat accumulation, on the order of 0.02 watt per square meter."<br /><br />Actually this statement is false, according to ARGO data showed in the Schuckmann 2009 paper "Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008".<br /><br />It shows the warming rate(in terms of heat content) of the oceans down to 2000 meters between 2003 and 2008 is 0.77 ± 0.11 W/m^−2.<br /><br />As the warming in the upper 700 meters in the 2003-2008 period is nearly zero (as was showed in many posts of this blog), obviously DEEP OCEAN (700m to 2000m deep) WARMING REPRESENTS NEARLY 100% OF OCEAN WARMING.<br /><br />That is, not the 0.02 W/m^−2 that you estimated, but ...<br />0.77 ± 0.11 W/m^−2 !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-20628621338348049752010-01-05T10:16:04.484-05:002010-01-05T10:16:04.484-05:00Bob,
It is good to put claims of "warming in...Bob,<br /><br />It is good to put claims of "warming in the pipeline" in perspective as your post effectively does.<br /><br />One thing I noted was how close the 0-3000 meter heat accumulation and top 700 meter accumulation are to each other. If the top 700 meters warmed at a rate of about 0.042 degree per decade while the top 300 meters warmed at a rate of about 0.009 degree per decade, then this implies the fraction of warming from 700-3000 meters probably represents less than 10% of the total ocean heat accumulation, on the order of 0.02 watt per square meter. This deep ocean heat accumulation represents only a tiny fraction of the total solar flux at the ocean surface, so any "long term delay" in warming due to increases in radiative forcing has to be very small. What delay there is is limited mainly to the warming delay of the top 700 meters (and most of this is actually warming in the top 300 meters!).Steve Fitzpatricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-82789895961426394532010-01-04T13:15:11.799-05:002010-01-04T13:15:11.799-05:00Bob,
Have you looked at the most recent SST data...Bob,<br /> Have you looked at the most recent SST data from Unisys?<br />http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif<br /><br />Note the large pools of cold waters surrounding NINO 3.4 region. How does that compare to previous El Nino years, and will it render it neutered? Also, the warm region south. Wow. <br /><br />As for OHC, IMO there is nowhere near enough data available since ARGO has been implemented. There seems to be much disagreement amongst the various analyses as to how much if any heat has accumulated in the last several years.magellanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726459793004701427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-69576833894334044472010-01-04T12:17:43.104-05:002010-01-04T12:17:43.104-05:00Hi Bob -
Quick question regarding the latest (Dec...Hi Bob -<br /><br />Quick question regarding the latest (Dec. 30th) OIv2 temperature map.<br /><br />I notice the large anomaly in the South Pacific (which you pointed out in an older post that Trenberth has shown is correlated with El Nino).<br /><br />This will show my lack of knowledge about the ocean-atmosphere coupled nature of El Nino.<br /><br />Will that spot have the same lagged effect on atmospheric temperature that is credited to El Nino? Given the correlation, is it proper to view that spot as part of the El Nino? Does it factor into the warming of other oceans (and thus atmospheres) as your analyses has shown?<br /><br />Based on the current map, a rough eyeball view makes me think that spot contains at least 50% more anomalously warm water than the traditional Nino waters around the equator.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-53724540701030422162010-01-03T17:01:38.275-05:002010-01-03T17:01:38.275-05:00NZ Willy, you said:
"The oceans radiate the...NZ Willy, you said: <br /><br />"The oceans radiate their heat back to space in the same way. All this fluff about convection and conduction is secondary, because black box equations apply. Same applies to "global warming" -- trace atmosphere gases have only a trivial effect on Earth's black box ambient temperature equilibrium."<br /><br />Earth is NOT in equilibrium.<br />It absorbs 0,9 W/m^2 more energy than it re-radiates back to space.<br /><br />This was MEASURED by SATELLITES, NOT deduced from any climate model and NOT deduced from any sum of heat accumulated in the oceans + land + atmosphere + melting ice.<br /><br />Earth is warming, BECAUSE of this imbalance. <br />There is no way,according to the laws of physics, that the Earth could not warm if it is accumulating heat (remeber, at a rate of 0,9 W/m^2)<br /><br />And also according to measurements, the heat used in warming the atmosphere and the land + the heat used in melting the glacier ice + sea ice is much less than the amount of heat that the whole Planet has accumulated since 2003. <br /><br />So this heat MUST have gone somewhere. And only place that remains in the list as heat reservoir are the oceans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-2727857025163453072010-01-03T16:44:01.520-05:002010-01-03T16:44:01.520-05:00Tallbloke:
Can you explain where 138 *10^20 J/yea...Tallbloke:<br /><br />Can you explain where 138 *10^20 J/year had ended if they have not warmed the oceans?<br /><br />Where are they? <br />There is not a Black Hole in Earth that could magically suck all that heat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-3808381132336677592010-01-03T13:55:40.226-05:002010-01-03T13:55:40.226-05:00"as the air is warmer than the ocean surface,..."as the air is warmer than the ocean surface, the ocean could only lose heat by LW radiation, not by conduction or convection. In this way, the warm air prevent any conduction+convection mechanism from cooling the seawater previously heated by downward LW+SW radiation."<br /><br />Confusion reigns.<br />The seawater is only heated by LW on the very surface, which causes it to promptly evaporate and this is not prevented by 18C air or 22C air or even 30C air, because the large numbers of W/m^2 sizzle the topmost molecules of water on the ocean surface to temperatures high enough for evaporation and subsequently the water vapour heads upwards at a high speed due to water vapour being a lot less dense than air.<br /><br />Downwelling LW does not heat the ocean. Full stop, end of story.tallblokehttp://tallbloke.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com