IPCC AR5: Thank the oceans

Written By: - Date published: 9:53 am, September 28th, 2013 - 101 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, science - Tags:

From the IPCC AR5 preliminary  summary for policy makers (PDF).

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}

Not that the Figures at at the end of the document. My italics indicate the probability statements used by the IPCC . In the quote above..

  • High confidence means that the scientists working on this area have a high degree of agreement and robust evidence.
  • Virtually certain means that the likelihood that the statement is correct is 99-100%
  • Likely is another likelihood statement means that there is a 66-100% probability that the statement is correct.

Bearing in mind that scientists between themselves are by far the most skeptical* about any evidence, this is a long awaited solid agreement on the effects of the oceans that was much less confident in the AR4 report of 2007.

Back in when I was doing a BSc in earth sciences in the late 1970s, earth scientists of various types were starting to look at the evidence for climate change and in particular the heat balances between the parts of the earth systems. One of the rather annoying things was that the available instrumented data was from all the wrong places to determine that.

We had decades of reasonably good air-temperature data. But air isn’t a particularly good mechanism for retaining heat. Have a cloudless night and all of the heat drains away to give some very cold mornings. Live in an area surrounded by warm oceans like much on NZ, and you’ll have air temperatures that are moderated by heat rising from and being adsorbed by the oceans. The reason is because water is far far more effective at absorbing and retaining heat than air – especially brine. But oceans are kilometres deep, and almost all of the temperature data available was from the top few metres of the oceans.

Furthermore most of the long-term air temperature data is  clustered in the land area of north-western Europe and north-eastern America. Similarly, there were decades of  sparse surface water temperature data from the Atlantic crossings but little from other areas of the world. This was an unfortunate place to gather data from because the more that the earth sciences examined the northern Atlantic area and it’s peripheral land areas, the more that it was realised that the whole area was an distorted climate.

The north Atlantic is narrow and is normally dominated by warm Gulf Stream pushing heat northwards. While this means that human civilisations can and have comfortably lived far further North than they can anywhere else in the world – at least while the Gulf Stream wasn’t dormant. It also means that most of the world’s detailed data that was required to analyse the effects of possible climate change was concentrated in the worst possible area to analyze global climatic shifts. It was also largely confined to the surface areas of the land and ocean.

Since the 70’s, there has been a concerted effort to get heat measurements from around the world and vertically in both the troposphere (the lower 17-20km of the atmosphere) and the upper 2 kilometres of the oceans. But it takes decades to get enough data to accurately see shifts in climate. The weather, annual, and cyclic climatic effects all mask the longer term overall climatic effects and diminish the confidence of the highly skeptical scientific community that they are seeing actual trends and effects.

IPCC AR5 Figure SPM3 cBut 40 years of collecting more solid and widely dispersed data has been steadily increasing the confidence that the actual data is showing and effect, and that the actual data is showing the expected effects from the models of the physics. It is quite noticeable in the reduction of the confidence interval of the amount of heat stored in the upper 700m of the oceans.

Similarly there has now been 20 years of data collection on the surface effect of the adsorption of CO2 into seawater and the effects this is having on surface acidity.

IPCC AR5 Figure SPM4 b

The science is quite clear. As the summary says

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification

Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750

Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

At present the oceans are buffering up much of the extra heat and CO2 and minimizing the short term changes over recent decades. This has been starting to cause shifts in climatic patterns like the changes northen jetstreams over the last decade and the increasingly more energetic weather.

But sooner rather than later the effect of those adsorptions into the oceans will start diminishing as the oceans reach a new equilibrium with the atmosphere and the ice sheets finish melting. Then it really starts getting warm and the weather starts getting a lot more crazy.

IPCC AR5 Figure SPM1 a

IPCC AR5 Figure SPM6

* Having dealt with climate “skeptics” on this site over the last 6 years, I’d have to say that they are some of the most credulous idiots that I have come across. It appears to me that they never check anything because they prefer to “believe” any old rubbish that someone tells them helps their beliefs.

On the odd times that we get links from them to whatever actual source material they are referring to, it invariably contradicts their own myth. Somewhere in the chain of credulous idiots who have read each others opinions of what the scientific article says, they have invented (or been given) a myth that they never check.

About the only thing that is more disturbing are the same types of people who “believe” any old crap about climate change causing imminent danger and the extinction of humans and/or the biosphere. They never check their own myths against source material either.

The reality is that climate change is a slow and inexorable process that has considerable consequences over the coming decades to food production from more extreme weather with the inevitable blows to our human civilisation of disease, famine, and war. Over the next century we’re likely to see agricultural and harvesting patterns widely and severely disrupted by widespread climate shifts. And over the longer term sea level rises will continue to cause issues for several thousands of years.

Climate change is a fast geological process. It is also very slow by the time scales of humans.

Note – As I’m busy today, this post may be put on comment moderation so that I can deal with the credulous idiot’s comments personally and individually as part of an education process.

101 comments on “IPCC AR5: Thank the oceans ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Chooky 1.1
      29 September 2013 at 9:55 am

      Thanks! this whole post is very interesting!

      ….and for those who like their science summarized the link above by Pete…..”five scariest things that will likely happen due to climate change” is also very well worth watching.

      On the issue of those who deny or question climate change without listening to any good reason…an article in ‘New Scientist’ by Mike Holderness, ‘Enemy at the Gates’ (8 October, 2005) is of interest.

      He reports that Christian fundamentalist individuals, groups, think-tanks, ‘research’ organisations and foundations appealing to a renewal of the faith of their fathers and forefathers are advocating a faith-based approach to science and an economy ruled by spirit and faith. This has led to a dismissal of “ideas such as global warming, pollution problems and ozone depletion. And that unsurprisingly, has political ramifications, including climate-change denial and the pursuit of ruthless free-market economics” (p.48)

      ….a very good reason not to put tax payer dollars into anti science , climate denying ,religious charter schools!

  2. andyS 2
    28 September 2013 at 11:02 am

    I think the average guy has lost interest in this a long time ago. Even TVOne brought up “the pause” on the 6 O’Clock news this week, and featured sceptical blogger Andrew Montford.

    [lprent: andyS is now under moderation in this post for displaying the traits of being a credulous idiot trolling my post.

    And now permanently banned. Over the course of this post he has parroted other sites, never shown any signs of understanding any science, and never shown any signs of listening to others. Despite numerous hints his behaviour has persisted. All his comments will now be deleted. ]

    • lprent 2.1
      28 September 2013 at 11:12 am

      So? Did you have a point in that statement somewhere?

      The IPCC reports are targeted at governments, institutions, and governments. That is why the IPCC is called the Intergovernmental panel on climate change

      The reality is that “the average guy” isn’t who these reports are targeted to. For a starter they tend to rely on journalists untrained in science to interpret these types of reports. Neither do a very good job at understanding them.

    • Colonial Viper 2.2
      28 September 2013 at 11:13 am

      The “average guy” also buys One Direction and Miley Cyrus DVDs, so I’m not sure what you are saying.

      • andyS 2.2.1
        28 September 2013 at 11:20 am

        The one news item (from the BBC) was suggesting that cause of “the pause” was unknown. It could be the oceans, it could be natural variability, or it could be aerosols, or the sun (that’s what the BBC said, not me)

        Now the IPCC Ar5 is not even giving a central estimate for climate sensitivity (previously, always 3 degrees)

        Rather than looking more certain, the opposite seems to be true.

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1
          28 September 2013 at 11:26 am

          Torturers also “pause” while waterboarding a victim, in order that the victim doesn’t pass out.

          How old are you mate? If you’re under 50 years of age you are on track to live in a world fucked by climate change pretty bad. Doesn’t that concern you?

          • andyS 2.2.1.1.1
            28 September 2013 at 11:29 am

            Lots of things concern me. Climate change reports that don’t make sense being one of them

            • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.1.1
              28 September 2013 at 11:38 am

              It makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps you simply lack the insight and the qualifications to interpret them?

              That’s perhaps why you think that ‘ordinary joe’ has moved on…which I believe you are actually dangerously incorrect about as well.

            • Martin 2.2.1.1.1.2
              28 September 2013 at 1:27 pm

              Andy, I would be concerned about the increasing rate of polar ice melt. This is a tipping point we are crossing and its impact is being felt on large land masses north of 30 -40 deg north of the equator. The slowing jet stream is meanduring and pulling colder weather down from the Arctic and hot air up from the tropics, thus extremes of weather are being felt with its oscillations.

              Another unmentioned factor is the drastic increas of Methane release from sub polar areas both on land and from shallow seas north of Siberia.

              Wildfires are increasing in the northern summer season and already across in Australia.
              These are three phenomena that the IPCC doesn’t go into and it just skims the acidification of seas. Although not as pronounced yet as the others. Acidification is a dagger at the heart of our foodchain.

              You shouldn’ be concerned
              you should be alarmed.

              regards

              Martin

              • Dumrse …
                28 September 2013 at 3:52 pm

                Just recently I read of the “increase in growth” of the polar ice caps so I have just googled it. There seems to be no doubt (given the number of articles) that 2013 has seen up to a 60% increase in size of the ice caps in some polar areas.
                http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/
                How is this at such odds with your post. (as an aside, I now see where the term alarmist comes from, you are encouraging it)

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  28 September 2013 at 4:09 pm

                  Why can’t you people ever check to see if your source is treating you like a gullible gimp?

                  The link in the above sentence is a pretty picture. What does the pretty picture tell you?

                  Come on now, take your time.

                • lprent …
                  28 September 2013 at 5:02 pm

                  You have named yourself well. The east Antarctica icecap has been increasing, because of increased water vapour in a cold area. Unfortunately it indicates warming as it’d normally never get in from the ocean.

                  In other words even a credulous idiot like yourself must regard a change in a climate pattern that has persisted for more than 10k years to be climate change.

                • miravox …
                  28 September 2013 at 11:25 pm

                  “There seems to be no doubt (given the number of articles) that 2013 has seen up to a 60% increase in size of the ice caps in some polar areas”

                  Ah well, if the science doesn’t convince you that the volume of sea ice is reducing, the shipping industry doing stuff might…

                  A Danish-owned coal-laden cargo ship has sailed through the Northwest Passage for the first time and into the history books as the second bulk carrier to navigate the Arctic route.

                  The Nordic Orion left Vancouver, British Columbia, Sept. 17 carrying 15,000 tons of coal. Ed Coll, CEO of Bulk Partners, an operational partner of ship-owner Nordic Bulk Carriers, said Friday that the freighter has passed Greenland. He said it is expected to dock in Finland next week after traversing waters once impenetrable with thick ice.

                  Interest in the Northwest Passage is on the rise as climate change is melting Arctic sea ice, creating open waterways. The melting ice could make it a regular Atlantic-Pacific shipping lane.

                  “Climate change is advancing more quickly to the point where the Northwest Passage has become a more viable shipping route, roughly 30 years earlier than most scientists estimated it would,” said Michael Byers, an international law expert at the University of British Columbia.

                  It’s saved them $200,00 on the usual trip. A coal cargo… talk about taking self-interest to a whole new level.

                  Note that the only other bulk carrier to do it was 40 years ago. The SS Manhattan was fitted out as an ice-breaker, but the difficulties due to the amount of ice encountered meant the route was unfeasible for bulk cargo ships. This time there appears to be a fair bit of potential.

                • Martin …
                  29 September 2013 at 1:08 pm

                  http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/
                  James Taylor seems to be a spin doctor. Try some science.

        • lprent 2.2.1.2
          28 September 2013 at 11:37 am

          What “pause”?

          When it takes three decades to capture the the oceanic thermal data and to make sure that that there was a trend in it, then a slowdown of less than decade in air temperatures isn’t significiant.

          Your “3 degrees” is also meaningless. Perhaps you should link to it, quote the section, and I’ll tell you why you are being a fool acting like parrot.

          But since you’re merely trolling I’m adding you to auto-moderation. I’ll let through comment on other posts and anything that you write that relates to this post.

          If I have to do too much work discarding crap comments then I’ll add you to auto-spam because I really don’t have time to waste today.

          • andyS 2.2.1.2.1
            28 September 2013 at 11:46 am

            The three degrees central estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity has been the central pillar of all IPCC reports until the current one. Do I really have to link to it?

            As for “what pause”, I am referring to the flat-lining of all the major surface temperature series.

            How come the BBC mentions “the pause” if it doesn’t exist? The BBC isn’t the Daily Mail

            • lprent 2.2.1.2.1.1
              28 September 2013 at 12:07 pm

              Do I really have to link to it?

              Yes – because I have no idea what in the hell you’re talking about. It wasn’t in the AR4 summary for the same sections as have been released in the preliminary summary for AR5.

              I presume (after looking around at the credulous idiot sites) that you are referring to a endpoint in from one of the climate models in the main report of AR4 and put into the final AR4 summary?

              You do realise that none of the models nor the final report have been released for AR5 yet? Therefore they are not in the preliminary AR5 summary.

              Which then makes your statement look like it has been written by a credulous idiot who has no idea what you’re talking about. And I guess you’re wondering why you’d have to be regarded as one of the more stupid of the nutters around the blogs.

              …flat-lining of all the major surface temperature series.

              Ah – didn’t you read my post? The whole point about the post was that the thermal takeup of oceans is far higher than that of air. There is now finally enough data to see how much heat has been sucked up in the oceans. Air temperatures matter to humans. They don’t matter nearly as much to the processes of climate change because air is a lousy heat sink.

              How come the BBC mentions “the pause” if it doesn’t exist?

              Gee and I never knew that people at the BBC were paid to write scientific papers on climate change. They are just another media outlet full of journalists reporting news stories. Very few of them have been trained in science. At best they merely touch lightly on a subject mostly based on spin from PR organisations. When it comes to this kind of scientific knowledge they are usually just as out of the depth as the Daily Mail.

              Perhaps you should start assessing the types of organisations and people you use as references – which leads me back to the section of my post about credulous idiots.

              • andyS …
                28 September 2013 at 12:15 pm

                The link that you require, with the key phrase is: “Analysis of models together with constraints from observations suggest that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-5.html

                [lprent: Please do a read of the comment you just replied to. As well as pointing out that you are a credulous idiot, it appears you don’t read what others explain to you. Otherwise you’d have realised that I’d already answered you. Either that or you don’t understand it. My guess is that you just pasted the contents of this comment from somewhere else.

                But let me summarise it for you yet again… The AR5 has not released any model data yet. Consequently there is no model data in the preliminary AR5 summary. Therefore the figure you’re looking for would not be in this PRELIMINARY summary ]

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  28 September 2013 at 12:37 pm

                  What’s the significance of the fact that they haven’t given a central estimate? No, no, no, not what a credulous idiot thinks it is: what’s the significance on Planet Earth?

                  • andyS …
                    28 September 2013 at 5:16 pm

                    “My guess is that you just pasted the contents of this comment from somewhere else.” Actually, I googled for “IPCC central estimate 3 degrees” or similar, I found the Wikipedia page about it. This had a link to the IPCC page. I found the phrase above, I copied that from the IPCC and I pasted it into the comment box. I also provided the URL for you to check. I hope that is sufficient for you. You asked me for a link and I provided it, and I have provided a full audit trail of how I found the information. I fail to see how this makes me a “credulous idiot”. Perhaps you could explain

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      28 September 2013 at 6:13 pm

                      Only a credulous idiot would believe it significant that a preliminary summary doesn’t contain all the information to be released in the final document.

                      I hope that helps.

                    • lprent …
                      28 September 2013 at 6:28 pm

                      I had already found the link, discovered your ignorant error, and answered you in the comment that you replied to. Idiot easy… Credulous? You didn’t figure the answer out yourself – you repeated something someone else said and didn’t check it….

                • andyS …
                  30 September 2013 at 10:36 am

                  [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. ]

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    30 September 2013 at 11:07 am

                    What is the significance of this statementy blankie of yours? You realise that greater uncertainty increases insurance premiums, eh? You should be able to understand something that has a dollar value attached. You realise that Munich re are completely immune to your faith-based rhetoric, eh?

                    Oh, and I note that when the IPCC says something you think supports your faith they turn into a reliable source. All the rest of the time they’re communist conspirators.

                    We need better wingnuts.

                    • andyS …
                      30 September 2013 at 11:19 am

                      [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. ]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 September 2013 at 11:31 am

                      So, no significance (not relevance) at all then? The empty, vapid weasel words of a recidivist loser.

                    • andyS …
                      30 September 2013 at 1:26 pm

                      [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. ]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 September 2013 at 1:46 pm

                      SIGNIFICANCE,

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 September 2013 at 1:49 pm

                      SIGNIFICANCE, you comprehension-challenged parrot!

                      And fuck you, Asshat Scrase, with your feeble insults and accusations. Are you such an ego driven wanker that you can’t even lose gracefully? Should we start calling you George Gregan?

                    • andyS …
                      30 September 2013 at 2:15 pm

                      If you continue with this abuse, I will find other ways to get back at you,

                      [lprent: Apart from your other traits that is completely unacceptable. Permanently banned. ]

                    • andyS …
                      30 September 2013 at 2:19 pm

                      [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. ]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 September 2013 at 2:23 pm

                      Yeah, your accusation of genocide fantasies are so polite. What an asshole.

                    • andyS …
                      30 September 2013 at 2:46 pm

                      [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. ]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 September 2013 at 3:04 pm

                      Baby steps, comprehension-boy. The question is: what’s the significance of the fact that they haven’t given a central estimate? It’s just there up the page if you need to check.

                      No, not the relevance, nothing about climate sensitivity either. Read it again and don’t be afraid to ask questions if you need help.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 September 2013 at 3:15 pm

                      Do you think relying on a creationist for your information is wise?

                      I don’t think you have an answer, do you? Happily, I provided one above. The significance of the fact that there may be no central estimate is that it will increase our insurance premiums, because uncertainty is anathema to risk assessment.

                      There are of course other implications: witless gimps will make hay about it being one of them, but the insurance premiums answer is couched in concepts I’m sure you can grasp.

          • andyS 2.2.1.2.2
            28 September 2013 at 5:46 pm

            “What pause”? The “pause” I am referring to is the 15 year pause/hiatus/slowing/whatever in surface atmospheric temperatures. You may well be correct that ocean warming continues unabated and is anthropogenic in origin. However, this is one of several theories that scientists are using to try to explain the pause or slowdown in global warming Last Tuesday, ar around 6.20pm, on TVOne news, the following David Shukman piece was aired. It is quite clear in this piece that the BBC – a central pillar of climate alarmism over the years – is accepting that the “pause” in global surface temps is real. It included a short interview with Andrew Montford, the “Bishop Hill” blogger, something that would have been unthinkable even a year ago I thought the BBC piece was surprisingly balanced, as BBC pieces go. There was the usual “record breaking heat” stuff, but they acknowledge that there is a lot that they don’t know about the climate system. Personally, I think the sceptical public would be much more accommodating if these uncertainties were acknowledged a little more often, and that they weren’t perpetually barraged with insults .

            • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.2.2.1
              28 September 2013 at 5:57 pm

              Thankfully andyS you are tone deaf to the wider mood and the public is moving against you. Despite Koch, Exxon, Shell, Aramco billions etc.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2.1.2.2.2
              28 September 2013 at 6:04 pm

              Why fifteen years? Why not sixteen or seventeen?

              As for the “pause”, the instrumental temperature record is littered with such artifacts, and yet you cling to it like a security blankie.

              • andyS …
                28 September 2013 at 7:10 pm

                As for the “pause”, the instrumental temperature record is littered with such artifacts, and yet you cling to it like a security blankie. Can you show me another “pause” in the post 1950 temperature record that spans a period of 15+ years?

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  29 September 2013 at 10:02 pm

                  2013 – 1998 = 15, not 15+, because if you go back to 1997 you find significant warming since then and that wouldn’t suit your narrative. Nor would looking at global decadal averages, which show no “pause” at all. I’m sure you find these cherry-picking games terribly clever and amusing, but I’m not twelve, so I don’t share your enthusiasm.

                  My pick is that the next el Nino year is going to leave you exactly where you are now: irrelevant and getting warmer.

            • lprent 2.2.1.2.2.3
              28 September 2013 at 6:25 pm

              I am at a wedding. But the short answer is that you are wrong. Cherry picking a single type of value and making it *the* value in a multivariate analysis is simply stupid. Doing it in a single region just makes you a credulous idiot…

        • Rogue Trooper 2.2.1.3
          28 September 2013 at 1:15 pm

          wasn’t likely to have been ‘the sun’ (solar cycle) influencing the pause significantly, if one reads the AR5 summary thoroughly.

        • Macro 2.2.1.4
          28 September 2013 at 6:16 pm

          Andy I see your palpabe ignorance of anything connected with climate science has not improved. You really must stop visiting the Bishop and wonkey Watts, and as for that laughable “Climate Science” blog run by the nutter Threadgold… the less said about it the better.

          It appears that your misunderstanding is the result of a profound inability to understand the difference between what is a projection (a prefiguration based on a model), and what is a prediction. The AR4 3 degree projection of Climate sensitvity to which you refer, is of course the resulting temperature increase to a doubling of CO2 above preindustrial levels. As we have not, as yet, emitted that much CO2 for a doubling, although we are well on the way, and temperature lags increasing GHG concentrations; it is well within the science to accept that projection as well founded. We have already had about 1 degree of warming, and there is a peer reviewed study of which I am sure you are aware, that calculates that even with going cold turkey on fossil fuels there would be further warming to at least 1.3 degeees above pre- industrial levels. (And that is not taking any feedbacks such increased water vapour into account). I know you want to believe that Climate sensitivity is low, but the evidence that constantly pours in daily just does not support this.

          This post highlights the fact that over the past 15 – 16 years the warming that is occurring to the Planet is primarily going into the ocean (that s old knowledge) and surprisingly – (this is the new knowledge) following the introduction of the Argo floats and their eventual proven reliability – it is not just the surface that is warming but down to at least 2000m. The vastness of this heating can only be expressed in terms of 4+ Hiroshima bombs per second every minute every hour every day. Day after day. (Just to put that into perspective – If the world suddenly exploded its total arsenal of nuclear weapons – that would not equate to the total heating of the oceans in one day). Just what will be the eventual result is anyones guess. Since 1999 the ENSO has been in a predominanly El Nino phase, that is the Pacific (the largest expanse and volume of Ocean) has been accumulating heat, When that shifts to La Nina, the pacific will release a huge amount of stored energy in the form of rain and wind and storms. And surface temperatures will rise accordingly.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2.1.4.1
            28 September 2013 at 6:20 pm

            I think you have your La Nina and El Nino mixed up.

          • andyS 2.2.1.4.2
            28 September 2013 at 7:13 pm

            You really must stop visiting the Bishop and wonkey Watt I don’t need to “visit” The Bishop when he is on BBC TV and radio every second day

          • andyS 2.2.1.4.3
            28 September 2013 at 7:25 pm

            It appears that your misunderstanding is the result of a profound inability to understand the difference between what is a projection … Indeed, and it is always great to have someone more knowledgeable than me explaining these details So perhaps you could take a look at the BBC/TVOne video that I posted, and explain where I am “mistaken” when I am using the same language as them, and the same language as most climate scientists (including James Hansen), when we say that global mean land surface temperatures have plateaued for the last 15 years or so. If you think this BBC piece was misleading, then you should file a complaint to TVNZ. The piece aired at approx. 6.20pm on Tuesday this week, during the 6 O’Clock news The piece quite clearly stated that global mean surface temperatures have “stalled” (or whatever) for the last 15 years, and scientists are “puzzled”., and looking for explanations, that include – aerosols, the sun, and the oceans They interviewed Myles Allen of Oxford University, and Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion and Hiding the Decline I imagine that a large number of people watched this piece, so rather than try to explain my “confusion” (which is merely stating this basic fact rather than drawing any conclusions from it) I suggest you write to TVNZ, and explain to them why they are misleading the public (or not)

            • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.4.3.1
              28 September 2013 at 7:31 pm

              Took you a while to come up with this did it?

              Good god man, get a life.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.4.3.2
              28 September 2013 at 7:34 pm

              Yep, land surface temperatures have stalled – doesn’t mean that warming hasn’t continued which is why the title of this post is Thank The Oceans.

              • miravox …
                28 September 2013 at 8:02 pm

                doesn’t mean that warming hasn’t continued which is why the title of this post is Thank The Oceans.

                However the oceans aren’t thanking us, because they’re acidifying more as they absorb more carbon dioxide. That, to me, is pretty scary.

            • Macro 2.2.1.4.3.3
              28 September 2013 at 8:12 pm

              Yes I have read Hansen’s paper in whichin one sentence he refers to increase in surface temperatures plateauing, but the majority of the paper – which you convenienty overlook – talks about the continual warming of the planet!
              Indeed it is James Hansen who first described the vast heating that is taking place by referring to an atomic explosion – hence the 4 Hiroshima’s per second.
              You spinning is pathetic Andy – there is a time when one has to face up to the fact that continually telling half truths is a highly immoral activity.

              • andyS …
                28 September 2013 at 9:32 pm

                You spinning is pathetic Andy – there is a time when one has to face up to the fact that continually telling half truths is a highly immoral activity. I am not spinning anything. The IPCC primarily use surface temperatures as their metric for “global warming”. The BBC/TVOne video I posted a link to upthread made the same points. So by using the arguments of the IPCC I am being “immoral”. I find the sanctimonious bleating of the warmist creed a little hard to stomach sometimes.

                • lprent …
                  28 September 2013 at 10:00 pm

                  No they don’t. They use Joules as a measure of energy as a metric of everything.

                  They express the expected values of a heat balance as an average heat for particular areas as latitudes and geography move the heat balances for different areas. They can also use the heat balance to indicate the increase in energy retention.

                  For the benefit of government officials who don’t think in joules, they express that as a expected temp increase. But it is the result of a energy balance, and is only there for indicative steady state conditions. Any number of conditions could affect the actual result in a single country. Most likely that there has been increased melt in the Arctic affecting the regions adjacent.

                  Only a complete idiot like yourself would think that not meeting a estimated average *world* energy release in a single area invalidated the model.

                  Your statement was complete claptrap by a barely educated simian. It was also wrong. You simply can’t run energy models on temps.

          • Poission 2.2.1.4.4
            28 September 2013 at 7:46 pm

            following the introduction of the Argo floats and their eventual proven reliability – it is not just the surface that is warming but down to at least 2000m. The vastness of this heating can only be expressed in terms of 4+ Hiroshima bombs per second every minute every hour every day. Day after day.

            In the introduction post is the evolution in ocean heat content over the last 40 years,the change is remarkably small.( it would not be an argument that is easily defended)

            • Macro 2.2.1.4.4.1
              28 September 2013 at 8:04 pm

              “In the introduction post is the evolution in ocean heat content over the last 40 years,the change is remarkably small.( it would not be an argument that is easily defended)”

              Not quite sure what you mean?

              Because water has such a large Specific Heat Capacity compared to air and there is vast quantity of it, a small increase in temperature represents a huge increase in heat.

              • Poission …
                28 September 2013 at 8:28 pm

                The ocean mass is not constant,it is increasing with SL rise,so OHC also increases over time.The increase in T is remarkably small over the instrumental period.

                • andyS …
                  28 September 2013 at 9:34 pm

                  I think the temperature gain since 1960 has been calculated at 0.06 degrees C

                    • andyS …
                      28 September 2013 at 9:58 pm

                      Sorry I can only find climate scientist Judith Curry’s word on this. Apologies I will try to find some results from Genuine People writing for Approved Sources Presumably linking to Professor Curry’s work will induce an immediate outbreak of hysterical braying from the Creed

                    • lprent []
                      28 September 2013 at 11:37 pm

                      Well she is a single scientist with a lousy record in my opinion. But how about linking to whatever you are braying about and let others tell you either how you don’t understand it, or they will dig out the critics of her paper, or in the unlikely event that they agree with her.

                      In science, not linking to references is just the cowards way to avoid skeptics…

                  • RedLogix …
                    28 September 2013 at 10:12 pm

                    Specific Heat of Air = 1.002 J/g

                    Specific Heat of Water = 4.2 J/g

                    Mass of Atmosphere = 5 * 10^18 kg

                    Mass of Oceans = 1.3 * 10^21 kg

                    This means the ratio of the Ocean’s to Atmosphere’s Total Heat Capacity is:

                    (4.2 * 1.3 * 10^21)/(1.0 * 5 * 10^18) = 1092

                    Thus a 0.06 degC temp rise in the ocean is roughly equivalent to a 1092 * 0.06 = 65 degC rise in atmosphere temperature. First order approximation of course.

                    • andyS …
                      29 September 2013 at 10:39 am

                      The link, as requested is here http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html in which Lubos Motl calculates the increase in temperature in the ocean since 1960 as 0.065K +- 20% He provides the maths,so you can check it for yourself.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      29 September 2013 at 10:59 am

                      From Motl:

                      “2.6×10²³J.”

                      I can understand why you would prefer it expressed in K. Helps with your credulous narrative etc.

                    • andyS …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:18 am

                      I can understand why you would prefer it expressed in K. Helps with your credulous narrative etc. Tell me, when you go outside and decide to put on a coat or not, do who base your decision on temperature or on the energy content of the atmosphere?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:21 am

                      Yes, because the decision to wear a coat is completely analogous to the significance of the extra energy in the oceans, eh. They’re exactly the same, in fact.

                • Macro …
                  29 September 2013 at 1:42 pm

                  At the present time the majority of SLR is actually caused by the expansion of water as it warms. Some of the rise in sea level is the result of Glacier and Ice sheet melt, but that is insignificant to the total mass of the oceans. For all practical purposes, and we are talking here of the first 3 sig figs, whilst the Volume of the oceans has increased, it Mass has not.
                  Your argument will increase in validity as the major land ice masses, ie Greenland and Antarctica disappear.

          • andyS 2.2.1.4.5
            30 September 2013 at 1:47 pm

            [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. ]

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2.1.4.5.1
              30 September 2013 at 2:00 pm

              Citation needed.

              “All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more.”

              Skeptical Science. Please tell me you aren’t relying on the creationism guy.

              • andyS …
                30 September 2013 at 2:14 pm

                [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. ]

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  30 September 2013 at 2:18 pm

                  You are relying on the creationist, aren’t you?

                  Let’s face it, if you had an argument someone credible would have used it before you.

  3. johnm 3
    28 September 2013 at 12:37 pm

    “Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown
    The message from the IPCC report is familiar and shattering: it’s as bad as we thought it was”

    “What the report describes, in its dry, meticulous language, is the collapse of the benign climate in which humans evolved and have prospered, and the loss of the conditions upon which many other lifeforms depend. Climate change and global warming are inadequate terms for what it reveals. The story it tells is of climate breakdown.”

    “They make great play of the IPCC’s acknowledgement that there has been a “reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012″, but somehow ignore the fact that the past decade is still the warmest in the instrumental record.
    They manage to overlook the panel’s conclusion that this slowing of the trend is likely to have been caused by volcanic eruptions, fluctuations in solar radiation and natural variability in the planetary cycle.
    Were it not for man-made global warming, these factors could have made the world significantly cooler over this period. That there has been a slight increase in temperature shows the power of the human contribution.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-global-warming

    Here in Wellington this Winter and last year’s have been incredibly mild in the air and atmosphere, so there you have it CC is now directly observable here right now. Plus look at the mega drought we had last Summer. And Australia breaking into new temp records last Summer plus this Spring they’re getting freakishly warm temps already.

  4. red blooded 4
    28 September 2013 at 12:58 pm

    Andy, even if (for your own bizarre reasons) you choose to ‘believe’ rather than be informed by the evidence, understand its significance and take advice from the 99.9% of the people with the expertise and qualifications to interpret and comment on this data, consider this: any move to combat climate change is also a move to clean up our air and waterways. Over consumption and pollution have more than one level of effect on our lives, the lives of others and of other species. Maybe you are a commited climate change denier. You are entitled to your (somewhat odd) beliefs. There are other reasons to try to limit oil consumption and stop polluting our world beyond its capacity to cope. Try to see the bigger picture.

    • andyS 4.1
      28 September 2013 at 9:38 pm

      Andy, even if (for your own bizarre reasons) you choose to ‘believe’ rather than be informed by the evidence.. I am not “believing’ anything. I am looking at the data and the conclusions that are published by the IPCC And they don’t support the alarmist position.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 10:53 am

        The “alarmist position” being what exactly? Oh, that’s right, it’s the sort of ill-defined bullshit term that a credulous idiot mistakes for a benchmark.

        From the leaked unpublished draft of AR5’s summary for policy makers.

        AR4 concluded that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. New observations, longer data sets, and more paleoclimate information give further support for this conclusion. Confidence is stronger that many changes, that are observed consistently across components of the climate system, are significant, unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to many hundreds of thousands of years.

  5. Rogue Trooper 5
    28 September 2013 at 2:18 pm

    let me just tidy up me scrawled notes, to fill in de time.

    qualitative shorthand- “level of confidence”- low through to high.
    quantitative shorthand “probability” – likelihood; 66-100% probability = “likely”. (virtually certain= 100% probability).
    -combined land and ocean surface temp rises – 1880-2012; 0.85C (0.65 -1.06C); virtually certain troposphere has warmed since mid 20thC
    -“very likely” number of cold days and nights have decreased, number of warm days and nights have increased.
    -“likely” -frequency of heat waves have increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia.

    Ocean
    -warming greatest nearest the surface (upper 700m by 0.11C)
    -2000-3000m; not significant trends “likely”
    -700-2000m; “likely” warmed from 1957-2009
    -3000m and deeper; “warmed”.
    -60% of nett energy increases in climate system stored in the upper ocean (0-700m); 30% below 700m
    -from 2003-2010, there was a slower increase in heat content, 0-700m while the heat uptake at 700-2000m continued unabated.
    -high salinity (evaporation) regions up
    -low salinity (precipitation regions) fresher.

    Cryosphere
    -Over the last two decades The Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets have been losing mass.
    -glacial shrinkages
    -“high confidence” that Arctic Sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have decreased.
    -2002-2011 ice-loss- 147Gt /year = 0.28-0.42mm/ year mean sea-level rise.
    -“high confidence” that permafrost temps have increased; 2C in the Russian North, 3C in Northern Alaska.
    -“high confidence” that the mean sea-level rise rate since the 19thC has been greater than the previous two millennia.
    -1901-2010, the global mean sea-level rose 0.2m due to glacial mass loss and ocean thermal expansion.

    Carbon, methane, NO and other gases
    -Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% since the pre-industrial era
    – “high confidence” ocean has absorbed 30%, leading to acidificatiion; pH decreased by 0.1 leading to mean rate increases in ocean hydrogen ion concentrations unprecedented in the last 22000 years

    Cement production (friggin concrete jungles).

    Drivers
    RF (Radiative Forcing) quantifies the changes in energy flux caused by changes in the drivers of CC
    -RF for 2011 43% higher than that reported in AR4 for 2005, due to continued growth in GHG emissions.
    -Positive RF of ozone-depleting halocarbons has outweighed the negative RF of ozone-depletion; reduced RF from CFC’s but increases from many of their substitutes.

    Future Global and Regional Climate Change (for much is determined).;)
    -Increase in mean surface / atmosphere temp “likely” to exceed 1.5-2C by the end of 21stC
    -2016-2035, relative to 1986-2005- a 0.3-0.7C increase.
    -near-term increases larger in the tropics and sub-tropics.
    – Virtually Certain , more frequent hot and fewer cold temp extremes over most land areas.

    Water Cycle
    -contrast between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, with regional exceptions.
    -the length and area covered by the Monsoons will increase.
    -Global mean rise in sea level 2081-2100, relative to 1986-2005 ranges (by model) from 0.26m through to 0.98m up to 3m in the centuries follow. (ooh, Noah).
    -Increased uptake of atmospheric carbon by the oceans increasing acidification.

    Positive Feedback Cycle
    -Aspects of CC will persist for many centuries even IF CO2 emissions are ceased.

    Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
    -“high confidence” the range is 1.5-4.5C

    20:17 Food grown by fraud tastes sweet to a man, yet he ends up with a mouth full of gravel.

  6. karol 6
    28 September 2013 at 7:10 pm

    Very good explanation, Lynn.

    So, what now?

    Will John, Bill, Gerry, Stephen, and nick now start changing government policies to be much more cautious about dishing out drilling, mining, fracking permits? Will they start investing more in public transport, tighten up the RMA, and generally start moving towards a sustainable economy?

    And the opposition parties?

    • miravox 6.1
      28 September 2013 at 10:39 pm

      “Will John, Bill, Gerry, Stephen, and nick now start changing government policies”…

      If they’re anything like their Tory mates in the UK the answer is no. The government will be going on with business as usual. and possibly dismantle measures that reduce climate change.

      George Osborne has said he does not want Britain to be a world-leader in fighting climate change because the UK should not price itself out of international energy markets by placing too heavy an environmental burden on suppliers.

      His comments come after a landmark report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned if greenhouse gas emissions remained at current rates, within 20-30 years the world would face nearly inevitable warming of more than 2C, resulting in rising sea levels, heatwaves, droughts and more extreme weather…

      … The energy minister, Michael Fallon, is understood to be looking at ways to reduce the impact of environmental measures have on household energy bills, the Times reported. The Energy Companies Obligation, which forces suppliers to pay lagging bills for benefit claimants and pensioners, is thought to be a potential target.

      A moratorium on inland windfarms is also believed to be under consideration, in a move that would appeal to many grassroots Tory supporters.

      • Rogue Trooper 6.1.1
        28 September 2013 at 11:00 pm

        The Honourable (sic) Simon Brudges;
        “We’ve been very involved, and “We’re doing quite a number of things”. (commenting on climate change today, as if that was not patently obvious 😉 )
        btw, NZ currently releases 60% more CO2 from electricity generation than in 1990.
        Smoke, Choke, Croak. rearbit, rear bit.

    • srylands 6.2
      28 September 2013 at 10:51 pm

      Don’t say stupid things. We have an ETS. We are doing our bit. You want to impoverish New Zealand for zero environmental benefit while China and India carry on. Do you follow Australian politics? Whichever government followed your prescription would be a one term government. At least that is something.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1
        28 September 2013 at 11:20 pm

        We have an ETS. We are doing our bit.

        You should, perhaps, take your own advice:

        Don’t say stupid things.

        The ETS has been massively degraded from what it was to the point that it now encourages even more waste. Not only that but all indications are that it wasn’t going to work – all it was going to do was to make the banksters richer.

      • Murray Olsen 6.2.2
        29 September 2013 at 12:30 am

        It’s NAct who want to impoverish 95% of New Zealand while destroying the environment, so impoverishment for zero gain is actually an improvement over what you are a cheerleader for. As for China and India – China is not “carrying on.” They are actually starting to change, thank god. I don’t know about India, but even if they haven’t changed, that is no reason for us not to. Meanwhile, the biggest global energy users are the seppos, so mentioning China and India is a bit of a stretch. Why do they always get the blame?

    • Not Another Sheep 6.3
      29 September 2013 at 12:28 am

      Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has addressed in part this IPCC AR5 release. (The IPCC being UN backed). He intends to assemble a Climate Summit in September 2014.

      Not sure how this issue on CC will play out in regards to NZ political parties responses such as their promises or policy before the NZ elections. It should be interesting as the UN pushes for global Governments to establish a legal agreement on climate change in 2015. It should trigger all Parties, not just the Greens, for a pre-election ‘Promise’, at the least, to the people.

      Your question Karol,” So what now?”-: Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University gives his view on “Why More Climate Science Hasn’t Led to More Climate Policy – Yet”; saying “ the basics were clear long ago and that the response to global warming is more about ethics and economics than data [science]”.
      http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/

      with one video being “Caldeira on Climate Science and Choices” Pt.2.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMojTFhLSy4&feature=player_embedded

      “…But it’s much easier to act ethically if acting ethically is cheap and easy. But if acting ethically requires us to make great sacrifices we tend to cut corners….”

      • karol 6.3.1
        29 September 2013 at 7:49 am

        Thanks. So basically, it’s about incorporating climate change measures within a strong ethical argument, and aligned to a compelling economic programme.

        Basically making a clear argument for sustainable economics in everyday language, showing how it benefits us all.

        • MrSmith 6.3.1.1
          30 September 2013 at 5:53 pm

          “Basically making a clear argument for sustainable economics in everyday language, showing how it benefits us all.”

          Exactly Karol, because we are basically a selfish animal and generally only cooperate because we see some benefit in doing so.

          The problem is how do we get people to stand back and take a look at why we behave the way we do, then admit we are selfish and carrying on this way will eventually destroy our home.

  7. Macro 7
    29 September 2013 at 11:58 am

    A couple of valuable graphs pertinent to the discussion above – based on the National Oceanic Data Centre information –

    The first Global Ocean Heat Content: 0- 700 m:

    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global oceanic heat content 0-700 m depth

    The second a combination of Tropical sea sea surface temperatures and Global surface air temperatures:

    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Tropical sea surface temperature and global surface air temperature

    The first graph shows that there has been no “pause” in global warming, Ocean Heat content has been steadily rising and continues to do so. NOTE: This but but one part of the total ocean heating, this does not include warming of the oceans below 700 m.

    The second graph is interesting as it suggests that air temperature follows sea surface temperature – as one might expect, our climate is controlled by the sea around us. to quote the summary below the graph:
    “Typically, 1-5 yr variations in the sea surface temperature have a larger amplitude than the corresponding variations in global surface air temperature. In addition, quite often a change in sea surface temperature appears to be initiated 1-3 months before the corresponding change in surface air temperature. In such cases, the temperature in the lower atmosphere appears to be controlled by change in sea surface temperatures, and not the other way around. Oceanographic processes such as, e.g., upwelling of warm or cold water masses might one obvious explanation. Another explanation might be variations in the amount of direct short wave solar radiation reaching the ocean surface. Whatever the control, the above diagram suggests that the tropical oceans are important for understanding global surface air temperature changes.”

    • andyS 7.1
      29 September 2013 at 2:16 pm

      As I said upthread, if you claim that there is no “pause” and the TVNZ programme aired on Tuesday was misleading, then you should write a complaint, and explain why the 0.065 degrees of warming the oceans have experienced since 1960 is the biggest crisis facing humanity

      • Macro 7.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 2:38 pm

        As I don’t in principle watch the crap on TVNZ I can scarely make a complaint can I… However you could help by visiting and signing this online petition here:
        http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_tell_climate_truth/

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.2
        29 September 2013 at 2:56 pm

        You’re really clever, changing the units of measurement so the ocean energy rise sounds tiny. Did you know the Sun is only eight seconds from Earth? Hardly any distance at all, eh? Any twelve year old wanker would be proud of himself.

        • andyS 7.1.2.1
          29 September 2013 at 4:42 pm

          [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. You simply don’t listen or argue and have now descended to simple abuse of others. Besides you just parrot other people without bothering to understand – google searches of your comments bounce to an interesting number of other sites. It appears you don’t have any opinions of your own. ]

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.2.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 5:12 pm

            Surface temperature. Ocean energy storage. Apples, meet oranges.

            Tell me, is your failure to understand this genetic or political?

  8. infused 8
    29 September 2013 at 1:54 pm

    This won’t help your cause