I am aware of Lamb, thanks 'old chap'.  I don't recall anyone making such a bold and clear statement about the cause of 'all past cooling trends'.

Maybe instead of being patronising you might provide a reference to somewhere that makes this assertion is such clear and unambiguous terms.

I was hoping that a new year might see an improvement in your attitude but I see you are still as tediously over-confident as ever in your assertions.

Simply continuing to repeat everything ad nauseam doesn't make your beliefs or constructs any more correct - or less incorrect...

---

Copied from the Antartic Sea Ice thread, since it is more appropriate in this thread:

My layman's understanding is that the oceans are warmed by solar insolation and air is warmed by conduction and convection from land and sea. Air does not warm the oceans, or even the surface, but cold air can suck the warmth out of the surface layers of the sea. Air in the Troposphere is not directly warmed by solar radiation - it is a secondary effect from land and sea.

So warming of the oceans cannot happen directly as a consequence of AGW, only by solar insolation - variations in solar output can therefore directly influence sea temperatures. Ocean currents move warm water from the tropics to temperate and polar latitudes. During the latter half of the 20th Century, the sun was very active, leading to warmer surface waters - this is probably the real cause of dimishing Artic ice, as ocean currents carry those warm waters to high latitudes. Therefore, the loss of Artic Ice should be temporary and reversible and have little to do with AGW.

Where does AGW fit into the picture? - as a greenhouse gas, CO2 traps more warmth in the atmosphere - therefore there is accordingly, less cold air in the circulation to carry warmth away from the oceans. But it would take many,many decades for that to influence ocean temperature.

---

 

Gandalf, when the tone of your posts is unpleasant I have a right respond in kind.

It is established AGW theory that a warming planet is associated with more poleward jets so how can you deny the reverse?

They were pretty bold and clear about it too - until it went into reverse which proved that CO2 had nothing to do with it.

Is boldness, clearness and 'repetition ad nauseam' to be the exclusive preserve of warmists ?

You do seem to be staking a large amount on the effects of the current quieter phase of the sun and La Nina.

Let's just see what happens to global temperatures shall we?  As I have said, if they fall back steadily to the 1960-1990 range then you will have a reasonable case.  If not...

---

The effect of a radiatively active gas like CO2 is to absorb photons emitted from the surface and then re-emit in all directions. The result of this is that the downward flux of radiation in the far IR is increased offsetting the emitted flux from the sea surface or land. As both sea and land are close to being a black body in the far IR then the downward radiation is absorbed. This means that long wave cooling from all surfaces is reduced so the temperature rises. Another way of looking at it is that with increase greenhouse gases the sea and land see a warmer sky

Thanks Tom - an important missing piece from the picture I was trying to create.

---

Yes, that is very helpful in terms of understanding the process. Thanks Tom.

It does seem to leave the effect of increased concentrations of GHGs as a cause of ocean warming as well as land, doesn't it?

 

---

I think it would be fruitful to look very closely at the interface between SST(int) and SST(skin).

For definitions see here:

http://ghrsst-pp.metoffice.com/pages/sst_definitions/ 

It is necessary to get a clear idea as to exactly why the higher temperature of SST(skin) fails to slow down the rate of energy flow from the subskin below.

A. The Default situation

i) Evaporation occurs primarily because of pressure and density differentials between water and air. Thus it will occur even if both water and air are at the same temperature. The process of evaporation is not dependent on any temperature differential. There are other influences that will increase or decrease the rate of evaporation but they need not concern us here.

ii) At Earth’s atmospheric pressure the energy required to provoke evaporation is always less than the energy taken from the local environment when evaporation occurs so we need to analyse exactly where the deficit can be provided from.

iii) In the absence of DLR it is taken from the water below because the water is generally warmer than the air hence the development of a layer of cool water 1mm deep and 0.3C cooler than the ocean bulk below.

B. When DLR is added to the mix.

i) DLR in itself does nothing. Before it can warm anything it must be absorbed by a water molecule.

ii) When DLR impacts the water surface some molecules will evaporate immediately and others will need to wait a moment to acquire enough additional energy.

iii) Those which are in the process of evaporating form SST(int). Those which are busily acquiring energy form SST(skin). The molecules in SST(skin) steadily gain more energy and move upward towards SST(int). In the process they gain more energy and become warmer with sensible energy that registers on our sensors.

C. The response to DLR once evaporation from DLR begins.

i) The molecules in SST(int) evaporate producing a local energy deficit. The energy most readily available is in the nearest molecules of SST(skin) so a flow of energy is set up from SST(skin) to SST(int)

ii) That energy flow is upward so the additional energy being supplied to the molecules in SST(skin) cannot flow downward to increase the temperature of the subskin.

iii) We then have both energy AND individual molecules moving upwards towards SST(int)

iv) The DLR cannot penetrate beyond SST(skin) so ALL the DLR gets absorbed by molecules in that region and ALL those molecules in due course find their way to SS(int). Thus there is no surplus energy from DLR left over to warm the subskin and even if there were it is flowing in the wrong direction.

v) Meanwhile remember that there is a net deficit to deal with when evaporation occurs. If ALL the DLR is now in molecules that are going to move upward and evaporate it can only be provided by a cascade of energy from molecule to molecule up through SST(skin).

vi) But at the bottom of that cascade where SST(skin) has it’s interface with the subskin there is still going to be that deficit. That remaining deficit must be accounted for and it already has been provided by the pre-existing upward flow of energy from the ocean bulk below which is always present even in the absence of DLR

vii) Additionally that energy is already of the correct quantity to make up the deficit because the DLR is ALL accounted for in the process of accelerated evaporation leaving the background equilibrium undisturbed.

Thus DLR in any quantity or from any source cannot alter the equilibrium temperature of the oceans.

If you allow a few hundred years to pass, indeed it does.

---

JB in top form

CHECK THIS BAIT AND SWITCH OUT!!!

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

Oh, I forgot the following bit.

 

''I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from Nov. 2, 1922. As reported by The Associated Press and published in The Washington Post - 88 years ago!''

Very amusing.  I would be interested if this was anything more than hope on your part?  It takes a few minutes for the energy from the sun to reach the surface so I would think your assertion is out by...

a few hundred years minus a few minutes....

---

15mins from suns surface to earth but millions of years from the centre of the sun to it's surface???

We've had our 'getting moving' phase of elevated CO2 levels and some of the 'works' that will drive /accelerate global warming/climate chaos are now in place .We can see this most notably at the North pole with the warming (ocean/Air) depleting the 'old', thick ice ,that used to make up the bulk of ice min. ice cover, to nought and unleashing the positive feedbacks that 'open ,dark, water brings along with it.

The energy that 'used' to be spent on achieving this is now free to do other works in the global climate system (accelerated ocean warming/ice sheet depletion?).

We can see how the lack of sea ice slices through the old 'Jet' track and imposes the new 'fast track' for air masses (tropical and polar) accelerating our move towards 'equilibrium' in global temps (this is what 'weather wants is it not? hot to cold ,cold to hot?) so the Tropics move ever poleward and the ''arctic circle'' moves ever North.

Anyhows this will be well highlighted by this summers melt. Before Christmas we lost most of the ice that covered the pole (Via Fram) so we know that this area is now F.Y. ice, by last summers end we had plenty of open water (now F.Y. ice) so we have a lot of 'melt in-situ' ice across the pole this year. I would say we can expect similar to last years 'start of melt season' with 'record' ice loss until July. From then on it will be down to 'ice type' and 'weather'. With so much F.Y. ice about we may see 07's 'record losses' brought into perspective by a record min. from an 'unexceptional' year.

---

We are not talking about direct solar radiation here, but about radiatively active gases such as CO2 - so we are to believe that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorbing and re-emitting some space bound longwave radiation from earth and ocean will significantly warm the oceans in a matter of decades?

Pull the other one!

As for loss of Artic Ice - fits in well with a meridional jet - as has been explained on many occasions, a meridional jet pattern warms Polar regions, even as it cools the hemisphere in general.

---

Just to remind those who need reminding, that, '"the heat can't be found" - it is missing.

And the meridional jet pattern in the recent configuration/shape does warm these areas.

---

Happy new year, all!

"As for loss of Artic Ice - fits in well with a meridional jet - as has been explained on many occasions, a meridional jet pattern warms Polar regions, even as it cools the hemisphere in general."

We have had meridional patterns many times before though. How does that fit in with the general trend of less and less sea-ice through time?

I would suggest very anomalously low-ice years are a combined result of hyper-meridionality AND GHG-related warming. Given that, in turn, less ice may encourage more meridionality, we also appear to have an identifiable example of a positive feedback effect at work.

Cheers - John

I agree with this sentence, as it fits the evidence. The trend in arctic sea ice is downwards, but this will be accelerated at times due to favourable synoptics  - eg December 2010 and summer 2007.

I find it hard to understand how GHG related warming could be responsible for loss of Artic sea ice at this juncture - it is simply too early for such an effect to become apparent. There must be other explanations for low sea ice. We had a 30 year spell of positive PDO and regular El Ninos to deal with and therein lies some of the reason for the current situation. I expect the loss of sea ice to reverse in coming years as a consequence of the PDO going negative and other natural cyclic changes in the global climate. It is facile to put current low levels of Artic sea ice down to GHG - during the MWP, there is evidence that Artic conditions were far more benign than subsequently - when the Vikings called Greenland by its name in the 10th century, it wasn't simply for a joke.

---

Why? The models predict enhanced arctic warming and loss of sea-ice, just what is observed. Arguments need to be quantitative.

I simply don't believe that GHG concentrations have been high enough for long enough to have the kind of effect being described. We are to believe that ocean temperatures have been so modified by AGW already, that it is causing large scale loss of Artic Ice. I don't believe it! It would take much longer, in my view, for GHG concentrations to lead to sufficient ocean warming for that to occur.

I suspect that what we are seeing is the natural result of normal cyclical fluctuations in the climate, partly influenced by a very active period of solar activity during the 20th century and party down to other reinforcing cyclical conditions, such as the phases of the PDO.

I don't doubt that increasing GHG concentrations are having an effect and I don't doubt that there is a risk of Global Warming as a consequence - but the last place to feel it will be the oceans. Come back and take a look in 20 years after the coming cooling period caused by a combination of cooling circumstances (just as we had a combination of warming circumstances in the latter part of the 20th century).

---

How can GHGs warm the oceans in the light of my post 383 ?

And see here:

"I’m sure there is already an equation describing the relationship between atmospheric pressure, the strength of the bonds between molecules and the energy required to break them.

I’ve never looked for it before because the principle has been established science for a very long time before AGW decided to ignore it.

Wikipaedia isn’t the best source but this fits the bill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_vaporization

“the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.65 kJ/mol, is more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 J K−1 mol−1).”

So the energy required to heat the water to 100C (provoking evaporation) is only one fifth of the energy required when the evaporation actually occurs.

The other four fifths is extracted from the local environment for a net cooling effect.

Now, how exactly is DLR going to warm the oceans with some sort of left over surplus ?

Or to achieve reduction of the upward energy flow from the ocean when there is a deficit like that to address first ?"


TomC, do the models have the DLR from GHGs heating the ocean bulk or just the air and/or ocean skin ?

I have no problem with the latter.

Anyway. lets make this really simple.

i) DLR causes more evaporation.

ii) In the process it warms the skin layer.

iii) At the same time it cools the interactive layer.

iv) The energy flow effects of ii) and iii) cancel out for a zero effect on the natural upward energy flow.

Anyone who disagrees please provide proof rather than conjecture or kindly give up.

Everything I have ever seen on this subject bangs on about the dire effect of ii) for humanity and the planet but never mentions the opposing force of iii).

Time to put up or shut up.

Hah!

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/9608

"

1. Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming
by Amy J. Bratcher and Benjamin S. Giese, 2002, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 29, N0 19.

 

Abstract: An analysis of ocean surface temperature records show that low frequency changes of tropical Pacific temperature lead global surface air temperature changes by about 4 years. Anomalies of tropical Pacific surface temperature are in turn preceded by subsurface temperature anomalies in the southern tropical Pacific by approximately 7 years. The results suggest that much of the decade to decade variations in global air temperature may be attributed to tropical Pacific decadal variability. The results also suggest that
subsurface temperature anomalies in the southern tropical Pacific can be used as a predictor for decadal variations of global surface air temperature. Since the southern tropical Pacific temperature shows a distinct cooling over the last 8 years, the possibility exists that the warming trend in global surface air temperature observed since the late 1970’s may soon weaken."

Exactimo!

---

Bratcher and Giese's 2002 paper has been rubbished by AGW proponents for some time but the real world is following their expectations.

Don't get me wrong - CO2 is a GHG, increasing concentrations of it in the atmosphere will alter the radiative balance of the earth over time - where AGW proponents in my view have it wrong, is in the timescales - they are mixing up normal, climatic cyclical changes with the expected results deriving from increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We should use technology to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we should become more energy efficient and we should stop chopping down the rainforests to preserve their unique beauty and bio-diversity - but we should do all those things regardless of any AGW, even if Global Warming had never been heard of or postulated.

I really believe the climate cycle has moved into a cooling phase and if that is so, everything the AGW proponents have been claiming will be rubbished and that is a great pity, since we do need to move in the direction they advocate - but more time is needed to make the changes required.

---

That ppaer dates back from 2002 and in 2010 we are at the wamrmest or second warmest year on record. However, a similar prediction has been made by the Hadley Centre more recently.

Science 10 August 2007:
Vol. 317 no. 5839 pp. 796-799
DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540

• Report

Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model

1. Doug M. Smith*,


2. Stephen Cusack,


3. Andrew W. Colman,


4. Chris K. Folland,


5. Glen R. Harris and


6. James M. Murphy

- Author Affiliations

 

1. Met office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Ex1 3PB, UK.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years

 

There are two distinct issues here

1. Short term climate variablity can overwhelm background warming due to AGW, it certainly can, the ENSO cycle is a clear example.

2. The warming of the oceans over the last 30 years which science would attribute to be at least partially attributable directly to AGW