Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

Interesting little story. Deep ocean measurements have not found any warming of the world's oceans (actually a bit of cooling).
Where's all this extra heat, which the surface monitoring network tell us is in the air???

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
But I thought we knew everything???

Well you have something there !!!

dont you?

I understand that the surface temperature of the moon has also not changed because of global warming.

lets see suppose you were to relieve pressure under greenland , would this pressure relief tend to reduce the temperature of the earths magma?



I think its just a matter of catch up.

the oceans floors just need to wait awhile until the temperatures catch up.

also we dont live on the ocean floor , we live up here where the temperatures are rising.

Maybe the heat went into melting 300-500 Gigatonnes of ice each year (...or has that been accounted for already?).

lol - oh paul, you're funny.


These scientists go looking for a supposed "tell-tale" sign of global air temperatures increasing, the deep ocean getting warmer - as something to verify the surface record. Given that temperature has been increasing since 1850, you would have thought the oceans would show something. At least they thought so - perhaps you know better.

But, much to their surprise, they find nothing - and you, so intelligently, counter "we don't live on the bottom of the ocean, so it doesn't matter".
Try opening your mind a bit paul, and read the parts that I bolded. This shocked them, they expected to find something. Our present "knowledge" of the climate, and how it deals with heat, said the oceans should be warming. But that doesn't appear to be happening. Something else is going on. Something else that affects the heat balance of the globe. Don't you think that's at all interesting? Don't you think that calls into question our supposed "knowledge" of the climate?
Apparently it did for these scientists. In their words, people are going to have to go back to the "drawing boards".

No doubt if they did find the oceans warming, the alarmist crowd would be declaring this as further "proof". If there's nothing found - it's passed off as meaningless. Global warming is moving further and further away from being a science, and getting dangerously close to a religion.


By the way - how is solar cycle 24 coming along? Anything yet? Perhaps on a related note, we're now 5 consecutive months of "normal" global average temps. http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_tim...Ocean_v03_1.txt

Or how about the problem that "global" warming doesn't seem to be truly "global"
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tmt
Nope - nothing wrong here.....completely in line with what we expected. Let's get some carbon trading centers up and running. The debate is over! No point investing those resources in real issues like third world infrastructure. I'm sure those 100,000 dead in Myanmar are glad everybody is focussed on this catastrophe of 1.5C of warming

Mike - here's the time series for global average ocean temps.
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_tim...Ocean_v03_1.txt

Nothing too scary there

Paul,
I can be a bit of a scatterbrain at 2:00am, and mis-posted this on "Zealotry...."
It should'a been here:

Canuk mentions, "These scientists go looking for a supposed "tell-tale" sign of global air temperatures increasing, the deep ocean getting warmer - as something to verify the surface record." -Canuk
While the oceans (plural!) are vast and interconnected, they are perhaps less well-understood than the moon.
As Canuk's NPR quotes graciously concede, it is "possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean."

The Earth's crust, however, does offer an independent measure of that "missing heat." See:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25277#Post25277
for a brief discussion (with a much simpler system) of this link:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/beltrami-etal2002.pdf
...shameless self-promotion....

...still need to look at the remss links....

The oceans are the key. They are heat reservoir for the planet. Tney contain 1000 times the stored energy of the planet. The land is irrelevant as far as understanding global warming is concerned. If you want to get serious about understanding the planet, you need to try and understand whats going on with the oceans. Why sea surface temperatures have risen yet average ocean temepratures haven't (even slightly cooled ?) ... and yet sea levels have risen - often touted as due to "thermal" expansion. If you can work that out, you will have solved the puzzle and maybe we will give you a Nobel prize. Until you have solved it, there isn't even much point in worrying because, as Canuck quotes "its back to the drawing board".

Stop worrying - go out and send some mosquito nets to Tanzania. At least you'll be doing something useful.

Hi Canuck,
Thanks for the 'the time series for global average ocean temps'

But what really got to me was your brilliant quotation

No doubt if they did find the oceans warming, the alarmist crowd would be declaring this as further "proof". If there's nothing found - it's passed off as meaningless.
'Global warming is moving further and further away from being a science, and getting dangerously close to a religion'

LOL. I could not stop chuckling after I read that. For heavens sake lets hope Revlking dos'nt spot this, lest he takes over
this topic completely. LOL

Canuck

if I had a bowl of water , and there was a ice cube sitting atop a small island in the middle of the bowl of water , and the ice cube was melting because of a room temperature increase , wouldnt this melting ice water be cold?

and wouldnt the water in the bowl be cooled down due to the cold melting ice water entering the ocean?

now what happens after the ice melts.
will the water in the bowl heat up to room temperature?

as soon as the ice has melted and the water temperature catches up to the room temperature you will find a temperature increase in the water in the bowl.

also if the island is greenland then the ice that is melting is moving its mass from atop the island and thereby reducing the pressure to the bowl and cooling the water in the bowl at the same time.

Im sure that you can laugh and poke fun at those who do more than post other peoples articles on this forum , those who actually use their brain to think of reasons that things happen such as myself , why dont you do something other than post other peoples ideas and thoughts , its people like you that have stretched the climate to its breaking point and of course you continue and chuckel as the proof mounts up in your face and sucks every spare cent out of your wallet.

____________________________
.
Fools arent born they just become fools mainly because they listen to other fools.
.

Hey Paul - if you have a problem with the theory that the deep ocean should be carrying the warming signal that we're seeing in the air temperature, take it up with the scientists in the article, not I.

I'd suggest debating them using your completely appropriate metaphor of a bowl of water with an ice cube.
I'm sure you can explain away such nasty little "complications" like ENSO, PDO, NAO, El Nino, La Nina, solar fluctuations, convection, turbulence, radiative transfer, ocean currents, cloud cover, etc... as simply trivial. Who needs GCMs, paul has a bowl of water!!

Although, I sure would like to hear your theory on how Greenland glaciers melting would reduce the water pressure within the oceans, therefore making it cooler. I'm sure that would be a blast.

Sorry to disappoint paul, I don't laugh and poke fun of people who discuss topics intelligently on this forum. Although, I do, get a great laugh out of people who seriously put forth an idea, that is so absurd, even a minuscule amount of logic and critical thought would render it baseless.

Oh, by the way, have you figured out how many fish would have to be taken out of the ocean to offset global ocean level rise due to glacier melt?

Canuck


here is what I wrote.



I dont even think you can comprehend what you read , when you actually do read.

this explains why you only post articles that others write.

you left yourself open to this one canuck !

since the below was an attempt to verify your inteligence or pump your ego up a bit , lets let the hot air out and verify your inteligence at the same time.



yes I thought about what you wrote , it was absurd considering the basis of what you were writing about.
and I did get a big laugh out of your reply , and am still laughing as I write... thanks canuck.



Uh ... hmmm ... the same volume of fish?

well if I have a fish tank and it will hold 1 cu ft of fish
and 9 cu ft of water or 10 cu ft of water and no fish.

____________________________
.
Fools arent born they just become fools mainly because they listen to other fools.
.

Actually, Paul, no, that is not what you wrote.
This is what you wrote.

If you're going to change your statement after the fact, at least be smart enough to go back and edit your post.
Regardless, no I don't believe if we lost all the ice on greenland, that it would cause a de-pressurization of the earth's magma, (or oceans for that matter) thereby reducing the temperature of the oceans. How do I know? The two things I mentioned in my previous post; 1)critical thought; and 2) logical thinking


Left myself open to what? You've altered your quote after my post, and you're accusing me of reading comprehension problems?
If you're going to change your quote to make it seem like you know what you're talking about, at least make it believable.


Not sure what exactly the point of these paragraphs. Not sure how you've let the "hot air out". But hey, whatever works for you.
By the way, it's "intelligence" not "inteligence". Isn't irony grand?


and this explains why we haven't seen ocean levels rise right? Because of the removal of fish. If only the oceans held 10% of their volume as fish, or 1% or 0.1%, 0.01% or even 0.001%.


Which fool did you listen to paul? How did listening to that fool make you lose all sense of scale, reality or logic?

In hopes to keep this forum civil, I will no longer be responding to you paul. I suggest that you do the same in return.

Canuck

Well I guess the hot air is out now!!!

that was a long responce , heres mine.

I did not know that you were writing of the anology ( the bowl ) I thought that you would have thought about it awhile and maybe realized that I was writing about greenland.

it was my intention to relay to you that the pressure relief in the general area under greenland is causing a temperature decreases in the magma under greenland.

of course if you dont think that physics is correct then have YOUR own way...

Normaly when there is pressure applied , there is a proportional amount of heat generated and if that pressure is released there is a proportional amount of resulting coolness.

and in this case the release would cool down the magma under greenland , and the coolness would transfer to the oceans.

and since the magma is liquid , the pressure inside the earth would be reduced , resulting in an overall cooling of the oceans.

now I am going to use another annology... OK.

if you have a steel globe , that is hollow , and it has an internal pressure of 100 psi , with a temperature of 100 F
and you hit it with a hammer and cause a dent in it.

the pressure in the globe will increase and the temperature in the globe will increase proportionately.

if you pull the dent out again the pressure and temperature will both decrease inside the globe , this is the way physics tells it but you may have a theory we dont yet know of.



1)critical thought

so when/as the ice on greenland melts.

the supportive magma under greenland would not feel any pressure release which would result in any temperature decrease that would cause any cooling.

not only are you doing away with physics , you are also doing away with gravity at the same time.

that is critical thinking...

2) logical thinking

I believe there really is no point in discussing logic.
your critical thinking speaks for your logic.

................................

I think that the main problem here is that you are skeptic
and I am not concerning Global Warming.

and I get a little ticked off when I see the stupidity that caused Global Warming even now when the effects of Global Warming are showing more and more.

................................


if I spelled something wrong and you caught it it just means that I dont use a spell checker like yourself.

and as to keeping the civility of this forum , you might try that by avoiding the types of replies that you are so accustomed to.




I would listen to your sudgestions if I thought you were a viable source of information.

and as far as your responding , you dont have to respond , it doesnt matter.

I know Im right.


____________________________
.
Fools arent born they just become fools mainly because they listen to other fools.
.

Paul, I followed through this and, while there are places where it's awkward to understand, I think technically this all stands up. I can see why Canuk interpreted your writing the way he did, though.

As to the magnitude of the effects that you wonder about, I'd think these would be dwarfed by some of the main climate/anthro- forcers and influences.

But you never know 'till you think about it and ask, eh?
Who knows? Maybe magmatic influences will be found to predominate. Maybe magmatic currents will shift due to tectonic changes as ice melts, and ocean currents and atmospheric pressures shift.

...as an aside....
Did you know that man now stores about as much water in reservoirs as the amount of (missing) predicted sea-level rise?
Where did I read something like that recently?


p.s. I'll bet that water is a lot warmer than it would be if it were in the oceans! (there is some missing heat....)

Samwik


Great catch

re:


we can consider the water that is pumped into the oil wells as a future resouvior also.
however that water was probably not accounted for.
still it counts.



its needed to grow food and its scarce but guess who is putting it where it cant be used

Samwik I believe someone is questioning the known facts and doing a little thinking for himself.

what would really put a clamp on fossile fuel useage would be a visible sea level rise...wouldnt you think.

what types of things could be done to prevent a visible sea level rise?



where can I read about this?
this sounds like something I would be interested in...

Paul,
I usually don't waste my time responding to fantasy...

The oceans have been cooling for years. Even if your "ice cube in a bowl" brainstorm was correct...Last years Arctic melt couldn't affect the cooling of previous years. Not here in the real world. You need to consider the real world when fantasizing about science. It's fascinating to imagine that the effects of a melting ice cube in a bowl can be capable of time travel.

"we live up here where the temperatures are rising."
Please check your "facts" for the last 10 years.

By the way...Trenberth is the lead author of the IPCC reports. Pay attention to who is talking. If the IPCC claims that there is missing heat and it's "back to the drawing board", then you guys should take their word for it. AGW is their boogie man.

Max: Time travel? I saw how Canuk interpreted Paul's writings, but where do you get time travel (retroactive cooling?) out of this?
...
So, do you think, "Back to the Drawing Board," means they erase everything and start over; or do they go back to it and try corrections and additions?

Occasionally science erases everything, but usually just modifications are required to make advances.

...meanwhile....

Originally published in Science Express on 13 March 2008
Science 11 April 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5873, pp. 212 - 214
DOI: 10.1126/science.1154580

Impact of Artificial Reservoir Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level
B. F. Chao,* Y. H. Wu, Y. S. Li
By reconstructing the history of water impoundment in the world's artificial reservoirs, we show that a total of 10,800 cubic kilometers of water has been impounded on land to date, reducing the magnitude of global sea level (GSL) rise by –30.0 millimeters, at an average rate of –0.55 millimeters per year during the past half century. This demands a considerably larger contribution to GSL rise from other (natural and anthropogenic) causes than otherwise required. The reconstructed GSL history, accounting for the impact of reservoirs by adding back the impounded water volume, shows an essentially constant rate of rise at +2.46 millimeters per year over at least the past 80 years. This value is contrary to the conventional view of apparently variable GSL rise, which is based on face values of observation.
===
Paul, ...I found it!

Max


neither do I

Samwik



as of 2008 the world oil consumption is at 76 million barrels per day.

1 barrel = 48 gallons

that equals 3.684 billion gallons per day.


1.344 trillion gallons per year
310 trillion cubic inches per year
179 billion cu ft per year

1 cubic mile
5280 ft x 5280 ft x 5280 ft = 147,197,952,000 cu ft

current world oil consumption = 1.216 cu miles per year

I believe I read that the water flooding method is used apx 95% of the time so you can estimate that there is apx 1.15 cu miles of water going into the oil wells per year.

also you can estimate that an area of 63,360 sq miles at a depth of 1 inch per year is being removed from the picture when the picture is sea level rise.

in the ballpark..

..............................................

and now the 10,800 cu kilometers = 6,696 cu miles

Earth's Diameter at the Equator: 7926.28 miles

Approximately 79% of the Earth's surface
(an area of some 140 million square miles)
is covered by ocean.

6,696 cu miles x 5280 ft x 12" = 424,258,560

so they have dropped the sea level by 3.02 inches storing water.

or a sq mile all the way through the earth just above the equator.
thats a lot of stored water !!!

water is cyclic if they store that much water it can be said that the water came from the ocean , because it was not allowed to flow into the oceans.

..............................................

we dont see all this as a sea level decrease , why?

maybe they dont want us to...

maybe its thermal expansion , if its thermal expansion then they are setting us up for the biggest methane release since the one that ended the last ice age...

water expanded still presents the same pressure to the methane ice...

if water is removed from the oceans then the oceans expanded thermaly little by little it might appear the same but it weighs less and presents less pressure at the ocean floor.

every year were getting closer and closer to a release.

and large methane releases trigger other releases.

it dominoes.

of course as it stands there are several reasons that there is not much thermal expansion today , but what happens when the ice stops melting and the magma stops cooling , and the waters begin to heat up?

it might be better to lose some shore line than to keep covering up the rising sea levels.


Samwik: thanks

BTW: 1 cu mile of fresh water only weighs 9.1 gigga tonnes.

and there is supposed to be apx 300 gigga tonnes melting each year?

thats 32 cu miles of water per year.

or 2,027,520 sq miles 1 inch high.