Global Warming Cooking the World's Oceans

Since Tenshini is now claiming that I am making threats, I think that Inshould publicly post the PMs inquestion.

BTW, I consistently was directed to a New Scientists article related to the extra heat being sequestered in the oceans, so given the context of the other thread, I don't think I screwed anything up or demonstrated incompetence. The link that Tenshina posts here does direct you to an article on an unrelated subject.


Since the link set me to the New Scientist article, I don't think the truncation caused it to "fail totally."

However; it is possible that you were attempting to post the embedded link to the original source article in Nature?

This "research", particularly the scary looking graph here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 4_SF3.html

has been cited numerous times since publication in an effort to terrify weak minded fools who are either to ignorant or to lasy to check the math. No doubt this deceptively truncated graph that indicates a calculated net increase in ocean heat content measured in 10^23 Joules caused you to soil your panties.

I will not bother to dispute the authors' claims about how much heat is allegedly being sequestered in the shallow ocean (150 meters is not deep) because the Argo Ocean Temperature Array has been indicating an increase in ocean heat content for years that is neither controversial or alarming. I remain unconcerned because the magnitude of the alleged increase in Ocean thermal energy content is trivial compared to global insolation over the relevant time period and absolutely inconsequential compared to Global Ocean Heat Content. The corresponding change in temperature change is measured in hundredths of Kelvins! Given the slope of the Ocean thermalcline, plausible errors in the sounding depth by the sensor buoys could create a much larger temperature anomaly.

I suggest that you take a shower before putting on a clean panty, then actually crunch some numbers.

Problem is thedata record is sso short. One doesn't know if the ocean temperature is supposed to be higher or lower than this. If we had 12000 years of data we might be able to make an informed prediction. As it is we don't know.

Also global warming doesn't effect weather. Hurricanes and their Ilk are weather.

This data supplied doesn't tell us anything that we can use to say anything on a grand scale. All we can say is, it is getting warmer.

The biggest issue is the magnitude of the ocean warming relative to the global insolation and the heat capacity of the oceans.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 4_SF3.html


These scary looking graphs purport to show that about 1eex23 Joules of heat energy is accumulating per decade.

Let us crunch some numbers to put this in perspective.

The solar constant is1,400 Watts per square meter.

The Earth is 12,800 kilometers in diameter giving an effective solar collection surface of about 1eex8 square kilometers or 1eex14 square meters.

Total global insolation is then about 1eex17 Watts.

That 1eex23 Joules per decade is equivalent to global insolation for 1eex6 seconds or about ten days.   So the heat increase in the oceans is equivalent to only 1/3 of 1% of total insolation.

I am not shaking in my boots.  

Another way to put the alleged heat increase in perspective is to compare it to the total ocean heat content.

World Oceans cover 70% of global surface and average 4,000 meters deep.

That is pi x (13eex6 meters)^2 x 4,000 meters
 Pi x 170eex12 square meters x 4,000 meters
2eex18 cubic meters.

Water masses about 1eex6 grams per cubic meter, so the oceans mass 2eex24 grams.

The heat capacity of water is 1 calorie per gram per Kelvin or 4 Joules per gram per Kelvin, so that heat capacity of the oceans is 8eex24Joules per Kelvin

That 1eex23Joule per decade is equal to 1/80 of a Kelvin temperature increase per decade.

You will excuse me if I don't panic.     

The authors know that their calculated increas in ocean heat content is inconsequential both to global insolation and total ocean heat content. They also know that the 1/80 Kelvin temperature differential is well within the range of measurement error.