Ocean heat content: best evidence of global warming and confirmation of global climate models.

Change in ocean heat content is the most physically suitable way to detect and quantify global warming.

The reason is basic physics: oceans are 70% of the surface. Weather over land is more varied than over ocean, and detecting a long-term signal in noise is easier when the noise is smaller. Most importantly, oceans have a large heat capacity and accumulate, by physical means, the heat inputs and outputs occurring at the surface. There is nowhere for the heat injected into the ocean to go, except back out through the surface, so ocean heat content changes measure current and predict future climate.

Oceans have circulatory systems and waves and fluctuations, but they are slower than the fast moving ones in the atmosphere. Surface and atmospheric temperature/heat measurements are more variable, making detection and calibration of trends less reliable.

Recent analyses of truly global ocean heat uptake measurements show strong and unimpaired signals from global warming, and are quantitatively consistent with the climate models. The observations are now unequivocal: global warming is significant.

Paper1: www.ocean-sci.net...

Observed and simulated full-depth ocean heat-content changes for 1970–2005
Lijing Cheng1, Kevin E. Trenberth2, Matthew D. Palmer3, Jiang Zhu1, and John P. Abraham4
1International Center for Climate and Environment Sciences, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100029, Beijing, China
2National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
3Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
4School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN, USA
Received: 04 Apr 2016 – Published in Ocean Sci. Discuss.: 08 Apr 2016
Revised: 07 Jun 2016 – Accepted: 09 Jul 2016 – Published: 26 Jul 2016
Abstract. Greenhouse-gas emissions have created a planetary energy imbalance that is primarily manifested by increasing ocean heat content (OHC). Updated observational estimates of full-depth OHC change since 1970 are presented that account for recent advancements in reducing observation errors and biases. The full-depth OHC has increased by 0.74 [0.68, 0.80]  ×  1022 J yr−1 (0.46 Wm−2) and 1.22 [1.16–1.29]  ×  1022 J yr−1 (0.75 Wm−2) for 1970–2005 and 1992–2005, respectively, with a 5 to 95 % confidence interval of the median. The CMIP5 models show large spread in OHC changes, suggesting that some models are not state-of-the-art and require further improvements. However, the ensemble median has excellent agreement with our observational estimate: 0.68 [0.54–0.82]  ×  1022 J yr−1 (0.42 Wm−2) from 1970 to 2005 and 1.25 [1.10–1.41]  ×  1022 J yr−1 (0.77 Wm−2) from 1992 to 2005. These results increase confidence in both the observational and model estimates to quantify and study changes in Earth's energy imbalance over the historical period. We suggest that OHC be a fundamental metric for climate model validation and evaluation, especially for forced changes (decadal timescales).

Paper 2: www.nature.com...

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER
Print
Share/bookmark
Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades

Peter J. Gleckler, Paul J. Durack, Ronald J. Stouffer, Gregory C. Johnson & Chris E. Forest
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Climate Change 6, 394–398 (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate2915
Received 14 October 2015 Accepted 09 December 2015 Published online 18 January 2016
Article tools
Citation
Reprints
Rights & permissions
Article metrics
Formal detection and attribution studies have used observations and climate models to identify an anthropogenic warming signature in the upper (0–700 m) ocean1, 2, 3, 4. Recently, as a result of the so-called surface warming hiatus, there has been considerable interest in global ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the deeper ocean, including natural and anthropogenically forced changes identified in observational5, 6, 7, modelling8, 9 and data re-analysis10, 11 studies. Here, we examine OHC changes in the context of the Earth’s global energy budget since early in the industrial era (circa 1865–2015) for a range of depths. We rely on OHC change estimates from a diverse collection of measurement systems including data from the nineteenth-century Challenger expedition12, a multi-decadal record of ship-based in situ mostly upper-ocean measurements, the more recent near-global Argo floats profiling to intermediate (2,000 m) depths13, and full-depth repeated transoceanic sections5. We show that the multi-model mean constructed from the current generation of historically forced climate models is consistent with the OHC changes from this diverse collection of observational systems. Our model-based analysis suggests that nearly half of the industrial-era increases in global OHC have occurred in recent decades, with over a third of the accumulated heat occurring below 700 m and steadily rising.

Paper 3: journals.ametsoc.org...

Insights into Earth’s energy imbalance from multiple sources

Kevin E. Trenberth1, John T. Fasullo1, Karina von Schuckmann2, and Lijing Cheng3
1 National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, U.S.A.
2 Mercator Océan, 10 Rue Hermés, 31520 Ramonville St Agne, France,
3 International Center for Climate and Environment Sciences, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100029, Beijing, China
Add to Favorites Track Citation Download Citation Email
DOI: dx.doi.org...
Published Online: 7 July 2016
Abstract

PDF
Abstract
The current Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) can best be estimated from changes in ocean heat content (OHC), complemented by top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation measurements and an assessment of the small non-ocean components. Sustained observations from the Argo array of autonomous profiling floats enable near-global estimates of OHC since 2005, which reveal considerable cancellation of variations in the upper 300 m. An analysis of the monthly contributions to EEI from non-ocean (land and ice) using the CESM Large Ensemble reveals standard deviations of 0.3 to 0.4 W m-2 (global); largest values occur in August, but values are below 0.75 W m-2 >95% of the time. Global standard deviations of EEI of 0.64 W m-2 based on top-of-atmosphere observations therefore substantially constrain ocean contributions, given by the tendencies of OHC. Instead, monthly standard deviations of many Argo-based OHC tendencies are 6 to 13 W m-2 and non-physical fluctuations are clearly evident. We show that an ocean reanalysis with multi-variate dynamical data assimilation features much better agreement with TOA radiation, and 44% of the vertically-integrated short-term OHC trend for 2005-14 of 0.8±0.2 W m-2 (globally) occurs below 700 m depth. Largest warming occurs from 20 to 50°S, especially over the Southern Oceans, and near 40°N, in all ocean analyses. The EEI is estimated to be 0.9±0.3 W m-2 for 2005-2014.

I don't think anyone is denying temperature changes. But I do not agree that when I exhale, i'm harming the Earth.

Maybe its called Fukushima Radiation.

a reply to: mbkennel

According to the actual AGW model, warming happens in the atmosphere above the surface of the Globe, regardless of the nature of the surface. The greenhouse gases trap space-bound radiations, energises up, and heat the lower atmosphere.

Saying that warming will happen more often over the ocean, where no one lives, is a great way to claim "global warming" without people being able to verify the claim.

Furthermore, ground thermometers are know to be highly inaccurate, and they have been abandoned in favour of satellite measurements of the Earth's infrared output.

I wonder if that magic big shiny round thingy in the sky has anything to do with temperature variations...

Nope, it's gotta be us...mainly evil companies seeking to power the globe...those science minded fools....

Believe in the religion of global warming....it's the best faith as it requires zero common sense and the most faith based reasoning based AGAINST analytics and actual numbers...

-Christosterone

Makes for damn good beach swimming though. Like 90 degrees water temp outchea! Paradise

How's that artic sea ice working out for you?

a reply to: mbkennel

Mbkennel, I really appreciate your well presented post. It's so frustrating to read the comments by our fellow ATS members. I don't understand what it is about this topic that makes them plug their ears and spout "na na na na" I can't hear you.

The data isn't that hard to understand. I really think it is a shirking of responsibility.
The chorus of "we aren't harming the earth", it's the sun, it's the 'local fluff'; but never the forests we mow down or the tons of heat trapping gases we have liberated from underground and spewed into the atmosphere. Sheesh, how far down in the sand can we stick our heads.
Of course, the earth will rebound....eventually. The problem is that we are destroying the ecosystems that sustain human life as we know it, in the blink of a geologic eye.

Everyone seems so darn caught up in me, me, me; without ever giving more than lip service to the world we are leaving to future generations. The numbers don't lie...[/end mini rant]

Trudge on fellow earth/climate science devotee'! Some of us do appreciate your effort.

originally posted by: Christosterone
I wonder if that magic big shiny round thingy in the sky has anything to do with temperature variations...

Nope, it's gotta be us...mainly evil companies seeking to power the globe...those science minded fools....

Believe in the religion of global warming....it's the best faith as it requires zero common sense and the most faith based reasoning based AGAINST analytics and actual numbers...

-Christosterone

actually there may have been some influence from the sun prior to 1950, but since then the impact is negligible

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
I don't think anyone is denying temperature changes. But I do not agree that when I exhale, i'm harming the Earth.

you are carbon neutral. digging down to prehistoric oil deposits, refining it and then combusting it and exhausting it is not

The issue I have with climate change is that none of the solutions presented are ever scientific - they're political. Even the most ardent proponents of climate change awareness make a political game out of it to the detriment of the issue. Thus, has led me to the conclusion that political climate change and scientific climate are really two separate beasts.

As Freeman Dyson has pointed out, the political climate change issue is about power, control and money and little else. We must go out fixing the corrupt power structure of our governments before the issue of scientific climate change can ever be seriously addressed.

Until then I'm afraid posts such as this is just fapping in the wind.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: mbkennel

According to the actual AGW model, warming happens in the atmosphere above the surface of the Globe, regardless of the nature of the surface. The greenhouse gases trap space-bound radiations, energises up, and heat the lower atmosphere.

Saying that warming will happen more often over the ocean, where no one lives, is a great way to claim "global warming" without people being able to verify the claim.

Furthermore, ground thermometers are know to be highly inaccurate, and they have been abandoned in favour of satellite measurements of the Earth's infrared output.

Do try to prove your bull# claims here, please.

For example, satellites do not actually measure temperature.
Nor is infrared what satellites generally use; mostly, they use microwave sounders.

Oh, and that little theory of yours about the atmosphere... here's a clue for you: the bottom 30,000 feet of the atmosphere contains 99% of its molecules.

originally posted by: Christosterone
I wonder if that magic big shiny round thingy in the sky has anything to do with temperature variations...

Nope, it's gotta be us...mainly evil companies seeking to power the globe...those science minded fools....

Believe in the religion of global warming....it's the best faith as it requires zero common sense and the most faith based reasoning based AGAINST analytics and actual numbers...

It sure ain't responsible for what's going on now:

Please note the scale on the left - the Watts per square meter - which fluctuates in a rather narrow range.

originally posted by: thesungod
How's that artic sea ice working out for you?

What are you babbling about?

originally posted by: sooth
The issue I have with climate change is that none of the solutions presented are ever scientific - they're political. Even the most ardent proponents of climate change awareness make a political game out of it to the detriment of the issue. Thus, has led me to the conclusion that political climate change and scientific climate are really two separate beasts.

As Freeman Dyson has pointed out, the political climate change issue is about power, control and money and little else. We must go out fixing the corrupt power structure of our governments before the issue of scientific climate change can ever be seriously addressed.

Until then I'm afraid posts such as this is just fapping in the wind.

The reality of climate change is that it's a big problem which requires substantial sacrifice in order to actually combat. I mean, the only sure way to really combat the problem is to stop all fossil fuel consumption immediately.

Don't see that happening anytime soon.

How many thousands of years of ocean temperature data do we have to go by?

originally posted by: sooth
The issue I have with climate change is that none of the solutions presented are ever scientific - they're political. Even the most ardent proponents of climate change awareness make a political game out of it to the detriment of the issue. Thus, has led me to the conclusion that political climate change and scientific climate are really two separate beasts.

As Freeman Dyson has pointed out, the political climate change issue is about power, control and money and little else. We must go out fixing the corrupt power structure of our governments before the issue of scientific climate change can ever be seriously addressed.

Until then I'm afraid posts such as this is just fapping in the wind.

I agree with this, most political solutions are clumsy punishments, and the big oil companies here in the US rig the markets so renewables are really struggling. Heck, in Arizona the state passed a law making solar a dud price wise. In sunny ARIZONA !!!

this is a "we the people" problem. we need a grass roots kind of thing. I encourage everyone to do energy audits on their homes, if we all do something small it can become something big

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How many thousands of years of ocean temperature data do we have to go by?

Take your pick

originally posted by: Christosterone
I wonder if that magic big shiny round thingy in the sky has anything to do with temperature variations...

Nope, it's gotta be us...mainly evil companies seeking to power the globe...those science minded fools....

Believe in the religion of global warming....it's the best faith as it requires zero common sense and the most faith based reasoning based AGAINST analytics and actual numbers...

-Christosterone

Religion requires faith, global warming has 1000's upon 1000's of man-hours of data. HARDLY a reasoning based off faith.

So global warming has/is being used as a political tool in your nation, big deal. The planet will go through it's cycles per usual... Fact is we are living in turbulent times of change and mass-extinctions. It would be ignorant for mankind to not try and quantify the changes.

If you think humans have little impact on the planet look again, then name me one species other than human who's impact can always be seen from space. I'd bet you can't. The last beast of change was probably grass and how it changed the planet (look it up). Or keep up the ignorance I'm cool either way

a reply to: Greven

Global warming is BS. Climate change is real, to an extent.

Al Gore told my entire school the polar bears and north pole would be gone by 2012.

Polar cap intact? Check.

Polar bears still dancing and singing? Check.

Species dying off in droves from our effect on the climate? Check.

Entire enviroments being destroyes by our impact? Check.

That's what I'm babbling about.