It's a tragedy to see that this talk on climate science by a recognized expert gets just a few hundred clicks while "climate science hoax" gets half a million.
At 45:38 Kevin shows the heat in the oceans being very unevenly distributed. Has there been any increase in speed of the ocean currents as result and, if so, would the additional kinetic energy be negligible or of interest ?
Outstanding presentation, not dumbed-down or sensationalized for mass consumption, yet accessible and comprehensive. It's sickening the way denier blogs and their spambot armies completely dismiss the scientific process and resort to accusations of malfeasance rather than calmly studying issues at hand. The notion of ocean heat being sequestered at varying rates in different locations and depths is intuitively obvious, yet I've seen dozens of ignorant parroted comments in which any discussion of ocean heat is regarded as an attempt to cover up the "hiatus" by monkeying with data. I admire any researcher who has the capacity to deal with this idiotic, ideological assault on their work.
It's my understanding that heat capacity of oceans to, say, 700m depth is approx. 120 times as much as heat capacity of land and air combined. So why isn't ocean heat content the datum that's being graphed rather than "average global temperature", is it because there's no historical data for it ? Is the "average global temperature" just an unweighted average with land surface temperature treated equally to ocean surface temperature ?
At a couple of minutes starting 26:45 where Dr. Trenberth says the residual forcing 0.9 w/m**2 is due to the +CO2 & other GHGs he is incorrect because, ironically, he neglected to account for The Role of the Oceans in Climate. It's known that Easterly Trades have been strengthening for a couple of decades & that's a major reason for the GMST "pause" or hiatus. Dr. T. has some good talks on the topic himself. Dr. T. himself has presented a pictorial of +GMST colour-coded over Earth to make the point that Pacific surface essentially didn't warm ~1980-~2010 (I forget its date details) but other surface areas warmed a lot. Cooler surface radiates less than warmer surface. Rough quick estimates follow from me because I'll not search around and lose my place here. +GMST ~1980-~2010 was +0.5 degrees. I quick rough estimate Pacific surface that essentially didn't warm ~1980-~2010 as 20% of Earth's surface. TOA forcing is 3x surface t anomaly so +0.5 degrees x 3 x 20% = 0.3 w/m**2 of the forcing is due to the Pacific surface being piled up in the west by wind revealing cooler water from below, not the +CO2 & other GHGs. The remaining 0.6 w/m**2 is the residual forcing due to the +CO2 & other GHGs.
2019, 4 years later. The 20-year trend (from Trenberth & some other authors & papers) has been 0.81 +/- 0.03 w/m**2 TOA imbalance so fair enough on the 0.9 w/m**2. The Easterly Trades have been strengthening since 1995 is a real thing and BIG thing though (big ENSO effect) so check that out.
2021 December I was wrong about the analysis showing ~1.10 w/m**2 TOA imbalance in January. It's actually still 0.87 w/m**2. I got that wrong ~1.10 w/m**2 from the Greenman Web Log Site posting. I should have fact-checked that but I had incorrectly thought Greenman reliable because they post a lot of actual climate scientist talk snippets. The Greenman (Peter Sinclair) really let me down there & wasted my time. I can't find that OHC posting since and I suspect they quietly deleted it.
Update 2023-06: Well, now it turns out that I WASN'T wrong about the analysis showing ~1.10 w/m**2 TOA imbalance in January 2021. I'd gotten the old 0.87 and even lower at 0.78 from scientists but in averaging the last 10 or 20 years they'd implied (at least to me) that there was no discernable trend. Turns out there is a definite discernable trend of +0.45 w/m**2 per decade**2 in the global heater. It's 1.32 w/m**2 now. My "Update 2021: " was 29% low (it was 40% more than I thought). It's been increasing at 0.5 w/m**2 / decade the last couple of decades. I'd been misled by scientists saying CERES wasn't really accurate enough to figure it out and giving ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly only as averages such as the last 20 years. I was seriously misled by them. EEI has been going up like a Bat Out of Hell. Much bigger surface warming rate is now INEVITABLE unless you are a Magical Universe freak who thinks that a heater doesn't heat.
I strongly object to the use of "skeptic" when referring to deniers of evidence! I consider that slanderous. Skeptics do not reject the evidence for human-caused climate change: Denialists do.
ENSO appears to have "strengthened" since 1995 due to Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) having started increasing in average speed since 1995 and now 1 m/s faster than before 1995. This was the main cause of the "hiatus" or "pause" between 1997/98 huge El Nino and very large 2015/16 El Nino. ---------------- Quote: "Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. "We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean," said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) at the University of New South Wales." ---------------- The Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started increasing in 1995 AD. Caused by the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean surface due to global warming (1995 AD is 25 years after the carbon burn rate started increasing and also after Clean Air Acts reduced "global dimming" air pollution a bit). ---------------- Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus Nature Climate Change 4, 222-227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014 Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations Quote: "Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades-unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models-is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake." ---------------- Aside note: There's an Aussie talk about Antarctic changes by the Matthew H. England above at th-cam.com/video/Ck8u1-XS9rM/w-d-xo.html ---------------- Quote: "The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says." ----------------Here's the sequence of events, some definitely linked and others possibly linked: - 1995 AD the start. Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds began increasing. - Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds have increased 30% (1 m/s) since 1995 AD. - The ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly rate DOUBLED at ~1999 AD (ocean started warming twice as fast as before ~1998 AD ). - Huge 1997/98 El Nino started soon after 1995 AD . - Arctic Ocean summer sea ice extent loss rate massively increased at 1997.5 AD as seen in a plot at 9:15 at th-cam.com/video/sCEawfpDoD0/w-d-xo.html - GMST increase slowed. ENSO change caused the "pause" or "hiatus" (that's why global warming" is 0.11 degrees less than in models). - GMST ==El Nino years== started pulling ahead of La Nina faster at +0.23 degrees / decade vs +0.165 degrees / decade. - Sea level change rise (SLR) of the ==western== equatorial Pacific Ocean has been much higher than the global average because the stronger Pacific Equatorial trade winds are pushing the water westwards harder than pre-1995 AD - Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) mass loss more than doubled in 1997 AD, - Arctic region warming at latitude 67N 1958-2019 sped up to +0.94 degrees / decade from a lower earlier rate ~1996-1998 - Southern westerlies strengthened & tightened on Antarctica soon after (perhaps the Antarctic circumpolar westerlies began strengthening & tightening then but I haven't pinned ENSO as the cause yet). - Actual "global warming" is 0.11 degrees less than model global warming because the WG1 climate scientists didn't replicate that Pacific Ocean - Atlantic Ocean wind coupling effect in the CMIP models. I don't know whether they've corrected that in CMIP6. - Almost certainly has affected the Indian Ocean dipole with this additional wind push westward so will likely increase drought in Australia due to moving the warm rising air more often further to the west than before. ----------------- All happened soon after 1995 AD when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started having higher average speed and boosting the ENSO. ---------------- The Tropical Atlantic Ocean surface has warmed and has increased the intensity of the Tropical Pacific Ocean trade winds by 50% in under 30 years because the atmospheric circulation is coupled between the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean, but the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean aren't coupled because there's land in the way ENSO is a massive feature of Earth's climate and the GMST trends have been: +0.13 degrees / decade: UAH lower troposphere 1979-2017 +0.17 degrees / decade: RSS lower troposphere 1979-2017 +0.165 degrees / decade: Surface La Nina & ENSO-neutral years 1970-2014 (me from GISTEMP) +0.20 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1966-1995 (me from GISTEMP) +0.23 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1995-2014 (me from GISTEMP, high uncertainty, sparse & varied data points) +0.18 degrees / decade: Surface average 1966-2014 (GISTEMP) +0.11 degrees / decade: Ocean surface 1966-2014 (GISTEMP) +0.047 degrees / decade: Ocean 0-300M depth 1966-2010 89 / 432 = 0.206 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.030 degrees / decade: Ocean 300-700M depth 1966-2010 76 / 576 = 0.132 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.026 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-1000M depth 1966-2010 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.15 degrees total increase: Ocean 0-1000M depth (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, Matthew England talk plots etc.) ---------------- +0.009 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-2000M depth 1966-2010 77 / 1872 = 0.0411 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) Note the +0.23 degrees / decade for El Nino years since 1995 and only +0.165 degrees / decade for La Nina & ENSO-neutral years. A big difference.
+bimmjim "The UN appointed an Economist to head the IPCC. This shows us that the IPCC and the UN should be disbanded". Your science brain picked up a huge amount of facts, data, analysis & conclusions from this talk about oceans and then made very brainy physical science thoughts of your own on top of it. Good science brain there.
It's a bit complex & drove me batty like all of them because you can't see the damn graphs he's talking about as usual and you bash your head on your flat screen (at least, I do). On the ending comment about more research & the David Randall one, on the political front you've noticed there's a big push by the groups, persons & mystery entities to cut government funding for the science (constant talk of billions wasted) cut 'em off at the knees is always the best strategy you know.
Linked to this video at: www.quora.com/Black-body-radiation-goes-like-T-4-The-green-house-gas-effect-goes-like-the-log-of-the-CO2-concentration-Dont-these-combine-to-severely-limit-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
@@grindupBaker If it's drivel, how can you refute it? Slander is not science. Self-promoting link? It's not a commercial link, it's information and I provide it free at my own expense. It tells the truth to the U.N. IPCC's lies. If you think you can logically refute my work, I simplified the disproof of the CO2-driven AGW hoax even more in this free link: www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
"We end up with point 9 watts per metre squared" at 26:34 has actually been 0.78 w/m**2 for the last 22 years and here are the details of that "climate lag heater" (5 competing analyses for ocean): w/m**2 ---------- +0.85 (13.7 Zettajoules / year) Magdalena Balmaseda's ocean ORAS4 OHC analysis ~2013, -or- +0.826 ± 0.012 (13.3 ± 0.20 Zettajoules / year) Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean with errors. +0.752 ± 0.045 (12.1 ± 0.72 Zettajoules / year) Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean with errors corrected. Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean. A totally-independent geochemical method based on the changing solubility of O2 and CO2 in the warming ocean. It was quickly found after publishing to have a couple of errors and this is the corrected (lower than before) trend. The uncertainties in this methodology are too large for this to be a definitive independent confirmation but further work may well reduce them. +0.75 Kiehl-Trenberth ocean , -or- +0.73 Ocean Heat Content NOAA ORAP5 2011 - 2019/03 It increased slightly 2011, linear to 2019 (pentadal average) +0.61 Upper 2000 metres only. , Lijing Cheng et al 2020 (not included in average) ocean heat content OHC anomaly Lijing Cheng John ABRAHAM Jiang ZHU Trenberth et al +0.073 below 2000 metres only Purkey and Johnson 2010. (contributed by L Cheng) +0.68 Upper 2000 metres, Lijing Cheng et al 2020. below 2000 metres Purkey and Johnson 2010 I omitted the 1st 2 analyses above and the last analysis. They appear to be over-estimates & an under-estimate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +0.744 ± 0.008 /0.014 Average of above ------------------------ gigawatts portion w/m**2 ------------- ---------- --------- 379,400 95.291% +0.7439 ± 0.008 /0.014 Warming the oceans. Average of the 3 central analyses above and their variation as the uncertainty 3,520 0.884% +0.0069 Arctic Ocean sea ice loss of 338 Gt / year 3,080 0.774% +0.0060 Antarctic ice shelves ice loss of 295 Gt / year 2,890 0.726% +0.0057 Mountain glaciers ice loss of 277 Gt / year 1,760 0.442% +0.0034 Greenland ice sheet ice loss of 169 Gt / year 1,170 0.294% +0.0023 Antarctic ice sheets ice loss of 112 Gt / year 330 0.083% +0.0007 Antarctic sea ice loss of 32 Gt / year 4,200 1.055% +0.0082 Atmospheric heating. 1,800 0.452% +0.0035 Land heating to a depth of 20 feet. ============= 398,150 100.00% +0.781 Total TOA warming imbalance average for the last 22 years. 12,850 3.23% +0.781 Total ice loss average portion of 398,150 for the last 22 years. It's certain within +/- 3.0%, not actually accurate within the 4 significant digits shown. Here's the source of that 398,000 gigawatts: 383,000 gigawatts (96.2%) The solar warming excess to energy that Earth sent to space (energy to space reduced by +H2O, +CO2, +CH4, +N2O, net of "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and with a few very small other factors also 15,000 gigawatts (3.8%) The warming caused by human nuclear fission (matter ---> energy) & human exothermic chemical reactions (almost entirely CH+O --->CO2 + H2O ) ------------------------------ 398,000 gigawatts Total that's been warming Earth's ecosphere for the last 22 years. ---------------- The 398,000 gigawatts is trying to be increased by 20,000 gigawatts / year by the humans burning carbon and the CO2 from it reducing Earth's cooling rate but what happens is that the surface/air warms globally-averaged and fights that 20,000 gigawatts / year and tries to reduce the 398,000 gigawatts. There's a quiet titanic battle going on and it's been stalled near 400,000 gigawatts for the last 22 years.
Update 2023-06: It's 1.32 w/m**2 now. My "Update 2021: " was 29% low (it was 40% more than I thought). It's been increasing at 0.5 w/m**2 / decade the last couple of decades. I'd been misled by scientists saying CERES wasn't really accurate enough to figure it out and giving ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly only as averages such as the last 20 years. I was seriously misled by them. EEI has been going up like a Bat Out of Hell. Much bigger surface warming rate is now INEVITABLE unless you are a Magical Universe freak who thinks that a heater doesn't heat.
This sure is fascinating stuff. I think Mr. Sun does a lot of heating though I've never actually seen it. Any more of your kids overtake me going up Gagliardi & I'll be sticking a pump in their spokes.
Why doesn't Kevin have an energy scale on the power & energy graph @58:27. Has he been taking lessons from Tim Ball on how to show important graphs with no scale on them ? Will this escalate until Kevin shows YooToob poster graphs with lines 3" thick floating & turning in a fuzzy pink haze while 1950s elevator music plays ?
It's a tragedy to see that this talk on climate science by a recognized expert gets just a few hundred clicks while "climate science hoax" gets half a million.
9:40 - "May be irreversible if collapse begins." was a prophetic statement.
At 45:38 Kevin shows the heat in the oceans being very unevenly distributed. Has there been any increase in speed of the ocean currents as result and, if so, would the additional kinetic energy be negligible or of interest ?
Outstanding presentation, not dumbed-down or sensationalized for mass consumption, yet accessible and comprehensive. It's sickening the way denier blogs and their spambot armies completely dismiss the scientific process and resort to accusations of malfeasance rather than calmly studying issues at hand. The notion of ocean heat being sequestered at varying rates in different locations and depths is intuitively obvious, yet I've seen dozens of ignorant parroted comments in which any discussion of ocean heat is regarded as an attempt to cover up the "hiatus" by monkeying with data. I admire any researcher who has the capacity to deal with this idiotic, ideological assault on their work.
Brilliant lecture thank you
It's my understanding that heat capacity of oceans to, say, 700m depth is approx. 120 times as much as heat capacity of land and air combined. So why isn't ocean heat content the datum that's being graphed rather than "average global temperature", is it because there's no historical data for it ? Is the "average global temperature" just an unweighted average with land surface temperature treated equally to ocean surface temperature ?
If it can't be summed up in a headline and accompanying graph, they tend not to be too interested.
You watched the whole vid and that's all you got out of it?
At a couple of minutes starting 26:45 where Dr. Trenberth says the residual forcing 0.9 w/m**2 is due to the +CO2 & other GHGs he is incorrect because, ironically, he neglected to account for The Role of the Oceans in Climate. It's known that Easterly Trades have been strengthening for a couple of decades & that's a major reason for the GMST "pause" or hiatus. Dr. T. has some good talks on the topic himself. Dr. T. himself has presented a pictorial of +GMST colour-coded over Earth to make the point that Pacific surface essentially didn't warm ~1980-~2010 (I forget its date details) but other surface areas warmed a lot. Cooler surface radiates less than warmer surface. Rough quick estimates follow from me because I'll not search around and lose my place here. +GMST ~1980-~2010 was +0.5 degrees. I quick rough estimate Pacific surface that essentially didn't warm ~1980-~2010 as 20% of Earth's surface. TOA forcing is 3x surface t anomaly so +0.5 degrees x 3 x 20% = 0.3 w/m**2 of the forcing is due to the Pacific surface being piled up in the west by wind revealing cooler water from below, not the +CO2 & other GHGs. The remaining 0.6 w/m**2 is the residual forcing due to the +CO2 & other GHGs.
2019, 4 years later. The 20-year trend (from Trenberth & some other authors & papers) has been 0.81 +/- 0.03 w/m**2 TOA imbalance so fair enough on the 0.9 w/m**2. The Easterly Trades have been strengthening since 1995 is a real thing and BIG thing though (big ENSO effect) so check that out.
2021 2 years later. The analysis shows ~1.10 w/m**2 TOA imbalance now.
2021 December I was wrong about the analysis showing ~1.10 w/m**2 TOA imbalance in January. It's actually still 0.87 w/m**2. I got that wrong ~1.10 w/m**2 from the Greenman Web Log Site posting. I should have fact-checked that but I had incorrectly thought Greenman reliable because they post a lot of actual climate scientist talk snippets. The Greenman (Peter Sinclair) really let me down there & wasted my time. I can't find that OHC posting since and I suspect they quietly deleted it.
Update 2023-06: Well, now it turns out that I WASN'T wrong about the analysis showing ~1.10 w/m**2 TOA imbalance in January 2021. I'd gotten the old 0.87 and even lower at 0.78 from scientists but in averaging the last 10 or 20 years they'd implied (at least to me) that there was no discernable trend. Turns out there is a definite discernable trend of +0.45 w/m**2 per decade**2 in the global heater.
It's 1.32 w/m**2 now. My "Update 2021: " was 29% low (it was 40% more than I thought). It's been increasing at 0.5 w/m**2 / decade the last couple of decades. I'd been misled by scientists saying CERES wasn't really accurate enough to figure it out and giving ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly only as averages such as the last 20 years. I was seriously misled by them. EEI has been going up like a Bat Out of Hell. Much bigger surface warming rate is now INEVITABLE unless you are a Magical Universe freak who thinks that a heater doesn't heat.
I strongly object to the use of "skeptic" when referring to deniers of evidence! I consider that slanderous. Skeptics do not reject the evidence for human-caused climate change: Denialists do.
ENSO appears to have "strengthened" since 1995 due to Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) having started increasing in average speed since 1995 and now 1 m/s faster than before 1995. This was the main cause of the "hiatus" or "pause" between 1997/98 huge El Nino and very large 2015/16 El Nino.
----------------
Quote: "Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. "We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean," said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) at the University of New South Wales."
----------------
The Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started increasing in 1995 AD. Caused by the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean surface due to global warming (1995 AD is 25 years after the carbon burn rate started increasing and also after Clean Air Acts reduced "global dimming" air pollution a bit).
----------------
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
Nature Climate Change 4, 222-227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014
Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations
Quote: "Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades-unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models-is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake."
----------------
Aside note: There's an Aussie talk about Antarctic changes by the Matthew H. England above at th-cam.com/video/Ck8u1-XS9rM/w-d-xo.html
----------------
Quote: "The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says."
----------------Here's the sequence of events, some definitely linked and others possibly linked:
- 1995 AD the start. Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds began increasing.
- Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds have increased 30% (1 m/s) since 1995 AD.
- The ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly rate DOUBLED at ~1999 AD (ocean started warming twice as fast as before ~1998 AD
).
- Huge 1997/98 El Nino started soon after 1995 AD
.
- Arctic Ocean summer sea ice extent loss rate massively increased at 1997.5 AD as seen in a plot at 9:15 at th-cam.com/video/sCEawfpDoD0/w-d-xo.html
- GMST increase slowed. ENSO change caused the "pause" or "hiatus" (that's why global warming" is 0.11 degrees less than in models).
- GMST ==El Nino years== started pulling ahead of La Nina faster at +0.23 degrees / decade vs +0.165 degrees / decade.
- Sea level change rise (SLR) of the ==western== equatorial Pacific Ocean has been much higher than the global average because the stronger Pacific Equatorial trade winds are pushing the water westwards harder than pre-1995 AD
- Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) mass loss more than doubled in 1997 AD,
- Arctic region warming at latitude 67N 1958-2019 sped up to +0.94 degrees / decade from a lower earlier rate ~1996-1998
- Southern westerlies strengthened & tightened on Antarctica soon after (perhaps the Antarctic circumpolar westerlies began strengthening & tightening then but I haven't pinned ENSO as the cause yet).
- Actual "global warming" is 0.11 degrees less than model global warming because the WG1 climate scientists didn't replicate that Pacific Ocean - Atlantic Ocean wind coupling effect in the CMIP models. I don't know whether they've corrected that in CMIP6.
- Almost certainly has affected the Indian Ocean dipole with this additional wind push westward so will likely increase drought in Australia due to moving the warm rising air more often further to the west than before.
-----------------
All happened soon after 1995 AD
when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started having higher average speed and boosting the ENSO.
----------------
The Tropical Atlantic Ocean surface has warmed and has increased the intensity of the Tropical Pacific Ocean trade winds by 50% in under 30 years because the atmospheric circulation is coupled between the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean, but the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean aren't coupled because there's land in the way
ENSO is a massive feature of Earth's climate and the GMST trends have been:
+0.13 degrees / decade: UAH lower troposphere 1979-2017
+0.17 degrees / decade: RSS lower troposphere 1979-2017
+0.165 degrees / decade: Surface La Nina & ENSO-neutral years 1970-2014 (me from GISTEMP)
+0.20 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1966-1995 (me from GISTEMP)
+0.23 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1995-2014 (me from GISTEMP, high uncertainty, sparse & varied data points)
+0.18 degrees / decade: Surface average 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)
+0.11 degrees / decade: Ocean surface 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)
+0.047 degrees / decade: Ocean 0-300M depth 1966-2010 89 / 432 = 0.206 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.030 degrees / decade: Ocean 300-700M depth 1966-2010 76 / 576 = 0.132 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.026 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-1000M depth 1966-2010 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.15 degrees total increase: Ocean 0-1000M depth (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, Matthew England talk plots etc.)
----------------
+0.009 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-2000M depth 1966-2010 77 / 1872 = 0.0411 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
Note the +0.23 degrees / decade for El Nino years since 1995 and only +0.165 degrees / decade for La Nina & ENSO-neutral years. A big difference.
Great info
wow
Excellent video.
The UN appointed an *Economist* to head the IPCC. This shows us that the IPCC and the UN should be disbanded.
+bimmjim "The UN appointed an Economist to head the IPCC. This shows us that the IPCC and the UN should be disbanded". Your science brain picked up a huge amount of facts, data, analysis & conclusions from this talk about oceans and then made very brainy physical science thoughts of your own on top of it. Good science brain there.
That's all you got out of this informative presentation?
It's a bit complex & drove me batty like all of them because you can't see the damn graphs he's talking about as usual and you bash your head on your flat screen (at least, I do). On the ending comment about more research & the David Randall one, on the political front you've noticed there's a big push by the groups, persons & mystery entities to cut government funding for the science (constant talk of billions wasted) cut 'em off at the knees is always the best strategy you know.
Linked to this video at: www.quora.com/Black-body-radiation-goes-like-T-4-The-green-house-gas-effect-goes-like-the-log-of-the-CO2-concentration-Dont-these-combine-to-severely-limit-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
There is only drivel at your childish self-promoting link.
@@grindupBaker If it's drivel, how can you refute it? Slander is not science. Self-promoting link? It's not a commercial link, it's information and I provide it free at my own expense. It tells the truth to the U.N. IPCC's lies. If you think you can logically refute my work, I simplified the disproof of the CO2-driven AGW hoax even more in this free link:
www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
@@TLWinslow There's no audience in this venue so total pointless waste of my time. There is only drivel at your childish self-promoting link.
"We end up with point 9 watts per metre squared" at 26:34 has actually been 0.78 w/m**2 for the last 22 years and here are the details of that "climate lag heater" (5 competing analyses for ocean):
w/m**2
----------
+0.85 (13.7 Zettajoules / year) Magdalena Balmaseda's ocean ORAS4 OHC analysis ~2013,
-or-
+0.826 ± 0.012 (13.3 ± 0.20 Zettajoules / year) Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean with errors.
+0.752 ± 0.045 (12.1 ± 0.72 Zettajoules / year) Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean with errors corrected.
Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean. A totally-independent geochemical method based on the changing
solubility of O2 and CO2 in the warming ocean.
It was quickly found after publishing to have a
couple of errors and this is the corrected (lower than before) trend.
The uncertainties in this methodology are too large for this to be a definitive independent
confirmation but further work may well reduce them.
+0.75 Kiehl-Trenberth ocean ,
-or-
+0.73 Ocean Heat Content NOAA ORAP5 2011 - 2019/03 It increased slightly 2011, linear to 2019
(pentadal average)
+0.61 Upper 2000 metres only. , Lijing Cheng et al 2020 (not included in average)
ocean heat content OHC anomaly Lijing Cheng John ABRAHAM Jiang ZHU Trenberth et al
+0.073 below 2000 metres only Purkey and Johnson 2010. (contributed by L Cheng)
+0.68 Upper 2000 metres, Lijing Cheng et al 2020. below 2000 metres Purkey and Johnson 2010
I omitted the 1st 2 analyses above and the last analysis. They appear to be over-estimates & an under-estimate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+0.744 ± 0.008 /0.014 Average of above
------------------------
gigawatts portion w/m**2
------------- ---------- ---------
379,400 95.291% +0.7439 ± 0.008 /0.014 Warming the oceans. Average of the 3 central analyses above and their variation as the uncertainty
3,520 0.884% +0.0069 Arctic Ocean sea ice loss of 338 Gt / year
3,080 0.774% +0.0060 Antarctic ice shelves ice loss of 295 Gt / year
2,890 0.726% +0.0057 Mountain glaciers ice loss of 277 Gt / year
1,760 0.442% +0.0034 Greenland ice sheet ice loss of 169 Gt / year
1,170 0.294% +0.0023 Antarctic ice sheets ice loss of 112 Gt / year
330 0.083% +0.0007 Antarctic sea ice loss of 32 Gt / year
4,200 1.055% +0.0082 Atmospheric heating.
1,800 0.452% +0.0035 Land heating to a depth of 20 feet.
=============
398,150 100.00% +0.781 Total TOA warming imbalance average for the last 22 years.
12,850 3.23% +0.781 Total ice loss average portion of 398,150 for the last 22 years.
It's certain within +/- 3.0%, not actually accurate within the 4 significant digits shown.
Here's the source of that 398,000 gigawatts:
383,000 gigawatts (96.2%) The solar warming excess to energy that Earth sent to space
(energy to space reduced by +H2O, +CO2, +CH4, +N2O, net of
"global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and with
a few very small other factors also
15,000 gigawatts
(3.8%) The warming caused by human nuclear fission (matter ---> energy) &
human exothermic chemical reactions (almost
entirely CH+O --->CO2 + H2O )
------------------------------
398,000 gigawatts Total that's been warming Earth's ecosphere for the last 22 years.
----------------
The 398,000 gigawatts is trying to be increased by 20,000 gigawatts / year by the humans burning carbon and the CO2 from it reducing Earth's cooling rate but what happens is that the surface/air warms globally-averaged and fights that 20,000 gigawatts / year and tries to reduce the 398,000 gigawatts. There's a quiet titanic battle going on and it's been stalled near 400,000 gigawatts for the last 22 years.
Update 2021: It's 0.87 w/m**2 now.
Update 2023-06: It's 1.32 w/m**2 now. My "Update 2021: " was 29% low (it was 40% more than I thought). It's been increasing at 0.5 w/m**2 / decade the last couple of decades. I'd been misled by scientists saying CERES wasn't really accurate enough to figure it out and giving ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly only as averages such as the last 20 years. I was seriously misled by them. EEI has been going up like a Bat Out of Hell. Much bigger surface warming rate is now INEVITABLE unless you are a Magical Universe freak who thinks that a heater doesn't heat.
This sure is fascinating stuff. I think Mr. Sun does a lot of heating though I've never actually seen it. Any more of your kids overtake me going up Gagliardi & I'll be sticking a pump in their spokes.
Why doesn't Kevin have an energy scale on the power & energy graph @58:27. Has he been taking lessons from Tim Ball on how to show important graphs with no scale on them ? Will this escalate until Kevin shows YooToob poster graphs with lines 3" thick floating & turning in a fuzzy pink haze while 1950s elevator music plays ?
No flashy graphics and cliche words to keep the climate deniers occupied.