I was very interested in your math related to the GRACE map of excess water on the world’s continents. I did the math too, but in a different way. I loaded that image into a GIS, projected it onto a global equal-area map to reduce areal distortion, and converted it to a raster grid of equally sized cells.

Then I calculated the net-wetness for the land. I summed up the mass values (positive or negative) over the land area to find the net positive or negative value. The final figure was positive, representing the increase in water mass over the year on the land.

Then I distributed this net-wetness (the extra water globally on the map) onto the oceans and got a value of 2.4 mm. That is, if all the extra water on the land shown on that map were distributed over the oceans, it would make a layer of water 2.4 mm thick.

The sea level drop reported is 6mm, so the water falling as rain or snow on the land in the GRACE map does not account for the 6mm drop in sea level.

Your math went in reverse. You calculated the volume of the water ‘missing’ from the ocean and you distributed it over the land. But you never checked to see whether that depth of water on the land matched what the GRACE map shows.

Warming as it has been doing since the last Ice Age. I am blown away by the selective publishing of data to support the Global Warming The Sky Is Falling agenda. First it is blamed on an increase of CO2 CAUSED BY MAN, even though data clearly shows that CO2 increases are the result of ocean warming, not the cause.

The data shows no such thing.

Click on my name for a youtube clip debunking that particular canard.

The natural processes caused by Milankovitch cycles are not at work this time here & climatologists have long since established that, yes, humans are to blame for this. I’d recommend you check out David Attenbrough’s youtube clip :

Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

For a great, short and effective demonstration of this.

“Earlier this fall Delta Western could not reach Nome Alaska to deliver fuel due to an early winter storm and the formation of Bering sea ice. Flying fuel into Nome will increase the cost three to four dollars per gallon. A Russian ice breaker will save about 50% of the shipping cost. The US Coast guard is in Vladivostok inspection a Russian ice breaker capable of breaking through 4 feet of ice to deliver the fuel. Once the ship has pass inspection it will depart for Korea to load the fuel for delivery to Nome.”

Warming as it has been doing since the last Ice Age. I am blown away by the selective publishing of data to support the Global Warming The Sky Is Falling agenda.

First it is blamed on an increase of CO2 CAUSED BY MAN, even though data clearly shows that CO2 increases are the result of ocean warming, not the cause.

Next, false data is widely distributed, with the UN and East Anglia being the relatively unchallenged sources. At every turn their media-distributed data is shown false by satellite photos of the ice pack, 40 years of satellite recorded surface temperature data, and most recently NASA’s additional data indicating CO2 levels appear to have no impact on re-radiation of earth’s heat. The theory of Global Warming is touted as “proved” every time there is a summer day temperature that goes a few degrees above average or there is a January “thaw” when an approaching cold front elicits south winds for a day or two. But, when average temps for the last ten + years hold steady or decline, it is just a “pothole” in the road to boiling seas and the death of Gaia (Mother Earth).

In recorded history the earth has been much warmer. On a longer scale earth has been a frozen iceball. And, I am sorry to disappoint, but those fluctuations will continue irrespective and in spite of the presents of mankind.

I actually generated a periodogram on the Church and White data from 1930 to 2009. It indicates a 27yr and a 10yr cycle. As of 2009 we were at the top of both cycles. I wouldn’t be surprised if GSML trends drop markedly in the next few years. Then again, this could be completely spurious.

I recall seeing a periodogram generated from the HadCRUT surface temperature data that pointed to a strong ~65yr cycle. I wonder what would be found if we did the same with the tidal guage data? Do you think that such an approach is valid?

A couple of notes. Firstly, you note we have observed some warming of the deep oceans; but the measurements are temporally and spatially too sparse to draw any firm conclusions from this. That is even noted in the abstract of the last paper you cite (mixed messages?)

The other papers you link are recent, unvalidated models – essentially hypotheses, and once again as an example this is made extremely clear both in the abstract and conclusions of the last paper. Also, that particular paper relies heavily on large uncertainties both in the deep ocean heat and highly inaccurate TOA radiation measurements. These wide errors allow you to fit pretty much any hypothesis you want in.

All in all: I’m not terribly impressed. Perhaps these newly generated hypotheses based on unvalidated models will stand the test of time, but until some evidence supporting them appears I’ll remain sceptical, and stick with the hypotheses that have observational support.

Also: it wouldn’t surprise me if the oceans exhibited scaling stochastic behaviours – in fact I would expect it. Unfortunately, if true, this makes accurate long term prediction of the climate far more difficult than we presently think it is and perhaps even impossible at the levels of variability we are interested in. That would certainly be a game changer.

Yes, the upper ocean is still warming, and the deep ocean too. On shorter timescales (up to a decade) some climate models (Palmer 2011) show upper ocean cooling is possible, but long-term the oceans will continue to warm for centuries because the increase in greenhouse gases has altered the thermal gradient in the ocean ‘cool-skin’ layer. Equilibrium won’t be reached for at least a 1000 years – based on modelling projections.

Mike G – IIRC Katsman & Oldenburgh (2011) suggest most of the excess ocean heat is radiated back out to space.

As for the deep ocean warming contradicting GRACE and Argo measurements, see Song and Colberg, 2011. They performed a similar exercise to Cazenave et al (and explain the relationship between their findings and Cazenave’s). They find thermal expansion of the deep oceans to be entirely consistent with observed changes in ocean mass and sea level.

Speak for yourself. I feel fine.

Phil – you forgot to mention the “Thermal Expansion” is one of the other reasons that sea levels are rising.

We HAD a council of scientists called the Murray Darling Commission working out sustainable water allocations for SE Oz – but when the local farmers and small town residents heard the conclusions it all hit the fan big time!

The Murdoch press, our uninformed AGW denier Opposition Leader, and local pressure groups win over science every time.

Perhaps the biggest problem with democracy is that it can only work well with a highly literate and well-informed public. If extreme idealogues of either the right or the left or both succeed in their aims of dumbing down the electorate they aspire to lead and rule, or if too few people commit themselves to becoming as well informed as they can, democracy will ultimately fail miserably.

I think our political system (&, if I may be so bold, yours too) could do with a shake-up and some major reforms to improve it.

Sometimes I think Isaac Asimov’s idea in his ‘Lucky Starr’ novels of a Council of Science running our planet may be the best way to go.

Then again, they do say that : “Democracy is the worst of all possible systems of government – except for all its alternatives!” And there’s probably something to that as well.

@ 25. QuietDesperation : Which would be a bad thing why exactly?

It would be a bad thing if mass disillusionment leads to loss of faith in democracy itself, leaving the voters vulnerable to the blandishments of a charismatic third party demagogue with hidden authoritarian leanings.

There is plenty of historical precedence for this.

To add some scientific detail to the my comment #33, I would take a look at the paper:

“Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo” by Cazenave et al (easy to find on scholar google, freely available pdf on citeseer)

This compares ARGO and GRACE measurements and verifies that the expansion rate from the Argos is quite consistent with the mass expansion of the oceans, but in turn not consistent with the idea that the heat has gone to the deeper ocean (which would necessarily include an unexplained component of the sea level rise).

Whilst what you say is plausible, it runs strongly against our current understanding and evidence, in a number of ways.

Firstly, modelling suggests that approx. 80-90% of the heat transport in the oceans occur in the top 750 metres. For the deep oceans to suddenly dominate OHC trends would contradict our current understanding of the ocean. Now, models and our understanding can be wrong, I’m not disputing this. But to show an existing model wrong you really need supporting evidence, rather than assumptions.

Secondly, although it is noisy, we do see initial evidence of a matching decline in the trend of the sea surface data. If the “missing heat” had moved to the deep ocean, we would not expect this decline in the trend. The decline in the trend above (measured by satellite altimetry) is also verified by the globally averaged GRACE measurements. And I’m not referring to the short term dip (2010-2011), but the longer term trend. Of course, these measurements remain noisy due to ENSO and probably require a few more years to be conclusive (and we don’t know if OHC is going to continue flatlining long enough to apply that test). A statistical estimate of sea level rise with the component of variance explained by ENSO removed might be informative here.

So in summary – whilst your claim is not impossible, it is not strongly evidenced by the data to hand, and directly contradicts aspects of our current understanding of the science. This doesn’t go to say that you are wrong, but I would need some compelling supporting evidence to explain why you are right and our current understanding of the oceans is so wrong.