|Fig. 1 Only a hypothetical pattern?|
I. Peering Into The Depths
The notion of a "peer" has many applications, depending on the discipline of the peer (e.g. What Is a Jury of Peers?).
I once told a friend not to worry because he could never be tried by a jury of his peers, because he didn't have any peers; but seriously, do you ever wonder about the ways of scientific peer review?
The peers of scientists question other scientists (imagine those who peer reviewed some of Einstein's revolutionary papers) !
So, it can't be that bad when Dredd Blog does the same thing, eh?
It is good to sharpen each other's wits, because eventually it improves the science and the scientist.
|Fig. 2 Temperature Anomalies|
Today's graphs are from a module I am working on (I mentioned it in a recent post here).
It follows the GISTEMP record of above-sea-level atmosphere and land temperatures, a record going back to 1880.
The exercise is to try to estimate what percentage of heat has entered the ocean during the recorded period from 1880 to 2016.
By estimate, I mean determining the decreasing amount (proceeding back in time 2016->1880) as well as determining the increasing amount (proceeding forward in time 1880->2016) that has taken place (e.g. Fig. 1).
|Fig. 3 Nothin' from somethin' leaves somethin'|
But before I get heavily into that, let's look at some peer reviewed papers.
They show how far and wide apart the concepts passing through peer review have been.
In general terms, those concerned with these types of measurements have common interests at heart:
"We tend to focus on land surface temperatures, because, well, that’s where we live. And human greenhouse gas emissions have ensured their steady rise since the start of the Industrial Revolution, punctuated by 2014 setting the record for hottest year.(Climate Central, emphasis added). The researchers often mention the percentage of atmospheric heat entering the ocean as if it always takes place at the same rate, the same percentage:
But surface heat is but a fraction of the climate change equation. Only 7 percent of the heat being trapped by greenhouse gases is sticking around in the surface and atmosphere of the planet. The other 93 percent? That's ending up in the ocean, though some scientists expect some of that heat will eventually find its way back to the surface and trigger even more warming."
"For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence."(Yale Environment, emphasis added). Another peer indicates:
"Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming and can best be assessed across the historical record (that is, since 1960) from ocean heat content (OHC) changes. An accurate assessment of OHC is a challenge, mainly because of insufficient and irregular data coverage. We provide updated OHC estimates with the goal of minimizing associated sampling error."(Science Advances, emphasis added, also see an NCAR piece @ Phys.org). My issue, today, is how to determine the following:
"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat (GeoPhys Letters) trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans ..."(OSIP, emphasis added). Since the laws of thermodynamics do not mention any clock that times heat transfer, I must ask "what clock does that timing?" (On The Origin of Ghost Heat & Temperature, On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 9).
Thermal dynamics is a very busy section of peer reviewed science research:
"For much of the past decade, a puzzle has been confounding the climate science community. Nearly all of the measurable indicators of global climate change—such as sea level, ice cover on land and sea, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations—show a world changing on short, medium, and long time scales. But for the better part of a decade, global surface temperatures appeared to level off. The overall, long-term trend was upward, but the climb was less steep from 2003–2012. Some scientists, the media, and climate contrarians began referring to it as “the hiatus.”(NASA, emphasis added). I immediately wonder, since the average ocean depth is about 3682.2 m, how much did they miss at only about one tenth of the way down, i.e. how much heat was deeper (much deeper)?
If greenhouse gases are still increasing and all other indicators show warming-related change, why wouldn’t surface temperatures keep climbing steadily, year after year? One of the leading explanations offered by scientists was that extra heat was being stored in the ocean.
Fig. 4 PSMSL data
Now a new analysis by three ocean scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory not only confirms that the extra heat has been going into the ocean, but it shows where. According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012. But the warming did not occur at the surface; it showed up below 10 meters (32 feet) in depth, and mostly between 100 to 300 meters (300 to 1,000 feet) below the sea surface. They published their results on July 9, 2015, in the journal Science."
IV. Is The Measuring The Problem?
The graph at Fig. 3 shows the pattern of 93% of the atmospheric heat, 10% of that collecting in the upper 10% of the ocean depths, and 90% of that atmospheric heat collecting in the lower 90% of the ocean depths.
The graph at Fig. 2 shows the lack of continuity, because the pattern of heat leaving the atmosphere and entering the ocean does not match the pattern that ocean temperature measurements make.
The graph at Fig. 4 shows sea level change measured at 1,482 tide gauge stations around the world.
These patterns begs the question, "are we not measuring in a proper way?" that would develop a comprehensive and robust representation of what is happening with the heat, i.e., is it naturally that way, are the measurements taken at the right places, at enough places, or what?
I think you can see why I keep working this issue.
We need a consistent policy concerning Global Warming's impact on the ocean, in terms of heat distribution, so that we can more accurately project ocean changes.
That would mean understanding all major aspects of sea level changes and what causes those changes (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).
In the absence of that there will be a lot of peer flailing-around.