http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/where-are-you-great-oden/

Australia’s Antarctic supply ship Aurora Australis is stuck in ice near Casey Station.

The Antarctic Division’s operations manager, Robb Clifton, says it is not a problem at this stage with scientists out on the ice doing research work as normal.

Mr Clifton says the crew has until early next month to remain in their position, 80 nautical miles from the Antarctic coastline.

“It’s in very heavy ice at the moment and it’s unable to move from its current position because of that ice pack having tightened up from some very strong northerly winds,” he said.

“We expect then, when we get a little bit of southerly wind and a little bit of swell and current through, then the ice will start to move apart.

“As it does then the ship will move to the the next station for some more science activity.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-23/antarctic-supply-ship-icebound/4329708

So the ice was caused by winds? Who’d have thought?

http://oi46.tinypic.com/2vjpunk.jpg

TB’s helpful NIWA/NZCSET-style adjustment :-

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/3145o52.png?w=1228&h=870

GISS uses an out-of-territory station (Base Orcadas) as a proxy for the entire Antarctic. Best does the same for the first decade of its NZ record (1840s), using Hobart. But Hobart is much cooler than the composite NZ record, hence pronounced warming in the BEST NZ record.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/roger-andrews-how-nasa-giss-manufactures-warming-in-the-antarctic/

Nuccitelli et al reference Palmer et al 2011 who suggest that “under [an anthropogenic] global warming scenario, we would expect to see a more monotonic increase in total energy”. Total energy required being 0 – 2000m OHC (at least) instead of the 0 – 700m layer that Douglass and Knox applied. Nuccitelli et al stipulate 0 – 2000m as the appropriate depth to ascertain radiative imbalance – OK fine, we’ll do that.

Nuccitelli et al dictate that D&K’s 8 yr time-frame was too short and the D&K data was “noise”. Nuccitelli et al instead stipulate a longer time-frame and 5 yr smoothing – OK fine, we’ll do that too but with 10 yr smoothing.

Refer Roy Spencer’s 10 yr smoothed radiative imbalance inferred from OHC:-

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif

Our period is 1961 – 2006 (46 yrs). Now to calculate Palmer et al’s “more monotonic increase in total energy” as a result of (supposed) CO2 forcing using the IPCC forcing expression:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

2006 C: 381.90 (Mauna Loa)
1961 Co: 317.64 (Mauna Loa)
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

dF = 5.35(381.90/317.64)
dF = 0.99 W/m2

If OHC was in fact CO2-forced, according to Palmer et al we should see a “more monotonic rise” of about 1 W/m2 from 1961 to 2006 (46 yrs, Nuccitelli et al’s required longer time-frame). Instead we see a non-linear oscillation, minimums around 1965 and 1985, maximums around 1975 and 2000, with the 2006 level at about 0.4 W/m2, well short of 1 W/m2.

When the entire unsmoothed 1956 – 2010 55 yr period is considered, it is clear that there is no rise but instead the period starts at about the 0.2 W/m2 average and ends at about the 0.2 W/m2 average.

The moral of this story is to be careful what you stipulate in your attempted rebuttal because it might backfire on you.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/#comment-1138421

Rob Painting
October 17, 2012 at 6:54 pm

Richard C2 – our paper is somewhat removed from the topic of this post. Maybe when a relevant post arises, and I happen to be around, it can be discussed then.

“The CO2 feedback is effectively a constant value, and thus should not be
calculated using such a short timeframe when data over a longer period are available.
The DK12 feedback calculation is invalidated by focusing on noisy short-term data and
failing to account for all radiative forcings at work, as well as all heat reservoirs, in
particular the oceans below 700 meters”

Now their justification for 0 – 2000m and a longer time-frame than D&K’s 2002 – 2008:-

‘Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance’

Palmer, Douglas, McNeall and Dunstone, 2011.

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/sst-et-temp-mondiales.pdf

Page 2:-

“This large internal variability in SST could easily mask the
anthropogenic warming signal for a decade or more, consistent
with the findings of previous studies [Easterling and
Wehner, 2009; Knight et al., 2009]. Conversely, trends in
total energy are typically an order of magnitude less than the
1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 estimated radiation imbalance for the
period 1970–2000 [Murphy et al., 2009; see also Hansen
et al., 2005].

This suggests that under a global warming
scenario, we would expect to see a more monotonic increase
in total energy than for SST (and, therefore, global surface
temperature)”

BIG problem. Roy Spencer plotted total energy imbalance inferred from 0 – 2000m OHC 1955 – 2010:-

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif

The running 10 yr average (twice as long as Nuccitelli’s 5 yr OHC smoothing) is anything but monotonic rise and therefore not anthropogenically forced – sorry guys.

Antarctic climate facing ‘rapid’ changes: chief scientist

Australia’s chief Antarctic scientist says claims by climate experts about environmental changes in the southern continent are not alarmist.

The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) told a Senate estimates hearing today “rapid changes” taking place across the icy land mass would have significant impact on global climate.

Changes in ocean flows and shifts in Antarctic ice cap levels were occurring at rates faster than at any other time in history, chief scientist Nick Gales said.

“That’s the part that is the most dramatic about the information we’re receiving,” he told the hearing.

Scientists were detecting major changes in the circulation of deep, dense salty water off Antarctica.

This water, which drives the circulation of the world’s oceans and in turn climate patterns, was reducing, while becoming warmer and less salty.

Meanwhile, parts of the Antarctic ice caps were melting at unprecedented rates.

Recent research has determined that all radiative forcings [3] and heat content of the entire ocean, at all depths must be considered to reconcile these two quantities [4], including the upper 2,000 meters of oceans in particular [5].

[4] M.D. Palmer, D. J. McNeall, and N. J. Dunstone, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 (2011) L13707, doi:10.1029/2011GL047835.

[5] N.G. Loeb, J.M. Lyman, G.C. Johnson, R.P. Allan, D.R. Doelling, T. Wong, B.J.
Soden, and G.L. Stephens, Nature Geoscience (2012), doi:10.1038/ngeo1375.

# # #

Roy Spencer did exactly the same exercise of using 0 – 2000m in a blog post a year prior (May 2011) to the Nuccitelli et al 2012 paper except that Spencer’s exercise was the result of requests in comments for him to do so – not by any supposed justification from literature.

Nucciteli et al cite Palmer et al and Loeb et al as their justification but let’s look at what a couple of O-GCM modeling papers have to say (e.g. ECCO, GODAE) but first an introduction:-

Time Scales for SST 1 over the Global Ocean

Barron, Kara, Gentemann and Loh, 2008

http://www.ssmi.com/papers/gentemann/barron_submitted.pdf

1. Introduction
Time scales of SST variability reflect feedbacks and balances among the factors that regulate heat budgets over the global ocean. These factors are distinctly different between tropical regions and mid–latitudes. For example, Seager et al. [1988] explains that away from the equatorial regions, SST is primarily determined by a one–dimensional balance of heat storage in the ocean mixed layer, resulting in a simple annual cycle of temperature. Carton et al. [1996] provide similar findings. The net heat flux is also the main contributor for SST variability of the ocean in mid–latitudes [Cayan, 1992].

Some penetrating solar energy is normally trapped within and below the seasonal pycnocline in mid–latitudes where large seasonal variations in mixed layer depth occur [e.g., Kara et al., 2004]. In equatorial regions, however, solar energy normally does not penetrate below the mixed layer depth and thus is used entirely to heat the mixed layer. Different processes may be regionally dominant: extensive cloudiness and precipitation in low latitudes under the influence of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) [Yuter and 31 Houze, 2000], effects of stratocumulus clouds in cooler areas of eastern tropics [Bretherton et al., 2004], and upwelling or fog banks along coastal regions.

OK, so what is the mixed layer depth? It actually varies from about 10m to just over 1000m but is mostly confined to the upper 500m

A primer on the evolution of ocean surface flux modeling from the ECCO report series (Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean):-

http://www.ecco-group.org/report_series.htm

Global sea surface flux estimates obtained through ocean data assimilation.

Stammer, Ueyoshi, Large, Josey, and Wunsch
Report No.13, November 2001.

http://www.ecco-group.org/pdfs/reports/report_13.pdf

Fig. 3: Zonally integrated heat [flux](top) ……evaluated globally (blue curves) over the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean sectors (green, red and magenta rewspectively)

The deepest consideration is 1160m

HEAT AND SALINITY VARIABILITY OVER THE UPPER-OCEAN IN TWO GLOBAL RE-ANALYSES [1960 - 2006, 0 - 300m, 0 - 500m]

S. Masina, S. Dobricic, P. Di Pietro, N. Pinardi
(date unknown)

http://www.godae.org/~godae-data/Symposium/posters/S4.36-046_S_Masina-INGV-CMCC.pdf

From GODAE

http://www.godae.org/PA-authors-M-O.html#46

Fig 4: Integrated Heat Content Anomaly time series, top 300m (A) and top-bottom [0 - 500m] (B)

The deepest consideration is 500m

It is only occasionally that the mixed layer drops down below 1000m so that inclusion of these depths is rare and the boundary varies significantly 10 – 1000m. Nuccitelli et al however, claim that 0 – 2000m MUST be used even though O-GCM modelers don’t.

Problem is: if Nuccitelli has over estimated OHC upper layer flux by a factor of 2 (using 1000m) or 3 (using 700m), what is a better estimation and what does that do to the imbalance equation?

For 2002 – 2008, 0.73/2 = 0.37, 0.73/3 = 0.24

TOA imbalance = forcing – feedback

0.76 = 0.37 – (-0.39) for factor 2x (0.37 = 0.73/2)
0.76 = 0.24 – (-0.52) for factor 3x (0.24 = 0.73/3)

Given IPCC CO2 forcing 2002 – 2008 is:

0.175 W/m2 (372.42 to 384.79. global marine surface)

There are 2 unresolved forcings (assuming CO2 forcing):

2x 0.37 = 0.175 + 0.195 (what is this 0.195 forcing?)
3x 0.24 = 0.175 + 0.065 (what is this 0.065 forcing?)

Doesn’t make sense. It would be more sensible to say the 0.37 or 0,24 forcing is lagged solar heat accumulation and the feedback is aerosols, cloudiness and suchlike.

# # #

Next a look at Palmer et al and Loeb et al, Nuccitelli et al’s justification for 0 – 2000m.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/#comment-1134890
—————————————————————————————————————————–
I may have CO2 forcing (assuming it exists) acting in the wrong direction, can someone help me out?

My problem is that I know there’s no mechanism for CO2 LWIR to heat the mixed layer and deep ocean (not a heating agent) but even so, I’m trying to fit CO2 into the equation as Nuccitelli et al should have done. But in doing that I’ve come up with a mysterious 0.555 W/m2 OHC forcing contribution (another heating agent) that can only be solar.

Given there’s not actually a 0.555 W/m2 solar forcing over the period 2002 – 2008, I cannot make sense of the imbalance equation.

Going back to this:-

For 2002 – 2008:

Average OHC imbalance: 0.76 W/m2 (up)
Nuccitelli et al OHC forcing: 0.73 W/m2 (up)
IPCC CO2 forcing (marine level): 0.175 W/m2 (down)

Neglecting other forcings:

0.76 = (0.73 – 0.175) – Feedback
0.76 = 0.555 – Feedback

Should I instead be making CO2 forcing a CONTRIBUTION (a heating agent) to the OHC forcing so that the expression looks like this:-

0.76 = 0.73 – Feedback

Where 0.73 = 0.175 CO2 plus some other forcing?

If so, then:-

0.76 (TOA) = [0.175 (CO2) + 0.555(???)] – (-0.03)
0.76 (TOA) = 0.73 (OHC forcing) + 0.03 (feedback)

# # #

My explanation for this unrealistic situation is that neither CO2 nor ’02 – ’08 solar is responsible for the TOA imbalance but that ’02 – ’08 OHC forcing is the lagged effect of solar input in the years and even decades and centuries prior to this period.

Alec Rawls addresses this solar-ocean activity at WUWT here:-

‘Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, part 4′

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/14/raimund-muscheler-says-that-a-steady-high-level-of-forcing-cant-cause-warming/

Anyone got a better clue on this than me (I’m hoping)?