Help me please, I just posted this on WUWT and I’d like to know if I’m right or wrong:
Another question it would be nice to have an answer to is what the total ocean ‘heat’ content is. Then we could get some idea of how much it has heated up in percentage terms over the period of record. If we make the assumption that heat content is related to sea surface temperature, and take the SST at some arbitrary time to be the ideal climate temperature that fluctuations from are to be regarded as ‘anomalies’, then we can see how much things have warmed up.
Let’s say we take the zero line of HADcru’s SST’s, which match dates around 1940 and 1980. According to their measurements, the ocean surface has warmed about 0.3C from there to the peak of global warming. The average SST is around 17C or 289K. So taking a roughly linear dropoff in temperature down to the thermocline, we get an approx 0.15K warming of the upper 700m of the worlds oceans on average.
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.
I got one response from a solar physicist called Dr Leif Svalgaard, but it doesn’t get me much further forward…
Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“Another question it would be nice to have an answer to is what the total ocean ‘heat’ content is. Then we could get some idea of how much it has heated up in percentage terms over the period of record. If we make the assumption that heat content is related to sea surface temperature, and take the SST at some arbitrary time to be the ideal climate temperature that fluctuations from are to be regarded as ‘anomalies’, then we can see how much things have warmed up.”
Ocean heat content is measured in Joules. Temperature is measured in K or ‘C. Assuming that the surface temperature is proportional to OHC relies on the temperature gradient not changing. Why make that assumption when you can look at actual measurements (more realistic estimates) of ocean heat content:
OT. You going to the Guardian debate?
As for the TSI, that´s TOTAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE, it´s a “trick” as it involves all wavelengths, and supposedly some work more than the others in heating the oceans.
If you revise Nicola Scafetta presentation at E.P.A.:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1#video
you will see that there was a satellite “failure”,back in 1989:
http://www.windows2universe.org/spaceweather/blackout.html
That big magnetic storm (don´t forget these are electrical phenomena) plus the condition of lower cloud cover, as a consequence of that particular event, as shown in page 77 of H.Svensmark “The Chilling Stars”, begining around 1991 allowed for the transference of that big amount of energy to the seas, which when solar radiation lowered it produced the El Niño 1997-98, which, as you can suppose, it is the start of cooling, of losing the excess of that energy.
Then that “jump” of TSI was recorded by satellites, but afterwards ADJUSTED DOWN by some diligent guys. The “total jump from 1989.5 to 1992.5 was 0.86 W/m2
scienceofdoom says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:11 am (Edit)
Why make that assumption when you can look at actual measurements (more realistic estimates) of ocean heat content:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/06/the-real-measure-of-global-warming/
Thanks for the link, that looks like a very useful article you’ve put together. When I did some calcs on OHC and the energy required to account for the steric component of sea level rise, I was forced to the conclusion that Levitus et al, and other lead authors HAD SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERESTIMATED THE OHC CHANGE.
Levitus et al 2000 is nearer the truth I think. Why would they do this? Well, according to my calcs, there was a forcing of around 4W/m^2 pushing energy into the ocean in the 1993-2003 decade. Co2 can’t account for that, so it would have to be down to solar and albedo… There is a realclimate post which pretty much gives the game away as I recall.
I’ll do some more work on this and get the calculator hot later on.
Cheers
E O’Connor says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:00 pm (Edit)
OT. You going to the Guardian debate?
Dunno, do I need an invite?
Adolfo Giurfa says:
July 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm (Edit)
Then that “jump” of TSI was recorded by satellites, but afterwards ADJUSTED DOWN by some diligent guys. The “total jump from 1989.5 to 1992.5 was 0.86 W/m2
Also interesting. Got any links to more info on that? I have a copy of the ‘Chilling Stars I haven’t had time to read yet…
Dear Tallbloke:
The key issue is that something was conveniently “fixed”:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/
we have concluded that the data support the view that TSI increased significantly (by about 0.033 %) between the successive solar minima of 1986 and 1996, confirming the trend found by the ACRIM TSI composite and contradicting the absence of a TSI trend in the PMOD and the KBS07 proxy model.
Click to access 2008GL036307.pdf
The corrections made by Fro¨hlich to the Nimbus7/ERB results during the ACRIM-gap for the PMOD composite are clearly not supported. It should be pointed out that
the Nimbus7/ERB science team did not detect Fro¨hlich’s proposed sensitivity changes during a thorough re-evaluation of the experiment near the end of its mission [Hoyt et al., 1992] and have recently rejected them explicitly (D. V. Hoyt, personal communication, 2008).
(Op.Cit.)
In other word: “Elementary, my dear Watson!”
Or as someone, back then, probably said: You gotto get the f*## Sun out of the picture to blame CO2…blaming CO2 we’ll get what we need
Dear Tallbloke…
Take off those useless decades. The answer is through measurements which corroborates the following algorithm:
For calculating the load of solar energy transferred to the oceans which causes a temperature “anomaly” of 0.3 K, use the next formula:
Q = ΔT * (m* Cp)
Where Q is the amount of energy transferred, ΔT is the “anomaly” of temperature, m is the mass of the sea water in one liter of the fluid, and Cp is the specific heat of the sea water (Notice that it is not the specific heat of distilled water, but of the sea water).
Q = 0.3 K (1000 Kg * 3985 Joule/kg* K) = 1,195,500 Joule
Therefore, the excess of energy stored by the sea water which causes a change of temperature («anomaly») equal to 0.3 K is 1,195,500 Joule.
Considering the lapse of time of 1 s over which the heat transfer is completed, the density of the energy stored by the oceans is 1,195,500 W/m^3. Or a heat flux of 11264 W/m^2.
Nevertheless, the incident solar energy upon the oceans’ surface is ~342 W/m^2, which represents 3.04% of the flux of energy in the oceans. 3.04% is the answer.
Continuing…
Therefore, the shift in solar energy was 10.4 W/m^2, perhaps due to the shift in cloudiness refered by Nir Shaviv.
Nasif Nahle says:
July 6, 2010 at 4:00 pm (Edit)
Q = ΔT * (m* Cp)
Where Q is the amount of energy transferred, ΔT is the “anomaly” of temperature, m is the mass of the sea water in one liter of the fluid,
Hey! Nasif, great to see you, thanks for stopping by. Thanks also for the elegant calculation. Much neater than my scribblings. I think you mean one cubic metre not one litre though.
I think 10.4W at the surface is a big order though. Even if we take Nir Shaviv’s maxed out 10x amplification, that means we have to find 1.04W at the surface direct from the sun, which is a 4.16W difference in TSI isn’t it?
Maybe we need to look for backup from Vukcevic’s magnetic induction heating…
Maybe we need to look for backup from Vukcevic’s magnetic induction heating
But those are forbidden matters. Holy Inquisition won’t allow that. Such a change of paradigms will wake up people, and that’s sinful since the gnostics were persecuted by the agnostic church. ☺
Here you are (when someone above set the Vukcevik’s microwave oven on):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm
Water, a peculiar substance. A must read:
Click to access piccardi2.pdf
http://www.rexresearch.com/piccardi/piccardi.htm
Thanks and you’re welcome Tallbloke… I don’t know why I wrote liter instead cubic meter. It was a lapsus mentis. Heh! 🙂
10.4 W/m^2 is the bulk shift of the incident solar irradiance. For calculating the factual shift of the solar irradiance, we obtain the effective sensitive energy considering the insolation on a particular day of the year. For example today, June 6, 2010, in my location, Monterrey, the insolation was
I = 1367 * (Rav/R)^2 W/m^2 = ~198 W/m^2.
However, the cloudiness reduced the insolation to ~125 W/m^2 during the daylight. The fraction of incident solar radiation on the surface is 0.018 (a modifier constant applicable to this day, everywhere on the globe); hence, the shift of solar irradiance was approximately 0.018 * -73 W/m^2 = -1.314 W/m^2; a negative magnitude because the insolation was reduced by the cloudiness.
If the insolation would have been positive, the shift would have been 1.314 W/m^2.
Thanks all for the responses. I took milady out for her birthday dinner and I’m not fit to do sums at this time of night. Abnormal service will be resumed… later. 🙂
Re the Guardian debate
Nah, just turn up, wear a smiley badge and carry “The Chilling Stars”.
🙂
Maybe we need to look for backup from Vukcevic’s magnetic induction heating…
I would say :
It is more to stirring then boiling that makes this porridge work.
Hi Vuk,
I read some interesting stuff on how magnetisation changes the angle between the hydrogen ions in water molecules. Do you think there might be a bulk effect?
Yes, A.G. was very helpful on the subject and dug up some old papers for me.
See also : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b-w0oWttN0
From http://chiefio.wordpress.com/ ‘s post.
m.v.
So, the transparent rod in the video. Charged with static electricity?
Yes, water and ice are dielectric, just reproduced it, it works.
Thanks for the video link Vuk – fascinating.
Water seems to have many properties which may not have been considered in relation to its role in climate and sea water is different again.
Water molecules interact strongly with ions, which are electrically-charged atoms or molecules. Sea water contains, amongst others, (Na+) and (Cl –) ions. Owing to its high polarity, the H2O molecules closest to the dissolved ion are strongly attached to it, forming what is known as the inner or primary hydration shell. Positively-charged ions such as Na+ attract the negative (oxygen) ends of the H2O molecules. The ordered structure within the primary shell creates, through hydrogen-bonding, a region in which the surrounding waters are also somewhat ordered; this is the outer hydration shell, or cybotactic region (diagram of this effect on link below).