NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea

Written by AFP, newsmax.com

The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency Monday. sea ice drift

Scientists have noticed that while greenhouse gases have continued to mount in the first part of the 21st century, global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising along with them, said NASA.

Some studies have suggested that heat is being absorbed temporarily by the deep seas, and that this so-called global warming hiatus is a temporary trend.

But latest data from satellite and direct ocean temperature measurements from 2005 to 2013 “found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably,” NASA said in a statement.

The findings present a new puzzle to scientists, but co-author Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) said the reality of climate change is not being thrown into doubt.

“The sea level is still rising,” said Willis.

“We’re just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details.”

A separate study in August in the journal Science said the apparent slowdown in the Earth’s surface warming in the last 15 years could be due to that heat being trapped in the deep Atlantic and Southern Ocean.

But the NASA researchers said their approach, described in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean.

“The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure,” said researcher William Llovel of NASA JPL.

“The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much.”

Read more at www.Newsmax.com

Comments (23)

  • Avatar

    Physicist

    |

    Yes Charles, and the biggest one of all is that they “explain” the surface temperature of 288K using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations based on the direct solar radiation PLUS about TWICE as much supposed thermal energy input from the colder atmosphere. The real solar flux of about 161W/m^2 would “warm” an Earth that is fully paved with asphalt to -35C. Yes that is MINUS 35C. It is so blatantly obvious that there has to be a lot of additional thermal energy fed into a planet’s surface by convection and conduction on the sunlit side. I have shown how that is in accord with the laws of physics.

  • Avatar

    ChillyinAlaska

    |

    They just can’t admit they are wrong, because they are paid liars by our government, so make up other excuses. It’s obvious to all, mankind and our use of petroleum is NOT driving temperatures up. IT’S A NATURAL OCCURRENCE, DRIVEN BY THE SUN. HEY NASA, STOP LYING AND MANIPULATING THE DATA TO TRY TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THE POLITICIANS WANT. STOP “ADJUSTING” THE TEMPERATURES. STOP THE DECEIT.

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience said, “And neither does the radiative flux that enters Earth’s atmosphere get stronger and stronger as it bounces back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere, supposedly delivering more flux out of the base of the troposphere and into the surface than the flux which entered the atmosphere in the first place.”

    Better yet, “climate science” REQUIRES that the upper tropical troposphere be warming faster than anywhere, creating a “hotspot,” and warming Earth’s surface. The complete lack of this piece of their “science” does not change the warmists’ message one iota, however.

    Not only have thousands of measurements by satellite and balloon failed to find this hotspot, but that region of the atmosphere has been gently cooling for over 30 years.

    In addition, that part of the atmosphere runs at about -17 deg C and Earth’s surface at 15 deg C. There is simply no way a cold body can warm a hot body, simple thermodynamics.

    The warmists also then quietly move to including the concept that CO2 in the air is warming the air itself. The IPPC altered the thermodynamics factor for this effect by 12-fold because it was needed to be higher. And, IR radiation absorption and emission by CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere on a sunny day are basically a wash, being saturated with IR. It is during the night that these gases so effectively convert heat energy to IR and radiate it out to space. It is telling that NONE of the computer climate models include night-time.

  • Avatar

     D J C 

    |

    (continued)

    Climate models disregard the gravitationally induced temperature gradient and assume it doesn’t exist, despite the science first presented by the brilliant 19th century physicist, Josef Loschmidt who was first to estimate the size of air molecules. The models also assume that the radiation from the cold atmosphere delivers nearly twice as much thermal energy to the surface as does the Sun. It doesn’t, and that’s why you don’t feel it at night. They also disregard the obvious fact that nearly all the Sun’s radiation passes down into the first 20 metres or so of the ocean, where it’s colder. There can be no heat transfer from such colder depths in the ocean thermocline back up to the thin surface layer in the non-polar regions, and so that energy only eventually warms the polar surfaces. So the calculations which use all the radiation from the Sun and the atmosphere, added together and used in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to “explain” the surface temperature are completely false. What does happen is explained in my book, and the mechanism therein can be used to calculate the temperature on Venus and even at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface even though the planet is 30 times further from the Sun. That temperature has nothing to do with direct radiation from the Sun.

    All climate follows natural cycles which are very evident in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. In that plot (calculated from planetary orbits) we can predict slight cooling till 2028, then 30 years of warming (by about half a degree) and then 500 years of long-term cooling with superimposed 60 year cycles. This plot (below) has been on my earth-climate dot com website for three years.

    The above is fact. Give it your earnest consideration and feel free to discuss it with me on 02 98…….

    Sincerely

    Doug Cotton

    PS In 7 months since my book was published there is still no claim made for the $5,000 reward to prove the content substantially wrong.

  • Avatar

     D J C 

    |

     

    [b]POSSIBLE HIGH COURT GREENHOUSE CHALLENGE IN AUSTRALIA[/b]

     
    Below is a copy of my email just sent to Tony Abbott, the Climate Council, Alan Jones (Macquarie radio network) and many politicians …

    Dear PM and other Politicians, Climate Council and Alan Jones

    As I have previously written, the Australian Government has failed to pay due diligence in studying what is a completely false claim that carbon dioxide supposedly warms Earth’s surface. In that the Dept of Environment has not investigated the very valid physics which I present, nor even asked any physicist to contact me or discuss the matter, I propose soon to place a display advertisement in “The Australian” newspaper calling for funding from large companies who will be adversely affected by carbon trading in order to pursue legal advice pertaining to a possible High Court challenge against the Government. In the meantime I would suggest you heed this brief outline and perhaps read my book, copies of which have been sent to some of you. I write based on very extensive research over recent years and experience in physics dating from the 1960′s when I won a university scholarship and got my first degree in such. I suggest an enquiry should be initiated and I am happy to attend gratis.

    The physics in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” and my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” has been proven correct by empirical evidence. See my site: climate-change-theory dot com

    As Judith Curry wrote on her blog today “Climate models diminish the importance of actually reasoning about diverse types of evidence.”

    Real world temperature data proves beyond doubt that the most prevalent greenhouse gas, water vapor, causes mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures to be lower because its radiating properties work against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient in the troposphere. This lowers the gradient and thus lowers the supporting temperature by about 10 to 12 degrees, as is confirmed by empirical evidence. Further evidence from other planets reinforces what I say. Because of this it is blatantly obvious to all those who are not gullible and understand thermodynamics that the greenhouse conjecture is totally false and carbon dioxide, like water vapor, actually cools, but only very slightly, perhaps less than 0.1 degree.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    Set up parallel mirrors and shine a torch through a small hole in one. Does the light get brighter and brighter as it bounces back and forth? No. And neither does the radiative flux that enters Earth’s atmosphere get stronger and stronger as it bounces back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere, supposedly delivering more flux out of the base of the troposphere and into the surface than the flux which entered the atmosphere in the first place. But that’s what the fancy K-T cum IPCC back radiation diagrams show and the IPCC authors brainwash gullible people into believing, just like they want you to believe water vapour warms dry regions with 1% WV by about 10 or 12 degrees and moist regions with 4% WV by about 40 or 50 degrees. Actually, real world data shows it cools. But if you do realise that these diagrams are false, how then do you explain the surface temperature?

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT YOU WILL EVER READ ON CLIMATE CHANGE

    What you all need to understand is that radiation transmits electro-magnetic energy. There are no molecules involved in the path, no kinetic energy and thus no thermal energy. Thermal energy in the source raises an electron between energy states and it then falls back emitting a photon. If and only if that photon exceeds in energy anything that the target itself can emit then its energy can be converted back to thermal energy, and so we get the impression that thermal energy has transferred from a hotter source to a cooler target. If the photon has insufficient energy it just becomes a part of the target’s “quota” of radiation as per its Planck function. Because of this, every single one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law and can never cause entropy to decrease.

    Hence in a planet’s troposphere radiation only ever transfers thermal energy this way from a hotter source to a cooler target. Hence such energy never gets transferred by radiation up the temperature gradient from the upper troposphere to the warmer surface.

    However, diffusion via molecular collisions involves molecules upon which gravity acts and, as most can understand, gravity forms a density gradient which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates will happen, because that density gradient represents the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law says will evolve. Now go to my comment which explains how, in a tall cylinder, new thermal energy at the top can and will be diffused downwards when the thermodynamic equilibrium is disturbed and needs to be restored. The necessity for such transfers is very obvious on Venus and Uranus, but it also explains most of the surface warming on Earth, and explains why there is no radiative GH effect.

    Water vapour and carbon dioxide do not warm: they cool because their radiative properties work against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient. Absolutely all climate change relates to natural cycles, the most relevant having periodicity of about 1000 years and 60 years. We are currently n the middle of 30 years of cooling by the 60 years cycle, but the 1000 year cycle still has 50 to 100 years of warming by about 0.4 degree in total I estimate. Thereafter the world can expect 500 years of cooling.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

     
    [b]THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION[/b]

    In a perfectly insulated sealed tall vertical cylinder with 80% pure nitrogen and 20% pure oxygen (closely approximating dry air) the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be used to explain why a density gradient and a temperature gradient will evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached. When that state is reached, the addition of new thermal energy at the top of the cylinder, even though it may not raise the temperature there above that at the base of the cylinder, will result in the transfer of thermal energy from the top downwards to warmer regions until a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained having the same temperature gradient as the initial state but a higher overall level because the new energy has been uniformly dispersed. This is how the energy absorbed from solar radiation at the top of the tropospheres of Earth, Uranus, Venus and other planets moves downwards towards warmer regions. In effect, gravity has trapped thermal energy over the life of the planet.

     

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    Administrator: I am not an expert in astrophysics or chemistry, but I will back my understanding of thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer against that of any PSI member. Test me by seeing if any PSI member can correctly refute the above comments, but allow me right of reply. It’s time to bring this issue to a head, because it is the most important and fundamental issue in the whole climate debate.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    A note to the “Administrator” …

    Silent readers will have realised that what I have stated above is correct physics, and no one in PSI can refute it. You yourself certainly can’t prove me wrong. So you need to consider the impression you are giving the public about PSI when you simply delete comments for which no PSI member has valid refutation. Why not invite proper scientific discussion among your members of the valid physics I put forward? Surely that would be in line with stated PSI objectives. Or do you just want to hide the truth about non-radiative heat flows in planetary atmospheres?

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    What you have not come to grips with is the fact that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (which the Second Law says will evolve) involves all forms of energy including gravitational potential energy. The Clausius (“hot to cold”) statement is merely a corollary of the Second Law having certain prerequisites, namely that gravitational potential energy be held constant. So “hot to cold” is only always true in a horizontal plane, not in a vertical plane in a planet’s troposphere. Think through the rest yourself, for then you’ll understand it better, or read my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” because the same process happens on Earth and this obviates any need for concern over GH gases. It is not back radiation supplying the missing energy into the surface: it is non-radiative heat transfer.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    The required net energy flow into the Venus surface while its temperature is rising from 732K to 737K is not from radiation but rather from convection down through the troposphere and conduction at the surface interface.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    While ever you can produce no explanation for the net inflow of thermal energy required to raise the temperature of the Venus surface by 5 degrees during its sunlit hours (as per Hans Jelbring’s paper) then you have no understanding of planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures and the complete picture of all energy flows. I have explained what physics tells us: you have not.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    There is absolutely no other way to explain how the necessary energy gets into the surfaces of earth and Venus than by non-radiative heat transfer, because the intensity of solar radiation just is nowhere near enough. It’s not hard to understand once you understand what thermodynamic equilibrium is all about, and if you have no idea why this is important to understand then you are best either working it out for yourself, reading my book or keeping out of all discussion pertaining to planetary temperatures, because these temperatures are not determined by radiation alone – not by a long shot, and the world has been very seriously misled by the biggest scientific blunder of all time.

  • Avatar

    its.not.co2

    |

    On the one hand PSI agrees with me that the GHG water vapour cools and yet they seem to want to hold to the IPCC contention that CO2 warms a little. Well it would have to warm about 50 degrees to counteract the cooling by water vapour, unless of course the gravito-thermal effect (recognised by physicists since the 19th century, and by PSI member Dr Hans Jelbring) is actually valid after all.

  • Avatar

    its.not.co2

    |

    I note that the above comments which explained with sound physics why there is no puzzle have been deleted by the administrator. What is PSI coming to? 8qazc

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    Regarding #4, of course I’m aware of the usual explanation that winds cause air to rise up the mountain side, cool in the process and thus cause water vapour to condense. The reverse happens when the wind passes over the mountain, so new clouds are forming and then vanishing. But I’m obviously talking about calm conditions. Click here to read “Maskelyne took the opportunity to note that Schiehallion exhibited a gravitational attraction, and thus all mountains did; and that Newton’s inverse square law of gravitation had been confirmed.”

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    That photo is here …
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Earth-Today-02-N-India-GE2.jpg

    There is absolutely no valid physics which supports the IPCC radiative greenhouse conjecture. All that “33 degrees of warming” is already achieved by the gravito-thermal effect which enables downward convection (mostly during sunlit hours) in every planetary troposphere. This is the real missing energy in those energy diagrams.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    I suppose you know that mountains attract clouds because of the additional gravitational attraction from the extra mass in the mountains acting on the molecules in the cloud, as in this impressive photo.

    Gravity also acts on each and every molecule in the troposphere and, in accord with the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it causes a density gradient to evolve as the system tends towards thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Imagine a long horizontal sealed and insulated thin tube of air which is then turned to a vertical position. More molecules fall for a while until thermodynamic equilibrium (with maximum entropy) is established. This state has no unbalanced energy potentials, so higher gravitational potential energy is offset by lower kinetic energy and thus cooler temperatures at the top. With higher density and temperatures at the base we now have a pressure gradient, because pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature. And that’s why it is the gravito-thermal effect which sets and supports planetary tropospheric and surface temperatures, not back radiation.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    We have discussed the fact that water vapour cools and we have verified this with temperature data from wet and dry regions.

    Why is it that, in the face of this empirical evidence, people can’t see that the main source of that supposed “33 degrees of warming” is thus removed? So the whole paradigm that the surface end of the temperature profile is raised by back radiation from water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane etc is obviously wrong.

    That leaves the gravito-thermal explanation as the correct one.

  • Avatar

    Physicist w. 50 yrs experience

    |

    The gravito-thermal effect is what explains planetary surface temperatures. Earth’s surface would be around 300K but for the radiation properties of water vapour which lead to a lower temperature gradient and thus lower supported surface temperature. But carbon dioxide only cools by about 0.1 degree.

    The natural cycles of about 1000 years and 60 years regulate Earth’s climate and are obviously related to the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and nine planets. NASA has a lot of learning to catch up on.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Puzzled???
    Hey guys… Guess what?
    CO2 does NOT cause global warming or climate change.
    So what is so puzzling???

Comments are closed