(Update 2018 November 25)

There’s a slew of bad news which has hit the scientific journals, the most notable being

L. Resplandy, R. F. Keeling, Y. Eddebbar, M. K. Brooks, R. Wang, L. Bopp, M. C. Long, J. P. Dunne, W. Koeve, A. Oschlies, “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition“, Nature, 2018, 563(7729), 105–108.

Dr Jim White puts this in context. Pay attention to what he says about what the long run temperature record says about how quickly temperatures can change, in either direction.

Addendum, 2018-11-01, 23:46 EDT

LA Times coverage of the subject. I like the quote,

Still, the system’s large number of direct measurements means any individual errors are averaged out, said Pelle Robbins, a researcher with the Massachusetts-based Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s department of physical oceanography, who works with the Argo program.

“The power of Argo is that we have so many instruments that we’re not reliant on any one of them,” he said. “When you average over things, you beat down the error.”
Robbins said the new approach is “bold,” but he still believes strongly in the accuracy of the Argo program.

“It’s an intriguing new clue,” he said, “but it’s certainly not the case that this study alone suggests that we have been systematically under-representing the oceanic warming.”

Resplandy said her discovery is not intended to replace the Argo system but rather to compliment it. “In science, we want several methods to measure things, to have several methods that converge.”

(Emphasis added in bold.)

Also, from the same article, there’s the assessment:

The new report found that emissions levels in coming decades would need to be 25% lower than laid out by the IPCC to keep warming under that 2 degree cap.

Addendum, 2018-11-02, 11:19 EDT

It’s like I just can’t put this post down. Facts are that once the Resplandy, et al (2018) paper appeared, research in to works, interviews with climate scientists, and other observations are percolating up, and we are seeing the beginning of what Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson calls an “emerging scientific truth”, that warming is not only much larger than estimated, it is accelerating. Consider this interview with Dr Lijing Cheng:

Yale Climate Connections summarized a spectrum of increasing risk, and quotes Dr White as well.

Resplandy, Keeling, et al have another article in Nature which more directly addresses the Carbon budget question. They infer that estimated land and ocean sinks are not as large as previously estimated. This is something which has been suspected by scientists at the Global Carbon Project, but this is the first solid quantitative indication.

Note that despite the error in calculating uncertainty in Resplandy, et al, the basic conclusion remains intact.

And, then, there’s the report from National Climate Assessment 4:

I should note that I, with my wife, Claire, am a strong financial supporter of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), through their 1930 Society and their Fye Society.

About ecoquant

See Retired data scientist and statistician. Now working projects in quantitative ecology and, specifically, phenology of Bryophyta and technical methods for their study.
This entry was posted in American Association for the Advancement of Science, being carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide, children as political casualties, climate, climate change, climate disruption, global blinding, global warming, Hyper Anthropocene. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Watch!

  1. Pingback: Prof Nic Lewis, Reason, and a claimed criticism of Resplandy, et al | Hypergeometric

  2. Greg Robie says:

    The link challenges I experienced resulted in my getting the gist of this paper from the Real Climate open thread started there. This ~60% ‘error’ regarding the heat uptake of the oceans is stunning. I remember when the missing heat in the climate models was finally “found” in the oceans (either the late ’90s, or such was when I learned of the discovery). It looks like there was [a bit!!!] more to be discovered! Hansen has got to be more exasperated (if that is possible) with this information. But if Juliana v The United States proceeds to trial, the government’s case is swiss cheese without the cheese.

    It was also around the end of the last century that the rapid shifts seen in ice core samples were estimate to be as quick as 70 years. Better technology first redefined rapid to mean a decade, and more recently, three years! This new measurement of ocean heat uptake feels similar. Over the past two decades that I’ve been trying to pay attention, the new discoveries and insights are perpetually awful/awe-filled; what needs to be communicated is less and less possible.

    Thanks for this post … NOT!

    Grief grows … mind-numbing Terror strains psyche’s bindings Liberation: ends!

    (Comment edited for relevance by Moderator.)

    Also, please note that the offered correction restates what I intended to communicate. FYI, that 70 year thing was incorporated in a ~1990 BBC docu-drama with James Burke titled “After the Warming”. It is on YouTube. I believe its production was strategic regarding the 1st Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 (where it was promised we would not harm the earth!). Refining the 70 year figure used in that production down to a few years it is now has been part of the awe-filled news informing my grief. And I wonder why the line breaks in the haiku get lost in translation.

    Anyway, the controversy this new metric is likely to generate will also likely be spun elsewhere in ways that countermand the importance of this different metric and the new calculations. The Argo program represents an amazing return on an [unjustifiably] limited investment in science. What you’ve added to this post from the LA Times suggests to me that the possibility of “cracks” could invoke motivated reasoning on the part of those who have collaborated and effected the amazing Argo Program on that shoestring. I will be engaging in observing this ‘discussion’ from a bias that Argo’s data constitutes a trustworthy average, AND a pit in my stomach feeling that it may not. The likelihood that it will narrow the range of the climate sensitivity range is welcome. That it will do so at the high end, while expected, sucks.

    Whatever this new metric constitutes, I’m hopeful I will be able to understand it as I learn more about it. Since the details are paywalled, this will depend on reports from others, like the Real Climate thread, and I expect one will turn up on ATTP soon.

    FYI, and regarding PV economics in NY, something called value stacks is being moved toward from net metering … or another reason justifying ignoring the travails of solar in NY … if only what happens in NY [for Wall Street] stayed in NY!

    (Clarifying comment received by email added by Moderator.)

    • ecoquant says:

      Such surprises are and have been warned about throughout the engagement with climate science. These measurement systems are erected on, basically, shoestring budgets compared with, say, NASA’s systems, and while the experimental scientists are top notch, things can fall through cracks without more staffing.

      Still, as indicated, to establish something important, generally two or more lines of measurement are needed, and this is an example.

      A correction. Professor Jim White indicates that, contrary to your claim:

      It was also around the end of the last century that the rapid shifts seen in ice core samples were estimate to be as quick as 70 years.

      the ice core record shows it is possible to have +10°C to +15°C excursions within “a few years”.

Leave a reply. Commenting standards are described in the About section linked from banner.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.