5 ms·

While you have to start somewhere, this illustrates the larger point. Some basic facts about the scale of the problem remain: "The total volume is approximate

by 001sky 13y ago

While you have to start somewhere, this illustrates the larger point. Some basic facts about the scale of the problem remain: "The total volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres (310 million cu mi)[7] with an average depth of 3,682 metres (12,080 ft).[8]" > 3x10^8 cubic miles vs 3x10^3 instruments > Instrument cannot reach even ~average depth > 10 years of data Certainly, it is a start. But... There is a huge amount about the oceans that we do not know and cannot measure with requisite precision. Understanding the difference between surface temperatures and the actual thermal potential of the earths oceans are two different tasks. EG, due to sub-surface thermal venting there are many areas of the deep ocean that don't at all look like surface temps. {etc} So there is huge potential for the oceans to do unexpected things. For all we know, plate tectonics may be driving huge amounts of thermal energy variation in the deep ocean...and a "proper climate model" would likely need to understand this at some stage. This really goes to the core of the question of the oceans as a heat-sink.

sanxiyn 13y ago
Yeah sure. All I am saying is that we now have better handle on the heat content of the upper ocean than before, and not locally so, but globally. I probably shouldn't have omitted "upper" qualifier. I also think, while imperfect, our information is good enough to support "Earth is heating, the heat is mostly(>90%) going to the ocean" claim.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Data is always a good start, and I think most of the debate is centered more on presumptive undestanding or framing of the data themselves. Land surface temps, Sea Surface temps, are different pieces of data. So are actual <ocean temps> in the absolute scale. To the extent the ocean is a heat-sink (for example), the latter may be quite relevant.# [#] In general, a useful thought experiment is consider the same way that the fin's on an air-cooled ICE are relevant to the thermal dynamics of the cylinder of a 4s motor. In other words, an air-cooled ICE and a water-cooled ICE with a busted radiator are going to do different things going forward from the same datapoint. That forward looking understanding presumes the mechanic has a handle on what type of engine his thermostat is hooked up to. None of this is intended to belittle the value of the data. But to emphasise the meaning of context and actual expertise in how it is used. We all know politicians and scientific data tend not to mix objectively.

by 001sky 13y ago

sanxiyn 13y ago

Yeah sure. All I am saying is that we now have better handle on the heat content of the upper ocean than before, and not locally so, but globally. I probably shouldn't have omitted "upper" qualifier. I also think, while imperfect, our information is good enough to support "Earth is heating, the heat is mostly(>90%) going to the ocean" claim.

001sky 13y ago
Data is always a good start, and I think most of the debate is centered more on presumptive undestanding or framing of the data themselves. Land surface temps, Sea Surface temps, are different pieces of data. So are actual <ocean temps> in the absolute scale. To the extent the ocean is a heat-sink (for example), the latter may be quite relevant.# [#] In general, a useful thought experiment is consider the same way that the fin's on an air-cooled ICE are relevant to the thermal dynamics of the cylinder of a 4s motor. In other words, an air-cooled ICE and a water-cooled ICE with a busted radiator are going to do different things going forward from the same datapoint. That forward looking understanding presumes the mechanic has a handle on what type of engine his thermostat is hooked up to. None of this is intended to belittle the value of the data. But to emphasise the meaning of context and actual expertise in how it is used. We all know politicians and scientific data tend not to mix objectively.