The warmer the ocean surface, the shallower the mixed layer. How much of this is true?

Hace unas semanas colgué esto en la página de facebook del blog

Some weeks ago, I post that on the facebook page of the blog:

Y mis MARes (vosotras sabéis quien sois) mostraron mucho interés. He tardado un poco, como de costumbre, pero aquí os dejo un poquito más de lo que puedo contar de momento …  en formato video! 

And mis MARes showed much interest. It took a while, as usually, but here you have a little bit more than I can tell you for now ... and as a video! 

The warmer the ocean surface, the shalowwer the mixed layer. How much of this thrue?

View more presentations or Upload your own.

My Wishes for the New Year: Advocating for Science Communication.

Source: Raquel Somavilla

No os dejéis engañar por el título del post: no todos mis deseos para el Año Nuevo giran en torno a la Ciencia. Faltaría más! Sin embargo, en lo que se refiere a ésta justo en el momento preciso del año en el que uno se plantea cuáles son sus buenos propósitos para el año entrante he leído un post en la página Real Climate, de la que ya os he hablado en otros ocasiones, que me ha hecho recapacitar, o quizá recordar, sobre el porqué merece la pena escribir un blog sobre ciencia y porqué continuar con él. 

Don’t be fooled by the title of the post: not all my wishes for the New Year revolve around science. Of course not! However, regarding to Science, at just the right time of the year when one asks what are the resolutions for the coming year, I read a post on Real Climate page that have made me think, or perhaps remember, about why it's worth writing a blog about science and why continue with it.

Last IPCC Report. What we certainly know about climate change.

Cover of the last IPCC report 'Climate Change 2013: The Physical basis'. Source: IPCC

On Friday, the IPCC published its last report. Probably, you have listened or read something about it during these days. What is the IPCC? and (2) What is this report about?

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. How? The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC, bringing their expertise in the many different disciplines necessary to produce a comprehensive assessment of climate change on a voluntary basis. For the preparation of the last report on ‘Climate Change. The Physical Science Basis’, a total of 259 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries and more than 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries contributed. You can download the report here.

According to the information published on this last report, I want to resume some of things that we 'certainly know' about climate change based on what the last decades of observations tell us. Why do I remark the fact that ‘we  certainly know’? Because the report is cautiously written. It means that consensus is necessary among the scientists that contribute to the report when the degree of certainty in key findings is expressed from very low to very high and from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain. Thus, findings considered virtually certain are supported by data, theory, models, etc. and the scientific consensus. Those are some of these findings.

Some comments to fringe comments

Durante 5 minutos me pareció que volvía al Artico de la que volaba la semana pasada de Frankfurt a Bremen. During 5 minutes of a flight from Frankfurt to Bremen the last week, I had the impression that I was back in the Arctic. 

Siento mucho el retraso, no sólo porque tenía cosas importantes que contaros y no lo he hecho sino porque he de confesar que cuando dejo abandonado el blog me siento culpable. Menos mal que no me pagan por ello, sino no sé qué sería de mí.

Voy a empezar por centrarme en aquello que me parece más urgente de comentar, y sobre lo que muchos de vosotros habréis leído en las últimas semanas. No suelo dejar un post a medias pero el que tenía empezado tendrá que esperar un par de días más porque esto me parece más urgente. ¿Por qué? Pues, simple y llanamente, porque varios comentarios y alguna que otra entrada en un blog me han dejado patidifusa (¡qué graciosa palabra, por cierto!).

1. ¡¡¡Pues no he visto comparar las ciencias relacionadas con el clima en aquellos aspectos relacionados con el cambio climático con la homeopatía!!!
2. ¡¡¡No he leído … que no tenemos motivos por los que preocuparnos por las concentraciones de CO2 en la atmósfera puesto que, aunque aumentando, su concentración es minoritaria en comparación con otros gases que también forman parte de la atmósfera terrestre?
3. …que la actividad volcánica puede conllevar variaciones más significativas de la concentración de CO₂ que la actividad antropogénica?
4. ...que el aumento de CO₂ y de temperatura en los últimos 50-100 no es más que parte de la variabilidad natural?!!!

Intentaré contestar a cada una de estas cosas por separado para quede más claro el porqué de mi estupefacción.

I'm sorry for the delay, not only because I had things to tell you and I didn't do, but because,  honestly, I feel guilty when I leave the blog abandoned. Fortunately, I'm not paid for writing the blog. Otherwise, I don't know how I would handle it.

I will start with the more urgent issue that I think I must explain, and about which you probably have read in the last two weeks. Normally, I don't start a post until I have finished the previous one, but in this case I will make an exception. This is more urgent. Why? Well, simply, because I have seen several comments and some post in a blog that have completely astounded me. 

1. Can you believe that I have read … how some people compare climate sciences in those aspects related with climate change with homeopathy? !!!
2. … that we don't have reasons to worry about the increase of atmospheric CO₂ because its minor concentration when compared with other gases in the atmosphere? 
3. … that the volcanic activity can generate more significative variations of  CO₂ concentration than the anthropogenic activity?
4. … that the temperature and CO₂ increase during the last 50-100 years is just  natural variability?

I will give a response to each of these statements separately to make clearer the reasons of my stupefaction. 

EGU General Assembly 2013. If I were a time-rich woman…how many things I would like to do!

Un adjetivo que bien puede definir mis gustos es ecléctico. No sé si es bueno o malo pero en general la variedad de músicas, comidas, estilos, lugares, gente, etc. que me gusta es bastante amplia, y eso también incluye que encuentre interesante una gran variedad de disciplinas científicas. Eso se traduce en que durante conferencias como la de la EGU Viena -de la que os he hablado en el anterior post y donde no te queda más remedio que decidir a qué sesión acudir en cada momento porque muchas se celebran al mismo tiempo- me quede sin escuchar parte de las cosas que me gustaría. En teoría podría levantarme en medio de una sesión para ir a otra a escuchar otra charla pero me resulta de mala educación levantarme y que la persona que va a hacer la próxima presentación me vea. No sé si os hacéis a la idea de como es esto de las sesiones paralelas y las charlas o presentaciones. Os pongo un ejemplo. Imaginaros que en un cine están echando en dos salas distintas 4 episodios nuevos de la última temporada de dos de vuestras series favoritas, ej. 'Juego de Tronos' y 'The Big Bang Theory'. Poneros que habéis visto los episodios 1 y 2 de 'Juego de Tronos' y 3 y 4 de 'The Big Bang Theory'. Entráis en la sala donde echan Juego de Tronos para ver los episodios 1 y 2, pero luego os quedáis sin ver los capítulos 3 y 4 de 'The Big Bang Theory' porque os da vergüenza marcharos de la sala, pongamos que porque hay actores de Juego de Tronos en ella que pueden ver como os marcháis. El problema de la EGU Viena es que a veces tienes que dividirte entre 4 'salas de cine = sesiones paralelas' diferentes al mismo tiempo donde te interesan realmente sólo 2 'episodios = presentaciones'. Resultado final: que no puedes ver/escuchar todo lo que te gustaría.

Mis notas durante la sesión OS. 1 Open Sesion on Ocean Circulation

High motivation (English version)

In Spanish here

 

More than one month ago, before my long break from the blog, one of you asked me how would be possible to have access to my contributions to the THOR and ICES/PICES Conference for Early Career Scientist. Oceansof Change Conference contributions. I have been trying to find the way to show that information here, but it’s not an easy task. Thus, what I have done is to create a public folder in dropbox where I will share with you everything that I can make public without problems (it means no violating copyright and things like that). There, you already have both contributions. If you press in the links above, you shouldn’t have problems to get them, but in case you have…please leave a comment! 

While I was doing that, I re-read those abstract and additional informational in the Spiegel newspaper (in German, but google translator can help on that), other blogs, and some recent papers, and I got excited. So much so, besides the abstract that I submitted to the EGU Vienna for the session  ‘Changes in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and ocean: processes, observations, models and perspectives’ under the title ‘Increasing presence of Arctic Ocean Deep Waters in the Greenland Sea’, two days ago (nowadays I should say two weeks ago) I have submitted another one to the Conference ‘IAPSO: North Atlantic and Climate Change’ titled ‘A downwards heat and salt injection mechanism linking mid-latitudes and Polar Regions in the North Atlantic’. I hope to present both as oral presentation, but it doesn’t depend on me. As soon as I can upload them to our dropbox folder, I will do.

Now, let me tell you more slowly the reasons of my excitement because I try to say too many things at the same time, and in this way it’s impossible you can understand anything. And for that end, nothing better than to pass you the link to an old post published on April last year: ‘From the Surface for a Deeper Understanding’. Just in case you are lazy to read it completely again, summarizing I told you there that due to the ocean is the main heat reservoir of the Earth’s climate system (which includes the Atmosphere, Lithosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithosphere), Hydrosphere (oceans, rivers, lakes, etc.), Cryosphere (part of the Earth frozen) and Biosphere), the increasing radiative forcing (here equivalent to say heat) in the atmosphere -mainly caused by the growing concentration of greenhouse gases- was expected to be reflected as a global ocean warming. However, in the last decade the upper ocean heat storage has decelerated, which has resulted in an active search for the missing heat in the deep ocean (Fig. 1). All of that brought up for me two questions relating my PhD work concerning the ocean-atmosphere interaction and mixed layer depth variability and my work nowadays at AWI studying the changes in the deep water masses of the Arctic. The first of these questions was: what is the mechanism able to transfer so efficiently the heat from the atmosphere to the deep ocean in contrast to past observations? Until the last decade, the heat was accumulated in the upper layers. And the second, which is the contribution of the deep Arctic Ocean waters to the World Ocean heat content since their changes have hardly studied yet?

Fig. 1. Where does the energy go? (A) Estimated rates of change of global energy. The curves are heavily smoothed  and somewhat simplified. From 1992 to 2003, the decadal ocean heat content changes (blue), along  with the contributions from melting glaciers, ice sheets, and sea ice and small contributions from land and  atmosphere warming, suggest a total warming (red) for the planet of 0.6 ± 0.2 W/m2 (95% error bars).  After 2000, observations from the top of the atmosphere (black, referenced to the 2000 values) increasingly diverge from the observed total warming (red).

Source: Tracking the Earth’s Energy. Trenberth, et al., Science (2010).