The full paper is here:
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/140926a_Duracketal_UpperOceanWarming.pdf
The result doesn't seem so significant as to affect the 1.5 to 4.5degC confidence interval for climate sensitivity, which is based on multiple lines of evidence.
I would expect you to take a closer look at the data and contemplate more fully its implications. This is very shallow thinking of you. You must consider that if the total 35 year accumulation of heat energy is (at the high end) 30% more than was previously understood, then the total forcing is much higher, the ECS is much higher and the TOA will continue to grow at a much higher rate for a given rate of emissions.
In addition, since the models appear to be correct for the ocean heat accumulation in the NORTHERN hemisphere, this also poses significant implications to the impacts of NH aerosols (being severely underestimated in Trenberths' balance calculation).
THEN you must consider the compounding feedback and tipping points that are inherently affected by the reanalysis of ECS and TOA energy imbalance growth rates. These are all compounding effects.
The simple fact is that, this one study alone, indicates that our current radiative forcing from 402% PPMV is actually acting like 460 PPMV according to our previous models.
These are the IMPLICATIONS from the results of the paper.
Both Tietsche et al and Schroeder & Connelly used coupled atmopshere runs.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030253/abstract
Tietsche removed the ice on 1 July, near enough to the solstice to make little difference from 1 June.
Stating that a July 1 and June 1 ice free condition is quantitatively similar is simply not true:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/insolation_latitude.gifSchroeder & Connelly removed the ice on, 1 December, 1 March, 1 June, and 1 September, they found a very similar result.
"Sensitivity experiments with a fully coupled general
circulation model show a complete recovery from a total
removal or strong increase of sea ice after four years.
...The impact is stronger when ocean temperature is
adjusted to ice-free conditions, but even then the differences
appearing between the sensitivity and Ctrl runs are clearly
smaller after a few years than the differences between
modelled and observed sea ice area."
Note that different models were used in each study: Tietsche et al used ECHAM5/MPI-OM, Schroeder & Connelly used HADCM3.
How do you reconcile this with the ZHANG 2010 paper that states a largely summer ice free state with 4C regional (not NH) warming?
Neither of these adequately addressed the 40 meter depth warm pool effects after june 1 ice free conditions and the increase of saline atlantic water from the Alaskan Shoreline Eddy, as documented in Maislowski's recent work. They both predicted rapid heat loss to the atmosphere but this is inconsistent with the production of surface ice with a warm pool contained below the halocline that will likely (between 2020 and 2040) be holding between 2 and 8 times the total enthalpy than current values.
You said that it would take a 4C NH warming and that is simply not true. .5C maybe. . not 4C I expect we will see this warming rate within the next 5 years.
The results are emergent phenomena from the mathematical model. Leaving out results because the scientist doesn't like them would be considered highly unethical. Is that really what you think of the scientists?
Government representatives propose authors and contributorsSorry, the SPM is not the main IPCC report, it's the dumbed down version. You need to refer to IPCC AR5 WG1. I have never bothered with the SPM, politicians have a hand in it.
[/quote]
This is not just the synthesis report it is the lead authorship roles as well, for the working groups. Why would we allow governments to appoint authors and select contributors???