From Dr. Roger Pielke Senior’s Climate Sci blog, a discussion on the “missing heat” in Earth’s climate system gives me a motivation to write some silly prose:
The heat is gone, oh where, oh where?
Maybe in the oceans?
Maybe in the air?
It’s just not there.
They could not find it any-where.
Is There “Missing” Heat In The Climate System? My Comments On This NCAR Press Release
There was a remarkable press release 0n April 15 from the NCAR/UCAR Media Relations titled
“Missing” heat may affect future climate change
The article starts with the text
BOULDER—Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.
“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”
Excerpts from the press release reads
“Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or, more likely, large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured, such as the deepest parts of the oceans. Compounding the problem, Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.”
“A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory, the result of imprecise measurements by satellites and surface sensors or incorrect processing of data from those sensors, the authors say. Until 2003, the measured heat increase was consistent with computer model expectations. But a new set of ocean monitors since then has shown a steady decrease in the rate of oceanic heating, even as the satellite-measured imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy continues to grow.”
Some of the missing heat appears to be going into the observed melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as Arctic sea ice, the authors say.
Much of the missing heat may be in the ocean. Some heat increase can be detected between depths of 3,000 and 6,500 feet (about 1,000 to 2,000 meters), but more heat may be deeper still beyond the reach of ocean sensors.”
Trenberth’s [and co-author, NCAR scientist John Fasullo], however, are grasping for an explanation other than the actual real world implication of the absence of this heat.
- First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean.
- Second, the melting of glaciers and continental ice can be only a very small component of the heat change (e.g. see Table 1 in Levitus et al 2001 “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system”. Science).
Thus, a large amount heat (measured as Joules) does not appear to be stored anywhere; it just is not there.
There is no “heat in the pipeline” [or “unrealized heat”] as I have discussed most recently in my post
Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo are not recognizing that the diagnosis of upper ocean heat content changes (with it large mass) makes in an effective integrator of long term radiative imbalances of the climate system as I discussed in my papers
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf
and
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf.
The assessment of ocean heat storage changes in Joules is a much more robust methodology to assess global warming than the use of small changes in the satellite diagnosis of radiative forcing from the satellites which have uncertainties of at least the same order. Trenberth and Fasullo need to look more critically at the satellite data as well as propose how heat in Joules could be transported deep into the ocean without being seen.
I am contacting Kevin to see if he would respond to my comments on this news article (and his Science perspective) in a guest post on my weblog.
UPDATE (April 16 2010) WITH RESPONSE BY KEVIN TRENBERTH PRESENTED WITH HIS PERMISSION
Dear Roger
I do not agree with your comments. We are well aware that there are well over a dozen estimates of ocean heat content and they are all different yet based on the same data. There are clearly problems in the analysis phase and I don’t believe any are correct. There is a nice analysis of ocean heat content down to 2000 m by von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard, and P.-Y. Le Traon 2009: Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008, /J. Geophys. Res.,/ *114*, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237. but even those estimates are likely conservative. The deep ocean is not
well monitored and nor is the Arctic below sea ice. That said, there is a paper in press (embargoed) that performs an error analysis of ocean heat content.
Our article highlights the discrepancies that should be resolved with better data and analysis, and improved observations must play a key role.
Kevin
MY REPLY
Hi Kevin
Thank you for your response. I am aware of the debate on the quality of the ocean data, and have blogged on the von Schuckman et al paper. Since 2005, however, the data from 700m to the surface seems robust spatially (except under the arctic sea ice as you note). An example of the coming to agreement among the studies is Figure 2 in
Leuliette, E. W., and L. Miller (2009), Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608, doi:10.1029/2008GL036010.
We both agree on the need for further data and better analyses. I have posted on this issue; e.g. see
However, I do not see how such large amounts of heat could have transited to depths below 700m since 2005 without being detected.
I am very supportive, however, of your recognition that it is heat in Joules that we should be monitoring as a primary metric to monitor global warming. Our research has shown significant biases in the use of the global average surface temperature for this purpose; e.g.
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114,
D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf
Would you permit me to post your reply below along with my response on my weblog.
Best Regards
Roger
KEVIN’S FURTHER REPLY
Roger you may post my comments. The V.s paper shows quite a lot of heat below 700 m.
Kevin
MY FURTHER RESPONSE
Hi Kevin
Thanks! On the V.s et al paper, lets assume their values since 2005 deeper than 700m are correct [which I question since I agree with you on the data quality and coverage at the deeper depths]. However, if they are correct, how much of this heat explains the “missing” heat?
It would be useful (actually quite so) if you would provide what is the missing heat in Joules.
Roger
END OF UPDATE
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,”
Isn’t that called Summer?
“Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there….”
I bet he knows where the heat’s gone
Just another epicycle…
Maybe one day people will remember that first-time calculations made in a computer, or a piece of paper, must be checked against reality, not the other way around. This will remain my single major cause of contempt for the CAGW. And they won’t correct it. (And nice little verse 🙂 )
“He wasn’t there again today,
How I wish he’d go away.”
Like the heat
It’s worse than we thought!
They not only lost the data, they lost the heat too 8-0
Sorry, I just cannot understand why these pretty senior people are making such rediculous and childish arguments. OK I can, rhetorical.
Sounds like a travesty to me
I read this yesterday. So funny. Trenberth seems confused again.
In most fields of science, people develop theories based around observations.
In climate science, people frequently seem to craft the data to conform to their theory.
Dark Heat
1) If Joules are “missing” now, in 2010, why does Dr. Trenberth believe that there were not hidden or missing Joules in, say, 1910, which were steadily released over the past 100 years to deceive Dr.s Mann, Trenberth, Jones, Hansen and Mr. Gore into believing the planet was warming due to accumulation of plant food in the atmosphere? Is it at all possible that the last century of heating been due to release of hidden heat?
2) Re: the statement “Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.”
How can Dr. Trenberth and his co-authors continue to use declining Arctic ice as evidence of a “profound effect” today, in 2010, when Arctic ice has steadily increased since 2007? Glacier melt (natural rate)? Rising sea levels (steady)?
I don’t know which philosopher said this:
“Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad.”
These people are crazy.
Where oh where has my little heat gone?
Oh where oh where can it be?
Dr. Trenberth could do like astronomers, and theorize that there is DARK HEAT building up, an exotic form that we cannot feel or measure. As with Deep Thought (in the HGTTG series), there should be 750,000 years of employment for the Alarmists if they can get this going.
If the “missing heat” is anomalously warm ocean temperature below 2000m, then it must be close to 0C. Exactly how is a reservoir of heat at such low temperature going to “…come back to haunt us sooner or later” ? If this were really true, then how is it that anomalously warm deep water, sequestered during the Medieval Warm Period, coming back to the surface today is not a factor in the current temperature rise?
Have they looked in space yet?
“A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory”
100?
“However, I do not see how such large amounts of heat could have transited to depths below 700m since 2005 without being detected.”
Osama bin Laden is using it to heat his cave.
Or Bernie Madoff has it.
This is truly insane. But only if you ignore the word “believed”…
“Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years”
In other words, we still can’t figure out where Saddam hid those darn WMDs, but we’re sure they are there.
The data doesn’t fit the hypothesis.
We have no idea why not.
Therefore the data is wrong.
BB King wrote about it:
The heat is gone,
The heat is gone away
The heat is gone, baby
The heat is gone away
You know you think I’m wrong, baby
And I’ll be sorry someday
Missing heat, eh? Makes me want to look up Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis again. I also wonder what that Bob Tisdale guy has to say about this.
Yep, heat balance is the key (or before some physicist comes along and bops us all on the head, the Earths internal energy + kinetic [does that cover it?] energy balance with the rest of the Universe is the key.)
Why on earth is anyone in his right mind still paying attention to Kevin Trenberth? When the data don’t match your predictions, Kevin, did you ever consider the possibility that your predictions are in error, NOT the data?
The real issue is climate sensitivity, or lack thereof. The entire AGW model perpetrated by Trenberth et al is built on CO2 creating a positive feedback effect far beyond its own direct absorbance of energy, acting through water vapor, or some other mechanism. To date, there is NO evidence that this occurs. The only evidence that I am aware of shows that there is a zero or slightly negative feedback.
When the data don’t match your predictions, sir, the first place to look is at your models. They ain’t working.
You know Anthony, your artistic talent is really blossoming with these images, and now poetry! 🙂
I’m going to guess that the heat jumped into the mantle, and that’s why iceland popped.
If the heat is missing (or at least we can’t find it), perhaps it is not there !
Shouldn’t the absence of the heat maybe mean that the oceans are not warming much?
WOW, not one word of the ocean salinity changes!