NCAR’s missing heat – they could not find it any-where

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.

NCAR's heat in a can - let it out!

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

Continued Misconception Of The Concept of Heating In The Pipeline In The Paper Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009 Titled “Global Sea Level Linked To Global Temperature”

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

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/comment-from-josh-willis-on-the-upper-ocean-heat-content data-posted-on-real-climate/

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

368 thoughts on “NCAR’s missing heat – they could not find it any-where

  1. “Yesterday upon the stair
    I met a man who wasn’t there….”

    I bet he knows where the heat’s gone

  2. 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 :-) )

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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)?

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. “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.

  10. The data doesn’t fit the hypothesis.
    We have no idea why not.
    Therefore the data is wrong.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.)

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. What about all those ‘millions’ of degress C stored beneath our feet,
    under the crust.

    Perhaps I’m missing some perspective here , but wouldn’t that rather upset the energy balance if it were to escape ?
    And here we’re worrying about a few joules missing somewhere round the edges …

  18. “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.”….huh? Are they watching the same ice we are? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/11/visualizing-changes-in-arctic-ice-since-the-2007-record-low/#more-18362
    And then there was the story about more sea ice in the Antarctic…..Haven’t heard much about Greenland lately, but I’d suspect if the Arctic sea ice is increasing, so too would Greenland’s…….

    But, wait, I’ve got it!!!! It went to the volcanoes in Iceland and that’s why we witnessed the first of many eruptions!!! Witness the previous article here on WUWT!!! Should I call Kevin and tell him where it went?

  19. There’s two explanations for the missing heat:

    1. It’s hiding.
    2. It isn’t there.

    I believe in #2, although I haven’t checked under the rug lately.

    AJ

  20. Probably the last place you would expect to read something….

    ….that leaves you speechless

  21. Cause it’s gone daddy gone
    heat is gone
    gone daddy gone
    heat is gone
    gone daddy gone
    heat is gone
    away….

    (That acoustic band in the beginning of the 80ies playing together with ZZ top and i forgot their name…)

  22. If the “missing” heat is in the deep oceans then it should show up as a rise in sea level unless the “missing” heat is insufficient to cause a measurable rise in sea levels. It would be nice if Mr. Trenberth could explain where the “missing” heat could be and not be deteced. If it is undetectable then how can it “come back to haunt us sooner or later”?

    Michael Penny

  23. Kevin Trenberth could not possibly know the answer to the final question posed because the data is not robust enough as stated, but it is obvious that the amount of energy stored there would be the imbalance he calculates less the V.s paper estimates because he thinks the heat is missing.

    You see this is how they model AGW, and how they continue to work; they calculate everything they can account for and assign the remainder to GHG concentrations, and in this case to deep ocean heat content.

    SOP 2.0

  24. “The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,”

    “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.”
    ========================
    Good enough for Government work, i guess.

  25. Assuming this heat is missing and not just missed in the analysis and measurements, I think it is best that we spend some time and money on finding it. I guess getting that funding requires getting the attention of the politicians that seem more interested in going to Mars then understanding our home planet. If I remember my physical oceanography, admittedly a good number of years back, the understanding of deep currents was less then satisfactory. I remind everyone that making any predictions and prognostications based on a poor understanding and inadequate models is most unhelpful.

  26. I was always taught that if the data does not show something, it is not there. Now we suspect the data when it does not show what we expect.

  27. I agree with Trenberth position on this. There seems to be heat coming into the system we cannot account for. A _lot_ of heat.

    Unfortunately, Trenberth himself disagreed with Trenberth’s (current) position when he wrote his paper on the energy budget. He choose to disregard the heat the satellites told us was there, and other measurements that didn’t give him the answer he (at the time) wanted, and instead went with the numbers Hansen’s climate model gave.

    A much more honest approach would have been to simply state we don’t know how much heat is coming into and leaving the Earth and we can’t confidently create an energy budget from the variety of possible answers we currently have.

  28. I love how nowhere is it ever mentioned that they might have it wrong.

    An Inconvenient Data Set :P

    My personal theory, much of the observed changes from 1980-2003 was not CO2 but ocean variability either from log-lived currents or from changes in cloud behavior (possibly due to atmospheric circulation variability).

    The IPCC blames everything on radiative changes due to CO2/GHGs, but the idea that it can be responsible for temp increases, increasing atmospheric water content, and the measured OHC increases is a little ludicrous. I’d say they at least overestimated by 50% :P

    And that’s skipping over UHI/LULC.

    Pielke’s great, and at least Trenberth shows some signs of critical thinking instead of the flat-denial shown by others. There’s a glimmer of hope I think

  29. So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.

    Is this like somebody’s Playstation video-game says it should be there; but nobody’s thermomter can actually see it.

    Wonderful direction this science is taking

  30. As a layman I’d like to ask a couple of questions about the latest increase in satellite measurements and this so called missing heat, perhaps in deep oceans below 700 metres.

    First question, how much of the recent satellite temp increase a result of el nino and if so can we expect this to fall in the coming years like post 1998?

    Next question isn’t the ocean heat measured more accurately ( at least to 700 metres) by the Argo bouys and doesn’t this show little temp increase or perhaps a slight cooling for the last few years?

    Perhaps there is just more heat lost to space than we think in recent times and we are somehow missing this measurement because it is something we don’t want to find?

  31. I skipped ahead to the ending.

    *spoiler alert*

    The missing Joules are in a U-Store-It in Santa Monica.

  32. Anthony, sorry but your poetry is catching:

    They seek it here
    they seek it there
    they seek it d**** well everywhere
    they know the heat
    must be somewhere
    if we just take sufficient care
    we’ll find its footprint trace somewhere
    there’ll be no more decline to hide
    and no more sceptics to deride
    our labours in a higher cause
    or say our graphs are only noise
    the public will regain their trust
    and rapldly endorse the thrust
    of science settled – like the dust.

  33. I think that this says it all:
    “Until 2003, the measured heat increase was consistent with computer model expectations.”
    So it must now be instrumentation errors.

    Was this inconsistency pointed out??

    Hard to believe that the real problem is obvious and yet ignored. This is what happens when climate religion is combined with a fat paycheck. A clear inconsistency, yet how many on pro-AGW websites will notice.

  34. Well, if the missing heat has gone into melting glaciers and rising sea level – then surely they must have predicted this using their not perfect but useful climate models, right?
    No?
    Well then the models aren’t a bit useful.

  35. ‘Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo are not recognizing’

    They appear not to accept that mother earth heats the oceans from within, i.e. that the oceans heat from below. Christ none of these hobnobs know where all the heat comes from in details, and that’s why their cute, but useless, models suck so bad.

  36. Easy, as Kevin Trenberth inadvertently revealed a couple of years ago in the famous NPR interview, maybe it’s been radiated back out to space.

    Get back here, right now Heat; we need you. You can go play later.
    =================

  37. [quote George E. Smith (15:55:01) :]
    So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.
    {/quote]

    It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming.

  38. This would apparently be part of their “return with a vengeance” meme.

    I suppose it is nice to see it explained at greater length than an alarmist sound-bite, so thanks for that.

  39. The heat has to be there, their models prove it. But they can’t find it.

    We already had ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy – somewhere in the universe.

    Now we can add ‘dark heat’ – somewhere on earth.

  40. What else could it be, the models are never wrong?
    Call it dark heat and hit the Gong.
    Check the instruments? They’re ‘out there’ drifting along with the calibration electronics. Can’t get to them.
    Launch the backup or hit the Reset button.
    You cannot measure that which does not exist, and the search for the missing heat is a snipe hunt caught in an infinite loop.
    Press ctrl-C to Exit.

  41. A climate scientist called Trenberth,
    Measure the temperature of Earth.
    We know the Sun’s shone,
    But where’s all the heat gone?
    Perhaps we’ll find it in Perth!

  42. I believe the excess joules have transited the earth’s crust and superheated the magma. Perhaps to millions of degrees c.

    This “global warming” has resulted in superheated magma which is now boiling though thin spots in Iceland, you may call them Volcanoes.

    The volcanic ash plume resulting in Iceland has caused the grounding of all commercial flights in Europe.

    Truly, Global Warming IN ACTION. What more proof do you need? A Tsunami?

  43. Something is amiss regarding warming theories that don’t follow thermodynamic principles.

    Maybe Trenberth should count to 10 and yell, “Ready or not – here we come.”

  44. Henry chance (15:01:26) : “I read this yesterday. So funny. Trenberth seems confused again.”

    We need more confused scientists who will admit they’re confused, instead of claiming they know everything. I think Dr. Trenberth is somewhat of a realist and is therefore on the plus side of the ledger.

  45. Grant (16:22:19)–

    Joule thieves huh? Check the hockey stick players. Ottawa 1 Pittsburgh 1 in the 1st period.

  46. I would like to thank Kevin Trenberth for pointing out the 1st truth that any empirical scientist learns the hard way. Don’t start talking about data being wrong and not fitting your theory if you haven’t even bothered to characterise the mechanisms behind your theory in the first place. Saying there has to be heat when you can’t even show measurements of the basic driver of your theory or from verified principles that there should be heat, should force one to pause. Not start throwing the toys out of the pram. When I was an eleven year-old cheeky brat on holiday in Australia with my family, my mum bought me a keyring at a market one day, to subtley make her point that I was being a cheeky wee so and so and know it all. It said:

    “Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth”

    It is certainly a multi-layered phrase

  47. Kevin and the case of the missing joules.

    Absent minded professor Jones misplaced many years of temperature records.
    Kevin may just be posturing. Now he goes and gets a 13 million dollar gubment grant and looks for the joule thief. He can make some big bucks if he can position this as a scary tipping point and if we don’t find the Joules quickly, we are all toast.

  48. If nature is acting different than a model, then the model is wrong.
    Trash it, folks.
    Stop selling it as “perfect” and only some heat is hidden somewhere you don’t remember. People are not that stupid.

    Thank you for making this obvious, Prof. Pielke Sr.

  49. Anthony, I take it the guy’s do not know the significance of currents that move heat around and the absence of this heat means some very nasty weather can be born from warm air and cold water.
    Salt being a crystal plays a very significant role in how deep solar penetration of heat can go. Also too much salt can effect evaporation cycles.

  50. “The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says Kevin Trenberth. Maybe the heat is meditating, or has gone to the bathroom, or is away on a journey, or perhaps it is asleep and must be aroused.

    It can only be ‘missing’ if it was there in the first place. Here’s the classic account of trying to invoke something absent to generate a source of heat from the sky, and the mockery it drew around 2850 years ago:

    ‘And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.’ 1 Kings 18:26-29 (ESV).

    They just put a more modern gloss on it these days.

  51. old construction worker (15:16:58) :

    “Have they looked in space yet?”

    I thought that’s how most of them did their work.

  52. ♪♪♪
    Let the sunshine
    Let the sunshine in
    The sunshine in
    Let the sunshine
    Let the sunshine in
    The sunshine in
    Let the sunshine
    Let the sunshine in
    The sun shine in…
    ♪♪♪
    It´s the sun stupid!

  53. Guess who said this?

    “the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
    travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

    Right, it was Kevin Trenberth in his now famous email to M. Mann, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, etc., etc. on October 12, 2009, which was incidentally, my ex-wife’s birthday.

    It would appear he has been looking for missing heat for months, and I find it hard to believe that none of his cohorts have been of any help.

    I think it’s a travesty!!

  54. what a travesty, these jokers cannot even be called scientists. i am sorry.

    i gave up on academia a very long time ago because i could not tolerate the peer-and-dollar forced group think. but this is just over the top incredulous.

    epicycles indeed- at least they were supposed to explain the evidence, not deny it.

  55. I think it’s pretty obvious that there is a conspiracy among the red neck deniers to steal the heat and store it in their basements, garages and outhouses just so that they can continue to drive their SUVs and rape the earth.

  56. Did they check under the sofa cushions? I find all sorts of surprising stuff when I look there. ;->

    Paul

  57. I thought it was settled science where the heat went. Al Gore said himself that just a short distance under your feet the earth is a million degrees. A few years ago it was only a few thousand degrees.

  58. The alarmists have gone kooky. This has probably been one of the most ridiculous stories ( non) that I have ever read , or even heard of ….wheres the heat…dear god, it has come to this.

    I can;t figure them out.
    All said and done, regardless of the whitewashes , climate science will never be the same , all data will be scrutinized and sleptics will be heard. We are still at the tip of the oiceburg of this scam falling apart. It is over for them and they know it.
    Ian

  59. Like Kim mentioned earlier…

    The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat – March 19, 2008

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

    “Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says [the missing heat is] probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.”

    It would be interesting to know why Trenberth doesn’t consider this to probable now, particularly if they can’t find the heat anywhere else.

    Also, if “the Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years,” why is every month the warmest since records began?

  60. magicjava (16:14:56) :
    [quote George E. Smith (15:55:01) :]
    So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.
    {/quote]

    It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming.

    ================================
    :-\ 6 times the global temperature rise is missing? Maybe the chart is upside down. Time to calibrate the satellites again?

  61. As I understand it, there is an imbalance between the incoming heat, and the outgoing heat, at least as it is being measured.

    I would address the following questions, in order:

    1. Do we know that our measurements are accurate? Do we have a control measurement to calibrate the tools?

    2. Are we aware of all methods of heat exhaustion (not sure if that is an appropriate word here) from the planet? Is there a mechanism whereby heat is transferred, say, to the poles, and it is not being properly measured leaving there?

    3. Is there any way this heat could have been transformed into movement of some kind, such as increased current speeds or suchlike?

    Now, I am only speculating from a standpoint of limited physical understanding, but as an intelligent amateur, I would have thought these (or similar) would be the first places to examine. Having said that, perhaps they have already, and are now moving on to more complex and very much less likely possibilities whereby the heat is hidden in some way.

    Or perhaps they have an unshakable religious belief, and are attempting to fit all perceived data to that belief. That has some serious precedents in human thinking.

  62. a stupid question from the sidelines.

    Magicjava says.
    It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming.

    the missing heat shows up in the satellite? the heat shows up in the satellite? but gets lost? does the satellite have complete global coverage? could the heat be escaping from view and this escape going unnoticed?

  63. 1DandyTroll (16:09:09) :

    ‘Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo are not recognizing’

    They appear not to accept that mother earth heats the oceans from within, i.e. that the oceans heat from below. Christ none of these hobnobs know where all the heat comes from in details, and that’s why their cute, but useless, models suck so bad.

    If that were true, surely we’d be seeing more heat leaving than arriving?

    I agree, it must be true to some extent. The interior of the Earth is cooling (all those ‘millions of degrees’ have to go somewhere ;-) and thus the oceans, and indeed the land, must be warming. I suspect the overall rate of this warming is irrelevant compared to the Sun’s input however. The sun heats up the land about 10C to 20C each and every day. You have to go a long way down before you get any heat from the interior, and most land below a few metres remains around 3C or 4C at all times, as I understand it.

  64. “The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth”

    Words of an idiot!

  65. The AGW hypothesis assumes that Downward Longwave Radiation from Anthopogenic Greenhouse Gases has a measurable impact on OHC. It does not.

    As posted here at WUWT and linked many times, Ocean Heat Content (0-700meters) is dominated by ENSO in most ocean basins:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html

    OHC is a product of ENSO, sea level pressure (North Atlantic Oscillation), and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in the North Atlantic:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html

    And OHC is a function of sea level pressure (NPI) in the North Pacific:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html

    Like Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, the North Atlantic OHC has the highest trend over the term of the NODC OHC data. The North Atlantic contributed more than 30% of the total rise in OHC though it represents about 15% of the global ocean surface area. The decline in OHC over the past few years is dominated by the drop in the North Atlantic.

    If the North Atlantic OHC continues its decline for a multidecadal period, it is unlikely that global OHC will rise significantly over that period. I briefly touched on this in the most recent OHC update, under the heading of BIG IFS:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/ohc-linear-trends-and-recent-update-of.html

  66. “Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is
    ……….believed to have built up……….
    on Earth in recent years,”

    So climate computer programs have been off by a factor of two.

    And they can’t admit that they know nothing about what’s going on.

    “large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured,”

    Quite impossible.
    It would have always been a factor or not.

  67. “”” magicjava (16:14:56) :

    [quote George E. Smith (15:55:01) :]
    So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.
    {/quote]

    It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming. “””

    I see your point; perhaps I should rephrase my comment:-

    If the heat is there as in; it shows up in the satellites; why is there a belief that it is missing ?

    Now that should correct my former error.

  68. The all powerful models predicted the increase in temperatures and they also predicted melting icecaps, glaciers, etc, so the missing heat cannot be there as it was already predicted by the expected heat anyway. Saying that the predicted heat AND the missing heat is going towards melting ice sheets and glaciers etc is double counting it, unless we were seeing more melting than was forecast – which we are clearly not.

  69. Ode To Gaia.
    …-

    “Heat Wave

    We’re having a heat wave,
    A tropical heat wave,
    The temperature’s rising,
    It isn’t surprising,
    She certainly can can-can.

    She started the heat wave
    By letting her seat wave and
    In such a way that
    The customers say that
    She certainly can can-can.

    Gee, her anatomy
    Made the mercury
    Jump to ninety-three.

    Yes sir!

    We’re having a heat wave,
    A tropical heat wave,
    The way that she moves
    That thermometer proves
    That she certainly can can-can.’

    Ella Fitzgerald

  70. Dear Sir,

    Your doggerel is strongly reminiscent of Theodor Geisel

    I could not, would not, find it in a house.
    I could not, would not, find it with a mouse.
    I could not find it with a fox.
    I could not find it in a box.
    I could not find it here or there.
    I could not find it anywhere.
    I could not find the heat my man.
    I could not find it, Sam-I-am.

    My congratulations Sir and my apologies to Dr. Seuss.

    Helen Hawkins (15:13:32) :

    Us Red Necks in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (and proud of it) say: “God is Great, Beer is Good, and People are Crazy”.

    http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/billy-currington-god-is-great-beer-is-good-and-people-are-crazy/7c12e49c6f825a3c07da7c12e49c6f825a3c07da-1597228056817

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  71. magicjava (16:14:56) :

    Are you saying the Ceres satellite measures the heat leaving earth?

    It seems we ought to be able to measure the incoming heat and outgoing heat from outer space. That would skip all the complex things the heat does while it is here.

    Is this so difficult to do?

  72. I’m sure that more taxes and carbon credit trading will find the missing heat.
    Has anyone thought to measure the hot air coming out of Al Gore? Maybe that’s why he looks so bloated lately. Yes, that’s where it is!

  73. Trenberth has made a remarkable discovery – heat can pass through hundreds of meters of water without causing that water’s temperature to rise. Trenberth is theorizing at the Nobel Prize level. Call Al Gore. Al knows that just below the Earth’s crust the temperature is millions of degrees. Now Trenberth knows how the heat got there.

    Clearly, Trenberth and crew should be kept away from all sharp objects.

  74. ScientistForTruth: May I call you Elijah?
    All others: If the heat is hiding in the ocean, then thermal expansion would have flooded New York City. And Major Bloomberg’s plaNYC would have been right after all.

  75. It appears to be an imbalance between energy coming in & going out as measured by CERES. So what does ERBE say?

    DaveE.

  76. I recall a recent discovery where it was found that thunderstorms along the tropics release much more heat into the upper atmosphere than previously realized.

    Unless you are able to measure all the heat released from all large thunderstorms, you are going to get the energy balance wrong.

    So the heat is not hidden, it just sneaked out through the thousands of daily atmospheric windows we call thunderstorms.

  77. Mike M. (15:23:46) : You wrote, “I also wonder what that Bob Tisdale guy has to say about this.”

    That Bob Tisdale guy commented above at 17:19:19.

  78. I visualize the oceans as a layer of sweat on the earth just like your body, as heat is absorbed the ocean surface evaporates, change of state heat loss.

    Heat does not readily travel vertically in the oceans as different temperature masses of water are different densities and they form thermocline interfaces.

  79. Ah yes, I remember where I read the thunderstorm stuff.

    The Thermostat Hypothesis
    Guest Essay by Willis Eschenbach

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

    At the top, the air is released from the cloud up high, way above most of the CO2. In that rarified atmosphere, the air is much freer to radiate to space. By moving inside the thunderstorm heat pipe, the air bypasses most of the greenhouse gases and comes out near the top of the troposphere

    That Willis is a smart guy.

    JT

  80. This is the problem with an ‘energy budget’! The supposition that ‘energy in/energy out = thermal state’ requires that all energy sinks (attractors) that aren’t thermal are known and can be excluded from the energy budget.

    Looking for unaccounted heat in deep ocean can’t really be justified. When you think about it water begins to expand again when it’s cooled to more than ~4°C, so there’s only an ~8°C range at most that can ‘hide’ heat in great ocean depths. There’s a large volume there though.

    Best regards, suricat.

  81. Easy Dr Trenberth. Everyone knows where the missing hot air or heat went.

    Half the missing heat went into Dr Pachauri’s racy porn novel and the other half got pumped into Alaska.

  82. Okay I am tired of the whole ‘Glacier melting’ as a sign of man caused global warming. Two things must be understood about glacier ice loss. First it has been occurring for over 150 years now, second, as a body of ice looses ice it increases the rate of ice loss as the ability for a glacier body to have a thermal buffer decreases. So stating this is akin to saying, hey I have an ice cube that has been melting for 150 years and it is starting to get small now!!!

    So depressed.

  83. I get it, I saw this in a movie once.

    There was this Sun thing, right, and it was all like,…(wave arms to emphasize) really hot n’ stuff.

    It had like, all these NOO-TREEN-NOE’s, and on the way to earth, they transformed, like the robots only really, really small.

    And they heated up the Earths core, and then the world ended, it was like totally awesome, cos John Cusack, is like a vegan or something, but they had these ships and then they cruised to Africa, which was like totally ok.

    Who Knew right?

    So that’s what happened to the missing heat, it like transformed into something not hot, but still there, and then when it got to someplace else, it turned hot again….I hope it doesn’t destoy the earth, i’m not a vegan yet.

    (Or,…its a phantom result from a Post Normal statistics exercise.)

  84. Haven’t we done all this before? Here are the facts.

    1. Some glaciers are melting, some aren’t. Local variations are the most important factor.
    2. Arctic sea ice has been expanding since 2007, and has reached the average.
    3. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, and is above the average.
    4. There has been no statistically-measurable increase in temperature for 10 or more years.

    Trenberth, there is no heat hiding in the ocean. You are grasping at straws, sir, and making yourself look foolish, or more foolish than usual. Give it up, man.

  85. “There are clearly problems in the analysis phase and I don’t believe any are correct. “

    Is there a unit root involved, here?

  86. We have a term for this in oil & gas exploration : “Buying your own B*** S***”

    The problems aren’t dis-similar : a highly under constrained dataset & the need to have a model to fit the data into so that you have some predictive powers (in the case of oil & gas – the power to predict where oil & gas is at in the sub-surface).

    It isn’t uncommon to see those who will follow their model, even when the data says the model is incorrect – thus the term “Buying your own B*** S***”. Those who fall into that trap in oil & gas are doomed to make bad decisions & waste a lot of money drilling wells which had no chance even before they started. This is not dis-similar to this situation. Those who have bought off on the AGW model are blind to the facts if they dont support “the model” & will make bad decisions as a result.

    In both cases, the believers are also blind to find the true answers which would have significant benefits (ie – in oil & gas, blind to where the data is saying oil & gas should be found, in climate, blind to what the true nature of the climate system may be).

    Following the analogy though, no one should surprised. Why? Because very few geoscientists ever find oil & gas. Most are just supporting cast for those who have the ability to not believe their own BS. Why would it be any different in climatology? There are a few visionaries & the rest just are supporting cast.

    Harsh? Maybe. True? Probably.

  87. Surely if there was substantial missing heat stored in the deep ocean, we’d be able to see it by the effect of thermal expansion on sea levels. It would be interesting to do the calculation, but orf course we’d first need to know how much missing heat is being talked about.

  88. I think that MIchael Penny, from his previous post, has the answer to this question. The joules that are hidden in the lower oceans should express themselves as expansion.

    The eustatic component to the rise in the oceans is about 1.6 mm/ year, and the rest expansion due to added heat. The expansion resulting from added heat isn’t occurring as confirmed by Argos.

    Also, how is the heat getting to the lower oceans? I don’t think our currents go to the depths that Mr. Trenberth is suggesting. That would mean the only transport method for moving these joules down into the lower oceans is through conduction, and that would take a very long time.

    How much will the oceans expand in height if they were to gain 1 degree C in temperature? Can anyone give me an answer? And what would the temperature profile of the oceans look like at the surface temperature were to climb by 1 degree C? I expect we would have a quick temperature change to the depths the currents travel to and very slow below that.

    Steve

  89. Omg – its so EMBARRASSING! I feel sorry for them. But to highlight this with a PRESS RELEASE? “Attention – look how pathetic and stupid we are, clinging to our obviously flawed models”?

    “It must be there, only we can’t see it, didn’t catch it as it transited the parts we CAN see, and – you need to be afraid of it!”

    If I did science like that, I’d be fired.

    Good LorD.

  90. I had a similar problem as Trenberth when I examined the linearity of a circle.
    I found that when I used a 1 meter rule to measure the angle of a circular sports stadium perimeter it was linear. As obviously, measuring big circular things is more accurate than measuring little circular things, it was safe to conclude that the edge of a circular object is flat.
    When I used the same rule to measure the angle of the perimeter of a nickle it was all wrong, it wasn’t flat at all, unless I placed it on its side.
    I believe that the US Mint is at fault and is flooding the nation with a coinage that distorts time/space; this may be the reason I get terrible headaches and always smell boiling cabbage when I hear denialist arguments.

  91. Some of that missing heat must have been hiding in my coffee cup this morning. Burnt my tongue it did….. and only last week it ruined my toast.

    It would seem this missing heat is more insidious and malevolent than we first thought!…..;-)

  92. regions that are not adequately measured

    Cha–ching!

    They’ll need new instruments to register it. And they’ll need to pay someone to record the data and make up some sort of algorithm that drops the cooler readings and keeps the warmer ones so global warming can be shown.

    Cha–ching!

  93. This press release is a barometer of the sad state of climate science. Speculations put forth with insufficient data should be confined to the private conversations of scientists as they banter back and forth in smoke filled–I mean CO2 filled–rooms.

    Instead scientists are lending their personal credibility to such speculation in an effort leverage their own theories and maintain public credibility (and, if I may be so jaded, funding).

    What is your hypothesis? What is your data? What is the criterion of falsification?

  94. Ya, global warming can’t be seen because it’s sinking in the ocean. I guess it’s sinking because it hit an iceberg named ClimateGate.

  95. “The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,”

    It’s under our beds, next to the monsters that live there.

  96. I shake my head at the foolishness of saying global warming is sinking into the oceans.

  97. Allan M (15:19:12) :

    “A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory”

    100?

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Nice! :-)

  98. There is no missing heat. It never was there, except in the models. When are they going to admit that?

  99. LOL…. Fitzy (17:59:30) :

    Excellent post mate!…. You get the Golden Guffaw Award…..

    I think I’ve busted a rib laughing.

  100. Makes you wonder how they build climate models if they can’t get the global heat balance correct. “Fudge factors” perhaps ?

  101. I want to ask the most naive of questions.

    The interior of the earth is hot, very hot in fact. What is the rate the energy flow from the interior of the earth into our biosphere? Does that rate change over time? Does the IPCC take the intrinsic energy inside our planet into account when it does the “budget” for the biosphere?

    I have been idling thinking about this, prior to the Iceland volcano. The IPCC seems to think of volcanos as “negative forcers” through the cooling effect of the aerosols released during eruptions, but at the same time they release massive amounts of heat (both by convection, directly heating the air, hence the massive plumes going so high) and by radiation (those hot lava flows and in fact just the higher temperature soils and rocks radiating long-wave IR).

    Just curious and naive. I did look at the IPCC diagram but it shows the earth’s surface as a barrier really, no energy flows across it in either direction…

  102. “Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or, more likely, large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured…..”

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Kevin Trenberth would have been good at measuring the Emperor’s new clothes.

    ;-)

  103. John from CA (17:10:00) :
    TGSG (17:12:55) :
    Caleb (17:34:13) :

    My previous reply was kinda short. here’s a more detailed one.

    1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more than the the amount of energy leaving the Earth at the TOA.

    2) The current estimate for Global Warming is 0.9 Watts/meter -2, so the data from CERES is more than 6 times there current estimate.

    3) There are several other ways to measure the heat energy imbalance. None of them give the same answer as any other method.

    4) All of the methods have large margins of error, to the point where you can ignore the data if yo so choose.

    5) It is my own personal belief that the CERES satellite is somewhere in the neighborhood of correct.

    6) If the CERES satellite is correct, then we don’t know where the extra heat entering the Earth is going. This is because…

    7) We know where the extra heat _isn’t_ going. It’s not being absorbed by CO2 or Water Vapor. It’s not showing up in there surface, troposphere, or stratosphere temperatures. It’s not _anywhere_ where we currently measure temperature. Hence it’s called “missing”.

    8) Trenberth enumerated a few places we don’t currently measure heat and thus these areas may contain this “missing” heat.

  104. I’m waiting for a video to be released of Kevin Trenberth searching under all of the furniture in a conference room, looking for the missing heat. (Reminiscent of the video of George W. Bush doing the same, in search of Saddam Hussein’s missing WMD’s.)
    Hint: Mr. Trenberth should consult Al Gore, who knows where the missing heat is stored, i.e. the temperature of the core of the earth is now several million degrees.

  105. This is like trying to herd cattle. Trenberth and company would lead us to think that heat roves the planet and they have to point to places where the heat herd last warmed things.

    Anybody who has lived in the Midwest knows that on a clear winter night huge amounts of heat can pour out to space. The heat herd probably got away because the clouds left the gate open.

  106. “The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author.

    Like all good cattle, the heat, too, will come home.

    How much of this stupidity is wishful-thinking, opinion, and wanton speculation? The range of the answer is from 1-100% and, hint, the correct answer has 3 digits.

  107. Little Bo-Peep has lost her heat
    And doesn’t know where to find it
    Leave it alone
    And it will come home
    Dragging its joules behind it

    Seriously, this whole sorry episode reminds me of the soap powder adverts from the nineties along the lines of “our powder destroys hidden odours”. Hidden odours? You know; the ones you can’t smell. People caught on and the brand ceased to be within the decade – will AGW go the same way?

  108. Depression blamed on AGW theory, pharmaceutical deaths on the rise. Patients unable to reconcile their guilt.

    AGW theory leads to 1 million deaths a year in Africa. Communities banned from basic development.

    Flawed AGW theory estimated to have killed 22 million worldwide since Kyoto treaty.

    Do you see where I’m going with this line of thought?

  109. Dear Roger……..

    “Our article highlights the discrepancies that should be resolved with better data and analysis, and improved observations must play a key role.”

    Kevin
    ============================
    The excerpt above needs to be sent to the Library of Congress,
    as a record of our current ….dilemma, regarding Catastrophic AGW.

  110. Dear Dad

    Working hard. Books and stationary expensive. Just a few more years to find the heat before it’s too late.

    Please send more money.

    Love Kev.

    PS. I may need to go to Cancun this year. Someone mentioned they had seen the heat there. Phil, Mike and the gang are going and I can’t allow them to find it before I do.

  111. I wouldn’t have thought it was possible for this “missing heat” to hide away in the depths of the oceans.

    The ocean deep is rematkably uniformly around 1-2DegC, wether near the poles or the equator.

    Physically impossible for heat to transfer into deep oceans.

    But I do agree some heat has been sequestering away since 1998 in the shallow waters (down to 100mtrs, the depth sunlight can penetrate) . THAT’S THE HEAT THAT’S BEEN EXHAUSTED OUT BY EL NINO.

    Once that heat is gone, and the low activity of the sun, brrrr baby brrrr for the next 30 years.

  112. To me, it’s obvious where the heat goes: it is radiated back out into space. We see this in action every winter morning, clear sky, on cars parked in the open — the windshield is frozen and the other windows are not. This is because the ground radiates warmth onto the car windows, but the windshield is tilted toward the sky and so does not get the warmth from the ground, so it freezes. The Earth radiates its warmth back into space. This is not hard.

  113. “The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,”

    Rising from its hiding place in the Deeps, bringing retribution to mankind for its sins of modernity ?

    Like, uh, a giant, radioactive firebreathing reptile ??

    So we are edging closer to a new paradigm – the Godzilla Hypothesis of planetary balancing mechanisms ???

    Cooool !!!

  114. I’ve wondered for some time why nobody seems interested in the heat content of the land surface. I gather temperatures are regarded as fairly stable beyond a few feet down for any location, but that still leaves a pretty significant tonnage of sub-surface soil and water with a substantial thermal capacity.

    A quick Google on the subject reveals relatively little research in this area. But why, one must ask? Is it too difficult to arrange, too complicated to “adjust”, or is it just another assumption that, like the trivial matter of clouds, is conveniently left out of the you-beaut models on which so many climatologists place so much trust?

    One paper I did find is on “An acceleration in soil heat storage across northern Eurasia” by Tara Troy and Eric Wood.

    http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-5439.pdf

    It’s based on a relatively sparse set of data, and that data has been tortured by a model that “replicates observed temperatures reasonably(?) well.”

    It shows that: “After validation, we show that there has been a small increase in heat storage from 1901 to 1980. Following 1980, there is an acceleration in the rate of heat accumulated in the soil column that occurs through 2006, when the model simulations end.”

    The acceleration since 1980 seems reasonable, since we were emerging from a cold spell. But wait – the soil heated up from 1901 to 1980? Surely that’s impossible, because there wasn’t enough CO2 around in those days to do its deadly work?

    It seems there are many places to bury inconvenient data…

  115. Did anyone else hear this missing heat garbage being talked about on NPR Science Friday today? Good Lord. The last person on Earth that will still believe in AGW will not be Al Gore, it will be Ira Flatow. A new Earth creationist being interviewed by the late Jerry Falwell would have faced tougher questioning then the climate clowns that were on today.

  116. Surely it is time for NCAR to stop puttering around with climate science and get back to their real job of running stock car races for rednecks.

  117. @magicjava (19:03:41) :

    1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more than the the amount of energy leaving the Earth at the TOA. ….

    7) We know where the extra heat _isn’t_ going. It’s not being absorbed by CO2 or Water Vapor. It’s not showing up in there surface, troposphere, or stratosphere temperatures. It’s not _anywhere_ where we currently measure temperature. Hence it’s called “missing”.

    – – – – – – –

    Are you familiar with Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)? Have you considered endothermic heats of transition? This is energy storage due to change of phase, which is released upon reversal of the transition. You cannot measure heat stored in this manner with a thermometer, you must use a calorimeter.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition

  118. Well, the missing heat may be below 700m, but that’s only because it’s “rotten” heat…

  119. This paper from last year offers some interesting insights on the inadequacy of the present understanding of heat circulation in the oceans.

    http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf

    Some selected quotes

    . The presence of a geothermal heat- flow, whether spatially variable or not, means that the ocean must evacuate an additional 0.03 PW, which it does in all cases by enhancing poleward heat transport
    in the Southern Hemisphere, by about 10% near 50◦ S.

    – geothermal heat flux is formally analogous to air-sea fluxes, and likewise, it induces a transformation of water masses (AABW in this case).

    – In that sense, it is directly analogous to diapycnal mixing, both qualitatively and quantitatively. It has a similar effect on bottom water, eroding extrema of the global T- S diagram and depositing a comparable amount of heat in the abyss. On a global scale, it is in fact equivalent to
    a diapycnal mixing coefficient of ∼1.2×10−4 m2 s−1 at
    3500 m, i.e. the canonical value of (Munk, 1966).

    The case is hereby made that geothermal heating is an important actor of abyssal dynamics. We recommend its inclusion in every model dealing with the long-term ocean circulation, for it substantially alters bottom water mass characteristics and generates a non-negligible circulation in the present-day climate

  120. Have they tried…

    “Ally Ally In Come Free”

    or

    “Come out, come out, wherever you are?”

    Apparently they don’t know the rules of the Climate Heat “Hide and Seek” Game.

  121. Wikipedia: In physics and thermodynamics, heat is the process of energy transfer from one body or system due to thermal contact, which in turn is defined as an energy transfer to a body in any other way than due to work performed on the body.
    Somehow you climatologists have confused thermodynamic terminology. Heat is not a property of a body. Perhaps the reason it is lost is that the question is energy storage and heat in a body. A hot does not have heat in it.
    Since the planet is not a closed thermodynamic system, the use of state variables such as internal energy or enthalpy cannot be assigned a value. The only heat flow is from hot to cold with supplying mechanical energy, work.

  122. ————————————————————-
    CRS, Dr.P.H. (16:44:49) :

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and
    it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth to Mann, ClimateGate email:
    =================================================
    I’VE CRACKED THE CODE.

    What Trenberth is really saying to Mann is:
    ‘…….we’ve taken these models. Put lipstick on them, added a bit of plastic surgery, implanted a couple of Dolly Parton sized peaks at the end to make them even hotter……….and you’re telling me they turn out to be Transvestites????!!!!…’

  123. I thought the heat is just starting with the various investigations underway? Monckton is just warming up his instruments to apply the heat.

    “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.”

    It’s not heat, it’s “believed heat”. It’s “conjectured heat”. It’s predicted “heat” based upon, ahem, models meaning it’s “soothsaid heat”. “Illusionary” indeed.

    How about getting BETTER TOOLS for better observations before spouting off about your pet hypothesis? Oh right, GREEN grant $$$MONEY$$$.

    It’s fine to have a hypothesis, but please indicate that that is what it is. It’s like the NOAA et. al. temperature anomaly graphs that use fabricated data via interpolation without labeling indicating that the visualization is based upon invented, fabricated data via statistical interpolation.

    Where in the world is Joules and where did he hide the heat? Joules who? How do you hide heat? It want to radiate in all directions by default. Water or air or ice or magma or rock would need to move it.

    “I’m going to guess that the heat jumped into the mantle, and that’s why Iceland popped.”

    Yup must be that a cold zone (oceans) can contribute HEAT to a hotter zone (mantle with hot magma)! That’s some physics I’d like to see!

    “Heat transfer is the transition of thermal energy from a hotter mass to a cooler mass. When an object is at a different temperature than its surroundings or another object, transfer of thermal energy, also known as heat flow, or heat exchange, occurs in such a way that the body and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium; this means that they are at the same temperature. Heat transfer always occurs from a higher-temperature object to a cooler-temperature one as described by the second law of thermodynamics or the Clausius statement. Where there is a temperature difference between objects in proximity, heat transfer between them can never be stopped; it can only be slowed.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer

    THE THREE METHODS OF HEAT TRANSFER in RAP

    Is Kevin Trenberth suggesting a NEW way of heat transfer? Via entangled quantum physics teleporting the heat across ocean layers maybe? Or maybe it’s sneaky heat?

    ““The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth to Mann, ClimateGate email:
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048

    Can’t account for it according to what exactly? Why does Kevin Trenberth think there is travesty in the lack of heat? Nature isn’t here to confirm our theories, she could care less about us. It is obvious from his comment that he’s trying to find the missing heat otherwise his hypothesis crumbles to the ground in pieces. I wonder how long it will be before some of these guys give up on their hypothesis? When will they realize that their hypothesis has been falsified by Nature? What will it take for them to say the hypothesis is falsified and needs to be toss aside?

    Kevin Trenberth, what specifically is your hypothesis? In full detail please.

    Do the alleged climate scientists even have a notion that their hypothesis is supposed to have a test for falsification? What is their Null Hypothesis?

    I’ve directly asked the following (plus a number of other) questions point blank to at least one climate scientist who works that the National Center for Atmospheric Research and haven’t received an answer yet. They don’t seem to want to answer these sorts of basic questions fundamental to the scientific method. I’m still waiting for an answer to be fair.
    (1) What is AGW?
    (2) How can the alleged AGW hypothesis be falsified?
    (3) What is the Null Hypothesis that you work with?

    DirkH thanks for the violent fems video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT4rRUONgRU). One of my favorite 100 songs that was missing, now I feel the heat of it again!!!

    Heat that haunts with taunts by Trenberth et. al..

    Cudos to Craig Moore for Liquid Heet! It goes where you need it!

    Joule thieves is by far the best explanation. “Kevin may just be posturing. Now he goes and gets a 13 million dollar grant and looks for the joule thief.” One can buy a lot of jewels with the funds from the search for the missing joules! Nice. How do I get into that racket? Oh wait, I can’t take the heat that might come back to haunt me from the travesty of sticking to a hypothesis regardless of the counter evidence. That’s why hypotheses are supposed to have tests that falsify them, so one doesn’t get struck blind by a pet hypothesis that cripples one’s mental capacity for critical reasoning!

    “Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad.” Does this apply to those, such as Kevin Trenberth, who stick to their hypothesis through thick and thin? Is the real travesty that their alleged AGW hypothesis has no falsification tests, thus they are like flies to a light? It’s the light, it’s the heat, move towards it, fast before it’s lost again! ZAP! ZAP! Nature zaps all hypotheses that are false, dead, dead, dead!

    The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat – March 19, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
    “Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says [the missing heat is] probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.”

    Isn’t that what Lindzen and Choi have shown and quantify in their paper, “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data”?

    Does this mean that Trenberth is agreeing with Lindzen?

    “If you draw a boundary between the outer atmosphere and space and treat the planet (with atmosphere) as a closed system, at equilibrium the amount of energy released through the boundary must be equal to the amount of energy passing into the boundary from the sun. As a baseline, everyone assumes that the amount of energy passing into the system from the sun remains constant. If the temperature of the system inside the boundary is to increase, it is absolutely necessary that the total energy passing through the boundary must go down, at least temporarily, permanently trapping the energy in the system and raising the system temperature. Dr. Lindzen’s paper shows that once a temperature increase occurs — regardless of the reason — the system responds by moving out of equilibrium and releasing more energy into space than is provided by the sun. Thus, the temperate falls from the new (perturbed) temperature to a level between the initial equilibrium and the post-perturbation temperatures, until the equilibrium is reestablished.
    Any model that results in a system temperature above the initial perturbation (above roughly 1C for doubling of CO2) MUST, mathematically, do so by reducing net radiation released into space below the equilibrium point so that the additional energy can accumulate and the temperature can rise. Only by reducing net energy released into space can the system heat itself. All other forms of heating must, by definition, simply move energy within the closed system resulting in redistribution of energy but no net heating. The author of the note above notes “Models that assumed otherwise [from increased radiation resulting from increased temperature] would have near infinite temperatures.” Dr. Lindzen addresses this explicitly in his paper. “Indeed, Figure 3c suggests that models should have a range of sensitivities extending from about 1.5C to infinite sensitivity (rather than 5C as commonly asserted), given the presence of spurious positive feedback. However, response time increases with increasing sensitivity [Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998], and models were probably not run sufficiently long to realize their full sensitivity.” – Jim, http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/lindzen-choi.html.

    For your further enjoyment, where the joules went and how: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuJI2VBiqic.

    Kevin Trenberth et. al., NATURE, as in The Objective Reality of Nature and not the magazine, is always the final judge of a hypothesis, not your peers! Stop paying attention to your peers and start paying attention to Nature! Thanks.

  124. Layne Blanchard (15:25:59) :

    I’m going to guess that the heat jumped into the mantle, and that’s why Iceland popped.

    …and why the core of the earth has warmed up to 10,000,000 °C recently.

  125. I know where it be. the Kraken ate it, ate the heat, and we all know the Kraken very rarely breaks 1000 fathoms, unless it’s for revenge.

    THe walker circoolation is gonna go Maelstrom, aargh.

    It’s Doom, now all I need is a Disney contract. I smells an acadmey award and a Nobel Gunpowder Prize, on the wind Nor be Nor West.

  126. That great prophet George Orwell misnamed his book. It should have been 2010 not 1984. The sheer lunacy of the warmest cult defies description.

    On another note, the literary tone of this blog has improved considerably since Climategate. We have people in this one thread writing poetry [including Anthony] and quoting BB King and the immortal Ella. I for one love it. So do my birdfeeder visitors who get more seed when I’m in a good mood.

  127. magicjava (19:03:41) :

    5) It is my own personal belief that the CERES satellite is somewhere in the neighborhood of correct.

    6) If the CERES satellite is correct, then we don’t know where the extra heat entering the Earth is going. This is because…

    7) We know where the extra heat _isn’t_ going. It’s not being absorbed by CO2 or Water Vapor. It’s not showing up in there surface, troposphere, or stratosphere temperatures. It’s not _anywhere_ where we currently measure temperature. Hence it’s called “missing”.

    Normal science teaches us to examine the evidence. If we find our measurements show a net imbalance of a considerable amount of energy entering and leaving a system, and yet absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and I mean ‘whatsoever’, of an increase in energy within the system, we really should be examining our methods of measurement closely rather than fumbling in the dark for some ‘explanation’ for the ‘invisibility’ of this ‘missing’ energy.

    KISS!

  128. Don’t worry Kevin, I just hooked up with me ol mate Nemo, as parte’s to the code and we will poon that monster heat eater fishy for yer, we will let yer cut it up to get the heat out.

    But we needs some of them Grant Doublooms, act fast the world is doomed and only me and me matey Nemo can saves all the widows and orphans and Fancy swells as well polar bear cubs being ate by vultures.

    Almost forgot,

    Aaargh.

  129. Phil’s Dad (19:21:40) :

    Seriously, this whole sorry episode reminds me of the soap powder adverts from the nineties along the lines of “our powder destroys hidden odours”. Hidden odours? You know; the ones you can’t smell. People caught on and the brand ceased to be within the decade – will AGW go the same way?

    I like it! Carbon Taxes – the way to destroy the ‘Hidden Global Warming’.

    I will now change my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) to refer to this religion from AGW to HGW forthwith!

  130. Jerome, the final “S” in “KISS” is what seems to be getting in the way of the alleged climate scientists implementing the “KISS” approach! [:)]

  131. Howdy, I am in part responsible for this missing heat. Due to all the concern about AGW, I have been storing all my extra heat in coffee cans along with my useless Dark Emitting Diodes, (DEDs). I suspect that they have been cancelling each other out, and I am afraid to open all those coffees cans I stored out on the shelf in the garage.

    But, if everybody else goes along, I will let all of those DEDs out of the cans soon !

    Cheers, Kevin

  132. Oh, by the way I have an large collection of never used Write Only Memory (WOM) chips available, Large capacity, 1 Terabyte per chip, write time is 10 picoseconds, read time is infinite. IBM partnumber is: 1256useless-45-56-Jdp. Asking price is only $25.00 each, but I will take a good used Yugo in exchange for the entire lot.

    Cheers, Kevin

  133. Aye Capn Jack,

    She be ten score fanthoms deep, i’ll be bound, running true like the uptick of an ice hockey stick,…but do yee know of whence the Kraaken begat its name,…with a long ‘A’?, like the long ‘A’ in AAAS…with the extra silent ‘S’.

    She be from the Norse, whose ice cores are three and twenty score deep, down where the grim earth be many millions of degree’s. They summoned it ups yea see, the Kraaken, they delved too deep, too greedily, and awoke the beast from its 10,000 year slumber.

    And it kracked open the ancient dome of lavee, that keeps the devils kettle from boling over an’ sullying Gods good Earth,…excluding Manhatten and a small part o’ East Anglia.

    …oh they tried, they tried, to undo their folly, they sent Trenberth-the-Wise below with parchments and charms and much gold to appease its great hunger, but it had grown ravenous,…implacable it were….

    And so Trenberth did gather more gold, and more trinkets from the lords NOBEL and he sought council with the Goracle, wise be they,…

    They armed his wits with riddles, and schemes and all manner of accountin’ and binomial statistics…

    ….and he struck an accord with the beast, to keep the heat in, and preserve the Polee Bears from rotten ice and the Linux penguin from homelessness.

    And from that day, only mountains of gold, will keep it at bay.

  134. The missing heat is in outer space. The so called “greenhouse theory” is a false premise. According to the second law of thermodynamics, heat can only be transmitted from a warmer object to a cooler object. The global warming alarmists say that CO2 traps heat radiated from the earth and this heat is re-radiated back to earth (Impossible!), because the earth is at a higher temperature than the “so called greenhouse layer in the atmosphere”. This heat is simple radiated out to the “night sky” (outer space). End of argument!

  135. Glenn (16:49:09) :
    “I thought that’s how most of them did their work.”

    Glen,
    Actually the “Heat in the Ocean” had a thing for the “Hot Spot” In the troposphere and they ran off together.

  136. I have had hypotheses over the years that experimentation has falsified. But I did not cry, I just adjusted or abandoned the original. I was not indignant, nor defensive; as a scientist, I had great satisfaction that I had uncovered a truth, or turned another stone. Nature told me what was going on, and I did not second guess her. That’s what a scientist should do. My conclusion? These alarmists are not scientists by definition.

    LESSON: I claimed that there were diamonds in an empty lot, and I started a diamond rush, and hordes of diggers came. They dug three feet down and found nothing. I say that they did not dig deep enough. They went down six feet, but found nothing. I said they did not dig deep enough, and so on, until they had excavated a huge crater. They never disproved my theory, though. I was sure they were just short of the mother lode.

    Aristotle described this two and a half thousand years ago. He said you cannot prove a universal negative. This is what Trenberth is doing. It is a logical fallacy – just because you cannot find the heat, does not mean it isn’t there.

    When do we stop digging??? [“Oh, no, they killed Kenny…you bas***ds!]

  137. I hate you Fitzy, I was about to go whoop whoop Jules Verne to the centre of the earth and you just wrecked me plot. a bit of Saga a bit of Verne and I was even gonna bring the Prince of Mischief, Loki and Thunder bum Thor from the wings.

    And the Midguard Serpent and the Kraken was gonna super stoush.

    Thanks for wrecking me Disney career as Writer Producer. Thanks heaps.

  138. MattN (18:51:02) :

    There is no missing heat. It never was there, except in the models. When are they going to admit that?

    Maybe when they can’t make a living from global warming anymore.

  139. How come there aren’t massive quantities of volcanoes in the deserts?
    The Mohave, the Sahara, the Gobi, etc.
    How odd.

  140. Oh well, I will just have to take my fiction writing skills somewhere else, I heard a rumor there are science fiction jobs opening up at Hadley CRU and even NASA.

    CSIRO and BOM in Australia may need a good science fiction essayist, Not the same money unfortunately.

  141. Guys, it’s right under our noses!

    WE’VE been taking the heat for a long time for simply displaying and demanding common sense. That’s the travesty of it all.

    Funny how they don’t seem to appreciate it now that we’re starting to give it back. ;)

  142. The heat isn’t missing, it is clearly present on NOAA’s temperature anomaly map for March present between Canada and Greenland. It seems Climategate has got the “Team” so spooked that they no longer communicate with each other the way they use to. Otherwise Trenberth and NCAR would have been told as much by NOAA.

    /Sarc off

  143. Kevin has a much bigger problem than the dog eating half of his joules. He recognizes that over the long term the oceans are heating up at only .o6 degrees per decade vs .12 degrees per decade for the atmosphere according to NASA. Rather than doubt the NASA surface temps He is looking under his bed for the missing heat. His real problem is that the trend since ARGO was launched in 2002 not only shows no heat gain but since the Arctic sea ice has grown since 2007 He must now subtract the joules released by the growing sea ice and therefore recognize that joules in the ocean are leaving. The dog is getting hungrier.

  144. [quote JER0ME (20:20:38) :]
    magicjava (19:03:41) :

    Normal science teaches us to examine the evidence. If we find our measurements show a net imbalance of a considerable amount of energy entering and leaving a system, and yet absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and I mean ‘whatsoever’, of an increase in energy within the system, we really should be examining our methods of measurement closely rather than fumbling in the dark for some ‘explanation’ for the ‘invisibility’ of this ‘missing’ energy.
    [/quote]

    I’d agree with this if we were measuring everything. But we’re not. One of the places we’re not measuring well is the Arctic ocean. And the Arctic is where most of the heating is taking place.

    That said, the data is inconclusive enough that it’s perfectly reasonable to ignore it, as Dr. Pielke is doing.

    But because this issue is central to the energy budget, ignoring that data means you can never make a sensible statement about global warming, neither as a skeptic nor as a believer.

    If we can’t resolve this issue, one way or the other, we can’t move the science forward. We can only pick the answer we like best and run with it. (Which is, incidentally, _exactly_ what Trenberth did when he wrote his energy balance paper a few years back. He picked a different answer than what he’s now promoting. And he picked it solely on the basis of personally believing it to be the best answer at that time, not because it was demonstrated to be correct.)

  145. “It is so sad to see Cognitive Dissonance of this magnitude present itself. AGW theory as truth has become so solidified in the minds of so many, there is virtually no cure for the completely infected. Cognitive dissonance prevails in those individuals and their minds cannot reconcile a more valid explanation other than AGW.”
    M J N

    The AGW Theory Induces Mass Psychosis in Large Numbers of Vulnerable Individuals.

  146. Re: magicjava (Apr 16 19:03),

    Thank you for this precis.


    1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more than the the amount of energy leaving the Earth at the TOA.

    2) The current estimate for Global Warming is 0.9 Watts/meter -2, so the data from CERES is more than 6 times there current estimate.

    The statement is that they were expecting the TOA measurement to confirm the 0.9 global warming retention due to CO2. Instead it looks as if something else is retaining heat.

    How could the CERES measurements be wrong?
    Do you have a link to the measurements and the method used?

    They might be missing radiation leaving (infrared mainly), or measuring too much entering ( large spectrum), or mislabeling radiation as incoming when it is outgoing, or…

    The reason I would doubt t the CERES measurement/calibration is that if this keeps up, we will reach the boilng point soon :).
    The energy balance argument is a very old argument ( we got hubble’s constant out of it). No matter where the heat is hiding, there should not be such an imbalance for the long term.

  147. To retool an old proverb, “If you can’t find the heat — get out of the ocean.”

    Assuming that there is indeed missing heat (and not just over-fudged figures that create an accounting problem by always rounding upwards when exact amounts are not known), then I would suggest that the increased heat is in biomass. Heat does not always translate into delta-T changes in fluid form. Heat energy is converted into chemical form as biomass. That’s the difference between wood and its component elements floating in the atmosphere: wood is stored heat energy. To release the heat, burn the wood.

    As has been documented in several peer-reviewed articles, there has been a steady increase in biomass in key world systems over recent decades, almost certainly well-correlated with increases in CO2.

    Could it be … naw, that would be too much! … that when the amount of heat stored up in biomass due to increased CO2 is accounted for, it will be found that increased CO2 has a long-term NEGATIVE effect on latent heat in the environment, which leads to a net negative effect on temperature? I wonder if the lag-time for this effect to manifest fully is, oh, let’s say about 800 years? Wouldn’t that be telling!

  148. My impression was always that CERES does not measure the full spectrum (either up or down) and that it does not have very good coverage of the arctic regions.

    Is this correct?

  149. I’ve caught the lyrical fever as well. Sung by Kevin Trainwreck to Glenn Frey’s “The Heat is On”:

    The heat is gone, gone real deep,
    Inside my head, makes sense to me,
    But that Pielke’s loud, wish he’d subside,
    The pressure’s high to keep the theory alive,
    ‘Cause the heat is gone.

    [insert Mann on Sax]

    Oh-wo-no, oh-wo-no,
    Nowhere close to knowing where energy’s going to.
    (Alternate: Caught up in the FOIA, gonna need more funds from you.)
    Oh-wo-no, oh-wo-no,
    Tell me can you find it?
    Tell me can you find it?
    Tell me can you find it?
    The heat is gone, the heat is gone, the heat is gone,
    Yeah a travesty, the heat is – Doh! Doh! Doh! Doh! – gone!

  150. [quote anna v (22:03:49) :]
    Do you have a link to the measurements and the method used?
    [/quote]

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

    Page 3 (labeled page 313 for some reason) briefly discusses the CERES data and its relationship to the energy budget.

    [quote]
    They might be missing radiation leaving (infrared mainly), or measuring too much entering ( large spectrum), or mislabeling radiation as incoming when it is outgoing, or…
    [/quote]

    Absolutely the CERES data could be wrong. That’s why I said it’s only my personal belief that it’s at least close to correct. While I’ve never seen satellite data that didn’t have issues, I tend to have much more confidence in satellite data than in land-based data.

  151. Capn jack,

    NIWA here in New Zealand are wantin’ good Post Normal writers, yea be welcome here down under.

    We’re to the left of Australia, a suburb of Sydney, or a Duchy of Canberra or somesuch….

    Kevin the Rudd be our Overlord in waitin’, while Little Johnny Key be our Underlord in Absentia, maybe you could be a scribe to the Lords of Fonterra, Dairy Miners they be.

    The seams of full cream run deep in our loam, easy pickings for a hardworking man, or a dodgy Chinese conglomerate – whichever offers the lowest price for our treasures,….he be the winner.

  152. Where has the heat gone? It has died. Their god, Heat, has died – known as the “Heat is dead” theory, which is obviously the tipping point for our Universe’s heat death … well … it makes as much sense as anything else comming out of AGWer’s mouths – or elsewhere. With the smell of sulfur around the globe these days, it’s hard to tell.

  153. Maybe Trenberth should be measuring the exhalations of all his colleagues and politico paymasters. No shortage of hot air there…

  154. When the question in that line

    And why the sea is boiling hot

    has been satisfactorily answered, will we then throw the might of scientific investigation into answering the puzzlement in the following line?

    And whether pigs have wings.

    Post Normal Science says we probably will.

    p.s. Remember when you used to bend your mind to bringing reality to great visions, America? Such as going to the moon and thence the stars?
    May I hope you are just taking a brief rest period?

  155. Maybe, the heat isn’t there because it went back out into space.

    You know, radiated into space.

    Which would suggest, if true, that Man-made global warming just isn’t happening.

    Kind of like a boring party.

    A little music to pick up the party:

    Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
    Some call me the gangster of love
    Some people call me Maurice
    Cause I speak of the pompitous of love

    People talk about me, baby
    Say I’m doin’ you wrong, doin’ you wrong
    Well, don’t you worry baby
    Don’t worry
    Cause I’m right here baby, right here, right here, right here at home…

    — Steve Miller band, Album: Best Of 1968-73

  156. Joule thieves, eh?

    If I remember my movies correctly, the “Pink Panther” was a joule.

    And who did they send out to track down that notorious joule thief?

    No wonder they can’t find the missing heat…

  157. “Until 2003, the measured heat increase was consistent with computer model expectations.”

    Maybe the computer models are wrong?

  158. We know the heat is missing.
    Its a travesty we cannot measure it.
    What we need are new instruments.
    Thermometers are so yesterday!

  159. Quote:
    >>> Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising
    >>>sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound
    >>>effects on the planet.”

    Ummm – I thought the Arctic sea ice was increasing. Silly me it must be just thinning out, even though every chart says it has a much larger extent.

  160. My 2 cents-

    1) The Team seems to have problems with both S’s in KISS.

    2) The Team’s arrogance does not allow them to realize they are buying their own B***S***.

    3) The Team is working directly for the POLS in a plot from “1984”.

    Maybe 5 cents-

  161. >>Where oh where has my little heat gone?

    It has all super-concentrated itself in the Door to Hell. Put a cap on this hole and we will be saved… Glory be to Gaia – etc: etc:

  162. It’s a travesty that we can’t hide the decline but I’ll think of something nebulous and nefarious. Et Voilà

  163. I have so many takes on this, it ain’t funny!

    1. My thoughts first went to astronomy’s Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which some day will also include Dark Anti-matter and Dark Black Holes. AGW is not the only scientific discipline that has a favored theory/construct telling them that “something” is out there “somewhere;” it just HAS to be! Kudos to all who beat me to the punch.

    2. @Henry chance (16:41:59) :

    Kevin and the case of the missing joules.

    Absent minded professor Jones misplaced many years of temperature records.
    Kevin may just be posturing. Now he goes and gets a 13 million dollar gubment grant and looks for the joule thief. He can make some big bucks if he can position this as a scary tipping point and if we don’t find the Joules quickly, we are all toast.

    Priceless! Surely, there is an S. Holmes out there who can sleuth down these missing joules. Perhaps the tobacco type or a hair sample is lying around in plain sight, where a properly studious investigator would see what others have missed.

    Trenberth = Inspector Lastrade.

    But then it brings to mind Holmes’ case of a missing aristocrat who turned out to have been spending his days as a beggar in a prominent London area because it paid so well. In other words, the missing joules are out there, just disguised as the sinking cold water NEAR ICELAND.

    3. Surely that is the first place they should look – where they know the warmest waters dive into the depths. Unfortunately, even though that is the most famous point at which water is transported to the depths, the joules are missing! But since they know EVERYTHING about that conveying of water in the deep ocean, surely it couldn’t be down there.

    I mean, surely if they understand the Oceanic Conveyor so well (ask them!), how could they miss this transport?

    4. This is beginning to remind me of archeologists, who, whenever they find something they can’t explain, they label it a ritualistic or temple artifact. (That drives me up a freaking wall, when they do that.)

    5. (My It’s a Wonderful Life reference now…) Perhaps George Bailey/Kevin Trenberth set it down on the table and Old Henry Potter found it and just wanted to make kindly young George/Kevin sweat. If so, all Kevin’s friends will start pitching in (as he knows they will), and before you know it, they will all send Kevin just TONS of joules, and everyone in the Bedford Falls CRU will have a happy Christmas and live happily ever after. The End.

    6. Now THIS is the height of panicking alarmism. Not only is the heat MISSING – but it is going to jump out of a dark alley some night – at some unknown time, to some unknown degree and devastate us all! It is the ULTIMATE Emperor’s Clothes. CO2 wasn’t – after Climategate – going to get the job done, because they got busted, so now it will be this missing heat that will be the Bogeyman, the troll under the bridge, the Big Bad Wolf, the ticking time bomb.

    Be afraid.

    Be very afraid.

  164. But my final question is: Wait a minute, didn’t they tell us that THE 2000s was the warmest decade in history???

    Doesn’t that mean they WERE measuring the heat?

    Ohhhhhh, yes – I see, it wasn’t ENOUGH heat. The EXPECTED rise in temps didn’t happen, and they have been scratching their heads about why not. So, FINALLY they’ve FOUND IT! By finding they can’t find it, they found that THAT was why they weren’t able to measure it!

    And the astronomers will eventually tell us that Dark Matter is inside invisible black holes. It is all hiding.

  165. Re: magicjava (Apr 16 22:25),

    Absolutely the CERES data could be wrong. That’s why I said it’s only my personal belief that it’s at least close to correct. While I’ve never seen satellite data that didn’t have issues, I tend to have much more confidence in satellite data than in land-based data.

    I agree, my list on the wrong way land based energy budgets are computed is long.

    I was placing my hopes on satellites. If 6watts/m^2 is their systematic (deduced from this energy imbalance) I was too hopeful.

  166. “The style of climate change discourse is that we maximise the problem and minimise the solution
    Solitaire Townsend*, Futerra”

    The last time this missing heat came up, one scientist stated that, yes, AGW was a fact but lots of the heat was escaping into space.

    JF
    *My Miss Climate Change 2009 and for ever.

  167. Jeff L (18:14:23) :

    “There are a few visionaries & the rest just are supporting cast.”

    Too true. Which is why one should always take it with a grain of salt when someone claims that umpteen zillion “scientists” agree with this or that. The vast majority of those are really no better qualified to give an opinion than an ordinary lay person. Indeed, sometimes having a little knowledge is worse than having none at all, as any parent of a teenager can tell you.

    “He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  168. I was looking for you all day
    But i couldn’t find you.
    I couldn’t find you.

    We’re walking
    And we don’t always realize
    but with each step we’re falling slightly
    And that is
    How we can be walking
    And Falling
    At the same
    Time.

    (Laurie Anderson, Walking and Falling, on Big Science)

  169. What the hell is this all about? Warm water rises, colder water drops. Thats the way it works, why does trenberth seem to think this no longer happens and this supposed missing heat is hiding in the ocean depths? That`s not possible

  170. To quote (from memory … errare humanum est) from an old album by Melanie :

    Well, it’s been too long a ride, too high the fare.
    Well, I built and climbed a mountain,
    But it isn’t there.
    It isnt here, dum da dum,
    It isnt there,
    It isnt here nor anywhere.

  171. I think they are just looking in the wrong direction! There is no way that so much heat could be working DOWN from the surface when the specific heat of water is 1000 times that of the air above it. In any case heat travels up, not down, it can only be transported downwards by a current.
    I think it much more likely that the constant stream of heat that has been eminated from the Earth’s core for 4.6 billion years builds up in the the unmeasureable depths of the oceans and the complex current systems eventually bring this closer to the surface. Only a hundredth of a degree of extra heat across all the oceans could transport enough heat to melt ocean ice and transport heat into the atmosphere. Certainly atmospheric temperatures cannot explain the Arctic ice changes of the last decade.
    This evetually would change weather patterns, create more precipitation which would fall as snow in winter and begin a process whereby as the oceans continued to develop heat the increasing snow cover in winter and albedo increase would cause a DROP in atmospheric temperatures!
    Now all we have to observe is an increase in snowfall and decrease in observations of global temperature trends over a decade….. oh, that would now then!
    Fact is CO2 is all but saturated in it’s absorbtion spectrum, when it reradiates it does so at a wide range of wavelengths that greenhouse gases do not catch. The entire greenhouse theory is flawed, based on an idea that greenhouse gases contribute 33C to our atmospheric temperatures. This is due to applying the Stephan-Boltzmann constant to Earth and it’s atmosphere (3 dimensional gasses) when it is ONLY VALID FOR A 2 DIMENSIONAL BLACK BODY SURFACE. Therefore it is likley the balanced temperature of the Earth due to the specific capacity of the entire atmosphere is a lot higher – and CO2 actually contributes very little to our temperature and therefore any extra from humans is unmeasureable in it’s effect.
    I am constantly stunned by the sheer incompetence of supposed scientists in the way they make assumptions such as applying the SB constant incorrectly and then build computer models on this inaccuracy. Such is the complexity of the climatic system an error of .01% magnifies over a period of a few years to be no better than a finger in the air guess – but their assumptions are guesses to begin with.
    The entire global warming theory is nothing more than wild guess of a system we are as yet unable to comprehend.

  172. Trenberths conjecture isn’t new. He made the same claims 21 years ago..

    “Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, stated in 1989, that the heat storage capacity of the oceans was so enormous, that the stored heat of the whole atmosphere could be contained in the top one to two metres of the oceans. In other words, if a +1 deg temperature increase in atmospheric temperature was put into the sea, it would only warm the top metre or so of ocean. The oceans therefore have an almost unlimited `heat sink’ capacity, being deeper than 4 kilometres in many places.”

    Where have we heard the following before?

    “The modellers claim that the accumulated heat generated by greenhouse warming is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back out and haunt us at a later time. In other words, the warming has been merely deferred, but not cancelled.”

    The above from a very well detailed look at the oceans effects on surface temps from the late great John L Daly http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm

  173. “Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years….”

    By “the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years”, I assume they are referring to the output of computer models based on the CO2 assumption. So, yet again, we may have a perfect illustration of what is wrong with climate science: the almost willful belief that the output of computer models is more important and more reliable than empirical data. They appear to be saying that, as the computer models must be right, the data must be wrong.

    Of course, there’s another, far simpler explanation: that the data is right and the computer models are wrong.

    Chris

  174. Oh, the “haunting heat” that prowls by night,
    Lurking under lamposts bright,
    Swirling under shadows dark,
    It can’t be seen, it leaves no mark,
    It’s waiting, watching, tensed to pounce,
    Upon skeptics that denounce
    The holy writ from our man Hansen
    Predicting DOOM – Release the Kraken!
    While Trenberth whines of heat gone rogue,
    Admitting that he doesn’t know,
    Where the heat “should” be, you see,
    These models never can agree,
    Because a model, lacking substance,
    Cannot model heat from nonsense
    Produced from countless heartfelt guesses
    The real truth is that we are clueless,
    How much heat there is or isn’t
    Can’t be known – we lack precision.
    What’s really missing isn’t heat –
    It’s honesty – admit defeat!
    You’ve lost – it’s over -please stand down
    The heat’s not gone – it can’t be found!

  175. magicjava (19:03:41) :

    “My previous reply was kinda short. here’s a more detailed one.

    1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the […]”

    Thanks. Now I see your point. Just a note: ” (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more”,
    I had a symbolism problem there. I guess you mean watts/metre^2 (watts per square meter) or, otherwiwse, watts/metre**2. The minus sign there mixed me up, as it would take the metre back up in the fraction.

    Considering that there’s so much error in measurements that you can say anything and actually ignore them (if I understood correctly), would you say it would be wise to get the measurements right in the first place before theorizing?

  176. magicjava (22:25:45) :
    [quote anna v (22:03:49) :]Do you have a link to the measurements and the method used? [/quote]

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

    Thanks for the link, Magicjava. Had a quick read through the above paper. Seems to be quite a lot of uncertainty in the data and even the CERES data has to use modelling to produce a meaningful result.

    My best guess to the ‘missing’ thermal energy is as follows:-

    Because climate is driven by deterministic chaos, the energy balance would have to be checked in real-time to capture the magnitude of the oscillation in a meaningful way.

    It is possible that the amount of energy held long-term/permanently by biological and chemical processes, doing work e.t.c. is poorly estimated and changes rate as thermal energy varies.

    The CERES data, and several other data sets used to calculate the energy balance is modelled. This means the assumptions made to create these models could be reflecting the biases of the scientists making them (e.g. we expect a positive balance due to CO2 effects).

    I’m fairly sure that other problems will be found with the way the calculation are done as deterministic chaos produces surprising and counter-intuitive effects in even simple driven pendulum systems!

  177. The heat is gone
    da nana nana, da nana nana [sax bit]

    The heat is goh-hon

    da nana nana
    da nana da nana

    Thang you very much.

  178. Bob Highland
    An estimated 183,000 square miles of pavement globally might explain it. Soil isn’t the best conductor of heat, but if you think about it, the pavement’s surface will exhibit higher average equilibrium temps than whatever it natural surface it replaced (this is a readily observable phenomenon) so the soil temp gradiant underneath it should do the same.

    Of course… UHI/LULC don’t really exist so it couldn’t be that right?

    MagicJava
    So he’s talking TOA in vs. TOA out – thanks for clearing it up. That post was very helpful. I still think this might be a “look at the bunny” moment… the missing net buildup of energy in the atmosphere is what we should be looking at – that is what proves their model is broken. Also thanks for the UAH Temp/Water graph the other day.

    Best Regards

  179. To see what I mean that we will be boiling, lets look at the numbers:
    Suppose this CERES imbalance of 6watts/meter^2 has been going on for ten years, this is an accumulation of 60watts/meter^2 that may suddenly jump up and start radiating a la Stefan Bolzman.

    Plugging in the numbers 390(from 15C) + 60( jumping power)=450
    This in the formula flux=5.67X10^-8XT^4 gives T=298K, that is 25C average temperature, about the average for Sahara.

    Therefore the CERES modeling and energy outputs MUST be wrong, because at no time in the records and the proxy records has the earth’s average temperature been so high, it has been below 22C
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html .
    There is no reason to believe that a “hiding and jumping mechanism ” if it existed would not have operated during the long history of the globe as studied by proxies and during our recent history.

  180. Neville (15:55:02) :
    magicjava (16:14:56) :
    JER0ME (17:11:44) :
    George E. Smith (17:20:52) :
    Caleb (17:34:13) :
    It’s always Marcia, Marcia (18:55:50) :
    magicjava (19:03:41) :
    toyotawhizguy (19:38:45) :
    JER0ME (20:20:38) :
    magicjava (21:53:42) :
    magicjava (22:00:18) :
    anna v (22:03:49) :
    davidmhoffer (22:13:14) :
    magicjava (22:25:45) :
    anna v (22:29:05) :
    anna v (01:03:56) :
    Josualdo (03:32:30) :

    I agree with Anna v and some others on this, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the Satellite Measurement Systems and their Analysis. When they don’t agree with Reality, it is not reality that you need to check. It is the assumptions made when analysing the Satellite Measurements.
    I am surprised that Leif hasn’t got something to say about this, afterall half of the equation is what is coming from the sun.

  181. It eloped with the missing carbon into the land of the missing anti-matter.

    Funny how they like to drone on about people denying the basic physics and then they come up with magic heat that somehow bypasses the top 700 metres of ocean. Of course Trenberth had earlier suggested – in an unguarded moment of honesty that would never get into a press release – that maybe the heat had escaped the atmosphere after all. Lindzen also confirms that explanation. It is after all what Occam’s razor would suggest.

    I’m reminded of my firstborn when I said to a friend I couldn’t see anything in the ultrasound so I couldn’t tell if the baby was a boy or a girl. I was gently reminded that when you can’t see anything then it’s a girl. Now upon this discovery, would I dress her as up as a boy if I was getting 13 million dollars for it? Well I might just give her a boy’s name like “Campbell”, eschew blue and pink in favour of yellow and then when the truth is undeniable I could just blame these silly journalists for making unwarranted assumptions.

  182. >>>>NZ Willy (15:13:55) :

    Dr. Trenberth could do like astronomers, and theorize that there is DARK HEAT building up, an exotic form that we cannot feel or measure. <<<<<

  183. >>>>>NZ Willy (15:13:55) :

    Dr. Trenberth could do like astronomers, and theorize that there is DARK HEAT building up, an exotic form that we cannot feel or measure. <<<<>> ROTFL !

  184. This is why they need their 800 megawatt computer. You know, that one that uses as much electricity as the largest most modern solar power installation in the US can generate, the one that sits on 82 acres of land… to find out where the dark heat went.

  185. >>>R. Craigen (22:09:28) :

    To retool an old proverb, “If you can’t find the heat — get out of the ocean.”<<<<

    Good one!

  186. We can’t find the heat…

    Reminds me of old times…

    Years ago, in Catholic school, sometimes the food in the cafeteria was really bad and we didn’t want to eat it. However, the nuns wanted to teach us not to waste food, so they would stand by the garbage cans and ask us why we didn’t eat the food as we were cleaning off our trays. Sister Stephani once asked my brother why he wouldn’t eat his mashed potatoes. He said, I don’t know Sister, they just don’t seem to stay on the fork!

    So, where is all the heat? I don’t know, it just doesn’t seem to stay on the fork.

  187. Wait a minute; lurking beneath the sea . . . an affront to the laws of nature . . . coming back to haunt us sooner or later ?!

    Such an eldrich horror could only be . . .

  188. “Missing” heat may affect future climate change

    Shouldn’t that have read

    “Missing” global warming may affect the future of climate change scientists

  189. A C Osborn,
    I’m not saying the satellites are right, but the theoretical model the IPCC has established for the atmosphere/oceans/land is NOT reality.

    SB is not appropriate here and it should also be considered that the expected sensitivies are derived from historic observations – not SB. The computer models they use to say “we can’t account for it” are just as, if not much more of a likely source of error, than the satellite.

    Consider for a moment… why did they seem to work before 2003? What else has been broken since 2003 (oh yeah, the GCMs)? Why are we blaming the satellites first?

  190. ” Tenuc (03:48:00) :

    It is possible that the amount of energy held long-term/permanently by biological and chemical processes, doing work e.t.c. is poorly estimated and changes rate as thermal energy varies”

    I do believe that you have hit the nail on the head. These people do not know what work is. They are treating a steady state biotic system as a closed equilibrium and they find their numbers do not at up. 1.25% of the energy in the system disappears, hidden from view and they assume that it is hiding as heat. The fact that the world has huge deposits of coal, oil, chalk, atmospheric oxygen and other other examples of ‘work’ is a bit of a clue that biological systems do work on a massive scale.
    About 105 GT C/yr is fixed; about 426 gC/m²/yr on land and about 140 gC/m²/yr. 6 watts/m2 is only 190 MJ/m2/yr; 426 grams of carbon is 1 kg of glucose is 5.9 moles and on combustion will give 5.9 * 2830 kJ/mol, about 16.7 MJ. So carbon fixation is 10%, without calculating the energy that goes into nitrogen fixation, sulphate fixation or the ‘information’ that is present in the plants themselves.

  191. It’s all virtual heat now. Those nasty photons got absorbed into the mass of virtual particles that are ever present. Of course, that has bloated the virtual abdomen of the universe and it could spew forth it’s vengeance at any time.

    Or, maybe it’s just radiated to space each and every night. We have one satellite keeping guard over trillions of particles. No way any of them could slip out undetected. I think they are all sneaking out between 5-8AM each morning while the satellite is taking a little nap.

  192. A verdict: though no one here tonight has solved the case of Trenberth’s troublesome temperature transference, and it is a travesty that they have not, CTN’s Dark Enthalpy or possibly Grant’s joules thieves could be involved.There’s also good advice from Boudu, ‘It’s always in the last place you look for it,’ and from R Craigen, ‘If you can’t stand the heat – get out of the ocean.’ Don’t you
    just love these old proverbs? And definitely an acadmey award to Cap’n Jack and his ole mate Nemo.

  193. One additional note/comment/thought (and this is essentially a rephrase of the comment I just made) – it must be assumed that the GCMs and the sensitivities they are built on are mostly correct for us to imply that: 1.) the satellites have broken since 2003 *or* that 2.) the heat is missing somewhere in the system.

    Also, whoever called that second option the Godzilla Hypothesis earlier (apologies for not catching the name) – that was genius. I nearly spit my coffee laughing at that one.

  194. Does this new science now validate Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or any other really cool “missing” creatures? Boy I hope so!

  195. R. Craigen (22:09:28) :

    Assuming that there is indeed missing heat (and not just over-fudged figures that create an accounting problem by always rounding upwards when exact amounts are not known), then I would suggest that the increased heat is in biomass.

    ========
    I understand that the earth’s biomass is somehow being tracked by satellite — and increasing. There was a post here dealing with that in 2008:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

    but I haven’t seen any more news on this topic. I suppose if it were found to be decreasing, we would hear about it immediately, so I assume it must be increasing.

  196. The heat is gone, on the street
    Inside your head, on every beat
    And the beat’s so loud, deep inside
    The pressure’s high, just to stay alive
    ‘Cause the heat is gone

    apologies to Glenn Frey

  197. Stop making jokes here. It is essential that we find that heat, and once we have found it, then we have found the ideal heat storage.
    Imagine, some heat get’s stored during the summer season and released through the winter. How cute that would be. Trenberth has the nose for it.

  198. How is heat stored? The laws of thermodynamics prohibit such a thing happening. Heat is always lost and insulation slows this but can never stop it. This missing heat is lost to space and Dr. Trenberth should review his wild theories.

  199. Once again AGW promoters are doing what failed financial advisors, industrial managers MBA’s and promoters of complicated programs frequently do:
    Blame the data instead of revisit the model.
    Their ego’s and self-interests do let them consider that they are simply wrong.
    This generally happens when the promoters do not have anything personally at risk and are playing with other people’s money.

  200. C3 headlines has a great take on this.

    FUBAR
    Now for the disturbing analysis (after billions have been spent on AGW-dependent climate research): First, these same climate alarmist scientists have no clue where their predicted global warming heat is going; second, these scientists also have no clue where the known growth in CO2 emissions is going. These are major “consensus” unknowns, acknowledged by the alarmist scientists.

    Sooo, let’s summarize: The AGW hypothesis major input, CO2 emissions, is missing; the AGW hypothesis major output, warming/heat, is missing.

    according to David Crisp, the principal investigator for the OCO,
    A decade after the first carbon observatory was designed, there is still a need for something that can measure where carbon dioxide is being absorbed – and the need may be even greater, Crisp said.

    “There are these processes we know about, but we do an account and we can’t figure out where the CO2 is going,” Crisp said. “We don’t know where it’s going. We don’t know what parts of the ocean are absorbing it.”

    I can hear Travesty Trenberth now…

    “Where the heck is the warming? And prey tell, where the heck is the CO2 that’s supposed to cause the warming?”

    They’ve lost the warming, they’ve lost the CO2, and they’ve lost their marbels lol

    I bet they’re hiding in the same place. In their heads lol

  201. The oceans absorb, transfer, and exhaust heat energy. What these highly credentialed experts do not want to admit is that the oceans are losing energy as evidenced by 2 strong El Ninos the last 12 years. And no, CO2 does not equalize things as it GHGs do not create energy.

    The decrease in Artic ice was simply the result of favorable winds and warmer water being transported from the tropics poleward. What will our experts say when global temps begin to reflect the loss of oceanic heat energy? Lord help us if a large volcanic event occurs in the tropics. We will look back fondly are the 1990s and early 2000s.

  202. Why Kevin, it’s post normal heat, sure of its urgency, but also sure you are not uncertain enough yet. Start to panic, and lo, it will appear, like magic, where you least expect it.
    =================

  203. Predicador (08:50:42) :

    What order of magnitude of joules per year are they missing?

    In the order of 191.1MJ/m^2

    DaveE.

  204. I like blankets. I do not like wet blankets. Which brings to my mind the question – What is the conductive property of Dark Matter?

  205. Let me see if I understand this correctly:

    1. ‘Researchers’ believe they understand the global climate system more or less completely.

    2. They use this ‘understanding’ to build computer models that predict the global thermodynamic balance of the planet.

    3. Observational evidence contradicts the predictions made by the omnipotent computer models, therefore;

    4. The planet is hiding the heat from us, sequestering it in such a way that it will return with a vengeance some time in the future.

    Is this accurate? Are they serious? It’s worse than folly, worse than a scam. It’s a joke.

  206. Our pal Kevin needs to brush up on his thermodynamics.

    You must lose
    You cannot win
    You can’t get out of the game

  207. From press release:

    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.”

    From the Argo site (specifically here):

    Early applications of Argo data were highlighted in Argo’s First Science Workshop held in Tokyo in November 2003.

    Beautiful timing. The Argo buoy system starts keeping better track of the ocean temperatures, seems to be that “new set of ocean monitors” that is mentioned, and suddenly the computer models’ expectations aren’t being met. Argo checks the upper 2000 m, it can’t find all the heat that’s supposed to be there by the climate models.

    Therefore the heat must be hiding away from the Argo system! Even deeper in the oceans, or up in the Arctic ocean, wherever the Argo buoys are not looking for it. My, is that heat sneaky!

    You know, if we do deploy more sensors, robust ones, getting to where we can monitor virtually all the oceans at all the depths, if that heat keeps running away to keep from being measured at some point we’ll drive it clear out of the oceans, then it’ll be up here on land with us.

    And then Trenberth will be proven right. Remember, you were warned! Best to stop looking for that running-away heat and accept the climatollgists’ word that it really is there, before tragedy strikes!

  208. Hmmm, at least Dr. Trenberth, has started to doubt the satellite data. This is a start. For if the energy cannot be found, then it is only logical to look at your instruments. Finally, a logical progression from the data.

  209. Capn Jack. (21:10:26) :

    You’re getting Jules Verne mixed up with Joules Verne, the father of AGW.

  210. Re: John Marshall (Apr 17 08:04),

    How is heat stored? The laws of thermodynamics prohibit such a thing happening. Heat is always lost and insulation slows this but can never stop it. This missing heat is lost to space and Dr. Trenberth should review his wild theories.

    Heat is not conserved.
    Radiation is not conserved.
    Chemical transformations, evaporations, sublimations, biological growth, etc are not conserved.

    it is total ENERGY that is conserved.

    Energy is a scalar . It has no direction, just a magnitude. Heat is a scalar, and is a form of energy, but it is not conserved because it can become one of the other processes listed above, including radiating away. In order to get the total energy content of the planet, one has to integrate over the variables that describe the other manifestations, and get a scalar number in joules.

    The confusion of calling watts/meter^2 energy, which it is not, it is power per meter square, and it is a vector quantity, has arisen because way up in the imaginary sphere separating the planet from the vacuum of space, the predominant energy form is radiation, which is expressed in watts/meter^2. ( gravitational energy exchanges are much much smaller than the radiation energy coming from the sun). Up there, one can make a budget, and say: watts/meter^2 in should equal watts/meter^2 out and be talking of energy as shorthand. If there is more coming in than going out, it is true that one should be looking what sort of processes could be transforming heat/radiation into chemical biota etc. But an imbalance of 6watts/meter^2 for any length of time is too large, as I showed above, to be consistent with temperature data over the milenia.

    Down on earth there are a lot of processes that eat up radiation energy, turn it to heat and then take heat energy and turn it into winds, currents, biota etc. , as well as radiation into biological growth. Conservation of energy says if we add up all the energies involved in these processes, total energy is conserved.

    So let us not repeat the mistake with the radiation budget, turning everything into radiation equivalents, into heat budgets.

  211. [quote anna v (04:56:25) :]
    To see what I mean that we will be boiling, lets look at the numbers:
    Suppose this CERES imbalance of 6watts/meter^2 has been going on for ten years, this is an accumulation of 60watts/meter^2 that may suddenly jump up and start radiating a la Stefan Bolzman.

    Plugging in the numbers 390(from 15C) + 60( jumping power)=450
    This in the formula flux=5.67X10^-8XT^4 gives T=298K, that is 25C average temperature, about the average for Sahara.
    [/quote]

    Here’s a link to a graph Dr. Spencer produced regarding the CERES data for 200 through 2008. The energy imbalance goes up and down, but has been trending up since about 2003.

    Confusingly, “trending up” is shown in Dr. Spencer’s graph as moving toward the bottom of the image.

    The graph also includes estimated forcing from CO2, displayed by the red line.

  212. So both “heat” and CO2 missing?

    Isnt that quite central for the AGW’ers?
    So Al Gore lied when he said “The Science settled”? I’m disappointed.

    hmmmm…..okay, here is my theory;

    Some Heat is converting CO2 into “Dark CO2″. (biomass).

    Some heat is radiating into space, becoming “Dark Heat”.

    Not so difficult, was it?

  213. NZ Willy (15:13:55) :

    “Dr. Trenberth could do like astronomers, and theorize that there is DARK HEAT building up, an exotic form that we cannot feel or measure. ”

    I read this post when it first came out before any of the comments and was blown away. The heat is hiding somewhere? Really? Under the ocean. And it’s coming back to get us. How did it get down there? Isn’t heated water less dense than cooler water and wouldn’t it tend to float on the cooler water? By what (possible) mechanism is less dense warmer ocean water transported down 700 meters below the ocean surface and kept there?

    Trenberth’s idea is just insane – or there is a lot of really weird science I don’t know anything about and need to catch up on pronto. See quote from NZ Willy above (wish I’d have thought of that one).

    I have read all the comments and am grateful for the entertaining references to pop songs, poetry, and Capn Jack and Fritzy you rock. You should take that on the road.

    Seriously, before reading the comments I thought I was missing out on some sort of really sophisticated reasoning based on science and physics I was never exposed to.

    AGW is looking more and more to me to be a kind of quasi-religious cult-like belief system and less and less like science.

  214. [quote]
    Suppose this CERES imbalance of 6watts/meter^2 has been going on for ten years, this is an accumulation of 60watts/meter^2 that may suddenly jump up and start radiating a la Stefan Bolzman.
    [/quote]

    This is a strange calculation. Check your units.

    Taking a look at the various OHC datasets

    I think there’s something wrong with ocean heat content data in recent years, or the analysis phase as Dr. Trenberth puts it.

  215. David Ross (18:53:49) :

    I want to ask the most naive of questions.

    The interior of the earth is hot, very hot in fact. What is the rate the energy flow from the interior of the earth into our biosphere? Does that rate change over time? Does the IPCC take the intrinsic energy inside our planet into account when it does the “budget” for the biosphere?

    I have been idling thinking about this, prior to the Iceland volcano. The IPCC seems to think of volcanos as “negative forcers” through the cooling effect of the aerosols released during eruptions, but at the same time they release massive amounts of heat (both by convection, directly heating the air, hence the massive plumes going so high) and by radiation (those hot lava flows and in fact just the higher temperature soils and rocks radiating long-wave IR).

    Just curious and naive. I did look at the IPCC diagram but it shows the earth’s surface as a barrier really, no energy flows across it in either direction…

    No one answered this yet? Now that is a travesty.

    Disclaimer: I am not an expert, but I do read a lot of articles here and elsewhere. Also, to clear up something I see in your words, the IPCC doesn’t officially “do” anything but assemble (what they say is) existing evidence for climate change and its possible effects into formats suitable for review by the public and decision makers. Thus they have a built-in bias as their remit is to report on climate change (formerly known as global warming) rather than to formerly evaluate if it exists, they start with assuming it is real and go from there.

    The interior of the Earth is cooling, there is a net loss of heat. Some forces do act to warm it up, such as radioactive decay, but as a whole it is cooling. However the cooling is a very slow process, for us the heat is negligible compared to what we receive from the Sun.

    For volcanism, on the surface it doesn’t do much for warming. The heat is localized and relatively quickly it works its way out into space. But the aerosols disperse, and can cause cooling over very large areas, thus the net effect is often negative.

    It’s when volcanism happens under something that things get interesting. In Iceland, that heat was soaked up by the ice resulting in melting, so that heat will stay around for awhile. Undersea volcanic activity likewise heats up water not air thus that energy stays in the system longer, some suspect it may be related to El Nino and other warm spots. Volcanic activity under the ice is suspected in the ice loss of Western Antarctica, as it shows up as having an unusual warming pattern while the rest of Antarctica is still dang cold with growing amounts of ice.

    Otherwise, when talking about dry land… Just about everywhere but the more polar regions, if you dig down about 10 to 15 feet you’ll encounter rather stable temperatures around the low 50’s in degrees Fahrenheit, any season, day or night. Get closer to the poles and you’ll have to dig down further, but they’ll be there. Back up on the surface there is far more variation. That such a very thin layer, relative to the size of the Earth and the thickness of the crust, can have that effect shows how inefficient it is at transferring heat quickly. (I can’t say “insulating properties” as this relates to large amounts of mass that take in and release heat rather slowly.) Figure in the full thickness of the crust, and this should indicate to you just how low the rate of heat transfer from the interior to the atmosphere (where we notice it) actually is, and why it is normally ignored.

    Oh, I don’t know exactly what IPCC diagram you’re referring to, but you’re mentioning energy flows so I think you’re referring to the one showing the “energy budget.” Well, Willis Eschenbach has a great piece here on WUWT titled The Steel Greenhouse where that diagram (or something amazingly similar) is discussed, hopefully you’ll find it good reading.

  216. DeNihilist (11:11:53) : “Hmmm, at least Dr. Trenberth, has started to doubt the satellite data. This is a start.”

    The Warmers would like to discard the satellite data because it is the chief check on their runaway warming scenario. Their fiddled ground measurements are increasingly discrepant from the satellites’ measurements of no long term warming. So I’ll go with the satellites, thanks.

  217. David Alan Evans (09:25:33) :

    thank you;

    so given surface of Earth is ~5E14 m^2 (and surface area at TOA yet a bit more), it’s something like 1E23 missing joules per year.

    that’s quite a lot, ~ two billion Hiroshimas.

    of course, ‘Hiroshima’ is a tiny unit when used on processes of planetary scale. formation of calcium carbonate (which is an exothermic reaction) alone in Earth’s oceans releases something like 1E15 joules per year – or twenty Hiroshimas.

    [all calculations approximate, and any and all of them might be utterly wrong]

  218. NOTE: I have self-identified as” not smart enough to post here” by previously posting this under the wrong article.

    Could it be that the missing energy could be found in the graves of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Bohr Einstein etc, where incoming solar energy has somehow induced the remains of these scientific giants to spin rapidly around their(formerly) vertical axis’?

  219. If as much as half of the temperature increase observed in the 20th century is attributable to natural causes such as continued emergence from the last ice age, changes in solar intensity, etc., and as much as half half of the expected heat is missing, where does that leave the anthropogenic hypothesis? Whose heat is missing, natures or ours?

  220. Grego
    “Trenberth’s idea is just insane – or there is a lot of really weird science I don’t know anything about and need to catch up on pronto.”

    Trenberth isn’t just making things up; even Pielke recognizes there are mechanisms by which heat could be advected into the deeper oceans, but he believes this movement would have been detected. Others disagree: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/guest-weblog-by-leonard-ornstein-on-ocean-heat-content/?preview=true&preview_id=3810&preview_nonce=0cb721adc0

  221. I found it! I found the missing heat. After massive investigation and dogged research through seemingly endless climate archives, after reading thousands of blogs and visiting hundreds of websites I found the missing heat. It was in the lost and found at Walmart…

  222. David Douglass (yes, 2 ss) has a paper in press I believe on this question. He and coauthors evaluate the radiative balance and show that there is no missing heat, just incorrect assessments of radiative heat loss over the globe. Don’t have it in hand right now.

  223. Trenbreth’s position is anathema to the scientific method. He’s so tightly married to the CAGW theory that contradictory data is explained away in theories that get progressively more bizarre.

    Well, my theory is that this missing heat is being siphoned into Hell through a trap door and the devil is creating a heat bomb that will explode one day and blow us all to, well, Hell.

  224. DocMartyn (06:29:14) :

    “About 105 GT C/yr is fixed; about 426 gC/m²/yr on land and about 140 gC/m²/yr. 6 watts/m2 is only 190 MJ/m2/yr; 426 grams of carbon is 1 kg of glucose is 5.9 moles and on combustion will give 5.9 * 2830 kJ/mol, about 16.7 MJ.”

    Right (I guess), but then degradation also occurs, and so the energy is released back, I suppose.

    So, the total biological mass would have to increase enough to explain the energy absorption (I doubt that), and … ta-da… one day, it would be released back when the biosphere mass would reajust to less mass… and the hidden energy would come back to haunt us all. Na — I don’t like it :-)

  225. @dave F anna V

    This is a very good question. I recently read a study out of the University of Wisconsin that reported that aspen trees were growing significantly faster than in pre-industrial times. A similar study was released in the last year on forests along the East Coast. If total biomass is growing it could explain the location of the missing heat, as photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction. The heat would literally be hiding in the woods. (and of course in the kelp beds) It could also be an explanation for the for some of the missing temperature increases, relative to projections, as today’s photosynthesis is storing energy coming from the sun today, reducing today’s air temperature. This of course would reduce the actual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and oceans, relative to models that assumed a constant amount of carbon in natural storage. All quite trivial I am sure, but trivial is a relative term. It should be remembered the the entire AGW scare consists of a prediction that atmosphere will warm between 1% and 3% (K) in the next one hundred years.

  226. [quote Robert S (12:37:28) :
    Why does Spencer show a negative radiative forcing for CO2 prior to 2004?
    [/quote]

    Hmmm…. looking a little closer at Dr. Spencer’s graph, not only does it show negative forcing for CO2, it doesn’t match the 6.4 watts/meter -2 that Trenberth references (and is peer reviewed).

    So I’d say ignore Spencer’s graph unless he shows up to explain what he means. And I apologize for not doing a better job checking it out before I posted it.

    But the take-away point that the TOA energy balance changes is still valid.

  227. I hate making stupid questions but this time for the sake of my own peace of mind I won’t mind the rotten fruit.

    I hope everybody is taking into account that W/m^2 = J.s/m^2, and that if a surface gets say, 5 W/m^2 it will have received 10 J per every m^2 in two seconds, etc. 15 in three, etc. and a large-ish number after a year.

    [ducking]

  228. It sank to the bottom of the ocean then the Talking Heads removed it from the bottom of the ocean, they carried it away. But they said they’ll only do it once in a lifetime. So that heat could still come back to haunt us.

  229. This is the same Kevin Trenbreth who, when confronted a couple of years back on NPR (yes, NPR) with the question of this missing heat, commented that perhaps the heat radiated back into space.

    A great deal rests on this question since 85% of projected global warming would reside in the seas. Without a significant latent heat bucket effect threatening to boomerang in 50 – 80 years, we mightn’t expect some imminent climate apocalypse.

    One possible mitigating factor in sea temperatures could be ice melt but seems to me that would pose a marginal point source impact. Another question I have is how additional heat might possibly penetrate expected thermocline and halocline layers. If these layers aren’t as absolute as expected could benthic heat sources also play a larger role in contemporary sea temperatures (as with increased sea floor vulcanism)?

  230. [quote NZ Willy (12:39:40) :
    DeNihilist (11:11:53) : “Hmmm, at least Dr. Trenberth, has started to doubt the satellite data. This is a start.”

    The Warmers would like to discard the satellite data because it is the chief check on their runaway warming scenario. Their fiddled ground measurements are increasingly discrepant from the satellites’ measurements of no long term warming. So I’ll go with the satellites, thanks.
    [/quote]

    Just to clear things up for all the folks thinking this “missing heat” is the result of climate model calculations: it’s not.

    The “missing heat” of 6.4 watts/meter -2 is from the results of satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing energy.

    The current estimate of 0.9 watts/-2 is what comes from the climate models.

    Also, I’ve been trying to get into the NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center so I could post some real data from the satellite, but their server seems to be down.

  231. magicjava (14:24:28) :
    [quote Robert S (12:37:28) :
    Why does Spencer show a negative radiative forcing for CO2 prior to 2004?
    [/quote]

    Hmmm…. looking a little closer at Dr. Spencer’s graph, not only does it show negative forcing for CO2, it doesn’t match the 6.4 watts/meter -2 that Trenberth references (and is peer reviewed).

    I’m not sure I’m interpreting it correctly, but I think Spencer is suggesting that the reason that the heat is presumed to be missing is that they are operating from assumed levels of climate sensitivity that are vastly over stated.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

  232. Chris Riley (14:22:09),

    You make some very good points. I agree that much energy is being stored in the biosphere as a direct result of additional carbon dioxide, which clearly causes plants to grow bigger and faster: click

    That appears to be where much of the missing heat is going. Prof Freeman Dyson gives a good explanation in his review of two books on global warming for the NY Times: click

    Dyson’s article came out before Climategate revealed the climate science orthodoxy to have feet of clay: where they were formerly insufferably rude, arrogant, and condescending to skeptical scientists, they are now seen as self-serving grant hogs controlling the climate peer review system for their own personal gain, and they are now desperately trying to avoid explaining why their records of raw data were so incredibly sloppy, and why they filled in missing data, and why they refuse to show how they “adjust” the raw data, and why they conspired to protect obvious frauds like Dr Wei-Chyung Wang — who is suddenly under the gun again because of this decision: click

    [Wang was the climate scientist and colleague protected by Jones, Wigley, Mann, etc., and who preposterously claimed that reams of nineteen year old raw data that he used in his peer reviewed paper, taken from dozens of different weather stations, was kept not on paper or on a hard drive, but in the memory of someone living deep in China.]

    Prof Keenan has been after the despicable Wang [see climategate emails/Wang] for committing scientific misconduct for years. Now, because of climategate, Keenan appears to be on the verge of cornering Wang: click

    The worm turns. Slowly. But it turns.

  233. As I was reading this flood of posts, our local ABC (Aussie) radio came on with a report about salinity evidence from ocean float measurements. It was clear evidence they said, that AGW was occurring, and at even faster rates than models predicted!

    THERE WAS NO MENTION OF TEMPERATURE OR HEAT MEASUREMENTS!

    The ABC is fully funded by the Australian Federal government, and calls itself “Our ABC” !!!

  234. [quote Dave Wendt (15:34:42) :
    magicjava (14:24:28) :
    I’m not sure I’m interpreting it correctly, but I think Spencer is suggesting that the reason that the heat is presumed to be missing is that they are operating from assumed levels of climate sensitivity that are vastly over stated.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

    [/quote]

    My honest reply is A) I simply don’t know what Dr. Spencer is trying to say in that paper, and B) I really should have checked his work better before referencing it. I assumed he was just posting the satellite data. I didn’t realize his graph was drawn up to support some other point he wanted to make.

    The CERES data are just instrument readings. Those readings should be independent of any climate model or assumptions about feedback loops or climate sensitivity.

  235. Predicador (12:46:39) :

    formation of calcium carbonate (which is an exothermic reaction) alone in Earth’s oceans releases something like 1E15 joules per year

    Oh, dear. I can see that being used by HGW believers real soon. The increase in CO2 will cause more CaCO3 to be created, and thus will warm the planet even more than they thought!

    (This will completely ignore all the alarmist claims preceding this that CaCO3 creation will be reduced by an increase in CO2, of course.)

    As an aside, I think the energy ‘absorbed’ (wrong term, I know) by the creation of more biomass due to an increase in CO2 is probably very valid. I mean, that is where all the coal, oil and gas came from, so it is natural to expect it to return there.

    I still don’t think the amount of CO2 increases in the air are enough to make much difference to that total energy. It all gets away in the end, all the CO2 will ever do is delay it slightly, and ‘up there’, not ‘down here’.

  236. MagicJava
    How is the other 50% of the imbalance accounted for if not by the models? There is net accumulation of energy in the atmsphere – as demonstrated by flatish-temps and increasing atmospheric water vapor content.

    My reading of this is that according to the models the imbalance should result – based on the derived sensitivities – in twice the energy increase observed. Am I wrong?

    Dave F
    The estimate I have seen is 100 TW. I believe that is the same type of representation as global power consumption (@15.8 TW in 2006) – average instantaneous consumption over the course of a year. Divide it by number of m2 for the earth’s surface and add a negative to get the W/m2 effect. I’m on my phone so I can’t work out the real energy equivalent.

  237. Well did they compensate for the sunshing reflecting off the backs of the satellites? I mean they got a whole whack of ‘em up there now and they cast bigger shadows than their actual size…. just kidding…

    I think I will organize a party this summer though. Everyone has to bring one of those laser pointers, we’ll tape a few hundred of them to my backyard telescope, point it at a satellite, and see if can mess with its readings… just kidding…

    …hey. Would that work?

  238. Wonderful thread and a key point of the AGW debate; some excellent wit with Ross Hatch’s dry heat at 18:28:29, DocMartyn’s linaerity of a circle at 18:31:38 and Myroddin Seren’s Godzilla at 19:31:21 coming to mind

  239. MagicJava
    I reread your post and I think we’re on the same page… but still would like to know for sure.

    Best Regards.

  240. A lot of discussion has occurred around the CEREs data allegedly showing a net gain or increase in energy of some considerable amount [equal to a temp increase of 25C according to one post]. A couple of points: Lindzen and Choi show, using ERBE data, that it is SW which has the main effect on climate sensitivity while the models focus on LW; Lindzen found a decrease in SW flux and an increase in LW TOA flux;

    The SW findings are consistent with Pinker et al;

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5723/850

    With the SW change, probably from reduced cloud cover, capable of explaining all temperature increase over the study period, 1983-2003.

    CERES has been critiqued in this paper which seems to confirm Lindzen and Pinker’s conclusions;

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1

  241. I wish that the AGW fundamentalists were right. As any person with common sense knows, “warm – good, cold – very bad!”.

    Ice kills, CO2 makes food.

    AGW’s new sequel: “Trenberth’s Missing Family Joules” – “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Well, on second thought, no sound or fury, either.

  242. ” Josualdo (14:14:51) :
    So, the total biological mass would have to increase enough to explain the energy absorption (I doubt that)”

    Just for my sake; can you tell me where underground oil, methane and coal deposits come from? Why are mature peat bogs generally 5 meters deep, going down to 8-9 meters where the matter is about as solid as hardwood?
    What about the Titanic, in 100 years there is 6 inches of organic matter settled on this four bladed propeller

    Six inches of organic matter per century (40% carbon density about 1), that is about 6 grams of carbon per meter per year.

  243. In respect of the lost heat DocMartyn at 06:29:14 and Anna V at 11:17:33 offer sensible analysis. The issue of biostorage of heat [sic] has been explored by Steve Short and his work with cynaobacteria blooms show considerable increase in these colonies over recent times; and we are talking about 1000’s of sq klms. Land biomass, including forests has also increased in recent times despite forest clearance.

    Heat is also lost to the system with oceanic recycling through the tectonic plates with some estimates that this continuous process has been completed at least 7 times in the history of the planet; whether it creates a net warming or cooling in the abysmal depths, which according to Schuckmann shows increased heating at the 2000 metre level, is another thing.

    Incidentally I would have thought the main advocate of lower ocean heating, Anu, would have made an appearance.

  244. NickB.
    “My reading of this is that according to the models the imbalance should result – based on the derived sensitivities – in twice the energy increase observed. Am I wrong?”

    The imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 is predicted by models (some observational estimates agree). The associated energy being retained is a simple calculation (imbalance*time*area) that doesn’t require any modeling. Only half of this energy can be accounted for in observations (heating of oceans+atmosphere+ground, and melting of ice).

    Trenberth says most of this other half is in the deeper oceans.

  245. “Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.”

    What of the growing sea ice in the south and advacing glaciers?

    There is probably little net difference when it is all taken into account.

  246. Robert S
    So you’re saying that the W/m2 to degrees C sensitivity has absolutely, 100% nothing to do with the accounting of the energy imbalance? I’m not sure I understand how the accounting could be done without it.

    Thinking out loud here… a .9 W/m2 imbalance would explain the warming (or, better described as the lack thereof) since 2003, that’s the accounted for warming.

    A 6 W/m2 imbalance is observed from TOA – from the sensitivities (which are probably log relationships but describing linear just to spitball) we should have seen warming 6 times greater than observed.

    That can only imply: 1. The Godzilla Theory, 2. the Satellites are wrong, or 3.) the W/m2 sensitivity is 6 times overstated.

    Perhaps you can explain how the observations and accounting can be done without factoring in sensitivities? I’m not trying to be argumentative here, but I cannot see how it can be done without it.

  247. Doc Martyn:
    Now you are using more cerebral cortex than most. Great question. As an organic chemist of 40+ years, I am tending to believe that oil, methane, nat gas, coal are all non-biogenic, excepting shells of crustaceans, foraminiferans, diatoms, etc. The deposits you mention are predominantly calcium carbonate, about 12% carbon. Any carbohydrates or protein that may have contained carbon were eaten as fuel, and eventually end up as carbonate.

    The carbonate becomes limestone and marble, which then subducts in certain plate regions. It reaches areas of high heat and pressure kilometers down. Reaction with water, iron and cobalt oxides, and silicates produces methane which polymerizes to ethane, propane, then oil. Pyrolysis of the oil can produce coal and, yes, diamond under special conditions.

    It does not come from plants or dinosaurs like we were taught in school. Some methane is produce at shallow depths by anaerobic fermentation of fatty acids in organic debris (peat) but this is inefficient compared to the deep earth processes. Methane produced this way cannot polymerize, since heat and pressure are needed for that.

    Methane, Natural Gas, oil and coal is being produced every second of every day by the above processes. There is no peak oil.

  248. For the missing heat segment of Climate Models, add a variable for…

    New arrival of Hot Flashes in massive numbers of Menopausal Baby Boomers.

    Note, may also contribute to higher water vapor due to Night Sweats.

  249. Re: magicjava (Apr 17 11:32),

    Thanks for the link, which I copy here

    Now it seems there is an IPCC correction imposed on the plot, so there is a question mark , but let me discuss the temporal variation anyway.

    It looks as if it has a yearly clock, and it would be interesting to superimpose it on the AIRS CO2 breathing map, which shows a seasonal dependence over the globe, stronger on the north hemisphere.

    http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/AIRS-CO2-Movie-2008-2009/

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/index.html

    One can see the biosphere breathing seasonally, with CO2 as a proxy of its activity; so the association of the variations in the curve for the energy balance over the year might be explained by the seasonal variation of the biosphere.

    The trend, considering that it is a small percentage of the variation would be explained by the increase in the biosphere, due to the extra CO2 and the higher temperatures: plants love it.
    A number of people have commented on this possibility.

    The variation is something like 1in the units of the plot and the trend is something like 0.17, less than 20%.

    If it is biological, and the seasonal dependence indicates this, it means an increase of absorption by 0.2 Watts/meter^2 from the biosphere.

    I have not been able to find a link that gives the energy absorbed by the live biosphere. To see if reasonably even Trenberths 6 watts/meter^2 could be accommodated.

    Re: magicjava (Apr 17 14:24),
    Do not bank on the peer review of climatology, though it would be good to see the discrepancy cleared. 6 watts/meter^2 is appreciably higher than this plot.

  250. NickB.,
    Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, but no, sensitivities have nothing to do with accounting for the energy imbalance. If by that you mean the following (which is what the ‘missing heat’ is about):
    -An energy imbalance is measured over a given timeframe.
    -The amount of energy the Earth system has accumulated with this imbalance is calculated as imbalance*time*area.
    -The amount of energy required to heat up the atmosphere+land+oceans, and needed to melt sea ice and glaciers is calculated from observations. See how this relates to the accumulated energy.

    The only place sensitivities come into play is in calculating how large the imbalance *should* be.

    And I’m not sure where the 6 Wm2 comes from – Lindzen’s 2009 paper on ERBE data? ISCCP doesn’t show anything this large, and Trenberth 2009 estimated an imbalance around 0.9 Wm2.

  251. @Les Polette (20:56:48) :

    The missing heat is in outer space. The so called “greenhouse theory” is a false premise. According to the second law of thermodynamics, heat can only be transmitted from a warmer object to a cooler object. The global warming alarmists say that CO2 traps heat radiated from the earth and this heat is re-radiated back to earth (Impossible!), because the earth is at a higher temperature than the “so called greenhouse layer in the atmosphere”. This heat is simple radiated out to the “night sky” (outer space). End of argument!

    – – – – – – –

    There are a couple of flaws in your argument, not intending to bash a fellow skeptic, but only to keep the science accurate. First, understand that the Second Law is only valid in a closed system, and only if an intelligence (i.e. lifeform) is not counteracting entropy. There are several ways of formulating the Second Law, and the following formulation is preferred when describing radiative transfer:
    “No process is possible which has as its sole result the removal of a certain amount of heat from a reservoir at one temperature and the absorption of an equal quantity of heat by a reservoir at a higher temperature.”
    The wording “sole result” is the important criteria here. Any gray body or black body object radiates as a consequence of its Kelvin surface temperature (raised to the fourth power) according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, however the behavior of gas molecules is slightly different. In regards radiative transfer between a cooler object and a warmer object, the transfer is in BOTH DIRECTIONS, however the cooler object receives more radiation from the warmer body, than does the warmer body from the cooler body. Thus there is always a NET TRANSFER of the energy equivalence of the radiation from the warmer object to the cooler object. To say that a cooler object cannot radiate any energy to a warmer object is just simply false. Yes, even the Sun absorbs some of the radiation emitted into space by the earth.

    In regards to the Climatology model that states that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases that absorb heat radiated by the earth) and re-radiates this back to the earth, this model (IMO) is severely flawed, not because re-radiation is impossible (it isn’t), it’s that the model ignores the fact that the majority of the heat gained by a GHG due to IR absorption is transferred to the surrounding air molecules via the mechanisms of conduction and convection. This dispersion of heat from the GHG molecules to air through these mechanisms limits the temperature rise of the GHG due to IR absorption, which decreases the radiative energy available that will be radiated back to the earth. Instead of all or most of the heat being re-radiated back to the earth, the warmed air expands, travels upward, and warms the layer of air above it. The major flaw in the climatology model is that it ignores the conduction and convection mechanisms, and vastly overstates the amount of energy re-radiated by the GHGs back to the earth. I do not venture so far as to state that the “greenhouse theory” is false, but rather that it is grossly overstated.

  252. DocMartyn (18:26:56) :

    “” Josualdo (14:14:51) :
    So, the total biological mass would have to increase enough to explain the energy absorption (I doubt that)”

    “Just for my sake; can you tell me where underground oil, methane and coal deposits come from? Why are mature peat bogs generally 5 meters deep, going down to 8-9 meters where the matter is about as solid as hardwood?
    What about the Titanic, in 100 years there is 6 inches of organic matter settled on this four bladed propeller

    “Six inches of organic matter per century (40% carbon density about 1), that is about 6 grams of carbon per meter per year.”

    (Per metre or square metre?)

    I feel fine with that. If we get, say, plankton and bacteriae into it, and all the rest, we get huge numbers. It’s not the sheer mass of biological material, live or decomposing, I’m uncomfortable with, it’s more how could it explain a sixfold energy difference.

    All that organic matter will decompose and release the basic stuff back – carbon, hydrogen, oxigen, nitrogen etc. and “bond” energy. Much of this gets into the cycles sooner than later, I guess.

    That means that as far as I see it the steady-state approach to biological mass isn’t all that bad, give or take a few corrections for stuff that might be sequestered and have its decomposition delayed.

    I meant I doubted that the increase in live biomass would explain the energy difference. If I understand your point, you emphasize that the live biomass isn’t as relevant as sequestered mass with only a partial decomposition.

    I doubt we have much data to decide whatever on this. I have no reason to say that the material on Titanic’s propeller is representative of the average Earth’s behavior on this, and I have no reason to say it isn’t either.

    I do think the biosphere is pretty much relevant, but maybe not to the point of explaining such a big energy gap, and, as I said, I also think that matter and energy flows into the biosphere and back, in something like a dynamic equilibrium, and only sequestered biomass (petroleum, peat, etc.) provides a larger delay or, if you prefer, another, slower, compartment.

  253. “The major flaw in the climatology model is that it ignores the conduction and convection mechanisms”

    Models do not ignore conduction and convection, but oversimplified GHE diagrams and explanations do.

  254. Just a note: I think that anyone that shows “beyond reasonable doubt” that the biosphere can take up a significant part of 6/7ths of the incoming radiation, if we’re to believe those CERES things up there, deserves my utmost respect for his/her contribution to the understanding of the earth as a system.

  255. bubbagyro (21:02:58) :

    Doc Martyn:
    Now you are using more cerebral cortex than most. Great question. As an organic chemist of 40+ years, I am tending to believe that oil, methane, nat gas, coal are all non-biogenic, excepting shells of crustaceans, foraminiferans, diatoms, etc. […]

    It does not come from plants or dinosaurs like we were taught in school.[…]

    Oh, heck. I hate it when I’m told there’s no Santa Claus :-)

    But you state you “tend to believe”. Fair enough.

    Methane, Natural Gas, oil and coal is being produced every second of every day by the above processes. There is no peak oil.

    Oh, that would be cool. Or hot, or what.

  256. On a serious note, I think the big issue for our alarmer mates, they close down systems to their knowledge or so called Knowledge.

    They are trapped in what they call their expertise.

    The oceans are the largest part by mass of the system that is not closed and also by movement of most complex.

    Biomass is an energy in the system. We are at the beginning levels of examining these complex interplays.

    I said a long time ago it was Sol what was doing it, me I reckon on further detective work, Sol has got accomplices and CO2 is just one of Moriarity’s minor minions.

    And never underestimate the power of stupidity that a Committee can exhibit, it is the only known form of life, with more legs than an octopus and the intelligence of an amoeba.

    (Mixed that last bit up a bit, Clements and Heinlein).

    To Fitzy I checked one of me forebears charts, Capn Abel he discovered that place a bit later than the oringinal inhabitants did, you is due east of the Parson’s Nose of Van Diemen’s land.

    I checked his Log, I read natives unfriendly and the place is gonna blow there is smoke and sulhpur everywhere. We is outta here. This aint aint Java.

  257. Mark Nutley is right

    Warm water does not descend into cold

    Downwelling results from surface cooling plus increased salinity from ice formation. Changed temperature can alter volume and pattern of downwelling but not temperature of sinking seawater.

  258. davidmhoffer (17:25:02) :
    (…)
    I think I will organize a party this summer though. Everyone has to bring one of those laser pointers, we’ll tape a few hundred of them to my backyard telescope, point it at a satellite, and see if can mess with its readings… just kidding…

    …hey. Would that work?

    Might only take one, if you’ve got the cash to buy from Wicked Lasers. Handheld models up to 500 mW with a stated range of more than 100 miles through normal atmosphere, that just might make a difference pointed straight up. Best of luck getting the aiming right. PS: Yes you will be wearing protective eyewear, and make sure you don’t point one at any aircraft.

  259. [quote Robert S (22:56:49) :
    And I’m not sure where the 6 Wm2 comes from – Lindzen’s 2009 paper on ERBE data? ISCCP doesn’t show anything this large, and Trenberth 2009 estimated an imbalance around 0.9 Wm2.
    [/quote]

    It comes from the CERES satellite data.

    [anna v (22:22:02) :]
    Do not bank on the peer review of climatology, though it would be good to see the discrepancy cleared. 6 watts/meter^2 is appreciably higher than this plot.
    [/quote]

    Understood.

    [quote NickB. (20:56:08) :]
    Robert S
    Perhaps you can explain how the observations and accounting can be done without factoring in sensitivities? I’m not trying to be argumentative here, but I cannot see how it can be done without it.
    [/quote]

    The CERES satellite just measures light arriving at the Earth and light leaving. It really doesn’t do anything more than that. You could, I suppose, think of it as a variant of a video camera.

    [Note: WordPress doesn’t use BB code, it uses HTML. Please use angle brackets instead of square brackets. ~dbs.]

  260. Heat being used for biomass was my first guess but was way out of my knowledge base. I’m very happy to see so much attention brought to this issue. Somehow, I would think the numbers wouldn’t be that hard to figure out by someone with the right background.

    We know CO2 sequestering is increasing exponentially since the overall increase in CO2 is linear. We would need to figure out the amount going into land based biomass and the amount going into the oceans. Then apply the appropriate numbers.

    If biomass production is indeed taking up most of the extra energy then this may have interesting consequences. It may allow us to feed a growing human population. Without it we might doom millions (or billions) to starvation. Instead of being a problem, increased CO2 production may actually be a necessity to avoid future wars over limited food supplies.

    Maybe we could model it ;)

  261. MagicJava
    I understand the 6 W/m2 is from the satellite readings – there is absolutely, 100% no confusion or disagreement on that.

    It’s the .91 W/m2 I’m concerned about. If the satellite imbalance was .91 W/m2 Trenberth wouldn’t be talking about this and we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the models and the satellites would still be working together as they did pre-2003. Ultimately, it’s the derived sensitivities that say for an imbalance of X W/m2 you should see Y degree C and other associated changes – is it not?

    If the climate was roughly 6x less sensitive to a W/m2 imbalance would that not also explain the current imbalance?

    —————————————-

    I have been saying this for a while now… for the period between 1980-2000 there is every indication in my mind that something really big and unaccounted for was at play because the GHG buildup continued past then with: flat-ish temps, a continued rise in atmospheric water vapor (which in fairness does indicate a continued rise in net atmospheric energy), and for the last 4-or-so years flat and now negative trending OHC. If the mechanisms (which ultimately are the derived sensitivities to GHGs) used to explain 1980-2000 were correct, 2000-on should see continued, if not accelerated, fire and brimstone that quite simply isn’t there.

    To make a long story short, in case there is any confusion about what I’m implying, the radiative forcing sensitivities seem to be severely overstated. That’s not a new complaint – if anything I’m just making it from an observational standpoint instead of an emperical one but I’m sure that has been done plenty too.

    Factoring it into this conversation seems appropriate – as I can see no other way but sensitivities to explain Trenberth’s concern that there is not adequate observed warming to explain the “missing” 5.1 W/m2.

    Also, I really enjoyed the post by cohenite earlier with the Lindzen reference (among others). OHC, controlled by clouds and long-lived currents – especially in context of recent developments on the Faint Sun Paradox – seem to be the major control of the climate and not GHG content.

  262. OMG, the Well-Funded Denial Conspiracy has stolen our joules! This is a job for SuperSanter and his Giant Error Bars!

    Film at 11…

  263. If the satellite imbalance was .91 W/m2 Trenberth wouldn’t be talking about this and we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the models and the satellites would still be working together as they did pre-2003.

    I’m not sure where the 6 Wm2 came into this conversation, but it’s not what Trenberth is talking about. The problem he’s talking about is 0.9 Wm2, and the lack of increasing OHC over the past few years – this is the discrepancy.

    Ultimately, it’s the derived sensitivities that say for an imbalance of X W/m2 you should see Y degree C and other associated changes – is it not?

    It is, but this has nothing to do with diagnosing any ‘missing heat’.

  264. Sorry – my quotes don’t appear to have worked. The first and third paragraphs are quotes from NickB.

  265. Robert S
    These are the main points I took from the original post and subsequent conversation (in particular MagicJava). With this many posts it’s hard to keep track so it never hurts to make sure we’re using the same baseline.

    1.) The satellites and observed warming based on modeled sensitivities have been diverging since 2003. Prior to 2003 the observed imbalances from the satellites were “accounted for”
    2.) This problem got worse – but did not start – with the flattening OHC after 2005
    3.) 6 W/m2 is the *current* imbalance oberved through the satellite record
    4.) Observations, backtracked using sensitivities imply an “accounted for” imbalance of .9 W/m2
    5.) This implies that the “missing heat” that Trenberth is looking for would be equal to 5.1 W/m2 (so I should have said 5x instead of 6x to describe this – apologies!)
    6.) I believe the 50% unaccounted for is describing 2003-current. The divergance is getting worse over time so the distinction between point in time vs. over time comparison is important to be clear on.

    Please set me straight if I’m reading it wrong

  266. For those of us who do not have a subscription to Science, can someone who has access to the paper summarize the measurements involved, ideally with uncertainties? E.g., average incoming solar radiation measured by as value <YYY +- ZZZ W/m2 ); outgoing radiation measured by …; oceanic heat content increase; etc. etc. etc.

  267. I think you’re making this more complicated than it needs to be. These are my thoughts on it:
    – I honestly think the 6 Wm-2 is wrong; neither ISCCP nor Trenberth’s 2009 paper show anything this large. But it’s irrelevant, as the 6 Wm-2 is NOT the imbalance that Trenberth is discussing in regards to the ‘missing heat’. He is using the 0.9 Wm-2 as the measured imbalance.
    – Up until 2003, this imbalance was accounted for in observations. By ‘accounted for’ I mean the following: 1. the oceans+atmosphere were warming, 2. The amount of energy required to warm the oceans+atmosphere by the observed amount can be simply calculated (you have deltaT and the heat capacity, find deltaQ), and 3. Compare to the energy accumulated by the measured energy imbalance (imbalance*time*area).
    -Post 2003, temperatures have remained relatively flat, and the observed rise is not enough to account for the energy accumulated by the measured imbalance (again, we’re talking about the 0.9 Wm-2). This energy has to be going somewhere, and Trenberth suspects the deep oceans.

    Modeled sensitivities play no part in this.

  268. We’re just talking about energy accumulated vs. energy observed. Sensitivities are how much temperatures will change for a given forcing.

  269. Sorry – sensitivities are how much temperatures will change for a given forcing to go to zero.

  270. [quote I honestly think the 6 Wm-2 is wrong; neither ISCCP nor Trenberth’s 2009 paper show anything this large. But it’s irrelevant, as the 6 Wm-2 is NOT the imbalance that Trenberth is discussing in regards to the ‘missing heat’. He is using the 0.9 Wm-2 as the measured imbalance.
    [/quote]

    I don’t think Trenberth is referring to the 0.9 Wm-2 as the “missing heat” The 0.9 number comes from climate models, not satellites. And Trenberth is referencing the satellite data when he talks about the missing heat.

    [quote Trenberth
    “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.
    [/quote]

    It’s the CERES satellites (plural, there are CERES instruments on several satellites) that are giving us this large 6.4 Wm-2 number.

    Trenberth discusses both the 0.9 Wm-2 number from the climate models and the 6.4 Wm-2 from the satellites in this paper linked below.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

    So, at the end of the day, we have this huge number that no one expected coming from multiple satellite instruments. And this number is fundamentally linked to the questions about global warming. We can:

    ● Ignore the number and recalibrate the satellites until they give us the number we want. In this case, we don’t even need satellites. Just plug in the number we want.

    ● Search for the “missing heat” here on Earth in areas we’re currently not looking. These areas are large, and one, the Arctic Ocean, is in the part of the world that’s heating up far faster than any other part of the world.

    ● Re-examine our assumptions about the character of incoming radiation from the sun. Perhaps more of it than we think has the same signature as outgoing radiation from the Earth.

    Obviously, I’m in favor of the later two options.

  271. The CERES data that Trenberth uses is from the Terra satellite only, as mentioned on page 3 of the study you link to.

    Anyway, Trenberth believes there is an imbalance, but nowhere near as large as 6.4 Wm-2 (considering the uncertainty is CERES as calculated by Loeb 2009, and previous observational estimates of the TOA imbalance having been much lower, this seems like a reasonable assumption). He specifically states after various corrections that

    “Thus, the net TOA imbalance is reduced to an acceptable but imposed 0.9 W m−2 (about 0.5 PW).”

    Table 2a, the stated estimate for their paper is 0.9 Wm-2, based off CERES instruments on Terra. Whether you think this is ‘observational’ or not, this is what Trenberth means when he says “satellite observations” of the TOA imbalance.

    As for your bullets, I certainly agree with 2, I don’t think 3 has any real merit, and you may not like 1 (I don’t either), but considering the errors in satellite measurements, we can’t take 6.4 Wm-2 at face value.

  272. Robert S
    Just thinking out loud, but if we’re talking accounting for joules I find it disturbing that we would only be looking at this past 2003 – and then, we would be looking at the standpoint of discrediting observed data or making up un-disprovable theories of hidden heat.

    I would like to know what the radiative imbalances were that were accounted for pre-2003 and not of concern to anyone. Is 6 W/m2 a whole lot – or is it just a whole lot now that it doesn’t correlate with OHC, temps, fire, brimstone et al

    Sorry but it is too damn convenient that the satellites just so happened to break and/or significant amounts of energy started “hiding” at the same time the models started breaking. This has every indication of the tail wagging the dog – “[look at the satellites not the models]” situation.

    Also, I am not convinced they have accounted for everything so perfectly that they can account for joules with any level of accuracy. After all, until Pielke and Trenberth of late – climate science was essentially only looking at temperature in the atmosphere without factoring in humidity to represent net energy build-up. To imply that what they’re doing is anything approaching a “hard science” at this point seems a little insulting to the real hard sciences. This coming from an economist – I know a fuzzy science and overconfidence in understanding of complex systems when I see it.

    With that and again having reached what appears to be an impass. I hope there are no hard feelings.

    Regards.

  273. [quote NickB. (18:42:52) :]
    Is 6 W/m2 a whole lot – or is it just a whole lot now that it doesn’t correlate with OHC, temps, fire, brimstone et al
    [/quote]

    According to Svensmark, 1.5 W/m-2 is about 0.2 to 0.5 degrees C. So 6 Wm/-2 would be 0.8 to 2.0 degrees C.

    For comparison, according to GISS, the temperature anomaly in the Arctic is between 2 and 8 degrees C.

    [quote Robert S (17:43:04) :
    The CERES data that Trenberth uses is from the Terra satellite only, as mentioned on page 3 of the study you link to.

    Anyway, Trenberth believes there is an imbalance, but nowhere near as large as 6.4 Wm-2 (considering the uncertainty is CERES as calculated by Loeb 2009, and previous observational estimates of the TOA imbalance having been much lower, this seems like a reasonable assumption). He specifically states after various corrections that
    [/quote]

    Yes, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the margin of error for the satellite readings is as large as the reading. So you can adjust it to basically whatever number you want, down to zero.

  274. From this plot I think we can get an estimate of the seasonal energy of the flora :

    There is a seasonal variation. If we attribute it to the flora, growth+storing, decay=releasing energy, then in a year about 1to 0.5/watts/meter^2 *year are in the game. The trend of the plot, about 0.2 is consistent with a steady growth and increase in storage , it takes more than a year for leaf cover, grass, hay, corn, (look at ethanol) to dissolve into its component part, and the growth that went to roots and trunk stays for centuries. 20% within errors back of the envelope does not seem excessive.

    I want to refer to my energy rant which was late in being posted, because it is relevant to the recent discussion.
    Neither heat nor radiation nor any other energy form is conserved. Total energy is the conserved quantity, and energy changes manifestations.
    Re: anna v (Apr 17 11:17),

  275. @Robert S (01:38:50) :

    “Models do not ignore conduction and convection, but oversimplified GHE diagrams and explanations do.”

    – – – – – – –

    Some models do. Here is a snippet of the description of a GHE model with an obvious AGW bent:

    “However, only a small portion of this energy actually makes it back to space. The majority of the outgoing infrared radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases (see Figure 7h-3 below). Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.”

    Link:http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html

    No mention here that the entire atmosphere is radiating longwave energy in all directions, only the GHGs are described as doing that. What is being described above is the equivalent of a two-way mirror placed above the surface of the earth, which would obviously result in thermal runaway. Both the AGW models and the oversimplified diagrams and explanations do appear to lead to the same conclusions, i.e. overstating the GHE.

  276. Heads up – the e-mail exchange @ Pielke Snr. continues. Now with Josh Willis.
    Very interesting comments from Dr. Willis.


  277. Some models do.

    Like I said, oversimplified explanations of the GHE do. The surface would be considerably warmer if it cooled purely by radiation.

  278. ” anna v (22:35:06) :
    There is a seasonal variation. If we attribute it to the flora, growth+storing, decay=releasing energy, then in a year about 1to 0.5/watts/meter^2 *year are in the game. The trend of the plot, about 0.2 is consistent with a steady growth and increase in storage , it takes more than a year for leaf cover, grass, hay, corn, (look at ethanol) to dissolve into its component part, and the growth that went to roots and trunk stays for centuries. 20% within errors back of the envelope does not seem excessive. ”

    The breakdown of lignin, the major structural compound of wood is aerobic. In anaerobic conditions it lasts for geological time spans before becoming coal. Only about 20% of the lignin that is made each year is ever broken down.
    Chitin, which makes up insect and crustacean exoskeletons, is very hard to break down, and again less than half is ever broken down.

    Working out the amount of organic matter that ends up on the sea floor is actually very difficult to measure. Many of the micro organisms that live there are Cu/Fe limited and so ship wrecks soon have eruptions of life.
    Ships propellers are designed to be antibacterial and stop marine growth. If you know when a ship went down, and the propeller is on the sea bed, on can measure the amount of material that has fallen there.

  279. I wouldn’t trust Kevin Trenberth to wash my fleet vehicles; he’d break the comms antennae.

    Kevin Trenberth if you’re reading this i want you to know: I personally fart in your general direction.

    Half truths confessed after MONTHS of trying to figure a way out… FACE the FACTS:

    YOU have entered into an enormous HOAX: all because a bunch of people were angry Al Gore couldn’t be president.

    Couldn’t clearly win a clean election – against of all people George Bush…

    Spread ECO-TERROR and CHANGE POLICY, THAT WAY.

    Nobody has any respect for you: your lies – the endless graft and corruption by you, or about 10 other people: ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

    Michael Mann: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
    Kevin Trenberth: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
    Steven Scheider: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
    Jim Hansen: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
    Gavin Schmidt: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

    The list goes on, and on, and on: and comprises nothing more than a CRIMINAL RING of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES spreading GRAFT, CRIME and

    INFLUENCING POLICY by TERRORIZING the PEOPLE

    THAT is what i think of you Kevin Trenberth. That’s what I and GENERATIONS to come

    are going to RECORD as your LEGACY within civilization.

    A CRIME RING

    Of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

    Led by a FAILED run at the PRESIDENCY

    creating a rage fueled, HATE fueled,

    TERRORIST SCHEME to CHANGE POLICY by TERRORIZING the world’s people

    that the WORLD was gonna END.

  280. The oceans have a lot of processes going on that affect the weather. One local process is upwelling which cools those local areas, for ex., the west coasts of the Americas (perhaps it slightly warms a few areas like coastal Antarctica where seas might be frozen over without it).

    In fact, the amount of cooling upwelling is what El Nino/La Nina is about. Greater upwelling caused by equatorial easterly winds is La Nina, lesser upwelling (or none) caused by the relaxation of those easterly winds or reversal to westerly winds. If for some reason bottom-water temp increased, La Nina periods wouldn’t be as cool and El Ninos would be warmer (to the limit of where upwelling no longer occurred).

    So I think weather-affecting “heat” can be stored or lost in lower water. How lower water temp can change is another question. The only way I see is a reduction of cold sinking water. That obviously isn’t happening now in the North Atlantic Drift (Barents Sea), or northwest Europe would see significantly lower temps than average when W/NW winds were blowing and sea-ice coverage there would significantly increase.

  281. The missing heat has obviously leaked into those curled up extra dimensions which are used to reconcile relativity with quantum theory. It will reappear the next time our neighboring multiverse bumps into ours and creates a new big bang. Then there will be plenty of heat again.

    We have a plethora of unprovable and undisprovable “theories” these days that have little to do with science. A grade school kid could sit around and come up with some of this nosense. Anyone ever heard of the scientific method?

  282. R. de Haan (07:33:58) : “No sunspots for five days now!
    I thought we were heading to Solar Max?

    Graph of sunspot number over the last few months:

    It doesn’t look like it’s heading for the heights, but I have no idea what sort of pattern is normal.

  283. beng (07:59:21)

    “So I think weather-affecting ‘heat’ can be stored or lost in lower water. How lower water temp can change is another question. The only way I see is a reduction of cold sinking water.”

    I agree – some appear to think and suggest that warm water can somehow hide in the deep ocean ready to return a few centuries later. However downwelling by its very nature only sends down near-freezing water (plus increased-salinity from ice-formation) at specific locations like the Norwegian Sea.

    Thus measurements to date find the deepest ocean water to have more or less uniform temperature near to 4C. This is partly dictated by massive gravitational pressure.

    I do believe strongly that THC has a major role in climate including in medium and long term cycles. However the way that climate can interact with THC is by pattern and rate of downwelling, not the impossible feat of pushing warm water down into cold.

    Its amusing that the AGW community prior to 2006 contemptuously ignored any climate factors other than CO2 – now they are casting around for fig-leaves such as solar variation and THC for the “missing heat”.

  284. Dr. Spencer has posted some thoughts on this

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    1) THE MISSING ENERGY IS IN THE SOLAR, NOT THE INFRARED
    Trenberth and Fasullo don’t highlight the fact that the “missing” energy is not in the infrared, which is where manmade global warming allegedly originates, but in the reflected solar component. The infrared component has essentially no trend between March 2000 and December 2007 (the last CERES Earth radiation budget data I have analyzed).

    2) MAYBE THE DISCREPANCY WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE 2000….

    3) OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE MUCH EASIER TO MEASURE THAN THE EARTH’S RADIATION BUDGET….

    I’m sorry, but at some point we need to ask whether all of this missing warming and energy are missing because they really do not exist. This is Roger Pielke, Sr.’s opinion, and at this point it is mine as well. Only time will tell.

    Well worth reading it all

  285. anna v (22:53:06)

    Energy is indeed more correct to use than heat. In fact deep water gains a little heat and temperature from adaiabatic compression. (Its only a matter of time before AGWers cotton on to this and claim it as heat in the pipeline from global warming!)

  286. Folks , there isn’t any indicator that any of these men actually understand what they are talking about. These people are all what are called sycophants: they happen to be understanding enough of power and how to get it but not that they will surely be caught.

    Can you IMAGINE: if someone wrote a BOOK, and the LEAD STATISTICAL genius had all his models INSTANTLY NULLIFIED by the fact the Major Statistical Societies of the world won’t endorse they even know math?

    if their ”radiation guy” claimed he made up a huge ”earth energy budget” spending goodness knows HOW much, bought him a satellite,

    and what he thought were ”raging out of control warming” was the steady coast into the null between a warm and cold spell?

    If their “top record keeping leader” was found to be not only not leading but plotting to HIDE what his information was and that in the process, someone working there: a TRAINED TECHNOLOGIST/THEORETIST to write the

    “HarryReadMe” file? Telling how every pass through the data, they were plugging and changing and never keeping records of why, inventing stations statistically and on and on, with the author there finally saying something along the order of “doing what’s normal here, i plunge in changing things” and “this data is all a mess.. the whole place.. and i doubt it’s gonna change because. … well this is C.R.U.”

    it’s paraprased there but everyone remembers that was what the guy said about how damaged the entire record keeping’s RECORD KEEPING is/was..

    Jim Hansen with the guy who works for him’s inane predictions about sun spots, with EVEN AMATEURS saying in that geeky respectful way, ”whaaat is he talking about?”

    Hansen with his “really really REALLY giant el nino” and the myriad end of the world predictions he’s made.. it’s the stuff of legendary humor.

    Steven Schneider with that LAUGHABLE paper about “the answer blowing in the wind” when he

    he actually PUT into PRINT and SAID: MAYBE now ONCE AND FOR ALL WE CAN SHUT THESE DENIERS UP”

    that he MODELED the WIND SPEEDs in the TROPOSPHERE and came up with doggonit he was right – all the aircraft thermal sensors, radiosonde thermal sensors, and satellite thermal sensors, were ALLLLL BROKE and it actually WAS HOT up there in the troposphere, where we have hordes of thermal sensors traveling 24/7/365….

    And now this Trenberth with this “the magic heat, just magically magic’d away, MAGICALLY and eewwwwww it could BE WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT when it comes back ewwwwwww!!

    Al Gore with his “we’ll fix things financially” CARBON CREDITS SCAM that was his “vision of finance for the future” that started at 22 dollars a ton for co2 now opening daily at ZERO…

    Are we REALLY supposed to have any respect for that kind of obviously out of contact with mainstream science ineptitude,
    over
    and over?

    If Mann and his gang can’t get the Royal Statistical Society to sign on, he doesn’t HAVE any models to TEACH.

    If someone WRITING a paper uses the “statistical methods employed by” … whomever and whatever specifically they said I don’t recall , but –

    they don’t even have MODELS if they don’t have the endorsement of the major statistical societies of the developed world.

    The Royal just told them they’re fools. Are these criminal policy shift terror – eco terror

    spreading government employees going to claim after every single one of them’s been exposed as UTTERLY INCOMPETENT

    they invented a new form of math?

    PaLease.

    Let real scientists who have real resumes get into those jobs, we aren’t entrusting the emergency forecast and management, crop, transportation, heating/cooling management for the benefit of the wider people of civilization –

    we can’t continue to pretend we didn’t just see what we all know we are seeing.

    we aren’t entrusting it all as i was saying

    to people whose primary game, is to influence global decisionmaking in private, and also public concerns
    just to be doing it.

    These people are literally trying to operate as a fifth column of internationally cooperative (multiple jurisdictions) government employees, using governments’ management and forecast equipment to alter policy and money to where they want through spreading terror

    It’s criminal, pure and simple

  287. suricat (17:54:41)

    “Looking for unaccounted heat in deep ocean can’t really be justified. When you think about it water begins to expand again when it’s cooled to more than ~4°C, so there’s only an ~8°C range at most that can ‘hide’ heat in great ocean depths. There’s a large volume there though.”

    I made this mistake in an earlier thread. (I assume you meant when water is cooled to below 4C it expands). This is true for fresh water, but salty seawater (35 ppth salt) has its maximum density much closer to zero. However sea ice still floats since it is less salty, plus trapped air bubbles. None-the-less, very deep ocean water has stable temperature at around 0-3 C, except close to hydrothermal vents.

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html&edu=high

  288. This may seem like a dumb-ass question – I don’t do maths and I didn’t do physics O’level – but I can’t find any reference in the NCAR or Pielke Sr scribblings where they consider the missing “heat” might be stored in kinetic energy.

    They’re all in favour of us moving over to wind farms, which are energy recovery systems but they don’t seem to be considering where that energy, that’s being recovered, originates. Do they think it’s free, magic energy? How about oceanic wave (low frequency sound?) energy.. is that magic energy too?

    Like I said, probably a dumb-ass question.. I’ve no idea how much solar radiation is stored in atmospheric/oceanic kinetics – it just strikes me there might be a lot of it, and it doesn’t seem to feature in this discussion. I wondered how much heat energy is being hidden “in plain sight”, while occasionally tiny bits of it are plucked out of the air by opportunistic wind turbines. Feel free to shoot my silly ideas down at your leisure.

Comments are closed.