Trenberth's missing heat? Look to the deep

From the National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research  an explanation for Global Ocean Heat Content Is Still Flat.

Graph by Bob Tisdale - not part of the NCAR/UCAR press release

Key point from the press release:

Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model

This new paper (which hasn’t been put online yet at NCC as of this writing, I’ll post a link as soon as I have one) from Trenberth is simply modeling, and modeling so far hasn’t done a very good job of accounting for the oceans:

I’d like to see some supporting observations, otherwise this is just speculation for something that Trenberth is doggedly trying to explain away. My question is; show me why some years the deep ocean doesn’t mask global warming. It’s not like that big heat sink was suddenly removed.

Deep oceans can mask global warming for decade-long periods

BOULDER — The planet’s deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the “missing heat” during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.

“We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future,” says NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study. “However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line.”

The research, by scientists at NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, will be published online on September 18 in Nature Climate Change. Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, and the Department of Energy.

Where the missing heat goes

The 2000s were Earth’s warmest decade in more than a century of weather records. However, the single-year mark for warmest global temperature, which had been set in 1998, remained unmatched until 2010.

Yet emissions of greenhouse gases continued to climb during the 2000s, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased. This implied that heat was building up somewhere on Earth, according to a 2010 study published in Science by NCAR researchers Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.

The two scientists, who are coauthors on the new study, suggested that the oceans might be storing some of the heat that would otherwise go toward other processes, such as warming the atmosphere or land, or melting more ice and snow. Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model’s ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.

During these hiatus periods, simulations showed that extra energy entered the oceans, with deeper layers absorbing a disproportionate amount of heat due to changes in oceanic circulation. The vast area of ocean below about 1,000 feet (300 meters) warmed by 18% to 19% more during hiatus periods than at other times. In contrast, the shallower global ocean above 1,000 feet warmed by 60% less than during non-hiatus periods in the simulation.

“This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean,” Trenberth says. “The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences.”

A pattern like La Niña

The simulations also indicated that the oceanic warming during hiatus periods has a regional signature. During a hiatus, average sea-surface temperatures decrease across the tropical Pacific, while they tend to increase at higher latitudes, especially around 30°S and 30°N in the Pacific and between 35°N and 40°N in the Atlantic, where surface waters converge to push heat into deeper oceanic layers.

These patterns are similar to those observed during a La Niña event, according to Meehl. He adds that El Niño and La Niña events can be overlaid on top of a hiatus-related pattern. Global temperatures tend to drop slightly during La Niña, as cooler waters reach the surface of the tropical Pacific, and they rise slightly during El Niño, when those waters are warmer.

“The main hiatus in observed warming has corresponded with La Niña conditions, which is consistent with the simulations,” Trenberth says.

The simulations were part of NCAR’s contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). They were run on supercomputers at NCAR’s National Science Foundation-supported Climate Simulation Laboratory, and on supercomputers at Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, both supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy.

###

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

=======================

h/t to WUWT reader Bradley Fikes

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
205 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Molon Labe
September 18, 2011 11:24 am

Not just any software tool, but a *powerful* software tool.

John M
September 18, 2011 11:32 am

The planet’s deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming

Hmmm….as long as a decade
Well I guess we ought to know pretty soon.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.7/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.7/trend
Of course, who’s to know what meme they be trying next.

Brian H
September 18, 2011 11:39 am

It went into the “deep”, all right. Deep Space, you gormless cadets! As Spencer demonstrated, the OLR and albedo feedback is so quick and powerful that the supposed influx to the oceans never actually happens.

September 18, 2011 11:41 am

Where oh where is my little heat? It has to be hiding somewhere..
It is not in the ocean, it is not in the atmosphere, it must be somewhere and my model confirms it. Medieval alchemists x10.

Ibrahim
September 18, 2011 11:44 am

This is getting pathetic.

September 18, 2011 11:46 am

So if this is correct how come the GCM’s only started to diverge from the temperature record around 2000ish?

Anything is possible
September 18, 2011 11:47 am

Which model are they using this time?
Miss Rhode Island again?

Eternal Optimist
September 18, 2011 11:55 am

I understand their theory of CAGW (although I dont agree with them)
what I dont understand is why the deep is not part of the ‘g’. since when did it become a seperate entity ?
If the globe is warming, then the globe is warming. Maybe they should admit that they have never measured it properly, never will do, and dodgy proxies and models are no substitute for the real thing. It’s nothing less than a travesty.

richard verney
September 18, 2011 11:58 am

I thought that in climate science, the magic period is 30 years (although why 30 years should be regarded as a magic number, nobody trully knows why this period is justified). On that basis, Trenberth has plenty of time to still be looking for his missing heat. What a pity, since this will be a long drawn out saga, but matters will not become easy for him if the oceans are now in a cold phase excaserbated by a quiet sun No doubt he will be drawing his ‘gold plated’ pension by the time the search is called off.
On a related matter, which goes to the heart of assessing the sensitivity of the system to GHGs, is 2 fundamental errors made in th greenhouse climate theory. First, that the Earth can be considered as a blackbody. Second, that the average temperature.of the Earth is circas 14 to 16 degC such that greenhouse gases raise the temperature by about 33 degC.
The Earth does not behave like a blackbody since it is a water world with a huge heat sink, a hydrological cycle and the unusual characteristics of water phase changes and changes in latent heat involved in those processes.
The average temperature of the Earth is better regarded as circa 4degC. The oceans contain 99% of the stored heat/energy capacity of the Earth system (ignoring geothermal) and the average temperature of the oceans is circa 3.9degC. The ocean is suposedly well mixed. That being the case and given that the mixing has been on going for about 4 billion years, it is easy to see that the average temperature of the Earth is in fact approximately 4 degC. It is material that after about 4 billion years of mixing, the ocean is not at 15 deg C and this confirms that the average temperature of the Earth is not 15degC.
Sooner or later the relatively cold temperature locked into the ocean will surface (excuse the pun) and this will play a major role in the next ice age.
Once you appreciate that the average temperature of the Earth is a lot less than climate scientists use in their theory/conjecture, it follows that GHGs play a less significant role and that the sensitivity to GHGs is less than climate scientists would have one believe. This is part of the reason why Trenberth cannot find his missing heat. Another obvious (part) explanation being that the oceans do not absorb significant amounts of DWLWIR (due to its wavelength) and the oceans are heated by solar irradiance not by DWLWIR..
PS I have not checked when the Earth first aquired oceans. It does not matter whether this was 3 billion or 4.5 billion years ago. The point still stands that there has been plenty of time (epochs) for the mixing to take place such that one can safely conclude that the average temperature of the Earth is about 4degC (not about 14 -16 degC)… .

Lars Jonsson
September 18, 2011 12:00 pm

Whenever the models and their predictions fails new sophisticated and even more powerful models are created in order to force the stubborn real world to fit the theories.

philincalifornia
September 18, 2011 12:05 pm

Wow, I bet that purported missing heat outgassed some serious purported CO2 !! Part II of the powerful model, no doubt …..

Bill Yarber
September 18, 2011 12:06 pm

“Yet …, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased.”
Not according to Spencer & Braswell, or any other analysis as far a I know. Is this a case of making up the data to support the desired conclusion? Anyone see any data which supports the above claim?
Bike

DirkH
September 18, 2011 12:09 pm

With “powerful” they mean a model with an especially large number of eipcycles.

Editor
September 18, 2011 12:12 pm

Yet emissions of greenhouse gases continued to climb during the 2000s, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased. This implied that heat was building up somewhere on Earth, according to a 2010 study published in Science by NCAR researchers Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.
Hmmm… Dr. Trenberth is still searching for his missing heat and Dr. Spencer announced his explanation before Dr. Trenberth could announce his. Why is Dr. Trenberth so active in the Remote Sensing affair? Look no further…. his “We found it! We found it!” moment was pre-empted.

September 18, 2011 12:13 pm

Simple people just guess.
Some simple people make wild-assed guesses.
Some “scientists” make SWAGs; scientific wild assed guesses.
Really cool “scientists” make SSWAGs. Software-enhanced Scientific Wild Assed Guesses. (note, this normally takes government funding)
Sounds to me like we have another SSWAG as the topic of this post.

Latitude
September 18, 2011 12:20 pm

Doesn’t he know the science is settled……….
This seems like a lot of work….
….why didn’t they just do it the easy way and lower past temperatures
I guess he’s saying that surface temperatures would have been a whole lot colder…
….if all that deep water heat wasn’t keeping it warm

richard verney
September 18, 2011 12:21 pm

One of the problems with the greenhouse thoery (lets be generous and call it that) is that there is nothing within the theory that allows for a hiatus in the warming. The properties of GHGs does not change from year to year (ie., it does not on some years stop absorbing and re-radiating LWR, or re-radiating only upwards and not downwards etc). The theory dictates (and allows no other option) that as GHGs increase in concentration (at least until a saturation point is reached), the temperature of the atmosphere must go up. IT IS A ONE WAY ONLY CYCLE.
Saying that periods of hiatus may develop is in effect saying that the upward effect of temperature rise is subordinate either to:
(1) a change in aerosols/particles in the atmosphere which have caused a negative cooling exceeding the underlying warmiing which has been caused by the increase in GHG emissions and this additional heat is in the system but blinded/masked by the the opposite effect caused by the change in aerosols/particles, or
(2) natural variation, ie., some unkown unidentified factor which has a greater (and in the present case) opposite effect to the underlying GHG warming which has been caused by the increase in GHG emissions and this additional heat is in the system but blinded/masked by the the opposite effect caused by the natural variation change.
The second explanation is a real problem for the greenhouse gas theory. If climate scientists concede that natural variation exists and can have a negative effect exceeding the warming caused by GHGs, there is no reason why the natural variation can not have a warming effect. That being the case, climate scientists/the IPCC cannot validly argue that as for the warming since the mid 1940s this must be CO2 since we cannot think of any other possibility. There would now be another possibility, ie., warming cdaused by natural variation.
Thus conceding that there can be a hiatus due to natural variations (or even ocean cycles) is the thin edge of the wedge on a slippery slope demonstrating the weakness in the GHG theory.

Doug in Seattle
September 18, 2011 12:22 pm

This is simply hilarious. They tuned the model to explain why the model was out of sync with the ARGO buoys.
Gotta wonder though why it took so long to tune, why they chose this particular model, what other models they worked with, and what they chose to omit from their paper.
I eagerly await the deconstruction after the study is published.

P Walker
September 18, 2011 12:23 pm

Will the paper explain the mechanism through which the heat sinks deep in the oceans and remains there for about a decade before it reemerges and cooks us all ?

Mike
September 18, 2011 12:27 pm

When it comes to heat what goes down must eventually come up.

michel
September 18, 2011 12:28 pm

This is a very naive question, but is it not possible to simply measure the heat content of the ocean depths? Why cannot one lower probes or measure by submersibles? The engineering challenges may be great, but what is wrong with doing this? Are they insuperable?

Ed Scott
September 18, 2011 12:31 pm

Memorializing Global Warming in song.
Dedicated to high priest Almore Gortry.
RayStevens – The Global Warming Song

John W
September 18, 2011 12:41 pm

Just more contortions in attempt to make the CAGW “SSWAG” (thanks, joseph) fit reality. A sure sign of a failed hypothesis.
“This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean,” Trenberth says. “The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences.”
It MUST? Why must it?

rbateman
September 18, 2011 12:44 pm

A fishing expedition has been launched by a Computer Model to explain why observations don’t match theory. The cold phase of the PDO does not look to me to have changed until 2007, so there was more El Nino than La Nina. If AGW is to be explained by missing heat, the heat left the building, and so too did the La Nina that is supposed to be responsible for masking the AGW that wasn’t.

Editor
September 18, 2011 12:51 pm

The post states. “The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the “missing heat” during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend.”
But as Anthony has illustrated with the two Ocean Heat Content graphs, even the temperatures to depths of 700 meters have stopped rising. And for those interested, here’s a comparison graph of Global Ocean Heat Content anomalies and Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies:
http://i51.tinypic.com/64frf4.jpg
It’s from this post:.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/sea-surface-temperature-versus-ocean-heat-content-anomalies/

1 2 3 9