Trenberth Still Searching for Missing Heat

Kevin Trenberth is one of the authors of new Balmaseda et al (2013) paper Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content.

I find the title of the paper somewhat odd. The paper is based on the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Ocean Reanalysis ORAS4. That reanalysis is described in detail in the Balmaseda et al (2012) paper (submitted) Evaluation of the ECMWF Ocean Reanalysis ORAS4. Basically, the reanalysis is the product of a climate model that has data rolled into it. Since volcanic aerosols and sea surface temperatures are used as inputs, it should therefore come as no surprise that the reanalysis will include the “distinctive climate signals” associated with El Niños and volcanic eruptions.

FIRST: A BRIEF LOOK AT THE EARLIER PAPER THAT DESCRIBES THE ORAS4 REANALYSIS

Figure 1 - Balmaseda et al 2012 Figure 4

Figure 1

My Figure 1 (with my note) is Figure 4 from the Balmaseda et al (2012) paper (submitted) Evaluation of the ECMWF Ocean Reanalysis ORAS4. (This is NOT the paper that Kevin Trenberth co-authored. But I want to discuss it before we move on to the more recent paper.) Figure 1 contains three time-series graphs that represent the temperatures of the global oceans at different depths from 1958 to 2009. Each cell contains three variables. The blue “control integration” (CNTL) curves are the outputs of the models that don’t fold in the data. Balmaseda et al describes them as:

It is important to evaluate the impact of assimilation in ORAS4 by comparing it with a simulation that does not assimilate data. This simulation, called the control integration (CNTL), uses the same spin-up, forcing fields, SST/sea-ice relaxation and relaxation to climatology (with 20-year time scale) as ORAS4.

The black curves are the five ensemble members of ORAS4. And the red “NoBias_Crtn” curve “is equivalent to the unperturbed member of ORAS4 but without bias correction.” All of the graphs show how poorly the model, the blue “control integration” (CNTL) curves, simulates the warming. The bottom cell shows no warming at depths below 2000 meters in both the black ORAS4 curves and the red “ORAS4 without bias correction” curve. For depths of 700m to 2000m, the right-hand cell, the red “ORAS4 without bias correction” shows the same temperature in 1958 and 2000, but the black ORAS4 curves show a gradual warming due to bias corrections. Is the upward swing in the red “ORAS4 without bias correction” a result of the introduction of ARGO floats to a dataset that had poor spatial coverage before them?

For the upper 700m, the red “ORAS4 without bias correction” curve shows little to no warming from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, when an upward shift takes place. The red “ORAS4 without bias correction” curve basically remains unchanged from the early 1990s to 2000, when another upward shift takes place, leading to another plateau. Upward shifts give the appearance that Mother Nature is the primary cause of warming, and that’s not practical in a world that’s supposed to be warmed by greenhouse gases, so that would definitely need to be corrected. The bias corrections in the black ORAS4 curves smooth out the 2000 upward shift to make it look like a more gradual increase, and the corrections lower the temperature significantly before 1990 to provide a greater long-term warming.

Some of you might think these are yet more examples of inconvenient results being resolved through corrections.

A BRIEF LOOK AT THE MORE RECENT PAPER

Okay, we’re back to the Balmaseda et al (2013) paper Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. That’s the paper coauthored by Trenberth.

The abstract of Balmaseda et al (2013) reads (my boldface):

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean’s role in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

It would be interesting to see just how much the warming trend is reduced when ARGO data is removed.

Figure 2 is, I believe, Figure 1 from Balmaseda et al (2013). Since the paper is paywalled, the illustration is from the World’s oceans are getting warmer, faster post at CarbonBrief. It illustrates the warming of ocean heat content for the depths 0-300 meters, 0-700 meters and “total depth”, but because there has been no warming below 2000 meters in the ORAS4 reanalysis, the “total depth” is kind of misleading. The SkepticalScience post New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated also presents that same graph. And of course, Joe Romm cross posted Dana1981′s post from SkepticalScience as In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms over at Climate Progress. Curiously, looking back at my Figure 1, the only acceleration appears in the red “ORAS4 without bias correction” for depths of 700m to 2000m, but that should have been excluded from Balmaseda et al (2013).

Figure 2 - balmaseda_et_al__ocean_heat_content_600x415

Figure 2

Do Balmaseda et al (2013) address how much of the long-term warming is also a response to “surface wind variability”? As an example, see Figure 3, which shows the NODC ocean heat content (0-700 meters) for the North Pacific north of 24N, with and without the 1989-1990 shift that’s likely caused by a shift in the “surface wind variability”. Figure 3 was presented and discussed (as Figure 25) in the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?

Figure 3 n-pac-ohc-w-o-shift

Figure 3

CLOSING

Ocean heat content is at best a make-believe dataset. Refer again to the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be? Even with all of the adjustments to the NODC’s ocean heat content data, the data still indicates the warming resulted from natural factors, as shown in that linked post.

A reanalysis is an even more abstract form of ocean heat content “data”—one that also requires “corrections” to provide the desired results.

Curiously, Paul Voosen’s October 2011 article Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming includes quotes from a handful of well-known climate scientists—including Kevin Trenberth. Voosen had this to say about Trenberth’s opinion of ARGO:

Trenberth questions whether the Argo measurements are mature enough to tell as definite a story as Hansen lays out. He has seen many discrepancies among analyses of the data, and there are still “issues of missing and erroneous data and calibration,” he said. The Argo floats are valuable, he added, but “they’re not there yet.”

A reanalysis didn’t make the ARGO floats any better; it simply provided a way for Trenberth to confirm his beliefs–regardless of whether or not those beliefs are realistic.

About these ads

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Ocean Heat Content and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Trenberth Still Searching for Missing Heat

  1. ChootemLiz says:

    Trenberth will find the missing heat during the next ice age, lying under the extensive global snow coverage.

  2. Martin Audley says:

    it’s enough for me to see that;
    1. The model control warms anyway
    2. There’s a severe step change at 2000 onwards, after Argo data is available to inject into the model.

    Therefore this is equivalent to the splicing of different datasets that we’ve seen before, and probably makes the model results meaningless.

    i would want to know how many measurements at 2000m, at a representative sample of ocean locations around the globe, were made yearly before Argo? What is the accuracy of those measurements? Was the temperature measurement taken at depth, or after the sample had been dragged to the surface? You just can’t add Argo measurements to these.

    Skeptical Science is claiming a step change 15 years ago. Come off it. If Dr Trenberth comes back in another 20 years or so and compares the two previous 15 year periods, both of which use Argo, then I’ll pay attention. Not until then.

  3. Pavel Belolipetsky says:

    One comment to figure 3. Recently we showed that there are no warming trend in SST at the latitude zone 30S – 60N at all if 1925/1926 and late 80th shifts are removed.
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1581.pdf

  4. Peter Miller says:

    How do joules to the power 22 relate to actual ocean temperatures? Should there not be a direct measurable relationship between these and how can this ‘heat’ possibly be hidden?

    Is this just another classic case of ‘climate scientists’ using “BS to baffle brains”?

  5. Lew Skannen says:

    I would love to know how all this heat (which is definitely in the deep ocean somewhere, we just haven’t found it yet, honest!!) manages to get from the deadly CO2 molecules in the atmosphere straight to the deep ocean without being detected anywhere in between.

  6. johnmarshall says:

    Trenberth cannot even get his basic energy flows correct (see AR4) so no wonder he has missing heat. He might need to resit Physics 101

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    Pavel Belolipetsky: Thanks for the link to your paper. A question: Since the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific (north of 20N) are inversely related to the PDO, through what mechanism would the PDO cause shifts in “global” (30S-60N) sea surface temperatures?

    Regards

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    Peter Miller says: “How do joules to the power 22 relate to actual ocean temperatures?”

    Refer to Table T1 in Levitus et al (2005):
    ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf

    Regards

  9. Rick Bradford says:

    All this revisionism going on — there must be a new IPCC report deadline coming up soon.

  10. MattN says:

    Looking for the missing heat is about as futile as OJ looking for the real killers. Neither exist, and everyone knows it.

  11. Peter Miller says:

    Bob

    Thank you for the reference.

    It made me realise why variations in ocean currents can have such a huge impact on atmospheric temperatures.

    it is often postulated the emergence of the Isthmus of Panama circa 3.0 million years ago would have severely impacted tropical ocean currents, which in turn precipitated the much cooler Pleistocene era. That all makes a lot more sense now.

    The following statement was an eye opener for me:

    “Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1C of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100C of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere.”

  12. dave ward says:

    “Trenberth Still Searching for Missing Heat”

    Well if he finds it, perhaps he would be good enough to send some of it to the UK. The constant blasts of bitingly cold easterlies is getting tiresome…

  13. Kon Dealer says:

    What I find amazing is that for the past 15-17 years, “natural factors” have managed to cancel out, with exquisite precision, the increase in global temperature purported to result from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact these “natural factors” have managed to increase their effect, year by year, to exactly match the increased radiative effect of this CO2.

    What do you think the odds of this are (assuming independence and no-autocorrelation- which is what climate psientists do in their reconstructions)?

    A not unreasonable assumption is to say that the probability that for any one year the chances of “natural factors” exactly matching the radiative effects of increased CO2 is 50%, then the binomial outcome culmulative probability = (0.5)^15 = 0.00003, or 1 chance in 33,333

    If we are really generous and say the probability is 70% then (0.70)^15 = 0.0047, or 1 in 212.

  14. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Martin Audley March 26, 2013 at 1:48 am

    i would want to know how many measurements at 2000m, at a representative sample of ocean locations around the globe, were made yearly before Argo? What is the accuracy of those measurements?

    I would like to know too. But, you can be sure that the false precision from creating averages will likely hide the poor accuracy and resolution of those measurements.

  15. Jarrett Jones says:

    Trenberth can find it here:

    http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking/

  16. John Tillman says:

    In the satellite era, the atmosphere has heated less & later than the surface of Earth, just the opposite as required by the Mann-made GHG hypothesis. Yet consensus “climate scientists” still cling to this falsified (in both the scientific & ordinary senses of the term) hypothesis, since their livelihoods & ideology demand belief on blind faith, contrary to all actual evidence.

    So little wonder that they imagine the deep ocean can be heated by CO2 in the air while the surface & atmosphere cool or stay about the same temperature for going on 20 years. That all the heat observed in the atmosphere c. 1977-97 should somehow have stealthily migrated into the depths whence came most of the CO2 originally seems mysterious. Does the good Dr. Trenberth offer an explanation for this miraculous movement?

    When bureaucrats fund “science”, they get what the results they want.

  17. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Peter Miller asks March 26, 2013 at 2:39 am

    How do joules to the power 22 relate to actual ocean temperatures? Should there not be a direct measurable relationship between these and how can this ‘heat’ possibly be hidden?

    You measure the temperature. 4.18 Joules heats 1cc of water 1 degree Centigrade. Here’s some interesting properties of sea water

    http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html

  18. Robert of Ottawa says:

    I can see a Josh cartoon with pith-helmeted Trenbeth in a diving suite with butterfly net and magnifying glass looking for the missing heat in the ocean.

  19. Steve C says:

    Whenever I read that Trenberth is still searching for his missing heat, my mind remembers that wonderful Dali painting, “The Pharmacist of Ampurdan In Search Of Absolutely Nothing”. Along with the reflection that the outcomes in each case are likely to be similar, too.

  20. Jean Parisot says:

    Why are we even measuring the atmosphere as climate, the oceans are climate – the atmosphere are weather.

  21. CodeTech says:

    I like the Argo project. Really I do! However, most people have a difficult time grasping the size of the oceans. Ancient mariners had a better idea, when a trip would last months or years. Today we are used to crossing the Atlantic or Pacific in a few hours and don’t really grasp the immense size of either.

    Fact is, we could have 3 MILLION Argo devices wandering around and still would not have a really accurate picture of heat content in the oceans. For one thing, ocean currents are a result of heat distribution and transportation, so the very thing that is moving these things around is the thing we are futilely attempting to measure. The thing we are looking for is, itself, skewing the results.

    So, go ahead and play around with the data, it’s still just as useful as the few thousand land based HCN stations. Rated on a scale of 1 to 10, that usefulness is one.

    I love Science. Honestly. But really, thinking that you have accurate and meaningful heat readings from either land or ocean measuring devices is rather delusional. It’s not actually Science. It’s sorta science-ish. Thinking that you can make meaningful predictions (or projections) based on meaningless data? What do you call that?

  22. Bob Tisdale says:

    Martin Audley and Robert of Ottawa, see the linked webpage:
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/data_distribution.shtml
    They have the number of samples (profiles) for a few depth ranges. If you scroll down to “Temperature Profile Numbers”, then select “Global”, “90S-90N”, and “below 1000 meters”, you’ll see that there are very few samples prior to ARGO.

  23. Bill Illis says:

    The warmers love this line going up provided by the Ocean Heat Content series.

    Its increasing by about 0.52 10^22 joules/m2 right now (about 0.46 W/m2).

    GHGs, on the other hand, are modelled to be providing 4.66 10^22 joules of extra energy right now (2.9 W/m2 in 2013).

    The Ocean Heat Content series (which also shows some natural cycles) is increasing at only 11% of the GHG forcing rate.

    The scale on the OHC accumulation since 1955 series stops at close to 20 10^22 joules/m2. But GHG forcing since 1955 is 172 10^22 joules/m2 (of course, volcanoes and Aerosols and other forcings have cut some of that increase off) …

    But the vast majority of the energy expected to be accumulating is “Missing” or has just been “Emitted” back to space at almost the same rate that it is supposed to be accumulating.

    Post this chart every time a warmer tries to use this Ocean Heat Content accumulation series as some kind of vindication of global warming theory. In reality, it is proving the opposite. It is proving that the theory is quite wrong or is missing something very important or that climate scientists like to mislead their followers instead.

    http://s17.postimage.org/y2qsxky8f/OHC_Missing_Energy_Dec2012.png

  24. Glacierman says:

    Matt N: “Looking for the missing heat is about as futile as OJ looking for the real killers. Neither exist, and everyone knows it.”

    Good one Matt. Modern climate scientists have redefined physics to show that warm water sinks into the deep cold ocean. This change came after the super power of CO2 was discovered which apparently has the ability to turn science(tists) upside down. Thankfully we have good honest scientists like Trenberth constantly redefining things so they make sense/sarc.

  25. richard verney says:

    Kon Dealer says:

    March 26, 2013 at 5:28 am
    ///////////////////////////////////////////

    The UK Met Office (I know that they are a bit of a joke) are suggesting that there will be no rise in global temperatures before 2017. That will make it more than 20 years of natural caused downward forcings exactly equalling out the upwardly acting forcing of increased CO2 emissions.

    If the UK Met Office are right, that would significantly increase your calculated odds.

  26. Bob Tisdale says:

    Jean Parisot says: “Why are we even measuring the atmosphere as climate, the oceans are climate – the atmosphere are weather.”

    And below the surface of the oceans, there are subsurface ocean processes that could be described as “weather”–most of which we haven’t discovered yet. Satellites monitoring ocean salinity have only been in place for a few years.

  27. Gary Pearse says:

    I’m afraid unless you can anchor a distribution of Argo sensors, you are not sampling properly. Since currents move these things around, you are getting over sampling of the temperature of particular bodies of water (the water of the current). I suspect that the deeper layers are better sampled because they are much less variable.

  28. Bob Tisdale says:

    Bill Illis: Your comment would make a great post here at WUWT.

  29. Tom J says:

    If my memory serves me correctly, isn’t this the same Kevin Trenberth who said to us around 1995 and hurricane Katrina that AGW would lead to more and more severe hurricanes? I’m curious, did he discover those devious hurricanes hiding out in the same location that he discovered [through a "reanalysis" (revealing word, eh)] where that ocean heat was hiding out? Were those hurricanes and that ocean heat conspiring to trick us? If he’s now caught the one, as he tells us, can he now catch the other?

  30. ferd berple says:

    Trenberth’s search for the missing heat reminds me if Winnie the Pooh and the search for the North Pole.

    And Pooh saves the day! For he has already found a long pole, and he is already standing downstream with it, and when Kanga comes to help him hold it they set it out over the stream and Roo manages to grab hold of it and climb out. Well done, Pooh!

    Roo is rather overexcited after his Adventure and asks everyone if they saw him swimming. Christopher Robin isn’t paying proper attention though because he is staring at Pooh, who is still holding onto the pole he used to rescue Roo. Christopher Robin asks Pooh where he got the pole from, and Pooh says that he just found it, and Christopher Robin announces that it is not just a pole, it is the North Pole!

  31. Mark Bofill says:

    Supposing for the sake of argument that all of the ‘missing’ energy is going into the deep ocean. Isn’t that basically a win situation anyway? I mean, what difference does it make if the deep ocean warms some small fraction of a degree? We’re basically never going to see that heat again, unless the surface of the planet cools dramatically, right? So, if this is so, why are we still carrying on about AGW? Sea level rise, OK, anything other than that?

    This isn’t an argument, it’s an honest question. What’s the impact of this supposed to be / what’s the significance and why should anybody care? Thanks in advance.

  32. Chuck Nolan says:

    Bob, looking at the above graphs I’ve decided to reduced my concern for CAGW.
    I will check WUWT for three things:
    1. Are they farming Greenland again, yet?
    2. Has the ocean covered any islands, yet?
    3. Have they released the CG3 password, yet?
    Because the remainder of the conversation seems to be about how to use small made up numbers to get at my stash and how to spread out my hard-earned gains.
    cn

  33. ferd berple says:

    The animals stick the North Pole into the ground, and Christopher Robin writes out a notice to remind others that it is the North Pole and that it was discovered by Pooh. And then they all go home, Pooh feeling very proud of what he has achieved on this momentous day.

  34. Bill_W says:

    For the depths below 700 m they are reporting temp. changes of 0.01 degrees. I would like to see error bars on those. Are they errors of only 0.002 degrees? Or are they closer to 0.01 degrees which is half of the observed change over a 50 year period?

    And these error bars only address the instrument used for the measurement. How do they account for error in the fact that only 0.000000001% (estimated) of the ocean volume is being sampled for temperature and certain depths are only sampled 0.0000001% of the time?
    And as someone above pointed out, the floats are being carried by currents so they are mainly measuring the temperatures of these and are not random samples of the ocean. These temperatures, especially for lower depths, are quite uncertain. Yet without extensive “corrections”, it still did not show them what they wanted to see.

  35. kim says:

    Bob T @ 6:29 AM, I particularly like the subsurface ocean processes as weather. I’d like to say ‘the subsurface ocean processes are a continuation of the sun by other means’, but I don’t have the mechanisms all clear yet.
    =============

  36. Old'un says:

    As an interested layman I am bemused by the dramatic decline in ocean heat at all depths after the volcanic erruption circa 1990 (fig 2).
    Clearly, the upper level would have received less solation due to the effect of aerosols, but such a dramatic drop in total heat content seems to imply that the oceans dumped their heat somewhere, and very rapidly too. Atmospheric temperatures also dropped at the same time, so the oceanic heat could not have gone there, or could it? Or is the input data just a load of baloney?

  37. Typhoon says:

    To paraphrase U2:

    “And he still hasn’t found what he’s looking for”

  38. Elsa says:

    I commented on the Skeptical Science site yesterday on their article about this topic. It seems to me a number of points arise from what they say. First the graph for OHC gives a slightly different picture to the one generally painted by warrmists in that for much of the period OHC actually fell. Indeed it looks as though OHC differed little in 2000 from where it had been in the late 1950s. Second the obvious question that arises from the graph is not why the world has got warmer, but rather why does the atmospheric temperature move differently from the ocean temperature. This is a question the authors avoid but rather see the graph as providing further confirmation of their AGW theory. The more alarmist versions of that theory are getting hard to take seriously as, writing from the UK in the coldest March for >50 years and for the third cold winter in a row, the temperature has just not increased in the way that the extreme AGW view predicted. Third I asked why the authors used this mysterious concept OHC at all. Presumably it is derived from temperature and volume of water. The questions I asked were “would the authors not have made life simpler for the ordinary reader by just using temperature?” and “have the authors used OHC rather than temperature because temperature alone would have looked rather less impressive?”. Fourth I stated that the graph did not use actual temperature measurements but instead relied on a model to calculate past data. I did not add, but it does not take much imagination to see that such a procedure is wide open to producing the result you want.
    Needless to say my posts were removed by the “moderator” but this left something odd on the site as several people had commented on my points and begun their replies “Elsa…”. I see Skeptical Science have at least been consistent and removed those comments too so that there is now no record of what somebody who dared to disagree with them actually wrote.

  39. Steven Mosher says:

    “All of the graphs show how poorly the model, the blue “control integration” (CNTL) curves, simulates the warming.”

    well duh. control curves show what the model does without data assimilation.
    Here at WUWT NCEP another re analysis product is often used as evidence. And in Fall et al 2011 ( Anthony’s paper) renanalysis data is used. DMI temperatures at the north pole are also cited here– yet another re analysis product. To get the best results with the models that drive re analysis ( and weather forecasts) we know that data assimilation must be used.

    So, one cannot simply pick and choose when to like reanalysis ( for example Fall et al 2011)
    and when not to like it. Well you can, but the inconsistency is rather obvious.

  40. JustAnotherPoster says:

    The problem is climate scientists see the earth actually like a greenhouse in their models. However there is a massive difference, heat can escape the earth to space. And it does. There is no missing heat because CO2 provides almost zero “insulation” or “back radiation” properties. 75% if the earth is water. The specific heat capacity of water is huge.

    There is no “missing heat” . The models and the theory is wrong.

  41. knr says:

    The very best thing about ‘hidden’ heat is that its ‘hidden’ and the very best thing about the deep ocean is that its ‘deep’, large and largely unknown and therefore a good place to have ‘hidden ‘ things in.

  42. JustAnotherPoster says:

    Also In the 1998 Greenhouse Gas Theory published by hansen, a cooling or standstill or global temperatures isn’t allowed because CO2 is the forcing element of climate temperature. The more we send out into the atmosphere, the higher the temperature should be. Its a very simple and elegant model. And attractive to teachers and politicans because of its simplicity. But its been proven wrong over by observed temperatures not matching theory. And if observations don’t match your hypothesis, your hypothesis is wrong.

    It doesn’t matter how elegant it is either !

  43. Old'un says:

    Whoops – for ‘solation’ read ‘nsolation’

  44. Seth says:

    I would want to know how many measurements at 2000m, at a representative sample of ocean locations around the globe, were made yearly before Argo? What is the accuracy of those measurements?

    Back in 2004, when I was a Third Mate on a container ship, a NOAA guy took a trip with us. While I was on watch he brought a case of probes up and asked me to help him launch them. I would stand on the bridge wing and wait for him to give me the O.K., then I would toss one over and hold the gun until the little copper wire ran out while he started the program and watched the recording; it was TIme vs Temperature as I recall and he explained that the time was used to calculate depth.

    This was done about a dozen times and I think he also launched some on the other watches. It was feed into an old desktop computer that showed a real-time graph which I thought was really cool. After he was done he saved the files on a 3.5″ floppy disk.

    These probes are good to a maximum of 2000m, at least these were, so it is interesting that this depth is cited. I have no idea if the data is incorporated in any of these data sets. I know the NOAA boats use different equipment and cover more areas than just the shipping lanes.

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

  45. Old'un says:

    Insolation!

  46. Richard Sharpe says:

    Perhaps Trenberth should join OJ. They might be more successful together.

  47. izen says:

    I can see that dismissing the findings of this paper that significant energy is accumulating in the deep oceans is the preferred response given the local confirmation bias.
    But is there anyone here that thinks the findings of this and other recent research that the oceans are warming is completely wrong or can be described {not explained} as an exclusively natural variation?

    There is robust evidence that ocean heat content has not varied like this in the past because sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades. I would be interested in anybody who can provide and argument for the recent changes seen NOT being clear evidence of energy accumulating in the oceans, given the credibility of the results from several sources and methods i think there is a better than 95% probability that ocean heat content IS rising beyond the ‘natural variation’ that might be eected from ENSO and volcanic influences.

  48. knr says:

    izen
    ‘because sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades. ‘

    Really try give us the sea level increase in the year 1020 , to the neatest inch.

    What’s that you say its impossible becasue the data is simply not there , and yet you ‘know ‘ sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades.
    How does that work ?

  49. izen:

    At March 26, 2013 at 8:03 am you falsely assert

    There is robust evidence that ocean heat content has not varied like this in the past because sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades.

    Really!? You know that? How?
    And there is “robust evidence” for it? Really? What is this “robust evidence”?

    We have real problems determining accurate and precise sea level changes resulting from warming (and not isostacy) “in the last few decades”. How are “robust” determinations obtained for the “last few millennia” with the accuracy and precision for your assertions to be possible of being true?

    Richard

  50. Peter Foster says:

    I have a problem with ocean heat graphs. All the ocean heat graphs show ocean heat as increasing in the last decade but the ocean temperature graphs that Bob has put in various posts show ocean temperatures are cooling since 2002. How can this be. Heat is calculated from H=mst (with deltas before H & t ) so if ocean heat is increasing and temperature decreasing then mass or or s must be increasing to compensate and there appears to be no evidence for this?

  51. Gary Pearse says:

    Old’un says:
    March 26, 2013 at 7:46 am

    “Insolation!”

    That’s not how you spell insolence.

  52. Barry Cullen says:

    If your fig 1 (their fig 4) Y-axis’ all had the same full scale temp range, i.e. T + 0.0 to T + 0.4°C, then the several hundredths of a degree changes below 700 M would visually disappear. In any event, I question whether measuring to <0.01°C accurately and precisely, across a multitude of measuring devices, e.g. Pt res., thermister, Hg thermo, other, is even possible. The noise must simply overwhelm any signal.
    GIGO

    BTW – I have an old differential Hg thermometer that does read to <<0.01°C but setting it accurately is near impossible. Good for small ∆T's only.

  53. Hector Pascal says:

    @izen

    There is robust evidence that ocean heat content has not varied like this in the past because sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades.

    You start with a fallacy. Sea levels have varied considerably throughout the Holocene. A place to start is here, with the Older Peron transgression.

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

    The Older Peron was a “transgression” in the sense of marine transgression, a period of advancing global sea level. Warm temperatures forced a retreat in the glaciers and ice sheets of the global cryosphere; throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average……

  54. Bob Tisdale says:

    izen says: “But is there anyone here that thinks the findings of this and other recent research that the oceans are warming is completely wrong or can be described {not explained} as an exclusively natural variation?”

    Here’s a link to the essay that illustrates the warming of the global oceans has been natural since 1955 for ocean heat content and during the satellite era for sea surface temperatures (42MB):
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf
    In other words, there is nothing in the ocean heat content and sea surface temperature data to indicate there’s an anthropogenic component.

    Regards

  55. Gary Pearse says:

    izen
    March 26, 2013 at 8:03 am

    “… i think there is a better than 95% probability that ocean heat content IS rising beyond the ‘natural variation’

    You want precise evidence that nat variability could cause the increase in OHC and you offer: I think? Note the ordinate in the graphs show the delta T to be less than 0.1C over 50 years and they have even fiddled the data (removed ‘bias’).

  56. Bob Tisdale says:

    Seth: In the linked post…
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/
    …under the heading of “LACK OF OBSERVATIONAL DATA PRIOR TO ARGO” are 3 large gif animations of global maps that show the locations of the measurements at depths of 250m, 500m and 1500m for the temperature data included in the NOAA database. Maybe you can spot your handiwork. They’re pretty sparse so you might be able to find them.

    Regards

  57. michael hart says:

    lol The universe is full of irony.
    Darth Trenberth continues his search for the missing heat, yet holds court with those who are convinced they have discovered a weapon of mass destruction.

  58. RockyRoad says:

    izen says:
    March 26, 2013 at 8:03 am


    There is robust evidence that ocean heat content has not varied like this in the past because sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades.

    Before you dis people for their skepticism, can you offer proof of the above statement before we take up your challenge? Why do you say “ocean heat content has not varied like this in the past because sea levels have not altered in the lst few millennia”? What’s your basis for that correlation? Where’s your proof? Can you isolate all the contributing factors and eliminate all but the one you prefer?

  59. policycritic says:

    Peter Miller says:
    March 26, 2013 at 2:39 am

    How do joules to the power 22 relate to actual ocean temperatures? Should there not be a direct measurable relationship between these and how can this ‘heat’ possibly be hidden?

    Read this. What you want to know starts in paragraph five.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/weak-warming-of-the-oceans-1955-2010-implies-low-climate-sensitivity/

  60. izen says:

    So there are claims that the current ocean heat content and associated sea level rise ‘could’ be natural because early in the Holocene when the perihelion date caused extra N hemisphere warmth there are signs that this raised the sea level by between three and twelve feet.
    Given that the present extra energy from rising CO2 is greater than the extra solar energy due to the perihelion date I don’t find this reassuring.

    When do you expect the present sea level to reach the past Peron transgression levels given the similar conditions ?

  61. DCA says:

    “robust evidence” = model data (sarc)

  62. Duster says:

    izen says:
    March 26, 2013 at 8:03 am
    ***
    There is robust evidence that ocean heat content has not varied like this in the past because sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades. I would be interested in anybody who can provide and argument for the recent changes seen NOT being clear evidence of energy accumulating in the oceans, given the credibility of the results from several sources and methods i think there is a better than 95% probability that ocean heat content IS rising beyond the ‘natural variation’ that might be eected from ENSO and volcanic influences.

    You could be a little clearer concerning what you mean by the “last few millennia.” There are very clear indications from Australia, Tasmania, Oceania, Brazil, Southeast China and Texas, among other areas that Holocene sea-level high stands have been as much as 1.5 meters above the present. That works out to a downward trend in mean sea level over roughly the last 5,000 to 6,000 years of about 0.25 mm/yr even after you include the rise from the 19th century to the present. The timing of peak high stands in the mid-Holocene are uncertain and estimates range from 6,000 BP to as little as 1,500 B.P., e.g. Grossman et al. 1998 [Coral Reefs, September 1998, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 309-327]. So, current sea level rise might simply be a product of the planet moving out of the LIA. Any argument regarding sea-level high stands is also complicated by possible tectonic and isostatic changes in land elevation following the Wisconsinan (Wurm) glacial epoch. While there is clear evidence of Holocene high stands in the areas mentioned above, along the west coast of North America such evidence appears to be absent, but may simply be masked in misinterpreted data. There is nothing simple about this issue and no one in the literature has offered a self-evidently reliable means of making any rational evaluation of “natural” vs. greater than natural heat content shifts.

  63. rw says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    I can see a Josh cartoon with pith-helmeted Trenbeth in a diving suite with butterfly net and magnifying glass looking for the missing heat in the ocean.

    ferd berple says:
    Trenberth’s search for the missing heat reminds me if Winnie the Pooh and the search for the North Pole

    And I can see a variation on “The Hunting of the Snark”.

  64. izen:

    At March 26, 2013 at 8:03 am you posted falsehoods in this thread.
    In response, several people – including me – quoted your falsehoods and requested explanation from you.

    At March 26, 2013 at 10:05 am you have replied to the several objections to your falsehoods. Your reply does not apologise, does not explain your behaviour, and does not to attempt to substantiate your false claims.

    Instead, you try to change the subject.

    All your posts on WUWT are a waste of space, but your posts in this thread are not acceptable behaviour in any forum. WUWT is the most respected science blog precisely because it allows people to post nonsense of the kind that you do then allows others to point out that it is nonsense. Were you to obtain some sense then you would understand that your posts on WUWT bring scorn upon you so you would adjust your behaviour.

    Please refrain from posting falsehoods which disupt the thread by need for rebuttals.

    Richard

  65. rw says:

    izen says:

    There is robust evidence that ocean heat content has not varied like this in the past because sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades.
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    So when do you expect the sea level benchmark on the Isle of the Dead in Tasmania to begin to be obscured at low tide? Will it be any day now?

  66. john robertson says:

    Why does Trenberth, bring to mind a druggie staring at an off station TV , and claiming to see aliens?
    The izens’s are insisting he really does see aliens, look he wrote a comic saying so.
    Travesty mann will be retiring into obscurity soon enough, shame the taxpayer has to fund a pension for such an employee.

  67. Resourceguy says:

    They left out deep ocean trenches as a place to hide ocean heat. That will be the last resort. You heard it here first.

  68. michael hart says:

    Izen,
    Your “given” is not necessarily taken.

  69. cui bono says:

    Thanks Bob.

    It does seem that when one alarmist claim bites the dust, they just change the goalposts.

    Atmosphere not warming? Heat must be in the oceans.
    Heat not in upper oceans? Must be in the darkest depths, where nobody can check.
    So, ‘no warming’ problem solved. See?

    This isn’t science. It’s a game of ‘bullshit’. http://www.wikihow.com/Play-Bullshit

  70. Seth says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    March 26, 2013 at 9:32 am
    ——————————————
    Thank you, I just took a glance at the three gifs and could instantly recognize the shipping lanes in the earlier years. The one I was on at the time (JUNE 2004) was from the East Coast of the US on a great circle route that passes just south of the Azores before hitting Gibraltar. I’m sure our small part is hiding in there somewhere.

    I would guess the earlier North Atlantic readings from vessels of opportunity would mostly be taken in the gulf stream heading East as ours were due to the obvious fuel/time savings taken advantage of by commercial vessels; also in the winter months the lanes move south, usually on a rhumb line, to avoid the nasty winter North Atlantic weather as much as possible.

    I do remember now that he would launch a couple every 6 hours, 0000, 0600, 1200 and 1800 UTC corresponding to the times we were requested to send them our weather observations; he was up several days on my watch until the time changes took him to another watch.

    I wish I was more aware of this then, I would have remembered a lot more detail.

  71. Gary Pearse says:

    I think Trenberth had better give up on this. Searching for the Missing Heat in the Deep Oceans will be all he is remembered for and to those with non-climate interests, it must sound like the title of one of those full length animated adventure stories a la TinTin. He’s spent probably a decade in the search of this Heat and he’s near retirement age (this kind of stuff might be a signal to oneself that it is time go). Its one thing to search for Troy or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon because history reports that they existed. It’s another when the hidden object is an artifact of dubious models, a faulty hypothesis that is collapsing at one’s feet and equivocal data. If Heat can hide on you guys, how can climate science even be a legitimate endeavor. You have had several hints that rather than heat hiding, the amount of heat you are looking for is not as great as you thought. Now Hadley C and even Pachauri are giving up on it and what do you do, you redouble your efforts in the quest! You are perhaps the most Quixotic among your colleagues.

  72. mark fraser says:

    Richard: Re izen – just wondering if he’s a genuine hippie local who drifts around in a cloud of alfalfa smoke.

  73. Stephen Richards says:

    Given that the present extra energy from rising CO2 is greater than the extra solar energy due to the perihelion date I don’t find this reassuring.

    Who’s given? Where do you dream up this crap? Are you in colorado and started the pot smoking early.?

  74. Stephen Richards says:

    JOSH, where are you ? There’s got to be room here for one of your classic cartoons. You know, Trenberth looking everywhere for his heat. There could be some really funny places to look.

  75. Pardon me if I get the scientific terminology wrong (!)

    But as the oceans are a much bigger store of energy than the atmosphere will ever be, any warming effect on the oceans caused by GHG in the atmosphere will be minute in comparison

    Can we possibly measure such minute changes over a handful of years, over such a vast area of sea, and down to such depths?

    And given the temperature changes in the oceans we know of that are caused by various natural factors, would it not take decades, or even centuries, before any underlying GHG effects became apparent, never mind measurable?

  76. Kristian says:

    Something significant happened in the aftermath of El Niño 2009/10 regarding global OHC:
    http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/OHCNvsS_zps61618358.jpg

    Notice how during the ARGO era, the northernmost two thirds of the world ocean (90N-24S) has in fact generally been cooling (NODC, 0-700m) while the southern third (24-90S) has generally been warming.

    But what happens mid 2010?!

  77. Gary Pearse says:

    Looking for the missing heat? So is Europe still in the grip of freezing winter weather -100s dead…. State of emergency in Ukraine ….. snow in Tripoli Libya. We better find this heat soon – it’s sorely needed.

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/23/europe-shock-freeze-catastrophe-winter-continues-german-televison-warns-coldest-night-in-100-years/

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2030

  78. Mac the Knife says:

    When I got up last Saturday morning, I found a bucket of water on the lawn had grown a layer of 0.25 inch thick ice over night. Apparently, the missing heat is not at my place either, much to the frost induced wilted dismay of my budding tulips!
    MtK

  79. bw says:

    The Levitus paper states that the 14E22 joules translates to 0.037 degrees.
    The report of increased OHC is little more than a computer generated estimation. The ACTUAL quantity of changes to the ocean heat content are unknown. If the authors were honest, they would put the error bars onto those graphs. I’d guess the error bars would have a range greater than the Y-scale on their graphs.
    To put the ocean heat content in scale, the volumetric heat capacity of seawater is about 3200 times the atmosphere. Eg. one cubic meter of ocean has 800 times the density of the cubic meter of atmosphere it touches. About 1000 kg vs 1.2.
    Every kg of seawater has about 4 times the mass heat capacity of the air above it, 4J/gm vs 1J/gm.
    800 times 4 = 3200
    Only 10 meters of ocean depth holds the same mass as the entire planetary atmosphere, and that volume has 4 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The land surface has even greater heat capacity, but being solid has less mass being “exposed” to the atmosphere, so it’s harder to quantify. In that limited sense, the oceans have thousands of times the “resistance to thermal change” that might occur in the atmosphere.
    When Levitus states that 0.1C change of ocean temp is equal to 100C in the atmosphere, he is likely underestimating by an order of magnitude.

  80. resourceguy said

    ‘they left out deep ocean trenches as a place to hide ocean heat. That will be the last resort. You heard it here first.’

    Sorry, you are way too late. Thats what the IPCC actually said in the draft Ar5. As a reviewer i asked for a copy of the abyssal research proving this. it was never forthcoming

    tonyb

  81. Bill Illis says:

    Regarding heat accumulation hiding in the deep ocean, there have been two studies of deep ocean heat accumulation below 2000 metres (below the levels which are more-or-less already fully accounted for and shown in the figures above).

    One study was for a region next to Antarctica and the other was for (most of) the North Atlantic.

    The Antarctic one found a very small warming rate which if extrapolated around the world’s ocean would still be an extremely small number (0.009 W/m2).

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1

    The other for the North Atlantic found a significant cooling trend below 2000 metres since about 1970 (warming above 2000 metres up until 2005 but that is already accounted for above – and it is has been nuetral/cooling above 2000 metres after 2005).

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n12/full/ngeo1639.html

    So, we have to conclude for now that there is NO ocean heat accumulation hiding below 2000 metres (ie. we do not have to include a below 2000 metres figure until someone does the whole ocean below 2000 metres – so far there is just one small positive and one larger negative estimate).

  82. TimTheToolMan says:

    izen writes “early in the Holocene when the perihelion date caused extra N hemisphere warmth there are signs that this raised the sea level by between three and twelve feet.”

    So more sun in the Northern Hemisphere (where the water isn’t) and less sun in the Southern hemisphere (where the water is) caused the oceans to warm and result in sea level rise?

    I think its time for you to rethink your argument because its only handwaving.

  83. Bart says:

    Bill Illis says:
    March 26, 2013 at 6:24 am

    Your post needs clarification. Joules ought to be measured per cubic meter, not square meter. Are you implicitly making some conversion of flux based on some time measure, e.g., per year, and some volume relative to surface area?

  84. Bart says:

    In a real scientific arena, the notion that heat could be transferred to the depths, leaving no signature of its passage in the upper layers, would be greeted by gales of laughter. Pathetic.

  85. izen says:

    @- richardscourtney
    “At March 26, 2013 at 8:03 am you posted falsehoods in this thread.
    In response, several people – including me – quoted your falsehoods and requested explanation from you.”

    I always welcome your criticism Richard, the more negative the better I know I am making my point. But in claiming I have posted a falsehood in asserting that there has been no significant sea level rise since they stabilised several thousand years ago at the end of the melt from the last ice age I am afraid you have erred.

    There IS robust evidence for the stability of sea level since around 4500 BPE as anyone with the ability to use a search engine can confirm for themselves. I am always puzzled why people ask for evidence when it can be found easily by a search, I would only ask if I cannot find evidence myself.
    And as you may be aware by now I do not post a claim unless I think there is robust peer reviewed published research to back it up.

    So the evidence for the stability of sea levels is threefold, geological, archeological and astronomical.
    Here is a clue, Roman fish ponds and eclipse dates. That should enable you to find the evidence youself. If you are really stuck get back to me for the specific links.

  86. izen says:

    @-Bart
    “In a real scientific arena, the notion that heat could be transferred to the depths, leaving no signature of its passage in the upper layers, would be greeted by gales of laughter.”

    I would be fascinated to know what in the real scientific arena the signiture IS of heat transffering to the depths. Just what sort of signature do you think is missing ??

  87. izen:

    I am replying to your outrageous post at March 27, 2013 at 2:56 am.

    At March 26, 2013 at 10:55 am I wrote a post addressed to you. I copy it here in total to save others the need to find it.

    izen:

    At March 26, 2013 at 8:03 am you posted falsehoods in this thread.
    In response, several people – including me – quoted your falsehoods and requested explanation from you.

    At March 26, 2013 at 10:05 am you have replied to the several objections to your falsehoods. Your reply does not apologise, does not explain your behaviour, and does not to attempt to substantiate your false claims.

    Instead, you try to change the subject.

    All your posts on WUWT are a waste of space, but your posts in this thread are not acceptable behaviour in any forum. WUWT is the most respected science blog precisely because it allows people to post nonsense of the kind that you do then allows others to point out that it is nonsense. Were you to obtain some sense then you would understand that your posts on WUWT bring scorn upon you so you would adjust your behaviour.

    Please refrain from posting falsehoods which disrupt the thread by need for rebuttals.

    That post was clear, accurate and as polite a request as possible for you to stop posting falsehoods which disrupt threads and incur the derision which others have provided to your falsehoods in this thread.

    Your response to that request is at March 27, 2013 at 2:56 am. It consists solely and entirely of additional falsehoods some of which are directed at me personally.

    Perhaps the most outrageous of those additional falsehoods is this piece of gob-smacking blarny,.

    And as you may be aware by now I do not post a claim unless I think there is robust peer reviewed published research to back it up.

    I know from long experience that you post complete bollocks that has no relation to reality and you always fail to back-up your nonsense with any evidence.

    You posted outrageous falsehoods in this thread, I and others have provided several refutations of those falsehoods, and – as always – you proclaim that there is evidence to support your falsehoods but you don’t cite it, quote it, and/or explain it.

    I can only conclude that you are the pot-smoking idiot that two people have suggested in this thread, or that you are completely deluded.

    I repeat, were you to obtain some sense then you would understand that your posts on WUWT bring scorn upon you so you would adjust your behaviour.

    Richard

  88. izen says:

    @- richardscourtney
    I was in favour of allowing you to discover the evidence for yourself. Unfortunately you seem to prefer claiming that my assertion such evidence does exist is a falsehood.
    I leave to the disinterested reader to decide which claim is false.

    http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/19674/
    The updated ice-age predictions and observations permit an anomalous 20th century ice flux of ∼1 mm/yr equivalent sea-level rise. Thus, the full suite of Earth rotation observations are consistent with a connection between climatic warming and recent melting of ice reservoirs.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6269-ancient-romes-fish-pens-confirm-sealevel-fears.html
    Coastal fish pens built by the Romans have unexpectedly provided the most accurate record so far of changes in sea level over the past 2000 years. It appears that nearly all the rise in sea level since Roman times has happened in the past 100 years, and is most likely the result of human activity.

  89. Bill Illis says:

    Bart says:
    March 26, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    Bill Illis says:
    March 26, 2013 at 6:24 am
    Your post needs clarification. Joules ought to be measured per cubic meter, not square meter.
    ————————————–

    What is a square metre measured from the surface down to 2000 metres.

    Conversion rates are 1.0 W/m2 across the whole surface of the Earth of 510 million sq. metres over 1.0 full year = 1.61 10^22 joules. Just the oceans is 1.13 10^22 joules. Now you can go back and forth between joules and watts/m2 .

    And the formal scientific definition of 1.0 joule is 1.0 watt/m2/second so it is possible to just go back and forth as long as you keep all the denominators and the math consistent.

    And another little factoid to keep things in perspective is that 1.0 joule is the energy contained 3,018,412,315,122,250,000 average solar photons or 15,092,061,575,611,200,000 average long-wave Earth-emission photons. A joule is a real thing.

  90. richardscourtney says:

    izen:

    You are incorrigible. Your post at March 27, 2013 at 6:29 am is facile.

    You were asked to substantiate your false claims by several people and now – when cornered – you provide links to information that others have already rebutted in this thread and demonstrate that you presented falsehoods..

    Your first link is
    http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/19674/
    This was completely answered earlier in the succinct post by DCA at March 26, 2013 at 10:07 am which said in total

    “robust evidence” = model data (sarc)

    The only fault in DCA’s post was his inclusion of the “(sarc)” because you now say that is precisely what you meant.

    Your second link is
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6269-ancient-romes-fish-pens-confirm-sealevel-fears.html
    This reports a pre-publication press release about a study which models isostatic change and removes the model results from the data for a few locations on the Italian coast which is subjected to volcanic changes. You certainly are deluded if you think that is “robust evidence” for unusual recent global sea level change as a result of ocean heat content.

    All model studies of the kind you cite by providing your two links are based on the assumptions built into the models. Any such ‘study’ is a statement of opinion and by no stretch of imagination could be considered to be “robust evidence”.

    I remind that my first post to you in this thread was at March 26, 2013 at 8:27 am and said in full

    izen:

    At March 26, 2013 at 8:03 am you falsely assert

    There is robust evidence that ocean heat content has not varied like this in the past because sea levels have not altered in the last few millennia as they have in the last few decades.

    Really!? You know that? How?
    And there is “robust evidence” for it? Really? What is this “robust evidence”?

    We have real problems determining accurate and precise sea level changes resulting from warming (and not isostacy) “in the last few decades”. How are “robust” determinations obtained for the “last few millennia” with the accuracy and precision for your assertions to be possible of being true?

    Simply, your assertion that there is “robust evidence” for atypically high recent sea level rise is pure fantasy. In other words it is a falsehood which is typical of the falsehoods with which you disrupt threads on WUWT.

    I yet again request that you stop disrupting WUWT threads with your falsehoods.

    Richard

  91. William Astley says:

    In reply to Tom J
    Tom J says:
    March 26, 2013 at 6:56 am
    If my memory serves me correctly, isn’t this the same Kevin Trenberth who said to us around 1995 and hurricane Katrina that AGW would lead to more and more severe hurricanes?
    William,
    Hi Tom.
    Your recollection is correct. Trenberth is a lead author for the IPCC.

    The gig is up for the search for the missing heat. It appears the planet has started to cool. The driver appears to be the abrupt change in the solar magnetic cycle (Any other explanation besides the sun? What else has changed? It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year. It will be interesting to hear the imaginative explanations for global cooling from the extreme AGW paradigm pushers.)

    Climategate modifications to data can change a graph, they cannot change observed planetary temperature. What are you going to believe your own eyes and senses (i.e. Record snow fall, record cold temperature, record sea ice both poles (Arctic sea ice will make a recovery based on the paleoclimatic record which shows there are cycles of warming followed by cooling.)

    Evidence of manipulation of public opinion to push the climate change agenda by a lead IPCC author?

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns…. …Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4′s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
    Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

    This March could be the coldest of the last 100 years (Europe)
    Europe’s bitter cold winter refuses to let up!
    For some areas we are now hearing that it is being called the “100-year winter”. Temperature forecast anomaly for the next 7 days. …. …For example, Berlin’s online daily Tagesspiegel writes today: Berlin freezes in 100-year winter. Lots of snow and bitter cold until the end of March – Berlin hasn’t seen this in more than 100 years.” … …Forget the tall tales spread by Mojib Latif. We haven’t forgotten what real winters are. We just haven’t seen anything like this since measurements began in 1895!…. …. ‘There has never been anything like this in Berlin in the last third of March since snow measurements began in 1895,’ says weather expert Friedemann Schenk of the Meteorological Institute for the Freien Universitat (FU).”

    Colder trend is not limited to Europe.
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_ytd.png
    Antarctic sea ice is at record.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
    Arctic sea ice is about to make a dramatic recovery.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2012-12-03_at_1.59.59_PM.png

  92. izen says:

    @- richardscourtney
    Neither of the pieces of evidence I cite uses models to validate its results. The fact that you think the evidence is deluded or unreliable does not affect the credibility of the findings in the general scientific community. But I am sure that you are aware that no credible authority on these matters would dissent from the findings that sea level rise is recent and driven by anthropogenic warming.

    Calling well established scientific findings delusional does nothing to enhance your own credibility in this field. It is a measure of your dissonance with mainstream science that I value the scorn you direct my way as a measure of my accuracy.

  93. Steve Zell says:

    If Trenberth and Balmaseda are looking for “missing heat” in the ocean depths, they will need lots of VERY accurate thermometers. People might be daunted by multiples of 10^22 Joules, but it should be remembered that the volume of the Earth’s oceans is about 1.335(10^18) cubic meters, and the energy required to warm 1 m3 of water by 1 K is about 4.19(10^6) Joules. Even the extreme end of Balmaseda’s Figure 1 (20×10^22 J = 2×10^23 J) would warm the Earth’s oceans by an average of only 0.036 K. Do Balmaseda, Trenberth, or anyone else have access to thousands of thermometers that can continuously measure sea water temperatures to a precision of 0.01 K under 2000 meters of salt water, or about 200 times atmospheric pressure? Has anyone checked these temperature gauges for zero drift?

    By the way, the coefficient of expansion of sea water is about 0.0002 per degree K. Dividing the volume of the oceans by their surface area results in an average depth of 3690 meters. So, if the oceans warmed by 0.036 K, the sea level would rise by 3690 m x 0.036 K x 0.0002 = 0.027 m, or slightly over an inch. Not nearly enough to flood Florida, Bangladesh, or even Tuvalu.

    If Balmaseda and Trenberth claim to have found a huge amount of “missing heat”, they need to check the signal-to-noise ratio of their instruments. No biggie here!

  94. D.B. Stealey says:

    izen says:

    “…no credible authority on these matters would dissent from the findings that sea level rise is recent and driven by anthropogenic warming.”

    izen is delusional.

  95. izen:

    I concluded my post (at March 27, 2013 at 8:04 am) which laughed at your so-called “evidence” by again requesting that you stop posting falsehoods on WUWT.

    Undaunted, at March 27, 2013 at 8:54 am, you reply with more falsehood; i.e.

    @- richardscourtney
    Neither of the pieces of evidence I cite uses models to validate its results. The fact that you think the evidence is deluded or unreliable does not affect the credibility of the findings in the general scientific community. But I am sure that you are aware that no credible authority on these matters would dissent from the findings that sea level rise is recent and driven by anthropogenic warming.

    Your two links ONLY referred to model studies.
    To aid others checking this for themselves I again copy your links to your so-called “robust evidence”.
    http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/19674/
    and
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6269-ancient-romes-fish-pens-confirm-sealevel-fears.html

    Furthermore, I dispute that your second link is “evidence” of anything except that your posting it as “evidence” of your earlier falsehoods is evidence of your idiocy.

    It is a report in New Scientist magazine of a pre-publication press release about a study which models isostatic change and removes the model results from the data for a few locations on the Italian coast which is subjected to volcanic changes.

    (a) Press releases often differ from the papers they advertise.
    (b) Journalists often misrepresent press releases.
    (c) Any coast around the Med. is a poor indicator of past global sea level change rates because the entire region is subject to frequent earthquakes. At one end of the Med. there was the Lisbon earthquake and at the other end the remains of Alexandria are several meters below the sea.

    I yet again ask you to stop posting falsehoods and point out that your silly falsehoods bring scorn upon you.

    Richard

  96. izen

    Where did you get the idea that sea levels have been stable since 4500BCE?

    I wrote about the subject of sea level rise from the Holocene to the Romans here;

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/

    Of course the sea level has varied in the past. Why wouldn’t it when glaciers have melted and temperatures warmed during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods?
    tonyb

  97. Bart says:

    izen says:
    March 27, 2013 at 3:10 am

    I would be fascinated to know what in the real scientific arena the signiture IS of heat transffering to the depths.

    An increase in heat in the layers through which it is transferred. Is that not self-evident? It’s not like there are insulated tubes carrying turbo-pumped waters down from the surface at high speed, you know. 

    Ocean circulation takes hundreds of years, and the waters are in constant contact with their surroundings. You are not going to heat the depths from forcing at the surface without also heating the waters in-between, and it wouldn’t take a mere 30 odd years to manifest itself. The notion is a loser on all counts, and a massive, flailing, Hail Mary pass of desperation.

    Bill Illis says:
    March 27, 2013 at 7:06 am

    And the formal scientific definition of 1.0 joule is 1.0 watt/m2/second…

    I am neither confirming nor disputing your conversion factors, but a Watt is a Joule per second, which is the time-rate-of-change (i.e., temporal flux) of energy.

  98. izen says:

    @- richardscourtney
    I apologise for the discourtesy of my last reply. Throwing scorn and ad hominens at each other is silly.
    In an attempt to drag things back on topic… Ocean heat content is difficult and complex to measure, the will always be uncertainties and error bounds. But one key indicator is the rise in sea level caused by the thermal expansion of the oceans. Separating this from the addition of water from land-based ice is complex, but while certainty is out of reach that does not mean that it is completely unknown.

    Past and present changes in sea level therefore become a useful indicator of both ocean heat content and the trend in ice mass balance. There may be uncertainties in the determination of tectonic movement over the Italian coast since Roman times, but there are hard limits on how much, or little it could have moved. This is NOT climate science, it is basic geology and while I can understand a distrust of climate science on the part of those motivated to reject AGW itis clearly toxic if that distrust expands to include other fields of scientific research such as geology or astronomy in the case of using eclipse dates and locations to constrain changes in the Earths rotation that also puts hard limits on the amount of sea level change there has been in the past.

    Whatever you personal cavil and quibbles the best scientific evidence we have is that sea level has been stable at least since Roman times and probably for around four millennia. As far as I can see the only reason for your rejection of this basic finding is because it has implications for the amount of ocean heat content accumulating in recent decades.

  99. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Hmmm…maybe Svensmark was correct? Quiet sun = more cooling due to cloud formation from cosmic radiation. We’ve kicked this around endlessly on WUWT, is the data now supporting this theory?

  100. tonyb says:

    Izen

    You say again;

    ‘Whatever you personal cavil and quibbles the best scientific evidence we have is that sea level has been stable at least since Roman times and probably for around four millennia. As far as I can see the only reason for your rejection of this basic finding is because it has implications for the amount of ocean heat content accumulating in recent decades.’

    I provided you with evidence above that it hasnt. Please read it.

    tonyb

  101. richardscourtney says:

    tonyb:

    re your post at March 28, 2013 at 9:36 am, izen will not “read it”.

    Izen posts nonsense and only nonsense. Anyone who reads this thread can see that izen knows what he posts is nonsense. But he hopes his nonsense will hide truth from uninformed onlookers.

    When his nonsense is exposed then he ignores the exposure. For example, your post which I am answering was in response to izen’s post at March 28, 2013 at 8:46 am. And that post from izen was his pathetic attempt at damage limitation in response to my ridicule (at March 27, 2013 at 12:05 pm) of his falsehoods.

    Izen has been posting nonsense – and only nonsense – on WUWT for years. It is time to expose his falsehoods when he provides them, and I am gratified that many people have reviled izen’s falsehoods in this thread.

    Richard

Comments are closed.