Reactions to ‘the pause': Grasping at strawmen in hidey holes

It has been quite entertaining to watch the various explanations coming out to rationalize “the pause” in surface temperatures for the last 16 years. For example, as Jerome Ravetz points out to me in email, The Times Hannah Devlin says the warming has just gone into hiding.

Times_AGW_hidden

But there is a funny thing about that deep ocean warming.

As Bob Tisdale wrote:

Ever since the NODC released their ocean heat content data for the depths of 0-2000 meters and published Levitus et al (2012), it seems that each time a skeptic writes a blog post or answers a question in an interview, in which he or she states that global surface temperatures haven’t warmed in “X” years, a global warming enthusiast will counter with something to the effect of: global warming hasn’t slowed because ocean heat content continues to show warming at depths of 0-2000 meters. Recently, those same people are linking Balmaseda et al (2013) and claiming the warming of ocean heat content data continues.

It is true that the NODC’s ARGO-era ocean heat content (0-2000 meters) continues to warm globally, but always recall that the ARGO data had to be adjusted, modified, tweaked, corrected, whatever, in order to create that warming. That is, the “raw” ocean heat content data for 0-2000 meters shows the decreased rate of warming after the ARGO floats were deployed. (See the post here.) Also, while the much-revised NODC ocean heat content data for 0-2000 meters might show warming globally, it shows very little warming for the Northern Hemisphere oceans since 2005. See Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Can well-mixed human-created greenhouse gases pick and choose between the hemispheres, warming one but not the other? One might think that’s very unlikely.

Something else to consider: the Northern Hemisphere warming of ocean heat content for depths of 0-2000 meters occurs in only one ocean basin, and it’s not one of the big ones.

Right there is a premise falsifier. But I find this figure even more interesting:

There was a comparatively minor warming in the Northern Hemisphere at depths of 0-2000 meters from 2005 to 2012. But the upper 700 meters in the Northern Hemisphere cooled. The difference is provided to show the additional warming that occurred at depths of 700 to 2000 meters.

Figure 2

Figure 2

So the question here is simple. As Hannah Devlin writes in the Times:

The pause in global warming during the past decade is because more heat than expected is being absorbed by the deep oceans, according to scientists.

How does that heat get to the deep ocean hidey hole, down to 2000 meters, without first warming the upper 700 meters in transit? That’s some neat trick.

You can read more on how that deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t seem to hold up when the data is examined carefully here.

The claim has been made that its the sun doing it:

[Tisdale] SkepticalScience’s Rob Painting provides a reasonable explanation of the hypothetical cause of greenhouse gas-driven warming of the global oceans in the post Observed Warming in Ocean and Atmosphere is Incompatible with Natural Variation. Painting writes (my boldface):

Arguably the most significant climate-related impact of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is that they trap more heat in the ocean. Over the last half-century around 93% of global warming has actually gone into heating the ocean. A little-known fact is that the oceans are almost exclusively heated by sunlight (shortwave radiation) entering the surface layers.

Back in 2009 it was claimed that solar radiation changes would do just that:

Guardian_5year_warming

Well Duncan, we are still here, speaking clearly to the issue.

That article was a reaction to this Judith Lean Paper in GRL (bold mine):

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

How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades?

Judith L. Lean, David H. Rind Article first published online: 15 AUG 2009 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL038932

Reliable forecasts of climate change in the immediate future are difficult, especially on regional scales, where natural climate variations may amplify or mitigate anthropogenic warming in ways that numerical models capture poorly. By decomposing recent observed surface temperatures into components associated with ENSO, volcanic and solar activity, and anthropogenic influences, we anticipate global and regional changes in the next two decades. From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15 ± 0.03°C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03 ± 0.01°C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming. We further illustrate how a major volcanic eruption and a super ENSO would modify our global and regional temperature projections.

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

Since that obviously hasn’t happened, and “the pause” is an inconvenient truth, the cheerleaders are looking for alternate explanations. Voila! The deep ocean hidey hole.

The ocean provides the perfect cover for global warming because unlike the atmosphere, few people experience it directly. Few people go diving down to 2000 meters with thermometers and few people go swimming in the ocean  with pH meters to check the claims of “ocean acidification”.

On the other hand, virtually the whole of humanity can and has experienced “the pause” in air temperatures.

When the deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t pan out in a few years, and that stored hidden warming doesn’t spring out of the deep ocean like a caged lion, where will they put the warming next? They are running out of places.

200 thoughts on “Reactions to ‘the pause': Grasping at strawmen in hidey holes

  1. Sorry for the scream, but: again and again, WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? What told the heat to hide? In 50 words or less of plain English, please.

  2. Picking fly sh*t out of the black pepper is always a productive enterprise, especially when it’s 2000 m under the ocean.

  3. It’s hidden from view, but we will reveal it by shooting the pictures of boats at low tide.

  4. Error Bars! Error Bars!

    Ocean Heat Content should never be discussed without simultaneous conversion to changes in temperature: Worldwise it takes 273 ZettaJoules (ZJ) to raise the 0-2000m layer of ocean 0.1 deg C.

    The most “alarming” figure, from the first chart, of 6.91E22 Joules/Decade for the Southern Hemisphere boils down to 69 ZJ/decade for maybe 1/2 of the world’s oceans. So, at worst case, we see 69/(273/2) or about 0.05 deg C / decade of warming of the ocean in the worst case.

  5. Tele-connections.

    Surely you remember them. Do I have to keep explaining this? The heat from here — tele-heats the stuff over there. Please see the relevant papers by Dr. M. Mann.

    Sheesh — some people forget so easily.

    Next problem please!

  6. Just out of curiosity, why did this process (energy going into the deep ocean) not occur from 1970 to 1996? Does it just occur when the solar radiance decreases (rhetorical question.) I too, wondered to many AWG supporters how the deep ocean might warm, but the surface not. This is more pathological science from very poor scientists who have a poor grasp of basic thermodynamics.

  7. In a few years the enthusiasts will have transformed into declaring success in CO2 emissions reduction resulting in the avoidance of the catastrophe they were always on top of with the best science had to offer.
    With the ongoing advice and warning that their (our) work is far from done.

    Much more monitoring, study, measuring, graphing and research is vital to stave off human ruination of the planet.

    They will pile up a growing litany of human threats to mother earth and animal kind by mankind.

    Wattupwiththat may have to augmented with ShutTheHellUp.com
    .

  8. Blaming the lost heat on the ocean seems like a loosing argument to me, not b/c it is necessarily wrong, but b/c it makes AGW no longer a threat. To see what I mean, here is a quick estimation of the time required to heat the oceans 2 C:

    The ratio of the specific heat of water to air is approx=4/1.
    The ratio of the mass of the oceans to the mass of the atmosphere is approx=1.5E21/5E18=300.
    So, with 4 times the heat required to heat the same mass of water by 1 K as is needed for air, and 300 times as much mass of water in the oceans as air in the atmosphere. If the IPCC predicts that 100 yrs from now the air temp would have increased by 2 C, but all that heat goes into the ocean, it would take 4*300*100yrs=120,000 yrs to heat the ocean by 2 C!

    That is a lot of time to look for a solution to such a minimal problem.

  9. It would stand to reason that if the Earth was warming, the heat would be pretty much even distributed due to thermal diffusion. I find it laughable that the oceans have suddenly started absorbing the heat (or are preventing the release of the below 2000 meters heat that’s hiding beyond our sensors) without a subsequent rise in atmospheric and land temperatures.

    It would seem the AGW proponents are suggesting that humanity is acting much like the Heat Miser. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGRkNaMFp6w

  10. “When the deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t pan out in a few years, and that stored hidden warming doesn’t spring out of the deep ocean like a caged lion, where will they put the warming next? They are running out of places.”

    The moon? Nasa have been there and found it on the dark side, that no one else can see.

  11. Everybody needs to get a paint stripping heat gun and try heating the surface of water. You will find that the heat is totally blocked. The water remains stone cold. That is the answer to this whole argument, surface tension blocks heat. Water accepts radiation but blocks heat. A warmer day does not mean a warmer ocean because of surface tension. Thats why there is a pause, the sun has reduced its activity and there is NO backup heat.
    In short the “heat” in the ocean is not hiding it never went in in the first place. Somebody tell Trenberth. The irony of the situation is that if you are serious about heating water through the surface the only way to achieve is to float an object on the surface and apply the heat to the floating object. The floating kills the surface tension, creates an upside down pot and heat will flow. Why heat on a warm day does not pass from the atmosphere into the ocean by conduction, I don’t know but what I do know is that we don’t know enough about surface tension. And don’t get me started on the models.

  12. So. Let me get this right.

    Greenland and Antarctica are gaining ice mass. The Oceans aren’t warming. The planet hasn’t warmed in the last 20 years.

    But sea level is rising?
    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global sea level

    Must be that the data have been “adjusted, modified, tweaked, corrected, whatever, in order to create” a sea level rise (as Brother Bob puts it). Or maybe all the land is sinking.

  13. C02 seems to be a sneaky devil. It causes upwelling of the water of the oceans, pushes down all the warm surface water up to a depth of 2000 metres, then sits back and laughs.

  14. News just in!

    Arctic methane ‘time bomb’ could have huge economic costs

    ‘Scientists say that the release of large amounts of methane from thawing permafrost in the Arctic could have huge economic impacts for the world.

    The researchers estimate that the climate effects of the release of this gas could cost $60 trillion (£39 trillion), roughly the size of the global economy in 2012.

    The impacts are most likely to be felt in developing countries they say.

    The research has been published in the journal Nature.

    “That’s an economic time bomb that at this stage has not been recognised on the world stage”

    Prof Gaile Whiteman Erasmus University

    Scientists have had concerns about the impact of rising temperatures on permafrost for many years. Large amounts of methane are concentrated in the frozen Arctic tundra but are also found as semi-solid gas hydrates under the sea.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23432769

  15. A better to place to hide the heat is in a lock box under the Antarctic ice shelf with even less data.

  16. CIA wants to control the weather, climate change

    No worries ;-)

  17. The energy necessary to heat all the water in the oceans by 1 deg C is about 5E24 J.
    So, an increase of OHC by 1E22 is an increase in temperature of 0.002 deg C.
    Maybe what Argo shows us is just digital noise in a constant average temperature.

  18. Earl Wood says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Blaming the lost heat on the ocean seems like a loosing argument to me, not b/c it is necessarily wrong, but b/c it makes AGW no longer a threat.
    ———————
    I agree. But the warmies assure me I’m wrong! And that that heat will indeed come back to get me. It’ll shut down the ocean oscillations and it’ll screw up the food chain and it’ll drive faster sea level rise and it’ll reverse the gravitational pull of the earth and throw us all off into space. Well maybe not that last one so much yet, but I’m sure I’ll hear the argument one of these days…

  19. Earl is so absolutely correct. If after a certain temperature the atmosphere doesn’t warm any more, but only ocean more than half a mile deep, then who cares? While we’re at it let’s warm the earth’s crust, but only a mile below the surface.

    As for the mechanism, it is all those major hurricanes that have started up. They move the cold water from deep in the ocean up and move the warm water down. That’s it, all the extra major hurricanes we have been experiencing lately. Oh, wait…

  20. I have looked at the NOAA data and see continued warming, just not as fast as a few years ago. Warming has not paused. All of you must be funded by a petrol industrial concern or need to be against something. We have had the hottest 10 years on record in the last 12 years and you claim that is not warming? Right now Paris is having 95 degree temperatures instead of their average 77 degrees. Arizona is making heat records in June and the northern hemisphere is warming earlier and longer every year. Looking at the data there are higher highs and higher lows. There are period where a couple years after a major peak the next few are not as high but the rise continues. I would not call you liars but I would say you see what you want to see and I can only assume your god fantasy or petrol chemical paychecks make you see what you see.

  21. As I understand it, the deep oceans, with temperatures from 0 to 3C, make up the bulk of the ocean volume (approx 90%). This very cold water is derived form polar regions and sinks to the depth and basically stays there.

    If the polar regions were supplying water at 3.01C instead of 3 (as an example) this would involve an enoumous heat content but be virtually unmeasurable.

    Also, water does not expand significantly when warmed at these temps, so the impact of the extra heat would not show up in sea level rise.

    Isn’t this a way they can explain the missing heat?

  22. Since warmer fluids –air and water– rise rather than sink, any posited deep-ocean (“bathymetric”) warming would have to be due to some anomalous form of horizontally-layered currents. If so, this macro-effect should be easily discernible as so-called thermoclines akin to contour-lines on topographical maps.

    To our knowledge no “climate science” (sic) researcher has yet investigated –nevermind reported– any such phenomenon, preferring to make blanket assertions of some physically impracticable, wholly unsupported “vertical circulation” mechanism at odds with thermodynamic principles.

    There comes a point where AGW Catastrophists’ mutual-admiration “credentialism” strikes its factual iceberg in mid-stream. “Extreme weather,” Himalayan glaciers, ozone layers, Sahel desertification et al. have all failed utterly. What’s left– the Rajendra K. Pachauri Award for Soft-core Voudun? Pick your Myalist Okombo, dig deep to have the Zombie Science curse removed.

  23. Did the heat between 1910 to 1940 also go deep sea diving? If excess heat can go missing in the oceans today then could it have done it in the past? <b<If missing heat can enter the oceans it can also come out of the oceans. Think about that one Warmies.

  24. DirkH says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:55 am
    “Maybe what Argo shows us is just digital noise in a constant average temperature.”

    To clarify, with digital noise I mean the random toggling of the least significant bit when you convert an analog signal from a sensor to a digital word (you cannot avoid this for principal reasons even when you have constructed perfect hardware).

  25. Since extreme weather events are supposed to have increased and since global warming is supposed to have occurred by deep ocean warming for the last 15 or more years:
    How could a warming deep ocean increase the number of extreme weather events on the earth’s surface?

    Then there is Heidi Cullen explaining that it is really important not to look at the whole (US nation) but to only look at specific regions when trying to detect an (global) increase in extreme weather events. (which means that “global warming” changes into “local warming”)
    What is the mechanism that would allow a warming deep ocean to select specific regions on the earth’s surface and only cause extreme weather there?

  26. Has anyone else noticed that the deep ocean hiding implies negative feedback? If the cooling for the last 10 years
    (see http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002)
    is caused by the heat hiding in the ocean and the atmosphere has a positive feedback, then the atmospheric cooling will be enhanced by this positive feedback. This atmospheric cooling should increase until finally, the oceans begin to cool. Thus, positive atmospheric feedback is just part of a total earth negative feedback.

  27. Steve Oregon, Says:

    Wattupwiththat may have to augmented with ShutTheHellUp.com
    ===========================
    Brilliant!

  28. Once the warmist scientific/governmental/industrial complex became the voracious monster it is, it is impossible for the so-called “experts” to climb down. Thus we have little Heidi Cullen with the deer in the headlights look, tell Babs Boxer the warming is now going into the deep oceans. Too easy and convenient by half. The warmists are now panicked, and counting on short attention spans, laziness, and an unwillingness to question authority on the part of the public and lawmakers.

    There are two phrases any real scientist must memorize early, and learn to say often without embarrassment:

    “I don’t know.”
    “I was wrong.”

    If a scientist never seems to be able to utter these phrases, he must be delusional. Because, like a big league hitter, a scientist is necessarily bound to fail far more often than succeed.

  29. They can borrow from the physics community and call it Dark Heat to give tacit recognition of something understood to be there but just not described and understood yet.

  30. After the deep ocean excuse fails to pan out, the next hidey hole will be….

    Wait a second. I should keep this idea to myself. There could be some big grant money involved.

    All I need to do is to legally change my first name from “Caleb” to “Professor,” and then…

  31. Did the heat come from below 2000ft? Before you say I’m crazy, don’t confuse “heat” with “temperature”. They aren’t the same.

  32. Well, since ice floats, warm water must sink. And since water is denser than air, and warm air rises, colder water must sink. That is why you don’t hear about visits to the Mindinao Trench anymore. The subs melt when they get to the bottom.

    Don’t think I need one, but just in case

    /sarc

  33. dave says
    All of you must be funded by a petrol industrial concern or need to be against something. We have had the hottest 10 years on record in the last 12 years and you claim that is not warming?

    henry says
    dave we are coming from a peak of warming and going into a dip of cooling:
    The truth is that all current results show that this global cooling will continue, especially when you look at things from 2002 (which includes one full solar cycle)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    Those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the global cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever.

    I have now finished my own investigations into all of this
    namely

    1 I took a random sample of weather stations that had daily data going back to 1974
    2 I made sure the sample was globally representative (most data sets aren’t), namely
    a) balanced by latitude (longitude does not matter)
    b) balanced 70/30 in or at sea/ inland
    c) all continents included (unfortunately I could not get reliable daily data going back 38 years from Antarctica,
    so there always is this question mark about that, knowing that you never can get a “perfect” sample)
    d) I made a special provision for months with missing data (i.e. not to put in a long term average, as usual in stats, but to average the results of that month in the year preceding and following )
    e) I did not look only at means (average daily temp.) like all other data sets, but also at maxima and minima…
    3) I determined at all stations the average change in temp. per annum from the average temperature recorded,
    over the period indicated.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures),
    clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked//…
    5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps, versus time,
    ended up with y=0.0018x -0.0314, with r2=0.96
    At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish:
    I was at least 95% sure (max) temperatures were falling
    6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me
    y= -0.000049×2 + 0.004267x – 0.056745
    r2=0.995
    That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball…
    7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, (10 years?) showed a curve:
    happening around 40 years ago,
    8) ergo: the final curve must be a sine wave fit, with another curve happening, somewhere on the bottom…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    the means table confirms that there is a bit of lag between maxima and means but even with means I can make parabolic fit with 95% confidence.

    Altogether, that means that we are cooling. Unfortunately, global cooling is not “good”.
    I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of warming, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that [latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind. According to my calculations, this will start around 2019 or 2020.

    Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925).

    if you will argue with me on my results that we did not see anything catastrophic happening around 1972, when we also had a standstill, in the speed of warming, I would agree with that but remember this was at the height of warming causing more natural clouds and moisture. Now we are approaching the bottom, and there simply will be a lot less moist air going around…..

    WHAT MUST WE DO?

    1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.

    2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.

    3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),

  34. RMB says: “…That is the answer to this whole argument, surface tension blocks heat.”

    You’ve asserted this before. And I’ve requested before that you provide some evidence of this–a textbook quotation, generally accepted, applicable heat transfer equations, a published study (peer reviewed or not), a set of relevant physical calculations, some data. You’ve not shown us any evidence, because you can’t. Please either come up with some real proof or spare us this rant in the future.

    • RMB says: “…That is the answer to this whole argument, surface tension blocks heat.”

      Blocks? Maybe you meant to say “impedes” (some of heat transfer modes)? And to what extent?

      Immerse yourself in a pond of standing water (or even a gently flowing river) on a sunny day. Tell us what temperatures you observe within the top couple feet and deeper down.

  35. These people know no thermodynamics. At the Equator water evaporates leaving saltier sea water. The temperature of the water surface is in equilibrium with the air through evaporation.

    In the deeps, fresh water from the poles is made saltier and cools because of the increase of entropy as the water molecules order around the cations.

    This and pressure sets the isotherms which N-S in the Pacific are like a bath tub.

    The storage of heat in the deeps is determined by ionic diffusion and free energy. There is no change of temperature over periods <1000 years.

    The data are apparently being fiddled at NODC.

  36. They should look down in that Hidey-Hole that Saddam Hussein was found in a few years back. I’ll bet he took it down there with him for safekeeping!

  37. You guys must realise that if the global mean surface temperature COOLS it will still be blamed on the oceans.

    I was once told that co2 is now the main driver of climate. I was told 17 years was required to identify the human fingerprint. I was told by the Met Office that half the 5 years following 2009 would be warmer than 1998. Do we now place these in the bin and pretend they no longer matter. What a bloody joke.

  38. The models are fine. They correctly predict the pause, with their auxiliary conjectures. And they have correctly predicted that temperatures will heat up again in time to get back on track 2015.

  39. Why are you all so mean? It was a sad event when Trenberth lost his heat but luckily he never lost hope, neber gave up looking for it. And I, for one, I’m really glad for him that he’s found it again! Praise the Lord, that’s the spirit!

  40. The Yeti is really there. He just hid higher up a mountain, according to scientists.
    The Loch Ness Monster is really there. She just hid deeper in the lake, according to scientists..
    The Fairy still live in your gardens. They just hid behind a tree, according to scientists.
    The Aliens are still visiting. They just got a better cloaking device, according to scientists..
    Global warming is real. Its just hiding in the deep ocean, according to scientists.

    Dear Hannah Devlin, Journalists make sh!t up to make their stories plausible, according to scientists.

    I have lots more stories for you if you would like them. We can even back them up with some on the spot statistics. 97% of your readers like statistics.

    Maybe she should try the age old : “Trust me I am a Doctor/Expert/Politician/Climate scientist.”

  41. Hiding heat is like trying to smuggle candles out of a church in a bucket full of ice.

  42. Perhaps the deep ocean warming is caused by submarine volcanoes and vents because it gets ‘very hot’ down there.

    “Hot springs on the ocean floor are called hydrothermal vents. The heat source for these springs is the magma (molten rock) beneath submarine volcanoes. Circulating seawater deep in the ocean crust gets very hot because of the high pressure and can dissolve many chemicals from the rocks.”

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/about.html

  43. Bob:
    Probably a more apropriate analogy than a ‘caged lion’ for the deep ocean heat is the Kraken – a fearsome mythological deep sea monster that died as soon as it came to the surface.

  44. Sven says: “…Trenberth lost his heat but luckily he never lost hope, neber gave up looking for it. And I, for one, I’m really glad for him that he’s found it again! Praise the Lord, that’s the spirit!

    Okay, I’ll send Christopher Monckton a note praising him.

  45. Bearing in mind hiding heat > thermal expansion shouldn’t we be seeing an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise?

  46. Jim Ryan says:
    July 24, 2013 at 9:22 am

    The models are fine. They correctly predict the pause, with their auxiliary conjectures. And they have correctly predicted that temperatures will heat up again in time to get back on track 2015.

    =====================================================================
    Tomorrow I’ll tell what my model predicted the temperature was today.

  47. Dave says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:59 am
    I have looked at the NOAA data and see continued warming, just not as fast as a few years ago. Warming has not paused.

    I must assume you are making jest, but if not… Please post your data or a link to it. You may be the only one on the planet who has data showing warming the last 10 – 15 years.

    I’m looking forward to your response. Cheers!

  48. Jim Ryan says:
    July 24, 2013 at 9:22 am
    “The models are fine. They correctly predict the pause, with their auxiliary conjectures. And they have correctly predicted that temperatures will heat up again in time to get back on track 2015.”

    Oh well, that’s it then. Authority has spoken. Debate over.

  49. Dave says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:59 am

    I have looked at the NOAA data and see continued warming, just not as fast as a few years ago. Warming has not paused. All of you must be funded by a petrol industrial concern or need to be against something.

    On petrol please tell that to the Warmist Dana Nuccitelli who receives big oil money from Tetra Tech. As for “Warming has not paused” I’ll let the climate scientists speak for me. Enjoy!

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
    __________________

    Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
    “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
    __________________

    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
    “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
    __________________

    Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
    “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
    __________________

    Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
    “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
    __________________

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
    __________________

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    [A] “Yes, but only just”.
    __________________

    Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
    “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
    __________________

    Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
    “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
    __________________

    Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
    “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
    __________________

    Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
    “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
    Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
    __________________

    Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
    __________________

    Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
    “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
    __________________

    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
    __________________

    Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
    “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
    __________________

    Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
    “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”

  50. Philip Aggrey says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:47 am

    “When the deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t pan out in a few years, and that stored hidden warming doesn’t spring out of the deep ocean like a caged lion, where will they put the warming next? They are running out of places.”

    The moon? Nasa have been there and found it on the dark side, that no one else can see.

    =====================================================================
    I don’t think the missing heat will be found on the Moon.
    It’s obviously hiding in a tree ring somewhere.

  51. Dave says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:59 am

    Look Dave, for the last time – stop quoting current ‘record’ temperatures a indicative of man made global warming. Please go find a palaeoclimate temperature graph for yourself, but here’s one from wiki (which must be ok as Connolley has probably approved it! LOL)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

    as you can clearly see the graph goes uppy and downy. Yes?
    now, imagine we are on the downward bit, at ANY time (until it upturns again) the measured temps will most likely be the coldest in the last few decades. Got it? Ditto if we are on the upward trend !! Simples.
    So what does the 10 out of 12 hottest years tell us? Answer, absolutely feck all – other than we have been on a rising trend (which has now STOPPED/Paused/whatever) – even so, the last 10 years or so will still be the ‘hottest on record’ until the fall off starts (or warming continues – we still haven’t reached equivalent past peak temps, by the way).

    As a poor analogy – when you set off from the traffic lights in a 30mph zone – and accidentally reach 31mph, get zapped by a policemans radar and he says ‘you were speeding’ – what has he actually measured? – your average speed? or the fact that at the time he zapped you, you were at peak speed and just about to take your foot off the gas? Get it? He is doing you for speeding for a POINT in time speed and that’s your tough luck ! In the context of climate temps going up and down (this is NOT disputed!) we are at the top or near top of an up cycle! Thus, of course all recent years will be the hottest on record – mostly because our records are so bloody short!

    Live and learn dude – please!

  52. It is interesting that 0 – 2000 m is almost never put into context. The 0-2000 m data is measuring less than half of the total ocean volume.

    52% of ocean volume is *below* 2000m.
    About 20% is above 700m.
    About 28% is between 700m and 2000m.
    We have ocean temperature data for 0-700m since 2003.
    We have ocean temperature data for 700-2000m since 2003, but with much poorer resolution.
    We have no temperature data below 2000m.
    Temperature rise for 0-700m has been 0.04C/decade.
    Temperature rise for 700-2000m has been 0.01C/decade.
    Temperature rise below 2000m is unknown, but presumably 0.00C/decade (unless ocean floor volcanism is the heat source).
    Total ocean temperature rise has been 0.04*0.2+0.01*0.28+0.00*0.52 = 0.01C/decade.

    If the deep ocean can sequester surface heat this quickly, CACC should be flushed.

  53. Seriously though, here’s my problem with the deep ocean heating bit. Say it’s so. Up until five years ago, mainstream climate science (IPCC AR4 projections) wasn’t expecting this to happen. Either we understand the climate well enough to project what’s going to happen or we don’t. It doesn’t look to me like we do yet. I don’t extend credit to oracles; come to me with a track record that demonstrates that you know what you’re talking about, or wait till you do.

  54. “The Times Hannah Devlin says the warming has just gone into hiding.”

    So has the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Waldo.

    We are organizing a search party and how to soon find them all.

  55. Mark says: “About the only obvious mechanism for deep water to heat up is through vulcanism.”

    Yup. Good point. Even small thermal seeps can put considerable heat (and CO2!) into the ocean.

    Steve Oregon says: “Wattupwiththat may have to augmented with ShutTheHellUp.com.”

    They already have that. It’s called SkepticalScience.

    Stephen Rasey says: “Error Bars! Error Bars!”

    Yes! Yes! Preferably chocolate covered.

  56. Dave says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:59 am
    “We have had the hottest 10 years on record in the last 12 years and you claim that is not warming?”

    “Warming” means that it is getting even warmer. This is not happening since 1998. We are in a warm plateau. Therefore “we are warming” == false. “We have the highest average temperatures since the LIA” == true. No contradiction.

    Hope that’s simple enough for an activist brain.

  57. It’s actually hiding in plain view, inside the sun, which as gone quiet as to not draw attention to it.

  58. In support of and further comment to:
    Eustace Cranch says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:17 am
    Sorry for the scream, but: again and again, WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? What told the heat to hide? In 50 words or less of plain English, please.
    William:
    Hello and best wishes to all.

    I agree there are many questions concerning the heat hiding in the oceans mechanism.
    1) Turn on problem: What turns on the heat hiding in the ocean? A few pages of explanation would be helpful. Typically when a brand new mechanism is proposed a review paper is written explaining pros and cons for the theory, the issues that must be explained. The heat hiding in the ocean jumps right to it is the answer why there is plateau in warming.

    Comment:
    As we are spending trillions of dollars on purposeless scams, logically someone in charge should demand a few pages of scientific peer reviewed non pay walled protected explanation concerning the heat hiding in the oceans hypothesis and request alternative explanations for the plateau of no warming. The same concerned in charge person might also ask why the planet was warmed and cooled cyclically in the past (not caused by atmospheric CO2 changes) with the same regions warming that warmed in the last 70 years. The climate war if there is no warming is not a victimless crime.
    2) Regulation problem: How does the heat hiding in the ocean mechanism hide the correct amount of heat? (not too much or too little) to create a plateau of no warming for 16 years?
    3) Regional heat hiding problem: Why does heat hide in some oceans and not in others?
    4) Heatgate problem: There are multiple data set issues which appear to indicate data manipulation.

    I suspect the heat hiding in the oceans is due to adjusted and cherry picked data sets.
    An essential component of the scientific process is to look for alternative explanations for anomalies (the plateau of 16 years at which time there is no warming is an anomaly, something that can disprove the extreme AGW hypothesis) and the data that can disprove a hypothesis.
    There is observational evidence now of cooling at both poles. The heat hiding in the ocean cannot explain the reversal of warming of the last 70 years. The warmists have stated over and over that majority of the warming in the last 70 years is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and solar magnetic cycle changes cannot modulate planetary cloud cover.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    The solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover mechanism can explain the regional pattern of warming (the regions of the planet that warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions that warmed in the past when there was grand solar maximum – series of high, short period solar magnetic cycles and the same regions of the planet that cooled when there was a grand solar minimum – a period in which there were no visible sunspots followed by weak and long period solar magnetic cycles – and can explain the reversal of warming – cooling. i.e. The solar magnetic cycle has changed, in the past the planet cooled when there was a solar magnetic cycle change of the type we are now observing. In the past there was due to an unexplained mechanism reason a delay in the onset of cooling of 10 to 12 years. The observed cooling was particularly strong in high latitude regions.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    P.S.
    Thanks again Anthony and Bob for another thoughtful, data rich article. You are both scholar and gentleman.

  59. @The Ghost –
    Actually, the overall cooling began in 1938 . . . it’s been going on, net, for 75+ years now . . .

  60. Thanks, again, Bob Tisdale for an excellent dissection of the data. This blog article is a devastating response to the heat-is-going-into-the-oceans meme, and I have bookmarked it.

  61. The next wave of doom:

    The evil use of fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2.

    The increased CO2 “traps heat” (LOL) in the climate.

    The heat eventually migrates to the deep ocean.

    The increased temperature of the deep ocean reduces the rate of loss of the Earth’s internally generated heat.

    The crust melts.

    We all die in a global sea of molten rock.

    (/ sarc)

  62. “WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? What told the heat to hide? In 50 words or less of plain English, please.”

    Look up the meaning of the word ‘occult’.

  63. Consider Bob Tisdale’s excellent description of what happens during ENSO cycles. During El Nino’s the oceans lose heat and during La Nina’s the oceans gain heat. The exact opposite of what happens in the atmosphere. Now consider that the PDO is simply a situation where one or the other ENSO situation is dominant. Hence, when the PDO is positive the oceans lose heat and when the PDO is negative the oceans gain heat.

    Hence, the oceans should be gaining energy during the current PDO negative phase that started around 2005. We are simply seeing a replacement of the energy lost during the warm phase from 1975-2005.

  64. Even if you accepted the idea that the missing heat is all going into the deep oceans, you have to ask yourself why this would be happening all of a sudden over the last decade and a half, but wasn’t happening before. It’s nonsensical. But nonsensical is what we’ve come to expect from the doomers.

  65. “””””””…….Arguably the most significant climate-related impact of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is that they trap more heat in the ocean. Over the last half-century around 93% of global warming has actually gone into heating the ocean…….”””””
    {A little-known fact is that the oceans are almost exclusively heated by sunlight (shortwave radiation) entering the surface layers..AW-BT ??}

    Well actually not; they DO trap(?) more incoming solar radiation in the ATMOSPHERE, and convert that to “heat” energy IN THE ATMOSPHERE; but that means LESS solar radiation goes into the oceans between 0 and 2,000 meters (also between 2,000 and 12,000 meters) where it too becomes LESS “heat” energy.

    There’s not much in the way of thermodynamic processes that can transport “heat” energy from the warmed atmosphere, down to the deep oceans from 0 to 12,000 meters; or actually much beyond 0 to 12,000 microns, as LWIR radiation.

    Seems like prompt evaporation short circuits that deep stuff.

  66. “”””””……Joe says:

    July 24, 2013 at 10:20 am

    “WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? What told the heat to hide? In 50 words or less of plain English, please.”

    Look up the meaning of the word ‘occult’…….”””””

    Well “occult” means to block; as in “occulting disk” used to block the SUN in a telescope so you can look at the corona any time you get bored.

    So clearly, the GHGs are “occulting the solar energy, and stopping it from getting to the deep oceans, from 0 to 12,000 meters, or pick a number.

  67. Looks like no one on either side of the issue is going to offer a physical explanation for heat “hiding” in the deep ocean. Ergo, the whole idea is plucked from, er, thin air and debating it is ridiculous.

  68. Funny how some are still d*nying that there’s a “pause”, aka halt to the warming, claiming that it’s “cherry-picking” to say the warming has stopped the past 16 years or more. Maybe they’d better climb aboard this exciting new hidey-hole bandwagon, and pronto. It also looks and sounds better when they’re all singing from the same hymnal.

  69. If warmists are now saying that atmospheric heat can be transferred into the oceans, causing a stall in the atmospheric temperature rise – how many times has this happened in the last 2000 years?

    Doesn’t this invalidate all proxy temp measurements?

  70. Okay, I was due to say something really stupid, and so far today has seemed to be my day for it, so I may as well continue. Here goes:

    With regard to the question of how the heat tunneled to the deeper ocean without affecting the shallower, who says it has? As I recall from Mr. Eschenbach’s heat-transfer post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/18/time-lags-in-the-climate-system/, conductive heating through the upper layers to the lower can result in the lower’s continuing to get warmer after the upper have started to cool–even though the heat came from the upper layers..

    Now, that was heat transfer by conduction, and I’m told that conduction is not a dominant mode of heat transfer in the mixed (upper) ocean layer. So the cognoscenti here no doubt know reasons why the effect mentioned above is inapposite. But it would help some of us laymen get our minds around this post’s subject if someone knowledgeable could explain it in simple terms to the rest of us.

  71. Deep Rub is where the heat was once found; now’ it’s “Deep Ocean”?

    I understand the first; I can’t see a plausible explantion for the second.

    Massage me senseless.

  72. Earl Wood,Dirk H and others:
    Not only would it take 60,000 years to warm the oceans by 1degC, but we haven’t got fossil fuels for more than, say, 600 years at the very outside. So the worst we could do is raise the temperature by, let me see – a hundredth of a degree. I should have thought the Denizens of the Deep could live with that.

  73. “””””””……..DirkH says:

    July 24, 2013 at 9:03 am

    DirkH says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:55 am
    “Maybe what Argo shows us is just digital noise in a constant average temperature.”

    To clarify, with digital noise I mean the random toggling of the least significant bit when you convert an analog signal from a sensor to a digital word (you cannot avoid this for principal reasons even when you have constructed perfect hardware)……..”””””””

    Dirk, it’s normally called “quantization noise.” That’s more accurate, since the “noise” arises from the A-D conversion process; and to be fair, the noisy part is entirely in the analog end, not in the digital. So “digital” noise would be a travesty.

  74. I have to admit, the idea that AGW would somehow warm the atmosphere but not be noticed because the warmer atmosphere would somehow transfer so much of that heat to the ocean so that the atmosphere would then cool (this is getting difficult), sounds a little bit hard, ok hard, ok really hard, ok incredibly hard, ok 1&$B)&@?(!/ hard to believe.

    I think what really happened is that the missing heat has jouled its way into the New York mayoral candidate, Wiener (an appropriate name if there ever was one).

  75. Plain English?
    If there is no warming but you must have warming you fake warming. The models show warming but in real life there is non so you must tell some story and for now the warmt wneht in to the water. How inposibel that is so it works.

  76. What I expect is that the planets are in sync with the sun internally. What the sun goes through internally is also reflected throughout the rest of the bodies in the solar system. This does not only occur due to external radiation but from internal activity. That would be a very minor aspect of sync’d activity. Obviously, the mechanisms for this are currently unexplained. But we live in a ‘solar system’. The earth is part of that system. All bodies would increase or decrease activity in tandem.

  77. Along with Alien space ships and the lost city of Adlantis we ‘find’ the missing heat.
    In realty its a desperate claim from people who are desperate to find anything to back up what was always a poorly evidenced thoery.

  78. Silly me. I spelled the New York City mayoral candidate’s name wrong. It’s Weiner, not Wiener. Anthony Weiner. Some young ‘uns know him as ‘Carlos Danger’. Maybe that’s cause of all the missing heat he’s hiding.

  79. chris y says:
    July 24, 2013 at 9:40 am

    According to my [possibly incorrect] calculation, the NH 0-2000m heat content trend is just slightly less than the heat flux expected from the earth’s core.

    According to:

    http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hofmeister2005.pdf

    the flux from the core through the oceans is 63 mW/m².

    The area of the oceans is [from Wiki] 3.6 x 10^14 m²

    Total flux = 22.68 TW or TJ/sec

    No of seconds per decade = 10 x 365.25 x 86400 = 315.576 x 10^6

    Heat input from earth’s core = 22.68 x 315.576 x 10^18 J = 0.716 x 10^22 J/decade

    cf 0.531 x 10^22 from Bob Tisdale’s data.

  80. Harkening back to the Wegman report, plagiarism is apparently very serious offend to the team defenders. Yet none have challenged Travesty Trenberth for his shameless plagiarism of Lewis Carroll and the Hunting of the snark.
    The missing heat hides in the deep, where only necromancers may discern it?

  81. Even the BBC’s David Shukman is baffled by the ‘expected’ pause.

    Pauses expected
    On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new – at least to me. …..

    It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear away but instead in fits and starts.

    But I’ve never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before………

    I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this “message” about pauses had not been communicated widely……..

    But what about another possibility – that the calculations are wrong?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404

    Shukman sounds reasonable for once. He is finally opening his eyes.

  82. Anthony Watts says:

    “When the deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t pan out in a few years, and that stored hidden warming doesn’t spring out of the deep ocean like a caged lion, where will they put the warming next? They are running out of places.”

    How about the Antarctic ice sheets?

    Yeah, that’s the ticket! The ice is getting warmer but not warm enough to melt yet. But, boy, watch out! When it does, then you’ll see some serious catastrophic action. Can’t say of course when exactly it’ll happen, but soon & it’s gonna be bad!

  83. Okay. Let’s accept a lot of joules of energy has been stored deep in the oceans.
    Please explain how these stored joules of energy warm up the atmosphere at some future time.
    Even just a little bit by say next month or whenever? Just how does water warm the air that is already warmer then the water? As somebody above asked, “What is the mechanism?”.

  84. I should have added to my above post that the 0.7 x 10^22 J/decade is split between the N and S hemispheres ~ 1/3 to 2/3 so NH trend from core 0.23 x 10^22 J/decade, SH trend from core 0.47 x 10^22 J/decade

  85. Dave,
    You might want to check out studies of radioactive half-life changes near solar events. Turns out that neutrinos can interact with radioactive nuclei and alter the halflife. Granted, this is a small effect (partly since neutrino crossections are so small), but if the sun goes through an active phase and the radioactive decay of materials in the earth’s core increases very slightly, then we would expect the earth to warm slightly. Similarly when the sun is less active there would be slightly less heat emitted from the earth’s core. I would expect a fairly significant lag in the amount of time it takes excess heat from the core to reach the atmosphere.
    However, when the sun goes through a quiet phase even if the luminous flux is constant a decrease in neutrino flux could have a change in planetary temperature.

  86. Weird:

    In reality the claimed energy differences are too small to measure effectively with the instruments in place, so the fact that there are more sensors south of the equator than north means that the “adjusted noise” shows a greater positive effect south than north.

    If the deep waters were really heating differentially (mechanism?) we’d see a change in average water density and a remix in the standing column that would quite quckly average things out again.

    So, either we have aliens at work – or the politics of warmism have once again ovewhelmed science.

  87. You are forgetting that CO2 is now supernatural. Of course it can transfer heat directly from the (non-warming) tropical troposphere to the deep ocean, just to find out who the true believers are.

  88. So why do I get the feeling that global warming has gone by the wayside, and climate change has gone into hiding (per Monckton) and unprecedented severe weather is passé, but now we have the 800# gorilla in the room.

    The Deep Oceans are hiding Trenberth’s Travestonic heat, and are now awaiting further research grants, to look into the matter.

  89. Ronald says: the warmt wneht in to the water.
    Lol, I can translate that because I think I know what’s causing it: the old trackpad caused cursor float. If you have an external mouse, is there any way you can disable the trackpad to defeat the really bothersome cursor float?

  90. george e. smith says:
    July 24, 2013 at 10:52 am
    “Dirk, it’s normally called “quantization noise.” That’s more accurate, since the “noise” arises from the A-D conversion process; and to be fair, the noisy part is entirely in the analog end, not in the digital. So “digital” noise would be a travesty.”

    Thanks for helping out! Been a while since I last built hardware!

  91. It seems to me, that the unbalance in the atmospheric “forcing” (I gotta use the proppa words), is very small, to quite modest. It’s not like it is anything huge.

    So now we find (just now) that the missing result of that forcing (due to GHG) imbalance went and hid in the deep oceans, all the way down at 2,000 meters.

    Did you ever try; even as a student prank, to fill the bathtub in the student dorm with water, using an eye dropper ??

    Wow, what a chore that is !

    So now just imagine what a huge effect is caused by taking all that missing atmospheric GHG forcing imbalance, and stuffing it in just the top 2,000 meters of the ocean.

    Now after the oceans all circulate around, including the ins and outs from the arctic ocean, just where would be a good spot, besides, Tahiti, Bora Bora, or Hawaii, to go (on a grant) to look for that wayward forcing unbalance from the atmosphere ?? Bring snorkeling gear and some sun block.

    We are being had.

  92. @ Dirk H

    “””””…..Thanks for helping out! Been a while since I last built hardware!…..”””””

    Don’t remind me Mate; but I didn’t get sensitized to quantization noise, till I compared my first symphonic CDs to the old dusty scratchy LPs that we used to have (still do).

    Last A-D s I had anything to do with were sigma delta types used in precision opto-couplers.

    Those were fun times though.

  93. This story is warmist political suicide; they have put themselves in the position of asking politicians to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers money into a plan designed to stop some of the deep ocean warming by .02c per five years.

    People will look at them and think they are mad nutters, and they will be right.

  94. Village Idiot said on July 24, 2013 at 8:53 am:

    So. Let me get this right.

    Greenland and Antarctica are gaining ice mass. The Oceans aren’t warming. The planet hasn’t warmed in the last 20 years.

    But sea level is rising?
    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global sea level

    Must be that the data have been “adjusted, modified, tweaked, corrected, whatever, in order to create” a sea level rise (as Brother Bob puts it). Or maybe all the land is sinking.

    Actually the deep ocean’s temperature is approximately 4°C. This is also the maximum density of water. Below 4°C, water starts to expand until it freezes, at which point it is less dense than the liquid phase. So what is actually happening is that the oceans are cooling, which leads to expansion and a consequential rise in sea levels. As the oceans continue to cool, the world is at risk for a catastrophic rise in sea level. The only way to avoid that catastrophic rise in sea level is to outlaw all forms of energy other than those that use fossil fuels, so that we can maximize our production of anthropogenic CO2 in the hope that the CO2 will warm up the earth enough to avoid the consequences of the current cooling. /sarc

  95. Billy Liar- you say-

    “According to my [possibly incorrect] calculation, the NH 0-2000m heat content trend is just slightly less than the heat flux expected from the earth’s core.”

    Interesting.
    It sure would be nice if we had some actual temperature measurements below 2000 m depth.
    If the volume below 2000 m has warmed faster than the volume between 700 – 2000 m, that would hint that ocean heating from the mantle has increased in the recent decade.

  96. The pause in global warming during the past decade is because more heat than expected is being absorbed by the deep oceans, according to scientists.

    So the pause in global warming is now influenced by scientists’ expectations, not by changes in atmospheric or ocean conditions.

  97. Golden says:
    July 24, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    The pause in global warming during the past decade is because more heat than expected is being absorbed by the deep oceans, according to scientists.
    ——————————-

    The 0-2000 metre ocean is absorbing only 0.5 W/m2/year which is just 33% to 50% of that which is built into the climate models (1.0 W/m2/year to 1.5 W/m2/yr) so that statement is clearly false.

    Like the title of this post, it is just Grasping at Straws.

  98. To
    Dave says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:59 am

    I am still waiting for my Petrochemical pay cheque. That is – assuming you were serious in your comment??

  99. @Eustace Cranch says: July 24, 2013 at 8:17 am
    Sorry for the scream, but: again and again, WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? What told the heat to hide? In 50 words or less of plain English, please.
    ////////////////////////////////

    It’s the same mechanism that caused it to hide in the troposphere. Desperation.

  100. As correctly commented above, the changes in ocean temperature required to account for the “missing heat” are very small. They are inside both stochastic and measurement error. For example, a quick look at the NOAA/CPC Pacific Basin 300-m Temperature Anomalies shows that over the last 30+ years that there has been a vanishingly small increase in temperature. A linear least-squares-fit of the data gives a positive slope of 1.28 m°C/yr over the entire time from 1979 to present. If you confine yourself to the time period since 2000 there is a ~0.15 °C initial anomaly with slight cooling trend since 2000. The problem with these numbers is that they are too small from which to draw any kind of conclusions. One-tenth °C variations are within the observed stochastic variation in the measurements (check it out) and are certainly within the absolute and relative accuracies of the fundamental measurements themselves. I conclude that the present data alone do not support nor reject the notion that there is additional stored heat in the ocean volume down to 300-m depth. I have not done the same analysis of the deep ocean data so I cannot speak to those data. I encourage everyone to download the data. One can apply various least-squares fits and/or filters to the data. I am happy to provide clean ASCII text data files. Check out the plots at

    https://www.icloud.com/photostream/#A15oqs3qGcal2A

    The problem with blaming the oceans for the lack of recent atmospheric heating is that there is no data to contradict you. The real issue is that if the oceans can absorb or release energy in the way that is claimed then present climate models incorrectly treat heat transport to and from the oceans. How can one believe the models at all?

    • Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head.
      “The real issue is that if the oceans can absorb or release energy in the way that is claimed then climate models incorrectly treat heat transport to and from oceans”
      These people are claiming that the ocean is absorbing heat from the atmosphere without actually checking if it is in fact possible.
      I tried to heat water through the surface using a paint stripping heat gun and found that the heat was totally blocked, the water remained stone cold. This means that heat does not transfer through the surface of the water and I believe that one of the problems is that we don’t know enough about SURFACE TENSION.

  101. “When the deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t pan out in a few years, and that stored hidden warming doesn’t spring out of the deep ocean like a caged lion, where will they put the warming next? They are running out of places”

    I know where we all might like them to put it, but then the question would be: “Can they sit down comfortably and talk about it?”.

  102. Again, you allege fraud where there is none… The science is valid and you are treading on thin ice.

    REPLY: Yeah sure, whatever. You might want to think twice about your methane pulse posting. See most recent WUWT essay. – Anthony

  103. Ocean Heat Content and History of Measurement Systems

    I took the liberty of using Figure 2 from Willis Eschenbach’s “The Layers of Meaning in Levitus” May 10, 2013

    I overlaid upon that chart some temporal bands that document some of the history of deep ocean measurement. That history comes from: From Swallow floats to Argo – the development of neutrally buoyant floats (Gould 2005?) Notes below. To this, I added a temperature scale on the right side, equating the heat content scale to temperature over the 0-2000m layer.

    The composite image is here: http://i41.tinypic.com/2rrwj5u.jpg
    My purpose was to see if the chart of Ocean Heat Content and its reported rise is in any way related to the measurement systems in place over that history and the seams between the systems. The “Missing Heat” is hiding between the cracks.

    The biggest rise in heat content on Willis’s chart is the 100-700 meter level 1995 to 2004, about 50 ZJ, or maybe 0.06 deg C for that layer. This coincides with the middle of the ALACE program through the first half of the ARGO system.

    ALACE was the first(?) global, satellite tracked neutral buoyancy program, consisting of 1110 floats (1000 m depth) with a design life of 5 years over a program period of 12(?) years. So an average of 500 floats over its time. One float per 250,000 km^3. It is not clear from the history to what accuracy ALACE did temperature profiling; there is a note that ARGO was the first system primarily for temperature-depth profiling. The ARGO system is 3000+ floats, 2000 m depth.

    The other points to be made from this chart is that the period of time of full ARGO (2007-present), the heat content has risen very little. When the measurements of a natural phenomena coincide with changes in the measurement system, suspect the change in the measurement system is the cause and not coincidence.

    The NOAA temperature anomalies, lists the period 1960-1970 as base = 0. This is a period in which only a handful of floats were used in the entire decade and biased to the N. Atlantic. Imagine! Setting the base period to your least sampled, most biased, worst data period. Today ARGO delivers 1,000,000 profiles per year. From the history it is difficult to see how 1000 profiles per year were recorded in the 1960’s. See Decimals of Precision. for what this implies to error bars in the early years.

    Here are notes of the temperature measurement history from Gould 2005. What I found most surprising was that until ARGO, the floats seem to have had a primary purpose of Ocean Circulation research, not temperature profiling.

    Experimental Period, very local to the North Atlantic sub hydrophone networks.
    1955: 2 float Iberian abyssal plain for 2 days.
    1957: 9 floats for 5 days.
    1960: Aries Program (Bermuda) floats 14 months. Discovery of mesoscale eddies
    1968: 2 SOFAR floats, < 1 week.
    1969: 1 SOFAR for 4 months

    1973: SOFAR/MODE, 9 months, 20 floats. (Bermuda, Bahamas, Grand Turk, Puerto Rico) (2 floats lasted 2 years)
    1974: MiniMODE, 52 floats, range 70 km from recording ship.
    "Again, the floats could be recovered and 41 of 52 were retrieved. These floats were used at depths between 500 and 4000m and collected a total of 714 days of data over a 2 month period. This was approximately equal to the total number of ship-tracked float days accumulated during the previous 17 years!”

    Late 1970s coverage extended beyond N. Atlantic to Western and Eastern Atlantic. Still restricted to U.S. MIL and Navy sub tracking hydrophones.

    Mid 1980’s: 14 floats at 3700 m, Bay of Biscay, and 13 floats over 4 years at Iberia Abyssal Plain. This was to support deep sea disposal research.

    Start of worldwide satellite tracked floats
    1988: First ALACE float, 5 year lifetime, 1000m depth, satellite tracking. WOCE program: For ocean circulation, one float per 500 km square (250,000 km^2 !) to reduce sampling error of currents to 3 mm/sec. 1000 floats required. 1110 float deployed over 12 years. WOCE might have been supplemented by 1000 other older type floats.

    ARGO: 2000m. First float in 2000, 1400 floats mid 2004,

    “While the original neutrally buoyant floats were designed (primarily) to explore ocean circulation, Argo floats serve a dual purpose. Their primary contribution is the CTD [conductivity-temperature-depth]profile data…. “

  104. Because the Oceans absorb heat in the form of shortwave radiation, their job is to protect us from high levels of Solar. One cause of that may be reduced Cloud Albedo levels. So if that drops, the next level of stability to overcome is the entirety of the Oceans. An above calculation puts that at Atmosphere X 1200. Storing the heat for the next Ice Age perhaps, to help Life through those periods. I think we are trying to get a handle on Cloud Albedo levels and trends. What I am seeing here is, Cloud Albedo drives Ocean Temperatures, and perhaps there are correlations there.

  105. How you describe a phenomenon can structure how you perceive it. I would not say there has been a “pause” in warming, as the word “pause” clearly implies there will be a future resumption, something which is at best an assumption at this point. I would say rather there has been an acceleration in the divergence between the climate model projections and measured temperatures. At some future point the divergence might decrease or even disappear, but the only thing we know for sure is the models will continue to project additional warming. So it’s also possible the divergence will continue to widen.

    Having stated the phenomenon as a “pause in warming”, the AGW adherents are naturally inclined to look for the “missing” heat and they posit it has gone in the deep ocean. In other words, their explanation for the divergence is we’re not measuring total heat correctly.

    Now the honest ones among the AGW adherents are coming to the time when they have to ask themselves some rather hard questions:

    1) If we aren’t measuring total system heat correctly now, then clearly we haven’t been measuring it correctly all the times in the past which have been declared “warmest … in … “. If the deep oceans can hide extra heat, we must admit the possibility they can hide extra cold as well.

    2) To be credible the hypothesis of deep ocean heat must be bolstered with an explanation of how the heat got there and this explanation must suggest an observation we could make to support it. No such explanation has been offered to my knowledge.

    3) If I have to hypothesize previously unsuspected and currently unobserved and unexplained mechanisms to explain the divergence between models and measurements, what does that say about the credibility of the models in the first place? Once you’ve admitted the models are incomplete, it is not especially credible to affirm your faith in the models. Sounds like a battered wife: “yes I know he treats me horribly, but that only shows how much he loves me.”

    Thus the “hiding in the deep ocean” idea does at least as much to undermine AGW theory as it does to prop it up. It really only serves to delay the day of reckoning.

    Given a choice between one simple explanation and several inconsistent and complicated ones, the rational scientific choice is to prefer the simpler one: the models are wrong.

    We can revisit this choice later if measured warming increases to catch up with model projections, or there is the necessary empirical support for the hiding in the deep ocean hypothesis.

    • The “hiding in the deep ocean” hypothesis has a major problem and that is that you cannot “heat” water through the surface. I’ve tried and the heat is totally rejected. Recommend you try it for yourself.rgds

  106. Jimbo says:
    July 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Let’s celebrate the new record! My celebration will involve ice melting in a suitable container holding a low pH solution of water & ethanol, with some suspended carbohydrates.

    Without your comment, I’d have not heard of it. The silence from the media speaks loudly.

  107. I will believe the ocean is warming due to GHG when they isolate the heat generated from every undersea volcano as well as every other underwater heat source vent etc. Until then they have no argument in particular how 0-2000 can heat more than 0-700 suggests heat from below not above.

  108. Actually I’m disappointed in you all. if you look at the Heidi Cullen (sorry Dr Heidi Cullen) EPW Video again one can actually see the missing heat arrive and deposit itself just underneath where she’s sitting. As the Senator asks about whether she agrees about Obama’ s accelerating Global Warming comment it arrives then and there, either that or her facial expression signifies something else? 97% of her backside agrees in the CAGW meme just at that moment.

  109. “When the deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t pan out in a few years, and that stored hidden warming doesn’t spring out of the deep ocean like a caged lion, where will they put the warming next? They are running out of places. ”

    The core?

  110. “Weird [you can say again!] … either we have aliens at work – or ….” [Mr. Murphy at 11:20]…………….. Leprechauns!

    Mulligan: Aye, Murphy me lad, [gravely nodding], ’tis the wee folk [glances around, wouldn’t do to have one hear you — they are NOT nice] for sure.

    Murphy: Mulligan, ye’re full o’ beans.

    Mulligan: [fixes his eyes hard on Murphy’s] How d’ye explain THIS, then, eh? Every time there’s lots o’ fish in the stream, there’s been Leprechauns at work.

    Murphy: See any?

    Mulligan: Nope.

    Murphy: How do you know there are any, then?

    Mulligan: Because there’ve been a lot of fish. It’s Leprechauns that bring the fish, I TELL YE.

    Murphy: Okay, Mulligan, then, if the Leprechauns fill the stream with fish, then why have there been no fish in the stream for the past 17 years or so?

    Mulligan: They hid ‘em in a big cave in Scotland.

    ******************************************
    Climatologist Quote of the Week (emphasis mine):

    “… decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming… .” [Lean and Rind]

    Aaaand the power steering going out on my car also countered much of my anthropogenic steering. Since when has a LACK OF BOOST been a countervailing force?!!

    **********************************

    Well written post, A-th-y — great use of quotes from the WUWT oceans expert, Bob Tisdale. Thanks!

    @ALL YOU WONDERFUL WUWT SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS ABOVE

    WELL DONE! Thunderingly powerful refutation of the Fantasy Science Club!

    You guys are so COOL!

    I love this site.

  111. So we are now on step 3?

    1. The models say that Co2 is the biggest driver of Global warming, it will heat up the Earth and temperatures will be going up. The evidence will be the hotspot.

    Temperatures are stalling and no (statistically significant) warming for 18-20 years (depending on which data set is used). The hotspot can’t be found.

    2. Instead of heating the atmosphere, the increased warming (energy) is causing Extreme Weather, more and more severe hurricanes, cyclones, tornados and other storms, droughts and increased rainfall.

    The data shows that extreme (whatever that means) weather is not increasing. Hurricanes and cyclone activity is decreasing and there is no significant change in global droughts and rainfall data.

    3. Instead of heating the atmosphere and causing Extreme Weather, the heat is now moving into the deep oceans.

    No sufficient data available for the deep oceans………

    And they still maintain the models are correct.

    Step 4…?

  112. The inconvenient truth is, warming can not hide in the abyss for long, for average temperature of the deep ocean is a regulated quantity. At least as long as there is an interface between ice and seawater anywhere on the globe (and sea ice is not going to go away completely any time soon). The explanation is simple, I believe even climate scientists have the mental capacity to comprehend it.

    As some heat gets into the abyss, conceivably by vertical turbulent mixing, that is, driven by pure mechanical energy input, it makes deep waters more buoyant. Now, seawater, unlike fresh water, has its highest density just above freezing, which temperature is assumed right at the seawater – ice interface, what is more, it is determined by the very physics of seawater, not “climate”. The next step is, this water mass starts to sink somewhere along the ice edge, replacing somewhat warmer and more buoyant water masses at depth, ones mentioned above, which got there driven by turbulent mixing, induced by internal waves breaking above rugged bottom features. And yes, those internal waves are excited by tidal flows and surface winds, that is, by mechanical, not thermal means.

    The net result is, temperature of the deep ocean gets right back to the point it used to be. No long term warming is possible whatsoever, the regulator is set to the freezing point of seawater tightly.

    Now, the only free parameter in the story above is the exact locations of downwelling and distribution of downwelling fluxes among said locations. Downwelling flux, integrated globally, is set by the rate of vertical mixing, that is, by global re-supply of buoyancy at depth, which in turn is determined by tidal forces (roughly periodic over the Metonic cycle, 19 years) and surface winds, over the Southern ocean, mostly (Roaring Forties, Furious Fifties, Screaming Sixties), whose intensity cannot increase indefinitely either. Therefore, it is really about the distribution of a pre-determined flux, which won’t vary much with “climate”.

    Downwelling, obviously, occurs at locations where density of seawater is highest along the seawater – ice interface. This is where climate comes into play, because these locations are determined by (regional) climate, which in turn is influenced by ocean surface currents carrying water to those spots.

    Density of seawater at a temperature next to freezing is determined by its salinity and pressure. The first one is easy to comprehend, the saltier the water, the higher its density is. As for the latter one, freezing point of seawater decreases with increasing pressure, therefore at locations with deep ice, temperature of liquid water next to it is lower than temperature at freezing on the surface, while its density is higher.

    The former process occurs in the Noth Atlantic, mostly, its procuct is called North Atlantic Deep Water. The latter one forms around Antarctica, where roots of ice ridges & shelves often go down to several hundred meters or more. See Antarctic Bottom Water for details. In the North Pacific neither salinity, nor depth of ice is sufficient to induce downwelling under current climate.

    The point is, locations of downwelling and local fluxes (unlike the overall flux) are not fixed, and downwelling at any specific spot is intermittent. It moves around in a haphazard manner, increasing in some regions while decreasing elsewhere. It’s like weather, at a slow pace.

  113. Is de billion quintrillion degree place…..centigrady or farenheity thingies…I forget…

  114. So in essence, ARGO buoys are the new trees. There will probably end up being one special Yamal Buoy that is the crux of another failed Warmist scare.

  115. Next the heat will be hiding by ‘hiding’ by escaping into space. Hang on, but that invalidates greenhouse gas models……cant have that.

  116. Don’t the ARGO buoys “go with the flow”, and wouldn’t the natural flow of deep waters be from cooler to warmer, otherwise you would never get upwellings of warmer water.

    ie could the barely significant warming of the sub 700m area be just an artefact of how it is measured.

    Maybe its the warming of the currents from processes WITHIN the Earth

  117. I probably shouldn’t say this because it might give them ideas..

    But I wonder how much energy has been sucked up by the growth in the biosphere.?

  118. Obama will reveal the location of the missing the next time he “pivots” to the economy …

  119. I’ll add a bit to the post from Berényi Péter. As other posters have pointed out the amountof energy involved will barely heat the deep ocean .01-,01degC. putting it at 3-4degC +- .01 or so. In order for that energy to heat anything it has to transfer energy to a lower temperature. Unlike radiation, kinetic heat energy can’t transfer energy to a warmer substrate. Just where in the world is there any place colder than the deep ocean to transfer heat to. At best, the “increase” in deep ocean temperature might very slightly slow other processes, such as the ice/water interface effect Berényi Péter posits. There is just no “there” there regarding deep ocean heating, if it truly is occurring, to any effects on the larger climate.

  120. where will they put the warming next?

    How about down the mouth of volcanoes.

    That way the heat can be traveling into the belly of Mother Gaea and if we don’t stop CO2 then her belly will explode!

  121. I hope all the correct protocols are in place when securing the screen door on the alarmists submarine.

  122. Actually the earth has been getting a lot cooler since 1980. Except the coldness has been hiding in the extra deep ocean. Prove me wrong.

    More seriously, if so much heat has been going into the ocean, should not sea level rise be increasing dramatically?

  123. If the heat is cycling in and out of the oceans as they suggest, the warming we had in the 80’s and 90’s could just as well have been through heat coming out of the oceans and not CO2

  124. jorgekafkazar says:
    July 24, 2013 at 9:19 am
    ————————————————–
    Why not just do the experiments yourself?

    Experiment 1. Effect of incident LWIR on liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
    Incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of materials. Climate scientists claim that DWLWIR has the same effect over oceans as it does over land, and this is shown in many Trenberthian energy budget cartoons. Does the ocean respond to DWLWIR the same way as land?
    – Build two water proof EPS foam cubes 150mm on a side and open at the top.
    – Position a 100mm square aluminium water block as LWIR source 25mm above each cube.
    – Position two small computer fans to blow a very light breeze between the foam cube and the water blocks.
    – Insert a probe thermometer with 0.1C resolution through the side of each cube 25mm below the top.
    – Continuously run 80C water through one water block and 1C water through the other.
    – Fill both EPS foam cubes to the top with 40C water an allow to cool for 30 min while recording temperatures.
    – Repeat the experiment with a thin LDPE film on the surface of the water in each cube to prevent evaporative cooling.
    You will find that water that is free to evaporatively cool does not have its cooling rate significantly changed by incident LWIR. LWIR radiation from CO2 does not trap heat in the oceans.

    Experiment 2. Effect of heated air on liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
    Some claim that a hotter atmosphere can heat the oceans or slow their cooling rate. CO2 acts to cool the atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm, but you can check the effect on the oceans of heated air for amusement purposes.
    – Fill a small plastic bucket with cold water.
    – stir the water and measure the temperature.
    – Direct the hot air from a hair drier at the surface of the water from distance that prevents splashing for about 5 minutes.
    – Stir the water again and measure the temperature.
    – Repeat the experiment but this time direct the hair drier at the side of the bucket.
    You will find that trying to heat liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool with hot air in contact with the skin evaporation layer is ineffective.

    The Global Warming Monster is not hiding in the deep oceans, intermittently leaping out to cause “Extreme Weather” then running away again. The Global Warming Monster does not exist.

  125. When the deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t pan out in a few years, and that stored hidden warming doesn’t spring out of the deep ocean like a caged lion, where will they put the warming next?

    Well, I was going to suggest they ‘put it where the sun don’t shine’…… but I realized that the deep ocean hidey hole IS where the sun don’t shine!

    They really are running outta places, aren’t they??!!!

  126. “…, the “raw” ocean heat content data for 0-2000 meters shows the decreased rate of warming after the ARGO floats were deployed.

    And they wonder why we don’t trust climate science.

    As to where the missing heat went, I’m going with Libby and Pandolfi who in 1979 came out with a paper that said their proxy data showed a repeating pattern and this pattern shows warming until 2000 and then cooling, for perhaps 50 years.

    I.E: A natural cycle is hiding the warming.

  127. I did some investigating on the picture of the boat in the Times of London article. I searched Getty Images and could not locate it. I did a View Image Info on the photo and I found the description:
    “Low water levels in a lake in China”

    Further searches found another article, same boat, published May 2012:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/earths-needed-sustain-human-activity-2030-report-finds-article-1.1078933

    But now I have a name, Chaohu lake, and a date, May 2011.
    Further searches came up with the same boat, different angle, also dated May 2011:
    http://english.cri.cn/6909/2011/05/30/189s640237.htm

    The closest I came in Getty Images was this:
    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/fishing-boats-run-aground-at-chaohu-lake-on-may-28-2011-in-news-photo/114933826
    Again, dated May 2011

    If ones does a BING image search for chaohu lake, 99% of the images are of a very wet lake. In fact, they have an Algae problem right now from raw sewage and industrial pollution. No mention of any drought. In fact, I saw one article on flooding in the same region in July 2011, so the drought must have been short lived.

    Now given the propensity of the Chinese government to do master planning, damming rivers and moving whole villages, I don’t think anyone can say that this drought was absolutely caused by AGW. But that won’t stop the AGW proponents from recycling old pictures with their stories… Given the modern convenience of the Web, it astounds me that they are too lazy to find fresh pictures to an old story..

  128. It would stand to reason that if the Earth was warming, the heat would be pretty much even distributed due to thermal diffusion.

    SSTs are warmer than surface air temps, we have different seasons at the same time in different parts of the globe, and the seas lag temp changes on land for those. Immediate thermal equilibrium doesn’t happen in the earth’s system.

  129. It’s a very nice boat, isn’t it?. I thought it was a punt on some English tidal creek. The flat bottom is perfect for navigating shallow, swampy backwaters, and lying at rest on the mud when the tide goes out or the seasonal lake margins start to dry up. It was made for that lake.

  130. “… you allege fraud where there is none… ” [Scribbler 7/24/13 at 1:43PM]

    Okay, Scribble, have it your way — Fantasy Club “scientists” are just REALLY, REALLY, STUPID.

  131. @ Mark Bofill

    And aside from all that, once the heat gets down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, it will wake up Godzilla as well.

  132. I spent a number of years in the aerospace industry at a company that built satellites and instrumentation for manned space flight. Quality control was, to say the least, rigorous. Every part had a unique serial number with full version and document control. All instruments, including thermometers, were bench tested and then tested again in a chamber that operated at the partial pressures and temperatures found in orbit. I find it hard to believe that the Argos thermometers and any probes etc. that are part of the temperature sensing sub-system were not subjected to testing with the results recorded. It would be interesting to FOIA the test data for the thermometers to learn what kind of a testing protocol was used, what percentage was bench tested, if they were designed to withstand Trenberth’s hidden heat, if they were capable of even 0.1 degree accuracy in a test rig let alone 0.01 degree accuracy in the field, etc. I think that the concept is obvious.

    I will wager a case of one of Chico’s finest, High Water Brewing Company’s stout, that the concepts that I have described are foreign to NOAA and the Argos program and that there is no test data available for the Argos thermometers because any testing was rudimentary at best and logs were not kept.

  133. The laws of thermodynamics would demand that the upper 700m would have to double in temp to force the heat down and break the thermolines which keep differing ocean levels of water at differing temps. ( salinity among other things creates these barriers) Its like a layer cake… got to eat the first layer to get to the second.

    I am at a loss of what mechanism is responsible for the heat magically by passing the laws of fluid and heat dynamics..

  134. @ Phil ?? Which Phil ??

    “””””……Actually the deep ocean’s temperature is approximately 4°C. This is also the maximum density of water. Below 4°C, water starts to expand until it freezes, at which point it is less dense than the liquid phase. ……””””””

    This is a common misconception. The 4 deg C maximum water density ONLY applies to FRESH WATER.

    The salinity of ocean water is such that the density increases continuously all the way down to the freezing point.

    It may very well be true, that the deep oceans are at about 4 deg C, but it is NOT because of any maximum density myth. Ocean water is way too salty to have a maximum density before it freezes.

    So which Phil are you, because the real one fully understands that ??

  135. I always understood deep ocean processes to be very slow. Indeed my understanding is that sea levels are gradually rising because the deep oceans haven’t finished warming up from the end of the last ice age. I cannot square this understanding of very slow changes in the deep ocean with the notion that the oceans have somehow reacted in the space of less than half a century to surface changes on the order of half a degree in order to hide away the extra heat.

    The other problem I have with this is that detecting it requires measurements of the sea temperature below 700 metres accurate to within a thousandth of a degree. I disagree that a large number of measurements AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS can be combined to produce a measurement with this accuracy. There seems to be statistical fallacy involved here in the error bound computation. These are not a large number of independent measurements of the same thing. It is wrong to treat them as if they were. Furthermore if the deep ocean had undergone sudden unusual recent warming, we’d expect to see an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. We don’t see this, in fact if anything we see a deceleration. I am therefore not convinced that the purported warming even exists.

    Even if we could measure deep sea temperatures this accurately and did reliably determine that they had risen in recent years, we only have a record of these temperatures going back at most a decade. We have no idea of the historical extent of the variation.

    Finally, no mechanism has been proposed for getting the heat down there. So even accepting that deep ocean warming had been detected, all we have is a correlation without a physical mechanism. Essentially a coincidence! If you allow such correlations without known physical mechanism you will see there is much stronger evidence of this type that a quiet sun causes very cold weather than there is for the warmist conjecture that the deep oceans are hiding recent warming.

  136. The deep oceans are mostly between 0.0C and 2.0C.

    This graph shows the average temperature of the oceans at 4,000 metres according to the world ocean atlas. Around Antarctica, about 0.0C; Atlantic 2.0C, Pacific 1.0C.

    At 5,000 metres, about the same.

  137. Tax-and-spend liberals are always like this. I’m a fiscal conservative, and I tend to argue against publically-financed worlds fairs, olympics, arenas, stadiums, etc. When shown the numbers that their pet projects will lose a ton of money, tax-and-spend liberals invent something called “hidden economic benefits”, which they claim outweigh the proven losses. This discussion reminds me of those arguments, except that here it’s “hidden global warming” that outweighs the measured cooling.

  138. Overheard at a tent in an “Occupy” rally amid pot/tobacco smoke, leather jackets, and a VERY notable lack of academic achievements: “It dun hid awf up in thuh OHshun, Ya’W!”

  139. george e. smith said on July 24, 2013 at 9:22 pm:

    @ Phil ?? Which Phil ??

    “””””……Actually the deep ocean’s temperature is approximately 4°C. This is also the maximum density of water. Below 4°C, water starts to expand until it freezes, at which point it is less dense than the liquid phase. ……””””””

    This is a common misconception. The 4 deg C maximum water density ONLY applies to FRESH WATER.

    (snip)

    So which Phil are you, because the real one fully understands that ??

    Did you miss the /sarc tag? ;)

  140. Now, I have just completed my experiment and the data is actually correct. It is just the wrong way up. Because everything in the southern hemisphere is upside down, you have to turn that chart upside down and ‘presto’ Global warming is back in an instant. The pause has gone! Same goes for the sea ice in Antarctica … That has actually all disappeared!

    /sarc

  141. @Bill Illis 9:39 pm.
    And what, pray tell, is the data sampling at 4000 and 5000 m ? I suspect a lot of data and contour smoothing. A map at 2000 m would be sourced from ARGO, Deeper than 2000 m is very sparcely sampled.

    Page 2 of this PDF has a vertical profile, 0 to 5000 m depth, 75S to 65N latidude in the Western Atlantic. Again, what control below 2000 m is unspecified. But it is an interesting profile.

  142. I don’t give a rip about heat in the oceans. I was told that the surface temperature would rise and by how much. I was told that the science was settled. I was told I’m stupid for thinking otherwise. I was shown graphs of rising temperatures of the surface. Why would I care about ocean heat. First temperature is not equal to heat, secondly there isn’t even a linear correlation. If these guys want to change the subject from temperature to heat, which most here seem fine with, then please explain how moving air current can change global heat. After all they have blamed cool years on el-Nino or el-Nina.

  143. ironargonaut says:
    July 25, 2013 at 12:28 am
    …..
    After all they have blamed cool years on el-Nino or el-Nina.
    ————–
    Yes, and I always get the blame for the weather,.

  144. cynical_scientist says:
    July 24, 2013 at 9:29 pm
    My thoughts are very similar. The time lag for ocean heat content to change significantly (globally) must be pretty darn huge. And no, I don’t think 50 years of less than half a degree of surface warming would cover it, either!
    Whatever the OHC is supposed to be telling us (according to the warmista) it does not necessarily correlate to current or very recent surface temps. But then again, that’s what the models are for, to ‘prove’ whatever ‘they’ want?

  145. Eric Simpson says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:38 am

    “… is there any way you can disable the trackpad to defeat the really bothersome cursor float?”

    Yes in Windows XP and above(can’t speak to *pple).

    Control Panel —> Mouse(or touchpad) —>Then hunt around in “hardware” or the name of the touchpad(varies with hardware maker). Turn touchpad off or “disable when external USB pointer device attached”(varies with hardware maker).

    Hope this helps.

  146. Bob, please pardon but I have to ask. Don’t global ocean currents serve to alter temperatures below the surface? Is that a mechanism sufficient to permit episodes where surface measures fall a bit while the depths pick up a few joules?
    While I suspect hedonics make up much or all of the problem here, is it right to suggest temperature measures in deep ocean cannot possibly rise unless the surface samples do? Would an equatorial increase for a year or ten – offset by cooler surface temps elsewhere – do that trick?
    Thanks.

  147. Reading everyone’s contributions, this has been one of the most entertaining threads for a while. I’ve laughed quite a few times.

    Yet no one has really nailed the root cause of this new unprecedented ‘Anthropogenic Deep Oceanic Global Warming Replacing Climate Change’ doom quite yet . . . .

    (Sarc on) It’s the fault of all those pesky whales. They come up from the deep, inhale vast quantities of really hotter than hotty air and drag it back down to the bottom. All deep diving sea mammals do it. And as for insects, water beetles do the same in our garden pond – and the surface bubbles too – so it must be boiling then.

  148. CO2 has no means of making the atmosphere putting extra energy into the ocean. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere could possibly do to make the surface (and the ocean) warmer is restrict the total energy going out of the ocean, from the surface up. This could only possibly happen if the troposphere actually got warmer first or cooled more slowly than the surface, creating a less steep temperature gradient surface > atmosphere. Nothing of this is observed to happen since 2001. And still global OHC has increased:

    Claiming CO2 warming continues unabatedly even when the surface and atmospheric warming isn’t simply won’t fly. In effect, they’re rejecting their originally hypothesized CO2 warming mechanism. Lifting the ERL should lift the tropospheric temperature profile, hence relatively warm each tropospheric layer down, ultimately leading to a warming surface. This is not observed. And still energy is accumulating in the ocean. What AGW mechanism does that?

  149. Either energy accumulated from a radiative imbalance is significantly distributed to the ocean depths or it is not. If it is, it’s not going to reassemble in the surface layer. Not without breaking the second law of thermodynamics, anyway.

  150. With such poorly sub-sampled data, both in space and time, I would doubt anything other than a very broad guess would be a truely valid scientific conclusion.

  151. “It is true that the NODC’s ARGO-era ocean heat content (0-2000 meters) continues to warm globally, but always recall that the ARGO data had to be adjusted, modified, tweaked, corrected, whatever, in order to create that warming.” – Bob Tisdale

    The implication that measurements of the vertical temperature profile- to depths down to 2000 metre- using instruments like those used in the ARGO Programme really is quite laughable.
    Even when working faultlessly, the pressure drift accuracy of the buoys is specified at +/-1.3dbar (+/-13metre), implying a temperature accuracy of about +/-0.065ºC (at 700m in 35ºlat waters).
    Again, even when working faultlessly the pressure sensor sensitivity is not time invariant, the transducer normally becomes less sensitive, causing the instrument to overestimate depth and thereby give an increasing positive temperature error (at depth).
    But the ARGO floats don’t have a history of working faultlessly. Many- those using transducers made by one supplier- are prone to a leak which causes an increase in the pressure sensitivity and an increasingly negative bias. The bias can be detected from near surface measurements (by an indication of positive altitude) and a bias adjustment applied, but the adjustment for sensitivity change is little more than guesswork.
    The pressure error can be as much as -65dbar (-650 m) at -2000m depth.
    So the claims of Balmaseda and Trenberth of temperature shifts of a few thousands of a degree Celsius per year in the profiles at depths between -700m and -2000m should be treated skeptically.

  152. LOL. Pointman on the pause.

    …..I’ve even read a minor prelate of the church arguing that some kind of slight pause was actually foretold by two per cent of their holy oracles of Delphi but given that their machineries of joy have never predicted anything other than hellfire for us unbelievers, I’m inclined to take that with a snort of incense……

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/the-pause/

  153. “CO2 has no means of making the atmosphere putting extra energy into the ocean. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere could possibly do to make the surface (and the ocean) warmer is restrict the total energy going out of the ocean, from the surface up. ”

    Kristin,
    Don’t you know that Co2 is a magical gas? There is nothing that it cannot do.

  154. ***
    Earl Wood says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Blaming the lost heat on the ocean seems like a loosing argument to me, not b/c it is necessarily wrong, but b/c it makes AGW no longer a threat.
    ***

    Quite right. “Heat” diffused/dispersed into massive volumes of cold water isn’t any threat when that water is well below the avg earth temperature.

  155. ***
    Earl Wood says:
    July 24, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Blaming the lost heat on the ocean seems like a loosing argument to me, not b/c it is necessarily wrong, but b/c it makes AGW no longer a threat.
    ***

    In addition, I don’t see how CO2 “heat” can possibly make it to the depths. The CO2 IR can’t penetrate like solar SW — it’s absorbed in the first few millimeters, and so is manifested immediately as water surface temp and increased water vapor.

  156. “””””…..Phil says:

    July 24, 2013 at 11:27 pm

    george e. smith said on July 24, 2013 at 9:22 pm:

    @ Phil ?? Which Phil ??

    (snip)

    So which Phil are you, because the real one fully understands that ??

    Did you miss the /sarc tag? ;)…..”””””

    I plead total ignorance; besides my eyes aren’t what they used to be !

  157. There is a plausible answer for why decade or multi-decadal pauses in warming were known by climate scientists but not shared with the press and it is called money. That is the real head in the sand action taking place here. See no evil, hear no evil

  158. Mmmmm….Murphy’s… .” [Ro Ha! at 10:50PM 7/24/13]

    LOL, an’ ye’re pint is? #[;)]

  159. “I don’t give a rip about heat in the oceans.” [Iron Argonaut (emphasis mine)]

    Loved your refreshingly blunt post.

    Yeah, I think most of us DO NOT GIVE A FIG about the ocean heat thing, just arguing the issue to show how wrongheaded the “science” behind it is. And that refuting is a good thing — there are many people reading WUWT who NEED this education.

    We have been, as your fine post underscores, intentionally overlooking the underlying reality (silently granting it ad argumentum — but, I’ll shout out the truth, here) that:

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE — NONE — THAT HUMAN CO2 HAS CAUSED ANY CHANGE IN GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE (OR HEAT).

    That is: “Where has the imaginary heat gone to, girls and boys?” is a question said with a smile by any sane person [hence all the /sarc’s and humor above]. Nevertheless, because the Fantasy Science Club has convinced some people that it knows what it is talking about, the excellent scientific arguments are presented above.

    And, Iron Argonaut, I hope you realize that most of my comment here was simply elicited by your nice summary and is not an attempt to help YOU understand… . (just said that to avoid, I hope!, offending you)

    BTW — you may just prefer to write in understated, non-bolded, text, but, if your personality is reflected in your strong writing style, you might enjoy an occasional bold for emphasis (I LOVE IT — too much, ahem). If so, click on “Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT” on the right side of this page, scroll down to his tips on html formatting. And have fun!

    **************************
    @ A Cementhead — I AM SO GLAD TO SEE YOU ARE BACK!! Hurrah! #[:)] — great practical advice, too; hope that guy (whom Eric S. was writing about) reads it!

  160. Konrad says:

    July 24, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    Or Konrad try making moon tea. Since plastic will pass IR get a plastic gallon jar fill with water and some tea bags. Set outside at night in summer. Full moon if you wish then let the 343 W/sqr meter of DWLWIR make the tea. It should be as warm as the sun tea made during the day using a glass container and the 168 W/sqr meter of sunshine. : )

  161. mkelly says:
    July 25, 2013 at 11:57 am
    ——————————————————-
    It is indeed possible to make “Moon Tea” all that is required is one of these –

    However the traditional “Japanese Tea Ceremony” method of taking too much time and equipment to produce tepid tea has the advantage of being slightly cheaper.

  162. @Janice Moore

    Thanks for the exclamation mark after the Ha. It comes close to expressing the contemptuous snort which is my usual response to almost everything these days. I think I will start using it as my screen name.

  163. Glad you liked that, Ha! My pleasure. #[:)]

    Sometimes, I think mine should be LAUGH-OUT-LOUD (at MORE nonsense from the “scientists say” gang).

  164. The Anthropomorphic Global Warming scam has demonstrated one thing anyway.
    You cannot fix stupid. I note a few Warmists doing their best to show that in action. How can these numbskulls keep on blurting out the tired line that anyone who doesn;t buy it, must be funded by big business? Even a cursory examination shows the money is in the Warmist camp, and so too most governments, big corporations and especially Banksters who are licking their lips at the Carbon Trading derivatives. I’ve not seen any evidence of big oil or anyone you’d think likely to want to, paying money for people to deny this rubbish. Why would they? At its best the only thing the hoax will do is ensure higher prices, for them. It isn’t going to reduce the use of fossil fuels or industry and even if it does, they will just charge more.

    You can’t change the climate by paying a tax.

  165. For the record though, if there are any big corporations or indeed anyone who would like to pay me to debunk and deny the AGW hoax, I am well versed in the subject, scientifically inclined and would work tirelessly to debunk the rubbish for a fee. By all means feel free to contact me and make an offer. :)

  166. Rob says:
    July 25, 2013 at 8:10 am

    Talk about desperate. That`s a bunch of nonsense.

    The formal term is “special pleading.”

  167. I am starting to think the Oceans have been under represented with the global warming question. There is a lot of good information at Jeff Id’s Heat Content/Capacity article and discussion. The Oceans ability to bring the cold when it mixes. Perhaps it hasn’t been doing that mixing as much over the last 100 or so years.

    Having a look at the Wood For Trees website, the closest I could find is the Sea Surface Temperatures which perhaps shows the transition or boundary between the Atmosphere and Oceans, where a transfer of energy might be.

    I arrived at this extremely amateur plot: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:150/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:150

    Roughly put, the SSTs are above or equal to the Land temperatures from 1860 to about 1975. The two lines then swap places after that date. During the other rise on the plot, 1910 to 1940 they don’t flip, but move closer to flipping, to about the same value.

    My chemistry student son doesn’t like it when I tell him things like Iron wants to turn into Iron Oxide. He doesn’t like the phrase ‘wants to’. Nevertheless, perhaps since 1975, the SST wants to pull the Global Mean temperature of the Atmosphere to its temperature. Looking at 1940 to the present, the SST wants to straighten that Global Mean temperature line.

    If we try to figure out which line would be pulling the other, we’d ask, which one has the heat capacity? The Oceans. Which one uptakes a lot of Solar? The Oceans.

    I understand we need better data because the SST is a questionable proxy here for the totality of the Oceans. What could be the significance of the flip in 1975? And the almost flip during 1910 to 1940? Perhaps the Oceans are signaling us as to what they are doing? Are they working to raise or lower the Global Mean atmospheric temperatures?

    It seems to depend on how much are the Oceans mixing, bringing up cold water, which I know very little about.

Comments are closed.