Guest essay by David Archibald
President Obama didn’t start the war on coal. That war had its origins back in the 1970s. The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982 with the establishment of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The CDIAC collects data on carbon dioxide concentrations around the planet and conducts experiments with pre-ordained outcomes. By that I mean growing plants in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations to study the effects of that on growth rates but at the same time adding ozone so that the growth would be stunted. Not everything the CDIAC is completely useless though.
The pause in global temperature rise might cause a loss of faith in the global warming faithfully so the priests of the movement are required to provide an explanation. The explanation they have come up with is that the missing heat is hiding in the depth of the Altantic Ocean and will one day leap out at us when we are least expecting it. This is an illustration of the heat gone AWOL:
The illustration shows heat plunging into the depths as far as 1,500 metres. The oceans don’t work like that. Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimetres of the ocean’s surface. Waves mix the water near the surface layer such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the top 100 metres. Below that there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water.
This is where the CDIAC comes in handy. Following is a map of CDIAC voyages in the Atlantic Ocean:
And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:
It shows how the Antarctic is a giant refrigerator for the planet. The dark blue in the bottom left is cold water below 1°C plunges near Antarctica and ponds in the deep ocean right up to the equator. The CDIAC voyages also record carbon dioxide data of course. This is the carbon dioxide and total alkalinity profile for A20, to the west of the A16 voyage:
Once again, most variation is near surface while the bulk of the ocean is effectively homogenous.
We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data. The CDIAC is well past its use-by date though. Apart from the unnecessary cost, it was conceived for a dark purpose under President Carter. The United States will need all the energy it can get soon enough.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
Reference:
Is Atlantic holding Earth’s missing heat?
Eli Kintisch
Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth’s missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? The suspects include changes in atmospheric water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, or the noxious sunshade of haze emanating from factories. Others believe the culprit is the mighty Pacific Ocean, which has been sending vast slugs of cold bottom water to the surface. But two fresh investigations finger a new suspect: the Atlantic Ocean. One study, in this issue of Science, presents sea temperature data implying that most of the missing heat has been stored deep in the Atlantic. The other, published online in Nature Climate Change, suggests a warming Atlantic is abetting the Pacific by driving wind patterns that help that ocean cool the atmosphere. But some climate specialists remain skeptical. In a third recent paper, also published online in Nature Climate Change, other researchers argue that the Pacific remains the kingpin. One reason some scientists remain convinced the Pacific is behind the hiatus is a measured speedup in trade winds that drive a massive upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest. A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s time to go beyond ARGO and have anchored, densely spaced monitoring instruments (including for acidification) in all the world’s oceans. If nothing else, they will greatly aid weather forecasting.
The big problem with theories like the ocean swallowed the heat is that there are no failure criteria – the theories are unfalsifiable, utterly unscientific, because they make no testable predictions, other than a vague threat that the world might get warmer again someday.
God of the gaps – the global warming scare survives in the gaps in our knowledge.
Water also acts as an instantaneous liquid expansion thermometer so heat going into the oceans would show up in tide gauge records as a recent upswing following a recent downswing as it released heat before. There are no such swings, going back 150 years:
postimg.org/image/uszt3eei5/
It would be good for a mathematically inclined reader to calculate the expected sea level rise required to hide all the man made global warming from us landlubbers, so possibly give my argument real teeth.
“But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest.”
Models all the way down.
I used to have a very negative opinion regarding coal usage. The modern emissions controls seem very effective these days. Although,the industry certainly has some issues with their handling of the waste byproducts.
Great job with the graphics display of the Atlantic.
Explaining the North Atlantic is nowhere adequate despite numerous papers on the subject, despite the longest and ‘most’ reliable records available.
Solar, geomagnetism, tectonics and Arctic atmospheric pressure they all have input and lead by number of years the N. Atlantic SST and its de-trended derivative the AMO
(see Here )
All of the above (see the link) point to the fall in the N. Atlantic’s and N. Hemisphere temperatures, in not distant future.
Perhaps an early warning : Northern Ireland (home of the famous Armagh observatory) recorded its lowest August minimum temperature ever of – 2C (yes, minus 2 degrees Celsius).
Heat going into the Atlantic is not an anthropogenic change of climate.
It might explain the cooling now and the heating in the past.
Periodicity is not unknown in the past, with two periods of rising temperatures, 1910-1940 and 1970-2000. During 1940-1970 the global temperature indicated global cooling.
David Archibald:
Thankyou for your timely essay.
Immediately below your essay is a comment from Eli Kintisch which lists suggested explanations of the ‘missing heat’. That comment concludes saying
That conclusion demonstrates the real problem which is that so-called ‘climate science’ has abandoned the scientific method and replaced it with a belief system.
What one not-named “scientist” says the recent papers confirm has no relevance, especially when there is no “consensus” because other scientists don’t agree. The possible interpretations of the data reported in those papers is important.
Eli Kintisch says global warming has been “put” “on a pause”. No. Global warming has stopped and the existing plateau in global temperature will end with warming or cooling. Therefore, until the plateau ends it cannot be known whether global temperature rise has paused or is reversing.
The important possibility which Eli Kintisch does not mention (fails to recognise?) is that there may be no “missing” heat. There are three known possible reasons for this; viz.
1.
The twentieth century rises in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) known as global warming resulted from redistributed surface temperatures and not altered heat in the climate system.
2.
The twentieth century rises in GASTA resulted from moderation of cloud cover with resulting variations to heat entering the system which is independent of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.
3.
Whatever the cause of the twentieth century rises in GASTA, the rises in GASTA were not discernibly affected by atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations because negative feedbacks in the climate system reduce climate sensitivity to being less than 1.0°C per doubling of CO2 equivalence.
Of course, the existence of those known reasons does not remove the possibility of other and unknown reasons.
Richard
I’m confused. I wouldn’t call myself thick; BSc (Hons) Geol, Chartered Engineer, 25 yrs working scientific experience, but on the other hand I’m no rocket scientist, but to me, the post identifies that the latest sets of “papers” purporting to explain the “Pause” seem to have been written by those suffering from the severest type of delusion. However, I can’t seem to grasp whether the information posted here is a) out of date, b) cherry picked – why would these paper writers ignore empirical data over “modelling experiments” and if the empirical data presented here is sound, why doesn’t someone write a rebuttal?? In fact, why don’t we write rebuttals each and every time these [toilet] papers are authored?
AleaJactaEst says:
August 24, 2014 at 1:04 am
Most of the readers of this blog would be aware of the thermocline that stops mixing. And then you could write a post to that effect in about two lines. That would be too boring for all concerned though. Defeating a nihilist belief system like global warming means mocking them. This post is a rebuttal to the delusionist papers. The entertainment value comes from using CDIAC data to refute global warming claims while showing the readers some data that they might not be aware of. Finally, it is important to put the boot into the nasty nest that is the CDIAC so that when the United States reverts to having a balanced budget, the DCIAC is defunded as part of that process.
And.. Is the following ‘picture’ of Northern hemisphere marine temperature anomalies accurate because there is an awful lot of heat?
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
AleaJactaEst says: August 24, 2014 at 1:04 am
…………….
It is that powerful computers have taken over the science, their software regurgitating modelling data, with the helpless ‘scientists’, instead discussing and arguing, blindly dressing bungled output with a suitable narrative.
To paraphrase A. Einstein “the day that technology surpasses our human interaction the world will have a generation of idiots”
“President Obama didn’t start the war on coal.”
Those of us who are aware that there is a world outside the US already knew that.
First of all (sorry, I again have to get this out) it isn’t a ‘pause’. A ‘pause’ implies that you know future events. The increase in global warming has stopped. If it then continues then it WAS a pause.
Right, that aside, my basic understanding of science says that if you warm water, it will increase in volume. So first of all, that is correct, yes? Ok, so if the oceans have been absorbing warmth all this time (but land temperature shows no change) then the world’s water stores should be growing in volume at a rate far higher than the recent past. Sea levels shouldn’t just be rising in line with recent history, but going up at an extraordinary rate, yes? So to prove that the warmth is being stored, one would only have to look at sea level rise? Is it as simple as I show, or have I missed something?
Hot water floats just like hot air rises, minus massive currents anyway:
http://youtu.be/bN7E6FCuMbY
Excellent article David. I have said many times on this blog that heat cannot just disappear into the oceans for the following reasons:
1) Like you say, if CO2 is warming the atmosphere by a greenhouse effect it can only affect water to a few inches deep and temperature by very little due to the huge specific heat capacity of salt water compared to air at sea level.Add to that, the fact that warm salt water is less dense than cold salt water and there is no way it can disappear into the ocean depths.
2) The reason the oceans warm during the summer, is because of infrared radiation from the sun.
3) The reason the oceans cool during the summer is because solar radiation going in is less than heat energy going out by the mechanism of convection in the sea and the air above the sea. This is why our UK climate is as it is, mild wet winters and cool wet summers because we are a small island surrounded by sea with the Gulf Stream passing our Western shores.
4) Global warming by increased CO2 levels can only warm the air, the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth is unchanged. Therefore the only way the sea could warm as a result, is by heat conduction from the air into the surface of the water, but we have already established that the main transfer of energy in fluids is by convection. So as the air warms it rises away from the surface of the sea being replaced by cooler air from above. There is no known physical process by which less dense warmer water can sink into colder more dense water.
I cannot believe that the AGW believers have subjected us to this tosh, which can be dismissed by a 16 year old with a GCSE in physics!
Question: for fresh water it is most dense at 4 deg C and then gets less dense as it approaches zero (i.e. ice cubes float). Does this relationship, perhaps with a different temperature value, also hold for salt water?
In northern lakes that freeze in winter, the warmer 4deg water does indeed sink below the colder 1deg water and causes the fall and spring “turnover” that drives some nutrient processes.
I see richardscourtney shares my definition of ‘pause’ in the English language! Sorry to be bossy here, but we really should NOT call it a ‘pause’. You simply cannot know if that is the correct term, as you don’t know future events. If you were describing WW2, you wouldn’t describe Germany’s defeat in Africa at the hands of the Allies as a ‘pause’ in their ability to wage war. After Africa, it was all pretty much downhill for Germany’s forces. Had they suffered that Africa defeat, but then went on to repel the Allies in northern France, then Africa would have been a ‘pause’. But we all know that wasn’t the case.
The word ‘pause’ should NOT be used!
David –
I maybe am missing the point, as an outsider in this debate, but I can’t really see why your neat exposition of the heat distribution pattern in the oceans contradicts anything in the present argument, on either side.
I asked in a comment on a previous post for some figures about the relevant heat capacity of the oceans versus the atmosphere, but I wasn’t really answered. I suspect that, even if you confine yourself to the more rapidly-responding surface layers (say, 0-200m) the disparity is vast. That would make any effect such as is being discussed very difficult to identify. Without numbers we can’t really be expected to put your argument in perspective.
There is a very close correlation between NH temperatures and AMO.
According to NOAA
When the AMO decreases, as from 1950 to 1975, global warming may appear to be reversed. When the AMO increases, as from 1975 to the present, the global warming is exaggerated.
In other words, it is not so much the PHASE of the AMO that matters, but the DIRECTION of travel.
AMO hit rock bottom in the mid 1970’s, then rose till around 2000. NH temperatures followed accordingly.
Since 2000, the AMO has remained pretty level, and again NH temperatures have responded in like fashion.
Fairly soon we will see a 25-year decline in the AMO, and when this happens there will follow a corresponding downward effect on temperatures.
The correlation can be seen very well on this Woodfortrees graph.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/correlation-of-the-amo-with-nh-temperatures/
andrewmharding says: August 24, 2014 at 2:16 am
…
1) Like you say, if CO2 is warming the atmosphere by a greenhouse effect it can only affect water to a few inches deep and temperature by very little due to the huge specific heat capacity of salt water compared to air at sea level.
ADH – If the atmosphere is warmed, it can only warm a very thin film of water in which it is in contact. Air temperature and water temperature can differ quite markedly as there is very little heat transfer from one to tother. Note the extremely low lying fog when sea water is about -1C and the air temperature is about -20C. Slight air turbulence creates very low fog.
Add to that, the fact that warm salt water is less dense than cold salt water and there is no way it can disappear into the ocean depths.
ADH – Sorry to disagree, Andrew, but this is not quite so. If winds blow consistently in a particular direction, they create a surface current in that same direction. If there is no land in the way, the current goes round and round the earth – hence the Southern CircumPolar current. But when there is land in the way, the current can either be diverted laterally or vertically. If vertically, the warm water goes down.
…
This is why our UK climate is as it is, mild wet winters and cool wet summers because we are a small island surrounded by sea with the Gulf Stream passing our Western shores.
ADH – with my pedant’s hat on, the Gulf Stream is on the western side of the atlantic, it is the North Atlantic Drift which produces a warmish, dampish climate for the UK.
4) Global warming by increased CO2 levels can only warm the air, the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth is unchanged. Therefore the only way the sea could warm as a result, is by heat conduction from the air into the surface of the water, but we have already established that the main transfer of energy in fluids is by convection. So as the air warms it rises away from the surface of the sea being replaced by cooler air from above.
There is no known physical process by which less dense warmer water can sink into colder more dense water.
ADH – see my comment above. Note also that for every warm surface current there is usually a cool bottom current.
“Global warming is – and only is – an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).”
Good morning. If I may respectfully clarify: it makes sense to me that we need to measure and incorporate temperatures and heat fluxes in any region that impacts the “global” climate. This must include the ocean, which absorbs most of the heat. The risks of a narrow definition for global warming is that one ignores information that may be globally relevant.
“Global warming has stopped while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.”
This is an example of a misleading conclusion drawn from incomplete data. The skeptical mouse climbing the long staircase is thus forced to deny her vertical ascent at each stair.
“Claims that global warming has not stopped are falsehood.”
My criteria for global warming cessation needs to be informed by the prior surface temp hiatuses and by evidence of cessation of effects, such as global ice mass declines. Also, I would need evidence of radiative balance at TOA.
“There is no evidence that heat is ‘hiding’ in the oceans and will – or can – return to cause future global warming.”
Some labs have shown this evidence in the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans beneath the thermocline…and ice is melting.
In terms of evaluating the current understanding of the climate… global warming means GASTA.
It may well be that the energy moved by convection trumps irradiation (well, obviously). But this new insight was never incorporated into the climate models (whoops).
And therefore, the impact of man’s CO2 emissions was evaluated against GASTA only.
The question of “has the world stopped warming” only makes sense with respect to GASTA. Because that is what the models are talking about with their predictions.
Also, the dangerous feedbacks that make Global warming newsworthy all come from GASTA – not heat hidden down the back of the sofa or anywhere else.
“There is no known physical process by which less dense warmer water can sink into colder more dense water.”
Salinity and temperature governs density
That’s quite right.
Sometimes people seem to forget what “haline” means in the phrase “Thermohaline circulation”.
“The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982…”
I do wonder if it was earlier. Perhaps 10 years earlier.
The answer begins with the name Carroll L. Wilson
How did the missing heat get from the top to the bottom with no one noticing? Not only is it missing, it hides its moves.
The reason that these paper writers ignore empirical data is that the data is not telling them what they want to hear. Even the fudged data sets where they have “adjusted” the data to suit their preconceived biases are not telling them what they want to hear.
Many rebuttals have been posted here at WUWT and in many, many other places. But it is hard to get a scientific paper past the group-think, censorship, and pal-review of the various scientific journals. In fact, some have said that a young scientist would risk his/her entire career on submitting a paper showing that the CO2 alarmist group-think is bunk. One can lose funding, grants, chance at advancement or full time professorship and so on.
My friend, I think only Mother Nature can end the madness of the modern crowd. When the ice starts to flow toward New York, then you might see some of the alarmists finally admit that man-generated CO2 did not have a darn thing to do with it on net and then we might get back to trying to figure out what really causes climate change.
The climate does change. Glaciations do happen as do interglacials and we don’t know what causes this. Even worse, we don’t know what caused the present ice age to begin with nor if we will ever see an end to it. For me, I will not live to see even the end of the present interglacial of this ice age, much the less see an end to the ice age itself. So, I only worry about the government and its ridiculous anti-humanity rules and laws that are prompted by this false religion.
The Hockey Schtick keeps a running total of scientific papers that explain the pause. This is the 38th scientific explanation. None of the models factor in any of these causes. If only half of the excuses have some validity, no matter what goes into the model you get garbage out.
There is no ”missing” heat, the heat never arrived. The sun is at a low level of radiation so we get less. the 18year slowdown might turn into a full blown total cooling like the LIA or even worse.