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

From Dr. Roger Pielke Senior’s Climate Sci blog, a discussion on the “missing heat” in Earth’s climate system gives me a motivation to write some silly prose:

The heat is gone, oh where, oh where?

Maybe in the oceans?

Maybe in the air?

It’s just not there.

They could not find it any-where.

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

Is There “Missing” Heat In The Climate System? My Comments On This NCAR Press Release

There was a remarkable press release 0n April 15 from the NCAR/UCAR Media Relations titled

“Missing” heat may affect future climate change

The article starts with the text

BOULDER—Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”

Excerpts from the press release reads

“Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or, more likely, large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured, such as the deepest parts of the oceans. Compounding the problem, Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.”

“A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory, the result of imprecise measurements by satellites and surface sensors or incorrect processing of data from those sensors, the authors say. Until 2003, the measured heat increase was consistent with computer model expectations. But a new set of ocean monitors since then has shown a steady decrease in the rate of oceanic heating, even as the satellite-measured imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy continues to grow.”

Some of the missing heat appears to be going into the observed melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as Arctic sea ice, the authors say.

Much of the missing heat may be in the ocean. Some heat increase can be detected between depths of 3,000 and 6,500 feet (about 1,000 to 2,000 meters), but more heat may be deeper still beyond the reach of ocean sensors.”

Trenberth’s [and co-author, NCAR scientist John Fasullo], however, are grasping for an explanation other than the actual real world implication of the absence of this heat.

  • First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean.
  • Second, the melting of glaciers and continental ice can be only a very small component of the heat change (e.g. see Table 1 in Levitus et al 2001 “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system”. Science).

Thus, a large amount heat (measured as Joules) does not appear to be stored anywhere; it just is not there.

There is no “heat in the pipeline” [or “unrealized heat”] as I have discussed most recently in my post

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

Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo are not recognizing that the diagnosis of upper ocean heat content changes (with it large mass) makes in an effective integrator of long term radiative imbalances of the climate system as I discussed in my papers

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf

and

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf.

The assessment of ocean heat storage changes in Joules is a much more robust methodology to assess global warming than the use of small changes in the satellite diagnosis of radiative forcing from the satellites which have uncertainties of at least the same order.  Trenberth and Fasullo need to look more critically at the satellite data as well as propose how heat in Joules could be transported deep into the ocean without being seen.

I am contacting Kevin to see if he would respond to my comments on this news article (and his Science perspective) in a guest post on my weblog.

UPDATE (April 16 2010) WITH RESPONSE BY KEVIN TRENBERTH PRESENTED WITH HIS PERMISSION

Dear Roger

I do not agree with your comments. We are well aware that there are well over a dozen estimates of ocean heat content and they are all different yet based on the same data. There are clearly problems in the analysis phase and I don’t believe any are correct. There is a nice analysis of ocean heat content down to 2000 m by von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard, and P.-Y. Le Traon 2009: Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008, /J. Geophys. Res.,/ *114*, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237. but even those estimates are likely conservative. The deep ocean is not

well monitored and nor is the Arctic below sea ice. That said, there is a paper in press (embargoed) that performs an error analysis of ocean heat content.

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

Kevin

MY REPLY

Hi Kevin

Thank you for your response. I am aware of the debate on the quality of the ocean data, and have blogged on the von Schuckman et al paper. Since 2005, however, the data from 700m to the surface seems robust spatially (except under the arctic sea ice as you note). An example of the coming to agreement among the studies is Figure 2 in

Leuliette, E. W., and L. Miller (2009), Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608, doi:10.1029/2008GL036010.

We both agree on the need for further data and better analyses. I have posted on this issue; e.g. see

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

However, I do not see how such large amounts of heat could have transited to depths below 700m since 2005 without being detected.

I am very supportive, however, of your recognition that it is heat in Joules that we should be monitoring as a primary metric to monitor global warming. Our research has shown significant biases in the use of the global average surface temperature for this purpose; e.g.

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114,

D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf

Would you permit me to post your reply below along with my response on my weblog.

Best Regards

Roger

KEVIN’S FURTHER REPLY

Roger you may post my comments. The V.s paper shows quite a lot of heat below 700 m.

Kevin

MY FURTHER RESPONSE

Hi Kevin

Thanks! On the V.s et al paper, lets assume their values since 2005 deeper than 700m are correct [which I question since I agree with you on the data quality and coverage at the deeper depths]. However, if they are correct, how much of this heat explains the “missing” heat?

It would be useful (actually quite so) if you would provide what is the missing heat in Joules.

Roger

END OF UPDATE

0 0 vote
Article Rating
368 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JinOH
April 16, 2010 2:49 pm

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,”
Isn’t that called Summer?

Telboy
April 16, 2010 2:53 pm

“Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there….”
I bet he knows where the heat’s gone

Archonix
April 16, 2010 2:54 pm

Just another epicycle…

April 16, 2010 2:55 pm

Maybe one day people will remember that first-time calculations made in a computer, or a piece of paper, must be checked against reality, not the other way around. This will remain my single major cause of contempt for the CAGW. And they won’t correct it. (And nice little verse 🙂 )

Telboy
April 16, 2010 2:55 pm

“He wasn’t there again today,
How I wish he’d go away.”
Like the heat

Robert of Ottawa
April 16, 2010 3:00 pm

It’s worse than we thought!
They not only lost the data, they lost the heat too 8-0
Sorry, I just cannot understand why these pretty senior people are making such rediculous and childish arguments. OK I can, rhetorical.

Telboy
April 16, 2010 3:01 pm

Sounds like a travesty to me

Henry chance
April 16, 2010 3:01 pm

I read this yesterday. So funny. Trenberth seems confused again.

Steve Goddard
April 16, 2010 3:01 pm

In most fields of science, people develop theories based around observations.
In climate science, people frequently seem to craft the data to conform to their theory.

April 16, 2010 3:11 pm

Dark Heat

John N
April 16, 2010 3:12 pm

1) If Joules are “missing” now, in 2010, why does Dr. Trenberth believe that there were not hidden or missing Joules in, say, 1910, which were steadily released over the past 100 years to deceive Dr.s Mann, Trenberth, Jones, Hansen and Mr. Gore into believing the planet was warming due to accumulation of plant food in the atmosphere? Is it at all possible that the last century of heating been due to release of hidden heat?
2) Re: the statement “Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.”
How can Dr. Trenberth and his co-authors continue to use declining Arctic ice as evidence of a “profound effect” today, in 2010, when Arctic ice has steadily increased since 2007? Glacier melt (natural rate)? Rising sea levels (steady)?

April 16, 2010 3:13 pm

I don’t know which philosopher said this:
“Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad.”
These people are crazy.
Where oh where has my little heat gone?
Oh where oh where can it be?

NZ Willy
April 16, 2010 3:13 pm

Dr. Trenberth could do like astronomers, and theorize that there is DARK HEAT building up, an exotic form that we cannot feel or measure. As with Deep Thought (in the HGTTG series), there should be 750,000 years of employment for the Alarmists if they can get this going.

Kevin Kilty
April 16, 2010 3:14 pm

If the “missing heat” is anomalously warm ocean temperature below 2000m, then it must be close to 0C. Exactly how is a reservoir of heat at such low temperature going to “…come back to haunt us sooner or later” ? If this were really true, then how is it that anomalously warm deep water, sequestered during the Medieval Warm Period, coming back to the surface today is not a factor in the current temperature rise?

old construction worker
April 16, 2010 3:16 pm

Have they looked in space yet?

Allan M
April 16, 2010 3:19 pm

“A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory”
100?

Al Gored
April 16, 2010 3:20 pm

“However, I do not see how such large amounts of heat could have transited to depths below 700m since 2005 without being detected.”
Osama bin Laden is using it to heat his cave.
Or Bernie Madoff has it.
This is truly insane. But only if you ignore the word “believed”…
“Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years”
In other words, we still can’t figure out where Saddam hid those darn WMDs, but we’re sure they are there.

Editor
April 16, 2010 3:21 pm

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

April 16, 2010 3:21 pm

BB King wrote about it:
The heat is gone,
The heat is gone away
The heat is gone, baby
The heat is gone away
You know you think I’m wrong, baby
And I’ll be sorry someday

Mike M.
April 16, 2010 3:23 pm

Missing heat, eh? Makes me want to look up Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis again. I also wonder what that Bob Tisdale guy has to say about this.

Jim
April 16, 2010 3:24 pm

Yep, heat balance is the key (or before some physicist comes along and bops us all on the head, the Earths internal energy + kinetic [does that cover it?] energy balance with the rest of the Universe is the key.)

Nikonman
April 16, 2010 3:25 pm

Why on earth is anyone in his right mind still paying attention to Kevin Trenberth? When the data don’t match your predictions, Kevin, did you ever consider the possibility that your predictions are in error, NOT the data?
The real issue is climate sensitivity, or lack thereof. The entire AGW model perpetrated by Trenberth et al is built on CO2 creating a positive feedback effect far beyond its own direct absorbance of energy, acting through water vapor, or some other mechanism. To date, there is NO evidence that this occurs. The only evidence that I am aware of shows that there is a zero or slightly negative feedback.
When the data don’t match your predictions, sir, the first place to look is at your models. They ain’t working.

Layne Blanchard
April 16, 2010 3:25 pm

You know Anthony, your artistic talent is really blossoming with these images, and now poetry! 🙂
I’m going to guess that the heat jumped into the mantle, and that’s why iceland popped.

Jay
April 16, 2010 3:26 pm

If the heat is missing (or at least we can’t find it), perhaps it is not there !
Shouldn’t the absence of the heat maybe mean that the oceans are not warming much?

Joe
April 16, 2010 3:30 pm

WOW, not one word of the ocean salinity changes!

I was once a Greenie
April 16, 2010 3:31 pm

What about all those ‘millions’ of degress C stored beneath our feet,
under the crust.
Perhaps I’m missing some perspective here , but wouldn’t that rather upset the energy balance if it were to escape ?
And here we’re worrying about a few joules missing somewhere round the edges …

James Sexton
April 16, 2010 3:32 pm

“Some of the missing heat appears to be going into the observed melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as Arctic sea ice, the authors say.”….huh? Are they watching the same ice we are? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/11/visualizing-changes-in-arctic-ice-since-the-2007-record-low/#more-18362
And then there was the story about more sea ice in the Antarctic…..Haven’t heard much about Greenland lately, but I’d suspect if the Arctic sea ice is increasing, so too would Greenland’s…….
But, wait, I’ve got it!!!! It went to the volcanoes in Iceland and that’s why we witnessed the first of many eruptions!!! Witness the previous article here on WUWT!!! Should I call Kevin and tell him where it went?

AJ
April 16, 2010 3:35 pm

There’s two explanations for the missing heat:
1. It’s hiding.
2. It isn’t there.
I believe in #2, although I haven’t checked under the rug lately.
AJ

Rhoda R
April 16, 2010 3:37 pm

Magic?

latitude
April 16, 2010 3:41 pm

Probably the last place you would expect to read something….
….that leaves you speechless

View from the Solent
April 16, 2010 3:44 pm

That’ll be dark heat then.

DirkH
April 16, 2010 3:45 pm

Cause it’s gone daddy gone
heat is gone
gone daddy gone
heat is gone
gone daddy gone
heat is gone
away….
(That acoustic band in the beginning of the 80ies playing together with ZZ top and i forgot their name…)

DirkH
April 16, 2010 3:46 pm


Violent Femmes.
I should be ashamed.

MJPenny
April 16, 2010 3:48 pm

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

April 16, 2010 3:49 pm

Kevin Trenberth could not possibly know the answer to the final question posed because the data is not robust enough as stated, but it is obvious that the amount of energy stored there would be the imbalance he calculates less the V.s paper estimates because he thinks the heat is missing.
You see this is how they model AGW, and how they continue to work; they calculate everything they can account for and assign the remainder to GHG concentrations, and in this case to deep ocean heat content.
SOP 2.0

u.k.(us)
April 16, 2010 3:50 pm

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,”
“A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory, the result of imprecise measurements by satellites and surface sensors or incorrect processing of data from those sensors, the authors say.”
========================
Good enough for Government work, i guess.

April 16, 2010 3:51 pm

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

K
April 16, 2010 3:53 pm

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

April 16, 2010 3:53 pm

I agree with Trenberth position on this. There seems to be heat coming into the system we cannot account for. A _lot_ of heat.
Unfortunately, Trenberth himself disagreed with Trenberth’s (current) position when he wrote his paper on the energy budget. He choose to disregard the heat the satellites told us was there, and other measurements that didn’t give him the answer he (at the time) wanted, and instead went with the numbers Hansen’s climate model gave.
A much more honest approach would have been to simply state we don’t know how much heat is coming into and leaving the Earth and we can’t confidently create an energy budget from the variety of possible answers we currently have.

NickB.
April 16, 2010 3:54 pm

I love how nowhere is it ever mentioned that they might have it wrong.
An Inconvenient Data Set 😛
My personal theory, much of the observed changes from 1980-2003 was not CO2 but ocean variability either from log-lived currents or from changes in cloud behavior (possibly due to atmospheric circulation variability).
The IPCC blames everything on radiative changes due to CO2/GHGs, but the idea that it can be responsible for temp increases, increasing atmospheric water content, and the measured OHC increases is a little ludicrous. I’d say they at least overestimated by 50% 😛
And that’s skipping over UHI/LULC.
Pielke’s great, and at least Trenberth shows some signs of critical thinking instead of the flat-denial shown by others. There’s a glimmer of hope I think

George E. Smith
April 16, 2010 3:55 pm

So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.
Is this like somebody’s Playstation video-game says it should be there; but nobody’s thermomter can actually see it.
Wonderful direction this science is taking

Neville
April 16, 2010 3:55 pm

As a layman I’d like to ask a couple of questions about the latest increase in satellite measurements and this so called missing heat, perhaps in deep oceans below 700 metres.
First question, how much of the recent satellite temp increase a result of el nino and if so can we expect this to fall in the coming years like post 1998?
Next question isn’t the ocean heat measured more accurately ( at least to 700 metres) by the Argo bouys and doesn’t this show little temp increase or perhaps a slight cooling for the last few years?
Perhaps there is just more heat lost to space than we think in recent times and we are somehow missing this measurement because it is something we don’t want to find?

George Turner
April 16, 2010 3:56 pm

I skipped ahead to the ending.
*spoiler alert*
The missing Joules are in a U-Store-It in Santa Monica.

Craig Moore
April 16, 2010 3:56 pm
April 16, 2010 3:59 pm

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

April 16, 2010 4:00 pm

Honestly, this is something my 6 year old would say when caught in a lie.

OkieSkeptic
April 16, 2010 4:01 pm

I think that this says it all:
“Until 2003, the measured heat increase was consistent with computer model expectations.”
So it must now be instrumentation errors.
Was this inconsistency pointed out??
Hard to believe that the real problem is obvious and yet ignored. This is what happens when climate religion is combined with a fat paycheck. A clear inconsistency, yet how many on pro-AGW websites will notice.

Philemon
April 16, 2010 4:04 pm

Not prose. Poetry.
It was not there again today.
I hope it didn’t go away!

schrodinger's Cat
April 16, 2010 4:07 pm

It is a travesty that we cannot find that heat.

Patrik
April 16, 2010 4:07 pm

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

1DandyTroll
April 16, 2010 4:09 pm

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

kim
April 16, 2010 4:12 pm

Easy, as Kevin Trenberth inadvertently revealed a couple of years ago in the famous NPR interview, maybe it’s been radiated back out to space.
Get back here, right now Heat; we need you. You can go play later.
=================

April 16, 2010 4:14 pm

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

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

geo
April 16, 2010 4:16 pm

This would apparently be part of their “return with a vengeance” meme.
I suppose it is nice to see it explained at greater length than an alarmist sound-bite, so thanks for that.

Robin Kool
April 16, 2010 4:20 pm

The heat has to be there, their models prove it. But they can’t find it.
We already had ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy – somewhere in the universe.
Now we can add ‘dark heat’ – somewhere on earth.

Grant
April 16, 2010 4:22 pm

Joule thieves! Best left to Interpol then..

rbateman
April 16, 2010 4:22 pm

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

Tenuc
April 16, 2010 4:27 pm

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

Peter
April 16, 2010 4:27 pm

I believe the excess joules have transited the earth’s crust and superheated the magma. Perhaps to millions of degrees c.
This “global warming” has resulted in superheated magma which is now boiling though thin spots in Iceland, you may call them Volcanoes.
The volcanic ash plume resulting in Iceland has caused the grounding of all commercial flights in Europe.
Truly, Global Warming IN ACTION. What more proof do you need? A Tsunami?

April 16, 2010 4:27 pm

A classic example of Models (square peg) vs. Actual Climate (round hole).

R Shearer
April 16, 2010 4:29 pm

Something is amiss regarding warming theories that don’t follow thermodynamic principles.
Maybe Trenberth should count to 10 and yell, “Ready or not – here we come.”

jorgekafkazar
April 16, 2010 4:33 pm

Henry chance (15:01:26) : “I read this yesterday. So funny. Trenberth seems confused again.”
We need more confused scientists who will admit they’re confused, instead of claiming they know everything. I think Dr. Trenberth is somewhat of a realist and is therefore on the plus side of the ledger.

gofer
April 16, 2010 4:37 pm

Missing heat = Found Funding

Craig Moore
April 16, 2010 4:39 pm

Grant (16:22:19)–
Joule thieves huh? Check the hockey stick players. Ottawa 1 Pittsburgh 1 in the 1st period.

Micky C
April 16, 2010 4:39 pm

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

Henry chance
April 16, 2010 4:41 pm

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

jaypan
April 16, 2010 4:43 pm

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

April 16, 2010 4:44 pm

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth to Mann, ClimateGate email:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048
…I never did understand the use of “travesty,” except that it blows their cover as advocates and not scientists. Idiots.

Joe
April 16, 2010 4:47 pm

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

April 16, 2010 4:47 pm

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says Kevin Trenberth. Maybe the heat is meditating, or has gone to the bathroom, or is away on a journey, or perhaps it is asleep and must be aroused.
It can only be ‘missing’ if it was there in the first place. Here’s the classic account of trying to invoke something absent to generate a source of heat from the sky, and the mockery it drew around 2850 years ago:
‘And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.’ 1 Kings 18:26-29 (ESV).
They just put a more modern gloss on it these days.

Glenn
April 16, 2010 4:49 pm

old construction worker (15:16:58) :
“Have they looked in space yet?”
I thought that’s how most of them did their work.

Enneagram
April 16, 2010 4:49 pm

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

Russ Blake
April 16, 2010 4:51 pm

Guess who said this?
“the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Right, it was Kevin Trenberth in his now famous email to M. Mann, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, etc., etc. on October 12, 2009, which was incidentally, my ex-wife’s birthday.
It would appear he has been looking for missing heat for months, and I find it hard to believe that none of his cohorts have been of any help.
I think it’s a travesty!!

peterhodges
April 16, 2010 4:51 pm

what a travesty, these jokers cannot even be called scientists. i am sorry.
i gave up on academia a very long time ago because i could not tolerate the peer-and-dollar forced group think. but this is just over the top incredulous.
epicycles indeed- at least they were supposed to explain the evidence, not deny it.

April 16, 2010 4:57 pm

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

PaulH
April 16, 2010 5:00 pm

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

ErnieK
April 16, 2010 5:00 pm

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

Ian
April 16, 2010 5:05 pm

The alarmists have gone kooky. This has probably been one of the most ridiculous stories ( non) that I have ever read , or even heard of ….wheres the heat…dear god, it has come to this.
I can;t figure them out.
All said and done, regardless of the whitewashes , climate science will never be the same , all data will be scrutinized and sleptics will be heard. We are still at the tip of the oiceburg of this scam falling apart. It is over for them and they know it.
Ian

Simon Marsh
April 16, 2010 5:07 pm

Like Kim mentioned earlier…
The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat – March 19, 2008
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
“Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says [the missing heat is] probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.”
It would be interesting to know why Trenberth doesn’t consider this to probable now, particularly if they can’t find the heat anywhere else.
Also, if “the Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years,” why is every month the warmest since records began?

John from CA
April 16, 2010 5:10 pm

magicjava (16:14:56) :
[quote George E. Smith (15:55:01) :]
So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.
{/quote]
It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming.
================================
:-\ 6 times the global temperature rise is missing? Maybe the chart is upside down. Time to calibrate the satellites again?

April 16, 2010 5:11 pm

As I understand it, there is an imbalance between the incoming heat, and the outgoing heat, at least as it is being measured.
I would address the following questions, in order:
1. Do we know that our measurements are accurate? Do we have a control measurement to calibrate the tools?
2. Are we aware of all methods of heat exhaustion (not sure if that is an appropriate word here) from the planet? Is there a mechanism whereby heat is transferred, say, to the poles, and it is not being properly measured leaving there?
3. Is there any way this heat could have been transformed into movement of some kind, such as increased current speeds or suchlike?
Now, I am only speculating from a standpoint of limited physical understanding, but as an intelligent amateur, I would have thought these (or similar) would be the first places to examine. Having said that, perhaps they have already, and are now moving on to more complex and very much less likely possibilities whereby the heat is hidden in some way.
Or perhaps they have an unshakable religious belief, and are attempting to fit all perceived data to that belief. That has some serious precedents in human thinking.

TGSG
April 16, 2010 5:12 pm

a stupid question from the sidelines.
Magicjava says.
It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming.
the missing heat shows up in the satellite? the heat shows up in the satellite? but gets lost? does the satellite have complete global coverage? could the heat be escaping from view and this escape going unnoticed?

pat
April 16, 2010 5:13 pm

And this explains why the oceans have risen in recent years. Wait……..???

JimK
April 16, 2010 5:15 pm

This has all the makings of a grand opera, where’s the missing joules? Complete with clowns.

chemman
April 16, 2010 5:16 pm

Sounds like a serious case of PNS.

April 16, 2010 5:18 pm

Grant (16:22:19) :
Joule thieves! Best left to Interpol then..
=========================
+1 AGW Internets to you, sir.

April 16, 2010 5:18 pm

1DandyTroll (16:09:09) :

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

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

R. de Haan
April 16, 2010 5:19 pm

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth”
Words of an idiot!

April 16, 2010 5:19 pm

The AGW hypothesis assumes that Downward Longwave Radiation from Anthopogenic Greenhouse Gases has a measurable impact on OHC. It does not.
As posted here at WUWT and linked many times, Ocean Heat Content (0-700meters) is dominated by ENSO in most ocean basins:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
OHC is a product of ENSO, sea level pressure (North Atlantic Oscillation), and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in the North Atlantic:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
And OHC is a function of sea level pressure (NPI) in the North Pacific:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
Like Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, the North Atlantic OHC has the highest trend over the term of the NODC OHC data. The North Atlantic contributed more than 30% of the total rise in OHC though it represents about 15% of the global ocean surface area. The decline in OHC over the past few years is dominated by the drop in the North Atlantic.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2eexa8w.png
If the North Atlantic OHC continues its decline for a multidecadal period, it is unlikely that global OHC will rise significantly over that period. I briefly touched on this in the most recent OHC update, under the heading of BIG IFS:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/ohc-linear-trends-and-recent-update-of.html

latitude
April 16, 2010 5:19 pm

“Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is
……….believed to have built up……….
on Earth in recent years,”
So climate computer programs have been off by a factor of two.
And they can’t admit that they know nothing about what’s going on.
“large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured,”
Quite impossible.
It would have always been a factor or not.

George E. Smith
April 16, 2010 5:20 pm

“”” magicjava (16:14:56) :
[quote George E. Smith (15:55:01) :]
So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.
{/quote]
It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming. “””
I see your point; perhaps I should rephrase my comment:-
If the heat is there as in; it shows up in the satellites; why is there a belief that it is missing ?
Now that should correct my former error.

Frank
April 16, 2010 5:27 pm

Call Maxwell Smart (Get Smart)

Scott R
April 16, 2010 5:28 pm

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

maz2
April 16, 2010 5:30 pm

Ode To Gaia.
…-
“Heat Wave
We’re having a heat wave,
A tropical heat wave,
The temperature’s rising,
It isn’t surprising,
She certainly can can-can.
She started the heat wave
By letting her seat wave and
In such a way that
The customers say that
She certainly can can-can.
Gee, her anatomy
Made the mercury
Jump to ninety-three.
Yes sir!
We’re having a heat wave,
A tropical heat wave,
The way that she moves
That thermometer proves
That she certainly can can-can.’
Ella Fitzgerald

Jon Jewett
April 16, 2010 5:31 pm

Dear Sir,
Your doggerel is strongly reminiscent of Theodor Geisel
I could not, would not, find it in a house.
I could not, would not, find it with a mouse.
I could not find it with a fox.
I could not find it in a box.
I could not find it here or there.
I could not find it anywhere.
I could not find the heat my man.
I could not find it, Sam-I-am.
My congratulations Sir and my apologies to Dr. Seuss.
Helen Hawkins (15:13:32) :
Us Red Necks in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (and proud of it) say: “God is Great, Beer is Good, and People are Crazy”.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/billy-currington-god-is-great-beer-is-good-and-people-are-crazy/7c12e49c6f825a3c07da7c12e49c6f825a3c07da-1597228056817
Regards,
Steamboat Jack

wayne
April 16, 2010 5:31 pm

Climate “scientists”, meet your Figment. Poof!

Caleb
April 16, 2010 5:34 pm

magicjava (16:14:56) :
Are you saying the Ceres satellite measures the heat leaving earth?
It seems we ought to be able to measure the incoming heat and outgoing heat from outer space. That would skip all the complex things the heat does while it is here.
Is this so difficult to do?

Brian H
April 16, 2010 5:34 pm

Maybe the missing heat is off doing work somewhere.

Mike Smith
April 16, 2010 5:35 pm

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

Theo Goodwin
April 16, 2010 5:36 pm

Trenberth has made a remarkable discovery – heat can pass through hundreds of meters of water without causing that water’s temperature to rise. Trenberth is theorizing at the Nobel Prize level. Call Al Gore. Al knows that just below the Earth’s crust the temperature is millions of degrees. Now Trenberth knows how the heat got there.
Clearly, Trenberth and crew should be kept away from all sharp objects.

Sierra Sam
April 16, 2010 5:39 pm

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

David Alan Evans
April 16, 2010 5:39 pm

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

JT
April 16, 2010 5:44 pm

I recall a recent discovery where it was found that thunderstorms along the tropics release much more heat into the upper atmosphere than previously realized.
Unless you are able to measure all the heat released from all large thunderstorms, you are going to get the energy balance wrong.
So the heat is not hidden, it just sneaked out through the thousands of daily atmospheric windows we call thunderstorms.

April 16, 2010 5:45 pm

Mike M. (15:23:46) : You wrote, “I also wonder what that Bob Tisdale guy has to say about this.”
That Bob Tisdale guy commented above at 17:19:19.

Doug
April 16, 2010 5:48 pm

I visualize the oceans as a layer of sweat on the earth just like your body, as heat is absorbed the ocean surface evaporates, change of state heat loss.
Heat does not readily travel vertically in the oceans as different temperature masses of water are different densities and they form thermocline interfaces.

JT
April 16, 2010 5:54 pm

Ah yes, I remember where I read the thunderstorm stuff.
The Thermostat Hypothesis
Guest Essay by Willis Eschenbach
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
At the top, the air is released from the cloud up high, way above most of the CO2. In that rarified atmosphere, the air is much freer to radiate to space. By moving inside the thunderstorm heat pipe, the air bypasses most of the greenhouse gases and comes out near the top of the troposphere
That Willis is a smart guy.
JT

suricat
April 16, 2010 5:54 pm

This is the problem with an ‘energy budget’! The supposition that ‘energy in/energy out = thermal state’ requires that all energy sinks (attractors) that aren’t thermal are known and can be excluded from the energy budget.
Looking for unaccounted heat in deep ocean can’t really be justified. When you think about it water begins to expand again when it’s cooled to more than ~4°C, so there’s only an ~8°C range at most that can ‘hide’ heat in great ocean depths. There’s a large volume there though.
Best regards, suricat.

Jeremy
April 16, 2010 5:54 pm

Easy Dr Trenberth. Everyone knows where the missing hot air or heat went.
Half the missing heat went into Dr Pachauri’s racy porn novel and the other half got pumped into Alaska.

April 16, 2010 5:57 pm

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

Fitzy
April 16, 2010 5:59 pm

I get it, I saw this in a movie once.
There was this Sun thing, right, and it was all like,…(wave arms to emphasize) really hot n’ stuff.
It had like, all these NOO-TREEN-NOE’s, and on the way to earth, they transformed, like the robots only really, really small.
And they heated up the Earths core, and then the world ended, it was like totally awesome, cos John Cusack, is like a vegan or something, but they had these ships and then they cruised to Africa, which was like totally ok.
Who Knew right?
So that’s what happened to the missing heat, it like transformed into something not hot, but still there, and then when it got to someplace else, it turned hot again….I hope it doesn’t destoy the earth, i’m not a vegan yet.
(Or,…its a phantom result from a Post Normal statistics exercise.)

April 16, 2010 6:00 pm

you will not have to worry about the missing heat if the KATLA volcano erupts we will be looking for the heater

April 16, 2010 6:00 pm

This is a common error by climate scientists: Believe the model over observational data.

B.C. Dupree
April 16, 2010 6:09 pm

Haven’t we done all this before? Here are the facts.
1. Some glaciers are melting, some aren’t. Local variations are the most important factor.
2. Arctic sea ice has been expanding since 2007, and has reached the average.
3. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, and is above the average.
4. There has been no statistically-measurable increase in temperature for 10 or more years.
Trenberth, there is no heat hiding in the ocean. You are grasping at straws, sir, and making yourself look foolish, or more foolish than usual. Give it up, man.

bob
April 16, 2010 6:10 pm

“There are clearly problems in the analysis phase and I don’t believe any are correct. “
Is there a unit root involved, here?

David Alan Evans
April 16, 2010 6:12 pm

Can anyone say, instrument drift?
DaveE.

Jeff L
April 16, 2010 6:14 pm

We have a term for this in oil & gas exploration : “Buying your own B*** S***”
The problems aren’t dis-similar : a highly under constrained dataset & the need to have a model to fit the data into so that you have some predictive powers (in the case of oil & gas – the power to predict where oil & gas is at in the sub-surface).
It isn’t uncommon to see those who will follow their model, even when the data says the model is incorrect – thus the term “Buying your own B*** S***”. Those who fall into that trap in oil & gas are doomed to make bad decisions & waste a lot of money drilling wells which had no chance even before they started. This is not dis-similar to this situation. Those who have bought off on the AGW model are blind to the facts if they dont support “the model” & will make bad decisions as a result.
In both cases, the believers are also blind to find the true answers which would have significant benefits (ie – in oil & gas, blind to where the data is saying oil & gas should be found, in climate, blind to what the true nature of the climate system may be).
Following the analogy though, no one should surprised. Why? Because very few geoscientists ever find oil & gas. Most are just supporting cast for those who have the ability to not believe their own BS. Why would it be any different in climatology? There are a few visionaries & the rest just are supporting cast.
Harsh? Maybe. True? Probably.

Ian H
April 16, 2010 6:19 pm

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

SMS
April 16, 2010 6:24 pm

I think that MIchael Penny, from his previous post, has the answer to this question. The joules that are hidden in the lower oceans should express themselves as expansion.
The eustatic component to the rise in the oceans is about 1.6 mm/ year, and the rest expansion due to added heat. The expansion resulting from added heat isn’t occurring as confirmed by Argos.
Also, how is the heat getting to the lower oceans? I don’t think our currents go to the depths that Mr. Trenberth is suggesting. That would mean the only transport method for moving these joules down into the lower oceans is through conduction, and that would take a very long time.
How much will the oceans expand in height if they were to gain 1 degree C in temperature? Can anyone give me an answer? And what would the temperature profile of the oceans look like at the surface temperature were to climb by 1 degree C? I expect we would have a quick temperature change to the depths the currents travel to and very slow below that.
Steve

Bruckner8
April 16, 2010 6:24 pm

But at least it’s a dry heat.

Russ Hatch
April 16, 2010 6:28 pm

Lay your bets folks and carefully watch the P. Now which shell is it under?

LearDog
April 16, 2010 6:29 pm

Omg – its so EMBARRASSING! I feel sorry for them. But to highlight this with a PRESS RELEASE? “Attention – look how pathetic and stupid we are, clinging to our obviously flawed models”?
“It must be there, only we can’t see it, didn’t catch it as it transited the parts we CAN see, and – you need to be afraid of it!”
If I did science like that, I’d be fired.
Good LorD.

DocMartyn
April 16, 2010 6:31 pm

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

J.Hansford
April 16, 2010 6:38 pm

Some of that missing heat must have been hiding in my coffee cup this morning. Burnt my tongue it did….. and only last week it ruined my toast.
It would seem this missing heat is more insidious and malevolent than we first thought!…..;-)

It's always Marcia, Marcia
April 16, 2010 6:38 pm

regions that are not adequately measured
Cha–ching!
They’ll need new instruments to register it. And they’ll need to pay someone to record the data and make up some sort of algorithm that drops the cooler readings and keeps the warmer ones so global warming can be shown.
Cha–ching!

Bill DiPuccio
April 16, 2010 6:39 pm

This press release is a barometer of the sad state of climate science. Speculations put forth with insufficient data should be confined to the private conversations of scientists as they banter back and forth in smoke filled–I mean CO2 filled–rooms.
Instead scientists are lending their personal credibility to such speculation in an effort leverage their own theories and maintain public credibility (and, if I may be so jaded, funding).
What is your hypothesis? What is your data? What is the criterion of falsification?

Gerald Machnee
April 16, 2010 6:40 pm

Let’s find it before RC does.

It's always Marcia, Marcia
April 16, 2010 6:40 pm

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

It's always Marcia, Marcia
April 16, 2010 6:43 pm

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,”
It’s under our beds, next to the monsters that live there.

It's always Marcia, Marcia
April 16, 2010 6:45 pm

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

It's always Marcia, Marcia
April 16, 2010 6:49 pm

Allan M (15:19:12) :
“A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory”
100?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Nice! 🙂

MattN
April 16, 2010 6:51 pm

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

J.Hansford
April 16, 2010 6:51 pm

LOL…. Fitzy (17:59:30) :
Excellent post mate!…. You get the Golden Guffaw Award…..
I think I’ve busted a rib laughing.

Dr A Burns
April 16, 2010 6:51 pm

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

David Ross
April 16, 2010 6:53 pm

I want to ask the most naive of questions.
The interior of the earth is hot, very hot in fact. What is the rate the energy flow from the interior of the earth into our biosphere? Does that rate change over time? Does the IPCC take the intrinsic energy inside our planet into account when it does the “budget” for the biosphere?
I have been idling thinking about this, prior to the Iceland volcano. The IPCC seems to think of volcanos as “negative forcers” through the cooling effect of the aerosols released during eruptions, but at the same time they release massive amounts of heat (both by convection, directly heating the air, hence the massive plumes going so high) and by radiation (those hot lava flows and in fact just the higher temperature soils and rocks radiating long-wave IR).
Just curious and naive. I did look at the IPCC diagram but it shows the earth’s surface as a barrier really, no energy flows across it in either direction…

It's always Marcia, Marcia
April 16, 2010 6:55 pm

“Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or, more likely, large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured…..”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kevin Trenberth would have been good at measuring the Emperor’s new clothes.
😉

April 16, 2010 6:56 pm

Maybe it got converted to mass, have they checked the mass of the planet yet for changes.

April 16, 2010 7:03 pm

John from CA (17:10:00) :
TGSG (17:12:55) :
Caleb (17:34:13) :
My previous reply was kinda short. here’s a more detailed one.
1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more than the the amount of energy leaving the Earth at the TOA.
2) The current estimate for Global Warming is 0.9 Watts/meter -2, so the data from CERES is more than 6 times there current estimate.
3) There are several other ways to measure the heat energy imbalance. None of them give the same answer as any other method.
4) All of the methods have large margins of error, to the point where you can ignore the data if yo so choose.
5) It is my own personal belief that the CERES satellite is somewhere in the neighborhood of correct.
6) If the CERES satellite is correct, then we don’t know where the extra heat entering the Earth is going. This is because…
7) We know where the extra heat _isn’t_ going. It’s not being absorbed by CO2 or Water Vapor. It’s not showing up in there surface, troposphere, or stratosphere temperatures. It’s not _anywhere_ where we currently measure temperature. Hence it’s called “missing”.
8) Trenberth enumerated a few places we don’t currently measure heat and thus these areas may contain this “missing” heat.

Michael
April 16, 2010 7:08 pm

Amway cultists blamed for man-made global warming theory. News at 11.

toyotawhizguy
April 16, 2010 7:09 pm

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

Charles Higley
April 16, 2010 7:11 pm

This is like trying to herd cattle. Trenberth and company would lead us to think that heat roves the planet and they have to point to places where the heat herd last warmed things.
Anybody who has lived in the Midwest knows that on a clear winter night huge amounts of heat can pour out to space. The heat herd probably got away because the clouds left the gate open.

Charles Higley
April 16, 2010 7:15 pm

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author.
Like all good cattle, the heat, too, will come home.
How much of this stupidity is wishful-thinking, opinion, and wanton speculation? The range of the answer is from 1-100% and, hint, the correct answer has 3 digits.

Mike Bryant
April 16, 2010 7:16 pm

I think I found some of the heat… It’s in my attic here in Texas…

Honest ABE
April 16, 2010 7:18 pm

The absence of heat is not evidence of heat.

L Nettles
April 16, 2010 7:20 pm

who you gonna believe me or your lying sensors.
There is no pipeline.

Phil's Dad
April 16, 2010 7:21 pm

Little Bo-Peep has lost her heat
And doesn’t know where to find it
Leave it alone
And it will come home
Dragging its joules behind it
Seriously, this whole sorry episode reminds me of the soap powder adverts from the nineties along the lines of “our powder destroys hidden odours”. Hidden odours? You know; the ones you can’t smell. People caught on and the brand ceased to be within the decade – will AGW go the same way?

Michael
April 16, 2010 7:23 pm

Depression blamed on AGW theory, pharmaceutical deaths on the rise. Patients unable to reconcile their guilt.
AGW theory leads to 1 million deaths a year in Africa. Communities banned from basic development.
Flawed AGW theory estimated to have killed 22 million worldwide since Kyoto treaty.
Do you see where I’m going with this line of thought?

u.k.(us)
April 16, 2010 7:24 pm

Dear Roger……..
“Our article highlights the discrepancies that should be resolved with better data and analysis, and improved observations must play a key role.”
Kevin
============================
The excerpt above needs to be sent to the Library of Congress,
as a record of our current ….dilemma, regarding Catastrophic AGW.

Craigo
April 16, 2010 7:26 pm

Dear Dad
Working hard. Books and stationary expensive. Just a few more years to find the heat before it’s too late.
Please send more money.
Love Kev.
PS. I may need to go to Cancun this year. Someone mentioned they had seen the heat there. Phil, Mike and the gang are going and I can’t allow them to find it before I do.

Baa Humbug
April 16, 2010 7:26 pm

I wouldn’t have thought it was possible for this “missing heat” to hide away in the depths of the oceans.
The ocean deep is rematkably uniformly around 1-2DegC, wether near the poles or the equator.
Physically impossible for heat to transfer into deep oceans.
But I do agree some heat has been sequestering away since 1998 in the shallow waters (down to 100mtrs, the depth sunlight can penetrate) . THAT’S THE HEAT THAT’S BEEN EXHAUSTED OUT BY EL NINO.
Once that heat is gone, and the low activity of the sun, brrrr baby brrrr for the next 30 years.

Eric Flesch
April 16, 2010 7:29 pm

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

Myrddin Seren
April 16, 2010 7:31 pm

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,”
Rising from its hiding place in the Deeps, bringing retribution to mankind for its sins of modernity ?
Like, uh, a giant, radioactive firebreathing reptile ??
So we are edging closer to a new paradigm – the Godzilla Hypothesis of planetary balancing mechanisms ???
Cooool !!!

DBD
April 16, 2010 7:31 pm

Trenbirth wants to come to the ‘dark side’ but can not yet bring himself to do so.

Bob Highland
April 16, 2010 7:32 pm

I’ve wondered for some time why nobody seems interested in the heat content of the land surface. I gather temperatures are regarded as fairly stable beyond a few feet down for any location, but that still leaves a pretty significant tonnage of sub-surface soil and water with a substantial thermal capacity.
A quick Google on the subject reveals relatively little research in this area. But why, one must ask? Is it too difficult to arrange, too complicated to “adjust”, or is it just another assumption that, like the trivial matter of clouds, is conveniently left out of the you-beaut models on which so many climatologists place so much trust?
One paper I did find is on “An acceleration in soil heat storage across northern Eurasia” by Tara Troy and Eric Wood.
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-5439.pdf
It’s based on a relatively sparse set of data, and that data has been tortured by a model that “replicates observed temperatures reasonably(?) well.”
It shows that: “After validation, we show that there has been a small increase in heat storage from 1901 to 1980. Following 1980, there is an acceleration in the rate of heat accumulated in the soil column that occurs through 2006, when the model simulations end.”
The acceleration since 1980 seems reasonable, since we were emerging from a cold spell. But wait – the soil heated up from 1901 to 1980? Surely that’s impossible, because there wasn’t enough CO2 around in those days to do its deadly work?
It seems there are many places to bury inconvenient data…

David70
April 16, 2010 7:33 pm

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

Jeremy
April 16, 2010 7:33 pm

RoHa
April 16, 2010 7:36 pm

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

David44
April 16, 2010 7:38 pm

Maybe the missing heat is under the thimble where the pea is supposed to be.

toyotawhizguy
April 16, 2010 7:38 pm

@magicjava (19:03:41) :
1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more than the the amount of energy leaving the Earth at the TOA. ….
7) We know where the extra heat _isn’t_ going. It’s not being absorbed by CO2 or Water Vapor. It’s not showing up in there surface, troposphere, or stratosphere temperatures. It’s not _anywhere_ where we currently measure temperature. Hence it’s called “missing”.
– – – – – – –
Are you familiar with Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)? Have you considered endothermic heats of transition? This is energy storage due to change of phase, which is released upon reversal of the transition. You cannot measure heat stored in this manner with a thermometer, you must use a calorimeter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition

hippie longstocking
April 16, 2010 7:39 pm

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

Dave Wendt
April 16, 2010 7:40 pm

This paper from last year offers some interesting insights on the inadequacy of the present understanding of heat circulation in the oceans.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
Some selected quotes
. The presence of a geothermal heat- flow, whether spatially variable or not, means that the ocean must evacuate an additional 0.03 PW, which it does in all cases by enhancing poleward heat transport
in the Southern Hemisphere, by about 10% near 50◦ S.
– geothermal heat flux is formally analogous to air-sea fluxes, and likewise, it induces a transformation of water masses (AABW in this case).
– In that sense, it is directly analogous to diapycnal mixing, both qualitatively and quantitatively. It has a similar effect on bottom water, eroding extrema of the global T- S diagram and depositing a comparable amount of heat in the abyss. On a global scale, it is in fact equivalent to
a diapycnal mixing coefficient of ∼1.2×10−4 m2 s−1 at
3500 m, i.e. the canonical value of (Munk, 1966).
The case is hereby made that geothermal heating is an important actor of abyssal dynamics. We recommend its inclusion in every model dealing with the long-term ocean circulation, for it substantially alters bottom water mass characteristics and generates a non-negligible circulation in the present-day climate

Ben
April 16, 2010 7:47 pm

Have they tried…
“Ally Ally In Come Free”
or
“Come out, come out, wherever you are?”
Apparently they don’t know the rules of the Climate Heat “Hide and Seek” Game.

April 16, 2010 7:48 pm

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

Doug in Seattle
April 16, 2010 7:52 pm

It had gone out to space, from whence it came.

johnythelowery
April 16, 2010 7:54 pm

————————————————————-
CRS, Dr.P.H. (16:44:49) :
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth to Mann, ClimateGate email:
=================================================
I’VE CRACKED THE CODE.
What Trenberth is really saying to Mann is:
‘…….we’ve taken these models. Put lipstick on them, added a bit of plastic surgery, implanted a couple of Dolly Parton sized peaks at the end to make them even hotter……….and you’re telling me they turn out to be Transvestites????!!!!…’

pwl
April 16, 2010 7:56 pm

I thought the heat is just starting with the various investigations underway? Monckton is just warming up his instruments to apply the heat.
“Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science.”
It’s not heat, it’s “believed heat”. It’s “conjectured heat”. It’s predicted “heat” based upon, ahem, models meaning it’s “soothsaid heat”. “Illusionary” indeed.
How about getting BETTER TOOLS for better observations before spouting off about your pet hypothesis? Oh right, GREEN grant $$$MONEY$$$.
It’s fine to have a hypothesis, but please indicate that that is what it is. It’s like the NOAA et. al. temperature anomaly graphs that use fabricated data via interpolation without labeling indicating that the visualization is based upon invented, fabricated data via statistical interpolation.
Where in the world is Joules and where did he hide the heat? Joules who? How do you hide heat? It want to radiate in all directions by default. Water or air or ice or magma or rock would need to move it.
“I’m going to guess that the heat jumped into the mantle, and that’s why Iceland popped.”
Yup must be that a cold zone (oceans) can contribute HEAT to a hotter zone (mantle with hot magma)! That’s some physics I’d like to see!
“Heat transfer is the transition of thermal energy from a hotter mass to a cooler mass. When an object is at a different temperature than its surroundings or another object, transfer of thermal energy, also known as heat flow, or heat exchange, occurs in such a way that the body and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium; this means that they are at the same temperature. Heat transfer always occurs from a higher-temperature object to a cooler-temperature one as described by the second law of thermodynamics or the Clausius statement. Where there is a temperature difference between objects in proximity, heat transfer between them can never be stopped; it can only be slowed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer
THE THREE METHODS OF HEAT TRANSFER in RAP

Is Kevin Trenberth suggesting a NEW way of heat transfer? Via entangled quantum physics teleporting the heat across ocean layers maybe? Or maybe it’s sneaky heat?
““The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth to Mann, ClimateGate email:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048
Can’t account for it according to what exactly? Why does Kevin Trenberth think there is travesty in the lack of heat? Nature isn’t here to confirm our theories, she could care less about us. It is obvious from his comment that he’s trying to find the missing heat otherwise his hypothesis crumbles to the ground in pieces. I wonder how long it will be before some of these guys give up on their hypothesis? When will they realize that their hypothesis has been falsified by Nature? What will it take for them to say the hypothesis is falsified and needs to be toss aside?
Kevin Trenberth, what specifically is your hypothesis? In full detail please.
Do the alleged climate scientists even have a notion that their hypothesis is supposed to have a test for falsification? What is their Null Hypothesis?
I’ve directly asked the following (plus a number of other) questions point blank to at least one climate scientist who works that the National Center for Atmospheric Research and haven’t received an answer yet. They don’t seem to want to answer these sorts of basic questions fundamental to the scientific method. I’m still waiting for an answer to be fair.
(1) What is AGW?
(2) How can the alleged AGW hypothesis be falsified?
(3) What is the Null Hypothesis that you work with?
DirkH thanks for the violent fems video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT4rRUONgRU). One of my favorite 100 songs that was missing, now I feel the heat of it again!!!
Heat that haunts with taunts by Trenberth et. al..
Cudos to Craig Moore for Liquid Heet! It goes where you need it!
Joule thieves is by far the best explanation. “Kevin may just be posturing. Now he goes and gets a 13 million dollar grant and looks for the joule thief.” One can buy a lot of jewels with the funds from the search for the missing joules! Nice. How do I get into that racket? Oh wait, I can’t take the heat that might come back to haunt me from the travesty of sticking to a hypothesis regardless of the counter evidence. That’s why hypotheses are supposed to have tests that falsify them, so one doesn’t get struck blind by a pet hypothesis that cripples one’s mental capacity for critical reasoning!
“Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad.” Does this apply to those, such as Kevin Trenberth, who stick to their hypothesis through thick and thin? Is the real travesty that their alleged AGW hypothesis has no falsification tests, thus they are like flies to a light? It’s the light, it’s the heat, move towards it, fast before it’s lost again! ZAP! ZAP! Nature zaps all hypotheses that are false, dead, dead, dead!
The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat – March 19, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
“Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says [the missing heat is] probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.”
Isn’t that what Lindzen and Choi have shown and quantify in their paper, “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data”?
Does this mean that Trenberth is agreeing with Lindzen?
“If you draw a boundary between the outer atmosphere and space and treat the planet (with atmosphere) as a closed system, at equilibrium the amount of energy released through the boundary must be equal to the amount of energy passing into the boundary from the sun. As a baseline, everyone assumes that the amount of energy passing into the system from the sun remains constant. If the temperature of the system inside the boundary is to increase, it is absolutely necessary that the total energy passing through the boundary must go down, at least temporarily, permanently trapping the energy in the system and raising the system temperature. Dr. Lindzen’s paper shows that once a temperature increase occurs — regardless of the reason — the system responds by moving out of equilibrium and releasing more energy into space than is provided by the sun. Thus, the temperate falls from the new (perturbed) temperature to a level between the initial equilibrium and the post-perturbation temperatures, until the equilibrium is reestablished.
Any model that results in a system temperature above the initial perturbation (above roughly 1C for doubling of CO2) MUST, mathematically, do so by reducing net radiation released into space below the equilibrium point so that the additional energy can accumulate and the temperature can rise. Only by reducing net energy released into space can the system heat itself. All other forms of heating must, by definition, simply move energy within the closed system resulting in redistribution of energy but no net heating. The author of the note above notes “Models that assumed otherwise [from increased radiation resulting from increased temperature] would have near infinite temperatures.” Dr. Lindzen addresses this explicitly in his paper. “Indeed, Figure 3c suggests that models should have a range of sensitivities extending from about 1.5C to infinite sensitivity (rather than 5C as commonly asserted), given the presence of spurious positive feedback. However, response time increases with increasing sensitivity [Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998], and models were probably not run sufficiently long to realize their full sensitivity.” – Jim, http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/lindzen-choi.html.
For your further enjoyment, where the joules went and how: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuJI2VBiqic.
Kevin Trenberth et. al., NATURE, as in The Objective Reality of Nature and not the magazine, is always the final judge of a hypothesis, not your peers! Stop paying attention to your peers and start paying attention to Nature! Thanks.

LightRain
April 16, 2010 7:59 pm

Layne Blanchard (15:25:59) :
I’m going to guess that the heat jumped into the mantle, and that’s why Iceland popped.
…and why the core of the earth has warmed up to 10,000,000 °C recently.

Capn Jack.
April 16, 2010 8:01 pm

I know where it be. the Kraken ate it, ate the heat, and we all know the Kraken very rarely breaks 1000 fathoms, unless it’s for revenge.
THe walker circoolation is gonna go Maelstrom, aargh.
It’s Doom, now all I need is a Disney contract. I smells an acadmey award and a Nobel Gunpowder Prize, on the wind Nor be Nor West.

Al Gored
April 16, 2010 8:06 pm

The parrot seems to be missing some heat. Perhaps it is dead.

friedfish2718
April 16, 2010 8:12 pm

You find Waldo and you will find the missing heat.

pwl
April 16, 2010 8:16 pm

My longish comment as an article:
“Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad with a hypothesis lacking falsification tests”
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/04/16/whom-the-gods-wish-to-destroy-they-first-drive-mad-with-a-hypothesis-lacking-falsification-tests/

stan stendera
April 16, 2010 8:18 pm

That great prophet George Orwell misnamed his book. It should have been 2010 not 1984. The sheer lunacy of the warmest cult defies description.
On another note, the literary tone of this blog has improved considerably since Climategate. We have people in this one thread writing poetry [including Anthony] and quoting BB King and the immortal Ella. I for one love it. So do my birdfeeder visitors who get more seed when I’m in a good mood.

April 16, 2010 8:20 pm

magicjava (19:03:41) :

5) It is my own personal belief that the CERES satellite is somewhere in the neighborhood of correct.
6) If the CERES satellite is correct, then we don’t know where the extra heat entering the Earth is going. This is because…
7) We know where the extra heat _isn’t_ going. It’s not being absorbed by CO2 or Water Vapor. It’s not showing up in there surface, troposphere, or stratosphere temperatures. It’s not _anywhere_ where we currently measure temperature. Hence it’s called “missing”.

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

Capn Jack.
April 16, 2010 8:22 pm

Don’t worry Kevin, I just hooked up with me ol mate Nemo, as parte’s to the code and we will poon that monster heat eater fishy for yer, we will let yer cut it up to get the heat out.
But we needs some of them Grant Doublooms, act fast the world is doomed and only me and me matey Nemo can saves all the widows and orphans and Fancy swells as well polar bear cubs being ate by vultures.
Almost forgot,
Aaargh.

April 16, 2010 8:24 pm

Phil’s Dad (19:21:40) :

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

I like it! Carbon Taxes – the way to destroy the ‘Hidden Global Warming’.
I will now change my TLA (Three Letter Acronym) to refer to this religion from AGW to HGW forthwith!

pwl
April 16, 2010 8:29 pm

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

Kevin
April 16, 2010 8:30 pm

Howdy, I am in part responsible for this missing heat. Due to all the concern about AGW, I have been storing all my extra heat in coffee cans along with my useless Dark Emitting Diodes, (DEDs). I suspect that they have been cancelling each other out, and I am afraid to open all those coffees cans I stored out on the shelf in the garage.
But, if everybody else goes along, I will let all of those DEDs out of the cans soon !
Cheers, Kevin

Kevin
April 16, 2010 8:37 pm

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

Fitzy
April 16, 2010 8:40 pm

Aye Capn Jack,
She be ten score fanthoms deep, i’ll be bound, running true like the uptick of an ice hockey stick,…but do yee know of whence the Kraaken begat its name,…with a long ‘A’?, like the long ‘A’ in AAAS…with the extra silent ‘S’.
She be from the Norse, whose ice cores are three and twenty score deep, down where the grim earth be many millions of degree’s. They summoned it ups yea see, the Kraaken, they delved too deep, too greedily, and awoke the beast from its 10,000 year slumber.
And it kracked open the ancient dome of lavee, that keeps the devils kettle from boling over an’ sullying Gods good Earth,…excluding Manhatten and a small part o’ East Anglia.
…oh they tried, they tried, to undo their folly, they sent Trenberth-the-Wise below with parchments and charms and much gold to appease its great hunger, but it had grown ravenous,…implacable it were….
And so Trenberth did gather more gold, and more trinkets from the lords NOBEL and he sought council with the Goracle, wise be they,…
They armed his wits with riddles, and schemes and all manner of accountin’ and binomial statistics…
….and he struck an accord with the beast, to keep the heat in, and preserve the Polee Bears from rotten ice and the Linux penguin from homelessness.
And from that day, only mountains of gold, will keep it at bay.

Les Polette
April 16, 2010 8:56 pm

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

old construction worker
April 16, 2010 8:57 pm

Glenn (16:49:09) :
“I thought that’s how most of them did their work.”
Glen,
Actually the “Heat in the Ocean” had a thing for the “Hot Spot” In the troposphere and they ran off together.

bubbagyro
April 16, 2010 9:01 pm

I have had hypotheses over the years that experimentation has falsified. But I did not cry, I just adjusted or abandoned the original. I was not indignant, nor defensive; as a scientist, I had great satisfaction that I had uncovered a truth, or turned another stone. Nature told me what was going on, and I did not second guess her. That’s what a scientist should do. My conclusion? These alarmists are not scientists by definition.
LESSON: I claimed that there were diamonds in an empty lot, and I started a diamond rush, and hordes of diggers came. They dug three feet down and found nothing. I say that they did not dig deep enough. They went down six feet, but found nothing. I said they did not dig deep enough, and so on, until they had excavated a huge crater. They never disproved my theory, though. I was sure they were just short of the mother lode.
Aristotle described this two and a half thousand years ago. He said you cannot prove a universal negative. This is what Trenberth is doing. It is a logical fallacy – just because you cannot find the heat, does not mean it isn’t there.
When do we stop digging??? [“Oh, no, they killed Kenny…you bas***ds!]

Capn Jack.
April 16, 2010 9:10 pm

I hate you Fitzy, I was about to go whoop whoop Jules Verne to the centre of the earth and you just wrecked me plot. a bit of Saga a bit of Verne and I was even gonna bring the Prince of Mischief, Loki and Thunder bum Thor from the wings.
And the Midguard Serpent and the Kraken was gonna super stoush.
Thanks for wrecking me Disney career as Writer Producer. Thanks heaps.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 16, 2010 9:14 pm

MattN (18:51:02) :
There is no missing heat. It never was there, except in the models. When are they going to admit that?
Maybe when they can’t make a living from global warming anymore.

rbateman
April 16, 2010 9:15 pm

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

Capn Jack.
April 16, 2010 9:26 pm

Oh well, I will just have to take my fiction writing skills somewhere else, I heard a rumor there are science fiction jobs opening up at Hadley CRU and even NASA.
CSIRO and BOM in Australia may need a good science fiction essayist, Not the same money unfortunately.

stevenlibby
April 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Guys, it’s right under our noses!
WE’VE been taking the heat for a long time for simply displaying and demanding common sense. That’s the travesty of it all.
Funny how they don’t seem to appreciate it now that we’re starting to give it back. 😉

redneck
April 16, 2010 9:45 pm

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

richcar 1225
April 16, 2010 9:51 pm

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

Foz
April 16, 2010 9:52 pm
April 16, 2010 9:53 pm

[quote JER0ME (20:20:38) :]
magicjava (19:03:41) :
Normal science teaches us to examine the evidence. If we find our measurements show a net imbalance of a considerable amount of energy entering and leaving a system, and yet absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and I mean ‘whatsoever’, of an increase in energy within the system, we really should be examining our methods of measurement closely rather than fumbling in the dark for some ‘explanation’ for the ‘invisibility’ of this ‘missing’ energy.
[/quote]

I’d agree with this if we were measuring everything. But we’re not. One of the places we’re not measuring well is the Arctic ocean. And the Arctic is where most of the heating is taking place.
That said, the data is inconclusive enough that it’s perfectly reasonable to ignore it, as Dr. Pielke is doing.
But because this issue is central to the energy budget, ignoring that data means you can never make a sensible statement about global warming, neither as a skeptic nor as a believer.
If we can’t resolve this issue, one way or the other, we can’t move the science forward. We can only pick the answer we like best and run with it. (Which is, incidentally, _exactly_ what Trenberth did when he wrote his energy balance paper a few years back. He picked a different answer than what he’s now promoting. And he picked it solely on the basis of personally believing it to be the best answer at that time, not because it was demonstrated to be correct.)

Michael
April 16, 2010 9:57 pm

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

April 16, 2010 10:00 pm

P.S.
And there _is_ evidence for the existence of this “missing energy”: the CERES satellite readings.

anna v
April 16, 2010 10:03 pm

Re: magicjava (Apr 16 19:03),
Thank you for this precis.

1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more than the the amount of energy leaving the Earth at the TOA.
2) The current estimate for Global Warming is 0.9 Watts/meter -2, so the data from CERES is more than 6 times there current estimate.

The statement is that they were expecting the TOA measurement to confirm the 0.9 global warming retention due to CO2. Instead it looks as if something else is retaining heat.
How could the CERES measurements be wrong?
Do you have a link to the measurements and the method used?
They might be missing radiation leaving (infrared mainly), or measuring too much entering ( large spectrum), or mislabeling radiation as incoming when it is outgoing, or…
The reason I would doubt t the CERES measurement/calibration is that if this keeps up, we will reach the boilng point soon :).
The energy balance argument is a very old argument ( we got hubble’s constant out of it). No matter where the heat is hiding, there should not be such an imbalance for the long term.

K. Moore
April 16, 2010 10:07 pm

My neighbor’s cat is in heat. He could look there.

R. Craigen
April 16, 2010 10:09 pm

To retool an old proverb, “If you can’t find the heat — get out of the ocean.”
Assuming that there is indeed missing heat (and not just over-fudged figures that create an accounting problem by always rounding upwards when exact amounts are not known), then I would suggest that the increased heat is in biomass. Heat does not always translate into delta-T changes in fluid form. Heat energy is converted into chemical form as biomass. That’s the difference between wood and its component elements floating in the atmosphere: wood is stored heat energy. To release the heat, burn the wood.
As has been documented in several peer-reviewed articles, there has been a steady increase in biomass in key world systems over recent decades, almost certainly well-correlated with increases in CO2.
Could it be … naw, that would be too much! … that when the amount of heat stored up in biomass due to increased CO2 is accounted for, it will be found that increased CO2 has a long-term NEGATIVE effect on latent heat in the environment, which leads to a net negative effect on temperature? I wonder if the lag-time for this effect to manifest fully is, oh, let’s say about 800 years? Wouldn’t that be telling!

April 16, 2010 10:13 pm

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

galileonardo
April 16, 2010 10:22 pm

I’ve caught the lyrical fever as well. Sung by Kevin Trainwreck to Glenn Frey’s “The Heat is On”:
The heat is gone, gone real deep,
Inside my head, makes sense to me,
But that Pielke’s loud, wish he’d subside,
The pressure’s high to keep the theory alive,
‘Cause the heat is gone.
[insert Mann on Sax]
Oh-wo-no, oh-wo-no,
Nowhere close to knowing where energy’s going to.
(Alternate: Caught up in the FOIA, gonna need more funds from you.)
Oh-wo-no, oh-wo-no,
Tell me can you find it?
Tell me can you find it?
Tell me can you find it?
The heat is gone, the heat is gone, the heat is gone,
Yeah a travesty, the heat is – Doh! Doh! Doh! Doh! – gone!

Bernd Felsche
April 16, 2010 10:25 pm

Jeremy (19:33:56):
I like this one better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_6IQN56GzA

April 16, 2010 10:25 pm

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

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf
Page 3 (labeled page 313 for some reason) briefly discusses the CERES data and its relationship to the energy budget.
[quote]
They might be missing radiation leaving (infrared mainly), or measuring too much entering ( large spectrum), or mislabeling radiation as incoming when it is outgoing, or…
[/quote]

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

anna v
April 16, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: anna v (Apr 16 22:03),
Sorry, it was not ( we got hubble’s constant out of it) but “the finite universe”, with the argument that if the universe were infinite the temperature everywhere would be the temperature of the stars.
Re: magicjava (Apr 16 22:00),
How many years are these measurements running?

Fitzy
April 16, 2010 10:38 pm

Capn jack,
NIWA here in New Zealand are wantin’ good Post Normal writers, yea be welcome here down under.
We’re to the left of Australia, a suburb of Sydney, or a Duchy of Canberra or somesuch….
Kevin the Rudd be our Overlord in waitin’, while Little Johnny Key be our Underlord in Absentia, maybe you could be a scribe to the Lords of Fonterra, Dairy Miners they be.
The seams of full cream run deep in our loam, easy pickings for a hardworking man, or a dodgy Chinese conglomerate – whichever offers the lowest price for our treasures,….he be the winner.

noaaprogrammer
April 16, 2010 10:48 pm

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

richcar 1225
April 16, 2010 11:02 pm

IF kEVIN IS RIGHT WE MAY HAVE A HOT HALLOWEEN THIS YEAR!

UK Sceptic
April 16, 2010 11:07 pm

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

Roger Carr
April 16, 2010 11:09 pm

When the question in that line

And why the sea is boiling hot

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

And whether pigs have wings.

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

James F. Evans
April 16, 2010 11:19 pm

Maybe, the heat isn’t there because it went back out into space.
You know, radiated into space.
Which would suggest, if true, that Man-made global warming just isn’t happening.
Kind of like a boring party.
A little music to pick up the party:
Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Some call me the gangster of love
Some people call me Maurice
Cause I speak of the pompitous of love
People talk about me, baby
Say I’m doin’ you wrong, doin’ you wrong
Well, don’t you worry baby
Don’t worry
Cause I’m right here baby, right here, right here, right here at home…
— Steve Miller band, Album: Best Of 1968-73

henry
April 16, 2010 11:25 pm

Joule thieves, eh?
If I remember my movies correctly, the “Pink Panther” was a joule.
And who did they send out to track down that notorious joule thief?
No wonder they can’t find the missing heat…

April 16, 2010 11:43 pm

“Until 2003, the measured heat increase was consistent with computer model expectations.”
Maybe the computer models are wrong?

April 16, 2010 11:44 pm

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

April 17, 2010 12:46 am

Quote:
>>> Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising
>>>sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound
>>>effects on the planet.”
Ummm – I thought the Arctic sea ice was increasing. Silly me it must be just thinning out, even though every chart says it has a much larger extent.

Not Again
April 17, 2010 12:46 am

My 2 cents-
1) The Team seems to have problems with both S’s in KISS.
2) The Team’s arrogance does not allow them to realize they are buying their own B***S***.
3) The Team is working directly for the POLS in a plot from “1984”.
Maybe 5 cents-

April 17, 2010 12:52 am

>>Where oh where has my little heat gone?
It has all super-concentrated itself in the Door to Hell. Put a cap on this hole and we will be saved… Glory be to Gaia – etc: etc:
http://englishrussia.com/images/darvaz_door/8.jpg

stephen richards
April 17, 2010 12:53 am

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

Feet2theFire
April 17, 2010 12:54 am

I have so many takes on this, it ain’t funny!
1. My thoughts first went to astronomy’s Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which some day will also include Dark Anti-matter and Dark Black Holes. AGW is not the only scientific discipline that has a favored theory/construct telling them that “something” is out there “somewhere;” it just HAS to be! Kudos to all who beat me to the punch.
2. @Henry chance (16:41:59) :

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

Priceless! Surely, there is an S. Holmes out there who can sleuth down these missing joules. Perhaps the tobacco type or a hair sample is lying around in plain sight, where a properly studious investigator would see what others have missed.
Trenberth = Inspector Lastrade.
But then it brings to mind Holmes’ case of a missing aristocrat who turned out to have been spending his days as a beggar in a prominent London area because it paid so well. In other words, the missing joules are out there, just disguised as the sinking cold water NEAR ICELAND.
3. Surely that is the first place they should look – where they know the warmest waters dive into the depths. Unfortunately, even though that is the most famous point at which water is transported to the depths, the joules are missing! But since they know EVERYTHING about that conveying of water in the deep ocean, surely it couldn’t be down there.
I mean, surely if they understand the Oceanic Conveyor so well (ask them!), how could they miss this transport?
4. This is beginning to remind me of archeologists, who, whenever they find something they can’t explain, they label it a ritualistic or temple artifact. (That drives me up a freaking wall, when they do that.)
5. (My It’s a Wonderful Life reference now…) Perhaps George Bailey/Kevin Trenberth set it down on the table and Old Henry Potter found it and just wanted to make kindly young George/Kevin sweat. If so, all Kevin’s friends will start pitching in (as he knows they will), and before you know it, they will all send Kevin just TONS of joules, and everyone in the Bedford Falls CRU will have a happy Christmas and live happily ever after. The End.
6. Now THIS is the height of panicking alarmism. Not only is the heat MISSING – but it is going to jump out of a dark alley some night – at some unknown time, to some unknown degree and devastate us all! It is the ULTIMATE Emperor’s Clothes. CO2 wasn’t – after Climategate – going to get the job done, because they got busted, so now it will be this missing heat that will be the Bogeyman, the troll under the bridge, the Big Bad Wolf, the ticking time bomb.
Be afraid.
Be very afraid.

Reply to  Feet2theFire
April 17, 2010 3:32 am

I claim credit for coining the term Dark Enthalpy, back in Dec of 2008

Feet2theFire
April 17, 2010 1:02 am

But my final question is: Wait a minute, didn’t they tell us that THE 2000s was the warmest decade in history???
Doesn’t that mean they WERE measuring the heat?
Ohhhhhh, yes – I see, it wasn’t ENOUGH heat. The EXPECTED rise in temps didn’t happen, and they have been scratching their heads about why not. So, FINALLY they’ve FOUND IT! By finding they can’t find it, they found that THAT was why they weren’t able to measure it!
And the astronomers will eventually tell us that Dark Matter is inside invisible black holes. It is all hiding.

anna v
April 17, 2010 1:03 am

Re: magicjava (Apr 16 22:25),
Absolutely the CERES data could be wrong. That’s why I said it’s only my personal belief that it’s at least close to correct. While I’ve never seen satellite data that didn’t have issues, I tend to have much more confidence in satellite data than in land-based data.

I agree, my list on the wrong way land based energy budgets are computed is long.
I was placing my hopes on satellites. If 6watts/m^2 is their systematic (deduced from this energy imbalance) I was too hopeful.

Julian Flood
April 17, 2010 1:10 am

“The style of climate change discourse is that we maximise the problem and minimise the solution
Solitaire Townsend*, Futerra”
The last time this missing heat came up, one scientist stated that, yes, AGW was a fact but lots of the heat was escaping into space.
JF
*My Miss Climate Change 2009 and for ever.

Boudu
April 17, 2010 1:16 am

It’s always in the last place you look for it.

Bart
April 17, 2010 1:31 am

Jeff L (18:14:23) :
“There are a few visionaries & the rest just are supporting cast.”
Too true. Which is why one should always take it with a grain of salt when someone claims that umpteen zillion “scientists” agree with this or that. The vast majority of those are really no better qualified to give an opinion than an ordinary lay person. Indeed, sometimes having a little knowledge is worse than having none at all, as any parent of a teenager can tell you.
“He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
Thomas Jefferson

DirkH
April 17, 2010 1:39 am

I was looking for you all day
But i couldn’t find you.
I couldn’t find you.
We’re walking
And we don’t always realize
but with each step we’re falling slightly
And that is
How we can be walking
And Falling
At the same
Time.
(Laurie Anderson, Walking and Falling, on Big Science)

Peter Plail
April 17, 2010 1:39 am

OK
I own up – I stole it. It in a safe deposit box in a Swiss bank.

Mark Nutley
April 17, 2010 1:57 am

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

Ian E
April 17, 2010 2:03 am

To quote (from memory … errare humanum est) from an old album by Melanie :
Well, it’s been too long a ride, too high the fare.
Well, I built and climbed a mountain,
But it isn’t there.
It isnt here, dum da dum,
It isnt there,
It isnt here nor anywhere.

John Thorpe
April 17, 2010 2:10 am

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

baahumbug
April 17, 2010 2:16 am

Trenberths conjecture isn’t new. He made the same claims 21 years ago..
“Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, stated in 1989, that the heat storage capacity of the oceans was so enormous, that the stored heat of the whole atmosphere could be contained in the top one to two metres of the oceans. In other words, if a +1 deg temperature increase in atmospheric temperature was put into the sea, it would only warm the top metre or so of ocean. The oceans therefore have an almost unlimited `heat sink’ capacity, being deeper than 4 kilometres in many places.”
Where have we heard the following before?
“The modellers claim that the accumulated heat generated by greenhouse warming is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back out and haunt us at a later time. In other words, the warming has been merely deferred, but not cancelled.”
The above from a very well detailed look at the oceans effects on surface temps from the late great John L Daly http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm

Scarlet Pumpernickel
April 17, 2010 2:42 am

The pink unicorn that lives under sea has all the heat, didn’t you know?

April 17, 2010 2:52 am

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later”
Zombie heat. Voodoo stuff.

Chris Wright
April 17, 2010 3:02 am

“Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years….”
By “the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years”, I assume they are referring to the output of computer models based on the CO2 assumption. So, yet again, we may have a perfect illustration of what is wrong with climate science: the almost willful belief that the output of computer models is more important and more reliable than empirical data. They appear to be saying that, as the computer models must be right, the data must be wrong.
Of course, there’s another, far simpler explanation: that the data is right and the computer models are wrong.
Chris

April 17, 2010 3:20 am

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

April 17, 2010 3:32 am

magicjava (19:03:41) :
“My previous reply was kinda short. here’s a more detailed one.
1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the […]”
Thanks. Now I see your point. Just a note: ” (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more”,
I had a symbolism problem there. I guess you mean watts/metre^2 (watts per square meter) or, otherwiwse, watts/metre**2. The minus sign there mixed me up, as it would take the metre back up in the fraction.
Considering that there’s so much error in measurements that you can say anything and actually ignore them (if I understood correctly), would you say it would be wise to get the measurements right in the first place before theorizing?

Tenuc
April 17, 2010 3:48 am

magicjava (22:25:45) :
[quote anna v (22:03:49) :]Do you have a link to the measurements and the method used? [/quote]
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

Thanks for the link, Magicjava. Had a quick read through the above paper. Seems to be quite a lot of uncertainty in the data and even the CERES data has to use modelling to produce a meaningful result.
My best guess to the ‘missing’ thermal energy is as follows:-
Because climate is driven by deterministic chaos, the energy balance would have to be checked in real-time to capture the magnitude of the oscillation in a meaningful way.
It is possible that the amount of energy held long-term/permanently by biological and chemical processes, doing work e.t.c. is poorly estimated and changes rate as thermal energy varies.
The CERES data, and several other data sets used to calculate the energy balance is modelled. This means the assumptions made to create these models could be reflecting the biases of the scientists making them (e.g. we expect a positive balance due to CO2 effects).
I’m fairly sure that other problems will be found with the way the calculation are done as deterministic chaos produces surprising and counter-intuitive effects in even simple driven pendulum systems!

R. de Haan
April 17, 2010 4:09 am

New Climate Change Defense: “Yes, it’s getting colder but not as cold as it would be without Global Warming” It’s impossible to have a sensible, balanced discussion with these hard liners!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/harrymount/100034559/the-new-climate-change-defence-yes-its-getting-colder-but-its-not-as-cold-as-it-would-be-without-global-warming/

Glen Frey
April 17, 2010 4:25 am

The heat is gone
da nana nana, da nana nana [sax bit]
The heat is goh-hon
da nana nana
da nana da nana
Thang you very much.

NickB.
April 17, 2010 4:30 am

Bob Highland
An estimated 183,000 square miles of pavement globally might explain it. Soil isn’t the best conductor of heat, but if you think about it, the pavement’s surface will exhibit higher average equilibrium temps than whatever it natural surface it replaced (this is a readily observable phenomenon) so the soil temp gradiant underneath it should do the same.
Of course… UHI/LULC don’t really exist so it couldn’t be that right?
MagicJava
So he’s talking TOA in vs. TOA out – thanks for clearing it up. That post was very helpful. I still think this might be a “look at the bunny” moment… the missing net buildup of energy in the atmosphere is what we should be looking at – that is what proves their model is broken. Also thanks for the UAH Temp/Water graph the other day.
Best Regards

M White
April 17, 2010 4:43 am

So it’s not the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that’s trapping the heat?

anna v
April 17, 2010 4:56 am

To see what I mean that we will be boiling, lets look at the numbers:
Suppose this CERES imbalance of 6watts/meter^2 has been going on for ten years, this is an accumulation of 60watts/meter^2 that may suddenly jump up and start radiating a la Stefan Bolzman.
Plugging in the numbers 390(from 15C) + 60( jumping power)=450
This in the formula flux=5.67X10^-8XT^4 gives T=298K, that is 25C average temperature, about the average for Sahara.
Therefore the CERES modeling and energy outputs MUST be wrong, because at no time in the records and the proxy records has the earth’s average temperature been so high, it has been below 22C
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html .
There is no reason to believe that a “hiding and jumping mechanism ” if it existed would not have operated during the long history of the globe as studied by proxies and during our recent history.

A C Osborn
April 17, 2010 5:04 am

Neville (15:55:02) :
magicjava (16:14:56) :
JER0ME (17:11:44) :
George E. Smith (17:20:52) :
Caleb (17:34:13) :
It’s always Marcia, Marcia (18:55:50) :
magicjava (19:03:41) :
toyotawhizguy (19:38:45) :
JER0ME (20:20:38) :
magicjava (21:53:42) :
magicjava (22:00:18) :
anna v (22:03:49) :
davidmhoffer (22:13:14) :
magicjava (22:25:45) :
anna v (22:29:05) :
anna v (01:03:56) :
Josualdo (03:32:30) :
I agree with Anna v and some others on this, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the Satellite Measurement Systems and their Analysis. When they don’t agree with Reality, it is not reality that you need to check. It is the assumptions made when analysing the Satellite Measurements.
I am surprised that Leif hasn’t got something to say about this, afterall half of the equation is what is coming from the sun.

JamesG
April 17, 2010 5:05 am

It eloped with the missing carbon into the land of the missing anti-matter.
Funny how they like to drone on about people denying the basic physics and then they come up with magic heat that somehow bypasses the top 700 metres of ocean. Of course Trenberth had earlier suggested – in an unguarded moment of honesty that would never get into a press release – that maybe the heat had escaped the atmosphere after all. Lindzen also confirms that explanation. It is after all what Occam’s razor would suggest.
I’m reminded of my firstborn when I said to a friend I couldn’t see anything in the ultrasound so I couldn’t tell if the baby was a boy or a girl. I was gently reminded that when you can’t see anything then it’s a girl. Now upon this discovery, would I dress her as up as a boy if I was getting 13 million dollars for it? Well I might just give her a boy’s name like “Campbell”, eschew blue and pink in favour of yellow and then when the truth is undeniable I could just blame these silly journalists for making unwarranted assumptions.

David, UK
April 17, 2010 5:28 am

To give Kevin some credit – at least he engages with sceptics. Here’s more.
http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/01/dr-william-gray-and-dr-kevin-trenberth-debate-global-warming-part-1/

r
April 17, 2010 5:41 am

>>>>NZ Willy (15:13:55) :
Dr. Trenberth could do like astronomers, and theorize that there is DARK HEAT building up, an exotic form that we cannot feel or measure. <<<<<

r
April 17, 2010 5:43 am

>>>>>NZ Willy (15:13:55) :
Dr. Trenberth could do like astronomers, and theorize that there is DARK HEAT building up, an exotic form that we cannot feel or measure. <<<<>> ROTFL !

r
April 17, 2010 5:49 am

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

r
April 17, 2010 5:58 am

>>>R. Craigen (22:09:28) :
To retool an old proverb, “If you can’t find the heat — get out of the ocean.”<<<<
Good one!

r
April 17, 2010 6:06 am

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

FergalR
April 17, 2010 6:10 am

Wait a minute; lurking beneath the sea . . . an affront to the laws of nature . . . coming back to haunt us sooner or later ?!
Such an eldrich horror could only be . . .

r
April 17, 2010 6:20 am

“Missing” heat may affect future climate change
Shouldn’t that have read
“Missing” global warming may affect the future of climate change scientists

NickB.
April 17, 2010 6:26 am

A C Osborn,
I’m not saying the satellites are right, but the theoretical model the IPCC has established for the atmosphere/oceans/land is NOT reality.
SB is not appropriate here and it should also be considered that the expected sensitivies are derived from historic observations – not SB. The computer models they use to say “we can’t account for it” are just as, if not much more of a likely source of error, than the satellite.
Consider for a moment… why did they seem to work before 2003? What else has been broken since 2003 (oh yeah, the GCMs)? Why are we blaming the satellites first?

DocMartyn
April 17, 2010 6:29 am

” Tenuc (03:48:00) :
It is possible that the amount of energy held long-term/permanently by biological and chemical processes, doing work e.t.c. is poorly estimated and changes rate as thermal energy varies”
I do believe that you have hit the nail on the head. These people do not know what work is. They are treating a steady state biotic system as a closed equilibrium and they find their numbers do not at up. 1.25% of the energy in the system disappears, hidden from view and they assume that it is hiding as heat. The fact that the world has huge deposits of coal, oil, chalk, atmospheric oxygen and other other examples of ‘work’ is a bit of a clue that biological systems do work on a massive scale.
About 105 GT C/yr is fixed; about 426 gC/m²/yr on land and about 140 gC/m²/yr. 6 watts/m2 is only 190 MJ/m2/yr; 426 grams of carbon is 1 kg of glucose is 5.9 moles and on combustion will give 5.9 * 2830 kJ/mol, about 16.7 MJ. So carbon fixation is 10%, without calculating the energy that goes into nitrogen fixation, sulphate fixation or the ‘information’ that is present in the plants themselves.

Richard M
April 17, 2010 6:39 am

It’s all virtual heat now. Those nasty photons got absorbed into the mass of virtual particles that are ever present. Of course, that has bloated the virtual abdomen of the universe and it could spew forth it’s vengeance at any time.
Or, maybe it’s just radiated to space each and every night. We have one satellite keeping guard over trillions of particles. No way any of them could slip out undetected. I think they are all sneaking out between 5-8AM each morning while the satellite is taking a little nap.

April 17, 2010 6:40 am

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

NickB.
April 17, 2010 6:43 am

One additional note/comment/thought (and this is essentially a rephrase of the comment I just made) – it must be assumed that the GCMs and the sensitivities they are built on are mostly correct for us to imply that: 1.) the satellites have broken since 2003 *or* that 2.) the heat is missing somewhere in the system.
Also, whoever called that second option the Godzilla Hypothesis earlier (apologies for not catching the name) – that was genius. I nearly spit my coffee laughing at that one.

Interglacial John
April 17, 2010 7:39 am

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

Francisco
April 17, 2010 7:45 am

R. Craigen (22:09:28) :
Assuming that there is indeed missing heat (and not just over-fudged figures that create an accounting problem by always rounding upwards when exact amounts are not known), then I would suggest that the increased heat is in biomass.
========
I understand that the earth’s biomass is somehow being tracked by satellite — and increasing. There was a post here dealing with that in 2008:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
but I haven’t seen any more news on this topic. I suppose if it were found to be decreasing, we would hear about it immediately, so I assume it must be increasing.

Neo
April 17, 2010 7:52 am

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

apologies to Glenn Frey

jaypan
April 17, 2010 8:00 am

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

John Marshall
April 17, 2010 8:04 am

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

hunter
April 17, 2010 8:05 am

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

Baa Humbug
April 17, 2010 8:12 am

C3 headlines has a great take on this.

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

according to David Crisp, the principal investigator for the OCO,
A decade after the first carbon observatory was designed, there is still a need for something that can measure where carbon dioxide is being absorbed – and the need may be even greater, Crisp said.
“There are these processes we know about, but we do an account and we can’t figure out where the CO2 is going,” Crisp said. “We don’t know where it’s going. We don’t know what parts of the ocean are absorbing it.”
I can hear Travesty Trenberth now…

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

They’ve lost the warming, they’ve lost the CO2, and they’ve lost their marbels lol
I bet they’re hiding in the same place. In their heads lol

JP
April 17, 2010 8:17 am

The oceans absorb, transfer, and exhaust heat energy. What these highly credentialed experts do not want to admit is that the oceans are losing energy as evidenced by 2 strong El Ninos the last 12 years. And no, CO2 does not equalize things as it GHGs do not create energy.
The decrease in Artic ice was simply the result of favorable winds and warmer water being transported from the tropics poleward. What will our experts say when global temps begin to reflect the loss of oceanic heat energy? Lord help us if a large volcanic event occurs in the tropics. We will look back fondly are the 1990s and early 2000s.

Elizabeth (Canada)
April 17, 2010 8:44 am

Maybe the dog ate it?

Predicador
April 17, 2010 8:50 am

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

kim
April 17, 2010 8:55 am

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

David Alan Evans
April 17, 2010 9:25 am

Predicador (08:50:42) :

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

In the order of 191.1MJ/m^2
DaveE.

Jeff F
April 17, 2010 9:28 am

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

Karl Maki
April 17, 2010 9:37 am

Let me see if I understand this correctly:
1. ‘Researchers’ believe they understand the global climate system more or less completely.
2. They use this ‘understanding’ to build computer models that predict the global thermodynamic balance of the planet.
3. Observational evidence contradicts the predictions made by the omnipotent computer models, therefore;
4. The planet is hiding the heat from us, sequestering it in such a way that it will return with a vengeance some time in the future.
Is this accurate? Are they serious? It’s worse than folly, worse than a scam. It’s a joke.

David Alan Evans
April 17, 2010 9:41 am

Made a small error there. It’s actually in the order of 189.3MJ/m^2 T.O.A.
DaveE.

Steve in SC
April 17, 2010 9:50 am

Our pal Kevin needs to brush up on his thermodynamics.
You must lose
You cannot win
You can’t get out of the game

kadaka
April 17, 2010 9:55 am

From press release:

Until 2003, the measured heat increase was consistent with computer model expectations. But a new set of ocean monitors since then has shown a steady decrease in the rate of oceanic heating, even as the satellite-measured imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy continues to grow.”

From the Argo site (specifically here):

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

Beautiful timing. The Argo buoy system starts keeping better track of the ocean temperatures, seems to be that “new set of ocean monitors” that is mentioned, and suddenly the computer models’ expectations aren’t being met. Argo checks the upper 2000 m, it can’t find all the heat that’s supposed to be there by the climate models.
Therefore the heat must be hiding away from the Argo system! Even deeper in the oceans, or up in the Arctic ocean, wherever the Argo buoys are not looking for it. My, is that heat sneaky!
You know, if we do deploy more sensors, robust ones, getting to where we can monitor virtually all the oceans at all the depths, if that heat keeps running away to keep from being measured at some point we’ll drive it clear out of the oceans, then it’ll be up here on land with us.
And then Trenberth will be proven right. Remember, you were warned! Best to stop looking for that running-away heat and accept the climatollgists’ word that it really is there, before tragedy strikes!

DeNihilist
April 17, 2010 11:11 am

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

Reed Coray
April 17, 2010 11:14 am

Capn Jack. (21:10:26) :
You’re getting Jules Verne mixed up with Joules Verne, the father of AGW.

anna v
April 17, 2010 11:17 am

Re: John Marshall (Apr 17 08:04),
How is heat stored? The laws of thermodynamics prohibit such a thing happening. Heat is always lost and insulation slows this but can never stop it. This missing heat is lost to space and Dr. Trenberth should review his wild theories.

Heat is not conserved.
Radiation is not conserved.
Chemical transformations, evaporations, sublimations, biological growth, etc are not conserved.
it is total ENERGY that is conserved.

Energy is a scalar . It has no direction, just a magnitude. Heat is a scalar, and is a form of energy, but it is not conserved because it can become one of the other processes listed above, including radiating away. In order to get the total energy content of the planet, one has to integrate over the variables that describe the other manifestations, and get a scalar number in joules.
The confusion of calling watts/meter^2 energy, which it is not, it is power per meter square, and it is a vector quantity, has arisen because way up in the imaginary sphere separating the planet from the vacuum of space, the predominant energy form is radiation, which is expressed in watts/meter^2. ( gravitational energy exchanges are much much smaller than the radiation energy coming from the sun). Up there, one can make a budget, and say: watts/meter^2 in should equal watts/meter^2 out and be talking of energy as shorthand. If there is more coming in than going out, it is true that one should be looking what sort of processes could be transforming heat/radiation into chemical biota etc. But an imbalance of 6watts/meter^2 for any length of time is too large, as I showed above, to be consistent with temperature data over the milenia.
Down on earth there are a lot of processes that eat up radiation energy, turn it to heat and then take heat energy and turn it into winds, currents, biota etc. , as well as radiation into biological growth. Conservation of energy says if we add up all the energies involved in these processes, total energy is conserved.
So let us not repeat the mistake with the radiation budget, turning everything into radiation equivalents, into heat budgets.

April 17, 2010 11:32 am

[quote anna v (04:56:25) :]
To see what I mean that we will be boiling, lets look at the numbers:
Suppose this CERES imbalance of 6watts/meter^2 has been going on for ten years, this is an accumulation of 60watts/meter^2 that may suddenly jump up and start radiating a la Stefan Bolzman.
Plugging in the numbers 390(from 15C) + 60( jumping power)=450
This in the formula flux=5.67X10^-8XT^4 gives T=298K, that is 25C average temperature, about the average for Sahara.
[/quote]

Here’s a link to a graph Dr. Spencer produced regarding the CERES data for 200 through 2008. The energy imbalance goes up and down, but has been trending up since about 2003.
Confusingly, “trending up” is shown in Dr. Spencer’s graph as moving toward the bottom of the image.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CERES-Terra-1.4-fb-removed.jpg
The graph also includes estimated forcing from CO2, displayed by the red line.

April 17, 2010 11:34 am
kwik
April 17, 2010 12:09 pm

So both “heat” and CO2 missing?
Isnt that quite central for the AGW’ers?
So Al Gore lied when he said “The Science settled”? I’m disappointed.
hmmmm…..okay, here is my theory;
Some Heat is converting CO2 into “Dark CO2”. (biomass).
Some heat is radiating into space, becoming “Dark Heat”.
Not so difficult, was it?

April 17, 2010 12:14 pm

NZ Willy (15:13:55) :
“Dr. Trenberth could do like astronomers, and theorize that there is DARK HEAT building up, an exotic form that we cannot feel or measure. ”
I read this post when it first came out before any of the comments and was blown away. The heat is hiding somewhere? Really? Under the ocean. And it’s coming back to get us. How did it get down there? Isn’t heated water less dense than cooler water and wouldn’t it tend to float on the cooler water? By what (possible) mechanism is less dense warmer ocean water transported down 700 meters below the ocean surface and kept there?
Trenberth’s idea is just insane – or there is a lot of really weird science I don’t know anything about and need to catch up on pronto. See quote from NZ Willy above (wish I’d have thought of that one).
I have read all the comments and am grateful for the entertaining references to pop songs, poetry, and Capn Jack and Fritzy you rock. You should take that on the road.
Seriously, before reading the comments I thought I was missing out on some sort of really sophisticated reasoning based on science and physics I was never exposed to.
AGW is looking more and more to me to be a kind of quasi-religious cult-like belief system and less and less like science.

Robert S
April 17, 2010 12:22 pm

[quote]
Suppose this CERES imbalance of 6watts/meter^2 has been going on for ten years, this is an accumulation of 60watts/meter^2 that may suddenly jump up and start radiating a la Stefan Bolzman.
[/quote]
This is a strange calculation. Check your units.
Taking a look at the various OHC datasets
http://i44.tinypic.com/5uizit.png
I think there’s something wrong with ocean heat content data in recent years, or the analysis phase as Dr. Trenberth puts it.

kadaka
April 17, 2010 12:35 pm

David Ross (18:53:49) :

I want to ask the most naive of questions.
The interior of the earth is hot, very hot in fact. What is the rate the energy flow from the interior of the earth into our biosphere? Does that rate change over time? Does the IPCC take the intrinsic energy inside our planet into account when it does the “budget” for the biosphere?
I have been idling thinking about this, prior to the Iceland volcano. The IPCC seems to think of volcanos as “negative forcers” through the cooling effect of the aerosols released during eruptions, but at the same time they release massive amounts of heat (both by convection, directly heating the air, hence the massive plumes going so high) and by radiation (those hot lava flows and in fact just the higher temperature soils and rocks radiating long-wave IR).
Just curious and naive. I did look at the IPCC diagram but it shows the earth’s surface as a barrier really, no energy flows across it in either direction…

No one answered this yet? Now that is a travesty.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert, but I do read a lot of articles here and elsewhere. Also, to clear up something I see in your words, the IPCC doesn’t officially “do” anything but assemble (what they say is) existing evidence for climate change and its possible effects into formats suitable for review by the public and decision makers. Thus they have a built-in bias as their remit is to report on climate change (formerly known as global warming) rather than to formerly evaluate if it exists, they start with assuming it is real and go from there.
The interior of the Earth is cooling, there is a net loss of heat. Some forces do act to warm it up, such as radioactive decay, but as a whole it is cooling. However the cooling is a very slow process, for us the heat is negligible compared to what we receive from the Sun.
For volcanism, on the surface it doesn’t do much for warming. The heat is localized and relatively quickly it works its way out into space. But the aerosols disperse, and can cause cooling over very large areas, thus the net effect is often negative.
It’s when volcanism happens under something that things get interesting. In Iceland, that heat was soaked up by the ice resulting in melting, so that heat will stay around for awhile. Undersea volcanic activity likewise heats up water not air thus that energy stays in the system longer, some suspect it may be related to El Nino and other warm spots. Volcanic activity under the ice is suspected in the ice loss of Western Antarctica, as it shows up as having an unusual warming pattern while the rest of Antarctica is still dang cold with growing amounts of ice.
Otherwise, when talking about dry land… Just about everywhere but the more polar regions, if you dig down about 10 to 15 feet you’ll encounter rather stable temperatures around the low 50’s in degrees Fahrenheit, any season, day or night. Get closer to the poles and you’ll have to dig down further, but they’ll be there. Back up on the surface there is far more variation. That such a very thin layer, relative to the size of the Earth and the thickness of the crust, can have that effect shows how inefficient it is at transferring heat quickly. (I can’t say “insulating properties” as this relates to large amounts of mass that take in and release heat rather slowly.) Figure in the full thickness of the crust, and this should indicate to you just how low the rate of heat transfer from the interior to the atmosphere (where we notice it) actually is, and why it is normally ignored.
Oh, I don’t know exactly what IPCC diagram you’re referring to, but you’re mentioning energy flows so I think you’re referring to the one showing the “energy budget.” Well, Willis Eschenbach has a great piece here on WUWT titled The Steel Greenhouse where that diagram (or something amazingly similar) is discussed, hopefully you’ll find it good reading.

Robert S
April 17, 2010 12:37 pm

Why does Spencer show a negative radiative forcing for CO2 prior to 2004?

NZ Willy
April 17, 2010 12:39 pm

DeNihilist (11:11:53) : “Hmmm, at least Dr. Trenberth, has started to doubt the satellite data. This is a start.”
The Warmers would like to discard the satellite data because it is the chief check on their runaway warming scenario. Their fiddled ground measurements are increasingly discrepant from the satellites’ measurements of no long term warming. So I’ll go with the satellites, thanks.

April 17, 2010 12:40 pm

arghhhhhhh! sorry, just found the lost heat, not enough milk in my tea.

Predicador
April 17, 2010 12:46 pm

David Alan Evans (09:25:33) :
thank you;
so given surface of Earth is ~5E14 m^2 (and surface area at TOA yet a bit more), it’s something like 1E23 missing joules per year.
that’s quite a lot, ~ two billion Hiroshimas.
of course, ‘Hiroshima’ is a tiny unit when used on processes of planetary scale. formation of calcium carbonate (which is an exothermic reaction) alone in Earth’s oceans releases something like 1E15 joules per year – or twenty Hiroshimas.
[all calculations approximate, and any and all of them might be utterly wrong]

Chris Riley
April 17, 2010 12:55 pm

NOTE: I have self-identified as” not smart enough to post here” by previously posting this under the wrong article.
Could it be that the missing energy could be found in the graves of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Bohr Einstein etc, where incoming solar energy has somehow induced the remains of these scientific giants to spin rapidly around their(formerly) vertical axis’?

David44
April 17, 2010 1:24 pm

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

Robert S
April 17, 2010 1:35 pm

Grego
“Trenberth’s idea is just insane – or there is a lot of really weird science I don’t know anything about and need to catch up on pronto.”
Trenberth isn’t just making things up; even Pielke recognizes there are mechanisms by which heat could be advected into the deeper oceans, but he believes this movement would have been detected. Others disagree: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/guest-weblog-by-leonard-ornstein-on-ocean-heat-content/?preview=true&preview_id=3810&preview_nonce=0cb721adc0

Dave F
April 17, 2010 1:37 pm

@ anna v (11:17:33) :
I wonder how much energy the biosphere consumes in photosynthesis.

kadaka
April 17, 2010 1:37 pm

charles the moderator (03:32:32) :
I claim credit for coining the term Dark Enthalpy, back in Dec of 2008

I also see where you foretold the coming ice age as well. Things can get very cold very fast!

BK Martin
April 17, 2010 1:42 pm

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

Craig Loehle
April 17, 2010 1:47 pm

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

Marlene Anderson
April 17, 2010 2:13 pm

Trenbreth’s position is anathema to the scientific method. He’s so tightly married to the CAGW theory that contradictory data is explained away in theories that get progressively more bizarre.
Well, my theory is that this missing heat is being siphoned into Hell through a trap door and the devil is creating a heat bomb that will explode one day and blow us all to, well, Hell.

April 17, 2010 2:14 pm

DocMartyn (06:29:14) :
“About 105 GT C/yr is fixed; about 426 gC/m²/yr on land and about 140 gC/m²/yr. 6 watts/m2 is only 190 MJ/m2/yr; 426 grams of carbon is 1 kg of glucose is 5.9 moles and on combustion will give 5.9 * 2830 kJ/mol, about 16.7 MJ.”
Right (I guess), but then degradation also occurs, and so the energy is released back, I suppose.
So, the total biological mass would have to increase enough to explain the energy absorption (I doubt that), and … ta-da… one day, it would be released back when the biosphere mass would reajust to less mass… and the hidden energy would come back to haunt us all. Na — I don’t like it 🙂

Chris Riley
April 17, 2010 2:22 pm

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

April 17, 2010 2:24 pm

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

Hmmm…. looking a little closer at Dr. Spencer’s graph, not only does it show negative forcing for CO2, it doesn’t match the 6.4 watts/meter -2 that Trenberth references (and is peer reviewed).
So I’d say ignore Spencer’s graph unless he shows up to explain what he means. And I apologize for not doing a better job checking it out before I posted it.
But the take-away point that the TOA energy balance changes is still valid.