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.
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
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
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
The pink unicorn that lives under sea has all the heat, didn’t you know?
“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later”
Zombie heat. Voodoo stuff.
“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
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!
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?
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!
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/
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.
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
So it’s not the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that’s trapping the heat?
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.
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.
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.
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/
>>>>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. <<<<<
>>>>>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 !
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. Craigen (22:09:28) :
To retool an old proverb, “If you can’t find the heat — get out of the ocean.”<<<<
Good one!
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.
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 . . .
“Missing” heat may affect future climate change
Shouldn’t that have read
“Missing” global warming may affect the future of climate change scientists
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?
” 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.
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.
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.