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
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.
Does this new science now validate Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or any other really cool “missing” creatures? Boy I hope so!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
C3 headlines has a great take on this.
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…
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
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.
Maybe the dog ate it?
What order of magnitude of joules per year are they missing?
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.
=================
Predicador (08:50:42) :
In the order of 191.1MJ/m^2
DaveE.
I like blankets. I do not like wet blankets. Which brings to my mind the question – What is the conductive property of Dark Matter?
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.
Made a small error there. It’s actually in the order of 189.3MJ/m^2 T.O.A.
DaveE.
Our pal Kevin needs to brush up on his thermodynamics.
You must lose
You cannot win
You can’t get out of the game
From press release:
From the Argo site (specifically here):
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!
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.
Capn Jack. (21:10:26) :
You’re getting Jules Verne mixed up with Joules Verne, the father of AGW.
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.
[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.
P.S.
Typo. The graph covers 2000 through 2008.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CERES-Terra-1.4-fb-removed.jpg
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?
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.