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
ClimateGate gave it to global warming in the joules.
Predicador (12:46:39) :
Oh, dear. I can see that being used by HGW believers real soon. The increase in CO2 will cause more CaCO3 to be created, and thus will warm the planet even more than they thought!
(This will completely ignore all the alarmist claims preceding this that CaCO3 creation will be reduced by an increase in CO2, of course.)
As an aside, I think the energy ‘absorbed’ (wrong term, I know) by the creation of more biomass due to an increase in CO2 is probably very valid. I mean, that is where all the coal, oil and gas came from, so it is natural to expect it to return there.
I still don’t think the amount of CO2 increases in the air are enough to make much difference to that total energy. It all gets away in the end, all the CO2 will ever do is delay it slightly, and ‘up there’, not ‘down here’.
MagicJava
How is the other 50% of the imbalance accounted for if not by the models? There is net accumulation of energy in the atmsphere – as demonstrated by flatish-temps and increasing atmospheric water vapor content.
My reading of this is that according to the models the imbalance should result – based on the derived sensitivities – in twice the energy increase observed. Am I wrong?
Dave F
The estimate I have seen is 100 TW. I believe that is the same type of representation as global power consumption (@15.8 TW in 2006) – average instantaneous consumption over the course of a year. Divide it by number of m2 for the earth’s surface and add a negative to get the W/m2 effect. I’m on my phone so I can’t work out the real energy equivalent.
Well did they compensate for the sunshing reflecting off the backs of the satellites? I mean they got a whole whack of ’em up there now and they cast bigger shadows than their actual size…. just kidding…
I think I will organize a party this summer though. Everyone has to bring one of those laser pointers, we’ll tape a few hundred of them to my backyard telescope, point it at a satellite, and see if can mess with its readings… just kidding…
…hey. Would that work?
Wonderful thread and a key point of the AGW debate; some excellent wit with Ross Hatch’s dry heat at 18:28:29, DocMartyn’s linaerity of a circle at 18:31:38 and Myroddin Seren’s Godzilla at 19:31:21 coming to mind
MagicJava
I reread your post and I think we’re on the same page… but still would like to know for sure.
Best Regards.
A lot of discussion has occurred around the CEREs data allegedly showing a net gain or increase in energy of some considerable amount [equal to a temp increase of 25C according to one post]. A couple of points: Lindzen and Choi show, using ERBE data, that it is SW which has the main effect on climate sensitivity while the models focus on LW; Lindzen found a decrease in SW flux and an increase in LW TOA flux;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/lindzen31.png
The SW findings are consistent with Pinker et al;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5723/850
With the SW change, probably from reduced cloud cover, capable of explaining all temperature increase over the study period, 1983-2003.
CERES has been critiqued in this paper which seems to confirm Lindzen and Pinker’s conclusions;
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1
I wish that the AGW fundamentalists were right. As any person with common sense knows, “warm – good, cold – very bad!”.
Ice kills, CO2 makes food.
AGW’s new sequel: “Trenberth’s Missing Family Joules” – “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Well, on second thought, no sound or fury, either.
” Josualdo (14:14:51) :
So, the total biological mass would have to increase enough to explain the energy absorption (I doubt that)”
Just for my sake; can you tell me where underground oil, methane and coal deposits come from? Why are mature peat bogs generally 5 meters deep, going down to 8-9 meters where the matter is about as solid as hardwood?
What about the Titanic, in 100 years there is 6 inches of organic matter settled on this four bladed propeller
http://www.dellamente.com/titanic/propellers.gif
Six inches of organic matter per century (40% carbon density about 1), that is about 6 grams of carbon per meter per year.
In respect of the lost heat DocMartyn at 06:29:14 and Anna V at 11:17:33 offer sensible analysis. The issue of biostorage of heat [sic] has been explored by Steve Short and his work with cynaobacteria blooms show considerable increase in these colonies over recent times; and we are talking about 1000’s of sq klms. Land biomass, including forests has also increased in recent times despite forest clearance.
Heat is also lost to the system with oceanic recycling through the tectonic plates with some estimates that this continuous process has been completed at least 7 times in the history of the planet; whether it creates a net warming or cooling in the abysmal depths, which according to Schuckmann shows increased heating at the 2000 metre level, is another thing.
Incidentally I would have thought the main advocate of lower ocean heating, Anu, would have made an appearance.
NickB.
“My reading of this is that according to the models the imbalance should result – based on the derived sensitivities – in twice the energy increase observed. Am I wrong?”
The imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 is predicted by models (some observational estimates agree). The associated energy being retained is a simple calculation (imbalance*time*area) that doesn’t require any modeling. Only half of this energy can be accounted for in observations (heating of oceans+atmosphere+ground, and melting of ice).
Trenberth says most of this other half is in the deeper oceans.
“Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.”
What of the growing sea ice in the south and advacing glaciers?
There is probably little net difference when it is all taken into account.
Robert S
So you’re saying that the W/m2 to degrees C sensitivity has absolutely, 100% nothing to do with the accounting of the energy imbalance? I’m not sure I understand how the accounting could be done without it.
Thinking out loud here… a .9 W/m2 imbalance would explain the warming (or, better described as the lack thereof) since 2003, that’s the accounted for warming.
A 6 W/m2 imbalance is observed from TOA – from the sensitivities (which are probably log relationships but describing linear just to spitball) we should have seen warming 6 times greater than observed.
That can only imply: 1. The Godzilla Theory, 2. the Satellites are wrong, or 3.) the W/m2 sensitivity is 6 times overstated.
Perhaps you can explain how the observations and accounting can be done without factoring in sensitivities? I’m not trying to be argumentative here, but I cannot see how it can be done without it.
Doc Martyn:
Now you are using more cerebral cortex than most. Great question. As an organic chemist of 40+ years, I am tending to believe that oil, methane, nat gas, coal are all non-biogenic, excepting shells of crustaceans, foraminiferans, diatoms, etc. The deposits you mention are predominantly calcium carbonate, about 12% carbon. Any carbohydrates or protein that may have contained carbon were eaten as fuel, and eventually end up as carbonate.
The carbonate becomes limestone and marble, which then subducts in certain plate regions. It reaches areas of high heat and pressure kilometers down. Reaction with water, iron and cobalt oxides, and silicates produces methane which polymerizes to ethane, propane, then oil. Pyrolysis of the oil can produce coal and, yes, diamond under special conditions.
It does not come from plants or dinosaurs like we were taught in school. Some methane is produce at shallow depths by anaerobic fermentation of fatty acids in organic debris (peat) but this is inefficient compared to the deep earth processes. Methane produced this way cannot polymerize, since heat and pressure are needed for that.
Methane, Natural Gas, oil and coal is being produced every second of every day by the above processes. There is no peak oil.
For the missing heat segment of Climate Models, add a variable for…
New arrival of Hot Flashes in massive numbers of Menopausal Baby Boomers.
Note, may also contribute to higher water vapor due to Night Sweats.
Re: magicjava (Apr 17 11:32),
Thanks for the link, which I copy here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CERES-Terra-1.4-fb-removed.jpg
Now it seems there is an IPCC correction imposed on the plot, so there is a question mark , but let me discuss the temporal variation anyway.
It looks as if it has a yearly clock, and it would be interesting to superimpose it on the AIRS CO2 breathing map, which shows a seasonal dependence over the globe, stronger on the north hemisphere.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/AIRS-CO2-Movie-2008-2009/
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/index.html
One can see the biosphere breathing seasonally, with CO2 as a proxy of its activity; so the association of the variations in the curve for the energy balance over the year might be explained by the seasonal variation of the biosphere.
The trend, considering that it is a small percentage of the variation would be explained by the increase in the biosphere, due to the extra CO2 and the higher temperatures: plants love it.
A number of people have commented on this possibility.
The variation is something like 1in the units of the plot and the trend is something like 0.17, less than 20%.
If it is biological, and the seasonal dependence indicates this, it means an increase of absorption by 0.2 Watts/meter^2 from the biosphere.
I have not been able to find a link that gives the energy absorbed by the live biosphere. To see if reasonably even Trenberths 6 watts/meter^2 could be accommodated.
Re: magicjava (Apr 17 14:24),
Do not bank on the peer review of climatology, though it would be good to see the discrepancy cleared. 6 watts/meter^2 is appreciably higher than this plot.
NickB.,
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, but no, sensitivities have nothing to do with accounting for the energy imbalance. If by that you mean the following (which is what the ‘missing heat’ is about):
-An energy imbalance is measured over a given timeframe.
-The amount of energy the Earth system has accumulated with this imbalance is calculated as imbalance*time*area.
-The amount of energy required to heat up the atmosphere+land+oceans, and needed to melt sea ice and glaciers is calculated from observations. See how this relates to the accumulated energy.
The only place sensitivities come into play is in calculating how large the imbalance *should* be.
And I’m not sure where the 6 Wm2 comes from – Lindzen’s 2009 paper on ERBE data? ISCCP doesn’t show anything this large, and Trenberth 2009 estimated an imbalance around 0.9 Wm2.
@Les Polette (20:56:48) :
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!
– – – – – – –
There are a couple of flaws in your argument, not intending to bash a fellow skeptic, but only to keep the science accurate. First, understand that the Second Law is only valid in a closed system, and only if an intelligence (i.e. lifeform) is not counteracting entropy. There are several ways of formulating the Second Law, and the following formulation is preferred when describing radiative transfer:
“No process is possible which has as its sole result the removal of a certain amount of heat from a reservoir at one temperature and the absorption of an equal quantity of heat by a reservoir at a higher temperature.”
The wording “sole result” is the important criteria here. Any gray body or black body object radiates as a consequence of its Kelvin surface temperature (raised to the fourth power) according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, however the behavior of gas molecules is slightly different. In regards radiative transfer between a cooler object and a warmer object, the transfer is in BOTH DIRECTIONS, however the cooler object receives more radiation from the warmer body, than does the warmer body from the cooler body. Thus there is always a NET TRANSFER of the energy equivalence of the radiation from the warmer object to the cooler object. To say that a cooler object cannot radiate any energy to a warmer object is just simply false. Yes, even the Sun absorbs some of the radiation emitted into space by the earth.
In regards to the Climatology model that states that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases that absorb heat radiated by the earth) and re-radiates this back to the earth, this model (IMO) is severely flawed, not because re-radiation is impossible (it isn’t), it’s that the model ignores the fact that the majority of the heat gained by a GHG due to IR absorption is transferred to the surrounding air molecules via the mechanisms of conduction and convection. This dispersion of heat from the GHG molecules to air through these mechanisms limits the temperature rise of the GHG due to IR absorption, which decreases the radiative energy available that will be radiated back to the earth. Instead of all or most of the heat being re-radiated back to the earth, the warmed air expands, travels upward, and warms the layer of air above it. The major flaw in the climatology model is that it ignores the conduction and convection mechanisms, and vastly overstates the amount of energy re-radiated by the GHGs back to the earth. I do not venture so far as to state that the “greenhouse theory” is false, but rather that it is grossly overstated.
DocMartyn (18:26:56) :
“” Josualdo (14:14:51) :
So, the total biological mass would have to increase enough to explain the energy absorption (I doubt that)”
“Just for my sake; can you tell me where underground oil, methane and coal deposits come from? Why are mature peat bogs generally 5 meters deep, going down to 8-9 meters where the matter is about as solid as hardwood?
What about the Titanic, in 100 years there is 6 inches of organic matter settled on this four bladed propeller
“Six inches of organic matter per century (40% carbon density about 1), that is about 6 grams of carbon per meter per year.”
(Per metre or square metre?)
I feel fine with that. If we get, say, plankton and bacteriae into it, and all the rest, we get huge numbers. It’s not the sheer mass of biological material, live or decomposing, I’m uncomfortable with, it’s more how could it explain a sixfold energy difference.
All that organic matter will decompose and release the basic stuff back – carbon, hydrogen, oxigen, nitrogen etc. and “bond” energy. Much of this gets into the cycles sooner than later, I guess.
That means that as far as I see it the steady-state approach to biological mass isn’t all that bad, give or take a few corrections for stuff that might be sequestered and have its decomposition delayed.
I meant I doubted that the increase in live biomass would explain the energy difference. If I understand your point, you emphasize that the live biomass isn’t as relevant as sequestered mass with only a partial decomposition.
I doubt we have much data to decide whatever on this. I have no reason to say that the material on Titanic’s propeller is representative of the average Earth’s behavior on this, and I have no reason to say it isn’t either.
I do think the biosphere is pretty much relevant, but maybe not to the point of explaining such a big energy gap, and, as I said, I also think that matter and energy flows into the biosphere and back, in something like a dynamic equilibrium, and only sequestered biomass (petroleum, peat, etc.) provides a larger delay or, if you prefer, another, slower, compartment.
“The major flaw in the climatology model is that it ignores the conduction and convection mechanisms”
Models do not ignore conduction and convection, but oversimplified GHE diagrams and explanations do.
Just a note: I think that anyone that shows “beyond reasonable doubt” that the biosphere can take up a significant part of 6/7ths of the incoming radiation, if we’re to believe those CERES things up there, deserves my utmost respect for his/her contribution to the understanding of the earth as a system.
bubbagyro (21:02:58) :
Doc Martyn:
Now you are using more cerebral cortex than most. Great question. As an organic chemist of 40+ years, I am tending to believe that oil, methane, nat gas, coal are all non-biogenic, excepting shells of crustaceans, foraminiferans, diatoms, etc. […]
It does not come from plants or dinosaurs like we were taught in school.[…]
Oh, heck. I hate it when I’m told there’s no Santa Claus 🙂
But you state you “tend to believe”. Fair enough.
Methane, Natural Gas, oil and coal is being produced every second of every day by the above processes. There is no peak oil.
Oh, that would be cool. Or hot, or what.
On a serious note, I think the big issue for our alarmer mates, they close down systems to their knowledge or so called Knowledge.
They are trapped in what they call their expertise.
The oceans are the largest part by mass of the system that is not closed and also by movement of most complex.
Biomass is an energy in the system. We are at the beginning levels of examining these complex interplays.
I said a long time ago it was Sol what was doing it, me I reckon on further detective work, Sol has got accomplices and CO2 is just one of Moriarity’s minor minions.
And never underestimate the power of stupidity that a Committee can exhibit, it is the only known form of life, with more legs than an octopus and the intelligence of an amoeba.
(Mixed that last bit up a bit, Clements and Heinlein).
To Fitzy I checked one of me forebears charts, Capn Abel he discovered that place a bit later than the oringinal inhabitants did, you is due east of the Parson’s Nose of Van Diemen’s land.
I checked his Log, I read natives unfriendly and the place is gonna blow there is smoke and sulhpur everywhere. We is outta here. This aint aint Java.
Of course this is subject to translation, my high Dutch is very rusty.
Aargh.
A lot of places got found by people being lost.