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
Dude – where’s my heat?
Mark Nutley is right
Warm water does not descend into cold
Downwelling results from surface cooling plus increased salinity from ice formation. Changed temperature can alter volume and pattern of downwelling but not temperature of sinking seawater.
davidmhoffer (17:25:02) :
(…)
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?
Might only take one, if you’ve got the cash to buy from Wicked Lasers. Handheld models up to 500 mW with a stated range of more than 100 miles through normal atmosphere, that just might make a difference pointed straight up. Best of luck getting the aiming right. PS: Yes you will be wearing protective eyewear, and make sure you don’t point one at any aircraft.
[quote Robert S (22:56:49) :
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.
[/quote]
It comes from the CERES satellite data.
[anna v (22:22:02) :]
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.
[/quote]
Understood.
[quote NickB. (20:56:08) :]
Robert S
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.
[/quote]
The CERES satellite just measures light arriving at the Earth and light leaving. It really doesn’t do anything more than that. You could, I suppose, think of it as a variant of a video camera.
[Note: WordPress doesn’t use BB code, it uses HTML. Please use angle brackets instead of square brackets. ~dbs.]
Heat being used for biomass was my first guess but was way out of my knowledge base. I’m very happy to see so much attention brought to this issue. Somehow, I would think the numbers wouldn’t be that hard to figure out by someone with the right background.
We know CO2 sequestering is increasing exponentially since the overall increase in CO2 is linear. We would need to figure out the amount going into land based biomass and the amount going into the oceans. Then apply the appropriate numbers.
If biomass production is indeed taking up most of the extra energy then this may have interesting consequences. It may allow us to feed a growing human population. Without it we might doom millions (or billions) to starvation. Instead of being a problem, increased CO2 production may actually be a necessity to avoid future wars over limited food supplies.
Maybe we could model it 😉
MagicJava
I understand the 6 W/m2 is from the satellite readings – there is absolutely, 100% no confusion or disagreement on that.
It’s the .91 W/m2 I’m concerned about. If the satellite imbalance was .91 W/m2 Trenberth wouldn’t be talking about this and we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the models and the satellites would still be working together as they did pre-2003. Ultimately, it’s the derived sensitivities that say for an imbalance of X W/m2 you should see Y degree C and other associated changes – is it not?
If the climate was roughly 6x less sensitive to a W/m2 imbalance would that not also explain the current imbalance?
—————————————-
I have been saying this for a while now… for the period between 1980-2000 there is every indication in my mind that something really big and unaccounted for was at play because the GHG buildup continued past then with: flat-ish temps, a continued rise in atmospheric water vapor (which in fairness does indicate a continued rise in net atmospheric energy), and for the last 4-or-so years flat and now negative trending OHC. If the mechanisms (which ultimately are the derived sensitivities to GHGs) used to explain 1980-2000 were correct, 2000-on should see continued, if not accelerated, fire and brimstone that quite simply isn’t there.
To make a long story short, in case there is any confusion about what I’m implying, the radiative forcing sensitivities seem to be severely overstated. That’s not a new complaint – if anything I’m just making it from an observational standpoint instead of an emperical one but I’m sure that has been done plenty too.
Factoring it into this conversation seems appropriate – as I can see no other way but sensitivities to explain Trenberth’s concern that there is not adequate observed warming to explain the “missing” 5.1 W/m2.
Also, I really enjoyed the post by cohenite earlier with the Lindzen reference (among others). OHC, controlled by clouds and long-lived currents – especially in context of recent developments on the Faint Sun Paradox – seem to be the major control of the climate and not GHG content.
Apologies! The prior post was in response to Robert S as well as MagicJava.
OMG, the Well-Funded Denial Conspiracy has stolen our joules! This is a job for SuperSanter and his Giant Error Bars!
Film at 11…
If the satellite imbalance was .91 W/m2 Trenberth wouldn’t be talking about this and we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the models and the satellites would still be working together as they did pre-2003.
I’m not sure where the 6 Wm2 came into this conversation, but it’s not what Trenberth is talking about. The problem he’s talking about is 0.9 Wm2, and the lack of increasing OHC over the past few years – this is the discrepancy.
Ultimately, it’s the derived sensitivities that say for an imbalance of X W/m2 you should see Y degree C and other associated changes – is it not?
It is, but this has nothing to do with diagnosing any ‘missing heat’.
Sorry – my quotes don’t appear to have worked. The first and third paragraphs are quotes from NickB.
I would like to urge Trenberth to read this;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
The sooner climate Scientists learns Cybernetics, the better.
It would actually be enough to learn about amplifyers in electronics. I bet they never did???
I feel sorry for the world.
Robert S
These are the main points I took from the original post and subsequent conversation (in particular MagicJava). With this many posts it’s hard to keep track so it never hurts to make sure we’re using the same baseline.
1.) The satellites and observed warming based on modeled sensitivities have been diverging since 2003. Prior to 2003 the observed imbalances from the satellites were “accounted for”
2.) This problem got worse – but did not start – with the flattening OHC after 2005
3.) 6 W/m2 is the *current* imbalance oberved through the satellite record
4.) Observations, backtracked using sensitivities imply an “accounted for” imbalance of .9 W/m2
5.) This implies that the “missing heat” that Trenberth is looking for would be equal to 5.1 W/m2 (so I should have said 5x instead of 6x to describe this – apologies!)
6.) I believe the 50% unaccounted for is describing 2003-current. The divergance is getting worse over time so the distinction between point in time vs. over time comparison is important to be clear on.
Please set me straight if I’m reading it wrong
For those of us who do not have a subscription to Science, can someone who has access to the paper summarize the measurements involved, ideally with uncertainties? E.g., average incoming solar radiation measured by as value <YYY +- ZZZ W/m2 ); outgoing radiation measured by …; oceanic heat content increase; etc. etc. etc.
I think you’re making this more complicated than it needs to be. These are my thoughts on it:
– I honestly think the 6 Wm-2 is wrong; neither ISCCP nor Trenberth’s 2009 paper show anything this large. But it’s irrelevant, as the 6 Wm-2 is NOT the imbalance that Trenberth is discussing in regards to the ‘missing heat’. He is using the 0.9 Wm-2 as the measured imbalance.
– Up until 2003, this imbalance was accounted for in observations. By ‘accounted for’ I mean the following: 1. the oceans+atmosphere were warming, 2. The amount of energy required to warm the oceans+atmosphere by the observed amount can be simply calculated (you have deltaT and the heat capacity, find deltaQ), and 3. Compare to the energy accumulated by the measured energy imbalance (imbalance*time*area).
-Post 2003, temperatures have remained relatively flat, and the observed rise is not enough to account for the energy accumulated by the measured imbalance (again, we’re talking about the 0.9 Wm-2). This energy has to be going somewhere, and Trenberth suspects the deep oceans.
Modeled sensitivities play no part in this.
We’re just talking about energy accumulated vs. energy observed. Sensitivities are how much temperatures will change for a given forcing.
Sorry – sensitivities are how much temperatures will change for a given forcing to go to zero.
[quote I honestly think the 6 Wm-2 is wrong; neither ISCCP nor Trenberth’s 2009 paper show anything this large. But it’s irrelevant, as the 6 Wm-2 is NOT the imbalance that Trenberth is discussing in regards to the ‘missing heat’. He is using the 0.9 Wm-2 as the measured imbalance.
[/quote]
I don’t think Trenberth is referring to the 0.9 Wm-2 as the “missing heat” The 0.9 number comes from climate models, not satellites. And Trenberth is referencing the satellite data when he talks about the missing heat.
[quote Trenberth
“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.
[/quote]
It’s the CERES satellites (plural, there are CERES instruments on several satellites) that are giving us this large 6.4 Wm-2 number.
Trenberth discusses both the 0.9 Wm-2 number from the climate models and the 6.4 Wm-2 from the satellites in this paper linked below.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf
So, at the end of the day, we have this huge number that no one expected coming from multiple satellite instruments. And this number is fundamentally linked to the questions about global warming. We can:
● Ignore the number and recalibrate the satellites until they give us the number we want. In this case, we don’t even need satellites. Just plug in the number we want.
● Search for the “missing heat” here on Earth in areas we’re currently not looking. These areas are large, and one, the Arctic Ocean, is in the part of the world that’s heating up far faster than any other part of the world.
● Re-examine our assumptions about the character of incoming radiation from the sun. Perhaps more of it than we think has the same signature as outgoing radiation from the Earth.
Obviously, I’m in favor of the later two options.
P.S. Note To Mod:
I like my square brackets. 🙂
May I pose a request to all here? Please stop using Wiki as a reference. Thanks
The CERES data that Trenberth uses is from the Terra satellite only, as mentioned on page 3 of the study you link to.
Anyway, Trenberth believes there is an imbalance, but nowhere near as large as 6.4 Wm-2 (considering the uncertainty is CERES as calculated by Loeb 2009, and previous observational estimates of the TOA imbalance having been much lower, this seems like a reasonable assumption). He specifically states after various corrections that
“Thus, the net TOA imbalance is reduced to an acceptable but imposed 0.9 W m−2 (about 0.5 PW).”
Table 2a, the stated estimate for their paper is 0.9 Wm-2, based off CERES instruments on Terra. Whether you think this is ‘observational’ or not, this is what Trenberth means when he says “satellite observations” of the TOA imbalance.
As for your bullets, I certainly agree with 2, I don’t think 3 has any real merit, and you may not like 1 (I don’t either), but considering the errors in satellite measurements, we can’t take 6.4 Wm-2 at face value.
Robert S
Just thinking out loud, but if we’re talking accounting for joules I find it disturbing that we would only be looking at this past 2003 – and then, we would be looking at the standpoint of discrediting observed data or making up un-disprovable theories of hidden heat.
I would like to know what the radiative imbalances were that were accounted for pre-2003 and not of concern to anyone. Is 6 W/m2 a whole lot – or is it just a whole lot now that it doesn’t correlate with OHC, temps, fire, brimstone et al
Sorry but it is too damn convenient that the satellites just so happened to break and/or significant amounts of energy started “hiding” at the same time the models started breaking. This has every indication of the tail wagging the dog – “[look at the satellites not the models]” situation.
Also, I am not convinced they have accounted for everything so perfectly that they can account for joules with any level of accuracy. After all, until Pielke and Trenberth of late – climate science was essentially only looking at temperature in the atmosphere without factoring in humidity to represent net energy build-up. To imply that what they’re doing is anything approaching a “hard science” at this point seems a little insulting to the real hard sciences. This coming from an economist – I know a fuzzy science and overconfidence in understanding of complex systems when I see it.
With that and again having reached what appears to be an impass. I hope there are no hard feelings.
Regards.
[quote NickB. (18:42:52) :]
Is 6 W/m2 a whole lot – or is it just a whole lot now that it doesn’t correlate with OHC, temps, fire, brimstone et al
[/quote]
According to Svensmark, 1.5 W/m-2 is about 0.2 to 0.5 degrees C. So 6 Wm/-2 would be 0.8 to 2.0 degrees C.
For comparison, according to GISS, the temperature anomaly in the Arctic is between 2 and 8 degrees C.
[quote Robert S (17:43:04) :
The CERES data that Trenberth uses is from the Terra satellite only, as mentioned on page 3 of the study you link to.
Anyway, Trenberth believes there is an imbalance, but nowhere near as large as 6.4 Wm-2 (considering the uncertainty is CERES as calculated by Loeb 2009, and previous observational estimates of the TOA imbalance having been much lower, this seems like a reasonable assumption). He specifically states after various corrections that
[/quote]
Yes, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the margin of error for the satellite readings is as large as the reading. So you can adjust it to basically whatever number you want, down to zero.
From this plot I think we can get an estimate of the seasonal energy of the flora :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CERES-Terra-1.4-fb-removed.jpg
There is a seasonal variation. If we attribute it to the flora, growth+storing, decay=releasing energy, then in a year about 1to 0.5/watts/meter^2 *year are in the game. The trend of the plot, about 0.2 is consistent with a steady growth and increase in storage , it takes more than a year for leaf cover, grass, hay, corn, (look at ethanol) to dissolve into its component part, and the growth that went to roots and trunk stays for centuries. 20% within errors back of the envelope does not seem excessive.
I want to refer to my energy rant which was late in being posted, because it is relevant to the recent discussion.
Neither heat nor radiation nor any other energy form is conserved. Total energy is the conserved quantity, and energy changes manifestations.
Re: anna v (Apr 17 11:17),
@Robert S (01:38:50) :
“Models do not ignore conduction and convection, but oversimplified GHE diagrams and explanations do.”
– – – – – – –
Some models do. Here is a snippet of the description of a GHE model with an obvious AGW bent:
“However, only a small portion of this energy actually makes it back to space. The majority of the outgoing infrared radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases (see Figure 7h-3 below). Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.”
Link:http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html
No mention here that the entire atmosphere is radiating longwave energy in all directions, only the GHGs are described as doing that. What is being described above is the equivalent of a two-way mirror placed above the surface of the earth, which would obviously result in thermal runaway. Both the AGW models and the oversimplified diagrams and explanations do appear to lead to the same conclusions, i.e. overstating the GHE.
Heads up – the e-mail exchange @ur momisugly Pielke Snr. continues. Now with Josh Willis.
Very interesting comments from Dr. Willis.