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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 …
“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?
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
Magic?
Probably the last place you would expect to read something….
….that leaves you speechless
That’ll be dark heat then.
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…)
Violent Femmes.
I should be ashamed.
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
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
I skipped ahead to the ending.
*spoiler alert*
The missing Joules are in a U-Store-It in Santa Monica.
Did they consider what has been put in gas tanks? http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/wcsstore/CVWEB/staticproductimage//N3233/full/7080638_gec_28201_pri_detl.jpg
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.
Honestly, this is something my 6 year old would say when caught in a lie.
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.
Not prose. Poetry.
It was not there again today.
I hope it didn’t go away!
It is a travesty that we cannot find that heat.
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.