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.
Did they check under the sofa cushions? I find all sorts of surprising stuff when I look there. ;->
Paul
I thought it was settled science where the heat went. Al Gore said himself that just a short distance under your feet the earth is a million degrees. A few years ago it was only a few thousand degrees.
The alarmists have gone kooky. This has probably been one of the most ridiculous stories ( non) that I have ever read , or even heard of ….wheres the heat…dear god, it has come to this.
I can;t figure them out.
All said and done, regardless of the whitewashes , climate science will never be the same , all data will be scrutinized and sleptics will be heard. We are still at the tip of the oiceburg of this scam falling apart. It is over for them and they know it.
Ian
Like Kim mentioned earlier…
The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat – March 19, 2008
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
“Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says [the missing heat is] probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.”
It would be interesting to know why Trenberth doesn’t consider this to probable now, particularly if they can’t find the heat anywhere else.
Also, if “the Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years,” why is every month the warmest since records began?
magicjava (16:14:56) :
[quote George E. Smith (15:55:01) :]
So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.
{/quote]
It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming.
================================
:-\ 6 times the global temperature rise is missing? Maybe the chart is upside down. Time to calibrate the satellites again?
As I understand it, there is an imbalance between the incoming heat, and the outgoing heat, at least as it is being measured.
I would address the following questions, in order:
1. Do we know that our measurements are accurate? Do we have a control measurement to calibrate the tools?
2. Are we aware of all methods of heat exhaustion (not sure if that is an appropriate word here) from the planet? Is there a mechanism whereby heat is transferred, say, to the poles, and it is not being properly measured leaving there?
3. Is there any way this heat could have been transformed into movement of some kind, such as increased current speeds or suchlike?
Now, I am only speculating from a standpoint of limited physical understanding, but as an intelligent amateur, I would have thought these (or similar) would be the first places to examine. Having said that, perhaps they have already, and are now moving on to more complex and very much less likely possibilities whereby the heat is hidden in some way.
Or perhaps they have an unshakable religious belief, and are attempting to fit all perceived data to that belief. That has some serious precedents in human thinking.
a stupid question from the sidelines.
Magicjava says.
It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming.
the missing heat shows up in the satellite? the heat shows up in the satellite? but gets lost? does the satellite have complete global coverage? could the heat be escaping from view and this escape going unnoticed?
And this explains why the oceans have risen in recent years. Wait……..???
This has all the makings of a grand opera, where’s the missing joules? Complete with clowns.
Sounds like a serious case of PNS.
Grant (16:22:19) :
Joule thieves! Best left to Interpol then..
=========================
+1 AGW Internets to you, sir.
1DandyTroll (16:09:09) :
If that were true, surely we’d be seeing more heat leaving than arriving?
I agree, it must be true to some extent. The interior of the Earth is cooling (all those ‘millions of degrees’ have to go somewhere 😉 and thus the oceans, and indeed the land, must be warming. I suspect the overall rate of this warming is irrelevant compared to the Sun’s input however. The sun heats up the land about 10C to 20C each and every day. You have to go a long way down before you get any heat from the interior, and most land below a few metres remains around 3C or 4C at all times, as I understand it.
“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth”
Words of an idiot!
The AGW hypothesis assumes that Downward Longwave Radiation from Anthopogenic Greenhouse Gases has a measurable impact on OHC. It does not.
As posted here at WUWT and linked many times, Ocean Heat Content (0-700meters) is dominated by ENSO in most ocean basins:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
OHC is a product of ENSO, sea level pressure (North Atlantic Oscillation), and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in the North Atlantic:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
And OHC is a function of sea level pressure (NPI) in the North Pacific:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
Like Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, the North Atlantic OHC has the highest trend over the term of the NODC OHC data. The North Atlantic contributed more than 30% of the total rise in OHC though it represents about 15% of the global ocean surface area. The decline in OHC over the past few years is dominated by the drop in the North Atlantic.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2eexa8w.png
If the North Atlantic OHC continues its decline for a multidecadal period, it is unlikely that global OHC will rise significantly over that period. I briefly touched on this in the most recent OHC update, under the heading of BIG IFS:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/ohc-linear-trends-and-recent-update-of.html
“Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is
……….believed to have built up……….
on Earth in recent years,”
So climate computer programs have been off by a factor of two.
And they can’t admit that they know nothing about what’s going on.
“large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured,”
Quite impossible.
It would have always been a factor or not.
“”” magicjava (16:14:56) :
[quote George E. Smith (15:55:01) :]
So if it is missing; as in not there; why is there a belief that it exists.
{/quote]
It shows up in the satellites. The amount of missing heat, according to the CERES satellite, is more than 6 times the current estimated effect of global warming. “””
I see your point; perhaps I should rephrase my comment:-
If the heat is there as in; it shows up in the satellites; why is there a belief that it is missing ?
Now that should correct my former error.
Call Maxwell Smart (Get Smart)
The all powerful models predicted the increase in temperatures and they also predicted melting icecaps, glaciers, etc, so the missing heat cannot be there as it was already predicted by the expected heat anyway. Saying that the predicted heat AND the missing heat is going towards melting ice sheets and glaciers etc is double counting it, unless we were seeing more melting than was forecast – which we are clearly not.
Ode To Gaia.
…-
“Heat Wave
We’re having a heat wave,
A tropical heat wave,
The temperature’s rising,
It isn’t surprising,
She certainly can can-can.
She started the heat wave
By letting her seat wave and
In such a way that
The customers say that
She certainly can can-can.
Gee, her anatomy
Made the mercury
Jump to ninety-three.
Yes sir!
We’re having a heat wave,
A tropical heat wave,
The way that she moves
That thermometer proves
That she certainly can can-can.’
Ella Fitzgerald
Dear Sir,
Your doggerel is strongly reminiscent of Theodor Geisel
I could not, would not, find it in a house.
I could not, would not, find it with a mouse.
I could not find it with a fox.
I could not find it in a box.
I could not find it here or there.
I could not find it anywhere.
I could not find the heat my man.
I could not find it, Sam-I-am.
My congratulations Sir and my apologies to Dr. Seuss.
Helen Hawkins (15:13:32) :
Us Red Necks in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (and proud of it) say: “God is Great, Beer is Good, and People are Crazy”.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/billy-currington-god-is-great-beer-is-good-and-people-are-crazy/7c12e49c6f825a3c07da7c12e49c6f825a3c07da-1597228056817
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Climate “scientists”, meet your Figment. Poof!
magicjava (16:14:56) :
Are you saying the Ceres satellite measures the heat leaving earth?
It seems we ought to be able to measure the incoming heat and outgoing heat from outer space. That would skip all the complex things the heat does while it is here.
Is this so difficult to do?
Maybe the missing heat is off doing work somewhere.
I’m sure that more taxes and carbon credit trading will find the missing heat.
Has anyone thought to measure the hot air coming out of Al Gore? Maybe that’s why he looks so bloated lately. Yes, that’s where it is!
Trenberth has made a remarkable discovery – heat can pass through hundreds of meters of water without causing that water’s temperature to rise. Trenberth is theorizing at the Nobel Prize level. Call Al Gore. Al knows that just below the Earth’s crust the temperature is millions of degrees. Now Trenberth knows how the heat got there.
Clearly, Trenberth and crew should be kept away from all sharp objects.