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
ScientistForTruth: May I call you Elijah?
All others: If the heat is hiding in the ocean, then thermal expansion would have flooded New York City. And Major Bloomberg’s plaNYC would have been right after all.
It appears to be an imbalance between energy coming in & going out as measured by CERES. So what does ERBE say?
DaveE.
I recall a recent discovery where it was found that thunderstorms along the tropics release much more heat into the upper atmosphere than previously realized.
Unless you are able to measure all the heat released from all large thunderstorms, you are going to get the energy balance wrong.
So the heat is not hidden, it just sneaked out through the thousands of daily atmospheric windows we call thunderstorms.
Mike M. (15:23:46) : You wrote, “I also wonder what that Bob Tisdale guy has to say about this.”
That Bob Tisdale guy commented above at 17:19:19.
I visualize the oceans as a layer of sweat on the earth just like your body, as heat is absorbed the ocean surface evaporates, change of state heat loss.
Heat does not readily travel vertically in the oceans as different temperature masses of water are different densities and they form thermocline interfaces.
Ah yes, I remember where I read the thunderstorm stuff.
The Thermostat Hypothesis
Guest Essay by Willis Eschenbach
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
At the top, the air is released from the cloud up high, way above most of the CO2. In that rarified atmosphere, the air is much freer to radiate to space. By moving inside the thunderstorm heat pipe, the air bypasses most of the greenhouse gases and comes out near the top of the troposphere
That Willis is a smart guy.
JT
This is the problem with an ‘energy budget’! The supposition that ‘energy in/energy out = thermal state’ requires that all energy sinks (attractors) that aren’t thermal are known and can be excluded from the energy budget.
Looking for unaccounted heat in deep ocean can’t really be justified. When you think about it water begins to expand again when it’s cooled to more than ~4°C, so there’s only an ~8°C range at most that can ‘hide’ heat in great ocean depths. There’s a large volume there though.
Best regards, suricat.
Easy Dr Trenberth. Everyone knows where the missing hot air or heat went.
Half the missing heat went into Dr Pachauri’s racy porn novel and the other half got pumped into Alaska.
Okay I am tired of the whole ‘Glacier melting’ as a sign of man caused global warming. Two things must be understood about glacier ice loss. First it has been occurring for over 150 years now, second, as a body of ice looses ice it increases the rate of ice loss as the ability for a glacier body to have a thermal buffer decreases. So stating this is akin to saying, hey I have an ice cube that has been melting for 150 years and it is starting to get small now!!!
So depressed.
I get it, I saw this in a movie once.
There was this Sun thing, right, and it was all like,…(wave arms to emphasize) really hot n’ stuff.
It had like, all these NOO-TREEN-NOE’s, and on the way to earth, they transformed, like the robots only really, really small.
And they heated up the Earths core, and then the world ended, it was like totally awesome, cos John Cusack, is like a vegan or something, but they had these ships and then they cruised to Africa, which was like totally ok.
Who Knew right?
So that’s what happened to the missing heat, it like transformed into something not hot, but still there, and then when it got to someplace else, it turned hot again….I hope it doesn’t destoy the earth, i’m not a vegan yet.
(Or,…its a phantom result from a Post Normal statistics exercise.)
you will not have to worry about the missing heat if the KATLA volcano erupts we will be looking for the heater
This is a common error by climate scientists: Believe the model over observational data.
Haven’t we done all this before? Here are the facts.
1. Some glaciers are melting, some aren’t. Local variations are the most important factor.
2. Arctic sea ice has been expanding since 2007, and has reached the average.
3. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, and is above the average.
4. There has been no statistically-measurable increase in temperature for 10 or more years.
Trenberth, there is no heat hiding in the ocean. You are grasping at straws, sir, and making yourself look foolish, or more foolish than usual. Give it up, man.
“There are clearly problems in the analysis phase and I don’t believe any are correct. “
Is there a unit root involved, here?
Can anyone say, instrument drift?
DaveE.
We have a term for this in oil & gas exploration : “Buying your own B*** S***”
The problems aren’t dis-similar : a highly under constrained dataset & the need to have a model to fit the data into so that you have some predictive powers (in the case of oil & gas – the power to predict where oil & gas is at in the sub-surface).
It isn’t uncommon to see those who will follow their model, even when the data says the model is incorrect – thus the term “Buying your own B*** S***”. Those who fall into that trap in oil & gas are doomed to make bad decisions & waste a lot of money drilling wells which had no chance even before they started. This is not dis-similar to this situation. Those who have bought off on the AGW model are blind to the facts if they dont support “the model” & will make bad decisions as a result.
In both cases, the believers are also blind to find the true answers which would have significant benefits (ie – in oil & gas, blind to where the data is saying oil & gas should be found, in climate, blind to what the true nature of the climate system may be).
Following the analogy though, no one should surprised. Why? Because very few geoscientists ever find oil & gas. Most are just supporting cast for those who have the ability to not believe their own BS. Why would it be any different in climatology? There are a few visionaries & the rest just are supporting cast.
Harsh? Maybe. True? Probably.
Surely if there was substantial missing heat stored in the deep ocean, we’d be able to see it by the effect of thermal expansion on sea levels. It would be interesting to do the calculation, but orf course we’d first need to know how much missing heat is being talked about.
I think that MIchael Penny, from his previous post, has the answer to this question. The joules that are hidden in the lower oceans should express themselves as expansion.
The eustatic component to the rise in the oceans is about 1.6 mm/ year, and the rest expansion due to added heat. The expansion resulting from added heat isn’t occurring as confirmed by Argos.
Also, how is the heat getting to the lower oceans? I don’t think our currents go to the depths that Mr. Trenberth is suggesting. That would mean the only transport method for moving these joules down into the lower oceans is through conduction, and that would take a very long time.
How much will the oceans expand in height if they were to gain 1 degree C in temperature? Can anyone give me an answer? And what would the temperature profile of the oceans look like at the surface temperature were to climb by 1 degree C? I expect we would have a quick temperature change to the depths the currents travel to and very slow below that.
Steve
But at least it’s a dry heat.
Lay your bets folks and carefully watch the P. Now which shell is it under?
Omg – its so EMBARRASSING! I feel sorry for them. But to highlight this with a PRESS RELEASE? “Attention – look how pathetic and stupid we are, clinging to our obviously flawed models”?
“It must be there, only we can’t see it, didn’t catch it as it transited the parts we CAN see, and – you need to be afraid of it!”
If I did science like that, I’d be fired.
Good LorD.
I had a similar problem as Trenberth when I examined the linearity of a circle.
I found that when I used a 1 meter rule to measure the angle of a circular sports stadium perimeter it was linear. As obviously, measuring big circular things is more accurate than measuring little circular things, it was safe to conclude that the edge of a circular object is flat.
When I used the same rule to measure the angle of the perimeter of a nickle it was all wrong, it wasn’t flat at all, unless I placed it on its side.
I believe that the US Mint is at fault and is flooding the nation with a coinage that distorts time/space; this may be the reason I get terrible headaches and always smell boiling cabbage when I hear denialist arguments.
Some of that missing heat must have been hiding in my coffee cup this morning. Burnt my tongue it did….. and only last week it ruined my toast.
It would seem this missing heat is more insidious and malevolent than we first thought!…..;-)
regions that are not adequately measured
Cha–ching!
They’ll need new instruments to register it. And they’ll need to pay someone to record the data and make up some sort of algorithm that drops the cooler readings and keeps the warmer ones so global warming can be shown.
Cha–ching!
This press release is a barometer of the sad state of climate science. Speculations put forth with insufficient data should be confined to the private conversations of scientists as they banter back and forth in smoke filled–I mean CO2 filled–rooms.
Instead scientists are lending their personal credibility to such speculation in an effort leverage their own theories and maintain public credibility (and, if I may be so jaded, funding).
What is your hypothesis? What is your data? What is the criterion of falsification?