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
Howdy, I am in part responsible for this missing heat. Due to all the concern about AGW, I have been storing all my extra heat in coffee cans along with my useless Dark Emitting Diodes, (DEDs). I suspect that they have been cancelling each other out, and I am afraid to open all those coffees cans I stored out on the shelf in the garage.
But, if everybody else goes along, I will let all of those DEDs out of the cans soon !
Cheers, Kevin
Oh, by the way I have an large collection of never used Write Only Memory (WOM) chips available, Large capacity, 1 Terabyte per chip, write time is 10 picoseconds, read time is infinite. IBM partnumber is: 1256useless-45-56-Jdp. Asking price is only $25.00 each, but I will take a good used Yugo in exchange for the entire lot.
Cheers, Kevin
Aye Capn Jack,
She be ten score fanthoms deep, i’ll be bound, running true like the uptick of an ice hockey stick,…but do yee know of whence the Kraaken begat its name,…with a long ‘A’?, like the long ‘A’ in AAAS…with the extra silent ‘S’.
She be from the Norse, whose ice cores are three and twenty score deep, down where the grim earth be many millions of degree’s. They summoned it ups yea see, the Kraaken, they delved too deep, too greedily, and awoke the beast from its 10,000 year slumber.
And it kracked open the ancient dome of lavee, that keeps the devils kettle from boling over an’ sullying Gods good Earth,…excluding Manhatten and a small part o’ East Anglia.
…oh they tried, they tried, to undo their folly, they sent Trenberth-the-Wise below with parchments and charms and much gold to appease its great hunger, but it had grown ravenous,…implacable it were….
And so Trenberth did gather more gold, and more trinkets from the lords NOBEL and he sought council with the Goracle, wise be they,…
They armed his wits with riddles, and schemes and all manner of accountin’ and binomial statistics…
….and he struck an accord with the beast, to keep the heat in, and preserve the Polee Bears from rotten ice and the Linux penguin from homelessness.
And from that day, only mountains of gold, will keep it at bay.
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!
Glenn (16:49:09) :
“I thought that’s how most of them did their work.”
Glen,
Actually the “Heat in the Ocean” had a thing for the “Hot Spot” In the troposphere and they ran off together.
I have had hypotheses over the years that experimentation has falsified. But I did not cry, I just adjusted or abandoned the original. I was not indignant, nor defensive; as a scientist, I had great satisfaction that I had uncovered a truth, or turned another stone. Nature told me what was going on, and I did not second guess her. That’s what a scientist should do. My conclusion? These alarmists are not scientists by definition.
LESSON: I claimed that there were diamonds in an empty lot, and I started a diamond rush, and hordes of diggers came. They dug three feet down and found nothing. I say that they did not dig deep enough. They went down six feet, but found nothing. I said they did not dig deep enough, and so on, until they had excavated a huge crater. They never disproved my theory, though. I was sure they were just short of the mother lode.
Aristotle described this two and a half thousand years ago. He said you cannot prove a universal negative. This is what Trenberth is doing. It is a logical fallacy – just because you cannot find the heat, does not mean it isn’t there.
When do we stop digging??? [“Oh, no, they killed Kenny…you bas***ds!]
I hate you Fitzy, I was about to go whoop whoop Jules Verne to the centre of the earth and you just wrecked me plot. a bit of Saga a bit of Verne and I was even gonna bring the Prince of Mischief, Loki and Thunder bum Thor from the wings.
And the Midguard Serpent and the Kraken was gonna super stoush.
Thanks for wrecking me Disney career as Writer Producer. Thanks heaps.
MattN (18:51:02) :
There is no missing heat. It never was there, except in the models. When are they going to admit that?
Maybe when they can’t make a living from global warming anymore.
How come there aren’t massive quantities of volcanoes in the deserts?
The Mohave, the Sahara, the Gobi, etc.
How odd.
Oh well, I will just have to take my fiction writing skills somewhere else, I heard a rumor there are science fiction jobs opening up at Hadley CRU and even NASA.
CSIRO and BOM in Australia may need a good science fiction essayist, Not the same money unfortunately.
Guys, it’s right under our noses!
WE’VE been taking the heat for a long time for simply displaying and demanding common sense. That’s the travesty of it all.
Funny how they don’t seem to appreciate it now that we’re starting to give it back. 😉
The heat isn’t missing, it is clearly present on NOAA’s temperature anomaly map for March present between Canada and Greenland. It seems Climategate has got the “Team” so spooked that they no longer communicate with each other the way they use to. Otherwise Trenberth and NCAR would have been told as much by NOAA.
/Sarc off
Kevin has a much bigger problem than the dog eating half of his joules. He recognizes that over the long term the oceans are heating up at only .o6 degrees per decade vs .12 degrees per decade for the atmosphere according to NASA. Rather than doubt the NASA surface temps He is looking under his bed for the missing heat. His real problem is that the trend since ARGO was launched in 2002 not only shows no heat gain but since the Arctic sea ice has grown since 2007 He must now subtract the joules released by the growing sea ice and therefore recognize that joules in the ocean are leaving. The dog is getting hungrier.
There it is!
http://www.monticellodrug.com/products/heet.html
[quote JER0ME (20:20:38) :]
magicjava (19:03:41) :
Normal science teaches us to examine the evidence. If we find our measurements show a net imbalance of a considerable amount of energy entering and leaving a system, and yet absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and I mean ‘whatsoever’, of an increase in energy within the system, we really should be examining our methods of measurement closely rather than fumbling in the dark for some ‘explanation’ for the ‘invisibility’ of this ‘missing’ energy.
[/quote]
I’d agree with this if we were measuring everything. But we’re not. One of the places we’re not measuring well is the Arctic ocean. And the Arctic is where most of the heating is taking place.
That said, the data is inconclusive enough that it’s perfectly reasonable to ignore it, as Dr. Pielke is doing.
But because this issue is central to the energy budget, ignoring that data means you can never make a sensible statement about global warming, neither as a skeptic nor as a believer.
If we can’t resolve this issue, one way or the other, we can’t move the science forward. We can only pick the answer we like best and run with it. (Which is, incidentally, _exactly_ what Trenberth did when he wrote his energy balance paper a few years back. He picked a different answer than what he’s now promoting. And he picked it solely on the basis of personally believing it to be the best answer at that time, not because it was demonstrated to be correct.)
“It is so sad to see Cognitive Dissonance of this magnitude present itself. AGW theory as truth has become so solidified in the minds of so many, there is virtually no cure for the completely infected. Cognitive dissonance prevails in those individuals and their minds cannot reconcile a more valid explanation other than AGW.”
M J N
The AGW Theory Induces Mass Psychosis in Large Numbers of Vulnerable Individuals.
P.S.
And there _is_ evidence for the existence of this “missing energy”: the CERES satellite readings.
Re: magicjava (Apr 16 19:03),
Thank you for this precis.
1) The CERES satellite shows the amount of energy entering the Earth at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to be 6 watts/meter -2 more than the the amount of energy leaving the Earth at the TOA.
2) The current estimate for Global Warming is 0.9 Watts/meter -2, so the data from CERES is more than 6 times there current estimate.
The statement is that they were expecting the TOA measurement to confirm the 0.9 global warming retention due to CO2. Instead it looks as if something else is retaining heat.
How could the CERES measurements be wrong?
Do you have a link to the measurements and the method used?
They might be missing radiation leaving (infrared mainly), or measuring too much entering ( large spectrum), or mislabeling radiation as incoming when it is outgoing, or…
The reason I would doubt t the CERES measurement/calibration is that if this keeps up, we will reach the boilng point soon :).
The energy balance argument is a very old argument ( we got hubble’s constant out of it). No matter where the heat is hiding, there should not be such an imbalance for the long term.
My neighbor’s cat is in heat. He could look there.
To retool an old proverb, “If you can’t find the heat — get out of the ocean.”
Assuming that there is indeed missing heat (and not just over-fudged figures that create an accounting problem by always rounding upwards when exact amounts are not known), then I would suggest that the increased heat is in biomass. Heat does not always translate into delta-T changes in fluid form. Heat energy is converted into chemical form as biomass. That’s the difference between wood and its component elements floating in the atmosphere: wood is stored heat energy. To release the heat, burn the wood.
As has been documented in several peer-reviewed articles, there has been a steady increase in biomass in key world systems over recent decades, almost certainly well-correlated with increases in CO2.
Could it be … naw, that would be too much! … that when the amount of heat stored up in biomass due to increased CO2 is accounted for, it will be found that increased CO2 has a long-term NEGATIVE effect on latent heat in the environment, which leads to a net negative effect on temperature? I wonder if the lag-time for this effect to manifest fully is, oh, let’s say about 800 years? Wouldn’t that be telling!
My impression was always that CERES does not measure the full spectrum (either up or down) and that it does not have very good coverage of the arctic regions.
Is this correct?
I’ve caught the lyrical fever as well. Sung by Kevin Trainwreck to Glenn Frey’s “The Heat is On”:
The heat is gone, gone real deep,
Inside my head, makes sense to me,
But that Pielke’s loud, wish he’d subside,
The pressure’s high to keep the theory alive,
‘Cause the heat is gone.
[insert Mann on Sax]
Oh-wo-no, oh-wo-no,
Nowhere close to knowing where energy’s going to.
(Alternate: Caught up in the FOIA, gonna need more funds from you.)
Oh-wo-no, oh-wo-no,
Tell me can you find it?
Tell me can you find it?
Tell me can you find it?
The heat is gone, the heat is gone, the heat is gone,
Yeah a travesty, the heat is – Doh! Doh! Doh! Doh! – gone!
Jeremy (19:33:56):
I like this one better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_6IQN56GzA
[quote anna v (22:03:49) :]
Do you have a link to the measurements and the method used?
[/quote]
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf
Page 3 (labeled page 313 for some reason) briefly discusses the CERES data and its relationship to the energy budget.
[quote]
They might be missing radiation leaving (infrared mainly), or measuring too much entering ( large spectrum), or mislabeling radiation as incoming when it is outgoing, or…
[/quote]
Absolutely the CERES data could be wrong. That’s why I said it’s only my personal belief that it’s at least close to correct. While I’ve never seen satellite data that didn’t have issues, I tend to have much more confidence in satellite data than in land-based data.
Re: anna v (Apr 16 22:03),
Sorry, it was not ( we got hubble’s constant out of it) but “the finite universe”, with the argument that if the universe were infinite the temperature everywhere would be the temperature of the stars.
Re: magicjava (Apr 16 22:00),
How many years are these measurements running?