Inspired by a WUWT comment from Bill Illis in the Maybe they’ve found Trenberth’s missing heat thread, I’ve elevated this to full post status and provided the relevant graphics from the links Bill provided. From a National Science Foundation article on April 15th, 2010:
“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.”
===============================
Bill Illis writes:
Trenberth is looking for about 0.8 watts/m2 of the projected increase in energy held in the Earth system that is not going into heating the surface.
Either this energy is not being held in the Earth system (and is just escaping to space and hence climate theory is not correct) or it is hiding and the most likely place for that would be the deep oceans (or continental ice sheets warming up and melting that we have not observed).
This paper measured/extrapolated the potential heat content going into the nearly the entire global ocean below 2000 metres [It doesn’t appear they measured the Arctic bottom water but the north Atlantic does not appear to have warmed so it is likely no extra heat is going into the Arctic bottom water].
So, Table 1 in the paper shows 0.068 watts/m2 is going into the oceans below 2000 metres. Far less than the 0.8 watts/m2 Trenberth is looking for.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/Recent_AABW_Warming_v3.pdf
We also know there is no accumulation in the last 7 years in the 0-700 metre ocean – von Schuckmann 2009 found 0.77 Watts/m2 going into the 0-2000 metre ocean (although no one seems to believe these estimates since almost all of the warming they measured was in the 0-300 metre area which is contradicted by the Argo floats).
Trenberth Missing Heat – 0.8 Watts/m2
Going into 0-700 Metre ocean – 0.0 W/m2
Going into 0-2000 Metre ocean – ? (but could be as high as 0.77 W/m2 but this contradicts Argo)
Going into the 2000+ Metre Ocean – 0.068 W/m2
Going into the 2000+ Metre Ocean from the Arctic – ? (but looks to be very low)
===============================================
It is unlikely that the ARGO measurements are wrong, and thus it can’t be found in the oceans, so where is it? Balancing budgets is never easy; there’s always a missing penny somewhere. Most often, that missing penny is due to human error. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Isn’t “The Pipeline”, of undefined length and capacity, where the heat is?
Yes, the missing-heat will come back to haunt them, like the missing fusion products came back to haunt Pons and Fleischmann.
I just can’t get over just how exactly the CO2 and sea level keep pace with each other; that slope identity is far too exact to be just chance; there must be some cause and effect relationship between sea level rise and CO2 since both of them have exactly the same rate of increase.
It’s as if the ocean is outgassing CO2 therefore lowering the mass of the ocean and then the natural compressibility relaxes from losing all that CO2 weight, and the level springs back to a higher level.
CO2 truly is marvelous stuff; just fancy its specifica gravity is exactly matched to the compressibility of sea water.
Could someone explain to me how atmospheric CO2 affects deep water temperature?
“”” Theo Goodwin says:
September 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Dennis Nikols writes:
“Perhaps the heat is being stored, perhaps not. I strongly suspect Pielkel is correct and most has been sent back to space.”
Isn’t this the obvious point to begin investigation? Roy Spencer’s book, The Global Warming Blunder, argues that the key to “forcings” is the behavior of clouds. There is no set of hypotheses which provide anything approaching a useful understanding of clouds, as Spencer explains. What is most likely is that the excess heat is being reflected by clouds. What is most needed at this time in climate science is a scientific understanding of the behavior of clouds. “””
How many tiomes do I have to do this.
There’s not much to understanding the behavior of clouds.
#1 we do know from Wentz et al; Science July7-2007, that a one deg C rise in mean global earth Temperature results in a 7% increase in total global evaporation; total atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation. That’s from actual observed experimental climate observations; not computer models.
Not stated in their paper; but conjectured by me; is that a 7% increase in total global precipitation is very likely to be accompanied by an increase (7% would be my WAG) in total gobal cloud cover (are/optical density/persistence time).
I have argued also that clouds invariably; no matter where or of what type invariably reduce the amount of solar spectrum renewable energy radiation that reaches the surface of the planet (either ocean or land). More clouds ALWAYS reduces the number of solar spectrum photons that reach the surface. There is no physical mechanism whereby an INCREASE in total global clouds over any climatically meaningful time scale can result in more solar spectrum photons reaching the surface; and they have to reach the surface to be able to do anything for us or to us.
What else goes on in regard to clouds involves the interraction of clouds; and the lower quality energy that results from thermal emissions from the heated earth surface or the heated atmosphere. Whatever that does is in addition to the loss of photons from reaching the surface.
As Stephen Wilde has pointed out and others; the processes that lead to clouds transport simply astronomical amounts of heat energy int eh form of latent heat of evaporation which is carried by convection to the upper reaches of the atmosphere, where cloud formation results in the deposition of that heat energy in the upper atmosphere. Note that that “heat” must be lost to the water molecules before they form a liquid or solid phase that comprises clouds; so the water/ice/snow/sleet/hail/whatever does NOT return that latent heat to the surface with the H2O in condensed phases.
But all that is icing on the cake in terms of what those subsequent heat manipulations do. The sorry fact is that the energy was already lost when the solar spectrum photons failed to reach the ground; and ALL clouds reduce the number of solar photons that reach the ground.
Everything is broke….till the energy budget!. Remember that heat piggy bank which was going to form in the equator’s atmosphere?….well, it went broke after climate derivatives, not even a decent mini hockey stick still survives, all are in red (more exactly in deep cold blue).
This happens because speculators began to get involved in climate issues.: They sold Global Warming while betting for an Ice Age.
It’s too late now. Gotto buy more popcorn and wait next to my fire place.
A large hole in the Arctic Ice has appeared over the last 2 days off the north-east coast of Greenland @ur momisugly 81N, 12E.
A great view can be had at expolreourpla.net.
Perhaps Mr. Trenberth’s missing heat has congregated there. (:-
Vince Causey’s observation needs to be relayed to all those politicians and others who gave the IPCC the benefit of the doubt:
‘“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.”
They don’t understand what is happening? They can’t predict our future climate? When did that happen?’
They do not understand what is happening. They are unable to predict climate. They are deserving of deep further investigation.
Tucci78 says:
September 27, 2010 at 12:57 pm
“Heat tends reliably to rise, right? So are there some kinds of enormous convection currents or something similar boring down through the topmost 700 meters of the oceans to carry that heat into the depths (from which is is magically not rising thereafter), “or are we just jerking off?”
Not necessarily.
Solar shortwave penetrates to a couple of hundred metres. The more energetic the shortwave the deeper it gets and there is more such energetic shortwave when the sun is more active.
So all one really needs is some internal oceanic movement at or near the limits of penetration just skimming off some of the slightly warmed water from the bottom of trhe warmed layer and removing it elsewhere.
We are not considering much in terms of oceanic energy carrying capacity. Just enough to make a tiny temperature difference even when concentrated in the Antarctic Circumpolar region by the ocean circulations.
However a tiny temperature difference for water makes a big difference to the tropospheric energy budget when it surfaces because of the water/air density differential.
It might be a combination of the smallness of the phenomenon, the locations involved and the depths involved that ‘fooled’ the Argo sensors.
Subject to more evidence my suggested scenario is as follows:
i) A more active sun allows the jets and the associated clouds to move poleward.
ii) More solar shortwave penetrates more deeply.
iii) A tiny proportion is removed at the limits of penetration and over time becomes incorporated into the thermohaline circulation.
iv) Many hundreds of years later it resurfaces by affecting the rate of energy release from oceans to air. How long is that thermohaline circulation ?
v) When resurfacing it affects the oceanic absorption/emission rates for CO2
Nice and neat, explains a lot.
Lest we forget it was Kevin Trenberth who said this after Katrina:
Global Warming Surpassed Natural Cycles In Fueling 2005 Hurricane Season, NCAR Scientists Conclude
Next look to the middle column “Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number Of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls”
These folks should just be honest and say they don’t know much about nature rather than construct platitudes and get them published in the peereviewlitchur. Really, how is it such drivel gets published without one shred direct of evidence to support it?
It wasn’t long after that Trenberth did an interview with NPR wondering where the missing was…….
———————————————————
See these:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector2.php
“So in addition to changing sea ice, we can kind of guess that something must be happening in the atmosphere over the Arctic, too.” Clouds are bright, too, and an increase in clouds could cancel out the impact of melting snow and ice on polar albedo.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector4.php
“Although sea ice and snow cover had noticeably declined in the Arctic from 2000 to 2004, there had been no detectable change in the albedo measured at the top of the atmosphere: the proportion of light the Arctic reflected hadn’t changed. In other words, the ice albedo feedback that most climate models predict will ultimately amplify global warming apparently hadn’t yet kicked in.”
“According to the MODIS observations, cloud fraction had increased at a rate of 0.65 percent per year between 2000 and 2004. If the trend continues, it will amount to a relative increase of about 6.5 percent per decade. At least during this short time period, says Kato, increased cloudiness in the Arctic appears to have offset the expected decline in albedo from melting sea ice and snow.”
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/gorodetskaya/irina_ipccpaper.pdf
“The predicted substantial decrease in Arctic summer sea ice concentrations during the twenty-first century may favor cloud formation, which should diminish or even cancel the ice-albedo feedback by shielding the surface.”
“Water droplets are more effective in reflecting and absorbing solar radiation than nonspherical, typically larger ice crystals (Dong et al. 2001).”
I wish the nice-looking pics were a bit more clearly annotated for duffers like me.
However, duffer-hood also has advantages: I can dream about the Earth climate as a whole without too many distracting expert details…
My personal take is as follows:
The 800-year delay between temperature and CO2 is a genuine reflection of the time taken for the solar heat to penetrate the ocean heat reservoirs fully. This is because it happens at depth not by radiation but by the polar-equatorial convection which happens on a very slow scale, again due to inertia and the vast distance between heat sink (in the Arctic/Antarctic) and heat rise (around the equator), filled in the North Atlantic by the Northward-flowing Gulf Stream at the top and the southward deep-ocean return flow, with other similar pairs of currents in other oceans. Now the CO2 levels are entirely regulated by the total ocean temperature which fluctuates so slowly and with such a delay factor, that naturally both sea levels and CO2 levels are still rising……………….
Clouds, oceans and dimethylsulfide:
AJB says:
September 27, 2010 at 9:42 am
Energy is measured in Joules. Can we please stop this nonsense accounting based on flux and temperature.
Climatologists rarely use the correct units. They feel flux per square meter (square meter of what surface?) is useful – in the same way that they think air temperature is useful when they should be measuring heat content and humidity can increase the enthalpy of a volume of air by more than 50 times.
Whenever reviewing a hypothesis – first check the assumptions then check the misuse of units.
Elementary Dr. Trenberth
Missing energy = dark energy, a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe!
Kevin Trenberth: “The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later.”
OR, contraire, “The heat may be there during coming frigid winters to bless us all.” Statements like Trenberth’s single-sided view just let you know how much of a scientist he is not.
George E. Smith writes:
Begin quotation:
How many tiomes do I have to do this.
There’s not much to understanding the behavior of clouds.
…
Not stated in their paper; but conjectured by me; is that a 7% increase in total global precipitation is very likely to be accompanied by an increase (7% would be my WAG) in total gobal cloud cover (are/optical density/persistence time).
End quotation:
Until you have completed your work of conjecture, selected the correct one, and substantiated it.
Perhaps the “heat” was entangled at the quantum level with bits of Mars meteorites and has now reappeared on the surface of Mars, causing the “extra” heating there? Just another WAG 🙂
—
At 2:37 PM on 27 September, Stephen Wilde had written:
Solar shortwave penetrates to a couple of hundred metres. The more energetic the shortwave the deeper it gets and there is more such energetic shortwave when the sun is more active.
So all one really needs is some internal oceanic movement at or near the limits of penetration just skimming off some of the slightly warmed water from the bottom of trhe warmed layer and removing it elsewhere.
We are not considering much in terms of oceanic energy carrying capacity. Just enough to make a tiny temperature difference even when concentrated in the Antarctic Circumpolar region by the ocean circulations.
However a tiny temperature difference for water makes a big difference to the tropospheric energy budget when it surfaces because of the water/air density differential.
Hm. Being a physician and not a physicist, I can’t refute this, but I strongly suspect I’m having my chain yanked. What we’re looking at with regard to “Solar shortwave” is a part of energy imparted to the earth by insolation. Unless the character of solar output has changed markedly in recent years – and shortwave radiation from this source should certainly have been appreciable with instruments available for most of the past century, right? – the earth’s deep ocean waters have been receiving this energy input for a helluva lot longer than the time marked in the Global Net Energy Budget graph and the other representations incorporated in the article above.
In other words, if the impact of “Solar shortwave” could cause “a tiny temperature difference for water” to make “a big difference to the tropospheric energy budget when it surfaces,” why the hell would it be doing so only in the past half-decade?
I’d like to see just how much of the sun’s radiant energy hitting the oceans is within the “Solar shortwave” frequencies capable of penetrating “to a couple of hundred metres.”
Something definitely doesn’t pass the sniff test here.
—
“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.”
Lesseee . . .
The reprieve from warming will not continue. Meaning . . . well, lesseee . . . yup, this is a prediction about the future climate — it’s going to get warmer.
And we know that because we understand how the climate works and can predict it.
And we need to track the build up of energy so that we understand why there is missing heat so that we can predict what the future climate will be. But we already know it will get warmer, because we know how the climate works and have predicted that . . . and on and on . . .
Anytime you see a top-level individual in a particular field spout this kind of circular reasoning, you can be sure that: (i) the important thing for that indivdual is the theory, not the facts, and further (ii) there is a serious problem with the theory.
“”” Jimbo says:
September 27, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
September 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm
……………………
What is most needed at this time in climate science is a scientific understanding of the behavior of clouds.
———————————————————
See these:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector2.php
“So in addition to changing sea ice, we can kind of guess that something must be happening in the atmosphere over the Arctic, too.” Clouds are bright, too, and an increase in clouds could cancel out the impact of melting snow and ice on polar albedo.” “””
Why would ANY thinking climatologist ever contemplate trading the albedo due to more clouds to the albedo due to more polar ice.
Clouds deal with incoming solar energy at the highest altitudes; where it has lost less of its energy to atmospheric absorptions; so the refelctance of clouds is turning back high quality solar energy and with less of a hazardous path back to space.
Ice albedo (polar) on tehother hand deals with solar energy that has been severely compromised by passage through several tiems the normal atmospheric absorption path; and will have to endure a similar type of high absorptance path as it tries to exit to space. As a result; any time you can trade an acre of ice for an acre of cloud; you will gain in cooling of the planet due to albedo reflections.
One look at the moon pictures of earth rise should convince anybody that clouds are the biggest contributors to earth reflectance; not polar ice.
Over a century ago, physicists believed in “the aether”, which couldn’t be sensed or measured, because their theories demanded it. That didn’t help in real life. Nowadays, their descendants believe in “missing heat”, which can’t be sensed or measured, because their theories demand it. The belief in “missing heat” is probably just as accurate as the belief in “the aether”.
The water at top of the oceans are full of life and the mid and lower depths are deserts.
The deep oceans radiate IR up and down and are pretty transparent to IR, the upper oceans radiate IR up and down and are pretty opaque to IR.
Obvious that heat is going downwards isn’t it.
I like to see skeptics and alarmists engaged in debate, the winner is TRUTH !
For too long the hockey team and other cliques have peer reviewed each others work. Even if they didn’t always know the name of the writer they cannot help but know if the conclusions of the paper advance the cause of AGW.
If the conclusions are contrary to the cause of AGW the alarmist scientists will give it a thorough peer review. Skeptical scientists with the proper credentials need to be able to review warmist documents thoroughly. True science will be the winner.
Double blind studies should be more utilized. For example data on tree ring temperature correlations should be given to unbiased statisticians without telling them what they are looking at. [Just nonrandom numbers.]
The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations that all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.
Allowing people with a stake in the veracity of computer models cannot be involved in the collection and adjustment of the data those models will be tested against.
R. de Haan says: “US Thermometer readings show cooling since 1895, before adjustments.”
They do not. Steven has not taken into account the scaling and appears to have included areas with anomalies of -0.05 to +0.05 in the cooling portions of his maps.