From the AGU highlights
Despite the fact that average temperatures on land have been increasing from year to year, globally averaged surface temperatures from 2000 to 2010 have shown only moderate warming. This is because sea surface temperatures over the past decade have been flat, if not slightly decreasing. In light of this, scientists are curious about whether this reduced rate of surface warming indicates a reduction of the accumulation of heat in the Earth system over the same period.
Palmer et al. use multicentury climate model simulations to study the relationships among decadal trends in top-of-atmosphere radiation balance (which controls the heat content of the Earth system), ocean heat content, and surface temperature. Consistent with previous studies, they find that all models show large variability in sea surface temperature (SST). This large internal variability in SST could easily “mask the anthropogenic warming signal for a decade or more,” the authors note. By contrast, ocean heat content more closely tracks the radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere, suggesting that measurements of ocean heat to deeper levels would help us monitor climate change more accurately.
Source: Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2011GL047835, 2011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047835
Title: Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance
Authors: Matthew D. Palmer, Douglas J. McNeall and Nick J. Dunstone: Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom.
=====================================================
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L13707, 5 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011GL047835
Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance
- Decadal trends in SST place only weak constraint on TOA
- As we measure OHC deeper, we gain increasingly good predictions of TOA
- Trade-off between measuring longer or deeper for given uncertainty in TOA
Abstract:
We use control run data from three Met Office Hadley Centre climate models to investigate the relationship between: net top-of-atmosphere radiation balance (TOA), globally averaged sea surface temperature (SST); and globally averaged ocean heat content (OHC) on decadal timescales. All three models show substantial decadal variability in SST, which could easily mask the long-term warming associated with anthropogenic climate change over a decade. Regression analyses are used to estimate the uncertainty of TOA, given the trend in SST or OHC over the same period. We show that decadal trends in SST are only weakly indicative of changes in TOA. Trends in total OHC strongly constrain TOA, since the ocean is the primary heat store in the Earth System. Integrating OHC over increasing model levels, provides an increasingly good indication of TOA changes. To achieve a given accuracy in TOA estimated from OHC we find that there is a trade-off between measuring for longer or deeper. Our model results suggest that there is potential for substantial improvement in our ability to monitor Earth’s radiation balance by more comprehensive observation of the global ocean.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the abstract, it is unclear whether the researchers ever looked at actual observed temperatures, radiation balances, or measured ocean heat content. Did they or is it all based on Hadley Centre models?
So yes, lots to learn/improve still but nothing here that conflicts with the evidence that we’re warming stil.
“Our model Results suggest..” Models, Models, Models…. Why do they work backwards?
Without any positive global warming ice levels will remain fairly constant, given local weather changes that affect local melting/freezing, but the trending warming/cooling will make itself felt in the thermal expansion/contraction of the oceans. Currently sea level rise has reduced in value indicating that overall temperatures have fallen, if by a small amount, but fallen nevertheless.
Might it be that there is no Urban Heat Island in the oceans?
Waxman calls for national climate-change-education push
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/172479-top-house-democrat-calls-for-national-climate-change-education-campaign
Whats next…tarot card reading education too?
Is it just me, or is it really boring to read yet another grant application?
Another GCM exercise that shows the facts are wrong. Who would have guesses this could happen?
Follow the energy. A slight reduction in ocean temps is a large decrease in overall energy. The specific heat capacity of water is nearly 4 times the amount of soil. If you compare the total amount of energy stored in the top 1 meter of the oceans alone, you will find that it has at least 3 times the amount of energy within it as the same square acreage as anywhere on land including dense forest.
Far too much focus has been on Temp or Energy Pressure while ignoring the capacity of the regions being measured. A cubic meter of water at 15C contains about 1.2 Billion joules while the same volume of air just above it contains about 350,000. A cooling rate of 385W/m^2 will reduce the temp of the water 1 C over about 4 hours without any energy going back in. The same volume of air cooling at the same rate, without energy in, would reach 0K within the same period, but of course as temperature is halved, it takes twice as long to cool another half. Point is the oceans contain at least 3,000 times as much energy, per cubic meter as the same space of air and least 3 times as much as any land area on earth.
We need to track the amount of energy in a given location not just how much pressure that area exhibits. Follow the energy.
I say, let the scientists do their science. There are enough of us now looking over their shoulder, so that any flaws in data gathering will be discovered. If they think that the deep oceans are getting warmer without our (current) knowledge, let them demonstrate the point. Let’s not prejudge, just because they get government money for their research. The facts may well demonstrate that Roy Spencer is right, that much more heat leaves the earth, at times when the earth is warming, than we previously thought, and therefore the missing heat isn’t missing in the deep ocean, it is missing because it left the planet.
The info on the new Roy Spencer, fact based analysis of heat loss:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/
More models indicating that the “anthropogenic” is still hiding somewhere.
HAHAHA .. Yeah, right … been here, done this … sorry, it still doesn’t work …
Sure the deep ocean can hide a lot of heat, but heat can’t be transported there quickly. Trenberth was right years ago in his NPR interview, the ‘missing heat’ has been re-radiated to space.
=======================================
Bystander:
At July 31, 2011 at 6:47 am you say:
“So yes, lots to learn/improve still but nothing here that conflicts with the evidence that we’re warming stil.”
Of course the paper contains “nothing here that conflicts with the evidence that we’re warming stil (sic).”
1.
All available evidence except GISS shows we have not been warming to a discernible degree for more than a decade. So, the paper could not “conflict” with “evidence” that does not exist.
2.
It is a model study by people making a good living from promoting the erroneous idea that “we’re warming stil.” Pay me and I will give you a model that “conflicts with the evidence that we’re warming stil”, and my model would not rely on unjustifiable ‘fiddle factors’ such as those built into the Hadley model.
Richard
This is basically a supporting piece calling for funding to look for the missing heat. However, I am willing to bet, since so little LW heating makes it past the ocean skin, the change in heat at the ocean bottom will be unmeasurable (smaller than the calibrated error range of the measuring instrument). The thing they seek at the bottom of the ocean is, in a word, a Lockness monster. Its predictive power is only in their imagination.
And how well is all of this parameterized in these codes?
The top of atmosphere radiation balance is that of incoming shortwave versus outgoing shortwave and thermal IR. The deep ocean has nothing to do with outgoing IR, and only a little to do with outgoing shortwave. Input to the deep ocean is by means of absorbed incoming shortwave and sinking of dense surface waters–dense because of salinity or temperature. Outgoing shortwave at top of atmosphere is affected by surface/cloud albedo, which I believe we don’t know well; and, outgoing IR results from ocean surface temperature, but also from land surface temperature and atmospheric temperature. Finally there is heat exchange between land and oceans by various means. To be more concise, there are all sorts of time scales in operation here, so over what time-scale does radiation balance at TOA track with OHC?
Gee, I wish we could just measure all of this, but I don’t think we can measure TOA globally if for no other reason that we cannot look at outgoing shortwave over the entire visible surface from satellite, and even with buoys what is the precision we claim in knowing the OHC? Finally, can anyone tell me if by ocean heat content, do we mean the sunlight portion down to 600m or the entire bulk of the ocean?
I find it amusing how they assume AGW before even starting their study. Hard objective analysis. There is also an implication that at some point that stored energy will be released & the atmosphere will heat up. Of course, one might also assume that any extra heat will radiate down & warm the deep ocean & we will never ever see any of that extra energy expressed as increased atmospheric temps.
This current inability to measure deeper ocean heat content was exactly the point of Trenberth’s “travesty we can’t” comment, and as such is completely understandable.
How many of these yo-yos does the government fund each year. This must be the 10th or 15th paper I’ve seen so far this year that is based strictly on climate model runs where the model(s) used have no more tested/proven statistical accuracy than a Ouija board. I guess after passing through several levels of indirection either everyone now believes the models (pseudo-religiously) or no one really cares.
Palmer et al. use multicentury climate model simulations to study
Could they not maybe have used real data rather than Bingo data?
“All three models show substantial decadal variability in SST, which could easily mask the long-term warming associated with anthropogenic climate change over a decade.”
If natural variability can mask AGW, then it can also falsely exaggerate AGW. How is it that the authors only consider the former but not the latter? Is this science? Doesn’t good science require that you examine both sides of the question?
I’ve gone to the link provided, and there is not much available beyond the discussion here. I find it interesting that the graphs imply (at least this is what I assume they imply) that if we look at a true decadal trend, then we could resolve a 0.1 W/m^2 radiation imbalance by looking at OHC down to 1000m, but we could resolve half of this by including water to depths of 4000m. By what means does one convey ocean heat to depths of 4000m in a decade, other than in very specific locations?
I guess what one can take away from this, other than its potential for inspiring addition federal research grants, is that if AGW really has been operating to warm the Earth since 1998, then the missing heat could be in the deep ocean. It’s just too bad we can’t measure it.
As long as AGU remains gung ho on “climate change”, that is, “continuing to proof our world is warming and we are to blame”, we can’t expect anything else but GIGO science and GIGO excuses to cover for crooked predictions from the past.
Science is not politics.
I should have quit reading after the “Despite the fact that average temperatures on land have been increasing from year to year, globally”
1. Land temperatures are increasing.
2. Ocean temperatures are not.
3. CO2 is will mixed over land and water
4. Land use changes occur mostly on land
5. Land use changes almost never occur on the Ocean
Therefore we conclude that temperature increases on the land are driven by CO2.
Let me see if I can help.
The title:
Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance
The study uses GCMs ( hence the importance of decadal variability) to answer some basic design questions for measurement systems.
do we want to measure the deep ocean?
what matters more deeper or longer?
The only way you answer questions like this is with models. the whole argo system was deployed based on GCM modelling results.
The End is FAR says:
July 31, 2011 at 7:10 am
I have to inform you that your comment is about empirical knowledgee and will require translation for Warmista.