Trenberth's missing heat? Look to the deep

From the National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research  an explanation for Global Ocean Heat Content Is Still Flat.

Graph by Bob Tisdale - not part of the NCAR/UCAR press release

Key point from the press release:

Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model

This new paper (which hasn’t been put online yet at NCC as of this writing, I’ll post a link as soon as I have one) from Trenberth is simply modeling, and modeling so far hasn’t done a very good job of accounting for the oceans:

I’d like to see some supporting observations, otherwise this is just speculation for something that Trenberth is doggedly trying to explain away. My question is; show me why some years the deep ocean doesn’t mask global warming. It’s not like that big heat sink was suddenly removed.

Deep oceans can mask global warming for decade-long periods

BOULDER — The planet’s deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the “missing heat” during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.

“We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future,” says NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study. “However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line.”

The research, by scientists at NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, will be published online on September 18 in Nature Climate Change. Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, and the Department of Energy.

Where the missing heat goes

The 2000s were Earth’s warmest decade in more than a century of weather records. However, the single-year mark for warmest global temperature, which had been set in 1998, remained unmatched until 2010.

Yet emissions of greenhouse gases continued to climb during the 2000s, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased. This implied that heat was building up somewhere on Earth, according to a 2010 study published in Science by NCAR researchers Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.

The two scientists, who are coauthors on the new study, suggested that the oceans might be storing some of the heat that would otherwise go toward other processes, such as warming the atmosphere or land, or melting more ice and snow. Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model’s ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.

During these hiatus periods, simulations showed that extra energy entered the oceans, with deeper layers absorbing a disproportionate amount of heat due to changes in oceanic circulation. The vast area of ocean below about 1,000 feet (300 meters) warmed by 18% to 19% more during hiatus periods than at other times. In contrast, the shallower global ocean above 1,000 feet warmed by 60% less than during non-hiatus periods in the simulation.

“This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean,” Trenberth says. “The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences.”

A pattern like La Niña

The simulations also indicated that the oceanic warming during hiatus periods has a regional signature. During a hiatus, average sea-surface temperatures decrease across the tropical Pacific, while they tend to increase at higher latitudes, especially around 30°S and 30°N in the Pacific and between 35°N and 40°N in the Atlantic, where surface waters converge to push heat into deeper oceanic layers.

These patterns are similar to those observed during a La Niña event, according to Meehl. He adds that El Niño and La Niña events can be overlaid on top of a hiatus-related pattern. Global temperatures tend to drop slightly during La Niña, as cooler waters reach the surface of the tropical Pacific, and they rise slightly during El Niño, when those waters are warmer.

“The main hiatus in observed warming has corresponded with La Niña conditions, which is consistent with the simulations,” Trenberth says.

The simulations were part of NCAR’s contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). They were run on supercomputers at NCAR’s National Science Foundation-supported Climate Simulation Laboratory, and on supercomputers at Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, both supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy.

###

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

=======================

h/t to WUWT reader Bradley Fikes

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
205 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mac
September 18, 2011 1:54 pm

Inventing virtual data where no real data exists.

NW
September 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Deep basements can mask sock accumulation for decade-long periods
BOULDER A house’s basement at times may absorb enough socks to flatten the rate of sock accumulation for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term sock accumulation, according to a new analysis led by the Center for Research on Underperforming Dryers (CRUD).
The study, based on computer simulations of malfunctioning dryers, points to nooks and crannies deeper than 10 feet (3 meters) as the main location of the missing socks during periods such as the past decade when socks mysteriously disappeared from dryer loads. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall sock accumulation continues.

JJ
September 18, 2011 1:56 pm

“This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean,” Trenberth says.
Statements like this very concisely exemplify the problems with ‘climate science’, as practiced by the likes of Trenberth. They are not seeking truth, they are defending a faith commitment. This is religion, not science.
The statement is false. The modeling effort that Trenberth refers to cannot suggest that the missing energy ‘has indeed’ been buried in the ocean. Their model is not an observation of fact, it is a hypothesis. It is their hypothesis regarding the way the world works. What ‘has indeed’ occurred with the global energy budget can only be determined by observation, and those observations do not exist. Restating hypothesis as fact, conflating the way the world works with the way we wish it to work, is not scientific.
The statement also ignores the potential adverse interpretation of the the proposed defense mechanism. It is proposed that decades of ‘missing heat’ may be accumulating in the deep ocean now, masking the alleged ‘global warming’ that has been hypothesized, but not observed. If this is possible, then it is also possible that the observed warming that occurred during the 80s and 90s was the result of previously ‘buried’ heat being released from the deep ocean, rather than the result of soccer moms driving mini-vans.
What ‘has indeed’ occurred remains in the realm of speculation.

David L. Hagen
September 18, 2011 1:58 pm

See Pielke Sr.’s email to Trenberth et al.:

I do not see how such large amounts of heat could have transited to depths below 700m since 2005 without being detected.

Josh Willis responded:

. . .Sarah Purkey and Greg Johnson: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/Recent_AABW_Warming_v1.pdf
They looked at the prospect of deep warming on decadal time scales using the sparse, but highly accurate repeat hydrographic sections and found that below 3000 m in the global oceans, and below 1000 m in the southern ocean, the ocean is taking up an energy equivalent of about a 0.1 W/m^2 energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

Pielke to Trenberth:

I still, however, can not understand how heating can occur below 700m without it being seen transiting through that upper level.

Perhaps the “models” don’t fit the data?
See also Global Warming “missing energy” row erupts.

Marlow Metcalf
September 18, 2011 2:08 pm

I remember somebody had the theory that when the sun and PDO were both in the warm mode, as they were for the last 30 years, then the ocean would have a net loss of energy. The sun caused the upper atmosphere molecules to be spread out more which allows heat to radiate out with less obstruction and there was more waves or turbulence between atmosphere layers that allowed more surface contact between layers and so more heat transfer. The ocean was radiating more stored heat and was having more and taller thunderstorms. I think that was just one scientist’s theory.

Wijnand
September 18, 2011 2:11 pm

There’s laughing in my head….

Ken Harvey
September 18, 2011 2:15 pm

No wonder that when I went for a dip on my local shoreline a couple of weeks ago, the water was chillier than I had hoped for. I learn now that all of the heat’s gone to the bloody bottom.

September 18, 2011 2:17 pm

From Dr. Spencer’s website, Aug. 14th (Read to end to get the JOKE!)
Christopher Game says:
August 14, 2011 at 4:25 PM
Dr Spencer’s post is partly governed by an attempt to estimate the climate sensitivity. While this is perhaps the main over-all aim of the work, it seems he is asking the principal question too early in the dialectic, before housework and preliminary logic has been done. This may be what mediaeval scholars meant by their term ‘petitio principii’ according to Jaakko Hintikka (The fallacy of fallacies, Argumentation 1:211-238, 1987).
Surely restricting his dialectical move to a bit of preliminary logic would be safer and more effective at this stage of the dialogue? Dr Spencer would do best just to focus on the top 700 meters of the ocean, for which it seems that acceptable data are available, than to extend the discussion to include deeper water, for which it seems the acceptable data are not available.
It seems that Dr Spencer has a nearly unassailable case that the best IPCC AOGCMs are very far wrong about an essential thing. Surely at this stage it is better to leave it at that.
For Dr Spencer to take it further at this stage is to give the IPCC people huge opportunity to obfuscate and distract attention from the basic and apparently established fact that their models are very far wrong about an essential thing. A model that is very far wrong cannot be relied upon. Full stop. Christopher Game
Reply
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
August 14, 2011 at 4:33 PM
Interesting perspective, Christopher. But if I ended the story at 700 m depth, then people like
TRENBRETH COULD SAY THAT THE EXTRA HEAT FROM GLOBAL WARMINGMUST BE DEEPER DOWN.
OK, so I wanted to address that possibility. Levitus has presented data which suggests virtually no warming below 1500 meters, so I think that at least addressing the possibility of warming to 3,000 meters — just to see what it means in terms of changing the diagnosed sensitivity — is (I believe) a useful exercise.
——————————–
Quote from Ancient Chinese philosopher: “In battle of WITS it is good to not go in UNARMED.”

Baa Humbug
September 18, 2011 2:27 pm

The atmosphere can not, has not and will not heat the oceans.
The oceans however, did, do and will heat the atmosphere.
The warmists frantic efforts to explain the ‘missing heat’ has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Gary Hladik
September 18, 2011 2:29 pm

So can we finally take the missing heat off the milk cartons? 🙂
Doug in Seattle says (September 18, 2011 at 12:22 pm): “Gotta wonder though why it took so long to tune, why they chose this particular model, what other models they worked with, and what they chose to omit from their paper.”
Me, too. Personally, I would have added more “aerosols” to the model to make it fit. That seems to have worked pretty well as a fudge factor in the past, so why change now?
Based on my own models, I fearlessly predict that if ocean heat remains flat for another decade, Trenberth will “discover” that his “dark heat” can hide up to 20 years, not 10, in the deep ocean.
Makes you wonder if cosmologists should look for their “dark matter” in the deep ocean, too.

Richard S Courtney
September 18, 2011 2:33 pm

Friends:
This model assertion is a very bad joke. If its output is true then the model is describing an effect which is magic that would have made Merlin proud.
1. The oceanic expansion has reduced and this clearly indicates that ocean heat uptake has reduced.
2. Heat cannot get to the deep ocean from the atmosphere unless it passes through the upper ocean that ARGO shows has not warmed.
So, the model output indicates that
(a) the additional heat in the deep ocean has not induced thermal expansion of the ocean (i.e. magic)
and
(b) the heat was transported to the deep ocean without passing through the upper ocean (i.e.magic)
or
the model is wrong.
Meanwhile, Lindzen & Choy and Spencer & Braswell have observed by empirical measurement that the heat went up (to space) and not down (to deep ocean) which is clear indication that the model is wrong.
Magic or empirical observation? Scientist will accept the empirical observation. But it can be confidently predicted that warmists and the MSM will trumpet Trenberth’s assertion of magic.
Richard

Robinson
September 18, 2011 2:38 pm

My God! More confirmation bias. This is, frankly, becoming absurd.

gnomish
September 18, 2011 2:38 pm

well, astrophysicists have ‘dark matter’ to make the numbers work.
so why not ‘dark heat’?
(thanks for the belly laugh, polistra – divine revelation is about as funny as it can get)
(love the comments of verney, too)

u.k.(us)
September 18, 2011 2:39 pm

BOULDER — The planet’s deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
=========
Wow, Global Warming is now classified as a decade of “flattening”, while the scary heat builds in the background.
Um, my suggestion is to abandon your position, it being indefensible, and sue for peace.

James Allison
September 18, 2011 2:41 pm

says NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study. “However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume.
=============================
All bow and make homage to our lords and diviners of climate. Its no more than modern day Babylonian haruspicy. Probably less.

Doug in Seattle
September 18, 2011 2:42 pm

nicola scafetta says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm
…”After my talk Trenberth appeared quite shocked, he could not believe it.”

I suppose I too would be shocked if after explaining how my models prove otherwise some upstart (and a dang foreigner at that) presented data showing my “proof” to be wishful thinking.
After all KT is at the top of climate pyramid while the ink on Scafetta’s doctorate is still wet.
Nicola, you naughty boy!

Latitude
September 18, 2011 2:44 pm

……………….this is all getting just a little too weird

Doug in Seattle
September 18, 2011 2:51 pm

NW says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Deep basements can mask sock accumulation for decade-long periods.

Still clearing the coffee out of my sinuses after that one. Thanks NW!

kim
September 18, 2011 2:57 pm

A year and a third ago, there was a plaintive conversation among Josh Willis, Kevin Trenberth, and Pielke Pere at the latter’s blog. In it, Josh and Roger tried to explain to Kevin that there was no evidence of deep transport of Kevin’s ‘Missing Heat’. Kevin would not hear it.
It’s just that simple.
==========

kim
September 18, 2011 2:59 pm

Ah, Hagen beat me to it. That whole exchange is worth stamping on gold bars and circulating to all citizens.
=======

R. Shearer
September 18, 2011 3:00 pm

I’d like to nominate Miss South Carolina to become the NCAR spokesperson to explain this.
Seriously, R. Verney makes a valid point regarding natural climatic effects. It’s obvious that those effects cannot be quantified, but CO2 effects can?

BobW in NC
September 18, 2011 3:02 pm

In looking at sun activity several years ago, Anthony pointed out a “step function” drop in the AP index, I believe it was (2005? 2007?). If so, what is the proximity of this step function to the time that ocean heat started leveling out? Is there any significance to these two events or is it just coincidence? Any possibility of them being related to Svensmark’s theory recently supported with CERN data?
Lotta questions. Sorry!

Robert of Ottawa
September 18, 2011 3:08 pm

Our models show heat that isn’t there, so we resort to our new super-duper-computer model to explain why the observations are wrong.
Grief….

R. Gates
September 18, 2011 3:14 pm

There is some recent evidence showing that, at least across the Pacific, the deeper ocean is warming:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.2607&rep=rep1&type=pdf
A note too about the idea that it is just “heat” that is missing, rather than energy. At least some of the energy will be in other forms besides heat, such as currents, internal waves, salinity. Granted that the majority of the energy is in sensible heat, certainly not an inconsequential amount might be in other forms. For example, how has the total velocity and mass of the deepest ocean currents changed over the past 30 years? Those changes would represent changes in energy. Or, if, as it appears, we are seeing an increase in methane from the bottom of the Arctic, there is not an inconsequential amount of deeper ocean latent heat of melting that it took to melt those clathrates and release that methane.

September 18, 2011 3:18 pm

Models are not science and do not produce real data. If you do not or can not measure it then what ever it is resides in the world of speculation. The last time I looked speculation was not part of the scientific method.
From my recent essay Obfuscation: “Science is:
1. Posing a question.
2. Constructing a hypothesis, or several. (I like several, that the geoscience way)
3. Created an experiment(s) to test this hypothesis or hypotheses.
4. Specify the parameters that would validate or support one or more hypothesis.
5. Carried out the experiment(s). Note models are not definitive data producing experiments.
Science is not:
1. Determine the outcome required to secure continued and additional funding
2. Construct a model to generate the required outcome and do nothing to calibrate it to reality.
3. Locate data that supports the model and outcomes from 1 above. Ignore anything contrary to your ideological position.
4. Make sure the model can not be calibrated to reality.
5. Announce the predictive power of your model.
6. Make one or more predictions far enough into the future, that you’ll be retired by the time it will be falsified.”