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
September 18, 2011 3:22 pm

What convoluted cr*p!
The right answer to Trenberth is for everyone to fall about laughing when he makes a presentation.
Whose poor abused taxpayers pay his salary?

September 18, 2011 3:29 pm

Bill Yarber says: September 18, 2011 at 12:06 pm
“Yet …, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased.”
Not according to Spencer & Braswell, or any other analysis as far a I know. Is this a case of making up the data to support the desired conclusion? Anyone see any data which supports the above claim?

The ISCCP data shows net radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere varies chaotically between positive and negative that appears on eyeball analysis to be somewhat correlated to solar cycles, but in no way suggestive of increasing “trapped heat” from GHGs.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_toa.gif

Davy123
September 18, 2011 3:40 pm

They are total nutters. They are now losing the plot.

Philip Mulholland
September 18, 2011 3:56 pm
Curiousgeorge
September 18, 2011 3:57 pm

If this “missing” heat was the victim of foul play, and the body was only recently discovered, why haven’t we seen anything in the obits about it? If it was buried at sea I hope it was given a proper funeral.

Truthseeker
September 18, 2011 3:57 pm

Dale wins the funny comment award!

gnomish
September 18, 2011 4:05 pm

r gates said:
“deeper ocean latent heat of melting that it took to melt those clathrates and release that methane.”
latent heat of melting, eh? in the deep ocean, too…
ice stores heat, then?
can you explain your point just a little? – it can’t mean what i inferred – that would be very wrong.

Richard S Courtney
September 18, 2011 4:06 pm

R. Gates:
At September 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm you say;
“[snip]
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.”
You did not put a ‘sarc’ on that comment but you were joking, weren’t you?
If not, then please explain
(a) How do solar radiation and IR ‘back radiation’ not become thermalised by absorbtion in the upper 300m of the ocean?
(b) How does the absorbed energy in the upper 300m of the ocean undetectably transport to deep ocean?
and
(c) How does the transported energy become “currents, internal waves, salinity” at depth?
If you are not joking then it seems even you recognise that the model study is ridiculous so you are desperately trying to find any excuse for its indefensible “results”.
Richard

September 18, 2011 4:10 pm

Isn’t the elephant in the room that, if this particular model is correct, that expected rates of warming are now much slower than originally predicted? Are we talking about 200 or 300 years to reach 2-4C of atmospheric warming, considering that the deep ocean can absorb much more heat than originally assumed and neutralize surface temperature warming for decades at a time? Does this mean we have much more time to deal with the problem of AGW than was originally assumed? If so, shouldn’t we be congratulating Trenberth for pointing us to arguments for why AGW now appears to be less urgent than was originally claimed?

Bill Illis
September 18, 2011 4:16 pm

Paper abstract is here called “Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods” as if we should just accept models as “evidence”.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1229.html
The accurate climate models are the ones that predict no warming.
Or, in this case, the accurate climate models are the ones that still have no warming but have energy accumulating/hiding in plain sight of where the Argo floats measure.
In case anyone doubts that Argo wouldn’t see it, have a look at the current coverage (even the Antarctic sea ice area is getting covered now).
http://www-hrx.ucsd.edu/www-argo/status.jpg

rbateman
September 18, 2011 4:17 pm

R. Gates says:
September 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm
There are no hidden sheep to shear, and Trenberth is out of excuses.
The extra heat never got past the locked door.
It was most likely Lost to Space.
Read my 1:33 pm post.

H.R.
September 18, 2011 4:22 pm

Is it just me or did anyone else find the General Circulation of Missing Socks Model (GCMSM) to be more believable?
I have empirical data collected from my own sock drawer (filled with unmated socks) that supports the model.

LearDog
September 18, 2011 4:27 pm

It always bug that these modelers tend to write their papers as if their models are producing actual DATA or OBSERVATIONS. I’m sure the paper contains the proper caveats etc., but they never seem to make their way into the press releases…ha ha ha!
The other points that are curious are
a) shouldn’t the ARGO buoys have seen this past decades ‘extra heat’ ‘going by’ on the way to the deep? and
b) if the lag is a decade or so – this mechanism should be demonstrated by say, next year…? ;-D

Pamela Gray
September 18, 2011 4:37 pm

This missing warm water must be a new species (being both warm and dense)! I would like to dub it Trenbreth Water. We could put a picture of it on the backs of milk cartons to help him find the missing water.

Editor
September 18, 2011 5:24 pm

Dr. Scafetta:
It was a pleasure sitting with you and your lovely family for breakfast at the Washington conference. What is likely to happen re Dr. Trenberth and your papers is that the editors of those journals will resign in abject humiliation that such sub-standard work got through their usually impeccable peer-review process and they will e-mail their abject apologies to Dr. Trenberth personally.

September 18, 2011 5:34 pm

“…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…”
So let’s see – there’s enough water in the deep oceans to store enough heat to keep the current temps “flat”.
This storage ability hasn’t manifested itself prior to this point, otherwise the temps would have flattened before.
Yet this storage ability is projected to “shut off”, and allow more warming later on (and pause again)?
Have they explained how this storage turns on and off like this?

Graeme W
September 18, 2011 5:34 pm

R.Gates, I’ve just had a read of that article you linked, and it doesn’t appear to support this new paper. It does not mention any increase in the warming rate during the current ‘hiatus’, even though the paper covers the 1990s and 2000s. It also states that the Southern Ocean (the one you mentioned) appears to have the majority of the warming, with statistically significant cooling noted elsewhere.
While there may be warming, as indicated by that paper you linked, there’s no support for the idea that the warming rate has been increasing over the last decade, which is what the new paper indicates should be happening. There is simply no mention of a change of rate at all.
I also noted that the paper states how they calculate the rate of change of temperature when there are only two data points… which doesn’t provide a lot of confidence in the size of the datasets they’ve been using.

John F. Hultquist
September 18, 2011 5:49 pm

When I read:
tool known as the Community Climate System Model,
Two things came to mind: “toil and trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble”
and
Rube Goldberg. I went with the latter:
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/04/rugoldbe1.jpg

F. Ross
September 18, 2011 5:50 pm


“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.”

So to summarize the study then: Sometimes climate warms, other times it either cools or stay steady for a while …but we don’t know why, when, or for how long a given change may take place. That about it?

Mac the Knife
September 18, 2011 5:50 pm

Wow! I knew Trenbreth’s analyses were tortured, but now he and Meehl et.al. are waterboarding the poor circulation models until they ‘confess’ where they’ve hidden the ‘missing heat’. Someone should bring them up on climate terrorism charges before the UN!
You say the UN is supporting their model torture and climate terrorism??! Oh Dear….

Bill DiPuccio
September 18, 2011 5:54 pm

The hypothesis is already falsified by their own observations:
“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.”
How did the heat enter the deep ocean without transiting through upper ocean layers? It would appear that they continue to evade this issue. So it will be interesting to see how their model handles this problem.

3x2
September 18, 2011 6:00 pm

Ha har me harties we’ll be throwin’ that Xbox over the side…if she sinks it be warmin’. If she floats it be warmin’ too. A full share of treasure for any man standin with me. Ha har

Theo Goodwin
September 18, 2011 6:04 pm

Bill DiPuccio says:
September 18, 2011 at 5:54 pm
“How did the heat enter the deep ocean without transiting through upper ocean layers? It would appear that they continue to evade this issue.”
In ordinary humans, not members of the “scientific elite,” this reasoning by Trenberth and friends would be clear evidence of schizophrenia or drunkenness.

ferd berple
September 18, 2011 6:06 pm

Wasn’t it Gavin that said 15 years without significant warming would prove AGW was wrong? So, in theory that would be in 2 more years. However, that goal post has now recently been changed to 17 years, or wait, didn’t Trenberth’s latest paper say 20 years? Sort of like Hansens story of the ocean covering the highway in 20 years, or wait it was 40 years.
Anyone that travels to Mexico will have come across an interesting word. Mañana. It means “tomorrow”, but really it means “never”. Because tomorrow, when you go to see when something will happen, you will get the same answer. Mañana. And the day after? Mañana. The day that never arrives.
Like Al Gore’s climate catastrophy predictions that he has been spouting for 30 years. Disaster will happen all right, it is certain. 100% the world is going to end, Mañana. So, might as well send me all your money, you wont need it once the earth ends, Mañana.

ferd berple
September 18, 2011 6:13 pm

BobW in NC says:
September 18, 2011 at 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?
CO2 drives the AP index on the sun, via the missing heat stored at the bottom of the oceans. 100 billions dollars of taxpayer money makes it true. Oh wait, its isn’t the missing heat at all, it is the money missing out of the US economy that drives global warming.