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
David Falkner
September 18, 2011 6:17 pm

Brian H says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:39 am

It went into the “deep”, all right. Deep Space, you gormless cadets! As Spencer demonstrated, the OLR and albedo feedback is so quick and powerful that the supposed influx to the oceans never actually happens.
If that were actually true, don’t you think the oceans would be frozen?
NW says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Classic! I love it.
Will Nitschke says:
September 18, 2011 at 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?
Or, alternatively, does this cast doubt on the ability of a forcing so easily masked to cause short term changes in climate? Seems like the ocean having this incredible ability to mask warming casts some serious doubt on the causation prospects of the warming in the last of the 20th century. Unless, of course, we can explain why the ocean masks warming except for when it doesn’t.

September 18, 2011 6:21 pm

Theo Goodwin says:
September 18, 2011 at 6:04 pm
In ordinary humans, not members of the “scientific elite,” this reasoning by Trenberth and friends would be clear evidence of schizophrenia or drunkenness.
================================================
…… or deliberate scientific fraud.
I doubt, however, that the fake socialist, poverty-redistributing stealth taxers will even touch this one, although I kinda hope they do.

ferd berple
September 18, 2011 6:23 pm

richard verney says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Thus conceding that there can be a hiatus due to natural variations (or even ocean cycles) is the thin edge of the wedge on a slippery slope demonstrating the weakness in the GHG theory.
No, because only theories that support AGW can be true. Theories that suggest the temperature rise 1980-2000 are due to natural variability simply cannot be true because they would show that AGW may not be true, but since we know AGW is true, it is impossible that the warming is due to natural variability. For the same reason we know that lack of warming since 2000 must be due to natural variability, because otherwise it would suggest that AGW was false, and since we know AGW is true, this proves that the lack of warming is due to natural variability.
The error in your logic is in thinking that AGW is a theory. It isn’t theory, it is a Scientific Law. Once you realize that, it is obvious that any observation or theory that contradicts AGW is simply wrong. It is the way science works.

Theo Goodwin
September 18, 2011 6:24 pm

nicola scafetta says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm
“Trenberth presented his theory that the lack of warming observed since 2000 was nothing but an occasional decadal variation of the ENSO. Essentially, he used his GCM to prove that sometime the computer simulations could run flat for periods of 10 years from where he deduced his interpretation of the lack of warming as a momentarily red noise fluctuation.”
Yep, that is good old Trenberth. Never met a physical phenomenon of warming or cooling that he could not interpret as statistical noise in his radiation-only model of Earth’s climate.

Theo Goodwin
September 18, 2011 6:34 pm

NW says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“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.”
NW deserves a special prize for this. It is truly priceless.

RichyRoo2011
September 18, 2011 6:39 pm

So key questions:
1) How did the heat get to the bottom without going through the top?
2) Is there any scientific (i.e. empirical) evidence that this heat exists?
3) If the deep ocean has warmed, why hasnt it expanded?
4) If the deep ocean has warmed, where if the expected CO2 outgassing?
clearly we are at the epicycles phase of CAGW faith, but how many decades can these desperate believers continue to avoid falsification? Clearly when all it takes is data from a model to somehow fend off empirical evidence, or failures of prediction, then something is clearly wrong.
The best Trenberth and cohorts can manage is to show that AGW is ‘not necessarilly not possible’ (i.e observations are not inconsistant with the theory) … barely and wholly reliant on models to thwart observations.
I hope that researchers such as Scafetta can kill this beast, and hopefully the resignation of a Nobel prize for Physics winner will make some more physicists wake up and smell the crazy.

Theo Goodwin
September 18, 2011 6:39 pm

philincalifornia says:
September 18, 2011 at 6:21 pm
“…… or deliberate scientific fraud.”
I considered that. But he published the stuff. To publish it, you would have to be so arrogant that your detachment from humanity would render you either schizophrenic or {chronically) drunk (high, if you like).

J. Felton
September 18, 2011 6:42 pm

This seems to be more of an attempt to make an excuse for why there has been no warming for the last decade.
” Oh, it’s still warming,it’s just…..uh….something delayed it. Yeah, that’s it.”
They provide no explanation for why the delay was this decade, and not others, in fact, they seem to be grasping at straws. And as the Graph B clearly shows, the GISS model predictions does not meet the observations in the slightest.
In my opinion, they haven’t explained anything at all, and are just throwing out more guesses.

September 18, 2011 6:49 pm

Hold the proverbial boat. If the “missing heat” is in the deep ocean, then how come the ocean’s thermal expansion has ceased? The waters are not rising, so how can they be warmer?

Anna Lemma
September 18, 2011 6:50 pm

Anyone suspect that Trenberth got his “inspiration” from reading Kurt Vonnegut’s “Ice 9”?

Camburn
September 18, 2011 6:52 pm

Talk about clutching at a straw man. I am surprised he could get this published. Where is the model verfied? Or are we now so far gone that verification is a thing of the past?????

rbateman
September 18, 2011 6:57 pm

David Falkner says:
September 18, 2011 at 6:17 pm
No, the oceans wouldn’t be frozen simply because Trenberth can’t find a few good degrees.

jae
September 18, 2011 6:58 pm

I just wonder what UCAR is going to say and do once their all-knowing “scientists” realize that NOBODY is buying their nonsense anymore. Probably blame it on Bush.
UCAR is only slightly behind Big Al in bufoonery, and the public sees it. LOL.

R. Gates
September 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Richard S Courtney:
1) I am not defending any model, as they all are wrong…but some can be useful.
2) Do you know how much energy is transported to the deeper parts of the Atlantic as the Gulf Stream plunges downward in the N. Atlantic. Do you not think this is one of the major ways that heat is transported from the upper to the lower ocean?
3) Though the calculation would be difficult because we don’t have enough global data, but there is some total amount of energy contained in the THC, when considering sensible heat, mass, and velocity. Because of the large amount of mass we are dealing with across the entire worlds ocean basins, even a slight change in any one or more of these parameters represents huge amounts of energy.

mark wagner
September 18, 2011 7:16 pm

uhm…. if the heat was going into the deep oceans wouldn’t it be showing up as an increase in sea levels? As Sea levels have been flat for going on a decade, wouldn’t the lack of thermal expansion disprove their model?

ImranCan
September 18, 2011 7:18 pm

Instead of building a new model, … gee whiz, even a ‘powerful’ new model, maybe they should go and do some real sceince ….. eg. TAKE SOME MEASUREMENTS.

R. Gates
September 18, 2011 7:22 pm

Here’s an article that some may find interting on the relationship between atmospheric warming and deeper ocean warming. It answers some question that some of you have brought forward regarding a plausible mechanism by which heat could be transported to the deeper ocean withoug being detected in surface layers:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5989/319.short

Douglas DC
September 18, 2011 7:23 pm

So the deep heat doesn’t cause thermal expansion? Why are sea levels dropping? Seems
someone isn’t being honest here…

JJ
September 18, 2011 7:23 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.”
What? Several more decade long intervals of no ‘global warming, in addition to the one we just finished, can be expected over the next century? Several more?
So, these guys think that most of the coming century of ‘global warming’ will feature no ‘global warming’? DENIERS!!
🙂

Ed Fix
September 18, 2011 7:28 pm

“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.”

Of course, the only evidence it’s buried in the ocean is that the new and improved models need it to be there. Certainly, the heat has not disappeared (conservation of energy), but he is unable to consider the possibility that it has already been radiated to space.
Hey, I know! It’s buried right under the cache of Iraqi biological weapons. Let’s look there.

rbateman
September 18, 2011 7:35 pm

ImranCan says:
September 18, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Instead of building a new model, … gee whiz, even a ‘powerful’ new model, maybe they should go and do some real sceince ….. eg. TAKE SOME MEASUREMENTS.

They already tried that.

u.k.(us)
September 18, 2011 7:37 pm

R. Gates says:
September 18, 2011 at 7:09 pm
1) I am not defending any model, as they all are wrong…but some can be useful.
====================
OK, define useful.

Theo Goodwin
September 18, 2011 7:38 pm

richard verney says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“Thus conceding that there can be a hiatus due to natural variations (or even ocean cycles) is the thin edge of the wedge on a slippery slope demonstrating the weakness in the GHG theory.”
Brilliant post! This slippery slope is greased with Owl excrement.
Actually, what you have done is show that Trenberth and friends are now trying to build something like natural variation into their models. That cannot be done, as you explain. But they are conceding the point about natural variation. This must be their last desperate move. It takes them down to the level of Al Gore.
Are they so stupid as to believe that people cannot see what they are doing? More likely, they are so arrogant that they believe they can get away with it.
I cannot believe that NSF provided some funding for this study. They should be investigated by Congress pronto!

Al Gored
September 18, 2011 7:51 pm

“Community Climate System Model”
Yes, yes. Just what a Community Organizer needs.
Was the missing heat “saved” or “created.”

September 18, 2011 7:59 pm

rbateman says:
September 18, 2011 at 7:35 pm
ImranCan says:
September 18, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Instead of building a new model, … gee whiz, even a ‘powerful’ new model, maybe they should go and do some real sceince ….. eg. TAKE SOME MEASUREMENTS.
===============================================
Trenberth doesn’t like climate science to be constrained by observation.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9