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

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

Dr A Burns says: September 18, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Are these people serious ? Surprise, surprise, ‘look what the model has produced, it must be true’, rather than ‘look what the model has been programmed to produce”.
I wonder about perception. I didn’t see TV until I was seven, computers at 28, and went through half a dozen programming languages before I decided I didn’t want to learn another one. I noticed my children were enamored (transfixed, hypnotized) by the TV in a way I didn’t understand. The first life lesson from dad was don’t believe the commercials, they are trying to sell you something. I suspect the subsequent generation is equally hypnotized by their monitor, I almost said CRT, not realizing the source of what comes up on it. My youthful sense of wonderment was applied to the physical world. What happens when that sense of wonderment is contained by the box it is seen in?
Honestly people, look at this:
“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.
Here is an official Team press release, telling us that we can expect several more decades of flat temperatures over the century 2001-2100.
Under those conditions, you can not get 6C per century without seeing more than 1.5C per decade during the few rising decades remaining between the several flat ones. You can not even get 2C per century, unless you have 0.5C per decade when it warms. That is twice the rate of warming seen during the giddy years of ‘global warming’ 1980-2000.
They are slinging paint so madly, they haven’t noticed that they are standing in the corner. According to their current proclamation, by the time we get to any of the levels previously identified as ‘tipping points’ and ‘global catastrophe’, we will all be dead and our descendants will be zipping around in SUVs powered by green fairy dust.
‘Global warming’ is a dead cow, they know it, and they are just trying to squeeze the last bit of milk out of her before the rest of us notice the smell.
Trenberth’s heat is in a place where the sun doesn’t shine.
“What happens when that sense of wonderment is contained by the box it is seen in?”
I’ve reached the conclusion that “reality” itself is insufficiently entertaining for some people – hence their preoccupation with things that aren’t. There’s no sense of “wonderment” – only a sense of satisfaction of sufficient entertainment.
People like Trenberth and Hansen know this only too well.
tallbloke says:
September 19, 2011 at 2:38 am
Water is densest at 4C. The deeps below 3000m are colder than that. If they warmed 0.2C, sea level would fall.
This doesn’t apply to the ocean – salt water has a density maximum at its freezing point.
Yet at the same time the sea level has stayed . . . well. level. No change at all.
The heat was supposed to make it rise through thermal expansion.
As my Anglo Saxon ancestors had a good word for this sort of nonsense I will use it . . .
Bollocks !
Martin Lewitt says:
September 19, 2011 at 3:29 am
@tallbloke,
“Water is densest at 4C. The deeps below 3000m are colder than that. If they warmed 0.2C, sea level would fall.”
You can’t hide missing heat without sea level rise that way, because salt water gets denser all the way down to its freezing point.
Good point Martin, I’d forgotten that.
If I am allowed to put together some “data” from The Team, (thats those who has changed what Peer Review means….) I realise that this Hansen guy says the heat is in a pipeline, and Trenberth says it is on a certain depth.
Sooo….I can only conclude that the recent Missing Heat is in a top secret pipeline, not yet found, on the bottom of the ocean. And it got there via mysterious ways. It is most likely constructed by Big Oil.
If I am to choose between Spencers “local control-system of clouds”….and Hansens/Trenberths “instant” hidden heat……I think I choose;
800-1000 year old current upwelling combined with Spencers “local control system of clouds”.
Thank you Trenberth for finally coming out of the closet; You are a sceptic too!
Question – In those circumstances where warm water sinks beneath cooler water due to salinity , wouldn’t it reach a temperature equilibrium at some point ?
u.k.(us) says:
“Be clear this time, what was your question ?”
I didn’t ask a question (clearly). I suggested you repress your urge to provide your photos of owl feces/pellets, observing “Like the ‘vet’ said about the cat’s hairballs “This too shall pass!””
T’was light hearted humor offered and nothing more.
“In those circumstances where warm water sinks beneath cooler water due to salinity , wouldn’t it reach a temperature equilibrium at some point ?”
No, because a diffusion equilibrium would have to be reached first, and that is not going to happen (although a stable steady state can be reached in quiescent water if solar energy can maintain a higher temperature of deeper water), and no, because any diffusional or temperature instability will eventually produce convection
So, hot water sinks because it is less dense. Evaporation could cause a concentration of the salt but with all of the rain that occurs in that region it is unlikely to be so dense that it would sink. Of course we have not seen any warm downwelling.
Of course, it should also be pointed out that, if there was warm water that might surface later, there is no reason to expect it to be augmenting warming when it surfaces. It could just as well surface during a cold spell and make it less cold. The ocean circulation serves mostly to lessen temperature fluctuations by spreading the heat and cold out over time. It very simply mixes the heat energy over time.
“Will Nitschke says:
September 18, 2011 at 4:10 pm
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?”
I agree that congratulations to Trenberth are in order, although I do not think he intended his comments to be taken that way.
I did some calculations with the following numbers:
Mass of air is 5 x 10^18 kg;
Specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kgK
Assume a 2 C rise in air temperature due to AGW. (I do not agree with this scenario, But I am just crunching numbers assuming that is the case.)
Mass of oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg;
Specific heat capacity of ocean water is about 4 kJ/kgK
The question I am trying to answer is that IF we for the moment assume the air temperature were to potentially go up by 2 degrees C, but IF we then assume ALL this heat goes into the ocean instead, how much would the ocean warm up?
Using mct(air) = mct(ocean), I get an answer of 0.0018 C is the increase in the temperature of the ocean. Of course, this cannot be measured, nor would the ocean expand to any noticeable degree with this added temperature. But IF Trenberth is right that the heat can go into the ocean, what are we worried about?
WANTED!
Dead or alive
CAL KELVIN
aka ‘The Trenberth Heat’
This notorious law-breaker is now known to have evaded the Argo posse and is in hiding. “Seems like he slipped past our bouys undetected,” said a spokesman.
Anyone with information on the whereabouts of the missing ‘Heat’, contact the Sheriff in Boulder.
REWARD: $1 million in Feed in Tariffs
R.Gates:
Clathrate and claptrap…
kwik says:
September 19, 2011 at 12:20 pm
“Sooo….I can only conclude that the recent Missing Heat is in a top secret pipeline, not yet found, on the bottom of the ocean. And it got there via mysterious ways. It is most likely constructed by Big Oil.”
Yes. Its just like the internet, as described by AK Senator Stevens: “an elaborate series of tubes.”
But I’m worried. All that heat hidden in that tube for so long now… and apparently it doesn’t cool down despite all the cold water around it. Is it going to blow up?
@LearDog who said: “shouldn’t the ARGO buoys have seen this past decades ‘extra heat’ ‘going by’ on the way to the deep?”
Argo has been operational less than a decade, Deployment began in 2000 and was completed in 2007. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
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.
Digital software is wholly deterministic. Run the same software with the same data, you will always get exactly the same result, except where quasi-random functions have been inserted into the software.
Trenberth is saying that randomness introduced into the models proves randomness (red noise) exists in the climate.
Laughable.
Didn’t Lindzen show that this is all nonsense way back in 2002?
http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/lindzen.pdf
“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 longhiatus periods during the century.”
1.4C by the end of the century? Overall that’s likely to offer a net benefit rather than a net negative. Crisis averted. Next problem. 😉
Dr Scafetta, what is your response to this hindcasting of your PDO:temperature model?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/LSvsMobergvsLoehleAll.png
Tristan,
in my paper with Loehle we clearly stated that the linear trend was just a first order approximation of the trend that could work just for the interval under observation or a little bit more than that. We cleartly stated that other multisecular and millennial cycles were not taken into account in that modelling. Thus, the claim of skepticalscience that we were claiming that the proposed linear trend had to last forever in the past and in the future is not only false, but stupid.
A first preliminary attempt to include other longer cycles has been shown in this publication of mine see figure 6 (sorry in Italian)
N. Scafetta, “I cicli climatici e le loro implicazioni” (Climate cycles and their implications), (invited article), Bollettino della Scuola Normale di Pisa 13(2), 6-10 (2010).
Werner Brozek says:
September 19, 2011 at 6:28 pm
“…..I did some calculations with the following numbers:
Mass of air is 5 x 10^18 kg;
Specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kgK
Assume a 2 C rise in air temperature due to AGW. (I do not agree with this scenario, But I am just crunching numbers assuming that is the case.)
Mass of oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg;
Specific heat capacity of ocean water is about 4 kJ/kgK
The question I am trying to answer is that IF we for the moment assume the air temperature were to potentially go up by 2 degrees C, but IF we then assume ALL this heat goes into the ocean instead, how much would the ocean warm up?
Using mct(air) = mct(ocean), I get an answer of 0.0018 C is the increase in the temperature of the ocean. Of course, this cannot be measured, nor would the ocean expand to any noticeable degree with this added temperature. But IF Trenberth is right that the heat can go into the ocean, what are we worried about?…..”
THIS is what I want to hear more about – having in years past done a little work with drying materials, and heat storage, I do know that water is one of the best heat storage mediums on this planet.
And we do have quite a lot of it!
I’ve often wondered why all of this trapped energy wants to stay in the atmosphere –
I’d love to hear more comment on this!
“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).”
In five years the new “Super Powerful” computer will prove that the flattening may last for periods of “as long as 15 years”.
You can’t argue with B.S.
See:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/20/lorne-gunter-global-warming-is-afraid-to-come-out-of-hiding/
“Now here is Lorne’s Razor: The more desperate someone is to hold onto a theory or belief, the more preposterous their explanations will become.”