Torpedoing Of The Use Of The Global Average Surface Temperature Trend As The Diagnostic For Global Warming
By Dr. Roger Pielke Senior
There is a new paper by Gerald Meehl of NCAR and other collaborators that has been announced in the media; i.e. see in the International Business Tribune [h/t to Watts Up With That]
Global Warming on Temporary Hold Thanks to Deep Oceans
First, I am glad the authors implicitly acknowledge the importance of the ocean heat changes as the primary diagnostic of climate system heat changes, as I have urged in my papers
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
There are two major issues, however, with the new study that the authors [that the news article reports on] did not seem to recognize:
1. If heat is being sequested in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of. In the models, this heat clearly must be transferred (upwards and downwards) through this layer. The Argo network is spatially dense enough that this should have been seen.
2. Even more important is the failure of the authors to recognize that they have devalued the use of the global average surface temperature as the icon to use to communicate the magnitude of global warming. If this deeper ocean heating actually exists in the real world, it is not observable in the ocean and land surface temperatures. To monitor global warming, we need to keep track of the changes in Joules in the climate system, which, as clearly indicated in the new study by Meehl and colleagues, is not adequately diagnosed by the global, annual-averaged surface temperature trends.
The news article has the text [highlight added]
Global warming is temporarily on hold as the deep ocean currents and circulations absorb the sun’s heat before releasing it finally, scientists said on Sunday.
The study conducted by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia was published in the Sept. 18 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change.The last decade saw an incessant growth in greenhouse gas emissions which ideally should have increased Earth’s temperature. However, Earth’s temperature didn’t increase vastly. Where was the “missing heat” going?To find out the mystery, Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study that revealed the connection between global warming and temperature hiatus caused by ocean’s heat absorption, and scientists at the NCAR in Colorado ran five simulations on a computer model that studied the complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans and sea ice.The study revealed that temperature has already increased by several degrees in this century and will increase more in the coming days but the hiatus period will interrupt the increase. During this period, the missing temperature will lurk inside the deep ocean.“We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future, 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,” said Meehl.
Kevin Trenberth, a study author and NCAR scientist, said: “… this study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean, the heat has not disappeared and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences.”
They found the vast area deeper than 1,000 feet (305 meters) warmed by about 18 to 19 percent more during the hiatus periods than at other times. Meanwhile, shallower global oceans above 1,000 feet warmed by 60 percent less than during non-hiatus periods in the simulation.
The study also revealed the regional signature of oceanic warming during hiatus periods. During a hiatus, average sea-surface temperatures decrease across the tropical Pacific, while they tend to increase at higher latitudes.
Meehl says these patterns are similar to those observed during a La Niña event.
“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,” he added.
A final comment on this paper, if heat really is deposited deep into the ocean (i.e. Joules of heat) it will dispersed through the ocean at these depths and unlikely to be transferred back to the surface on short time periods, but only leak back upwards if at all. The deep ocean would be a long-term damper of global warming, that has not been adequately discussed in the climate science community.
“The deep ocean would be a long-term damper of global warming, that has not been adequately discussed in the climate science community.”
Of course it hasn’t. They’re making this up as they go along. Hadn’t you noticed?
When ‘Scientists’ tell you that you have to give up your freedom and prosperity because of their Sacred Computer Models, then you’d better comply or be called ‘Denier’.
As with all Lefties, the Warmistas rely on insults and epithets, being much like 5-yr olds in their touching belief in the power of labels to conquer all.
Don’t you know you’re supposed to cower and shut up when they unleash their mighty rhetorical thunderbolts?
How dare you hold a non-Team opinion! Surely there lurks in your wallet a check from the E-ville Oil Companies, for no rational person could ever be a Denier, therefore you’re a wicked wretch!
(sarc/off)
Well if the new thinking is temperature rise is “on hold” because of energy entering the deep ocean (even if that is not actually reflected in any data outside of Alice in Wonderland models) that opens up possibility that last century warming was due to the reverse effect.
They may not realise it yet but they are getting closer to understanding.
I’ll get Kevie a 16 ft skiff. Somebody get him about 4 miles of thermocouple wire.
The boy needs to get off of his hindquarters and go measure this stuff.
He needs to put up or shut up.
Hey at least there is some entertainment value here. Just think, we are living through a fascinating time much like the stonewalling and then contortions of the ether theory in physics–only it’s happening now with trillions of dollars of public and private economic waste being applied to the science/policy/cultural fiasco and with a great recesssion under way! Entertaining but sad to think of the waste of it all. It is the modern equivalent of global war with no real outcome except poverty and a lost generation of science and science reporting.
RE:Rolf Atkinson: (September 20, 2011 at 3:36 pm)
“Spector reckons only the Red Sea has salinity causing sinking. I think that’s an error. Where sea ice freezes, the surrounding water becomes very salty (as well as cold) and sinks to the sea bed.”
In the case above, you are talking about the impact of cooling, but in the case of this article the question is how can heated water descend through the normally more dense and heavier waters below the surface. Hot water, like hot air, usually rises.
As I recall it, there are rather hot brine pools at the bottom of the Red Sea, much warmer than the surface, (greater than 122 deg F) but this water does not rise because of the weight of the dissolved salt. So, if one could show that rapid evaporation was making the surface water so dense (from all the salt being left behind) that it could become heavier than the surrounding water, a case might be made that this super-salinity, warm surface water *might* be able to descend to the bottom. If no such super-salinity areas can be found, then this process cannot be used to explain how heat from the surface might be making it to the bottom.
Access Science
Encyclopedia Article
Red Sea
http://accessscience.com/content/Red-Sea/576200
I think we can all agree that the missing heat must be inside the lungs of all the drowned Polar Bears.
The missing heat is otherwise known as the Scarlet Pimpernel — Trenberth and the others, they seek him here and seek him there, but lo! it’s vanished again, except in his computer models. What a travesty!
I’ve been looking for missing heat, too, though not for the same reasons as Kevin T. I’ve suspected the El Niño might be powered by heat from below, and had some likely (kind of, anyway) suspects. They seem to be thinking the heat energy goes into the deep ocean and somehow comes back. Pielke Sr seems to think it bleeds back upward. Trenberth thinks it is overdue to come gushing back up. I propose that it spills out as El Niño due to some as yet undiscovered oscillatory mechanism. No, the El Niño itself – the effects we measure and experience – is not the oscillatory mechanism; it is just the effects, a transfer mechanism but not the root cause. Somehow, more heat presents during the El Niño phase, but no one has a clear idea yet where the heat comes from or what triggers it to appear near and on the surface. Why not this deep ocean heat?
Pielke Sr does have a point about us not seeing the transfer, but perhaps it is right in front of us. The excess heat during an El Niño comes from somewhere and appears to have been accumulating – just as this paper describes. Accumulating to the point of overflowing… Perhaps 2 + 2 = 4 in this case.
So, if I get the gist of what Trenberth and NCAR are saying here… They’ve built a model that shows heat being stored in a place that no other model considered. They say further, that they are right despite having no actual measurements to correlate to their model.
So that means, according to Tremberth and NCAR, that…ALL THE OTHER MODELS INCLUDING THE ONES THAT CORRELATE WITH ACTUAL MEASURED DATA….
…are wrong.
Do all the editors of all the journals that published all those papers have to resign en masse?
Why am I reminded of Iain M Banks’ Culture series of scifi novels? The sentient spaceship minds in one book amuse themselves conjuring alternative universes where they play with the laws of physics. This is called the Irreal.
I’m surprised nobody knows why the missing heat is in the depths of the ocean. It’s because the missing heat was captured and killed by Seal Team Six, and its body dumped at sea.
A quote by Stephen Hawking appears appropriate here:
“Not only does God play dice, but… he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.”
P. Solar says:
September 20, 2011 at 5:34 pm
“Well if the new thinking is temperature rise is “on hold” because of energy entering the deep ocean (even if that is not actually reflected in any data outside of Alice in Wonderland models) that opens up possibility that last century warming was due to the reverse effect.
They may not realise it yet but they are getting closer to understanding.”
Right on the money. They are beginning to understand that there are natural processes other than radiation that must be understood on their own terms and not as products of radiation. What must be understood is how the heat from radiation works its way through the natural processes. However, their first little excursion into nature is a bit of an embarrassment.
Brian H says:
September 20, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Thanks. If I had known, the metaphor would have been better.
i’m not a scientist, but i’ve observed what seems to be an increased rate of canine coitus, could the missing heat be involved ?
Say, I have misplaced my car keys. Would one of you ‘climate scientists’ be a dear and look in your computer model, and tell me where they are?
I’d look for them myself, but observing things is so much less efficient than your way.
I’m trying to get my son to take an interest in other things besides computer games.
“They’re not reality”, I tell him.
And now the BOM says they are.
We’re doomed.
At first…the physics of climate science could be understood by any second year physics student, engineering, chemistry…and G_d of course.
And then there came the computer models, and only highly trained climate scientists who could write computer simulations based on actual obervations…and G-d, could understand.
Then there came the super advanced no data required, just a super computer runnin secret code that only “The Team” and G_d could understand.
And now…we have ultra super advanced, no data required, no verification needed, no physical explanation needed… that only “The Team” can understand.
I know where that missing heat is: It’s right under their very noses.
It’s not in the land, it’s not in the atmosphere, and it’s not in the shallow or deep oceans.
Where then, could it be?
It’s in the models, or more precisely, the heat generated by thousands of processors in bank after bank of supercomputer nodes. After crunching great quantities of numbers, the cooling systems vent it to the rooms which vent it to the atmosphere which sends it into Outer Space.
I sincerely hope that, in the future, such expensive processing power will be put to use on more important issues, rather than playing perpetual grant $$ simulations.
Theo Goodwin wrote;
“What must be understood is how the heat from radiation works its way through the natural processes.”
Exactly, the “heat” becomes radiation and thereafter ceases to exist as heat. The radiation then travels at the speed of light (quite a bit speedier than the speed of heat) until it is absorbed again and becomes heat and thereafter ceases to exist as radiation.
A gas (or any material for that matter) cannot EMIT and also RETAIN a parcel/photon/bucket/quantum/package/bundle…of energy.
Hence, no warmer ocean/atmosphere/surface, only changes in the response time of the climate as “GHG’s” increase.
The gases heat up slower or faster depending on the appearance/disappearance of clouds and other weather effects. Since this change in the response/lag/delay time is MUCH less than the 24 hour period of the incoming energy no “higher equilibrium” temperature results.
Cheers, Kevin.
feet2thefire says:
September 20, 2011 at 6:49 pm
If, by comes from the Earth itself, you mean tidal energy or residual heat in the Mantle and Core of the Earth, then that is a finite source which has nothing at all to do with AGW.
RE: davidmhoffer: (September 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm)
“And now…we have ultra super advanced, no data required, no verification needed, no physical explanation needed… that only “The Team” can understand.”
Obviously a broken process. There is nothing wrong with saying you do not believe the data (to yourself) if it does not conform to your expectations. There is also nothing wrong with developing a hypothesis for the results obtained–that is part of the normal trouble shooting process. But you don’t announce that you have developed a computer program that fixes the radio before you hear it playing the NBC chimes once again. Maybe the real problem was that your one and only radio station had just gone off the air due to financial difficulties–your expectations were unrealistic.
RE: “The computer model showed the heat was in the deep ocean?”
and
RE: “If you can’t get your information with direct measurements, just make up a model and “tune” it till you get the right answer.”
Yup. Now you’ve got it. Program a computer to output results that support your theory and then use those results as proof of your theory. Simple.
I’m in the wrong business . . .
-barn
Spector;
There is nothing wrong with saying you do not believe the data (to yourself) if it does not conform to your expectations>>>
I haven’t a clue what your are saying!
They HAVE no data…so there’s no data to believe or not believe. There is only a computer program built on the assumptions of its programmers. No physical process to explain the results, no data measurements to corroborate the results…nothing.
From Dave’s rules of computers:
1. Computers do exactly what you tell them to.
Nuff said?