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.
“There is a new paper by Gerald Meehl of NCAR…”
Now there’s a situation where using “there’s” would have been grammatically correct, and you passed it up!? Doh!
The dramatic hypotheses postulated in this new journal article are fascinating. It’s either the Fonz jumping the shark or one of those consequential discoveries that people will talk about for decades. Personally, I am betting on the shark.
“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 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.”
This is an amazing development. For years we heard again and again that solar influences and natural variability cannot explain post 1950’s warming. We have been told that the science unequivocally points to anthropogenic CO2 as the culprit and that CO2 correlates with recent warming better than other factors.. We have been subjected to authoritative claims that nearly all legitimate scientists agree on the facts of AGW. And, we have been required to except these facts, else we are vilified.
This paper is an own-goal on so many levels. In one swipe, core climate scientists refute their own settled science. They now admit without saying explicitly, that natural variability is important. They unapologetically point to the breakdown in correlation between Co2 rise and temperature. And, we see that by publishing this, core climate scientists now dispute their own previous findings which we’ve been assured are indisputable. Like the China sulfur emissions excuse, it is a contortion, a rewriting of reality, in order to buttress a robust, undeniable, unquestionably correct theory. The irony is thick. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a travesty.
I know where all of Kevin Trenberth’s “missing heat” has gone – it migrated to Texas this summer. Like everyone else who has come here in the last 30 years. Lol!
Merely out of curiosity I didn’t read what the various ocean levels should read – nor has anyone even suggest what each ocean level was at any point in history. Moreover there are four major “oceans” – the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Arctic Ocean, and the Indian Ocean. Some consider there to be five oceans – the fifth being an ocean surrounding Antarctica called the Antarctic Ocean or Southern Ocean. Without 100 years of deep ocean heat measurements in all oceans at every 50 or even every 100 square miles of each ocean how in God’s name can anyone on planet earth even guess at exactly what is the so called normal at each ocean layer all the way to the bottom. Nor did I see any reference to the thousands of undersea volcanoes many still not known at this time in history and to what extent volcanoes play in reference to ocean heat. Nor did I find any reference to heat transfers measurements between ocean layers stretching back at minimum 100 years. And even that number is too small for historical judging of ocean heat.
To me this study is pure junk without 250 years of data I need to make an accurate judgment on any ocean heat at anytime in earth’s history.
I’m going to say it one more time, the thing that is being studiously ignored in this whole argument is SURFACE TENSION. Trenberths heat is not missing, it didn’t go into the ocean in the first place. The ocean only accepts the sun’s radiation and fends off heat at normal temperatures because of surface tension. The climate models are all nonsense’ Have a nice day’
Hi Wil
I am writing a three part series on sea levels through the ages. This first part covers the period from the Holocene to the Romans.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
Our sea levels are still around 30cm lower than during Roman times
tonyb
The thing thats missing in this whole argument is SURFACE TENSION. At normal temperatures the atmosphere cannot pass heat into the ocean because there is not enough heat to break down the surface tension. Trenberth’s heat is not missing, it didn’t go in in the first place. Because of surface tension the ocean only accepts the sun’s radiation not physicsl heat. For this very simple reason human induced GW is a complete nonsense.
RE: davidmhoffer: (September 20, 2011 at 10:07 pm)
“They HAVE no data…so there’s no data to believe or not believe.”
Well actually they do – This is a continuation of another topic where the first figure shows the data they have a problem accepting as valid, a set of temperature readings that refuse to rise even though there has been no abatement in the increase of CO2. They have been asking, “where has all the that extra CO2 heat gone?” So now, they have developed a computer model that says the Earth might, somehow, be subducting that heat deep down below. As reported, it seems they may be trying to say the computer model is valid because it gives them the answer they were expecting to see, before they have made any measurements to confirm that the modeled process actually exists.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/trenberths-missing-heat-look-to-the-deep/#more-47647
I found some of the missing heat in the sea the other day. It was in a small confined area. Most of the sea was 60 degrees C but the warm patch was around body heat.
I found some of the missing heat in the sea the other day. It was in a small confined area. Most of the sea was 60 degrees F but the warm patch was around body heat.
Since the Thermohaline circulation works on heat then any heating of the deep ocean would disrupt this vital process. I do not think this has happened.
This is a beautiful illustration of the ideas of late Karl Popper. If you don’t accept the falsification of your theory, you will harvest something without empiral content. To use the over-worked example once more. Theory: all swans are white. Observation: a black swan. Response: the observed bird is not a real swan. New theory: all real ( = white) swans are white. Theory: the earth is warming by increasing CO2 levels. Observation: the atmosphere does not warm anymore. Response: the atmosphere is not the place where real warming occurs. New theory: the earth is warming in all kind of places except for the atmosphere. As some commenters remarked, the next observation may be that the oceans are not warming. We may predict the final stage that the earth is warming in computer models only.
The answer lies in reverse fusion where heat energy condenses into heavy water and raises sea level very minutely (;>)
Please, someone, tell the Bear, it’s not true that this whole shakedown about `global warming’ is based upon geeks running simulations on computers and announcing the outputs as physical fact?
So, we have actually been taken over by the writers of the `The Big Bang Theory’?
As the Bear has said before, what in hell is the rest of the planet’s scientific community doing? Why is this crap not being denounced by scientific luminaries and professional bodies, day in and day out?
Science, in its most public form perhaps in all history has been reduced to the mentality of a bad sit-com. And the scientific community at large just sits on its arse and says nothing?
WTF?
As, according to Al, the Earth’s interior is millions of degrees, this is where the extra heat is coming from.
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.
————————————————————————————————————————
Their Computer model had fudge factors that “found” warming by about 18 to 19 percent more during the hiatus periods….. No observations. No empirical data….. Just make believe figures displayed as an animation that gets labeled as the evidence for warming by anthropogenic sources of CO2… These mob and their bluddy models!
Obviously, it’s the 2nd law of thermo that is at fault. All that heat is going into warming the core to 6000k. And here all these years, people have been assuming it’s radioactive decay that has kept the stuff from solidifying and quenching Earth’s magnetic field protection.
now that trenberth has discovered the deep ocean has heated several degrees during the last centurty one must wonder just how much of the deep ocean was frozen solid at the beginning of the last century.
on the more serious side, I wonder how many million years longer Earth’s core will stay molten if we have a few degrees of gw to reduce the heat transfer. After all, Earth becomes uninhabitable after we lose the magnetic field…
It is encouraging to see trained, reputable climate scientists who publish in reputable peer reviewed journals being featured here. I was under the impression that Dr. Pielke was widely admired on this site, and its encouraging to see scientists with a realistic and expert understanding of climate prominently featured here. I admit I was a bit surprised the Dr. Pielke on his own blog acknowledging that CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change, and that reductions in CO2 emissions are imperative. As with virtually all scientific inquiries, much more remains to be learned about climate, but Dr. Pielke is obviously a reasonable and competent scientist who is capable of evaluating the weight of evidence and reaching rational, scientifically-based conclusions…….
“The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate. We do not need to agree on the magnitude of its global average radiative forcing to see a need to limit this accumulation.” — Dr. Roger Pielke.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/skeptical-climate-responses-to-my-questions-and-my-reply/#more-11103
peter stone says:
September 21, 2011 at 5:47 am
Spot on. Now, go to some Warmista sites and you will find that Dr. Pielke is reviled. Makes you think, doesn’t it? When climate science becomes scientific, it will look very much like Dr. Pielke’s work.
Well, what the warmunists have figured out (& Pielke Sr obviously hasn’t) is that CO2 warms the land much more than the ocean. That heats the continental (hot) plates, which conduct the heat to the oceans-basin floors, heating the abysmal deep water from below & bypassing the mid-depths.
Yea, that’s it, that’s the ticket.
@rbateman September 20, 2011 at 9:21 pm:
No, in fact, that is not what I was proposing. And not having to do with “AGW,” certainly, since AGW is “anthropogenic global warming.”
I proposed that the heat energy is sequestered in the ocean depths (I am not the first to suggest this), and periodically “overloads” in some way and bursts to the surface as El Niño. Then, when that process is expended, the El Niño expires, and the cycle repeats itself, with the heat energy beginning to be accumulated in the deep ocean again. Since El Niño happens at the Equator, where the energy is most concentrated, I would suggest that this may be a clue as to where the heat energy may be looked for.
That the La Niña seems to be a period when there is a lower than average total heat energy, it would follow that perhaps the energy is being “hidden” (mocking Trenberth’s term) for a while. El Niño = excess heat showing up on the surface, and La Niña = shortage of heat energy at the surface – this all sounds like a heat cycle to me, with the ocean sponging it all up and then releasing it when some trigger point is reached.
A scientist I used to work with would call this an “intuitive” speculation, one that seems logically correct, but one that would need testing. He would then suggest experiments with which to falsify it or not.
I would say it isn’t even that sound, but just a guess. But a reasonable guess, given what I have understood of what I’ve read.
So what part does carbon dioxide play in this deep ocean theory?
The same team that here demonstrate how atmospheric heat is spirited into the very deep ocean with no measured trace of its passing through the surface several hundred meter ocean layer, have also several other ground breaking papers in press finding mechanisms for processes which were previously poorly understood. Here are a couple of examples:
Trenberth et al 2012, A model simulation of nocturnal currency exchange for deciduous incisors in pre-pubertal juveniles.
[Modelling the removal of milk teeth from under pillows at night by the tooth fairy in exchange for a coin.]
Trenberth et al. 2012, A transport model of NH winter distribution of recreational artefacts from the Arctic region to urban residential environments and the forcing influence of juvenile moral conduct on this process.
[Modelling the delivery of Christmas presents by Father Christmas and the elves to good boys and girls.]
Wait, the model “finds” the heat at 1000 FEET? Doesn’t Argos measure down to 2000 meters (aka something over 6,000 FEET)? It is clear this has already been falsified by real world measurement. If the deep Argos dataset had shown an increase, the AGW publications would have trumpeted to the heavens the news. – Unless they really have stopped looking at empirical data and only gaze into their computer models, in which case it really is worse than we thought.