A new paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters describes how the oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over the last 55 years, from 1955-2010. Don’t let the red line fool you, read on.
Key Points
- A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955
- One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
- The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs
That last bullet point makes me cringe a bit, because I seriously doubt the resolution of this study down to hundredths of degrees seeing the sort of measurements mess we’ve seen in the surface network. Nonetheless, even if the resolution is low, there’s little trend.
At the Hockey Schtick they write about Trenberth’s missing heat:
According to the authors, this resulted in a sea level rise of 0.54 mm per year [only 2.12 inches per century] and corresponds to 0.39 Watts per square meter of the ocean surface. However, the IPCC claims the increase in CO2 from 1955-2010 ‘should’ have warmed the oceans by 1.12 Watts per square meter [5.35*ln(389.78/312) = 1.12 W/m2].
Thus, even if one assumes all ocean warming is due to increased greenhouse gases, the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of almost 3 times [1.12/0.39]. [This is why Trenberth can’t find his “missing heat“-it never existed in the first place]. In reality, greenhouse gases cannot warm the oceans at all because they radiate infrared which only penetrates the surface of water a few microns to cause evaporative cooling.
Here’s the paper:
World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10603, 5 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL051106
S. Levitus – National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
J. I. Antonov -UCAR Project Scientist, National Oceanographic Data Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
T. P. Boyer -National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
O. K. Baranova – National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
H. E. Garcia -National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
R. A. Locarnini – National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
A. V. Mishonov -National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
J. R. Reagan – National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
D. Seidov – National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
E. S. Yarosh – National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
M. M. Zweng -National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Abstract:
We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C.
This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.
Additional figures:
TonyB’s comment is definitely of note, Harold, and deserves a thread of its own with more info from TB.
Between cold and warm water, the ocean contains waaaayyyy more cold water. Trust me, we WANT the Sun to keep that top most layer warm (though we NEED the surface to go about its normal cooling-warming noisy cycles). Nontheless, when all that cold water gets trade-wind-whipped into the warm skin, we should get waaaayyyy more worried about the treacherous cold water that brings pain and suffering around the globe.
A long slow warming period with neutral ENSO conditions is beneficial. If those trades decide to switch to a prolonged agitated state of mind, our current bunch of climate scientists will be eating their papers for dinner. They’ll have to because food production will drop like a stone.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The trick is to be wise enough to discern the rhetoric of these “greeners” and go with the advice of my grandme. Enjoy the sunny worry-free days but be wisely prepared for colder weather.
can’t have it both ways…..
The ocean heats up fast…..but retains that heat for a long time….and the heat is deeper
…..not
Maybe he could have it printed on to milk cartons with a time adjusted caption so that people could help him look for it?
This what the heat looked like when it went missing : HEAT
This is what the heat would look like today : heat
tonyb says:
May 17, 2012 at 12:53 am
In the chapter on sea levels and temperatures was a piece saying that research showed this abyssal warming was well established.
Not sure exactly the text you’re looking at but the most common citation concerning Abyssal warming and sea level change is Purkey & Johnson 2010a.
I assume they’d supply you with a copy with this citation, but it’s also available here: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf
Alex Heyworth says:
May 17, 2012 at 12:37 am
Don’t you mean when CO2 on Triton warms sun? LOL!
Santer 08 had a long impressive list of authors too. 🙂
Eleven authors. Don’t we have a rule of thumb about that?
I am wondering if a concerted exposure by WUWT and demands by readership for this research, might head it off at the pass. Whom in particular should be regaled with inquirery prior to it being written in stone (AR5). Some nudging now may be worth a whole lot of pushing later. GK
Hey, I know where the missing heat is coming from. It’s the 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes of which at least 4% being active:
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
“Hillier & Watts (2007) surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes estimating that a total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes exist worldwide. According to the observations of Batiza (1982), we may infer that at least 4% of seamounts are active volcanoes. We can expect a higher percentage in the case of the count taken by Hillier & Watts (2007) because it includes smaller, younger seamounts; a higher proportion of which will be active.”
(well, whatever the number, maybe the active undersea volcanoes do contribute some heat)
You can see how small this is compared to what is supposed to be the accumulating forcing (and the missing energy) in this graphic from Church 2011.
Light blue is the lack of accumulation caused by volcanoes (higher than I would have thought).
Dark Blue and Red is energy accumulation in the Oceans to 2000 metres.
Light green is the tiny sliver going into ice sheets and solid land warming.
Brown is increased OLR, or increased energy escaping from the Earth.
Grey is missing / can’t be accounted for. OLR and missing is the majority.
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1118/2011GL048794/2011gl048794-op03.jpg
A version of this which throws out the Volcanic, OLR, and missing parts is being spread across the Internet which is, of course, very misleading.
As Bob Tisdale noted above, the full text is available in preprint form from The NOAA ocean heat and salt content page, http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ at URL http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf .
Pielke Sr’s April 22 comments on the paper can be found at http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/comment-on-ocean-heat-content-world-ocean-heat-content-and-thermosteric-sea-level-change-0-2000-1955-2010-by-levitus-et-al-2012/
Leif said
‘And especially this must hold also for the long periods of higher than average activity in the 1740s, 1780s, 1830s, 1870s, 1950s, and 1990s
[ http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspots-1700-present.png ], that then would be responsible for the global warming at those times…’
—— ——
I have just seen your comment upon my return from searching the archves of Exeter Cathedral looking for material primarily from the 1340’s’ and 1350’s for an article I am writing..
Amonst the stuff i came across that I noted were these records;
‘ january 1740 £23 to be given to poor in consideration of the severity of the winter season
1783. Extra poor relief due to extreme cold.
Tonyb
“The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs”
Ahh, the Gaian genuflect. Authors should put the crap they need to add to their papers to get thru the publishing filters and to keep their spot in good standing in inclusive academia in a different font.
Sorry, should have read:
-Light green is the tiny sliver going into ice sheets, “atmosphere” and solid land warming
“It would be a simple enough experiment to do expose water to very low power IR of ~3 watts/ square meter in the appropriate wavelengths and measure changes in humidity above the water and the water temperature. But climate ‘science’ prefers statistics and modeled assumptions to real world experiments”
Thanks, Ian W needed a science project for the kid.
PaulS
Thanks very much for that particular reference on abyssal warming but I wanted the one the IPCC used in order to try to determine its likely accuracy.(which was probably PandJ)
In AR5 Chapter 13 it was phrased thus;
‘Recent analyses have demonstrated that it is likely the abyssal (3000m) ocean is warming.’
.In order to receive a copy of the material I had to fill in a form noting;
‘Author, Title, and Journal/Source of the cited non-published paper requested. Without this information we are unable to process a request. “
As there was no reference or citation but merely an assertion, the IPCC could not provide me with the information. Classic Catch 22.
There were a number of unsupported assertions and conjecture in the Chapters I looked at which may or may not find their way into the final AR5.
tonyb
TonyB says….
Tony, I suspect this paper by Purkey & Johnson will be used by the IPCC to claim Trenberth’s missing heat is in the abyssal depths:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf
The Introduction could have been written by Trenberth himself. Basically, the authors looked at temperature profile data (collected via soundings takne along ship track lines) between 1980 and 2010. Analysis of the data supposedly shows an increase in ocean heat content of 0.027 (+- 0.009) W m22 applied over the entire surface of the earth. I am not fully qualified to assess the methods used in this paper, but IMHO, it appears to be long on assumptions and interpolation and short on good empirical data.
From the paper:
“High-quality temperature observations of the global deep ocean originate mostly from ship-based conductivity–temperature–depth (CTD) instruments. The international World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) Hydrographic Programme accomplished a full-depth highresolution, high-accuracy, hydrographic survey of the global ocean in the 1990s, with coast-to-coast zonal and meridional sections crossing all major ocean basins. A
key subset of these sections is being reoccupied in support of the Climate Variability and Predictibility (CLIVAR) and Carbon Cycle Science Programs, now coordinated by the international Global Ocean ShipbasedHydrographic Investigations Program(GO-SHIP).
All occupations of the repeat sections that had publicly available CTD data posted online (at http://cchdo.ucsd.edu) as of July 2010 are considered here. Thus, the dataset used for this study is an aggregate of 28 fulldepth, high-quality hydrographic sections that have been occupied two or more times between 1981 and FIG. 1. (a) Tracklines of the 28 repeated sections studied (black lines) with WOCE designators noted adjacent. Basin boundaries are
outlined (gray lines) over the depth-averaged fraction of AABW below 4000 m (color bar) after Johnson (2008). The Subantarctic Front (SAF; Orsi et al. 1995) position (magenta line) and the 4000-m isobath (thin black lines) are also shown. (b) As in (a) but a polar projection with tracklines of the nine repeated sections that extend south of the SAF plotted over the depth averaged fraction ofAABWfrom 1000 to 4000 m with the 1000-m isobath and without basin boundaries. 6338 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 23 2010 (Figs. 1, 2). Throughout this study sections are referred to by their WOCE identification. The first occupation of most sections was in the 1990s during WOCE with subsequent occupations, mostly during the 2000s, in support of the CLIVAR and Carbon Cycle Science Programs (Fig. 2). The nine sections with occupations prior to 1990 were sampled during the rampup toWOCEwith the earliest occupation considered here being the 1981 occupation of A05. The most recent occupation included in this study is also of A05, completed in February 2010.”
The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs
the oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over the last 55 years, from 1955-2010
=========================
……I give up
Could you add a line or two to explain why the temperature and energy increase of the oceans “has” to be caused by atmospheric GHGs in the authors’ opinions, and what you find incorrect with this conclusion?
The value of all studies come down to their conclusions, not their data.
Great blobs of relatively warm abyssal waters capped indefinitely below frigid oceanic upper layers, are physically impossible. This is kindergarten stuff.
Jimmy Haigh says:
Bill Tuttle says:
May 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm
“The heat’s still missing? Has he tried passing our “Have You Seen This Heat?” flyers at the mall?”
that would make a good billboard for HI.
For some reason, I just flashed back to the old Wendy’s commercials: “Where’s the heat?”
To all those who read Tonyb’s statement and lost heart, don’t. With the increased skepticism aimed at these ‘scientists’ at this point in time, if they DO issue a report with such a disception in it, you can bet your rear end there WILL be at least a small storm on the internet about it that may even leak into mainstream media outlets. Or, in short, they will have managed to kick themselves in their own asses again, and further damaged their ’cause’ and credibility. You need not worry about liars lying after they are known as liars, because from then on all they can do is reinforce their existing reputation as liars.
tonyb says:
May 17, 2012 at 7:27 am
january 1740 £23 to be given to poor in consideration of the severity of the winter season
1783. Extra poor relief due to extreme cold.
Yeah, global warming ain’t what it used to be…
@ur momisugly Pamela Gray says:
May 17, 2012 at 6:15 am
I’ll second your comment Pamela.
Those trade winds not only mix cold water with warm, they also cool the surface rapidly (rather like blowing on the surface of a cup of coffee)
You’re hoping for neutral ENSO conditions. Most models are predicting a mild to moderate El Nino within the next few months. I’m afraid we’ll be seeing a return to a mild to moderate La Nina. We’ll know for sure by the middle of July.