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:
Jim D says:
The graph shows that the warming clearly has not stopped in the last decade. I hope this data puts that nonsense to rest finally.
Henry says
I note that the blue line data coverage at 2000 meter shows a drop from 1994.
My own analysis also shows a marked drop in maximum temperatures from 1994.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
That cooling trend has not yet ended – earth is just a massive energy store and is able to hide energy, in the oceans, in the (increased) vegetations, in the hydrological cycles, in the weather etc..
However, eventually that store is not going to ” keepie” us warm anymore, and cooling will hit us, and I think we all could be in for a bit of a shock.
I predict before the year is over we will start hearing about “global cooling”.
Today the BBC reported the first Japanese commercial satellite launch:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18113000
One satellite launched was the Japanese Shinzuku satellite for monitoring ocean currents. So this might hopefully add to our future knowledge of ocean circulation and its role on climate.
If the rate of SL rise over the last century is not increasing, but more recent SL rise is due to thermal expansion, then the rate of SL rise from melting ice must be slowing.
If the oceans are heating, and the atmosphere is heating, how come the rate of sea level rise is not increasing?
Or is the missing heat skipping, not just the first 700 meters of ocean, but all the ice also?
Questions questions, any answers welcome.
@Leigh B. Kelley>>I looked at the cited document
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf
>You also note that the [I assume industrial era] “forcing” from CO2 is 1.6 W/m^2. But you also claim that the former is 5% of the latter. This is where I got lost. 5% of 1.6 W/m^2 is 0.08 W/m^2. Am I missing something, maybe a difference between heating rate and forcing?
Sorry for lack of clarity. There is a lot to consider in the paper. If you take the heating at 4000 and 3000 meters together, it is 0.08 w/m^2 total. Other numbers can be calculated to show the heat gain is small. No doubt someone can show it is related to cloud cover – the main temperature regulator.
The main thing to take home from this paper is that there is a slight warming in the deep oceans below 4000 metres. Therefore one can correctly say, ‘heat is accumulating in the oceans’. But it would be quite incorrect to say that this paper supports the notion that ‘Trenberth’s missing heat’ is to be found there. It is a tiny amount and keep in mind the caveat that there are 8 ocean basins not measured so the error bar may be larger than the measured effect. They could be important given that the heat content could easily be a little up or a little down giving a large % change in the final number. I thought the discussion of those basins was reasonable, however.
Further, the idea that there is anything even approaching an ‘anthropogenic signal’ is completely misplaced. Utter rubbish! That portion of the upper ocean that is able to warm from high UV and circulation has warmed slightly, but not in line with the effect claimed for the increase in CO2.
The CO2 argument might hold insofar as not being easily refuted, if the forcing was reduced by a factor of 4 or 5. There are so many cases of this being the most realistic value for the forcing, perhaps it is time for mainstream practitioners to make the assumption that while the forcing from CO2 is something like 0.8 degrees for a doubling from present levels, and also assume that there will be no water vapour feedbacks. This position should be maintained until someone can prove that the atmosphere does not vent additional heat, instead of the present assumption that the water vapour feedback is real and no “Bejan auto-stabilisation” is happening. I refer of course to Prof Bejan’s observation that the atmosphere is a self-regulating heat engine optimised at the edge of, but not crossing into chaotic turbulence (which would be less efficient at moving heat). All this is without getting to the obvious: clouds.
David A says
Or is the missing heat skipping, not just the first 700 meters of ocean, but all the ice also?
Questions questions, any answers welcome.
Henry says
My statistical analysis (44 weather stations) shows that maximum temperatures were increasing quite dramatically before 1994.
After 1994 it went down quite significantly.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I am thinking,yes, this is due to less UV (if it is suncyle related)
so eventually less energy goes directly into the oceans,
from 1994 progressively less, and I think it will continue to decline until past 2020
Yes Henry, but I m looking for a CAGW proponent (clearly not you) to explain my questions. The paper, (which I note has no error bars) shows an OHC graph from 1955 to 2010. The trend from 1955 to 1992 is (eyeballed) less then the trend from 1992 to 2010. been linear at best, with a marked slow down since The rate of SL rise has been linear, at best, and basically flar since 2005.
SL rise has two fundemntal and simple causes. An increase in atmospheric heat causing land ice melt, and an increase in ocean heat causing isothemic expansion. If the rate of SL rise has not changed in the past 100 plus years, then saying that theis is no anthropogenic C02 signal. BIg period, full stop, arm wave all they want in a study on OHC claiming a very minor increase in 65 years.
Jim D – when you say “The graph shows that the warming clearly has not stopped in the last decade. I hope this data puts that nonsense to rest finally.“, you seem to be taking an extraordinarily narrow and biased view. The graph shows warming of less than a tenth of a degree over 55 years. One can argue about whether it is a real warming, or whether it is ‘noise’ or whether zero increase is within the error bounds, etc, etc. But the real nonsense is that this is in any way a dangerous warming. Our various governments are spending (or are preparing to spend) vast amounts of money to try to restrict global warming to 2 deg C over the next century. This paper indicates that it will take about 1,000 years for the temperature to increase by 2 deg, even if our governments do nothing at all. In probably much less than half that time, we will have reached ‘peak fossil fuel’, so our fossil fuel CO2 can never ever in our wildest dreams increase Earth’s temperature by as much as 2 deg.
It’s time to stop panicking and get real.
Government work like this is sickening.
Mike Jonas, while I agree that they won’t succeed in keeping the warming below 3 degrees, your point of a tenth of a degree in 55 years is very selective because you are averaging over the deep ocean, when the surface warmed ten times as fast, and that is the part that affects the atmosphere.
Jim D says:
May 18, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Just so I have this straight, the ocean surface is warmed by the atmosphere, which in turn is warmed by the ocean surface ha? When does this to and fro stop?
Baa Humbug says:
When does this to and fro stop?
Henry says
Just about now, I am afraid.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/10/a-blast-from-the-past-james-hansen-on-the-global-warming-debate-from-13-years-ago/#comment-989111
To Baa Humbug, just so you understand, the CO2 increases the downward longwave flux at the surface which warms the surface, and that warms the atmosphere. It doesn’t warm the atmosphere first.
Henry@David A
Same answer as to Baa Humbug.
Are you beginning to get worried?
The Hockey Schtick wrote:
“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. ”
This statement is clearly false. What happens is that down-welling radiation heats the microns thick skin layer of the ocean, which is where the heat loss to the atmosphere above occurs through upward radiaiton, convection and evaporation from the ocean surface. A warming of the skin layer suppresses the transport of heat from the lower levels of the ocean, which have absorbed sunlight, and are warmer than the skin layer. This causes the ocean to retain more of the heat it gets from the sun.
It has been shown experimentally that warming of the skin layer layer by IR radiation changes the ocean’s temperature gradient as expected from the basic physics.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
I don’t see how one can trust a source that makes such a blatantly erroneous statement about the basic physics of climate change mechanisms.
REPLY:… and I don’t see how one can trust a source that deletes any comment that challenges them while being paid by the public and financed by Fenton Communications to wage a disinformation war. If you can’t do ant better than RealClimate for your sources, then I’d say your argument isn’t very deep, much like the skin effect. Given hiow much time and effort you expend here I still think you are a paid shill, despite your protestations to the contrary. – Anthony
Baa Humbug
It never stops, it diverges. 1+0.5+0.25+0.125+…
Jim D says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/trenberths-missing-heat-still-missing-new-paper-shows-a-flat-ocean-temperature-trend-0-09c-over-the-past-55-years/#comment-989156
Henry says
I hope you get this…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/10/a-blast-from-the-past-james-hansen-on-the-global-warming-debate-from-13-years-ago/#comment-989099
after you read this
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
I mentioned above that The Schtick’s assertion that all the CO2 warming effect has to go into the deep ocean is wrong. In fact what goes into the deep ocean delays the warming that would have occurred if it stayed at the surface. I think there is some confusion here on the role of the deep ocean warming. Increasing ocean heat content is a delaying process (putting it in the pipeline, you could say).
“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 another inaccurate statement from the Hockey Schtick site.
The 1.42 W/M2 is the total radiative forcing, from all sources, estimated as of 2005. What you need to do, to calculate whether there is a discrepancy,is to integrate the rate of forcing by year, from 1955 to the present, and average it over the time period. The discrepancy will be a lot less.
Eric Adler,
That quote [“…even if one assumes that all ocean warming is due to greeenhouses gases…”] is taken from directly from Prof Richard Lindzen’s comment on the subject.
You know less than nothing: what you presume to ‘know’ is wrong. Who should we believe, an uneducated eco-lemming, or the head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department?
Run along now to RealClimate for some new talking points. The ones you’re using are old and busted.
Baa Humbug says:
May 19, 2012 at 7:47 am
“Jim D says:
May 18, 2012 at 9:16 pm
” Mike Jonas, while I agree that they won’t succeed in keeping the warming below 3 degrees, your point of a tenth of a degree in 55 years is very selective because you are averaging over the deep ocean, when the surface warmed ten times as fast, and that is the part that affects the atmosphere.”
Just so I have this straight, the ocean surface is warmed by the atmosphere, which in turn is warmed by the ocean surface ha? When does this to and fro stop?”
Humbug,
The warming occurs because more heat from the sun is arriving at the surface of the earth than leaving. Since most of the earth’s surface is covered by ocean, the excess heat is building up in the ocean and warming the surface temperature. The top skin layer of the ocean is cooler than the bulk, so that the heat that is absorbed from the sun in the bulk of the ocean below the surface can escape into the atmosphere by convection upwards toward the skin layer and be emitted from the skin into the atmosphere. However the radiation from the GHG’s and clouds over the ocean, increase the skin temperature and block some of the upward flow of heat from below that is escaping from the surface.
The to and fro is continuous. The energy flow from the ocean surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, and much of it is radiated back down to the ocean by the GHG’s and clouds. The only way it will stop is if all of the GHG’s are removed from the atmosphere. John Tyndall discovered this process in 1859. You need to read up on this process and understand it better.
Fig suppl. 5 is interesting in showing relative heat content gain down to 2000 m compared to down to 700m. This suggests relative movement of ocean heat downwards.
Consider for a moment what this means. The ocean contains 2-3 orders of mag more heat than the atmosphere. It has circulation dynamics with a timescale of centuries and even millenia. So if some mechanism is causing downward heat transfer in the last decade, it cannot be a small atmospheric warming of a few decades, since the amount of heat involved is far too little to register at all in the ocean. So the downward heat movement is of heat that was already in the ocean. A few decades of slight warming do not give enough heat to be significant in global scale ocean heat budgets.
There is no reason to claim that this downward heat movement is in any way connected to CO2 in the atmosphere, even hypothetically in the case that this had caused the warming (not).
So this massive downward movement of heat is something else, something from the oceans century scale spatiotemporal oscillation in circulation pattern, a process involving so much heat that only atmospheric and solar variations over centuries could have an effect on them, such as entraining oscillations on a timescale of millenia. Neither CO2 nor anything else in the atmosphere over a mere half century can really influence this.
Downward movement of heat in the ocean can only mean cooling climate. This is the driver of climate, the atmosphere is not the tail on the dog, it is one of its hairs.
Jim D – let’s just go back to the start of all this for a moment, back to basic principles as it were:
Trenberth said “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.“. His problem was that none of his warming predictions were happening in practice.
Well, now there is a claim that his “missing heat” has been found in the deep ocean. This actually gives his hypotheses an even greater problem: The paper says that the ocean warming corresponded to 0.27W m-2, and that it “accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.“. Since the oceans are 71% of Earth’s surface area, the overall warming is therefore about 0.27*0.71/0.93 = 0.21W m-2 over the whole surface. The IPCC report AR4 (figure TS.5) puts “total net anthropogenic” warming at 1.6W m-2. It would of course have been a bit less than that in 1955, but however you cut the figures, the great majority of the predicted heat is still missing.
And now there is nowhere else to look for it.
BTW, you misquote me when you “agree that they won’t succeed in keeping the warming below 3 degrees“. I said “our fossil fuel CO2 can never ever in our wildest dreams increase Earth’s temperature by as much as 2 deg” which is, um, slightly different.
Eric Adler says:
“The warming occurs because more heat from the sun is arriving at the surface of the earth than leaving. Since most of the earth’s surface is covered by ocean, the excess heat is building up in the ocean and warming the surface temperature.”
Show us that ocean heat content. Trenberth couldn’t find it because it isn’t there. So your whole conjecture is nonsense.
Smokey – re your comment of May 19, 2012 at 10:42 am: argument from authority carries no weight on WUWT.
Mike Jonas, you are doing the same thing as the Schtick in assuming that all the forcing change of 1.6 W/m2 has to go into the warming. The balance is between the forcing change and the surface temperature change, and any heat that doesn’t go into the surface temperature change causes a delay in the response of the surface temperature to the increasing forcing. The deep-ocean heat content change is causing that delay, so it should be especially visible in years that the surface temperature doesn’t change so fast, as is the case recently.