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:
Mike Jonas,
An argument from authority is legitimate, if it is from a reputable authority. Prof Richard Lindzen is a reputable, reliable authority. The IPCC is not. It is a purely political organization, with a veneer of science for the credulous.
Anthony pointed out to Eric Adler above: “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… to wage a disinformation war.” The IPCC is no different. There are no scientific skeptics as lead authors on the IPCC. In fact, the WWF seems to be their primary author!
And we mustn’t forget the statement by the IPCC’s WG-3 Co-Chair, Ottmar Edenhofer:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
phlogiston – “a process involving so much heat that only atmospheric and solar variations over centuries could have an effect on [the oceans]“. You may well be right, but I’m not sure that we know enough to make that assertion. I’m also a little iffy about the warming oceans implying global cooling – yes probably over an ENSO timescale, but on longer timescales it seems improbable. I agree that CO2 is most unlikely to have caused the warming, because the CO2 mechanism is confined to IR, but maybe an active sun could warm the oceans in just decades if Henrik Svensmark’s theories are correct – active sun => less clouds over the ocean => more sunlight penetrating the ocean => warmer ocean. As I understand it, sunlight penetrates to around 100m, which tallies reasonably well with the above graph of “ocean heat content change”, and needs not a lot of heat transfer / mixing to greater depths.
There is a well-known mathematical mechanism for downward re-radiated LW infrared warming at the ocean skin layer (including the evaporation rate). The anthropogenic portion of that skin warming is infinitesimally small. There is also a range of deeper warming possible as this skin-layer extra warming that doesn’t get immediately evaporated away gets mixed into layers below the skin. That warming potential range is less than the error of the SST measurement. Mr. T knows this and Mr. T cannot turn straw into gold.
Bottom line, one that is well-known by climate scientists, though they are loath to admit it:
There is no mechanism for greenhouse gas warming of land surfaces that affects the true drivers of climate, the oceans, with enough calculated energy to anthropogenically drive climate variations outside of natural noise.
The idea that AGW CO2 drivers are the threat of the millennium is a dead dog that will not bark no more.
Jim D – you say “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“.
There are basically only two places that the heat can go – the atmosphere and the ocean. The total extra heat in these two places is now, apparently, known, and is way too small to supply Trenberth’s missing heat. The missing heat therefore does not exist. There are no mystical delays or hiding places from which the missing heat can emerge at some later date.
It is also preposterous to even think that an ocean warming at snail’s pace can somehow at some later date generate a warming of the atmosphere at anything above that overall snail’s pace.
This paper – assuming it is correct – eliminates all possibility that Trenberth’s missing heat actually exists, and eliminates all possibility that AGW can become CAGW at any future date.
Mike Jonas says:
May 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm
phlogiston – “a process involving so much heat that only atmospheric and solar variations over centuries could have an effect on [the oceans]“. You may well be right, but I’m not sure that we know enough to make that assertion. I’m also a little iffy about the warming oceans implying global cooling
I was focusing on the relative shift of heat from top to bottom, I was not really paying any attention to the trend of warming of otherwise.
@jim D says:
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 as long as we are clear that the atmosphere is not affecting the temperature of the ocean! The core claim of CAGW is that back radiation from the atmosphere is heating the seas. As this in obviously not the case, the physics of the idea being wrong, we can give up on the hullabaloo. Yes the surface warmed much faster. So what? Is there something we can ‘do about it’? How about learning to cope – as if we forgot.
phlogiston says:
May 20, 2012 at 4:33 am
Mike Jonas says:
May 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm
phlogiston – “a process involving so much heat that only atmospheric and solar variations over centuries could have an effect on [the oceans]“. You may well be right, but I’m not sure that we know enough to make that assertion. I’m also a little iffy about the warming oceans implying global cooling
The relative trend with depth is the most reliable part of the Argos data since it is self normalised. The heating or cooling trends are less reliable due to coverage and statistical sampling issues – refer to Willis Eschenbachs recent articles on the Argo floats.
phlogiston says:
May 19, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“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.”
What is the meaning of “relative movement of ocean heat downwards”? From the graph it seems that the upper 700M is warming about twice as rapidly as the 700 – 2000M level below.
“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.”
This is clearly not true. The total rate of warming is of the same order of magnitude as the estimated warming due to the atmosphere. The average warming rate is .39W/M^2 based on the measurements. This is less than the estimate rate of heat gain by the earth atmosphere system in recent years. Besides, a joule of heat energy doesn’t come with a birth certificate specifying its age.
“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).”
Modelling the flow of water and heat in the ocean is complex. The gain of heat is localized and depends on horizontal currents which are generated by changes in temperature and salinity due to the addition of fresh water and the melting of ice and river flows. I am skeptical of snap judgements such as this one, from people who have their basic facts wrong.
Eric Adler says;
This is clearly not true. The total rate of warming is of the same order of magnitude as the estimated warming due to the atmosphere. The average warming rate is .39W/M^2 based on the measurements.
Henry says
Eric, before critizing others, why don’t you bring to us some actual results of measurements that you performed yourself proving to us (and yourself) that the CO2 is doing anything at all…
if you do not have any results that you performed yourself,
why should we actually believe anything at all that you say here?
\
(WUWT is a scientific blog where scientists share their results with others to see where we stand with global warming / which, for me, after investigating this matter, turned out to be global cooling, sadly)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990499
Pamela Gray says:
May 19, 2012 at 5:07 pm
“There is a well-known mathematical mechanism for downward re-radiated LW infrared warming at the ocean skin layer (including the evaporation rate). The anthropogenic portion of that skin warming is infinitesimally small. There is also a range of deeper warming possible as this skin-layer extra warming that doesn’t get immediately evaporated away gets mixed into layers below the skin. That warming potential range is less than the error of the SST measurement. Mr. T knows this and Mr. T cannot turn straw into gold.
Bottom line, one that is well-known by climate scientists, though they are loath to admit it:”
Your statement has no foundation. The characterization “infinitesimally small” is meaningless rhetoric. This “mechanism” is what has keeps the earth 33C warmer than it would otherwise be without the presence of long lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and has caused the sea surface temperature to increase during the last 1/2 century.
“There is no mechanism for greenhouse gas warming of land surfaces that affects the true drivers of climate, the oceans, with enough calculated energy to anthropogenically drive climate variations outside of natural noise.
The idea that AGW CO2 drivers are the threat of the millennium is a dead dog that will not bark no more.”
If you plug up your ears you simply will not hear the dog bark until it bites.
I am not a professional scientist, do not take measurements myself to show what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere, and neither are you.
I do know enough physics, and have enough knowledge about climate, to point out where some the arguments posted on your blog are wrong, based on what I know. Some of the mistakes are so basic, it should undermine the credibility of your blog.
If you have any answers to my criticisms of your work , which are scientifically based, please post Them. I am willing to engage in a discussion.
The fact that you are changing the subject, to point out that I have not offered my own measurements is an attempt to avoid discussion of the mistakes I have pointed out.
Two of the points I have made are:
The fact that large amounts of water evaporate each day, and that CO2 is only 395ppM doesn’t prove that CO2 has no influence.
The climate data has so much noise that 44 stations are not a proper sample to prove anything, especially when the data from 39,000 stations says that the global land temperature has warmed beyond the uncertainty in the average.
Henry@Eric
That would be impolite to discuss this here as it is off topic, just about everywhere now on WUWT but
you are welcome to discuss this on my blog.
I close this blog now for me, but I am always here, somewhere…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990673
NickB, May 17,2012 at 6:33 pm says “My understanding is yes, they have modeled photosynthesis.” I would have thought so also; however, I have spent the last 4 days trying to find it in climate models. I have looked at IPCC models, proposed IPCC models, and IPCC instructions to individuals preparing models for the next IPCC report and I cannot find anything that speaks to the energy transfers caused by photosynthesis. If it is present, it is hidden. I am still hunting since the improper handling of this much energy would cause noticeable errors in the climate model predictions.
Eric Adler says:
May 21, 2012 at 5:42 am
phlogiston says:
May 19, 2012 at 3:32 pm
You did not address my point that the relative depth data from the Argos array – showing relative trends in heat and temperature with depth and thus vertical heat shifts – is the most robust and reliable component of the Argos data, because it is self normalised. Combine this with the fact that the Argos, like all main climate datasets, is essentially in the hands of AGW activists, this leads many including myself to take with a pinch of salt supposed warming trends. The undulating floats measure at each point the whole depth profile, statistically locking the analysis of depth trends. By contrast, attempts to infer global warming or cooling trends are compromised by inadequate sampling coverage as demonstrated by several posts by Willis Esenbach. (The vertical sampling of the Argos floats is similar in principle to the ship-towed UOR or undulating oceanographic recorder which formed part of my MSc thesis on board research cruises from Plymouth; being the student on board I got the dead man´s shift of midnight-4AM operating the device which was deployed 24-7).
In short I believe the relative trend, I dont believe the absolute trend. Heat is moving downward in the ocean. But its not clear statistically from Argos if the ocean is warming or cooling.
Phlogiston says:
May 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm
“In short I believe the relative trend, I dont believe the absolute trend. Heat is moving downward in the ocean. But its not clear statistically from Argos if the ocean is warming or cooling.”
Apparently you believe that the scientists who keep the records are dishonest.
So you probably don’t believe that the sea surface temperature anomaly has had an increasing trend either, but here is the data:
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_SST_A_latest.png
This data says that the sea surface temperature has increased. And you accpet that the heat has been moving downward in the ocean. It is pretty clear from this that the global oceans have been warming.
HenryP says:
May 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Henry@Eric
That would be impolite to discuss this here as it is off topic, just about everywhere now on WUWT but
you are welcome to discuss this on my blog.
I close this blog now for me, but I am always here, somewhere…”
Since you linked to your blogpost on this thread, I thought it was legitimate to comment on it.
If you don’t want to discuss it here, that is your choice.
Eric Adler…
…is wrong as usual.
The dog is not barking, but sleeping, the cat is purring, the crops are growing, along with the trees, better then ever. Mr Adler, where is the C, in CAGW?
Several new peer reviewed studies show no increase in hurricanes; http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jun/25jun2010a3.html
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/jan/10jan2012a2.html
And one recent study examining 22 peer reviewed studies on various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events such as wildfires and hailstorms, found that increases in exposure due to growth and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses” and that no trend could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/may/31may2011a1.html
And even more good news;
The oceans are not warming in the last 6 to 7 years
http://www.real-science.com/goto/http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-missing-energy-row-erupts-as-new-research-says-oceans-are-cooling.html
and Sea Levels have been almost flat as well. http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PaintImage1170.jpg
And the global average temp has been flat for over a decade… http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2012.png
David says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:14 pm
“…”
David,
I am not impressed by studies pushed by Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute.
In fact, the paper featured on this web page shows a graph in which the ocean heat content has increased in the past 6 or 7 years.
There has been a pause in sea level rise in the past 2 years because of La Nina, causing more precipitation over land. However, satellite altimetry shows a steady trend in sea level rise.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
Trenberth’s missing heat still missing: new paper shows a near flat ocean temperature trend – 0… wp.me/p7y4l-gA4 via @Anthony Watts
Eric Adler says:
May 21, 2012 at 9:15 pm
David says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:14 pm
“…”
David,
I am not impressed by studies pushed by Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute.
————————————–
Eric, I am not concerned with your impression.
=====================================
In fact, the paper featured on this web page shows a graph in which the ocean heat content has increased in the past 6 or 7 years.
True that Eric, however, the rate of warming, highly questionable, and without error bars throughour the study, which should be increasing the further one goes back, is still considerably below any of the models, and the recent SLR indicates that the minor increase in OHC may is likely not happening.
———————————————————–
There has been a pause in sea level rise in the past 2 years because of La Nina, causing more precipitation over land. However, satellite altimetry shows a steady trend in sea level rise.
==================================
Eric, the pause in SL rise extends back to 2005. The data sets showed this large slow down, and then new fudge factors were introduced, but not evenly applied. Suppose I am making a set of measurements with a “consistent” flaw in my method. If so then a change in the trend, is still a change in the trend, even after correction it would show just the same. The new SL adjsutments, if evenly applied, should of still reflected this. Also, I do not think the new adjustments correct.
Eric Adler says:
May 19, 2012 at 10:30 am
“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: I used the IPCC’s own formula to calculate the alleged change in radiative forcing from CO2+water vapor over the period 1955-2010. The formula only has two inputs: beginning and ending CO2 levels. The IPCC uses the 5.35 fudge factor to inflate the alleged radiative forcing by CO2 plus alleged positive feedback by water vapor.
Eric also says: 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.
The graph from the dicey paper on the realclimate site shows an alleged 4 W/m2 change in radiative forcing from doubled CO2 only results in a 0.1C decrease in ocean skin temperature gradient. A 0.1C decreased gradient can only result at the very very most in a 0.1C increase in temperature of the bulk.