Roger Pielke Sr. was quoted in David Appell’s recent article Whither global warming? Has global warming slowed down? over at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media. That portion of the article reads:
About 90 percent of this extra energy goes into the oceans. But meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado in Boulder says he would like to understand why more heat is going into the deep ocean. “Until we understand how this fundamental shift in the climate system occurred,” says Pielke, “and if this change in vertical heat transfer really happened, and is not just due to the different areal coverage and data quality in the earlier years, we have a large gap in our understanding of the climate system.”
These large changes in ocean content reveal that the Earth’s surface is not a great place to look for a planetary energy imbalance. “This means this heat is not being sampled by the global average surface temperature trend,” he says. “Since that metric is being used as the icon to report to policymakers on climate change, it illustrates a defect in using the two-dimensional field of surface temperature to diagnose global warming.”
David Appell’s entire article about the recent pause in global warming is worth a read. It was also the topic of Judith Curry’s post more on the ‘pause’. There, in a comment yesterday, Roger Pielke Sr. provided his complete answer to David Appell’s interview question. Roger was also kind enough to email me his full reply with the italics, underlined and boldface text intact. It’s as follows:
#########
Hi David
Here is my reply to your question
What do you think of Trenberth’s recent paper on ocean warming (attached)?
Balmaseda et al, Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of
global ocean heat content, GRL
They obtain an ocean warming, for 2000-2009, of 1.19 W/m2.
Does that change any of your concerns about models overestimating net
radiative forcing, such as you wrote in Physics Today in 2007 (also
attached)?
My Answer
1. The recognition that ocean heat content changes can be used to diagnose the global radiative imbalance in Watts per meter squared, that I discussed in my paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf
is applied in the Balmaseda et al 2013 paper. This, as I reported in my Physics Today article, is the much more robust approach to assess global warming and cooling, than using the global annual average surface temperature trend.
The Balmaseda et al paper is a step forward in understanding the changes of heat content.
2. However, there are substantive, unanswered questions that their paper introduces.
(i) First, they report that
“In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m.”
This change in heat content is a marked difference from what they report for the earlier years as illustrated in their Figure 1. They can only speculate on how this could have occurred; i.e. they write [boldfaced highlight added]
“….that changes in the atmospheric circulation are instrumental for the penetration of the warming into the ocean, although the mechanisms at work are still to be established. One possibility suggested by Lee and McPhaden [2008], is related to the modified subduction pathways in response to changes in the subtropical gyres resulting from changes of the trade winds in the tropics (Figure S04), but whether as low frequency variability or a longer term trend remains an open question. The 2000–2006 warming trend is likely associated with the weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) in both experiments (see BMW13).”
Until we understand how this fundamental shift in the climate system occurred (and if this change in vertical heat transfer really happened, and is not just due to the different areal coverage and data quality in the earlier years), however, we have a large gap in our understanding of the climate system.
(ii) Moreover, how could this heat be transferred to depths below 700m without being been seen in the upper 700m of the ocean? [and this is a question also on the transfer of heat to between 300m and 700m without being seen in the upper 300m].
This absence of observable heat transfer through the upper 300m of the ocean is an issue that must be resolved.
3. There are also major implications for their findings even if they are robust.
(i) First, they report on a rate of heating that reads
the latest decade being significantly higher (1.19 ± 0.11 W m-2).
While, this is larger than found in the past, it is still less than the best estimate of the global average radiative forcing reported in the IPCC 2007 report (1.6 ± 0.6 to 2.4 W m-2 total net anthropogenic plus 0.12 ± 0.06 to 0.30 W m-2 from solar irradiance changes).
Since their reported diagnosed radiative imbalance for the last decade is 1.19 ± 0.11 W m-2 – which includes both the radiative forcings and all of the feedbacks (including from water vapor), this indicates that either the IPCC best estimate of the total radiative forcings by the IPCC is in error, and/or the radiative feedbacks in the climate system are a net negative.
(ii) Another very significant conclusion of their study, if it is correct, is that when they report that
about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m.
[and from their Figure 1, the percentage below 300m since 2003 is clearly well above 50%!]
this means that this heat is not being sampled by the global average surface temperature trend.
Since that metric is being used as the icon to report to policymakers on climate change (i.e. paraphrasing from other sources “we need to remain below a +2C change”), it illustrates a defect in using the two dimensional field of surface temperature to diagnose global warming.
I discuss this in my post
Torpedoing Of The Use Of The Global Average Surface Temperature Trend As The Diagnostic For Global Warming. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/torpedoing-of-the-use-of-the-global-average-surface-temperature-trend-as-the-diagnostic-for-global-warming/
(iii) Moreover, they write,
“La Niña events and negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers.”
If this is a real effect, than this is a muting of the radiative effect as this deep layer warming is unlikely to be reemitted back into the atmosphere in short time periods in large amounts (of Joules) as it would diffuse horizontally and vertically, at depth, in the ocean.
(iv) Also, the latest real world measurement of upper ocean heat content; [see the attachment in my e-mail from http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/] continues to show, little if any significant recent warming.
(v) Finally, with respect to the change in slope, this occurred when the ARGO network achieved world-wide coverage. This raises the suspicion that it is the date quality and coverage that remains more of an issue before 2003 than concluded in Balmaseda et al paper when they excluded the ARGO data.
Please let me know if you have any follow up questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
#########
CLOSING
When Roger wrote [my boldface]…
Until we understand how this fundamental shift in the climate system occurred (and if this change in vertical heat transfer really happened, and is not just due to the different areal coverage and data quality in the earlier years), however, we have a large gap in our understanding of the climate system.
…the following graphs from the post NODC’s Pentadal Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000m) Creates Warming That Doesn’t Exist in the Annual Data – A Lot of Warming came to mind.
Kind of odd that the NODC’s annual ocean heat content data for 0-2000 meters, Figure 1, should warm hand in hand with the data for 0-700 meters from 1970 to 2003.
Figure 1
But then as soon as the ARGO floats are deployed and have close to full coverage of the global oceans, the datasets diverge, Figure 2.
Figure 2
Does anyone want to speculate about why the NODC removed their long-term annual ocean heat content for the depths of 0-2000 meters from their website?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If this is a real effect, than this is a muting of the radiative effect as this deep layer warming is unlikely to be reemitted back into the atmosphere in short time periods in large amounts (of Joules) as it would diffuse horizontally and vertically, at depth, in the ocean.
If there is a muting of the radiative effect then Trenberth’s fundamental assumptions about radiation have been wrong from the get-go. In layman’s terms, calculations of Earth’s radiation balance can no longer be based on the radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere or the surface of the earth but must include calculations for radiation effects, heat, that is sequestered for some time in some earthly physical process in the deep oceans.
Inevitably, Trenberth will find himself where Bob Tisdale has been for years, describing the physical processes such as those that make up ENSO. Then Trenberth can begin some real science.
lgl – The global average radiative imbalance equals the radiative forcing plus the radiative imbalance. Heat is in units of Joules and is a physical quantity that can be measured. The period since the full Argo deployement (2003) is the more robust time period for analysis.
The earth’s crust is much thinner under the oceans than it is under the land. If there is warming in the deep oceans without any evidence of heat moving downwards, this strongly suggests that the source of the heat is underneath the oceans.
A lot of climate science is based on the notion that very little energy is being transferred from the earth’s core to the oceans. However, if you increase the estimate of the energy from the earth’s core, then all the careful calculations get thrown out the window and you end up with a huge imbalance. Meaning that something is very wrong in the careful calculations.
The notion that the oceans stop at the ocean floor like gigantic swimming pools is dead wrong. Surface water such as lakes and oceans is a result of the water table. When the water table is higher than the land, we find surface water. When the water table is lower, there is no surface water. The water sinks into the ground.
The oceans exist because of the heat of the earth’s core. As the water sinks into the ground it eventually sinks far enough that the heat from the core turns it into steam at extremely high pressure. This pressure of steam prevents the water from sinking further. This is why we have oceans on planet earth.
Nowhere in the careful calculations is this properly dealt with. The oceans are far from understood as is the mechanism that holds them in place. Without the heat from the core there would be no oceans on planet earth. They would have long ago disappeared as they sunk towards the core.
lgl– I miss typed in the my first reply.
1. The global average radiative imbalance equals the radiative forcing plus the radiative feedback.
2. Heat is in units of Joules and is a physical quantity that can be measured.
3. The period since the full Argo deployement (2003) is the more robust time period for analysis.
“Coulda woulda shoulda” is a liberal’s dream of a law’s unpinnings. There is only one way to get out of this folks. Change the political leanings of our lawmakers world wide. And then be forever vigilent of the next crop of snake oil sales. Humanity will always be intrigued by that kind of cure-all against the natural ills of our world.
Apparently, the missing heat has disappeared into the sea without leaving any measurable trace and this same missing heat will someday reveal itself in the same manner.
This is the Harry Potter school of science – with heat vanishing and then re-appearing out of the sea instead of a rabbit out of a hat.
The heating of the oceans is a classic example of confirmation bias and the experimenter expectation effect. Surface warming has stopped, so we are left with two possibilities:
1. Either CO2 theory is wrong
2. Heat is going somewhere that is “hidden”.
Since climate science cannot admit 1, this means that 2 must be the correct answer. No matter that it contradicts observations and known physics. Option 2 must be right. Because otherwise a whole of scientists have been wrong, which they are not about to admit because they understand the consequences. The mob would rise up seeking blood.
Glacierman says:
The only mystery bigger than how the missing heat sunk into the deep ocean without being detected, is why Peilke Sr. would even acknowledge and comment to David Appell. He has no credibility as far as I am concerned.
—
This is the concept of scientific discourse. You consider and address arguments, not people and their “credibility”.
Perhaps a weak start to David’s article. I don’t think this is true:
I wonder if Trenberth’s models take into account the function of water density as a result of temperature? Water is one of the few (possibly the only) naturally occurring substances which has a density which is not linear as a function of temperature, rather it is bell shaped. http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5028711871807842&pid=15.1
Which is why ice floats rather than sinks.
I also wonder if his models take into account how the extreme pressure affect the density and flow of energy.
Since I’m sure his model and data is locked up tighter than Ft. Knox, I don’t suppose we’ll ever know…
Theo Goodwin says: “Inevitably, Trenberth will find himself where Bob Tisdale has been for years, describing the physical processes such as those that make up ENSO. Then Trenberth can begin some real science.”
Trenberth has written numerous papers on ENSO, which I include as references in many of my posts. He understands the processes well. But he’s trying to force the warming of the oceans with carbon dioxide–or–he’s not being 100% forthcoming about it for any number of reasons.
MPalmer says:
“This is the concept of scientific discourse. You consider and address arguments, not people and their “credibility”.”
I think the tactics and motives of the people involved are important. Just like the entire article about the Cook Survey, but thanks for the lecture.
The ocean temps may be a better metric for assessing the global heat budget, but it’s utility as a metric in making policy is dubious. Policy-makers want to know what will happen where we live, grow crops and source potable water, not the temp change at 700 meters deep.
If global warming is now said to be primarily taking place deep in the oceans it makes the AGW hypothesis that man made CO2 traps infrared in the atmosphere, heating the surface, unlikely to be the driving mechanism since CO2 keeps going up and temperature seems to have stalled.
In addition to Pielke’s careful comments, there are other problems. The heat was found in ORAS4, the latest revision of the ECMWF ocean model which assimilated ARGO. The previous version ran hot to 700 meters and cold below. To match Argo also required an exogenous temperature calibration input to ORAS4. The revisions were detailed in Balmaseda 2012. So what was found that cannot be explained was found in a revised model, is only 2/3 of what Trenberth expected, and is still more heat than what NODC calculates from the same ARGO data.
You can see the 0-700 and 0-2000 meters long-term record in the same graph here
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
(cick graph 3)
Shows the same thing as Bob Tisdale’s graphs, so it doesn’t look as if they’re trying to hide the seeming discrepancy.
Perhaps the annual data is not well-resolved. The pentadal data is there from 1955 to 2000 meters.
This has come up before. Has anyone written to NODC and asked why there is no annual data before 2005?
This whole missing heat fantasy is bullshit that started with an idiotic paper by Trenberth and Fusillo (Science 16 April 2010). For the first time, Argo floats were available. “…Since 2004, approximately 3000 Argo floats have provided regular temperature soundings of the upper 2000 m of the ocean, giving new confidence in the ocean heat content assessment — …” they say. Then they display global net energy graphically and sure enough – their confidence is rewarded by disappearing energy. It starts missing in 2004 and by 2009 eighty percent of it is gone. That is claimed to be missing globally. Their buddy reviewer apparently thought it was one more great discovery by leading lights of the global warming movement and let it go through. But if you know anything about scientific experiments a red light should have come up somewhere. Here new equipment comes on line and immediately energy does a disappearing act. If I had been the reviewer I would have sent them back checking those floats and learning how they operate before rushing into print with half-baked ideas.
As a famous Alces Americanus once said , watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat !
Bob Tisdale says: May 9, 2013 at 7:42 am
Trenberth has written numerous papers on ENSO, which I include as references in many of my posts. He understands the processes well. But he’s trying to force the warming of the oceans with carbon dioxide–or–he’s not being 100% forthcoming about it for any number of reasons.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It escapes me how a scientist with Trenberth’s background could attribute warmer SST to increased atm. CO2. But, then, this is the guy who is tucking the “global warming” into Davy Jones’ locker.
In Re; ferdberple, May 9, 2013 at 6:37 am;
” . . . They would have long ago disappeared as they sunk towards the core.”
Ferd, I don’t want to be insulting here, because you usually make some good points, and even this post has some merit. But this last bit seems so questionable that I have to ask for clarification.
You are right that there is a lot about the oceans we don’t yet know, and this very factor could have a larger impact on our climate than CO2. But it seems to me that the reason the oceans do not sink to the Earth’s core is that water is less dense than iron and the other elements and compounds that comprise it. It is a simple matter of water ‘floating’ above a denser material. That may not be entirely correct, as there is no doubt steam involved in the equilibrium somewhere, but I believe density is currently accepted as the dominant mechanism by which the oceans are suspended above the earth’s crust.
Let me know if you don’t agree. More importantly; if there are articles or books that you think could point me in a different direction, please direct me to them. I’d like to try to understand this better if I can.
“This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.”
I seem to remember someone of alarmist note (Hansen or Trenberth maybe?) stating some years ago, that if the CO2 radiative imbalance resulted in heat being transferred to the deep oceans, then the Catastrophic portion of CACC goes away. Anyone remember something like this? I have been unable to locate it.
If the extra energy from more GHGs gets into the deep oceans then we have thousands of years to find sustainable alternative energy sources before any measurable effect on the atmosphere could be measured.
If it doesn’t get into the deep oceans then it is disposed of by increased evaporation, convection and a faster or larger hydrological cycle and accelerated to space thereby offsetting the effect of more GHGs.
Either way, Catastrophic AGW theory is dead as the Dodo.
Typo in Pielke’s penultimate paragraph–date should be data:
“it is the date quality and coverage”
Even the bottom of the ocean is under enough pressure to keep water from boiling at high temperature. Deep sea vents only occasionally bubble. Surface hot spots like Yellowstone still don’t put out enough ground heat to melt the snow, except next to geysers and hot pools. And even active Antarctic volcanoes remain mostly covered with ice.
Water at the bottom of lakes that never freeze over maintains the minimum winter surface temperature. Ground heat has no more effect at the bottom of the lake than it has at the dry surface. This is also true of the ocean: ground heat is negligible as it is at the surface. Cave temperatures approximate average surface temperature. Permafrost and rock are pretty good insulators.
Judging by T/CO2 delay in ice cores and by C14 dates of cold upwelling water around Antarctica, sea current turnover averages somewhere around a thousand years, and this turnover is driven not by bottom heating but by supersaline water sinking. Sea bottom temperature is the average of sinking supersaline water, most of which is brine left by polar ice formation, but some of which flows from the dry tropics like the Red Sea.
Being as this current turnover takes centuries, what we are usually observing at present is the result of climate of centuries gone by. Just as we we presently observe the effects of the LIA in current temperate glacier behavior, so we may observe the effects of the MWP in apparent sea temperature evolution. –AGF
@Glacierman –
I agree. Whenever someone resorts to lying, name-calling and bully tactics in general, you can pretty nearly always figure they are doing that because their claims and statements have no basis in fact. If you can’t win an argument by reason and facts, you try to win it by deception and force.
Recognizing and asserting that someone is grossly in error, lying or bullying to get his/her point across is not ad hominem, if there are facts to demonstrate the error or lying or bullying. But simple denial with pejoratives is ad hominem – Gleick a perfect example.