'Missing heat' in the Atlantic – It doesn't work like that

Guest essay by David Archibald

President Obama didn’t start the war on coal. That war had its origins back in the 1970s. The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982 with the establishment of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The CDIAC collects data on carbon dioxide concentrations around the planet and conducts experiments with pre-ordained outcomes. By that I mean growing plants in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations to study the effects of that on growth rates but at the same time adding ozone so that the growth would be stunted. Not everything the CDIAC is completely useless though.

The pause in global temperature rise might cause a loss of faith in the global warming faithfully so the priests of the movement are required to provide an explanation. The explanation they have come up with is that the missing heat is hiding in the depth of the Altantic Ocean and will one day leap out at us when we are least expecting it. This is an illustration of the heat gone AWOL:

 

clip_image002

The illustration shows heat plunging into the depths as far as 1,500 metres. The oceans don’t work like that. Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimetres of the ocean’s surface. Waves mix the water near the surface layer such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the top 100 metres. Below that there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water.

This is where the CDIAC comes in handy. Following is a map of CDIAC voyages in the Atlantic Ocean:

clip_image004

And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:

 

clip_image006

It shows how the Antarctic is a giant refrigerator for the planet. The dark blue in the bottom left is cold water below 1°C plunges near Antarctica and ponds in the deep ocean right up to the equator. The CDIAC voyages also record carbon dioxide data of course. This is the carbon dioxide and total alkalinity profile for A20, to the west of the A16 voyage:

clip_image008

Once again, most variation is near surface while the bulk of the ocean is effectively homogenous.

We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data. The CDIAC is well past its use-by date though. Apart from the unnecessary cost, it was conceived for a dark purpose under President Carter. The United States will need all the energy it can get soon enough.


 

David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).

Reference:

Science 22 August 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6199 pp. 860-861 DOI: 10.1126/science.345.6199.860

Is Atlantic holding Earth’s missing heat?

Eli Kintisch

Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth’s missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? The suspects include changes in atmospheric water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, or the noxious sunshade of haze emanating from factories. Others believe the culprit is the mighty Pacific Ocean, which has been sending vast slugs of cold bottom water to the surface. But two fresh investigations finger a new suspect: the Atlantic Ocean. One study, in this issue of Science, presents sea temperature data implying that most of the missing heat has been stored deep in the Atlantic. The other, published online in Nature Climate Change, suggests a warming Atlantic is abetting the Pacific by driving wind patterns that help that ocean cool the atmosphere. But some climate specialists remain skeptical. In a third recent paper, also published online in Nature Climate Change, other researchers argue that the Pacific remains the kingpin. One reason some scientists remain convinced the Pacific is behind the hiatus is a measured speedup in trade winds that drive a massive upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest. A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
rogerknights

It’s time to go beyond ARGO and have anchored, densely spaced monitoring instruments (including for acidification) in all the world’s oceans. If nothing else, they will greatly aid weather forecasting.

The big problem with theories like the ocean swallowed the heat is that there are no failure criteria – the theories are unfalsifiable, utterly unscientific, because they make no testable predictions, other than a vague threat that the world might get warmer again someday.
God of the gaps – the global warming scare survives in the gaps in our knowledge.

NikFromNYC

Water also acts as an instantaneous liquid expansion thermometer so heat going into the oceans would show up in tide gauge records as a recent upswing following a recent downswing as it released heat before. There are no such swings, going back 150 years:
postimg.org/image/uszt3eei5/
It would be good for a mathematically inclined reader to calculate the expected sea level rise required to hide all the man made global warming from us landlubbers, so possibly give my argument real teeth.

joelobryan

“But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest.”
Models all the way down.

I used to have a very negative opinion regarding coal usage. The modern emissions controls seem very effective these days. Although,the industry certainly has some issues with their handling of the waste byproducts.
Great job with the graphics display of the Atlantic.

Explaining the North Atlantic is nowhere adequate despite numerous papers on the subject, despite the longest and ‘most’ reliable records available.
Solar, geomagnetism, tectonics and Arctic atmospheric pressure they all have input and lead by number of years the N. Atlantic SST and its de-trended derivative the AMO
(see Here )
All of the above (see the link) point to the fall in the N. Atlantic’s and N. Hemisphere temperatures, in not distant future.
Perhaps an early warning : Northern Ireland (home of the famous Armagh observatory) recorded its lowest August minimum temperature ever of – 2C (yes, minus 2 degrees Celsius).

oppti

Heat going into the Atlantic is not an anthropogenic change of climate.
It might explain the cooling now and the heating in the past.
Periodicity is not unknown in the past, with two periods of rising temperatures, 1910-1940 and 1970-2000. During 1940-1970 the global temperature indicated global cooling.

David Archibald:
Thankyou for your timely essay.
Immediately below your essay is a comment from Eli Kintisch which lists suggested explanations of the ‘missing heat’. That comment concludes saying

A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.

That conclusion demonstrates the real problem which is that so-called ‘climate science’ has abandoned the scientific method and replaced it with a belief system.
What one not-named “scientist” says the recent papers confirm has no relevance, especially when there is no “consensus” because other scientists don’t agree. The possible interpretations of the data reported in those papers is important.
Eli Kintisch says global warming has been “put” “on a pause”. No. Global warming has stopped and the existing plateau in global temperature will end with warming or cooling. Therefore, until the plateau ends it cannot be known whether global temperature rise has paused or is reversing.
The important possibility which Eli Kintisch does not mention (fails to recognise?) is that there may be no “missing” heat. There are three known possible reasons for this; viz.
1.
The twentieth century rises in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) known as global warming resulted from redistributed surface temperatures and not altered heat in the climate system.
2.
The twentieth century rises in GASTA resulted from moderation of cloud cover with resulting variations to heat entering the system which is independent of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.
3.
Whatever the cause of the twentieth century rises in GASTA, the rises in GASTA were not discernibly affected by atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations because negative feedbacks in the climate system reduce climate sensitivity to being less than 1.0°C per doubling of CO2 equivalence.
Of course, the existence of those known reasons does not remove the possibility of other and unknown reasons.
Richard

AleaJactaEst

I’m confused. I wouldn’t call myself thick; BSc (Hons) Geol, Chartered Engineer, 25 yrs working scientific experience, but on the other hand I’m no rocket scientist, but to me, the post identifies that the latest sets of “papers” purporting to explain the “Pause” seem to have been written by those suffering from the severest type of delusion. However, I can’t seem to grasp whether the information posted here is a) out of date, b) cherry picked – why would these paper writers ignore empirical data over “modelling experiments” and if the empirical data presented here is sound, why doesn’t someone write a rebuttal?? In fact, why don’t we write rebuttals each and every time these [toilet] papers are authored?

David Archibald

AleaJactaEst says:
August 24, 2014 at 1:04 am
Most of the readers of this blog would be aware of the thermocline that stops mixing. And then you could write a post to that effect in about two lines. That would be too boring for all concerned though. Defeating a nihilist belief system like global warming means mocking them. This post is a rebuttal to the delusionist papers. The entertainment value comes from using CDIAC data to refute global warming claims while showing the readers some data that they might not be aware of. Finally, it is important to put the boot into the nasty nest that is the CDIAC so that when the United States reverts to having a balanced budget, the DCIAC is defunded as part of that process.

Stephen Skinner

And.. Is the following ‘picture’ of Northern hemisphere marine temperature anomalies accurate because there is an awful lot of heat?
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png

AleaJactaEst says: August 24, 2014 at 1:04 am
…………….
It is that powerful computers have taken over the science, their software regurgitating modelling data, with the helpless ‘scientists’, instead discussing and arguing, blindly dressing bungled output with a suitable narrative.
To paraphrase A. Einstein “the day that technology surpasses our human interaction the world will have a generation of idiots”

RoHa

“President Obama didn’t start the war on coal.”
Those of us who are aware that there is a world outside the US already knew that.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

First of all (sorry, I again have to get this out) it isn’t a ‘pause’. A ‘pause’ implies that you know future events. The increase in global warming has stopped. If it then continues then it WAS a pause.
Right, that aside, my basic understanding of science says that if you warm water, it will increase in volume. So first of all, that is correct, yes? Ok, so if the oceans have been absorbing warmth all this time (but land temperature shows no change) then the world’s water stores should be growing in volume at a rate far higher than the recent past. Sea levels shouldn’t just be rising in line with recent history, but going up at an extraordinary rate, yes? So to prove that the warmth is being stored, one would only have to look at sea level rise? Is it as simple as I show, or have I missed something?

NikFromNYC

Hot water floats just like hot air rises, minus massive currents anyway:
http://youtu.be/bN7E6FCuMbY

Excellent article David. I have said many times on this blog that heat cannot just disappear into the oceans for the following reasons:
1) Like you say, if CO2 is warming the atmosphere by a greenhouse effect it can only affect water to a few inches deep and temperature by very little due to the huge specific heat capacity of salt water compared to air at sea level.Add to that, the fact that warm salt water is less dense than cold salt water and there is no way it can disappear into the ocean depths.
2) The reason the oceans warm during the summer, is because of infrared radiation from the sun.
3) The reason the oceans cool during the summer is because solar radiation going in is less than heat energy going out by the mechanism of convection in the sea and the air above the sea. This is why our UK climate is as it is, mild wet winters and cool wet summers because we are a small island surrounded by sea with the Gulf Stream passing our Western shores.
4) Global warming by increased CO2 levels can only warm the air, the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth is unchanged. Therefore the only way the sea could warm as a result, is by heat conduction from the air into the surface of the water, but we have already established that the main transfer of energy in fluids is by convection. So as the air warms it rises away from the surface of the sea being replaced by cooler air from above. There is no known physical process by which less dense warmer water can sink into colder more dense water.
I cannot believe that the AGW believers have subjected us to this tosh, which can be dismissed by a 16 year old with a GCSE in physics!

MJB

Question: for fresh water it is most dense at 4 deg C and then gets less dense as it approaches zero (i.e. ice cubes float). Does this relationship, perhaps with a different temperature value, also hold for salt water?
In northern lakes that freeze in winter, the warmer 4deg water does indeed sink below the colder 1deg water and causes the fall and spring “turnover” that drives some nutrient processes.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

I see richardscourtney shares my definition of ‘pause’ in the English language! Sorry to be bossy here, but we really should NOT call it a ‘pause’. You simply cannot know if that is the correct term, as you don’t know future events. If you were describing WW2, you wouldn’t describe Germany’s defeat in Africa at the hands of the Allies as a ‘pause’ in their ability to wage war. After Africa, it was all pretty much downhill for Germany’s forces. Had they suffered that Africa defeat, but then went on to repel the Allies in northern France, then Africa would have been a ‘pause’. But we all know that wasn’t the case.
The word ‘pause’ should NOT be used!

David –
I maybe am missing the point, as an outsider in this debate, but I can’t really see why your neat exposition of the heat distribution pattern in the oceans contradicts anything in the present argument, on either side.
I asked in a comment on a previous post for some figures about the relevant heat capacity of the oceans versus the atmosphere, but I wasn’t really answered. I suspect that, even if you confine yourself to the more rapidly-responding surface layers (say, 0-200m) the disparity is vast. That would make any effect such as is being discussed very difficult to identify. Without numbers we can’t really be expected to put your argument in perspective.

There is a very close correlation between NH temperatures and AMO.
According to NOAA
When the AMO decreases, as from 1950 to 1975, global warming may appear to be reversed. When the AMO increases, as from 1975 to the present, the global warming is exaggerated.
In other words, it is not so much the PHASE of the AMO that matters, but the DIRECTION of travel.
AMO hit rock bottom in the mid 1970’s, then rose till around 2000. NH temperatures followed accordingly.
Since 2000, the AMO has remained pretty level, and again NH temperatures have responded in like fashion.
Fairly soon we will see a 25-year decline in the AMO, and when this happens there will follow a corresponding downward effect on temperatures.
The correlation can be seen very well on this Woodfortrees graph.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/correlation-of-the-amo-with-nh-temperatures/

dudleyhorscroft

andrewmharding says: August 24, 2014 at 2:16 am

1) Like you say, if CO2 is warming the atmosphere by a greenhouse effect it can only affect water to a few inches deep and temperature by very little due to the huge specific heat capacity of salt water compared to air at sea level.
ADH – If the atmosphere is warmed, it can only warm a very thin film of water in which it is in contact. Air temperature and water temperature can differ quite markedly as there is very little heat transfer from one to tother. Note the extremely low lying fog when sea water is about -1C and the air temperature is about -20C. Slight air turbulence creates very low fog.
Add to that, the fact that warm salt water is less dense than cold salt water and there is no way it can disappear into the ocean depths.
ADH – Sorry to disagree, Andrew, but this is not quite so. If winds blow consistently in a particular direction, they create a surface current in that same direction. If there is no land in the way, the current goes round and round the earth – hence the Southern CircumPolar current. But when there is land in the way, the current can either be diverted laterally or vertically. If vertically, the warm water goes down.

This is why our UK climate is as it is, mild wet winters and cool wet summers because we are a small island surrounded by sea with the Gulf Stream passing our Western shores.
ADH – with my pedant’s hat on, the Gulf Stream is on the western side of the atlantic, it is the North Atlantic Drift which produces a warmish, dampish climate for the UK.
4) Global warming by increased CO2 levels can only warm the air, the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth is unchanged. Therefore the only way the sea could warm as a result, is by heat conduction from the air into the surface of the water, but we have already established that the main transfer of energy in fluids is by convection. So as the air warms it rises away from the surface of the sea being replaced by cooler air from above.
There is no known physical process by which less dense warmer water can sink into colder more dense water.
ADH – see my comment above. Note also that for every warm surface current there is usually a cool bottom current.

“Global warming is – and only is – an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).”
Good morning. If I may respectfully clarify: it makes sense to me that we need to measure and incorporate temperatures and heat fluxes in any region that impacts the “global” climate. This must include the ocean, which absorbs most of the heat. The risks of a narrow definition for global warming is that one ignores information that may be globally relevant.
“Global warming has stopped while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.”
This is an example of a misleading conclusion drawn from incomplete data. The skeptical mouse climbing the long staircase is thus forced to deny her vertical ascent at each stair.
“Claims that global warming has not stopped are falsehood.”
My criteria for global warming cessation needs to be informed by the prior surface temp hiatuses and by evidence of cessation of effects, such as global ice mass declines. Also, I would need evidence of radiative balance at TOA.
“There is no evidence that heat is ‘hiding’ in the oceans and will – or can – return to cause future global warming.”
Some labs have shown this evidence in the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans beneath the thermocline…and ice is melting.

M Courtney

In terms of evaluating the current understanding of the climate… global warming means GASTA.
It may well be that the energy moved by convection trumps irradiation (well, obviously). But this new insight was never incorporated into the climate models (whoops).
And therefore, the impact of man’s CO2 emissions was evaluated against GASTA only.
The question of “has the world stopped warming” only makes sense with respect to GASTA. Because that is what the models are talking about with their predictions.
Also, the dangerous feedbacks that make Global warming newsworthy all come from GASTA – not heat hidden down the back of the sofa or anywhere else.

“There is no known physical process by which less dense warmer water can sink into colder more dense water.”
Salinity and temperature governs density

M Courtney

That’s quite right.
Sometimes people seem to forget what “haline” means in the phrase “Thermohaline circulation”.

“The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982…”
I do wonder if it was earlier. Perhaps 10 years earlier.
The answer begins with the name Carroll L. Wilson

How did the missing heat get from the top to the bottom with no one noticing? Not only is it missing, it hides its moves.

AleaJactaEst says:
August 24, 2014 at 1:04 am
… why would these paper writers ignore empirical data over “modelling experiments” and if the empirical data presented here is sound, why doesn’t someone write a rebuttal?? In fact, why don’t we write rebuttals each and every time these [toilet] papers are authored?

The reason that these paper writers ignore empirical data is that the data is not telling them what they want to hear. Even the fudged data sets where they have “adjusted” the data to suit their preconceived biases are not telling them what they want to hear.
Many rebuttals have been posted here at WUWT and in many, many other places. But it is hard to get a scientific paper past the group-think, censorship, and pal-review of the various scientific journals. In fact, some have said that a young scientist would risk his/her entire career on submitting a paper showing that the CO2 alarmist group-think is bunk. One can lose funding, grants, chance at advancement or full time professorship and so on.
My friend, I think only Mother Nature can end the madness of the modern crowd. When the ice starts to flow toward New York, then you might see some of the alarmists finally admit that man-generated CO2 did not have a darn thing to do with it on net and then we might get back to trying to figure out what really causes climate change.
The climate does change. Glaciations do happen as do interglacials and we don’t know what causes this. Even worse, we don’t know what caused the present ice age to begin with nor if we will ever see an end to it. For me, I will not live to see even the end of the present interglacial of this ice age, much the less see an end to the ice age itself. So, I only worry about the government and its ridiculous anti-humanity rules and laws that are prompted by this false religion.

Russell Klier

The Hockey Schtick keeps a running total of scientific papers that explain the pause. This is the 38th scientific explanation. None of the models factor in any of these causes. If only half of the excuses have some validity, no matter what goes into the model you get garbage out.

johnmarshall

There is no ”missing” heat, the heat never arrived. The sun is at a low level of radiation so we get less. the 18year slowdown might turn into a full blown total cooling like the LIA or even worse.

But when there is land in the way, the current can either be diverted laterally or vertically. If vertically, the warm water goes down.
If warm water rises what is keeping it down? I blame waterism. Prejudice pure and simple is keeping the warm water down. We need a warm water liberation movement. WWLM. Liberate the warm water now! Free WW Now!. No Justice No Heat
How am I doing so far?

rogerknights

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 24, 2014 at 2:16 am
I see richardscourtney shares my definition of ‘pause’ in the English language! Sorry to be bossy here, but we really should NOT call it a ‘pause’.

The neutral word is “plateau.” (And plateau’d and plateau-ing.)

Leigh

Richardscourtney says:
August 24, 2014 at 12:55 am
There is another more plausible reason for the “missing” heat.
Adjustments.
With far more attention on these damned fraudsters.
They are having a lot more difficulty exacuting more of what they’ve served up over the last 25 years or so.
America, it seems is also asking questions of their “gate keeper” of historical temperature records.
In Australia we have seemed to have cornered the “animal” that is our BOM.
Forcing it to respond to the outrage and criticism of it.
And it doesn’t like it.
Lashing out in defense of their adjustments.
As seems to be the norm in Australia Jo Nova seems to be the one “poking” the monster.
Yes, the heats missing because it was never really there.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/the-heat-is-on-bureau-of-meteorology-altering-climate-figures-the-australian/

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 24, 2014 at 1:58 am
Can we have a pause before a drop? Can we have a pause before a rise? Can we have a continuous pause?
The sun has its paws all over this.

Nylo

It may well happen that I am particularly obtuse today, but I fail to understand in which way is the CDIAC data supposedly debunking any claims about recent heat storage in the oceans. Would anyone care to explain in a little bit more detail?

4 eyes

I would like someone to rigorously describe the mechanism for transferring enormous amounts of atmospheric heat into the ocean with what appears to be a very small temperature difference. Until I have a verifiable explanation I will remain sceptical. For a “leading climate scientist” with lots of letters after his name this should be quite easily done because all the heat transfer, psychcrometric and thermodynamics equations are well known. I guess I am asking for the algorithms and code of the climate models but just a simplified explanation would do for me because I am too busy working to find the time to look at code. Lots of alarmists read WUWT, because they are getting alarmed at what is written here, so there must be at least 1 person out there reading this who can help me out here. Just point me to a paper or some other reference that explains it clearly at the level of graduate mechanical engineer.

Mike McMillan

Do we have a source URL for the A16 temperature profile? The one posted is hard to read.
No matter how deeply we store heat in the ocean, if it isn’t warmer than the surface temperature, then it can’t warm the air even if it rises to replace the current surface water.

David Archibald says:
August 24, 2014 at 1:25 am
Defeating a nihilist belief system like global warming means mocking them. This post is a rebuttal to the delusionist papers.
————–
Right you are, David A. And you did a fine job at doing just that.
Any way, it is of my learned opinion that the “missing heat” (aka: the “Pause”) is the direct result of their “fuzzy math” calculations of Monthly/Yearly Average Increases in/of near-surface air temperatures that are rooted in the highly questionable historical Temperature Record from 1880 up thru the 1970’s ….. at which time more accurate near-surface air temperatures were being measured and recorded.
And by 1980 there was 22 years of fairly accurate atmospheric CO2 ppm measurements via which monthly/yearly average increases in CO2 ppm quantities could be calculated. Given said, all the CAGW “climate scientists” had to do to justify their “Global Warming” claims was insure that their calculations of Monthly/Yearly Average Increases in/of near-surface air temperatures corresponded with said fairly accurate calculations of Monthly/Yearly Average Increases in/of atmospheric CO2 ppm.
This worked great for a while …… but then the “post-1990” more accurate surface temperature measurements started “forcing” a decrease in their most current calculated monthly/yearly average temperatures. Said decrease prompted them to massage, modify and/or change the “outliers” in the historical Temperature Record, a “fact” that has been pointed out by different commentaries hereon WUWT.
But, the aforesaid decrease in current calculated average temperature is continuing ….. and the increase in current calculated average CO2 ppm is continuing …. and they dare not perform any more massaging, modifications and/or changes to the historical Temperature Record, ….. therefore their only recourse in an attempt to CTAs is to claim ….. “the ocean ate the heat”.
Cheers

If there is heat down to 2,000 m could it be rising from geothermal heat flux through that paper thin ocean floor?

rogerknights:
At August 24, 2014 at 3:35 am you say

The neutral word is “plateau.” (And plateau’d and plateau-ing.)

Yes, and that is why I used it.
In my post at August 24, 2014 at 12:55 am I wrote

Eli Kintisch says global warming has been “put” “on a pause”. No. Global warming has stopped and the existing plateau in global temperature will end with warming or cooling. Therefore, until the plateau ends it cannot be known whether global temperature rise has paused or is reversing.

But I admit to disappointment that this issue has engendered discussion because that was NOT my main point which was

The important possibility which Eli Kintisch does not mention (fails to recognise?) is that there may be no “missing” heat. There are three known possible reasons for this; viz.
{snip}

Richard

Bill Illis

The North Atlantic is absorbing almost no energy at all.
In the last 8 years, the total energy content of the North Atlantic down to 2000 metres has risen at a rate of 0.1 x 10^22 joules per year which is equivalent to 0.09 W/m2/year. We are looking for 2.3 W/m2/year to be showing up.
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-a0-2000m.dat
Even that chart at the top of the post showing heat accumulating at 10^18 joules and a similar one from the paper also at 10^18 joules; those are tiny, tiny numbers.
1.0 W/m2/year (and we are looking for 2.3 W/m2/year to be showing up) of energy absorption across the whole ocean is 1.13 x 10^22 joules/year or a factor of 1,000 to 10,000 times larger than 10^18 joule/year rates.

Latitude

The oceans don’t work like that…
Exactly….it would be constant…..the oceans wouldn’t all of a sudden decide to hide the heat

Dr. Strangelove

“one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.”
He must be the man from Atlantis. Most of us don’t leave under the sea. Tell him when we say global warming we don’t mean 20,000 ft. under the sea. But why limit to deep ocean? Most of earth’s mass is in the core and mantle. Earth’s interior has been cooling for 4 billion years. So it must be global cooling for those philosophers not satisfied with air temperature.

Admad

“We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data.” Empirical data? Climate Science (TM) doesn’t work like that.

Dr. Strangelove

Sorry for the misspelling. I mean we don’t live under the sea like Patrick Duffy

James Pfefferle

CDIAC and DOE are not a part of the nuclear industry. They are government entities.
Commercial nuclear and coal power go hand in hand, both are part of a mix of generation sources needed for reliable power. I have never known an anti-coal person in my nuclear power career.

Daniel G.

People, the English language is much more malleable than you think. There is nothing wrong to use the word “pause” to describe a halt.
If you pause a video, there is nothing which forces you to resume it.
Other than that, I’d say that no one is going to find the missing heat in the oceans, at least until we get more precise measurements, or wait for the next 20 to 30 years.

dipchip

The average world ocean depth is 4,000 meters and thermal expansion factor changes with temp. at about 56 degrees F or 13 degrees C the thermal expansion of water is 1.2665 times 10 to the minus 4.So it would average out to 11 inches per degree F if all the ocean water increased 1 degree F or 20 inches per degree C
Quick back of the envelope.

dond

The lack of see level rise is easy to explain.. As the ocean,s volume increases it puts tremendous pressure on the ocean floor causing huge holes and rifts to form which allows the excess volume of water to sink to the center the earth. Problem solved. Now can I get my grant money? I need to buy groceries later this week.

James Strom

Roy Spencer offers an explanation of how the deep ocean could warm without surface warming, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
He does not claim that this has actually happened.

Rud Istvan

The post focuses only on temperature differences density. A comment pointed out that there are also ocean currents to consider as these approach continental land masses. Equally important is salinity- a higher salt content is denser. Thatnismwhat drives thermocline circulation and the deep,ocean conveyor. As, for example, winter Artic ice forms (fresh water) salt is exuded. The adjacent sea becomes saltier, denser, and sinks. That in turn draws warmer water from the equator, an example being the gulf stream. That, among other things, ismwhynthere is supposed to be polar amplification. For heat to go deep, one must either hypothesis wind/current changes that have not been observed (Trenberth Pacific trades) or salinity changes. It is possible that some of both are involved in the known Atalntic meridional overturning circulation as driving mechanisms for the apparently natural quasi-resonant variation. The stadium wave hypothesis suggests how those could come about as a function of ice and therefor albedo fluctuations around the Arctic.
The problem with the Atlantic hypothesis is not absence of possible mechanisms. It is scale. The North Atlantic isn’t big enough to cause the global stoppage in atmospheric warming. Contemplate a globe, or look at the Argo measured heat verus what would be required to offset the the supposed forcing, one rough calculation of which was posted above. Still a fail, but not for the lackmof mechanism reason posited in this thread.

Daniel G.:
At August 24, 2014 at 6:19 am you assert

People, the English language is much more malleable than you think. There is nothing wrong to use the word “pause” to describe a halt.
If you pause a video, there is nothing which forces you to resume it.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) refutes your assertion because “pause” is a TEMPORARY STOP, and says your illustration is wrong.
The OED defines ‘pause’ as follows

pause
Syllabification: pause
Pronunciation: /pôz
noun
1A temporary stop in action or speech:
‘she dropped me outside during a brief pause in the rain’
‘the admiral chattered away without pause’
More example sentences
Synonyms
1.1 Music A mark over a note or rest that is to be lengthened by an unspecified amount; a fermata.
More example sentences
1.2 (also pause button) A control allowing the temporary interruption of an electronic (or mechanical) process, especially video or audio recording or reproduction.

But I continue to point out that the misleading propaganda of the word ‘pause’ for plateau is not the most important issue which is that there may be no missing heat.
Richard

Edward Richardson

dipchip says:
August 24, 2014 at 6:24 am
.
“Quick back of the envelope.”
..
Correct, and in the past 17 years the sea level has increased two inches.

A few words on the word “pause”.
I don’t like the word “pause” and I know it was chosen for propaganda reasons. We all do.
However, I see the situation as one of climate temps going down and up and down and up and so on. We do have a pause according to the corrupt data sets that say temps are flat. Well friends, they will not stay flat for all that long. The temps will go up or go down sometime soon. So it is a pause in a way.
By the way; I think the temps have gone down over the last decade if the “keepers of the data” were not “adjusting” the temps wholesale.

Rod Everson

Nylo says:
August 24, 2014 at 3:42 am
It may well happen that I am particularly obtuse today, but I fail to understand in which way is the CDIAC data supposedly debunking any claims about recent heat storage in the oceans. Would anyone care to explain in a little bit more detail?

I’m with Nylo. There’s got to be something missing from the article because “the illustration of the heat gone awol” and the illustration of the CDIAC voyage A16’s temps down to 1500 meters seem to match fairly closely.
So, I’m forced to assume, absent an explanation, that the CDIAC A16 result was obtained years ago, and indicates that the “heat gone awol” illustration could have been drawn years ago as well, i.e., that it doesn’t explain where the “missing heat” of today has gone.
Is that correct? If so, did I miss the mention of the date of the CDIAC A16 voyage? Or is that supposed to be general knowledge? (If the answer to this last is ‘yes’, then I give up.) If the date of A16 was long ago, and it wasn’t noted here, I’d suggest that be added, and in a prominent place, since it underpins the entire argument being made, which falls apart completely without it, it appears to me anyway.
Incidentally, I’ve reread the piece twice. I’m forced to assume that the A16 voyage occurred some time after 1982 with the formation of CDIAC, and I shouldn’t be forced to assume that to understand the argument being made, since it appears to be the keystone of the argument. If the date is there somewhere, it’s not obvious.