'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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
504 Comments
August 26, 2014 8:05 pm

Terry Oldberg,
Explain this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.26/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
Can you see which leads, and which lags?
Be honest. Which changes first? Temperature, or CO2?
As with the others, if you can produce a chart showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T, please do. You will be the first. Otherwise, try to be logical. Look at those charts, and tell us which is the cause, and which is the effect.

SonicsGuy
August 26, 2014 8:06 pm

dbstealey wrote:
“Phil. You are sure a dumb cluck. The proximity to the Sun is the main reason for Venus’ temperature.”
How rude. Phil gave you clear evidence of pressure broadening. And you simply dismissed it altogether because it wasn’t want you wanted to hear. You aren’t fooling anyone,
Nor could you show your theory works. It’s just a claim — and a false one.
Whatever you’re doing here, you certainly aren’t interested in the science of climate change.

August 26, 2014 8:09 pm

Sonicsguy says:
Temperature and CO2 are in a mutually reinforcing loop. A change in either can cause in the other.
Your use of “Presto” is appropriate. You believe in the magic gas.
But to be credible you need to post measurable, testable, verifiable empirical evidence, as I have done repeatedly. All you do is assert. And saying, “Presto” just isn’t enough.

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 8:10 pm

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 7:59 pm
1) Stop calling people names. Phil is not a “dumb cluck” Name calling is juvenile.

2) “The proximity to the Sun is the main reason for Venus’ temperature.”
Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus is, and the surface of Venus is hotter than the sun facing side of Mercury

3) :”Edward, the only debate is over whether sea level rise is accelerating”
I am not debating if it is or it is not “accelerating” I am merely stating a simple fact. Sea level rise is SHOWING us that both ice is melting, and that the water in the sea is thermally expanding. It is showing us that the ocean is getting warmer. It is showing us that ice mass on Antarctica and Greenland is dropping. Don’t move the goal posts.
..

August 26, 2014 8:15 pm

sonics guy says: how rude…
Yeah, how about that? I said nothing to “Phil.”, and he comes along and calls me “dumb”. Answer this: to you, that isn’t rude? <–[that is a question].
And I did not post a "theory", I posted an empirical fact: Venus is closer to the sun.
If you would restrict yourself to measurable, verifiable, testable, empirical facts like I do, you would be forced onto the right track.

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 8:17 pm

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm
Explain this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/scale:10/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/scale:10/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/trend
.
Can you see which leads, and which lags?
Be honest. Which changes first? Temperature, or CO2?
Why does NO CHANGE in temperature cause a rise in CO2 ?

August 26, 2014 8:20 pm

Edward Richardson:
1) Same question to you that I asked sonicsguy. What’s your answer?
2) Mercury has no atmosphere. Would you like to discuss the night side?
3) Sea level rise is showing us that the planet is rreecovering from the LIA, and from the stadial before it. it is not showing us that CO2 causes global warming — the central debate question.
Keep ’em coming, Edward. I have yet to see a question I haven’t answered a dozen times before.

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 8:23 pm

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 8:15 pm

“he comes along and calls me “dumb”.
Mr Dbstealy….
..
Phil did not call you dumb.
Here are his exact words…. (emphasis added)
“That’s a dumb comment even for you,”
See? He called your COMMENT dumb, not you.

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 8:27 pm

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 8:20 pm
“Mercury has no atmosphere.”
Nice to know that an atmosphere can warm a planet. Is that because of some kind of “greenhouse gas” kind of thing?

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 8:29 pm

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 8:20 pm
“the planet is recovering from the LIA,”
Explain to me how this causes thermal expansion of the water in our ocean.
What is the physical mechanism for “recovering from the LIA?”

SonicsGuy
August 26, 2014 8:30 pm

“Sea level rise is showing us that the planet is rreecovering from the LIA.”
Climates aren’t hospital patients — they don’t “recover” on their own. They change when they’re forced to change. Conservation of energy,

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 8:52 pm

Mr Dbstealey

You owe Mr Phil an apology for calling him names.

August 26, 2014 9:02 pm

Edward Richardson,
What are you, Phil.’s nanny? When he used the pejorative “dumb” when referring to me, he got it back. I’m gonna start calling you Miss Manners if you keep it up…
“Treat me good, I’ll treat you better. Treat me bad, I’ll treat you worse” Get it?
Edward Richardson August 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm [ “…” ]
How many times do I have to explain this to you?? That is an OVERLAY. It does not show cause and effect! My charts show cause and effect.
SonicsGuy August 26, 2014 at 8:28 pm [ “…”]
Then use Bart’s chart. It shows the same thing.
You know, when you have to resort to nitpicking like that, you have lost the argument. I’ve posted plenty of other charts showing causation. You just don’t want to accept reality.
Both of you jamokes:
The term ‘recovering from the LIA’ has been used continuously by lots of folks on both sides of the debate. I cannot help it if you’re noobs. If you had been around a while, you would be familiar with the term ‘recovering’.
———————————-
I shall return later, to deconstruct whatever nonsense you come up with in the mean time. That will give you plenty of time to run back to your alarmist blogs for some extra talking points.

SonicsGuy
August 26, 2014 9:09 pm

dbstealey wrote:
“You know, when you have to resort to niutpicking like that, you have lost the argument.”
Nitpicking? Your entire calculation is wrong. That’s not nitpicking — it’s telling you you aren’t plotting what you claim to be plotting. Your argument is wrong and so is your conclusion.
I don’t know what “Bart’s chart” is.

SonicsGuy
August 26, 2014 9:13 pm

dbstealey wrote:
“The term ‘recovering from the LIA’ has been used continuously by lots of folks on both sides of the debate. I cannot help it if you’re noobs. If you had been around a while, you would be familiar with the term ‘recovering’.”
So then define it for us (no name calling), in scientific terms.
Because every time I’ve seen someone use it, it’s an attempt to sound scientific without understanding the physics of conservation of energy. They don’t want to admit CO2 caused warming since the LIA, so they just say it’s magically “recovering.”

SonicsGuy
August 26, 2014 9:17 pm

dbstealey wrote:
“I shall return later, to deconstruct whatever nonsense you come up with in the mean time. That will give you plenty of time to run back to your alarmist blogs for some extra talking points.”
Don’t bother. You’re too rude to deal with again. That your science is terribly bad just makes it all the worse.

August 26, 2014 9:46 pm

dbstealey:
I don’t believe I have claimed that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. I certainly don’t believe it.

August 26, 2014 10:03 pm

In reading the transcript of this thread I find that heated disagreements arose from the multiplicity of meanings that were attached to the term “T” by various participants in the conversation. For some, T meant the global temperature. For others, T meant a temporal average of the global temperature. It is the 17 year temporal average that has not changed much in the past 17 years. The global temperature has fluctuated in this period.

richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 12:21 am

dbstealey:
I write to congratulate you for your patience and fortitude in dealing with the trolls over night.
The hissy fits of the abusive and offensive SonicsGuy and Edward Richardson have been joined by the usual meaningless twaddle from Terry Oldberg and the typical abuse and falsehoods from the obnoxious Phil..
The result has been your need to defend yourself from a continuous creeping barrage of lies, distortions and insults. I congratulate you on surviving unscathed.
The distortions, falsehoods and ‘mud slinging’ of the trolls do not and cannot alter the facts.
Global warming is – and only is – an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
Global warming has stopped while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.
Claims that global warming has not stopped are falsehood.
There is no evidence that heat is ‘hiding’ in the oceans and will – or can – return to cause future global warming.

Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 6:19 am

“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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  katatetorihanzo
August 27, 2014 7:05 am

katatetorihanzo:
Global warming is – and only is – an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
It was feared that global warming would provide serious problems so several responses to it were adopted and those responses are killing people. Fortunately, global warming has stopped and this is a reason for rejoicing.
However, there are rent seekers and others making a living on the back of the global warming scare. They are not rejoicing, and they are trying to pretend that global warming has not stopped. But global warming has stopped so they are trying to pretend that global warming is something other than an increase to GASTA.
The risks of allowing these crooks and charlatans to redefine global warming include the certainty that the imposed policies which are killing people will not be revoked.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 9:56 am

There’s no problem with “GASTA” as one of many indicators assessing the magnitude of the heat content of the climate system. But I wouldn’t make any final determinations based on arbitrary subsets of the full temperature record. We all realize there are short term natural variations superimposed over the continual GHG forcing. Yes, 17 years is a short time. Also, ice is melting.

richardscourtney
Reply to  katatetorihanzo
August 27, 2014 10:04 am

katatetorihanzo
Global warming is an increase in GASTA.
The “magnitude of the heat content of the climate system” is not relevant to global warming and the important fact that global warming has stopped.
Take your red herring elsewhere. It is polluting the thread.
Richard

August 27, 2014 3:49 am

dbstealey August 26, 2014 at 9:02 pm
Edward Richardson,
What are you, Phil.’s nanny? When he used the pejorative “dumb” when referring to me, he got it back. I’m gonna start calling you Miss Manners if you keep it up…

Clearly I referred to your comment as dumb not you: “That’s a dumb comment even for you,”
I also proved it with data which you run away from as is your wont, note it’s not fudged data like the plots you show where you perform unstated scale changes and offsets.
dbstealey August 26, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Phil. You are sure a dumb cluck. The proximity to the Sun is the main reason for Venus’ temperature.

No it isn’t, the orbit of Venus is 0.7 AU so its insolation at TOA is ~2x Earth’s, however its albedo is 3x greater so without the GHE of its atmosphere Venus would have about 2/3 the temperature of Earth (~180K). So it is the atmosphere (particularly the pressure broadening of the CO2 spectrum) that is responsible for an increase of about 550K.
Those are the empirical facts about Venus’s temperature.

Samuel C Cogar
August 27, 2014 4:06 am

(a re-posting to insure it is at the end of this thread)
=====================================
Edward Richardson: August 26, 2014 at 9:27 am
“∆T causes ∆CO2″

FALSE

Proof? 17 years of no increase of surface temperature, but CO2 has risen in the 17 year time span.

—————
Firstly, Edward R, you really should read and try to understand Henry’s Law which defines the fact that …. “∆T causes ∆CO2″, …. or the ingassing/outgassing of CO2.
REF: http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L23/web-L23.pdf
Also read up on the outgassing of CO2 via microbial decomposition (rotting/decaying) of dead biomass when surface temperatures are above 60 degrees F.
And keep in mind that the outgassing of CO2 …. is akin to ….. the melting of ice. The FACT is, the air temperature doesn’t have to …. KEEP INCREASING … for either of said processes to continue functioning.
And secondly, the average temperature of the ocean has been increasing for the past 200+ years …. so it matters not that the near-surface air temperatures have not risen in the past 17 years. As long as the ocean water is “warming” then the outgassing of CO2 from the ocean will continue. And IT IS still “warming”, to wit:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

August 27, 2014 4:47 am

Samuel C Cogar August 27, 2014 at 4:06 am
Firstly, Edward R, you really should read and try to understand Henry’s Law which defines the fact that …. “∆T causes ∆CO2″, …. or the ingassing/outgassing of CO2.
REF: http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L23/web-L23.pdf

I suggest you read it and try to understand it yourself, add CO2 to the atmosphere from a sequestered source i.e. underground, and according to Henry’s Law the atmospheric concentration will go up and the ocean concentration will go up.
What is happening now is that ‘new’ CO2 is being added to the atmosphere and some of that is being absorbed by the ocean and biosphere causing a net increase in the pCO2, the exact proportion is modulated by the small fluctuations in SST per Henry’s Law which gives the correlation on the ‘noise’ that Sealey and Bart make such a fuss about after they throw away the actual increase.

Edward Richardson
August 27, 2014 5:26 am

richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 at 12:21 am
.
You post…..
“There is no evidence that heat is ‘hiding’ in the oceans”
..
The evidence is clear. The water in the ocean is thermally expanding. That only happens when the water gets warmer. Half of current sea level rise is thermal expansion.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Edward Richardson
August 27, 2014 7:10 am

Edward Richardson
The evidence is clear. You don’t have a clue about any of these matters.
I suggest you read and learn. To that end, it would be to your benefit to stop spending your time writing your rubbish.
Richard

Edward Richardson
Reply to  richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 8:15 am

Do you have trouble addressing thermal expansion of ocean water?

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 8:23 am

No. Do you have trouble taking your meds.?

Edward Richardson
August 27, 2014 5:30 am

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 9:02 pm
’”m gonna start calling you Miss Manners”

I would expect it. All you seem capable of is to call people names in this forum.

Samuel C Cogar
August 27, 2014 6:00 am

SonicsGuy: August 26, 2014 at 9:13 pm
So then define it (recovering) for us (no name calling), in scientific terms.
————–
Don’t be acting silly, …… “recovering” is not a scientific term therefore it can not be defined in “scientific terms”.
=============
SonicsGuy: August 26, 2014 at 9:13 pm
Because every time I’ve seen someone use it (recovering) , it’s an attempt to sound scientific without understanding the physics of conservation of energy. ”
—————
And just what the ell does the “physics of conservation of energy” ….. have to do with the use of the word “recovering”?
Was that an example of your feeble attempt to “sound scientificy” …. or what?
=============
SonicsGuy: August 26, 2014 at 9:13 pm
They don’t want to admit CO2 caused warming since the LIA, ……
——————
Ell “NO”, …. they will not agree with or admit to such a silly arsed “junk science” claim that atmospheric CO2 has such “magical” properties.
But the simple reason they won’t admit to the above said …. is that it would have been a physical impossibility for the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere at the height of (1500 to 1700 AD) the LIA to have any “warming” affect whatsoever on the extreme “coldness” of the near-surface temperatures.
“DUH”, iffen atmospheric CO2 causes a “warming” of the near-surface atmosphere ….. then just why in ell does the Ice Core proxies PROVE that the CO2 ppm DECREASED during the LIA at the same time as the near-surface air temperatures decreased? To wit, ice core proxy graph:
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif
===============
SonicsGuy: August 26, 2014 at 9:13 pm
…. so they just say it’s magically “recovering.
——————-
“NO”, absolutely not. It is the proponents of CAGW that have been claiming that the CO2 has been magically “warming” the near-surface atmosphere.