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:
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:
And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:
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:
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:
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.
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?
The neutral word is “plateau.” (And plateau’d and plateau-ing.)
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.
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 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.
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
Yes, and that is why I used it.
In my post at August 24, 2014 at 12:55 am I wrote
But I admit to disappointment that this issue has engendered discussion because that was NOT my main point which was
Richard
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.
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
“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.
“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.
Sorry for the misspelling. I mean we don’t live under the sea like Patrick Duffy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.