'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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
504 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bart
August 26, 2014 9:45 am

Edward Richardson
August 25, 2014 at 6:51 pm
You don’t get it. You must use the same time interval for each slope estimate, or you are comparing apples and tennis balls. When you do that, you find that sea level rise is cyclical, and it has been just as high in the past as it has been recently. In fact, it is currently decelerating, when the “ocean ate my heat” excuse should produce acceleration.
katatetorihanzo
August 25, 2014 at 8:30 pm
Vertical mixing via the mechanisms you cite is in specific locales, and takes place over centuries, not decades. This is not the mixing you are looking for. Move along.
b fagan
August 26, 2014 at 12:28 am
“We know how much CO2 is produced per unit of fuel burned. We have recordings since 1958 of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, declining pH of ocean surface waters as they absorb CO2, and the amounts add up to what we see dug from the ground, when you allow for increased plant growth absorbing a bit of the remainder.”
What we actually have is accelerating emissions, and non-accelerating concentration. The two are diverging from their superficial resemblance. Instead, the atmospheric concentration is tracking integrated temperatures, with the agreement especially stark in the rate of change.
Given that relationship, it is impossible for CO2 to surface temperature sensitivity to be significantly greater than zero.
The AGW hypothesis is not “robust”. Not if you are willing to open your eyes to countervailing evidence. You find then that the whole brouhaha is an exercise in confirmation bias and fear mongering.

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 9:46 am

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 9:44 am

“on all time scales”
Something else besides ∆T causes CO2 to increase.

The past 17 years proves it.

Bart
August 26, 2014 9:48 am

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 at 9:27 am
“Proof? 17 years of no increase of surface temperature, but CO2 has risen in the 17 year time span.”
It is an integral relationship. Your “proof” fails. More on this in another comment yet to appear.

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 9:55 am

Bart
August 26, 2014 at 9:48 am
“Your “proof” fails.”

Are you admitting that the surface temperatures have risen in the past 17 years?

Bart
August 26, 2014 10:05 am

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 at 9:55 am
No. You don’t know math, do you?

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 10:10 am

Bart
August 26, 2014 at 10:05 am

“No”

So, you admit that temps have NOT risen in the past 17 years.
But CO2 has risen from 365 ppm to 400 ppm in the 17 years. (10%)

These facts prove that something other than ∆T is causing CO2 levels to increase.

August 26, 2014 10:13 am

Edward Richardson says:
“Something else besides ∆T causes CO2 to increase.”
‘Something else’?? What else? *Facepalm* A baseless conjecture like that does not support your argument.
I showed you real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature!
Your response indicates quite clearly that you have already arrived at your conclusion, and no evidence, no matter how compelling, can possibly penetrate your confirmation bias. Your mind is made up and closed to any new information.
You are a classic example of Al Gore’s acolytes: due to your religious belief, any facts that contradict your world view must be promptly rejected.
An honest skeptic will accept evidence that contradicts what he believes. Based on convincing new evidence, the skeptic will then change his mind. That exemplifies the central difference between climate alarmists and scientific skeptics: alarmists have already made up their minds. Contrary facts only get in the way. If it were not for cognitive dissonance, the alarmist’s head would explode from the contradiction.
Wake up, Edward! You have been provided with useful knowledge. Either use it to form a correct world view, or keep digging your hole deeper. The choice is yours, and the facts are clear:
Changes in CO2 result from temperature changes. <–that is irrefutible proof. Thus, the basis of climate alarmism is debunked: “carbon” will not cause runaway global warming. Accept it, or continue down the path of ignorance. Your choice.

Bart
August 26, 2014 10:16 am

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 at 10:10 am
It is futile arguing with someone who lacks the basic knowledge to understand the argument. Take a course in calculus, and then we can talk.

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 10:18 am

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 10:13 am
“I showed you real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature! ”

And I showed you real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow NO CHANGE in temperature

richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 10:19 am

SonicsGuy:
At August 26, 2014 at 9:11 am you ask me

@richardscourtney:
No comments on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/#comment-1717630 ?

Of course not!
It is too stupid to deserve a reply, and any comment may spoil the enjoyment of others laughing at it.
Global warming is and always has been an increase in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
Richard

richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 10:26 am

Edward Richardson:
At August 26, 2014 at 10:18 am

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 10:13 am
“I showed you real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature! ”

And I showed you real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow NO CHANGE in temperature

No! That is yet another of your falsehoods.
dbstealey is right and you are wrong.
GASTA has been rising with interruptions from the Little Ice Age.
The most recent period of warming ended about 17 years ago.
The present rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is after that rise in temperature.
Some processes of the carbon cycle have rate constants of years and decades and the ice core data suggests also centuries.
Richard

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 10:30 am

richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 at 10:26 am
..
“dbstealey is right”

No, dbstealy posted, “This is seen on all time scales from years, ”

However, it is certainly not seen in the past 17 years, so he is wrong.

richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 10:39 am

Edward Richardson:
I see you have reverted to the deliberately obtuse ploy in your post at August 26, 2014 at 10:30 am. Andf you again do it by misquotation.

richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 at 10:26 am
..
“dbstealey is right”

No, dbstealy posted, “This is seen on all time scales from years, ”

However, it is certainly not seen in the past 17 years, so he is wrong.

NO! YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID SAY BECAUSE YOU QUOTED PART OF IT.
In reality, at August 26, 2014 at 9:44 am dbstealy posted saying to you

Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2. This happens on all time scales, from years, to hundreds of millennia.

“ALL TIME SCALES”, Edward Richardson, “ALL TIME SCALES”!
So, as you know and I said, you are wrong and he is right.
Richard

August 26, 2014 10:41 am

Edward Richardson says:
I showed you real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow NO CHANGE in temperature
That is crazy talk, Edward. I have dropped a mountain of empirical evidence at your feet, and you give your usual response. Your typical argument is: Say anything.
The alarmist contingent is turning reality upside down, as usual. The incessant drumbeat of the alarmist crowd has always been that rising CO2 would cause rising global temperatures. We were constantly told that would happen.
But now that their central prediction has been falsified by Planet Earth, their argument becomes:
Are you admitting that the surface temperatures have risen in the past 17 years?… So, you admit that temps have NOT risen in the past 17 years.
So now we are told by Edward that CO2 is not the cause of rising T, after all!
There is no ‘admitting’ that global warming has stopped, Edward. It is a fact. Therefore, the endless predictions that rising CO2 would be the cause of rising T have failed. In fact, all of their scary predictions have failed, from Polar bear decimation, to predictions of rising global humidity, to bleaching wiping out the corals, to frog extinctions, to accelerating sea level rise, to disappearing polar ice, to ocean “acidification”, to more extreme weather events… to runaway global warming itself. ALL of the alarmist predictions have turned out to be wrong. All of them.
Edward: at what point do you finally admit that the basic alarmist premise has been falsified?
Ever? Or will you go on believing people who have been wrong 100.0% of the time?
Believing people who are always wrong is madness, Edward. Don’t follow them down that road.

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 10:43 am

richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 at 10:39 am

“ALL TIME SCALES”

Except for the past 17 years.

gary gulrud
August 26, 2014 10:46 am

“And I showed you real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow NO CHANGE in temperature”
Popularly known as Hansen’s Law, at low pressures the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to the temperature.
At very high pressures and low temperatures in the presence of calcium and magnesium it precipitates out of solution in the form of carbonates.
The Oceans contain 50,000 times the CO2 of that in the Atmosphere. Examining the Mauna Loa CO2 record in fine detail we see the diurnal fluctuation on the order of 20ppm, each and every day as the surface warms and CO2 exits the Ocean. At night the reverse takes place.
This is elementary HS Chemistry.

SonicsGuy
August 26, 2014 10:50 am

richardscourtney wrote:
“”No comments on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/#comment-1717630 ?”
“It is too stupid to deserve a reply.”
Pielke Sr,McNider and Christy are hardly “stupid.” Calling them such just shows you don’t have a real scientific argument. QED.

August 26, 2014 10:50 am

Edward Robinson says:
“Except for the past 17 years.”
You made an assertion there, Edward. Now, back it up. Post a chart that supports your belief. If you can.
Here is a current chart, Edward. Notice that it debunks your assertion. CO2 follows temperature. Solid, empirical evidence proves you are wrong. What say you now?
Will you ‘Say Anything’? <— You are good at that kind of prevarication and dissembling.
You are being painted into a corner by reality, Edward. Don't you think it's time to stop digging the hole you’re in?

SonicsGuy
August 26, 2014 10:55 am

dbstealey says:
“Yes, pressure broadening exists on Venus, but it is far too small of an effect to explain away the fact that Venus is near the sun and thus hot, and Mars is farther from the sun, and thus cold.”
Is it too small? Where are the numbers showing that?

SonicsGuy
August 26, 2014 10:59 am

richardscourtney wrote:
“The most recent period of warming ended about 17 years ago.”
You know very well that only one dataset (RSS LT) shows this, and the other seven (UAH LT, GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, BEST, Cowtan & Way. and NOAA-OHC) do not.
Here, for example, is a plot of GISS for the last 17 years. It shows warming:
http://www.politics.ie/forum/environment/33041-climate-change-debate-thread-4291.html
So why are you ignoring 88% of the data?

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 11:04 am

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 10:50 am
What say you now?
Here is your ∆C for 17 years.
.http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/trend

Here is your ∆T for 17 years
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

Looks like something other than T is causing CO2 increase.

Reply to  Edward Richardson
August 27, 2014 1:40 pm

Once again, that is an OVERLAY. It says nothing about cause and effect. Can you never get it into your thick skull that an overlay does not show causation?
This is harder than teaching a dog algebra!

richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 11:31 am

SonicsGuy:
Your post at August 26, 2014 at 10:50 am attempts to compound stupidity with stupidity.
I did NOT say the authors of the paper were or are stupid.
I did say – AND I REPEAT – that your post was and is stupid to claim that because that paper was published the definition of global warming has been altered.
I do not need a “scientific argument” – be it “real” or otherwise – to point out that your claim is Pythonesque.
I will offer some free advice. You may be thought to be daft but writing posts which demonstrate you are daft is not a good idea: I suggest you stop doing it.
Richard

August 26, 2014 11:31 am

Sonicsguy,
You made the ‘pressure broadening’ assertion. I called you on it. So don’t assign me homework; you need to support your assertion, which is, so far, baseless.
Next, you claim that “88%” of the data shows no warming. That is simply false.
Got more charts like that if you want ’em. But somehow, I don’t think you do.
Edward Richardson,
What is the point of posting CO2 and T charts? I have repeatedly posted them. They do nothing at all to support your position. In fact, nothing supports your belief.
A chart of T and another of CO2 do not show causation. You say:
Looks like something other than T is causing CO2 increase.
The more I read your nonsense, the crazier you sound. Really. I have posted verifiable empirical evidence showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. Because that fact debunks your alarmist belief system, you post completely meaningless charts, which have been posted many times by me and others. They do not show causation.
You said I had not shown the past 17 years. I proved that I did. In fact, nothing you write is anything but your personal belief. It is baseless nonsense. I only respond so others who may read your nonsense do not accept it. It is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
If you cannot refute what I post with verifiable, testable, measurable scientific evidence, then you are only emitting your baseless opinion. That, my friend, is completely worthless.
Either dispute what I post by using testable, measurable evidence, or be a stand-up guy and concede the argument. No one will think worse of you. That only happens when you continue to argue based on nothing but your own belief — which is what you’ve been doing.
You are outclassed here, Edward. Best if you run along to Hotwhopper or Treehugger now. They have know-nothing head-nodders who will agree with any alarmist claptrap. Here, we require verifiable evidence.

richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 11:35 am

Edward Richardson
Your post at August 26, 2014 at 10:43 am is plain daft.
Have you and SonicsGuy made a bet to see which of you can provide the most ridiculous post in the thread?
Richard

Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 11:36 am

dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 11:31 am
“I have posted irrefutable empirical evidence showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. ”

I have posted irrefutable empirical evidence that shows that in the past 17 years, ∆T=0 resulted in a 10% increase in CO2.

1 7 8 9 10 11 15