Posted on 04/15/2013 10:07:11 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
In the post Trenberth Still Searching for Missing Heat, we discussed the recent Balmaseda et al (2013) paper Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content, of which Kevin Trenberth was a coauthor.
Dr. Roy Spencer also has a recent post on that paper. Ive cross posted Roys post following this introduction. Roy Spencer argues that it is possible for the oceans to warm to depth, while the surface temperatures remain flat, but (No spoiler from me. Youll have to read Roys post.)
Roy does note that arguments about continued ocean warming to depth depend upon global deep ocean temperature changes being measured to an accuracy of hundredths or even thousandths of a degree . Thats why all of the adjustments to the ocean heat content data are so critical to this discussion.
Figure 1
If we were to consider the unadjusted ocean heat content data (represented by the UKMO EN3 data in Figure 1) to be correct, then the ocean heat content for depths of 0-2000 meters flattened as soon as the ARGO floats had reasonably compete coverage of the global oceans in 2003-04. Its only when the ocean heat content data is corrected, tweaked, adjusted, modified, whatever (represented by the NODC data in Figure 1), that the global ocean heat content continues to warm in relative agreement with climate models.
START OF ROY SPENCERS POST
More on Trenberths Missing Heat
April 8th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
While I dont necessarily buy Trenberths latest evidence for a lack of recent surface warming, I feel I need to first explain why Trenberth is correct that it is possible for the deep ocean to warm while surface warming is seemingly by-passed in the process.
Then I will follow up with observations which run counter to his (and his co-authors) claim that an increase in ocean surface wind-driven mixing has caused the recent lack of global warming.
Can Deep Ocean Warming Bypass the Surface?
It depends on what one means by warming. A temperature change is the net result of multiple processes adding and subtracting heat. Warming of the deep ocean originally caused by radiative forcing of the climate system cannot literally bypass the surface without some effect on temperature. But that effect might be to keep some cooling process from causing an even steeper dive in temperature.
Its like adding a pint of warm water, and a gallon of cold water, to a sink full of room temperature water. Did adding the pint of warm water cause the temperature in the sink to rise?
To appreciate this, we first need to understand the basic processes which maintain the vertical temperature distribution in the global oceans. The following cartoon shows a North-South cross section of measured ocean temperatures in the Atlantic.
The average temperature distribution represents a balance between 3 major processes:
(1) surface heating by the sun (mitigated by surface evaporation and infrared radiative loss) which warms the relatively shallow ocean mixed layer;
(2) cold deepwater formation at high latitudes, which slowly sinks and fills up the oceans on time scales of centuries to millennia, and
(3) vertical mixing from wind-driven waves, the thermohaline circulation, and turbulence generated by flow over ocean bottom topography (the latter being partly driven by tidal forces).
The key thing to understand is that while processes (1) and (2) continuously act to INCREASE the temperature difference between the warm mixed layer and the cold deep ocean, the vertical mixing processes in (3) continuously act to DECREASE the temperature difference, that is, make the ocean more vertically uniform in temperature.
The average temperature distribution we see is the net result of these different, competing processes. And so, a change in ANY of these processes can cause surface warming or cooling, without any radiative forcing of the climate system whatsoever.
So, lets look at a few ocean mixing scenarios in response to radiative forcing of the climate system (e.g. from increasing CO2, increasing sunlight, etc.), all theoretical:
Scenario 1) Warming with NO change in ocean mixing: It this case, surface warming is gradually mixed downward in the ocean, leading to warming trends that are a maximum at the ocean surface, but which decrease exponentially with depth.
Scenario 2) Warming with a SMALL increase in ocean mixing. This case will result in weaker surface warming, and slightly stronger warming of the deep ocean, both compared to Scenario 1. The warming still might decrease exponentially with depth.
Scenario 3) Warming with a LARGER increase in ocean mixing. This case could lead to an actual surface temperature decrease, but warming of the deep ocean, similar to what I believe Trenberth is claiming.
Yes, the surface waters warmed before the deep ocean in Scenario 3, but it was in the form of a weaker temperature drop than would have otherwise occurred.
Because of the immense heat capacity of the deep ocean, the magnitude of deep warming in Scenario 3 might only be thousandths of a degree. Whether we can measure such tiny levels of warming on the time scales of decades or longer is very questionable, and the new study co-authored by Trenberth is not entirely based upon observations, anyway.
I only bring this issue up because I think there are enough legitimate problems with global warming theory to not get distracted by arguing over issues which are reasonably well understood. It takes the removal of only one card to cause a house of cards to fall.
But it also points out how global warming or cooling can occur naturally, at least theoretically, from natural chaotic variations in the ocean circulation on long time scales. Maybe Trenberth believes the speedup in the ocean circulation is due to our driving SUVs and flipping on light switches. He has already stated that more frequent El Ninos are caused by anthropogenic global warming. (Except now they are less frequent go figure).
In some sense, natural global warming and cooling events are made possible by the fact that we live within an exceedingly thin warm surface skin of a climate system in which most of the mass (the deep ocean) is exceedingly cold. Any variations in the heat exchange between those two temperature worlds (such as during El Nino with decreased mixing, or La Nina with increased mixing) can cause large changes in our thin-skinned world. It that sense, Trenberth is helping to point out a reason why climate can change naturally.
Have Ocean Winds Increased Recently?
Trenberth and co-authors claim that their modeling study suggests an increase in ocean surface winds since 2004 has led to greater mixing of heat down into the ocean, limiting surface warming.
Fortunately, we can examine this claim with satellite observations. We have daily global measurements of ocean surface roughness and foam generation, calibrated in terms of an equivalent 10 meter height wind speed, from AMSR-E:
I dont know about you, but I dont see an increase in surface winds since 2004 in the above plot. This plot, which is based upon wind retrievals that have been compared to (as I recall) close to 1 million buoy observations, really needs to be extended back in time with SSM/I and SSMIS data, which would take it back to mid-1987. Thats on my to-do list.
So far, I would say that the so-called missing heat problem is not yet solved. I have argued before that I dont think it actually exists, since the missing heat argument assumes that feedbacks in the climate system are positive and that radiative energy is accumulating in the system faster than surface warming would seem to support.
For the reasons outlined above, Trenberths view of deep ocean storage of the missing heat is still theoretically possible since increased vertical ocean mixing doesnt have to be wind-driven. But I remain unconvinced by arguments that depend upon global deep ocean temperature changes being measured to an accuracy of hundredths or even thousandths of a degree.
Finally, as I have mentioned before, even if increased rate of mixing of heat downward is to blame for a recent lack of surface warming, the total energy involved in the warming of the deep oceans is smaller than that expected for a sensitive climate system. Plots of changes in ocean heat content since the 1950′s might look dramatic with an accumulation of gazillions of Joules, but the energy involved is only 1 part in 1,000 of the average energy flows in and out of the climate system. To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, requires too much faith for even me to muster.
END OF DR. SPENCERS POST
Back to Roys statement, But I remain unconvinced by arguments that depend upon global deep ocean temperature changes being measured to an accuracy of hundredths or even thousandths of a degree:
First consider that the ARGO floats have had complete coverage of the global oceans since 2007. The Earths oceans and seas cover about 361 million square kilometers or 139 million square miles. There were 3566 ARGO floats in operation in March 2013. If the floats were spaced evenly, then each ARGO float is sampling the temperature at depth for a surface area of approximately 101,000 square kilometers or 39,000 square milesor an area about the size of Iceland or the State of Kentucky.
Second, consider that the ARGO era is when the sampling is at its best, but before ARGO temperature sampling at depth was very poor. Refer to the following animation. Temperature sample maps at 1500 meters (6MB). There is little observational data at depths of 1500 meters prior to ARGO. In other words, we have little idea about the temperatures of the global oceans to depths of 2000 meters and their variability before ARGO.
Third, on top of that, consider that ARGO floats have been found to be unreliable, hence the need to constantly readjust their observations.
Do we have any idea about the variability of the temperatures and ocean heat content of the global oceans to depth? Simple answer: No.
For more information on the problems with Ocean Heat Content data, refer to the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All Its Stacked Up to Be? and NODCs Pentadal Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000m) Creates Warming That Doesnt Exist in the Annual Data A Lot of Warming.
I have no idea if this is true or not...
But if you give me enough money I will program a ‘data model’ to say anything you want.
From the comments:
*************************************EXCERPT*******************************************
Poor LeBron.
*********************************************EXCERPT***************************************
I have often wondered if the very slow moving deep ocean currents are the Earths natural thermostat.
Sometime ago, someone knowledgable on WUWT commented that if the oceans gave up 0.1 degrees C of heat in one second (an obvious impossibility) then the atmospheres temperature would instantly rise to boiling point.
If Trenberths missing heat is being transported away from the surface by these deep ocean currents, it would mean two things:
1. The Earths natural thermostat would ensure CAGW is a complete impossibility.
2. There would be a very tiny rise in the level of the oceans as they expanded due to the minute increase in temperature.
I have a suspicion Trenberth may be right about there being missing heat transported to the bowels of the oceans. The point is he has not followed the argument through, for if this is currect as said earlier these deep ocean currents must be a significant part of the worlds natural thermostat system.
Below is a Wikipedia comment on these deep ocean currents.
********************************************************EXCERPT*********************************
I can see no way of heating deep ocean by bypassing the surface. It just is not possible and nothing Ive read suggests otherwise. Yes, the surface can mix caused by long lived storms / depressions but not down below 700m. Roy is gradually losing it, sadly, what with measuring back radiation with a cheap IR temp metre (8ù to 14ù bandwidth) by pointing at cloud and open sky, pulezzz.
Thanks Ernest. The oceans can’t warm at depth — the waters get brinier and colder with depth, period. This ridiculous claim was debunked years ago, and revived a year or so ago.
Anybody who ever took a single high-school chemistry class would reject that hypothesis outright. It is risible and pitiful at the same time.
Otherwise, all that lab work about proving heat rises would have been a waste of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
The best thing about the deep ocean is that its virtual total unexplored , so you can make great claims about maybe in it and know its unlikely others can prove you wrong . Of course such a position has no real place in science where the normal procedure is to offer proof to back up claims , but then this is climate science and Trenberths is already on record expressing how he want to reverse the normal procedure for the null hypotheses. So the fact this trick is to science what Charlie Manson is to family values is to be expected .
I have asked this question a number of times , but it is worth asking again , are their any actual standards within climate science? Then have show time and again they cannot even meet the academic standards expected of any science undergraduate when they write an essay , but are we really saying that BS mixed with guess work is good enough for these professional ?
Frankly if I was one of their students that had my work marked down , I be tempted to point out to them their own basic failings in following the scientific approach.