Global temperature and missing heat whereabouts update

Posted: October 4, 2014 by tallbloke in climate, Idiots, Measurement, methodology, Politics, radiative theory, Uncertainty

The plot below needs little explanation. The globally average surface temperature hasn’t warmed in over 18 years according to the RSS satellite dataset.

18yrs1mth

 

Now, Some say the surface hasn’t warmed because the ‘missing heat’ has gone into the oceans instead of warming the surface.However, if we look at ARGO; the best data we have for ocean heat content (OHC) (before it got reworked in 2010 by dropping buoys showing cooling from the dataset) – we see that Ocean Heat Content actually fell from 2003 to 2008:

Loehle-OHC-800

Where else could the heat have ‘hidden’? Well, the warmists claim it went deeper than the bulk of the ARGO system measures – below 700m, where uncertainty rises dramatically. However, they offer no plausible explanation of how energy is transferred through a 700m deep COOLING layer, in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics.

To try to resolve this conundrum, Talkshop contributor Peter Berenyi correlated ARGO data with CERES FLASHflux outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) data. He found that the best fit shows that the Earth’s energy balance went negative around 2005 – so unless the second law has been on holiday for the last 9 years, more energy has been leaving the planet than arriving – in defiance of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect theory, which says that extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes more energy to be ‘trapped’ in Earth’s climate system.

The missing heat has left the building

The usual way of dealing with a situation where observations defy the theory is to revisit the theory. In climate science though, we get statements from people like Kevin Trenberth saying “the data are surely wrong”, and the removal of the ‘bad’ data from the dataset by Sid Levitus in order to make the data fit the theory. I think they learned this trick from Michael Mann.

Due diligence at the Talkshop, and at a couple of other blogs such as Digging in the clay has led to discoveries concerning the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect theory which show that the misapplication of radiative theory to the atmosphere is fundamentally flawed. How long it will take to get this recognised and corrected by mainstream climate scientists is anyone’s guess. They are under a lot of political, financial and reputational pressure to avoid the inevitable – the self correction of science which occurs when the scientific method is rigorously adhered to and science is allowed to progress.

In the meantime, lukewarmer teams such as ‘Watts Up With That’ who believe the Enhanced GHE theory is correct but overestimated have pushed away those sceptical of the ‘consensus’  with a lot of nastiness and vitriol, and smeared them as purveyors of ‘far out’ theory. This makes the job of clearing up the errors in the misapplication of standard radiative theory to Earth’s climate system which underpins the Enhanced GHE theory more difficult, as the consensus team is now employing these lukewarmers as their useful idiots in maintaining its position.

Nevertheless, work continues on improving the clarity of our exposition of the errors, and the better alternative theory we are developing, which involves solar variation and its causes. Rick Salvador’s solar system harmonic resonance model is looking pretty good for hindcasting the last 4000 years of solar variability as determined by Steinhilber et al’s TSI reconstruction derived from the 10Be proxy .

salvador4k-fit2

Watch this space for further developments.

 

Comments
  1. Doug Proctor says:

    Why does the ocean energy graph only go to the end of 2009?

    Just for fun, could you post the pre- and post-2010 graphs? I mean, if the excluded data was included, bringing it up-to-date, or has The Team deep-sixed the data from the inconvenient buoys, which I would think are still out there recording temperatures and salinities ….

  2. tallbloke says:

    Doug: Peter Berenyi made that plot in early 2010. The ARGO dataset is available, but I don’t know which data is included/excluded.

  3. Doug Proctor says:

    Yeah, in essence I’m asking for stuff I can’t get myself, or is so awkward to get that I don’t get it – as opposed to the really awkward stuff I would get if I needed it in my work life. Such is the difference between what we could, would, should do and what we did, and what we achieve when it is our business to achieve.

    Both sides of this business are far more awkward to argue persuasively than the attractive talking celebrity heads would have us understand. Which is, of course, why the loudest voices get the attention. We slum-down to the easiest solution, the adversarial view of all dispute resolution, that he-who-makes-the-most-noise (and gets away with it) must be closest to the truth.

    What is and what is-thought-to be … such a world of difference between the two! In my profession I am constantly bumping up against what “everybody” knows. The worst is what the manager “knows”, the mess increasing as we climb the corporate ladder. In geology we call it a problem of “bar geology”, the stuff you hear on the cocktail circuit as a CEO. A “new” discovery, fantastic results, “company makers” just next door! Such brilliance over “there”, compared to “here”. Always the bits that support one’s position of ego, fame and fortune. Turns out the new play is old, now properly developed and managed, with a well-defined area and only a portion of the activity is truly good. (The claim to 1000-year gas resources in Britain is such an example.) But to get the “guys” to listen, to understand that the anecdotal version is not accurate is truly difficult. You get a semi-blank, disturbed look and silence. It is a small version of what I previously called The Discombobulation Factor. They come to know and accept, but is always a quiet acceptance, a subject that just goes away.

    Michael Mann truncated his graphs at 2005 at that most recent talk and wasn’t called on it. Of course not, Gleick isn’t going to say anything. It would be personally and socially awkward to raise an issue that isn’t supposed to exist anymore. But it does exist. Temps haven’t gone up. Yet, for the skeptics to get the up-dated version out with its inconvenient pause is seriously hard, and, really, impossible.

    Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/07/three-facts-most-sceptics-dont-seem-to-understand/) has an interesting recent post about how rebuttals don’t go anywhere when the initial claim fits the popular paradigm – which I’m sure the witch “deniers” were physically aware of several hundred years ago. Unless the skeptics can get a popular, respected social leader to openly question the CAGW narrative, the struggle will go on and on. They have the professional time, energy and resources at their disposal. We have mostly the “huh?” reaction that things don’t make sense, that models have not demonstrated usefulness or accuracy, and that “adjustments” that only go in the way of furthering models are intrinsically suspect.

    In our personal life, the “sniff test” does us well. In our intellectual life, we are more convinced by the smoothness of the PowerPoint presentation than we are by its smell. It is a strange disconnect, perhaps driven by a Darwinian desire to belong to the group, to enjoy the group’s protection and benefits. As long as the group is marching together, we ignore the sight of a cliff and an angry sea beyond. And the guy standing at the side of the column, pointing and tearing his hair out as he tries to get us to PAY ATTENTION.

    Ahhh, another Saturday morning rant.

  4. NikFromNYC says:

    Both Judith Curry and Lubos Motl pointed out how the second law of thermodynamics disallows captured atmospheric greenhouse heat in the ocean, necessarily equivalent to mere hundredth of a degree due to the very high heat capacity of water, once diffused by entropy into the whole ocean, to *ever* reconcentrate only at the surface again to thus heat the atmosphere back up by full tenths of a degree. I imagine it’s even like adding the full Earth as a heat sink since the crust is in greater thermal contact with the ocean that the airy atmosphere is, by a factor of about a thousand due to density effects on thermal conduction.

    motls.blogspot.com/2014/10/writers-in-nature-declared-heretics-by.html

  5. Curious George says:

    Missing heat is like a missing money in a casino: By now I should have won $500; how come I am $100 down? The heat is missing from .. not my yard; not even Dr. Mann’s yard; it is missing from models. A pure travesty. Mother Nature should be more accommodating to models.

  6. Reblogged this on CRIKEY !#&@ …… IT'S THE WEATHER CYCLES and commented:
    NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR 18 yrs
    and
    we see that Ocean Heat Content actually fell from 2003 to 2008:
    the Earth’s energy balance went negative around 2005 –
    Tallblokes workshop continues to lay the stats’ on the table

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Rick Salvador’s solar system harmonic resonance model is looking pretty good for hindcasting the last 4000 years of solar variability as determined by Steinhilber et al’s TSI reconstruction derived from the 10Be proxy .”

    Looking forward to more details.

  8. Richard111 says:

    This ‘missing heat’ hiding in the oceans idea is strange. I can understand ‘more energy’ being absorbed in the oceans than is currently accounted for, but I cannot see how it would increase future atmospheric temperatures. It might melt more polar ice but this would cool sea surface temperatures and lead to cooler summers.
    Another idea I find impossible to follow is that ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb IR from the surface and reradiate just half of that energy back to the surface and MAKE IT WARMER ! ! !
    If there is a tutorial on that subject please ensure it includes all 3,800 active lines of IR centred on 15 microns where CO2 in the atmosphere is very active. The total bandwidth is from 13 microns to 17 microns. Please explain how CO2 can absorb ANY radiation over this specific band when it is already warmer than MINUS 50C (223K) which is the PEAK RADIATION TEMPERATURE for 13 microns. When will the current rules on blackbody science be rewritten to account for the amazing phenomena being claimed?

  9. ren says:

    We can already see the lock in the zone of the ozone at an altitude of about 23 km above the Bering Strait.

  10. p.g.sharrow says:

    The missing heat went into space! The increase in sea ice cover is a huge proxi of the decrease in energy (heat) content, in the oceans. We don’t need no stinking Argus buoys and fancy computer models to demonstrate that. The Earth is screaming loud and clear. “It will be getting colder here”. pg

  11. ren says:

    Tomorrow sulfur dioxide pollution will cover Reykjavik.

  12. vukcevic says:

    New paper:
    Planetary orbits’ effect to the Northern Hemisphere climate, from solar corona
    formation to the Earth climate.

    Click to access PoulosPaper.pdf

  13. suricat says:

    I’ve a problem understanding this thread Rog.

    You introduce “missing heat”, then show ‘temperature trends’. The two are disconnected.

    The ‘trend’ for OHC is correctly shown as temperature, but nature’s method used for cooling the ocean doesn’t register on the ‘temperature scale’ for the atmosphere.

    Needless to say that the oceans cool by releasing ‘vapour’ into the atmosphere, but this process doesn’t alter the temperature of the atmosphere immediately adjacent to the ocean surface by much (it’s ‘latent’ [bound into ‘another’ {latency} attractor]). However, I speak of ‘energy transport’ here.

    “Due diligence at the Talkshop, and at a couple of other blogs such as Digging in the clay has led to discoveries concerning the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect theory which show that the misapplication of radiative theory to the atmosphere is fundamentally flawed.”

    I concur, but it isn’t good ‘practise’ to offer scenarios of ‘heat content’ against ‘temperatures’ when looking for “missing heat” (ENERGY)!

    I blame Trenberth et al for this obfuscation. Trenberth et al used a global surface ‘precipitation’ average as an assumption for the ‘latent activity’ of Earth’s atmosphere, whereas atmospheric activity is greater than this for evaporation. See ‘virga rain-cloud’…

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/clouds/virga

    …where we see that ‘latent activity’ is naturally active at altitudes well above ‘surface’ altitudes. Thus, ‘surface precipitation’ is irrelevant and incomplete for any ‘energy budget’ assumption.

    Do you realise why I have ‘a problem understanding this thread Rog’?

    Best regards, Ray.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Ray: I’ve a problem understanding this thread Rog.

    No worries, I’ve a problem understanding your comment too. 🙂

    You introduce “missing heat”, then show ‘temperature trends’. The two are disconnected.

    They’re not tightly coupled. But the ocean’s surface temperature is a reasonably good proxy for OHC

    The ‘trend’ for OHC is correctly shown as temperature

    It’s shown in Joules.

    but nature’s method used for cooling the ocean doesn’t register on the ‘temperature scale’ for the atmosphere.

    Surface air temperature follows ocean surface temperature pretty closely.

    (it’s ‘latent’ [bound into ‘another’ {latency} attractor])

    Interesting looking notation, but I have no idea what it means.

    it isn’t good ‘practise’ to offer scenarios of ‘heat content’ against ‘temperatures’ when looking for “missing heat” (ENERGY)!

    That’s why heat content was plotted against OLR, not temperature.

    Thus, ‘surface precipitation’ is irrelevant and incomplete for any ‘energy budget’ assumption.

    I agree, and the OHC-Flashflux correlation shows that there is no “missing heat” in Earth’s climate system because it’s somewhere past Alpha Centauri by now. The heat has left the building.

    And that tells us that ARGO data as presented isn’t giving us the true picture.

  15. The missing heat has definitely gone into the upper ocean, according to the BBC and climate models. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29474646

    “The planet’s oceans store more than 90% of the heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions”. It must be correct then!

  16. David Arcibald says:

    The hindcast match on Rick Salvador’s model is good. As it is based on VEJ, which can be predicted, does he also have model output predicting the next 100 years or so?

  17. tallbloke says:

    Hi David, yes. see his PRP paper

    Click to access prp-1-117-2013.pdf

    That’s a slightly earlier iteration of the model, but results are similar to the latest (which solely uses planetary harmonics).

  18. ren says:

    Vukcevic
    “In conclusion the Earth-Venus resonance is a regularity that makes the Sun oscillate
    which probably leads to the formation of solar corona. This oscillation produces
    forced oscillation to geomagnetic field. Earth in turn absorbs energy from this
    oscillation and heats. The presented documentation equals to a probability greater
    than 95%. As such this phenomenon is a combined effect of solar wind affection to
    geomagnetic field and in turn geomagnetic field originated electricity conduction to
    the atmosphere.
    A side effect of the Earth-Venus resonance is the interchange between Glacial
    Ages occurring every 100k years. As the orbital eccentricity of the planets changes,
    the Earth-Venus syzygy resonance is lost (because of the change of the sidereal year
    duration). As a result of this the Sun stops oscillating (probably the solar corona
    disappears) and Earth freezes. ”

    Click to access PoulosPaper.pdf

  19. Anything is possible says:

  20. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: October 6, 2014 at 6:55 am

    (Ray: I’ve a problem understanding this thread Rog.)

    “No worries, I’ve a problem understanding your comment too. :)”

    Perhaps further communication will improve this understanding.

    (You introduce “missing heat”, then show ‘temperature trends’. The two are disconnected.)

    “They’re not tightly coupled. But the ocean’s surface temperature is a reasonably good proxy for OHC”

    No it isn’t, and they aren’t anything like “tightly coupled” either. I refer to the first graphic in your presentation that relates ‘SST’ with ‘OLR’. What correlation are you looking for? IMHO ‘specific humidity’ and ‘saturation regions’ correlated for column WV are better suited for a comparison with OLR, but that’s conjecture.

    (The ‘trend’ for OHC is correctly shown as temperature)

    “It’s shown in Joules.”

    Please excuse my irony.

    Do you propose a means to disclose the ‘rate’ of energy transport from ‘insolation’ to ‘OLR’ with your first graphic? If so, it isn’t ‘clear’.

    (but nature’s method used for cooling the ocean doesn’t register on the ‘temperature scale’ for the atmosphere.)

    “Surface air temperature follows ocean surface temperature pretty closely.”

    Hmm, need to disagree on a point of the ‘offset’ of ‘vapour pressure’. You may feel the need to discus this later.

    ((it’s ‘latent’ [bound into ‘another’ {latency} attractor]))

    “Interesting looking notation, but I have no idea what it means.”

    Too many parenthesise perhaps, but the logic is true. It’s all about the ‘attractors’ of the energy presented to the systems that can absorb that energy. SS is ‘black body’ to all ‘vis’ spectra that isn’t ‘reflected’, but is a ‘reflector’ to ‘wave lengths/frequencies’ that are ‘reflective’ dependant on the ‘angle of refraction’ for the surface structure. Energy ‘released’ from SS is only ‘Latent’.

    (it isn’t good ‘practise’ to offer scenarios of ‘heat content’ against ‘temperatures’ when looking for “missing heat” (ENERGY)!

    “That’s why heat content was plotted against OLR, not temperature.”

    NO! You did! In the first graphic the the comparison/correlation was/is “SST” against ‘satellite’ “OLR”! Why?

    “And that tells us that ARGO data as presented isn’t giving us the true picture.”

    I concur.

    Best regards, Ray.

  21. ren, Vukcevic,
    thanks for mentioning the paper,
    I don’t know why sites like ClimateAudit, ReferenceFrame and RealClimate don’t ponder on it
    In fact I even had post deleted in the claim it was self-advertisment