The data re-analysis seems to be quite involved and it uses models as well as raw data. It is clear that there is much more to the analysis than adding up the temperatures and dividing by the number of thermometers. Why do I mention thet? Well, looking at the references provided by Jeff, the amount of heat missing is in the 1E22 Joule area - the graphs have a range of about 20E22 J. Using dQ = m * sh * dT where m is the mass of the oceans, sh is the specific heat and T the temperature we can see that the temperature change we are looking for is in the range of hundredths of a degree full scale or down to thousandths to get slopes, trends, periodic values etc. So the correction process could easily be providing more "missing heat" than the thermometers.
The "missing heat" should not be leaving the top of the atmosphere but that information, according to Trenberth in the supplied references, is not well known. The ARGO buoys have to cover, on average, about 100,000 sq km each. How representative will that be?
The general process of "re-analysis" seems to be carried out every 5 years "when improvements in ocean models, data assimilation methods, forcing fluxes or ocean observations are available." From " ...new atmospheric reanalyses, and improved quality-controlled ocean datasets, which include important corrections to observations ..." So even if Trenberth is right now he is not expected to be in 5 years time.
There is also the problem of how to line up the pre-ARGO (and very sparse) data with the later data.
When this "deep ocean" solution was proposed my first reaction was that there was no research in the area. However, I checked and there was. So maybe Trenberth had a point. When Jeff posted his question I was prompted to check the temperature range we would need to measure and I began to doubt again.
So my current view is that whether the heat is real and missing is not decided and even if it did exist and is hiding in the deep ocean I doubt that we could detect it.
1. From the latest Trenberth study: "... changes in the atmospheric circulation are instrumental for the penetration of the warming into the ocean, although the mechanisms at work are still to be established." and "One possibility suggested ... but whether as low frequency variability or a longer term trend remains an open question."
2. Then we have the absence of observations of the heat moving through the upper 300m layer of the ocean.
3. They also write: “La Ni?a events and negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers.” If this is actually true, then the heat is being diffused in the deep ocean and is unlikely to make it back to the atmosphere in a short time frame.
4. Just go ahead and read this analysis of the NODC ocean heat content data handling: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/...
5. Trend slopes in ocean heat content changed in 2003 which coincided with the introduction of ARGO. This may be a clue that previous data was an issue. Here is clear example: http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
6. "The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m?2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C." http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIO... And that's from 1955-2010 (due to the high heat capacity of the oceans). It' hard to imagine that year to year heating of the oceans is even detectable.
7. You tend to confuse "actual measurements" with "reanalysis".
There you go, that's a short list. If I had more time, I would elaborate. I know you may think I'm part of the "What do you make of these people?" group since I've asked many questions about this.
What I think is strange is that you appear to have put this "missing ocean heat" issue into the "this is settled science" bin in the face of so many unanswered questions.
_______________________________________...
Edit: You asked for reasons why somebody like me would keep bringing up the missing heat and I gave you several. I don't feel like debating each individual point since I felt I answered the question as asked. If you have some specific questions, then I suggest another, fresh question.
This is a very broad subject with many alleyways that people could spend hours going down each one. I know because I've done it and usually without much joy either. Hence my questions about missing heat.
_______________________________________...
Edit2: "If it isn't where do you think it has gone?"
Melting ice? Increased vegetation? That's two off the top of my head.
So what you're saying..... The heat fell to the bottom of the ocean?
........But it's really the PDO and ENSO?
Causing heat.......cooling.....fluxu......??? Wait... WHAT?
Those papers and links raise more questions than answers and show unequivocally, that this is NOT an explanation of scientific merit only an interesting side observation in an already well understood science. So many of these papers are simply trying to show why the models are not accurate to observation, and base their research on finding "proof" to "fix" the model reality, rather than asking if the models are fundamentally flawed, which they are.
"Do you think they are actually interested in the truth?"
The intersection of truth and YA anti-science deniers of climate change is the null set. You don't need to have a grasp of high school science (as many of these crackpot geezer nitwits clearly do not) to see that, and skip the rhetorical question.
"Where" the "missing heat" went qualifies as an example of scientific uncertainty where there is still debate and diverging hypotheses (though what you postulate is the most likely explanation), but this in no way invalidates the century of massive science evidencing human-caused global climate change that has been accepted by nearly every scientific academy worldwide for decades.
If a .300 baseball hitter has n a hitless slump lasting several games, people will naturally wonder why, and explanations may well vary. But nobody declares baseball to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the peanuts and crackerjack eating public.
I think that is ridiculous the oceans cover 70% of earth are an average of 3km deep, how can you measure that accurately, I mean any snorkel diver will tell that it is common to come across warm or cold patches in the sea for no obvious reason, and they expect a few thousand random measurements will cover that, especially as they are talking about 1 hundredth of a degree C.
Yes the oceans could be warming up but we cant know for certain at best it would be a guesstimate, that's why I was looking at sea level that would be a much better way of knowing.
One of those graphs has a nice little hockey blade on it just for you. How could you not believe it is the answer to all that you were looking for? Trenberth is like the crazy old prospector who thinks he is going to find gold just around the corner if he just keeps looking. I know that missing heat is around here somewhere.
Kano has it.
Any idea of how big the oceans are, any measurements been taken under the Antarctic ice shelves?
Or bottom of the Marianas Trench?
Until you can measure accurately you have no right even putting these theories forward.
The navies of the world which operate deep diving submarines can't even do it, with all the money and resources they have, what makes you think anyone else can?
Satellites? Please don't make me laugh.
I wonder just how much this has cost us? All this flopping around like a chicken with its head chopped off.
< Do you think they are actually interested in the truth?> Are you interested in the truth? That is the real question. I don't think you are. When I told you that we were threatened by an Ice Age a year ago. You mocked me. When I proved it you went out and mocked the proof. When we said the earth is cooling. you fought that and probably still are even though even James Hansen and Phil Jones admitted such. You have fought the truth as long as I have been associated with Y!A. Once one of your charts is proven wrong, you come out with another one. You have hid behind peer reviewed papers and such till environmental peer reviewed papers are a laughing stock and not as useful as toilet paper.
You have ridiculed people who know there is a creator. Yet you believe this all happened by accident. When in your lifetime, have you ever saw a car accident improve a car? If you ever cared to really study Evolution you would know that it couldn't possibly be true. Back in the 90s in Canadian universities, mostly, this subject was formally debated. Evolution never won an intellectual debate. And it will never since it has been proven too bogus. But yet you see some die hard professors, who were beaten in those debates, still hawking their sick theory. Do they want the truth? And more important, do you want the truth?
The earth is a heat sink. Some matter absorbs heat better than others. This was known long before you were born. Now all of a sudden you bright boys think you have discovered something new, and apparently even wrote peer reviewed papers pertaining to such. Each time you twist and turn you have proven to the world that you have taken billions of dollars out of our pockets without a clue as to what you were doing. That is the definition of a charlatan rather than a scientist. Do you want to know the truth? Here is a real scientist, just one of many.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Is the IPCC really interested in the truth?
Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."
We could go on, but the fact is although you say you are seeking truth, you shut down those who are. All you have to see is who has been proven right, Happer or Al Gore? Yet you go with Al Gore and ignore a true scientist.
Yes you don't have any idea of the truth. And now you admit it. Thank you.
Ha! Ha! And you seem proud that you believe in something, such as evolution, that can't even come close to be proven. Yet you deny that the Sun is the controlling force on Earth's temperature.
Yes I do ignore everything you post. The last post of yours that I looked up was a 1938 experiment about CO2 absorption of frequency. It was a good article, by the way, but it had nothing to do with AGW. If you would get a US amateur radio license, you would know all about that. It was nice in that they had expensive equipment and could do that, but it only confirmed what we already knew. So after that, I totally gave up studying your inane postings completely. Your postings are like a little boy handing someone a play block and expecting to prove that there is a building. You don't understand that, that would only satisfy part of your theory.
There is much of what is termed 'missing heat'. I have also produced peer reviewed literature showing why this would be possible here.
So there has been many recent posts concerning the 'missing heat'. I produced the data showing that the 'missing heat' has gone into the oceans below 700m. See tabs 2 and 3 at link below.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
There is much of what is termed 'missing heat'. I have also produced peer reviewed literature showing why this would be possible here.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/Meehl_Natureclimatechange2011-1.pdf
and provided actual measurements supporting this hypothesis here.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf
done by the new techniques discussed here
http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~huardda/articles/balmaseda12.pdf
the PDO and the related ENSO show much of what these talk about in the links below.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo.php
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Yet, for some reason, there was an individual who believes this is all based on models and others who have completely ignored this. What do you make of these people? Do you think they are actually interested in the truth? What about those that constantly bring up the 'missing heat'?
