New Paper: Recent Energy Balance of Earth (Knox and Douglass)

[nzucker]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/new-paper-on-argo-data-trenberths-ocean-heat-still-missing/#more-31063

Knox and Douglass, two researchers at the University of Rochester, have determined that 0-700m OHC (ocean heat content) has fallen from 2003-2008. This study uses the revolutionary Argo technology, a new method of measuring OHC that has become popular in the last decade. They conclude that Trenberth's "missing heat" is still nowhere to be found in the world's oceans, even including small increases in 2000m OHC. This finding casts serious doubt on AGW theory if it is correct, and puts into question whether the "missing heat" is a desperation maneuver designed to distract us from the lack of surface warming.

Discuss...

[skierinvermont]

http://wattsupwithth...ing/#more-31063

Knox and Douglass, two researchers at the University of Rochester, have determined that 0-700m OHC (ocean heat content) has fallen from 2003-2008. This study uses the revolutionary Argo technology, a new method of measuring OHC that has become popular in the last decade. They conclude that Trenberth's "missing heat" is still nowhere to be found in the world's oceans, even including small increases in 2000m OHC. This finding casts serious doubt on AGW theory if it is correct, and puts into question whether the "missing heat" is a desperation maneuver designed to distract us from the lack of surface warming.

Discuss...

Not new at all. Several studies have been published in the last 2 years showing the exact same thing but there is disagreement. Otherr studies show rising 0-700m heat content. See Leuliette 2009 and Cazenave 2009. Cazenave 2009 uses only the highest quality data. Cazenave 2009 examined the various disagreeing studies and presented evidence in favor of those showing rising heat content.

Studies of 0-2000m heat content show heat content is rising.

And 5 years of data is not especially important given the precision problems with measurements over such short time periods. It shows up as a tiny blip in the long term trend seen below.

[BethesdaWX]

Not really new at all. Several studies have been published in the last 2 years showing the exact same thing. Although studies that restrict themselves to the highest quality data show warming.

Studies of 0-2000m heat content show heat content is rising.

Not true at all skier.

At least they go into detail here, and won't refuse an FOI request. No raw data-code available in NOAA's

[nzucker]

Not really new at all. Several studies have been published in the last 2 years showing the exact same thing. Although studies that restrict themselves to the highest quality data show warming.

Studies of 0-2000m heat content show heat content is rising.

Four different techniques analyzed in this study have the 0-700m OHC showing cooling. Even if the deeper ocean is warming, it is mathematically impossible for this to make up all the missing heat that Trenberth suggests.

Sounds like the "missing heat" is starting to look like BS. There's plenty of charts showing a plateau in OHC at 700m, 2000m, and surface temps. Definitely suspicious...

[Vandy]

I can't find any sources online that explain how OHC is calculated. Anybody have a link? The authors of the paper you link don't explain it (unless I missed it), which is annoying. Regardless, even though the rise in this quantity has stopped in the past six years, you still need to explain the rise in sea level measured by both satellite and surface gauges. If it isn't thermodynamic expansion related to positive heat flux, then what is it?

http://www.membrane....exjason2004.jpg

[BethesdaWX]

Four different techniques analyzed in this study have the 0-700m OHC showing cooling. Even if the deeper ocean is warming, it is mathematically impossible for this to make up all the missing heat that Trenberth suggests.

Sounds like the "missing heat" is starting to look like BS. There's plenty of charts showing a plateau in OHC at 700m, 2000m, and surface temps. Definitely suspicious...

Yeah I was wondering the same thing, no way the heat content is could even come close to NOAA in this case.

And no, the heat doesn't "look" like BS, it Is BS.

The Radiation reduction from earth can be tied to Mass GCC loss, especially at Lower levels, as well as decreasing solar magnetic flux for about 20yrs, while warm ocean cycles hold a positive base. YAWWWNNNN

[skierinvermont]

Four different techniques analyzed in this study have the 0-700m OHC showing cooling. Even if the deeper ocean is warming, it is mathematically impossible for this to make up all the missing heat that Trenberth suggests.

Sounds like the "missing heat" is starting to look like BS. There's plenty of charts showing a plateau in OHC at 700m, 2000m, and surface temps. Definitely suspicious...

I suggest you consult the following references. I know of no studies showing 0-2000m OHC falling. The only ones I know of show 0-2k OHC rising. Furthermore, even if they did, the data does not have the precision to analyze 5 year trends. The results don't have statistical significance.

Not new at all. Several studies have been published in the last 2 years showing the exact same thing but there is disagreement. Otherr studies show rising 0-700m heat content. See Leuliette 2009 and Cazenave 2009. Cazenave 2009 uses only the highest quality data. Cazenave 2009 examined the various disagreeing studies and presented evidence in favor of those showing rising heat content.

Studies of 0-2000m heat content show heat content is rising.

And 5 years of data is not especially important given the precision problems with measurements over such short time periods. It shows up as a tiny blip in the long term trend seen below.

[skierinvermont]

And here is 0-2000m from Schuckmann 2009:

[BethesdaWX]

NOAA has no evidence base to back up those predictions from the 1950s to even some of the 1990's. They don't give any raw data, & barely explain how they got the measurements.

I FOI requested for the raw data retrieved with the Package (1 & 2)... haha, yeah, like they;d ever give me that. No sir, not a single bit of evidence within it

[BethesdaWX]

I'm gonna play the skier game here

FYI,, sea level

[Vandy]

I looked at the Willis paper they took that from and indeed their results from ARGO show that thermal expansion was not the cause of sea level rise in the past few years. Their results also show a net mass influx into the oceans, which they speculate is a result of melting land ice, with a large contribution in 2004-05.

Also, not sure where they got the blue line, because there is nothing of the sort presented in Willis et al. 08.

[skierinvermont]

I looked at the Willis paper they took that from and indeed their results from ARGO show that thermal expansion was not the cause of sea level rise in the past few years. Their results also show a net mass influx into the oceans, which they speculate is a result of melting land ice, with a large contribution in 2004-05.

Also, not sure where they got the blue line, because there is nothing of the sort presented in Willis et al. 08.

Do consider however that Willis is called into question by the two more recent papers Leuliette 2009 and Cazenave 2009. Cazenave 2009 seems to use independent evidence to confirm Leuliette over Willis.

I haven't read Leuliette or Cazenave directly but to draw any conclusions about OHC you would have to read them I think.

[ORH_wxman]

Its an interesting paper and very worth looking deeper into. It might be a springboard to trying to study some of the more complex aspect of the climate.

[nzucker]

And here is 0-2000m from Schuckmann 2009:

This still shows a noticeable plateau after 2006...note the rapid rate of warming in 2003/2004 and then a leveling off of OHC at 2000m. This is basically consistent with the Knox/Douglass paper in showing that the Earth's accumulation of heat has significantly slowed. This is despite a moderate La Niña in 07-08 which should have dramatically increased OHC as upwelling brought cooler waters to the surface and cycled warmer SSTs back into the deeper ocean. Also, the slight increases in deep OHC do not satisfy nearly all of the missing heat that Trenberth discussed based on satellite estimates of the Earth's radiative imbalance, which it must be noted can only be measured on a yearly basis due to the small size of such heat imbalance. So where is the heat?

[nzucker]

Do consider however that Willis is called into question by the two more recent papers Leuliette 2009 and Cazenave 2009. Cazenave 2009 seems to use independent evidence to confirm Leuliette over Willis.

I haven't read Leuliette or Cazenave directly but to draw any conclusions about OHC you would have to read them I think.

I don't think the Leuliette/Miller paper is so much about OHC as SLR and why it is occurring...I can only see the abstract (not going to pay for this garbage on a substitute teacher's salary) but that seems to be the gist of what I'm reading.

[skierinvermont]

This still shows a noticeable plateau after 2006...note the rapid rate of warming in 2003/2004 and then a leveling off of OHC at 2000m. This is basically consistent with the Knox/Douglass paper in showing that the Earth's accumulation of heat has significantly slowed. This is despite a moderate La Niña in 07-08 which should have dramatically increased OHC as upwelling brought cooler waters to the surface and cycled warmer SSTs back into the deeper ocean. Also, the slight increases in deep OHC do not satisfy nearly all of the missing heat that Trenberth discussed based on satellite estimates of the Earth's radiative imbalance, which it must be noted can only be measured on a yearly basis due to the small size of such heat imbalance. So where is the heat?

The trend from January 2007 to December 2009 is strongly upwards in the graph I posted of 0-2000m OHC. The longest period that has a trend of zero using a linear regression is one year. And the trend is not statistically significant. You do not seem to have the statistical background to interpret these graphs.

It is not a slight increase in OHC from 2003-2008.. it approximately satisfies the .9W/m2 heat accumulation which Trenberth is referencing. To say it is slight tells me you do not comprehend the units.

[skierinvermont]

Also I would still love to read the many studies of 0-2000m OHC you said you had showing no warming 2003-2008.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think the Leuliette/Miller paper is so much about OHC as SLR and why it is occurring...I can only see the abstract (not going to pay for this garbage on a substitute teacher's salary) but that seems to be the gist of what I'm reading.

Steric sea level rise is a proxy for OHC.

30 second google search:

ftp://ftp.ifm.uni-hamburg.de/outgoing/scharffe/BACKUP/paper/2009_GRL_Leuliette.pdf

[ORH_wxman]

Someone will have to prove that Knox and Douglass's data is wrong otherwise its a major problem.

[skierinvermont]

Someone will have to prove that Knox and Douglass's data is wrong otherwise its a major problem.

Not really since the study completely fails to address the other studies of ARGO data the past 2 years which directly contradict them. They don't explain why their study is better or even how it is different from theirs. In order to 'replace' previous studies, they need to explain how their's is different and why it is better.

There's also the fact that 4 years is simply too short to analyze trends since the precision of the measurements is not that high.

[ORH_wxman]

Not really since the study completely fails to address the other studies of ARGO data the past 2 years which directly contradict them. They don't explain why their study is better or even how it is different from theirs. In order to 'replace' previous studies, they need to explain how their's is different and why it is better.

There's also the fact that 4 years is simply too short to analyze trends since the precision of the measurements is not that high.

The paper wouldn't have been published if it was as simple as you make it out to be. That is your opinion, not fact. Its perfectly relevant since it also agrees with lack of sfc warming this decade...whether you think 5 years is enough or not doesn't matter.

[nzucker]

Steric sea level rise is a proxy for OHC.

30 second google search:

ftp://ftp.ifm.uni-ha...L_Leuliette.pdf

Yes, but didn't Vandy point out that the researchers believe much of the rise is due to land ice melting, not thermal expansion? In this case, wouldn't it be a mistake to use observed sea level rise as a proxy for OHC?

Not really since the study completely fails to address the other studies of ARGO data the past 2 years which directly contradict them. They don't explain why their study is better or even how it is different from theirs. In order to 'replace' previous studies, they need to explain how their's is different and why it is better.

There's also the fact that 4 years is simply too short to analyze trends since the precision of the measurements is not that high.

It's amazing how you've come to believe the AGW crowd hook, line and sinker. You have totally surrendered your independent thought and investigation in order to embrace a mainstream viewpoint which makes you feel comfortable, as you always tend to do on political issues. Wherever the establishment goes, you follow. Just like a sheep to a slaughter.

It doesn't matter if excessive quantities of heat are "missing" with many studies showing OHC to be steady or slightly declining. You just ignore those that don't fit your point of view. It doesn't matter that surface temperatures have barely warmed at all in 12 years despite a massive +AMO and neutral PDO/+ENSO regime. This doesn't elicit any skepticism. You just ignore it. It doesn't matter that there's clear evidence of exaggeration and corruption within the Hadley Center and IPCC, you just cast it aside because "their intentions are good." It doesn't matter that one of the most well-educated meteorologists on the board says there's a problem with global warming and missing heat content; you, a mediocre student who has no degree in meteorology, just ignore him.

And then you say I'm embarrassing myself.

[tacoman25]

Not really since the study completely fails to address the other studies of ARGO data the past 2 years which directly contradict them. They don't explain why their study is better or even how it is different from theirs. In order to 'replace' previous studies, they need to explain how their's is different and why it is better.

Sounds like a lack of consensus.

[nzucker]

Sounds like a lack of consensus.

But "the science is settled" Tacoman.

No need to dispute it. Doesn't matter if we're not actually warming, Trenberth just dreams up some extra heat somewhere in the Earth and that's sufficient.

[skierinvermont]

The paper wouldn't have been published if it was as simple as you make it out to be. That is your opinion, not fact. Its perfectly relevant since it also agrees with lack of sfc warming this decade...whether you think 5 years is enough or not doesn't matter.

You are selecting one study amongst many contradicting studies. Nothing can be stated until the discrepancies are resolved.

It is not my opinion that 5 years is not a statistically significant trend.. that is a statement be renowned skeptic Roger Pielke Sr. with respects to the Knox+Douglass study.

[ORH_wxman]

Sounds like a lack of consensus.

Yes it does. Like I said above....they wouldn't have gone through the process of publishing this paper if it was so obviously incorrect. It might be flawed, but there's reason to believe they have a point.

Automatically dismissing it seems pretty close minded to me. I think it good we are getting more peer reviewed papers coming out that question some of the AGW theory....its healthy for the science. We had the McShane and Wyner paper tearing down the hockey stick earlier too.

[skierinvermont]

Sounds like a lack of consensus.

Correct. There is a lack of consensus on whether 0-700m OHC is rising or falling from 2003-2008.

But long term OHC is definitely rising, strong consensus there.

The only studies I have read of 0-2000m OHC say it is rising. 0-2000m OHC is more comprehensive than 0-700m.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, but didn't Vandy point out that the researchers believe much of the rise is due to land ice melting, not thermal expansion? In this case, wouldn't it be a mistake to use observed sea level rise as a proxy for OHC?

It's amazing how you've come to believe the AGW crowd hook, line and sinker. You have totally surrendered your independent thought and investigation in order to embrace a mainstream viewpoint which makes you feel comfortable, as you always tend to do on political issues. Wherever the establishment goes, you follow. Just like a sheep to a slaughter.

It doesn't matter if excessive quantities of heat are "missing" with many studies showing OHC to be steady or slightly declining. You just ignore those that don't fit your point of view. It doesn't matter that surface temperatures have barely warmed at all in 12 years despite a massive +AMO and neutral PDO/+ENSO regime. This doesn't elicit any skepticism. You just ignore it. It doesn't matter that there's clear evidence of exaggeration and corruption within the Hadley Center and IPCC, you just cast it aside because "their intentions are good." It doesn't matter that one of the most well-educated meteorologists on the board says there's a problem with global warming and missing heat content; you, a mediocre student who has no degree in meteorology, just ignore him.

And then you say I'm embarrassing myself.

Show me a single study that says 0-2000m OHC is falling with a statistically significant trend. I've asked 3 times now. Otherwise your entire post is just trash talk.

[ORH_wxman]

You are selecting one study amongst many contradicting studies. Nothing can be stated until the discrepancies are resolved.

It is not my opinion that 5 years is not a statistically significant trend.. that is a statement be renowned skeptic Roger Pielke Sr. with respects to the Knox+Douglass study.

Where did I "select" anything? I just said that it would have to be proved wrong or there is a problem. I'm open to them being wrong or the AGW theory being flawed.

You were the one who has gone on the defensive this thread to completely trounce any part of the paper as being believable.

[skierinvermont]

Where did I "select" anything? I just said that it would have to be proved wrong or there is a problem. I'm open to them being wrong or the AGW theory being flawed.

You were the one who has gone on the defensive this thread to completely trounce any part of the paper as being believable.

It seems stupid to me to publish yet another study which is essentially identical to Loehle 2008 and Willis 2008, that adds nothing new to the debate, and which has already been addressed by Leuliette 2009 and Cazenave 2009.

In additon Schuckmann 2009 shows that OHC for 0-2000m is rising. This study only goes to 700m.

And in addition the data in the study does not support the conclusions. The data says 0-700m OHC is falling. Ok even if it is, that does not support their conclusion that the earth is not accumulating heat as Trenberth says it is. They do not address the fact that OHC is rising rapidly at 2000-700m. Their data does not support their conclusion.