Still Following the Heat

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:08 AM GMT on May 07, 2010

Still Following the Heat - Bumps and Wiggles (5):

Introduction: This is the fifth in a series on understanding climate variability, global warming, and what we might do about it. The series focuses on the past 30 years and the next 30 years. There has been so much going on it has become a bit of a ramble, but it’s a blog – so.

The basic idea in this series is that climate model projections and observational verifications are precise enough to tell us with extremely high confidence that the Earth’s surface will warm because of increasing carbon dioxide. With this knowledge in hand, a new standard is evolving in climate modeling, which is more in the spirit of traditional weather predictions. That is, more specific information about what is going to happen at a certain place at a certain time. To reach this new standard, it becomes imperative that we better quantify the bumps and wiggles in the observations for the last 30 years and use this information to develop our prediction skills for the next 30 years. It is no longer adequate to simply say that – given the observed natural variability, that any discrepancies between existing projections and observations are, formally, small. That is, they are noise.

Improving our ability to diagnose the discrepancies between model projections and observations challenges all aspects of the scientific investigation of the climate. Better observations are needed to sample climate variability. Better models are needed, and in particular, we will have to quantify better how pieces fit together and interact. Pieces? When we develop hypotheses, theories and predictive models, we break the climate system into pieces. One piece might be the type of convective cloud that causes thunderstorms, and that piece has to fit together with all of the other pieces that make up the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere has to fit together with the ocean and the land and the glaciers and the ice sheets and the sea ice and the trees and the people – it is a big problem. An important and understudied (I assert) part of climate science is “how do the pieces fit together.” While we know a lot, if we are going to understand the bumps and wiggles, then we are going to have to know more. (And for those who want to say it’s just a theory.)

So we break down the problem, and so far in this series (all linked below), we have talked about the Sun and the carbon dioxide that comes from volcanoes and “following the heat.” Of these the most important is following the heat. This is important because if you take a simple look at the warming due to carbon dioxide, the observed warming of the Earth’s surface is not as high as predicted. So what is wrong? In the second blog of the series we followed the heat into the ocean. Broadly in the last 30 years the heat content of the ocean has increased, and that is a far more convincing measure of a warming planet than the surface air temperature measurements. I want to revisit this because of a recent perspective by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo, who, investigating the recent bumps and wiggles, ask the question - why isn’t the ocean warming even faster? There is still missing heat. But first a diversion.

In the third entry of this series I introduced Simple Earth. Read that entry if you want the full description of the figure. Below is the same figure, but there has been one thing added to the figure. Namely, the blurry, reddish line on the surface. What this line represents is that if greenhouse gases increase, then there will be warming at the surface. (There will also be cooling in, say, the upper troposphere.)

Figure 1: Simple Earth 2: Some basic ingredients of the Earth’s climate and surface heating.

I also argued in that third entry that in the end, we were truly concerned about climate, climate change and humans. Sure we can dismiss the current warming as some cycle, but that takes humans and human-care out of the picture, and it is in our best interest to always think about climate and climate change in a human context. So when we think about it in the human context, we start to wonder about the warming at the surface, and especially, at the surface over land. Of course most of the Earth’s surface is ocean, and heat goes into the ocean. That’s what I represent in this figure:

Figure 2: Simple Earth 3: Some basic ingredients of the Earth’s climate. There is heat going into the ocean. (This is simple Earth, so this is vastly over simplified heat transport.)

So this brings us back to Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo. In Science Magazine on April 16, 2010, they have a Perspective, where they discuss missing heat. The point of their article is that if you look at the heat budget of the Earth from satellites in space, we can measure that the Earth is not currently in balance. Heat is staying on the planet; hence, it must be warming. If you focus on the past five years, then the planet is just not warming as fast as it should. They do not say that the basic conclusions that the surface of the Earth is warming and will warm more are incorrect. Again, neither they nor their data challenge those foundational results, but if you look at the details, the bumps and wiggles, then we have some work left to do to fully understand what is going on. They conclude that now that geoengineering is entering our discussion, we really must be able to understand these bumps and wiggles.

This heat will be found, probably in the deep ocean, where we don’t have such good observations. The discrepancy will be explained. It is, ultimately, better observations that Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo call for. (The discussion of the paper in blogs amongst both scientists and politically motivated sorts is pretty interesting. ( 1 , 2 , 3))

During my career, I have been fortunate enough to have some scientific successes – figured out something new, helped build an algorithm that got some use, or figured out a technique that mattered. Each time the result seemed big and significant in the moment. It’s not long after getting such a result that it seems mundane, perhaps almost self-evident – why did it take so long to figure that out? This is a little of what we are talking about here. So when Trenberth and Fasullo say,

“So, although some heat has gone into the recordbreaking loss of Arctic sea ice, and some has undoubtedly contributed to the unprecedented melting of Greenland and Antarctica, it does not add up to anywhere near enough to account for the measured energy difference at the top of the atmosphere.” (Emphasis mine.)

They are looking at the next problem, the bumps, the wiggles. They, their analysis, their observations offer no serious relief from the warming, the sea level rise, and the changing weather.


Bumps and Wiggles (1): Predictions and Projections

Bumps and Wiggles (2): Some Jobs for Models and Modelers (Sun and Ocean)

Bumps and Wiggles (3): Simple Earth

Bumps and Wiggles (4): Volcanoes and Long Cycles

And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 645 - 595

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

My vote goes to Maelstrom. Interesting how Florida and Cyclone clogged the airways as usual and Maelstrom with minimal words landed so many punches.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 971
I'm calling it a night...I'll check back most likely sometime tomorrow.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
№ 628
Just curious. Where is the 8-year trend line that goes from 2001-2009?

№ 627
Even your graph shows that the warming trend from the mid-70's has not remained through the last decade.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580

JFlorida assails skeptics for posting links to blogs he considers not credible, and then he posts [I'm not going to count them] links to a blog run by Coby Beck. Anyone wondering who he is and what his views are can Google him themselves and form their own opinions. I don't see how he is more credible than any skeptical bloggers, but that is my opinion. I am not going waste time here engaging in a game "Smear The Other Guy's Sources".
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
№ 616

Looking at this graph: 1998 and 2009/10 El Niños exhibit similar temperatures, 2000 and 2008 La Niñas likewise, overall trend pretty flat, unless you are deliberately choosing your endpoints as trough/peak or vice versa to show warming or cooling. Is this meaningful? It's probably too short of a time period to tell, but it does represent a change from the 1975-2000 overall trend.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580

Like the Planet could care less what one single Human thinks.

Its the effects the Whole species Industrialized driven Wholesale trashing of the atmosphere via fossil Fuels Combustion thats causing the warming.

That science has long been settled.

All thats left is the whiners.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 449 Comments: 140058
№ 605
Quote: you were the one to originally say 10-15 years ago, which is 2000 and 1995.

Ahhh...Nuts. So I did. I guess I should have said twelve years ago--but then I would have been accused of cherry-picking 1998. Oh well, I guess I made it convenient for him then.

Added: ...and I was kidding earlier, in case it wasn't clear, you can certainly shorten "sirmaelstrom" to "maelstrom" if you prefer. I know I prefer to type SSIGG than StSimonsIslandGAGuy.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
№ 601
Quote: Explain that.
The maximum at the far right of MichaelSTL's graph is due to the recent El Niño, which always causes a spike in the global temperature record. It was convenient for him to compare this temperature to those of local minima in 1995 and 2000.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
№ 596

Big Dan Teague! That is one of my favorite movies.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
№ 595
MichaelSTL's graph linked directly to NASA GISS data. I did find it interesting that he picked 2000 and 1995, both local minima on the graph, to compare to today's El Niño-induced maximum. I supposed we all like those cherries, I guess. [Cherry-picking, Get it? LOL? Ahh...Never Mind].
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
If StLouis is posting a graph,..the graph is a sourced one.

He knows a lot of climate science.

And I trust the data he posts 100%.

He's Bona fide in my Public eye .

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 449 Comments: 140058

Viewing: 645 - 595

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.