Skip to content

Study Finds ARGO Buoys Show No Evidence Of Missing Heat

September 30, 2013
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

Further to recent debate about missing heat disappearing into the oceans, it is worth recalling a study from 2010 by Knox & Douglass.

 

ABSTRACT

 

A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend  is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2,as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling
rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to  support the existence of a frequently cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

 

Of course, we still have only a very short period of ARGO data, so it is much too early to make any projections either way. Nevertheless, this paper confirms there is absolutely no evidence at all that the missing heat has gone into the oceans.

6 Comments
  1. Keitho permalink
    September 30, 2013 1:15 pm

    Well done Paul. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by me and many others.

    I do hope that the lack of evidence for the sea monsters having eaten the heat doesn’t lead to ARGO being de-funded.

  2. Brian H permalink
    October 1, 2013 4:30 am

    I wonder what the data from the ignored “too cold” buoys shows …

  3. Streetcred permalink
    October 1, 2013 5:33 am

    Deep ocean heating as a source of the missing heat is a recent construct … it was only thought about after Knox & Douglass (2010) as it was still being pursued in the troposphere by the Inquisitor. Only recently have they discovered this new excuse, so how would the ARGO buoys have possibly detected it ? Not surprising then that the data shows not transmission of heat to the deep. /sarc off … but maybe it will once they’ve had time to torture it.

  4. October 1, 2013 6:15 am

    When I was studying electrical engineering I came across the J function. This is the square root of minus one. Which is an imaginary number. At first this puzzled me. However it is very useful function for calculating real things. Do the climate scientists not have the nous to come up with a similar function to deal with the imaginary energy which is temporarily lurking somewhere near to us in the parallel universe?

  5. October 2, 2013 2:42 pm

    Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    The IPCC Computers Do Not Reflect Reality, Ignore the Sun and Medieval Warming Period and claim the ocean swallowed the “missing heat” NOT http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/09/the-computer-says-no-tom-quirk-on-why-this-report-from-the-ipcc-should-be-its-last/

  6. VooDude permalink
    October 9, 2015 12:55 am

    The ARGO data is too short. Warmists complain that the RSS and UAH satellite TLT data, that shows a linear-regression negative slope from 18+ years ago, to today, is “too short” … yet they glom on to less than 10 years of ARGO data, and use it as a baseline.

    ”…different climatologies lead to different values of long-term OHC trend: the weaker trend was always obtained when historical climatologies were used. A detailed revisit of the calculation of the OHC clarified the role of climatology. … we concluded that an Argo-period climatology should always be used to calculate the ocean heat content, in order to provide a consistent reference time.”

    ie, if it looks worse, use it! “See, it’s worse than we thought”!

    Cheng, Lijing, and Jiang Zhu 2015. “Influences of the choice of climatology on ocean heat content estimation.” Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
    http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lijing_Cheng/publication/267542465_Influences_of_the_choice_of_climatology_on_ocean_heat_content_estimation/links/54f026bb0cf25f74d723e0a5.pdf

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: