In the fifth assessment report by IPCC we find the following statement:
“Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on average from 1971 to 2010 (high confidence). The upper ocean (0-700 m) accounts for about 64% of the total energy change inventory. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.”
(Ref: Contribution from Working group I; On the scientific basis; to the fifth assessment report by IPCC; Chapter 3; Observations Oceans; Executive summary; Page 257)
To understand the significance of this statement it is important to understand the difference between the heat capacity of the oceans and the heat capacity of the atmosphere:
Mass of the atmosphere: 5.1 E+18 kg
Specific heat capacity of air: 1 kJ/kg*K
Heat capacity of the atmosphere: 5.4 E+18 kJ/K
Mass of the Oceans: 1.4 E+21 kg
Specific heat capacity of sea water: 4 kJ/kg*K
Heat capacity of the oceans: 5.88 E+21 kJ/K
Heat capacity of the atmosphere / Heat capacity of the oceans = 0.001
Because of the different heat capacity of the oceans and the atmosphere – an amount of energy which would heat the atmosphere by 0.1 K (Kelvin) will only heat the oceans by 0.0001 K. If IPCC experience a 0.1 K lack of warming in the atmosphere – IPCC can easily claim or explain that this lack of warming is due to an increase of the temperature of the oceans by 0.0001 K. Even if IPCC experience a 1 K lack of warming in the atmosphere – IPCC can easily claim or explain that this lack of warming is due to an increase of the temperature of the oceans by 0.001 K.
The primary problem with this, is that a change in ocean temperature of 0.001 K cannot be measured. Simply because the uncertainty of the measurement is larger than 0.001 K. After the deployment of the Argo floats from 2000–2004 the uncertainty seems to be in order of magnitude 0.1 K. That uncertainty is at least 100 times higher than what would be required to measure a change of 0.001 K. The uncertainty might even be higher: Study shows ARGO ocean robots uncertainty was up to 100 times larger than advertised
The consequence of this is that any lack of warming of the troposphere can be excused by a minuscule change in ocean temperature. A change which is so minuscule that it cannot be measured with sufficient accuracy. A change of atmospheric temperature of 1 K is a very large change of temperature:
“As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) “there is …medium confidence that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C …” (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is the change in global average temperature from a doubling of CO2 level.)
To get an idea about how long it may take before the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled, the following link estimates the time to double the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to be in order of magnitude 200 years: Time to Double CO2 Levels: 234 Years at Current Rate
Here is a paper which seems to arrive at a similar conclusion: Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean, Wunch and Heimbach 2014. : “In any case, the small changes including the pause are at best at the very edge of what is practical precision today. ” and “Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 yr are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing, but the uncertainties in all the fields remain too large to rationalize, for example, the apparent pause in warming.”
It should therefore be quite clear that a minuscule change of ocean temperature, a change which is far less than what can be measured in a reliable manner, can excuse any lack of warming, or explain any warming of the troposphere.
Uncertainty in the temperature record of the deep oceans
Further to the argument above it is quite clear that we do not have a proper record of the temperature of the oceans. Not before the ARGO buoys were deployed in year 2000 – 2004.
The ocean temperatures below 700 m before 2000-2004 must have an extremely large uncertainty – as illustrated by this animation by Bob Tisdale:
Bob Tisdal notes:
“There is so very little observational data at depths greater than 700 meters that the NODC elected not to present the data in 3-month blocks. They used 5-YEAR windows, in one year steps, what they refer to as pentads. That is, for example, a temperature measurement in 1959 will be used for the pentads of 1955-1959, 1956-1960, 1957-1961, 1957 [oops] 1958-1962 and 1959-1963.”
To me it is clear that the uncertainty of the temperature measurements of the oceans prevents detection of changes which must be regarded to be significant by the theory of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change.
About the ad hoc hypothesis
Before we look into how the hypothesis that the missing heat was hiding in the oceans was introduced, it can be enlightening to review some words from Karl Popper. Karl Popper was the one who described and made readily available to us the modern scientific method – The hypotetico – deductive method – Karl Popper called it the empirical method:
Ref: The logic of scientific discovery (Use search to find the quote).
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible … the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification …”
A natural question to ask can therefore be:
Has United Nations IPCC added hypothesis – in ad hoc manners?
The answer to that question is a very clear YES:
Kevin Trenberth was a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports. Kevin Trenberth introduced the ad hoc hypothesis that the missing heat in the atmosphere had gone into the oceans. Here is a famous quote from Trenberth:
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
– Kevin E. Trenberth
The Introduction to the following paper contains insight in the history of this ad-hoc hypothesis. Further, Trenberth and collaborators argue that the ‘missing’ heat is sequestered in the ocean, below 700 m:
Ref: “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content”
(Geophysical research letters – first published 10 May 2013 ; Balmaseda, Trenberth and Källén.)
“The deep ocean has continued to warm, while the upper 300 m OHC appears to have stabilized. The differences in recent trends among the different ocean layers are profound. The small warming in the upper 300 m is belied by the continuing warming for the ocean as a whole, with considerable warming occurring below 700 m.”
By the United Nations climate theory there is an enormous heat exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans. We can recall from the first section that IPCC claim that “Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% …. warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%. ” Hence, by the theory, a very small natural variation in the energy exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere can have a tremendous effect of tropospheric temperature.
A necessary consequence of the ad hoc hypothesis that the missing heat is hiding in the oceans combined with the changes in ocean temperature being inmeasurable is that United Nations climate theory does not prohibit any range of temperature changes in the atmosphere. Any range of temperature changes in the atmosphere seems to be allowed by the theory.
It is then time again to get some guidance from Karl Popper, the master mind who described the modern scientific method and made it readily available to us:
Ref: The logic of scientific discovery (Use search to find the quotes):
“But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: … it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.»
It is then time to ask a devastating questions:
Is the IPCC theory that energy hides in the deep oceans scientific?
By the modern scientific method it can be stated that the explanatory power of a theory is proportional to the range of events it prohibits and inverse proportional to the range of events it allows. A theory that allows everything explains nothing. Necessary questions to ask within science are:
Does the theory prohibit a significant range of events from happening?
Is the theory testable?
Is the theory falsifiable?
As explained above, the necessary answer to all these questions must be NO!
And the answer to these questions will remain no until someone comes up with a conclusive test. A test where necessary consequences, or predictions of the theory, prohibits a significant range of measurable events from happening.
So – by claiming that the missing heat is hiding in the oceans Unite Nations climate theory becomes irrefutable, but not in a good way – it becomes impossible to prove wrong – impossible to falsify. Voila! – United Nations climate theory has become unscientific. The ad hoc excuse to evade falsification has actually made the theory unscientific.
So, by the United Nations climate theory, energy is supposed to:
1 be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere
– but fails to warm it!
2 pass the upper 300 meter of the oceans
– without warming it!
3 to warm the deep oceans below 700 meters
– where we lack historical data!
– and where the uncertainty is to large to conclude!
That’s what I call a dead parrot