Trenberth's "missing heat" was a fiction. Firstly, the estimates of ocean warming since 2003 were wrong due to measurement errors which Knox and Douglas pointed out http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... _final.pdf
Errors and biases such as this? http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_bias.html
Advice on pressure biases in the Argo data set
A part of the global Argo data are subject to biases in reported pressures. These biases are usually less than 5db, but occasionally can be larger (> 20db). These bias errors are being steadily removed by the reprocessing of historical Argo data. We expect that by the end of 2010 these errors will be removed from the global Argo data set in both the delayed-mode and real-time data. Adjusted pressure data are stored in the PRES_ADJUSTED variable, while the raw biased data remains in the PRES variable.
Normally, Argo pressure data have an accuracy near 2.4 db after bias correction. A subset of Argo floats cannot be corrected as the pressure bias was not transmitted by the floats. Within this subset, some will have a high probability of developing large biases. These floats are identified in the delayed-mode processing of Argo data and are flagged with higher pressure errors (20db) in the PRES_ADJUSTED_ERROR variable.
For science applications sensitive to small pressure biases (e.g. calculations of global ocean heat content or mixed layer depth) we recommend that:
Users utilise the quality flags in the Argo data files and data labelled with QC = 1
Only delayed-mode data are used
Only ADJUSTED data be used
PRES_ADJUSTED_ERROR be checked and where values are ≥ 20db, these data be rejected
Note that the Trenberth chart (below) shows increases, so even when the ocean heat line is going down after 2005, ocean heat is still supposed to be increasing - just at a slower rate.
It may be related to the statistical plotting whcih is not tied to the fluctuation of the noise.
Now, the model calculations of net radiation into the surface (ie 90% into oceans) were out by even more after 2005, so Trenberth's chart shows this: http://earth-climate.com/energy.jpg
Actually I prefer to use the actual sourced charts just because I have seen so many "interpretations" of data presented as if the paper actually provided the chart.
BUT, then last year Knox and Douglas determined that ocean heat was declining like this http://earth-climate.com/oceanheat.jpg
I did not see a statistical confidence provided for this determination, which would be important for trend determination on such a short time scale.
The decline in ocean heat since 2003 is also in agreement with NASA sea surface temp. data shown here up till a few days ago: http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg
Knox and Douglas said this would make the missing heat even greater if it actually existed. They deduced that it does not exist at all and that the models were thus totally incorrect in calculating a large net radiation.
In fact, then, since 2003 the world has been cooling (though the margin of error just creeps into the positive) as I have been saying from the NASA data - long before I found the Knox and Douglas paper.
Cooling as in a trend or just a tick in the noise level?
The main point is that, with the highest levels of CO2 in modern times the IPCC models were way out. The empirical data shows they should have calculated a slight net outflow of radiation.
So much for the effect of all the CO2 in the atmosphere (not just the anthropogenic stuff.)
This is where your leap of logic really goes off track. The extreme over-generalization of this supposedly refuting everything regarding the effect of CO2 and by implication all other GHGs, really has no basis in fact.
Now show me any recent papers that take into account 2010 (and preferably 2011) data and yet show otherwise.
It would be nice to know if the data used from the ARGO floats in your paper were the corrected data and not subject to excessive bias error. Do you have any reference on that? Also a statistical confidence on the cooling trend would be nice to see.