ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content Data

ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content Data

Guest post by Bob Tisdale, BTW here is the current SST map. – Anthony

clickable global map of SST anomalies
Click for a larger image

The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) recently added the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) Ocean Heat Content (OHC) dataset to their Climate Explorer website, allowing users to download data based on user-defined global coordinates.

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

This OHC dataset was presented in the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems” [GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155, 2009]

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

There are differences in the presentation of the data. The NODC illustrates their OHC data in 10^22 Joules, but KNMI presents the data on an area-averaged basis, in units of Gigajoules (10^9 Joules) per square meter. The data is the same; the units in which the data is presented are different. Also, the NODC provides the data on a quarterly basis; that is, the data is grouped in three-month averages. KNMI presents the NODC OHC data on a monthly basis by listing the quarterly data for each of the three months. This is why the OHC data appears to be squared off in the graphs of monthly raw data. This can be seen in Figure 1.

http://i32.tinypic.com/29de5ow.png

Figure 1

Figure 1 is a comparison graph of the Global OHC anomaly data (NODC), scaled NINO3.4 SST Anomalies (HADISST), and scaled Sato Index (GISS) data. This is the same format used in the graphs of the subsets illustrated in this post. The NINO3.4 SST anomalies are used to illustrate the timing of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. The Sato Index of Mean Optical Thickness at 500nm are provided to illustrate the timing of explosive volcanic eruptions. I’ve also smoothed the data for each OHC anomaly subset with a 13-month running-average filter, Figure 2. As you will see later, some of the subsets are noisy in their raw form.

http://i32.tinypic.com/sno57l.png

Figure 2

In the following, I’ve provided links to the graphs of the raw data, for those who are interested in seeing it in that form, but I have only posted the graphs of the data smoothed with a 13-month running-average filter. It’s much easier to see the step changes when the data is in that form.

TROPICS

The Tropical Pacific OHC anomaly data is illustrated in Figure 3. A number of things to note: The tropical Pacific OHC anomalies fall during El Nino events, but then recharge during the La Nina. For the most part, when the El Nino events occur at the same time as volcanic eruptions, the recharge does not return the OHC anomalies to the value they were at before the El Nino, but if the El Nino occurs without the influence of a volcanic eruption, the La Nina recharges the Tropical Pacific OHC anomalies to the pre-El Nino level. And it does it quickly. Note also how the 1972/73 El Nino event causes an upward step in the OHC anomalies of the Tropical Pacific. The OHC anomalies then decrease gradually, being influenced by the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991, until they rise suddenly in 1995. In an earlier post, I illustrated how a shift in Tropical Pacific Total Cloud Amount may have caused the 1995 rise in Tropical Pacific OHC, providing fuel for the 1997/98 El Nino. Refer to my post Did A Decrease In Total Cloud Amount Fuel The 1997/98 El Nino?

http://i25.tinypic.com/wrz71x.png

Figure 3

http://i31.tinypic.com/2s96hd1.png

Figure 3 Raw

However, the Tropical Indian Ocean OHC anomaly data reveals a sudden decline in 1995. Did a shift of warm water from the Tropical Indian Ocean to the Tropical Pacific also fuel the 1997/98 El Nino? I’ll investigate this in a future post. Note how the Tropical Indian Ocean OHC anomalies correlate with NINO3.4 SST anomalies over a large portion of the term of the data, but after 1995, the amplitude of the variations changes drastically.

http://i25.tinypic.com/atkaa8.png

Figure 4

http://i30.tinypic.com/xfnk14.png

Figure 4 Raw

In Figure 5, I’ve combined the OHC anomaly data for the Tropical Indian and Pacific Oceans. The OHC anomaly data for this subset follows the base of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies remarkably well. The OHC anomalies of the Tropical Indian and Pacific Oceans follow the rise in NINO3.4 SST anomalies after the 1972/73 and 1997/98 El Nino events. In other words, like the Tropical Pacific, there also appears to be a 25-year decay after the upward step from the 1972/73 El Nino (also influenced by the 1982 and 1991 volcanic eruptions), until the 1997/98 El Nino causes another upward step.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2j60dfp.png

Figure 5

http://i28.tinypic.com/2a3y2a.png

Figure 5 Raw

The step changes in the Tropical Atlantic OHC anomalies are obvious. The first occurred three years after the peak of 1972/73 El Nino, as the NINO3.4 SST anomalies rose from the secondary minimum of the two-year La Nina event. The same thing occurred with the next significant El Nino that was strong enough to generate a La Nina that lasted through two ENSO seasons, and that was the 1997/98 El Nino. Note also how the OHC anomalies of the Tropical Atlantic have been dropping quickly since 2005. Click on the link to the raw data (Figure 6 Raw) to see just how precipitous that drop has been in recent years.

http://i28.tinypic.com/1jnp87.png

Figure 6

http://i28.tinypic.com/2a3y2a.jpg

Figure 6 Raw

MID-TO-HIGH LATITUDES

The North Pacific OHC anomalies are like no other OHC subset. In 1967, there was a sudden drop in the North Pacific OHC anomalies. Twenty plus years later North Pacific OHC anomalies rebounded. I’ll have to investigate this dataset further in a later post, to try to isolate where the majority of that variability takes place.

http://i28.tinypic.com/f56pfm.png

Figure 7

http://i29.tinypic.com/rwp8ut.png

Figure 7 Raw

As illustrated in Figure 8, the South Pacific OHC anomalies show a sharp upward step change following the 1997/98 El Nino. Between 1971 and 1996, the OHC anomalies oscillate at or near 0 GJ/sq meter. The cause of the small rise between the 1960s and 1970 is elusive, but it’s not a significant rise compared to the upward step after the 1997/98 El Nino.

http://i26.tinypic.com/xuhkn.png

Figure 8

http://i27.tinypic.com/25s5ta1.png

Figure 8 Raw

The South Indian Ocean OHC anomaly data, Figure 9, shows a decrease from 1955 until the late 1960s. Then the 1968/69/70 El Nino caused a minor rise in OHC anomalies. This was followed by a major upward step from the 1972/73 El Nino. OHC anomalies in the South Indian Ocean remained relatively flat until the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, when the OHC anomalies dipped. The upward step change after the 1997/98 El Nino is hard to miss. The decay until 2006 almost returned the South Indian Ocean OHC anomalies to the pre-1997/98 values, but the El Nino of 2006/07 bumped it back up again.

http://i31.tinypic.com/34jamtj.png

Figure 9

http://i31.tinypic.com/2dqvpfl.png

Figure 9 Raw

The North Atlantic OHC anomaly data, Figure 10, with its gradual climb, is clearly dominated by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. The impacts of ENSO events are visible, however. In a future post, I may detrend the North Atlantic OHC anomaly data to emphasize the ENSO impacts on this dataset.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2s17wpt.png

Figure 10

http://i32.tinypic.com/swa4xf.png

Figure 10 Raw

There is a clear step change in the South Atlantic OHC anomaly data, Figure 11, following the 1972/73 El Nino. In this case, however, the response appears to be lagged an extra couple of years. The response is so long, it appears to result from the lesser El Nino of 1976/77. The South Atlantic OHC anomalies remain relatively flat until they appear to respond to the 1997/98 El Nino with an upward step that starts again many years after the peak of the El Nino. Why so long?

http://i30.tinypic.com/2n9xsv6.png

Figure 11

http://i25.tinypic.com/2qdcx7l.png

Figure 11 Raw

Could the variations in the South Atlantic OHC anomalies simply be lagged responses to the Tropical Atlantic OHC anomalies, with surface and subsurface currents transporting the waters from the tropics to the mid-to-high latitudes of the South Atlantic? Refer to Figure 12.

http://i28.tinypic.com/2uffyfr.png

Figure 12

ARCTIC AND SOUTHERN OCEANS

I’ve provided the Arctic and Southern Ocean OHC anomaly data in Figures 13 and 14, without commentary, for those who are interested in seeing what those curves look like.

http://i31.tinypic.com/23u23cz.png

Figure 13

http://i28.tinypic.com/wa0tu0.png

Figure 13 Raw

############

http://i28.tinypic.com/53ve2w.png

Figure 14

http://i28.tinypic.com/2niwilg.png

Figure 14 Raw

CLOSING

It is clear that significant El Nino events can and do cause upward step changes in Ocean Heat Content. This indicates that ENSO events do more than simply release heat from the tropical Pacific into the atmosphere. Apparently, El Nino events also cause changes in atmospheric circulation in ways that impact Ocean Heat Content. If and when GCMs are able to recreate the variations in atmospheric circulation that cause these changes in Ocean Heat Content, GCMs may have value in predicting future climate variability. At present, they do not.

SOURCES

The NINO3.4 SST anomaly data is based on HADISST data available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

Sato Index data is available through GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/

Specifically:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DaveE
September 5, 2009 6:14 pm

My biggest problem is…
How the hell can you measure the energy, (not heat,)content of something as vast as the Earths oceans?
DaveE.

Douglas DC
September 5, 2009 6:22 pm

Wow.Bob you did good work.I’m going to have to digest this one..
_I still say Nino’s no relevant by Winter…

Douglas DC
September 5, 2009 6:35 pm

Not relevant..
oops..

kim
September 5, 2009 7:12 pm

Might not this be one aspect of the negative feedback of water vapor? With greater atmospheric temperature may there not be relatively less water vapor in the atmosphere, and fewer clouds, lesser albedo, and greater absorption of the sun’s energy by the oceans during episodes of El Nino?
=========================================

Keith Minto
September 5, 2009 9:00 pm

Looking at Fig. 14, I am not sure if the 2006 0.08 peak in the Southern Ocean Heat Content (green) is a result of the 1998 El Nino event ( a two year start to finish upward ‘blip’),or the slower 1999-2004 rebound of the anomalies (blue).
In other words the slower and less pronounced (1999-2004,0.044 peak) SST rebound may play a larger part in the Ocean Heat Content that the rapid 1998 spectacular SST rise and fall, because more time has been spent in the heating phase.

par5
September 5, 2009 10:06 pm

Do the trade winds intensify El Nino, or does it work the other way around (thermal expansion)?

coaldust
September 5, 2009 11:06 pm

I’m looking and the SST anomaly graph. Seems strange to have cold (negative anomaly ) water near the equator at 120 W during a developing El Nino. There are several other small areas of negative anomaly where I expect to see warmer water.

Paul Vaughan
September 5, 2009 11:12 pm

Bob Tisdale wrote:
1) “Did a shift of warm water from the Tropical Indian Ocean to the Tropical Pacific also fuel the 1997/98 El Nino?”
2) “The North Pacific OHC anomalies are like no other OHC subset […] I’ll have to investigate this dataset further in a later post, to try to isolate where the majority of that variability takes place.”
These 2 items caught my attention.

It is really unfortunate that the OHC series don’t cover pre-1940 (i.e. we only have OHC series for an era when the period of Earth’s Chandler wobble has been stable).

hotrod
September 5, 2009 11:24 pm

Looks like the arctic ocean heat content peaked about 2005 and has been dropping like a rock since then.
Very interesting view of ocean heat content when you break it out as you have by basin and location. There are obviously things going on that need to be investigated, and would likely throw some very interesting light on how and why the SST changes like it does.
Does anyone else get the feeling that recently some important new information is coming out as an unintended consequence of trying to validate or debunk the AGW news releases and studies?
It seems that the intense examination of all the data is bringing to the surface hidden info that has been there all along but was simply ignored as the AGW dog chased the CO2 car down the street.
Larry

rbateman
September 5, 2009 11:41 pm

hotrod (23:24:53) :
Looks like the arctic ocean heat content peaked about 2005 and has been dropping like a rock since then.

Tell me about it. When we get fronts off the North Pacific they are brisk even in summer. Makes you run & grab your sweater even in August.

davidc
September 5, 2009 11:57 pm

“It is clear that significant El Nino events can and do cause upward step changes in Ocean Heat Content”
Is it possible that heat is being redistributed such that the estimate of OHC is changed while actual OHC remains constant?

Paul Vaughan
September 5, 2009 11:58 pm

Re: hotrod (23:24:53)
Well said Larry. Lol at your car-chasing dog analogy. As many have noted recently, some of the scientists are perfecting the use of this game to fuel the climate industry. For sure the play on alternate tensions is one way the clever encourage awareness of true vibrations, but we can be sure that this vitamin is time-released to suit financial & political purposes.

Stephen Skinner
September 6, 2009 1:02 am

Who determines what is anomalous and who has set the standards? Is there some kind of standard as with weights and measures so there is agreement on what is average?
It seems that the use of anomalies and averages for the Earth’s climates are for a closed system. In addition what affect would the widening of the Atlantic have on weather / climates over time? I understand that the Atlantic has been widening by 2cm per year.

tallbloke
September 6, 2009 1:15 am

Thanks as always Bob for your excellent and thorough work. Much to digest and consider here, it’s a step forward in teasing out the OHC puzzle.
The shift of the locus of warmth from the Indian to Pacific ocean in the ’90’s is particularly interesting. Is this the warm water travelling east, or is it the loss of heat to the air from the Indian ocean, and the gaining of heat from the sun in the Pacific? Maybe a regional study of cloud anomalies could help determine this? Unfortunately, the ISCCP website isn’t the easiest to get data from.
One question about KNMI’s units. How do they measure a volumetric quantity (OHC) in terms of energy/area (Gw/m^2) ?

September 6, 2009 1:17 am

davidc: You asked, “Is it possible that heat is being redistributed such that the estimate of OHC is changed while actual OHC remains constant?”
I can’t fathom how that could take place. A major component of OHC is SST, and that has risen. They’ve also had buoys in place for decades (ARGO are just the latest).

Roy
September 6, 2009 1:56 am

I expect this is a naive question, but why is heat content here expressed in joules per square metre? That seems more like a unit for expressing exposure rather than content so I assume it results from the form of the calculation used, but what is that?

Geoff Sherington
September 6, 2009 2:59 am

Unfortunately, I see only a lot of noise in the graphs. I don’t even see eyeball correlations being very strong. Where are the error terms?
Is the HADISST measured over a sufficient volume to contribute enough heat content to make the energetics balance quantitatively? One can envisage some processes being well fed if the top 500 m was raised 1 deg C in a decade, but I can’t imagine it being adequate if it’s only the top few m that has a temp change of 0.2 deg in a decade.

Hans Henrik Hansen
September 6, 2009 3:01 am

“…why is heat content here expressed in joules per square metre?” – puzzles me too!
And it remains unclear to me whether the OHC data presented are (solely/mainly) based on SST?
The OHC data presented appear to be strongly at odds with other presentations (e.g. Loehle) – and Pielke:
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/

September 6, 2009 3:29 am

tallbloke: You asked, “One question about KNMI’s units. How do they measure a volumetric quantity (OHC) in terms of energy/area (Gw/m^2) ?”
The raw data from the NODC is provided for each 1deg grid, in terms of either Joules*10^x/grid or Joules*10^x/meter^2. The rest are functions of the surface area of each grid and which grids are being “sampled”.

gtrip
September 6, 2009 3:37 am

I just spent an hour over at real climate reading their comments and to tell you the truth, I almost vomited a few times. This “stuff” has gone way, way too far. How did “climate” become such a political volleyball? Is there some actual truth in the “Club of Rome” writings regarding a plan to dominate?
I see this sad part of history as being akin to how we look at the witch burning of our past, total nonsense. Whatever happened to the common sense joke about everybody complains about the weather but no one does anything about it? Sea temps, cap temps, anomalies, desertification, wildfires, cloud cover, sunspots, volcanoes, coral reefs, bark beetles, sand crabs, butterflies, flutterbies, etc. etc. … when will it ever end? Probably like it always does. When a REAL adversary causes us to take notice. But until then, bogus science is taking us all down the path to socialistic form of existence. And that in not deniable.
So chase your global temperatures as if there is one and feel good about your findings whether you be pro warming or anti warming or maybe just milktoast. Amazing what happens to mankind when things are going too good and they feel guilty about it . Hey, maybe we should create a religion…..oh, that’s already been done…..then how about some alarmism…. yeah, that’s the ticket…

Lindsay H.
September 6, 2009 3:42 am

Very Nice analysis
any theory as to why there is a coincidence with the 13 month smoothing , it seems to show a considerable lag of up to two years to recover from events: is that how long it takes the tropical storm belt to vent heat back into space or how long it takes the ocean currents to shift surface waters to where there is an equilibrium betweeen ocean heat uptake and atmospheric absorption.
Still seems to be a lot of noise in the data .
but very interesting

September 6, 2009 3:45 am

Roy, you asked, “but why is heat content here expressed in joules per square metre? That seems more like a unit for expressing exposure rather than content so I assume it results from the form of the calculation used, but what is that?”
The KNMI Climate Explorer calculates weighted averages of the grids (with data) that are enclosed by the coordinates selected by the user.

September 6, 2009 4:10 am

Hans Henrik Hansen: You wrote, “And it remains unclear to me whether the OHC data presented are (solely/mainly) based on SST?”
They use temperature measurements to depths of 3000 meters, I believe. The paper linked in the text of the post and those referenced will answer your questions:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
And:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf
And:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5461/2225
You wrote and provided a link, “The OHC data presented appear to be strongly at odds with other presentations (e.g. Loehle) – and Pielke:
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
There is no agreement on the year-to-year variability between OHC datasets:
http://i43.tinypic.com/1zp5j42.png
http://i43.tinypic.com/2yobuys.png
Both of those are from my post here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/ohc-trends-presented-by-levitus-et-al.html
Levitus et al provided access to their data. KNMI included it in their Climate Explorer. And I wrote a post about it.

September 6, 2009 4:17 am

Geoff Sherington: You asked, “Where are the error terms?”
They are not included with the output from Climate Explorer. Refer to the linked paper and to the earlier ones by Levitus referenced:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
You wrote, “Is the HADISST measured over a sufficient volume to contribute enough heat content to make the energetics balance quantitatively?”
The only HADSST data is the NINO3.4 SST anomalies I provided as reference for timing.
You wrote, “One can envisage some processes being well fed if the top 500 m was raised 1 deg C in a decade, but I can’t imagine it being adequate if it’s only the top few m that has a temp change of 0.2 deg in a decade.”
The units are GJ/meter^2, not deg C.

1 2 3