In a previous reply to you, I furnished you with a graph of global SST anomalies so that you could determine for yourself the answer to your question, “So is the rate of ‘increase’ steeper on the pre 1998 side or is the rate of ‘decrease’ steeper on the post 1998 side?”
Here’s that graph again.
http://i38.tinypic.com/2vvjfio.png

But you’ve misinterpreted the graph. I believe I know how you can look at that graph and mistakenly conclude what you wrote above. It’s a common misunderstanding. A linear trend, or the rate at which the SST anomalies are rising in that graph, is not calculated from the period start temperature to the period end temperature like so:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2igyibb.png

The definition of Linear Trends that EXCEL provides in its Help function is “Returns values along a linear trend. Fits a straight line (using the method of least squares) to the arrays known_y’s and known_x’s. Returns the y-values along that line for the array of new_x’s that you specify.” The linear trends for the periods of January 1990 to December 1999 and January 2000 to October 2009 are illustrated in the following graph:
http://i34.tinypic.com/28tib7r.png

Those linear trends are calculated by EXCEL, not something I eyeball and hand draw.

As is quite apparent, the linear trend for the period of January 2000 to October 2009 is fundamentally flat. The linear trend for that period is 0.06 deg C/Century. But the linear trend for the decade from January 1990 to December 1999 is more than 20 times higher at 1.24 deg C/Century.

Regards.

The point is that the warming continues…and at a greater rate in the 2000s than in the 1990s. Where is this alledged cooling. Look at the graph that Bob Tisdale supplied at the end of his response to my post.

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.tinypic.com%2F2vvjfio.png

Especially look at the interim years 2001 through 2007 and compare it to the years 1990 through 1997. In fact throw out the high (1998) and low 2008 and the increase is quite remarkable. The idea that the global temperatures have been flat to falling since 1998 is a canard at best. Which makes the argument of AGW vs. natural warming a moot point. Why not err on the side of AGW and try and do something about it. Reasonable people can argue the pros and cons of the climate legislation before Congress. But why not try and do something rather than doing our best imitation of Nero.

Sincerely,
Mike

You misunderstand. I linked to the direct quotes from Gray and I just wondered if he had quoted from Douglass whilst you thought he had been quoting from the draft paper?

As you rightly say I can not see anything in the draft paper that confirms what Gray says, but the abstracts (presumably from Douglass) clearly refer to a negative figure.

I honestly don’t think we know enough about temperatures now-let alone in the distant past (pre satellites!) to make any comment other than over the very short term over a very limited area.

(But I do enjoy your articles)

Tonyb

I’m not sure why you included the abstract and summaries to Douglass and Knox when I presented a link to the discussion of the paper here at WUWT and even reproduced my comment to Douglass.

You wrote, “My own job brings me into contact with various marine reports and certainly the UK Marine Agency report said that 5 out of 6 European seas (except Barents) were cooling.”

The SST and OHC anomalies of the North Atlantic are decreasing. No debate from me there, but the North Atlantic is not the globe. However, with the AMO and AMOC, the North Atlantic has a great impact on Global OHC and SST anomalies, though. So we’re on the same page there.

Regards

You linked to a draft of the Schukmann report-there is often a lot of difference between a draft and the final article but I an not going to find out as someone will probably want to charge me a lot of money for looking at the published version :)

I think that Grays comments may have been taken out of context and he was referring to another report.

This verbatim from him;

” K von Schukmann, F Galliland, and P Y Le Traon 2009 Geophysical Research Letters Vol 11124.09007. doi:1029/2008JC005237 “Global hygrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008″

To start with, the average temperature is falling. But what is worse, the variability is so great that it could not possibly be heated from the atmosphere. So it must be heated from below, from all the underwater volcanoes and plate movements that have so far been neglected.

This all comes on top of the paper by Douglass and Knox at Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009: Physics letters A. Volume 373, Issue 36, 31 August 2009, Pages 3296-3300 “Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies”.

The abstract reads:

“Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960– mid 1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.”

The summary reads:

“We determine Earth’s radiation imbalance by analyzing three recent independent observational ocean heat content determinations for the period 1950 to 2008 and compare the results with direct measurements by satellites. A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.

Longer-term averages of the observed imbalance are not only many-fold smaller than theoretically derived values, but also oscillate in sign. These facts are not found among the theoretical predictions.

Three distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative imbalance are found: 1960 to the mid 1970s, the mid 1970s to 2000 and 2001 to present. The respective mean values of radiation imbalance are −0.15, +0.15, and −0.2 to −0.3. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of climate shifts at 1960, the mid-1970s, and early 2001 identified by Swanson and Tsonis.

Knowledge of the complex atmospheric-ocean physical processes is not involved or required in making these findings. Global surface temperatures as a function of time are also not required to be known.”

The periodicity found coincides with the behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and as the heating is from below, this heating is related to the PDOmust also behave in a periodic fashion.

The finding that the earth’s energy is not balanced shows that the fundamenmtal assumption of all the computer climate models that it IS balanced is incorrect, and means that all the models are wrong.”

My own job brings me into contact with various marine reports and certainly the UK Marine Agency report said that 5 out of 6 European seas (except Barents) were cooling.

I am very sceptical of the worth of global surface temperatures and have even more doubts as to whether we have got the faintest idea what is going on-compared to the past-in that 70% of the globe that is water.

best regards

Tonyb

Vincent Gray wrote, “To start with, the average temperature is falling. But what is worse, the variability
is so great that it could not possibly be heated from the atmosphere.”

It’s not. It’s warmed by the sun through changes in cloud cover.

Vincent Gray continued, “So it must be heated from below, from all the underwater volcanoes and plate movements that have so far been neglected.”

Actually, this topic has not been neglected. Its effect has been found to be negligible. There are a number of papers on the subject. Refer to Emile-Geay and Madec (2009) “Geothermal heating, diapycnal mixing and the abyssal circulation”.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf

They wrote, “Of course, the deep ocean is subjected to another heat source: the geothermal flux due to lithospheric cooling. Yet the latter is usually neglected in oceanographic studies, primarily because it amounts to less than 2% of surface heat fluxes (Huang, 1999) – a total power of 0.03PW and a mean flux of _88mWm−2 (Stein and Stein, 1992), while surface fluxes are on around 30 to 250Wm−2, larger by three orders of magnitudes.”

So Vincent Gray has missed papers that were available since 1999 that identified the geothermal heating to be only 2% of the surface variability.

Vincent Grey then moved on to Douglass and Knox (2009), which was discussed in this thread at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/11/ocean-heat-content-and-earth%E2%80%99s-radiation-imbalance/

My rather lengthy initial comment on that thread read:
#####
Dr. Douglas: Newman et al (2003)…
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
…and Zhang et al (1997), who were the first to calculate the PDO…
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/zwb1997.pdf
…determined that the PDO was a lagged effect of ENSO. It then seems as though you’re arguing indirectly that ENSO and TOA radiation imbalance correlate and that the low frequency component of ENSO caused the climate shifts. Both make sense, but let’s look at the latter.
You wrote, “What is the cause of these climate shifts? We suggest that the low frequency component of the Pacific Decade Oscillation (PDO) may be involved. The PDO index changes from positive to negative near 1960; it remains negative until the mid-1970s where it becomes positive; then it becomes negative again at about 2000.”
Smoothed NINO3.4 SST anomalies indicate that the frequency and magnitude of El Nino and La Nina events vary and that the positive and negative phases of ENSO have the same time periods that you described:
http://i31.tinypic.com/bezz8h.jpg
The use of ENSO in a discussion of OHC makes much more sense to me. During an El Nino, the eastern tropical Pacific discharges heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, and during the La Nina, the eastern tropical Pacific recharges the ocean heat by absorbing heat from the atmosphere. Tropical TLT anomalies and NINO3.4 SST anomalies correlate quite well, as could be expected:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2isid84.jpg
However, during the El Nino phase, Pavlakis et al (2008)…
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
…illustrated that downwelling shortwave radiation (and for the tropical Pacific it’s “the component of the net heat into the ocean with the largest magnitude”) increases over the Pacific Warm Pool, and the increase in DSR is significant, 25 watts/sq meter during the 1997/98 El Nino.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2435kbb.jpg
That leads me to this thought. Although it may seem counterintuitive, I’m presently bouncing around the idea that El Nino events may actually result in an increase in OHC. And if the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events exceed the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events, which they have since 1976, OHC will rise, which it has. During the 50s through mid-70s, the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events exceeded the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events, and OHC declined.
#####
I have subsequently confirmed that ENSO dominates the OHC records for all but the North Atlantic…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
…and that the North Atlantic OHC variability results from AMOC, ENSO and the North Atlantic Oscillation:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html

Vincent Gray also wrote, “So they increased their coverage with a new sophisticated system called ARGO which has 3,000 probes. The results are disastrous, and they have yet to admit it. They are given in the following paper
“K von Schukmann, F Galliland, and P Y Le Traon 2009 Geophysical Research Letters
Vol 11124.09007. doi:1029/2008JC005237 ‘Global hygrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008’”

But Vincent Gray does not provide a link to von Schuckmann et al (2009) so that you can confirm his opinion that the results of the ARGO array are disastrous. Here’s the link:
http://www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdf
Personally, I can’t find how he gathers his opinion about ARGO from Schuckmann et al. Maybe you can find it.

In other words, I’m not in agreement with Vincent Gray’s post.

Regards

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 225
23 OCTOBER 2009

THE OCEAN IS HEATED FROM BELOW

The “globe” is cooling. The sea level is not rising. The ice is advancing. What is left?
The ocean is heating.

The last two IPCC Reports made a big thing of ocean heating. The methods used
showed considerable variability. The average showed periodicity, with troughs in
1965 and 1986 and peaks in 1980 and 2005, but the temperature increase from the
1965 trough to the later peak of 2005 was confidently attributed to “global warming” caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

At least, that was the story in the first two drafts of the 2007 Report. Then the people measuring temperature provided the disturbing news that the 2005 figure actually showed a fall in temperature, and they had to put that into their final Report.

Then there was overwhelming pressure on the scientists to backtrack on such a
disturbing observation, and, loyally, they discovered a “rogue” unreliable sensor
which restored the IPCC “confidence” that the ocean temperature is rising.

So they increased their coverage with a new sophisticated system called ARGO
which has 3,000 probes. The results are disastrous, and they have yet to admit it. They are given in the following paper

K von Schukmann, F Galliland, and P Y Le Traon 2009 Geophysical Research Letters
Vol 11124.09007. doi:1029/2008JC005237 “Global hygrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008″

To start with, the average temperature is falling. But what is worse, the variability
is so great that it could not possibly be heated from the atmosphere. So it must be heated from below, from all the underwater volcanoes and plate movements that have so far been neglected. I attach the record for the Pacific Basin which includes the variability of salinity,

This all comes on top of the paper by Douglass and Knox at
Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009: Physics letters A. Volume 373, Issue 36 , 31
August 2009, Pages 3296-3300 ” Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with
Past Climate Anomalies”

The abstract reads

“Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and
compared with results of direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating
positive and negative values are found: 1960– mid 1970s (-0.15), mid-1970s–2000
(+0.15), 2001–present (-0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior reports.
These climate shifts limit climate predictability.”

The summary reads

“ We determine Earth’s radiation imbalance by analyzing three recent independent
observational ocean heat content determinations for the period 1950 to 2008 and
compare the results with direct measurements by satellites. A large annual term is
found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its
magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the
ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.

Longer-term averages of the observed imbalance are not only many-fold smaller than theoretically derived values, but also oscillate in sign. These facts are not found
among the theoretical predictions.

Three distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative imbalance are found: 1960 to the mid 1970s, the mid 1970s to 2000 and 2001 to present. The respective mean values of radiation imbalance are -0.15, +0.15, and -0.2 to -0.3. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of climate shifts at 1960, the mid- 1970s, and early 2001 identified by Swanson and Tsonis.

Knowledge of the complex atmospheric-ocean physical processes is not involved or
required in making these findings. Global surface temperatures as a function of time
are also not required to be known.”

The periodicity found coincides with the behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
(PDO), and as the heating is from below, this heating is related to the PDO must also
behave in a periodic fashion.

The finding that the earth’s energy is not balanced shows that the fundamental
assumption of all the computer climate models that it IS balanced is incorrect, and
means that all the models are wrong.

The global warmers and “climate change” enthusiasts have no excuses left.

Cheers
Vincent Gray

This post is not about the ten years before and after the 1997/98 El Nino. It’s about decades, the 1990 and the 2000s. I’ve shown the average temperatures for the decades in question in Table 1 for Global SST, TLT and Surface Temperature abomalies produced by GISS, Hadley Centre, NCDC, UAH and RSS.

But back to your question. Here’s an example of monthly global SST anomalies from November 1981 to October 2009.
http://i38.tinypic.com/2vvjfio.png
You should be able to answer your own question.

Regards

So are the years since 1998. So is the rate of “increase” steeper on the pre 1998 side or is the rate of “decrease” steeper on the post 1998 side?

Mike

1. What theory are you talking about? The theory that is in doubt is the AGW theory. Temperature measurements are data (“facts” if you wish).
2. That is correct – there has been no warming or a slight cooling since 1998.
3. Despite that 2000 to 2009 can still be the warmest decade in the temperature records. 1998 was a very warm year. That should be quite simple to understand unless you are seriously mathematically challenged.
4. That it maybe the warmest decade since 1880 is no big deal. It is not the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years, which occurred indisputably by natural means.

“So what gives…has that theory gone out the window?”

This post in no way contradicts what you’ve written.The average temperature of the 1990s is less than the peak temperature of 1998.