Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale,

As noted in the post October 2010 Update to NODC Ocean Heat Content Data, the National Oceanographic Data Center has updated itsOCEAN HEAT CONTENT (OHC) data. This is the dataset based on the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems”, Geophysical Research Letters. Refer to Manuscript

The update to the OHC data also included major changes, which have reduced the long-term rise in OHC. Refer to the gif animation, Figure 1, that shows the global OHC data from their June 2010 update (through March 2010) and from the most recent update and change (though June 2010). The revisions are considerable in many ocean basins. As described in their explanation of ocean heat content (OHC) data changes, the changes result from “data additions and data quality control,” from a switch in base climatology, and from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations. (Refer to the NOAA FAQ webpage What is an XBT?) Immediately following Figure 1 is a link to a graph that shows the difference between the two global datasets, with the June 2010 update subtracted from the September 2010 update.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2vhsta8.jpg

Figure 1 – Global

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i51.tinypic.com/2qi07s0.jpg

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

Table 1 shows the OHC linear trends (in Gigajoules/Square Meter per Decade) for the global and hemispheric data and for the individual ocean basin subsets. Also shown are the differences (the data from the September 2010 update MINUS the data from the June 2010 update) and the percent change (difference divided by June 2010 update). Note: the June 2010 update included data through March 2010 and the September update/change included data through June 2010, but Table 1 only compares linear trends for the datasets through March 2010. As shown in Table 1, the linear trend for the Northern Hemisphere OHC data only dropped approximately 2%, while the Southern Hemisphere linear trend dropped about 16%. There was a minor increase in North Pacific trend (4%), while there were considerable drops in the linear trends of the South Atlantic (23%), South Pacific (17%) and the Southern Ocean (32%).

http://i52.tinypic.com/1zx5boi.jpg

Table 1

Figure 2 is the gif animation that shows the Southern Ocean OHC data (South of 60S) before and after the September 2010 changes. Prior to the mid-2000s and the introduction of ARGO buoys, the original data (through March 2010) simply appeared to be the climatology with some data added occasionally when it was available. The updated data seems to emphasize that appearance.

http://i54.tinypic.com/111sabn.jpg

Figure 2 – Southern Ocean

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i56.tinypic.com/fuqalc.jpg

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

And there is good reason for that appearance. Like Sea Surface Temperature datasets based on buoys and ship sensors, there is very little Southern Hemisphere data, at all depths, prior to the ARGO buoys era. Figures 3 through 6 show the 3-month data distribution maps for January through March of 1955, 1975, 1995 and 2005, at depths of zero meters (surface), 250 meters, 500 meters and 700 meters. South of 60S there was little data even in 2005. The maps are available through the NODC Temperature data distribution figures webpage.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2a8orcp.jpg

Figure 3

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

http://i55.tinypic.com/aes9lg.jpg

Figure 4

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

http://i54.tinypic.com/x6gaig.jpg

Figure 5

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

http://i52.tinypic.com/k9ax3.jpg

Figure 6

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

THE IMPACT OF CHANGES ON PAST POSTS ABOUT NATURAL OHC VARIATIONS

The recent changes to the OHC data have not had noticeable effects on the timing of the major variations in data that should be attributable to natural variations. For example: The tropical Pacific OHC data still drops during major El Niño events and partially rebounds during most of the La Niña events that follow, Figure 7. The major upward shifts occur during significant La Niña events, which is the recharge/overcharge mode for the tropical Pacific OHC. This, and the similar impact on other ocean basins, was discussed in the post ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data.

http://i52.tinypic.com/wbqt61.jpg

Figure 7

With the changes to the data, the OHC of the North Pacific north of 20N still drops from the late 1950s to the late 1980s, Figure 8, and then suddenly rises. This increase coincides with a shift in North Pacific sea level pressure. This was discussed in the post North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s.

http://i55.tinypic.com/v8o60i.jpg

Figure 8

The update/changes caused the OHC for most of the other basins to drop more than the North Atlantic OHC. Refer again to Table 1. This makes the contribution of the North Atlantic OHC to global OHC even greater. And much of the disproportionate rise in North Atlantic OHC is caused by Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), sea level pressure, and ENSO, as discussed in North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables. One cell of the gif animation in Figure 9 compares global and North Atlantic OHC. The increase in North Atlantic OHC dwarfs the global rise. The second cell in Figure 9 compares the North Atlantic OHC to the global data with the North Atlantic removed. It assumes the surface area of the North Atlantic is 15% of the global ocean surface area. Note the decrease in the global trends. With the North Atlantic, the global linear trend is 0.72 GJ/square meter per decade and without the North Atlantic, the “global” data linear trend drops to 0.043 GJ/square meter per decade. Also note how sharply the North Atlantic OHC has dropped since 2005. The North Atlantic is a major contributor to the flattening of global data in recent years.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2m2hq1v.jpg

Figure 9

GIF ANIMATIONS — BEFORE AND AFTER CHANGES

Figures 10 through 18 are gif animations that compare the NODC OHC data for the hemispheres and ocean basin subsets before and after the recent changes. I’ve also provided links to graphs of the differences, with the June 2010 data subtracted from the September 2010 data. They are provided without commentary.

http://i53.tinypic.com/aken3m.jpg

Figure 10 – Tropical Pacific

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i51.tinypic.com/34fo420.jpg

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

http://i51.tinypic.com/2zrks8x.jpg

Figure 11 – Northern Hemisphere

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i56.tinypic.com/22xonc.jpg

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

http://i52.tinypic.com/2cy5vf5.jpg

Figure 12 – Southern Hemisphere

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2vaim1u.jpg

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

http://i52.tinypic.com/r91v7d.jpg

Figure 13 – North Atlantic

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i55.tinypic.com/dm9tas.jpg

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

http://i55.tinypic.com/2lcwcir.jpg

Figure 14 – South Atlantic

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i51.tinypic.com/2akfvaf.jpg

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

http://i56.tinypic.com/2n1t0fm.jpg

Figure 15 – Indian Ocean

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i56.tinypic.com/2gxfwvq.jpg

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

http://i52.tinypic.com/2dtdiyd.jpg

Figure 16 – North Pacific

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i56.tinypic.com/nx553a.jpg

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

http://i52.tinypic.com/2u4313m.jpg

Figure 17 – South Pacific

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i51.tinypic.com/5yz3sw.jpg

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

http://i51.tinypic.com/n5lmp1.jpg

Figure 18 – Arctic Ocean

Link to Graph of the Difference:

http://i55.tinypic.com/2d7h387.jpg

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

SOURCE

The NODC OHC data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:

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

(Thanks to Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of KNMI for creating and maintaining Climate Explorer.)

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
105 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 18, 2010 12:13 pm

Fantastic work!…..but..Is this “Climate Disruption” or just another cyclic and natural minimum we are in?. Just to avoid that the then Global Warmers who after became Climate Changers and now they present the phenomenon as “Climate Disruption” could surprise innocent people, which, btw, we are not, here at WUWT, thanks to real, and serious researchers like you.
So we know it: Things are getting colder but it’s Ok, let’s buy more popcorn!

richard verney
October 18, 2010 12:15 pm

Interesting post but it would be good to have a section setting out a summary, conclusions and implications.

Sean
October 18, 2010 12:23 pm

What’s missing in all of this is error bars. According to a paper published in Nature that Josh Willis was a co-author on Lyman), prior to 2003, when the Argo Bouy network was deployed, the error bars on the total ocean heat content are enormous. They tighten up remarkably when you a more uniformly deployed network of Argo bouys. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/abs/nature09043.html
So the really good data shows TOC stable for 7 years and the sparser data taken prior to 2003 shows heating. My question is, are there graphs that show how the uncertainty changes with time for the TOC data and have these been updated as well?

Brego
October 18, 2010 12:35 pm

Bob, what effect did these changes have on the linear trend for global OHC since 2003 (when the ARGO network came online)? My eyeball thinks it changed a flat or slightly negative trend and turned it into a positive trend. Is that right?

October 18, 2010 12:37 pm

Splendid work, thankyou!
K.R. Frank

MikeEE
October 18, 2010 12:40 pm

I just remembered, the 60’s were much colder than I thought…

tallbloke
October 18, 2010 12:42 pm

Bob, thanks as always for your exhaustive and comprehensive overview of the data. It’s interesting to see that the big splice jump from XBT to ARGO seems to have been toned down in this latest revision. Interesting also that the general global shape of the ARGO section of the curve seems to agree most closely with Craig Loehle’s take on the data!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/loehle_ocean_heat_content.png?w=510&h=322

TinyCO2
October 18, 2010 12:46 pm

Nice work as usual Bob.
What’s this gonna do to the climate models? And if they’re so good, did they predict that there must be something wrong with the OHC? Or am I being silly because it’s another variable they don’t include?

Editor
October 18, 2010 12:50 pm

Typo here?

Figure 9 compares the North Atlantic OHC to the global data with the North Atlantic removed. It assumes the surface area of the North Atlantic is 15% of the global ocean surface area. Note the decrease in the global trends. With the North Atlantic, the global linear trend is 0.72 GJ/square meter per decade and without the North Atlantic, the “global” data linear trend drops to 0.043 GJ/square meter per decade.

My reading of the graph (and handy straight line trend equation) say that 0.72 should be 0.194.
Interesting adjustments nonetheless.

October 18, 2010 12:57 pm

Sean says: “What’s missing in all of this is error bars. ”
The basin times series data through the NODC website…
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
…is presented with standard errors. Link to the annual global/hemisphere page, for example:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat
The data through the KNMI Climate Explorer, which I used for this post, is not provided with error data.

October 18, 2010 1:01 pm

Sean says: “So the really good data shows TOC stable for 7 years…”
There have been numerous corrections to ARGO data ever since the floats were deployed. “Really good” is relative, but they are more numerous.

Rob R
October 18, 2010 1:11 pm

I like the breakdown into oceanic subbasins. This means I can look at changes in sea surface temperatures, changes in ocean heat content, and changes in air temperature at a regional level. For instance in my own region (Western South Island, NZ and using the raw air temp data from the cliflo database) I note there has been minor almost trendless change in local air mean temperature, sea surface temperature, and ocean heat content since the 1950’s. This is about 60 years of minimal change. When is the supposed greenhouse-gas-caused temperature change supposed to hit down here? It is rather late to the party. Should I expect a step change event like the “Great North Pacific Transition” from the mid 1970’s? I suspect I shouldn’t hold my breath over this issue.

October 18, 2010 1:13 pm

“…from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations.”
During my 20+ years in the US Navy I must have been involved with hundreds of BT drops from P-3 Orion and S-3 Viking aircraft. We attempted to dropped one per flight. There were P-3 flying all around the world. I would assume these are available if historical data is wanted back to the 1950’s I would guess.

Robinson
October 18, 2010 1:16 pm

On the assumption that oceanic heat is transferred to the atmosphere rather than the other way around, can we presume that this therefore explains almost all 20th century warming?

Stephen Wilde
October 18, 2010 1:18 pm

The 1955 to June 2010 version seems to my eyeballs to show a clearer pattern as follows:
i) A general fall in OHC from 1955 to 1970
ii) a general rise from 1970 to 2000
iii) A plateau and possible beginning of a fall from 2000 to date.
I would just point out that the period of falling OHC was during a period that the jetstreams were more towards the equator, then the rising trend as they moved poleward and now possibly a falling trend once more now that the jets have shifted equatorward again.
That meshes in with the albedo thread here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
where it seems that albedo declined from the 80s as the jets moved poleward and started to recover again as the jets moved equatorward again from the late 90s.
I take that as prima facie evidence supporting my proposition that it is the latitudinal position of the global cloud bands that most affects global albedo and the quantity of solar energy entering the oceans.
A poleward shift reduces albedo so OHC rises. An equatorward shift increases albedo and OHC falls.

Stephen Wilde
October 18, 2010 1:23 pm

Whoops, in my previous post 1980 should read 1970.

MartinGAtkins
October 18, 2010 1:27 pm

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.

October 18, 2010 1:31 pm

Ric Werme says: “Typo here?”
Yup. Thanks for noting there was a mistake in that sentence, but it’s not the number you’ve noted later in your comment: the way I wrote it was confusing. I’ve changed it with corrections to the following at the co-post at my website:
“The ‘Global’ linear trend (blue curve) is 0.072 GJ/square meter per decade and without the North Atlantic, the ‘Global Minus North Atlantic’ data linear trend (green curve) drops to 0.043 GJ/square meter per decade.”
Thanks again.

Stephen Wilde
October 18, 2010 1:32 pm

Interesting that the Arctic Ocean graph shows a low point and trend change around 1980 whereas the global chart shows a low point and trend change around 1970.
That suggests a ten year lag which approximately matches the period of time from the 1998 super El Nino to the peak summer melt in 2007.

david
October 18, 2010 1:32 pm

The readers of this thread may be interested in a paper by Knox and myself showing that the trend of recent [since 2002] global ocean heat content is negative. Go to .
David Douglass
[reply] David, just type the url and wordpress will make the link live – RTmod

Steve Koch
October 18, 2010 2:01 pm

So OHC has been dropping a bit since late 2004 instead of 2006.
I highly recommend looking at this link (very clear explanation):
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/PDF/heat_content_differences.pdf
These comments from the linked slides are interesting:
• Many CTD/bottle data do not come to NODC within 3 months. Many do not come at all.
• Changes to XBT data are usually replacement of real-time data with full profile delayed-mode data, including delayed-mode quality control.
• Changes to Argo profiles are mostly pressure adjustments applied during delayed-mode quality control.
I guess this means that the Argos sensors have an internal recording capability that has much more information than what is transmitted in quasi realtime. This recorded memory is presumably accessed relatively infrequently. When the recorded data is available, it permits post processing that improves the accuracy of temp records.
I wonder what this means: “mean of five decadal climatologies to remove temporal bias”. Maybe Levitus 2009 explains it.
Bob, did you do a post about the Levitus 2009 paper?

commieBob
October 18, 2010 2:02 pm

I’m not sure what they are measuring here. It would nice if someone could tell us what the temperature change was in the water column.
If I have it correctly, the heat content of the water column changed less than a tenth of one percent over the last sixty years. That would be about 0.3 degrees K. That doesn’t sound like much and it sounds to me like it is well within measurement error.
If someone (more familiar with the physics) would do the math I would be grateful. I also agree with Sean; some error bars would be nice.

tallbloke
October 18, 2010 2:10 pm

commieBob says:
October 18, 2010 at 2:02 pm
If I have it correctly, the heat content of the water column changed less than a tenth of one percent over the last sixty years. That would be about 0.3 degrees K. That doesn’t sound like much and it sounds to me like it is well within measurement error.

The thing to remember is that two metres of ocean has around the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. So a 0.3K increase in the top 700 metres of ocean is a heck of a lot of additional energy. This additional energy must have come from additional insolation at the surface. This would be a function of a more active sun combined with a concomitant reduction in albedo – less clouds.
This pretty much fits the high average solar output in the second half of the C20th, which was well above the long term average.
There’s your global warming.
If someone (more familiar with the physics) would do the math I would be grateful. I also agree with Sean; some error bars would be nice.
I did the math. Using the rise in sea level due to thermal expansion, the energy gain in the 1993-2003 decade is equivalent to an extra 4W/m^2 – way more than co2 can do. Levitus et al mysteriously reduced the amount of extra energy by a large factor between their 2000 paper and their 2007 paper. I think it’s because they realised there was no way co2 could account for it, even if back radiation from the atmosphere could enter and heat the ocean, which it can’t.

October 18, 2010 2:20 pm

Steve Koch says: “Bob, did you do a post about the Levitus 2009 paper?”
Nope. I’ve just included links to the paper when I’ve posted the data. Regarding “mean of five decadal climatologies to remove temporal bias”, refer to their paragraph 12 (page 3):
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

October 18, 2010 2:23 pm

Bob,
what unit is GJ* m**-2?
Have you (or Climate Explorer) divided the OHC by the ocean area?

1 2 3 5