Bob Tisdale points out the reality versus projection disparity. It would seem, that we have a GISS miss by a country mile. Where’s the heat? – Anthony
First-Quarter 2011 Update Of NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700Meters)
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
(Update: I added the word “Anomalies” to the two graphs. )
OVERVIEW
The NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) has updated its Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data (0-700Meters) for the first quarter of 2011. The quarterly data for the world oceans is now available through the NODC in spreadsheet (.csv ) form (Right Click and Save As: all months). Thanks, NODC. That’s a nice addition to your website.
This is a quick post that shows the long-term quarterly OHC data and the ARGO-era OHC data compared to GISS Projections. I’ll provide another look when the data has been uploaded to and becomes available through the KNMI Climate Explorer, and that should be toward the end of the month. It’ll be interesting to see if the tropical Pacific OHC has rebounded yet.
DATASET INTRODUCTION
The NODC OHC dataset is 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. It was revised in 2010 as noted in the October 18, 2010 post Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data. As described in the NODC’s 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.
THE GRAPHS
Figure 1 shows the Global NODC data from the first quarter (Jan-Feb-Mar) of 1955 to the first quarter of 2011. There was a minor uptick in the past three month period.
Figure 1
Looking at the NODC OHC data during the ARGO era (2003 to present), Figure 2, the uptick was nowhere close to what would be required to bring the Global Ocean Heat Content back into line with GISS projections. For the source of the 0.7 Joules*10^22 GISS projection, refer to the discussion of “ARGO-ERA TREND VERSUS GISS PROJECTION” in the post ARGO-Era NODC Ocean Heat Content Data (0-700 Meters) Through December 2010.
Figure 2
And for those wishing to discuss the draft of Hansen et al (2011), please first refer to the post for Notes On Hansen et al (2011) – Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications. It was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat as On ocean heat content, Pinatubo, Hansen, Bulldogs, cherrypicking and all that.
SOURCE
As noted above the updated quarterly NODC OHC data is available through their website:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Specifically their Basin Time Series webpage:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
Scroll down to the “all months” link under “World”.
Thanks, Anthony.
it’s too short a time, apart from when the projections are right
I hope they have factored this into their projections.
“There was a minor uptick in the past three month period”
tsk tsk – You’re never going to get a job as a panickist by being:
a) objective
b) calm
I just had a flashback to when real scientists made announcements…crazy, I know
Clearly ocean heat content needs to be adjusted for something…hmm…how about a La Nina adjustment for all of that upwelling cold water?
That should do the trick.
I find the units for the Y-axis of Figure 1 (and the original graph) strange. It should be anomaly (relative to some time period), not actual measurement. If NOAA does not get this right, can we trust them on anything else??!! (And if I am making an error here, please correct me.)
IanM
Last October 6, Anthony posted, “Ocean color affects tropical cyclone formation” about AGU published research, which read in part, “The absorption of sunlight is affected by the concentration of chlorophyll, with the Sun’s heat penetrating deeper in clear, low-chlorophyll waters…researchers note other research suggesting that 1960s chlorophyll levels in the Pacific were about 50 percent lower than at present.”
Last April 25, Anthony also posted Eschenbach’s “The Ocean Wins Again” which reported articles on the significant increase in chlorophyll over the decades.
My question: Is the albedo of our oceans changing to reflect more than absorb heat and thereby account for the GISS – ARGO divergence?
If you were to put error bars on the OHC data going back to 1955, what would that look like? I know the coverage has been broad since the deployment of ARGO but if I recall correctly, the early coverage was heavily weighted toward the northern hemispshere and it tended to follow ocean transportation routes.
And how did they measure ocean heat content before Argo?
Figure 1 has an impressive-looking pre-2003 accuracy for what is essentially a WAG based on a few scattered measurements.
Could this be Trenbert’s “missing heat”? The 40 billion terajoules’ difference between the GISS and ARGO figures is staggering (more than enough to melt the whole Greenland icesheet)!
As Pielke Snr has constantly argued this variable is the best measure of the global energy balance that we have. Sea level is a good second opinion. The average global surface temperatures is a poor third.
We therefore have a paradox.
On the one hand sea level and sea energy content are static indicating that the earth has been in energy balance for the last 9 years.
However The warming effect of carbon dioxide is dependent on its absolute concentration, not whether it is increasing, and its concentration is at an historic high. The warming effect of CO2 must therefore be higher than at any time in history.
So how can it be that there is no effect now and yet there was, apparently, unprecendented warming over the previous twenty years when the CO2 impact was lower than it is now?
I do not expect an answer!
“My question: Is the albedo of our oceans changing to reflect more than absorb heat and thereby account for the GISS – ARGO divergence?”
Don’t particles in water (organic or not) absorb more energy than the water itself would have done thus offsetting any change in albedo?
If we look for a long-term, simple trend within the data (please excuse the eye-balling, though it is sufficient for this purpose) the points -2.5/1983 to +11/2007, lie approximately on this line/curve. 2003 by this view would be +8.0; 2011, +13.5 for an increase of 5.5. The straight-line GISS increase projection 2003-2011 as shown is 5.4 (9.6 to 15.0).
The difference between observed data and GISS projections in this comparison is negligible.
The error (saying so with great respect for BT) in this analysis is a start-point error combined with an inappropriate simple linear devolved trend from modeling bing compared to real-world data showing its cyclic variations.
We know here is a lot of up-and-down in all of our AGW metrics beyond seasonality or orbital changes. That is why start- and end-points are so important – and so often misused. None of us even attempt to explain these large, regular irregularities, nor should we spend too much on on them, as the complexity of temperature, sea-level rise and the like is beyond our skeptic or their warmist technical understanding. But this situation means that neither side can legitimately compare point-to-point or even short-term periods of modeled expectations to observations.
In this instance the pot is as black as the kettle. That is unfortunate.
There is no conclusion to be made with short-term comparisons of simple model projections against complex real-world data. It’s a suckers’ game on both sides, though one played magnificently well by the alarmists for many years. Still, we shouldn’t play it.
Despite what I write here, I hold the IPCC models increasingly diverge from real-world data. In time this is where the “proof” of AGW will be seen. The question is what we can take as the time start-point for reference. It used to be 1988; now I see 2000 in the zero-d position. Regardless, all of the projections have doomsday at 2100; by the models, 2050 is a date already well approaching our final demise. The longer the rises hesitate, the faster the final rises must be to maintain the models predictions, of course. At some point, though, even rebound considerations explode the IPCC CO2-temperature etc linkage: to be true the IPCC must still have the “settled” science wrong, even if it is in the disaster-is-coming way.
Is 2025 is close enough? Hard to say it wouldn’t be: 25% of the distance to the cliff’s edge should be sufficient to know which way we’re going. If the path is clear you don’t need to get to the end to see what it will be. Perhaps 2015 is close enough. George Gallup doesn’t poll 15% of the population to know who’s likely to win an election.
To cap: although reassuring, this Tisdale post, again with all respect, is an example of what the warmists do. If Hansen had used 2001-2005 as a similar period to study, we would have screamed how unfair it was. Nevertheless, I would argue that the divergence between observation and data is already enough to eliminate the worse scenarios and throw a lot of weight on the today-as-before view if we are allowed to use some pre-2000 start-date. Regardless, any 8-year period we or they might use can’t and won’t show anything more than what is desired to be shown.
Hi Mr. Tisdale
I’ve superimposed the CETs on the NOAA’s OHC (top) graph.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OHC-CET.htm
CET oscilates around the OHC, which is reasonable since the CET area is widely open to the North Atlantic and oceans have far lower volatility. Conclusion : If the OHC graph is correct than UK is going to get warmer rather than colder during the next few years.
I would welcome prospect of hot summers and especially warmer winters with delight.
Looks like a travesty to me.
More chlorophyll, more absorption of energy, BUT, photosynthesis is endothermic and I suspect a remarkable amount of carbonaceous energy is being sequestered on the ocean floor.
Bob,
Not related directly to this (or any particular post), how much faith do you place in pre Argo/satellite estimations of heat content/sst?
Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying; if so, please forgive me for being pedantic.
Albedo measures how much light reflects from a surface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
All radiation that is not reflected is absorbed. The energy may be absorbed higher or lower in the water column but it is absorbed. If it is not absorbed then it is part of the reflected energy. It only has two possible conditions: reflected or absorbed.
You can’t talk about offsetting a change in albedo. If the albedo doesn’t change then the total energy absorbed didn’t change. The only way to change the energy absorbed is to change the albedo.
When you’re coming up with a value for albedo, you don’t care about what made the albedo what it is. You just measure the incident radiation and the reflected radiation and take the ratio.
That’s handy.
In order to load the new version of Argo – the Global Marine Argo Atlas 1.1.4 – you have to unload the old unadjusted data that showed the oceans losing heat, in favor of the new improved data that just coincidentally agrees with GISS prognostications almost exactly, inspiring people like Dave Proctor to bloviate on their favored religion.
Wow. How convenient.
Ian L. McQueen says: “I find the units for the Y-axis of Figure 1 (and the original graph) strange. It should be anomaly (relative to some time period), not actual measurement. ”
Referring to Levitus et al (2009)…
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
…they are anomalies. The base period is 1957-1999, according to Figures 1. Refer also to the discussion of “Data and Method,” starting on page 2.
Brian M. Flynn says: “My question: Is the albedo of our oceans changing to reflect more than absorb heat and thereby account for the GISS – ARGO divergence?”
I have not run across a paper that attempts to account for the divergence through changes in albedo. The draft of Hansen et al (2011)…
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf
…is the most recent attempt at an explanation. They believe it is caused by a “rebound” effect from the cooling caused by the Mount Pinatubo eruption. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a direct OHC response to the Mount Pinatubo eruption, making a rebound difficult to fathom. Refer to the post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/notes-on-hansen-et-al-2011-earths-energy-imbalance-and-implications/
And the cross post here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/23/on-ocean-heat-content-pinatubo-hansen-bulldogs-cherrypicking-and-all-that/
Sean says: “If you were to put error bars on the OHC data going back to 1955, what would that look like?”
I don’t have a graph of the current version with error bars, but here’s a link to the annual data for the global oceans (and Northern & Southern Hemispheres) with corresponding standard errors in the adjacent columns.
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat
Bob, a minor nit.
The graphs should say “anomaly” in the title should they not?
Also, a minor self nit about the title I chose, the divergence was mentioned by Hansen in his recent essay, so they are aware of it and isn’t new to them. I was thinking it being “new” in terms of new data. Since it isn’t, I’ve dropped “new” from the post title.
Anthony Watts says: “The graphs should say ‘anomaly’ in the title should they not?”
Yes, they should. My oversight.
I had a connection error when I tried to post this and it hasn’t shown up as awaiting moderation so I’m reposting it. So if it turns out to be a duplicate, that’s the explanation.
Tom_R, 3×2, Sean, and others with questions about sampling methods, locations, etc., before ARGO, Palmer et al “Future observations for monitoring global ocean heat content” also includes discussions on past sampling, problems during the ARGO era, and the like:
https://abstracts.congrex.com/scripts/jmevent/abstracts/FCXNL-09A02a-1661562-1-Obs_for_OHC_WhitePaper_v10.pdf
Anthony Watts says: “The graphs should say ‘anomaly’ in the title should they not?”
Anthony, do you want me to repost the graphs with “Anomaly” in the title block? It would take about 2 minutes.
I wonder what Tamino says about this? I seem to remember that he made a fairly solid prediction about upward trends some years ago….
It seems that the U of Colorado has finally released the latest sea-level data we’ve been waiting for. It sure looks like it jives with this temp-data:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/sea-level-rise-is-acceleratingto.html
Doug Proctor says: “There is no conclusion to be made with short-term comparisons of simple model projections against complex real-world data.”
As you’re likely aware, since 2007…
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/a-litmus-test-for-global-warming-a-much-overdue-requirement/
…Pielke Sr, has been recommending OHC be used as the “litmus test for global warming” and that a model projection be compared to OHC observations. In that post, he recommended that it be communicated each year if not more often. No one else is doing it, so I include it in many of my OHC posts.
In a 2009 post…
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/
…Pielke Sr. notes, “While the time period for this descrepancy with the GISS model is relatively short, the question should be asked as to the number of years required to reject this model as having global warming predictive skill, if this large difference between the observations and the GISS model persists.”
Refer also to Pielke Sr’s comment in a recent thread over at Judith Curry’s blog (note the thread has more than 400 comments, so it takes a while to load.):
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/07/wheres-the-missing-heat/#comment-30344
He replies in part, “In the figure from http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-and-changes-to-nodc-ocean-heat.html, there is no statistically significant warming (or cooling) since 2004 (or 2003) in either the original or adjusted 0-700m ocean heat content data. There is warming prior to this time period which is in close agreement with the GISS model results. The jump in the heat just before the heating became nearly flat appears overstated, as Josh Willis has indicated on my weblog.
“From this figure, it appears a large amount of heating must occur over the next few years to bring the observations back in agreement with the models.”
Maybe I’ll have to add a note to the effect of “How Long Before The Model Projections Are Rejected” on the short-term graphs like Figure 2 each time I update.
Regards
TimC says:
May 8, 2011 at 10:41 am
Could this be Trenbert’s “missing heat”? The 40 billion terajoules’ difference between the GISS and ARGO figures is staggering (more than enough to melt the whole Greenland icesheet)!
I advise anyone interested in OHC as an indicator or Earth’s energy balance to read this somewhat technical post carefully.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/
3×2 says: “Not related directly to this (or any particular post), how much faith do you place in pre Argo/satellite estimations of heat content/sst?”
Depends on what you’re trying to study, and where you’re looking in the global oceans, and to what “resolution” one needs. Most of the OHC and SST observations in the long-term datasets are in the Northern Hemisphere. For SST, you have to consider whether the datasets are infilled, where they’re infilled, and whether the “raw” data is reinserted after infilling.
papertiger: What are the graphics capabilities of the ARGO-based sofware?
Bob Tisdale and commieBob:
I write to support R Taylor who says at May 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm:
” More chlorophyll, more absorption of energy, BUT, photosynthesis is endothermic and I suspect a remarkable amount of carbonaceous energy is being sequestered on the ocean floor.”
commieBob rightly says that increased albedo means more reflection of radiation so less absorbtion of radiation energy in the water.
However, he assumes from this that lowered albedo means less reflection so more absorbtion of radiation energy in the water, but this does not follow.
The increased absorbtion of radiation may be by biota suspended in the water. In this case, as R Taylor suggests, the absorbed energy may power photosynthesis to form sugars by combination of dissolved CO2 in the water with water. The result would be increased biological activity which could result in sequestration of much of the absorbed radiation energy and dissolved carbon dioxide. And, importantly, the net result could be increased deposition of (dead) biological material to deep ocean. This deposition would be a removal from the oceans’ near-surface layers of absorbed radiation energy and dissolved carbon dioxide.
It is very difficult to quantify these removals of energy and carbon dioxide from the near surface layers by such deposition to deep ocean, but they are likely to be significant unless the biological activity is limited by availability of phospate, nitrate or ferrous ions in the water.
Richard
Shouldn’t this go in the Climate Fail category?
On any graph of data obtained from two (or more) different sources, there should be a break, or discontinuity shown between them. It seems like common sense to me, but that doesn’t seem to be a standard here. But maybe Doug Proctor likes to connect “apples and oranges”? I agree with “tallbloke”: there never was any “missing heat”.
The -110 zettajoule correction will be due to algorithmic instrumental calibration errors over the years and Trenberth’s pesky missing heat slipped free under the cover of the night and is heading out of the galaxy. That should give them some cover in the MSM. ☺
Something makes me REALLY SUSPICIOUS of the data, covering 1955 to now.
Methinks that perhaps the 1955 to 1985 or 1990 data is perhaps “quasi fictional”?
I don’t think the Argo bouys have been around that long.
Pity, again…lies, damn lies, and “historical fictions”.
Max
Thanks Bob,
I always enjoy reading your posts!
Gendeau posted:
tsk tsk – You’re never going to get a job as a panickist
Clearly you don’t know how to read the graph! If you look at the last 3 months, we’ve had a 15% increase in the ocean’s heat content. Now, ANY scientist worth their salt (and thus consideration by the IPCC and AGW powers-that-be) could easily extrapolate that to an 81% increase this year. And over the next decade, to a whopping 3,780%! Well, at that point, we’ll have boiled all the life in the ocean and we’ll be in a massive sauna world-wide.
RUN WHILE YOU CAN! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!
I think that’s what you’re looking for in terms of driving a panic? 🙂
Sam Glasser says: “On any graph of data obtained from two (or more) different sources, there should be a break, or discontinuity shown between them.”
They haven’t stopped using XBTs or stationary floats, as far as I know. ARGO use began to dominate in 2003, which is why I’ve referred to the period after 2003 as ARGO era.
Max Hugoson says: “Methinks that perhaps the 1955 to 1985 or 1990 data is perhaps ‘quasi fictional’?”
All long-term climate-related datasets are to some extent.
It is a real tragedy that we can’t find the missing heat. Right now it is cold. I am past my last chord of wood, and once again, my guy is complaining about my cold butt. So if Trenbreth and Jonesy can find the damned heat, please send it to Wallowa County.
Interesting that the satellite troposphere temperatures and the ocean heat content stopped rising at much the same time, 2002-03. What happened to all the lag and the heat “in the pipeline” that supposedly would cause ocean heat to keep rising even if greenhouse emissions stopped?
Of course a real cynic might point out that 2002 was when we started measuring these quantities in a rock-solid way, with the AQUA satellite and the ARGO buoys.
(Update: I added the word “Anomalies” to the two graphs. )
Bob: Isn’t it only the Fig 1 that is anomalies? Fig 2 looks to be a what-do-you-call-it ordinary graph.
IanM
Thank you Bob for your response. In viewing your references and your comments I see that we are not really in disagreement. An 8-year period of time is indeed too short a period to determine whether the modeled results diverge significantly from observational data. The question of when we start our inspection for divergence is the key. I’v tried to attach an image of the global temperature, land station-only temperatures and SST with the same X-Y coordinates (original from C3) but don’t seem to be able to do it. At any rate, my point is that about 1979 the three temperature plots begin to diverge, showing, I think, either
a) a systemic adjustment error,
b) the results of cherry picking land station data to show warming (bad UHIE corrections), or – give the devil his due,
c) CO2 heat retention at rates faster than can be moderated by air, land and ocean heat transfers.
The OHC is, indeed, a crucial test of IPCC theory, however as Trenberth has suggested, if there is insufficient heat retention seen, then it is “missing”, perhaps in deeper waters or (here’s a new one) in a minor speed-up of oceanic waters, whereby thermal energy has segued into kinetic energy. So OHC may not be a smoking gun for either side. Hansen/NASA seem very good at finding wiggle room for individual points; OHC looks like a metric that has a lot of possible wiggle room.
Regardless, 8 years in insufficient for drawing conclusions, and the particular 2003 start-point is not good as there is a significant “divergence” from the years prior to 2003. As a current trend this post is valid; as a trend that reflects validly on the AGW debate, I suggest it does not.
1979 as a reference point is a suggestion born out not of science but practicality: that is past the cooling trend of the 40’s to 60’s that warps the warmist, and includes the rebound phase that the warmists claim is not rebound but true signals of AGW. Let them have it: the more their models use the 1975 – 1995 period as the “true” nature of climate warming, the faster their models will fail to correspond to observation. Using that date does give us, by 2015, 36 years of observation in a 71 year timeframe to a mini-doom scenario of 2050. The models and their projections look the same as the small scale graph of the IPCC, but expanded you can see that the divergences are already present. Schmidt in January of this year at RealClimate admitted that temperature observations were at the bottom of the 1988 Hansen forecast, in fact were along the “C” scenario, in which CO2 stopped at the Y2000 level (though he denied vehemently that there was any significance to the divergence at this point). I’d disagree.
The problem still is the multi-year “natural” variation. Your analysis within this post lies within the variation. Perhaps another 5 years of the current flattening of the OHC will be persuasive. You are the statistician. What, off the 25-year trend, would be statistically significant for the various IPCC projections?
Bringing a temperature rise down to 1.4C/century brings nature, not CO2 into the picture. CO2 to be a problem and a cause has to have a correlation in excess of 2C/century at the current time, as CO2 emissions have not stopped nor slowed globally (though the US emissions are now down, China has more than made up for the reduction).
The divergence problem is coming to the streets next to us, but we still need time for an unequivocal pattern to show up. I’m thinking 2015 should make Gore/Suzuki uneasy. What do you think?
Doug, a divergence of 5×10^22 joules in 8 years is pretty significant. It’s equivalent to the rise in OHC from 1975 to 2000.
@Dodgy Geezer — wondering what Tamino has to say about this? He’s complied! 🙂
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
fredbe:
At May 8, 2011 at 9:55 pm you say;
“@Dodgy Geezer — wondering what Tamino has to say about this? He’s complied! :)”
The fact that “Tamino” says something is – by the statement of “Tamino” – reason to ignore it.
He is an academic and, therefore, his career and c.v. are enhanced by each additional publication he provides in the refereed literature. But information published on the web is not novel so cannot be published in the refereed literature. Hence, an academic harms his/her career by publishing information on the web anonymously and prior to its publication in the refereed literature.
So, by posting information on his blog under his alias of Tamino, he proclaims
(a) he thinks the information is so unworthy that it would not obtain publication in the refereed literature
and
(b) he thinks the information is so unworthy that he is not willing to put his name to it.
The only unknowns are
(i) why there are people willing to waste time reading the rubbish that Tamino, Eli Rabbit, etc. throw away by posting it on their blogs
and
(ii) why some of those people are so deluded that they take the rubbish serioiously.
Richard
@fredb – “…wondering what Tamino has to say about this? He’s complied! :)…”
Good for Tamino! He has picked up the problem with the 2003 start date, but it would be instructive to see how the figures pan out against that assertion he made about rate rise if another start is picked….
Tamino (see fredb’s comment for link) shows that Bob Tisdale’s work uses
i) cherry-picking and
ii) misrepresentation.
Bob Tisdale does not show “that we have a GISS miss by a country mile” to use Anthony’s words, or anything like it. In fact the honest interpretation of the data that Tisdale uses is that there is no significant “GISS miss” at all: it’s a non-story.
What Tisdale’s article demonstrates is how easy it is to fool people who are eager to believe that warming isn’t occurring.
Doug Proctor says: “In viewing your references and your comments I see that we are not really in disagreement. An 8-year period of time is indeed too short a period to determine whether the modeled results diverge significantly from observational data. The question of when we start our inspection for divergence is the key.”
But we’re not necessarily in agreement, either.
If causation is taken into acccount, then the model results diverge from observations from the start of the OHC dataset. The models, as I understand, assume Downward Longwave Radiation and changes in aerosols caused all of the rise in OHC. The GISS Model E used to study OHC did not include ENSO. I also do not believe GISS included AMOC and shifts in Sea Level Pressure. Yet ENSO, AMOC, and changes in Sea Level Pressure made significant contributions to the rise in OHC since the 1970s. One can’t look at Global OHC in order to determine their effects. Those effects are, however, plainly visible when the global oceans are broken down into basin subsets, and further subdivided into the tropics and extratropics. Refer to the posts:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-data/
And:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-is-governed-by-natural-variables/
And:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift-in-the-late-1980s/
I also have a summary post that illustrates why the GISS projections are diverging from observations:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/why-are-ohc-observations-0-700m-diverging-from-giss-projections/
Ian L. McQueen says: “Bob: Isn’t it only the Fig 1 that is anomalies? Fig 2 looks to be a what-do-you-call-it ordinary graph.”
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the same data. I’ve just shortened the time period in Figure 2.
Dodgy Geezer (May 9, 2011 at 12:34 am)
“if another start is picked…”
Bob Tisdale used the linear trend from 1993-2002 extended to the present as his “GISS projection”. Thus any possible start date must be post 1993. Here is the data properly presented by Tamino.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/pred.jpg?w=500&h=325
Care to suggest, and justify, another start date that you think would support the false impression given by Tisdale’s Figure 2 above?
So.. has anybody proved that a bit more long-term IR warms the ocean? Because if not, OHC is purely a matter of albedo and/or changes in ocean circulation.
Bob
Do we know how the Argo data compare with the data from other sampling since it was deployed?
Ed
Slioch;
No. What your post shows is that you will swallow anything from anonymous propogandists.
Richard
Moderators:
I haved made two recent posts to this thread that have disapeared. I wonder why.
Richard
[reply] Rescued – TB-mod
Basics:
All extrapolation should come with a heavy set of health warnings. Extrapolations of natural world data using a linear model is almost guaranteed to be wrong; that’s what got us into the global warming mess in the first place. To have any degree of confidence in extrapolated data needs the extrapolator to know and understand the form of the function underlying the data. Not to have such knowledge renders the extrapolation no more than guesswork and therefore meaningless, or worse, perfidious.
Wow – that’s some takedown. When in doubt, and the data isn’t going your way, best to refer to those who post actual data as believers, decry their internet anonymity, and then check for typos, which would make your own response seem careless and ill-considered. Textbook (apart from the fail on the typo).
Tamino must be quaking in his boots.
Richard S Courtney May 9, 2011 at 2:19 am
Tamino has taken exactly the same data as misused by Bob Tisdale and shown how it was misused. The misuse is simple and obvious: there is nothing complicated or difficult about it. The cherry-picking combined with moving the intercept on the extrapolated graph is obvious and undeniable. Anyone with a modicum of ability in data analysis would come to the same conclusion as Tamino.
You may not be able to understand those simple facts, Richard, but please don’t use that lack of understanding to accuse me of “swallowing anything from propagandists”.
Slioch,
Having read Bob Tisdale’s comments over the years, I know him to be careful, level headed citizen-scientist who is only interested in finding answers to complex questions. He is not funded by any NGO, and he shows no bias in his research. Your cherrypicking accusation can be applied equally to anyone who uses a specific graph, and thus is baseless whining.
Grant Foster, on the other hand, runs a climate alarmist blog that promotes the repeatedly falsified conjecture of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The planet itself debunks Tamino’s climate alarmism: as [harmless and beneficial] CO2 rises, the temperature has been flat to declining for more than the past decade. Therefore, what we are observing is largely, if not entirely, natural climate change.
You have the same ossified mindset of the hundred Soviet scientists who signed a letter attacking Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Einstein correctly retorted that a hundred scientists were not necessary to falsify his work; just one fact was sufficient.
Provide facts that falsifiy Bob Tisdale’s work – if you can. Your accusations of cherrypicking are only a desperate attempt to attack what you have been unable to falsify.
Another fail on a takedown. Again with the true believer stuff. And then switching out the actual topic for a rather different. You get bonus points for checking for typos, but an actual takedown this isn’t.
Come on. Why would Bob choose 2003 when every other year produces a rather different trend? I could choose 2001 and ‘prove’ something exactly opposite to the stated conclusions here. But I wouldn’t, as that wouldn’t be scientific.
I really do wish we could get someone knowledgable to comment on this without the vituperation that so badly undermines the credibility of much of it.
On the face of it, the Argo OHC graph everyone appears to accept shows a lot of warming up to 2003 and very little since. Everyone appears to accept that 8 years is too short a period for this to mean all that much and everyone knows that trends are capable of being manipulated by carefully choosing start dates.
I do not really find such trend analysis of Hansen or anyone else’s projections very interesting. All I want to know is why there has been no warming at 0 to 700m in the ocean since 2003 and at what point assuming that this continues will we be able to say that there is significant evidence that the oceans are no longer warming.
I lose out this time on checking for typos ;p
Duckster,
The onus of the ‘actual takedown’ is on the alarmist contingent. Skeptics have nothing to prove. [And thanx for avoiding the easy attack on typos, which have nothing to do with the question.]
Dave W says: “The Argo OHC graph everyone appears to accept a lot of warming up to 2003 and very little since.”
That is the alarmists’ conundrum: if CO2 causes catastrophic AGW, then ocean temperatures should be rising right along with rising CO2. But they are not. Therefore, there is a serious problem right here in River City: CO2 cannot be the culprit that the alarmists claim it is – thus the demonization of “carbon” takes another hit.
>> Slioch says:
May 9, 2011 at 4:20 am
Richard S Courtney May 9, 2011 at 2:19 am
Tamino has taken exactly the same data as misused by Bob Tisdale and shown how it was misused. <<
It was Tamino who printed misused data.
Look at the huge leap in heat content in Tamino's graph, right where there was a change to Argo from the previous unreliable scattered measurements. Tamino (or was it GISS) just took the Argo data and pasted it high enough above the pre-Argo guesstimates to temporarily fit their prediction.
If GISS is correct, then CO2 should still be adding heat to the Earth and the Argo data alone would show increasing ocean heat, which is what Bob has shown is not the case. There should be no need to use the pre-Argo data, and using it the way it was done in Tamino's figure just highlights the corrupt adjusting done by the warmist camp to fit their preconceived religious beliefs.
OK. So we have a takedown of Bob’s argument by Tamino. So far no one here has responded to it really at all – apart from a few a hominem ‘true believer’ attacks.
Tamino has a graph showing they are.
Your turn. The onus is on you. Right now.
Bob Tisdale wrote:
“Ian L. McQueen says: “Bob: Isn’t it only the Fig 1 that is anomalies? Fig 2 looks to be a what-do-you-call-it ordinary graph.”
“Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the same data. I’ve just shortened the time period in Figure 2.”
Bob-
Sorry to be sticking to this subject, but it looks to me as if Figure 1, anomalies, is based on Fig 2, but the latter is a straightforward graph with a linear Y-axis and an implied Y=0 at the origin. I really don’t think that Fig 2 represents anomalies, otherwise it would be varying about a zero point somewhere around midway up the Y-axis.
IanM
Thanks Bob.
Hansen is now saying (and has been for a few years now) that the degree of ocean heat mixing is over-estimated in the climate models.
What does this mean exactly?
Generally, it sounds reasonable. We think we know what he means by this. We know it will take a long time for the deep oceans to catch up for example.
But what he is really saying is that the oceans are not taking up as much heat as expected. It might take them 1500 years to fully catch up to the surface.
What this really means is that the oceans are not absorbing 0.8 watts/m2 from the atmospheric GHG forcing that fast-ocean-mixing climate models expect. It means there is not as much imbalance in surface temperature versus calculated forcings as expected. It means the theory is missing something.
Technically, he is holding contradictory positions here. There cannot be both an imbalance of 0.8 watts/m2 while the oceans mix slow and only absorb 0.3 watts/m2. Hansen is just restating the “missing energy” problem again while he doesn’t fully outline what that means.
Simplistic Solar/Climate Theory:
1) Observed TSI is the “base” for global temperature.
2) The radical changes in Solar UV drive upper atmospheric “thickness”
3) Thicker upper atmosphere, more heat retention; thinner upper atmosphere, less heat retention.
4) Solar activity at ~100 Flux -> -0.1C/2.5 years Global temperature decrease. This is accumulative. It takes, on average, ~184 Flux -> +- 0.0C , i.e., no Global temperature change.
5) Only the top 700 meters of ocean temperature count. The rest is cold at 3C. This thin surface layer gives up [absorbs] heat on a time cycle of about 2.5 years at about +-0.1C/2.5 years.
This information is easily verified by looking at max/min solar cycle [flux] as related to Global temperature. Typical Global temperature swing is about +-0.05C over the 11 year cycle [average Sun spots over 11 years -> .6 * 220 peak = 132 ][average Flux over 11 years -> 70 + .6*(260-70) = 70 + 114 = 184 ].
Note: Low Solar UV activity, verified reduced upper atmosphere thickness.
Wow. Bob Tisdale, you s/b ashamed of yourself.
Anthony, Here’s another example to add to my list of posts you personally should not allow if you want to boost WUWT credibility.
REPLY: Our credibility is just fine (outside of a select few like yourself). Your bud, “Tamino”, might benefit from having the courage to put his name to what he writes, particularly when he calls people “liars and deniers” (his main theme these days) that could boost his credibility. – Anthony
Slioch:
In your post at May 9, 2011 at 4:20 am you say to me;
“You may not be able to understand those simple facts, Richard, but please don’t use that lack of understanding to accuse me of “swallowing anything from propagandists”.”
But you do not present any “facts” (simple or otherwise). You merely assert that the propagandist who writes under the alias of “Tamino” is right so – according to you – Tisdale must be wrong.
However, as I explained at May 8, 2011 at 11:59 pm
“… So, by posting information on his blog under his alias of Tamino, he proclaims
(a) he thinks the information is so unworthy that it would not obtain publication in the refereed literature
and
(b) he thinks the information is so unworthy that he is not willing to put his name to it.”
You want me to consider stuff that its provider proclaims to be rubbish? Why would I or any other sensible person waste time doing that?
Richard
Seen Pat’s @ Jeff’s? Off-topic, but closing in.
==========
Dodgy Geezer said: “I wonder what Tamino says about this?”
And Fred B, Richard S Courtney, Slioch, Duckster, and Smokey have discussed Tamino’s rebuttal post here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
I will be replying to Tamino’s post soon, maybe later today if I get the time. Once again, Tamino’s criticisms fail. He misses the very obvious and the not-so-obvious. But we can discuss that after I post it.
Regards
Dusckster asks: Why would Bob choose 2003 when every other year produces a rather different trend? I could choose 2001 and ‘prove’ something exactly opposite to the stated conclusions here. But I wouldn’t, as that wouldn’t be scientific.
Homogeneity of the data (ie, gathered via the same device), versus inhomogeneity. In other words, apples versus oranges comparisons. Oh, why a duck?
Dave W says:
May 9, 2011 at 5:04 am
On the face of it, the Argo OHC graph everyone appears to accept shows a lot of warming up to 2003 and very little since.
Argo floats were only fully deployed in 2003. So the pre-2003 data is not based on Argo floats.
Amen, Slioch.
“All I want to know is why there has been no warming at 0 to 700m in the ocean since 2003 and at what point assuming that this continues will we be able to say that there is significant evidence that the oceans are no longer warming.”
Rising global albedo so less energy into the oceans:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
Also increased cloudiness which I think is down to an equatorward shift in the jets and/or more meridional jet streams.
Jack Greer has now made two completely content-free posts. That seems to be the level of Tamina’s fanboi followers here.
>> Jack Greer says:
May 9, 2011 at 6:45 am
Wow. Bob Tisdale, you s/b ashamed of yourself.
Anthony, Here’s another example to add to my list of posts you personally should not allow if you want to boost WUWT credibility. <<
You gotta love the religion coming out of a warmist post. Pure ad hom with not one iota of science.
Jack, tell us how Tamino is right in using a graph using measurements patched together from two different sources. Tell us why he's right when the prediction only approximately matches the patched-together graph because of the large jump at the patch point.
Maybe if you showed a combination of figures 1 and 2, maybe we could see that the red line is not in the best position.
And note that the data point for 2011 is higher than all others except for last quarter 2003 and first quarter 2004.
Looking at it that way, I really don’t see any divergence, certainly not any cooling.
Slioch
I appreciate this article is specifically about Argo buoys but I must admit I have great difficulty in accepting that measurements starting from only 2003 have any scientific merit and that putting one highly inaccurate set of global measurements (from 1850) against another set from 2003 really tells us anything useful at all.
As a matter of interest do you think the Historic global SST’s have any merit whatsoever and can therefore be used as a way of confirming there is a long standing upwards trend in ocean temperatures (heat content) when used in conjunction with Argo?
tonyb.
The important distinction between a “projection” and a “prediction” tends to be overlooked in discussions of this kind. For the purpose of statistically validating a model, one needs predictions of the outcomes in a sampling of statistical events plus observations of the outcomes of the same events; projections play no role.
Cherry-picked and ridiculously short time-line aside, Smokey, there is zero excuse for Figure 2, above. That figure doesn’t represent GISS’s projection at all. GISS explicitly shows their projection here:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc10.jpg
Tisdale dishonestly represents the GISS projection and data for specific misleading effect. Tisdale could have represented the GISS trend running smack-dab thru the middle of the data line, for example …. but, no. Sorry if that’s not obvious to you.
>> Jack Greer says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:30 am
Tisdale could have represented the GISS trend running smack-dab thru the middle of the data line, for example …. <<
Or GISS could have mated the Argo data to the pre-Argo data such that the GISS trend agreed 'smack-dab' at the beginning of the Argo data. But that might disagree with their religious beliefs.
In either case the only heat content measurements that come close to full coverage, namely Argo data, show basically no change in the ocean heat content over their 8-year period, and the trend lines disagree no matter how you line them up.
Jack Greer,
We only have the ARGO buoy data, but it is short term. OTOH, we have Tamina’s patched together “hide the decline” chart, which covers a longer time frame, but his chart is fabricated [see Tom_R’s post above @May 9, 2011 at 5:43 am].
And the data in your linked chart [as opposed to the model projections] also shows OHC declining. Raw data trumps models every time, and when there is a divergence between the two, it is the computer model that is falsified.
Yet faced with facts and data that support Bob Tisdale, you label him dishonest. That is not a reflection on Bob, but on you. Since the planet itself is falsifying your beliefs, you resort to name-calling; a tactic the warmist contingent is increasingly relying on because the facts do not support their repeatedly falsified CAGW beliefs.
@Smokey
– Read a little closer about the roll-out of ARGO buoys … and then Tisdale’s rationalization for selecting 2003 as his starting point. 2003 just happens to be the ocean version of the “since 1998 global temperatures have declined”.
– Tisdale isn’t arguing the computer model is “falsified”. … and, real data never falls on a trend line.
– There is no excuse for Tisdale maintaining the “actual readings” anomaly scale on the Y axis while displaying his estimated GISS tend line starting a 2003. None. He should man-up & correct his graphs and labels on Fig. 2 to accurately match the actual point he’s attempting to make … and then move on. Until then calling him “misleading” is the nicest thing I can say.
Jack Greer says: “Tisdale dishonestly represents the GISS projection and data for specific misleading effect. Tisdale could have represented the GISS trend running smack-dab thru the middle of the data line, for example …. but, no. Sorry if that’s not obvious to you.”
“Dishonestly”?
The disparity between the trends is the same if I run it “smack-dab thru the middle of the data line” or if I start it from the beginning. It’s YOUR perception that convinces YOU that one represents the data more fairly.
In the lede Anthony writes:
“Bob Tisdale points out the reality versus projection disparity. It would seem, that we have a GISS miss by a country mile. Where’s the heat?”
Yes, where is that missing heat? Still in Trenberth’s mythical pipeline, I suppose.☺
Well geez, Bob … Did you intend to show the GISS trend/projection line predicting 9.6 Joules*10^22 at the beginning on 2003? If not, fix the graph, fix the labels to match your point w/o extra false implication, and move on.
Seems to me you’re clearly smart enough to know better …
Doug Proctor says:
May 8, 2011 at 7:14 pm
I agree that a much longer time-frame is needed for a definitive indication of divergence. With strongly oscillatory data, decadal or even multidecadal “trends” are unstable. And with data that may have spurious trends due to lack of truly global coverage (or to UHI, with land stations), linear regression is not the best analytic tool.
The divergence that can be firmly established is that of GISS and HADCRUT land-station series from an index constructed entirely from vetted century–long records at UHI-unaffected stations. The anomalies of the former cross over those of the latter in the mid-1960’s and keep on diverging until the 1980’s, when the latter rebound from the preceding multidecadal cooling. What provides an analytically telling indication of that divergen ce is the lack of strong cross-spectral coherence at the lowest frequencies. On a similar basis, I suspect that the trend evident in the pre-Argo OHC data is spurious.
Jack Greer:
In response to Bob Tisdale (at May 9, 2011 at 11:58 am) having made the obvious point concerning his graph;
“The disparity between the trends is the same if I run it “smack-dab thru the middle of the data line” or if I start it from the beginning. ”
at May 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm you reply to him;
“Seems to me you’re clearly smart enough to know better …”
Well, the best interpretation of your behaviour is that you are not smart enough to know better. If you have a real argument or criticism of Tisdale’s analysis then present it so the rest of us can evaluate it. But the thread is disrupted by your complaining at a graph that is correct and is properly presented.
Either you do “know better” and your disruption by whining about a non-problem is deliberate disruption, or, alternatively you do not “know better” so would benefit from not displaying your prejudice. Either way, please stop it and raise your game.
Richard
If you want to see how Hansen is talking about OHC and the energy imbalance now, you can review his latest unpublished paper (he is not having great luck getting his papers published lately). Starting on about page 28 but you might have to go back a little to get the full context.
In short, Tamino and Jack Greer and RealClimate are not correct drawing a straight line through since 1993. For one, the Argo network is 50 times more accurate than any estimate before and the step-change between 2001 and 2003 should probably just be thrown out.
After that, Hansen made a major error in one chart but it doesn’t really change the result. Bob can start the line in 2003 which is a perfectly reasonable comparison. Since the 50 times more accurate Argo network came on line, the OHC accumulation is missing and the energy has escaped from the Earth system. Simple as that.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf
Time for the pub argument version again.
“The warmers say that the oceans should be getting warmer. They aren’t”
Is this right? Have I understood it correctly?
[snip – a bit too much, take a breather, and remember that you look silly complaining about somebody’s “integrity” while hiding behind a moniker – Anthony]
[snip – not interested in an argument – take the snip or take a hike – When Bob posts his rebuttal, you’ll have achange to respond, meanwhile if you want to have an argument about Bob’s “integrity” while you hide behind a moniker tossing insults at him, take it elsewhere – Anthony]
Richard S Courtney says: “If you have a real argument or criticism of Tisdale’s analysis then present it so the rest of us can evaluate it.”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/#comment-50735
Galling as it is I have to say Tamino is right for once. “Bob’s trick” is take the GISS linear fit , change it and then criticise them for getting it wrong.
His attempts to justify himself rather than correct it, clearly shows he did this quite deliberately and intentionally and thinks that is fine. He refutes claims that it is dishonest.
I disagree.
P. Solar:
At May 9, 2011 at 10:39 pm you assert to me;
” “Bob’s trick” is take the GISS linear fit , change it and then criticise them for getting it wrong. ”
No! He does not. Please read his analysis which is the subject of this thread.
It says;
“This is a quick post that shows the long-term quarterly OHC data and the ARGO-era OHC data compared to GISS Projections.”
And the direct comparison is provided in his Figure 2. The disparity between the linear slopes is stated mathematically and shown pictorially.
The data is explained with direct links in his article.
He does NOT “change” the GISS fit and you provide no example and/or explanation of such a change.
Frankly, your comment to me is a smear of Bob Tisdale and you should either justify it (which I doubt you can) or provide a complete apology for it.
Richard
RoHa May 9, 2011 at 7:18 pm
asks
““The warmers say that the oceans should be getting warmer. They aren’t” Is this right?”
No it is not right.
“Have I understood it correctly?”
No, you have not understood it correctly at all.
See, for example, :
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ohc.jpg?w=500&h=325
in
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/five-years/#comment-50747
Richard S Courtney says:
May 10, 2011 at 12:56 am
“He does NOT “change” the GISS fit and you provide no example and/or explanation of such a change.”
I refered you to Taminos post where he explains it fully. You chose to read that or you chose to ignore it. That is beyond my control.
It’s not often Tamino makes sense so I suppose he deserves credit when he does.
Richard S Courtney May 10, 2011 at 12:56 am
You still haven’t got it, or refuse to admit it, have you Richard?
Leave aside the cherry-pick for a moment.
Tisdale claims an OHC anomaly of c. 9.6 Joules*10^22 in 2003 for the GISS (red) graph.
That is false. It is not true. It is wrong. It is dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of the GISS graph. And it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of ability in data analysis. (The true figure is c. 6.6 Joules*10^22 in 2003).
That is the change in the GISS fit to which P Solar referred.
And yet, here on WUWT, not only is that obvious calumny presented, not only is it supported in the lead comments by Anthony, a day later there has still been no retraction from Tisdale and numerous posters like yourself are still trying to defend the indefensible.
And you wonder why people get angry and exasperated at this kind of behaviour.
Tamino makes quite a fuss about the choice of 2003 as starting point. Too bad that the ARGO people themselves consider 2003 as the starting point of their science.
Next!
Friends and Moderators:
This thread is supposed to be discussion and evaluation of the above analysis by Bob Tisdale. But it is being hijacked by supporters of Grant Foster who operates a propoganda blog using the alias of “Tamino”.
Everything on the Tamino blog is stuff that Foster himself considers to be rubbish so he is throwing it away (please see my post above at May 8, 2011 at 11:59 pm for explanation of this). Hence, there is no reason for anybody to take it seriously.
But if the Tamino nonsense were true then it would only be pertinent to this thread in so far as it provided a critique of the above work by Bob Tisdale.
So, everybody would be wise to ignore the trolls whose posts here consist solely of advertisements for the Tamino blog and smears of Bob Tisdale.
And I ask the Moderators to snip the advertisements for the Taminio blog; they reduce the standards of the WUWT blog.
Richard
Slioch:
Your rant at May 10, 2011 at 2:38 am is twaddle.
The graph labeled Figure 2 in the above article from Bob Tisdale shows two trends in ANOMALIES. Both trends are correct. Absolute values are not relevant to anomalies.
YOU ARE PLAIN WRONG AND YOUR LANGUAGE IS OFFENSIVE.
Apologise then go away.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
May 10, 2011 at 3:50 am
Slioch said, “Tisdale claims an OHC anomaly of c. 9.6 Joules*10^22 in 2003 for the GISS (red) graph.”
To which Richard S Courtney replies, “The graph labeled Figure 2 in the above article from Bob Tisdale shows two trends in ANOMALIES. Both trends are correct. Absolute values are not relevant to anomalies.”
Are you really incapable of understanding that “an OHC anomaly of c. 9.6 Joules*10^22 in 2003” contains the word “anomaly”. Can you really not see that the figure 9.6 is read directly from Tisdale’s Fig. 2 graph?
Really, this is just ridiculous.
Richard – you wrote: why there are people willing to waste time reading the rubbish that Tamino, Eli Rabbit, etc. throw away by posting it on their blogs
Well, as P.T. Barnum might or might now have said…
Slioch:
At May 10, 2011 at 5:31 am you rightly say;
“Really, this is just ridiculous.”
Yes! Indeed, “ridiculous” is an understatement of your comments.
Clearly, you do not know – or you are pretending to not know – what an anomaly is.
An anomaly is an offset by an arbitrary value (usually in climate science the arbitrary value is a mean of 30 values) from an actual datum. It does not matter what the offset is so-long as all the values in a data set use the same offset. For example, the HadCRUT, GISS, etc. data sets of mean global temperature are all presented as anomalies, but they use different offsets because they use different 30-year periods to provide the mean which each subtracts from each datum to create their anomaly values.
Change the offset and you change nothing because the offset is arbitrary.
Indeed, the purpose of anomalies is to enable simple comparison of different data sets: the offset applied to one data set can be altered so the two can then be presented e.g. on the same graph. This is what Tisdale’s Figure 2 does: it is right and it is proper.
Now, withdraw your false accusations saying;
“That is false. It is not true. It is wrong. It is dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of the GISS graph.”
In fact, it is true, it is not false, it is right, and it is completely honest. Your assertions that it is otherwise are despicable.
Richard
What does it mean that the so-called “Argo era” “begins” in 2003? If data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo measurements, how do you draw a line and say that data from before 2003 is no good and data from 2003 forward is reliable? It seems awfully arbitrary. The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 — you are saying we cannot rely on those readings at all, but we can rely on everything starting in January 2003? How has it been shown that the pre-2003 data must be ignored?
>> Peter says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:45 am
What does it mean that the so-called “Argo era” “begins” in 2003? If data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo measurements, how do you draw a line and say that data from before 2003 is no good and data from 2003 forward is reliable? It seems awfully arbitrary. The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 — you are saying we cannot rely on those readings at all, but we can rely on everything starting in January 2003? How has it been shown that the pre-2003 data must be ignored? <<
First off, scientists must prove that their measurements are valid. It's up to those who use pre-Argo data to prove that it's meaningful. It's easy to see that the pre-Argo data have extremely limited spatial and temporal coverage compared to Argo. Also, Bob's link (May 8, 2:09 PM) shows that the pre-Argo coverage area grew over time, so the supposed increase in OHC pre-Argo could just be from adding data from warmer areas into the total picture.
If the post-2003 data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo data then that itself is a flaw. Either the Argo and non-Argo measurements agree, in which case the non-Argo measurements are superfluous, or they don't, in which case one or the other (or possibly both) are in error.
Another problem arises when the two data sets are spliced together. Much of the supposed long-term increase comes from what looks to be a poor alignment of the two data sources. As you have observed, "The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 …"
Richard S Courtney May 10, 2011 at 7:18 am
First let us deal with the anomaly issue.
The slope of the GISS graph (given in Tisdale’s Fig.”) is 0.7 *10^22 Joules per annum. Yet in your post of May 10, 2011 at 3:50 am you pretend that the value of 9.6*10^22 Joules represents an absolute value. That is ridiculous. The absolute value represents the entire heat content of the oceans, which were your pretence to be correct, would have had to accumulate in little under fourteen (9.6/0.7) years warming! No person with any understanding of this issue would ever consider the OHC of 9.6*10^22 Joules at 2003 to represent anything other than an anomaly.
Secondly, you now assert that it is ‘true’ and ‘right’ and ‘completely honest’ to shift the intercept upwards by about 3 *10^22 Joules. No, it is not, it is everything I described it before: it is false and dishonest to shift the intercept and then present the data as is done in Fig. 2 under an article headed “The GISS divergence problem: Ocean Heat Content” with an introduction by Anthony that states “Bob Tisdale points out the reality versus projection disparity. It would seem, that we have a GISS miss by a country mile.”
The data, properly plotted, is shown here:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ohc10.jpg?w=500&h=416
where the slope and intercept of the linear best fit are established from the observed data from period 1993 to 2002 and shown as a red dotted line (somewhat obscured by the solid red line data plot). That straight dotted red line is extrapolated to the present and shows reasonable agreement with the later OHC observed data: as Tamino stated yesterday, “from 2003 to 2010, the observations are higher than prediction, then lower than prediction — but overall OHC (actually OHCA, ocean heat content anomaly) has been pretty close to its predicted values.”
What Tisdale did was to shift the red dotted line upwards by about 3 *10^22 Joules in 2003, and then plot that in Fig. 2 under the above headlines and introduction so as to leave the reader to conclude that the GISS prediction and reality had diverged. That is false. That is dishonest.
But where is Bob Tisdale – or Anthony for that matter? When is he or they going to come on and retract this misinformation? Or do we have to put up with more adventures inside Richard S Courtney’s bizarre separate reality?
Peter:
At May 10, 2011 at 7:45 am you ask:
“What does it mean that the so-called “Argo era” “begins” in 2003? If data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo measurements, how do you draw a line and say that data from before 2003 is no good and data from 2003 forward is reliable? It seems awfully arbitrary. The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 — you are saying we cannot rely on those readings at all, but we can rely on everything starting in January 2003? How has it been shown that the pre-2003 data must be ignored?”
Taking each of your questions in turn.
Q1
What does it mean that the so-called “Argo era” “begins” in 2003?
A1
2003 is the first year when sufficient ARGO buoys were deployed and their measurements were available for determination of ocean heat content to be determined from those measurements. At May 10, 2011 at 3:15 am (above) Maurizio Morabito provides a link that more fully explains why “the ARGO people themselves consider 2003 as the starting point of their science”.
Q2
If data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo measurements, how do you draw a line and say that data from before 2003 is no good and data from 2003 forward is reliable?
A2
You don’t. You say there are two different data sets that each purports to show the same thing. One (i.e. the ARGO data) is twenty times more accurate than the other. So, you assess each data set independently and you put most trust in the data provided by the more accurate method (i.e. the ARGO data that is only available since 2003). And it would be very wrong to treat the data sets as being the same e.g. by stitching them together or by making a “mix” of them.
Q3
The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 — you are saying we cannot rely on those readings at all, but we can rely on everything starting in January 2003?
A3
No. Please see my answer to Q2. We “rely” on the data from both methods but place much, much more reliance on the data provided by the much more accurate method (i.e. the ARGO data set).
Q4
How has it been shown that the pre-2003 data must be ignored?
A3
It should not be ignored, but the ARGO data should be trusted the more. If forced to choose between the two data sets then the sensible choice is the more accurate, more precise and more reliable data set (i.e. the ARGO data set).
I hope these answers are sufficient.
Richard
Slioch:
I started to read your post to me at May 10, 2011 at 8:47 am but I only read as far as this:
“First let us deal with the anomaly issue.
The slope of the GISS graph (given in Tisdale’s Fig.”) is 0.7 *10^22 Joules per annum. Yet in your post of May 10, 2011 at 3:50 am you pretend that the value of 9.6*10^22 Joules represents an absolute value. …”
At that point I gave up and decided to not waste time reading any more.
1.
Your assertion that I “pretend” anything is a fasehood and
2.
at no time did I claim “the value of 9.6*10^22 Joules represents an absolute value”. On the contrary, you have repeatedly made that claim while I have repeatedly pointed out that the value is an anomally and NOT an absolute value.
Simply, you made two blatant lies in your first two sentences.
So, I read no more of your post because I feared the effect on my blood pressure if I did.
Lies and untrue insults seem to be your only contribution to this thread.
They are not welcome here. Go away.
Richard
Slioch
You said to Richard;
“Or do we have to put up with more adventures inside Richard S Courtney’s bizarre separate reality?”
Way back up the thread I asked you a question which I think reflects on the bizarre separate reality that computer programmers -like Tamino- and analysts- such as Bob Tisdale- inhabit in using data that is not always fit for SCIENTIFIC purpose, either because of the longevity of the information available (Argo) or the extremely poor quality of it when related to such things as historic global SST’s.
I repeat the questionn to you below
“I appreciate this article is specifically about Argo buoys but I must admit I have great difficulty in accepting that measurements starting from only 2003 have any scientific merit and that putting one highly inaccurate set of global measurements (from around 1850) against another set from 2003 really tells us anything useful at all.
As a matter of interest do you think the Historic global SST’s have any merit whatsoever and can therefore be used as a way of confirming there is a long standing upwards trend in ocean temperatures (heat content) when used in conjunction with Argo?”
Tonyb
tonyb May 10, 2011 at 9:48 am
Yours is a perfectly reasonable question and I’m sure we could discuss the merits and demerits of the various data on ocean heat content anomalies (not to mention average global temperatures, glacial retreats, Arctic sea-ice and numerous other indications of global warming) until the cows come home, but if you will excuse me I will decline the invitation, other than agreeing with a vague assessment, not based on any analysis, that the time spans and methodologies involved would seem to render any precise conclusions tentative.
I have concentrated on one issue in this thread: how to fairly represent such data that we do have and to criticise Tisdale’s analysis as unfair. I think that is enough for one thread.
When all the smoke is cleared away Bob is perfectly entitled to draw attention to the fact that from 2003 the ARGO data is not showing the existence of any significant rise in ocean heat content and the longer that goes on the more difficulty there is for AGW.
Eight years may not be long but it is long enough to present an embarrassment for the consensus AGW view.
By far the simplest explanation is the failure of solar energy to penetrate the ocean surface and in connection with that the Earthshine project shows a clear increase in cloudiness and global albedo during the relevant period.
The advantage of the quality of the ARGO sensors is that the data should be regarded as setting a new more accurate starting point for ocean heat content from 2003.
The older less accurate data should not be spliced onto it. It is really only the current trend that we need to know for the time being.
Let us now keep a careful watch on global albedo AND ocean heat content and see whether the two sets of data track one another to any significant degree.
The ENSO cycle will need to be adjusted for because as Bob says elsewhere ENSO represents a discharge/recharge cycle for ocean heat content which would otherwise obscure part of any linkage between global albedo and ocean heat content.
Slioch,
It is very nice of Anthony to let you post your comments here for discussion. It is typical of the open and fair atmosphere at the number one science blog.
I wish that Tamino were so open to debate and comments.
I posted this short simple observation over there, and both times it vanished into the “moderation” black-hole.
“I think the point of the graphs and comments at WUWT was that since say 2004, the trend is about zero. And if the earth is accumulating heat energy due to an imbalance, it should keep going up.
This also corresponds to the flattening of the sea level rise observed in the satellite altimetry, due to less thermal expansion of the water.
-Jay”
I can clearly see who is open for debate and even presentation of ideas.
Slioch
Fair enough. The quality of the data-as opposed to its interpretation and ultimate validity- is an interesting one that is probably worth a thread on its own.
tonyb
Jay
May 10, 2011 at 10:56 am
Your three assertions concerning i) the ‘point of the graphs’, ii) ‘if the earth is accumulating heat energy due to an imbalance, it should keep going up’ or iii) ‘flattening of the sea level rise’ reveal a lack of understanding and a failure to analyse data correctly.
I’m not surprised Tamino didn’t post them. They had nothing to do with the subject of Tamino’s blog, which was concerned with the improper analysis of data, and would simply have served to distract attention from the issue being discussed.
Actually, Tamino’s most recent post containing very simple 5-year non-overlapping averages of various data including OHC may be very relevant here.
The small wobble in OHC presented here by Bob Tisdale really isn’t statistically significant, and the presentation (with the offset) is a bit, well, hinky, leaning to an interpretation not supported by the data.
It’s important to beware: the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position“. I hope Tisdale isn’t deliberately attempting to cast the data in a deceptive light.
@Stephen Wilde
Steven, The ARGO data isn’t showing anything on its own, certainly not in 2003. There’s no “splicing”. In 2003 the ARGO technology represented about one-half the global temperature readings. Does that sound “dominant” to you? Sound like a clean breaking point to mark a new beginning? Other existing technologies provided the other half in 2003, and they’re used for about the same number of readings today, albeit representing a much smaller percentage of total readings.
Note that extrapolated GISS model projections run straight thru the middle of the “no significant rise” period – half above projections, half below. Also note that the OHC data shows many examples of temperature oscillations/flattenings.
KR:
Your advert for the silly Tamino blog ends with:
“I hope Tisdale isn’t deliberately attempting to cast the data in a deceptive light.”
Your hope is clearly fulfilled. Tisdale presents the data from the ARGO data set and shows it has a trend much lower than the trend of the GISS projection.
This divergence of the trends means – and can only mean – one of two things; i.e.
(a) the OHC has not increased since 2003 at as great a rate as the GISS projected
or
(b) the ARGO data is in error.
These facts cannot be altered by playing around with 5-year-increments of GISS data or any other obfuscation.
The OHC may increase at a faster rate in future years, but the issue to be explained is why the OHC has not increased over the last 8 years at the rate which GISS projected. (I provided an explanation of one possible contributory factor at May 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm above).
Please do not say that 8 years is too short a time: that is merely avoiding the issue which is why the OHC has not risen at anywhere near the rate that GISS projected during the most recent 8 years. And that lack of OHC rise is a lot of “missing heat”.
Richard
Looks to me like this debate is much ado about nothing. Both views are reasonable approaches. Neither one is clearly right or wrong, they are just different ways of looking at the data.
One can choose to believe one approach or the other. There is no requirement that anyone accept either point of view.
It’s certainly possible that ARGO just happened to start out at a high OHC. It’s also possible that the big jump prior to ARGO is purely a data splicing artifact. We probably won’t know for years.
Richard S Courtney:
The OHC warming varies from year to year around the trend line by >2*10^22 joules. It’s a noisy signal.
Looking at OHC from 2003 ( the year with the highest residual in the last 15, incidentally, perhaps the worst possible choice from a statistical standpoint) gives a rate lower than average. From 2001 (2 years more data!) gives a rate higher than average. I’ll note that the ARGO data started with deployment in 2000, and that the record of ocean heat content contains a mix of XBT and ARGO data from that point on – there’s no night/day switch in data source, no reason why pre-2003 data would be invalid. And if a one or two year change in starting point gives a drastically different result, you’re looking at noise.
I will note that 8 years is a short time period. That’s not avoiding the issue, that’s recognizing the inherently noisy nature of the data. The local temperature has dropped since this weekend – can I conclude that summer (northern hemisphere, mind you) will be colder than the winter? Only if I cherry-pick too short a time period, carefully choosing my start/end dates. But that doesn’t make it a valid conclusion.
KR:
Sorry, but the “too short a period” excuse is simply avoiding the issue. And saying that the “signal is noisy” is merely restating that avoidance in other wording.
The issue is why the OHC has not risen over the last 8 years at the rate projected by GISS. Or, if you want to reword it, why is the “signal” so “noisy” that the observed rate over the last 8 years is a tenth of the rate projected by GISS.
The heat has gone into the ocean but the ocean’s heat content has not risen; why?
Or
The heat has not gone in; why?
“Too short a period” or “the signal is too noisy” is not an explanation. It is merely an excuse for not having an explanation.
“We don’t know” is an explanation. And it is honest science because it calls for research to answer the ‘why’ questions. Anything else is an excuse to avoid those questions.
Richard
Richard S Courtney:
Well, then, why don’t you demonstrate that these declining trend statements also hold from (say) 2001? Looking at the residuals on the yearly data, I will have to say that choosing 2003 is a cherry-pick.
“Too short a period” or “the signal is too noisy” is not an explanation. It is merely an excuse for not having an explanation.
Come on, Richard, you should know better than that. It means not enough data for a meaningful conclusion.
Richard M says: “Looks to me like this debate is much ado about nothing. Both views are reasonable approaches. Neither one is clearly right or wrong, they are just different ways of looking at the data.”
Bingo!!!!! (Five asterisk marks.) Funny thing is, I wrote something very similar in the closing of my response to Tamino’s post about a half hour ago. Looking at the timing, you beat me to the punch.
Regards
So if my version is wrong, what is the correct pub argument version, then?
RoHa
Correct pub argument?
Instead of, “The warmers say that the oceans should be getting warmer. They aren’t”
Try being truthful and say, “Scientists say that the oceans should be getting warmer. They are”
You never know someone might buy you a (cold) beer. And if you print off a copy of the ocean heat content data for the last century or so showing five year average temperatures, such as this one:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ohc.jpg?w=500&h=325
and stick it in your back pocket to show people, then hopefully you won’t get involved in silly arguments with people who don’t want to face the truth and who pretend that the last few years data in a noisy graph is significant.
Woops. That should have been “ocean heat content data for the last half century or so”
Richard S Courtney May 10, 2011 at 9:34 am
Now that hopefully your blood pressure has returned to normal are you going to withdraw your false statement that Slioch has “repeatedly made” the claim that “the value of 9.6*10^22 Joules represents an absolute value”? Since I have neither stated that, nor implied it, even once, that seems to me to be a reasonable request.
I acknowledge that my statement on the subject omitted the words “that I said”, so should have read, “Yet in your post of May 10, 2011 at 3:50 am you pretend THAT I SAID that the value of 9.6*10^22 Joules represents an absolute value.”
Slioch:
Your post at May 10, 2011 at 10:38 pm is ruidiculous.
It admits that you lied (and says one of the the lies was a mistake).
It says that you did not say something then claims you said it.
It does not aplogise for your lies but calls for me to withdraw.
I suggest that you seek medical aid.
Richard
KR:
You are good at making assertions but seem to think there is no need to justify them. Indeed, your post to me at May 10, 2011 at 5:03 pm is a clear demonstration that evasion is your modus operadi.
Its first statement asks me;
“Well, then, why don’t you demonstrate that these declining trend statements also hold from (say) 2001?”
I answer: because they don’t. So what? The fact is that the divergence exists since 2003 and that divergence requires an explanation.
Its second statement says;
” Looking at the residuals on the yearly data, I will have to say that choosing 2003 is a cherry-pick. ”
No. 2003 is the year when the ARGO data starts and when the divergence started. It is that divergence that requires an explanation and, therefore, any other year is a “cherry-pick”.
Then you quote me having said;
““Too short a period” or “the signal is too noisy” is not an explanation. It is merely an excuse for not having an explanation. ”
And you reply to my accurate statement by asserting;
“Come on, Richard, you should know better than that. It means not enough data for a meaningful conclusion.”
No! If you can prove it means what you assert then prove it.
The “not enough data excuse” will not wash: it amounts to “Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.”
The fact is that for the last 8 years the diveregence has happened. I can do no better than to iterate the entire point which you are evading by use of assertion and selective quotation. I said;
“The issue is why the OHC has not risen over the last 8 years at the rate projected by GISS. Or, if you want to reword it, why is the “signal” so “noisy” that the observed rate over the last 8 years is a tenth of the rate projected by GISS.
The heat has gone into the ocean but the ocean’s heat content has not risen; why?
Or
The heat has not gone in; why?
“Too short a period” or “the signal is too noisy” is not an explanation. It is merely an excuse for not having an explanation.”
Richard
Since a casual reader might only be confused by claims and counterclaims let me restate the basic historical truth, namely that the ARGO scientists did thrir FIRST scientific conference in 2003, not 2001. If that means nothing, ARGO has been a useless failure.
Richard S Courtney:
“’Too short a period’ or ‘he signal is too noisy’is not an explanation. It is merely an excuse for not having an explanation.”
That’s funny because it’s true. Only God knows exactly why temperature and heat fluctuate from second to second. I guess we don’t have any explanation for these second to second variations, so there’s no hope in ever establishing meaningful trends…
The first ARGO floats were distributed in 2001, and while a conference was held in 2003, the current data record includes ARGO data from it’s initial floats as well as ongoing XBT data. 2003 is not a point of changeover, but rather part of an ongoing increase in data sources.
In other words, ARGO data started in 2001, and has increased in float number since then.
And yes, eight years is too short a time to derive a statistically significant trend from the rather noisy ARGO data. You’re welcome to your own opinion on that, Richard, but not your own facts about the statistics – I suggest you read up a bit on statistical significance in the presence of noise.
Anybody know where one would find this response? Any reason not to post a copy of it here? I’m very interested in reading how Bob Tisdale justifies his “reasonable approach”.
=> Why he selected 2003 (ARGO represented ~50% of OHC measurements) as the start point of a foreshortened and statistically insignificant time-frame to claim a shift in trend … that is, other than “It’d be saa-weeet to claim a new anti-warmist trend, but it doesn’t work well unless I start at 2003” …
=> And, why he hasn’t corrected his abysmally misleading and, yes, at this point, dishonest Figure 2, above. Tisdale didn’t even butcher that figure on his own blog to the degree he did here on WUWT.
REPLY: And why can’t you wait a bit while Tisdale finishes and I get the post up? Sheesh, what a sourpuss you are Greer. Nothing but denigration from you, never anything positive, just rants and demands. How sad for you. -Anthony
Sorry, Anthony. B. Tisdale posted his response yesterday – I suppose my expectations have shifted in this technology age.
(ohhh, and congratulations on the acceptance of your paper 😉 )
REPLY: Doesn’t mean he’s finished with it, and your congratulations ring a bit hollow due to it being prompted to make yourself look less onerous, but thank you. There’s a whole thread for that days old but I suppose my expectations have shifted in this technology age. – Anthony
Again, my apologies, I misinterpreted Tisdale’s comment as meaning he completed/posted his response somewhere but that it wasn’t published yet. And, yes, I used my congratulations to you to make sport of your “sourpuss” remark. But as you know, I’ve expressed support for efforts to improve data accuracy, and to the extent your work helps in that regard I’m all for it and my congratulations are sincere.
Jack Greer says: “Anybody know where one would find this response?”
My earlier reply to Richard M was about a post at my blog, not a comment here at WUWT. When I finish writing, and editing, and creating illustrations, I will post it there and leave a link here. Anthony may or may not elect to cross post it here at WUWT. That’s always his choice.
Jack Greer: Oops. I could’ve saved myself 30 seconds if I had scrolled down and seen that Anthony had already replied to you.
Regards
Utahn (at May 11, 2011 at 6:44 am) and KR (at May 11, 2011 at 7:12 am):
Your posts are classic examples of evasion.
8 years of a trend in measured data is not comparable to “second to second variations” that cannot be measured.
And the accuracy of the measurements is all that matters.
The fact is that since 2003 the measured change to ocean heat content has been an increase of about a tenth of the GISS projection. If you want to claim that the measured data is so “noisy” that this change cannot be determined then you are claiming that this data is worthless.
Show me your analysis which indicates the data is worthless and we can discuss it. Linking to a primer on statistical significance does not do that (and is insulting) but indicates that you cannot prove your assertion that the data is worthless.
I accept the data. You don’t like what the data shows so you are armwaving about the data being worthless. Facts, evidence and/or logical argument could convince me of your case. Your armwaving convinces me that you know you do not have a case.
Richard
Richard, you seem to have confused me with other posters in much of your reply above. In any case, what I was trying to say with misplaced sarcasm was that because short time frames are susceptible to noise, regardless of how accurate the measurements are, you can’t assign much meaning to those short term trends.
If I told you in 2006 that the trend from 2005 to 2006 was for OHC to increase by 25% per year (which it was), would you have thought that was
meaningful?
Should say OHC anomaly !
Utahn:
Having failed in evasion by ‘straw man’, in your post at May 11, 2011 at 6:55 pm. you demonstrate misrepresentation when you say;
“what I was trying to say with misplaced sarcasm was that because short time frames are susceptible to noise, regardless of how accurate the measurements are, you can’t assign much meaning to those short term trends. ”
Sorry, but that does not agree with what you wrote and my response to it.
You said;
“Only God knows exactly why temperature and heat fluctuate from second to second. I guess we don’t have any explanation for these second to second variations, so there’s no hope in ever establishing meaningful trends…”
And I replied;
“8 years of a trend in measured data is not comparable to “second to second variations” that cannot be measured.”
Warmists use all the classical logical fallacies. It works on the warmist blogs because all sensible comments are censored from those blogs. But here such fallacies are pointed out.
And you ask me;
“If I told you in 2006 that the trend from 2005 to 2006 was for OHC to increase by 25% per year (which it was), would you have thought that was meaningful?”
I answer, YES of course it is “meaningful”.
It means the oceans were measured to have obtained a large thermal input or a large reduction to thermal output that year. Hence, it raises the question as to the cause of that change and/or the flaw in the measurements which indicate that change.
I repeat my submission to you and KR concerning your evasions; viz.
“I accept the data. You don’t like what the data shows so you are armwaving about the data being worthless. Facts, evidence and/or logical argument could convince me of your case. Your armwaving convinces me that you know you do not have a case.”
Richard
Richard S Courtney
May 12, 2011 at 3:15 am
“I answer, YES of course it is “meaningful”.”
Whether it is meaningful or not is not the point – clearly such a measurement means something, though we may not be able to know what that something is.
To give an example with which many are familiar: there was an extraordinary spike in measured global average temperature in 1998. Was it meaningful? Yes, of course it was: but what it meant was that there was a very strong El Nino that year. That spike provided no statistically significant information about incremental global warming, in other words, by itself it didn’t mean anything about global warming.
If the interest is to inquire whether there is an incremental increase in the ocean heat content as a result of global warming, such annual measurements by themselves provide very little useful information and are certainly not statistically significant at the 95% level. The noisiness of the graph of OHC anomalies against time indicates that other factors – both concerned with measurement inaccuracies and with genuine changes in the heat content of the top 700m of the oceans – produce annual variations in the measured anomalies which are greater than the annual increment.
The situation is similar to the measurement for average global temperatures: there the annual variation in the measured figure, of some + or – 0.2C, is more than ten times greater than the annual increment representing global warming, which is less than 0.02C per year. In that case it has been calculated that about fifteen years of global average temperature measurements are required in order to be more than 95% sure that any trend observed is due to a real change in global average temperatures. Similar health warnings are just as pertinent when considering changes in OHC.
Slioch:
Your post at May 12, 2011 at 7:21 am is a ‘straw man’.
I answered the question from Utahn because I did not want any assertion that I had avoided his question.
That is not the issue here which is – as I have repeatedly said –
“The issue is why the OHC has not risen over the last 8 years at the rate projected by GISS. Or, if you want to reword it, why is the “signal” so “noisy” that the observed rate over the last 8 years is a tenth of the rate projected by GISS.
The heat has gone into the ocean but the ocean’s heat content has not risen; why?
Or
The heat has not gone in; why?
“Too short a period” or “the signal is too noisy” is not an explanation. It is merely an excuse for not having an explanation.”
Please address the real issue.
Richard
Richard:
“I answer, YES of course it is ‘meaningful’.
It means the oceans were measured to have obtained a large thermal input or a large reduction to thermal output that year. Hence, it raises the question as to the cause of that change and/or the flaw in the measurements which indicate that change.”
Good point, I should have been more clear as to what I meant by “meaningful”. Would a one year trend of increasing anomaly by 25% mean that there was a “divergence problem” as in the title of this post? Or would it mean that there was a “GISS miss by a country mile”?
I have no problem with trying to understand what causes the changes that constitute the noise that is measured, that’s a great scientific pursuit. It may also be that the reasons for some noise are so complex that humankind will never figure it out.
But in this post, the implication is that this short term data (well within the realm of past noise) “means” the GISS projection is way off or somehow far out of line with OHC. That’s what the post implies, but is that what you think it means? If so, why didn’t we talk about GISS’s divergence problem in underestimating the increase in OHC in 2006? How do you know 7 years is “meaningful” in interpreting the accuracy of the GISS projection, but that 1 year is not?
Utahn:
You pose two good question in your post at May 12, 2011 at 12:00 pm when you ask;
” If so, why didn’t we talk about GISS’s divergence problem in underestimating the increase in OHC in 2006? How do you know 7 years is “meaningful” in interpreting the accuracy of the GISS projection, but that 1 year is not?”
I do say the increase in OHC in 2006 was much greater than the GISS projection
and
I do say the increase in OHC since 2003 is much less than the GISS projection.
Both statements are very meaningful when considering the GISS projection.
The GISS projection is based on an assumption that a specific effect (i.e. AGW) will dominate change to OHC over the next e.g. 80 years. But the effects that dominated change to OHC and since 2003 are not known, so it cannot be known that they will not dominate change to OHC in the future.
Assertions about “noise” and “signals” do not change this. If the mechanisms of observed change are not known then it cannot be known what “signal” is not caused by those mechanisms. And it cannot be known that AGW will overwhelm those mechanisms.
In other words, the GISS projection is pure pseudoscience of similar kind to astrology.
Richard
Ooops!
I wrote’
“But the effects that dominated change to OHC and since 2003 are not known …”
I intended to write;
“But the effects that dominated change to OHC in 2006 and since 2003 are not known …”
Sorry.
Richard
Richard, that brings me back to my initial (poorly stated) point. You seem to be saying that since we don’t understand every up an down (the noise), we can make no predictions. In other words, that since we don’t know everything, we can’t know anything. Am I correct in that impression?
Richard S Courtney says:
May 12, 2011 at 8:28 am
You state, “The issue is why the OHC has not risen over the last 8 years at the rate projected by GISS. Or, if you want to reword it, why is the “signal” so “noisy” that the observed rate over the last 8 years is a tenth of the rate projected by GISS.
The heat has gone into the ocean but the ocean’s heat content has not risen; why?
Or
The heat has not gone in; why?”
No. That is decidedly NOT the issue. By all means ask the question and discuss it as a separate subject, but do not let it confuse or obscure the subject of Bob Tisdale’s article. That was concerned ONLY with the analysis of the annual data for OHC anomalies and whether the trend derived from the data from 1993 to 2002 (“the GISS projection”) was consistent with the data since.
Here is all the data:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc10.jpg
and here is the data on OHC anomalies since 1993:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/pred.jpg?w=500&h=325
from which it is clear that the answers to the questions, “Is there a disparity between reality and the GISS projection since 2002? Did the GISS projection ‘miss by a country mile’? ” is in both cases, ‘definitely NO’!
That, in response to Tisdale’s article is it: that is all we need to do. Anything else is general discussion that has NO impact upon that central conclusion. That is why I have restricted myself to addressing that one point. A “straw-man” it most definitely is not.
It doesn’t matter – we don’t need to know – what the data represent in order to do that analysis: they are simply points on a graph upon which we do the analysis. The data could, for example, be your monthly or annual Tesco’s bill.
Let’s just suppose that those data represent your monthly Tesco’s bill. If that were the case, we might like to ask (in addition to the analysis between the first (1993-2002) and second (2003-2010) parts of the data already done) two questions:
Qu 1. Is there a general increase in the monthly bills?
Qu 2. Why is the graph so noisy?
The answer to Qu 1. is YES (is it statistically significant at the 95% level? – I don’t know, I haven’t done the analysis and I haven’t seen anyone else’s analysis, but from eye-balling it from 1993 to present, I would guess it is). For your Tesco’s bill that might represent general prices inflation, or you may be getting more extravagant, or other local shops may be closing down forcing you to shop more at Tesco’s. But those putative reasons don’t effect the initial conclusion: for some reason you are spending more and more money at Tesco’s. If we flip back to the OHC anomalies: it means (the top 700m of) the oceans are warming. As far as I am aware, no-one has reasonably suggested any reason for that warming other than as a response to general global warming.
The answer to Qu 2. in the case of Tesco’s may represent all manner of factors that you you would be aware of: your mother in law came to stay one month, you were ill and couldn’t get to the shops, you got a pay rise, you gave a party, Christmas etc. etc. Those factors explain the noisiness of the graph, which, if you are aware of your finances, you can explain to high precision. In addition, you can probably be sure that the data is 100% accurate – there are no mistakes in your bills. But the noisiness of your bills does NOT effect your conclusion from Qu 1. : the bills are going up. But the noisiness DOES mean that it takes quite along time to see that the bills are generally going up. It DOES mean that you could fool yourself for several years that bills had plateaued, or even started going down. It DOES mean that you shouldn’t take too much notice of just a few months (years, whatever) data.
Exactly the same conclusions pertain with respect to the OHC data, except that with the latter i) there ARE inaccuracies in the data – the ‘bills’ DO have mistakes in them and ii) we have far less information about WHY there are variations in the data: we can suggest factors such as changes in ocean currents, cloud cover, sea-ice changes, etc. etc. But, again, none of that alters the basic conclusion: the top 700m of the oceans are getting warmer.
Utahn:
I am replying to your post at May 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm that addresses a serious issue. I intend to ignore any comments from Slioch because he is never rational and I have learned from several past experiences that trying to have a rational discussion with him is pointless.
You say;
“Richard, that brings me back to my initial (poorly stated) point. You seem to be saying that since we don’t understand every up an down (the noise), we can make no predictions. In other words, that since we don’t know everything, we can’t know anything. Am I correct in that impression?”
No. That “impression” is not what I am saying. Of course it is not necessary to know and/or understand “everything” about a complex system to know “anything” about that system’s behaviour (e.g. everything which affects human blood pressure is not known but observation of changes to blood pressure can provide useful information on the basis of what is known).
But if one knows nothing about a complex system’s behaviour then that ignorance does NOT mean one can assume whatever one wants to assume, and then to pretend the assumption is true whether or not that assumption agrees with observations.
I am saying the following.
1.
OHC varies.
2.
We do not know the mechanisms of the major causes of the variations to OHC.
3.
It is not possible to determine the range of variations in OHC that those mechanisms provide in the absence of knowledge of those mechanisms.
4.
To date, the GISS projection of fails to match observations of change(s) to OHC at all the available timescales.
5.
The GISS projection may (probably will not, but may) match observations at some future date. But (because of point 3) it will not be possible to determine that this match is or is not affected by AGW.
6.
At present, there are people asserting that the mis-match of the GISS projection with observation is “noise” but the assertion is nonsense; the mechanisms that determine OHC changes are reality and not “noise”.
7.
Science investigates reality.
8.
Pseudoscience attempts to prove that reality is what its believers want reality to be.
Richard
Siloch – what you’re saying is that even if you’re tracking your Tesco bills much better since 2003 and that period shows no increase , still you see no reason to believe the perceived increase might have had anything to do with the suboptimal measurement system you had been using in the past. To which one might reply, let’s switch off useless Argo. And I won’t even start on how to join datasets together .
For those who elected to believe Tamino’s accusations, here’s my response:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/on-taminos-post-favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
Richard, you say:
“No. That ‘impression’ is not what I am saying. Of course it is not necessary to know and/or understand ‘everything’ about a complex system to know ‘anything’ about that system’s behaviour (e.g. everything which affects human blood pressure is not known but observation of changes to blood pressure can provide useful information on the basis of what is known).
But if one knows nothing about a complex system’s behaviour then that ignorance does NOT mean one can assume whatever one wants to assume, and then to pretend the assumption is true whether or not that assumption agrees with observations.”
In the last sentence, it sounds as if you’re saying we know nothing about the complex system that is “climate”(as opposed to blood pressure). So, in your mind, that’s the crucial difference here? In blood pressure we know the major mechanisms of rising blood pressure, so we can make valid comments about trends versus noise etc… but in climate we know nothing of the major mechanisms, so we can’t comment on trends versus noise?
If that’s the point, then that’s probably a discussion for another day, as I couldn’t disagree more. I’m also sure that if that’s the point, and I were a climatologist, I’d be offended. I’m not, so I’m not offended, but I do think that’s way off base…
Utahn:
At May 13, 2011 at 6:46 am you say to me;
” … in climate we know nothing of the major mechanisms, so we can’t comment on trends versus noise?
… I’m also sure that if that’s the point, and I were a climatologist, I’d be offended.”
Concerning OHC, that is exactly the point: it is a fact that nobody knows the causes and mechanisms of most observed OHC changes.
I’m sure that some charlatans would pretend to be offended at the statement of this fact because such pretence would obscure the fact, but the truth of the matter is clear from e.g. the discussion at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/a-reader-question-on-ohc-discussion/
Richard
“Concerning OHC, that is exactly the point: it is a fact that nobody knows the causes and mechanisms of most observed OHC changes. ”
Well, if that’s a predicted consequence of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which it is, and is in fact occurring (which it is, despite this post which highlights the noise as we discussed), I’m thinking the climatologists might be on to something…
I still see very little difference in not believing what climatologists understand about ocean heat content, and not believing what “blood pressureologists” understand about blood pressure. Both are immensely complex, but we have fundamental understandings of both that we can use to gain new understanding, and to treat the conditions that arise…
Why trust one set of scientists in their field, but not the other?
Latest news – Hansen suggests to use 2004 as the start of the series:
It’s from section 9.2, page 24 of “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications”. Somebody please don’t tell Tamino Foster about it.