…then why do the vertical mean temperature anomalies (NODC 0-2000 meter data) of the Pacific Ocean as a whole and of the North Atlantic fail to show any warming over the past decade, a period when ARGO floats have measured subsurface temperatures, providing reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans? See Figure 1. Or, in other words, why is the warming of the global oceans (0-2000 meters) over the past 10 years limited to the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, when carbon dioxide is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas, meaning all ocean basins should be warming?
Figure 1
Or, to look at it in yet another way, we’re being told that, while surface temperatures are no longer warming, the oceans to depth continue to warm…yet the warming is not occurring in the largest ocean basin, the Pacific, and the North Atlantic is showing evidence of cooling.
Additionally, Kevin Trenberth and associates say the recent series of La Niña events are causing the Pacific Ocean to warm at depths below 700 meters, and as a result, global warming continues. See:
Why then has the annual vertical mean temperatures of the Pacific Ocean (0-2000 meters) failed to show any warming over the past decade? The data for the Pacific Ocean (0-700 meters, 0-2000 meters and 700-2000 meters) in Figure 2 reveals something different than portrayed by Trenberth and associates.
Figure 2
The data for the Pacific indicates that any warming at 700-2000 meters has simply opposed the cooling taking place in the top 700 meters. (Note: The basis for the temperature anomalies at the depths of 700-2000 meters is discussed in the post here.)
No wonder Trenberth had to use a reanalysis (instead of data) for his recent batch of “hey, I kinda-sorta found the missing heat” papers.
When the data doesn’t meet the climate model-based expectations of the climate science community, the climate science community adjusts the data. Then, when the adjusted data doesn’t meet the climate model-based expectations of the climate science community, the climate science community discards the data and uses the output of another computer model called a reanalysis. Bottom line: instead of admitting the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is fatally flawed, they perpetuate a myth.
A QUICK NOTE ABOUT THE VERTICAL MEAN TEMPERATURE DATA
The NODC’s vertical mean temperature data are the temperature component of their ocean heat content data. The other portion is salinity.
ADDITIONAL READING
Ocean heat content data, and the components that are part of it, are questionable at best, contrived at worst. For further information see:
- Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be? (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- NODC’s Pentadal Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000m) Creates Warming That Doesn’t Exist in the Annual Data – A Lot of Warming (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- A Different Perspective on Trenberth’s Missing Heat: The Warming of the Global Oceans (0 to 2000 Meters) in Deg C (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- Rough Estimate of the Annual Changes in Ocean Temperatures from 700 to 2000 Meters Based on NODC Data (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- AMAZING: The IPCC May Have Provided Realistic Presentations of Ocean Heat Content Source Data (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- Comments on Stefan Rahmstorf’s Post at RealClimate “What ocean heating reveals about global warming” (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- Trenberth and Fasullo Try to Keep the Fantasy Alive (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- More on Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) “An Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming?” (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
between an “observed” 0.01 – 0.069 deg C/decade change – where do those figures sit with respect to the error bars of the measurement devices Bob?
Isn’t it great when reality kicks ’em in the butte.
Thanks Bob.
Easy! It’s not happening (Outside computer games)!
The warming as always is hiding where it can not be measured. Satellites and Argo were the big weapons of proof of man made catastrophic warming. Bad call on the true believers part as this data is harder to fudge, with a big audience watching. Been a wild ride watching the bretheren squirm as their prophecies of doom fail. Now that the knife is inserted please keep twisting it Mr Tisdale.
How come I still don’t understand this? Did I sleep at that point in time in school when the teacher told it? I always had the understanding that cold water is heavy r then warm water. So how could warm water sink under cold water?
It comes to it that they go explain that if you put a pan of boiling water on the stove and turn the stove on and put a raw egg in the water that at the time the water is frozen the egg will be boil d and all the heat is in the egg hands the water become frozen solid.
Ronald says: “How come I still don’t understand this? Did I sleep at that point in time in school when the teacher told it? I always had the understanding that cold water is heavy r then warm water. So how could warm water sink under cold water?”
Ronald, you’re thinking in absolute temperatures, but I’ve presented anomalies.
Any idea why the Indian and South Atlantic are warming and the rest not? Volcanic chains?
I love the smell of alarmist desperation in the morning. Or any other time really.
Hundreths and thousands of a degree C ????
Give me a break.
Anybody who thinks the unreplicated, uncalibrated, non-random, more-precise-than-the-limits-of-observation measurements have this degree of precision and error is a fool. It is very doubtful that the central limit theorem applies to this kind of crap-data since the assumptions are likely false, as usual.
AleaJactaEst says: “between an ‘observed’ 0.01 – 0.069 deg C/decade change – where do those figures sit with respect to the error bars of the measurement devices Bob?”
A brief overview of the ARGO float accuracies are here:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/FAQ.html#accurate
BioBob says: “Hundreths and thousands of a degree C ????”
Those hundredths and thousandths of a deg C aren’t coming back to haunt anyone at any time.
Almost the same as with religion and God. First he was in heaven, but when we got space rockets and telescopes he ended up in our minds instead.
I think that’s where CAGW also will ends up some day. In the minds of followers and believers?
What’s the last thing that goes trough a insects brain when it hits the windshield of a car?
A nice proof that the oceans have cycles, even at depth and at different depths. If the oceans have cycles, they can influence the surface temperatures to have cycles as well.
So, GHGs producing an ever increasing ocean heat accumulation everywhere the same or internal Thermohaline Ocean Circulation system dynamics which can provide varying levels of cooling or heating in different regions depending on its internal dynamics.
The data for the North Atlantic down to 400 metres even goes back to 1900. The red and the blue lines here (looks like an AMO cycle).
http://s14.postimg.org/dq96zg4b5/North_Atlantic_Temp_400m_01.jpg
And then one of only two studies looking at ocean temperatures all the way to the bottom, the North Atlantic is cooling below 700 metres to the bottom.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n12/images/ngeo1639-f1.jpg
Bob Tisdale says:
December 19, 2013 at 3:39 am
AleaJactaEst says: “between an ‘observed’ 0.01 – 0.069 deg C/decade change – where do those figures sit with respect to the error bars of the measurement devices Bob?”
A brief overview of the ARGO float accuracies are here:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/FAQ.html#accurate
=====================================================================
Good review, Bob. Maybe all the heat isn’t hiding in the ocean, but in the Arctic where there are no monitoring stations.
They claim +/- 0.005°C accuracy but don’t mention precision/reproducibility. The two are quite often confused.
That allegedly reputable scientists are getting away with in effect saying, “No!, we really meant it’s over there!” to explain the failure of their predictions is amazing.
tiny percentages can cause a catastrophic collapse of the carbon dioxide trading scheme!
19 Dec: Bloomberg: EU Emission Slump Tests Broker Survival Skills: Carbon & Climate
As middlemen from ICAP Plc (IAP) to GFI Group Inc. (GFIG) lost ground to regulated bourses, fees dropped to as low as 0.5 euro-cent (0.69 U.S. cent) a metric ton from 20 cents a decade ago, said Andy Ager, the head of carbon at Vertis Environmental Finance Plc in Budapest…
“With the collapse in prices, the carbon market has become a virtual tax,” Meyrick said. “People don’t trade taxes. The side effects of low prices include that trading and broking desks are closing.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-19/eu-emission-slump-tests-broker-survival-skills-carbon-climate.html
They’re running out of hiding places.
BioBob says:
December 19, 2013 at 3:37 am
Totally agree, measuring global temperatures, ocean temperatures, & land surface temperatures, the rates of warming per decade & per century, to a thousandth of degree is just plain ludicrous! Only a precision engineer would work to such accuracy, if they could at all!
Sorry, Bob T., but if you agree with bullcrap claims that field observation float accuracy of .005, I have a bridge …. By definition, you have one unreplicated, non-random, field observation measurement per unit time per area comparable in size to many states. The floats follow currents, which are probably NOT random since large areas of ocean are not measured, and floats may remain in the same mass of water moved by current, etc
1) normal distribution of observations – FAIL N = 1
2) The data must be sampled randomly – FAIL
3) The sample values must be independent of each other – UNKNOWN, but likely FAIL
4) When the sample is drawn without replacement (usually the case), the sample size, n, should be no more than 10% of the population – NO PROBLEMO (N = 1)
5) The sample size must be sufficiently large – FAIL N = 1 (each separate observation is from a population of temperatures that NEVER can be considered the SAME ~ chaos)
I have no issue with the use of Argo for anecdotal observation, but as a basis for statistical analysis eg time series, etc, EPIC FAIL If we are going to bother, lets do it right for a change. N = 30 replicated & random would be about right.
Original for journeymen: “Bottom line: instead of admitting the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is fatally flawed, they perpetuate a myth.”
Translation for laymen: “Bottom line: instead of admitting the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is fatally flawed, they perpetuate a myth, criminally.”
Some of us miss the significance of the claim of the warming hiding in the oceans. Since the Argo system is still very new, they are merely moving the goal posts out past the atmosphere warming halt. They again turn the Null Hypothesis on its head and demand others prove that it is not warming. With no data to support either conclusion at this time (10 years does not a climate make).
There can be no missing heat hiding in the Trenberthian depths. The problem here is not how such heat managed to sneak past 3000 Argo bouys over 700m of ocean. The problem is that the “missing heat” cannot even sneak past the first 10 microns of the oceans skin evaporation layer. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporativly cool.
I could suggest other places for Dr. Trenberth to search for his “missing heat”, but I suspect he already has his head in the most likely location.
Any theory that invents unobservables is in serious trouble.
However, the history of belief in such unobservables, as a substitute for abandoning the theory, does not give one great confidence. In several notable instances, generations of scientists have lived and died before the old dogma is overthrown …
The problem with Argo data is that it suffers from the the experimenter expectation effect. When Argo was first released it showed cooling, which was contrary to what the experimenters believed they would see. So they identified those floats that showed cooling and eliminated their data.
However, this assumes that only cooling errors occur. In real life floats will randomly read high or low, so if you eliminate errors you should expect to see nearly equal numbers of high and low reading floats eliminated. Since only mostly low floats were eliminated, the experimenters introduced bias based on their beliefs.
The end result is that Argo is much less accurate than statistics would indicate, due to the selective elimination of low reading floats. Had Argo been conducted on a scientific basis, then elimination of data should have been done using double blind controls, to prevent experimenter bias from contaminating the corrections. This was not done, meaning that Argo data cannot be relied upon to provide an unbiased report of ocean temperatures.