One of the great things about running this blog is that people send me things to look at. Sometimes I see connections between two things that were initially unrelated by the original messages. This is one of those cases.
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. suggested back in 2003 in a peer reviewed BAMS paper, that “…it is the change in ocean heat content that provides the most effective diagnostic of global warming and cooling.” Recently at ICCC 2009, Dr. Craig Loehle did a presentation titled “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Sticks, and Ocean Cooling” (PowerPoint) which talked about the ocean heat content.
I was reminded of one of his graphs from that presentation by a recent post on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog. For your viewing pleasure, using graphic editing tools, I created a slightly larger and annotated version, shown below:
The next day, on an email list I subscribe to, Alan Siddons sent along this graph with this note:
“Thought you’d like to see the Mauna Loa rate of CO2 change up to now. Kind of odd these recent years.”
I didn’t think much of Siddons’ graph initially, but as luck would have it, I happened to have Loehle’s graph open in a desktop window from Jennifer’s blog. I noticed something interesting and unexpected looking at the two.
Here is Alan Siddons’ graph of recent MLO CO2 data that shows the changes in the rate of CO2 with their measurements. I added some annotation and a title to make it clearer as to what this graph is:
What interested me about Alan’s MLO CO2 rate of change graph was the period from 2004 to the present. There’s a noticeable downturn in the peaks. I’ve bracketed the area of interest below and added an eyeball trend line for the peaks:
When you take the bracketed period from Alan Siddon’s MLO CO2 rate of change graph, and compare it (again using graphical editing tools) to Loehle’s Ocean Heat content graph, there appears to be some correlation:
It makes sense, as the heat content of the oceans drops, CO2 solubility in seawater increases, and thus we see an absorption of CO2 and dampening of the annual peaks in the rate of change. Obviously this is just a simple visual analysis, and I don’t pretend to know everything there is to know about either of these subjects or datasets, but I thought the serendipity of these two pieces of initially independent and unrelated graphs of data was interesting and worth discussing.
Of course there will be those that argue that “the oceans have not cooled” and cite the work by Josh Willis on catching some errors in the ARGO floater data. I won’t dispute his work here since I’m not an expert on the ARGO project. I’ll leave that to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., as he wrote in this post on his Climate Science blog:
Josh Willis is a well respected scientist and his view merit consideration. In this case, however, Climate Science concludes that he is misinterpreting the significance of his data analysis. He agrees that
“Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years”.
He dismisses this though by claiming that
“…but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. “
Where are these model results that show lack of upper ocean warming in recent years? There is an example of a model prediction of upper (3km) ocean heat content for decadal averages in Figure 1 of
Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270-274,
but they did not present shorter time periods. Nonetheless, since Figure 1 is presumably a running 10 year average, the steady monotonic increase in the model prediction of upper ocean heat content (the grey shading) suggests that no several years (or even one year) of zero heating occurred in the model results. The layer they analyzed in the figure is also for the upper 3 km but in Figure 2 the Barnett et al study showed that most of this heating was in the uppermost levels.
Thus the lack of heating in the upper 700m over the last 4 years does conflict with at least the Barnett et al model results!
What the upper ocean data (and lack of warming) actually tells us is that if global warming occurred over the last 4 years, it was in the deeper ocean and is thus not available in the short term to the atmosphere.
Indeed, if it is in the deeper ocean, it likely more diffused and therefore could only enter the atmosphere slowly if at all. This heat could also have exited into space, although the continuation of global ocean sea level rise suggests that this is less likely unless this sea level rise can be otherwise explained.
The other heat stores in the climate system are too small (and the atmosphere has clearly not warmed over the last few years). Global sea ice cover is actually above average at present (the Antarctic sea ice is at a near record level). The continued sea level rise indicates that the heat is in the deeper ocean (which is not predicted by the models).
Finally, there is also no “unrealized” heat in the system. This is a fallacy of using temperature trends as the surrogate for heat trends as has been reported Climate Science (e.g. see, see and see).
Josh Willis too easily dismisses the significance of his research findings.
The interesting thing about what I’ve pointed out above is that we have two independently analyzed datasets (Oceanic heat content and MLO CO2 rate of change) that appear to demonstrate the same thing: the oceans appear to have cooled in the past 5 years. That is also partially consistent with a third dataset, the RSS global temperature anomaly (or fourth if you want to count UAH same data, different method) which shows there has been a flat trend in the past few years. The graph below is both for land and ocean data:
RSS Data Source is here
Even Josh Willis’ own graph of corrected -vs- uncorrected ARGO data illustrating sea level change due to thermal expansion shows a flat trend during this period:
Clearly something is happening to heat content within our oceans, whether it is a flat trend or yet unrecognized loss of heat, remains to be hashed out. The year 2008 was a cooler year globally, and there is quite a bit of measured as well as anecdotal (weather event) data to support that. Our oceans are in fact the planet’s largest heat sink, and it has been routinely demonstrated that changes in that heat sink status (AMO, PDO, El Nino and La Nina) do in fact affect our weather and climate.
So to paraphrase Josh Willis in his rebuttal of his own data: “Is it me, or did the oceans cool”?
UPDATE 4:45 PM 3/21: Allan Siddons has provided two additional graphs. The first being an overlay of MLO monthly data on MSU oceans data
The second is a 12 month average of MLO CO2 rate overlaid on my RSS MSU land and ocean graph posted originally. It seems clear that there is a CO2 rate of change response that mirrors global temperature.
Bob Tisdale has also provided some similar graphs via many links made in the comments. Be sure to have a look. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just to be clear, this data reflects the correction to the “problem” found with the Argo data last year, right?
I still believe that the drivers of El Nino and La Nina are underwater volcanic activity. During activity periods driving the temperatures up and down when dormant or quiet. We have just received confirmation that the volcanic activity off of Tonga is increasing the the ocean water temperature further east.
From what I understand of the positions of La Nina’s and El Nino’s they are over active underground volcanic areas.
Mike McMillan (00:30:59) :
General Relativistic gravity is only better than Newton’s take in the extremes. For anything man can survive, Newton works just fine.
The Global Positioning System of satellites works because the effect of GR is taken into account. If we used Newton, the position we would get from GPS would drift 10 kilometers per day rendering the system useless. Navigation would be so bad that human lives would be lost if GR is not used.
MattN (07:21:06) :
Yes, the data was used in a paper on sea level by Willis et al in July 2008.
Bob Tisdale (06:31:11) :
“Eric: You wrote, “This whole learned discussion seems to be based on questionable data.”
The data varies from month to month even from data source. Which of the datasets is most current? ”
Bob,
It seems that the one I have linked to is the latest analysis, which is due for publicatin this year and includes data for 2008.
“Also Craig Loehl noted how he detrended the data in the first comment on this thread, which may explain part of the difference.”
I didn’t notice that. It makes the discussion even more puzzling.
Why are we discussing the trend of detrended ocean heat data, and comparing it with a trend of peaks in the CO2 data, that are a result of the decay of vegetation in the northern hemisphere? This doesn’t make any sense to me.
This is pretty much completely OT, BUT…seemed that folks that may have missed this development regarding Cap and Trade might want to take a look here at Hot Air. Apparently Cap and Trade is dead for this year, having been replaced by revamping health care:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/21/cap-and-trade-traded-away/
“George Stephanopolous reported yesterday that Senate Democrats forced Barack Obama to choose between two break-the-bank policies for this year. The White House apparently surrendered on cap-and-trade in order to get started on a massive overhaul of the nation’s health-care delivery system.”
JimB
Thanks Craig, and excellent work!!
Eric, MattN, Craig Loehle: And they’ve changed the OHC Data AGAIN. The onetime dip in 2007 is now gone, according to Levitus et al 2008 (2009).
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/latest-revisions-to-ocean-heat-content.html
The Ocean Heat Content data from the NOAA noted by DJ and described as “unfiltered” …
If you read their manuscript, the first 9 pages is a description of all the filtering they did to the data. It almost reads like a paper by Mann if he actually described all the changes he did to the raw data.
There were some problems with the XBT sensors and some of the Argo floats but when these are corrected for or excluded, there was no significant change in the ocean heat content from 2003 to 2005.
The corrected data was widely accepted so if Craig just extended the corrected data to 2008 … there you go.
We do not have a matched control yet for CO2 measuring stations. Nor do we have a matched set of measures that adequately covers sinks. Until we have stations placed where CO2 never rises or sinks, and stations that measure sinks, the Mauna Loa graphs are worthless as indicators of global CO2. AIMS and other satellite sources are our only near term hope for accurate global CO2, and they are none to willing to readily and in an un-massaged state, give the data to public users. I wonder why? Is it funding? Is there some sort of agreement that some parties get the data before we do? Are they having technical difficulties?
Given the above, it surprises me a bit to see CO2 graphs trotted out with the assumption (intentional or not) that this data can be compared to global temperatures. It cannot. It CAN be compared to itself and maybe correlated to its location in the Pacific Ocean around it, along with the volcano next to it.
The posters and contributors to the blog here should know that public consumption of what they read here is rife with assumptions, the ones made in articles posted here, made intentionally or not, and readers’ assumptions as they read what is written here. To ignore that is a miscarriage of unbiased writing.
All very interesting data.
.
One thing I have thought a bit about but have not heard discussed is influence of the yearly cycle in solar brightness on the ocean heat content (which is due to the earth’s orbit being an ellipse). The intensity of sunlight at the top of the atmosphere is ~6.9% higher in late January than in late July (about 94 watts per square meter), and the intensity variation follows an almost sinusoidal shape. (It is slightly non-sinusoidal because the Earth’s orbital velocity is a little faster at the closest approach to the sun… the southern summer is a little shorter than the norther summer.) Assuming that about 70% of total solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and the surface/ocean, we can expect an annual peak-to-trough variation in net solar forcing in the range of 16.5 watts/sq. meter (calculated for the entire earth surface on an 24 hour average basis).
.
Now this is a variation in forcing of a magnitude which swamps other commonly discussed man-made radiative effects, including “greenhouse” gases, aerosols, carbon/soot on snow, etc. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the magnitude of the oscillation in total ocean heat shown by Craig Loehle and by Willis et. al (2008) is in the range that would be expected for a 16.5 watt/sq. meter annual variation in solar forcing, and the dates for the peaks in ocean heat content fall ~45 days after the peaks in solar intensity. Willis suggested that the oscillation in ocean heat content is due to differences in land areas in the northern and southern hemispheres (with land having higher albedo than ocean), but I suspect the very high albedo of Antarctica during the southern summer compensates for much of the difference in land area. In any case, the oscillation in heat content seems a subject worthy of some more rigorous calculations.
.
There are a couple of interesting inferences we can draw. First, the plainly visible annual oscillation in ocean heat content confirms Roger Pielke Sr.’s contention that the ocean heat content is a much better metric of global heat balance than changes in surface temperature. After all, nobody can see the (very large) annual variation in solar intensity by looking at the average surface temperature records; they are far too noisy due to weather influences, sampling issues, and “adjustments”.
.
Second, at least some of the annual oscillation in CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa record and elsewhere) is likely driven by the oscillation in ocean heat content, in addition to the influence of plant growth in the northern summer.
.
Third, the claim of “30 years of future warming already in the pipeline” (Hansen et al, 2005, Science) is almost certainly wrong. Such a long lag in ocean heat implies that the ocean is far away from thermal equilibrium with the applied radiative forcing (that is, much cooler than equilibrium). With a nearly constant to slightly falling average surface surface temperature from 2003 to 2008, Hansen et. al.’s claim of “in the pipeline” warming could only be correct if the ocean heat content continued to rise significantly during the same period. Since the ocean heat content has actually fallen, it seems clear that there is no 30 year lag in the system. In fact, the recent fall in ocean heat suggests that the average surface temperature would be lower today were the oceans not currently losing heat to the atmosphere. If there is no 30-year lag in the system, then the assumed sensitivity to radiative forcing used in climate models MUST be far too high. I am quite sure that high quality ARGO ocean heat content data will ultimately force substantial downward revisions in the sensitivities used climate models. But I predict a flurry of papers will soon be published claiming huge losses heat to the deep ocean, which by coincidence, will be claimed to have started about 2002; there exists (of course) no good data to refute the claims!
.
If the climate hysteria subsides a bit as a result, then the investment in the Argo system may just turn out to be the best investment humankind has ever made. Why not extend the Argo system to include a family of deeper diving floats to remove all doubt about ocean heat content?
Global ocean heat is a lot like Arctic Ice extent and area. To truly understand how ice grows, moves, sustains, melts, and integrates into Arctic currents, you should not think of the Arctic as a single unit. It should be understood separately. So much more so, the oceans. Each area has its own oscillation and interaction with trade winds, jet streams, and cold/warm fronts that blow away or allow to stand, surface ocean waters, the only area of each ocean that can be directly heated by the Sun. Each area must be considered on its own merit, just like Arctic areas. Some Arctic areas have ready access to fresh water melt, along with salt water melt. Some have access to warm ocean currents, other areas to cold ocean currents. There is no “global” Arctic ice data point that has anything worthwhile in it that can help us understand it. So too the oceans. Take them one at a time. Understand each. Then tell me if you see a global temperature SST trend that can be understood. I think not. The risk of wrong assumptions is too high. Any conclusion based on a single global measurement is wrong at worst, and misleading at best.
I keep reading posts that clam there has been a recent fall in ocean heat.
The data does not appear to be definitive enough to make that claim, and the most recent paper says that there has not been a real fall.
There have been a lot of recent corrections to the argo buoy data, and it is not clear that we have seen the last one.
Is there someone oth there who can explain the meaning of the trend of detrended data as calculated by Craig Loehle?
Pamela Gray (09:04:05)
Whilst agreeing on the complexity issue and the general inadequacy of current data I do think that there is a way of discerning an ongoing temperature trend and any movement towards a change in trend or a change in intensity of trend.
I contend elsewhere that the latitudinal position of the mid latitude jet streams (after accounting for seasonal changes) indicates whether the globe is warming or cooling overall.
I propose that the latitudinal movement of those jets is the climate mechanism whereby the energy flow to space is accelerated or decelerated in order to maintain sea surface/air surface temperature equilibrium.
The position of the jets represents the netted out product of all the other available variables in the climate system (in my humble opinion).
I also agree that ocean temperature is likely to be a far greater contributor to CO2 variability than anything humans can achieve and if the oceans do start to cool then at some point I would expect CO2 levels in the air to begin to fall whatever mankind is able to emit.
The recent levels of CO2 have led to a matching increase in global biological activity. If CO2 levels start to drop all the extra plant life is going to have to fight for it’s requirements and will find the supply of CO2 available for the current level of biological activity to be inadequate. The reduction in CO2 in the air will accelerate from the demands of a hungry biosphere until the biological activity reduces proportionately to any reduction in oceanic CO2 emissions.
So over the course of a year, the oceans are constantly releasing 110 TW of heat through this constant cooling process? That would amount to ~30 times what the US consumes in electrical power production. Surely, this heat released from the oceans must have some effect on any atmospheric forcing. Heat is heat and this heat is much greater, and more evenly distributed about the global surface than the discrete environments of North America, Europe, pockets of Asia, etc. As well, the heat released in the creation of the ~3.3-3.5 TW of energy consumed by the US is still much smaller.
This is a pretty interesting find.
DR (13:18:57) :
Thank you for the link to RPS heat imbalance comments. Two items are highly revealing:
1) Pielke notes that Hansen’s attempt to explain the missing heat was refused publication in Science. It is a glaring discrepancy. Which calls into further question the integrity of Science and its editorial process.
2) Pielke says: “…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.”
Indeed years 2003-2008 show zero heating in the upper 700m of ocean – six consecutive years falsifying the Hansen GISS model. But AGW alarmists, their bottleneck of “authoritative” publications and the MSM refuse to publicize non-partyline facts. The real catastrophe here is the non-recoverable damage done to science by narrow-minded scientists and handlers incapable of admitting their errors.
On the positive side is the fresh air and light brought to the matter by good people across the globe willing to publish the truth.
Everyone – this has been one of the most educational reads I have had in a long time. Your efforts are truly appreciated. After being directed to the Moana Loa data sets I did note the following. While CO2 is rising, the Methane and CFLC concentrations have nearly ceased increasing. The methane rate of growth came to a relative standstill on or around 1998. Since its a much more powerful forcing agent it begs some attention. People will save/collect methane, they can use it.
And thanks to the several of you pointing out the math abuse of plotting graphs with no zero points.
It dramatizes the heck out of the issues.
I agree about the position of the jet stream. But which area are you talking about? The jet stream is also not a single entity that consistently circles the globe in a predictable pattern. Where and when do the loops occur? How deep are they and under what conditions? Where do the breaks occur and under what conditions? I see a consistent pattern, so to speak, in where the breaks usually occur and where the loops usually occur. How do these couple with oceanic and land conditions under each of these observations of looping and breaking?
Eric (09:11:37),
Quite a few “what-ifs” packed into that short post, especially in the two middle sentences.
The other posts you ‘keep reading’ are correct, and you have shown nothing that refutes them. Believing despite the evidence that you are right and everyone else is wrong is simply cognitive dissonance.
And which ‘most recent paper’ do you feel changes that fact that the ocean is cooling? You seem to believe that the timing of a publication trumps all previous findings. If that were the case, I could refute Special Relativity.
The ocean is cooling. The Argo buoys have been corrected — but they show ocean cooling both before and after the corrections.
The AGW/CO2 hypothesis is falsified once again.
How many actually download and read the rest of Josh Willis’ text?
Pamela Gray (10:00:12)
I didn’t say it would be easy to identify the averaged out position of the mid latitude jets in both hemispheres at any particular time. I’m aware of the problems of splitting and looping.
The link with temperatures arises because when the globe is warming the equatorial air masses expand and push the jets poleward. When cooling the equatorial air masses contract and allow polar plunges to penetrate deeper towards the equator.
I provide much more detail in my articles here:
http://climaterealists.com/news.php?tid=37
Excellent work! The SO is the 800 lb. climate gorilla.
” that are a result of the decay of vegetation in the northern hemisphere?”
Huh? Have you even thought through your demonstration of this as fact? Start with the low in decay of October gaining pace through the frozen months of Jan. and Feb.
Smokey (10:01:54) :
wrote,
“Eric (09:11:37),
Quite a few “what-ifs” packed into that short post, especially in the two middle sentences.
The other posts you ‘keep reading’ are correct, and you have shown nothing that refutes them. Believing despite the evidence that you are right and everyone else is wrong is simply cognitive dissonance.
And which ‘most recent paper’ do you feel changes that fact that the ocean is cooling? You seem to believe that the timing of a publication trumps all previous findings. If that were the case, I could refute Special Relativity.”
You missed my previous post, in which I linked this paper,
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
‘Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems
S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia, A. V. Mishonov
National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA’.
The lead author, Levitus, has many often cited publications on ocean heat content. He is not just Joe Blogger, opinionating on a subject that he knows nothing about.
Check out the evidence that the oceans have not gotten cooler, in the graph on figure 1 on page 17 of the link.
Here is a sea level view of this whole thing.
I surf year round at the same beach in Southern California. I have been surfing this beach for 30 years. The ocean water temperature this year, at the surface, was the coldest this February that I can ever remember. There was a noticeable difference of a few degrees. Diving under waves became painful and after a couple of dives in a row it took a long time to warm the water in my wetsuit. Along with the brain freeze I had pictures of Al Gore swimming in my hypothermia riden brain. If you could actually stuff that guy in wet suit I’m sure he would have warmed it up much faster.
As far as sea level rise. Visually there is no difference in 30 years. A 5 foot high tide still reaches the same place on the same rocks.
I realize this is all unscientific but when you are out there in it you scratch head with your frozen claw like fingers wondering what all the fuss is about.
I do have a question for anyone out there with a more scientific bent than I. When we will experience the next El Nino? There is nothing more invigorating than aqaumarine colored, warm tropical water in Southern California along with the surge of tropical fish.