Ocean Heat Content: Dropping again

I found Bob’s Arctic Ocean Heat Content graph quite interesting as it may explain why we are seeing a recovery in sea ice for the last two years. It also reminds me a lot of the graph seen of the Barents Sea water temperature plotted against the AMO which WUWT recently covered here.

Update of NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

INTRODUCTION

On October 1, KNMI updated the NODC Ocean Heat Content (Levitus et al 2009) data that’s available on Climate Explorer.

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

These updates are not shown on the NODC’s Global Ocean Heat Content webpage:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

The updates also aren’t shown in the table of Global Analyzed Fields (ASCII files):

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/OC5/3M_HEAT/heatdata.pl?time_type=yearly700

But the single 22.4 MB dataset at the top of the table does contain the January through March and the April through June data, which were updated (added) on September 14, 2009:

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/heat_3month/HC_0-700-3month.tar.gz

GLOBAL, HEMISPERIC, AND OCEAN BASIN GRAPHS

Global OHC has dropped back to its 2003 levels.

http://i34.tinypic.com/dev5ld.png

Global OHC

North Atlantic OHC is continuing to decline from its 2004 peak.

http://i36.tinypic.com/ddkeas.png

North Atlantic OHC

The recent drop in the South Atlantic OHC was sizeable, but not outside of the range of its normal variability.

http://i36.tinypic.com/2m5fais.png

South Atlantic OHC

And of the remaining OHC datasets, the only two that showed increases over the past six months are the South Pacific and Southern Ocean OHC

http://i35.tinypic.com/1ys415.png

South Pacific

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

http://i38.tinypic.com/34f19p2.png

Southern Ocean

Here are the remaining OHC subsets without commentary.

http://i38.tinypic.com/j79h1i.png

Northern Hemisphere

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

http://i35.tinypic.com/cqr13.png

Southern Hemisphere

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

http://i37.tinypic.com/2wlxz09.png

North Pacific

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

http://i38.tinypic.com/6e0oax.png

Indian Ocean

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

http://i38.tinypic.com/9u417d.png

Arctic Ocean

CLOSING

Two earlier posts illustrated the impacts of natural variables on OHC. These included the ENSO-induced step changes in the OHC of numerous oceans and the effects of the NAO on high-latitude North Atlantic OHC:

1. ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data

2. North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
MattN

Why do we not see the 1998 super El Nino? Was that just on the surface?

Ripper

This would be in support of Svensmark’s theory , yes/no?

crosspatch

MattN, it’s there. Look at the South Pacific chart. See that huge spike around 1998?

Willy Nilly

They probably think of the downwards trend line as half of a cycle. They’ll add it to their charts when the reverse leg appears.

Douglas DC

I think there is a la Nina coming down the track…

pyromancer76

I am very grateful for Bob Tisdale’s consistent posting on the ocean; thanks to Anthony for your choice of excellent contributors. Bob, you have answered my question before, but I also hope you will keep some comments going regarding how accurately you think the raw data — not that stuff well cooked and seasoned — on ocean heat content is being put forward. For example, do you have good, somewhat good, some doubts, etc., about the data you are working with and with which you provide us these amazing charts? Do you have any thoughts you might like to share as to why the NODC and the table of Global Analyzed Fields are not updated? Strange that! Yeah, sure!
Also, I agree with Matt N, where is 1998 super El Nino in this data? How does the data connect with the AMO and PDO?
I just returned from Japan, having to “try” to travel directly after the worst of Typhoon Melor. It came at us as a “5”, but thankfully hit most of Japan as a “3”. Our pilot flew from Nagoya to Narita, without a secure destination to land the craft. We came in like a bucking bronco, or like riding a bull, which ever was worse. Today I see that 2 million Tokyo commuters were stranded. From my limited perspective, the damage was minimal, but it could have been much worse. Trying to sleep through this force of nature (nature here being the power of the oceans) is impossible — and also awesome.

Doug in Seattle

MattN (19:30:26) :
Why do we not see the 1998 super El Nino? Was that just on the surface?

It appears to be limited to the southern hemisphere.

savethesharks

Check out the South Pacific graph….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

AnonyMoose

Ocean weather, not climate… but that’s a whole lotta cold water.
If this keeps up, the Titanic anniversary cruise might be overly interesting.

Bill in Vigo

Great post Bob Tisdale, I keep wanting to call you PhD “doctor” Tisdale but reflecting on some of the prominent “doctors’ Studying climate I fear you might be offended. I can understand the points that you are making. I wonder if MattN’s question would be related to the fact that many of the graphs that you reference are to a depth of 700 meters or about 2250 feet. It would seem that the heat of the El Nino would take a couple of years to mix down to a depth that would reflect enough content to effect the measurement of the heat content of that much water. Sea Surface temps aren’t measured very deeply at the most about 30 feet depending on the method used. I do notice that a few years after the 98 event that there was a slight uptick in the heat content of several of the ocean areas. I guess to this older lesser educated mind it just seems to make sense.
Again a very informative post and very understandable. I love coming to this blog and reading everyday often more than once. It is good to see some folks that don’t mind people the unwashed commoner or the peers of the realm asking questions.
Anthony you are doing a wonderful job regardless of what the trolls say.
Bill Derryberry

Uriel

You’ve got to be kidding.
ONE post on the elimination of data at CRU?!!??!
Still hacking away at El Nino, Solar cycles, placement of monitoring stations, polar ice, clouds, sea levels, hurricanes, and on, and on, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Are you afraid to admit that you’ve misspent your blogging career (and possibly your life) whining about irrelevant issues?
The CRU/Phil Jones data is THE SOURCE. THE ORIGIN. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
Everything you discuss is entirely dependent upon accepting the truth and validity of Jones’ claim that the earth warmed over the last 150 yrs.
With that debunked or disproven, the entire theory falls apart. ALL other global warming claims are thus falsified.
THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE AFRAID OF.
You and your site are a pathetic, AGW-enabling, JOKE.

Harold Vance

The bright red NODC chart (North Atlantic) had a nice parabolic shape heading into 2005. Now, it looks like a bubble has burst.

Adam from Kansas

The South Pacific OHC correlates well with the ENSO SST’s, so the super El Nino of 98 shows in one of the graphs.
We could see a sizable drop if the Southern Ocean starts on another down-swing while El Nino fades while the short-term trends continue for the rest of the oceans.

I’m sorry, but when I see hockey stick like graphs and the word “anomaly” I now just glaze. There have been so many “cooked books” and the anomaly processing has been used to paper over so many ills… Is there truth in this? Is it just tilting at tarmac and islands with thermometers in the sun? Do we have any idea if the thermometers were sited well?

Lindsay H.

Anthony:
an interesting article re Captain Cooks sea temperature logs from his voyages in the 1700’s and others in the 1800’s
Ships’ logs from Cook’s Discovery and Resolution, William Bligh’s Bounty and 300 other 18th and 19th-century explorers’ vessels are being transcribed and digitised in a project that will allow climatologists to trace changing weather patterns.
The records, stored in the National Archives at Kew, contain a unique and highly accurate account of temperature, ice formation, air pressure and wind speed and direction in remote locations all over the world.
There are plenty of land-based weather reports from this period, but very little is known about the climate history of the three quarters of the world’s surface covered by sea.
Times Archive, 1890: Captain Cook’s journals
The book covers two years and ten months of the most brilliant achievements in the history of British nautical adventures
The UK Colonial Registers and Royal Navy Logbooks project, a partnership that includes the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of Sunderland, aims to make all the logs available online. The weather reports are being charted to allow instant comparisons between past observations and current conditions.
The log from HMS Isabella, which set out in 1818 to seek the fabled Northwest Passage, reveals that there was a small but significant decline in the sea ice in Baffin Bay over the past 190 years. Until now, scientists tracking sea ice formation have largely relied upon observations from satellites. However, some of the logs suggest that there has been little or no change in sea temperatures elsewhere in the Arctic. Climate change sceptics are likely to seize on these records as evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are having less impact than many scientists have claimed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6862384.ece

Richard111

Looks like it’s the sun wot does it. El Nino is heat escaping.

pat

I have not read the comments, although the last few that i glimpse seem a bit overheated. If this information proves true and remains so for even a relatively brief period, the Northern Hemisphere is in for some very bad weather. Cold and deadly.

tallbloke

Uriel (20:39:00) :
You’ve got to be kidding.
ONE post on the elimination of data at CRU?!!??!

Got anything new to add? I’m sure Anthony will be ready to print a new article if you have.
Everything you discuss is entirely dependent upon accepting the truth and validity of Jones’ claim that the earth warmed over the last 150 yrs.
With that debunked or disproven, the entire theory falls apart. ALL other global warming claims are thus falsified.

So what’s your evidence that the Earth hasn’t warmed over the last 150 years?
THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE AFRAID OF.
You and your site are a pathetic, AGW-enabling, JOKE.

LOUD words; show us you are something more than an empty vessel.

Manfred

the 2003 spike in global data, that occured with the switching to the argos data has been discussed hereÖ
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content/
most likelz, another 0.1 has to be subtracted from the heat content due to this error.

tallbloke

Bob, great post. Yet another confirmation of my own thoughts and calculations on ocean heat content in relation to solar input – or lack of it. Heat content drops while SST’s climb at solar minimum. The oceans going into heat emission mode when there are few sunspots.
When will someone start listening?

Sandy

Uriel said
“The CRU/Phil Jones data is THE SOURCE. THE ORIGIN. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.”
Such blind fanaticism is fascinating. There is a total rejection of rational analysis as ‘Science’ is perverted in a Faith of Certainty, and, as always, a hate of ‘outsiders’. The choice of a minor Jewish Angel as a soubriquet seems obscure, but presumably supports fantasies about “Swords of Righteousness”.

MattN: You asked, “Why do we not see the 1998 super El Nino? Was that just on the surface?”
Looking at the tropical Pacific OHC graph, it’s a release of heat.
http://i33.tinypic.com/2h55ixv.png
Keep in mind that ENSO events also redistribute heat within the Pacific and cause changes in atmospheric circulation that result in lagged increases in OHC in other ocean basins.
The impacts of the 1997/98 El Nino are easier to see in the first of the linked posts:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
In that post I’ve included NINO3.4 SST anomaly data in the graphs to show the timing of ENSO events and I’ve also divided the oceans into subsets that help isolate the impacts.

APE

” The CRU/Phil Jones data is THE SOURCE. THE ORIGIN. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. ”
If that isn’t faith I have never seen it. Honestly Uriel who is pathetic here? and do you really need to shout? Seems like you are pounding sand. Is data from the topics you list such a joke? Data is all this post is. Deal with it. And does it really matter that the earth has warmed over the past 150 years? I think that the crux of the matter is whether or not the temperature increases over the last 30-50 years are due to man made CO2 or if are they due to other factors such as increasing UHI, incorrect methods of temperature readings, solar trends, biased correction factors, etc? At any rate does a 150 year warming trend (which interestingly starts at the end of the LIA) somehow prove that we need to follow some clown who will tell us the “correct” way to live? i.e. CO2 free (or perhaps put another way “stop breathing you capitalist pig”). If you follow history you might consider the cooling scare of the 70s, did that somehow rely on “the source the orgin the only thing that matters”? General history might also teach you a few things as well especially if you think about soviet agricultural practices and the real fallout of misplaced and hokey but accepted “scientific” theory.
And finally thanks for your opinion but many of us here like Anthony’s site and think he does a great job. If you don’t like it why dont you start you own blog? I suggest you call it “Pounding Sand.”
APE

tallbloke

I’m just going to add, for the record, that my model doesn’t show such a steep climb in OHC around 2003, nor does it predict such a steep fall around now. Either something anomalous happened with cloud cover or maybe Syd Levitus has been cooking the books.
As the Earthshine data doesn’t show anything too exciting 2003-2009 I’m inclined to believe it may be the latter. Particularly as my earlier calculations on OHC show wild changes between Levitus 2000 and Levitus 2005.
I have no doubt however that OHC has been falling increasingly quickly since late 2003, just not in the abrupt manner the graphs show.
Perhaps Craig Loehle is keeping an eye on the latest ARGO dtata and will tell us more presently.

Telboy

Uriel 20:39:00
Good to hear the voice of calm reason at last. Of course Phil Jones is a demi-god. Now be a good boy and go away and play while the grown-ups talk.

Stephen Wilde

If ocean heat content is declining then the amount of energy released to the air is, overall, greater than the amount of energy coming in from the sun.
This brings solar issues back into contention again despite the smallness of solar variability.
From 1975 to 2000 ocean heat content increased DESPITE several large El Ninos and at the same time the sun was rather active.
Now we have merely a weak El Nino and negative oceans elswhere but despite that the ocean heat content is declining.
The effect of an EL Nino event (or a La Nina event) on ocean heat content SEEMS to depend on the activity level of the sun.
In my recent posts on another thread I have pointed out that the climate changes we observe could be generated entirely within the system by variable ocean energy release without a significant solar variation. However I do not actually exclude a solar contribution and have always said that I suspect there is one on the basis of an admittedly rather irregular historical connection.
Perhaps we shall soon see.

40 Shades of Green

Bob,
As I look at most of the graphs, there is a step change up around 2003. I seem to recall reading from both yourself and others that this coincided with the change over to the ARGOS buoys. If I recall you had views on this. Could you do a quick recap.
Also, can one assume that Ocean Heat Content has been trending down ever since modern recording equipement (The Argos Buoys) were installed.
40 Shades

pyromancer76: You asked, “For example, do you have good, somewhat good, some doubts, etc., about the data you are working with…”
Levitus et al illustrated the data with the confidence levels in Figure S13 here:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
You just have to remember that the data is a reconstruction and is based on decreasing numbers of readings as you travel back in time. Also if you compare the Levitus et al (2009), Domingues et al. (2008) and Ishii and Kimoto (2008) and Wijffels et al (2008), you can see that there’s little agreement on the year-to-year variability:
http://i44.tinypic.com/5uizit.png
You asked, “Do you have any thoughts you might like to share as to why the NODC and the table of Global Analyzed Fields are not updated?”
I don’t think it’s anything ominous. I included the discussion in the beginning to prevent comments about the webpage not illustrating the last six months of data. I didn’t want anyone thinking I was creating data.
You asked, “How does the data connect with the AMO and PDO?”
Hopefully the second of the linked posts in the Closing answers your question on the AMO.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
And if the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO, then the other linked post answers part of that question. I still haven’t looked at the North Pacific in detail, though.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html

lgl

Bill in Vigo: You wrote, “I do notice that a few years after the 98 event that there was a slight uptick in the heat content of several of the ocean areas. I guess to this older lesser educated mind it just seems to make sense.”
The upward step changes after the significant ENSO events are easier to see in the first of the linked posts:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html

Uriel: Your rant begins with, “You’ve got to be kidding. ONE post on the elimination of data at CRU?!!??!”
Please advise how your comment pertains to this post.

P Gosselin

The lack of sea ice likely contributes to cooling. As September rolls in, you have a huge expanse of exposed water, unblanketed by ice, unabatedly radiating its heat into the cold atmosphere.
I think this radiative heat loss outwieghs the heat absorbed by the open water during the summer.

janama

Lindsay H. – Cook was the Star Trek of his day – venture into the unknown and he did.
He should be Australia’s hero instead of Ned Kelly IMHO.

timetochooseagain

Uriel (20:39:00) : Wow, that is, without a doubt, the wackiest post I’ve ever seen on WUWT. I don’t even know where to begin.
Golly, you mean to tell me that you think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that ALL-every last bit-of the warming in the last 150 years is due to some chicanery in the Hadley record? I’ve got news for you buddy, the good ship “there’s no such thing as global warming” is a lonely vessel that left port long ago. NOBODY who is anybody believes that.
And I say this as a Denier for god’s sake.

40 Shades of Green: You wrote, “As I look at most of the graphs, there is a step change up around 2003. I seem to recall reading from both yourself and others that this coincided with the change over to the ARGOS buoys. If I recall you had views on this. Could you do a quick recap.”
That was a post by Craig Loehle:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content/
You asked so I’ll list a few of my comments on that thread:
#####
The anomalous spike [in 2003] does NOT appear in the Domingues et al (2008) or the Ishii and Kimoto (I believe it was 2008 also) OHC reconstructions:
http://s5.tinypic.com/24v33t4.jpg
I noted the divergence in my post “The Latest Revisions to Ocean Heat Content Data” here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/latest-revisions-to-ocean-heat-content.html
#####
And:
#####
Craig Leihle noted that the 2003 spike in OHC did not appear in global SST anomaly. Here’s a graph of OHC versus Global SST anomaly.
http://i36.tinypic.com/o70r9w.jpg
It’s from this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html
#####
But as you’ll note in the tinypic link, 40 Shades, that anomalous rise occurs ~1 1/2 years before in the SST data.
You asked, “Also, can one assume that Ocean Heat Content has been trending down ever since modern recording equipement (The Argos Buoys) were installed”
There’s actually a slight increase in OHC trend from January 2003 to June 2009:
http://i38.tinypic.com/300d3dl.png
But if you delete the last six months, the trend go up considerably:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2ynq7v8.png

Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “If ocean heat content is declining then the amount of energy released to the air is, overall, greater than the amount of energy coming in from the sun.”
Wouldn’t that depend on the cause of the decline in OHC? If it was due to an increase in cloud cover, wouldn’t there be a decrease in heat released to the atmosphere as well as a decrease in DSR?
You wrote, “The effect of an EL Nino event (or a La Nina event) on ocean heat content SEEMS to depend on the activity level of the sun.”
The upward step changes in OHC in the individual oceaan basins appear to depend on the magnitude of the El Nino event and the length of the subsequent La Nina. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
I haven’t checked to see if TSI increasing or decreasing during the upward steps. Maybe you’d like to plot them.

FerdinandAkin

Mr. Tisdale,
I was wondering if the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and ensuing Tsunami affected the Indian Ocean by enhanced mixing of the deeper colder water with the warmer surface water?
Intuitively I would think that the mixing would result in lowering the surface temperature reducing the heat radiation from the water with a corresponding increase in heat content later in the year.

Stephen Wilde: I wrote in my reply to you, “I haven’t checked to see if TSI increasing or decreasing during the upward steps. Maybe you’d like to plot them.”
Beat you to it. Here’s a graph of the Tropical South Atlantic OHC (very discernable step changes) and scaled sunspot numbers.
http://i34.tinypic.com/smyi2v.png
The rise in the late 1970s occurs while sunspots are increasing, but the rise in the early 2000s occurs while sunspots are decreasing.

Stephen Wilde

Bob Tisdale (03:57:28)
Bob, I don’t want to engage with you on the detailed workings of ENSO because you would tie me up in knots every time.
I am taking a boad conceptual overview and there are many underlying variables that need to be measured and evaluated to see whether there is anything fatal to that overview.
I am aware of the two edged effects of variations in cloudiness and albedo but I deal with that by suggesting that what matters for the overall global energy budget is the netted out effect of all such variables and that netted out effect seems to best noted from observations of the latitudinal positions of all the worlds air circulation systems at any one time. It is likely that the position of the ITCZ might serve as an adequate proxy for that and thus an indicator of the speed of the hydrological cycle globally at any given moment.
I am also aware of your contention that the PDO is merely a statistical artifact of the ENSO phenomenon. I deal with that by suggesting that in fact there is a real oceanic oscillation behind the PDO phase shifts. How that would impact on your ENSO ideas I have no idea and it doesn’t really matter from my point of view.
I also noted your reaction to my suggestion of a longer 500/1000 year oceanic oscillation and that you thought I was connecting it with ENSO in some way. As far as I am concerned it need not be connected to ENSO or PDO at all but if it is connected then again that matters not from my point of view.
I see evidence for oceanic effects on energy release from oceans to air on all three timescales and it is up to you to decide whether that evidence can fit your ENSO ideas without conflict.
If there is something in what I say which you think is clearly disproved from something within your knowledge then please say so and I will consider it. I do not consider either my ideas or yours to be complete or incontrovertible at this stage.
I think TSI or other solar influences change act very slowly and so need not be linked to individual ENSO events at all. I take cognisance of what Leif says on that and am keeping an open mind as to the timescale at which solar influences become significant.
The main point of my earlier and lengthy post was that if one does accept a 500/1000 year oceanic cycle behind those of ENSO and PDO then all our climate observations can be dealt with via an internally driven process without the need for any external forcing.
That is not to deny an external forcing, it just means that such an external forcing is not required to explain what we see and record.
The issue of getting extra energy in the air from extra CO2 into the oceans is a seperate matter but if that cannot happen in any meaningful quantity on any meaningful timescale then instead of changing the equilibrium temperature of the globe it will just be dealt with by a small change in the speed of the hydro cycle. A change far far smaller (indeed miniscule) compared to the size of the changes regularly occurring to deal with the consequences of the varying rates of energy release from those ocean cycles.

FerdinandAkin: You asked, “I was wondering if the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and ensuing Tsunami affected the Indian Ocean by enhanced mixing of the deeper colder water with the warmer surface water?”
I’d have no way to verify this?

Stephen Wilde

Bob Tisdale (04:47:32)
Thank you for that link.
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.tinypic.com%2Fsmyi2v.png
The ocean heat content started it’s rise around 1980 in response to powerful solar cycles 21. 22 and 23. It rose despite strong El ninos venting energy to the air so I have to assume that those strong cycles were putting in more than the El Ninos were releasing.
The fall in solar activity from the peak of cycle 23 appears to be now having an effect on ocean heat content even though the current El Nino is weak and other oceans are negative. Presumably not enough energy is being put into the oceans to maintain ocean heat content even though the oceanic conditions suggest it should be rising.
As you point out at first sight the period 1955 to 1980 does not seem to fit the pattern. However what we had then was an even stronger solar cycle19 followed by a weaker cycle 20 combined with a negative oceanic phase.
Thus the weaker cycle 20 appears to have prevented the combination of cycle 19 and the negative ocean phase from building up the ocean heat content in the way that would have been expected. Instead it remained approximately stable.
Now that is all logical and fits the observations but is it true ?
One difficulty with that analysis is that it signifies a much greater effect on ocean heat content than should take place if Leif is right about the size of solar variability. It could be a matter of amplification as per Svensmark and others.
I’m not sure how it impacts on your ENSO theories, however and no doubt you can clarify that.
Nevertheless whether or not Leif is right and whether or not your ENSO ideas are right the fact is that all these observations do fit my general climate description which relies on a broad global interplay between all the indivdual components of the system.
How those individual components vary or interact between themselves can be fought over between all those who have an interest in those individual components. Whatever the outcome of the various territory struggles the final outcome will still fit my overview.

Bill Illis

Great stuff Bob.
This data is key to what is going on with global warming. It is the canary in the coalmine.
They are actually trying to update the Ocean Heat Content data on a continuous basis (rather than waiting years to come up with different ways to adjust it). I imagine Josh Willis has said he will continue to make the data available so he forced the issue.
The pro-AGW researchers say the reason surface temperatures are not rising anywhere near as fast as predicted by the theory is that it is being absorbed by the oceans.
For the oceans to be absorbing the energy away (so that it is not available to heat the surface) it has to go through the 0-700M region first. This data is the canary in the coalmine. [It is possible that some could just be going through the Arctic and Antarctic polar oceans only on their way to the deep oceans but your data shows this is not occurring either].
If there is no increasing temperatures in the 0-700M OHC, then we are already at equilibrium and there will be no lagged warming to come from this level of CO2. The new data (decreasing temps) shows there is in fact some cycles in this data and we have been at equilibrium for some time now.
[It is possible this is raw data that needs some adjustment first but they shouldn’t be putting it in the database if that were the case].

tallbloke

FerdinandAkin (03:57:40) :
I was wondering if the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and ensuing Tsunami affected the Indian Ocean by enhanced mixing of the deeper colder water with the warmer surface water?
Intuitively I would think that the mixing would result in lowering the surface temperature reducing the heat radiation from the water with a corresponding increase in heat content later in the year.

It’s certainly a noticable jump from late 2005 to late 2008 in Bob’s Indian ocean graph, and it goes contrary to the general flatness and decline in OHC in the other basins. I wonder if undersea volcanism has anything to do with it.

Harold Ambler

Just to follow up on Manfred’s point:
If one cuts out the step change in 2003 due to the switch to ARGO, then OHC would appear to have declined in 2009 not to 2003 levels but to levels last seen in the mid-1990s.

Pamela Gray

How strong are the westerlies? Do we have churning seas releasing heat during westerly equatorial wind conditions while the subsequent easterly equatorial wind condition peels away what warmth is left to reveal the cold depth?

KBK

When one takes into account that this data is plotted using differing vertical scales, the ramp up in the North Atlantic 1990 – 2004 becomes even more striking. The Arctic Ocean anomaly is returning to its longer term range, but not the North Atlantic, as yet. The North Atlantic must be making a major contribution to the World anomaly.
Is there any reasonable theory covering the North Atlantic increase in that period compared to the other sectors? Has there been a change in the circulation?

Stephen Wilde

In my post (05:38:54) I did not deal fully with the period 1980 to about 2003 due to a local distraction.
From 1980 to 2003 there was a step upward in ocean energy content but then a plateau even though air temperatures (not shown) continued to rise.
I would say that the step change occurred as the oceans switched from negative to positive and a new equilibrium was set between solar input and ocean energy release. There was a high solar input and a high ocean output so the ocean heat content was for a while after the step up roughly in balance but the air kept getting warmer due to the energy venting in strong El Ninos.
From 2003 to date the oceans turned negative again so energy release fell and we saw another upward step change in ocean heat content because solar input was still high in historical times but as we now know destined for a fall.
Now (2009) the sun is not even putting enough in to replace the relatively small rate of energy loss to the air in current ocean conditions so at last ocean heat content is falling even as air temperatures are falling (albeit irregularly).

Robert Wood

Uriel,
Nobody here disputes that the world has warmed over the last 150 years; in fact, opver the last 300 years. But it was warmer 1000 years ago and has been even warmer before.
We call natural cycles. We are trying to figure them out.
As to Phil Jones, I do not believe he has any data, otherwise he would make it available. Are you a relative of his?

Doug in Seattle (20:10:41) :
MattN (19:30:26) :
Why do we not see the 1998 super El Nino? Was that just on the surface?
It appears to be limited to the southern hemisphere

It is not here. SOI is positive (average:+3.9 for the last three months). And if you see:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
you will observe, along the southamerican west coast, a cold SST that reaches the equator line, this is the Humboldt´s cold current surfacing (el Nino area 1+2).
All this is indicative of La Nina back. Positive anomalies are restricted along the equator line.
Also the characteristic PDO horseshoe pattern is back. Then all the pacific ocean is cold.

Bob Tisdale (04:47:32) :
The rise in the late 1970s occurs while sunspots are increasing, but the rise in the early 2000s occurs while sunspots are decreasing.
So, clearly [on that flimsy evidence], sunspots have little [if any] measurable impact.