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:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
Like predicted. page 6 here: http://ansatte.hials.no/hy/climate/preEcoSysTromsø_070314.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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].
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.
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.
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?
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?
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).
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.