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.
When I did research, my resultant thesis, which is still in the library at OSU in Corvallis, has a number of weaknesses in it, as well as points to consider that could be argued with. There are other sections that are pretty solid. My hunch is that the CERN paper is likewise. The entire thing is not nonsense, but parts can and should be called into question, just like my original thesis.
Fortunately for me, a colleague who happened to be wicked smart, considered my thesis and data as a “gold mine” (his words, not mine). He brought out aspects of the study that I was unable to due to my lack of sufficient background in electrical signal speed along the axis of brain cells, and detailed (as in electron microscopic details) neuroanatomy in terms of the physical properties of the auditory pathway in the brainstem.
The best scientists in the field find gold where it can be found and offer critique that is meant to improve knowledge. If my colleague had called my paper nonsense, we probably could not have collaborated in a second reading of the data and come up with truly solid insights and discoveries that had not been published before. The result is a published paper in a major journal that I remain proud of and humbled by. All due to a colleague imbued with both smarts and diplomacy.
What I noticed first about the Arctic Ocean graph is it hit rock bottom just as satellites started being used to monitor polar ice. Coldest water just as we started taking pictures. Too bad we didn’t have satellites 30 years earlier. Might have helped a lot of people get a clue and admit things run in cycles.
Ocean heat content plunges immediately before an El Nino – if you look at 1998 in the first graph, it drops like a rock
Proof that oceans affect atmospheric temps and not vica-versa?
“For the oceans to be absorbing the energy away”
For me this is a really key point. I’d love it if someone could answer this. Does the temperature of the atmosphere affect the temperature of the ocean (beyond, say, the top meter or so)?
Another related question – to heat 1 meter cubed of water from absolute zero to 10 degree Celsius would take a lot more energy than it would take to heat 1 meter cubed of our sea level atmosphere to this temp, yes? One more – can one think of the oceans as being a “store” of all the sunlight it took warm it from absolute zero (not that it was ever at absolute zero… and yes, geothermic influences were probably fairly important at the stage when the oceans were forming!) to its current temp? Or would it be simpler to say they are a store of sunlight, otherwise they would be frozen? I wish I could say this more clearly. Is it really possible that the thin, insubstantial atmosphere can ever “warm” the oceans? Put it this way, if you wanted to heat a container of water, would you blow hot gas at it? Here is a thought, if the oceans were frozen, what would reheat them? A warming atmosphere or the direct sunlight?
Further, if the atmosphere controlled the oceans’ temps and CO2 warmed the atmosphere, in other words if both conditions were true, surely we’d have had a runaway greenhouse sometime in the last 600 million years? As in CO2 warms atmosphere, atmosphere warms the ocean, ocean outgases CO2 which warms the atmoshere and so on? I understand the AGW theory even throws in more postive feedbacks to do with water vapor. What am I missing?
Invariant (18:13:53) :
(without any delay). […] Thus I suggest that you should instead try to answer the question I asked – is the paper from CERN nonsense?
Svensmark claims there is no delay [or perhaps a few days (from his Forbush Decrease analysis)]. Now, to the question: First, the paper is not from CERN. It is in no way instigated, funded, or otherwise endorsed by CERN. Svensmark and Co were permiited to use some vacant CERN facility, is all.
Nonsense? Obviously, one can find much [background] material in the paper that is not nonsense. The real question should be: “did the recent experiment establish their wider case?” and it is clear that it did not [perhaps, yet]. And what is the experiment really about? Whether or not the cosmic rays detritus can serve as condensation cores. This in itself does not establish the sufficient part of their assertion, only the necessary part. On a nonsense scale from 1 to 9, the paper is perhaps a 5. Your question may be a 7, 🙂
Roddy Baird (19:55:52) :
Does the temperature of the atmosphere affect the temperature of the ocean (beyond, say, the top meter or so)?
The atmosphere is heated from below as it is basically transparent to sunlight [in the visible where by far most of energy is].
This data supports what others have argued recently (on Pielke Sr.’s blog for instance) but seems out of sync with what Schruckman (2009) is saying:
“Global mean heat content and steric height changes are clearly associated with a positive trend during the 6 years of measurements.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml
Any thoughts as to why?
“The atmosphere is heated from below as it is basically transparent to sunlight [in the visible where by far most of energy is].”
So you would agree that the notion that heat being transmitted from the atmosphere into the ocean is, as part of an understanding of earth’s climactic system, not valid?
Tim,
I only have access to the Schruckman(2009) abstract and it doesn’t make much sense.
For example, It says Strong … decadal changes superimpose long-term changes at northern midlatitudes..
How decadal changes and long-term changes can be determined from 6 years of data is not clear, to say the least (except i assume through the magic of models).
It then says,
Global mean heat content and steric height changes are clearly associated with a positive trend during the 6 years of measurements.
I interpret associated with a positive trend to mean the data aren’t positive but again through the magic of models we can make something (unstated) look positive.
Perhaps they meant to say ” associated in a positive trend”, ie OHC and ocean currents increase together, which would make more sense. But hardly a surprising conclusion.
Bob Tisdale I have the following questions:
Am I correct in assuming that the heat content of the Ocean in the layer 0 to 700 metres could drop for two reasons a) greater transfer of heat to the colder layers below or b) greater radiation and /or convection from the surface layers into the atmosphere?
If this be so, can we assume the transfer of heat between the surface and deeper layers to be more or less constant? and most of the heat loss due to loss of heat content from the surface layers into the atmosphere?
If this be so what would be the effect on the air temperatures? What is the relationship between the Ocean heat content and Global temperatures? Have you tried to plot the correlation region-wise and globally?
Why do we take the heat content of the ocean upto a depth of 700 metres? The layers closer to the surface would have increasingly greater influence on Global temperatures.
Also Bob Tisdale (05:35:28) :
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?”
I suggest maybe you do. If indeed such a thing had happened wouldnt it show a lowering of the heat content in the Indian Ocean in 2005? From the graph above the heat content started getting lower early in 2004, well before the tsunami, and it seems to have had no significant impact on the graph?
Brian Angliss (11:11:05) : Ocean heat content plunges immediately before an El Nino – if you look at 1998 in the first graph, it drops like a rock.
.. GISS et al are projecting this year to be much hotter than 2008 and maybe as hot as 1998.
The first graph is the heat content of the Arctic Ocean which has nothing to do with the El Nino. And it doesnt drop “like a rock”in 1998. It started dropping in 1996 and there have been far greater drops than this in other years, even in the Arctic. The global ocean heat content wasnt much affected.
2009 will be warmer than 2008 which was a very cool year but so far it is nowhere near as warm as 1998. Here are the average temperature anomalies from Jan to Sept (UAH):
1998 0.59
2002 0.33
2003 0.24
2004 0.18
2005 0.33
2006 0.24
2007 0.32
2008 0
2009 0.23
2009 as you can see is nothing exceptional so far. For 2009 to catch upto 1998 it will have to the really warm in the next 3 months, which looks unlikely.
I too found Joe Romm’s post.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/10/skeptical-science-global-warming-not-cooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/
In his updated post in response to tallblokes crayon comment Joe claims to have up dated his information to 2008. He speaks with such confidence. It is difficult to know who to believe. Can anyone show Mr.Romm’s Fig.1 “Earth’s Total Heat Content” up dated to 2009.
PS I have had a run in with Joe in the past. In the end he simply censored my reply, which was both polite and measured. I was surprised to see he permitted a link to WUWT.
Tim: You wrote, “This data supports what others have argued recently (on Pielke Sr.’s blog for instance) but seems out of sync with what Schruckman (2009) is saying.”
There are no two OHC reconstructions that are exactly the same:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/ohc-trends-presented-by-levitus-et-al.html
Schuckmann et al (2009) limits the data to the period of 2003 to 2008. If we look at the NODC data for same period, it also shows an upward trend:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2ynq7v8.png
But when you include the past six months, the trend flattens considerably:
http://i38.tinypic.com/300d3dl.png
Schuckmann et al (2009) also studies the depths to 2000 meters, where the long-term reconstructions focus on 0 to 700 meters.
Roddy Baird: Ocean heat content plunges immediately before an El Nino – if you look at 1998 in the first graph, it drops like a rock.”
First, the El Nino in question started early in 1997. It’s better to think of it as the 1997/98 El Nino. If we look at a comparison graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies and OHC of the tropical Pacific…
http://i33.tinypic.com/2h55ixv.png
…we can see that tropical Pacific OHC drops in sync with the rise in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. That graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
Molon Labe (17:13:54) :
@tallbloke (16:03:09) : Yes your post is there. He kept it because he added some snark to it.
#
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 11, 2009 at 4:32 am
UPDATE: Yes, I am aware of the recent upper-ocean heat content data on the web. Please note that plots of very recent, highly variable upper-ocean content heat data down to 700 meters from unpeer-reviewed sources
Joe, please explain how the deeper ocean is warmed while the upper ocean cools or stays static if the energy that it is heating it up is (allegedly) coming from longwave radiation from heightened levels of co2 in the atmosphere.
By the way, the KNMI provided data is actually the same series as used by Syd Levitus et al 2009. Let the unpeers know.
Leif Svalgaard (20:49:13) :
Roddy Baird (19:55:52) :
Does the temperature of the atmosphere affect the temperature of the ocean (beyond, say, the top meter or so)?
The atmosphere is heated from below as it is basically transparent to sunlight [in the visible where by far most of energy is].
Hi Leif, how much of TSI is in the infrared compared to visible please?
“As for the sun, the earth receives the full spectrum. Most of the radiation
above visible light is reflected back by the ozone layer of our atmosphere.
The ultraviolet light that does get through causes sunburn. Radio waves
don’t have enough energy to be noticed: some pass right through the earth.
The two parts of the spectrum that have greatest effect are infrared and
visible. Since visible light is such a narrow range of frequencies,
infrared does provide a great deal of the heat we receive.”
Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Illinois Central College
Roddy Baird (19:55:52) :
Does the temperature of the atmosphere affect the temperature of the ocean (beyond, say, the top meter or so)?
Since Leif answered you with a non-sequiteur I’ll have a go:
So far as we can tell, it doesn’t affect it at all, because longwave radiation from the atmosphere can’t penetrate the surface of the ocean beyond it’s own wavelength. This means a lot of energy gets focussed into the top few nanometres of water, and causes prompt evaporation. This cools the water surface.
Stephen Wilde, you need to be more specific when you say,
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
Do you mean the position of the ITCZ, its width, or some other property?
In addition, it would be nice to see some empirical data on the ITCZ compared with the positions of the world’s atmospheric circulation systems.
I think that understanding the effects of the ITCZ should be the most urgent project for real climatologists.
The simple shade/reflection of tropical insolation needs to be estimeasured but much more challenging is the evaporative cooling effects of these monster Cu-nims.
The hypothesis that the ITCZ provides a primary day-scale negative feedback on climate needs looking at.
tallbloke (02:18:29) :
So far as we can tell, it doesn’t affect it at all, because longwave radiation from the atmosphere can’t penetrate the surface of the ocean beyond it’s own wavelength. This means a lot of energy gets focussed into the top few nanometres of water, and causes prompt evaporation. This cools the water surface.
Then how come the sea surface can maintain a temperature of 16 C if it is only heated by the 160 W/m2 sunlight absorbed by it?
Perhaps Stephen can help us?
“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.”
I haven’t yet read all the way down the comments so my reaction may be superfluous. If it is a southern hemisphere anomaly it sure had an effect on much of the atmosphere (and why not?), see NH graph: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUNHem.html
Polar regions show no response to the 1998 EL NINO
Northern polar: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUNPol.html
Southern polar: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUSPol.html
lgl (04:26:03) :
Then how come the sea surface can maintain a temperature of 16 C if it is only heated by the 160 W/m2 sunlight absorbed by it?
Perhaps Stephen can help us?
Well the sun has been shining down on the ocean for a few billion years, so it will have reached an approximate equilibrium between energy in and energy out, notwithstanding the century – millenium scale variation which it seems to possess.
If I stick an infrared lamp kicking 160w/m^2 over a shallow metre square dish of water in the dark, what temperature will it reach before the loss to the (average temp) air equals the input from the heat source? 16C doesn’t seem out of the way to me.
Philip_B (17:22:04) :
SST leads OHC (700m) by a couple of years and since SST is now back to a very high level “I feel pretty confident that this data points to sharpish” rise in OHC over the next couple of years.
I tried following the links, but can only find processed data. Does anyone know if this data comes from the Argo array?
tallbloke (05:13:57) :
Seems very far off to me. Stefan-Boltzmann law states that a body of 16 C will radiate 396 W/m2 and on the Earth there is around 100 W/m2 in addition from other heat transfers, so that’s close to 500 W/m2 up and only 160 W/m2 down.
Looking forward for you or Stephen to explain where the missing 340 is coming from.
Leif Svalgaard (20:04:17) : Svensmark claims there is no delay [or perhaps a few days (from his Forbush Decrease analysis)]. Now, to the question: First, the paper is not from CERN. It is in no way instigated, funded, or otherwise endorsed by CERN. Svensmark and Co were permitted to use some vacant CERN facility, is all.
Sorry, but I do not understand why you mention Svensmark here? The paper is written by Kirkby (CERN), not by Svensmark.
Kirkby, J. 2008. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28: 333-375. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD