NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) – 2007, 2008 & 2009 Corrections
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
The National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) recently updated its 4th quarter and annual 2009 Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data. The data that was presented in conjunction with the Levitus et al (2009) Paper now covers the period of 1955 to 2009. There have been changes that some might find significant.
This post presents:
1. A brief look at the revisions (corrections) to the data in 2007 and 2008 OHC data
2. A comparison of the NODC OHC data for the period of 2003 to 2009 versus the GISS projection
REVISIONS (Corrections) TO THE 2007 AND 2008 NODC OHC DATA
Figure 1 is a gif animation of two Ocean Heat Content graphs posted on the NODC GLOBAL OCEAN HEAT CONTENT webpage. It shows the differences between the current (January 2010) version and one that appears to include data through June or September 2009. So this is an “Official” correction (not more incompletely updated data posted on the NODC website discussed in NODC’s CORRECTION TO OHC (0-700m) DATA, which required me to make corrections to a handful of posts). I have found nothing in the NODC OHC web pages that discuss these new corrections. Due to the years involved, is it safe to assume these are more corrections for ARGO biases? As of this writing, I have not gone through the individual ocean basins to determine if the corrections were to one ocean basin, a group of basins, or if they’re global; I’ll put aside the multipart post I’ve been working on for the past few weeks and try to take a look over the next few days.
http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif
Figure 1
NODC OHC OBSERVATIONS VERSUS GISS PROJECTION (2003-2009)
One of the posts that needed to be corrected back in October was NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS Projections (Corrected). The final graph in that post was a comparison of global ocean heat content observations for the period of 2003 through year-to-date 2009 versus the projection made by James Hansen of GISS of an approximate accumulation of 0.98*10^22 Joules per year. Figure 2 is an updated version of that comparison. Annual Global OHC data was downloaded from the NODC website (not through KNMI). The trend of the current version of the NODC OHC data is approximately 1.5% of the GISS projection. That is, GISS projected a significant rise, while the observations have flattened significantly in recent years. The apparent basis for the divergence between observations and the GISS Projection was discussed in the appropriately titled post Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?
http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png
Figure 2
Note: The earlier version of that graph (with the NODC’s October 15, 2009 correction)…
http://i37.tinypic.com/i6xtnl.png
…shows a linear trend of ~0.08*10^22 Joules/year. The current linear trend is ~0.015*10^22 Joules/year. Some might consider that decrease to be significant.
NOTE: I DELETED THE THIRD AND FOURTH PARTS OF THIS POST…
3. GLOBAL, HEMISPHERIC, AND INDIVIDUAL BASIN OHC UPDATE THROUGH DECEMBER 2009, AND
4. TREND COMPARISONS
…UNTIL I TRACK DOWN DISCREPANCIES I CAN’T EXPLAIN. I WILL REPOST THOSE SECTIONS IN A NEW POST. I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES, BUT I NEED TO CHECK WITH KNMI.
SOURCES
NODC Annual Global OHC data used in Figure 2 is available here:
Leif Svalgaard (21:01:56) :
So, in my example over a million years you think we will be missing half of 5.5e+30 joules. Over a billion years: 5.5e+33 joules.
If TSI stayed at 1364.6… compared to 1366 for a million years, yes, mathematically yes. Of coarse, very slowly, equilibrium would be reached between ocean/air temperatures and new radiative balance would be reached. But the air’s temperature will vary greater than the oceans temperature. Air is feably comared to water in heat storage, on the plus side or minus side. So, in releation to TSI, with focus is on ocean temperature, not the air’s temperature. And, yes, it will take many years to equalize if the above scenario occurs.
And (20+273)*0.001=~0.3K which equals many, many years with air temp being magnified slightly (~ 1-2 degC).
We saw this happen from ~1960-2000 only going the other way.
wayne (21:37:48) :
And (20+273)*0.001=~0.3K which equals many, many years
No, 0.3/4=0.07K, because radiation~temperature to the 4th power, so a relative change in radiation is accomplished by a quarter of that change in temperature. We did not see that happen, because that change is too small to see.
Lief, first I respect you. Just wanted you to have an alternate view, but very real to me (so far). Still calculating myself through aspects of this. I was using the 0.3K as actual delta temperature of water in example, not as radiative equivalent (though 0.15K is closer to reality). Will let you know later if I find myself wrong (it happens). Trying to always keep an open mind on all aspects of this deep subject.
REPLY: Might want to check his name spelling – Anthony
wayne (22:18:55) :
I was using the 0.3K as actual delta temperature of water in example,
It looked to me that you were saying that a 1/1000 change in TSI would equal a (20+273)/1000= 0.3K change in temperature. This is not correct calculation. The temperature change will be 1/4 of that or 0.07K. Water or air, makes no difference.
Woops, can you correct it Anthony then snip? Sorry Leif! Did it to my own name earlier.
Leif Svalgaard (22:25:43) :
It looked to me that you were saying that a 1/1000 change in TSI would equal a (20+273)/1000= 0.3K change in temperature.
That is over many years.
I was taking a watt, to be a watt, to be a watt no matter where it comes from, radiation, conduction, etc. Are you saying TSI (W/m^2) has to be reduced (I know the dT^4 law). That was already corrected if TSI is calculated from the sun’s temperature. Don’t understand why you are applying it again.
Leif, for Anthony’s sake don’t want to carry this further. You should have a good base of my view whether it be right or wrong. Later.
.
>>>Actually showing the decline for a change. Smart move.
Well, people don’t believe you after a while, so there is no point lying anymore.
Its like our education results in the UK. They are still trying to convince us that results have increased every year for the last 26 years, while employers are saying that UK education is dire. (97% of students now pass). They have hidden the decline for 26 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044773/A-level-pass-rate-rockets-highest-level-test-chiefs-herald-unfailable-exam.html
Apparently, 20% in an exam now represents a ‘pass’. The result of all this lying? – Nobody believes the exam results anymore. Unless you get an A+++ in a subject, employers assume you have failed the exam.
.
Here’s a thought. Could someone set up a WUWT for UK education??
.
>>>Great job on the Ocean Heaving Content- voluptuous even….
Oh, oh, ooohhh, ooooooohhhhh, – where is my red silk hanky????
Damn.
.
whenever i see results published by the warmists, their data is always “corrected” or “biased” or “smoothed”.
I’m not a scientist but surely if your measuring stations are so persistently inaccurate you need to take a long hard look at your methodology?
Obviously the missing heat is hiding “in the pipe-line”.
Personally, I suspect the only pipe big enough to hide all that energy is the one smoked by Mr H.
Cheers
Mark
Bob Tidsdale,
“Aren’t you missing a number in your statement? Shouldn’t it read 1*10^22 Joules per year?”
Thanks. I confess that I left it out because I thought the 1 was redundant.
Stephen Wilde: You asked, “Are you able to exclude internal variations within the oceans as a driver of the events in the atmosphere above that you analyse in such admirable detail ?”
No. Unfortunately, subsurface temperature readings are few and far between prior to ARGO. And ARGO has problems of its own.
You wrote, “I’m not so concerned about the ENSO cycle but rather the PDO phase changes (admittedly an ENSO artifact but a real world phenomenon nevertheless) and also the possibility of a longer term oceanic cycle sufficient to have driven the ITCZ nearer the equator during the depths of the Little Ice Age.”
But the PDO is an indicator of the pattern of SST and not a measure of SST itself. So are you now suggesting that the location of the ITCZ is a function of the pattern of SST of the North Pacific North of 20N (the PDO) and not tropical tropospheric temperature and/or tropical SST?
You wrote, “The only comparison between your work and the work of others that I commented on was the apparent conclusion that the variations in sea surface temperatures are driven by events in the air and not by events within the oceans.”
I believe if you were to read the posts I linked for you above you’d find that I describe ENSO as a coupled ocean-atmosphere process and that SST outside of the tropical Pacific reacts to ENSO through changes in atmospheric circulation, again more coupled ocean-atmosphere processes.
And you continued, “It is that issue which I am trying to resolve.”
And without long-term high-resolution global subsurface data how do you plan on doing that?
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L):
You wrote, “HOW ’bout a line then? give us a break eah?”
And where would you like me to place that line? When the ARGO project started? When they reached specific coverages of specific oceans, 10% in the Atlantic, 50% in the Pacific? There’s nothing stopping you, if a subject interests so you, from marking up my graphs from any of my posts in any way you’d like.
Regards
wayne (22:48:15) :
I was taking a watt, to be a watt, to be a watt no matter where it comes from, radiation, conduction, etc. Are you saying TSI (W/m^2) has to be reduced (I know the dT^4 law). That was already corrected if TSI is calculated from the sun’s temperature. Don’t understand why you are applying it again.
I’ve not followed the discussion too closely, so I could be on the track altogether, but is it possible that you are not considering the earth’s geometry in your calculation.
A 0.1% increase/reduction in TSI does not mean the earth receives 1.36 w/m2 more/less. Averaged over the surface of the earth it is only a 1/4 of this figure. You also need to take into account albedo which reduces it still further. Whichever approach you take Leif’s figure is the correct one.
To Bob Tisdale.
I’m an old fisherman, not a scientist. !
I appreciate your knowledge sharing with “The uneducated masses on the internet who are growing in number daily”—
The graph that I was referring to above is yours from NODC period 1955 to 2009. The dip in the chart about 1968 is contary to my observations in Northern Australia. Nothing specific to it, but a gut feeling over 70 years.
The MSM won’t tell us anything of value.
Hah! Thanks Bob.
It’d be interesting to do a comparison of the 2003-2008 data with Loehle’s reconstruction. 😉
Nice to see the powers that be tinkering around the edges. I wonder when (or if) they’ll address the big step change between the XBT data and the ARGO data at 2002.
James F. Evans (13:00:48)
You dont need to persuade me, I agree there is evidence of real conspiracy. It is indeed on record in the CRU emails, and well documented by this site – Yamal, Darwin Zero, IPCC hockey sticks, dodgy figures and references, the Wiki-purge, the list goes on. Scientific communities and their modus operandi make themselves highly susceptible to it.
Bob Tisdale (14:34:34) :
Thanks for the extra information. I’m a sceptic, so my point wasn’t that there was anything extraordinary about the OHC content in terms of units of 10^22 joules.
It was just that I needed something I could relate to that would help me grasp how enormous the OHC is on a human scale.
I thank you for helping me see that, enormous as that amount of energy is, 16 times more only gave rise to a 0.17 deg. C rise in ocean temperature over 40 years. As you point out on your blog, maybe the big numbers are used to scare us!
Bob Tisdale (01:44:46)
I’m inclined to the judgement that the location of the ITCZ and all the other air circulation systems is a consequence of the average global SST for all the oceans combined at any given moment.
Also that more likely than not there are movements within the oceans that influence the SSTs independently of events in the air such as the Trade Wind effect on the ENSO cycle.
Proving it is of course another matter but my purpose is to look at what data we do have already and try to work out a scenario that fits as many observations as possible.
Testing such a scenario can only be done with new data as it arises over time.
I don’t think we can square any of our current climate theories with observations unless one allows for independent variability from within the oceans leading to SST changes and we also have to recognise variability from stratosphere to space.
Just assuming that the oceans are inert with all changes driven from above doesn’t work. I see that you accept an ocean atmosphere interaction but so far you seem to shy away from giving much practical weight to a variable oceanic energy flow independent of events in the air on the reasonable basis that we don’t have enough evidence yet.
Just assuming that the Earth radiates like a black body with a rate of energy loss to space solely dictated by temperature doesn’t work either.
To get any idea of what happens within the troposphere we need a much better grip on energy flow rate variations from oceans to the air above and from troposphere to stratosphere and thence to space.
Linking all the components involves a number of separate areas of scientific enquiry none of which are adequate on their own.
JohnRS (13:23:03) :
“Could the real scientists be begining to take control?”
Yes, I have been wondering about this myself. I’m not given to conspiracy theory; it’s probably more a case of scientific folk needing, like the rest of us, to put bread on the table. I daresay we’ve all “played the game” in our workplaces and simply done/said whatever was necessary to keep the moolah roling in. In many cases, I’m sure, that has taken the form of scientists just keeping their heads down without rocking the boat.
However, now that other forces are threatening shipwreck, the only way to restore equilibrium may be by an attitudinal sea-change, to extend the metaphor. The “science” can’t carry on as it has been doing without falling into total collapse. The only remedy is a return to sanity, which means that those who’ve been lying low and weathering the storm must now be allowed to come to the fore.
Reading through the discussion something curious came to mind. Hope this doesn’t prove to be the exception to the saying that there’s no such thing as a stupid question…
Does a high concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere act as a lens for solar radiation? Does high humidity in the atmosphere at various regions on the globe ‘magnify’ solar heat beneath the lens more so than areas with far less humidity?
Be kind..
Leif Svalgaard (20:14:36) :
“The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI, which varies very little [0.1%] . The energy in the solar wind and the magnetic field is a million times smaller and has therefore no discernible influence on the total energy output, and therefore very little to do with the weather. Why do people not get this?”
Hey, I’m just a layman interested in the climate debate, but my mind turns to valves and transistors, where a small control signal can effect large changes in current flow: an amplification effect.
I’m not saying that Henrik Svenmark’s ideas are as yet indisputably proven, but it seems to me that they illustrates at least the possibility of some kind of control mechanism, in this example by the effect of the solar magnetic field on shielding the earth from cosmic rays. Via that and the effects on cloud formation, the amount of solar irradiation of the earth might be significantly influenced.
There are many examples in natural systems where a seemingly very small signal can have large effects – hormones in the body, for example. These are often involved in homeostatic feedback mechanisms that maintain equilibrium.
It seems to me that you are excluding all sorts of possiblities when you concentrate on relative magnitudes. For all we know, there could be a number of as-yet-unknown homeostatic feedback mechanisms involved in weather and climate, whereby relatively tiny signals can have very significant control effects.
John Finn (02:01:44) :
A 0.1% increase/reduction in TSI does not mean the earth receives 1.36 w/m2 more/less. Averaged over the surface of the earth it is only a 1/4 of this figure. You also need to take into account albedo which reduces it still further.
Unless albedo changes amplify the signal as shown by Nir Shaviv in his article about usings the oceans as a calorimeter. He found a 7-10x terrestrial amplification to the solar signal.
John Finn (02:01:44) :
Yes, every point you made is correct but only in a particular view you are calculating or speaking in. And yes, albedo of ~0.31needs to be accounted. Thats why I said less than half, I was speaking very roughly. If you want you can divide by four to average the intensity over the whole sphere if you keep all factors in that frame of reference. Or, put yourself on the moon looking on a closed system, the earth, you are not really able to tell if it is a sphere or just a flat disk with the sun shining on it without prior knowledge. If all factors are kept correct in that frame of reference, all answers will be identical (but somewhat easier to calculate and in some cases much clearer to visualize).
Having done a lot of work in planetary gravitation where, when simplifying, you let all constants go to one so you don’t have to deal with them at all, as graviational constant, radius of earths orbit, the mass of the sun, they all go to one so you can completely dropped them from all complex equations for simplicity.
But you made it clear to me, I should pay more attention to clearly state the reference frame I am speaking in or others likely can’t follow my points. The previous posts were given in a flat disk-like frame using the cross-section of the earth.