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:
tallbloke (02:47:37)
I’m sure that whatever does happen is supplemented or even offset by solar effects but solar on it’s own even if amplified by other factors such as cloudiness driven albedo changes doesn’t seem large enough to account for all the observed variability. For one thing the timings are way out of sync more particularly beyond the standard ENSO timetable of a year or two and according to Leif and others the solar variability is way too small to have such large effects on bodies of water as big as our oceans.
It also seems to me that changes in sea surface temperatures are more likely to cause cloudiness changes than vice versa. Warmer water will heat the air above so that it can hold more water as vapour and low level cloud will dissipate letting more solar energy in only to be followed a little later by more middle and upper clouds as convection increases and then less solar energy coming in.
I cannot see how the changes in cloudiness can be decoupled from sea surface temperatures to get the low level clouds to dissipate before the sea surface warms. Perhaps it can happen locally from the descending air in high pressure cells but then that is itself back to more convection providing the descending air so it’s back to the ocean as driver again.
As for mechanisms within the oceans I would guess a link to the thermohaline circulation as phlogiston mentioned in an earlier post.
It’s unlikely that water throughout that circulation maintains a constant temperature profile along it’s entire track. Small temperature variations in the surface waters rising from below would be enough on their own without changes in solar input to have a large effect on the air above because the thermal capacity of water is so much greater than that of air. If upwelling cold water becomes just a little less cold then in terms of the overall energy budget that results in a warming of the troposphere if solar input remains virtually constant as Leif says it more or less does.
So I think the oceans deliver the initial variability in sea surface temperatures themselves independently of current events involving the sun and the air but are then supplemented or offset by current events involving the sun and the air.
Where sun and air could have a primary effect is setting up those temperature variations along the track of the thermohaline circulation in the first place but of course that circulation takes about 1000 years so the recent solar maximum in conjunction with albedo changes could well be transmitted along the THC for centuries only to surface again in another 1000 years.
Of course that could then neatly give us that 1000 year cycle couldn’t it ?
Thus the recent El Nino peaks and the CO2 outgassing would be a consequence of the MWP warming as it surfaced after it’s 1000 year journey.
Now the solar cycles need not necessarily be in phase with the oceanic circulation as they are now. Over millennia I expect shifts to occur with solar and oceanic cycles moving out of phase for long periods of time and I have explained the possible effects of that elsewhere.
Thus the recent El Nino peaks and the CO2 outgassing would be a consequence of the MWP warming as it surfaced after it’s 1000 year journey.
So after all you now agree with me that solar energy can be forced down into the ocean during runs of high solar cycles and resurface considerable lengths of time later in the form of sensible heat.
Good.
tallbloke (07:38:54)
Yes but 🙂
That sort of energy processing is over a very long slow cycle and just provides a background trend behind climate variations on shorter timescales.
As regards those shorter timescales (decadal and multidecadal) I think it is the returning of the much earlier solar and albedo effects coming back from their long undersea journey that primarily dictates observed climate changes and not contemporaneous solar events or albedo variations.
Actually that’s a rather neat and logical way of squaring the circle isn’t it ?
The oceans, driven by long past solar and albedo variations, effect current climate changes and then, separately, the current state of solar and albedo influences can either supplement or offset that background influence depending on the phasing of the solar and oceanic cycles at the time.
That then feeds back into the long term oceanic circulation for a subtly different climate outcome on the next turn of the longer term cycle.
Actually that’s a rather neat and logical way of squaring the circle isn’t it ?
Well, maybe. 🙂
The ocean is certainly a very big and very complex energy store, which is doing things at lots of different timescales. However, if we trust the empirical satellite altimetry, then the ocean was expanding due to energy input from when the satellite data got going in 1993 until 2003 when the sunspot number fell below 40. This post from Bob shows that the powers that be have had a rethink about trying to deny the undeniable, and we see ocean heat content has indeed fallen since then.
And if the ocean was expanding due to heat, it was gaining energy overall. QED
So even if some of the heat coming out of it had been swilling around for 900 years since the medieval warm period, it was more than being replaced by the high solar cycles (As measured by ACRIM) and low cloud (As measured by ISCCP satellites).
The cause and effect of long term cloud cover change and ocean surface temperature is complex, but if you step away and look at the facts of the overall input to the system, it looks to me like ol’ Sol is right in the frame. If Miscolczi is right and the greenhouse effect is saturated, it explains why Earth’s temperature is so stable despite big changes in it’s atmospheric makeup over geological timescales. It also means surface temperature change is largely due to extra-terrestrial causes, because deep diving ARGO buoys don’t find temperature section profiles which go cold-warm-cold-warm to any great degree as depth increases. There can be layering and inversions, but I on’t know of studies which show it on a big scale. Maybe you do?
I’ll meet you halfway at centennial scales of up to a couple of hundred years. This is a bit of a WAG at this stage though.
Yes we need a bit of time to see how it pans out now that so many are looking at such stuff with far greater resources than I can command.
As for the period 1993 to 2003 I agree that any gain in ocean heat content would be because of the El Ninos of that period not releasing energy to the air fast enough to offset the incoming solar input from the more active sun.
However that does not imply that the more active sun caused the EL Ninos to be so strong. In my view it is more likely that the El Ninos were stronger because of a warming effect from less cold upwelling water combined with the warming effect of more solar input but on the basis of what Leif says the solar component would be the lesser player unless vastly amplified by some other cause.
One can suggest that the amplifying cause would be reduced cloudiness but there is still the problem that reduced low level cloudiness requires the sea surfaces to warm first before the low cloud can dissipate and the sun get into the water.
Again it seems that the oceans must act first then the sun and air follows and may either supplement or offset the initial oceanic forcing.
I agree that there must be a particular level of solar input at which there is a balance and I’m sure you have good reasons to select a sunspot number of 40.
Have you considered that that number could itself be variable depending on what the oceans are doing ?
If the oceans are contributing more then the number could be lower and vice versa.
“If the oceans are contributing more then the number could be lower and vice versa.”
Not clear so I’ll clarify.
If the oceans are releasing energy more slowly as seems to have been happening since 2003 then ocean heat content could nevertheless increase at a sunspot number of less than 40 and vice versa.
Ocean heat content is currently not going up despite the oceans holding more energy back from the air because the sunspot number has been much less than 40 for some time and so the sun is failing to replace what the oceans are losing to the air despite the slower rate of energy loss.
If we now have a very low sunspot number and a low rate of energy release from the oceans then that would suggest rapid cooling of the troposphere as the oceans denied energy to the air and the sun was less able to warm air and oceans.
However the troposphere overall is not cooling all that fast as yet and there one needs to consider my proposition expressed elsewhere that a less active sun actually reduces the rate of energy loss to space and so helps to mitigate the tropospheric cooling effect of less warm ocean surfaces – but that’s for another day.
I’m sure you have good reasons to select a sunspot number of 40.
Have you considered that that number could itself be variable depending on what the oceans are doing ?
Yes, it’s not an exact science, it’s my best estimate based on looking at a dataset spanning 150 years.
Ocean heat content is currently not going up despite the oceans holding more energy back from the air
They are? Howcome the SST’s are so high then? Seems to me energy is coming out of the ocean all over the world, just as I predicted, and escaping to space because the humidity isn’t very high due to low air temps, and the fact that the el nino isn’t locally concentrated in the east Pacific.
talbloke
” It also means surface temperature change is largely due to extra-terrestrial causes, because deep diving ARGO buoys don’t find temperature section profiles which go cold-warm-cold-warm to any great degree as depth increases.”
Ocean circulation is indeed complex. However I dont think it is necessary to find significant vertical temperature structure in the deep ocean to prove a variable effect of deep circulation on climate. Deep circulation is driven by downwelling such as at the Norwegian sea. Cooling and increased salinity causes water to descend, then it meets an obstacle – the bottom – after which is moves sideways, to the south, giving the North Atlantic Deep Water southgoing stream. Note that at the surface the “gulf stream” of warmer water from the Carribbean to Europe goes in the opposite direction, and the two currents are likely a linked circulation system.
Downwelled water wont vary much in its temperature – it has to be cold to downwell: thus the way that climatic related variation in the heating of oceans from the surface will affect deep circulation is more likely to be a kinetic effect – changing the rate of downwelling. This could have complex downstream effects on the pattern and rate of deep circulation. So I dont think it is a case of warm pockets of water hiding in the deep waiting to resurface centuries later. (You cant push warm water down into colder water!)
A clue to this was given in a post some months back on surprisingly large measured variation in Barents Sea temperatures in the 100-150m layer – by up to 4C over a 30 year cycle synchronous with the AMO. Such a huge variation in heat energy in the Barents sea would be difficult to attribute to surface heat exchange. A speculative alternative would be that the AMO is driven by cyclical variations in the strength and volume of the North Atlantic Drift. The Barents is at the tail end of the North Atlantic Drift thus might be more sensitively affected by its variation.
The North Atlantic Drift variations could in turn be driven by variation in volume and rate of Norwegian Sea downwelling. The two might be separated by a time delay.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4%C2%B0c/#more-11592
This would be one relatively short term example – other longer term deep circulation variations could be caused by variation in downwelling strength. Other interactions with the deep circulation system other than downwelling kinetics may also exist.
tallbloke (11:57:51)
SSTs are for the short term higher in some equatorial regions due to the current El Nino. As for other oceans they have cooled from what they were as the 2007 La Nina works poleward through them.
PDO went negative around 2003 and so we are only seeing an El Nino spike within the negative phase.
Energy is always coming out of the oceans all over the world. All that changes is the speed of release and it varies from ocean to ocean at any given time.
One has to consider the netted out global rate of energy release and not just one or two regions.
Apparently the stratosphere has been warming since the late 90’s which tends to strengthen the stratospheric inversion and reduce the rate of energy loss to space.
Has humidity fallen ? Presumably not above those warmer sea surfaces. Doesn’t the variable speed of the hydrological cycle keep global humidity pretty stable ?
Anyway I don’t want to seem to be ‘attacking’ anything you say. I’m more interested in finding areas where we are in agreement.
Stephen.
Leif Svalgaard (22:25:43) :
Leif, said I would report back if I were wrong, well, missed a decimal point above. So, my reference frame, viewing the earth as a flat disk, absorbing the sun’s radiation (to simplify the energy calculation):
Earth’s cross section time seconds in 1955-2010 period is 2.2e+23 m2•s, times (100%-31%) for albedo times 71% for oceans percent coverage times 1366*0.1% W/m2 is 14.7e+22 J which is more than the energy in the oceans to 700m accumulated between 1955 and present by the graph in Bob’s post at the top.
Very simply, that was the point I attempted above. The ocean’s temperature change is very tiny (yes, to the fourth power) so very little excess gets radiated out above that of 1955 level. It accumulates.
I am going further so you see my view clearly. NASA says in their ‘Climate Change Evidence’ page
“The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1955.”. That’s 0.1ºC, and per year is 0.0018 ºC/yr. The first year the additional radiation rate would be ~(293.0018K^4 / 293K^4)=1.0000245 (other parameters cancelled & dropped) which is 0.00245% increase in radiation to space from the oceans, first year. Not near enough to counter additional energy gained, beside, visible wavelength radiation buries deep as absorbed. Energy accumulates. Year by year the energy goes up and the radiation to space goes up but the radiation increase is still too small to balance. Somewhere around one degree rise, the oceans now radiate enough to balance the excess energy being received. A balance is hit and it’s stable again. Yes, it’s an exponential relation and would have to numerically integrated to get a more exact answer but the point is made if you can visualize without the numbers.
If the sun goes quiet or at least back to normal levels before one degree rise is hit, the above process is truncated immediately (as ~2007).
To save space here I won’t calculate, but I can knock that down further by many other factors but around half still remains. Some say 0.2%, not 0.1%, due to linear slope of TSI prior to this period. That would strength this view.
That is my general view on the subject. Thanks Bob for the tip. The drop was expected by myself because I think the mighty sun is not invariant and in it’s imperceptible interactions, is at least half of the 1955-2010 effect seen in the oceans.
Phlogiston, nice post, thanks. Stuff to think about there.
Stephen, I think we agree more than not, but anyway I don’t take offence from honest truth seekers easily, so don’t worry about challenging my half baked ideas.
One has to consider the netted out global rate of energy release and not just one or two regions.
Yes, and global SST is up, which along with the quiet sun, is why OHC has gone down. However, I can see that overall windiness probably comes into this too, less wind – less evaporation. Less wave height, less spray – less heat transfer area.
The climate is quiet out there tonight Tonto, too darned quiet. Something’s brewing in the depths.
tallbloke (14:03:44)
Thanks.
I think the difference is in our perspective.
Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.
I think continuing observations will reveal what we need to know. Clearly all of us here are nearer the truth than the climate establishment and we just need to get the scale and timing of the various components right then the overall concept will become clearer.
I think we have to recognise variability in both rates of energy flow into and out of the oceans which affects the troposphere from below and an additional variability in the rate of energy flow from stratosphere to space which affects the troposphere from above. It is that interplay which controls the position of the global climate bands, their vigour and persistence.
One even gets a new climate band when the Arctic Oscillation is intensely negative because the polar high pressure cells migrate equatorward to create lower pressure around the poles. That has a profound cooling effect on the northern continental interiors as we have seen this winter.
The stratosphere sometimes warms and sometimes cools but the AGW brigade are fixated on a continuous cooling of the stratosphere (plus warming of the troposphere) from extra GHGs.
Whatever they say all the current evidence is that everything they relied upon to support AGW has been going in the opposite direction for ten years despite increasing CO2 in the air.
tallbloke (08:54:00) :
The ocean is certainly a very big and very complex energy store, which is doing things at lots of different timescales. However, if we trust the empirical satellite altimetry, then the ocean was expanding due to energy input from when the satellite data got going in 1993 until 2003 ….
Has it not been expanding since? Not at the same rate perhaps but increasing nonetheless.
So if the ocean “heat content” has been slowly declining recently; is it safe to assume that the ocean mean temperature has also been declining ?
John Finn (15:57:43) :
tallbloke (08:54:00) :
the ocean was expanding due to energy input from when the satellite data got going in 1993 until 2003 ….
Has it not been expanding since? Not at the same rate perhaps but increasing nonetheless.
The rate of sea level rise seems to have approximately halved since 2005 according to the satellites. Earlier, the IPCC said roughly half of the sea level rise was due to thermal expansion. Calibrating these things isn’t easy. If ocean energy content is dropping, I would have thought continuing thermal expansion is unlikely.
George E. Smith (17:00:56) :
So if the ocean “heat content” has been slowly declining recently; is it safe to assume that the ocean mean temperature has also been declining ?
Less Joules means less excited molecules as far as I know. More cloud since 1998 according to various ways of measuring cloud cover. Less active Sun, lower TSI.
More co2.
Stephen Wilde (15:22:04)
I think we have to recognise variability in both rates of energy flow into and out of the oceans which affects the troposphere from below and an additional variability in the rate of energy flow from stratosphere to space which affects the troposphere from above. It is that interplay which controls the position of the global climate bands, their vigour and persistence.
Absolutely. I think the latter might affect the flow of energy out of the ocean too, but this doesn’t mean I think more co2 will inhibit ocean energy release, because I think Miscolczi is probably right that the greenhouse effect is in equilibrium internally.
There are sound analyses of certain demonstrable physical properties of matter but the way that translates to a climate response, if at all, is a mess and the heart of the problem is not the planet’s radiative balance as a whole but the radiative balance between individual layered components of the Earth system.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the rate of energy transfer varies all the time between ocean and air, air and space and between different layers in the oceans and air.
That is what we need to get a grip on to diagnose changes in the energy content of the troposphere.
The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy variations above and below the troposphere back towards equilibrium (Wilde’s Law ?).
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.”
I will strongly suggest that you start downloading data so that you can verify a claim before you make it. The average Global SST anomaly from Nov 1981 to Dec 2003 was 0.06 deg C, and since SST anomalies were lower between 1979 and 2003, that will not help your claim. Now for the bad news. The average SST anomaly for 2009 was 0.16 deg C higher at 0.22 deg. So whatever argument you were trying to make (I didn’t bother to read the rest) was flawed from the get go.
Bob,
What was the average anomaly from Jan 2005 to end of Dec 2009 ?
Here is some data:
http://i29.tinypic.com/2ltfq6c.png
The highest SST anomaly was of course 1998, then a dip, a rise to a plateau, another dip and now a 2009 spike.
The PDO phase change is alleged to have occurred around 2005 and since then we have had a trough and a spike giving an indication that we are turning down from the peak of a late 20th century rise in SSTs which arose from a sequence of powerful El Ninos during the positive PDO phase.
Thus we are probably just past a peak and on the way down which is essentially what I was trying to say.
My error lay in not realising that the long period of rising SSTs leading up to the peak was in fact lower than not only the current peak but the plateau between 2002 and 2005.
I should simply have pointed out that the average SST anomaly from the PDO phase change in 2005 to date is lower than the period of peak SSTs from 1998 to 2005.
My initial statement was this:
“Ocean heat content is currently not going up despite the oceans holding more energy back from the air.”
In relation to the period 1998 to date that assertion is correct if an average for the period 1998 to 2005 is taken and compared with the period 2005 to 2009 .
Since 2005 notwithstanding the current peak in SSTs the oceans have indeed been holding more energy back from the air as compared with the period 1998 to 2005 yet despite that the ocean heat content seems also to have hit a plateau.
So the weakness of the solar input has resulted in ocean heat content failing to rise following the reduction in energy loss to the air.
Stephen Wilde: You replied, “Here is some data,” and presented one of my graphs from 1990 to present, then continued, “The highest SST anomaly was of course 1998, then a dip, a rise to a plateau, another dip and now a 2009 spike.”
Why are you referring to a graph from 1990 to present when your statement was about the average SST anomaly of the period from 1979 to 2003 versus the current SST anomaly? Nice try. You stated in the earlier comment, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.” The graph of 1990 to present doesn’t work for that period. Here’s a longer-term version:
http://i50.tinypic.com/xfrujq.png
It shows how wrong your comment was. And as I responded above, since SST anomalies were lower between 1979 and 2003, that will not help your claim,
You wrote, “The PDO phase change is alleged to have occurred around 2005 and since then we have had a trough and a spike giving an indication that we are turning down from the peak of a late 20th century rise in SSTs which arose from a sequence of powerful El Ninos during the positive PDO phase.”
The PDO has no direct effect on global SST. It is not a measure of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, only the pattern. Here’s a comparison graph of the PDO and the SST anomalies of the same portion of the North Pacific. Do you see any similarity?
http://i43.tinypic.com/29fp8ad.jpg
And here’s a comparison of detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific versus the PDO. No similarity:
http://i42.tinypic.com/17pev8.jpg
The PDO does not represent the difference between North Pacific SST anomalies and Global temperature anomalies. Here’s a graph of the PDO versus North Pacific SST anomalies minus Global LST+SST anomalies. There’s no similarity there, either:
http://i42.tinypic.com/345kgsk.jpg
Your continued attempts to perpetuate the myths about the PDO are being countered by the instrument temperature record, Stephen.
I have no intent of disputing each sentence in your reply, Stephen. There is no need to bother. Your argument fell apart at the beginning.
Bob Tisdale (13:12:18)
I conceded an error in referring to the period prior to 1998.
The fact is that on your own data the average global SSTs were higher from 1998 to 2005 than they were from 2005 to date notwithstanding the current spike.
Thus my assertion was correct.
My initial statement was this:
“Ocean heat content is currently not going up despite the oceans holding more energy back from the air.”
You pointed out that ocean heat content has not risen over recent years. Your data shows that SSTs are lower since 2005 than they were from 1998 to 2005. Accordingly the oceans have on average released less energy to the air since 2005 than they did from 1998 to 2005.
The issue of the PDO is a distraction. I regard it as a real phenomenon notwithstanding that technically it is a mere artifact of ENSO statistics.
A statistical artifact can be a clue to the presence of a real world phenomenon and that is clearly the case here. One can just rename that phenomenon but most are using it in the sense that I do so a renaming may be unnecessary or unhelpful or both.
If you wish to rename the observed phenomenon of a phase shift then please do and maybe it will enter common usage.
Stephen Wilde: You replied, “The fact is that on your own data the average global SSTs were higher from 1998 to 2005 than they were from 2005 to date notwithstanding the current spike. Thus my assertion was correct.”
Stephen, the statement I referred to was the one I quoted, nothing more, nothing less. You wrote, ““Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.” And it was factually incorrect. You can’t spin it away.
You repied to me, “My initial statement was this:”, and “Ocean heat content is currently not going up despite the oceans holding more energy back from the air,” and, “You pointed out that ocean heat content has not risen over recent years…”
Wrong. Actually, that was part of a conversation you were having with tallbloke, and it was he who disagreed with your statement. He replied to you, “They are? Howcome the SST’s are so high then? Seems to me energy is coming out of the ocean all over the world, just as I predicted, and escaping to space because the humidity isn’t very high due to low air temps, and the fact that the el nino isn’t locally concentrated in the east Pacific.”
I reacted to your incorrect statement, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.”