More on Ocean Heat Content and recent revisions to the data

Is there a succinct explanation for why they are revising the past data? I briefly reviewed your other post on the revisions, but didn’t see there any rationale for what is being done (I note that you do ask above whether the further corrections reflect a “correction for ARGO biases”).
Regardless of the direction of the correction, we should push for an understanding of why the numbers are being changed and the rationale that is driving those revisions (as we do when Mr. Hansen’s crew start messing with the historical surface air temperature record).
Great post though!

Way OT, but I thought I’d show the newest team in what is fast becoming the world’s most popular sport……………..
Dutch Point Out New Mistakes in U.N. Climate Report
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/dutch-point-new-mistakes-climate-report/?test=latestnews

Here is the latest SST Anomaly from Unisys:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
from the looks of it,Nino’s going down rather quickly.
Any heat that is dissipated we aren’t going to get back
for a while…
Thanks, again Bob,your efforts are much appreciated…

Well, since most are going off topic, I’ll do it also. WUWT and Anthony were mentioned in a Guardian article, “Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks
They write, “A third blogger with whom Dennis has posted is Anthony Watts, a weatherman for a California radio station who is involved in a sometimes vituperative sceptic blog called Watts Up with That. He has had a book published by the Heartland Institute, a denialist organisation which until 2006, received funding from ExxonMobil.”
In looking at all of these graphs, I can’t find one that’s vituperative. But what do I know?

Pray tell,
To what do informed wise folk attribute the rapid rise between 2003-2004?
A mighty hot wind from the Goreacle?
I’m sure there is a less incredible explanation than that…
TL

Great job Bob.
Also OT
Who the heck is Chesapeake Climate Leadership Alliance?
Sounds like a leftist outfit. Anyone know their origins and funding roots?
Another add that Anthony probably is not proud of but will take their money.

out of topic
there is an interessing information of NASA-GISS about a new satellite SOB measuring the variability of the sun. The tone of the article is surprisingly neutral about climate warming.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm?list185789

Sorry for OT
Gate du Jour: Netherlands gate.
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2476086.ece/New_mistake_found_in_UN_climate_report

Ron de Haan (09:58:42) :
“Not entirely of topic:
Solar Magnetic variation initiates interglacials
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/02/04/new-paper-solar-magnetic-variation-initiates-interglacials“
OT seems fashionable today 🙂
Similar paper by Gerald E. Marsh available on the link below:-
INTERGLACIALS, MILANKOVITCH CYCLES, AND CARBON DIOXIDE
http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1002.0597
A pdf of the Sharma paper you found is also available here:-
http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdf
Thanks for a useful article, Bob, the link between solar activity and lower global mean temperature looks more likely again.
Did NODC explain why they had made the adjustment, as it is a significant revision?

Bob Tisdale (10:29:58) :
“Well, since most are going off topic, I’ll do it also…..”
Bob, you usually do such a good job there is very little to discuss. You have already posted some very good articles about the OHC and the effects of La Nina, El Nino and volcanoes. In this case the only questions are:
1. Why were the results revised?
2. Is the total OHC headed down?
3. If it is headed down, for how long and how low?

Bob Tisdale;
Goodwork. Your new plot showing negative slope of the Heat Content for the most recent data is consistent with the conclusions of a paper that Knox and I recently publilshed. [OCEAN HEAT CONTENT AND EARTH’S RADIATION IMBALANCE . Physics Letters A 373 (2009) 3296-3300 doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2009.07.023. download at ]
We spent a lot of time trying to figure out the difference from the Hansen GISS result. Here is what we said in section 5.4 of our paper.
5.4. Relation to “warming commitment”
Wetherald et al. [27] have discussed the concept of “warming
commitment,” which is defined as the temperature rise that
would occur if climate forcing were held constant at its current
level. Hansen et al. [28] refer to this concept as an effect “in the
pipeline.” They compute a value FTOA = 0.85 W/m2 and use it as
a climate forcing to project a future temperature rise. We make a
connection with their treatment as follows.
A climate forcing delta F is a calculated equivalent net radiative
flux that would produce the same result as a given climate perturbation
with the surface temperature held fixed [29,30]. Forcing
is brought into the heat content discussion in many publications
(see, e.g., [31,32]). In our notation and under our assumptions,
1/AEarth(dHO/dt) = delta F − delta T/λ , (5)
where λ is an assumed climate sensitivity. (Climate models have
generally found such a linear relationship between F and the
surface temperature anomaly T under conditions of zero ocean
heating.) Neither F nor λ is determined from observations. Using
Eqs. (1) and (5) and ignoring Fg, we may write
F = FTOA + T
λ
. (6)

Bob Tisdale;
Good work. The negative slope shown by the most recent data agrees withe the results of a letter published by Knox and myself. [Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. Physics Letters A 373 (2009) 3296–3300]. We spent a lot of time on the Hansen GISS result. Here is what we said in sect 5.4.
5.4. Relation to “warming commitment”
Wetherald et al. [27] have discussed the concept of “warming
commitment,” which is defined as the temperature rise that
would occur if climate forcing were held constant at its current
level. Hansen et al. [28] refer to this concept as an effect “in the
pipeline.” They compute a value FTOA = 0.85 W/m2 and use it as
a climate forcing to project a future temperature rise. We make a
connection with their treatment as follows.
A climate forcing deltaF is a calculated equivalent net radiative
flux that would produce the same result as a given climate perturbation
with the surface temperature held fixed [29,30]. Forcing
is brought into the heat content discussion in many publications
(see, e.g., [31,32]). In our notation and under our assumptions,
1/AEarth(dHO/dt)= deltaF − deltaTλ, (5)
where λ is an assumed climate sensitivity. (Climate models have
generally found such a linear relationship between deltaF and the
surface temperature anomaly deltaT under conditions of zero ocean
heating.) Neither deltaF nor λ is determined from observations. Using
Eqs. (1) and (5) and ignoring Fg, we may write
deltaF = FTOA + deltaT/λ. (6)
Thinking of deltaF as “total forcing” and deltaT /λ as “forcing already responded to,” one may call FTOA “forcing not yet responded to.” In
this way we may understand Hansen’s “Of the 1.8 W/m2 forcing,
0.85 W/m2 remains.” Here 1.8 W/m2 refers to the net 1880–2003
forcing considering all sources [28]. Next, using a climate sensitivity
0.67 C/(W/m2), the authors arrive at the “temperature in the
pipeline,” 0.85 × 0.67 = 0.6 C. The theoretical value of FTOA used
in this “pipeline” estimate is in conflict with the results of this
Letter. For the period prior to 2003, it is 3.5 times the value 0.24.
Furthermore, the theoretical values are always (except for volcanic
eruptions) positive during the periods in which we have shown
clearly negative values. One may therefore question whether any
“climate is in the pipeline.”
david douglass

George E. Smith: The first illustration at the top of the thread is a “before and after” gif animation of the graph that is shown at the NODC website here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
The three-month average curve represents the quarterly average OHC data (J-F-M, A-M-J, etc) they provide through links at this web page that are identified as “3-month heat content from 1955 to present”:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
The same webpage also provides links to the “Yearly heat content from 1955 to 2009”, which are the average of the four quarters for that year.
The three graphs identified as Figures 3, 5, & 6 show a note “Data Smoothed w/ 13-Month Filter.” Those have been smoothed by me with a 13-month running-average filter (6 months before, six months after).

I worked for ten years at a company that designed sensors for the weather satellites used to measure atmospheric temperatures. What these satellites actually measure directly is the heat-generated radiation coming from the relatively hot (compared to absolute zero!) atmospheric gasses as they look down at the earth from orbit. Create a list of temperature values going from the ground to the top of the earth’s atmosphere, and from it you can calculate the heat radiation you expect the satellite to see at different radiation frequencies. This what you do when you want to design a satellite instrument and you want to predict more or less what it would be seeing as it looks down at the earth. It is a tedious but straightforward calculation, done using straightforward computer programs Now, once the satellite is in orbit, what you get from it is the heat radiation at different frequencies. Can you take this heat radiation and from it calculate, using as many computers as needed, the temperature profile up through the atmosphere? It turns out this calculation is what applied mathematicians call an “ill-posed” problem, meaning that small errors in your radiation measurements — and no sensor is ever perfect — result in big, random-looking errors in your temperature measurements. The satellite people decades ago came up with a solution to this difficulty, and it involves forcing the computer programs calculating the atmospheric temperatures to take into account what we expect the atmospheric temperatures to be. The computer tries to find the closest match to the radiation data from the satellite while making small and reasonable changes away from the average “expected” atmospheric temperatures at the place and season it is looking at. By now I’m sure you can see what the problem is… if someone in a position of authority changes what the computer’s expected atmospheric temperatures are, the satellite measurements will produce different temperature estimates for the same measured heat radiation. If M&M want to keep the satellite guys honest, the way they made (eventually) the CRU scientists come clean, they should be asking for the raw sensor data coming down from the satellites, year after year, and check to see whether any trends exist in it. As long as the temperatures produced from the satellite data come from a statistical constraint on the original ill-posed problem, I would take those temperature values with a grain of salt…

Bill DiPuccio (10:56:16) : You asked, “How accurate do you think these long term trends are given the migration from BTs et. al. to Argo?”
In Levitus et al (2009)…
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
…they list the trends for specific periods on page 2, “The linear trends (with 95% confidence intervals) of OHC700 are 0.40*10^22 +/- 0.05 J yr-1 for 1969–2008 and is 0.27*10^22 +/- 0.04 J yr-1 for 1955–2008.”
You asked, “Does the 2003 transition jump suggest that the previous measurements were systematically too low?”
The following is a comparison of the four OHC datasets discussed and provided as reference in Levitus et al (2009):
http://i44.tinypic.com/5uizit.png
Though they diverge from one another from year to year, they are all in the same ballpark (scientific term) during the period of 1960 to 1995. Both Wijffels et al and Levitus et al have significant rises in 2002 and 2003. They are not the only two to use ARGO, though. Ishii and Kimoto also use ARGO and that curve doesn’t have the rise in 2002/03.

Bob Tisdale (10:29:58) :
Well, since most are going off topic, I’ll do it also. WUWT and Anthony were mentioned in a Guardian article, “Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks”:
One should expect that dealing with oceanic data requires rolling with the flow. :~D
Thank you for keeping us informed.

Gail Combs: You asked, “1. Why were the results revised?”
I haven’t found any discussion of the revisions anywhere.

I’m only a geologist, but, if we accept that CO2 lags global temperature rise – well that’s what I always thought – has anyone looked at this data and CO2? Or is that too simplistic? If ocean heat content is rising, is CO2 in sympathy?

To: D. Ch. (13:31:18) :
Really interesting to see the circularities here.
Feeling about all this: getting really unclear how much warming there has been, but does seem to have been some, if the biologists are right about species moving North etc etc.
Seems that oceans absorb heat and then burp it up again later – I guess it goes to high latitudes via atmosphere and ocean currents and is then radiated away. But these cycles must surely introduce variations in temperatures not yet fully pinned down so AGW case looks thinner and thinner? Poor old CO2 is collared for crimes he didn’t commit, just because he stands out in the crowd….

D. Ch. (13:31:18) :
“…The computer tries to find the closest match to the radiation data from the satellite while making small and reasonable changes away from the average “expected” atmospheric temperatures at the place and season it is looking at. By now I’m sure you can see what the problem is… if someone in a position of authority changes what the computer’s expected atmospheric temperatures are, the satellite measurements will produce different temperature estimates for the same measured heat radiation…
Thanks for another very insightful post.
Isn’t it strange that whatever climate temperature data set you look at, it has been massaged and homogenised to meet ‘expectation’?
It’s no wonder the government institutions producing this data are unwilling/scared to provide full disclosure of raw observation, adjustment method and computer code. They seem to be creating their own reality, rather than looking at facts.
unless this unscientific procedure is halted now, we will never know what’s really happening, although we will all experience the results as weather.
No wonder

Bob, Great post. I like the technical info. BTW, I think you meant “monotonic”. But that begs my question: are we seeing another step increase ala 1998? What non-linear pattern do you detect?

Mike D: You asked, “…are we seeing another step increase ala 1998? What non-linear pattern do you detect?”
Too early to tell. The shifts become evident during the La Nina phase.

D. Ch. (13:31:18) :
“if someone in a position of authority changes what the computer’s expected atmospheric temperatures are, the satellite measurements will produce different temperature..”
Tenuc
“It’s no wonder the government institutions producing this data are unwilling/scared to provide full disclosure of raw observation, adjustment method and computer code. They seem to be creating their own reality, rather than looking at facts.”
This has been worrying me for a while and my concern over the integrity of these organizations increased a lot when I realized that someone rewrote the climate history of my own country.
I feel that it is coming more and more problematic that current information monopolies exist. One place for global surface data (NCDC) and one place for all satellite data (NASA).
If someone would decide to take control of the global temperature map (surface, ocean) and adjust it a bit randomly or accroding to a plan, that would throw hundreds or thousands experts trying to find a natural explanation to what has been “observed”.
If your ‘enemy’ is a group of skeptical scientists, what would be more convenient way to put them to disarray than feeding them altered measurement data and they spend their days trying to find an explanation to phenomena which might not exist at all.
This is an old tactic used in military intelligence. If you know that your enemy is watching, it might make sense to make some troop movements, run some convoys etc. just to mix up the intelligence officers scenarios on the other side and make them spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they have just seen.
Is it really so that only satellite temperature data is from NASA? No one else (Russia, China) do not measure temperature? Or do we just have to accept that we have just one truth available?
It seems that global warming has really ramped up during Obama administration, despite the snow and freezing weather. And yes – I’m skeptical if i have just one data source available. I guess that all people who have lived in or next to former Soviet Union remember the time of the “one truth” and are inherently skeptical to data which cannot be verified elsewhere. That’s the benefit of having 30 year experience of “information management”.