Guest Post by Bob Tisdale,
The update to the OHC data also included major changes, which have reduced the long-term rise in OHC. Refer to the gif animation, Figure 1, that shows the global OHC data from their June 2010 update (through March 2010) and from the most recent update and change (though June 2010). The revisions are considerable in many ocean basins. As described in their explanation of ocean heat content (OHC) data changes, the changes result from “data additions and data quality control,” from a switch in base climatology, and from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations. (Refer to the NOAA FAQ webpage What is an XBT?) Immediately following Figure 1 is a link to a graph that shows the difference between the two global datasets, with the June 2010 update subtracted from the September 2010 update.
http://i56.tinypic.com/2vhsta8.jpg
Figure 1 – Global
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2qi07s0.jpg
#########################
Table 1 shows the OHC linear trends (in Gigajoules/Square Meter per Decade) for the global and hemispheric data and for the individual ocean basin subsets. Also shown are the differences (the data from the September 2010 update MINUS the data from the June 2010 update) and the percent change (difference divided by June 2010 update). Note: the June 2010 update included data through March 2010 and the September update/change included data through June 2010, but Table 1 only compares linear trends for the datasets through March 2010. As shown in Table 1, the linear trend for the Northern Hemisphere OHC data only dropped approximately 2%, while the Southern Hemisphere linear trend dropped about 16%. There was a minor increase in North Pacific trend (4%), while there were considerable drops in the linear trends of the South Atlantic (23%), South Pacific (17%) and the Southern Ocean (32%).
http://i52.tinypic.com/1zx5boi.jpg
Table 1
Figure 2 is the gif animation that shows the Southern Ocean OHC data (South of 60S) before and after the September 2010 changes. Prior to the mid-2000s and the introduction of ARGO buoys, the original data (through March 2010) simply appeared to be the climatology with some data added occasionally when it was available. The updated data seems to emphasize that appearance.
http://i54.tinypic.com/111sabn.jpg
Figure 2 – Southern Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/fuqalc.jpg
#########################
And there is good reason for that appearance. Like Sea Surface Temperature datasets based on buoys and ship sensors, there is very little Southern Hemisphere data, at all depths, prior to the ARGO buoys era. Figures 3 through 6 show the 3-month data distribution maps for January through March of 1955, 1975, 1995 and 2005, at depths of zero meters (surface), 250 meters, 500 meters and 700 meters. South of 60S there was little data even in 2005. The maps are available through the NODC Temperature data distribution figures webpage.
http://i52.tinypic.com/2a8orcp.jpg
Figure 3
##############
http://i55.tinypic.com/aes9lg.jpg
Figure 4
##############
http://i54.tinypic.com/x6gaig.jpg
Figure 5
##############
http://i52.tinypic.com/k9ax3.jpg
Figure 6
##############
THE IMPACT OF CHANGES ON PAST POSTS ABOUT NATURAL OHC VARIATIONS
The recent changes to the OHC data have not had noticeable effects on the timing of the major variations in data that should be attributable to natural variations. For example: The tropical Pacific OHC data still drops during major El Niño events and partially rebounds during most of the La Niña events that follow, Figure 7. The major upward shifts occur during significant La Niña events, which is the recharge/overcharge mode for the tropical Pacific OHC. This, and the similar impact on other ocean basins, was discussed in the post ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data.
http://i52.tinypic.com/wbqt61.jpg
Figure 7
With the changes to the data, the OHC of the North Pacific north of 20N still drops from the late 1950s to the late 1980s, Figure 8, and then suddenly rises. This increase coincides with a shift in North Pacific sea level pressure. This was discussed in the post North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s.
http://i55.tinypic.com/v8o60i.jpg
Figure 8
The update/changes caused the OHC for most of the other basins to drop more than the North Atlantic OHC. Refer again to Table 1. This makes the contribution of the North Atlantic OHC to global OHC even greater. And much of the disproportionate rise in North Atlantic OHC is caused by Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), sea level pressure, and ENSO, as discussed in North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables. One cell of the gif animation in Figure 9 compares global and North Atlantic OHC. The increase in North Atlantic OHC dwarfs the global rise. The second cell in Figure 9 compares the North Atlantic OHC to the global data with the North Atlantic removed. It assumes the surface area of the North Atlantic is 15% of the global ocean surface area. Note the decrease in the global trends. With the North Atlantic, the global linear trend is 0.72 GJ/square meter per decade and without the North Atlantic, the “global” data linear trend drops to 0.043 GJ/square meter per decade. Also note how sharply the North Atlantic OHC has dropped since 2005. The North Atlantic is a major contributor to the flattening of global data in recent years.
http://i56.tinypic.com/2m2hq1v.jpg
Figure 9
GIF ANIMATIONS — BEFORE AND AFTER CHANGES
Figures 10 through 18 are gif animations that compare the NODC OHC data for the hemispheres and ocean basin subsets before and after the recent changes. I’ve also provided links to graphs of the differences, with the June 2010 data subtracted from the September 2010 data. They are provided without commentary.
http://i53.tinypic.com/aken3m.jpg
Figure 10 – Tropical Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34fo420.jpg
#########################
http://i51.tinypic.com/2zrks8x.jpg
Figure 11 – Northern Hemisphere
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/22xonc.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2cy5vf5.jpg
Figure 12 – Southern Hemisphere
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i53.tinypic.com/2vaim1u.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/r91v7d.jpg
Figure 13 – North Atlantic
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i55.tinypic.com/dm9tas.jpg
#########################
http://i55.tinypic.com/2lcwcir.jpg
Figure 14 – South Atlantic
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2akfvaf.jpg
#########################
http://i56.tinypic.com/2n1t0fm.jpg
Figure 15 – Indian Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2gxfwvq.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2dtdiyd.jpg
Figure 16 – North Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/nx553a.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2u4313m.jpg
Figure 17 – South Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/5yz3sw.jpg
#########################
http://i51.tinypic.com/n5lmp1.jpg
Figure 18 – Arctic Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2d7h387.jpg
#########################
SOURCE
The NODC OHC data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
(Thanks to Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of KNMI for creating and maintaining Climate Explorer.)
Thanks Bob,
Could you please explain to me what the unit GJ/m2 means. I assume this is the energy in a column of water with surface area 1m2… but what depth is the column?
I also assume the energy value is calculated from a temperature measurement.. is that correct? Thanks for the excellent work..
I agree with Richard Verney, a summary and commentary would be helpful for us simpletons (relatively).I always feel a bit stupid after reading Bob’s posts and I have followed links. I can understand why Bob presents the evidence (data) but refuses to be become embroiled in commentary but a little help from some of you clever guys would be appreciated.
commieBob says: “It would nice if someone could tell us what the temperature change was in the water column.”
In an earlier paper, Levitus et al (2005), they provide the rises in ocean temperature for 0-700 meters based on linear trends in their Table T1 as 0.118 deg C from 1955 to 2003. See page 17:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf
Morris Minor says: “Could you please explain to me what the unit GJ/m2 means. I assume this is the energy in a column of water with surface area 1m2… but what depth is the column?”
Sorry that I didn’t note the depths as 0-700 meters in the post but they are included in many of the graphs. And yes, the GJ/m^2 is gigajoules (1 billion joules) per square meter.
Bob,
I’m a fan of your posts because they contain lots of figures. Is it possible to compare OHC at different depths. For example, 50m intervals for the tropical Pacific. Would be nice even if we can only use Argo data…
Cheers.
Paolo M. says: “what unit is GJ* m**-2?”
Gigajoules per square meter.
You asked, “Have you (or Climate Explorer) divided the OHC by the ocean area?”
I did the dividing based on coordinates of ocean basins. The KNMI Climate Explorer allows users to download data based on global coordinates. And they present the data in a fomat that would work on that basis and that is Gigajoules per square meter.
Excellent analysis, Bob.
It’s heartening to see adjustments go in the other direction now and again. Will this mean a re-evaluation by HadISST?
Hmmm, I wonder what the ratio of mass of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is to the mass of water is the oceans. I mean, I’m just wondering. It’s really quite amazing that the reemission of photons from CO2 could warm the atmosphere, which, in turn warms the oceans (in such a short period of time). I guess I wasn’t paying close enough attention in my heat transfer classes when they covered that. Boy, those must be some really energetic photons. Oh wait, no I have that wrong. It must be all about the “positive feedbacks” — you know, perpetual motion, cold fusion, that sort of thing.
Stephen Wilde wrote, “I take that as prima facie evidence supporting my proposition that it is the latitudinal position of the global cloud bands that most affects global albedo and the quantity of solar energy entering the oceans.”
Latitudinal position of the clouds would make no difference if the net downward shortwave radiation at the surface remained constant. Do you have data to support your conjecture either way?
How do the warmists explain the fact that the North Atlantic is accumulating heat at twice the rate of the rest of the world? Does the difference between the two rates represent the so called missing heat?
So if the values have been correct downward, does that mean that there is more missing ocean heat than was thought prior? How much worse does this make the “missing heat” look?
Bob Tisdale says: October 17, 2010 at 7:06 pm
vukcevic: Have I missed something on another thread? I’ve searched but couldn’t find any data or a description. What is the North Atlantic Precursor? What’s the source data and how do I duplicate the NAP data in this graph?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
Why does it only impact the North Atlantic and Central England Temperatures?
Hi Bob,
I looked into SSN, magnetic fields etc, but as you know ‘correlation is no causation’ is a big problem. Finally, I think I found a physical process which could give the answer.
There is a similar process going on in the North Pacific, but data is not going as far back, working title for that one is ‘PDO generator’, not exactly appropriate, but will do.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOc.htm
Why no details? See my post here
Dr T G Watkins says: “I can understand why Bob presents the evidence (data) but refuses to be become embroiled in commentary but a little help from some of you clever guys would be appreciated.”
Depending on the post, I do provide detailed commentary. And I’m happy to answer questions about topics I fail to cover in enough detail.
This is interesting information. My biggest curiosity isn’t the actual change in the values. The tiniest changes to measured temperatures will translate to changes in energy when large columns of water are involved.
The ENSO cycle trigger very large changes in energy, but what powers those changes. Understanding the driving factor of the ocean oscillation would be very helpful. I have often wondered about how much energy is dissipated by an EL Nino. The energy transferred around evaporation and the warming of the atmosphere is significant.
So much energy is on the move that the atmosphere is still warm almost a year later. These events are very interesting.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
paulhan says: “Will this mean a re-evaluation by HadISST?”
The Hadley Centre is re-evaluating SST data for a replacement for HADSST2, and it would be called HADSST3. I think it was held up, though. I don’t know if that will have any impact of HADISST, which is a totally different beast and the best of the long-term datasets as far as I’m concerned.
Thanks for the head exploding amount of data Bob!
I’m going to have to read this three times to get the big picture.
Thanks for the hard work.
I can only agree that Bob allows we slower members a chance to read and understand more info as it becomes available, BUT I wish a short summary and conclusion was part of the package.
Perhaps Tall bloke or some one else could do the honours?
Change Is Universal says: “Is it possible to compare OHC at different depths. For example, 50m intervals for the tropical Pacific. Would be nice even if we can only use Argo data…”
That’s a tremendous amount of data to sort through, even with the depth intervals provided by the NODC. I doubt very much that NOAA will ever present it that way through their NOMADS system for that reason.
For the ARGO data, there is software that allows users to sort through their data, but I haven’t looked into it. Also, it’s my understanding that the ARGO data they provide has not been corrected, and they’ve also stopped updating it, last update was sometime this summer. Refer to the “Global Marine Argo Atlas” webpage:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Marine_Atlas.html
vukcevic: Some day you’ll link the source of your North Atlantic Precursor and ‘PDO generator’, but based on your linked comment, it doesn’t look like it will be soon.
Bob …..?????
Any direct involvement in the work of the Pielke’s Family.
(april >>>>september)
thanks.
Here is the URL to the Knox/Douglass paper
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
David Douglass
Brego says: “Bob, what effect did these changes have on the linear trend for global OHC since 2003 (when the ARGO network came online)? My eyeball thinks it changed a flat or slightly negative trend and turned it into a positive trend. Is that right?”
Yup, the dip in 2004 helps the postive trend. Let me see if I can dig up the old yearly data through 2009 and compare it to the present data.
vukcevic says:
October 18, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Remarkable your new graph. Hope you will reveal the driver.
“”” Paolo M. says:
October 18, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Bob,
what unit is GJ* m**-2? Paolo; no mystery; the unit is GigaJoules per square metre; as in G, standard prefic for 10^9, J standard symbol for Joules (energy), and m standard unit for Metre (length), so it is energy per unit area.
rather simple actually.
Brego: As a follow up, the following graph shows the short-term OHC trends (2003 to 2008 for original paper and 2003 to 2009 for the Jan 2010 and Sept 2010 corrections.) The dip in 2004 increases the trend a little in the most recent update, but it still is far less than the trend in the original paper:
http://i51.tinypic.com/oj3wac.jpg