Four out of five ARGO data studies now show Ocean Heat Content declining
Readers may recall that Dr. Kevin Trenberth said this in one of the Climategate emails:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Using the ARGO ocean buoy data from Josh Willis, Knox and Douglass still can’t find that missing heat in this paper published in the International Journal of Geosciences, currently in press here.
Recent energy balance of Earth
R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Abstract
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
1. Introduction
Recently Lyman et al. [1] have estimated a robust global warming trend of 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2 for Earth during 1993–2008, calculated from ocean heat content anomaly
(OHC) data. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003-2008 data, we find cooling, not warming.
This result does not support the existence of a large frequently- cited positive computed radiative imbalance (see, for example, Trenberth and Fasullo [2]).
A sufficiently accurate data set available for the time period subsequent to 2001–2002 now exists. There are two different observational systems for determining OHC. The first and older is based upon expendable bathythermograph (XBT) probes that have been shown to have various biases and systematic errors (Wijffels et al. [3]). The second is the more accurate and complete global array of autonomous Argo floats [4], which were deployed as of the early 2000s. These floats are free from the biases and errors of the XBT probes although they have had other systematic errors [5]. We begin our analysis with the more accurate Argo OHC data. There are issues associated with a “short-time”
segment of data, which are addressed.
2. Data and Analysis
In what follows, we make reference to FOHC, defined as the rate of change of OHC divided by Earth’s area. It has units of energy flux and is therefore convenient when discussing heating of the whole climate system. In W/m2, FOHC is given by 0.62d(OHC)/dt when the rate of change of OHC is presented in units of 1022 J/yr.
Figure 1 shows OHC data from July 2003 through June 2008 (blue data points, left scale) as obtained from Willis [6]. These data appear to show a negative trend (slope) but there is an obvious annual variation that must be “removed.” We estimated the trend in four different ways, all of which reduce the annual effect. Method 1. The data were put through a 12-month symmetric box filter (Figure 1, red curve). Note that the length of the time segment is four years. The slope through these data, including standard error, is –0.260 ± 0.064 × 1022 J/yr, or FOHC = –0.161 ± 0.040 W/m2.
Method 2. The difference between the OHC value for July 2007 and July 2003 is divided by 4, giving one annual slope estimate. Next, the difference between
August 2007 and August 2003 is calculated. This is done ten more times, the last difference being June 2008 minus June 2004. The average slope of these twelve values, including standard deviation, is –0.0166 ± 0.4122 × 1022 J/year, or FOHC = –0.0103 ± 0.2445 W/m2. Method 2’s advantage is that the difference of four years is free
from short-term correlations.
Method 3. Slopes of all January values were computed and this was repeated for each of the other months. The average of the twelve estimates, including standard deviation, is –0.066 ± 0.320 × 1022 J/year, or FOHC = –0.041 ± 0.198 W/m2.
Method 4. The average of OHC for the 12 months from July 2003 to June 2004 was computed, similarly for July 2004 to June 2005, etc. For the five values the slope found, including standard error, is –0.0654 ± 0.240 × 1022 J/yr, or FOHC = –0.0405 ± 0.1488 W/m2.
These results are listed in Table 1.
There have been four other recent estimates of slopes from the Argo OHC data, by Pielke [7], Loehle [8], Douglass and Knox [9], and von Schuckmann et al. [10]. Each of these studies of Argo OHC data with the exception of von Schuckmann’s, which differs in the ocean depth covered (0–2000 m), show a negative trend with an uncertainty of several 0.1 W/m2. Why the von Schuckmann case is an “outlier” is worthy of further study.
…
3. Discussion and Summary
As many authors have noted, knowing FOHC is important because of its close relationship to FTOA, the net inward radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere. Wetherald et al. [13] and Hansen et al. [14] believe that this radiative imbalance in Earth’s climate system is positive, amounting recently [14] to approximately 0.9 W/m2. Pielke [15] has pointed out that at least 90% of the variable heat content of Earth resides in the upper ocean.
Thus, to a good approximation, FOHC may be employed to infer the magnitude of FTOA, and the positive radiation imbalance should be directly reflected in FOHC (when
adjusted for geothermal flux [9]; see Table 1 caption). The principal approximations involved in using this equality, which include the neglect of heat transfers to land masses and those associated with the melting and freezing of ice, estimated to be of the order of 0.04 W/m2 [14], have been discussed by the present authors [9].
In steady state, the state of radiative balance, both quantities FTOA and FOHC should be zero. If FTOA > FOHC, “missing energy” is being produced if no sink other than the ocean can be identified. We note that one recent deep-ocean analysis [16], based on a variety
of time periods generally in the 1990s and 2000s, suggests that the deeper ocean contributes on the order of 0.09 W/m2. This is not sufficient to explain the discrepancy.
Trenberth and Fasullo (TF) [2] believe that missing energy has been accumulating at a considerable rate since 2005. According to their rough graph, as of 2010 the missing energy production rate is about 1.0 W/m2, which represents the difference between FTOA ~ 1.4 and FOHC ~ 0.4 W/m2. It is clear that the TF missing-energy problem is made much more severe if FOHC is negative or even zero. In our opinion, the missing energy problem is probably caused by a serious overestimate by TF of FTOA, which, they state, is most accurately determined by modeling.
In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.”
===============================================================
Read the full paper available here at the authors University of Rcohester website:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
For those wondering how ARGO works unattended, this image shows how:
Simple Mission Operation: The float descends to cruising depth, drifts for several days, ascends while taking salinity and temperature profiles, and then transmits data to satellites. More here
h/t to Russ Steele
enough:
Two interesting points, especially number two. After looking at the graph did you also notice the somewhat anti-correlation of the blue line to arctic sea ice. The lowest OHC is exactly in sept 2007 when arctic ice hit it’s minimum. Why?? The years show a decrease in OHC as the sea ice decreased. Now that’s something to think on for a while.
enough:
Maybe we now know where all of the cold from the missing ice in the arctic went to. ☺
Katherine says:
January 6, 2011 at 7:01 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
If the von Schuckmann paper is correct, I’m asking myself where this increase in heat below the cooling top 700m came from.
Maybe it’s not heat coming from below. What if the cold water sinking down just isn’t as cold as before? After all, the graph shows temperature anomalies. Just because the lower 1300m shows “warming” doesn’t mean those waters are no longer colder than the top 700m.
If that was so, why wouldn’t the signal have showed up in the top 700m? The Argo network doesn’t extend all the way to the north pole, so here may be some room for speculation there.
One of my first experiences in school physics was to hold the bottom of 6″ test tube of water whilst the teacher boiled the water in the top of the test tube with a Bunsen burner to show water is a terrible conductor of heat. So how does hot ocean surface water get to the bottom?
It’s always Marcia, Marcia says:
January 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm
“ARGO buoys are an enemy to those who wish to find warming oceans.”
Sounds like the makings of a WWE wrestling match. The Argo Buoys versus Real Climate.
Adrian Kerton says:
January 7, 2011 at 12:45 am
There are loads of reasons, convection, ocean currents (gulf stream, etc), sea density variation, wind, waves, tidal movement, etc,etc. All will tend to mix up the upper zone of the ‘warmed’ water with the less warm lower zone but generally it would be a slow process I guess.
Has anybody established what percentage of incoming radiation is
a) reflected versus absorbed
b) used by latent heat of evaporation (i.e. lost to the atmosphere as water vapour)
c) actually retained by the sea water
d) used/absorbed by plant life (phytoplanckton)
and
e) the relative differences if the sea is rough or choppy with higher winds?
It just strikes me as strange that these temperature readings are potentially as variable as climate for a variety of other reasons – though of course the oceanic thermal ‘mass’ is much greater and the variation would be expected to be smaller in size.
It’s a travesty that we’re letting all that energy escape to space without putting it to use doing work first.
Tilo, Trenberth still hopes the missing heat is deep. He and Josh and Pielke Pere had a plaintive exchange last Spring in which Josh and Roger tried to convince him that the data was not there to show transport of heat to the depths.
Trenberth inadvertently spoke the truth in his famous NPR interview of almost three years ago when he speculated that possibly the missing heat had escaped to space.
Uh hunh. You got it right there, Travesty Trenberth.
=============
“Adrian Kerton says:
January 7, 2011 at 12:45 am ”
“So how does hot ocean surface water get to the bottom?”
There is a long slow circulation within the oceans which is driven by density differentials arising from salinity differences which are in turn driven primarily by the melt/ freeze process at the poles – The Thermohaline Circulation (THC). The time taken for a full circuit is 1000 to 1500 years.
Solar shortwave energy penetrates up to 200 metres into the oceans and is carried along into the THC. Neither convection or conduction is necessary and the flow of the THC effectively by passes the barriers created by water stratification within the oceans.
So if one has a century or so (more likely 500 years going by the length of time from LIA to date) of slowly increasing solar shortwave into the oceans there will also be a slow increase in temperature along the horizontal route of the THC. And an increase in ocean heat content.
That will produce a slow increase in oceanic heat energy released to the air when that warmer water exits at the end of it’s 1000 to 1500 year journey.
The opposite for a long period of reducing solar shortwave into the oceans.
So what causes a 500 year cycling of variable solar shortwave into the oceans ?
Look at cloudiness and albedo changes arising from variable jetstream zonality or meridionality. That seems to have varied on an approximate 1000 year cycle from MWP to LIA to date.
Coincidentally (or not) that fits with the variability in levels of solar activity over the past 1000 years (but with lots of shorter term failures of correlation – probably ocean induced).
Taking the next step, what causes the sun to have an effect on the behaviour of the jets ?
I have suggested that in some detail previously. A change in the mixture of photons and particles from the sun appears to affect ozone chemistry above 45km to change the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and shift the tropospheric air pressure distribution.
Dave says:
January 6, 2011 at 7:13 pm
re – tallbloke @ur momisugly3:43 p.m.,
Jason Joice M.D. @ur momisugly 3:56,
phlogiston 2 4:41
There is a very simple interpretation – increased upwelling and downwelling.
However geothermal input cannot be excluded as a factor.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Does anyone know whether Dr. Trenbeth has ever explained why ‘finding a lack of warming’ should be considered a traversty? I would have thought that in the light of the catastrophy that is about to befall the earth through global warming, according to his and his colleagues endless prognostications, he would have been overjoyed with such findings. Can we invite Dr. Trenbeth to clarify the point he is making by making a statement on this site?
It seems that the exits are closing one by one. Just when the Warmists will admit defeat is anyone’s guess but our best friend is a cooling planet over time as AGW would find itself in a right pickle.
It always distresses me that Warmists never rejoice when snow returns, at the lack of global warming for over 10 years, heavy rains returning to Australia etc. All they do is deny the evidence and point you to a warm spot on the Earth or the Antarctic peninsula.
It’s called a green agenda. It’s called continued climate funding – follow the money.
Below is quite clear evidence that sea surface temperatures have dramatically cooled over most of the worlds ocean area in the past 6 months with the solar downturn!
1. Most of thr Arctic has cooled substantially
2. Hudson Bay and surrounding areas have cooled substantially
3. Greenland area has cooled
4. Norway-Britain-Spain and to Italy Ocean adjacent have cooled
5. North Atlantic has cooled
6. Gulf of mexico has substatially cooled.
7. North part of South Atlantic Ocean has cooled
8. Far South Atlantic Ocean has cooled
9. South of South Pacific Ocean has cooled substantially
10. El Nino-La Nina Pacific Ocean has cooled and broadened
11. Near New Zealand and South of Australia Southern Ocean
has cooled substantially
12. Eastern and far western North Pacific Ocean have cooled substantially
13. Indian Ocean and Indonesian area have cooled substantially
14. Almost all adjacent Antarctic area ocean has cooled substantially.
The only real warming evident is near equatorial Africa in the Atlantic, a slab of the South Atlantic Ocean, a slab of the Indian Ocean east of tip of South Africa, and a small area off NW WA.
Convincing irrefutable evidence that the surface of the world’s ocean are cooling quite quickly over the vast majority of ocean area due to the solar downturn. This would be expected to carry on with a cooling trend inn the decades ahead and cause land temps to follow suit further than they already have done already also in the decades ahead of forecast further low solar output.
http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/ianholton/001-7.jpg
Jimbo says:
January 7, 2011 at 3:00 am
you are quite right!
Anybody visiting a ‘supposed’ terminally ill loved one in hospital and being told that the diagnosis might be wrong would normally be pleased and hopeful. S’funny that the warmists never seem to look for or quote any ‘good’ signs (of AGW weakness)? I mean when was the last time that a warmist blog put up a post saying ‘AGW may be wrong because of this evidence or that evidence’ or even a post saying ‘Great!: AGW may be much slower than thought’, etc…..
Several people have asked what Kevin Trenberth meant when he used the word “tavesty” in a ‘climategate’ email. Actually, the meaning is clear from the email which was as follows:
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin
So, the “travesty” was “that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”, so he assumes and asserts that this is because “Our observing system is inadequate”. In other words, the “travesty” he asserts is that the data must be wrong (and, therefore, he deduces that “Our observing system is inadequate”).
However, the claim that “Our observing system is inadequate” because it disconfirms a theory is an assertion that the theory decrees what the data must show.
I disagree with Trenberth on this because – to me – it is a travesty when the scientific method is abandoned, and the scientific method says that the theory must rejected when it fails to explain the data unless and until the data is shown to be wrong.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
January 7, 2011 at 4:14 am
However, the claim that “Our observing system is inadequate” because it disconfirms a theory is an assertion that the theory decrees what the data must show.
I disagree with Trenberth on this because – to me – it is a travesty when the scientific method is abandoned, and the scientific method says that the theory must rejected when it fails to explain the data unless and until the data is shown to be wrong.
I agree, but in addition the fact of the situation is that we don’t know the radiative energy balance at the top of the atmosphere with sufficient precision to know what effect various variables are having. So as well as Trenberth not being able to prove the co2 enhanced greenhouse effect hypothesis, it isn’t falsified by TOA energy balance either. However, a reasoned analysis of ARGO data compared to TOA balance is currently making it look like more energy is leaving the system than entering. Therefore natural variation easily overcomes co2 forcing.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/
I seem to recall from my long ago grad school days that water is densest at about 4 degrees C. That applied to freshwater lakes–I don’t know if it applies to seawater. But if it does, deep water could be warmer than surface water. Just a thought to throw out.
Amsel says:
January 6, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I do not understand why the authors publish the paper on such a questionable new journal. It’s no better than a blog.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg/
Scientific Research Publishing : scam or not?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5196020
Thanks, for pointing that out. While there may be merit to the paper I’m certainly left with some doubt as a result of seeing the discussion at forums.randi.org.
I also noticed that the Journal is offline currently.
Hmmm….
MikeEE
I do not believe even that ARGO data much. Remember?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
All “too cool buoy” data were removed by Willis, event the problem in Atlantic might be real. We need raw ARGO data and get it recalculated ASAP.
Remember, all SST data are available and updated in time, but ARGO data are being sat on by NASA JPL.
Thankfully, we have AQUA SST data and satellite-based Reynolds OI.v2 ain’t not that bad either.
R. Gates says:
January 6, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Curious says:
January 6, 2011 at 5:03 pm
>> Why the von Schuckmann case is an “outlier” is worthy of further study.
Perhaps because it went to 2000m and all the others only went t0 700m and below 700m the temps have risen for some reason?
_____
Yep.
===========
Now hold on. I can’t see how you want to bunch the 2000m layer with the upper layers and say, hey look, here’s the missing heat. But that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny If temperatures at 2000m are increasing while temperatures above are not then that begs the obvious question – how did the layer at 2000m gain heat that did not pass through the upper layers? Tallbloke opined that the heat may have come from even lower – the very deepest layer. That implies that the bottom layer is warmer than that at 2000m, also problematic.
As the authors say, ‘it warrants a further study.’
The ‘missing’ energy simply did not enter the oceans because around 2000 cloudiness and albedo began to increase just as the jets started to become more meridional/equatorward.
So less solar shortwave was entering the oceans but there was still plenty of residual earlier (from the late 20th century spell of active sun and poleward/zonal jets) oceanic warmth in the system hence the warm troposphere generally until 2010.
Now we have a developing La Nina along with a generally negative PDO and that is supposed to be a period of ‘recharge’ for ocean heat content.
However the more meridional jets and increased cloudiness and albedo will be frustrating the necessary recharge.
During the late 20th century we had both increased solar input to the oceans from more poleward jets plus increased energy release to the air so that overall the extra incoming exceeded the extra being released for a net gain in ocean heat content.
Now we have decreased solar input to the oceans and decreased energy released to the air.
We will get declining ocean heat content for as long as the decline in input exceeds the decline in release of energy to the air.
The change in solar activity levels has been large and sudden. I expect the reduction in input to the oceans to exceed the recharge capabilities of La Nina for some time.
The scary scenario would then be a substantial discharge from a strong El Nino whilst there is still reduced energy input from more equatorward jets. There might be a brief boost to tropospheric air temperatures whilst the energy passes from oceans to space but combined with a reduced input to the oceans the decline in ocean heat content would be large for a severe subsequent effect on tropospheric temperatures.
Some additional points to ponder related to this “research” paper:
1. Do the authors describe what data they use, exactly? Argo data have undergone
several major revisions.
2. Data varies in time in amount and coverage, and some floats were “bad” and some had calibration problems (the surface pressure was recorded as negative, indicating depth problems).
3. Why don’t the authors use Lyman et al results?
4. Looking at the figure in the paper also reveals a clear problem: The values at the end are higher than any others yet they have a downward trend. Clearly any “trend” they get depends critically on how they get it and it highly dependent on the time period. By taking a 12 month running mean they discount the last 6 months.
Once again . . . I’ve only scanned all the posts . . . .but, do ‘they’ do the same data collection around the vents of the “ring of fire”? If so, is that seperated out of the average? I would be interested in these graphs . . .
The missing heat cannot enter the ocean except by conduction. Most of that is lost immediately to evaporation for transport aloft.
Trenberth, and all moderate warmer’s, are tasked to a fool’s errand-trying to make a science of lunacy.