Bob Tisdale points out the reality versus projection disparity. It would seem, that we have a GISS miss by a country mile. Where’s the heat? – Anthony
First-Quarter 2011 Update Of NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700Meters)
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
(Update: I added the word “Anomalies” to the two graphs. )
OVERVIEW
The NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) has updated its Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data (0-700Meters) for the first quarter of 2011. The quarterly data for the world oceans is now available through the NODC in spreadsheet (.csv ) form (Right Click and Save As: all months). Thanks, NODC. That’s a nice addition to your website.
This is a quick post that shows the long-term quarterly OHC data and the ARGO-era OHC data compared to GISS Projections. I’ll provide another look when the data has been uploaded to and becomes available through the KNMI Climate Explorer, and that should be toward the end of the month. It’ll be interesting to see if the tropical Pacific OHC has rebounded yet.
DATASET INTRODUCTION
The NODC OHC dataset is based on the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems”, Geophysical Research Letters. Refer to Manuscript. It was revised in 2010 as noted in the October 18, 2010 post Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data. As described in the NODC’s 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.
THE GRAPHS
Figure 1 shows the Global NODC data from the first quarter (Jan-Feb-Mar) of 1955 to the first quarter of 2011. There was a minor uptick in the past three month period.
Figure 1
Looking at the NODC OHC data during the ARGO era (2003 to present), Figure 2, the uptick was nowhere close to what would be required to bring the Global Ocean Heat Content back into line with GISS projections. For the source of the 0.7 Joules*10^22 GISS projection, refer to the discussion of “ARGO-ERA TREND VERSUS GISS PROJECTION” in the post ARGO-Era NODC Ocean Heat Content Data (0-700 Meters) Through December 2010.
Figure 2
And for those wishing to discuss the draft of Hansen et al (2011), please first refer to the post for Notes On Hansen et al (2011) – Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications. It was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat as On ocean heat content, Pinatubo, Hansen, Bulldogs, cherrypicking and all that.
SOURCE
As noted above the updated quarterly NODC OHC data is available through their website:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Specifically their Basin Time Series webpage:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
Scroll down to the “all months” link under “World”.
Anthony Watts says: “The graphs should say ‘anomaly’ in the title should they not?”
Anthony, do you want me to repost the graphs with “Anomaly” in the title block? It would take about 2 minutes.
I wonder what Tamino says about this? I seem to remember that he made a fairly solid prediction about upward trends some years ago….
It seems that the U of Colorado has finally released the latest sea-level data we’ve been waiting for. It sure looks like it jives with this temp-data:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/sea-level-rise-is-acceleratingto.html
Doug Proctor says: “There is no conclusion to be made with short-term comparisons of simple model projections against complex real-world data.”
As you’re likely aware, since 2007…
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/a-litmus-test-for-global-warming-a-much-overdue-requirement/
…Pielke Sr, has been recommending OHC be used as the “litmus test for global warming” and that a model projection be compared to OHC observations. In that post, he recommended that it be communicated each year if not more often. No one else is doing it, so I include it in many of my OHC posts.
In a 2009 post…
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/
…Pielke Sr. notes, “While the time period for this descrepancy with the GISS model is relatively short, the question should be asked as to the number of years required to reject this model as having global warming predictive skill, if this large difference between the observations and the GISS model persists.”
Refer also to Pielke Sr’s comment in a recent thread over at Judith Curry’s blog (note the thread has more than 400 comments, so it takes a while to load.):
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/07/wheres-the-missing-heat/#comment-30344
He replies in part, “In the figure from http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-and-changes-to-nodc-ocean-heat.html, there is no statistically significant warming (or cooling) since 2004 (or 2003) in either the original or adjusted 0-700m ocean heat content data. There is warming prior to this time period which is in close agreement with the GISS model results. The jump in the heat just before the heating became nearly flat appears overstated, as Josh Willis has indicated on my weblog.
“From this figure, it appears a large amount of heating must occur over the next few years to bring the observations back in agreement with the models.”
Maybe I’ll have to add a note to the effect of “How Long Before The Model Projections Are Rejected” on the short-term graphs like Figure 2 each time I update.
Regards
TimC says:
May 8, 2011 at 10:41 am
Could this be Trenbert’s “missing heat”? The 40 billion terajoules’ difference between the GISS and ARGO figures is staggering (more than enough to melt the whole Greenland icesheet)!
I advise anyone interested in OHC as an indicator or Earth’s energy balance to read this somewhat technical post carefully.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/
3×2 says: “Not related directly to this (or any particular post), how much faith do you place in pre Argo/satellite estimations of heat content/sst?”
Depends on what you’re trying to study, and where you’re looking in the global oceans, and to what “resolution” one needs. Most of the OHC and SST observations in the long-term datasets are in the Northern Hemisphere. For SST, you have to consider whether the datasets are infilled, where they’re infilled, and whether the “raw” data is reinserted after infilling.
papertiger: What are the graphics capabilities of the ARGO-based sofware?
Bob Tisdale and commieBob:
I write to support R Taylor who says at May 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm:
” More chlorophyll, more absorption of energy, BUT, photosynthesis is endothermic and I suspect a remarkable amount of carbonaceous energy is being sequestered on the ocean floor.”
commieBob rightly says that increased albedo means more reflection of radiation so less absorbtion of radiation energy in the water.
However, he assumes from this that lowered albedo means less reflection so more absorbtion of radiation energy in the water, but this does not follow.
The increased absorbtion of radiation may be by biota suspended in the water. In this case, as R Taylor suggests, the absorbed energy may power photosynthesis to form sugars by combination of dissolved CO2 in the water with water. The result would be increased biological activity which could result in sequestration of much of the absorbed radiation energy and dissolved carbon dioxide. And, importantly, the net result could be increased deposition of (dead) biological material to deep ocean. This deposition would be a removal from the oceans’ near-surface layers of absorbed radiation energy and dissolved carbon dioxide.
It is very difficult to quantify these removals of energy and carbon dioxide from the near surface layers by such deposition to deep ocean, but they are likely to be significant unless the biological activity is limited by availability of phospate, nitrate or ferrous ions in the water.
Richard
Shouldn’t this go in the Climate Fail category?
On any graph of data obtained from two (or more) different sources, there should be a break, or discontinuity shown between them. It seems like common sense to me, but that doesn’t seem to be a standard here. But maybe Doug Proctor likes to connect “apples and oranges”? I agree with “tallbloke”: there never was any “missing heat”.
The -110 zettajoule correction will be due to algorithmic instrumental calibration errors over the years and Trenberth’s pesky missing heat slipped free under the cover of the night and is heading out of the galaxy. That should give them some cover in the MSM. ☺
Something makes me REALLY SUSPICIOUS of the data, covering 1955 to now.
Methinks that perhaps the 1955 to 1985 or 1990 data is perhaps “quasi fictional”?
I don’t think the Argo bouys have been around that long.
Pity, again…lies, damn lies, and “historical fictions”.
Max
Thanks Bob,
I always enjoy reading your posts!
Gendeau posted:
tsk tsk – You’re never going to get a job as a panickist
Clearly you don’t know how to read the graph! If you look at the last 3 months, we’ve had a 15% increase in the ocean’s heat content. Now, ANY scientist worth their salt (and thus consideration by the IPCC and AGW powers-that-be) could easily extrapolate that to an 81% increase this year. And over the next decade, to a whopping 3,780%! Well, at that point, we’ll have boiled all the life in the ocean and we’ll be in a massive sauna world-wide.
RUN WHILE YOU CAN! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!
I think that’s what you’re looking for in terms of driving a panic? 🙂
Sam Glasser says: “On any graph of data obtained from two (or more) different sources, there should be a break, or discontinuity shown between them.”
They haven’t stopped using XBTs or stationary floats, as far as I know. ARGO use began to dominate in 2003, which is why I’ve referred to the period after 2003 as ARGO era.
Max Hugoson says: “Methinks that perhaps the 1955 to 1985 or 1990 data is perhaps ‘quasi fictional’?”
All long-term climate-related datasets are to some extent.
It is a real tragedy that we can’t find the missing heat. Right now it is cold. I am past my last chord of wood, and once again, my guy is complaining about my cold butt. So if Trenbreth and Jonesy can find the damned heat, please send it to Wallowa County.
Interesting that the satellite troposphere temperatures and the ocean heat content stopped rising at much the same time, 2002-03. What happened to all the lag and the heat “in the pipeline” that supposedly would cause ocean heat to keep rising even if greenhouse emissions stopped?
Of course a real cynic might point out that 2002 was when we started measuring these quantities in a rock-solid way, with the AQUA satellite and the ARGO buoys.
(Update: I added the word “Anomalies” to the two graphs. )
Bob: Isn’t it only the Fig 1 that is anomalies? Fig 2 looks to be a what-do-you-call-it ordinary graph.
IanM
Thank you Bob for your response. In viewing your references and your comments I see that we are not really in disagreement. An 8-year period of time is indeed too short a period to determine whether the modeled results diverge significantly from observational data. The question of when we start our inspection for divergence is the key. I’v tried to attach an image of the global temperature, land station-only temperatures and SST with the same X-Y coordinates (original from C3) but don’t seem to be able to do it. At any rate, my point is that about 1979 the three temperature plots begin to diverge, showing, I think, either
a) a systemic adjustment error,
b) the results of cherry picking land station data to show warming (bad UHIE corrections), or – give the devil his due,
c) CO2 heat retention at rates faster than can be moderated by air, land and ocean heat transfers.
The OHC is, indeed, a crucial test of IPCC theory, however as Trenberth has suggested, if there is insufficient heat retention seen, then it is “missing”, perhaps in deeper waters or (here’s a new one) in a minor speed-up of oceanic waters, whereby thermal energy has segued into kinetic energy. So OHC may not be a smoking gun for either side. Hansen/NASA seem very good at finding wiggle room for individual points; OHC looks like a metric that has a lot of possible wiggle room.
Regardless, 8 years in insufficient for drawing conclusions, and the particular 2003 start-point is not good as there is a significant “divergence” from the years prior to 2003. As a current trend this post is valid; as a trend that reflects validly on the AGW debate, I suggest it does not.
1979 as a reference point is a suggestion born out not of science but practicality: that is past the cooling trend of the 40’s to 60’s that warps the warmist, and includes the rebound phase that the warmists claim is not rebound but true signals of AGW. Let them have it: the more their models use the 1975 – 1995 period as the “true” nature of climate warming, the faster their models will fail to correspond to observation. Using that date does give us, by 2015, 36 years of observation in a 71 year timeframe to a mini-doom scenario of 2050. The models and their projections look the same as the small scale graph of the IPCC, but expanded you can see that the divergences are already present. Schmidt in January of this year at RealClimate admitted that temperature observations were at the bottom of the 1988 Hansen forecast, in fact were along the “C” scenario, in which CO2 stopped at the Y2000 level (though he denied vehemently that there was any significance to the divergence at this point). I’d disagree.
The problem still is the multi-year “natural” variation. Your analysis within this post lies within the variation. Perhaps another 5 years of the current flattening of the OHC will be persuasive. You are the statistician. What, off the 25-year trend, would be statistically significant for the various IPCC projections?
Bringing a temperature rise down to 1.4C/century brings nature, not CO2 into the picture. CO2 to be a problem and a cause has to have a correlation in excess of 2C/century at the current time, as CO2 emissions have not stopped nor slowed globally (though the US emissions are now down, China has more than made up for the reduction).
The divergence problem is coming to the streets next to us, but we still need time for an unequivocal pattern to show up. I’m thinking 2015 should make Gore/Suzuki uneasy. What do you think?
Doug, a divergence of 5×10^22 joules in 8 years is pretty significant. It’s equivalent to the rise in OHC from 1975 to 2000.
@Dodgy Geezer — wondering what Tamino has to say about this? He’s complied! 🙂
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
fredbe:
At May 8, 2011 at 9:55 pm you say;
“@Dodgy Geezer — wondering what Tamino has to say about this? He’s complied! :)”
The fact that “Tamino” says something is – by the statement of “Tamino” – reason to ignore it.
He is an academic and, therefore, his career and c.v. are enhanced by each additional publication he provides in the refereed literature. But information published on the web is not novel so cannot be published in the refereed literature. Hence, an academic harms his/her career by publishing information on the web anonymously and prior to its publication in the refereed literature.
So, by posting information on his blog under his alias of Tamino, he proclaims
(a) he thinks the information is so unworthy that it would not obtain publication in the refereed literature
and
(b) he thinks the information is so unworthy that he is not willing to put his name to it.
The only unknowns are
(i) why there are people willing to waste time reading the rubbish that Tamino, Eli Rabbit, etc. throw away by posting it on their blogs
and
(ii) why some of those people are so deluded that they take the rubbish serioiously.
Richard
@fredb – “…wondering what Tamino has to say about this? He’s complied! :)…”
Good for Tamino! He has picked up the problem with the 2003 start date, but it would be instructive to see how the figures pan out against that assertion he made about rate rise if another start is picked….
Tamino (see fredb’s comment for link) shows that Bob Tisdale’s work uses
i) cherry-picking and
ii) misrepresentation.
Bob Tisdale does not show “that we have a GISS miss by a country mile” to use Anthony’s words, or anything like it. In fact the honest interpretation of the data that Tisdale uses is that there is no significant “GISS miss” at all: it’s a non-story.
What Tisdale’s article demonstrates is how easy it is to fool people who are eager to believe that warming isn’t occurring.