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”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dave W says:
May 9, 2011 at 5:04 am
On the face of it, the Argo OHC graph everyone appears to accept shows a lot of warming up to 2003 and very little since.
Argo floats were only fully deployed in 2003. So the pre-2003 data is not based on Argo floats.
Amen, Slioch.
“All I want to know is why there has been no warming at 0 to 700m in the ocean since 2003 and at what point assuming that this continues will we be able to say that there is significant evidence that the oceans are no longer warming.”
Rising global albedo so less energy into the oceans:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
Also increased cloudiness which I think is down to an equatorward shift in the jets and/or more meridional jet streams.
Jack Greer has now made two completely content-free posts. That seems to be the level of Tamina’s fanboi followers here.
>> Jack Greer says:
May 9, 2011 at 6:45 am
Wow. Bob Tisdale, you s/b ashamed of yourself.
Anthony, Here’s another example to add to my list of posts you personally should not allow if you want to boost WUWT credibility. <<
You gotta love the religion coming out of a warmist post. Pure ad hom with not one iota of science.
Jack, tell us how Tamino is right in using a graph using measurements patched together from two different sources. Tell us why he's right when the prediction only approximately matches the patched-together graph because of the large jump at the patch point.
Maybe if you showed a combination of figures 1 and 2, maybe we could see that the red line is not in the best position.
And note that the data point for 2011 is higher than all others except for last quarter 2003 and first quarter 2004.
Looking at it that way, I really don’t see any divergence, certainly not any cooling.
Slioch
I appreciate this article is specifically about Argo buoys but I must admit I have great difficulty in accepting that measurements starting from only 2003 have any scientific merit and that putting one highly inaccurate set of global measurements (from 1850) against another set from 2003 really tells us anything useful at all.
As a matter of interest do you think the Historic global SST’s have any merit whatsoever and can therefore be used as a way of confirming there is a long standing upwards trend in ocean temperatures (heat content) when used in conjunction with Argo?
tonyb.
The important distinction between a “projection” and a “prediction” tends to be overlooked in discussions of this kind. For the purpose of statistically validating a model, one needs predictions of the outcomes in a sampling of statistical events plus observations of the outcomes of the same events; projections play no role.
Cherry-picked and ridiculously short time-line aside, Smokey, there is zero excuse for Figure 2, above. That figure doesn’t represent GISS’s projection at all. GISS explicitly shows their projection here:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc10.jpg
Tisdale dishonestly represents the GISS projection and data for specific misleading effect. Tisdale could have represented the GISS trend running smack-dab thru the middle of the data line, for example …. but, no. Sorry if that’s not obvious to you.
>> Jack Greer says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:30 am
Tisdale could have represented the GISS trend running smack-dab thru the middle of the data line, for example …. <<
Or GISS could have mated the Argo data to the pre-Argo data such that the GISS trend agreed 'smack-dab' at the beginning of the Argo data. But that might disagree with their religious beliefs.
In either case the only heat content measurements that come close to full coverage, namely Argo data, show basically no change in the ocean heat content over their 8-year period, and the trend lines disagree no matter how you line them up.
Jack Greer,
We only have the ARGO buoy data, but it is short term. OTOH, we have Tamina’s patched together “hide the decline” chart, which covers a longer time frame, but his chart is fabricated [see Tom_R’s post above @May 9, 2011 at 5:43 am].
And the data in your linked chart [as opposed to the model projections] also shows OHC declining. Raw data trumps models every time, and when there is a divergence between the two, it is the computer model that is falsified.
Yet faced with facts and data that support Bob Tisdale, you label him dishonest. That is not a reflection on Bob, but on you. Since the planet itself is falsifying your beliefs, you resort to name-calling; a tactic the warmist contingent is increasingly relying on because the facts do not support their repeatedly falsified CAGW beliefs.
@Smokey
– Read a little closer about the roll-out of ARGO buoys … and then Tisdale’s rationalization for selecting 2003 as his starting point. 2003 just happens to be the ocean version of the “since 1998 global temperatures have declined”.
– Tisdale isn’t arguing the computer model is “falsified”. … and, real data never falls on a trend line.
– There is no excuse for Tisdale maintaining the “actual readings” anomaly scale on the Y axis while displaying his estimated GISS tend line starting a 2003. None. He should man-up & correct his graphs and labels on Fig. 2 to accurately match the actual point he’s attempting to make … and then move on. Until then calling him “misleading” is the nicest thing I can say.
Jack Greer says: “Tisdale dishonestly represents the GISS projection and data for specific misleading effect. Tisdale could have represented the GISS trend running smack-dab thru the middle of the data line, for example …. but, no. Sorry if that’s not obvious to you.”
“Dishonestly”?
The disparity between the trends is the same if I run it “smack-dab thru the middle of the data line” or if I start it from the beginning. It’s YOUR perception that convinces YOU that one represents the data more fairly.
In the lede Anthony writes:
“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?”
Yes, where is that missing heat? Still in Trenberth’s mythical pipeline, I suppose.☺
Well geez, Bob … Did you intend to show the GISS trend/projection line predicting 9.6 Joules*10^22 at the beginning on 2003? If not, fix the graph, fix the labels to match your point w/o extra false implication, and move on.
Seems to me you’re clearly smart enough to know better …
Doug Proctor says:
May 8, 2011 at 7:14 pm
I agree that a much longer time-frame is needed for a definitive indication of divergence. With strongly oscillatory data, decadal or even multidecadal “trends” are unstable. And with data that may have spurious trends due to lack of truly global coverage (or to UHI, with land stations), linear regression is not the best analytic tool.
The divergence that can be firmly established is that of GISS and HADCRUT land-station series from an index constructed entirely from vetted century–long records at UHI-unaffected stations. The anomalies of the former cross over those of the latter in the mid-1960’s and keep on diverging until the 1980’s, when the latter rebound from the preceding multidecadal cooling. What provides an analytically telling indication of that divergen ce is the lack of strong cross-spectral coherence at the lowest frequencies. On a similar basis, I suspect that the trend evident in the pre-Argo OHC data is spurious.
Jack Greer:
In response to Bob Tisdale (at May 9, 2011 at 11:58 am) having made the obvious point concerning his graph;
“The disparity between the trends is the same if I run it “smack-dab thru the middle of the data line” or if I start it from the beginning. ”
at May 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm you reply to him;
“Seems to me you’re clearly smart enough to know better …”
Well, the best interpretation of your behaviour is that you are not smart enough to know better. If you have a real argument or criticism of Tisdale’s analysis then present it so the rest of us can evaluate it. But the thread is disrupted by your complaining at a graph that is correct and is properly presented.
Either you do “know better” and your disruption by whining about a non-problem is deliberate disruption, or, alternatively you do not “know better” so would benefit from not displaying your prejudice. Either way, please stop it and raise your game.
Richard
If you want to see how Hansen is talking about OHC and the energy imbalance now, you can review his latest unpublished paper (he is not having great luck getting his papers published lately). Starting on about page 28 but you might have to go back a little to get the full context.
In short, Tamino and Jack Greer and RealClimate are not correct drawing a straight line through since 1993. For one, the Argo network is 50 times more accurate than any estimate before and the step-change between 2001 and 2003 should probably just be thrown out.
After that, Hansen made a major error in one chart but it doesn’t really change the result. Bob can start the line in 2003 which is a perfectly reasonable comparison. Since the 50 times more accurate Argo network came on line, the OHC accumulation is missing and the energy has escaped from the Earth system. Simple as that.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf
Time for the pub argument version again.
“The warmers say that the oceans should be getting warmer. They aren’t”
Is this right? Have I understood it correctly?
[snip – a bit too much, take a breather, and remember that you look silly complaining about somebody’s “integrity” while hiding behind a moniker – Anthony]
[snip – not interested in an argument – take the snip or take a hike – When Bob posts his rebuttal, you’ll have achange to respond, meanwhile if you want to have an argument about Bob’s “integrity” while you hide behind a moniker tossing insults at him, take it elsewhere – Anthony]
Richard S Courtney says: “If you have a real argument or criticism of Tisdale’s analysis then present it so the rest of us can evaluate it.”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/#comment-50735
Galling as it is I have to say Tamino is right for once. “Bob’s trick” is take the GISS linear fit , change it and then criticise them for getting it wrong.
His attempts to justify himself rather than correct it, clearly shows he did this quite deliberately and intentionally and thinks that is fine. He refutes claims that it is dishonest.
I disagree.
P. Solar:
At May 9, 2011 at 10:39 pm you assert to me;
” “Bob’s trick” is take the GISS linear fit , change it and then criticise them for getting it wrong. ”
No! He does not. Please read his analysis which is the subject of this thread.
It says;
“This is a quick post that shows the long-term quarterly OHC data and the ARGO-era OHC data compared to GISS Projections.”
And the direct comparison is provided in his Figure 2. The disparity between the linear slopes is stated mathematically and shown pictorially.
The data is explained with direct links in his article.
He does NOT “change” the GISS fit and you provide no example and/or explanation of such a change.
Frankly, your comment to me is a smear of Bob Tisdale and you should either justify it (which I doubt you can) or provide a complete apology for it.
Richard
RoHa May 9, 2011 at 7:18 pm
asks
““The warmers say that the oceans should be getting warmer. They aren’t” Is this right?”
No it is not right.
“Have I understood it correctly?”
No, you have not understood it correctly at all.
See, for example, :
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ohc.jpg?w=500&h=325
in
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/five-years/#comment-50747
Richard S Courtney says:
May 10, 2011 at 12:56 am
“He does NOT “change” the GISS fit and you provide no example and/or explanation of such a change.”
I refered you to Taminos post where he explains it fully. You chose to read that or you chose to ignore it. That is beyond my control.
It’s not often Tamino makes sense so I suppose he deserves credit when he does.