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.
Richard S Courtney May 10, 2011 at 12:56 am
You still haven’t got it, or refuse to admit it, have you Richard?
Leave aside the cherry-pick for a moment.
Tisdale claims an OHC anomaly of c. 9.6 Joules*10^22 in 2003 for the GISS (red) graph.
That is false. It is not true. It is wrong. It is dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of the GISS graph. And it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of ability in data analysis. (The true figure is c. 6.6 Joules*10^22 in 2003).
That is the change in the GISS fit to which P Solar referred.
And yet, here on WUWT, not only is that obvious calumny presented, not only is it supported in the lead comments by Anthony, a day later there has still been no retraction from Tisdale and numerous posters like yourself are still trying to defend the indefensible.
And you wonder why people get angry and exasperated at this kind of behaviour.
Tamino makes quite a fuss about the choice of 2003 as starting point. Too bad that the ARGO people themselves consider 2003 as the starting point of their science.
Next!
Friends and Moderators:
This thread is supposed to be discussion and evaluation of the above analysis by Bob Tisdale. But it is being hijacked by supporters of Grant Foster who operates a propoganda blog using the alias of “Tamino”.
Everything on the Tamino blog is stuff that Foster himself considers to be rubbish so he is throwing it away (please see my post above at May 8, 2011 at 11:59 pm for explanation of this). Hence, there is no reason for anybody to take it seriously.
But if the Tamino nonsense were true then it would only be pertinent to this thread in so far as it provided a critique of the above work by Bob Tisdale.
So, everybody would be wise to ignore the trolls whose posts here consist solely of advertisements for the Tamino blog and smears of Bob Tisdale.
And I ask the Moderators to snip the advertisements for the Taminio blog; they reduce the standards of the WUWT blog.
Richard
Slioch:
Your rant at May 10, 2011 at 2:38 am is twaddle.
The graph labeled Figure 2 in the above article from Bob Tisdale shows two trends in ANOMALIES. Both trends are correct. Absolute values are not relevant to anomalies.
YOU ARE PLAIN WRONG AND YOUR LANGUAGE IS OFFENSIVE.
Apologise then go away.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
May 10, 2011 at 3:50 am
Slioch said, “Tisdale claims an OHC anomaly of c. 9.6 Joules*10^22 in 2003 for the GISS (red) graph.”
To which Richard S Courtney replies, “The graph labeled Figure 2 in the above article from Bob Tisdale shows two trends in ANOMALIES. Both trends are correct. Absolute values are not relevant to anomalies.”
Are you really incapable of understanding that “an OHC anomaly of c. 9.6 Joules*10^22 in 2003” contains the word “anomaly”. Can you really not see that the figure 9.6 is read directly from Tisdale’s Fig. 2 graph?
Really, this is just ridiculous.
Richard – you wrote: why there are people willing to waste time reading the rubbish that Tamino, Eli Rabbit, etc. throw away by posting it on their blogs
Well, as P.T. Barnum might or might now have said…
Slioch:
At May 10, 2011 at 5:31 am you rightly say;
“Really, this is just ridiculous.”
Yes! Indeed, “ridiculous” is an understatement of your comments.
Clearly, you do not know – or you are pretending to not know – what an anomaly is.
An anomaly is an offset by an arbitrary value (usually in climate science the arbitrary value is a mean of 30 values) from an actual datum. It does not matter what the offset is so-long as all the values in a data set use the same offset. For example, the HadCRUT, GISS, etc. data sets of mean global temperature are all presented as anomalies, but they use different offsets because they use different 30-year periods to provide the mean which each subtracts from each datum to create their anomaly values.
Change the offset and you change nothing because the offset is arbitrary.
Indeed, the purpose of anomalies is to enable simple comparison of different data sets: the offset applied to one data set can be altered so the two can then be presented e.g. on the same graph. This is what Tisdale’s Figure 2 does: it is right and it is proper.
Now, withdraw your false accusations saying;
“That is false. It is not true. It is wrong. It is dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of the GISS graph.”
In fact, it is true, it is not false, it is right, and it is completely honest. Your assertions that it is otherwise are despicable.
Richard
What does it mean that the so-called “Argo era” “begins” in 2003? If data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo measurements, how do you draw a line and say that data from before 2003 is no good and data from 2003 forward is reliable? It seems awfully arbitrary. The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 — you are saying we cannot rely on those readings at all, but we can rely on everything starting in January 2003? How has it been shown that the pre-2003 data must be ignored?
>> Peter says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:45 am
What does it mean that the so-called “Argo era” “begins” in 2003? If data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo measurements, how do you draw a line and say that data from before 2003 is no good and data from 2003 forward is reliable? It seems awfully arbitrary. The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 — you are saying we cannot rely on those readings at all, but we can rely on everything starting in January 2003? How has it been shown that the pre-2003 data must be ignored? <<
First off, scientists must prove that their measurements are valid. It's up to those who use pre-Argo data to prove that it's meaningful. It's easy to see that the pre-Argo data have extremely limited spatial and temporal coverage compared to Argo. Also, Bob's link (May 8, 2:09 PM) shows that the pre-Argo coverage area grew over time, so the supposed increase in OHC pre-Argo could just be from adding data from warmer areas into the total picture.
If the post-2003 data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo data then that itself is a flaw. Either the Argo and non-Argo measurements agree, in which case the non-Argo measurements are superfluous, or they don't, in which case one or the other (or possibly both) are in error.
Another problem arises when the two data sets are spliced together. Much of the supposed long-term increase comes from what looks to be a poor alignment of the two data sources. As you have observed, "The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 …"
Richard S Courtney May 10, 2011 at 7:18 am
First let us deal with the anomaly issue.
The slope of the GISS graph (given in Tisdale’s Fig.”) is 0.7 *10^22 Joules per annum. Yet in your post of May 10, 2011 at 3:50 am you pretend that the value of 9.6*10^22 Joules represents an absolute value. That is ridiculous. The absolute value represents the entire heat content of the oceans, which were your pretence to be correct, would have had to accumulate in little under fourteen (9.6/0.7) years warming! No person with any understanding of this issue would ever consider the OHC of 9.6*10^22 Joules at 2003 to represent anything other than an anomaly.
Secondly, you now assert that it is ‘true’ and ‘right’ and ‘completely honest’ to shift the intercept upwards by about 3 *10^22 Joules. No, it is not, it is everything I described it before: it is false and dishonest to shift the intercept and then present the data as is done in Fig. 2 under an article headed “The GISS divergence problem: Ocean Heat Content” with an introduction by Anthony that states “Bob Tisdale points out the reality versus projection disparity. It would seem, that we have a GISS miss by a country mile.”
The data, properly plotted, is shown here:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ohc10.jpg?w=500&h=416
where the slope and intercept of the linear best fit are established from the observed data from period 1993 to 2002 and shown as a red dotted line (somewhat obscured by the solid red line data plot). That straight dotted red line is extrapolated to the present and shows reasonable agreement with the later OHC observed data: as Tamino stated yesterday, “from 2003 to 2010, the observations are higher than prediction, then lower than prediction — but overall OHC (actually OHCA, ocean heat content anomaly) has been pretty close to its predicted values.”
What Tisdale did was to shift the red dotted line upwards by about 3 *10^22 Joules in 2003, and then plot that in Fig. 2 under the above headlines and introduction so as to leave the reader to conclude that the GISS prediction and reality had diverged. That is false. That is dishonest.
But where is Bob Tisdale – or Anthony for that matter? When is he or they going to come on and retract this misinformation? Or do we have to put up with more adventures inside Richard S Courtney’s bizarre separate reality?
Peter:
At May 10, 2011 at 7:45 am you ask:
“What does it mean that the so-called “Argo era” “begins” in 2003? If data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo measurements, how do you draw a line and say that data from before 2003 is no good and data from 2003 forward is reliable? It seems awfully arbitrary. The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 — you are saying we cannot rely on those readings at all, but we can rely on everything starting in January 2003? How has it been shown that the pre-2003 data must be ignored?”
Taking each of your questions in turn.
Q1
What does it mean that the so-called “Argo era” “begins” in 2003?
A1
2003 is the first year when sufficient ARGO buoys were deployed and their measurements were available for determination of ocean heat content to be determined from those measurements. At May 10, 2011 at 3:15 am (above) Maurizio Morabito provides a link that more fully explains why “the ARGO people themselves consider 2003 as the starting point of their science”.
Q2
If data comes from a mix of Argo and non-Argo measurements, how do you draw a line and say that data from before 2003 is no good and data from 2003 forward is reliable?
A2
You don’t. You say there are two different data sets that each purports to show the same thing. One (i.e. the ARGO data) is twenty times more accurate than the other. So, you assess each data set independently and you put most trust in the data provided by the more accurate method (i.e. the ARGO data that is only available since 2003). And it would be very wrong to treat the data sets as being the same e.g. by stitching them together or by making a “mix” of them.
Q3
The temperature readings from 2000 to 2002 are a whole lot lower than 2003 — you are saying we cannot rely on those readings at all, but we can rely on everything starting in January 2003?
A3
No. Please see my answer to Q2. We “rely” on the data from both methods but place much, much more reliance on the data provided by the much more accurate method (i.e. the ARGO data set).
Q4
How has it been shown that the pre-2003 data must be ignored?
A3
It should not be ignored, but the ARGO data should be trusted the more. If forced to choose between the two data sets then the sensible choice is the more accurate, more precise and more reliable data set (i.e. the ARGO data set).
I hope these answers are sufficient.
Richard
Slioch:
I started to read your post to me at May 10, 2011 at 8:47 am but I only read as far as this:
“First let us deal with the anomaly issue.
The slope of the GISS graph (given in Tisdale’s Fig.”) is 0.7 *10^22 Joules per annum. Yet in your post of May 10, 2011 at 3:50 am you pretend that the value of 9.6*10^22 Joules represents an absolute value. …”
At that point I gave up and decided to not waste time reading any more.
1.
Your assertion that I “pretend” anything is a fasehood and
2.
at no time did I claim “the value of 9.6*10^22 Joules represents an absolute value”. On the contrary, you have repeatedly made that claim while I have repeatedly pointed out that the value is an anomally and NOT an absolute value.
Simply, you made two blatant lies in your first two sentences.
So, I read no more of your post because I feared the effect on my blood pressure if I did.
Lies and untrue insults seem to be your only contribution to this thread.
They are not welcome here. Go away.
Richard
Slioch
You said to Richard;
“Or do we have to put up with more adventures inside Richard S Courtney’s bizarre separate reality?”
Way back up the thread I asked you a question which I think reflects on the bizarre separate reality that computer programmers -like Tamino- and analysts- such as Bob Tisdale- inhabit in using data that is not always fit for SCIENTIFIC purpose, either because of the longevity of the information available (Argo) or the extremely poor quality of it when related to such things as historic global SST’s.
I repeat the questionn to you below
“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 around 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
tonyb May 10, 2011 at 9:48 am
Yours is a perfectly reasonable question and I’m sure we could discuss the merits and demerits of the various data on ocean heat content anomalies (not to mention average global temperatures, glacial retreats, Arctic sea-ice and numerous other indications of global warming) until the cows come home, but if you will excuse me I will decline the invitation, other than agreeing with a vague assessment, not based on any analysis, that the time spans and methodologies involved would seem to render any precise conclusions tentative.
I have concentrated on one issue in this thread: how to fairly represent such data that we do have and to criticise Tisdale’s analysis as unfair. I think that is enough for one thread.
When all the smoke is cleared away Bob is perfectly entitled to draw attention to the fact that from 2003 the ARGO data is not showing the existence of any significant rise in ocean heat content and the longer that goes on the more difficulty there is for AGW.
Eight years may not be long but it is long enough to present an embarrassment for the consensus AGW view.
By far the simplest explanation is the failure of solar energy to penetrate the ocean surface and in connection with that the Earthshine project shows a clear increase in cloudiness and global albedo during the relevant period.
The advantage of the quality of the ARGO sensors is that the data should be regarded as setting a new more accurate starting point for ocean heat content from 2003.
The older less accurate data should not be spliced onto it. It is really only the current trend that we need to know for the time being.
Let us now keep a careful watch on global albedo AND ocean heat content and see whether the two sets of data track one another to any significant degree.
The ENSO cycle will need to be adjusted for because as Bob says elsewhere ENSO represents a discharge/recharge cycle for ocean heat content which would otherwise obscure part of any linkage between global albedo and ocean heat content.
Slioch,
It is very nice of Anthony to let you post your comments here for discussion. It is typical of the open and fair atmosphere at the number one science blog.
I wish that Tamino were so open to debate and comments.
I posted this short simple observation over there, and both times it vanished into the “moderation” black-hole.
“I think the point of the graphs and comments at WUWT was that since say 2004, the trend is about zero. And if the earth is accumulating heat energy due to an imbalance, it should keep going up.
This also corresponds to the flattening of the sea level rise observed in the satellite altimetry, due to less thermal expansion of the water.
-Jay”
I can clearly see who is open for debate and even presentation of ideas.
Slioch
Fair enough. The quality of the data-as opposed to its interpretation and ultimate validity- is an interesting one that is probably worth a thread on its own.
tonyb
Jay
May 10, 2011 at 10:56 am
Your three assertions concerning i) the ‘point of the graphs’, ii) ‘if the earth is accumulating heat energy due to an imbalance, it should keep going up’ or iii) ‘flattening of the sea level rise’ reveal a lack of understanding and a failure to analyse data correctly.
I’m not surprised Tamino didn’t post them. They had nothing to do with the subject of Tamino’s blog, which was concerned with the improper analysis of data, and would simply have served to distract attention from the issue being discussed.
Actually, Tamino’s most recent post containing very simple 5-year non-overlapping averages of various data including OHC may be very relevant here.
The small wobble in OHC presented here by Bob Tisdale really isn’t statistically significant, and the presentation (with the offset) is a bit, well, hinky, leaning to an interpretation not supported by the data.
It’s important to beware: the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position“. I hope Tisdale isn’t deliberately attempting to cast the data in a deceptive light.
@Stephen Fisher Wilde
Steven, The ARGO data isn’t showing anything on its own, certainly not in 2003. There’s no “splicing”. In 2003 the ARGO technology represented about one-half the global temperature readings. Does that sound “dominant” to you? Sound like a clean breaking point to mark a new beginning? Other existing technologies provided the other half in 2003, and they’re used for about the same number of readings today, albeit representing a much smaller percentage of total readings.
Note that extrapolated GISS model projections run straight thru the middle of the “no significant rise” period – half above projections, half below. Also note that the OHC data shows many examples of temperature oscillations/flattenings.
KR:
Your advert for the silly Tamino blog ends with:
“I hope Tisdale isn’t deliberately attempting to cast the data in a deceptive light.”
Your hope is clearly fulfilled. Tisdale presents the data from the ARGO data set and shows it has a trend much lower than the trend of the GISS projection.
This divergence of the trends means – and can only mean – one of two things; i.e.
(a) the OHC has not increased since 2003 at as great a rate as the GISS projected
or
(b) the ARGO data is in error.
These facts cannot be altered by playing around with 5-year-increments of GISS data or any other obfuscation.
The OHC may increase at a faster rate in future years, but the issue to be explained is why the OHC has not increased over the last 8 years at the rate which GISS projected. (I provided an explanation of one possible contributory factor at May 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm above).
Please do not say that 8 years is too short a time: that is merely avoiding the issue which is why the OHC has not risen at anywhere near the rate that GISS projected during the most recent 8 years. And that lack of OHC rise is a lot of “missing heat”.
Richard
Looks to me like this debate is much ado about nothing. Both views are reasonable approaches. Neither one is clearly right or wrong, they are just different ways of looking at the data.
One can choose to believe one approach or the other. There is no requirement that anyone accept either point of view.
It’s certainly possible that ARGO just happened to start out at a high OHC. It’s also possible that the big jump prior to ARGO is purely a data splicing artifact. We probably won’t know for years.
Richard S Courtney:
The OHC warming varies from year to year around the trend line by >2*10^22 joules. It’s a noisy signal.
Looking at OHC from 2003 ( the year with the highest residual in the last 15, incidentally, perhaps the worst possible choice from a statistical standpoint) gives a rate lower than average. From 2001 (2 years more data!) gives a rate higher than average. I’ll note that the ARGO data started with deployment in 2000, and that the record of ocean heat content contains a mix of XBT and ARGO data from that point on – there’s no night/day switch in data source, no reason why pre-2003 data would be invalid. And if a one or two year change in starting point gives a drastically different result, you’re looking at noise.
I will note that 8 years is a short time period. That’s not avoiding the issue, that’s recognizing the inherently noisy nature of the data. The local temperature has dropped since this weekend – can I conclude that summer (northern hemisphere, mind you) will be colder than the winter? Only if I cherry-pick too short a time period, carefully choosing my start/end dates. But that doesn’t make it a valid conclusion.
KR:
Sorry, but the “too short a period” excuse is simply avoiding the issue. And saying that the “signal is noisy” is merely restating that avoidance in other wording.
The issue is why the OHC has not risen over the last 8 years at the rate projected by GISS. Or, if you want to reword it, why is the “signal” so “noisy” that the observed rate over the last 8 years is a tenth of the rate projected by GISS.
The heat has gone into the ocean but the ocean’s heat content has not risen; why?
Or
The heat has not gone in; why?
“Too short a period” or “the signal is too noisy” is not an explanation. It is merely an excuse for not having an explanation.
“We don’t know” is an explanation. And it is honest science because it calls for research to answer the ‘why’ questions. Anything else is an excuse to avoid those questions.
Richard
Richard S Courtney:
Well, then, why don’t you demonstrate that these declining trend statements also hold from (say) 2001? Looking at the residuals on the yearly data, I will have to say that choosing 2003 is a cherry-pick.
“Too short a period” or “the signal is too noisy” is not an explanation. It is merely an excuse for not having an explanation.
Come on, Richard, you should know better than that. It means not enough data for a meaningful conclusion.