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 says:
May 12, 2011 at 8:28 am
You state, “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?”
No. That is decidedly NOT the issue. By all means ask the question and discuss it as a separate subject, but do not let it confuse or obscure the subject of Bob Tisdale’s article. That was concerned ONLY with the analysis of the annual data for OHC anomalies and whether the trend derived from the data from 1993 to 2002 (“the GISS projection”) was consistent with the data since.
Here is all the data:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc10.jpg
and here is the data on OHC anomalies since 1993:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/pred.jpg?w=500&h=325
from which it is clear that the answers to the questions, “Is there a disparity between reality and the GISS projection since 2002? Did the GISS projection ‘miss by a country mile’? ” is in both cases, ‘definitely NO’!
That, in response to Tisdale’s article is it: that is all we need to do. Anything else is general discussion that has NO impact upon that central conclusion. That is why I have restricted myself to addressing that one point. A “straw-man” it most definitely is not.
It doesn’t matter – we don’t need to know – what the data represent in order to do that analysis: they are simply points on a graph upon which we do the analysis. The data could, for example, be your monthly or annual Tesco’s bill.
Let’s just suppose that those data represent your monthly Tesco’s bill. If that were the case, we might like to ask (in addition to the analysis between the first (1993-2002) and second (2003-2010) parts of the data already done) two questions:
Qu 1. Is there a general increase in the monthly bills?
Qu 2. Why is the graph so noisy?
The answer to Qu 1. is YES (is it statistically significant at the 95% level? – I don’t know, I haven’t done the analysis and I haven’t seen anyone else’s analysis, but from eye-balling it from 1993 to present, I would guess it is). For your Tesco’s bill that might represent general prices inflation, or you may be getting more extravagant, or other local shops may be closing down forcing you to shop more at Tesco’s. But those putative reasons don’t effect the initial conclusion: for some reason you are spending more and more money at Tesco’s. If we flip back to the OHC anomalies: it means (the top 700m of) the oceans are warming. As far as I am aware, no-one has reasonably suggested any reason for that warming other than as a response to general global warming.
The answer to Qu 2. in the case of Tesco’s may represent all manner of factors that you you would be aware of: your mother in law came to stay one month, you were ill and couldn’t get to the shops, you got a pay rise, you gave a party, Christmas etc. etc. Those factors explain the noisiness of the graph, which, if you are aware of your finances, you can explain to high precision. In addition, you can probably be sure that the data is 100% accurate – there are no mistakes in your bills. But the noisiness of your bills does NOT effect your conclusion from Qu 1. : the bills are going up. But the noisiness DOES mean that it takes quite along time to see that the bills are generally going up. It DOES mean that you could fool yourself for several years that bills had plateaued, or even started going down. It DOES mean that you shouldn’t take too much notice of just a few months (years, whatever) data.
Exactly the same conclusions pertain with respect to the OHC data, except that with the latter i) there ARE inaccuracies in the data – the ‘bills’ DO have mistakes in them and ii) we have far less information about WHY there are variations in the data: we can suggest factors such as changes in ocean currents, cloud cover, sea-ice changes, etc. etc. But, again, none of that alters the basic conclusion: the top 700m of the oceans are getting warmer.
Utahn:
I am replying to your post at May 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm that addresses a serious issue. I intend to ignore any comments from Slioch because he is never rational and I have learned from several past experiences that trying to have a rational discussion with him is pointless.
You say;
“Richard, that brings me back to my initial (poorly stated) point. You seem to be saying that since we don’t understand every up an down (the noise), we can make no predictions. In other words, that since we don’t know everything, we can’t know anything. Am I correct in that impression?”
No. That “impression” is not what I am saying. Of course it is not necessary to know and/or understand “everything” about a complex system to know “anything” about that system’s behaviour (e.g. everything which affects human blood pressure is not known but observation of changes to blood pressure can provide useful information on the basis of what is known).
But if one knows nothing about a complex system’s behaviour then that ignorance does NOT mean one can assume whatever one wants to assume, and then to pretend the assumption is true whether or not that assumption agrees with observations.
I am saying the following.
1.
OHC varies.
2.
We do not know the mechanisms of the major causes of the variations to OHC.
3.
It is not possible to determine the range of variations in OHC that those mechanisms provide in the absence of knowledge of those mechanisms.
4.
To date, the GISS projection of fails to match observations of change(s) to OHC at all the available timescales.
5.
The GISS projection may (probably will not, but may) match observations at some future date. But (because of point 3) it will not be possible to determine that this match is or is not affected by AGW.
6.
At present, there are people asserting that the mis-match of the GISS projection with observation is “noise” but the assertion is nonsense; the mechanisms that determine OHC changes are reality and not “noise”.
7.
Science investigates reality.
8.
Pseudoscience attempts to prove that reality is what its believers want reality to be.
Richard
Siloch – what you’re saying is that even if you’re tracking your Tesco bills much better since 2003 and that period shows no increase , still you see no reason to believe the perceived increase might have had anything to do with the suboptimal measurement system you had been using in the past. To which one might reply, let’s switch off useless Argo. And I won’t even start on how to join datasets together .
For those who elected to believe Tamino’s accusations, here’s my response:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/on-taminos-post-favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
Richard, you say:
“No. That ‘impression’ is not what I am saying. Of course it is not necessary to know and/or understand ‘everything’ about a complex system to know ‘anything’ about that system’s behaviour (e.g. everything which affects human blood pressure is not known but observation of changes to blood pressure can provide useful information on the basis of what is known).
But if one knows nothing about a complex system’s behaviour then that ignorance does NOT mean one can assume whatever one wants to assume, and then to pretend the assumption is true whether or not that assumption agrees with observations.”
In the last sentence, it sounds as if you’re saying we know nothing about the complex system that is “climate”(as opposed to blood pressure). So, in your mind, that’s the crucial difference here? In blood pressure we know the major mechanisms of rising blood pressure, so we can make valid comments about trends versus noise etc… but in climate we know nothing of the major mechanisms, so we can’t comment on trends versus noise?
If that’s the point, then that’s probably a discussion for another day, as I couldn’t disagree more. I’m also sure that if that’s the point, and I were a climatologist, I’d be offended. I’m not, so I’m not offended, but I do think that’s way off base…
Utahn:
At May 13, 2011 at 6:46 am you say to me;
” … in climate we know nothing of the major mechanisms, so we can’t comment on trends versus noise?
… I’m also sure that if that’s the point, and I were a climatologist, I’d be offended.”
Concerning OHC, that is exactly the point: it is a fact that nobody knows the causes and mechanisms of most observed OHC changes.
I’m sure that some charlatans would pretend to be offended at the statement of this fact because such pretence would obscure the fact, but the truth of the matter is clear from e.g. the discussion at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/a-reader-question-on-ohc-discussion/
Richard
“Concerning OHC, that is exactly the point: it is a fact that nobody knows the causes and mechanisms of most observed OHC changes. ”
Well, if that’s a predicted consequence of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which it is, and is in fact occurring (which it is, despite this post which highlights the noise as we discussed), I’m thinking the climatologists might be on to something…
I still see very little difference in not believing what climatologists understand about ocean heat content, and not believing what “blood pressureologists” understand about blood pressure. Both are immensely complex, but we have fundamental understandings of both that we can use to gain new understanding, and to treat the conditions that arise…
Why trust one set of scientists in their field, but not the other?
Latest news – Hansen suggests to use 2004 as the start of the series:
It’s from section 9.2, page 24 of “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications”. Somebody please don’t tell Tamino Foster about it.