NEW NODC DATASET: THERMOSTERIC SEA LEVEL ANOMALIES
Posted by Bob Tisdale
Just a quick one-graph post.
The NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) has added Thermosteric Sea Level Anomaly data to its GLOBAL OCEAN HEAT CONTENT webpage. The NODC describes the data as, “The time series of yearly and 3-month thermosteric sea level anomaly are presented for the 0-700 meters layer. There is one file of yearly and four files of 3-month thermosteric sea level anomaly for each of four major oceanic basins: the World Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean (which includes the entire Arctic Ocean), and the Indian Ocean. Each file contains the integral for the entire basin (OB), the northern hemisphere part of the basin (NHPB), and the southern hemisphere part of the basin (SHPB).”
The following graph compares the Global and North Atlantic+Arctic Ocean Thermosteric Sea Level anomalies. I suspect that much of the flattening in the global data since 2003 is caused by the significant drop in the North Atlantic+Arctic Ocean data.
To Be Continued
(Yippee, a new dataset to play with.)
R. Gates says: “The current record warm waters at even deeper levels below 700m has nothing to do with ENSO…”
Do greenhouse gases bypass the upper 700 meters of the ocean to warm deeper levels in your world?
You wrote, “Ten years from now, if ocean heat content falls back to where it was in the 70′s…”
What mechanism are you proposing that would cause the Global OHC to drop that much in 10 years? In order to do that, there would need to be a monstrous release of heat from the oceans into the atmosphere, and since the oceans release most of their heat through evaporation, the results would not be pleasant.
R. Gates, I believe I’ve linked my OHC posts for you in the past that illustrate the impacts of ENSO, Sea Level Pressure, and AMOC on Global OHC. In the event I haven’t, here they are:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-data/
AND:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift-in-the-late-1980s/
AND:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-is-governed-by-natural-variables/
You’ve been around WUWT long enough that you may have even commented on the cross posts here at WUWT.
You obviously accept the models, which have little to no basis in reality for SST. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/part-1-%e2%80%93-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-versus-ipcc-hindcastprojections/
And:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/492/
So I can’t imagine the models would represent reality any better for OHC.
On the other hand, some of us accept what the data portrays, which is that much of the rise in Lower Troposphere Temperature, Surface Temperature, Sea Surface Temperature and Ocean Heat Content can be explained without anthropogenic forcings.
It is unlikely that you’ll ever agree with my point of view, and I doubt I’ll find a significant anthropogenic component in any of those datasets. So, is there any reason for us to continue this discussion?
R. Gates says:
June 11, 2011 at 10:31 am
“——-merely observe that at the basic long-term trend of OHC and the reduction of Arctic sea ice on a year-to-year basis, and the reduction of glacial mass in western Antarctica is consistent with what the global climate models say should happen with the additional forcing from the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”
“The rise in OHC since the 1970′s is exactly consistent with the increase in water temps in the Arctic.”
Change in global cloud levels of ~5 percent can easily significantly alter those obsevations mentioned here.
“ENSO cycles do not explain this trend, as over the same period, the heat charging (La Nina) and heat discharging (El Nino) of the ENSO cycle should come out even.”
El Ninos depend on how much shortwave energy from the sun reaches the surface during La Nina’s. Therefore when there is a global cloud albedo decline of around 5 percent since the early 1980’s this can explain at least some of the ENSO cycle trend. Hence, the ENSO cycle will not come out even when the global cloud albedo hasn’t stayed equal over the same period. Once the global cloud albedo has increased back to earlier levels then this ENSO cycle should have then come out even, but not until then.
rbateman
Millimeters. 25.4 of them to the inch…
Ken in the Keys
My old geophysics professor, sir Edward Bullard …
Sea level rise of millimeters over decades is comparable to, and even slower than, the rates of tectonic drift (about the speed that fingernails grow).
Oh – that’s a thought…
Steve Allen says:
June 11, 2011 at 4:11 am
I am probably just missing something obvious, but could someone explain NOAA’s NODC chart, as well as Geophsical Letters’ L07608 chart? These charts are labeled “0-700m Global Ocean Heat Content”, but they appear as an anomally charts, (can’t have negative heat content), right?
‘Anomaly’ charts is all they can do, because no-one knows exactly how much heat the ocean contains
I simply want someone to explain to me why CO2 with a specific heat of less than 1 joule/gram and approximately 0.06 % of the atmosphere by weight is more important to climate than water which has a latent heat ~2500 joule/gram and water vapour with specific heat of ~ 2 joule/gram and whidh is ~60 to 70 times more in concentration ?
For 0.06% of something to heat up the rest of the 99.04 % doesn’t it have to get really really hot – the tiny bars in my electric furnace have to get really hot to give off the small heat that you feel at less than 2 metres distant. Or am I wrong and I am simply wasting gas by boiling the kettle ?
Surely the answer can’t be the slow build up of energy continually reinforcing more heating because that sounds to me like our energy problems solved – a runaway thermal greenhouse effect in a sealed vessel rather than an open one like the atmosphere – pump in CO2 and water vapour from a coal power station for a few years, add sunlihjt and when the thermal runaway greenhouse effecr kicks in shut down the nasty beastie – the coal power station I mean..
Finally it seems to me that the IPCC crowd think it is all about radiation when it is not. Convection plays a much larger part in energy transfer in our atmosphere – otherwise why do they create fan forced ovens, fan forced space heaters etc etc? Conversly why do we use convection to cool down hot things we don’t want to overheat.
Where are the allowances for the work done in our atmosphere and oceans – the energy absorbed by biomass.
And last but not least the ridiculous notion that without greenhouse gases the earth’s blackbody temperature would be minus 18 C – I mean c’mon !
So the paltry sun, with a solar conatant of 1366 W/sq metre just above the earth’s atmosphere can only heat us to minus 18 C and “gtrrnhouse gases” can provide the extra energy ro heat some areas of the globe by another ~ 60 – 70 C. Temperatures above 40 C are common place – above 50 C are recorded.
I mean – c’mon !!
R Gates
Hi – I notice you are still getting mileage from the “warmest in 2000 years water somewhere in the Arctic” data. What you consistently fail to mention is that this is from sediment proxy data. Conveniently I guess since we all know the limits to the precision of proxies on decadal scales, plus problems with the last few decades to the present of proxy data, such as declines that need hiding. Thus proxy data aren’t really appropriate to put alongside instrumental data of the last half century. But if there is a recent increase from proxy data helpful for your argument you trumpet it loudly, while failing to mention that it is proxy data so that the reader gets the impression that you are referring to instrumental data. Smoke and mirrors!
“Ladies and gentlemen – the great magician R Gates!” (drum roll……. cymbals!)
BTW there was a thread some time back about different proxy data from the Arctic (Siberian coast) showimg that Arctic sea temperatures had been higher than now for most of the Holocene. But the AGW crowd chimed (I think you joined in) that this was local data only, not relevant to the whole Arctic. But here you make no mention of your “2000 year” data being local, nor even fess up to its being proxy sediment data.
Dirk, you suffer from the mistaken thought that similar effects must have the same cause.
O R! Really this is dangerously close to hypocrisy. The most rigid dogmatic restriction with which CAGW culture has shackled climate research is the rejection of, the refusal even to consider, ANY proposed cause of historic climate change at any time, other than atmospheric carbon or particulates. Its quite audacious of you to turn this argument around against skeptics such as DirkH. Who is it exploring roles in climate of solar variations, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, internal nonlinear oscillation of the ocean-atmosphere system, cloud dynamics, planetary orbital gravitation effects, etc, etc.? Is it skeptical sites like WUWT or the AGW mainstream?
Its us, not you.
“New sea level dataset now available – still flat”
The Earth itself is getting flatter, according to NASA:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/2whqjr8.jpg
R. Gates wrote,
“Within a high degree of confidence we can be sure that the ocean heat content of today is higher than it was 40 years ago…much higher.”
What is the source of that confidence, given that prior to the Argo buoys measurements of OHC via XBT and CTD are uneven, sporadic, controversial with respect to the corrections needed, and in the case of the Southern Hemisphere, almost non-existent?
R. Gates wrote,
“The rise in OHC since the 1970′s is exactly consistent with the increase in water temps in the Arctic.”
The commenter was not referring to the overall (presumed) rise since the ’70s; he was referring to the decline in Arctic TSL since 2003 — precisely when Arctic warming appears to be greatest.
Scored an “own goal” there Mr. Gates, and you didn’t even notice. If AGW proponents can’t explain the MWP and show exactly how those factors don’t apply today, then sceptics are perfectly justified in saying, “It’s happened before, and it’s happening again. Big deal”. Burden of proof lies with those making the claim “It’s different now!” Simple forensic principle; the affirmative team always has the burden of proof. Merely showing that it could be the reason doesn’t get you the win.
And let’s say that you were right, that AGW or CAGW were true, what then? The warmanistas have gotten so shrill that now it seems that even if we shut down every motor vehicle and fossil fuel power plant the exces CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for 1,000 years, slow-roasting the planet. Instead of spending trillions to no good use, wouldn’t we be better served putting aside the windmill subsidies to ameliorate the effects? Otherwise we’ll have pissed away the money, not affected the outcome, and will now be in no position to deal with the consequences.
>> R. Gates says:
June 11, 2011 at 11:46 am
Yes, I know, in your mind climate scientists know nothing and all the data is made up. It’s all a crap shoot and the global climate models are nothing but crap. On the other hand, if you want to know more about ocean heat content, go here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ <<
1. Your link took me to an error message.
2. Where exactly did the OHC measurements in 1970 come from? How many temperature measurements were taken below (say) 10 meters? How many in the southern ocean?
3. In MY mind, most climate 'scientists' are prostitutes who will do anything for grants, and the honest ones who don't follow the dogma are quickly weeded out. I've seen a lot of evidence that that is so, and I've seen it in other fields, although the huge amount of grant money in climate 'science' is far more than any other field.
With data sets not going the right way, they are breaking them down into fanasy data sets (gravitational isostatic rebound added a factor last month). Thermosteric, huh. Calculated from ocean heat content huh. Soon actual, real, observable sea level rise will be considered irrelevant. We will be using cartoon sealevel rise to compensate nations flooded by calculated sea level rises that leave them high and dry. Anyway, if thermisteric sealevel rise of 10mm were to occur, it wouldn’t actually rise as much as calculated because of bevelled coastlnes and with isostatic rebound, it might even go down!
“Dave Springer says:
June 11, 2011 at 1:23 pm
…
Any sane informed person fears a cooling world not a warming one. Ice sucks. Write that down.”
Good one!
R Gates is an invader.
He hijacks threads with nothing to do with the subject that he hijacks….to advance his agenda.
It really, really gets old.
And believe me, R, you might think you can just overwhelm with volume, but your posts are vacuous.
There are many of us who find it as entertaining.
But “entertaining” is the end of it…nothing more.
Chris
Garry Pearce
“Thermosteric, huh. Calculated from ocean heat content huh. Soon actual, real, observable sea level rise will be considered irrelevant. ”
Gary calculations of Thermosteric Sea Level rise are not intended to replace observations of actual sea level rise. They are intended to isolate the amount of sea level rise that has been caused by increased upper ocean heat content. By subtracting this from observed sea level rise you can estimate the amount of the rise from other sources such as melting ice sheets and glaciers.
Doug Proctor
“The difference between the North Atlantic and the Global sea level is over 1 cm. How is that sustainable? Or does this variations reflect complex tidal changes due to oscilations in the moon’s position? Are there variations in sea level worldwide attributable to moon-earth interactions?”
The difference in heights of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans are mainly maintained by differences in evaporation and precipitation. Put simply more water evaporates from the Atlantic than enters it through precipitation and rivers and the reverse is true for the Pacific. The result is a difference in sea levels and a massive surface current around the tip of South America.
R.Rates’s statement about OHC dropping to levels of 70″s [ whatever that number is ] shows his complete ignorance of OHC and hear release physics mechanisms. Bob Tisdale’s reply to him on that was spot on. It is obvious to a schoolboy.
“Mycroft says:
June 11, 2011 at 8:34 am”
River Exe was tidal and navigable up to the city walls enabling it, at one time, to be a bussiest port in the country. So, while not technically coastal, the port, and other waterways, canals etc, would be affecetd by sea level rises, or at least there would be some eveidence of rises, but there isn’t any evidence of the sort.
Dave Springer says “The only interesting thing that happens in the 0-4 deg C range is people exhibit their lack of knowledge of basic properties of materials. Unlike freshwater, seawater keeps right on increasing in density right up to it’s freezing point of -2C.”
……………………………………….
Please don’t try to talk down to me. Remember that the half of the alleged ocean level rise that is said to be due to water melting is from fresh water ice. People could have critcised my comment if I had not included the 4 deg caveat in a broad consideration of heat, energy, temperature and volume.
Do you agree that the WHOLE ocean mass has to warm, on average, before a thermal expansion can happen? Do you agree that too little is known about deep temperatures to calculate whole ocean averages to the required accuracy to derive expansion or contraction? Do you concede that it is not valid to make global assumptions derived from the top 700m of the oceans?
I note that the Envisat European satellite is currently showing no change in sea level since 2004.
If the components are:
– +0.3 mm/yr for the glacial isostatic rebound;
– +1.7 mm/yr from glacial melt;
– net thermostatic residual.
Then Envisat is showing that the global oceans are cooling by -2.0 mm/yr .
Jason2 would be showing 0.3 mm/yr of thermostatic rise since 2009;
and Jason1 would be 0.7 mm/yr of thermostatic rise since 2003.
Something as simple as how the satellites measurements are adjusted and which land-based sea level gauges they are calibrated to, will affect the thermostatic number by quite a bit. Envisat has a negative value, especially in the last 2 years.
Geoff Sherrington says:
June 12, 2011 at 1:38 am
“Remember that the half of the alleged ocean level rise that is said to be due to water melting is from fresh water ice.”
The volume of meltwater on an annual basis is currently insignificant with regard to average salinity of the ocean. The amount of fresh water entering the ocean versus the amount leaving it is out of balance by something on the order of 2 millimeters per year. Given the average depth of the ocean is 4000 meters the excess of fresh water is less than a millionth of the total ocean volume. This has no practical effect whatsoever on thermal expansion or contraction. If all the ice in the world melted and sea level rose by 100 meters it still wouldn’t lower salinity enough to matter. Seawater would still get denser all the way to its freezing point and the freezing point would still be very close to -2C.
“People could have critcised my comment if I had not included the 4 deg caveat in a broad consideration of heat, energy, temperature and volume.”
Not as easily as they could criticize it when it included a flaw in the first statement..
“Do you agree that the WHOLE ocean mass has to warm, on average, before a thermal expansion can happen?”
Yes, I agree, but “whole ocean mass” is redundant. The ocean has to warm, on average, for thermal expansion. Adding the redundant “whole mass” is confusing since “average” must by definition include the entire volume.
“Do you agree that too little is known about deep temperatures to calculate whole ocean averages to the required accuracy to derive expansion or contraction?”
I don’t agree or disagree. There are things we know, things we know we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know. How do we know when we know enough in this case? This is where prediction and repeatability come into play in science. Science is about best explanations with an acknowledgment that something we didn’t know we didn’t know may come to light at any time rendering our best explanation a wrong explanation.
Given that caveat there is little observed variance in ocean temperature below the thermocline except in the case of conveyor belt currents and undersea volcanoes. In the former it shouldn’t effect the average temperature and in the latter there is no evidence that deep sea vulcanism varies in level of activity enough to influence the average temperature one way or another. Internal heat of the planet (heat of formation from gravitational contraction billions of years ago and heat generated by radioactive decay) escapes very slowly due to how well the crust insulates the mantle and core. The rate of internal heat loss is on the order of 3 milliwatts per square meter of surface. That figure would have to be wrong by two orders of magnitude before it approaches significance in surface temperature. The Venusian surface is blazingingly hot mostly because the atmosphere at the surface is 80 bar and those few milliwatts of internal heat at the surface of the crust still have a heavy layer of insulation to traverse by conduction and convection before it gets to clear sky where it can escape radiatively. This is not the case on the earth.
.
“Do you concede that it is not valid to make global assumptions derived from the top 700m of the oceans?”
No. The Argo fleet dives to a depth of 2000 meters. Only the top 700m shows any significant temperature variance from year to year. It appears to me it’s reasonable to assume that year-over-year thermal expansion or contraction of ocean volume can be derived from average temperature of the water above the thermocline.
Now I’ve got a question for you. Do you concede the point that there is nothing “interesting” that happens at or around 4C seawater temperature? It seems you clearly made the common mistake of assuming that saltwater begins to expand near 4C like fresh water does and you’re now just waving your hands about trying to cover up your ignorance of that fact.
Bill Illis says: “I note that the Envisat European satellite is currently showing no change in sea level since 2004.”
Like ARGO, the new fangled technology spoils the rising trends.
My understanding is that when you melt ice in water the temperature of the water remains constant until ALL the ice has melted. Just how does the Arctic water temperature rise when the Arctic ice is melting?
Seawater at 15C, 1 atm has a CTE = 150 ppm/C. At 31C, this increases to 335 ppm/C, and at 4C, drops to 50 ppm/C. High pressure increases the CTE. The deep oceans, at 3 – 4 C and high pressure, still have a sizable CTE of about 200 ppm/C. With an average depth of 4300m, sea level should rise about 0.85 meter if the entire ocean temperature increases by 1 C. This is clearly not happening.
The total ocean mass is 1.36 x 10^21 kg. Raising the total ocean temperature by 1C requires 1.36 x 10^24 Joules of extra energy. The current energy anomaly, based on ARGO data since about 2005, is zero. This is a travesty…
R. Gates:
Since you have claimed present sea surface temperatures are higher than at any time over the past 2000 years, explain the cooling trend of the Sargasso Sea over the past 3000 years:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TGtnnzGAlvI/AAAAAAAABQ0/aqY0zbKkpsU/s1600/sargasso.jpg
and the Nordic Sea over the past 7000 years (a remarkable 5-6C!):
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-paper-shows-much-higher-sea-surface.html
and many other proxy studies showing the opposite of your claim.