Bob has done some very interesting work here, I call attention to figure 6 and figure 7 below where he asks:
If the observations continue to diverge from the model projection, how many years are required until the model can said to have failed?
January to March 2011 NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700Meters) Update and Comments
by Bob Tisdale
INTRODUCTION
The National Oceanographic Data Center’s (NODC) Ocean Heat Content (OHC) anomaly data for the depths of 0-700 meters are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer Monthly observations webpage. 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”. 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 OHC anomaly data is provided from the NODC on a quarterly basis. There it is available globally and for the ocean basins in terms of 10^22 Joules. The KNMI Climate Explorer presents the quarterly data on a monthly basis. That is, the value for a quarter is provided for each of the three months that make up the quarter, which is why the data in the following graphs appear to have quarterly steps. Furnishing it in a monthly format allows one to compare the OHC data to other datasets that are available on a monthly basis. The data is also provided on a Gigajoules per square meter (GJ/m^2) basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer, which allows for direct comparisons of ocean basins, for example, without having to account for surface area.
This update includes the data through the quarter of January to March 2011. The Global and Tropical Pacific OHC anomalies both rose during the first quarter of 2011, as one would expect in response to a La Niña event. This relationship with ENSO is very apparent when OHC data is compared to SST data. Refer to Sea Surface Temperature Versus Ocean Heat Content Anomalies.
GLOBAL
The Global OHC data through March 2011 is shown in Figure 1. Even with the slight rise this quarter, it continues to be remarkably flat since 2003, especially when one considers the magnitude of the rise that took place during the 1980s and 1990s.
Figure 1
################################
TROPICAL PACIFIC
Figure 2 illustrates the Tropical Pacific OHC anomalies (24S-24N, 120E-90W). The major variations in tropical Pacific OHC are related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Tropical Pacific OHC drops during El Niño events and rises during La Niña events. As discussed in the update for October to December 2010, the Tropical Pacific had not as of then rebounded as one would have expected during the 2010/11 La Niña event. It finally responded during the last quarter.
Figure 2
################################
For more information on the effects of ENSO on global Ocean Heat Content, refer to ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data and to the animations in ARGO-Era NODC Ocean Heat Content Data (0-700 Meters) Through December 2010.
BASIN TREND COMPARISONS
Figure 3 and 4 compare OHC anomaly trends for the ocean basins, with the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean also divided by hemisphere. Figure 3 covers the full term of the dataset, 1955 to present, and Figure 4 shows the ARGO-era data, starting in 2003. The basin with the greatest short-term ARGO-era trend is the Indian Ocean, but it has a long-term trend that isn’t exceptional. (The green Indian Ocean trend line is hidden by the dark blue Arctic Ocean trend line.) The basin with the greatest rise since 1955 is the North Atlantic, but it also has the largest drop during the ARGO-era. Much of the long-term rise and the short-term flattening in Global OHC are caused by the North Atlantic. If the additional long-term rise and the recent short-term decline in the North Atlantic OHC are functions of additional multidecadal variability similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, how long will the recent flattening of the Global OHC persist? A couple of decades?
Figure 3
################################
Figure 4
################################
Further discussions of the North Atlantic OHC anomaly data refer to North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables. And if you’re looking into natural impacts on OHC, also consider North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s.
ARGO-ERA MODEL-DATA COMPARISON
Many of you will recall the discussions generated by the simple short-term comparison graph of the GISS climate model projection for global OHC versus the actual data, which is comparatively flat. The graph is solely intended to show that since 2003 global ocean heat content (OHC) anomalies have not risen as fast as a GISS climate model projection. Tamino, after seeing the short-term model-data comparison graph in a few posts, wrote the unjustified Favorite Denier Tricks, or How to Hide the Incline. I responded with On Tamino’s Post “Favorite Denier Tricks Or How To Hide The Incline”. And Lucia Liljegren joined the discussion with her post Ocean Heat Content Kerfuffle. Much of Tamino’s post had to do with my zeroing the model-mean trend and OHC data in 2003.
While preparing the post GISS OHC Model Trends: One Question Answered, Another Uncovered, I reread the paper that presented the GISS Ocean Heat Content model: Hansen et al (2005), “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications”. (PDF) Hansen et al (2005) provided a model-data comparison graph to show how well the model matched the OHC data. Figure 5 is Figure 2 from that paper. As shown, they limited the years to 1993 to 2003 even though the NODC OHC data starts in 1955. Hansen et al (2005) chose 1993 as the start year for three reasons. First, they didn’t want to show how poorly the models hindcasted the early version of the NODC OHC data in the 1970s and 1980s. The models could not recreate the hump that existed in the early version of the OHC data. Second, at that time, the OHC sampling was best over the period of 1993 to 2003. Third, there were no large volcanic eruptions to perturb the data. But what struck me was how Hansen et al (2005) presented the data in their time-series graph. They appear to have zeroed the model ensemble mean and the observations at 1993.5. The very obvious reason they zeroed the data then was so to show how well OHC models matched the data from 1993 to 2003.
Figure 5
################################
My ARGO-era model-data comparison graph is also zeroed at the start year, 2003, but I’ve done that to show how poorly the models now match the data. Hansen et al (2005) zeroed at 1993 to show how well the models recreated the rise in OHC from 1993 to 2003 and I’ve zeroed the data in 2003 to show how poorly the models match the data after that. I’m not sure why that’s so difficult to accept for some people. The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003?
Figure 6 compares the ARGO-era Ocean Heat Content observations to the model projection, which is an extension of the linear trend determined by Hansen et al (2005), for the period of 1993 to 2003. Over that period, the modeled OHC rose at 0.6 watt-years per year. I’ve converted the watt-years to Gigajoules using the conversion factor readily available through Google: 1 watt years = 31,556,926 joules. The model projection has risen at a rate that’s 7 times higher than the observations since 2003.
Figure 6
I asked the question in Figure 6, If The Observations Continue To Diverge From The Model Projection, How Many Years Are Required Until The Model Can Be Said To Have Failed? It’s really a moot point. Hansen et al (2005) shows that the model mean has little-to-no basis in reality. They describe their Figure 3 (provided here as Figure 7 in modified form) as, “Figure 3 compares the latitude-depth profile of the observed ocean heat content change with the five climate model runs and the mean of the five runs. There is a large variability among the model runs, revealing the chaotic ‘ocean weather’ fluctuations that occur on such a time scale. This variability is even more apparent in maps of change in ocean heat content (fig. S2). Yet the model runs contain essential features of observations, with deep penetration of heat anomalies at middle to high latitudes and shallower anomalies in the tropics.” I’ve deleted the illustrations of the individual model runs in Figure 7 for an easier visual comparison of the observations and the model mean graphics. I see no similarities between the two. None.
Figure 7
COMPARISON OF OHC ANOMALY DATA BY HEMISPHERES
I don’t recall presenting the OHC anomalies for the Northern and Southern Hemisphere on the same graph in earlier posts, so here they are in Figure 8. As always, the Southern Hemisphere data has to be taken with more than a grain of salt. There were very few observations in the Southern Hemisphere prior to the ARGO era, especially south of the tropics. But what I found interesting was the major divergence after the 1997/98 El Niño. The Northern Hemisphere data rises significantly, but there is a minor dip and rebound in the Southern Hemisphere data at that time.
Figure 8
So I subtracted the Southern Hemisphere OHC anomaly data from the Northern Hemisphere. Refer to Figure 9. The timing of the large variations appear to coincide with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. I checked and found that they did, but the results were surprising.
Figure 9
Figure 10 is a gif animation that compares inverted and scaled (-0.1) NINO3.4 SST anomalies (a commonly used proxy for the timing and magnitude of ENSO events) and the difference between Northern and Southern Hemisphere OHC anomalies. The animation presents the inverted NINO3.4 SST anomalies shifted up and down. I’ve done this to align them with the corresponding changes in the hemispheric difference for the significant 1972/73, 1982/83, and 1997/98 El Niño events. The hemispheric difference leads the NINO3.4 SST anomalies during those ENSO events.
Figure 10
I have not carried the investigation any farther. Hopefully soon.
THE HEMISPHERES AND THE OCEAN BASINS
(11) Northern Hemisphere
#################################
(12) Southern Hemisphere
#################################
(13) North Atlantic (0 to 75N, 78W to 10E)
#################################
(14) South Atlantic (0 to 60S, 70W to 20E)
#################################
(15) North Pacific (0 to 65N, 100 to 270E, where 270E=90W)
#################################
(16) South Pacific (0 to 60S, 120E to 290E, where 290E=70W)
#################################
(17) Indian (60S-30N, 20E-120E)
#################################
(18) Arctic Ocean (65 to 90N)
#################################
(19) Southern Ocean (60 to 90S)
SOURCE
All data used in this post is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
From Bob Tisdale on June 19, 2011 at 3:50 pm:
The Tropical Warm Pool has a one-line Wikipedia entry, lifted from its sole reference, that USGS press release. The “See also” is Maritime Continent, “…the name given primarily by meteorologists to the region of Southeast Asia which comprises many islands, peninsulas and shallow seas.” It provides heat to the TWP. While technically that entry has no references it does have one “External link,” this 2003 paper in Journal of Climate which deals with Global Climate Models.
So the TWP appears to be a region with dynamic boundaries defined by its particular characteristics, with such constructs used for climate modeling purposes.
As to the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, after Googling I found this 2008 post from some blogger dude which speaks of the IPWP as a hard-defined geographical area, referencing a 2007 PowerPoint presentation.
Thus the TWP and IPWP are different things, defined differently for different purposes.
(Interesting site that blogger dude has, going by that page. But pretty bare, too “just the facts.” Doesn’t even have a blogroll. Where could he put a WUWT link? It’s a basic wordpress-dot-com site, just take a minute to add one.)
Michael Jankowski says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Trenberth thinks the missing warming is in the deeper ocean (700-2000m), which is what warmists claim is what he meant during climategate with his “It’s a shame we can’t explain the lack of recent warming.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////
If at the time, Trenberth was truly of the view that the ‘missing heat’ was in the deeper ocean (and going unmeasured), he woukd have postulated that rather than simply stating “It’s a shame we can’t explain the lack of recent warming.” He would not have said “we can’t explain the lack of recent warming” since he would have had an explanation, ie., the recent warming is in the deep ocean but unfortunately the deep ocean is not being well measured (if the deep ocean was well measured we would see the recent warming).
I don’t accept the spin by the warmists that they now put on this statement . Given that there was no need for Trenberth to make any comment on ocean heat or say what he said, the natural inference is Trenberth meant precisely what he said at the time, ie., at that time they had had no expanation as to why there was no recent warming of the oceans seen in the observational data.
From Kevin O’Neill on June 19, 2011 at 8:52 pm:
Read this Feb 2011 WUWT post about a recent peer-reviewed paper in Geophysical Research Letters:
Arctic “death spiral” actually more like “zombie ice”
You called it right, there is a negative feedback. If the Arctic Ocean would go ice-free in summer, instead of the prophesied (C)AGW “death spiral” from decreased albedo (dark water replacing shiny ice thus increased sunlight absorption), the lack of insulating ice actually allows the waters to release more heat.
Give the Arctic Ocean more heat, it’ll end up dumping more heat. Note the following: 2007 was considered a disastrous year for the Arctic with very low sea ice extent after the summer melt season (reference). Subsequent years weren’t as bad but still rather low. Yet examine Graph 18, above in the post, the Ocean Heat Content anomalies for the Arctic. You can see a downward trend since about 2007. Less ice covering the water, more heat dumped to space.
There will be grumbling from the frequently discontented about the period being too short (2007 to current), it’s not proof of anything, (C)AGW can still kill us all, etc. But on a preliminary basis it seems pretty clear, less Arctic sea ice results in the Arctic Ocean acting to reduce Global Ocean Heat Content.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: “Thus the TWP and IPWP are different things, defined differently for different purposes.”
The Pacific Warm Pool, the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, and the Tropical Warm Pool used by the USGS in that press release all have the same general description (warmest ocean temperature on earth) and provide the same general location. If you were to google scholar “Pacific Warm Pool” in quotes, you get 7700 returns, “Indo-Pacific Warm Pool” gets 1040 returns, and “Tropical Warm Pool” gets 643 returns.
Pamela Gray says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Gates, back in the old days, climate zones were set in stone geographically and so described in elementary text books. It is only recently that the word “climate” has been co-opted by AGW’ers and morphed into what I understand as weather pattern variation.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Couldn’t agree more.
When I went to school, we were taught about the various climate types (eg., continenantal, alpine, mediterranean, artic, subartic, desert, semi-arid, tropical, tropical rainforest, monsoon etc etc). As far as I know, none of these types of climate have changed. As far as I know, presently these have not changed at all in the sense for example, the mediterranean climate having ceased to exist becoming instead say semi-arid climate.
Quite simply, presently there is no climate change on an observational basis and to suggest that climate change is a reality is fraudulent and can only be postured by hijacking the term climate and altering its meaning. Global warming (rather than climate change) was a more accurate nomenclature for the ‘warmists’ theory, but of course this term has been dropped because there does not presently seem to be any (statistically) significant warming taking place on an observational basis. If appropriate error bars are added, it is extremely difficult to say that there has been any recent warming and what little apparent trend may be seen is nothing more than noise.
Kevin O’Neill says:
“But there’s not an unlimited supply of sea-ice. If it disappears all that energy that presently goes towards melting the ice will go towards warming the arctic waters. ”
There wil always be new sea ice formed during the long arctic winter. That cycle is not going away. There’s no warming sunlight for months each year in the arctis.
Smokey challenges
—————
Let’s see the same model that happened to get closest to the actual climate accurately predict temperatures over the next 3, 5 and 10 years. No tweaking in the mean time. No 20,000 Monte Carlo runs. Make the prediction, and we’ll see if the model can accurately predict the climate.
————–
not possible. The chaos inherent in both the actual climate system and climate models means that, while there can be similarity in the general trends, there can never be an exact match, even assuming you could match the initial conditions exactly.
Lazy Teenager,
I agree, not possible. Excellent argument for de-funding government grants that pay for producing these inaccurate models. It’s a waste of good money that could be better spent elsewhwere, or left in the taxpayers’ wallets.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 5:37 pm
phlogiston says: “Isn’t it the case that La Nina systems result in warm water along the western Pacific margin? If a significant amount of this sloshes into the Indian Ocean, then (very speculatively) a warming Indian ocean could relect predominant La Nina cycles? (Or not?)”
You can see that La Nina effect on the Indian Ocean in the post I had linked earlier:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/argo-era-nodc-ocean-heat-content-data-0-700-meters-through-december-2010/
But the release of the warm water from below the surface of the PWP during the significant El Nino (before the La Nina) also has to be taken into consideration.
Yes indeed, in this animation from your post:
http://i54.tinypic.com/eu4pzq.jpg
during the La Nina cycle the cold tongue firing off from Peru (south east Pacific) is answered by a warm blob aroung the Phillipines (south west Pacific) and a small but significant part of this warm blob sieves through Indonesia into the Indian ocean.
“As far as I know, none of these types of climate have changed. As far as I know, presently these have not changed at all in the sense for example, the mediterranean climate having ceased to exist becoming instead say semi-arid climate.”
They do shift latitudially all the time though and I’ve suggested many times elsewhere that all observed climate changes can be accounted for by such shifting.
The Sahara was once wet and fertile.
The mid latitudes experience sizeable climate changes depending on their orientation one side of the mid latitude jets or the other.
Even the ITCZ drifts northward and southward over time.
In fact it is the latitudinal shifting of the climate zones that alters the rate of energy transfer from surface to space so as to always provide a negative response to system forcing.
Furthermore the power of that negative feedback process relegates radiative physics to a minor player.
phlogiston: “Blob” has a nice ring to it. I like it.
I am as interested in the variability as much as the trend, since the changes represent enormous transfers of energy which happen over very short time periods (months) despite the relatively constant input (the sun). Having said that, what I find striking in the graphs is the reduction in variability since 2003 – I guess this is the “ARGO period’ you refer to Bob.
What this says to me, is that the pre-ARGO variability was more a result of sampling and/or instrumentation error and – in fact – the month-to-month variability is not all that great.
Since a great deal of the arguments on CAGW seem to rely on the speed with which energy retained by greenhouse gases results in increased global temperatures (the hidden heat) there has been much discussion of mixing rates etc. Can anyone speculate what a reduction in variability would mean to the various arguments over deep ocean mixing?
(previously: vukcevic) Recently I came across a correlation which may give a few years of advanced winter’s weather projection (and SST) in the N. Atlantic basin.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOs.htm
(note: it has been already posted elsewhere, but not on WUWT)
Rob Potter says: “What this says to me, is that the pre-ARGO variability was more a result of sampling and/or instrumentation error and – in fact – the month-to-month variability is not all that great.”
I will agree with you that the increased area of the oceans that are sampled during the ARGO era would tend to dampen the month-to-month variations, but between 1972 and 2002 there were a handfull of very strong ENSO events. ENSO events have also reduced in magnitude during the ARGO era.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 20, 2011 at 6:55 am
“…They do shift latitudially all the time though and I’ve suggested many times elsewhere that all observed climate changes can be accounted for by such shifting…”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
I do not disagree with that statement (after all one facet of this debate is the fact that climate changes and always has and always will) but the statement is not so on the timescale that we are talking about, ie., it is not so during the last 150 years. In particular, it is not so during the last 50 years of the last century which is the critical period when manmade CO2 emissions substantially increased.
“In particular, it is not so during the last 50 years of the last century which is the critical period when manmade CO2 emissions substantially increased.”
Have a look here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24228037/
Bob Tisdale says: “ENSO events have also reduced in magnitude during the ARGO era.”
Being just a tad facetious here – but are you suggesting more comprehensive measuring has reduced the strength of ENSO events? 😉
I get your point though – we have only had one decent ENSO event since the ARGO buoys came on-stream so it is too early to say the previous variability was an artefact. What it does show is just how skeptical we should be of the previous data (a la tree rings) and using it to build models which we than use to predict the future. I am sure it has been said before, but the ARGO data are the equivalent of the satellite atmospheric temperature data and it will be nice when we have this data over a ‘climate relevant period”.
Re Bob Tisdale on June 20, 2011 at 1:35 am:
I’m not defending USGS, just pointing out how for different purposes the use of different nomenclature may be warranted despite basically the same thing being discussed. We could argue about contactors and relays to the same effect.
Rob Potter says: “Being just a tad facetious here – but are you suggesting more comprehensive measuring has reduced the strength of ENSO events? ;-)”
Since you were only a tab facetious, I’ll reply. No.
Thanks, Anthony.
“Rob Potter says:
June 20, 2011 at 10:33 am
Bob Tisdale says: “ENSO events have also reduced in magnitude during the ARGO era.”
Being just a tad facetious here – but are you suggesting more comprehensive measuring has reduced the strength of ENSO events? 😉 ”
[snip]…
LOL, Heisenberg was right all the energy absorbed by the thermocouples ate the missing heat!