While there’s news of ocean heat content in the Atlantic being pumped up by “leakage” from the Indian Ocean, and NOAA proclaims that La Niña is back, Bob Tisdale finds that the global ocean heat content trend since the turn of the 21st century is flat. Worse than that, it widely diverges from climate models predicting a continued rise in OHC.
2nd Quarter 2011 NODC Global OHC Anomalies
by Bob Tisdale
The NODC updated its Ocean Heat Content Anomaly data to include the 2nd quarter 2011 data. (And they also updated their Thermosteric Sea Level Anomaly data, which is not discussed in this post) I will provide a more detailed discussion as soon as the KNMI Climate Explorer is updated with the 2ndquarter 2011 Ocean Heat Content data, which should be later this month.
THE GRAPHS
Figure 1 is a time-series graph of the NODC Global Ocean Heat Content Anomalies from the start of the dataset (1st Quarter of 1955) to present (2nd Quarter of 2011). The quarterly data for the world oceans is available through the NODC in spreadsheet (.csv ) form (Right Click and Save As: Global OHC Data). While there was a significant increase in Global Ocean Heat Content over the term of the data, Global Ocean Heat Content has flattened in recent years.
Figure 1
And as many are aware, Climate Model Projections of Ocean Heat Content anomalies did not anticipate this flattening. Figure 2 compares the ARGO-era (2003 to present) NODC Global Ocean Heat Content anomalies to the GISS Model-E Projection of 0.7*10^22 Joules per year. The linear trend of the observations is approximately 7% of the trend projected by the model mean of the GISS Model-E.
Figure 2
The source of the 0.7*10^22 Joules per year GISS Model-E ensemble-mean trend was illustrated, clarified, and questioned in the post GISS OHC Model Trends: One Question Answered, Another Uncovered.
HOW MANY MORE YEARS UNTIL GISS MODEL-E CAN BE FOUND TO HAVE FAILED AS A PREDICTOR OF THE IMPACTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GASES ON OCEAN HEAT CONTENT?
I asked the above question in Figure 2. It’s a rewording of the question asked by Roger Pielke Sr., in his post 2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions. There he notes:
Joules resulting from a positive radiative imbalance must continue to be accumulated in order for global warming to occur. In the last 7 1/2 years there has been an absence of this heating. An important research question is how many more years of this lack of agreement with the GISS model (and other model) predictions must occur before there is wide recognition that the IPCC models have failed as skillful predictions of the effect of the radiative forcing of anthropogenic inputs of greenhouse gases and aerosols.
As far as I’m concerned, they have already failed for numerous reasons. I have illustrated and discussed in past posts how:
1. ENSO is responsible for much of the rise in Ocean Heat Content for many of the ocean basins,
And as far as I know, these are natural contributors to the rise that are overlooked by the GISS Model-E. This was further illustrated and discussed in Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?
NOTES ABOUT THE ARGO-ERA GRAPH
There will be those who will attempt to dismiss the divergence between model projection and observations shown in Figure 2. Tamino tried to downplay the divergence in his post Favorite Denier Tricks, or How to Hide the Incline. I responded to Tamino with my post On Tamino’s Post “Favorite Denier Tricks Or How To Hide The Incline”. And there may be those who believe 2004 is a more appropriate year to use as the start of the ARGO-era OHC data, so for them, I illustrated how little difference it makes whether the ARGO-era starts in 2003 or 2004 in the post ARGO-Era Start Year: 2003 vs 2004. Note that there are two GISS Model-E projections illustrated in the sole graph in the post ARGO-Era Start Year: 2003 vs 2004. The one at 0.98*10^22 Joules per year, identified as Hansen/Pielke Sr., was found to be in error. This was discussed in the post GISS OHC Model Trends: One Question Answered, Another Uncovered.And of course, there is the fact that natural variables, which are not accounted for by the GISS Model-E, are major contributors to rise in Ocean Heat Content, as discussed in the four posts linked in the previous section.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The first bit of added heat they were expecting to find hiding in the oceans starting in 2000 was last seen zooming past Alpha Centauri five years ago.
So the oceans supposed heated up, up until the time the Argo buoys came online and the OHC was actually measured.
Come on now, there’s missing heat in the oceans. It’s hiding and that’s why we can’t see it. It’s probably hiding under very deep ocean rocks where we’re not looking. It’s a travesty, I tell you, that for all of our technology we can’t find it (it hides pretty good doesn’t it).
The models are not falsified by our observation. Our observation is falsified by the models. Yes, that’s how it works. /sarc
Obviously Argo buoys cause ocean cooling. I have a robust model with high correlation to show you!
If you were to do a Cusum on this, it would be telling us something fundamental changed in “the process.”
My own guess is, that something ain’t nothin’ good.
I see a cliff up ahead.
That is flat – flat as a pancake. I don’t care what the models say.
Just a note about E+22 joules. 1.6E+22 joules equals 1 watt/m2 over the whole Earth surface for a full year. The Earth receives about 3.88E+24 joules of energy from the Sun each year and none of it is accumulating (a tiny amount in melting ice perhaps).
Flat ocean heat also means Zero ocean absorption of CO2/GHG forcing (that would normally be warming the air/surface temperatures). Since air/surface temperatures are also flat, we have to assume that is NO extra CO2/GHG forcing in operation versus that of 7 years ago.
And it also calls into question the Lag propositions that are a big part of the theory – the Lags depend on there being extra CO2/GHG forcing each year and additional ocean heat accumulation each year. The length of time that flat temperatures/ocean heat accumulation has been around means that we are, effectively, already at Equilibrium.
Since the late 90s the following events have all occurred as the level of solar activity declined from the peak of cycle 23 into a very weak cycle 24:
i) A cessation of rising ocean heat content and a pause in sea level rise.
ii) A cessation of the cooling stratosphere with possibly a slight warming
iii) A cessation of tropospheric warming.
iv) More meridional excursions for the mid latitude jetstreams suggesting a net equatorward shift in the surface pressure distribution ( reversing the poleward shift that occurred whilst the sun was more active).
v) More cold weather events in both hemispheres.
vi) Global cloudiness now increasing after a period of decline.
It is simply beyond belief to suggest that all the above are not linked to each other and to the less active sun.
Meanwhile the apparent correlation with rising CO2 levels has completely broken down because CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise.
None of those changes were anticipated by any of the climate models.
Yes, but clouds are not suspected to be the cause.
Honestly, the progress in 1984-1994 is flat in pretty much the same way as in the last five years. And the trendline always diverges the better the higher over data you place it but I’d call that optical tricks rather than science.
I don’t see the global heat content evolution being flat yet. It slowed down considerably and reduced its variability, yes. But it’s not flat yet.
Considering that the sun has been basically blank for so long and no sign of massive activity on the horizon… I think we have reached the maximum and the curve can only go down from this point. How far and fast will it go down? That is the question.
I hope you guys don’t mind if I get a little off-topic – is this a lot of heat or a little heat? What I mean is, if the oceanic heat content stays roughly at the average value seen in Figure 1 from 2004 onwards, will life as we know it be doomed? And if the heat content were actually at the model prediction that is about 5×10^22 J higher, would all the sea life have disappeared by now? I just don’t have a feel for how these numbers translate into my laymans understanding. Thanks.
HOW MANY MORE YEARS UNTIL …
Never if it supports the sceptics, but as short as they like if it supports the alarmists.
This is indeed an Alice in Wonderland world where things are precisely what the alarmists want them to be … well they were!
I believe that ocean heat content (if measured broadly and deeply enough) would be a far better indicator than the “Average Global Temperature” [of the lower atmosphere] in gauging “Global Warming”, whether “natural” or “man-made”.
This seems logical, due to the far greater heat capacity of the oceans than the atmosphere.
Plus, now there are thousands of temperature probes in the oceans, at multiple latitudes, longitudes and depths (if I understand correctly). How long has there been sufficient sensors to come up with a semi-accurate calculation of an “ocean heat content” and is there rough agreement on the values thus derived?
Is there peer-reviewed literature on this, also comparing ocean temperature and climate?
Which scientists are at the cutting edge of this subject?
Kurt in Switzerland
Haul ARGO into the adjustment chambers, Igor!
It’s a travesty. Busts the “heat budget” all to hell.
Sorry Bob, the models show OHC continuing to rise till the seas boil. The observational data is wrong.
Bob, does table T1 in Levitus show a temperature increase from 1955 to 2005 of 0.17C? That equates to the 15×10*22 J increase in heat content, if I understand the table.
Surely I am misreading that. The paper discuss various adjustments of several tenths of a degree C and gaps in aerial coverage. Yet they claim that, despite the uncertainty introduced by the instruments and limited coverage, that they can detect a 0.17C increase over half a century?
I’m not suggesting that their work is biased, just that they have ca-ca data with which to work. Do they offer error bars anywhere?
Thanks,
David
Well, ARGO coverage went global by mid-2003 (before that time there were no buoys in the Southern ocean). Density kept increasing until 2007, but that should not introduce any systematic error, just some (decreasing) noise. Therefore it makes sense to calculate global upper 700 m OHC trend for the last 8 full years, that is, from 3rd quarter 2003 to 2nd quarter 2011, inclusive.
It is 0.0355 ± 0.0638 × 10²² J/year, which corresponds to a 22 ± 40 mW/m² planetary imbalance for this 8 year period. This trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero, and it is significantly smaller than the geothermal flux, which is about 80 mW/m²
On the other hand, according to Trenberth “The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 850 ± 150 mW/m²”
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, March 2009
DOI:10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
Earth’s Global Energy Budget
Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo & Jeffrey Kiehl
Now, Trenberth’s figure is forty times larger than what was measured and the two values lay at least five sigma apart. Therefore Trenberth’s proposition is falsified for good, even if the (minuscule) fraction of heat possibly sequestered below a depth of 700 m is taken into account.
Furthermore, if Trenberth is right in stating that computational climate models require heat accumulation at a rate of 850 ± 150 mW/m², all such models are falsified as well.
End of story.
Appendix:
ARGO coverage – April 2003
ARGO coverage – April 2004
ARGO coverage – current
Number of active floats
scarletmacaw says:
September 8, 2011 at 11:36 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Precisely. It is right to be sceptical of earlier data. However, that means we only have a short period of quality data (and even ARGO is less than ideal in coverage).
I sense another G[a]IA adjustment may be needed soon…
Global Mean Sea Level Change Graph with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)”
I omitted to point out in my above post that the significance of ocean temperatures is that if they are flat there can be no global warming; the oceans holding about 99% of the total energy in the Earth system
From Bob Tisdale: “The source of the 0.7*10^22 Joules per year GISS Model-E ensemble-mean trend was illustrated, clarified, and questioned in the post GISS OHC Model Trends: One Question Answered, Another Uncovered.”
Thank you for the post. Starting from 2003, are you able to clarify what proportion of the individual model runs (models ER and EH) that compose the ensemble mean fall above and below the 2nd Quarter 2011 endpoint? Also, what error bars are applicable to the Argo sampled data?
Methinks that this and other recent findings indicate that is not ere long before the Ice Man cometh.
The era of climate hazard from the demon CO2 is generally credited with beginning in earnest at the end of WWII. In a time span that is now more than six decades there is one sequence of 20+ years from the late 70s to the late 90s that has a dramatic rise in temps bracketed by two sequences which are now collectively double the length of the uptick where temps are either flat or declining. Most of the rest of the assumed rise in temps from the end of the LIA occurred in another spike at the beginning of the 20th century which is extremely difficult to credit to CO2 forcing. There have been a number of at least arguable alternative explanations of those two spikes put forward in recent years. And yet given all that, I still find myself on almost a daily basis confronted by a burgeoning collection of dolts who tell me I must be a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging moron because i will not wholeheartedly endorse the notion that all that has happened must be the result humanity’s use of fossil fuels. I’m sorry guys but it’s still NO SALE!
WHAT? Ocean heat content, all the way back to 1955?! Wow, amazing. As a person who has gone through the transition from Teletypes, to primative IBM Monitors, to 3-D, and terabyte drives… (I’m trying to get this point across in the best way possible.) To be blunt about it, to claim that there is ANY way to estimate ocean heat until the instrumentation of the ’80’s, at minimum, is completely absurd. What, temperature measurements by flunkies on ships? QUALITY CONTROL! Mostly useless.
MAYBE some temperature data from nuclear subs, but that is dubious.
GUYS, the LUNAR LANDER had about 40 KB (kilobyte) of “fast memory”. It had about 5 MB (mega byte) of “disk”. The machines at Mission Control were not much better.
Typically one of the Control Data “mainframes” had about 500 KB of “core” memory, and about 100 MB of disk memory.
These were some of the most ADVANCED data gathering systems (remote) of 1969.
WHERE THE HECK DID THEY GET THE DATA TO MAKE THE 1955 to NOW charts from?
I FIND NO INDICATION OF THAT METHOD, just the “magic” of having the chart.
I remain UN-impressed.
Complete fraud. (Or based on cherry picked, sparse data, highly interpolated, and cobbled together with a “boatload” of data integrity assumptions.)