April to June 2011 NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomalies (0-700Meters) Update and Comments
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
A NEW APPEARANCE
Due to the noise in the Ocean Heat Content anomaly data for some of the ocean basins, I’ve added 13-month running average filters to the long-term graphs.
SAME INTRODUCTION AS ALWAYS
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 April to June 2011.
Let’s start the post with a couple of looks at the ARGO-era OHC anomalies.
BASIN TREND COMPARISONS
Figure 1 and 2 compare OHC anomaly trends for the ocean basins, with the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean also divided by hemisphere. Figure 1 shows the ARGO-era data, starting in 2003, and Figure 2 covers the full term of the dataset, 1955 to present. 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 in Figure 2.) 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?
Note also in the ARGO-era graph, Figure 1, that the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean subsets are the only ocean basins with positive linear trends. The sharp decline in the North Pacific OHC anomalies during the second quarter 2011 was great enough to drop its ARGO-era trend to just below zero.
Figure 1
################################
Figure 2
################################
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 investigating the impacts of natural variables on OHC anomalies, also consider North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s and ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data.
ARGO-ERA MODEL-DATA COMPARISON
Much of the discussion under this heading was first presented in the post January to March 2011 NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700Meters) Update and Comments.I’ve attempted to clarify some of the points in this version.
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 observations, which are 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”.Hansen et al (2005) provided a model-data comparison graph to show how well the model matched the OHC data. Figure 3 in this post 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 3
################################
The ARGO-era model-data comparison graph in this post, Figure 4, is also zeroed at the start year, 2003, but I’ve done that to show how poorly the models now match the data. I’m not sure why my zeroing the data in 2003 is so difficult for some people to accept. Hansen et al (2005) zeroed at 1993 to show how well the models recreated the rise in OHC from 1993 to 2003, but some bloggers attempt to criticize my graphs when I zero the data in 2003 to show how poorly the models match the data after that. 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? Apparently not. This was discussed further in the post Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?
Figure 4 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. With the recent seasonal declines in Global Ocean Heat Content anomalies, the model projection is rising at a rate that’s more than 10 times higher than the observations since 2003. 10 times higher.
Figure 4
################################
HOW LONG UNTIL THE MODELS ARE SAID TO HAVE FAILED?
I asked the question in Figure 4, If The Observations Continue To Diverge From The Model Projection, How Many Years Are Required Until The Model Can Be Said To Have Failed? I raised a similar question in the post 2nd Quarter 2011 NODC Global OHC Anomalies last week, and in the WattsUpWithThat cross post Global Ocean Heat Content Is Still Flat, a blogger stated, in effect, that 8 ½ years was not long enough to reject the models.If we scroll up to Figure 3, Figure 2 from Hansen et al (2005), we can see that Hansen et al (2005) used only 11 years to confirm their Model E hindcast was a good match for the Global Ocean Heat Content anomaly observations. Can we then assume that the same length of time will be long enough to say the model has failed during the ARGO era?
And as noted in OHC update from last quarter, 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 5 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 5 for an easier visual comparison of the graphics of the observations and the model mean. I see no similarities between the two. None.
Figure 5
GLOBAL
The Global OHC data through June 2011 is shown in Figure 6. 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 from 1983 through 2003.
Figure 6
################################
TROPICAL PACIFIC
Figure 7 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 a little during the first quarter of 2011, but with the drop during the most recent quarter, it appears the 2010/11 La Niña event did little to recharge the heat discharged during the 2009/10 El Nino.
Figure 7
################################
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.
A CHANGE IN THE COORDINATES USED FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC
I recently changed the coordinates I use for the North Atlantic in the Sea Surface Temperature anomaly updates from 0-75N, 78W-10E to 0-70N, 80W-0. I did this so that I was using the same coordinates the that NOAA/ESRL uses for their Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) data. I’ve now changed the coordinates I’m using in the OHC updates to 0-70N, 80W-0 for consistency between datasets. There is little difference in the OHC anomalies between the old and new coordinates as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8
THE HEMISPHERES AND THE OCEAN BASINS
The following graphs illustrate the long-term NODC OHC anomalies for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and for the individual ocean basins–without commentary.
(9) Northern Hemisphere
#################################
(10) Southern Hemisphere
#################################
(11) North Atlantic (0 to 70N, 80W to 0)
#################################
(12) South Atlantic (0 to 60S, 70W to 20E)
#################################
(13) North Pacific (0 to 65N, 100 to 270E, where 270E=90W)
#################################
(14) South Pacific (0 to 60S, 120E to 290E, where 290E=70W)
#################################
(15) Indian (60S-30N, 20E-120E)
#################################
(16) Arctic Ocean (65 to 90N)
#################################
(17) Southern Ocean (60 to 90S)
#################################
AN ANIMATED COMPARISON OF OCEAN BASIN OHC ANOMALIES
I was recently asked why I did not use one scale for the y-axis in graphs of the ocean basins—that having the scale change for each basin made it difficult to compare graphs. The answer: because the rise in North Atlantic OHC anomalies is so much greater than the other ocean basins, the scale required for it skews the scaling for the other ocean basins. But for those interested, Animation 1 illustrates the OHC anomalies for each of the ocean basins, while keeping a common scale for the y-axis.
Animation 1
SOURCE
All data used in this post is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Excellent analysis Bob, very much appreciated. I like the way you’ve kept all the charts the same format with the blink comparator at the end. So nearly all of the rise has been in the North Atlantic over the last few decades, and we’re wondering why we’re losing a bit of ice up North?
If Trenberth is only missing 0.9K, then there is something seriously wrong with his science. We’ve already seen from Willis’s last post that clouds can cause a reduction of 210 W\m2 in energy reaching the surface. This is something which by all accounts hasn’t been factored in to his equations, so I think he needs to go back and redo his sums.
I agree with Jim Hogg. Yes, R. Gates should be called out on the things he says, but some of the comments here and on other posts remind me of my experience on reddit a few years ago. It’s not pleasant, and it adds nothing to the sum of our knowledge.
Billy Liar says:
September 19, 2011 at 11:41 am
R. Gates says:
September 18, 2011 at 6:38 pm
How can some of them be useful? Because they can point to the dynamics underlying the system, even if they can’t forecast exactly how that system will change over time. So in terms of models giving the trends of ocean heat content, the better ones (i.e. still wrong, but still useful) will be best at showing what dynamics are involved in rasing or lowering ocean heat content. A useful model will be refined over and over again. Always destined to be wrong (i.e. not an exact map of reality), but ever closer to hinting at the underlyimg dynamics.
The only underlying dynamics emerging from models to enlighten the clueless will be the ones with which they were programmed.
___
I appreciate your skeptical attitude toward the global climate models, but I think you fail to fully grasp how extremely complicated these are, and so related to that, I would propose a challenge:
How about a group of us all get together and actually visit the National Center for Atmosphereic research in Boulder, CO. I would bet (if we could get a nice sized group together) they’d give us a tour and a special presentation on the climate models. When the simulations are run, no one knows the outcome, and often they are quite interesting and do reveal dynamics that only later on, through actual data gathering and field studies, prove to be accurate. This is one of the most useful things about models, is that they can reveal dynamics which theory alone could never predict and certainly could never have been “programmed” into the models.
REPLY: I think before you ask for special services, your should at least learn to spell “Atmospheric” correctly. If Dr. Trenberth wants to meet, and give a presentation, and be willing to answer questions from skeptics, I’ll happily endorse the idea and attend. – Anthony
Bob Tisdale says:
September 19, 2011 at 2:02 pm
R. Gates: Regarding your September 19, 2011 at 11:54 am reply, wouldn’t it have been easier to simply admit your original comment about THC that “the gulf stream plundges downward in the N. Atlantic” was wrong? Why argue? Also keep in mind that all of that warm water being transported northward by the Gulf Stream does not wind up being downwelled as part of THC. The Gulf Stream is the western boundary current portion of the North Atlantic gyre, so much of it is eventually transported south again by the Canary Current.
Regards
____
I would admit I was wrong if I knew that to be the case. The Gulf Stream is part of the global THC, and the global THC plunges down (or downwells) in the North Atlantic, such that, if somehow you could put a tracer on an indivdual molecule of salt that started somewhere off the coast of Florida, you could track this salt molecule to the bottom of the North Atlantic as the THC (which the Gulf Stream is a segment of) plunges down to the bottom of the Atlantic. Certainly not all the energy and momentum of the Gulf Stream is downwelled, but certainly a portion of it. Now, to follow this even further, depending on which particlular deep current this salt molecule got into, you could trace it as it flows at the deepest level of the oceans around the planet. Now some have suggested that the THC takes about 1500 years to complete a full loop around the planet, and interestingly, this 1500 year cycle is very close the the cycle of Bond events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event). Just more food for thought, but no, I’m not quite willing to admit that at least a portion of the the Gulf Stream, as part of the THC, doen’t “plunge down” in the North Atlantic.
Salt dissolved in water is not a “molecule”.
How about a group of us all get together and actually visit the National Center for Atmosphereic research in Boulder, CO. I would bet (if we could get a nice sized group together) they’d give us a tour and a special presentation on the climate models. When the simulations are run, no one knows the outcome, and often they are quite interesting and do reveal dynamics that only later on, through actual data gathering and field studies, prove to be accurate. This is one of the most useful things about models, is that they can reveal dynamics which theory alone could never predict and certainly could never have been “programmed” into the models.
REPLY: I think before you ask for special services, your should at least learn to spell “Atmospheric” correctly. If Dr. Trenberth wants to meet, and give a presentation, and be willing to answer questions from skeptics, I’ll happily endorse the idea and attend. – Anthony
_____
I’ve been to NCAR several times and would gladly assist in setting this up, but of course can make no promises for Dr. Trenberth’s appearance. I would think that Walt Meier might be good contact to assist in this, and maybe would attend. I think it would even be an interesting media event– “Group of Global Warming Skeptics Visit NCAR”…could make a great story. How shall we proceed?
PS – I don’t mind you pointing out my misspelled words, but would hope that you are like God, “causing it rain on the just and unjust” in equal portions.
REPLY: Like God? No. But I’ll say this, I can talk to Dr. Walt Meier any day of the week and twice on Sundays, Dr. Trenberth’s views as leading climate modeler would be the only reason to go. Not interested otherwise. If you can set it up, I’ll endorse it. However, Dr. Trenberth has resisted every attempt at communications, so I doubt he has the mettle nor the patience. Prove me wrong. – Anthony
John M says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Salt dissolved in water is not a “molecule”.
_____
Very true…I was simplifying it a bit, but it doesn’t change the basic concept. The various associated ions are equally valid for the concept of following a “marker” around the THC.
Anthony said:
If you can set it up, I’ll endorse it. However, Dr. Trenberth has resisted every attempt at communications, so I doubt he has the mettle nor the patience. Prove me wrong. – Anthony
___
I’ve had fairly good success in communicating with him in the few times I’ve needed to. He travels a great deal, but if planned in advance, he might attend. I think it should be made clear that this would be a presentation, specifically about global climate models, with possible Q & A afterwards, but in no way a “debate” or any such thing. If desired and approved by Dr. Trenberth, I could probably set up to have this professionally recorded for television and/or YouTube.
REPLY: Take this offline- check your email – Anthony
Gates,
Why not a debate? I’ll tell you why: Trenberth cannot win a debate.
So of course Trenberth will hide out from any honest debate. As an alternative, arrange for an hour of non-scripted follow-up questions to any Trenberth presentation. That would accomplish the same result. If Trenberth isn’t a chicken, let’s have plenty of time afterward for skeptical scientists’ follow-up questions. Maybe he can show us where that missing heat is lurking.☺
“John M says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Salt dissolved in water is not a “molecule”.”
Really? So H2CO3/HCO3(1-)/CO3(2-)/NO2(1-)/NO3(1-)/NH4(1+)/IO3(1-)/SO4(2-) or HSiO4(1-) are not molecules?
“DocMartyn says:
September 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm”
Molecules are neutral as contrasted with ions that are not neutral. So while sugar (C12H22O11) will dissolve as a whole molecule in water, table salt (NaCl) will ionize and not exist as a neutral NaCl molecule in water.
DocMartyn says:
September 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm
“John M says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Salt dissolved in water is not a “molecule”.”
Really? So H2CO3/HCO3(1-)/CO3(2-)/NO2(1-)/NO3(1-)/NH4(1+)/IO3(1-)/SO4(2-) or HSiO4(1-) are not molecules? “””””
Well I’m a Physicist; not a Chemist, so I don’t know beans about molecules or ions, in solution. I learned my “Chemistry” when Al Chemy was the leading Chemist of the day.
And I have just some faint recollection of some sort of “solubilty product” that related the product of the concentration of the anion, and the concentration of the cation to the Temperature and some constant of the dissolved “chemical species”. It seems that adding any more of the stuff, just left it in molecular form; presumably residing interstitially between the solvent molecules.
But as I said I’m not a Chemist so that could all be total bunkum.
“”””” Bob Tisdale says:
September 19, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Ric Werme says: “Why 0-700 m? I must have read the rationale for this sometime, I would hope, but I sure don’t remember.”
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the reason for 700m identified, either, but let’s look at the history. The early OHC papers typically reported OHC at multiple depth ranges. In Levitus et al (2000)… “””””
Bob/Ric,
I’ve read reports that some “sunlight” can be detected as deep as 3,000 feet; roughly a km.
But the difference between “can be detected” and “deposits solar energy”, is night and day; well almost literally.
But looking at the spectral absorption coefficient for sea water, it gets down to around 10^-4 per cm for the most penetrating blue green around the 460-480 nm region.
So that is a 1/e depth of around 100 metres. e^7 is about 1,100 or a 0.1% residual.
So I think 700 metres, is a fairly good guess for a depth which covers where 99.9% of the incident solar energy resides.
I have no independent confirmation of my conjecture; but there it is for your consideration.
George
R. Gates says: “I would admit I was wrong if I knew that to be the case.”
Here’s what you wrote in your September 18, 2011 at 6:52 pm reply, “Think, for example, about the incredible amount of energy being brought down into the deepest parts of the Atlantic as the gulf stream plundges downward in the N. Atlantic.”
Here’s a link to a map of North Atlantic currents:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/North_Atlantic_Gyre.png
Please provide a link to a detailed map of THC that shows downwelling on the coordinates occupied by the Gulf Stream.
R. Gates says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:46 pm
My preferred “unit” is handful of water. So instead of “if somehow you could put a tracer on an individual molecule of salt” leaving an opening for pedants about molecules (why no pedants griping about the tracer?) the imprecision of a handful of water implies you’re talking about the general flow and not some particular ion.
I first heard that unit from my father in a discussion about adiabatic expansion. Messed with my brain some – not only with keeping a handhold (sorry) on that air, but dealing with its expansion as you carried it up Mt Washington. Not to mention protecting it from external heating!
Ric,
What’s wrong with R Gates’ use of the word tracer?
Anyway, for those still interested, Wiki does occasionally have its uses, as it appears that Connelly hasn’t gotten around to editing the Chemistry entries…yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule
For those of you who may want to find solace in the “less stringent” uses of the term described in the Wiki article, please note that I was specifically referring to salt (sodium chloride) dissolved in water and R Gates’ implication that this “molecule” would traverse the ocean intact.
John M says:
September 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm
> What’s wrong with R Gates’ use of the word tracer?
Nothing wrong with the word, just the concept. How do you put a tracer on a salt molecule? You’d need two units, one for the Na+ and one for the Cl- ions. I suppose you could use a GPS locater unit, though you’d need one floating on the surface with a long tether to the ion. (And how do you track the ion without influencing its motion?) Of course, that’s really tracking, not tracing. A typical tracer, e.g. in medical studies, is to use radioisotopes, e.g. brain glucose metabolism uses a short lived carbon isotope. However, here if we try radioisotopes of Na and Cl, then all you get is one or two decays. Perhaps you could attach an atom of U238, and get several decays, but still it’s useless for tracking the ions toward the poles. You could also bind it to a fluorescent molecule, but be sure not to let it out of your sight!
What did you have in mind for tracing R’s molecule?
And Wikipedia isn’t far off saying you can’t have a salt molecule in the first place.