Guest post by Bob Tisdale
OVERVIEW
This post compares satellite-based Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies to the hindcasts and projections of the multi-model mean of CMIP3 models. CMIP3 is the archive the IPCC used as the source of their models for AR4. The period being discussed runs from November 1981 to November 2011. This covers most of the recent warming period that began in the mid-1970s.
There are two modes of natural climate variability discussed in this post: the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). For those new to ENSO, refer to An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO – Part 1. And for those new to the AMO, refer to An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO — Part 2.
This post also illustrates the multiyear aftereffects of the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events on the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian, and West Pacific Oceans. Those oceans cover approximately 67% of the surface area of the global oceans. I have presented the processes that cause the multiyear aftereffects of those ENSO events in numerous posts over the past few years, so they will not be discussed in detail in this post. For those interested in learning about those processes, I discussed them and illustrated them with time-series graphs and with animated maps of sea surface temperature anomalies and other variables, most recently, in a two-part series: ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature and Supplement To “ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature”.
NOTE: The data in this post have been adjusted for the effects of volcanic aerosols.
INTRODUCTION
In the recent series of posts that compare the IPCC hindcasts for 20th Century surface temperatures to observed surface temperatures (see here, here, here, and here), the only time period when models consistently agreed with observations was the late warming period, from 1976 to 2000. But even that is misleading, because it gives the incorrect impression that anthropogenic forcings such as Carbon Dioxide were responsible for the rise in surface temperatures. Illustrating the error in that assumption is relatively easy when Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data is adjusted for the impacts of major volcanic eruptions and when the global data is divided into two subsets: the East Pacific (coordinates of 90S-90N, 180-80W) and the Rest-Of-The-World (90S-90N, 80W-180). Refer to the map in Figure 1 for an illustration of those areas. And Figure 2 is a comparison of the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for those two subsets.
Figure 1
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 2
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
DATA
The Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data used in this post is Reynolds OI.v2. It combines bias-corrected satellite observations for more complete coverage and in situ observations from buoys and ships. The Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature data covers the period of November 1981 to November 2011, or 30 years. The Reynolds OI.v2 data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website here. There is another reason why the Reynolds OI.v2 data is used in this post: Smith and Reynolds (2004) Improved Extended Reconstruction of SST (1854-1997)stated about the Reynolds OI.v2 data:
“Although the NOAA OI analysis contains some noise due to its use of different data types and bias corrections for satellite data, it is dominated by satellite data and gives a good estimate of the truth.”
The truth is a good thing.
We’ll also be using the multi-model mean of the Sea Surface Temperature data that was produced by the climate models in the CMIP3 archive, where CMIP3 stands for Phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. CMIP3 is the archive the IPCC used as the source of climate model data for its 4th Assessment Report. The CMIP3 Sea Surface Temperature data, identified as TOS, is available through the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) Climate Explorer website, specifically at their Monthly CMIP3+ scenario runswebpage. We have discussed in the recent posts that the multi-model mean represents the natural and anthropogenic forced component of the IPCC’s climate model outputs. And during the period we’ll be evaluating, it is the IPCC’s contention that anthropogenic forcings are the cause of the rise in surface temperatures.
The last discussion about the data is how the adjustments were made to account for the volcanic aerosols. The observational and model mean data are adjusted for the effects of volcanic aerosols, which would have major impacts on how the data was perceived during and for a few years after the explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mount Pinatubo (1991). To determine the scaling factor for the volcanic aerosol proxy, I used a linear regression software tool (Analyse-it for Excel) with global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies as the dependent variable and GISS Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness data (Source ) as the independent variable. The scaling factor determined was 1.431. This equals a global SST anomaly impact of approximately 0.2 deg C for the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption. To simplify and standardize the adjustments I’ve applied the same scaling factor to both the observed Sea Surface Temperature data and the model outputs. And I used the same adjustments for all subsets. As you will see, it slightly overcorrects in some instances and under-corrects a little in others. But since the adjustments are the same for the model outputs and instrument-based observations, they have no impact on the trend comparisons.
EAST PACIFIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE COMPARISON
Figure 3 compares the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the East Pacific Ocean (90S-90N, 180-80W) to the scaled Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific (5S-5N, 170W-120W). NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies are a commonly used index of the frequency and magnitude of El Niño and La Niña events, and I’ve scaled them (multiplied them by a factor of 0.22) because the variations in Sea Surface Temperature in that area of the equatorial Pacific are about 4.5 times greater than those of the East Pacific Ocean. As illustrated, the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the East Pacific mimic the NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies.
Figure 3
Figure 4 compares the observed Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the East Pacific to the CMIP3 Multi-Model Mean for the same coordinates. The first thing that stands out is the difference in the year-to-year variability. The observed variations in Sea Surface Temperature due to the ENSO events are much greater than those of the Multi-Model Mean. Keep in mind when viewing the model-observations comparisons in this post that the model mean is the average of all of the ensemble members. And since the variations in the individual ensemble members are basically random, they will smooth out with the averaging. The average, therefore, represents the forced component (from natural and anthropogenic forcings) of the models. And it’s the forced component of the model data we’re interested in illustrating and comparing with the observations in this post, not the big wiggles associated with ENSO.
Figure 4
The difference in the linear trends between the Multi-Model Mean and the observations is also extremely significant. That is the focus of this post. The linear trend of the Multi-Model Mean is 0.114 deg C per decade for the East Pacific Ocean. This means, based on the linear trend of the Multi-Model Mean, that anthropogenic forcings should have raised the East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, from pole to pole, by more than 0.34 deg C over the past 30 years. But the observed Sea Surface Temperature anomalies have actually declined. The East Pacific Ocean dataset represents about 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, and the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies there have not risen in response to the forcings of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
THE REST-OF-THE-WORLD COMPARISON
The Sea Surface Temperature anomalies and Multi-Model Mean for the Rest-Of-The-World (Atlantic, Indian, and West Pacific Oceans) from pole to pole are shown in Figure 5. The linear trend of the multi-model mean shows that the models have overestimated the warming by about 23%.
Figure 5
But even that is misleading, because the observed Sea Surface Temperature anomalies only rose in response to significant El Niño-La Nina events, and during the 9- and 11-year periods between those ENSO events, the observed Sea Surface Temperatures are remarkably flat. This is illustrated first in Figure 6, using the period average Sea Surface Temperature anomalies between the significant El Niño events, and second, in Figure 7, by showing the linear trends of the instrument-based observations data between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events and between the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events.
Figure 6
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 7
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
As you will note, I’ve isolated the significant El Niño events of 1982/83, 1986/87/88, 1997/98, and 2009/10. To accomplish this, I used the NOAA Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) to determine the official months of those El Niño events. There is a 6-month lag between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the response of the Rest-Of-The-World SST anomalies during the evolution phase of the 1997/98 El Niño. So I lagged the ONI data by six months and deleted the Rest-Of-The-World SST data that corresponded to the 1982/83, 1986/87/88, 1998/98, and 2009/10 El Niño events. All other months of data remain.
Note: The El Niño event of 1982/83 was counteracted by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon, so its apparent role in the long-term warming is minimal.
And what do the climate models show should have taken place during the periods between those ENSO events?
For the period between the 1986/87/88 and the 1997/98 El Niño events, Figure 8, the model mean shows a positive linear trend of 0.044 deg C per decade, while the observed linear trend is negative, at -0.01 deg C per decade. The difference of 0.054 deg C per decade is significant.
Figure 8
The difference between the linear trends is even more significant between the El Niño events of 1997/98 and 2009/10, as shown in Figure 9. The linear trend of the observations is basically flat, while trend of the models is relatively high at 0.16 deg C per decade.
Figure 9
Keep in mind that the model mean, according to the IPCC, represents the anthropogenically forced component of the climate models during the period of 1981 to 2011. Unfortunately for the models, there is no evidence of anthropogenic forcing in the East Pacific Ocean Sea Surface Temperature data or in the Sea Surface Temperature data for the Rest Of The World.
Let’s subdivide the Rest-Of-The-World data even more. This will illustrate why the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies between the significant ENSO events are flat.
THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND THE SOUTH ATLANTIC-INDIAN-WEST PACIFIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY DATA
Figure 10 is a map that shows how the data for the additional discussions were subdivided. Basically, this was done to isolate the North Atlantic from the additional ocean basins in the Rest-Of-The-World data. And the observed Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for those two subsets are shown in Figure 11. As illustrated, the linear trend of the North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature anomalies is significantly higher than the linear trend of the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific subset. This higher trend in the North Atlantic data is caused by the additional mode of natural variability known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. And as we will see, the forced component of the models (the model mean) does not account for the additional variability in the North Atlantic attributable to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
Figure 10
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 11
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Note: The North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for datasets like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation data are normally depicted by the coordinates of 0-70N, 80W-0. Here they include 0-90N, 80W-40E to capture the Mediterranean Sea and corresponding portion of the Arctic Ocean leftover from the other subsets. The additional surface area has little impacton the North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data presented here. But to differentiate it from the other versions of the North Atlantic data, I’ve called it “North Atlantic Plus” in the graphs.
“NORTH ATLANTIC PLUS” COMPARISON
The North Atlantic is the only ocean basin where the models underestimate the long-term trend of the satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature data. See Figure 12. (Also refer to Part 1 and Part 2of an earlier two-part post comparing the Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature dataset to the same CMIP3 Multi-Model Mean, but note that the data in those posts have not been adjusted for volcanic aerosols.) Based on the linear trends, the models have underestimated the warming of the North Atlantic by nearly 35%. Again, the North Atlantic has an additional mode of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO. It seems very obvious that the multi-model mean fails to hindcast and project this additional variability.
Figure 12
And for those interested, I’ve also provided graphs that compare the model mean and observed trends between the significant El Niño events. As shown in Figure 13, the models underestimate the warming that took place between the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98. And as illustrated in Figure 14, the models overestimated the rise in North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures between the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events.
Figure 13
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 14
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Let’s take a look at the South Pacific, Indian, and West Pacific comparison. As many of you are aware, I like to save the best for last.
SOUTH ATLANTIC-INDIAN-WEST PACIFIC COMPARISON
Figure 15 compares long-term observed Sea Surface Temperature anomalies and the Multi-Model Mean for the South Atlantic, Indian, and West Pacific Oceans. This is basically the portion of the “Rest-Of-The-World” dataset that is not included in the “North Atlantic Plus” data. As illustrated, the trend of the Multi-Model Mean is about 62% higher than the trend of the observed data. That is, the forced component of the models has over predicted the rise in Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for this subset by a substantial amount.
Figure 15
But the long-term trends are again misleading. The South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies only rise during the significant El Niño events of 1986/87, 1997/98, and 2009/10. Between those events, the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies drop.
Figure 16 compares the observed South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies to the Multi-Model Mean between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events. The anthropogenic forcings have driven the model-mean upwards during this period, but the linear trend of the observations show that Sea Surface Temperatures declined. And the difference of 0.093 deg C per decade is a major difference. But that’s small compared to the difference between the linear trends of the observations and the model mean for the period between the El Niño events of 1997/98 and 2009/10. That difference is almost 0.18 deg C per decade.
Figure 16
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 17
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
CLOSING COMMENT
As illustrated in the two earlier posts that use these same datasets (see here and here), the Multi-Model Mean of the CMIP3 coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models do not hindcast and project the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies in any ocean basin, when the data is presented on times-series basis and on a zonal mean (latitude-based) basis. (The model mean of the West Pacific subset may look good on a time-series basis, but not on a zonal mean basis.)
This post confirms the Multi-Model Mean (the forced component of the climate models) does a poor job of hindcasting and projecting the actual rise in global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, when the data is broken down into two logical subsets: the East Pacific Ocean and the Rest-Of-The-World. The post also illustrates the very basic reasons for that rise.
The models used by the IPCC for their hindcasts and projections assume that anthropogenic greenhouse gases drove the rise in Sea Surface Temperature anomalies from November 1981 to present. This is illustrated by the model mean, which represents the forced component of the models.
But the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the East Pacific Ocean (90S-90N, 180-80W) have not risen in 30 years. Refer to Figure 18.
Figure 18
And for the Rest-Of-The-World (90S-90N, 80W-180), Figure 19, the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies only rose during, and in response to, the 1986/87/88, 1997/98, and 2009/10 El Niño events.
Figure 19
There is no evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have had any impact on the East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies (90S-90N, 180-80W) or on the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the Rest Of The World (90S-90N, 80W-180).
ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
SOURCES
The model mean data is found at the KNMI Climate Explorer Monthly CMIP3+ scenario runs webpage. The Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website here. And the GISS aerosol optical depth data used to make the adjustments for volcanic aerosols can be found at the Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness webpage, specifically this data.
R. Gates: You opened you comment with, “I always enjoy your posts, but this quote from you is especially funny…”
I’m glad you found it entertaining, but you took it out of context. The two sentences that followed…
The South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies only rise during the significant El Niño events of 1986/87, 1997/98, and 2009/10. Between those events, the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies drop.
…were the clarifications. But you later acknowledged that.
You wrote, “The key point here is that SST’s are not the key indicator for anthropogenic warming of the oceans, but rather OHC is, and is continues to rise throughout the full ENSO cycle over the long-term, and this is most certainly not a misleading trend.”
Actually, the key point is the SSTs are the primary indicator of anthropogenic warming of the oceans. They are part of the surface temperature record and the surface temperature record is what the IPCC and most others refer to when describing anthropogenic global warming. This post was about how the climate models failed to hindcast and project the rise in SST, not OHC, over the past 30 years, so readers will understand that your off-topic remark is simply an unsuccessful attempt at misdirection.
The long-term trend is only misleading when bloggers such as you attempt to attribute it solely to anthropogenic global warming. I’ve illustrated and discussed how and where and why OHC has risen in response to ENSO…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-data/
…and in response to shifts in Sea Level Pressure…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift-in-the-late-1980s/
…and in response to the AMO/AMOC:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-is-governed-by-natural-variables/
I and regular readers here know I’ve furnished you the same links in the past, so readers will simply understand you’re reusing the same old arguments. And we realize you’ll use them in the future and I will respond in kind in the future. I have other things to do with my time. Do you? Apparently not.
R. Gates asked, “Please explain when and how you expect to see the real measure of energy in the ocean, OHC (down to the deepest levels we can accurately measure), begin to decrease over the long-term, as it has not for many decades.”
I don’t make predictions and you (should) know that. But one thing is certain, the climate models, like the GISS Model ER, did not predict the flattening of OHC over the past 8 years. And that’s because the AGW hypothesis piggybacked on a period of unusually strong ENSO events, and an upswing in the impacts of the AMO/AMOC on the OHC of the North Atlantic, and a shift in Sea Level Pressure of the North Pacific.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/why-are-ohc-observations-0-700m-diverging-from-giss-projections/
Since we’re no longer in a period of unusually strong El Niño events and since the North Atlantic OHC has made a downturn, the models projections have grown suspect and are looking as though they will fail.
Enjoy your holidays, R.Gates
ICPP.
mmikeccMikeC says: “What I would point out is that the surface water (slightly warmed by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and solar since there was a major event during the same time) is blown west by the trades where it accumulates in the warm pool (La Nina) then is discharged by Kelvin waves back into the Nino regions (El Nino), particularly the Large El Ninos (82, 98, 2010), then to higher latitudes.”
Your description of what fuels El Nino events needs some work. The tropical Pacific serves as the source of warm water that is released during an El Nino. But there is no evidence that it is “slightly warmed by anthropogenic greenhouse gases”. The NODC OHC data shows that Tropical Pacific OHC…
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure-7.png
…warmed significantly only during the 1973/74/75/76 La Nina event, the 1995/96 event, and the 1998/99/00/01 event. After those events, OHC declined, with the typical periodic ENSO variations.
With respect to your El Nino for Dummies, feel free to use the graphs and animations found in the following links as you expand your posts and provide the much-needed additional detail, but please cite the source:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-%e2%80%93-part-1/
And:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/
Enjoy your holidays.
crosspatch says: “The site is rather, uhm, cartoonish.”
What site?
Great post Bob. The observation of rest-of-world flatness between ENSO events is intriguing, though it would need more time to confirm. However – if it were the reality – the implications are profound. It would mean that (a) ENSO is the predominant mechanism of changes in global “climate” temperature and that (b) these changes are step-wise or quantum-like. So if solar or astrophysical or other forcers did change global temperatures, these forcings are “processed” by the oceans and “expressed” or output as ENSO step changes, with probable long lag times.
Many here are gravitating to this world-view of causality, e.g. sun – ocean – climate. However the quantum, step change aspect is interesting. It may bring on another chaos – nonlinearity moment. What if the ocean long term heat processing “system” behaved as some nonlinear pattern systems do, i.e. as a limit cycle? Then it would make step changes between discreet steps of surface thermal regime, rather than continuously. Just saying …
Wayne, I think you’ll find that crosspatch was referring to “El Nino for dummies here: http://roqtock.com/id9.html“
Hello R.Gates…where have you been, missed you we have…
OT..but as I’m sure you have enjoyed reading the latest release of Climategate emails, can I ask you, in all honesty, can you state you believe that Michael Manns work is accurate, or, will you be brave enough to admit it is, as we all called it years ago, bogus.
Just think it would be nice for someone who believes in AGW to come out and admit that one single fact. Thanks in anticipation of your honest and forthright reply.
long pig says: “The observation of rest-of-world flatness between ENSO events is intriguing, though it would need more time to confirm. However – if it were the reality – the implications are profound.”
If there’s a question in your mind whether or not those upward shifts exist, please confirm them. The sources of the data are listed at the end of the post.
But even that is misleading, because the observed Sea Surface Temperature anomalies only rose in response to significant El Niño-La Nina events,
———-
I find it odd that a “cycle” like el niño somehow produces a nice linear upward trend.
Last time I heard a cycle oscillates around an equilibrium position, so it should not produce an upward trend at all.
Maybe el niño is like some climate ratchet. It only allows heat to flow into the ocean but not out if it. Anyone like to work out how long it will take for the oceans to boil by this process?
@ur momisugly Bob Tisdale. I’m really impressed by your commitment to personal responses. I didn’t really expect it, but I do really appreciate it. My ability to contribute anything but questions is a function of my ignorance, but I guess the questions are what make me a “skeptic”. Regardless, personal responses and open discussion is what makes a site like this so valuable. Ask questions of the establishment and you just get chastised for hubris. How could a layman ever understand anything about an expert’s business?? Kudos to you sir.
I’ll have to read up more in the background posts you linked. I appreciate your honesty about the lack of historical data. I would say my biggest complaint about the “settled science” argument is that everyone seems too content to accept incomplete paleo-records with the same “certainty” as the modern satellite records.
The thing I find really interesting is that the models either ignore or misunderstand the mechanisms of the ENSO and the associated steps in warming. If the long term trend is driven by the same thing, then you could say it’s a fair “averaged out” approach, but how can you trust a model that doesn’t at least try to imitate the natural mechanisms?
And a Merry Christmas to all.
“The key point here is that SST’s are not the key indicator for anthropogenic warming of the oceans, but rather OHC is, and is continues to rise throughout the full ENSO cycle over the long-term, and this is most certainly not a misleading trend.”
That assumes no variability in solar input to the oceans as a result of global cloudiness and albedo changes.
If one links solar activity to surface air pressure redistribution and cloudiness changes then there is empirical evidence to account for a longer term rising trend from LIA to date via a gradual poleward shift of the climate zones with reducing cloudiness during the process and higher ocean heat content DESPITE strong El Ninos. Indeed on that basis the strong El Ninos would be a by product of the larger process.
So, now we have a weaker sun with a weak recharge process because global cloudiness has increased and probably a skewing of the system towards more La Ninas than we have become used to.
I don’t see any other solution to the puzzle.
LazyTeenager says: “I find it odd that a “cycle” like el niño somehow produces a nice linear upward trend.”
And again, you failed to read the post, LazyTeenager, because if you had read the post, you would have noted in the Overview that I had linked posts that described and illustrated the processes that cause the upward shifts. The monicker you’ve chosen, LazyTeenager, seems appropriate.
Lazy
1. Resistant to work or exertion.
It certainly shows in your comments.
The hole in your arguement Lazyteenager, is that you disregard oceanic/atmospheric conditions throughout the temperature trend you are looking at. It’s called the first encountered pathology. If a complete ENSO cycle is to be considered, all of it needs to be considered. By that I mean a series dominated by neutral to El Nino conditions. This would logically produce a statistical upward trend in OHC, irregardless of what CO2 is doing or having the occasional La Nina sprinkled in here and there.
We are currently under a series of neutral to La Nina conditions with the occasional El Nino sprinkled in. This has predictive value for those with a logical mind. CO2 can be ignored.
Now, if I could learn how to spell, I would be very, very “dangerus”.
A very thorough, interesting and thought-provoking piece of work. I have only two questions. Why eliminate volcanic activity? (Is there any reason to suppose that volcanic activity will not continue or does is the noise prvided by volcanoes too great and too erratic)? Also how is subsea volcanic activity eliminated – particularky that of so far undetected volcanoes?
Bob T. says:
“Actually, the key point is the SSTs are the primary indicator of anthropogenic warming of the oceans.”
______
Bob, SST’s are indicators of heat flux in and out of the oceans, but not good indicators of overall energy being stored in the oceans. For that, OHC is used. But you should know this, so I’m perplexed by your insistence otherwise. I would challenge you to go back and see when OHC has made big spikes up in the past 30 or so years. You’ll see it is during La Nina or ENSO neutral conditions in general (and this current La Nina is no different) What we’ve seen is that the oceans have not been releasing as much energy during El Nino’s has they’ve been taking up overall, and hence, OHC has been consistently rising during this period.
mikef2 says:
December 20, 2011 at 4:06 am
Hello R.Gates…where have you been, missed you we have…
OT..but as I’m sure you have enjoyed reading the latest release of Climategate emails, can I ask you, in all honesty, can you state you believe that Michael Manns work is accurate, or, will you be brave enough to admit it is, as we all called it years ago, bogus.
Just think it would be nice for someone who believes in AGW to come out and admit that one single fact. Thanks in anticipation of your honest and forthright reply.
_____
Mike, first of all, I’ve thought for some time, even prior to either of the Climategate releases that Mann et. al., had significantly been downplaying the extent of the MWP as it certainly was global in extent, and thus, the hockey-stick was not really a stick as indicated, however, I also note that certain skeptics have not given Mann et. al. recognition for the uncertainty bands associated with the hockey stick.
But nothing that has been released in any of the climategate emails that changes the basic science of AGW nor of the efficacy of CO2, N2O, and methane as greenhouse gases. The key issue remains one of how sensitive the climate actually will be to a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels, and I still believe that 3C of global warming per doubling is a very good estimate with a plus or minus 1C uncertainty band around this 3C point. This uncertainty band is primarily influenced by the role of clouds as either positive or negative feedbacks to CO2 increases.
Bob, really interesting.
I know that this is asking for rank speculation but here goes. After the MWP and the transition to LIA conditions, what would you expect this step function to look like? Fewer El-Nino’s with longer La Nina’s dragging the temps down more than an El Nino could overcome? That seems logical from your presentation but I would like to get your thoughts.
I have mentioned before that the GHG’s gases can’t warm a volume of water and cool with latent heat energy loss without a solar source during one day and night period. This is observed easily using a small volume of water so changes can be observed quickly and conclusively. The oceans don’t show this on a massive scale during one day and night period because they have already reached maximum heat loss and this value despite being huge is nothing compared to the size of the oceans heat content warmed by the sun constantly.
Based on surface ocean data also from this excellent well thought out article confirms this is true. That means we are left with just the effect over land masses, but with only being ~29 percent of the Earth’s surface, this will only lead to minor warming at worse. Not surprising the general non-warming period continues and what little we get in future will easily be cancelled out by future ocean cooling.
Pamela Gray says:
December 20, 2011 at 6:57 am
“By that I mean a series dominated by neutral to El Nino conditions. This would logically produce a statistical upward trend in OHC.”
____
Actually, this is completely backward. All things being equal, a period dominated by neutral to El Nino conditions should see a decrease in OHC, with a warming of the atmosphere as that heat is transferred there. However, things have not been equal, and what we’ve seen is a long-term rise in OHC over the past 30+ years as the oceans have not released as much heat as they’ve been taking up. This is deeper ocean heat, down to 700m and beyond, a much greater metric than that measured by simply looking at SST’s, which measure surface heat, or heat flux, and really simply indicate whether more heat is leaving than entering the oceans. Look at the last 30+ year chart and compare it to the ENSO cycle and you’ll see that it is in general during La Nina or ENSO neutral conditions that OHC increases.
R Gates,
The value of 3c per doubling of CO2 is not based on any observed science or theoretical physics supported via scientific method, where it actually supports this value being much lower. Most of the warming for a doubling occurs in the first third, so with just a 0.6c rise in the entire HAD3 data set, doesn’t look like we can expect much more in future. (maybe another 0.4c or 0.5c at most until reaches a doubling, including feedbacks)
Secondly, the value 3c is based on land values only not the oceans.
Wait for the Warmistas to switch from “CO2 is causing Global Warming/Climate Wierding” to “CO2 is causing Global Cooling”, thereby taking another route to force reduction of CO2 worldwide. They’re certainly opportunistic creatures always looking for an advantage.
R. Gates says:
December 20, 2011 at 7:35 am
Cool, R. But I can believe anything I want also. Where is your evidence for what you believe?
By the way, if you have really read the climategate emails, you don’t understand them–they show it isn’t “science” that’s being done by these “climate scientists”; it is “basic science of AGW”, which is just the opposite of “science”. (Or would you agree that Phil Jones not being able to find his data and/or methodology, or Michael Mann continuing to flout the law and refuse to divulge his tax-payer paid work while at the UVa as just two more fine examples of this “basic science of AGW” of which you speak?)
In these CG1 and CG2 emails, there’s all sorts of talk about hiding, deceiving, denying, thwarting, disagreeing, along with examples of hatred, circumvention, law-breaking and so on and so on. (Have you ever read the HarryReadMe file? Best example of a completely screwed up mess I can find anywhere.)
What you say is laughable, R. Certifiably laughable! Believe what you will, but please, don’t represent that as the truth! (I can’t wait for the remaining 220,000 emails to be released–they’ll be the tsunami that swamps and sinks your “beliefs”.)
LazyTeenager says:
Never. Your assumption is wrong.
R. Gates says: In response to my comment, “Actually, the key point is the SSTs are the primary indicator of anthropogenic warming of the oceans…”
…you replied, “Bob, SST’s are indicators of heat flux in and out of the oceans, but not good indicators of overall energy being stored in the oceans….”
You missed the point. The sentence that followed helped clarify the intent of my reply. It read, They are part of the surface temperature record and the surface temperature record is what the IPCC and most others refer to when describing anthropogenic global warming.
Right or wrong, surface temperatures, including SST, are the primary metric used during discussions of Global Warming. As an example, the first sentence of the first bullet point under the heading of “Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change”in the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR4 reads, “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature9 (since 1850).”
It does not state Ocean Heat Content. It states surface temperatures. The fourth bullet point under that heading deals with OHC, so it’s fourth on the IPCC’s list of metrics. You can argue all you want, but this post is about SST, not OHC. If and when I prepare an OHC model-observations post similar to this, then OHC would be the appropriate topic of conversation on that thread.
Now do you understand, what you called, my “insistence”?