By Land and By Sea

Guest post by Willis Eschenbach

Bob Tisdale has discussed a variety of issues with the hemispheric and basis-by-basin Levitus summary of the ARGO data in his excellent post here on WUWT. I wanted to take a larger look at at the global ocean data, to provide it with some context. After following a variety of blind paths and dry holes, I arrived at Figure 1. This shows the Levitus data, along with several datasets for both the sea surface temperature (SST) and the land surface air temperatures.

land and ocean temperaturesFigure 1. Three land surface air temperature datasets, three ocean surface temperature datasets, and two measures of the deeper ocean. Datasets from KNMI, except the Levitus ocean data. Levitus data have been converted from ocean heat content values to temperature values.

Unfortunately, we only have pentadal (5-year centered average) data for the deeper ocean layer from 1955, no annual data for the deeper layer is available before 2005. So I have shown the other data as pentadal averages as well, so that they can be compared directly. Now, I have no profound conclusions from this, but there are some curiosities about these results.

The most obvious oddity involves the sea surface temperature data. Two of the datasets, the ERSST and the HadISST, are quite similar, but are offset over much of their length by an amount that varies in an odd stepwise fashion. In particular, they diverge significantly in the period 1997-2001. They have the same small peaks and valleys, but the land is going up while the sea temperature is dropping. Figure 2 shows this in more detail:

sea surface temperatures pentadalFigure 2. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from three different sources. The vertical axis scale is different from Figure 1.

On the other hand, Figure 2 also shows that the ICOADS dataset runs almost exactly in parallel with the HadISST data up until 1997, when it shifts gears and goes up to agree with the ERSST dataset.

I have absolutely no idea what happened in 1997, or in earlier periods, which allowed the three datasets to vary so much. Always more questions than answers.

The next oddity involves the changes in the land and ocean surface temperatures. Figure 3 is like Figure 1 but leaves out the sub-surface temperatures:

surface temperatures pentadalFigure 3. Three land surface air temperature and three ocean surface temperature datasets.

The oddity here is two-fold: what happened around 1977 or so, and what happened around 2002 or so? From 1977 on, after twenty years with no significant land or sea temperature change, both land and sea temperatures start to rise. In addition, the land temperature rises much more rapidly than the SST. Then around 1998, SSTs start to level off, and they peak in 2002 and start to fall. The land temperatures start falling shortly thereafter. Why, on all counts?

Now, I don’t know the answer to these questions either. However, in this modern world there’s a term called a “WAG”, which means a wild-assed guess. However, scientists don’t provide those. Instead, there is a refined version called a “SWAG”, or a scientific wild-assed guess.

So here’s my SWAG about what we’re seeing here. I think at least some of this is the effect of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO.

The PDO is a large-scale reorganization of the flow of the North Pacific Ocean. I think that, like other large-scale patterns such as the El Nino/La Nina alterations, these all function to regulate the temperature. It is obvious that one of the two major patterns (positive or negative PDO) must be more efficient than the other one at cooling the planet. The transfer of heat via the oceans from the equator to the poles is one of the two major pathways by which the tropics moves heat (the other is via the atmosphere). One of the two PDO states must be better at cooling the planet.

I hypothesize that this alteration between PDO states is one of the ways by which the planet maintains such a regular temperature. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to support that hypothesis using observational data.

A final oddity is the decoupling of the land temperatures from the ocean temperatures. Figure 4 shows a longer version of the same data, this time extending back to the 1870’s:

long-term land and ocean recordsFigure 4. Long-term land air temperature and sea surface temperature records, expressed as an anomaly around the 1900-1980 average.

The oddity to me in Figure 4 is that since about 1974, the land temperatures have been rising much faster than the sea surface temperatures. The SST records and the land temperature records run quite close to each other up until about 1975 or so, but after that land temperatures have been rising much more quickly, while the sea surface temperatures (and to a greater extent the sub-surface temperatures) have not followed suit.

Once again, I’m out of explanations for the decoupling of the temperatures. Clearly it’s not CO2. Urban heat islands? Aerosols reducing the clouds over the land? I have no idea. All suggestions welcome. That’s the beauty of settled science, there are always unexplained questions to

Best regards to everyone,

w.

THE DATA

Levitus provides two different global pentadal datasets. One covers the layer from 0 to 700 m depth, and the other covers a thicker layer, from 0 to 2000 m depth. I wanted to see what was happening in the “missing link”, which is the data covering the deeper layer, from 700m to 2000m depth.

The good news is that since we are dealing in oceanic heat content, the heat content of the lower layer is simply the difference between the two datasets.

My spreadsheet with the results is here.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard111
May 5, 2013 11:48 pm

Been looking at Arctic sea ice volume. Can only find a modelled chart at Wikipedia. From this it seems annual ice melt by volume is pretty consistent and amounts to more than 270,000 cubic kilometres of water at just above freezing gets returned to the world’s oceans every year. Haven’t looked at annual Antarctic melt but guess it will be similar. Would that be enough COLD water into the oceans to have any impact?

May 6, 2013 12:02 am

Yes the relationship between land and sea surface temperatures is an interesting one.
If you plot out the difference between the two, it looks like this:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/24v5umd.jpg
or this:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/5slmw.jpg

Greg Goodman
May 6, 2013 12:02 am

Me said: “Maybe plotting rate of change of each would make it clearer what is happening. ”
Me did: http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=219
As far as we may wish to accept BEST project (which I’m not sure I do in terms of removal of UHI) we may use it to look at the short term variability of land temps. Here I have halved the land temp variation, which makes it roughly comparable to SST variation.
As I suggested above it is the period 1945-1975 that would appear to show an ‘oddity’ of reduced variability. So Willis has drawn attention to something worth looking at but I think this shows that the odd period is just before 1975 not after it.

Greg Goodman
May 6, 2013 12:18 am

stacase, what you have done shows the difference is very much like the variations in the long term data sets. This is effectively the same thing as my plot showing land temps being roughly double the SST data.
What this again emphasises is the strongly cycle pattern in the data.
The ‘linear trend’ is of course a totally invalid model to fit to such data and is typically misleading since as usual if goes from trough to peak. Compare to my “warming cosine” plot:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=209

Greg Goodman
May 6, 2013 12:24 am

second thoughts on stacase: http://oi55.tinypic.com/5slmw.jpg
This is interesting, the periodicity here is significantly longer, at about 100 years, than the usual circa 60 years attributed to SST.

May 6, 2013 12:41 am

I hypothesize that this ………. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to support that hypothesis using observational data.
Hi Willis
Most of the time, Dr. S. would say all the time, I hit head on the same brick wall, but on one occasion he did say:
If correlation is really good, one can live with an as yet undiscovered mechanism

J Martin
May 6, 2013 1:15 am

A final oddity is the decoupling of the land temperatures from the ocean temperatures.
The two data sets, SST and land are both coincident at about 1985. From there they diverge and I would think that this perhaps coincides with three factors;
(1) the wholesale removal of many countryside temperature stations from the data set,
(2) the many unexplained manipulations of the data sets, and,
(3) last but perhaps not least, the decline in solar activity. The effects of which can be seen at 2007 when the solar cycle hit its regular low point, but thereafter failed to climb to its regular high, only getting to a plateau about half the normal height. Judging by the plot of SST it would seem that the ongoing high in the solar cycle is not sufficient to maintain SST and it continues to decline.
Perhaps the rarely shown temperatures from that newer network of US temperature stations should be spliced onto the data instead of the manipulated datasets. Is it CONUS ?
Isn’t satellite data also likely a better measure than all those questionable manipulated data sets ?

A C Osborn
May 6, 2013 2:53 am

Could it be that what we are seeing is the Heat leaving the planet.
First the warmth goes in to the Oceans and Land and thus to the Atmosphere.
Then as the planet cools the warmth leaves the Oceans and Land but temporarily increases the temperature of the Atmosphere as it is leaving. This would explain why the Satellite lower atmospheric data has not matched the drops in thermometer values.
As the losses continue and the insolation also continues to reduce the Atmosphere is no longer getting so much heat being lost by the Oceans and Land so is now following the temperature drops, but it will gather much more momentum as this happens, quickly overtaking the Land and Oceans as they cool more slowly.

thingodonta
May 6, 2013 3:09 am

Philip Bradley says:
“Land/ocean temperature differentials can produce global scale effects. Winter cold in Siberia contributes to the strength of the Australian summer monsoon.”
Yeah good point, I was speaking from experience in eastern Australia.
But my point holds, I think the land and oceans are heating /cooling differently due to the same sort of effect, that is why the land has warmed faster since the 1970s, and I think its mostly due to the sun, which showed higher output in the late 20th century.

Greg Goodman
May 6, 2013 3:20 am

GeologyJim says: “It is hard/impossible to believe that air temps could increase faster than ocean heat content on decadal scales.”
That land temps change more is known on an annual scale. The centre of continents have more extreme summer and winter swings than coastal areas. eg Central Austraila and german winters.
There will be a limit to how much land can stray from oceans in actual temperature but since all we are looking at here is a few tenths of a degree, the actual local temperatures are unlikely to be breaking any physical laws and leading a life of their own unrelated to SST.
As I noted above, the impression of a divergence after 1975 is simply a result of converting both temperature records to “anomalies” from the 1900-1980 averages.
All we are really seeing here is a greater volatility in land temps right across the record. NOT some oddity after 1975.
As I showed by looking at rate of change, if there is an ‘oddity’ it is between 1945 and 1975 when air temps were varying less than the prior and later periods:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=219

May 6, 2013 3:24 am

“SWAG” also can mean both “Sensible Wild Ass Guess” and “Stupid Wild Ass Guess.” Many is the idea which starts out as the former and, under examination, turns out to be the latter.
Someone who worked with Churchill during world war two stated he had a hundred ideas a day, and three were good ones.
The problem with the peer review of Climate Science is that they refuse to be “disagreeable” towards each others ideas, and therefore go forward with the 97 bad ideas.

mogamboguru
May 6, 2013 3:43 am

RACookPE1978 says:
May 5, 2013 at 8:56 pm
Dr Spencer has said all of the measured temperature change could be explained by a 2% change in cloud coverage worldwide? could not a 1% darker land albedo be equally influential?
——————————————————————————————————
Probably not, because clouds’ albedo works over water, too, but a change in the albedo of land-based plants takes place in 30 percent of planet Earth’s surface, which is covered by land, only – minus the permanently plant-free areas in Antarctica, Greenland, mountainous regeions and totally plant-life-free desers, of course.
Thus, I rather suppose that it would take over 20 percent of change in plant-induced, land-based albedo to at least equal a 2-percent change in cloud-based, worldwide albedo.

Chuck Nolan
May 6, 2013 3:47 am

“I hypothesize that this alteration between PDO states is one of the ways by which the planet maintains such a regular temperature. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to support that hypothesis using observational data.”
———————————————–
Silly Goose, this is climastrology so what you don’t know you can just make up and then make them prove the findings of your research and your lack of proof wrong.
cn

May 6, 2013 4:00 am

Willis, I see your quandry and suggest you ask one Michael Mann who will happily apply lashings of fudge to sweeten this for you.
Fame, riches and a book tour await.

Brad
May 6, 2013 4:23 am

Thanks, but since you did this – “So I have shown the other data as pentadal averages as well” – we cannot comment on the anamoly as it may simply be an artifact of data processing. Can you show all the data and THEN your 5 years charts, please?

Editor
May 6, 2013 4:26 am

Hi Willis: Sometimes it’s best to look at differences.
In the following graph, I’ve subtracted the average of the two sea surface temperature datasets (HADISST & ERSST.v3b) from the average of the two land surface temperature datasets (BEST & CRUTEM4). From about 1940 to about 1970, land surface temperatures cooled faster than sea surface temperatures, and after, land surface temperatures warmed more quickly. http://i43.tinypic.com/6zrji9.jpg
Also, we can also see that land surface temperatures warmed faster than sea surface temperatures earlier in the term.
The reason why? Consider Compo and Sardeshmukh (2009): “Oceanic influences on recent continental warming”:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
The abstract reads:
“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.”
Now sea surface temperatures: ICOADS is the source dataset for both HADISST and ERSST.v3b, with an exception: HADISST also includes satellite-based data starting in 1982. Both HADISST and ERSST.v3b are infilled. The difference between the two datasets as far as I know is that the data is reinserted in HADISST after their EOF analyses, but with ERSST.v3b, it’s not. Why do they diverge when they do? Dunno for sure. For the divergence in the late 1990s between HADISST and the others, it’s very possible that the satellite-based HADISST is picking up the cooling of the sea surface temperature in the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere (where ICOADS sampling is very poor).
With respect to the divergence between the datasets in 1977 in your Figure 2, the appearance of the timing of that divergence MAY simply be a result of how you presented the data, with the data zeroed at 1957.
Last, with respect to the PDO, as we can see in my above graph of the differences between SST and LSAT, the land surface air temperatures started to warm faster than sea surface temperatures about 1970, not 1977. If anything, the 1976/77 Pacific Climate Shift (where the sea surface temperatures of the entire East Pacific shifted up about 0.2 deg C) would have contributed to the divergence, assuming land surface air temperatures are exaggerating the shift in the sea surface temperatures. But I definitely would not attribute it to the PDO.
That’s my 2 cents.
Regards.

Solomon Green
May 6, 2013 4:30 am

I found Markx point fascinating. If the “mean global temperature” has been consistently reduced since 1988 then no wonder the anomalies so beloved to climatologists show continued global warming. Can anyone explain why “mean global temperature” has been reduced or were all the earlier documents to which Markx has referred erroneous?

Frank Baginski
May 6, 2013 5:17 am

A thought came to mind. Do you have ocean flow data for these periods at depth? Do the temp buoys give a location each time they send a signal. And is that location for each buoy tracked in the data. It seems to me that the transfer of heat could be tracked over time and overlaid on global temps land/sea. Of course even if you find a relationship one must then find the cause of the changes to the ocean currents. If the ocean temp triggers ocean flow then you may have found a self regulating system. I am no expert on any of this but it sure would be interesting to see flow data.

Editor
May 6, 2013 5:29 am

markx says: “Hmmm anomaly graphs. Maybe its the changing base we measure it all from (hey, does this mean we are actually cooling!!?)”
And maybe it’s not the changing base. Global surface temperatures are warming regardless of the base period used. Your links simply show different approximations of global surface temperatures. Those approximations can vary depending on the sea surface temperature or land surface air temperature dataset that’s employed and on the assumptions made by those making the approximations.
But just in case you’re concerned that surface temperatures in anomaly form only show warming, I’ve plotted land surface air temperatures and sea surface temperatures in absolute form for you. The land surface air temperature dataset (GHCN-CAMS) is the only surface temperature dataset presented in absolute temperatures:
http://i39.tinypic.com/209t8b6.jpg
And ERSST.v3b and HADISST are also presented in absolute form. Here’s HADISST:
http://i41.tinypic.com/i5w5me.jpg
Global temperatures have warmed.
Regards

Editor
May 6, 2013 5:30 am

Solomon Green says: “I found Markx point fascinating.”
Refer to my reply above.

Editor
May 6, 2013 5:43 am

Frank Baginski says: “A thought came to mind. Do you have ocean flow data for these periods at depth? Do the temp buoys give a location each time they send a signal.”
Hi Frank. I assume your comment refers to ARGO floats. Yes, they give locations each time they bob to the surface and relay data–every 10 days I believe. But they’ve only been in place globally since 2003/2004. There have been other buoys in place since the early 1990s but they’re moored in place. Those are the TOA project buoys along the equatorial Pacific:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/
They’ve expanded those buoys to the tropical Indian and tropical Atlantic as well.
The other in situ measurements in recent decades are primarily from ship inlets (cooling inlets for the engines). Before that, the measurements are from buckets tossed over the sides of ships. The sailors then hauled the buckets back on board and placed thermometers in them. (sarc on) High tech stuff. (sarc off.)
Satellites have been used since the early 1980s, but only two datasets use them: HADISST and Reynolds OI.v2 SST.
Regards

Editor
May 6, 2013 5:48 am

stacase says: “Yes the relationship between land and sea surface temperatures is an interesting one. If you plot out the difference between the two, it looks like this:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/24v5umd.jpg
or this:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/5slmw.jpg
In your second graph, I believe you’re showing the difference between the ICOADS sea surface temperature data and the combined land+sea surface temperature anomaly data from GISS.
Regards

Editor
May 6, 2013 5:51 am

J Martin says: “The two data sets, SST and land are both coincident at about 1985…”
Refer to the difference between land surface air temperature anomalies and sea surface temperature anomalies:
http://i43.tinypic.com/6zrji9.jpg

Editor
May 6, 2013 5:56 am

Barclay E MacDonald says: “Anyone care to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a five-year centered mean to compare the above data?”
5-year running means have been used by the climate science community for decades to suppress ENSO variations.

Bill Illis
May 6, 2013 5:59 am

You can get the annual average temperature anomalies for the 0-700 metre and 0-2000 metre ocean from 1955 to 2012 here from the NODC. I just noticed they expanded this page a few weeks ago so it might be new. Top section is annual.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_avt_data.html