…then why do the vertical mean temperature anomalies (NODC 0-2000 meter data) of the Pacific Ocean as a whole and of the North Atlantic fail to show any warming over the past decade, a period when ARGO floats have measured subsurface temperatures, providing reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans? See Figure 1. Or, in other words, why is the warming of the global oceans (0-2000 meters) over the past 10 years limited to the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, when carbon dioxide is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas, meaning all ocean basins should be warming?
Figure 1
Or, to look at it in yet another way, we’re being told that, while surface temperatures are no longer warming, the oceans to depth continue to warm…yet the warming is not occurring in the largest ocean basin, the Pacific, and the North Atlantic is showing evidence of cooling.
Additionally, Kevin Trenberth and associates say the recent series of La Niña events are causing the Pacific Ocean to warm at depths below 700 meters, and as a result, global warming continues. See:
Why then has the annual vertical mean temperatures of the Pacific Ocean (0-2000 meters) failed to show any warming over the past decade? The data for the Pacific Ocean (0-700 meters, 0-2000 meters and 700-2000 meters) in Figure 2 reveals something different than portrayed by Trenberth and associates.
Figure 2
The data for the Pacific indicates that any warming at 700-2000 meters has simply opposed the cooling taking place in the top 700 meters. (Note: The basis for the temperature anomalies at the depths of 700-2000 meters is discussed in the post here.)
No wonder Trenberth had to use a reanalysis (instead of data) for his recent batch of “hey, I kinda-sorta found the missing heat” papers.
When the data doesn’t meet the climate model-based expectations of the climate science community, the climate science community adjusts the data. Then, when the adjusted data doesn’t meet the climate model-based expectations of the climate science community, the climate science community discards the data and uses the output of another computer model called a reanalysis. Bottom line: instead of admitting the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is fatally flawed, they perpetuate a myth.
A QUICK NOTE ABOUT THE VERTICAL MEAN TEMPERATURE DATA
The NODC’s vertical mean temperature data are the temperature component of their ocean heat content data. The other portion is salinity.
ADDITIONAL READING
Ocean heat content data, and the components that are part of it, are questionable at best, contrived at worst. For further information see:
- Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be? (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- NODC’s Pentadal Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000m) Creates Warming That Doesn’t Exist in the Annual Data – A Lot of Warming (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- A Different Perspective on Trenberth’s Missing Heat: The Warming of the Global Oceans (0 to 2000 Meters) in Deg C (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- Rough Estimate of the Annual Changes in Ocean Temperatures from 700 to 2000 Meters Based on NODC Data (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- AMAZING: The IPCC May Have Provided Realistic Presentations of Ocean Heat Content Source Data (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- Comments on Stefan Rahmstorf’s Post at RealClimate “What ocean heating reveals about global warming” (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- Trenberth and Fasullo Try to Keep the Fantasy Alive (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
- More on Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) “An Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming?” (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
NODC has updated the Argo temperature profile figures for the third quarter of 2013. In the third quarter versus the second quarter, temps changed as follows:
Temps in the 0-2000 metre ocean average declined by -0.004C;
Temps in the 0-700 metre ocean declined by -0.008C;
Temps in the 0-100 metre ocean increased by +0.032C
North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) has been following the geo-tectonic trends for at least 120 years. Even more strange is that the AMO (the de-trended NA SST ) is directly correlated to the solar-terrestrial magnetic variability
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA.htm
Anomalies are nice but not the point. Heat is sitting in the ocean and heat is temperature just like cold and every thing in between. So warm water is heat and that cant go under cold water because of it being lighter than cold water. By giving it a fancy name it masks the problem of the case. And by doing so they cane take it a way from reality.
Ronald says:
So how could warm water sink under cold water?
Sea surface is warmed by sun, evaporation makes it salty and as such warm water becomes heavier than less saline cold water. In vicinity of Iceland these warm waters sink to a depth of 2000m or more. In the Arctic Ocean all warm water currents circulate below cold fresh water currents
It cannot be repeated often enough:
Climate change is difficult to observe on short timescales – and a decade is still a short time in this sense. The natural variations are just too big. But over longer timescales the climate is still very much within a warming trend that all the models predicted correctly(IPCC: FAR; SAR; TAR, and AR4,..).
Face it.
So show us longer term graphs of say 40 years or so and one can start to analyse a trend.
More details can be found here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw
Scuzza Man (@ScuzzaMan) says:
December 19, 2013 at 4:45 am
Any theory that invents unobservables is in serious trouble.
===============
dark matter and dark energy for example.
Our observations of distant objects do not match the predictions. Therefore there must exist dark matter and dark energy affecting the observations. It is not possible that our predictions are wrong because our theories are wrong. The only possibility is that something unseen is affecting our observations.
This illogical thinking, the belief that theories are right and there is something hidden affecting the observations, defies Occams Razor. The simplest explanation is that the theories are wrong.
So now we have unexplained warming in the late 20th century. This is proof that GHG warming exists. Yet we have 300 years of unexplained warming since the Little Ice Age, which is taken to be proof of nothing.
Bob,
You say that “Kevin Trenberth and associates say the recent series of La Niña events are causing the Pacific Ocean to warm at depths below 700 meters”.
Looking at your derived analysis of the 700-2000m depth temperatures, it would appear you are proving Trenberth to be correct, with a cooling surface and warming ocean underlayer. Is my understanding correct?
Correct me if I am wrong,from my understanding of Trenberth’s analysis, I think that the warming down to 2000m is insufficient to account for the anticipated energy imbalance, and hence it is hypothesised that the warming is also taking place at depths below 2000m?
Hello Bob – very useful post, as always….and thanks for the links to the papers, it can take ages to track these things beyond the paywall. Here is the problem laid bare – from Meehl,2013:
‘Suggestions that significant heat could be sequestered in the deep ocean below 700 m on decadal timescales (e.g. Purkey and Johnson, 2010; Song and Colberg, 2011; Palmer et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012) prompted an analysis of a global coupled climate model which showed that, during hiatus decades in the model, the deep ocean layers DID INDEED WARM at a greater rate than the surface layers (Meehl et al., 2011). – MY EMPHASIS
The modellers come to BELIEVE that computer virtual reality is BETTER than plain ordinary data-driven but tricky reality…..here Meehl confirms his hypothesis not by data but by a model, and seems incapable of seeing that this is not actually science! Indeed, it is BETTER than science!
I have been trying to track the machinations of this heat budget thing: first – the TOA imbalance is not data driven, because the actual data show an impossible imbalance of 5 watts per square metre. This value has to be either adjusted, or the whole data set rendered useless for absolute values (though still useful for mapping annual and regional variability) – and NASA’s website proudly states that this value is ‘constrained’ by the ocean heat budget measurements. The final value for TOA is given as about 0.5 watts/square metre. BUT when I go to the ocean data merchants, they have a similar story where the inadequate heat content data is adjusted to reflect the TOA excess that everybody just knows must be there (because of…you know the story!)
I would like to see a lot more attention given to the CO2/GHG line-by-line computer codes that calculate the expected imbalance at the TOA….these are hardly ever mentioned, but that is where the models derive their inputs before the feedbacks get to work. It is from these codes that the mid-troposphere hotspot was expected – so they can obviously be faulty. Interestingly, if you look at the surface expectation you get about 1 watt/square metre from CO2 longwave, and 0.5 watts per square metre REDUCTION of short wave…..because the extra CO2 in the atmospheric column ABSORBS some short-wave radiation. That seems important to my perhaps overly simplistic biologist’s mind….less energy to heat the ocean beneath the surface, and this eventually reduces the long wave flux….so theoretically, as CO2 increases, a cooling could set in.
Is anyone out there scrutinising the codes for CO2 in watts per square metre at different altitudes? I know the programme was updated by the European Space Agency (HIGHTRANS) and before that some obscure USAAF outfit generated the data (MODTRANS). This is really at the heart of all the uncertainty – and why the models consistently fail? It is not just that they get the feedbacks and natural variability wrong….there is a fault in the engine room and the main driver.
Ronald says: “Anomalies are nice but not the point.”
Actually, anomalies are the point. For example, let’s say that the average temperature of the Pacific Ocean for the depths of 0-700 meters is about 15 deg C, and that at the depths of 700-2000 meters it’s 5 deg C. Looking at Figure 2, for the example, the 15 deg C temperature at 0-700 meters cooled by about 0.016 and the 5 deg C temperature at 700-2000 meters warmed about the same. The temperature at deeper depths are still cooler.
“…. why is the warming of the global oceans (0-2000 meters) over the past 10 years limited to the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, when carbon dioxide is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas, meaning all ocean basins should be warming?”
I’m not sure that anyone has claimed that ocean temperatures should rise in lock-step with CO2 concentrations? Indeed, this seems most unlikely given what is known about the long term nature of global thermohaline circulation patterns, etc.
The NOAA global data provided show that *global* annual vertical mean ocean temperature (2003 to 2012) for 0 – 2000 metres warmed at a rate of 0.02 deg C per. What explanation for that observation do we have?
Sorry, above post should be 0.02 deg. C per ‘decade’.
Jon says “Almost the same as with religion and God. First he was in heaven, but when we got space rockets and telescopes he ended up in our minds instead.
I think that’s where CAGW also will ends up some day. In the minds of followers and believers?”
Christians do not claim Heaven exists in this Earthly realm in the sky.
‘God does not exist in this dimension at an arbitrary altitude therefore he does not exist’ is fallacious. That is the argument from ignorance.
CAGW is already solely in the minds of believers as CAGW has been proven to be false based on preset physical and logical parameters. God due to the lack of definition/defined parameters and philosophical complexity is impossible to disprove.
There is no doubting that CAGW is a religion though.
All of these discussions sound to me like they led by well-skilled practicioners of three card monte playing their version of “Find the Heat.”
Hi Bob, thanks for the great post. I’m curious as to how the low layers warm but the top ones do not. The only conceivable way as far as I’m concerned is for the conveyor belt systems to gain more input at the equatorial regions. Surely then this would mean that there would be increased water evaporation in those equatorial regions and the tropospheric hotspot would start to appear…which it hasn’t.
I apologise if it’s a stupid question and I’m barking up the wrong Bristlecone proxy pine tree.
Thanks Bob. Timely article for me as I was revisiting ocean rise and ocean energy related material anyway. Much appreciated.
sabretruthtiger says: “Hi Bob, thanks for the great post. I’m curious as to how the low layers warm but the top ones do not.”
If you’ll allow me, I’d like to simply send you to a post from a few weeks ago where we discussed this. It’s under the heading of “BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY!” (which is a repeat of Rahmstorf’s heading):
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/comments-on-stefan-rahmstorfs-post-at-realclimate-what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/
Regards
TSI is one main reason.
My bet is the cooling trend has started and will continue with the TSI in the gutter.
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/413671593760403457/photo/1
dwr54 says: ‘The NOAA global data provided show that *global* annual vertical mean ocean temperature (2003 to 2012) for 0 – 2000 metres warmed at a rate of 0.02 deg C per [decade]. What explanation for that observation do we have?”
Looking at Figure 1, the only two ocean basins that warmed were the South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans.
Part of the warming of the Indian Ocean appears to be ENSO related. The following graph is of Indian Ocean ocean heat content (NODC 0-700 meters) downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/20-argo-era-indian-ohc-v-nino3-4.png
It suggests that the Indian Ocean warms to depths of 700 meters in response to El Ninos, but does not cool proportionally in response to La NInas.
The graph is Figure 20 from the “stacked up to be” post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/
Regards
I am confused. Is Kevin Trenberth part of John Cook’s 97%? Does Trenberth believe that Global Land Temperatures have gone up over the last decade? If not, does Cook’s consensus include the global land temperature plateau? Is it now the consensus that land temperatures have been flat for a decade plus?
The density of water is a non-linear function of temperature (and salinity).
Pure water is at its most-dense around 4⁰C at near-enough 1.0000 kg/litre. At 0⁰C, nominal freezing point for pure water, its density is 0.9997 kg/litre.
Consequentially; the temperature of the water bewlow the deep ocean thermocline is 4⁰C. If the oceans wheren’t convecting, one could measure the heating of the oceans indirectly by the depth of the thermocline; as the average temperature rises, the thermocline goes deeper and vice versa.
So, contrary to what some speculate, the heat can’t hide in the deep oceans below the thermocline. The warmer water inevitably ends up above it; defining the depth of the thermocline.
I believe atmospheric CO2 concentration influence on temperature has nothing to do with the fact that different oceans change their temperature at different rates. Exaggerated claims on either side are just wrong. Individual ocean bodies have differently arranged water streams, different supply of (ant-)arctic cold water, different supply of sun radiation, different volume, different mixing with other oceans. All these and many more factors affect how they warm up or cool down. We can always say that if CO2 wasn’t here, Pacific and North Atlantic would be cooling much more. Not that I think that statement is true, but these graphs don’t disprove it.
If you ask why did the average sea temperature not go up in the last decade, then my answer is that’s because chaotic systems tend to go up and down and a decade is a bit too short time span to draw conclusions.
However I dislike claims that deep sea temperature changes in hudredths of degrees are going to kill us in distant future and with full respect to Bob Tisdale’s knowledge and experience, I am not fond of these “proofs” which prove nothing as well.
As Bob’s graphs clearly show, the current pause in global temperature increases can be explained by recent Ocean surface temperature changes. Over the last 10 years, the Northern Hemisphere SST is declining, the Southern Hemisphere SST is flat, the North Atlantic Ocean SST and AMO are declining, the Pacific Ocean SST is flat and the North Pacific Ocean SST is declining. The PDO index is also declining but this is just a pattern change indicator and indicates that there is now more colder water at the eastern side of the Pacific than in the western or central part of the Pacific than we had 10 years ago. There are also fewer strong El Ninos. I don’t see another strong El Nino for some time yet. [3-4 years?] These factors all combined to keep the global temperatures flat and now slightly declining as they did 1880 to 1910 and again 1945-1975. The decline in global temperatures is likely to continue as ocean cycles tend to be long [65-70 years] http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:120/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:120/trend
Bob
Do you have a recent graph for north Pacific SST [ last 10 years ]?
With respect to November 2013 being the hottest November. Clearly this was an isolated and mostly a regional event that mostly happened in Russia and North Asia due to an extra high positive AO. United State’s November was 49 the warmest and most of North America had below normal temperatures
Bob and Willis have each given us an exremely powerful post in the last twenty four hours. Can’ t thank them enough for their efforts.
Sadly, blind belief in CAGW is already driving the UK down a calamitous path of high energy costs, deaths from fuel poverty and probable black-outs. To paraphrase John Maynard Keyne’s comment on stock markets, our leaders seem intent on remaining irrational for longer than the Nation will be able remain solvent.
In reply to:
“Or, in other words, why is the warming of the global oceans (0-2000 meters) over the past 10 years limited to the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, when carbon dioxide is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas, meaning all ocean basins should be warming?” …. “Additionally, Kevin Trenberth and associates say the recent series of La Niña events are causing the Pacific Ocean to warm at depths below 700 meters, and as a result, global warming continues.
Why then has the annual vertical mean temperatures of the Pacific Ocean (0-2000 meters) failed to show any warming over the past decade? The data for the Pacific Ocean (0-700 meters, 0-2000 meters and 700-2000 meters) in Figure 2 reveals something different than portrayed by Trenberth and associates.”
Bravo maestro! Checkmate. You have presented significant unequivocal observational evidence to support the assertion that 1) the majority of the warming in the last 70 years is not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and 2) heat is not hiding in the oceans.
The following is a repeat and further support for that line of thought. As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 warming is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to the increase CO2 is linearly dependent on the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2. (Al Gore’s little analogy infrared light bulbs are always turned on and should be distributed – the number of analogy light bulbs per square meter – based on the amount of long wave radiation that was emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2.) As the most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space is in the tropics the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed as shown in Bob Tisdale graph. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertions.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
last section should have read: ‘for longer than the Nation will be able to remain solvent’