…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.)
James Sexton: Is this the webpage you’re using for annual global vertical mean temperature anomalies for depths of 0-2000meters? I’m seeing a positive trend of 0.02 deg C/decade from 2003 to 2012.
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-w0-2000m.dat
Matthew R Marler says: “Could you present the absolute temperatures?”
As far as I know, the data is only available as anomalies.
Brian says:
December 19, 2013 at 12:22 pm
You don’t suppose the global oceans might be sharing their water to some extent? Tidal forces and all that?
vukcevic says:
December 19, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Ronald says:
December 19, 2013 at 11:55 am
your looking at the conveyor belt …… fresh cold water sinks under the warm water what starts the great conveyor of water around the world.
Belief is a matter of faith, science is a matter of fact, and facts are different to what you sugested
http://science1.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2004/03/01/05mar_arctic_resources/currents1.jpg
If you look at that picture closely what it is showing you, by the fold of the ‘ribbon’ at the turns, is that warm less dense surface water moves from the equator to the pole where it cools and so becoming denser, heavier, sinks and flows back towards the equator where it warms up again, and so less dense rises to the surface and flows again to the pole.
Water flow around the Earth follows the same principle as air flow, warm air at the equator rises because it is less dense and flows to the cold poles, heat flows from hot to cold, there it cools and so denser sinks and flows back to the equator.
The Earth’s spin causes this air flow to change from the simple pattern it would be to the more complicated called the Coriolis effect – for the ocean this is further complicated by encounters with land masses.
Myrrh says:
December 19, 2013 at 6:11 pm
………….
Correct.
Down-welling in the Icelandic seas is caused by the cold Arctic winds’ removal of heat from warm currents at a rate of several hundred watts/m2. In the winter months this happens mainly to the Iceland’s south and in the summer months to its north.
I happen to think that rate of the heat removal is critical to the N. Hemisphere weather and the ultimately climate change since rising warm air distorts the ‘Coriolis effect’ by moves polar jet-stream into more pronounced meridional direction.
Even if we assume constancy of the energy transferred from the equatorial to the polar region, there is another factor which affects rate of down-welling, and that is deep cold current known as ‘North Icelandic Jet’, which appears to be highly variable; in my view the reason for this is the Kolbeinsey’s ridge tectonics, but that is another story.
Myrrh says:
December 19, 2013 at 6:11 pm
………….
Correct.
Down-welling in the Icelandic seas is caused by the cold Arctic winds removing heat from warm currents at rate of several hundred watts/m2. In the winter months this happens mainly to the Iceland’s south and in the summer months to its north.
I happen to think that rate of the heat removal is critical to the N. Hemisphere weather and the ultimately climate change since rising warm air distorts the ‘Coriolis effect’ by moves polar jet-stream into more pronounced meridional direction.
Even if we assume constancy of the energy transferred from the equatorial to the polar region, there is another factor which affects rate of down-welling, and that is deep cold current known as ‘North Icelandic Jet’, which appears to be highly variable; in my view the reason for this is the Kolbeinsey’s ridge tectonics, but that is another story.
Bob said:-
“As far as I know, the data are only available as anomalies”.
But surely the raw data has to exist in order to derive the anomalies? How do we know then that the raw data hasn’t been fiddled to enhance the anomalies? Why has the raw data never been made publicly available? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Philip Aggrey says: @ur momisugly December 20, 2013 at 8:49 am
…. But surely the raw data has to exist in order to derive the anomalies? How do we know then that the raw data hasn’t been fiddled to enhance the anomalies? Why has the raw data never been made publicly available? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the infamous words of Phil Jones, head of CRU:
And this is from the HEAD of the most prominent climate research unit in the world??? That statement alone should make any real honest scientist repudiate CAGW and the IPCC.
Hello Bob. To me it doesn’t look one can say the global ocean as whole warms. Even the Argo doesn’t measure the ocean top to botom, so we don’t really know.
What we know from the Argo positively is that the ocean surface layer in global senseis cooling
And this is more or less going on for whole the Argo era and mainly at the Northern hemisphere. – We can also identify a cooling, however not global, throughout the whole Argo measured ocean column and it is at the Northern hemisphere.
As you can see on the 0-65N and 50-65N graph comparison it is very likely, that this profound Northern hemisphere ocean cooling originates from the Arctic and my opinion is that it is caused by the dispersal of freezing cold water having its origin from the melted Arctic ice. -This is the other side of the surface icemelt (sold using the creepy polarbear pictures as a sign of the “anthropogenic global warming”) – you end up with the whole hemisphere ocean cooled to depth. Most striking is the decline in the sub-Arctic sea surface layer temperature in the Eastern Atlantic – a -0.3+C per decade in the usual relations of the sea surface layer temperature is already quite alot and definitely significant – especially when one considers the ocean cooled all the way down the 2000m measured by the Argo in the 50-65N area – especially in the Atlantic and in fact at most of the Northern hemisphere.
But they say the global ocean allegedly warms. Let’s take Argo global data top to botom, east to west, north to south and use the simple regression analysis and see where it is.
-Not in the geographical sense, but in the sense of the ocean depth. We can see the global ocean “warming” is going on below ~100m depth.
Now the question: is it likely (- given the law of gravity, the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the known properties of liquid water, especially the known firm relationship between its temperature and density) that the “warming” below the ~100m depth (with the cooling above) has anything to do with the present surface or atmospheric conditions?
I very much doubt it and I deem much more likely, that the “warming” below the ~100m depth is in fact a tranversal heatwave which slowly progresses from the surface since the times there was the warming period in the 1970s-2000 – and which ocean “recorded” in its heat content as a temperature change profile, which is now revealed using the Argo network and most importantly: the cause of the heatwave, if we ask where it lies in the sense of time, most likely lies in the past, not the present.
I would like to know, what you think about.
Jan Zeman
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2013 at 3:43 am
Down-welling in the Icelandic seas is caused by the cold Arctic winds’ removal of heat from warm currents at a rate of several hundred watts/m2. In the winter months this happens mainly to the Iceland’s south and in the summer months to its north.
I happen to think that rate of the heat removal is critical to the N. Hemisphere weather and the ultimately climate change since rising warm air distorts the ‘Coriolis effect’ by moves polar jet-stream into more pronounced meridional direction.
See link
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-6.80,53.65,622
Charlie Johnson (@semper ban u): Those “hyper-active” molecules that vibrate too much aren’t liked by the other, cooler molecules. So the cool molecules have found a way to essentially exile the hyperactive ones.
that was an enjoyable read. well done.
Peruvian upwelling is sharply contracting just now suggesting a possible mini-el Nino type east Pacific warming over Christmas, which due to underlying conditions might very well be followed by renewed upwelling a much stronger La Nina type east Pacific cooling and a full-on La Nina. If this scenario were to play out, it would represent a reversal of the ENSO asymmetry, from el Nino>La Nina to el Nino<La Nina, for the first time in the instrumental record. Anyway Happy Christmas, lets see what happens in the New Year.
Indian Ocena Temperatures are Australia’s fault.
Australia is a world leader in CO2 emmissions – that’s what we get told all the time – must be true.
Australia didn’t send a Minister to Warsaw and the Aussie Delegation wore T-Shirts and at junk food.
Australia is getting rid of its’ CO2 tax.
It’s Tony Abbott’s fault.
That is all.
BS ladies and gentlemen BS..truth is all this BS keeps coming because if the truth is reported NO MORE SUBSIDIES for the scientists.FOLLOW THE MONEY