Update on 700m OHC through December 2010

[nzucker]

INTRODUCTION

The National Oceanographic Data Center’s Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data for the depths of 0-700 meters are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer Monthly observationswebpage. The NODC OHC dataset is based on the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems”, Geophysical Research Letters. Refer to Manuscript. It was revised in 2010 as noted in the October 18, 2010 post Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data. As described in the NODC’s explanation of ocean heat content (OHC) data changes, the changes result from “data additions and data quality control,” from a switch in base climatology, and from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations.

This update includes the data through the quarter of October to December 2010. There has been an upswing in the Indian Ocean OHC data. And in the tropical Pacific, there’s been a delayed response to ENSO or a downward shift. Other than those, there are no other major changes with the latest 3 months on which to report. (Watts, 3/17/11)

Full article:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/tisdale-update-on-ocean-heat-content/#more-36042

[skierinvermont]

Outdated methodology, as I've explained several times. See Leuliette 2009 Cazenave 2010 Lyman 2010.

0-700m OHC has slowed, but it has not plateaued.

0-2000m is more comprehensive anyways and for that see Schuckmann 2009 and Cazenave 2010 which show continued warming.

[nzucker]

All of these charts show a plateau; you don't need to be an astrophysicist to realize that. Makes sense with the rate of global warming only around .06C/decade since 1998.

[Clifford]

It is interesting that the Plateau started sometime between 2002 and 2004.

So the temperatures continued to rise through the 1998 El Nino, and the 1999-2001 La Nina.

Looking at the Watts page, as well as skierinvermont's graph, it looks like there have been regular pauses in the change of the ocean heat content.

With calculations based on ships logs, the sea surface temperatures have varied both positive and negative since the beginning of the records so there is no surprise there.

[skierinvermont]

All of these charts show a plateau; you don't need to be an astrophysicist to realize that. Makes sense with the rate of global warming only around .06C/decade since 1998.

First of all, it doesn't matter what word we use to describe the qualitative character of the trend, the trend of most recent analyses quantitatively is substantially higher than the Levitus methodology which is the one being cherrypicked by you and WUWT, even though it is out of date. You have made this mistake several times and each time I have provided you with the most recent reviews of the subject, which you oddly refuse to use.

Second of all, a plateau tends to imply a complete or near complete levelling off, when in reality what we have witnessed is a slowing (which is only detected at 0-700m, while 0-2000m continues to warm at the theoretical rate according to Schuckmann).

Finally, the surface trend since 1998 is more like .11 or .12C/decade since 1998 according to GISS, ERA, NCEP, and HadCRUT+UAH infilling of data sparse regions.

[tacoman25]

First of all, it doesn't matter what word we use to describe the qualitative character of the trend, the trend of most recent analyses quantitatively is substantially higher than the Levitus methodology which is the one being cherrypicked by you and WUWT, even though it is out of date. You have made this mistake several times and each time I have provided you with the most recent reviews of the subject, which you oddly refuse to use.

Second of all, a plateau tends to imply a complete or near complete levelling off, when in reality what we have witnessed is a slowing (which is only detected at 0-700m, while 0-2000m continues to warm at the theoretical rate according to Schuckmann).

Finally, the surface trend since 1998 is more like .11 or .12C/decade since 1998 according to GISS, ERA, NCEP, and HadCRUT+UAH infilling of data sparse regions.

It's really getting annoying how you are always accusing others of cherry-picking, when you consistently do the same thing by choosing and combining the sources that fit your arguments.

[skierinvermont]

It's really getting annoying how you are always accusing others of cherry-picking, when you consistently do the same thing by choosing and combining the sources that fit your arguments.

I am not cherry-picking. I am using the most recent methodologies and data based on logical arguments. I think that is just good science.

[ORH_wxman]

I am not cherry-picking. I am using the most recent methodologies and data based on logical arguments. I think that is just good science.

There's a lot of data out there. You can choose what you want to prove a point. It doesn't mean its correct just because you think it is or a certain agency thinks it is. There's a reason there's varying data sources....it helps remove bias.

[skierinvermont]

There's a lot of data out there. You can choose what you want to prove a point. It doesn't mean its correct just because you think it is or a certain agency thinks it is. There's a reason there's varying data sources....it helps remove bias.

Yes and I am not selecting data to prove a point. I am selecting data which is believed to be the most accurate based on a number of factors. There are lots of cases where competing data sources exist and neither can be said to be better than the other, or we might suspect one to be better but can't say for sure. In those situations I am more than happy to consider both sources. This is not such a case. There are a number of errors in the old OHC data which have since been corrected. The authors of some of the original studies have even retracted their work.

And yet we continue to see retracted studies like Willis 2008 show up on skeptic blog sites over and over again. It was even used in a supposedly scientific journal (not peer reviewed) and widely discussed (Knox and Douglass paper). A number of posters on here fell for it (K&D) until it was shown to not actually be peer reviewed and that it was basically using the retracted Willis 2008 methodology.

[BethesdaWX]

UAH is by far a more accurate datasource than GISS, it really makes no Sense to use the outlying data measurement system. Laws of AGW require the LT to warm faster than Surface, otherwise, things don't fit as well, especially considering The Stratosphere has not been experiencing any significant cooling since 1995, and the drop 15yrs ago was a result of Ozone depletion.

The problem with GISS isn't the +/- 0.03C Where it measures (weather stations), nor the fact that they've been adjusted.....the real problem are the extrapolations. Think, a Weather Station measures temps rigtht where it is...not including vast forests, Oceans, and the many miles around them. Then, when you extrapolate, it causes large errors.

UAH is able to measure every corner of the Globe, all the different areas where weather stations cannot measure. Thus, we have a better measurement system.

The Source Skier posted regarding the error bars on the measurement systems has been refuted by Roy Spencer.

http://journals.amet...175/JTECH1840.1

UAH veified at +/- 0.05C/decade on the 95th Percentile. So, we have a rough estimate on temperature trends over the global since 1979, and can use this as a rough calculation.

[nzucker]

Yes and I am not selecting data to prove a point. I am selecting data which is believed to be the most accurate based on a number of factors.

ERA and NCEP are known to be among the least accurate forms of measuring the global temperature. It's specifically stated that these sources are to be used for model verification/adjustments, not for doing research on long-term climate trends. You're mentioning them because they show more warming than UAH/RSS, that's very clear, and that's the definition of cherrypicking. Even though UAH/RSS were specifically designed for monitoring the climate over decades, you prefer NCEP/ERA because they are warmer. Everyone is growing tired of your constantly accusing skeptics of cherrypicking and then doing the exact same thing in your own posts, it's very duplicitous behavior.

[skierinvermont]

ERA and NCEP are known to be among the least accurate forms of measuring the global temperature. It's specifically stated that these sources are to be used for model verification/adjustments, not for doing research on long-term climate trends. You're mentioning them because they show more warming than UAH/RSS, that's very clear, and that's the definition of cherrypicking. Even though UAH/RSS were specifically designed for monitoring the climate over decades, you prefer NCEP/ERA because they are warmer. Everyone is growing tired of your constantly accusing skeptics of cherrypicking and then doing the exact same thing in your own posts, it's very duplicitous behavior.

In the opinion of the fraudsters at WUWT, not actual scientists.

Moreover, I am not using ERA or NCEP as independent sources, they are used as corroboration of spatial patterns etc.

[nzucker]

In the opinion of the fraudsters at WUWT, not actual scientists.

No one uses ERA and NCEP for long-term climate trends, they weren't designed with that purpose. Read about the problems on Jan Mayen Island on WUWT.

Stop calling the people "fraudsters", it's rude.

[skierinvermont]

No one uses ERA and NCEP for long-term climate trends, they weren't designed with that purpose. Read about the problems on Jan Mayen Island on WUWT.

Stop calling the people "fraudsters", it's rude.

The Jan Mayan post is a complete joke.. it's an embarrassment. These people have no idea what they are talking about. I don't really feel like spending another hour debunking yet another god-awful WUWT post. They are fraudsters and I am going to call them for what they are.

[ORH_wxman]

In the opinion of the fraudsters at WUWT, not actual scientists.

Moreover, I am not using ERA or NCEP as independent sources, they are used as corroboration of spatial patterns etc.

Condescending is probably putting it mildly.

All the cherry picking fraudsters at WUWT and Climate Audit like McIntyer had to point out errors in GISS on multiple occasions. Guess brilliant NASA and James Hansen were too smart to see them themselves...because you know, they are right all the time and everyone else is wrong.

Sometimes its actually okay to see it from all angles instead of the rampant tunnel vision that people like Hansen have. There's plenty of people like that on the other side too, but lumping everyone who posts any type of criticism of NASA/GISS/NCEP or any other agency as a "fraudster" in the same group as someone who doesn't believe global warming exists as all is completely ridiculous.

[nzucker]

The Jan Mayan post is a complete joke.. it's an embarrassment. These people have no idea what they are talking about. I don't really feel like spending another hour debunking yet another god-awful WUWT post. They are fraudsters and I am going to call them for what they are.

No more fraudsters than James Hansen who said NYC would be underwater after this century, we'd see a million meters of sea level rise that would put the entire East Coast in permanent flooding, we'd have a permanent Bermuda high with no relief from heat waves every summer, we'd warm 1C from 1988 to 2010, etc.

You still haven't offered any evidence as to why these alternative global temperature sources (ERA/NCEP/STAR/RICH) are better than standard sources like UAH and RSS. You haven't provided any monthly or yearly data for STAR to use for verification purposes. You haven't questioned whether using a crap model like the GFS is the best way to estimate global temperatures. You haven't posted any critiques of RICH or RAOBS or whatever it's called. It seems the only reason you picked these sources is because they're warmer, and you've found yourself in the mood to debunk the skeptics lately, perhaps because you were one of them and felt threatened by being outside the establishment as has been the trend in most of your actions...

[skierinvermont]

Condescending is probably putting it mildly.

All the cherry picking fraudsters at WUWT and Climate Audit like McIntyer had to point out errors in GISS on multiple occasions. Guess brilliant NASA and James Hansen were too smart to see them themselves...because you know, they are right all the time and everyone else is wrong.

Sometimes its actually okay to see it from all angles instead of the rampant tunnel vision that people like Hansen have. There's plenty of people like that on the other side too, but lumping everyone who posts any type of criticism of NASA/GISS/NCEP or any other agency as a "fraudster" in the same group as someone who doesn't believe global warming exists as all is completely ridiculous.

The WUWT site is full of blatant tricks and an obvious agenda. I have complete respect for more reasonable people like Lucia or Pielke. Watts et al. however are fraudsters.

[skierinvermont]

No more fraudsters than James Hansen who said NYC would be underwater after this century, we'd see a million meters of sea level rise that would put the entire East Coast in permanent flooding, we'd have a permanent Bermuda high with no relief from heat waves every summer, we'd warm 1C from 1988 to 2010, etc.

You repeat the same blatant lies over and over hoping they will become true...

- Hansen did not predict anywhere close to 1C of warming from 1988 to 2010. He predicted about .4C of warming from 1988 to 2010.. which was nearly correct.

- NYC probably will be partially underwater by the end of this century given sea levels will probably rise close to 2 meters

- he didn't predict a million meters of sea level rise.

-he didn't predict a permanent bermuda high and he didn't predict constant heat waves. In fact what he specifically predicted is that by 1990-2000 1 out of every 2 summers in DC would be hotter than the 10 hottest summers 1950-1979. In other words, a 1 in 3 summer would become a 1 in 2 summer. This may have actually been correct.

[tacoman25]

The WUWT site is full of blatant tricks and an obvious agenda. I have complete respect for more reasonable people like Lucia or Pielke. Watts et al. however are fraudsters.

I find this post highly ironic, since your own agenda is quite obvious, just like several prominent scientists/activists in the sky-is-falling AGW camp.

[skierinvermont]

I find this post highly ironic, since your own agenda is quite obvious, just like several prominent scientists/activists in the sky-is-falling AGW camp.

I do not have an agenda and I do not commit the kind of blatant tricks which are routinely found in WUWT posts. I fail to see the irony.

[tacoman25]

You repeat the same blatant lies over and over hoping they will become true...

- Hansen did not predict anywhere close to 1C of warming from 1988 to 2010. He predicted about .4C of warming from 1988 to 2010.. which was nearly correct.

- NYC probably will be partially underwater by the end of this century given sea levels will probably rise close to 2 meters

- he didn't predict a million meters of sea level rise.

-he didn't predict a permanent bermuda high and he didn't predict constant heat waves. In fact what he specifically predicted is that by 1990-2000 1 out of every 2 summers in DC would be hotter than the 10 hottest summers 1950-1979. In other words, a 1 in 3 summer would become a 1 in 2 summer. This may have actually been correct.

No, it was not. And why would he only go back to 1950, when DC's records go back much further and include some real scorchers from the first half of the 20th century?

Furthermore, it shows a distinct problem with Hansen's critical reasoning skills that he would choose to make such a prediction about an single, individual site, based solely on global warming.

[tacoman25]

I do not have an agenda and I do not commit the kind of blatant tricks which are routinely found in WUWT posts. I fail to see the irony.

Of course you fail to see the irony. Ask yourself this: why are you constantly on here, so devoted to defending the AGW cause? You are not being intellectually honest if you think you can accuse others with a different viewpoint than you of being "biased" and having an agenda, yet refuse to acknowledge your own biases and agenda.

[skierinvermont]

Of course you fail to see the irony. Ask yourself this: why are you constantly on here, so devoted to defending the AGW cause? You are not being intellectually honest if you think you can accuse others with a different viewpoint than you of being "biased" and having an agenda, yet refuse to acknowledge your own biases and agenda.

I don't accuse others with a different viewpoint of being biased. I accuse people who perform blatant tricks over and over and over again of being biased.

[tacoman25]

I don't accuse others with a different viewpoint of being biased. I accuse people who perform blatant tricks over and over and over again of being biased.

You, like Weather Rusty, have on more than one occasion lumped skeptics into such generalized accusations.

No comment on James Hansen's errors? Are you critically capable of admitting the "father of global warming" has made some pretty obvious errors in both judgement and predictions?

[skierinvermont]

You, like Weather Rusty, have on more than one occasion lumped skeptics into such generalized accusations.

No I haven't.

No comment on James Hansen's errors? Are you critically capable of admitting the "father of global warming" has made some pretty obvious errors in both judgement and predictions?

I did comment.

Hansen predicted ~.4-.45C of warming 1988/2010... this was slightly too high (actual was more like .35-.4C I believe). Talking about trends here of course not individual data points.

He also has made some rather unscientific comments to the media of which I do approve and which were wrong. I am more interested in his scientific predictions.

He generally tends to side on the high end of the forecasted warming and the forecasted sea level rise, which I do not agree with.

Are there any other predictions that were wrong that I am missing?

[tacoman25]

No I haven't.

I did comment.

Hansen predicted ~.4-.45C of warming 1988/2010... this was slightly too high.

He also has made some rather unscientific comments to the media of which I do approve and which were wrong. I am more interested in his scientific predictions.

He generally tends to side on the high end of the forecasted warming and the forecasted sea level rise, which I do not agree with.

Are there any other predictions that were wrong that I am missing?

Yes, you have. Just the other day you made a negative blanket statement about the skeptics on this forum. You continually accuse others of the same things you are guilty of, yet you are unable to admit it, a common symptom of someone obsessed with their cause/viewpoint.

Hansen's predicted range of temperature increases to current (made in 1988) was easily too high, given the increase in CO2 we've seen since then.

In addition, Hansen went on record several times since 1998 predicting the "next El Nino" would deliver a new global temp record. None of the global temp sources aside from his own GISS have had a year warmer than 1998 since.

As his activist actions and statements have clearly demonstrated, Hansen personifies the man obsessed with his cause. Given that he heads the "premier" global temperature source, I think that is a problem.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, you have. Just the other day you made a negative blanket statement about the skeptics on this forum. You continually accuse others of the same things you are guilty of, yet you are unable to admit it, a common symptom of someone obsessed with their cause/viewpoint.

No I did not - as I explained at the time I italicized MOST to specifically emphasize that it was NOT a blanket statement. It was actually in specific reference to a particular two posters who have harassed me repeatedly. It was by no means a blanket statement.

Hansen's predicted range of temperature increases to current (made in 1988) was easily too high, given the increase in CO2 we've seen since then.

In addition, Hansen went on record several times since 1998 predicting the "next El Nino" would deliver a new global temp record. None of the global temp sources aside from his own GISS have had a year warmer than 1998 since.

As his activist actions and statements have clearly demonstrated, Hansen personifies the man obsessed with his cause. Given that he heads the "premier" global temperature source, I think that is a problem.

By "easily too high" do you mean to imply something other than the acknowledged .05C discrepancy? Actual concentrations of GHGs have fallen below those of Scenario B. This needs to be accounted for. Scenario B shows .45-.5C of warming 1988-2010. Adjusting this down slightly we arrive at .4-.45C... which is slightly higher than the actual value of .35-.4C of warming.

I believe 2005 and 2010 probably were warmer than 1998 at the surface. It's within the error estimates though. But I think the best evidence suggests 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998. HadCRUT +UAH infilling of blank grids suggests this conclusion.

[tacoman25]

No I did not - as I explained at the time I italicized MOST to specifically emphasize that it was NOT a blanket statement. It was actually in specific reference to a particular two posters who have harassed me repeatedly. It was by no means a blanket statement.

You said "most skeptics" when you were just referring to two. I'd say that's a blanket statement (since you didn't specify anyone), and no matter what it was an unfair one.

That's just one recent example of how you tend to generalize about skeptics, though not nearly as bad as Rusty, who is convinced every skeptic is a Big Oil drone.

By "easily too high" do you mean to imply something other than the acknowledged .05C discrepancy? Actual concentrations of GHGs have fallen below those of Scenario B. This needs to be accounted for. Scenario B shows .45-.5C of warming 1988-2010. Adjusting this down slightly we arrive at .4-.45C... which is slightly higher than the actual value of .35-.4C of warming.

I believe 2005 and 2010 probably were warmer than 1998 at the surface. It's within the error estimates though. But I think the best evidence suggests 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998. HadCRUT +UAH infilling of blank grids suggests this conclusion.

When ENSO is accounted for, I think the overall warming since 1988 is closer to .30-.35C, actually. At least when looking at all the sources, not just GISS.

Doesn't matter what you believe, all sources showed 1998 as the warmest year, while only GISS has showed warmer years since. If you are using 1998 as the starting comparison, as Hansen was, then you have to have a clear consensus about it, and clearly overall, there has not been a year warmer than 1998 since.

My previous statements about Hansen stand.

[WeatherRusty]

I find this post highly ironic, since your own agenda is quite obvious, just like several prominent scientists/activists in the sky-is-falling AGW camp.

I give up. There is no argument which could restore to science the respect it so richly deserves. Academics are now looked down upon. Being an expert at something brings ridicule and condescension. Ideology, politics, money and religion are reclaiming a strong foothold in the determination of our country's future. Science be damned.

The Republicans have voted unanimously to deny an amendment stating that the world is warming. They have as a political party decided that the scientific finding of warming is untrue. Of course they also denied the more encompassing resolution stating that recent warming has been due to human activities. What have we become that this mindset has taken hold in this country? They have gone on record stating that the Earth has not been warming.

The Hill

[Clifford]

Whew...

Why does everything have to become a cat & dog fight.

What nzucker posted was a link to a Watts page:

http://wattsupwithth...ent/#more-36042

That showed a chart with a clear Plateau at around 2004.

skierinvermont then posted a chart purported to disprove Watts...

What do you know...

It shows the exact same thing.

A Plateau in temperatures around 2003/2004, and continuing to the end of the data period.

What the Warmists need to admit is that there hasn't been any significant warming of the planet for the last 13 years, since 1998.

It doesn't mean that the theory is completely wrong.

It just means that the climate projections were made during a natural upswing in temperatures due to PDO, AMO, and intense solar cycles.

We are now in an AMO, PDO, and Solar Cycle downswing. And a La Niña cycle too.

One would have to expect to see temperatures evening out. We would be in deep do-do if we didn't see at least a plateau in temperatures.

It wouldn't be unexpected for this plateau to continue, or perhaps even include a drop in temperatures over the next couple of decades. But, at some point, PDO, AMO, and other cycles will reverse again leading to another jump in temperatures.

There still may be a CO₂ component, just buried in the other cycles. And, thus, when the temperatures start warming again in a couple of decades, we might see more temperature extremes.

What the warmists need to do is to rather than trying to convince people that the warming that hasn't been happening is actually a subtle warming trend, but rather they need to calculate in the effects of AMO, PDO, and Solar Cycles... and perhaps even El Niño / La Niña. Are there even long-term cyclical patterns of El Niño/La Niña currents?

Accepting these other cycles, one should better estimate the forcing due to CO₂ (if any).