2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

I think he might be talking about steric sea level rise (the change in sea level due to expansion of the ocean's water as it warms)...that's sometimes used as a proxy for OHC.

I was being sarcastic

He didn't read my post, and it ended in me busting by gut laughing. Nevertheless, I digress.

[WeatherRusty]

I was being sarcastic

He didn't read my post, and it ended in me busting by gut laughing. Nevertheless, I digress.

<a name="steric">Steric sea level Steric sea level provides a great example of Argo's complementary relationship with other observing system elements, particularly the altimeter Jason. Argo provides the capability to understand sea level change by measuring its component due to subsurface temperature and salinity. The steric component is dominant over the mass component in regional sea level variability and on a global basis it accounts for about 1/3 of total sea level increase in the past half century (Domingues et al 2008). Accurate projections of future sea level require an understanding of the causes of sea level change in the modern record.

On seasonal and longer time-scales, sea surface height is dominated by changes in subsurface density. Thus, by measuring temperature and salinity as a function of depth, Argo reveals not only how much of sea surface height variability is steric in origin, but also how the steric signal is distributed over depth and between temperature and salinity. Combining sea surface height measurements from the Jason altimeter and Argo's ability to see below the ocean surface, climate related basin-scale signals on interannual and decadal timescales, such as a 15-year spin-up of the South Pacific gyre described by Roemmich et al, 2007 are becoming apparent. On global scales, Argo and Jason, together with satellite gravity measurements, partition global sea level rise into its steric and mass-related components (Willis et al, 2008, Cazenave et al, 2009, Leuliette and Miller, 2009, Wunsch et al, 2007).

ARGO

Steric sea level rise is not something the Argo system measures. It is computed as a derivative of temperature, salinity and depth as measured by Argo. Good, I am not loosing my mind!

[BethesdaWX]

ARGO

Steric sea level rise is not something the Argo system measures. It is computed as a derivative of temperature, salinity and depth as measured by Argo. Good, I am not loosing my mind!

Steric Sea Level Rise?

Steric sea level

Steric sea level provides a great example of Argo's complementary relationship with other observing system elements, particularly the altimeter Jason. Argo provides the capability to understand sea level change by measuring its component due to subsurface temperature and salinity. The steric component is dominant over the mass component in regional sea level variability and on a global basis it accounts for about 1/3 of total sea level increase in the past half century (Domingues et al 2008). Accurate projections of future sea level require an understanding of the causes of sea level change in the modern record.

On seasonal and longer time-scales, sea surface height is dominated by changes in subsurface density. Thus, by measuring temperature and salinity as a function of depth, Argo reveals not only how much of sea surface height variability is steric in origin, but also how the steric signal is distributed over depth and between temperature and salinity. Combining sea surface height measurements from the Jason altimeter and Argo's ability to see below the ocean surface, climate related basin-scale signals on interannual and decadal timescales, such as a 15-year spin-up of the South Pacific gyre described by Roemmich et al, 2007 are becoming apparent. On global scales, Argo and Jason, together with satellite gravity measurements, partition global sea level rise into its steric and mass-related components (Willis et al, 2008, Cazenave et al, 2009, Leuliette and Miller, 2009, Wunsch et al, 2007).

<BR align="left">Ocean circulation The oceans are not only reservoirs for heat and water in the climate system. They are dynamically active, redistributing heat and water by means of an ocean circulation that responds to changes in wind and thermohaline forcing. Argo presently observes only the interior upper-ocean circulation, so a complete observing system that includes boundary currents and deep measurements is essential for understanding the entire ocean circulation. Some recent papers describing upper-ocean circulation include Roemmich et al's (2007) paper on Argo contributing to estimating changes in gyre-scale circulation, Gille's (2008) paper on the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and Hernández-Guerra et al's (2008) paper on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.

Now Dynamic Height

[WeatherRusty]

I think he might be talking about steric sea level rise (the change in sea level due to expansion of the ocean's water as it warms)...that's sometimes used as a proxy for OHC.

I'm just saying that claiming a decade is the warmest ever doesn't mean the IPCC projected warming trend of .2C per decade, increasing to .25C per decade, is verifying. You have to have steady and accelerating warming in order to verify the predictions the computer models have made. Since 1998, UAH shows a trend of approximately +.07C/decade, whereas RSS is probably around .05C/decade. This is a clear slowing of the warming since the 1980s and 1990s, especially if you believe the satellite data. Even Hadley did not show 2010 to be the warmest year on record, despite a strong El Niño, record high AMO, and 13 years of anthropogenic warming since the last strong Niño event.

Rusty, I have to admit that you appear to be backing off some of your earlier claims about dramatic and inevitable climate change and coming into more of a compromise with those who say natural factors are going to play a big role in slowing the warming in the next few decades. This seems very reasonable to me, as I'm basically in the camp of those who believe CO2 causes a long-term background warming but also thinking that the PDO and solar minimum are going to halt much of the rapid warming we saw in the last couple of decades, and perhaps give us more time to adapt to a different climate or assuage the crisis through geoengineering. Given the length of past major solar minima, we probably have about 30-40 years of lower solar activity to continue cooling the Earth, at the very least. The PDO and ENSO phases will turn towards warmer in the 2030s, but the AMO will not be as high in all likelihood. I'd pinpoint the 2020-2025 time period for the potential for the lowest global temperatures, with rapid warming occurring in the 2040s and 2050s. Of course, this is total speculation and quite unscientific.

I never claimed the temperature trend would rise uninterrupted by natural variation. The trend will be amplified and suppressed just as it always has in the past. The climate system is one in a struggle of various factors tending toward DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM. I think the disconnect we have lies in the time frames we are looking at. I am taking a long term view during which natural variability averages out to near zero. The remaining trend on this longer time scale will be dominated by greenhouse warming if our thinking is correct.

[nzucker]

I never claimed the temperature trend would rise uninterrupted by natural variation. The trend will be amplified and suppressed just as it always has in the past. The climate system is one in a struggle of various factors tending toward DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM. I think the disconnect we have lies in the time frames we are looking at. I am taking a long term view during which natural variability averages out to near zero. The remaining trend on this longer time scale will be dominated by greenhouse warming if our thinking is correct.

But ecosystem and human adaptation to climate change are all dependent on what happens in the medium range...the next 30-50 years. Of course, adding exponentially more CO2 to the earth's atmosphere will eventually cause some degree of warming, but there's a big difference between what some Hadley climatologists say (4C of warming by 2060 possible) and only having slight warming of perhaps .25C by 2060. That gives us more time and will affect the course of policy decisions. Also, if we have a Maunder-like solar minimum, the cooling effects could last close to a century, and that would definitely be significant in terms of what weather conditions we experience as well as what decisions are made regarding global warming legislation. So you can't completely ignore the medium range natural cycles.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, but it's slowed since 2007 a lot, when it should have been rising even faster due to La Niña. You still haven't answered how OHC can remain steady for two years in the midst of a major La Niña with rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Until you answer this question, I won't be convinced that you actually understand what you're talking about. So far, you're making just about as much sense as the claims that the Arctic superstorm is going to destroy us all, and at least that had some comic value whereas you have little.

It makes no sense for you to base your argument on the 2003-07 time period, but then write off my arguments about 2007-2009 because the measurements aren't precise enough.

Anyway, why is it such a surprise that OHC has leveled off in the last few years? Basically all our measurements, even the warmer ones like GISS, show that there's been a significant plateau in global temperatures. When 2011 is factored into the equation, the decline in warming is going to look even more impressive, much more if the current trends on AMSU hold for a while. This is logical considering we've just begun a major solar minimum, whose effects will mostly be felt in 20-30 years but whose influence is already showing up in the precise scientific data we use.

It's barely precise enough to do a 6 year trend nevermind what you are doing which is 2 years. And even over those 2 years the TREND is positive you are just focusing on a tiny peak that occurred in 06.

I'm not going over this with you again.. you can persist in thinking OHC has leveled off but it hasn't. The 6 year trend is ~.8W/m2 which is the theoretical expectation. If you want to overanalyze each every little blip in the past 2 years go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

[nzucker]

It's barely precise enough to do a 6 year trend nevermind what you are doing which is 2 years. And even over those 2 years the TREND is positive you are just focusing on a tiny peak that occurred in 06.

I'm not going over this with you again.. you can persist in thinking OHC has leveled off but it hasn't. The 6 year trend is ~.8W/m2 which is the theoretical expectation. If you want to overanalyze each every little blip in the past 2 years go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

There's a plateau in all data concerning global temperatures....the trend towards warming has slowed, and you've agreed that it's due to the solar minimum. The NASA map I just posted shows the leveling off in OHC much better, and according to NASA's analysis it happened earlier in the decade around 2003 following rapid increases in the 1990s. It seems the 1998 Super El Niño and subsequent switch to -PDO conditions changed the atmosphere in a major way, augmented by the extremely low levels of solar activity starting in 2005. It'll be interesting to see if this trend continues as it will make for a very vigorous debate about IPCC protocol and predictions. Do you think analyzing 7 years on the NASA map is too little to be meaningful?

Once again, there you go again with the dismissive and borderline rude comments. I don't understand why you seem unable to have a courteous discussion about climate change on an Internet forum when you're very non-aggressive and polite in real life...it just seems you are taking this a bit too seriously. Honestly, how many 22-year olds even care about steric sea level rise LOL? And it doesn't matter in the long-term anyway...all the ruminations about weather and climate on this board aren't going to change what the gods concoct for us, no matter how convinced we seem to be of our power.

[skierinvermont]

There's a plateau in all data concerning global temperatures....the trend towards warming has slowed, and you've agreed that it's due to the solar minimum. The NASA map I just posted shows the leveling off in OHC much better, and according to NASA's analysis it happened earlier in the decade around 2003 following rapid increases in the 1990s. It seems the 1998 Super El Niño and subsequent switch to -PDO conditions changed the atmosphere in a major way, augmented by the extremely low levels of solar activity starting in 2005. It'll be interesting to see if this trend continues as it will make for a very vigorous debate about IPCC protocol and predictions. Do you think analyzing 7 years on the NASA map is too little to be meaningful?

You said it's slowed since 2007.. I said the data is not precise enough to do a 2 year trend.

Then you change the topic to slowing since 2002.

Yes it is has slowed since 2002***... I have posted that data dozens of times. ***AT 700m. 0-2000m may not have leveled off at all. Would need to infer from steric sea levels.

The graph you posted is 0-700m... 0-2000m probably is much more steady at the theoretical rate of .8W/m2.

[nzucker]

You said it's slowed since 2007.. I said the data is not precise enough to do a 2 year trend.

Then you change the topic to slowing since 2002.

Yes it is has slowed since 2002... I have posted that data dozens of times.

I'm not changing the topic, just remarking on the different datasets. The NASA dataset shows that the slowing began in 2002, whereas the NOAA amalgamation of sources has a consensus that the major plateau didn't begin until 2007 (that's the link I included in a previous post). Overall, there's an agreement that the warming trend has become less aggressive recently, but the different studies don't concur on when the trend lessened...was it around 2002 when solar activity first started going down, or more towards 2007 when we hit the spotless streak?

One aspect of this data that puzzles me is why we're not seeing more of a spike given the change to La Niña/-PDO conditions. With the PDO definitely switching to its negative state in 2007, which incited a multi-year moderate La Niña event, one would expect to see a rise even sharper than the 1990s since the oceans were storing less heat back then in the +PDO/+ENSO regime. But the exact opposite has happened...the oceans seemed to be warming less (along with the surface) in a state where they should warm more. Why is this, and does this imply that the Earth's energy imbalance is being reduced, given that the surface warming has slowed and that heat isn't to be found in the oceans?

[WeatherRusty]

But ecosystem and human adaptation to climate change are all dependent on what happens in the medium range...the next 30-50 years. Of course, adding exponentially more CO2 to the earth's atmosphere will eventually cause some degree of warming, but there's a big difference between what some Hadley climatologists say (4C of warming by 2060 possible) and only having slight warming of perhaps .25C by 2060. That gives us more time and will affect the course of policy decisions. Also, if we have a Maunder-like solar minimum, the cooling effects could last close to a century, and that would definitely be significant in terms of what weather conditions we experience as well as what decisions are made regarding global warming legislation. So you can't completely ignore the medium range natural cycles.

I doubt there will be any significant cooling trends in the coming decades. Warming may alternate between accelerating and slowing but it should continue to warm in general. There will certainly not be any cooling due to intrinsic solar variability for longer than 7 years or so given the latest thinking that solar forcing since 1750 has only been 0.12W/m^2 or so. No one can predict what the global temp will be at some particular future time, only that the growing radiative forcing will translate to warming probably at a general, averaged rate of 0.2C/decade and likely 3C above averaged TSI normalized pre-industrial levels.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not changing the topic, just remarking on the different datasets. The NASA dataset shows that the slowing began in 2002, whereas the NOAA amalgamation of sources has a consensus that the major plateau didn't begin until 2007 (that's the link I included in a previous post). Overall, there's an agreement that the warming trend has become less aggressive recently, but the different studies don't concur on when the trend lessened...was it around 2002 when solar activity first started going down, or more towards 2007 when we hit the spotless streak?

One aspect of this data that puzzles me is why we're not seeing more of a spike given the change to La Niña/-PDO conditions. With the PDO definitely switching to its negative state in 2007, which incited a multi-year moderate La Niña event, one would expect to see a rise even sharper than the 1990s since the oceans were storing less heat back then in the +PDO/+ENSO regime. But the exact opposite has happened...the oceans seemed to be warming less (along with the surface) in a state where they should warm more. Why is this, and does this imply that the Earth's energy imbalance is being reduced, given that the surface warming has slowed and that heat isn't to be found in the oceans?

You asserted there has been a "leveling off since 2006/2007. We do not have precise enough data to look at two year trends. Moreover, the trend is still quite positive.

The NOAA link contains several outdated studies.

[Clifford]

Bethesda,

There is a problem with your slope calculation.

Here is a perfect Sine Wave

Using the "Slope" and "Intercept" functions in OpenOffice.

(Slopes calculated per 360 degrees, max/min of 10).

Calculating the slope from 0 to 1800 (5 complete cycles) would seem like the best match, but it actually gave the worst match.

Slope of -0.76, and intercept of 1.9 (Slopes calculated per 360 degrees, max/min of 10).

Calculating from peak to peak, or valley to valley gave a nearly perfect match with a slope of essentially zero, and intercept just slightly off from zero.

Stopping at the half cycle (5 peaks, 4 valleys) (or 4 peaks, 5 valleys)

0 degrees to 1620 degrees gave a good slope match, but was off with the intercept calculation.

Choosing appropriate end-points would be important for temperature calculations, just as doing sea level calculations.

[nzucker]

You asserted there has been a "leveling off since 2006/2007. We do not have precise enough data to look at two year trends. Moreover, the trend is still quite positive.

Where do you find the fact that we don't have enough precise data to study the trend from 2007-2010? Is this written in the reports? What is the margin of error in the measurement of ocean heat content?

The Trenberth "missing heat" idea is still out there. Although the Schuckmann study bridges some of the gap by looking at deep OHC, it still isn't sufficient to account for all the radiative imbalance shown by satellite analysis. And even that data shows a leveling off after 2007, when one would assume deep OHC should be increasing as we transitioned from El Niño to La Niña. How can the Earth be accumulating heat at a rate sufficient to warm us .2-.25C per decade if both the surface and the oceans have shown a plateau in warming since 2002? And isn't the non-trend going to become more prominent when we include this year, a strong La Niña that promises to come in very cold globally compared to the last decade?

[ORH_wxman]

Where do you find the fact that we don't have enough precise data to study the trend from 2007-2010? Is this written in the reports? What is the margin of error in the measurement of ocean heat content?

The Trenberth "missing heat" idea is still out there. Although the Schuckmann study bridges some of the gap by looking at deep OHC, it still isn't sufficient to account for all the radiative imbalance shown by satellite analysis. And even that data shows a leveling off after 2007, when one would assume deep OHC should be increasing as we transitioned from El Niño to La Niña. How can the Earth be accumulating heat at a rate sufficient to warm us .2-.25C per decade if both the surface and the oceans have shown a plateau in warming since 2002? And isn't the non-trend going to become more prominent when we include this year, a strong La Niña that promises to come in very cold globally compared to the last decade?

I think one of the inherent problems with the AGW debate is that anyone who questions certain theories and hypothesis that are "mainstream" is automatically viewed as some sort of rodent with alterior motives.

Skeptics by the very meaning of the word is just questioning the validity of a certain outcome or forecast. There is a group of "skeptics" like Bethesda who take it further and start spewing off a lot of nonesense about how AGW doesn't even exist at all or almost not at all. But on the whole, the average skeptic like Dr. Roy Spencer and others are just questioning certain theories and asking why certain data doesn't match. The questions get viewed as attacks.

That type of reaction is extremely unhealthy for the science, but unfortunately its become politicized so that's the way its probably going to be for a while. There is growing data that doesn't match the mainstream view which is why the debate has heated up in the past 5 years versus what we saw in the late 1990s or even early 2000s. A lot of you are too young to remember it, but there was little debate back then, only minor tit for tat. But it really started to grow in 2006 and 2007. It wasn't the internet that did it either because that's been around in an easy form for nearly a decade before the debate got strong.

Science is healthy with questions and answers from skeptics and advocates alike in any field. But this particular science has gotten poisoned with a political attitude toward each side that is not nearly as extreme in any other field of science.

Its pretty sad. Going back to eastern...before the days that many of you even posted...I have seen it degrade more and more. Its not very cordial and not very fun to view posts that harbor that type of attitude.

[skierinvermont]

Where do you find the fact that we don't have enough precise data to study the trend from 2007-2010? Is this written in the reports? What is the margin of error in the measurement of ocean heat content?

The Trenberth "missing heat" idea is still out there. Although the Schuckmann study bridges some of the gap by looking at deep OHC, it still isn't sufficient to account for all the radiative imbalance shown by satellite analysis. And even that data shows a leveling off after 2007, when one would assume deep OHC should be increasing as we transitioned from El Niño to La Niña. How can the Earth be accumulating heat at a rate sufficient to warm us .2-.25C per decade if both the surface and the oceans have shown a plateau in warming since 2002? And isn't the non-trend going to become more prominent when we include this year, a strong La Niña that promises to come in very cold globally compared to the last decade?

There hasn't been a plateau in 0-2000m since 2002.. that plateau appears only in the 0-700m data.

How do I know that the data isn't precise enough 2007-2008?

I know it's not precise enough because the text of the studies say that even the full 6 year trends have high uncertainty and also because of the error bars.

Nobody has posted data for 2009 to 2010 so I don't know why you are saying 2007-2010. If you have data for 09-10 (besides the outdated ones you posted from the NOAA website which are simply extensions of old methodologies that have been retracted such as Lyman 2006) then let's see it.. otherwise my suspicion is you threw on 09-10 just to make it into a 4-yr trend when really it is a 2-yr trend. Which is pretty dishonest of you.

The worst part is the 2 yr trend is quite positive.. you are just ignoring the trend line and deciding to draw a line from the peak in early 07 to the end of the graph. Which is not a statistically valid way of calculating trends.

Even though I have cited this fact a half dozen times you continue to portray each and every blip as having significance, then you repeat the same questions, ignore the answers, and continue making the same false assertions.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda,

There is a problem with your slope calculation.

Here is a perfect Sine Wave

Using the "Slope" and "Intercept" functions in OpenOffice.

(Slopes calculated per 360 degrees, max/min of 10).

Calculating the slope from 0 to 1800 (5 complete cycles) would seem like the best match, but it actually gave the worst match.

Slope of -0.76, and intercept of 1.9 (Slopes calculated per 360 degrees, max/min of 10).

Calculating from peak to peak, or valley to valley gave a nearly perfect match with a slope of essentially zero, and intercept just slightly off from zero.

Stopping at the half cycle (5 peaks, 4 valleys) (or 4 peaks, 5 valleys)

0 degrees to 1620 degrees gave a good slope match, but was off with the intercept calculation.

Choosing appropriate end-points would be important for temperature calculations, just as doing sea level calculations.

Yes, I had already stated to "disregard" the decrease since there was an unfinished dataset in 2010-11.

[nzucker]

There hasn't been a plateau in 0-2000m since 2002.. that plateau appears only in the 0-700m data.

How do I know that the data isn't precise enough 2007-2008?

I know it's not precise enough because the text of the studies say that even the full 6 year trends have high uncertainty and also because of the error bars.

Nobody has posted data for 2009 to 2010 so I don't know why you are saying 2007-2010. If you have data for 09-10 (besides the outdated ones you posted from the NOAA website which are simply extensions of old methodologies that have been retracted such as Lyman 2006) then let's see it.. otherwise my suspicion is you threw on 09-10 just to make it into a 4-yr trend when really it is a 2-yr trend. Which is pretty dishonest of you.

The worst part is the 2 yr trend is quite positive.. you are just ignoring the trend line and deciding to draw a line from the peak in early 07 to the end of the graph. Which is not a statistically valid way of calculating trends.

Even though I have cited this fact a half dozen times you continue to portray each and every blip as having significance, then you repeat the same questions, ignore the answers, and continue making the same false assertions.

I said 2010 because some of the NOAA studies include it. Whatever, it's 2009 then...just stop with the random accusations. If you are going to say the studies can't be looked at for more recent trends, then post the evidence and relevant quotations. I have asked you what the margin of error is, and you fail to respond repeatedly. This is why your attachment to science isn't taken seriously on these boards: you never actually answer the questions. It's amazing how an assertion becomes false just because you don't agree with it...you just can't seem to respect the diversity of opinions on this forum.

The 2000m OHC does show somewhat of a slowing of warming, but the other 0-700m OHC measurements show an earlier plateau in many cases. Either way, there's a trend towards less warming that's evident, not an acceleration of the trend which you claim. Anyone just eyeballing the graph can tell that, doesn't take a rocket scientist. You've admitted warming has slowed in the last 10 years since the solar minimum began, so why are you so hesitant to extend this to changes in OHC? It would make sense that the decline in solar activity affects both surface warming and ocean warming.

[Clifford]

Bumped into this today. JRA-25 Anomaly Data for 2009 to present (at week old at this time).

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/weather/

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/jra25/global_temperature_anomalies.jpg

I don't see where it lists monthly averages.

However, the 30 day running mean seems to cover the previous 30 days. So, the last day of the month should be the monthly average.

The base period is a 30 year mean.

Some good daily global charts are available following the link above.

[jconsor]

Cold period coming up globally with a brutal shot of arctic air covering much of eastern and central Europe and western Asia.

GFS pegging a global temp anomaly of -0.29C averaged over the next 8 days - probably slightly overdone, but it has the right idea.

February started slightly above normal, but since the European cold snap began to spread on Feb 8-9, it has been about -0.1C below normal.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/jra25/jra25_2011.html

[salbers]

DUDE, this is sea level data, not temperature data

Epic Fail

My guess is that ARGO would derive sea level changes from temperature changes?

[nzucker]

Cold period coming up globally with a brutal shot of arctic air covering much of eastern and central Europe and western Asia.

GFS pegging a global temp anomaly of -0.29C averaged over the next 8 days - probably slightly overdone, but it has the right idea.

February started slightly above normal, but since the European cold snap began to spread on Feb 8-9, it has been about -0.1C below normal.

I just happened to look up European temperatures in the NY Times the other day, and I couldn't believe how cold it's been in Moscow and St. Petersburg...lots of highs in the lower teens and single digits. According to the Weather Channel forecast, here are the next 5 days for Moscow in Fahrenheit: 0/-18, 4/-17, 5/-17, 7/-9, 4/-9...that's just brutal, especially for late February. So much for the heat wave

GFS also shows some great cold anomalies in the Southern Ocean, South Pacific, and Tropical Pacific. Definitely a cold signal globally and a major change from the torch we saw last year where 90% of the world seemed to be having above average temperatures. We'll see if this continues but it definitely could represent the start of a cooler era with low solar and La Niña dominating.

[Clifford]

My guess is that ARGO would derive sea level changes from temperature changes?

I would have thought that Argo would use GPS for X,Y, and probably Z.

I thought that the "Z" was somewhat limited with GPS, but perhaps the ARGO units can snag enough satellites to get reasonable accuracy as the horizons should be pretty wide open.

Can one improve Z coordinate accuracy by snagging tangential satellites?

Then, of course, average with lots of data points, tide calculations, & etc.

[salbers]

Good question as to whether GPS Z has been attempted. Otherwise, here is how "Steric" sea level is measured, as referenced by Weather Rusty in #512...

http://www.argo.ucsd...e_analysis.html

"Steric sea level provides a great example of Argo's complementary relationship with other observing system elements, particularly the altimeter Jason. Argo provides the capability to understand sea level change by measuring its component due to subsurface temperature and salinity. The steric component is dominant over the mass component in regional sea level variability and on a global basis it accounts for about 1/3 of total sea level increase in the past half century (Domingues et al 2008). Accurate projections of future sea level require an understanding of the causes of sea level change in the modern record.

On seasonal and longer time-scales, sea surface height is dominated by changes in subsurface density. Thus, by measuring temperature and salinity as a function of depth, Argo reveals not only how much of sea surface height variability is steric in origin, but also how the steric signal is distributed over depth and between temperature and salinity. Combining sea surface height measurements from the Jason altimeter and Argo's ability to see below the ocean surface, climate related basin-scale signals on interannual and decadal timescales, such as a 15-year spin-up of the South Pacific gyre described by Roemmich et al, 2007 are becoming apparent. On global scales, Argo and Jason, together with satellite gravity measurements, partition global sea level rise into its steric and mass-related components (Willis et al, 2008, Cazenave et al, 2009, Leuliette and Miller, 2009, Wunsch et al, 2007)."

I wonder why the steric component is only about 1/3 in the past 50 years? Seems a bit at odds with what the second paragraph is saying.

[salbers]

Where do you find the fact that we don't have enough precise data to study the trend from 2007-2010? Is this written in the reports? What is the margin of error in the measurement of ocean heat content?

The Trenberth "missing heat" idea is still out there. Although the Schuckmann study bridges some of the gap by looking at deep OHC, it still isn't sufficient to account for all the radiative imbalance shown by satellite analysis. And even that data shows a leveling off after 2007, when one would assume deep OHC should be increasing as we transitioned from El Niño to La Niña. How can the Earth be accumulating heat at a rate sufficient to warm us .2-.25C per decade if both the surface and the oceans have shown a plateau in warming since 2002? And isn't the non-trend going to become more prominent when we include this year, a strong La Niña that promises to come in very cold globally compared to the last decade?

Here's some recent satellite sea level data - still going up.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

[tacoman25]

Cold period coming up globally with a brutal shot of arctic air covering much of eastern and central Europe and western Asia.

GFS pegging a global temp anomaly of -0.29C averaged over the next 8 days - probably slightly overdone, but it has the right idea.

February started slightly above normal, but since the European cold snap began to spread on Feb 8-9, it has been about -0.1C below normal.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/jra25/jra25_2011.html

February should finish easily colder than January for all sources.

[skierinvermont]

I said 2010 because some of the NOAA studies include it. Whatever, it's 2009 then...just stop with the random accusations. If you are going to say the studies can't be looked at for more recent trends, then post the evidence and relevant quotations. I have asked you what the margin of error is, and you fail to respond repeatedly. This is why your attachment to science isn't taken seriously on these boards: you never actually answer the questions. It's amazing how an assertion becomes false just because you don't agree with it...you just can't seem to respect the diversity of opinions on this forum.

The 2000m OHC does show somewhat of a slowing of warming, but the other 0-700m OHC measurements show an earlier plateau in many cases. Either way, there's a trend towards less warming that's evident, not an acceleration of the trend which you claim. Anyone just eyeballing the graph can tell that, doesn't take a rocket scientist. You've admitted warming has slowed in the last 10 years since the solar minimum began, so why are you so hesitant to extend this to changes in OHC? It would make sense that the decline in solar activity affects both surface warming and ocean warming.

I have answered the question on precision multiple times. The error bars are quite large. The authors say in the text that even the 6 year trend is uncertain. You can also deduce this simply from the fact that multiple studies come up with substantially different results. So a 2 year trend is going to be even more uncertain. Then there's the fact that even the 2-yr trend from 07-08 is actually quite positive.. you are just deciding to focus on the blip in early 07 which is not a statistically valid way to calculate a trend line. Don't accuse me of not answering this question. I have answered this question a half dozen times now, I can go back and quote it if you like. I've explained 1) The error bars are large 2) the text of the studies say the 6-yr trend is quite uncertain 3) You are not calculating the 2-yr trend correctly MULTIPLE TIMES in the past month. You have had no answer to any of these 3 points and I can quote myself saying the exact same three things a month ago. I have also provided four of the most recent and well-respected studies on OHC multiple times so if you are still unclear you could actually read them instead of sitting around pontificating and demanding answers from me which I have already given. Cazenave 2009, Von Schuckmann 2009, Leuliette 2009, and Lyman 2010.

I never said that OHC warming was accelerating - yet again you are making things up.

The 0-2000m OHC DOES NOT show a slowing of warming in any significant manner. The 6 year trend, which is probably the shortest period for which the data has much precision, is .77W/m2 which is roughly equal to the theoretical expectation, and the long term trend calculated from steric sea level rise. We don't have 0-2000m data prior to that which I am aware of. You can't say something has slowed since 2003 when we don't have data for it prior to 2003. We have 0-700m and that does indeed show some slowing, but that is not represented of the whole ocean.

The fact is sea level rise has accelerated in the last 20 years to 3mm/yr and is continuing to rise at over 3mm/yr. This is a pretty good indicator that OHC trends have stayed quite positive, especially once you factor out mass gains due to melting. What is lacking is our ability to measure it precisely. We can barely measure it precisely over periods of 6-10 years which is why it is quite silly to be trying (incorrectly I might add) to determine a 2-yr trend.

I am not "resistant" to the idea that OHC warming has slowed over the last 6 years or the last 2 years. There just simply isn't any evidence to support it, given the lack of precision in our measurement data especially for a period as short as 2 years, the fact that 0-2000m OHC has continued to rise at the theoretical value, and the fact that sea level has continued to rise at 3mm/yr.

[BethesdaWX]

Here's some recent satellite sea level data - still going up.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Yes, according to that source. Other sources disagree. Frankly, ARGO being the newest data, and the fact that its objective. has it at my #1 pick.

[BethesdaWX]

FYI, check out Ryan Maue's site......GFS brings the Global temperature to -0.6C in 6 days! Wow

ECMWF weekies drop the Global temp even farther by week 2. Nuts

[salbers]

Yes, according to that source. Other sources disagree. Frankly, ARGO being the newest data, and the fact that its objective. has it at my #1 pick.

I thought you liked satellite data This satellite altimetry data goes through most of 2010, about as new as can be found, and newer than anything else I've seen posted here.

Unsure what you mean by objective - corrections are probably made in ARGO and satellite both.

It is true that ARGO is looking at Steric (temperature + salinity) sea level rise and satellite is total.

[nzucker]

FYI, check out Ryan Maue's site......GFS brings the Global temperature to -0.6C in 6 days! Wow

ECMWF weekies drop the Global temp even farther by week 2. Nuts

That's just a brutal cold shot across Asia....if you check out the forecast for Moscow that I posted, it's unreal...brutal, teeth-chattering cold. What's incredible is that the cold shot stretches all the way from Eastern Siberia/Kamchatka to the European border, a distance of thousands of miles. We're talking about a massive land area being absolutely frigid for days on end. ECM has -20C 850s over Western Russia with 0C getting all the way into the Central Mediterranean....way below normal. That's combined with a brutally cold airmass now coming into the Canadian Prairies and American West...check out how much of Western Canada is inside the -20C 850mb isotherm, and there's also a possibility for snowfall to occur in the low elevations of Southern California with the next trough moving through. Even Los Angeles is supposed to stay in the 40s and 50s for most of the next week, very chilly for their climate. We're definitely seeing the potential for global cooling being realized right now, and we'll see if this is trend sustains itself as the Niña wanes. Certainly interesting times ahead.