2011 Global Temperatures

[tacoman25]

I'm not basing it on this spike but rather the warmth of the last two months (+.13C on UAH) despite being right at a 4-5 month lag time from the peak Nina conditions. Much much warmer than 1999 2000 or 2008 at this point, even though the ONI trimonthlies have followed 1999 and 2008 almost to a tee to this point.

OHC has been different, that would be my best guess.

[nzucker]

I'm not basing it on this spike but rather the warmth of the last two months (+.13C on UAH) despite being right at a 4-5 month lag time from the peak Nina conditions. Much much warmer than 1999 2000 or 2008 at this point, even though the ONI trimonthlies have followed 1999 and 2008 almost to a tee to this point.

I'm not sure you can assume a direct lag for every ENSO event...the variation seems to be pretty large. Remember how long the effects of this last El Niño ran, really until December 2010 on the satellites, which was still quite warm? We were wondering if the Earth was ever going to experience a great degree of cooling from the La Niña until January came in below average. This might just be one of those exceptions to the 4-5 month lag time as last year was, and perhaps there is generally more fluctuation right now due to factors we don't understand.

Also, 2008 had MUCH colder SSTs than 2010/2011, so that may be having a large effect. We've been just below the middle of the pack with regards to SSTs whereas 2008 was dead coldest on the AMSU charts. We still have a much warmer Atlantic signal (+AMO), and the winter SSTs may have been affected by the previous strong El Niño. Also, this has been one of the fastest transitions from a Niña Pacific state to being on the verge of a Niño with Region 1.2 well above average, OHC fairly high, and the MJO burst back in early May. Not sure if this affects the satellites yet but may be a factor. 1999 especially, and 2008, had more entrenched multi-year Niñas. I think we might be heading back that way along the curve the CFS has consistently shown, but it's still a warmer ENSO result than expected for a strong Niña winter.

[LakeEffectKing]

Wow, the solar phenomena discussed this past week has already started kicking in....we're losing .13 C/mo.....and THAT'S during an uptick in the ENSO numbers!!!!!!!!!!!!!! More than enough to compensate for the .2C/decade attributable to AGW!!!!

GISS:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year

2001 38 40 54 40 49 45 51 45 47 43 65 51 47 45 33 48 47 52 2001

2002 72 70 87 55 56 46 56 45 51 50 50 37 56 57 64 66 49 50 2002

2003 66 50 52 49 52 40 49 62 60 67 48 68 55 53 51 51 50 58 2003

2004 52 65 58 51 34 33 19 41 45 57 65 50 48 49 62 48 31 56 2004

2005 71 56 70 61 56 59 56 56 68 72 64 61 63 62 59 62 57 68 2005

2006 46 62 58 42 38 55 42 65 57 59 64 71 55 54 56 46 54 60 2006

2007 89 63 64 68 60 52 55 55 50 54 47 40 58 61 74 64 54 50 2007

2008 17 26 66 43 41 34 52 34 53 55 58 47 44 43 28 50 40 55 2008

2009 55 46 47 50 53 61 66 56 65 61 68 61 57 56 49 50 61 64 2009

2010 70 75 85 75 64 55 50 54 54 62 71 42 63 65 69 75 53 63 2010

2011 45 41 57 55 42*********************************** ********* 43 52********** 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year

[Snow_Miser]

It looks like that Sea Surface Temperatures on AMSU are nearing Record Lows in the AMSU satellite record. This is consistant with no gain in OHC over the past several years.

[skierinvermont]

It looks like that Sea Surface Temperatures on AMSU are nearing Record Lows in the AMSU satellite record. This is consistant with no gain in OHC over the past several years.

1. SSTs have been consistently above 2008 for the last 6 months. 6 months >>>>>>> 1 day

2. OHC has been on an upwards trend over the last 5-10 years. OHC measurements on timescales much less than that become increasingly unreliable.

3. SSTs this year have been solidly higher than 2008, and even about equal with some ENSO-neutral years. We're way above 1999 SSTs.

[Snow_Miser]

1. SSTs have been consistently above 2008 for the last 6 months. 6 months >>>>>>> 1 day

2. OHC has been on an upwards trend over the last 5-10 years. OHC measurements on timescales much less than that become increasingly unreliable.

3. SSTs this year have been solidly higher than 2008, and even about equal with some ENSO-neutral years. We're way above 1999 SSTs.

1) Skier, it is more than the intensity of the La Nina that determines the Current Average Global Temperature. The 2008 La Nina was slightly stronger than the 2011 La Nina, but that's not the main issue.

One thing is that the El Nino that we had just come out of was significantly stronger than the 2006-2007 El Nino, which also impacts Global Temperatures, as well as the duration of the Nino. Both were stronger and longer than 2006's Nino. Yes, the La Nina was about the same stregnth, but the El Nino prior to this La Nina was stronger, so the La Nina had to significantly cool the temperature all the way from .72 Degrees C to -.1 Degrees C. As the SST temperatures on AMSU indicate, and the fact that the "waves" are appearing again in the Nino Regions, indicates that La Nina is also coming back.

Here we can see that the SSTs were quite a bit higher in 2010 then they were in 2006.

We can also see here, that not only is the Equatorial Atlantic cooling, (which may have a significant impact on the SSTs,) but also the "waves" are coming back in the Equatorial Pacific. You can clearly identify blue dots all over the ENSO regions. A sign, that the La Nina is on its way back.

2) Completely wrong.

See Dr. Pielke's post here on OHC content having not accumulated any more energy over the past several years.

It has now been at least since 2003 that there has not be significant heating of the upper ocean. In a post on my weblog on August 25 2008, Josh Willis wrote

“I do agree with you that several years of zero or little radiative imbalance poses some very difficult questions for the modeling community. But I do not think it is grounds for outright rejection of all model results.”

Joules resulting from a positive radiative imbalance must continue to be accumulated in order for global warming to occur. In the last 7 1/2 years there has been an absence of this heating. An important research question is how many more years of this lack of agreement with the GISS model (and other model) predictions must occur before there is wide recognition that the IPCC models have failed as skillful predictions of the effect of the radiative forcing of anthropogenic inputs of greenhouse gases and aerosols. The use of the ocean heat content change as the most appropriate metric to diagnose global warming was reported inLevitus, S., J.I. Antonov, J. Wang, T.L. Delworth, K.W. Dixon, and A.J. Broccoli, 2001: Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system. Science, 292, 267-269

and

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

In a 2008 Climate Science weblog

Comparison of Model and Observations Of Upper Ocean Heat Content,

I wrote

“The conclusion in Hansen et al. 2005 that the “Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± Watts per meter squared more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space” is well supported by their modeling results for the ten years or so ending in 2003.”

With respect to the heating rate, in the paper

Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1110252,

they wrote

“Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m² more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.”

See also the response by Jim Hansen to a comment by Christy and Pielke Sr [which Science refused to publish], where Hansen wrote me with respect to their GISS model predictions that

“Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean.”

He further writes

“The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.”

Thus, the best estimate value of 0.60 Watts per meter squared given in Hansen et al can be used, as a conservative value, to calculate the heat change in Joules that should be expected in the upper ocean data from 2003 to the present.

The observed best estimates of the heating and the Hansen et al prediction in Joules in the upper 700m of the ocean are given below:

OBSERVED BEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].

2003 ~0 Joules

2004 ~0 Joules

2005 ~0 Joules

2006 ~0 Joules

2007 ~0 Joules

2008 ~0 Joules

2009 ~0 Joules

2010 ~0 Joules

2011 ~0 Joules through May 2011

2012 —–

HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002] [corrected 6/13/2011 from input from Bob Tilsdale].

2003 ~0.67* 10** 22 Joules

2004 ~1.34* 10** 22 Joules

2005 ~2.01 * 10** 22 Joules

2006 ~2.68 * 10** 22 Joules

2007 ~3.35 * 10** 22 Joules

2008 ~4.02 * 10** 22 Joules

2009 ~4.69 * 10** 22 Joules

2010 ~5.36 * 10** 22 Joules

2011 ~6.03* 10** 22 Joules

2012 ~6.70* 10** 22 Joules

Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 6.7 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next 1 1/2 years. This requires a heating rate over the next 1 1/2 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean corresponding to a radiative imbalance of ~4 Watts per square meter.

And Dr. Pielke shows how wrong Hansen has been for the past several years. Hansen had predicted that we should have accumulated 6030000000000000000000000 Joules in the Ocean, but we have not.

3) Again, it has to do with the intensity and duration of the El Nino.

[skierinvermont]

Sorry, I am really not interested in what Pielke has to say on the subject.

Pielke is being fraudulent by quoting statements made by Josh Willis which Josh Willis has since retracted.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies indicate an upwards trend in OHC over the last 5-10 years. As does the continued rising sea level. I can provide these studies if you are interested.

Obviously other factors matter besides ENSO. And the duration as well as intensity of ENSO matter. However, the general trend in both OHC and SSTs has been upwards over the last 5+ years. That's really all that matters. Picking out 1 day of cold SSTs out of 6 months is just silly.

[tacoman25]

1. SSTs have been consistently above 2008 for the last 6 months. 6 months >>>>>>> 1 day

2. OHC has been on an upwards trend over the last 5-10 years. OHC measurements on timescales much less than that become increasingly unreliable.

3. SSTs this year have been solidly higher than 2008, and even about equal with some ENSO-neutral years. We're way above 1999 SSTs.

Points #1 and #3 are essentially the same...just sayin.

[BethesdaWX]

Sorry, I am really not interested in what Pielke has to say on the subject.

Pielke is being fraudulent by quoting statements made by Josh Willis which Josh Willis has since retracted.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies indicate an upwards trend in OHC over the last 5-10 years. As does the continued rising sea level. I can provide these studies if you are interested.

Obviously other factors matter besides ENSO. And the duration as well as intensity of ENSO matter. However, the general trend in both OHC and SSTs has been upwards over the last 5+ years. That's really all that matters. Picking out 1 day of cold SSTs out of 6 months is just silly.

OHC has leveled off since 2003 per NOAA/CPC...slight increase, fine, but its irrelavent, we could throw around peer reviewed studies on it all day and night, but there is no point in even mentioning the Flat-lining OHC......it doesn't mean anything, if it ends up being a 15-20 year flat-lining/drop, then yeah it matters, but 8 years of flat-lining is basically just noise in the Trend.

So why even bring it up?

[nzucker]

Sorry, I am really not interested in what Pielke has to say on the subject.

Pielke is being fraudulent by quoting statements made by Josh Willis which Josh Willis has since retracted.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies indicate an upwards trend in OHC over the last 5-10 years. As does the continued rising sea level. I can provide these studies if you are interested.

Obviously other factors matter besides ENSO. And the duration as well as intensity of ENSO matter. However, the general trend in both OHC and SSTs has been upwards over the last 5+ years. That's really all that matters. Picking out 1 day of cold SSTs out of 6 months is just silly.

There's clearly been some plateau in OHC just as there has been with global temperatures. Even when OHC should have been dramatically rising during the 2007-2009 La Niña, it wasn't. It's clear that some factor, probably the solar minimum, is preventing the Earth from staying in as large of an energy balance as it was during the 1980s and 1990s. Some may be exaggerating by claiming that the Earth hasn't absorbed any heat, as I do believe OHC has gone up slightly, but it's not an impressive change considering expectations...NOAA shows that the energy imbalance has not accelerated as predicted, but leveled off, which makes sense given what global temperatures have done, warming about 1/3 to 1/2 as much as IPCC GCM simulations:

And in terms of the short-term discussion, yes SSTs are low right now...I'd expect UAH/RSS to have a cool finish to the year. It's becoming obvious that instead of heading into an El Niño for Winter 11-12, we're going back towards cold ENSO. This year's event will almost definitely be weaker than last winter, but it should help keep global temperatures quite low. Also, considering the -PDO/La Niña pattern, we should be seeing a drastic rise in OHC to explain the lack of surface warming, and yet we're not...The missing heat is still missing.

[skierinvermont]

OHC has leveled off since 2003 per NOAA/CPC...slight increase, fine, but its irrelavent, we could throw around peer reviewed studies on it all day and night, but there is no point in even mentioning the Flat-lining OHC......it doesn't mean anything, if it ends up being a 15-20 year flat-lining/drop, then yeah it matters, but 8 years of flat-lining is basically just noise in the Trend.

So why even bring it up?

There's clearly been some plateau in OHC just as there has been with global temperatures. Even when OHC should have been dramatically rising during the 2007-2009 La Niña, it wasn't. It's clear that some factor, probably the solar minimum, is preventing the Earth from staying in as large of an energy balance as it was during the 1980s and 1990s. Some may be exaggerating by claiming that the Earth hasn't absorbed any heat, as I do believe OHC has gone up slightly, but it's not an impressive change considering expectations...NOAA shows that the energy imbalance has not accelerated as predicted, but leveled off, which makes sense given what global temperatures have done, warming about 1/3 to 1/2 as much as IPCC GCM simulations:

And in terms of the short-term discussion, yes SSTs are low right now...I'd expect UAH/RSS to have a cool finish to the year. It's becoming obvious that instead of heading into an El Niño for Winter 11-12, we're going back towards cold ENSO. This year's event will almost definitely be weaker than last winter, but it should help keep global temperatures quite low. Also, considering the -PDO/La Niña pattern, we should be seeing a drastic rise in OHC to explain the lack of surface warming, and yet we're not...The missing heat is still missing.

This is 0-700m OHC and did you notice the error bars? The error bars are large enough that OHC could have risen extremely rapidly over the last 5 years and we wouldn't even know it. It's possible that OHC has increased 4X10^22 Joules over the last 5 years (which would be much faster than predicted), or it may not have increased at all. Our measurements are not exact enough to know.

And numerous studies indicate that much of the heat is being stored below 700m and that 0-2000m OHC continues to rise steadily near the expected rate.

We know OHC is rising steadily because the sea level has continued to rise. There hasn't been nearly enough acceleration of the polar ice sheets to account for the discrepancy. SLR has risen at a near linear rate for 20 years, indicating OHC has been rising nearly linear as well. Trenberth's "missing heat" refers to our inability to locate heat which we KNOW must exist based on SLR. Your use of the term is therefore rather ironic.

[Snow_Miser]

Sorry, I am really not interested in what Pielke has to say on the subject.

I wouldn't really expect a CAGW Proponent to be interested in anything that disagrees with the notion that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is currently occuring.

Pielke is being fraudulent by quoting statements made by Josh Willis which Josh Willis has since retracted.

How does quoting a statement by someone made three years ago, falsify Pielke's analysis that the ocean has not gained any energy for several years, now? Your logic is a little hard to follow.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies indicate an upwards trend in OHC over the last 5-10 years. As does the continued rising sea level. I can provide these studies if you are interested.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

Unfortuantely, a lot of those peer reviewed studies also show that Heat Content has either slightly increased, stayed the same, or even decreased since 2002.

These studies are big Pro-AGW studies, so it's interesting to see leveling off in OHC.

NOAA also shows little to no increase in OHC since 2002.

The evidence seems to disagree with your statements, skier. Why is this so?

Picking out 1 day of cold SSTs out of 6 months is just silly.

Completely true- it's just good to know where we stack against the other years.

However, the general trend in both OHC and SSTs has been upwards over the last 5+ years.

Not even remotely close to being true.

[skierinvermont]

How does quoting a statement by someone made three years ago, falsify Pielke's analysis that the ocean has not gained any energy for several years, now? Your logic is a little hard to follow.

He quoted a retracted statement by Josh Willis saying OHC had not increased. Josh Willis later retracted this claim. Failing to explain that Josh Willis later retracted the quoted claim is disingenuous at best.. more likely intentional deceit.

Unfortuantely, a lot of those peer reviewed studies also show that Heat Content has either slightly increased, stayed the same, or even decreased since 2002.

That graphic is simply a summary of all published work in the last several years. Some of the graphics displayed (the ones that show no warming) have been retracted.

The evidence seems to disagree with your statements, skier. Why is this so?

Not even remotely close to being true.

1. The more recent studies all suggest a modest increase in OHC the last 5-7 years.

2. The studies you are citing are older, and are only 0-700m. The newer studies show a modest 0-700m increase in OHC. And numerous studies indicate a large increase in OHC from 2000-700m.

3. We know OHC is increasing because sea levels are continuing to rise (due to expansion). It is simply a question of finding out where in the ocean this heat is being stored. The most likely answer is that 0-700m OHC has continued to rise at a more modest pace, and that 700m-2000m OHC has also risen.

[nzucker]

1. The more recent studies all suggest a modest increase in OHC the last 5-7 years.

2. The studies you are citing are older, and are only 0-700m. The newer studies show a modest 0-700m increase in OHC. And numerous studies indicate a large increase in OHC from 2000-700m.

3. We know OHC is increasing because sea levels are continuing to rise (due to expansion). It is simply a question of finding out where in the ocean this heat is being stored. The most likely answer is that 0-700m OHC has continued to rise at a more modest pace, and that 700m-2000m OHC has also risen.

The OHC increase is modest just like the temperature increase, about half the previous rate. If the Earth were entering greater and greater energy imbalance, with global temperatures in the surface and LT warming at only half the rate expected, you'd think OHC would be jumping wildly...especially with the -PDO/cold ENSO pattern we've seen prevail since 2007. Skier, there's no way you can say the 0-700m OHC increases in the last 5-10 years have been as big as the ones in the 90s. Sure the studies have fairly large error bars, but there is a near universal consensus in some sort of plateau. That suggests to me that the accumulation of heat has indeed slowed, at least in the surface and first 700m of the ocean.

Also, if the deep ocean is absorbing more heat than previously, this may be an overall benefit to humanity. Not many people are going to care whether it's 32.1F or 32.3F at 2000m depth in the ocean, even though that .2F increase across the board would represent a vast amount of energy.

[skierinvermont]

The OHC increase is modest just like the temperature increase, about half the previous rate. If the Earth were entering greater and greater energy imbalance, with global temperatures in the surface and LT warming at only half the rate expected, you'd think OHC would be jumping wildly...especially with the -PDO/cold ENSO pattern we've seen prevail since 2007. Skier, there's no way you can say the 0-700m OHC increases in the last 5-10 years have been as big as the ones in the 90s. Sure the studies have fairly large error bars, but there is a near universal consensus in some sort of plateau. That suggests to me that the accumulation of heat has indeed slowed, at least in the surface and first 700m of the ocean.

Also, if the deep ocean is absorbing more heat than previously, this may be an overall benefit to humanity. Not many people are going to care whether it's 32.1F or 32.3F at 2000m depth in the ocean, even though that .2F increase across the board would represent a vast amount of energy.

There probably has been some sort of slowing at 0-700m, even considering our limited ability to measure it, which would be a more accurate description than plateau which usually implies maintaining a constant level.

0-2000m has continued at approximately the same rate as it was before.

Which makes sense, given the unabated SLR.

Just because a lot of heat is being stored in the deep ocean doesn't mean that that will occur indefinitely. It is simply natural variability and at the moment the oceans seem to be driving the heat deeper for some reason. What is important is that the earth is continuing to warm at the expected rate, which continues to validate AGW. As long as radiative forcing continues to rise, surface temperatures will continue to rise.

[Jesse]

There probably has been some sort of slowing at 0-700m, even considering our limited ability to measure it, which would be a more accurate description than plateau which usually implies maintaining a constant level.

0-2000m has continued at approximately the same rate as it was before.

Which makes sense, given the unabated SLR.

Just because a lot of heat is being stored in the deep ocean doesn't mean that that will occur indefinitely. It is simply natural variability and at the moment the oceans seem to be driving the heat deeper for some reason. What is important is that the earth is continuing to warm at the expected rate, which continues to validate AGW. As long as radiative forcing continues to rise, surface temperatures will continue to rise.

......and all will be right with the world.

Wait! No! Nevermind, we DON'T want that to happen, right? Or do we? I can't keep track.

[tacoman25]

There probably has been some sort of slowing at 0-700m, even considering our limited ability to measure it, which would be a more accurate description than plateau which usually implies maintaining a constant level.

0-2000m has continued at approximately the same rate as it was before.

Which makes sense, given the unabated SLR.

Just because a lot of heat is being stored in the deep ocean doesn't mean that that will occur indefinitely. It is simply natural variability and at the moment the oceans seem to be driving the heat deeper for some reason. What is important is that the earth is continuing to warm at the expected rate, which continues to validate AGW. As long as radiative forcing continues to rise, surface temperatures will continue to rise.

Very debatable. I'm not going to go over this yet again, but I'm also not going to sit here and let you make these concrete statements that are shaky at best.

[Isotherm]

I'm sure most AGW scientists thought the Earth would warm more than the miniscule amount it did over the 2000-2010 period. I'd like to see what AGW'er expected we'd see so little warming since 2000; provide me with that link.

[skierinvermont]

Very debatable. I'm not going to go over this yet again, but I'm also not going to sit here and let you make these concrete statements that are shaky at best.

Then why does ARGO 0-2000m data, and sea level data, both indicate that the oceans have accumulated near the expected amount of heat over the last 8 years?

Is there some source of data I am unfamiliar with which contradicts this? The only way you conclude this is if you look exclusively at the 0-700m OHC and willfully ignore the 700m-2000m data and willfully ignore the rising of the oceans. Both of which many skeptics appear eager to ignore.

[ORH_wxman]

Then why does ARGO 0-2000m data, and sea level data, both indicate that the oceans have accumulated near the expected amount of heat over the last 8 years?

Is there some source of data I am unfamiliar with which contradicts this? The only way you conclude this is if you look exclusively at the 0-700m OHC and willfully ignore the 700m-2000m data and willfully ignore the rising of the oceans. Both of which many skeptics appear eager to ignore.

Hasn't sea level rise decelerated quite a bit since about ''05? Or am I missing something? This would coincide with reduced OHC gain as well.

[skierinvermont]

Hasn't sea level rise decelerated quite a bit since about ''05? Or am I missing something? This would coincide with reduced OHC gain as well.

I only see a very slight deceleration there which could easily be chalked up to measurement error if you check out the error bars on satellite altimetry.

And I don't see much deceleration at all on this chart which I believe uses more satellites:

[ORH_wxman]

I only see a very slight deceleration there which could easily be chalked up to measurement error if you check out the error bars on satellite altimetry.

And I don't see much deceleration at all on this chart which I believe uses more satellites:

Here is the rate of sea level rise using the colorado data

Are you suggesting that the OHC data and the sea level data is just a coincidence of bad satellite measurements since 2004 or 2005?

[skierinvermont]

Here is the rate of sea level rise using the colorado data

Are you suggesting that the OHC data and the sea level data is just a coincidence of bad satellite measurements since 2004 or 2005?

I assume those are trends to present? So it appears that the trend since 2006 is 3.5mm/yr which is quite high.

The sea level data shows almost no deceleration. What little deceleration there is could be measurement error, or it could be real. Either way, it doesn't matter because it is so tiny. The deceleration is from 3.5mm/yr to 3.1mm/yr and the measurement error for such a short period is probably over 1mm/yr. Making the measurement error much larger than the deceleration.

The 0-2000m OHC data doesn't show a deceleration. But even if it did (which it doesn't) the measurement error is quite large for ARGO. Only the 0-700m shows a deceleration, which I'm not suggesting is wrong. Just incomplete since it misses the other 1300m of the ocean.

And even if both ARGO (OHC) and satellite altimetry (sea level) did show a deceleration, yes it could be a coincidence, given the very large measurement error for ARGO, and the moderate measurement error for satellite altimetry.

But the fact is the OHC data doesn't show a deceleration (unless you ignore 2/3s of the ocean) and the deceleration of the sea level rise is insignificant.

[ORH_wxman]

I assume those are trends to present? So it appears that the trend since 2006 is 3.5mm/yr which is quite high.

The sea level data shows almost no deceleration. What little deceleration there is could be measurement error, or it could be real. Either way, it doesn't matter because it is so tiny.

The 0-2000m OHC data doesn't show a deceleration. But even if it did (which it doesn't) the measurement error is quite large for ARGO.

Where are the 0-2000m OHC readings and what is the source? I haven't seen much on peer reviewed 2000m ocean heat content through 2011 or at least 2010. Maybe I missed something...esp since most AGW scientists keep wondering where the missing heat is. Global temps should be rising if there is any deceleration in OHC and that has not been the case on everything I've read. But maybe I missed something.

[skierinvermont]

Where are the 0-2000m OHC readings and what is the source? I haven't seen much on peer reviewed 2000m ocean heat content through 2011 or at least 2010. Maybe I missed something...esp since most AGW scientists keep wondering where the missing heat is. Global temps should be rising if there is any deceleration in OHC and that has not been the case on everything I've read. But maybe I missed something.

See Schuckmann below which uses ARGO data. The .77W/m2 rate of storage over the 2003-2008 period is near the theoretical value. There also was another recent study on deep sea storage of heat in the southern ocean. The southern ocean water moves south, cools, sinks and then moves northwards along the bottom, thus storing much of the earth's heat.

[nzucker]

See Schuckmann below which uses ARGO data. The .77W/m2 rate of storage over the 2003-2008 period is near the theoretical value. There also was another recent study on deep sea storage of heat in the southern ocean. The southern ocean water moves south, cools, sinks and then moves northwards along the bottom, thus storing much of the earth's heat.

This Schuckmann graph looks to be showing the start of the "plateau" although it doesn't go out far enough.

In any case, his study admits there is still a discrepancy between the expected energy imbalance and lack of surface/ocean warming. This 2000m OHC increase doesn't cover 100% of the difference.

[ORH_wxman]

See Schuckmann below which uses ARGO data. The .77W/m2 rate of storage over the 2003-2008 period is near the theoretical value. There also was another recent study on deep sea storage of heat in the southern ocean. The southern ocean water moves south, cools, sinks and then moves northwards along the bottom, thus storing much of the earth's heat.

That chart seems to flatten quite a bit post-2006 though its a fairly small sample considering it doesn't go past 2008. I can definitely believe of deeper storage, but I'd like to see much better numbers and evidence of more recent data than 2006-2008. If the ocean was truly an efficient mixer of OHC, then it would take forever to heat the atmosphere. Something like 1,000 years or more. Something much longer than what GHG emissions would be responsible for and the worry about them as the main worry is in the next 100 years. If we somehow prove that the ocean can absorb/mix heat deeper and more efficiently than most models/scientists think, then the projections of warming 2-5C in the next century should be thrown out the window.

[skierinvermont]

This Schuckmann graph looks to be showing the start of the "plateau" although it doesn't go out far enough.

In any case, his study admits there is still a discrepancy between the expected energy imbalance and lack of surface/ocean warming. This 2000m OHC increase doesn't cover 100% of the difference.

The Schuckmann study does not say this anywhere and I have read the whole thing... the .77W/m2 is near the theoretical value. You made this up.

And I do not see this supposed deceleration in 0-2000m OHC. You must be looking at a different graph.

[skierinvermont]

That chart seems to flatten quite a bit post-2006 though its a fairly small sample considering it doesn't go past 2008. I can definitely believe of deeper storage, but I'd like to see much better numbers and evidence of more recent data than 2006-2008. If the ocean was truly an efficient mixer of OHC, then it would take forever to heat the atmosphere. Something like 1,000 years or more. Something much longer than what GHG emissions would be responsible for and the worry about them as the main worry is in the next 100 years. If we somehow prove that the ocean can absorb/mix heat deeper and more efficiently than most models/scientists think, then the projections of warming 2-5C in the next century should be thrown out the window.

The rate of .77W/m2 is around the expected rate. If the surface doesn't warm, then the imbalance would grow rapidly and the oceans would warm much much faster. If the surface had not warmed at all over the last century the oceans would be gaining heat at 3W/m2 instead of .7W/m2. And if the surface did not warm for the rest of the century, the oceans would be gaining heat at like 9W/m2.. an absurdly fast rate... they would be boiling within a matter of decades.

If the surface doesn't warm, then the earth absorbs heat much faster. Surface warming emits the heat to space.

[ORH_wxman]

The rate of .77W/m2 is around the expected rate. If the surface doesn't warm, then the imbalance would grow rapidly and the oceans would warm much much faster. If the surface had not warmed at all over the last century the oceans would be gaining heat at 3W/m2 instead of .7W/m2. And if the surface did not warm for the rest of the century, the oceans would be gaining heat at like 9W/m2.. an absurdly fast rate... they would be boiling within a matter of decades.

If the surface doesn't warm, then the earth absorbs heat much faster. Surface warming emits the heat to space.

I'm wondering why the plateau at the end like many OHC measurements...maybe its a bit later than the 0-700m, but its there 2006-2008...what about 2008-2011? I haven't seen anything on that. That's a big omission.

Obviously global temps have not been warming in this time frame too, so I'd expect to see a big spike in OHC. We actually do not in the 0-700m OHC, but we have no data for post-2008 for the 0-2000m. And the point still stands about global temp worries. If we somehow figure out that the ocean can mix down heat much better than previously thought, then the predictions of the air temps warming near the surface will need to be seriously reduced and instead put into the oceans. I think its a big deal to figure out just how much the ocean is warming and to what depth if we are going to try and project air temp anomalies to 2100. Well "I" doesn't matter...but scientists who are trying to figure this stuff out certainly need to know and I think that is why we keep seeing so many random comments about the lack of OHC increase and the lack of warming in the air since the early 2000s...not just bloggers like realclimate or whomever who try to dismiss that. Its just as bad as wattsupwiththat claiming a cooling in 2008 was the end of GHG warming or something.