Latest News (hidethedecline)
Ocean Heat Content
The new Argo buoys were introduced in 2003 and they represent an improvement in measurement technique.
After Argo was introduced in 2003, data available for ocean heat started to show a slightly decline for ocean heat content. Josh Willis working with these data announced that these data reflected a weak decline in ocean heat after 2003.
Fig 1. The data that showed declining ocean heat data after 2003 was then changed in the autumn 2010 from a declining trend to a more flat trend.
Fig 2 The data changes only had a strong effect in recent years, that is, the years with best measurement technique available had its values revised.
Fig 3 Even the new flat trend after 2003 is not enough to meet the model predictions.
In the period 2008-9 where only cold-trended versions of the Argo data were available, then this did of course not make real climate see any problem (as if they knew other data where in pipeline?) and mainly the sea level rise was used to argument that oceans had to be warming none the less. But then, what sea level data are valid? (Check the chapter on sea level rise.)
Fig 4 In 2011 a new dataset for 0-2000 m depth ocean heat content was shown by NODC, (I’m not sure any papers documents this dataset yet?). It was based on less data than the 0-700 m dataset.
Problem: For some reason, the new 0-2000m dataset is quite similar to the 0-700m dataset all years – except in the very latest decade. What natural force has suddenly started to separate the 2 trends in the recent decade?
Summa: The ocean heat content climate data shows the normal characteristics of climate data: Originally data are not especially well in compliance with GW arguments, but then later versions and data types appears which are much more in line with the GW argument.
Loehle 2009: http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152
Willis 2008: http://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/~jwillis/willis_sl_budget_final.pdf
Skept.Scien. explaining cold Argo trend: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mystery-of-the-vanishing-ocean-heat.html
Lyman 2010: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/nature09043.pdf
Tisdale on 0-2000m data: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/introduction-to-the-nodc-ocean-heat-content-anomaly-data-for-depths-of-0-2000-meters/
Last changed: 3rd March, 2014 at 00:24:32
Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -
Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.