I’ve moved to WordPress: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Regarding Missing Comments At The Minnesota Public Radio Climate Change Blog

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at Regarding Missing Comments At The Minnesota Public Radio Climate Change Blog
######################
UPDATE 2 (11-5-09): It’s Thursday and six days have gone by since MPR emptied its spam filter and released my original comment. Paul Huttner responded to it.

I then posted three replies to Paul. The first advised him that I had revised the title of my post, eliminating the word censor, and had updated the version of the post here at my website. My second comment advised him that the first of my most recent comments was stuck in the spam filter again, just like the original one. And the third was a detailed response to Paul’s reply to my original comment. Only the second of my three comments made it past the spam filter.

That leaves the other two still in there, floating in the limbo of the MPR spam filter.

If Paul Huttner has read the thread since October 30, 2009 7:25 PM, he is aware that there are comments awaiting moderation, but maybe he hasn't returned to read the comments.

UPDATE (10-30-09): It appears we resolved the problem of missing comments at the Minnesota Public Radio Updraft © blog. The comments were held in a spam filter that the moderator Paul Huttner appears not to have known existed and that appears not to be checked on a regular basis, since my initial comment remained in the filter for a day and a half.

In response to Meteorologist Paul Huttner’s request on his “Could 2010 be the hottest year ever?” thread…
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2009/10/could_2010_be_the_hottest_year.shtml
…in which he asked me to resubmit my comment, I did as asked, but documented the text that appeared when a comment is being held for approval by a moderator; that is, “Thank you for commenting…Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner”

I suggested he check his spam filter in a subsequent comment.

He replied, “I'n [sic] not an IT guy, so I don't know why you would get that message. I will be happy to forward it to those who would know.”

Then later Ken Paulman, Managing Editor for Online News at MPR, added, “The missing comments were indeed being caught up in a spam filter. I've released the unpublished comments and they should be visible on the site now.
“The comments that didn't post had a large number of hyperlinks - suspect that's why the filter didn't like them.
“Paul does not screen comments beforehand.”

The comments do now appear on the webpage, and in response to Paul Huttner’s request,”Would you please remove or change your incorrect blog post headline below?” I have changed the post title.

The new title of the post is, "Regarding Missing Comments At The Minnesota Public Radio Climate Change Blog."

The following is the rest of this post, which remains unchanged.
##########
This morning while checking blogs with the phrase “sea surface temperature” I happened on the Minnesota Public Radio Updraft © climate change blog. Meteorologist Paul Huttner authored a post there titled “Could 2010 be the hottest year ever?” Link:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2009/10/could_2010_be_the_hottest_year.shtml

The post begins with, “The numbers are in, and it looks like the "global cooling" theory just melted away.” It has the requisite link to the typical news release (Seth Borenstein’s (AP) article “Statistics experts reject global cooling claims”) and a two-year-old GISS Annual Global Temperature Anomaly Graph, even though a graph of current data would have better helped his cause. But what struck me and caused me to comment there was, first, Huttner’s use of the Climate Change Attribution graph…

http://i39.tinypic.com/2s0o2uo.jpg
…which he wrongly attributes to Kerry Emanuel, and, second, his projection that 2010 could be the warmest on record while hinting that ENSO would ultimately be responsible for it.

I felt obligated to advise him of his error in attribution of the graph and of the fact that the Climate Change Attribution graph uses outdated TSI data. I also reinforced the ENSO-global climate link over the past decade by quoting from Knight et al (2009), but noting that Knight et al make an error in their assumption that the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. Here’s what I wrote:
############
Paul Huttner: A few things. You attribute the Climate Change Attribution graph to Kerry Emanuel, but it’s actually from Global Warming Art:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png

The graph is obsolete. It relies on an outdated (1993) Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction that was manufactured, in part, to explain the rise in global temperature in the first half of the 20th Century. The current understanding of TSI variability shows little change in solar minimum:
http://i40.tinypic.com/zjb977.jpg
I discussed this in detail here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/agw-proponents-are-two-faced-when-it.html

As you imply, global temperature variations are dictated by ENSO. This is confirmed by Knight et al (2009) "Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?":
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

They write, "El Nino–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08 +/- 0.07 deg C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00 +/- 0.05 deg C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise."

So there hasn't been the anticipated rise in global temperature because, after you remove the effects of ENSO, the trend is zero. Therefore, if this year is a record year, it should be attributable to ENSO, not AGW.

Also note that Knight et al (2009) assume the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. It is not.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/relationship-between-enso-and-global.html

Have a nice day.
############
And what did Meteorologist Paul Huttner do?

He rejected my comment.
#######
And as noted in the update above, the comment was being held in a spam filter that appears not to be checked on a regular basis.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Preliminary October 2009 OI.v2 SST Anomaly Data Appears To Have An Error

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at Preliminary October 2009 OI.v2 SST Anomaly Data Appears To Have An Error
##############
Figure 1 shows the time-series plot of the Preliminary (Unofficial) Global OI.v2 SST Anomaly data through October 2009. The preliminary October 2009 data was posted on NOMADS yesterday, October 26, 2009. The official release is not scheduled until November 9, 2009. The new data shows an upward swing for October. This is likely an error, so I wanted to illustrate it just in case there are claims about a new record Northern Hemisphere SST anomaly for October.

http://i33.tinypic.com/33e0vao.png
Figure 1 – Preliminary October 2009 Global SST Anomalies

A look at the Southern Hemisphere data, Figure 2, shows a continuation of the decline over the past few months, though the drop looks a little steep.
http://i36.tinypic.com/2qute08.png
Figure 2 – Preliminary October 2009 Southern Hemisphere SST Anomalies

Then, obviously, the increase must be in the Northern Hemisphere, Figure 3. As you will see, this rise does not appear in the weekly Northern Hemisphere data, so it is likely an error.
http://i33.tinypic.com/2aam22t.png
Figure 3 – Preliminary October 2009 Northern Hemisphere SST Anomalies

The sudden rise in Northern Hemisphere wasn’t prompted by a rise in NINO3.4 SST anomalies, Figure 4, because they didn’t increase appreciably in October.
http://i36.tinypic.com/35lgb5d.png
Figure 4 – Preliminary October 2009 NINO3.4 SST Anomalies

HAVE SOME SEPTEMBER READINGS CARRIED OVER INTO THE OCTOBER DATASET?
DUNNO.
One thing is certain; the weekly data through October 21, 2009, which is official, DOES NOT SHOW THE RISES that are being presented in the preliminary Northern Hemisphere and Global SST anomaly data. Refer to Figures 5 through 8.
http://i37.tinypic.com/34fyz9j.png
Figure 5 – Weekly Global SST Anomalies Through October 21, 2009
############
http://i33.tinypic.com/2607swl.png
Figure 6 – Weekly Southern Hemisphere SST Anomalies Through October 21, 2009
############
http://i37.tinypic.com/35mqf0y.png
Figure 7 – Weekly Northern Hemisphere SST Anomalies Through October 21, 2009
############
http://i35.tinypic.com/2m6o8sp.jpg
Figure 8 – Weekly NINO3.4 SST Anomalies Through October 21, 2009

NOTE: The weekly NINO3.4 SST Anomalies are above 1 deg C for the first time this year.

SOURCE

OI.v2 SST data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=

Friday, October 23, 2009

Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?
################
INTRODUCTIONMy post “NODC Corrections to Ocean Heat Content (0-700m) Part 2” illustrated the divergence between observed Global Ocean Heat Content (OHC) and the GISS projected rise. Figure 1 shows that GISS models projected a rise of 0.98*10^22 Joules per year, but, since 2003, global OHC has only been rising at 0.079*10^22 Joules per year. How could there be such a significant difference between the projection and the observed OHC data?

http://i36.tinypic.com/5dscxg.png
Figure 1

GISS FAILS TO MODEL ENSO
Roger Pielke Sr discussed the disagreement between the GISS OHC projections and observations in his February 9, 2009 post ‘Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions’. There he refers to a communication from James Hansen of GISS, a response to Pielke Sr and Christy, in which Mr. Hansen offers the GISS OHC projection. Refer to the linked response from Hansen here:
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/1116592Hansen.pdf

NOTE: In his response to Pielke Sr and Christy, Hansen writes, "Contrary to the claim of Pielke and Christy, our simulated ocean heat storage (Hansen et al., 2005) agrees closely with the observational analysis of Willis et al. (2004). All matters raised by Pielke and Christy were considered in our analysis and none of them alters our conclusions.” The Hansen et al (2005) paper is “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.“ And the Willis et al (2004) paper is “Interannual Variability in Upper Ocean Heat Content, Temperature, and Thermosteric Expansion on Global Scales.” Link to abstract:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003JC002260.shtml

Back to the topic of this post…

In his response to Pielke Sr and Christy, Hansen acknowledges that GISS does not account for ENSO in its models. He writes, “We note the absence of ENSO variability in our coarse resolution ocean model and Willis et al. note that a 10-year change in the tropics is badly aliased by ENSO variability.”

What Mr. Hansen fails to acknowledge is that ENSO also has significant impacts outside of the tropics.

SIGNIFICANT TRADITIONAL ENSO EVENTS CAUSE UPWARD STEP CHANGES IN OHC OF OCEAN BASINS
In my post “ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data”, I illustrated the upward step changes in OHC anomalies caused by significant traditional ENSO events such as those in 1972/73 and in 1997/98. This was done through simple comparison graphs of NINO3.4 SST anomalies, Sato Index data to illustrate the timing of explosive volcanic eruptions, and NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC anomaly data for individual ocean basins. Figures 2 through 4 are examples. In them, I’ve also highlighted the period GISS elected to model. Hansen explains the selection of those years in the response to Pielke and Christy linked above, “Our analysis focused on the past decade because: (1) this is the period when it was predicted that, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability (Hansen et al., 1997), and (2) improved ocean temperature measurements and precise satellite altimetry yield an uncertainty in the ocean heat storage, ~15% of the observed value, smaller than that of earlier times when unsampled regions of the ocean created larger uncertainty.”

But examination of the data illustrates variations that are caused primarily by natural variation, and much of these variations are apparent responses to ENSO, a variable that GISS does not model.

Figure 2 illustrates the monthly Tropical Indian and Pacific Ocean OHC anomaly data from January 1955 to June 2009. Note how the Tropical Indian and Pacific Ocean OHC anomaly data declines from the early-to-mid 1960s to 1973, then rises during the extended La Nina of 1973/74/75/76. And even though greenhouse gases (not illustrated) are rising from the late 1970s to 1999, there is a gradual decline in Tropical Indian and Pacific Ocean OHC anomalies. Some of this decline may be caused by the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991, but their impacts are difficult to determine with the ENSO-related variability of the data. Then in 1998, Tropical Indian and Pacific Ocean OHC anomalies rise again during the multiyear La Nina that followed the significant 1997/98 El Nino. So regardless of the impacts of the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions, the largest rises in OHC occurred during the two multiyear La Nina events associated with the El Nino events of 1972/73 and 1997/98. Also note that the period GISS elected to model captures one of these natural ENSO-induced upward step changes.
http://i35.tinypic.com/2j5tl4.png
Figure 2

Figure 3 illustrates the long-term OHC anomaly data for the South Pacific. The South Pacific OHC anomalies oscillate at or near 0 GJ/sq meter from 1971 to 1996 even though greenhouse gas emissions are increasing. The dip between the late 1960s and 1970 could be related to the volcanic eruption in 1963. If so, then the period of relatively flat OHC anomalies could be extended further back in time. What is certain is that there was a shift in South Pacific OHC anomalies, an upward step, in response to the 1997/98 El Nino. This happened, of course, during the period modeled by GISS.
http://i36.tinypic.com/2us7kvn.png
Figure 3

Like the Tropical Indian and Pacific Ocean OHC anomalies, the South Indian Ocean OHC anomalies decrease until the early 1970s, then rise in two steps in response to the La Nina events associated with the El Nino events of 1972/73 and 1997/98. Note the response of the South Indian Ocean OHC anomalies to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption. Without that decline, the South Indian Ocean OHC anomalies are relatively flat though greenhouses gases are rising, similar to the South Pacific OHC data. And once more, the period GISS modeled captures the ENSO-induced rise associated with the 1997/98 El Nino.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2aetled.png
Figure 4

BUT ENSO RELEASES HEAT FROM THE TROPICAL PACIFIC
If ENSO events release heat from the tropical Pacific to the atmosphere, how then could they cause upward step changes in the OHC of other ocean basins?

During El Nino events, warm waters in the Pacific Warm Pool shift eastward to release heat that has been stored since the last La Nina event. Some of this warm water returns to the Pacific Warm Pool during the subsequent La Nina; some of it is transported to nearby ocean basins. This transport of warm water causes the OHC in those nearby oceans to rise. ENSO events also cause changes in Hadley and Walker circulation, changes in wind stress, and changes in cloud cover outside of the tropical Pacific. GCMs that do not model ENSO cannot account for these changes and cannot estimate their impacts on SST and OHC.

NORTH ATLANTIC OHC IS ALSO GOVERNED BY NATURAL VARIABLES
Over the past 50+ years, North Atlantic OHC anomalies rose at a rate that almost tripled the rise in global OHC anomalies. Refer to Figure 5. I discussed and illustrated the natural factors that impact the long-term North Atlantic OHC anomaly trends in the post “North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables”. These natural variables include ENSO, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Unfortunately, the NODC OHC data only extends back to 1955. It is therefore impossible to determine how much of the excessive rise in the North Atlantic is related to AMOC.
http://i37.tinypic.com/34fche9.png
Figure 5

The Tropical North Atlantic OHC anomalies, Figure 6, show responses to ENSO events that are similar to the Tropical Indian and Pacific Ocean OHC data, Figure 2, except the tropical North Atlantic variations are imposed on what appears to be an AMOC-related positive trend. The period modeled by GISS included the response of the Tropical North Atlantic OHC anomalies to the 1997/98 El Nino.
http://i37.tinypic.com/292mwsy.png
Figure 6

Also discussed and illustrated in my post “North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables”, Lozier et al (2008) in “The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic” identifies the North Atlantic Oscillation as the driver of decadal OHC variability in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic. Link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5864/800?rss=1

The decadal variations in the NAO (inverted and scaled) do appear to agree with the High-Latitude North Atlantic OHC anomalies, Figure 7, until the aftermath of the 1997/98 El Nino. Note again that the period that GISS elected to model captures this NAO-related rise in High-Latitude North Atlantic OHC anomalies. Did the GISS model include the NAO in its analysis of OHC? I can find no mention of it in Hansen et al (2005) “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.“
http://i38.tinypic.com/2rdf3ao.png
Figure 7

It appears that the North Atlantic OHC anomalies peaked in 2005. Are they on a multidecadal decline now? If the North Atlantic OHC is, in fact, governed by the same processes that cause the multidecadal variations in North Atlantic SST anomalies known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), this would have a major impact on the GISS projections. Did GISS include this natural variability in its model? I can find no reference to it in Hansen et al (2005) “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.“

IN SUMMARY

It appears the reason OHC observations are diverging from the GISS projection is GISS failed to recognize the impact of natural variables such as AMOC, the NAO, and ENSO on OHC. GISS assumed the rise in OHC from 1993 to 2003 was caused by anthropogenic forcings, when, in fact, there is little evidence to support this in the OHC data of the individual ocean basins. In order for OHC anomalies to rise in agreement with the GISS projection, there would have had to have been another significant traditional El Nino followed by a multiyear La Nina, and there would have had to have been another shift in the NAO, and there would have had to have been a continued rise in North Atlantic OHC anomalies. Unfortunately for GISS (and for the IPCC who relies on GCMs that fail to model natural variables properly), these natural variables have not cooperated.

A CLOSING NOTE ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GASES ON OHC
I was once asked by a blogger at another website, “What is the source of the energy necessary to raise SSTs?” I have revised my response to include OHC.
The ultimate source of energy necessary to raise SSTs would be an increase in solar insolation, regardless of whether the increase in solar insolation resulted from variations in the solar cycle, or from changes in cloud cover, or from a reduction in stratospheric volcanic aerosols. The impact of shortwave radiation (visible light) on SST depends on factors such as the turbidity of the water and sea surface albedo, which in turn depend on other variables including wind speed and chlorophyll concentration. Downward shortwave radiation reaches ocean depths of a few hundred meters. Therefore, changes in downward shortwave radiation would have a significant impact on OHC.

An increase in downward longwave (infrared) radiation caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, on the other hand, can only warm the top few centimeters of the oceans. So an increase in downward longwave (infrared) radiation only warms the top few centimeters while downward shortwave radiation (visible light) warms the top few hundred meters.

However, it has been argued by AGW proponents that through mixing caused by waves and wind stress turbulence, the downward longwave (infrared) radiation would warm the mixed layer of the ocean. This in turn would affect the temperature gradient between the mixed layer and skin, dampening the outward flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. The end result: OHC would rise due to an increase in downward longwave (infrared) radiation caused by increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

The OHC data illustrated in this post provide little support for the argument that downward longwave (infrared) radiation causes OHC to rise. OHC anomalies for the Tropical Indian and Pacific Oceans and for the South Indian and South Pacific Oceans show little upward trend from the early 1970s to the late 1990s. The only significant rises in OHC for those datasets occur in response to significant traditional ENSO events.

To emphasize this, the North Pacific OHC anomaly graph, Figure 8, illustrates a long-term decline in OHC from the late 1950s to the late 1980s, followed by a sudden upward shift. This long-term decline does not appear to be consistent with arguments that accelerating greenhouse gas emissions cause OHC to rise. The upward shift in the late 1980s appears to be associated with the 1986/87/88 El Nino. This El Nino is one of the two El Nino events since 1976 that caused upward step changes in SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans and in the TLT anomalies of the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere--the second being the 1997/98 El Nino. Why did the 1986/87/88 ENSO event cause the upward step in North Pacific OHC anomalies? Or was it caused by a shift in some other natural variable?
http://i35.tinypic.com/2czvw5l.png
Figure 8

As illustrated in this post, the impacts of natural variables such as ENSO, NAO, and AMOC dominate short-term and long-term OHC variability. ENSO events also cause upward step changes in SST and TLT anomalies, as noted above. These impacts on SST and TLT anomalies were discussed and illustrated in my posts:
1.Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1
2.Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 2
3.RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots...Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone

If and when GCMs like those used by GISS, and in turn by the IPCC, are capable of reproducing ENSO events and their multiyear aftereffects on SST, TLT, and OHC anomalies, they may be capable of determining “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.“ At present, they are not.
SOURCES

The NINO3.4 SST anomaly data is based on HADISST data available through the KNMI Climate Explorer. The NODC OHC data is also available through Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

Sato Index data is available through GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
Specifically:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt

##########

UPDATE October 25, 2009: At the suggestion of Philip_B on the WattsUpWithThat co-post, Why does Ocean Heat Content diverge from GISS projections?, I’ve changed “solar irradiance” to “solar insolation” and “downwelling shortwave” to “downward shortwave”. Thanks, Philip_B.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

NODC Corrections to Ocean Heat Content (0-700m) Data Part 4

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at NODC Corrections to Ocean Heat Content (0-700m) Data Part 4
##############
I have updated the following two posts to reflect the NODC’s corrections to the April to June 2009 Ocean Heat Content data:

1. ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data

2. North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables

For those who have read those posts, as predicted, the NODC’s corrections had no impact on them. I updated those posts to prevent someone from claiming they contain outdated or erroneous data.

That should be the end of the updates and corrections to the NODC OHC posts. Now on to some new stuff.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Mid-October 2009 SST Anomaly Update

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at Mid-October 2009 SST Anomaly Update
################
The OI.v2 SST anomaly map for the week centered on October 14, 2009 shows that the tropical Pacific SST anomalies are still elevated, with a slight strengthening of El Nino conditions in the Central and West-Central Equatorial Pacific. The tropical Atlantic is still not showing any areas of exceptionally warm SST anomalies. Seasonally elevated SST anomalies in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere are dropping. Within a few months, the elevated season component of the SST anomalies will shift to the Southern Hemisphere.
http://i38.tinypic.com/suv7n7.png
SST Anomaly Map

Global SST anomalies are still elevated, but they are approximately 0.05 deg C lower than the peak earlier this year.
http://i33.tinypic.com/24c855e.png
Global SST Anomalies

NINO3.4 SST anomalies for the week centered on October 16, 2009 are still well into mild El Nino territory, and they remain near the same value where they have cycled for a few months.
http://i36.tinypic.com/16h9u38.png
NINO3.4 SST Anomalies

SOURCE
OI.v2 SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS system:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=

Friday, October 16, 2009

Update NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009 (Corrected)

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at Update NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009 (Corrected)
########################
UPDATE OF: Update of NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009

This is an update of an earlier post “Update of NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009” in light of the NODC correction of an erroneous data posting. I will leave that earlier post intact for those who want to compare versions; I have provided a link there to the corrected version here.

I have updated the introduction in the following, but I have eliminated all commentary about the individual graphs. I have no plans to do before-and-after comparisons of the data for the individual ocean basins, but I have left the sequence of the graphs and color-coding the same in this update for those who wish to do so.

INTRODUCTION
On October 1, KNMI updated the NODC Ocean Heat Content (Levitus et al 2009) data that’s available on Climate Explorer.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

These updates are not shown on the NODC’s Global Ocean Heat Content webpage:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

The updates also aren’t shown in the table of Global Analyzed Fields (ASCII files):
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/OC5/3M_HEAT/heatdata.pl?time_type=yearly700

But the single 22.4 MB dataset at the top of the table does contain the January through March and the April through June data, which were updated (added) on September 14, 2009, and then corrected, as noted above, on October 15, 2009:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/heat_3month/HC_0-700-3month.tar.gz

GLOBAL, HEMISPERIC, AND OCEAN BASIN GRAPHS
http://i35.tinypic.com/mrzhhu.png
Global OHC
############
http://i37.tinypic.com/6z7s3q.png
North Atlantic OHC
############
http://i38.tinypic.com/vz7hwo.png
South Atlantic OHC
############
http://i36.tinypic.com/mw6tub.png
South Pacific
############
http://i34.tinypic.com/4hpklk.png
Southern Ocean
############
http://i34.tinypic.com/n12h77.png
Northern Hemisphere
############
http://i33.tinypic.com/20pf37t.png
Southern Hemisphere
############
http://i37.tinypic.com/fx6stx.png
North Pacific
############
http://i35.tinypic.com/2vd41eu.png
Indian Ocean
############
http://i35.tinypic.com/1o9c75.png
Arctic Ocean

CLOSING

Two earlier posts illustrated the impacts of natural variables on OHC. These included the ENSO-induced step changes in the OHC of numerous oceans and the effects of the NAO on high-latitude North Atlantic OHC:

1. ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data

2. North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables

In a later post, I illustrated the divergence between the GISS projection of Global OHC and the observations:

3. NODC Corrections to Ocean Heat Content (0-700m) Part 2
…UPDATE OF: NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS Projections

NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS Projections (Corrected)

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS Projections (Corrected)
#######################
UPDATE OF: NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS ProjectionsThis is an update of an earlier post “NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS Projections” in light of the NODC correction of an erroneous data posting. I will leave that earlier post intact for now; I have provided a link there to the corrected version here. The following gif animation illustrates the NODC correction:
http://i36.tinypic.com/2coomlw.gif
Correction GIF Animation

INTRODUCTION

The first post in this series “ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data” illustrated the upward El Nino-induced step changes in the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) of the Tropical Pacific, Tropical Atlantic, South Pacific, South Indian, and South Atlantic datasets. The second post “North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables” showed the impacts of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and ENSO on North Atlantic OHC. But the post the grabbed the most interest was the third in the series “Update of NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009”. It showed the drop of Global OHC over the past six months. We have now discovered that the NODC posted an erroneous April through June OHC dataset at their website, as discussed in the linked post “NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS Projections”. Figure 1 illustrates the corrected and updated Global OHC data through June 2009.
http://i38.tinypic.com/zxjy14.png
Figure 1

Did the correction eliminate the downward trend in the NODC short-term data used later in this post?

Yes, but the slight upward trend in the corrected OHC data still reflects a flattening of Global OHC in recent years.

Did the correction eliminate the divergence between the GISS projection and the short-term data used later in this post?

NO!

In this post, I’ll clarify the source of the NODC data that I’ve used in this series of posts to counter the misdirection that is being presented in blogs, one in particular. And using an early 2009 post by Roger Pielke Sr. as reference, I’ll illustrate the difference between Global OHC and the projections of OHC made by GISS.

DATA SOURCE

Members of NOAA’s National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC), S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia, and A. V. Mishonov, revised the NODC’s earlier OHC reconstruction and documented those changes in the paper “Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems” GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155, 2009. Link to paper:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
A preprint version of the paper was available at the NODC website prior to publication through the NODC’s Global Ocean Heat Content webpage:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

Through that same webpage, the NODC also made their OHC data available prior to the publication of Levitus et al (2009). I presented my first post on the new NODC OHC data on March 22, 2009 (The Latest Revisions to Ocean Heat Content Data), and, less than one month later, Geophysical Research Letters published Levitus et al (2009) on April 11, 2009. Since the publication of Levitus et al (2009), the NODC has updated its OHC data in the same way NCDC, Hadley Centre, and GISS update their global temperature anomaly data. The September 14, 2009 NODC’s OHC update included erroneous data for January through June 2009. That update was only made available in global analyzed field format.

Apparently, my posts of the NODC OHC data drew attention to it, and, with some investigation, the NODC discovered that they had posted an incompletely revised dataset at their website, which was in turn made available through KNMI. The NODC corrected the mistake and KNMI updated their dataset on October 15, 2009.

The updated data files (22.4MB) are available here, for those who are capable of handling and understanding the raw data:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/heat_3month/HC_0-700-3month.tar.gz
And the instructions for the data:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOA05/readwoa5.html
Including the documentation:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/WOA05/DOC/woa05documentation.pdf

The updated NODC OHC data is also available on a much more user-friendly basis through the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) Climate Explorer website:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
As you’ll note, the NODC OHC data is one of many datasets that KNMI maintains and makes available to the public.

Open the Climate Explorer webpage. Scroll down and click on the “Heat content” “1955-now: NODC 0-700m” field for the NODC OHC data. Scroll back up, click on “Select Field”, enter the coordinates of the ocean area desired on the next webpage (-90, 90, -180, 180 for global data), hit “Enter”, and Climate Explorer provides graphs and links to raw data. Figure 2 is the NODC Global OHC anomaly graph created by Climate Explorer. Refer back in this thread to Figure 1. I created it with the raw NODC Global OHC data produced by Climate Explorer. My Figure 1 is a larger, easier-on-the-eyes version of the KNMI graph, Figure 2. Other than the presentation, there is no difference.
http://i33.tinypic.com/n96ib.png
Figure 2

COMPARISON OF OHC DATA FROM THE NODC AND KNMI WEBPAGES
KNMI uses the 3-month-average OHC data available from the NODC website and lists those monthly averages for each month during the 3-month period. This “squares off” the monthly data. The anomaly data I’ve used in my earlier posts is calculated against the KNMI default base years of 1971-2000. KNMI presents the data in Gigajoules/sq meter (GJ/m^2). This allows users to define ocean coordinates for study and to compare multiple datasets without having to account for surface area. If the user then wants the data in another format such as 10^22 Joules used in climate studies, it would be up to the user to determine the correct surface area.

To simplify the comparison of the raw OHC data from the NODC website…
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat
…and the same data through the KNMI Climate Explorer, I’ll use the annual average of the raw Global OHC data from KNMI (not anomalies). As noted above, the NODC presents its data in terms of 10^22 Joules, while KNMI provides the OHC data in GJ/m^2. The global ocean surface area listed in Wikipedia is 361 million sq km. If that surface area is used as a multiplier for the KNMI data, it proves to be too high, but as illustrated in Figure 3, 350 million sq km for the global ocean surface area provides a reasonable match.
http://i35.tinypic.com/24dms89.png
Figure 3

You’ll also note that I’ve included the average of the January through June 2009 OHC data in the comparison. It shows a continued flattening of the NODC OHC data since 2003.

COMPARISON OF OBSERVATIONS AND GISS PROJECTIONS
In a February 9, 2009 post titled ‘Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions’, Roger Pielke Sr., provided a comparison of actual global ocean heat accumulation from 2003 through 2008 to those projected by the IPCC and GISS. So let’s list the annual NODC global OHC for the years 2003 through 2008 in the same format as Roger Pielke Sr’s post. Here’s another link to the NODC annual global data. Refer to the second column:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat

NODC GLOBAL OHC THROUGH NODC WEBSITE
2003 ~10.481*10**22 Joules
2004 ~12.154*10**22 Joules
2005 ~11.247*10**22 Joules
2006 ~12.211*10**22 Joules
2007 ~11.520*10**22 Joules
2008 ~12.339*10**22 Joules

And for comparison purposes, here are the KNMI-based NODC OHC values (using 350 million sq km as the global ocean surface area) used to create the comparison graph in Figure 3.

NODC GLOBAL OHC THROUGH KNMI WEBSITE (WITH JAN to JUN 2009 AVERAGE)
2003 ~10.532*10**22 Joules
2004 ~12.207*10**22 Joules
2005 ~11.276*10**22 Joules
2006 ~12.294*10**22 Joules
2007 ~11.640*10**22 Joules
2008 ~12.446*10**22 Joules
2009 ~10.998*10**22 Joules (Average of Jan through Jun 2009)*
*NODC Corrected Value

Roger Pielke Sr’s post refers to a communication from Jim Hansen of GISS in which Mr. Hansen wrote with the results of GISS model predictions. The post shows a GISS projected accumulation of 0.98*10** Joules per year. Using the 2003 value from the NODC Global OHC data (version through the KNMI website) as the base, the following table lists the annual GISS projected values for 2003 through 2009.

GISS PROJECTED GLOBAL OCEAN HEAT ACCUMULATION
2003 ~10.532*10**22 Joules
2004 ~11.512*10**22 Joules
2005 ~12.492*10**22 Joules
2006 ~13.472*10**22 Joules
2007 ~14.452*10**22 Joules
2008 ~15.432*10**22 Joules
2009 ~16.412*10**22 Joules

Global OHC could rebound over the second half of 2009, or it could drop more, or could remain near the value for the first half of the year. Let’s assume for the sake of example that the average of the first half of the year serves as an initial projection of the annual 2009 OHC value. Figure 4 compares the global OHC observations and GISS projections from 2003 to 2009. The divergence between the two is substantial.
http://i37.tinypic.com/i6xtnl.png
Figure 4

Thursday, October 15, 2009

NODC's CORRECTION TO OHC (0-700m) DATA

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at NODC’s CORRECTION TO OHC (0-700m) DATA
################
I was advised today (Thanks, Fred) that the NODC has revised their Ocean Heat Content data. A quick check of the KNMI Climate Explorer News webpage…
http://climexp.knmi.nl/news.cgi?someone@somewhere
…reveals that it was revised on October 15, 2009 at KNMI.

And a check of the NODC data…
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/heat_3month/HC_0-700-3month.tar.gz
…shows that it was corrected on 10/15/09.

Dr. Geert Jan van Oldenborgh writes, “There was an error in the last 3-month data point of the NODC ocean heat content dataset, as anyone who made a map of the data could see. The problem has been fixed at NODC (thanks Gavin, Tim).”

Apparently the NODC hadn’t bothered to plot the data prior to posting it on September 14, 2009, or hadn't thought there was a problem until...

Here’s a gif of the correction

http://i36.tinypic.com/2coomlw.gif
NODC CORRECTION

Thanks, Gavin and Tim.

Hmm, I’ll have to go back and update the “ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data” post to make sure the ENSO-induced step changes are still there and verify the “North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables” hasn’t changed, too.

H/T to Fred.

############
UPDATE (October 15 @ 5:40PM):

After I posted the above, I found that Dr. Geert Jan van Oldenborgh had emailed me to notify me of the correction. I have received his permission to reproduce his email:

Dear Bob Tisdale,

please note that NODC discovered that they had accidentally posted the wrong version of their last file (apr-jun2009), a preliminary version with most data still missing had somehow made it to their web site. A quick look at the map for that quarter showed that there were hardly any anomalies visible and big anomalies in the North Atlantic and Pacific did not persist from the previous quarter, so the data were clearly suspicious. This mix-up has been fixed tonight (Dutch time) at NODC and in the Climate Explorer. A corrected version of the average heat content is attached, the value of apr-jun2009 is now more in line with the values of previous quarters.

Greetings from chilly Holland,

Geert Jan

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS Projections

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Versus GISS Projections
###################
UPDATE (October 16,2009): This post contains erroneous OHC data posted at the NODC website. The post has been revised to reflect the corrections made by the NODC on October 15, 2009. Refer to "NODC Corrections to Ocean Heat Content (0-700m) Part 2".

INTRODUCTION

The first post in this series “ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data” illustrated the upward El Nino-induced step changes in the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) of the Tropical Pacific, Tropical Atlantic, South Pacific, South Indian, and South Atlantic datasets. The second post “North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables” showed the impacts of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and ENSO on North Atlantic OHC. But the post the grabbed the most interest was the third in the series “Update of NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009”. It showed the drop of Global OHC over the past six months. Refer to Figure 1, which illustrates the monthly NODC Global OHC anomalies (0-700m) from January 1955 through June 2009.
http://i34.tinypic.com/dev5ld.png
Figure 1

In this post, I’ll clarify the source of the NODC data that I’ve used in this series of posts to counter the misdirection that is being presented in blogs, one in particular. And using an early 2009 post by Roger Pielke Sr. as reference, I’ll illustrate the growing difference between Global OHC and the projections of OHC made by GISS.

DATA SOURCE

Members of NOAA’s National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC), S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia, and A. V. Mishonov, revised the NODC’s earlier OHC reconstruction and documented those changes in the paper “Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems” GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155, 2009. Link to paper:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
A preprint version of the paper was available at the NODC website prior to publication through the NODC’s Global Ocean Heat Content webpage:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

Through that same webpage, the NODC also made their OHC data available prior to the publication of Levitus et al (2009). I presented my first post on the new NODC OHC data on March 22, 2009 (The Latest Revisions to Ocean Heat Content Data), and, less than one month later, Geophysical Research Letters published Levitus et al (2009) on April 11, 2009. Since the publication of Levitus et al (2009), the NODC has updated its OHC data in the same way NCDC, Hadley Centre, and GISS update their global temperature anomaly data. The September 14, 2009 NODC OHC update included data for January through June 2009, but that update was only made available in global analyzed field format. The updated data files (22.4MB) are available in the following link:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/heat_3month/HC_0-700-3month.tar.gz
And the instructions for the data:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOA05/readwoa5.html
Including the documentation:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/WOA05/DOC/woa05documentation.pdf

The updated NODC OHC data is also available on a much more user-friendly basis through the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) Climate Explorer website:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
As you’ll note, the NODC OHC data is one of many datasets that KNMI maintains and makes available to the public.

Open the Climate Explorer webpage. Scroll down and click on the “Heat content” “1955-now: NODC 0-700m” field for the NODC OHC data. Scroll back up, click on “Select Field”, enter the coordinates of the ocean area desired on the next webpage (-90, 90, -180, 180 for global data), hit “Enter”, and Climate Explorer provides graphs and links to raw data. Figure 2 is the NODC Global OHC anomaly graph created by Climate Explorer. Refer back in this thread to Figure 1. I created it with the raw NODC Global OHC data produced by Climate Explorer. My Figure 1 is a larger, easier-on-the-eyes version of the KNMI graph, Figure 2. Other than the presentation, there is no difference.
http://i37.tinypic.com/v6uubl.png
Figure 2

COMPARISON OF OHC DATA FROM THE NODC AND KNMI WEBPAGES

KNMI uses the 3-month-average OHC data available from the NODC website and lists those monthly averages for each month during the 3-month period. This “squares off” the monthly data. The anomaly data I’ve used in my earlier posts is calculated against the KNMI default base years of 1971-2000. KNMI presents the data in Gigajoules/sq meter (GJ/m^2). This allows users to define ocean coordinates for study and to compare multiple datasets without having to account for surface area. If the user then wants the data in another format such as 10^22 Joules used in climate studies, it would be up to the user to determine the correct surface area.

To simplify the comparison of the raw OHC data from the NODC website…
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat
…and the same data through the KNMI Climate Explorer, I’ll use the annual average of the raw Global OHC data from KNMI (not anomalies). As noted above, the NODC presents its data in terms of 10^22 Joules, while KNMI provides the OHC data in GJ/m^2. The global ocean surface area listed in Wikipedia is 361 million sq km. If that surface area is used as a multiplier for the KNMI data, it proves to be too high, but as illustrated in Figure 3, 350 million sq km for the global ocean surface area provides a reasonable match.
http://i37.tinypic.com/azb0oi.png
Figure 3

You’ll also note that I’ve included the average of the January through June 2009 OHC data in the comparison. The drop over the first six months of 2009 was substantial.

COMPARISON OF OBSERVATION AND GISS PROJECTIONS

In a February 9, 2009 post titled ‘Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions’, Roger Pielke Sr., provided a comparison of actual global ocean heat accumulation from 2003 through 2008 to those projected by the IPCC and GISS. So let’s list the annual NODC global OHC for the years 2003 through 2008 in the same format as Roger Pielke Sr’s post. Here’s another link to the NODC annual global data. Refer to the second column:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat

NODC GLOBAL OHC THROUGH NODC WEBSITE
2003 ~10.481*10**22 Joules
2004 ~12.154*10**22 Joules
2005 ~11.247*10**22 Joules
2006 ~12.211*10**22 Joules
2007 ~11.520*10**22 Joules
2008 ~12.339*10**22 Joules

And for comparison purposes, here are the KNMI-based NODC OHC values (using 350 million sq km as the global ocean surface area) used to create the comparison graph in Figure 3.

NODC GLOBAL OHC THROUGH KNMI WEBSITE (WITH JAN to JUN 2009 AVERAGE)
2003 ~10.532*10**22 Joules
2004 ~12.207*10**22 Joules
2005 ~11.276*10**22 Joules
2006 ~12.294*10**22 Joules
2007 ~11.640*10**22 Joules
2008 ~12.446*10**22 Joules
2009 ~9.692*10**22 Joules (Average of Jan through Jun 2009)

Roger Pielke Sr’s post refers to a communication from Jim Hansen of GISS in which Mr. Hansen wrote with the results of GISS model predictions. The post shows a GISS projected accumulation of 0.98*10**22 Joules per year. Using the 2003 value from the NODC Global OHC data (version through the KNMI website) as the base, the following table lists the annual GISS projected values for 2003 through 2009.

GISS PROJECTED GLOBAL OCEAN HEAT ACCUMULATION
2003 ~10.532*10**22 Joules
2004 ~11.512*10**22 Joules
2005 ~12.492*10**22 Joules
2006 ~13.472*10**22 Joules
2007 ~14.452*10**22 Joules
2008 ~15.432*10**22 Joules
2009 ~16.412*10**22 Joules

Global OHC could rebound over the second half of 2009, or it could drop more, or could remain near the value for the first half of the year. Let’s assume for the sake of example that the average of the first half of the year serves as an initial projection of the annual 2009 OHC value. Figure 4 compares the global OHC observations and GISS projections from 2003 to 2009. The divergence between the two is substantial.
http://i33.tinypic.com/5d6rg4.png
Figure 4

Friday, October 9, 2009

Update of NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at Update of NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009
###############
UPDATE (October 16, 2009):
This post contains erroneous data that was posted by the NODC at their website. The graphs have been updated in the post "NODC Corrections to Ocean Heat Content (0-700m) Part 3". I have left this post intact for those who wish to compare the graphs of the individual basins.

Earlier updates to this post are now located at the end.

UPDATE (October 11, 2009):
Joe Romm of ClimateProgress noted in his reply to my comment on his post “Skeptical Science explains how we know global warming is happening: It’s the oceans, stupid!”, “Heck you don't even link to the article, which was "published 11 April 2009" (!!) whereas all the data you list is subsequent to that.”

For those who are incapable of clicking on the NODC links that I do provide in the following post and discovering that Levitus et al (2009) is linked there, here’s a direct link to the paper:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

Note: Joe’s closing clause in the quote above (“…whereas all the data you list is subsequent to that.”) is curious. It reflects his misunderstanding of what I presented or it reflects his attempt to misdirect his readers. Either way, he missed the mark. In the following post, I graphed the updated NODC data that’s available through KNMI. And that’s really all the post is about. It’s an update. Nothing more, nothing less. It includes all of the base Levitus et al (2009) data from January 1955 to December 2008 PLUS the recently released updated data from January 2009 through June 2009. Based on Joe Romm’s reasoning, we should disregard all climate data (SST, TLT, TSI, sea level, etc.) that are posted after the paper that introduces the dataset or maybe Joe is suggesting that all updates need to be peer reviewed.

##########

INTRODUCTION
On October 1, KNMI updated the NODC Ocean Heat Content (Levitus et al 2009) data that’s available on Climate Explorer.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

These updates are not shown on the NODC’s Global Ocean Heat Content webpage:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

The updates also aren’t shown in the table of Global Analyzed Fields (ASCII files):
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/OC5/3M_HEAT/heatdata.pl?time_type=yearly700

But the single 22.4 MB dataset at the top of the table does contain the January through March and the April through June data, which were updated (added) on September 14, 2009:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/heat_3month/HC_0-700-3month.tar.gz

GLOBAL, HEMISPERIC, AND OCEAN BASIN GRAPHS

Global OHC has dropped back to its 2003 levels.


http://i34.tinypic.com/dev5ld.png
Global OHC

North Atlantic OHC is continuing to decline from its 2004 peak.
http://i36.tinypic.com/ddkeas.png
North Atlantic OHC

The recent drop in the South Atlantic OHC was sizeable, but not outside of the range of its normal variability.
http://i36.tinypic.com/2m5fais.png
South Atlantic OHC

And of the remaining OHC datasets, the only two that showed increases over the past six months are the South Pacific and Southern Ocean OHC
http://i35.tinypic.com/1ys415.png
South Pacific
############
http://i38.tinypic.com/34f19p2.png
Southern Ocean

Here are the remaining OHC subsets without commentary.
http://i38.tinypic.com/j79h1i.png
Northern Hemisphere
############
http://i35.tinypic.com/cqr13.png
Southern Hemisphere
############
http://i37.tinypic.com/2wlxz09.png
North Pacific
############
http://i38.tinypic.com/6e0oax.png
Indian Ocean
############
http://i38.tinypic.com/9u417d.png
Arctic Ocean

CLOSING
Two earlier posts illustrated the impacts of natural variables on OHC. These included the ENSO-induced step changes in the OHC of numerous oceans and the effects of the NAO on high-latitude North Atlantic OHC:

1. ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data
2. North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables
UPDATE (October 11, 2009):
Joe Romm of ClimateProgress noted in his reply to my comment on his post “Skeptical Science explains how we know global warming is happening: It’s the oceans, stupid!”, “Heck you don't even link to the article, which was "published 11 April 2009" (!!) whereas all the data you list is subsequent to that.”
For those who are incapable of clicking on the NODC links that I do provide in the following post and discovering that Levitus et al (2009) is linked there, here’s a direct link to the paper:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
Note: Joe’s closing clause in the quote above (“…whereas all the data you list is subsequent to that.”) is curious. It reflects his misunderstanding of what I presented or it reflects his attempt to misdirect his readers. Either way, he missed the mark. In the following post, I graphed the updated NODC data that’s available through KNMI. And that’s really all the post is about. It’s an update. Nothing more, nothing less. It includes all of the base Levitus et al (2009) data from January 1955 to December 2008 PLUS the recently released updated data from January 2009 through June 2009. Based on Joe Romm’s reasoning, we should disregard all climate data (SST, TLT, TSI, sea level, etc.) that are posted after the paper that introduces the dataset or maybe Joe is suggesting that all updates need to be peer reviewed.
##########

UPDATE 2 (October 11, 2009):
Those of you who read my comment at Joe Romm’s ClimateProgress…
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/10/skeptical-science-global-warming-not-cooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/comment-page-1/#comment-155154
…will note that I referred to my earlier reply to dhogaza. Hmmm. Not too surprisingly, that comment never made it to the thread. Having posted comments there before and having had them deleted, I now keep copies. Here’s what I wrote:

8. Bob Tisdale says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 11, 2009 at 5:21 am

dhogaza: I presume your remark (3.) “Lessee… MIT-trained physicist vs. a high-school trained weather reader. I wonder which is more likely to understand the science” is to tallbloke (2.) above, in which he included a link to the WUWT post that I wrote. My original version is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/%202009/%2010/%20update-of-nodc-levitus-et-al-2009-ohc.html
If not, disregard this comment.

That post uses NODC OHC data. As noted above, it shows a drop in OHC from January 2009 to June 2009. It was prepared as part of Levitus et al (2009):
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/%20pub/%20data.nodc/%20woa/%20PUBLICATIONS/%20grlheat08.pdf
I don’t believe there’s a “high-school trained weather reader” among S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia, and A. V. Mishonov.

Their update is available here:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/%20pub/%20data.nodc/%20woa/%20DATA_ANALYSIS/%203M_HEAT_CONTENT/%20DATA/%20heat_3month/%20HC_0-700-3month.tar.gz

If you can’t work with the NODC’s Global Analyzed Fields above, the data is also available on a more user-friendly basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/%20selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Simply scroll down to “Heat content” and select “1955-now: NODC 0-700m”.

If the drop in OHC concerns you, I suggest you contact Levitus et al. After you explain why you called them high school-trained weather readers, I’m sure they’ll be happy to answer your questions.

Have a nice day.

Donations

Tips are now being accepted.

Comment Policy, SST Posts, and Notes

Comments that are political in nature or that have nothing to do with the post will be deleted.
####
The Smith and Reynolds SST Posts DOES NOT LIST ALL SST POSTS. I stopped using ERSST.v2 data for SST when NOAA deleted it from NOMADS early in 2009.

Please use the search feature in the upper left-hand corner of the page for posts on specific subjects.
####
NOTE: I’ve discovered that some of the links to older posts provide blank pages. While it’s possible to access that post by scrolling through the history, that’s time consuming. There’s a quick fix for the problem, so if you run into an absent post, please advise me. Thanks.
####
If you use the graphs, please cite or link to the address of the blog post or this website.