Where's the Heat, Cooling Oceans

[glc]

....and after that?

We'll be told 13 years with no warming trend is perfectly consistent with AGW CO2 warming theory,

I don't understand why you would think there wouldn't be periods of non-warming or even cooling. I reckon CO2 should, on average, result in warming of a shade over 0.1 deg per decade. Natural variability can easily offset that over the short term (e.g. temp drop from solar max to solar min is ~0.1 deg). The trend since the 1970s is still well above 0.1 deg per decade whichever dataset is used.

you'll be still defending GISS divergence and claim how close they all match.

OK let's just look at the latest numbers to see how much GISS is diverging. This is the UAH v GISS anomalies for 2010 so far. Note the 1979-98 base period is used in both cases:

GISS UAH
Jan 0.42 0.64
Feb 0.46 0.61
Mar 0.54 0.66
Apr 0.52 0.50
May 0.44 0.54
Jun 0.36 0.44
Jul 0.31 0.49
Aug 0.30 0.51

Average for GISS: 0.42
Average for UAH: 0.55

[icefisher]

Oct 7, 2010 21:22:43 GMT glc said:

I don't understand why you would think there wouldn't be periods of non-warming or even cooling. I reckon CO2 should, on average, result in warming of a shade over 0.1 deg per decade. Natural variability can easily offset that over the short term (e.g. temp drop from solar max to solar min is ~0.1 deg). The trend since the 1970s is still well above 0.1 deg per decade whichever dataset is used.

It should show warming. With 1976 through 2007 showing a generally positive index on the PDO, the oceans have been supporting warm temperatures for more than 3 decades of your trend period. For the past decade though with a declining positive index the trend has been either negative or significantly less than .1degC depending upon the index used.

The question of course is how does that play out over the next 20 years. Support for your belief is weak due to the potential of heavily weighted towards positive natural variation pushing your indexes up. We will have to see how it plays out.

I'm betting on a mix and do not think the .2 to .4 warming is going to materialize over the next decade predicted by the IPCC modeling groups.

In fact one has to wonder if you can even pin that on the modeling groups since the predictions have come more in the form of "a planned leak" than an official announcement.

[glc]

It should show warming. With 1976 through 2007 showing a generally positive index on the PDO, the oceans have been supporting warm temperatures for more than 3 decades of your trend period. For the past decade though with a declining positive index the trend has been either negative or significantly less than .1degC depending upon the index used.

According to Don Easterbrook the PDO switched to it's negative phase in 1999. He also continues to claim that there has been cooling since 1999 (he might mean 1998). Perhaps a negative PDO isn't what it was.

Easterbrook does, though, seem to be shifting his position.

[nautonnier]

To return to the subject at hand.... I was doing a search for ARGO data which has it appears been redacted from all public sites. But I did find this:

"Why is there no website showing the latest global ocean temperature as measured by Argo? The western public have paid for this data and it is crucial to the climate debate, so why isn’t it freely available?
If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don’t you suppose it would be publicized endlessly? The climate establishment and the mainstream media are keen to trumpet any evidence of warming. Good news! From the silence we can only conclude that Argo is not showing any ocean warming.
In science, data is supposed to be shared. The climate establishment’s behavior over ocean temperatures shows they are more interested in shaping the public’s perception than finding the truth.
Update: A few commenters below think they have found the Argo global ocean data on the web, but they haven’t. They have find some temperature of parts of the Pacific, raw data for some floats, sites with temperature profiles with depth, etc. Remember, Roger Pielke had to ask Josh Willis for the global ocean temp. data last month, and the answer wasn’t “it’s at this website Roger” it was (effectively) “no”"

See

joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-3/#more-10896

It appears that validation data is being withheld - I can see no reason for this.

[hunterson]

Oct 8, 2010 12:23:30 GMT nautonnier said:

To return to the subject at hand.... I was doing a search for ARGO data which has it appears been redacted from all public sites. But I did find this:

"Why is there no website showing the latest global ocean temperature as measured by Argo? The western public have paid for this data and it is crucial to the climate debate, so why isn’t it freely available?
If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don’t you suppose it would be publicized endlessly? The climate establishment and the mainstream media are keen to trumpet any evidence of warming. Good news! From the silence we can only conclude that Argo is not showing any ocean warming.
In science, data is supposed to be shared. The climate establishment’s behavior over ocean temperatures shows they are more interested in shaping the public’s perception than finding the truth.
Update: A few commenters below think they have found the Argo global ocean data on the web, but they haven’t. They have find some temperature of parts of the Pacific, raw data for some floats, sites with temperature profiles with depth, etc. Remember, Roger Pielke had to ask Josh Willis for the global ocean temp. data last month, and the answer wasn’t “it’s at this website Roger” it was (effectively) “no”"

See

joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-3/#more-10896

It appears that validation data is being withheld - I can see no reason for this.

Since we know climate scientists either commit fraud or all too often accept it in their peers, I can think of a few reasons.

[steve]

I don't think that poster realises that ocean heat content isn't a figure that just drops out of the ARGO data. There are 3000 buoys measuring a lot of data, and the buoys keep moving. If they on average move a bit closer to the poles, then the raw data would show cooling. If they moved toward the equator, they'd show warming etc. etc. The buoys all don't behave the same either.

There will be a *lot* of raw data - too much to host on a website? Where is the raw data from Roy Spencer's satellites?

Up to now all the sceptics seem to be pretty happy with Willis's "cooling oceans". Are they getting their complaints in before the inevitable uptick in OHC?

Since we know climate scientists either commit fraud or all too often accept it in their peers, I can think of a few reasons.

I'll remember that quote in the unlikely event that any genuine sceptic thinks you've said something sensible.

[trbixler]

Oct 8, 2010 12:59:09 GMT steve said:

I don't think that poster realises that ocean heat content isn't a figure that just drops out of the ARGO data. There are 3000 buoys measuring a lot of data, and the buoys keep moving. If they on average move a bit closer to the poles, then the raw data would show cooling. If they moved toward the equator, they'd show warming etc. etc. The buoys all don't behave the same either.

There will be a *lot* of raw data - too much to host on a website? Where is the raw data from Roy Spencer's satellites?

Up to now all the sceptics seem to be pretty happy with Willis's "cooling oceans". Are they getting their complaints in before the inevitable uptick in OHC?

Since we know climate scientists either commit fraud or all too often accept it in their peers, I can think of a few reasons.

I'll remember that quote in the unlikely event that any genuine sceptic thinks you've said something sensible.

Finally I get it. Its just too complex for a non climate scientist to understand and it needs an adjustment or two before one could possibly understand the data. Maybe the triggers in a SQL database carry the adjustments as the data is posted down the btree.

[icefisher]

Oct 8, 2010 8:04:13 GMT glc said:

It should show warming. With 1976 through 2007 showing a generally positive index on the PDO, the oceans have been supporting warm temperatures for more than 3 decades of your trend period. For the past decade though with a declining positive index the trend has been either negative or significantly less than .1degC depending upon the index used.

According to Don Easterbrook the PDO switched to it's negative phase in 1999. He also continues to claim that there has been cooling since 1999 (he might mean 1998). Perhaps a negative PDO isn't what it was.

Easterbrook does, though, seem to be shifting his position.

[/color][/quote]

There is a difference between a declining PDO and a negative PDO. Since PDO is detrended of average global oceanic trends, as long as it is positive it has a "regional" warming influence even if the warming influence is diminishing from a declining PDO. One should take "regional" with a grain of salt though. It is clear the Pacific exerts a global influence on climate change.

The concensus in 1999 was the PDO had switched negative, which it had. But it didn't stay that way. The La Ninas of 1999-2001 were overridden by the El Ninos of 2002-2007. So the Pacific has continued to exert a warming influence on the climate.

In general as you can see from the graph it remained largely in positive territory until at least 2007.



So I would not be reading too much into anything yet.

[steve]

Finally I get it. Its just too complex for a non climate scientist to understand and it needs an adjustment or two before one could possibly understand the data. Maybe the triggers in a SQL database carry the adjustments as the data is posted down the btree.

Given that a number of different sets of scientists have come to different conclusions, then it is obviously a difficult problem. But I was not arguing against releasing the data so you can withhold your sarcasm for a better time.

[matt]

Oct 8, 2010 12:31:53 GMT hunterson said:

Since we know climate scientists either commit fraud or all too often accept it in their peers, I can think of a few reasons.

You take some mighty inflammatory statements as "we know". No, we don't know. Have any examples of widespread fraud? How about individual fraud?

[glc]

There is a difference between a declining PDO and a negative PDO. Since PDO is detrended of average global oceanic trends, as long as it is positive it has a "regional" warming influence even if the warming influence is diminishing from a declining PDO. One should take "regional" with a grain of salt though. It is clear the Pacific exerts a global influence on climate change.

Two points :

First, Cooling takes place during a "declining" PDO. Once it has declined there is very little further cooling. In th 1945 shift most of the cooling had taken place by ~1951. Temperatures after that up until ~1975 were more or less flat.

Second, Don Easterbrook says

The cool phase of PDO is now entrenched and ‘global warming’ (1977-1998) is over

and

No global warming has taken place since 1998 and deepening cooling has occurred during the past several years The reason for global cooling over the past decade is the switch of the Pacific Ocean from its warm mode (where it has been from 1977 to 1998) to its cool mode in 1999.

See myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/pdo/pacific-decadal-oscillation.pdf

While I may have misquoted him when I wrote "negative phase" it's clear Easterbrook believes that a switch took place in 1999. Perhaps it did but it's not anywhere near as decisive as the previous switches. Easterbrook obviously wrote his paper around the time the effects of 2008 La Nina were still evident. How else do you explain the "deepening cooling" garbage.

I have a lot of respect for Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen but you can't take the likes of Easterbrook seriously.

[nautonnier]

Oct 8, 2010 12:59:09 GMT steve said:

I don't think that poster realises that ocean heat content isn't a figure that just drops out of the ARGO data. There are 3000 buoys measuring a lot of data, and the buoys keep moving. If they on average move a bit closer to the poles, then the raw data would show cooling. If they moved toward the equator, they'd show warming etc. etc. The buoys all don't behave the same either.

There will be a *lot* of raw data - too much to host on a website? Where is the raw data from Roy Spencer's satellites?

Up to now all the sceptics seem to be pretty happy with Willis's "cooling oceans". Are they getting their complaints in before the inevitable uptick in OHC?

Since we know climate scientists either commit fraud or all too often accept it in their peers, I can think of a few reasons.

I'll remember that quote in the unlikely event that any genuine sceptic thinks you've said something sensible.

It was the fact that Roger Pielke had already managed what you appear to think is not feasible - and was refused when he asked for an update of the ARGO data.

You can bring Roy Spencer's satellites into it if you wish I am sure that if you were to email a request he would be able to tell you where that information was available. However, unlike ARGO, the UAH results from those collected metrics ARE being published.

[gwaarin]

Here is a breakdown of the PDO over the past 110 years....month by month.

Icefisher is right on the money with his claim. You can see it here with your own eyes:
jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

[jurinko]

Oct 8, 2010 12:59:09 GMT steve said:

Up to now all the sceptics seem to be pretty happy with Willis's "cooling oceans". Are they getting their complaints in before the inevitable uptick in OHC?

Like the North Atlantic one?

[jurinko]

Oct 8, 2010 14:37:24 GMT icefisher said:

Since PDO is detrended of average global oceanic trends..

PDO index is a synthetic index, which describes the pattern of temperature anomalies in Northern Pacific. You can have cold PDO and warmer SST, or warmer PDO and colder SST.

AMO index is detrended North Atlantic SST record.

I recommend Bob Tisdale´s blog, where he made some articles about this.