World Ocean Temperatures - There and Back Again

[missouriboy]

As we follow the progression / regression of the Eastern Pacific Ocean warming and its likely cooling over the next
few years, this thread may serve as a repository for posts on the aggregate effects of 'climate change' (there's that word)
on the great regulator of our 'weather' and its extremes.
I will start this off with a chart that I had not seen before ... provided of course by Bob Tisdale.  Regardless of the accuracy
of sea surface temperatures prior to ______ (insert your own favorite year), this is the first time I can remember seeing a
composite that includes data (is that a loose term?) for the mid-late 19th century.  Bob included this in his post of 2009.

bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html

The global SST anomalies (ERSST v2) show a bottom at about -0.6 C around 1910, with a subsequent very sharp 30-year
rise through 1940.  This peak is a bit shorter than I had envisioned, but, if it's in the ball park, then it provides a bit of
symmetry to the multi-decadal change, which, on the positive side, may top out at about 0.8 C (same base period?) with
this El Nino (or not depending on definition).  It provides some perspective on how far we'd have to fall to return to the
conditions at the turn of the 20th century.  

Bob has a link to how this reconstruction was produced in the above link and he seems to believe that there may have
been some hanky panky here.  Ya think?  He notes that the 1870-1910 progression looks remarkably like an inverted
version of the 1960-2000 progression.  So, the low point, assuming there was one, may really be in the range of 0 to -0.4 C.
Regardless, even if the magnitude has been rigged, it may be useful to illustrate some points that we make later.  It would be nice
to get a more reasonable or alternative sets of late 19th century SST data to at least ballpark what the decline may have been.
We current get a range that varies from maybe 1 to 1.2 C. 

I note Sig, that this range is pretty similar to your prognostication of 1-1.3 C.  I will merely note that the 1880-1940
period (peak to peak) ... in terms of length ... is amazingly similar to the 1940-2000 period (peak to peak) of what may
possibly be the end of the just past 60-year cycle ... although the latter may have a longer plateau.  Of course, my blatant
statement of fact, may, in fact, turn out to be so much dung.    

[missouriboy]

Where Have Global Ocean Temperatures Been and Where Are They Going?

Most of us believe that World Ocean temperatures have increased over the last 40 years.  Arguments mostly
center on causes.  While absolute measures of change are dependent on technical questions regarding measurement
approaches and issues of fudging the numbers  , the overall heat content of the upper ocean has very likely increased.
Since 1976 (after the great climate shift), charts provided by Bob Tisdale show a net increase in global sea surface temperatures
of about 0.4 C in the 30 years from 1977 to 2005 or 2007.  He classifies this change as having occurred in three distinct upward
temperature steps following El Nino events, which resulted in a redistribution of post-Nino heat across large areas of the World's
oceans.  I assume that this could be described as a period where heat inputs to the ocean system have exceeded heat exports
to the atmosphere and hence to space.  As pointed out by Joe Bastardi, mean ocean temperatures following each El Nino and
subsequent La Nina bottomed at a level successively higher than the preceding level.
Since 2005, this process has reversed according to Joe.  You can see it in the data.  After 2005, world ocean temperatures after
each El Nino and subsequent La Nina have bottomed at a level successively lower than the preceding level.  In the seven years
from 2005 to 2012, the World ocean temperature deviations have declined by 0.4 C, or, i.e., by the same amount that it took
30 years to gain.  Joe's prediction is that the consequent La Nina following our long 2014-16 El Nino (warming event) will produce
a temperature level below that of 2012.  A simple extrapolation of this trend would suggest that, if this occurs, we could see
another 0.4 C decline by 2019 (?) (Hello Astromet). Astromet may be expecting temperatures below this level.

These charts are displayed in the following three attachments.  The two from Joe Bastardi are a little dim as I grabbed them
from his weekly summary.

[missouriboy]

WHAT DO THE SATELLITES SAY?

Note the New, revised UAH satellite temperatures show about a 0.2 C upward adjustment from the previous version
for the last few years.
It is interesting that the UAH satellite temperature deviations to not show the progressive, post-Nino temperature
declines since 2005-07.  I am not familiar with the NCEP CFSR / CFSv2 Global 2-meter Temperature Anomaly data
base.  Joe Bastardi apparently holds it in enough regard to use it in his presentations.

[sigurdur]

Missouriboy:
" I assume that this could be described as a period where heat inputs to the ocean system have exceeded heat exports
to the atmosphere and hence to space."

1. The heat export does NOT have to be to the atmosphere. It could very well go where Trenbeth thinks it is going. To the deep ocean. While there is not a known mechanism for this to happen, it could very well happen.
2. Heat export to the atmosphere does NOT have to leave the system. A 0.01% change in AH of the atmosphere could easily absorb a large heat increase, and not be measured.
3. Heat export COULD be leaving us via the strat etc. Everyone talks about satellites measuring radiation loss. What they fail to acknowledge is our lack of measurement over the Polar areas. Both south and north. The is "extrapolated", but the extrapolation may not be correct. The heat loss could in fact be 10's or orders of magnitude higher than extrapolated.

Heat accumulation in the Oceans. CO2, IF physics is believed, is one very very poor source of ocean heat. The elephant in the room that is today ignored is UV radiation. It is NOT a constant. Actual measurements of approx 80% of the atmosphere indicates that AH of the atmosphere has, in fact, dropped slightly. This goes along with the decrease of approx 5% of cloud cover. That 5% decrease is one heck of a large area of further UV penetration. Even during periods of clouds, a large percentage of UV still gets through. Take those clouds away, and 100% of that UV gets through.

Interesting of note is how powerful UV is. Few days ago, it was cool outside. Air temperature was 25F, slight wind. Somewhat hazy cloud cover. By 2pm, the ice had thawed, the frost had left to a depth of approx 2". Open water on the puddles in my yard. The sun came out about 4pm. While way past the strongest sun of the day, I took my temp probe to see what the water temperature was. It was 37F. Air temp had dropped to 23F. CO2 levels didn't register a large change..(note sarcasm inserted). The behavior of the water reflected the behavior of the UV.

[missouriboy]

Mar 12, 2016 22:35:36 GMT sigurdur said:

Missouriboy:
" I assume that this could be described as a period where heat inputs to the ocean system have exceeded heat exports
to the atmosphere and hence to space."

1. The heat export does NOT have to be to the atmosphere. It could very well go where Trenbeth thinks it is going. To the deep ocean. While there is not a known mechanism for this to happen, it could very well happen.
2. Heat export to the atmosphere does NOT have to leave the system. A 0.01% change in AH of the atmosphere could easily absorb a large heat increase, and not be measured.
3. Heat export COULD be leaving us via the strat etc. Everyone talks about satellites measuring radiation loss. What they fail to acknowledge is our lack of measurement over the Polar areas. Both south and north. The is "extrapolated", but the extrapolation may not be correct. The heat loss could in fact be 10's or orders of magnitude higher than extrapolated.

Heat accumulation in the Oceans. CO2, IF physics is believed, is one very very poor source of ocean heat. The elephant in the room that is today ignored is UV radiation. It is NOT a constant. Actual measurements of approx 80% of the atmosphere indicates that AH of the atmosphere has, in fact, dropped slightly. This goes along with the decrease of approx 5% of cloud cover. That 5% decrease is one heck of a large area of further UV penetration. Even during periods of clouds, a large percentage of UV still gets through. Take those clouds away, and 100% of that UV gets through.

Interesting of note is how powerful UV is. Few days ago, it was cool outside. Air temperature was 25F, slight wind. Somewhat hazy cloud cover. By 2pm, the ice had thawed, the frost had left to a depth of approx 2". Open water on the puddles in my yard. The sun came out about 4pm. While way past the strongest sun of the day, I took my temp probe to see what the water temperature was. It was 37F. Air temp had dropped to 23F. CO2 levels didn't register a large change..(note sarcasm inserted). The behavior of the water reflected the behavior of the UV.

Sig ... everything you have pointed out makes absolute sense to me.  One of the points that Bob makes is that it is the decline in cloudiness
associated with La Ninas that he believes to be the (or at least a major one) primary component to equatorial oceanic heat recharge.  Obviously,
UV would be a major component, and if a 'grand solar minimum' results in less UV, it could well be enough to shift the input/output balance
from positive to negative.  Changes in cloudiness could enhance or depress such changes.  As could other factors that we know little about.

There does appear to be a warming of the deeper ocean as measured by Argo, although the magnitude does not appear to be great.  But
something is something ... and of course, we don't know what the error bars on Argo measurements would be.  And yes, the satellites do not
measure the poles ... and who knows what changes in that component could do.

Any forecast almost always assumes that some set of bounding parameters and operations remain similar to what we know ... and, of course,
if we are honest, we would have to admit that we don't know very much.  Things work until they don't.  For example, what caused the 'Great
Climate Shift'?  What is causing the temperature decline in the North Pacific?  And many others.  The scientists are sciencing, or not.  Regarding
the former, Dr. Tisdale had a graph of temperature anomalies in the Southern Ocean that shows a large 30-year spike in 1968, which, if related
suggests that it took 7 or 8 years to register in the N Pacific.  As shown below, it dropped back to its pre-1968 level in 2000.  Strange things
started happening in the N. Atlantic in the 2008-10 period, but who knows if they are related.  I'm just messing around the edges because I'm
interested.  I expect more from those that are actually getting paid for it.  

Bob's work on the redistribution of heat in the oceanic system shows a redistribution of leftover heat from El Nino increasing the surface
temperatures of adjacent, down-current oceans.  These peak and gradually cool between recharges.  If we are in fact seeing a reversal in
the input/output equation, as Joe Bastardi seems to show, then that would fit with many of the theses regarding a decline in solar inputs.  
It could also all go to hell in a hand basket due to a failure to understand other processes in the system.  But it is exciting, and close enough
in time that most of us should hopefully live to see what the early part of the results will be ... 2020 is not so far away.  I'm taking my vitamins.   

Attachments:

[missouriboy]

THE HEATING OF ADJACENT OCEANS FOLLOWING EL NINO SHOWS UP IN ARGO TOO!

Bob Tisdale's posts on redistribution of leftover heat from El Ninos to adjacent oceans can also be observed in the Argo data.
I assembled oceanic Bob's oceanic regions and tallied the Argo results for the following areas, which are graphed in various
parts of his different posts.  I'm reposting his charts for two of those regions:  1) The E Indian - W Pacific Region and
2) The E Pacific - Atlantic- W Indian Region.  Others that are found in my Argo graph can be found in other parts of his posts:
3) The E Pacific, 4) The E Indian and Pacific and 5) The W Indian.

The Argo data show essentially the same adjacent ocean responses that Bob's data show.  I'm reposting the links to Bob's
posts here for easy access.

Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976?
bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
Causes of the Great Climate Shift of 1976
bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/10/1976-pacific-climate-shift.html
More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO
bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/more-detail-on-the-multiyear-aftereffects-of-enso-%E2%80%93-part-1-%E2%80%93-el-nino-events-warm-the-oceans/
bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/more-detail-on-the-multiyear-aftereffects-of-enso-part-2-%E2%80%93-la-nina-events-recharge-the-heat-released-by-el-nino-events-and/
bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/more-detail-on-the-multiyear-aftereffects-of-enso-part-3-%E2%80%93-east-indian-west-pacific-oceans-can-warm-in-response-to-both-el-nino-la-nina-events/
THE DIP AND REBOUND IN LATE 19th TO EARLY 20th CENTURY SST ANOMALY
bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/dip-and-rebound.html


 

[sigurdur]

Dr. Curry was chided for proposing the Stadium Wave theory. The longer the time frame of somewhat "accurate" measurements of OHC is slowly confirming that she wasn't out to lunch when her word processor spit out the paper.

Now, to throw a slight monkey wrench in all of this, the ADO.

There are several folks who link the dynamics of the ADO to the sun. Also, an even closer match to temperature variation occurs with the ADO verses the PDO. Both the PDO and the ADO are "newly" discovered dynamics in climate. And make no mistake, they DO affect climate. The bad thing is, as you mentioned Missouri Boy, the quality of the ocean heat measurements prior to ARGO. The XBT buoy system was the best thing we had, but the error bars on that were so large that you could drive a fleet of trucks through them. Prior to XBT? Oh my.........let's just say a "qualified guess" at best.

That is the reality of our times. There are lots of papers put out by AGW enthusiasts who call themselves "Scientists". I think they actually believe their crap. Just as Hillary believes she was under sniper fire, and no emails were marked "classified". The dirty secret is "classified" is not a security label. Classified means it contained Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret Special Category, etc. (There are many layers of Top Secret. I know because I know.....LOL.) I have physically observed 12 different classification items. In my time, I never observed a document marked "Classified".

So, it is a game of words. There was a really good article the other day on WUWT on basic stats. Of course, I can't seem to see it, but it was a great basic lesson in stats and how 99%+ of papers butcher stats. Lindzen seems to do it correctly, Foster had a paper that seemed to do it correctly, but then he ignored the outcome of the correct stats. Amazed eh?

The main thing is, our actual record of somewhat reliable measurements of OHC is so short, that conclusions drawn on the longer record have one hell of a wide error range.

I really enjoy reading your works. You are a whizz at graphs, and are highlighting short changes in OHC via the ARGO system.

You are old enough to know how much we don't know, yet young enough to hopefully, (like me) continue to learn.

Anyone who makes the claim that the science is settled is a buffoon.

[sigurdur]

www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/record-rainy-cloudy-humid-february-over-the-oceans/

It’s been about eight months since I’ve updated the SSM/I- and SSMIS-based satellite estimates of the RSS ocean products (vapor, clouds, rain, and surface wind speed). Given the record warm tropospheric temperatures in February, and the likely role of El Nino in that, I thought it would be interesting to see if (for example) there was a big increase in rain activity, which is how the troposphere can warm so rapidly…through the latent heating of the air as heat is transferred from the ocean surface to the atmosphere.

By way of background, here are the monthly HadSST3 sea surface temperature anomalies (thru January). The anomalies are calculated over the same period that we have SSM/I data (since July, 1987), and they indicate record-warmth in the global ocean average (60N to 60S):

[sigurdur]

As we were talking, the stratosphere is warming. That is NOT part of the AGW theory at all.

Remember when I am talking about the barn doors wide open over the Arctic? HEY............The breeze is confirmed!

notrickszone.com/2016/03/12/upper-stratosphere-over-arctic-sees-record-high-march-temperature-europe-facing-intensified-march-winter/#sthash.g6gPpx4j.c7YUoQuA.dpbs

Recall how man-made CO2 emissions are supposed to cause a greenhouse effect in the troposphere, meaning the stratosphere above it is supposed to cool. Lately, that has not been the case at all – at least over the northern hemisphere, 65°N and above, over the better part of the last year.

Schneefan here writes on an interesting phenomenon now taking place in the Arctic stratosphere. Much of what follows is a translation, along with some points I’ve added myself.
- See more at: notrickszone.com/2016/03/12/upper-stratosphere-over-arctic-sees-record-high-march-temperature-europe-facing-intensified-march-winter/#sthash.g6gPpx4j.c7YUoQuA.dpuf

A place for the transport of all that ocean heat buildup. Right?

[sigurdur]

I was wrong. The stats post was on Judith Curry's blog. Is a really good read.

judithcurry.com/2016/03/09/on-inappropriate-use-of-least-squares-regression/#more-21249

[sigurdur]

Useful information.

www.arcticdeeply.org/op-eds/2016/03/8673/sea-ice-dark-winter-sunny-spring/

[missouriboy]

Thank you Sig.  Now I can read up on some new subjects.  I love it.  

[missouriboy]



A 1-DEGREE C TEMPERATURE WAVE IN THE GREAT SOUTHERN OCEAN (50-65 S) ??    

I was wandering through my Argo charts and noticed what appeared to be a west-to-east temperature wave in the Southern
Ocean (50-65 S Latitude).  The three attached charts show annual temperature deviations from 2004 averaged across 50-65 S
latitude displayed in 1-degree longitude bands from 0-360 E Longitude.  This series shows what appears to be a temperature
wave that starts opposite the Indian Ocean in 2005 with a magnitude -0.6 C and increases in magnitude to about -1 C as it progresses
eastward.  By 2008, it covers 70 degrees of longitude centered on the S Pacific Ocean.  By 2009-11 it is pulsing back and forth
in the Eastern Pacific.  During the 2012-15 period it located south of the S Atlantic Ocean.  By 2014-15, that area of the Southern
Ocean adjacent to the S Pacific is up to 0.2 C above 2004 across its entire width.  If this is a wave, then its circum-global 
period would be about 17-18 years.

The arrows on the charts denote the Eastern edge of Australia and the Western edge of South America.

[sigurdur]

Mar 15, 2016 19:47:30 GMT missouriboy said:



A 1-DEGREE C TEMPERATURE WAVE IN THE GREAT SOUTHERN OCEAN (50-65 S) ??    

I was wandering through my Argo charts and noticed what appeared to be a west-to-east temperature wave in the Southern
Ocean (50-65 S Latitude).  The three attached charts show annual temperature deviations from 2004 averaged across 50-65 S
latitude displayed in 1-degree longitude bands from 0-360 E Longitude.  This series shows what appears to be a temperature
wave that starts opposite the Indian Ocean in 2005 with a magnitude -0.6 C and increases in magnitude to about -1 C as it progresses
eastward.  By 2008, it covers 70 degrees of longitude centered on the S Pacific Ocean.  By 2009-11 it is pulsing back and forth
in the Eastern Pacific.  During the 2012-15 period it located south of the S Atlantic Ocean.  By 2014-15, that area of the Southern
Ocean adjacent to the S Pacific is up to 0.2 C above 2004 across its entire width.  If this is a wave, then its circum-global 
period would be about 17-18 years.

The arrows on the charts denote the Eastern edge of Australia and the Western edge of South America.




View AttachmentView AttachmentView Attachment

Missouriboy: Wow, what an asset you are on this board!

What a veryyyyy interesting outcome. You should e-mail Tisdale! You guys are both "in the know" because of your research and what a combination you two would make!

The LARGER question is......why don't "climate scientists" study this and write papers about it? Does it show something they don't want to acknowledge?

I read a lot...and I have NOT come across any paper talking about what you just graphed for us.

I can only commend you!

[acidohm]

+1 For sure you should get your work out there Missouriboy!!