>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

About these ads

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in OHC Update. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to >Update NODC (Levitus et al 2009) OHC Data Through June 2009 (Corrected)

  1. John says:

    >Hi Bob -I notice the increase in Southern Ocean OHC in the past few years. I know you've mentioned the Humboldt current as a potential feeder to ENSO – does this raise any concerns of stronger future Nino's in the future in your mind?

  2. John says:

    >p.s. Thanks for the amazing work in updating this information so quickly.I, and I'm sure many others, greatly appreciate your efforts.

  3. Bob Tisdale says:

    >John: I haven't investigated the Southern Ocean OHC increase to determine what's causing it, so I can't say.I was staring to look at the North Pacific OHC data when I found the note that the global data had changed. After that, I wanted to look at the simultaneous drop in the tropical Indian Ocean and rise in the tropical Pacific Ocean OHC in 1995. Lots of thing to look at with the "new" dataset.

  4. John says:

    >Too much to look at!I find the recent drop in the artic very interesting. Matches up with the increasing ice levels, the dropping North Atlantic OCH and SST, and matches the view of recent Artic studies I've seen about the multidecadal variations in the artic ocean.I still am weirded out (to use a technical phrase) by the sudden jump in the South Atlantic in 2003ish – I know you've attributed it to a lagged reaction to the 98 El Nino, but it's so odd (and matches that large ramp up in overall 2003 OCH I mentioned in an earlier posting).Very interesting stuff, I have to say.

  5. John says:

    >Heh, sorry, another question. I just saw your followup to my quesiton below.So the von Schuckmann et al (2008) paper says OHC has been increasing from 2003-2008 if you push from 700m to 2000m instead? Interesting. Am I reading that correctly? It doesn't really say anything about the seemingly rapid jump from 1995ish to 2003 I mention in my post though. It just seems so out of line with both prior to 1995 and post 2003. Am I missing something?

  6. tallbloke says:

    >Hi Bob,Don't know if you think it'd be worth the effort plotting the difference between the old and new data to see if there is much change to the older data. I'm still intrigued by the splice between XBT and ARGO, as I don't really see any good reason for the big jump in 2003.

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    >tallbloke: You asked, "Don't know if you think it'd be worth the effort plotting the difference between the old and new data to see if there is much change to the older data. I'm still intrigued by the splice between XBT and ARGO, as I don't really see any good reason for the big jump in 2003."Which old and new data? There wasn't any significant change between the pre and post October 15 corrections other than the last quarter, April to June.

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    >John: You asked, "So the von Schuckmann et al (2008) paper says OHC has been increasing from 2003-2008 if you push from 700m to 2000m instead? Interesting. Am I reading that correctly?"Yes, but the 0-700m data also shows an increase. You wrote, "It doesn't really say anything about the seemingly rapid jump from 1995ish to 2003 I mention in my post though. It just seems so out of line with both prior to 1995 and post 2003."The North Atlantic represents the biggest chunk of the OHC data. It's governed by the NAO. There was a shift in the NAO in the 1990s. Also, as you've seen in the discussion of ENSO's domination of PHC data, there are some upward steps in the other datasets during the 1990s, like the unusual rise in the tropical Pacific OHC in 1995 that fed the El Nino of 1997/98. Looking at the data as a whole gives the impression of an unusual rise, but when the individual ocean basins are examined, there are clear responses at different times to natural variables.

  9. Bill Illis says:

    >Thanks Bob, good work on this one.Has anyone found a link to the full Schuckmann paper and the data?

  10. Bob Tisdale says:

    >Bill Illis: All I've seen is the preprint for von Schuckmann et al:http://www.ifremer.fr/docelec/doc/2009/publication-6802.pdfBut I haven't poked around at the Ifremer website.

  11. Anonymous says:

    >Now the data seems a lot more reasonable: the sudden drop in 2009was really a weid thing. The oceans simmply cannot lose so much heat so abruptly:the water heat capacity is too big.So, the data show clearly a steady increase in OHC. That's a lot of heat. Thre are two, only two possible sources: 1)the deep ocean or 2)a strong positive atmospheric forcing(and the only positive one is AGW).The new study that includes OHC down to 2000 m clearly excludes the first option, and make the oceanic warming a lot bigger.So AGW is the only possibilty left.

  12. Bob Tisdale says:

    >Anonymous: You wrote, "Now the data seems a lot more reasonable: the sudden drop in 2009was really a weid thing. "The oceans simmply cannot lose so much heat so abruptly: the water heat capacity is too big."The drop indicated by the erroneous data posted by the NODC was no greater than the questionable increase in 2003. And in looking at the erroneous OHC anomalies of the individual ocean basins–I saved the old post for people like you–http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/update-of-nodc-levitus-et-al-2009-ohc.html–the drop in each was not outside of the range of past variability, so that part of your comment has no basis in reality.You continued, “The new study that includes OHC down to 2000 m clearly excludes the first option, and make the oceanic warming a lot bigger.”Had you bothered to read the study you mentioned, von Schuckmann et al (2009), you would have understood that natural variables govern OHC. All of Sections 3 and 4 of the paper are discussions of natural variables. Or did you miss those parts? For example, in von Schuckmann et al, they explain that the North Atlantic OHC is dictated by ENSO, AMOC, and the NAO, and tropical OHC is dominated by ENSO, etc. These are the same findings in my posts:1. "ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data"bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html2. "North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables"bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.htmlExcept in my posts, I illustrate how those natural variables dominate long-term OHC variations, while von Schuckmann only dealt with the period of 2003 to 2008. Your conclusion, “So AGW is the only possibilty left,” therefore, has little basis in fact.Have a nice day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s