Page 56, line 11 includes a wrong NINO3.4 coordinate. 120S should be 120W.

Page 66, line 8 should read, “…does not look as though the…”

[Thanks, Kevin Hearle.]

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

UPDATE 1 (February 16, 2012): Many thanks to the multitude of visitors here and at the cross post at WattsUpWithThat who have purchased a copy of the book in the past day. Sales have exceeded my wildest dreams. It occurred to me as I was replying to a comment on this thread that I never prepared a synopsis. Here it is:

If the IPCC was Selling Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads? is intended for readers interested in anthropogenic global warming/climate change who have limited technical or science backgrounds, to show and explain how:

1. the IPCC has exaggerated the capabilities of the climate models they employ to make projections of future climate,

2. the comparisons of the surface temperature data and the IPCC’s climate model simulations for the 20^thCentury actually contradict the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming,

3. there is a very logical and natural explanation for most of the warming that has taken place over the past 30 years. Since the El Niño-Southern Oscillation is responsible for that warming, the book includes a very basic but very detailed explanation of that natural phenomenon. And,

4. the data they need to research the subject on their own, if they desire, is available to them in an easy-to-use format.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Many visitors here and at WattsUpWithThat will remember that a little over three years ago I published my first posts that illustrated how the process of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) created what appeared to be upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of major portions of the global oceans. (Refer to those posts here and here, and the cross posts at WattsUpWithThat here and here.) In numerous follow-up posts since then, I have discussed, illustrated and animated the processes that cause those upward shifts.

I’ve also published a series of posts over the past year about the climate models used by the IPCC in their 4^th Assessment Report (AR4). Those posts show how poorly those models simulated the rates at which global surface temperatures warmed and cooled when the 20^th Century is broken down into the 2 warming periods and 2 “flat temperature” periods—periods that are acknowledged by the IPCC. There was also a post that showed how poorly the climate models used by the IPCC simulated sea surface temperatures over the last 30 years for the individual ocean basins on time-series and zonal-mean(latitude-based) bases. Many of those posts were also cross posted at WattsUpWithThat.

I’ve collected the content of all of those posts in an ebook (pdf format) titled If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads? (13MB) $5.00 (U.S.)

Cover art by Josh of CartoonsByJosh

I have tried take myself out of technical-writer mode to make the book reader-friendly. This, hopefully, will help those without technical backgrounds understand the story being told by the data. The book contains very basic discussions, including why temperature anomalies are being used in the graphs instead of absolute temperatures. Since the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a major contributor to the rise in global sea surface temperatures during the satellite era, there is a 70-page section devoted to the many interrelated processes of ENSO. That section begins with very basic illustrations and discussions of trade winds and ocean currents in the Pacific Ocean, and ends with links to a series of animations. The ENSO section alone includes over 50 illustrations. In total, there are more than 200 illustrations in the book. I’ve also included a section that introduces the reader to the KNMI Climate Explorer, which is the source of the observations- and model-based data presented in the book. Using screen captures, it walks the reader, step by step, from downloading data, to entering the data into a spreadsheet, to creating a graph, to adding linear trend lines with equations.

All that for a grand total of $5.00. Please buy a copy.

- Download immediately after purchase through PayPal account or with Credit and Debit Cards

- 240+ pages with over 200 illustrations

A copy of the introduction, table of contents, and closing can be found here:

Introduction-Table of Contents-Closing of If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product

The following are the opening notes:

Dear Readers,

This book does not present some new-fangled theory about manmade global warming. This is the story told by the instrument-based global surface temperature data and by the output data from the climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to simulate those global temperatures. I’m simply presenting the story told by the data and providing background information in layman terms to help you understand the story the data has been telling all along.

The book is based on my blog posts over the past three years at Climate Observations. Many of those posts have been cross posted by Anthony Watts at WattsUpWithThat, which is the world’s most-viewed website on global warming and climate change. I have, however, attempted in this book to present the discussions in very basic layman terms, where possible, with hope of making it easier to understand, especially by those without technical backgrounds.

Similar to my blog posts, I’ve kept many of the graphs at full page width. The reason: the data in the graphs, not my discussions of them, are what confirms or contradicts the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, or are what shows if the models can or cannot reproduce the rates at which global surface temperatures warmed and cooled over the 20^thCentury. In a blog post, there are no page breaks, and page formatting is not a concern. The number of large graphs in this book, unfortunately, causes page formatting problems; only one graph at full page width will fit on a page. So there are pages with a graph and some text and blank space. If this book was a print version, the blank space would be a problem, but this is an ebook. The blank space doesn’t add to publishing costs.

Thank you for your interest in the topics discussed in this work. And, of course, my thanks to Josh of CartoonsbyJosh for the cover art.

Each page of the downloaded pdf is watermarked, starting with “Prepared exclusively for…” As far as I can tell, that’s standard language for pdf stamping. That does not mean I wrote the book exclusively for you. It means your downloaded copy was watermarked for you to remind you that your copy is for your use only.

I have no plans to publish hard cover or paperback versions. I also looked into Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) and have decided against it for now. Kindle Direct Publishing converts color images to black and white, and that would make most of the comparison graphs difficult to view. I also don’t believe links would work, and there are a plethora of links in the text, similar to a blog post.

ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

YOU MAY HAVE TO CLICK ON THE ANIMATIONS TO VIEW THEM.

CONTINUATION OF COMPARISON ANIMATIONS

Sea surface temperature anomalies are compared to Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures (not anomalies) in Animation 5. The sea surface temperature dataset is Reynolds OI.v2.

Animation 5

Animation 6 presents sea surface temperature anomalies versus Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) lower troposphere temperature (TLT) anomalies.

Animation 6

NORTH ATLANTIC

The first of the North Atlantic sea surface temperature animations is Animation 7. With the exception of the graph and the opening few cells which highlight the location of the North Atlantic data, the maps are the same as Animation 1. The graph is different. It includes North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomaly data for the coordinates of 0-70N, 80W-0.

Animation 7

Animation 8 presents only maps of the North Atlantic.

Animation 8

ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

SOURCE

All maps used in the animations were created at the KNMI Climate Explorer:

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

YOU MAY HAVE TO CLICK ON THE ANIMATIONS TO VIEW THEM.

Animation 1 is one I’ve included in a number of posts. It illustrates the variations in global sea surface temperature anomalies before, during and after the 1997/98 El Niño and continues through the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña. The East Indian and West Pacific Oceans (60S-65N, 80E-180) are highlighted with a red box. The maps were created at the KNMI Climate Explorer, using Reynolds OI.v2 satellite-based sea surface temperature data. The animation also includes a graph that compares East Indian-West Pacific Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies to scaled NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies. The NINO3.4 data (an ENSO index) has been scaled by a factor of 0.13 and it has also been shifted down 0.05 deg C to better align the two datasets at the beginning of the animation. The base years for anomalies are 1982 to 2009. The data in the graph has been smoothed with a 12-month running-average filter to reduce the noise and minimize any seasonal component in the East Indian-West Pacific data. The 12-month data filter also aligns it with the map, since each map represents a 12-month average of sea surface temperature anomalies. Using the 12-month averages in the maps has the same effect as smoothing data in a graph: it reduces the weather noise and reduces any seasonal component. In the animation, the June 1996 to May 1997 map is followed by a map that shows the average for the next 12-month period, July 1996 to June 1997. The animation continues on in sequence until the final map that shows the average sea surface temperature anomalies for the period of August 2001 to July 2002.

Animation 1

COMPARISON ANIMATIONS

The next 3 animations use Animation 1 as its base. It has the sea surface temperature maps and the graphs of the NINO3.4 and East Indian-West Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies. And the animations present the data the same way, with cells representing 12-month averages, and they cover the same period of June 1996-May 1997 through August 2001-July 2002. For these animations, however, a second set of animated maps are added below the sea surface temperature maps. and those new sets present:

Animation 2: Total cloud amount anomalies

Animation 3: Precipitation anomalies

Animation 4: Sea level anomalies

And in part 2:

Animation 5: Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures (not anomalies)

Animation 6: Lower troposphere temperature (TLT) anomalies

In addition, part two also includes animations of North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies.

Animation 2 compares sea surface temperature anomalies to total cloud amount anomalies. The total cloud amount anomalies are based on the ISCCP Cloud Amount data. ISCCP stands for International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. Note the funnel shape over the Indian Ocean in the cloud amount data.  That’s from a satellite blind spot in early years that impacts the anomalies. Since our focal point is the tropical Pacific, that problem in the Indian Ocean data is not a concern.

Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies (top) with Total Cloud Amount Anomalies (Note the funnel shape over the Indian Ocean.  That’s from a blind spot in early years that impacts the anomalies.)

Animation 2

Animation 3 presents sea surface temperature anomalies with Climate Anomaly Monitoring System (CAMS) – OLR Precipitation Index (OPI) (CAMS-OPI) precipitation anomalies.

Animation 3

Animation 4 compares Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature anomalies to an early version of the AVISO CLS sea level anomaly data.

Animation 4

ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

SOURCE

All maps used in the animations were created at the KNMI Climate Explorer:

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

The following is a Global map of Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for January 2012 downloaded from the NOMADS website. The contour levels are set at 0.5 deg C, and white is set at zero.

January 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies Map

(Global SST Anomaly = +0.044 deg C)

MONTHLY OVERVIEW

The Monthly NINO3.4 SST Anomaly dropped again in January 2012 (about 0.089 deg C) to -1.037 deg C.

Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies dropped. A decline in the Northern Hemisphere was offset in part by an increase in the Southern Hemisphere. The monthly Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies are presently at +0.044 deg C.

(1) Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies

Monthly Change = -0.010 deg C

####################################

(2) NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies

(5S-5N, 170W-120W)

Monthly Change = -0.089 deg C

####################################

THE EAST PACIFIC VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD

The East Pacific and the Rest-Of-The-World (Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific) datasets were first discussed in the post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World.Both datasets have been adjusted for the impacts of volcanic aerosols. The global oceans were divided into these two subsets to illustrate two facts. First, the linear trend of the volcano-adjusted East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W) Sea Surface Temperature anomalies since the start of the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset is basically flat. The East Pacific linear trend varies with each monthly update. But it won’t vary significantly between El Niño and La Niña events.

(3) Volcano-Adjusted East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(90S-90N, 180-80W)

####################################

And second, the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World (90S-90N, 80W-180) rise in very clear steps, in response to the significant 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño/La Niña events. It also appears as though the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of this dataset are making another upward shift in response to the most recent ENSO event. For those who are interested in the actual trends of the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events and between the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events refer to Figure 4 in Does The Sea Surface Temperature Record Support The Hypothesis Of Anthropogenic Global Warming? I further described (at an introductory level) the ENSO-related processes that cause these upward steps in the post ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature.

(4) Volcano-Adjusted Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies For The Rest of the World

(90S-90N, 80W-180)

####################################

The periods used for the average Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies between the significant El Niño events of 1982/83, 1986/87/88, 1997/98, and 2009/10 are determined as follows. Using the NOAA Oceanic Nino Index(ONI) for the official months of those El Niño events, I shifted (lagged) those El Niño periods by six months to accommodate the lag between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the response of the Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, then deleted the Rest-Of-The-World data that corresponds to those significant El Niño events. I then averaged the Rest-Of-The-World SST anomalies between those El Niño-related gaps.

The “Nov 2010 to Present” average varies with each update. As noted in the post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World, it will be interesting to see where that Sea Surface Temperature anomaly average settles out, if it does, before the next significant El Niño drives them higher.

Of course, something could shift. Will the upward ratcheting continue when the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) decides to turn around and start its decline? The upward steps would not continue in the North Atlantic, but would the AMO impact the upward steps in other portions of the globe? For more information about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, refer to the post An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO — Part 2.

The Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the East Pacific Ocean, or approximately 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, have decreased slightly since 1982 based on the linear trend. And between upward shifts, the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the rest of the world (67% of the global ocean surface area) remain relatively flat. Anthropogenic forcings are said to be responsible for most of the rise in global surface temperatures over this period, but the Sea Surface Temperature anomaly graphs of those two areas prompt a two-part question: Since 1982, what anthropogenic global warming processes would overlook the Sea Surface Temperatures of 33% of the global oceans and have an impact on the other 67% but only during the months of the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10?

NOTE ABOUT THE DATA

The MONTHLY graphs illustrate raw monthly OI.v2 SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE anomaly data from November 1981 to January 2012, as it is presented by the NOAA NOMADS website linked at the end of the post. I’ve added the 13-month running-average filter to smooth out the seasonal variations.

MONTHLY INDIVIDUAL OCEAN AND HEMISPHERIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE UPDATES

(5) Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

Monthly Change = -0.039 deg C

####################################

(6) Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

Monthly Change = +0.014 deg C

####################################

(7) North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(0 to 70N, 80W to 0)

Monthly Change = +0.005 deg C

####################################

(8) South Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(0 to 60S, 70W to 20E)

Monthly Change = +0.144 deg C

Note: I discussed the (now apparently temporary) upward shift in the South Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature anomalies in the post The 2009/10 Warming Of The South Atlantic. It looks as though the South Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies MAYreturn to the level they were at before that surge, and where they had been since the late 1980s. We’ll have to see where things settle.

####################################

(9) North Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(0 to 65N, 100E to 90W)

Monthly Change = -0.026 Deg C

####################################

(10) South Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(0 to 60S, 120E to 70W)

Monthly Change = +0.031 deg C

####################################

(11) Indian Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(60S to 30N, 20E to 120E)

Monthly Change = -0.088 deg C

####################################

(12) Arctic Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(65N to 90N)

Monthly Change = -0.023 deg C

####################################

(13) Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(90S-60S)

Monthly Change = -0.099 deg C

####################################

WEEKLY SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES

The NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies based on the week centered on February 1, 2012 are still not showing signs of rebounding from the seasonal La Niña low. They are presently at -1.163 deg C.

(14) Weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

####################################

The weekly global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies are cycling and are at +0.029 deg C. As I noted last month, even though this La Niña event was not as strong as the one that occurred last year, the low for the weekly global sea surface temperatures this year are lower than last.

(15) Weekly Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

####################################

ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

SOURCE

The Reynolds Optimally Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature Data (OISST) are available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh

STANDARD OPENING PARAGRAPH

The January 2012 Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data through the NOAA NOMADS website won’t be official until Monday, February 6th. Refer to the schedule on the NOAA Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature Analysis Frequently Asked Questionswebpage. The following are the preliminary Global and NINO3.4 SST anomalies for January 2012 that the NOMADS website prepares based on incomplete data for the month. I’ve also included the weekly data through the week centered on January 25, 2012, but I’ve shortened the span of the weekly data, starting it in January 2004, so that the variations can be seen.

PRELIMINARY MONTHLY DATA

Based on the preliminary data, Monthly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are at -1.03 deg C. Monthly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are still bouncing back and forth at the threshold of a moderate La Niña. One would expect them to start rebounding next month.

Monthly NINO3.4 SST Anomalies

######################

The preliminary global SST anomaly has dropped to +0.029 deg C.

Monthly Global SST Anomalies

######################

WEEKLY DATA

The weekly NINO3.4 SST anomalies for the week centered on January 25, 2012 are still not showing any signs that the La Niña is weakening. They are at -1.12 deg C.

Weekly NINO3.4 SST Anomalies

######################

Weekly Global SST Anomalies have rebounded. They are presently at +0.069 deg C.

Weekly Global SST Anomalies

######################

ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

SOURCES

SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:

http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh

or:

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=

His comment is a great end to this series of posts. I’m going back to work on my long-term project.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

JJsays:

January 31, 2012 at 3:38 pm

LazyTeenager says:

Tamino was making a point that it is not legitimate to exaggerate the difference between graph trends by introducing arbitrary vertical offsets or using reduced time ranges.

Tamino’s point is inapplicable. The vertical offset is not an issue, unless the absolute magnitude of the divergence is the topic that the graph is intended to illustrate. It wasn’t. Bob spoke only of the comparison of slopes. His graph is appropriate for that discussion. It is not misleading.

Tamino’s post is misleading. He presents graphs that are only relevant to the discussion of the absolute magnitude of the divergence. That was not Bob’s point. Bob’s point was the comparison of slopes, and Tamino did not present the relevant slopes in his post. Doing so would have made Bob’s point, and Tamino’s irrelevant red herring, quite clear.

Grant Foster is smart enough that he doesn’t need to erect strawmen to conquer. It must be the overall deficiency of his position that causes him to do such things, huh?

OHC for the last ten years is proceeing on a much flatter trajectory than previously. And flatter than the model runs predict. That was, and remains, Bob’s point. He is absolutely correct about that, as this post and the two previous demonstrate. His question was, and remains, how much longer can this divergence persist before the model worshippers come down from the hill and perform the virual equivalent of the “Great Disappointment” response? It is a good question. You guys should answer it, rather than trying to distract from it.

Because when you attempt to distract from it, as Tamino has done here, you end up doing two things: 1) You look desperate, grasping at straws from which to construct sparring partners, and 2) you end up forcing guys like Bob into examining things that don’t turn out well for you. In his original post, he was not talking about the absolute magnitude of the OHC divergence, only the slopes. Off topic complaints forced him to address the former, and look what he found: Fig 9 above shows that in addition to being way off predicted slope for the last 10 years, the absolute value of the OHC has been below model predicted values for the last 15 years.

Add that to Bob’s question above.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

This post is a continuation of my post Tamino Once Again Misleads His Followers, which was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat here. There Tamino’s disciples and his other followers, one a post author at SkepticalScience, have generally been repeating their same tired arguments.

The debate is about my short-term, ARGO-era graph of NODC Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data versus the GISS climate model projection. This discussion is nothing new. It began in with Tamino’s unjustified May 9, 2011 post here about my simple graph. My May 13, 2011 reply to Tamino is here, and it was cross posted at WUWT on the same day here. Lucia Liljegren of The Blackboard added to the discussion here.

A graph that’s similar to the one Tamino and his disciples think is fake is shown in Figure 1. It’s similar but different, sort of a short-term OHC model-data comparison Modoki. We’ll get back to it.

Figure 1

First, let’s discuss…

…THE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS ERROR IN TAMINO’S RECENT FAILED CRITIQUE

Tamino’s recent failed critique is titled Fake Predictions for Fake Skeptics. Some people have noted that a fake climate skeptic would be an anthropogenic global warming proponent, but we’ll move on from the implications of that.

Tamino linked to the NODC Ocean Heat Content webpage as the source of his data. There, the NODC provides a spreadsheet of their global OHC data (here). Tamino presents a few preliminary graphs and observes:

Note that there’s a decided hot fluctuation in 2003. So we’ll “predict” the time span 2003 to the present, based on data from 1993 to 2003.

His next graph (my Figure 2) is identified only with the heading of “Ocean heat content 0-700m”. It includes a linear trend that Tamino claims is “based on data from 1993 to 2003”. The length of the trend line is assumedly based on the same period as data. But the period of his trend line does not include the “decided hot fluctuation in 2003.”

Figure 2 (Tamino’s 3^rdgraph)

Tamino’s next graph, my Figure 3, includes an extension of his linear trend. In addition to the heading, the graph identifies the red trend line as “fit 1993-2003”, but his “fit 1993-2003” still does not include the “decided hot fluctuation in 2003.”

Figure 3 (Tamino’s 4^rdgraph)

In the paragraph after that graph, Tamino states:

We can see that observations don’t follow the prediction exactly — of course! The main difference is that during 2003, the observations were hotter than the prediction. For that time span at least, the oceans had more heat than predicted.

He reinforces that the 2003 data is warmer, yet he and his disciples fail to observe that the 2003 data is not included in his “fit 1993-2003”.

The NODC clearly marks their quarterly data in the spreadsheet they provide here. The Global OHC value at 2002-12 is 6.368768 [*10^22 Joules], and the value at 2003-12 is clearly marked 11.6546 [*10^22 Joules]. But the data included in Tamino’s trend does not include the 4^thquarter 2003 data at 11.6546 [*10^22 Joules].

If you’re having trouble seeing that, Figure 4 is similar to Tamino’s graph with the hash marks included. It shows the trend based on the period of 1993 to 2002.

Figure 4

And Figure 5 gives you an idea what Tamino’s graph would look like if he had actually included 2003 data in his trend.

Figure 5

Animation 1 compares the two. (You may need to click on it to get the animation to work.)

Animation 1

How could Tamino and his disciples have missed such an obvious mistake? Some of you might even think it wasn’t a mistake on Tamino’s part, and that his disciples purposely overlooked that blatant error. I’m sure you’ll have a few comments about that.

HANSEN ET AL (2005) OFFSETS THE OHC DATA

A recent comment noted that the observations-based dataset in Hansen et al (2005) was not NODC OHC data, that it was the OHC data based on Willis et al (2004). I never stated that I was providing Willis et al (2004) data. My OHC update posts have always been about the NODC dataset.

My Figure 6 is Figure 2 from Hansen et al (2005). Note that the data starts at about zero watt-years/m^2 in 1993. And my Figure 7 is Figure 3 from Willis et al (2004). Note that the Willis et al data starts at -1 * 10^8 Joules/m^2 at 1993. Hansen et al converted the data, which is not in question since I’ve done the same thing, and Hansen et al have offset the data, which I have done also.

Figure 6

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Figure 7

Mysteriously, Hansen et al can shift the data without comment from Tamino, but when I do it, it’s interpreted by Tamino and his disciples, and by those from SkepticalScience, as a fake graph.

THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE THE MODELS TO THE OBSERVATIONS-BASED OHC DATA

Obviously, the best way to present the GISS Model-ER projection for Ocean Heat Content would be to use the actual GISS Model-ER data. The RealClimate annual model-data updates here and herepresent the Model-ER data. But the Model-ER OHC simulations are not available in an easy-to-use format like at the KNMI Climate Explorer. If it was available, all of this nonsense about my shifting data, my misrepresenting data, etc., would disappear. Why?

I have stated in comments at WUWT that I would use the ensemble mean of the Model-ER data and the NODC OHC observations for my future model-data comparisons. I’ve also stated I would use the base years of 1955-2010 to avoid the possibility of being accused of cherry-picking the base years.

Why? I presented this in a June 14, 2011post. And that post has been linked to all OHC updates since then.

Figure 8 is a graph from a 2008 presentation by Gavin Schmidt of GISS. It includes the OHC simulations of the Model-ER for the period of 1955 to 2010, which is the model data shown in the RealClimate model-data posts. It also includes the older version of the global NODC OHC data.

Figure 8

If we:

1. replicate the ensemble mean data of the GISS Model-ER,

2. replace the older NODC OHC data with the current version, and

3. use the base years of 1955-2010 so that no one can complain about cherry-picked base years,

Figure 9 would be a reasonable facsimile of the long-term comparison from 1955 to 2010. Notice where the ensemble mean of the GISS Model-ER intersects with the data near the ARGO era. Sure looks like 2003 to me. Figure 1 at the top of this post confirms how closely the GISS Model-ER would intersect with the NODC OHC data at 2003.

Figure 9

That graph in Figure 1 looks familiar, doesn’t it? It sure does look like the ARGO-era graphthat Tamino and his disciples dislike so much.

MY OFFER

In my January 28, 2012 at 6:18 pmcomment at the WUWT cross post I wrote the following:

I offered in a comment above to use the base years of 1955-2011 for my short-term ARGO-era model-data comparison. That way there can be no claims that I’ve cherry picked the base years or shifted the data inappropriately. I do not have the capability to process the GISS Model-ER OHC hindcast and projection data from the CMIP3 archive. So I cannot create the ensemble member mean of the global data, on a monthly basis, for the period of 1955 to present. But some of you do have that capability. You could end the debate.

If you choose to do so, please make available online for all who wish to use it the Global GISS Model-ER hindcast/projection ensemble member data on a monthly basis from 1955 to present, or as far into the future as you decide.

I will revise my recent OHC update and reuse that model data for future OHC updates. That way we don’t have to go through this every time I use that ARGO-era comparison graph as the initial graph in my OHC updates.

Fair enough?

Any takers?

CLOSING

I know the trend of the OHC data is not the model mean, but for those who are wondering what Tamino’s NODC OHC graph might have looked like if he had actually included the 1993 through 2003 data in his trend AND then compared it to the period of 2003 to 2011, refer to Figure 10. 

Figure 10

And if he had lopped off the data before 2003, because it isn’t presented in the graph that he complains about so much, the result would look like Figure 11.

Figure 11

My blog post October to December 2011 NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomalies (0-700Meters) Update and Comments was cross posted by at WattsUpWithThat here. (As always, thanks, Anthony.) Starting at the January 27, 2012 at 8:44 am comment by J Bowers, I was informed of a critique of my ARGO-era model-data comparison graph by the Tamino titled Fake Predictions for Fake Skeptics. Oddly, Tamino does not provide a link to my post or the cross post at WattsUpWithThat, nor does Tamino’s post refer to me by name. But I believe it would be safe to say that Tamino was once again commenting on my graph that compares ARGO-era NODC Ocean Heat Content data to the climate model projection from Hansen et al (2005), “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications”. If he wasn’t, then Tamino fooled three persons who provided the initial comments about Tamino’s post on the WUWT thread and the few more who referred to Tamino’s post afterwards. The ARGO-era graph in question is shown again here as Figure 1. Thanks for the opportunity to post it once again up front in this post, Tamino.

Figure 1

Take a few seconds to read Tamino’s post, it’s not very long, and look at the graphs he presented in it.

My graph in Figure 1 is clearly labeled “ARGO-Era Global Ocean Heat Content Model-Data Comparison”. The title block lists the two datasets as NODC/Levitus et al (2009) and Hansen et al (2005) Model Mean Trend. It states that the Model Mean Trend and Observations had been Zeroed At Jan 2003. Last, the title block lists the time period of the monthly data as January 2003 to December 2011.

In other words, my graph in Figure 1 pertains to the ARGO-based OHC data and the GISS model projection starting in 2003. It does not represent the OHC data or the GISS model hindcast for the periods of 1993-2011 or 1955-2011, which are the periods Tamino chose to discuss.

Do any of the graphs in Tamino’s post list the same information in their title blocks? No. Do any of Tamino’s graphs compare the climate model projection from Hansen et al (2005) to the NODC OHC observations? No. Does Tamino refer to Hansen et al (2005) in his post? No. Do any of Tamino’s graphs present the NODC OHC data or the Hansen et al model projection during the ARGO-era, starting in January 2003 and ending in December 2011? No.

In other words, Tamino redirected the discussion from the ARGO-era period of 2003-2011 to other periods starting in 1955 and 1993. ARGO floats were not in use in 1955 and they were still not in use in 1993. He also redirected the discussion from the projection of the GISS model mean to the linear trend of the data itself. Yet Tamino’s followers fail to grasp the obvious differences between his post and my ARGO-era graph.

In my post, I explained quite clearly why I presented the ARGO-era model-data comparison with the data zeroed at 2003. Refer to the discussion under the heading of STANDARD DISCUSSION ABOUT ARGO-ERA MODEL-DATA COMPARISON. Basically, Hansen et al (2005) apparently zeroed their model mean and the NODC OHC data in 1993 to show how well their model matched the OHC data from 1993 to 2003. Hansen et al explained why they excluded the almost 40 years of OHC and hindcast data. The primary reason was their model could not reproduce the hump in the older version of the Levitus et al OHC data. Refer to Figure 2, which is a graph from a 2008 presentation by Gavin Schmidt of GISS. (See page 8 of GISS ModelE: MAP Objectives and Results.) I presented that same graph graph by Gavin in my post GISS OHC Model Trends: One Question Answered, Another Uncovered, which was linked in my OHC update from a few days ago.

Figure 2

I zeroed the data for my graph in 2003, which is the end year of the Hansen et al (2005) graph, to show how poorly the model projection matched the data during the ARGO-era, from 2003 to present. In other words, to show that the ARGO-era OHC data was diverging from the model projection. Hansen et al (2005), as the authors of their paper, chose the year they apparently zeroed the data for one reason; I, as the author of my post, chose another year for another reason. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for Tamino to understand.

And then there’s Tamino’s post, which does not present the same comparison. He did, however, present data the way he wanted to present it. It’s pretty simple when you think about it. We all presented data the way we wanted to present it.

Some of the readers might wonder why Tamino failed to provide a similar ARGO-era comparison in his post. Could it be because he was steering clear of the fact that it doesn’t make any difference where the model projection intersects with the data when the trends are compared for the ARGO-era period of 2003 to 2011? See Figure 3. The trend of the model projection is still 3.5 times higher than the ARGO-era OHC trend. Note that I provided a similar graph to Figure 3 in my first response to his complaints about that ARGO-era OHC model-data comparison. See Figure 8 in my May 13, 2011 post On Tamino’s Post “Favorite Denier Tricks Or How To Hide The Incline”.

Figure 3

Figure 3 shows the ARGO-era OHC data diverging from the model projection. But the visual effect of that divergence is not a clear as it is in Figure 1. I presented the data in Figure 1 so that it provided the clearest picture of what I wanted to show, the divergence. That really should be obvious to anyone who looks at Figure 1.

Some might think Figure 1 is misleading. The reality is, those illustrating data present it so that it provides the best visual expression of the statement they are trying to make. The climate model-based paper Hansen et al (2005) deleted almost 40 years of data and appear to have zeroed their data at 1993 so that they could present their models in the best possible light. Base years are also chosen for other visual effects. The IPCC’s Figure 9.5 from AR4 (presented here as Figure 4) is a prime example. Refer to the IPCC’s discussion of it here.

Figure 4

The Hadley Centre presents their anomalies with the base years of 1961-1990. Why did the IPCC use 1901-1950? The answer is obvious. The earlier years were cooler and using 1901-1950 instead of 1961-1990 shifts the HADCRUT3 data up more than 0.2 deg C. In other words, the early base years make the HADCRUT anomaly data APPEAR warmer. It also brings the first HADCRUT3 data point close to a zero deg C anomaly, and that provides another visual effect: the normalcy of the early data.

Base years for anomalies are the choice of the person or organization presenting the data. Climate modelers choose to present their models in the best light; I do not.

Those familiar with the history of Tamino’s complaints about my posts understand they are simply attempts by him to mislead or misdirect his readers. And sometimes he makes blatantly obvious errors like using the wrong sea surface temperature dataset in a comparison with GISS LOTI data. His post Fake Predictions for Fake Skepticsis just another failed critique to add to the list.

ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

SOURCE

The NODC OHC data used in this post is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

The National Oceanographic Data Center’s (NODC) Ocean Heat Content (OHC) anomaly data for the depths of 0-700 meters are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer Monthly observations webpage. The NODC OHC dataset is based on the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content (1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems”. Refer to Manuscript. It was revised in 2010 as noted in the October 18, 2010 post Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data. As described in the NODC’s explanation of ocean heat content (OHC) data changes, the changes result from “data additions and data quality control,” from a switch in base climatology, and from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations.

The NODC provides its OHC anomaly data on a quarterly basis. At the NODC website it is available globally and for the ocean basins in terms of 10^22 Joules. The KNMI Climate Explorer presents the quarterly data on a monthly basis. That is, the value for a quarter is provided for each of the three months that make up the quarter, which is why the data in the following graphs appear to have quarterly steps. Furnishing the OHC data in a monthly format allows comparisons to monthly datasets. The data is also provided on a Gigajoules per square meter (GJ/m^2) basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer, which allows for direct comparisons of ocean basins, for example, without having to account for surface area.

This update includes the data through the quarter of October to December 2011.

Let’s start the post with a couple of looks at the ARGO-era OHC anomalies.

ARGO-ERA OCEAN HEAT CONTENT MODEL-DATA COMPARISON

I’ve started the post with a graph that gets people riled up for some reason.

Figure 1 compares the ARGO-era Ocean Heat Content observations to an extension of the linear trend of the climate models presented in Hansen et al (2005) for the period of 1993 to 2003. Over that period, the modeled OHC rose at 0.6 watt-years per year. I’ve converted the watt-years to Gigajoules using the conversion factor readily available through Google: 1 watt years = 31,556,926 joules. Even with the recent uptick in Global Ocean Heat Content anomalies, the trend of the GISS projection is still 3.5 times higher than the observed trend.

Figure 1

################################

STANDARD DISCUSSION ABOUT ARGO-ERA MODEL-DATA COMPARISON

Many of you will recall the discussions generated by the simple short-term comparison graph of the GISS climate model projection for global OHC versus the actual observations, which are comparatively flat. The graph is solely intended to show that since 2003 global ocean heat content (OHC) anomalies have not risen as fast as a GISS climate model projection. Tamino, after seeing the short-term model-data comparison graph in a few posts, wrote the unjustified Favorite Denier Tricks, or How to Hide the Incline. I responded with On Tamino’s Post “Favorite Denier Tricks Or How To Hide The Incline”. And Lucia Liljegren joined the discussion with her post Ocean Heat Content Kerfuffle. Much of Tamino’s post had to do with my zeroing the model-mean trend and OHC data in 2003.

While preparing the post GISS OHC Model Trends: One Question Answered, Another Uncovered, I reread the paper that presented the GISS Ocean Heat Content model: Hansen et al (2005), “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications”.Hansen et al (2005) provided a model-data comparison graph to show how well the model matched the OHC data. Figure 2 in this post is Figure 2 from that paper. As shown, they limited the years to 1993 to 2003 even though the NODC OHC data starts in 1955. Hansen et al (2005) chose 1993 as the start year for three reasons. First, they didn’t want to show how poorly the models hindcasted the early version of the NODC OHC data in the 1970s and 1980s. The models could not recreate the hump that existed in the early version of the OHC data. Second, at that time, the OHC sampling was best over the period of 1993 to 2003. Third, there were no large volcanic eruptions to perturb the data. But what struck me was how Hansen et al (2005) presented the data in their time-series graph. They appear to have zeroed the model ensemble mean and the observations at 1993.5. The very obvious reason they zeroed the data then was so to show how well OHC models matched the data from 1993 to 2003.

Figure 2

################################

The ARGO-era model-data comparison graph in this post, Figure 1, is also zeroed at a start year, 2003, but I’ve done that to show how poorly the models now match the data. I’m not sure why my zeroing the data in 2003 is so difficult for some people to accept. Hansen et al (2005) zeroed at 1993 to show how well the models recreated the rise in OHC from 1993 to 2003, but some bloggers attempt to criticize my graphs when I zero the data in 2003 to show how poorly the models match the data after that. The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003? Apparently not. This was discussed further in the post Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?

HOW LONG UNTIL THE MODELS ARE SAID TO HAVE FAILED? (STANDARD DISCUSSION)

I asked the question in Figure 1, If The Observations Continue To Diverge From The Model Projection, How Many Years Are Required Until The Model Can Be Said To Have Failed? I raised a similar question in the post 2nd Quarter 2011 NODC Global OHC Anomalies, and in the WattsUpWithThat cross post Global Ocean Heat Content Is Still Flat, a blogger stated, in effect, that 8 ½ years was not long enough to reject the models.If we scroll up to Figure 2 [Figure 2 from Hansen et al (2005)], we can see that Hansen et al (2005) used only 11 years to confirm their Model E hindcast was a good match for the Global Ocean Heat Content anomaly observations. Can we then assume that the same length of time will be long enough to say the model has failed during the ARGO era?

And as noted in a number of recent OHC updates, it’s really a moot point. Hansen et al (2005) shows that the model mean has little-to-no basis in reality. They describe their Figure 3 (provided here as my Figure 3 in modified form) as:

“Figure 3 compares the latitude-depth profile of the observed ocean heat content change with the five climate model runs and the mean of the five runs. There is a large variability among the model runs, revealing the chaotic ‘ocean weather’ fluctuations that occur on such a time scale. This variability is even more apparent in maps of change in ocean heat content (fig. S2). Yet the model runs contain essential features of observations, with deep penetration of heat anomalies at middle to high latitudes and shallower anomalies in the tropics.”

I’ve deleted the illustrations of the individual model runs in my Figure 3 for an easier visual comparison of the graphics of the observations and the model mean. I see no similarities between the two. None.

Figure 3

BASIN TREND COMPARISONS

Figures 4 and 5 compare OHC anomaly trends for the ocean basins, with the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean also divided by hemisphere. Figure 4 shows the ARGO-era data, starting in 2003, and Figure 5 covers the full term of the dataset, 1955 to present. The basin with the greatest short-term ARGO-era trend is the Indian Ocean, but it has a long-term trend that isn’t exceptional. (The green Indian Ocean trend line is hidden by the dark blue Arctic Ocean trend line in Figure 5.)

STANDARD NOTE ABOUT THE NORTH ATLANTIC: The basin with the greatest rise since 1955 is the North Atlantic, but it also has the largest drop during the ARGO-era. Much of the long-term rise and the short-term flattening in Global OHC are caused by the North Atlantic. If the additional long-term rise and the recent short-term decline in the North Atlantic OHC are functions of additional multidecadal variability similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, how long will the recent flattening of the Global OHC persist? A couple of decades?

Note also in the ARGO-era graph, Figure 4, that, in addition to the North Atlantic, there are three other ocean basins where Ocean Heat Content has dropped during the ARGO era: the North Pacific, South Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. We could assume the Arctic data is, in part, responding to the drop in the North Atlantic. But that still leaves the declines in the North and South Pacific unexplained.

Figure 4

################################

Figure 5

################################

Further discussions of the North Atlantic OHC anomaly data refer to North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables. And if you’re investigating the impacts of natural variables on OHC anomalies, also consider North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s and ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data.

GLOBAL

The Global OHC data through December 2011 is shown in Figure 6. Even with the recent correction and uptick in the two quarters of this year, Global Ocean Heat Content continues to be remarkably flat since 2003, especially when one considers the magnitude of the rise that took place during the 1980s and 1990s.

Figure 6

################################

TROPICAL PACIFIC

Figure 7 illustrates the Tropical Pacific OHC anomalies (24S-24N, 120E-90W). The major variations in tropical Pacific OHC are related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Tropical Pacific OHC drops during El Niño events and rises during La Niña events. As discussed in the updates since late last year, the Tropical Pacific has not as of yet rebounded as one would have expected during the 2010/11 and 2011/12 La Niña events. In other words, the 2010/11 and 2011/12 La Niña events have done little to recharge the heat discharged during the 2009/10 El Nino.

Figure 7

################################

For more information on the effects of ENSO on global Ocean Heat Content, refer to ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data and to the animations in ARGO-Era NODC Ocean Heat Content Data (0-700 Meters) Through December 2010.

THE HEMISPHERES AND THE OCEAN BASINS

The following graphs illustrate the long-term NODC OHC anomalies for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and for the individual ocean basins.

(8) Northern Hemisphere

#################################

(9) Southern Hemisphere

#################################

(10) North Atlantic (0 to 70N, 80W to 0)

#################################

(11) South Atlantic (0 to 60S, 70W to 20E)

#################################

(12) North Pacific (0 to 65N, 100 to 270E, where 270E=90W)

#################################

(13) South Pacific (0 to 60S, 120E to 290E, where 290E=70W)

#################################

(14) Indian (60S-30N, 20E-120E)

#################################

(15) Arctic Ocean (65 to 90N)

#################################

(16) Southern Ocean (60 to 90S)

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

SOURCE

All data used in this post is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies (a commonly used El Niño-Southern Oscillation Index) are still varying back and forth across the threshold of a moderate La Niña. This past week they dropped below again. For the week centered on January 18, 2012, NINO3.4 SST anomalies are approximately -1.13 deg C.

NINO3.4 SST Anomalies – Short-Term

GLOBAL

Weekly Global SST anomalies appear as though they may have bottomed out for the season. We’ll be able to tell for sure over the next few weeks.

Global SST Anomalies – Short-Term

THE WIGGLE OBSERVERS HAVEN’T COMMENTED ABOUT THIS YET

The 2010/11 La Niña was a moderate event, while the La Niña this year will be classified as a weak one. Note, however, that the Global sea surface temperature anomalies have dropped lower in response to this La Niña than the last one. That’s a curiosity.

NOTE

This weekly Reynolds OI.v2 SST dataset begins in 1990. I’ve started the graphs in 2004 to make the weekly variations visible.

ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

SOURCE

OI.v2 SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS system:

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite