ARGO-Era Start Year: 2003 vs 2004

I explained in great detail why I used 2003 as the start for the ARGO-era Global Ocean Heat Content data for past posts in On Tamino’s Post “Favorite Denier Tricks Or How To Hide The Incline. I held a graph back from that post. It would have been fitting for it, but I elected to sit on graph until the arguments subsided. I believe they’ve ended on that thread. So now I can make a final point (and once again show the disparity between the observations and the extrapolations of the GISS model OHC projections).

The ARGO-buoy contribution to observations was so small in 2002, especially in the waters of the Southern Hemisphere, that it was not considered as a start year. The other year that might have been appropriate was 2004.

So let’s visually compare the linear trends of the Global OHC data with the start years of 2003 and 2004. And to put things in perspective, I’ve also included the linear trends of the extrapolations of the Hansen-Pielke Sr post and of the RealClimate model-data post.

That’s what all of the hubbub was about, a minimal difference in the trends of the short-term observations when compared to difference between the observations and the model projections.

Data sources and further discussions can be found in On Tamino’s Post “Favorite Denier Tricks Or How To Hide The Incline”

Advertisements

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 CAGW Proponent Arguments, Ocean Heat Content Problems, OHC Update. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to ARGO-Era Start Year: 2003 vs 2004

  1. CoRev says:

    I see kdkd has no response.

  2. Don B says:

    In the graph’s heading did you mean to write 1stQ 2004 – 1stQ 2010, rather than 2011?

  3. Bob Tisdale says:

    Don B: The NODC recently updated its Ocean Heat content data through the 1st quarter of 2011, so the graphs are correct.

    Regards

  4. Don B says:

    Right, I assumed the graph was correct, but the heading says 1stQ 2010.

  5. Bob Tisdale says:

    Don B: Thanks. I missed it the first time and the second.

    It’s fixed.

    Thanks again.

  6. Ruhroh says:

    Bob;
    I’m interested in your take on the recent (May 2011) ‘Hansen et aliam’ paper, which seems to (in some way) address the OHC ‘dilemma’ which generated so much heated vacuousity in the prior post.

    How’s this for a terse restatement;
    ~’ Previous overestimates of OHC uptake caused underestimation of aerosol effects. In order to maintain the GHG contribution and ‘climate sensitivity’ factor, we must now revise our aerosol estimates.’

    Is it your impression that Hansen is ~acknowledging the thing that kdkd was so energetically minimizing?
    As this is not strictly a numerical data analysis question and more of a ‘political’ question, I realize you might not wish to comment.

    Anyway, I like the analyses you run, particularly those fine animated gifs.
    RR

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    Ruhroh says: “I’m interested in your take on the recent (May 2011) ‘Hansen et aliam’ paper, which seems to (in some way) address the OHC ‘dilemma’ which generated so much heated vacuousity in the prior post.”

    Hansen et al stated what is obvious to many of us on page 35, “The observed rate of ocean heat uptake since 2003 is less than in the preceding 10 years. Indeed, early reports suggested ocean cooling after 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006). That apparent cooling was a result of instrumental artifacts, but even after corrections the rate of heat uptake was smaller than in the prior decade (Willis et al., 2007). Observational error makes it difficult to measure heat uptake on short time scales, especially pre-Argo, but the slowdown in heat uptake since 2003 seems to be robust (Levitus et al., 2009; Lyman et al., 2010).”

    Hansen et al also use a running 6-year trend as a method of illustrating heat uptake, where I get grief for presenting an 8-year trend.

    I assume you’ve also seen the post that discusses their very curious Mount Pinatubo rebound effect:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/notes-on-hansen-et-al-2011-earths-energy-imbalance-and-implications/

  8. Ruhroh says:

    Bob,
    Yes, I had read it but I ended up with glazed-over eyeballs.
    I realize it is not your style to make terse, pithy restatements of diffuse bloviation, and didn’t really expect it. But I need to get to a 50 word version of the essence, if I am going to fit it in my brain.

    I realize that you pointed out some key intrinsic flaws in his chain of linked ideas, but maybe not the big one.
    Are they saying that aerosol effects must be dramatically revised to rebalance their ‘calorimeter’ and keep GHG up as a big factor which is being neutralized ‘for now’ by aerosols? I guess I need to read their text.

    Glad to give you a reason to point out that Hansen forms conclusions about a 6 year trend, where you got heat for merely drawing the 8 year version of the ~same thing…
    RR

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    Ruhroh says: “Are they saying that aerosol effects must be dramatically revised to rebalance their ‘calorimeter’ and keep GHG up as a big factor which is being neutralized ‘for now’ by aerosols?”

    I believe that’s a reasonable summary of the aerosol portion of that paper.

  10. Pingback: 2nd Quarter 2011 NODC Global OHC Anomalies | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  11. Pingback: Global Ocean Heat Content Is Still Flat | Watts Up With That?

  12. Pingback: Argo, profiled … Tisdale corrects | pindanpost

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