If Manmade Greenhouse Gases Are Responsible for the Warming of the Global Oceans…

…then why do the vertical mean temperature anomalies (NODC 0-2000 meter data) of the Pacific Ocean as a whole and of the North Atlantic fail to show any warming over the past decade, a period when ARGO floats have measured subsurface temperatures, providing reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans?  See Figure 1. Or, in other words, why is the warming of the global oceans (0-2000 meters) over the past 10 years limited to the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, when carbon dioxide is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas, meaning all ocean basins should be warming?

Figure 1

Or, to look at it in yet another way, we’re being told that, while surface temperatures are no longer warming, the oceans to depth continue to warm…yet the warming is not occurring in the largest ocean basin, the Pacific, and the North Atlantic is showing evidence of cooling.

Additionally, Kevin Trenberth and associates say the recent series of La Niña events are causing the Pacific Ocean to warm at depths below 700 meters, and as a result, global warming continues.  See:

• Meehl et al (2013)
• Balmaseda et al. (2013)
• Trenberth and Fasullo (2013)

Why then has the annual vertical mean temperatures of the Pacific Ocean (0-2000 meters) failed to show any warming over the past decade?  The data for the Pacific Ocean (0-700 meters, 0-2000 meters and 700-2000 meters) in Figure 2 reveals something different than portrayed by Trenberth and associates.

Figure 2

The data for the Pacific indicates that any warming at 700-2000 meters has simply opposed the cooling taking place in the top 700 meters. (Note: The basis for the temperature anomalies at the depths of 700-2000 meters is discussed in the post here.)

No wonder Trenberth had to use a reanalysis (instead of data) for his recent batch of “hey, I kinda-sorta found the missing heat” papers.

When the data doesn’t meet the climate model-based expectations of the climate science community, the climate science community adjusts the data.  Then, when the adjusted data doesn’t meet the climate model-based expectations of the climate science community, the climate science community discards the data and uses the output of another computer model called a reanalysis.   Bottom line: instead of admitting the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is fatally flawed, they perpetuate a myth.

A QUICK NOTE ABOUT THE VERTICAL MEAN TEMPERATURE DATA

The NODC’s vertical mean temperature data are the temperature component of their ocean heat content data. The other portion is salinity.

ADDITIONAL READING

Ocean heat content data, and the components that are part of it, are questionable at best, contrived at worst. For further information see:

• Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?  (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
• NODC’s Pentadal Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000m) Creates Warming That Doesn’t Exist in the Annual Data – A Lot of Warming  (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
• A Different Perspective on Trenberth’s Missing Heat: The Warming of the Global Oceans (0 to 2000 Meters) in Deg C  (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
• Rough Estimate of the Annual Changes in Ocean Temperatures from 700 to 2000 Meters Based on NODC Data  (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
• AMAZING: The IPCC May Have Provided Realistic Presentations of Ocean Heat Content Source Data  (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
• Comments on Stefan Rahmstorf’s Post at RealClimate “What ocean heating reveals about global warming”  (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
• Trenberth and Fasullo Try to Keep the Fantasy Alive  (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)
• More on Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) “An Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming?”  (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)