I’ve moved to WordPress: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/

Friday, December 24, 2010

Links To NODC Ocean Heat Content Posts

I’ve moved to WordPress.  This post can now be found at Links To NODC Ocean Heat Content Posts
######################
The National Oceanographic Data Center calculated and maintains an OCEAN HEAT CONTENT (OHC) dataset. This is the dataset based on the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems”, Geophysical Research Letters. Refer to Manuscript.

The NODC OHC data is available through the KMNI Climate Explorer, which is the source of the data presented in the following posts.

THE IMPACTS OF NATURAL VARIABLES
A. ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data

B. North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s

C. North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables

QUARTERLY UPDATES OF NODC (LEVITUS ET AL 2009) OHC DATA SINCE JANUARY 2010

March 17, 2011 - October to December 2010 NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700Meters) Update and Comments


October 18, 2010 - Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data

June 27, 2010- January To March 2010 NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700m) Update And Comments

February 5, 2010 - OHC Linear Trends and Recent Update of NODC OHC (0-700 Meters) Data

January 31, 2010 - NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) - 2007, 2008 & 2009 Corrections
ARGO-ERA POST
ARGO-Era NODC Ocean Heat Content Data (0-700 Meters) Through December 2010

6 comments:

aber said...

Hi Bob,
are there any good reasons, why one should trust any data that claim to present the “ocean heat content”. I know of the value that ship SST data have had for the daily weather analysis during the last 150 years, but I have the greatest difficulties to see that there is nowadays the slightest possibility to say anything about the “ocean heat content”. This is not a matter whether it would be “the best means to diagnose global warming, a proposed e.g. by Prof. Roger Pielke Sr. (FN. 1), but a question whether that is in anyway possible today, which seem to lack a critical assessment.

Meanwhile satellite measurements and the Argo network is a superb improvement from the days of data collection by merchant shipping, that can nevertheless in no way be regarded as sufficient to get any reasonable information about the ocean heat content. There are about 3000 units operating, restricted to a depths of 700 metres, where one would presumably need a million devices, and at least partially over the full ocean depths range. The data would be needed for thousands of specific sea areas, and presumably in tenth, or even hundredth degree. With regard to the size, structure, movement, and distribution of the ocean water masses, it seems not only absolute meaningless to provide any figure on ‘ocean heat content’, but also irresponsible, as this will never be possible, and if, it would not make any sense. What would we understand better if we would know that the average temperature of the ocean of about 4°C has increased by a decimal figure?

No doubt, the value of the ARGO network (e.g. with the recent discovery of “Mysterious currents in our oceans” , FN 2) is immeasurable. However, with regard to the “ocean heat content” there is –IMO- nothing available today, neither in the nearer future, which is capable to provide (directly or by data modelling) any reasonable figures that could rectify to refer to the subject in the way as done e.g. by NOAA, or Prof Pielke Sr.
Thanks for your kind attention, and invaluable contribution on ocean matters,
best wishes for a fine, and successful Year 2011,
Arnd Bernaerts
http://www.oceanclimate.de/


FN. 1: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/misinformation-on-the-website-skeptical-science-getting-skeptical-about-global-warming-skepticism/; Excerpt: “However, the ocean heat content provides the most appropriate metric to diagnosis global warming in recent (since ~2004 when the Argo network became sufficiently dense) and upcoming years, as recommended, of example, in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. “
FN 2: April 2008: UNI Hawaii, http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/ under NEWS: “Mysterious currents in our oceans: ” http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/soest_web/images/Maximenko_Uga_eqrec_1000px.jpg

aber said...

Hi Bob,
are there any good reasons, why one should trust any data that claim to present the “ocean heat content”. I know of the value that ship SST data have had for the daily weather analysis during the last 150 years, but I have the greatest difficulties to see that there is nowadays the slightest possibility to say anything about the “ocean heat content”. This is not a matter whether it would be “the best means to diagnose global warming, a proposed e.g. by Prof. Roger Pielke Sr. (FN. 1), but a question whether that is in anyway possible today, which seem to lack a critical assessment.

Meanwhile satellite measurements and the Argo network is a superb improvement from the days of data collection by merchant shipping, that can nevertheless in no way be regarded as sufficient to get any reasonable information about the ocean heat content. There are about 3000 units operating, restricted to a depths of 700 metres, where one would presumably need a million devices, and at least partially over the full ocean depths range. The data would be needed for thousands of specific sea areas, and presumably in tenth, or even hundredth degree. With regard to the size, structure, movement, and distribution of the ocean water masses, it seems not only absolute meaningless to provide any figure on ‘ocean heat content’, but also irresponsible, as this will never be possible, and if, it would not make any sense. What would we understand better if we would know that the average temperature of the ocean of about 4°C has increased by a decimal figure?
___FN. 1: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/misinformation-on-the-website-skeptical-science-getting-skeptical-about-global-warming-skepticism/; Excerpt: “However, the ocean heat content provides the most appropriate metric to diagnosis global warming in recent (since ~2004 when the Argo network became sufficiently dense) and upcoming years, as recommended, of example, in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. “
CONTINUES (next email)

aber said...

CONT from pervious email
No doubt, the value of the ARGO network (e.g. with the recent discovery of “Mysterious currents in our oceans” , FN 2) is immeasurable. However, with regard to the “ocean heat content” there is –IMO- nothing available today, neither in the nearer future, which is capable to provide (directly or by data modelling) any reasonable figures that could rectify to refer to the subject in the way as done e.g. by NOAA, or Prof Pielke Sr.
Thanks for your kind attention, and invaluable contribution on ocean matters,
best wishes for a fine, and successful Year 2011,
Arnd Bernaerts
http://www.oceanclimate.de/


FN 2: April 2008: UNI Hawaii, http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/ under NEWS: “Mysterious currents in our oceans: ” http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/soest_web/images/Maximenko_Uga_eqrec_1000px.jpg

Bob Tisdale said...

aber: Sorry. Your comments got stuck in a filter due to the links and I didn't check until today.

Your question: "are there any good reasons, why one should trust any data that claim to present the 'ocean heat content'."

Like all datasets, one has to understand the basis for the data and deficiencies in the data. One can use the NODC OHC data for rough comparisons but as you're aware it's a dataset based on very little source data and the source data has its problems.

aber said...

Thanks a lot,
Here is a image published by SKEPTICALSCIENCE yesterday(04Jan) http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_500.jpg with the caption: Figure 1: Build-up in total Earth Heat Content since 1950. The data comes from Figure 6b in Murphy 2009. The ocean data was taken from Domingues et al. 2008.ABOUT global cooling predictions: http://www.skepticalscience.com/not-so-cool-predictions.html

Bob Tisdale said...

aber: The vast majority of the rise in OHC can be explained as responses to natural variables, as shown in the posts linked to this one.

Donations

Tips are now being accepted.

Comment Policy, SST Posts, and Notes

Comments that are political in nature or that have nothing to do with the post will be deleted.
####
The Smith and Reynolds SST Posts DOES NOT LIST ALL SST POSTS. I stopped using ERSST.v2 data for SST when NOAA deleted it from NOMADS early in 2009.

Please use the search feature in the upper left-hand corner of the page for posts on specific subjects.
####
NOTE: I’ve discovered that some of the links to older posts provide blank pages. While it’s possible to access that post by scrolling through the history, that’s time consuming. There’s a quick fix for the problem, so if you run into an absent post, please advise me. Thanks.
####
If you use the graphs, please cite or link to the address of the blog post or this website.