RSS web feed
Ocean Heat Down, Sea Level Flat?
From 1993 to 2003, the upper ocean gained 8.1 (~1.4) x 1022 J of heat (Willis et al. 2004). Craig Loehle’s new study now estimates a loss since then of from 0.668 to 2.48 x 1022 J, or 19.4% (up to 31%) of the gain of the prior decade. The big ranges (0.668 to 2.48) show the amount of uncertainty a single sceptical study still accounts for (Loehle is anti-hockeystick, remember), while the mainstream still doesn’t accept that there is a loss of heat at all.
ABSTRACT “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003″
Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (~0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years…
…for example with Ishii and Kimoto (2008)?:
Graph: Time series of monthly tide gauge sea level anomaly (dotted) and thermosteric sea level anomalies estimated from the ver. 6.3 analysis without the XBT and MBT depth bias correction (thin solid) and from that of the ver. 6.7 with the correction. The values are 13-month running means of sea level at tide gauge stations available in latitudes from 30°S to 30°N of the Pacific Ocean (marked by circles in Fig. 6). Bars denote the number of tide gauge stations available for each month, and its scale is shown on the right-hand side.
So, sea level according to tide gauge measurements seems to have risen much more than its thermosteric sea level anomaly (due to thermal expansion) would suggest, at least in the Pacific. This is true with or without bias correction of Ocean heat content. Thermal expansion seems to be the bulk of Sea level rise and fall in recent years in the Pacific Ocean, there is not much from glaciers.
I embedded the graph by Craig Loehle, which shows the dissipating heat content of upper ocean waters worldwide, to compare with the last five year ticks of the “global ocean heat content” graph plotted and fueled by (NODC) according to yet another draft of a new paper. Again, like the many former papers, instrumental problems are blamed for the contineous need for new studies to eliminate the warm biases.
The little graph attached to the right shows the flattening sea level rise (visually ajusted for comparison purposes) according to the latest satellite altimetry. But the flattening is not pronounced while land and ocean surface are cooling. Scientists argue that more heat is being pumped into the not detected deeper ocean. Craig Loehle’s graph with the declining heat looks realistic and more in line with the falling ocean surface temperature between 2003 and 2008 as well as with satellite temperatures of the lower troposphere, but let us not forget that “upper ocean” is supposed to go down 700 meters into the ocean depths (Willis et al. 2004). But even if heat content has been just flat for the past five years, it makes you on the other hand wonder if the sudden “Matterhorn” slope with the 2003-2008 “caldera” on top according to above NODC graph could mean that much heat dissipated in the deeper ocean and will not be available to warm the surface anymore for many years – or – it has been the recent increase in aerosol forcings from Asian sources that helped the oceans to lose heat because of more clouds and because of the gigajoules reserved for the melting of snow and ice*) (see also here and here). (There is much more about this topic over at wattsupwiththat).
The following update beats everything!
Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change, says in a recent “Telegraph” article:
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.
But don’t be fooled by articles like that where retired scientists were interviewed. The acuracy of sea level change since 1993 is well established in science and will be further refined in the future. The only problem is the hypothesis of greenhouse gases as the main culprit which could be still in part an artifact trend for the past 15 years orchestrated by natural climate changes and continent drifts. Furthermore, the missing ocean heat throughout the past 5 1/2 years, where 80 to 90 % of anthropogenic heat goes according to top NASA oceanographer Joshua Willis (see U.S. Clivar newsletter, September 2008), continues to puzzle scientists.
*) Note: The topic is complex, and I am not an expert. There are conflicting trends at work. I was particularly thinking hypothetically of the great energy that was needed to melt Arctic Sea ice up until September 2007 and the heat that might have been lost through the newly opened waters as Autumn finally arrived.
