“Of course maybe the PDO doesn't really exist itself.”

Just to show you how wrong you are, I agree with this statement.

Like all the ocean “cycles” they do not exist as independent entities. They are simply a group of similar measurements that scientists have decided to label as they appear somewhat regularly.

I think the best way of identifying them is by saying they are the energy flow through that portion of the earth. They do not generate the energy. The properties of the area, density, momentum, mass, radiative, conduction, convection, magnetic, electrical… all help determine how the energy is distributed and absorbed or emitted to surrounding areas.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?i...

“On the other hand, studies cited herein have documented a 50–70 year cycle
of climate oscillations overlaid on a simple linear warming trend since the
mid-1800s and have used this model to forecast cooling beginning between
2001 and 2010, a prediction that seems to be upheld by the satellite and
ocean heat content data. “

And maybe the OHC estimates need work A new perspective on warming of the global oceans
M. D. Palmer, S. A. Good, K. Haines, N. A. Rayner and P. A. Stott-
Submitted to Geophysical Research Letters – Revised August 2009

and as El Nino itself morphs into Modoki El Nino

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/global-ss...

The reason I refer to ERBE and page 17, the page where the ERBE device findings of increased TOA OLR contradict all the model predictions of a decline, is that increase in TOA OLR carries a lot of extra energy with it, energy which otherwise would be put to increasing OHC. And yes the sea-level trend is still up but the paper I link to which finds the error in the TOPEX/Jason satellite measurement shows the rate of increase is declining, from ~ 3mm pa to ~1mm pa; 1 mmpa is pretty close to the error margins but the real point is with OHC declining or flat, sea-level increase declining, SST down, atmospheric temperatures down, reasonable [sic] conclusions are that there is no AGW effect, no energy is being stored in the oceans, that the climate sensitivity distinction between the equilibrium and transient responses is probably more theoretical than actual and finally, with the ERBE empirical findings, one has to ask, what ever happened to Miskolczi?

Now, our poor metrics on the ocean prior to the Argo network is absolutely a reasonable explanation why there might be a large difference between the computed OHC before and after.

What is more questionable is why we would compute a trend using a splicing of data when the earlier section was so obviously much lower than the Argot data.

This splice has added a large INCREASE in the trend that I simply do not see as supportable.

As the sea level did NOT show a large jump during the same period, it does not support this OHC increase either.

Would someone please show me what I missed??

“The sea-level increase isn't shot to bits; it's still increasing.”

Let's be precise here. Wrong. The TREND is still showing an increase. The actual Sea Level metric is flat. The OHC metric took a drop.

The statistics involved only give you probabilities. They do not give you facts.

The sea-level increase isn't shot to bits; it's still increasing. They've observed a fluctuation in the rate of increase. And if ERBE has the answer, you won't find it on p 17. In fact, it's pretty hard to find p 17. But in fact that paper says nothing about OHC, which of course a satellite can't measure. It relates changes in global flux to SST.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea...

On top of that is the 2002-2003 'artifact' which is responsible for over 1/2 of the OHC increase in the data range has not been addressed by NODC. And speaking of temperature SST is down;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea...

And [thermosteric] sea-level increase is shot to bits;

http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-...

So where's the heat? Perhaps ERBE has the answer, page 17;

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

This is certainly true of the actual total OHC, but if it moves to or from a part of the ocean you aren't even measuring, well…

“sea level is a good indicator of OHC – maybe the best we have.”

So now we have probably 17 years of “best data” on which to judge this-and little other than the heat in the ocean, not how it is behaving within it. Is the heat changing it's vertical distribution? Who knows? The “best data” can't answer that question, for sure. I have to say that I don't think sea level is really a magic cure all for measuring OHC. The ARGO efforts and attempts to analyze historical data better are actually so far more important and better overall.

You really ought to include the caveat that it has to stay within the ocean!! Of course, it DOESN'T stay within the ocean or the ocean would have already stopped absorbing more!!

Yup, sea level, if measured with high precision, WOULD be the best indicator we have. Even with our current measurements, it has pretty much stopped rising. As warmists claim glaciers on mountains, Greenland, and Antarctica are still net melting, that is a pretty good indicator there is a slight loss in OHC!!!

Of course, if they are NOT net melting…