Story and audio here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/16/2599244.htm?section=australia

response to earlier post:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20071231.jpg

is december image, the 2007 video with big hole on one side is a summer image from 2007: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20070821.jpg
is what I’ve seen it looks like, after that point it probably refreezes for the year,
compare july and august of 2007 and 08 and see it spread out from 07 to 08, between july august it melts alot both years,

jump around http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/ going by the dates on jpg’s

Perhaps instead of picking just one plot off the NASA page you should have referenced the whole page with explanations of the adjustments made.

Quality Control, Homogeneity Testing, and Adjustment Procedures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

Even more interesting when the years cherry picked are 2001-2008.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/FrAbout_Argo.html
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/seabird_notice.html

Notice 1: problem with SBE CTD pressure sensors on Argo floats, recommendation to stop float deployments and return CTDs to Sea-Bird for repair.

Dear Argo colleagues,

As many of you are aware, we have been working to understand the details of a problem with the Druck pressure sensors used in SBE-41 and SBE-41CP CTDs on Argo floats. The name given to the problem is “Druck micro-leaks” because in 3 instances, in the last two years, we have identified that oil from the sealed inner sensor chamber is leaking out through micro-cracks in glass-to-metal seals that bring sensor signals out through the back of the sensor. The oil leak rate is very slow, just a few micro-litres per month. As oil leaks, a flexible titanium diaphragm, that transmits ocean pressure to the oil chamber, bends into the sensor chamber to make up for the oil loss. As oil leaks, the sensor develops a progressive negative offset in measured pressure, and this becomes evident in Argo data as a negative surface pressure. With enough oil loss the diaphragm deflects far enough to contact and short out the pressure sensing element. There is evidence that the diaphragm bottoms out and does not result in a further leak of oil or ocean water through the sensor.

In early March 2009 an expanded analysis of Argo surface pressures, done by Dana Swift of University of Washington, revealed an increase in the occurrence rate of floats exhibiting negative surface pressures from floats deployed in 2007 and later. The jump in occurrence rate is alarming, from low 3% of floats pre-2007 to about 12% of the floats analyzed from the 2007 deployment. With a recent analysis from Scripps, data from a total of 500 floats has been scrutinized. The best recent statistics are that floats deployed in 2008 are showing an even higher occurrence rate, greater than 10% and perhaps up to 30%. One caution is that it can take up to 500 days at 1000 dbars for an Argo float to exhibit a sufficient negative pressure offset to distinguish it from healthy sensors. Therefore, the occurrence rate for Druck microleaks in 2008 and early 2009 floats may take another year to establish.

Regardless of exact statistics, the pressure problem and its consequences are severe. At Sea-Bird, we have stopped shipping any CTDs for Argo floats until we can identify and use pressure sensors that will operate properly for float lifetimes.

We strongly recommend that float manufacturers stop shipping floats to customers, and return CTDs to Sea-Bird for evaluation and repair.

And we strongly recommend that the Argo community stop deploying floats, and consult with the float manufacturers about the logistics for getting CTDs returned and repaired.

The urgency to return floats and CTDs immediately for the repair work is not high, however, because we do not have an immediate stock of pressure sensors suitable for replacement. We are working on 3 solutions:

1) create a test procedure in the laboratory that can accelerate the microleak failure and consequently separate Druck sensors into the two distinct categories observed in Argo float data: the bad sensors (micro-leakers) and the good sensors that don’t drift at all for 5+ years. Despite very focused effort at Druck Ltd, in the UK and at Sea-Bird we have not been able to develop a reliable test yet. We are working on several test methods, and one test that could potentially be done by Argo scientists at their own facility, allowing the bad sensors to be identified and leaving good sensors and floats available to be deployed without further delay or a return to the US.

2) we have a stock of about 100 pressure transducers from Paine that could be used for programs that must deploy floats soon. The Sea-Bird SBE-41 and 41CP CTDs were equipped with Paine pressure sensors until early 2000. The Paine sensors exhibit a positive drift with time but less than +10 dbars over the life of a float. The sensors also exhibit a span change (slope in pressure calibration) that has a magnitude of about 10% of the offset drift.

3) finally, we have been working with a Swiss company, Kistler, to develop an alternative to the Druck sensor. Five years of effort and evaluation have produced a very promising sensor. That sensor is in the final stages of testing at Sea-Bird, but has passed all the design criteria in testing at Kistler and the first production batch of 100 sensors suitable for Argo floats is in the pipeline. That option should be available in one month.

A report with more details of the microleak problem, field units, lab testing, etc is being prepared. We are also developing the details of the warranty relief that Sea-Bird will offer for this situation. The Argo community can expect these two reports very soon.

While we are still in the initial phases of understanding the problem and the potential remedies, we welcome your questions and will do our best to answer them completely.

Sincerely,

“the near surface ocean water temperatures (-1 metre) and the near surface ocean air temperatures (+3 metres) are not correlated”

I’ve seen you make this claim before. I’ve never seen you provide a link to the data. “”"

I’ve never made that claim; I’ve never measured either one of those things. I have mentioned several times, that others have mnade that claim.

I thought that you were the Google Guru; and you haven’t been able to find it.
Try Geophysical Research Letters for Jan 2001. I say try that because I am relaying from memory. I belive Dr John Christy at UAH et al was the authorship.

I even contacted Dr Christy, and queried him on that; funny habit I have of going to the horse’s mouth to verify stuff I read. (did that with Dr. Steig also )

What would you people do without your computer and Google. Didn’t they ever teach you to learn anything in school; and remember it; and what is it that you will believe information from one source; but not from another source, even if both originate in the exact same place.

I don’t make stuff up. Yes it is true that my source could end up being unreliable; I don’t have a cure for that; and most of the people who come here, have a whole lot better access to the information than I do.

And I do this, while my computer is working on my project for my employer; to try and make a profitable product for them, so that we can both pay taxes to keep funding the research projects of all of those people who are swilling at the public trough.

Evidently neither I, nor my employer , is getting a good return.

How about a little plain common horse sense RW; the ocean waters move around (meander) in paths somewhat determined by the ocean bottom geography, and at speeds of at most afew knots (on one hand). Meanwhile the atmosphere above the ocean moves around in completely differrent patterns often governed by continental geographies hundreds or thousands of miles from the ocean, and it moves at speeds from near zero to triple digit speeds.
So the air and the water are never in contact for long enough to come to any sort of equilibrium whatsoever; so why in the blazes would even an 8th grade high school science student ever imagine that somehow they are correlated; or even at the same temperature,;as has been assumed by the climate science community for several hundred years; well maybe 150 anyway.

In any case, the ocean buoy results were reported in one of those popular press releases; either NYT, or Nature/Science/British tabloids, and referenceing the peer reviewed scientific paper. Somewhere I have both buried in a pile of papers maybe 200 feet thick. Make that 20 feet thick; I was getting a little AlGorythm glitch there.

if I can find it I will post it.

George

Nasif – not even close to the figures you use. The largest thermonuclear detonation was the Tsar bomb at around 50 megatons. Norht Korea has yet to fully master fission – fusion is a whole new order of capability they have yet to achieve.

I know, Rick… It was my fault because I wrote the note very quickly. It’s on topic because nuclear detonations coincide with anomalous peaks on the ocean content of heat.

It is time to stop makeing this comment”

Did you take a look at this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Still think that “some data are adjusted upward, some downward…” Hm, I don’t think so.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/#more-7646

Seems to me one is saying that the oceans are warming up, and the earlier one says that they are getting cooler. Would like to know which is true.