Ocean Heat Content: cooling gone today with new adjustment

Ecotretas: You noted Geert Jan’s weather report. He includes one at the end of each email.

Does anybody have a realistic estimate of the margin of error for any of these measurements?
Is the process for gathering, reporting, recording the data well documented? Has it been audited?
Why is it we have more regulations for how business must record and report their data than we seem to have for most scientific and government entities?

0-700m is not the best set of data to get a sense of short term fluctuations as there are oceanographic arguments in the literature that suggest the first 200m is the key depth where the global warming signal is locked in – with little exchange at depths greater than this (am I right?) – if you take the data down to 700m you are going to get a signal from deeper ocean mixing and dilute the ‘warming’ or ‘cooling’ signal from the top 200m – does anyone know if the top 200m data is available separately?

Well have you noticed that we “arm chair” scientists who are merely applying our fundamental science skills to a problem area where the same physical laws still apply; are constasntly berated; or is that derated, by those who have been formally trained in the ancient religious ritual called “Climatology”.
We are not qualified to comment, since we have been baptised with the dogma.
So how come it is these same formally trained experts who are constantly screwing up, and issuing reports at taxpayer’s expense, containing false data.
It seems that about half of the issues that seem to come up on Anthony’s blog here are related to official government sanctioned screwups.
Any minimum wage earner can read a thermometer; well you don’t even have to read a thermometer anymore; they can read themselves, and directly report the correct temperature; and they can be manufactured by the gazillion for a few pennies.
But then of course comes the AlGorythm. Those temperatures have to be “treated”; it’s about like the tax code. Workers keep adding on layer after layer of bandaids to get the data to “perform” tot their liking.
Take the Hubble Space telescope for example; containing one of the most accuately manufactured optical elements; if not the most, ever built. Except it was built with great exactitude to the wrong shape; and the company that built it knows who they are.
Subsequent missions to Hubble have layered on band-aids to try to correct for that snafu; and with considerable success. The instrument gives spectacular results.
But! Like the Mona Lisa in the Louvre; the Hubble Telescope Primary mirror has a twin. Except this one was built by the Eastman Kodak Company; except they had the temerity to build it to the correct shape instead of the wrong shape. So Hubble’s twin languishes somewhere, gathering dust while a usurper functions in a half pi shadow of the original intent. Yes modern instruments have been added to increase the capability; but that original piece of optical junk should have been replaced by the twin years ago. Maybe the ersatz mirror could be used for a bird bath; perhaps outside the corporate headquarters of the company that made it.
And let’s not forget the space craft that crashed on Mars, because somebody who is an accredited expert in his field (peer reviewed no doubt), used his wife’s Tailer’s tape to measure some critical component.
I once heard of some pieces of an alien space craft that were handed down from father to son; made out of 99.99% pure Aluminium, in the form of squares and circles. A PhD “Scientist” reported that the pieces were “Exactly” 6 x 6 x 1 mm and the round ones were 6 mm diameter (exactly). Well I told the reporter who was running with this story, that no scientist worth his salt would say the pieces were exactly 6 x 6 x 1 mm, without giving some error tolerance; and why would space aliens be using our completely arbitrary metric system of units. The mystery aluminum was also much “stronger” than normal, since you couldn’t bend the pieces with your fingers, and Alcoa Scientists said you should be able to if they were 6 x 6 x 1 mm. So clearly it wasn’t terrestrial aluminium, even though mass spec could find almost not impurities in the material.
So the reporter (lady) checked back with the PhD with my objections; and he finally admitted that he had “measured” the pieces with his ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ! So his yard stick was dependent on the gain of amplifiers and such like. He finally took my suggestion and tried an ordinary micrometer good to one hundredth of a mm; and reported the joyous revelation that the mystery spacecraft pieces were now EXACTLY 6.35 x 6.35 x 1.59 mm.
Well to within the 1/100 mm precision of the micrometer. The Reporter and the “Scientist” were now overjoyed to have the correct dimensions, and see they no longer intimately linked to our arbitrary metric system; proving they really were from outer space.
Well no not really I pointed out to them. Your space junk parts are now (almost exactly) 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/16 inches; and what’s more instead of having a 6 : 1 length to thickness ratio; they were now only 4 : 1 and now much stiffer than if they had been six to one ratio. So now all of a sudden the anomalous aluminium propertioes are removed, and the materials is now just ordinary 0.062 inch 1100 alloy Aluminum sheet; that you can buy in any harware store.
And the pieces themselves were most likely made in America; last bastion of the rod/stone/fortnight system; and probably simply squares and round holes puched out of a sheet to make a grill for the back of a refrigerator or something; the round holes being for some mounting bolts.
But this reporter and her “scientist” had a large (worldwide) audience convinced she was holding some alien space craft parts. Really ! who in their right mind building an interstellar spacecraft is going to make any part of that machine out of 1100 alloy aluminum; a material of such poor mechanical strength properties, that you wouldn’t allow a molecule of it to contaminate your spacecraft, where weight is a major issue.
Well I could write a whole encyclopedia of such snafus by accredited scientists. I won’t embarrass the chap by naming him; he actually does have a good reputation in his past career; and he got roped into a pig in a poke exercise.
So to all of those readers and posters here; who get upset when these constant revelations of dropping the ball turn up; keep on trusting your instincts, and don’t take everthing for granted that is presented to you with the air of authority.
And to the Tisdales, and Macintyres who keep their ears to the rail to hear what’s coming down the track; we spectators appreciate your efforts to keep them honest. (well this one does anyway)

Peter Taylor: You asked, “does anyone know if the top 200m data is available separately?”
Not in a simple format.

John Galt: You asked, “Does anybody have a realistic estimate of the margin of error for any of these measurements?”
The standard errors for the global and individual ocean datasets are listed at with the data at the NODC website:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

John Galt: You wrote, “I’m not looking for their estimate of their errors, but an independent review.”
Never heard of one. Never heard of an independent audit of other climate databases such as ERSST.v2 or ERSST.v3b SST data.

DaveE.
Sorry mate but you’re probably wrong. The World has certainly cooled over the last 10 years!

Once again we see that the data is not credible. When unusual readings (colder that expected) keep getting purged from the data and missing data is filled in (made up) by computer programs we cannot claim to know anything very well. this means that all of the aggregate constructions need to be dumped as scientifically invalid and go back to looking at local temperatures to see what they tell us about the changes that are impacting people in various areas.
But when we do that we find that people in urban areas are experiencing warmer temperatures, particularly in winter and at night. We see plants inside the city limits bloom several days or weeks than those outside of the suburbs. We see open water in inner city areas allow for some birds to avoid flying south for the winter. Over most of North America we see that temperatures have warmed up since the PDO flipped into a warm phase in the late 1970s but that they are not as warm as the 1930s. We see Alaska experiencing a stepwise increase in temperature in the late 1970s after being brutally cold in the previous three decades. And if we look to the record temperatures we do not see all that many highs in the most recent decade but quite a few in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.
What we do not see is catastrophic warming, dangers to polar bear populations (which have increased), major problems with global ice cover, etc. The fact that the AGW hype is a scam perpetuated by people who make their living off of it should be obvious to most people by now. I suspect that eventually even the politicians will get it.

” MattN (16:32:50) :
Still not warming….
”
Yeah… there is definitely not an upward trend in that graph….
..sigh..