Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Like Jason, I proceed into the unknown with my look at the Argo data, and will post random notes as I voyage.
Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.
I have no great insights at this point, just some interesting results. Thanks to a commenter who pointed me to where to get the Argo data in one block. It’s at the Asia-Pacific Data-Research Center.
I downloaded it, and I’ve looked first at the file containing the surface data. It’s where I swim, so it’s the most interesting data to me. Figure 1 shows all Argo measurements of the ocean surface temperature taken to date.
Figure 1. All Argo ocean surface temperature data. There have been 696,872 Argo measurements to date of the ocean surface temperature.
So far, so good. The results look real, which is always good to see, it means I’ve graphed them up properly. You can see the warm ocean along the coast of Europe, for example. But there is one curiosity about the Argo data.
Here’s the oddity. I took the data arranged by latitude as shown in Figure 2. I averaged it by 1° latitude bands, and then took an area adjusted average to give a global mean. The mean is 19.7°C ± 0.02 (95% CI).
Figure 2. All Argo ocean temperatures, sorted by latitude. NOTE: several people commented correctly below that I had not included the variation in ocean area by latitude band in the calculations. They are correct, I was wrong, and the actual corrected 60N-60S average is slightly higher, at 19.9°C.
Note that there is an obvious upper limit to the ocean temperatures, the “flat-top” on the graph at just above 30°C. No matter how much incoming solar there is, the ocean doesn’t get any warmer than that. This provides a “cap” on how hot the ocean can get. Above that temperature, any extra incoming energy is converted to latent and sensible heat, rather than warming the surface.
But I digress, that part’s just interesting. It’s not the curiosity.
The curiosity is the other ocean data sets give the following values for the average ocean surface temperature 2000-2011:
Hadley Center HadISST1 60N – 60S: 20.5°C ± 0.02°C (95%CI)
Reynolds Optimally Interpolated SST 60N – 60S: 20.4°C ± 0.02°C (95%CI)
NCDC Extended SST 60N – 60S: 20.3°C ± 0.02°C (95%CI)
The curiosity is that the Argo average ocean surface temperature data is significantly cooler than the other datasets, half to three-quarters of a degree …
Always more to learn. I do love real data. Look how much colder and more uniform the Southern Ocean is than the northern oceans, for example. Fascinating stuff.
Best to everyone,
[UPDATE]
The data I used is available at the website listed above, identified as “Near-real time Argo profile data interpolated on standard levels”. It’s the largest file on this page, 895 Mb, titled “Argo_TS.tar”.
The info sheet detailing the arrangement of the data is here.
It’s a tarball containing all of the depth files, one for each layer. The one I used was the zero depth file, “Argo_TS_0000.dat”. I downloaded them all, because I wanted the full set. If you only want surface temps you can download just that one file.
To read it in once it was downloaded (in the “R” computer language), I used:
depthcolumns=c("Longitude", "Latitude", "Level", "Depth", "Julian", "Temperature", "Salinity", "Potential Temperature", "Potential Density", "Dynamic Depth Anomaly", "Spiciness", "Extrapolation", "Error Temperature", "Error Salinity", "Error Potential Temperature", "Error Potential Density", "Error Dynamic Depth Anomaly", "Error Spiciness", "Ocean Code", "Region Code", "Argo Float ID", "Cycle Number", "Dynamic Depth", "Dynamic Depth-2")
depthwidths=c(9, 9, 3, 7, 10, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 2, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 2, 3, 8, 4, 9, 9)
depthinfo0=read.fwf("/Users/willis/Argo_TS/Argo_TS_0000.dat",depthwidths, col.names=depthcolumns)
You’ll need to change the filepath in the final line to wherever you have put the “Argo_TS_0000.dat” file.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I scuba dive and have never had hotter surface waater than in Darwin Bay, Australia. 30C alright! Bloody hot – but then I am used to diving in Canada.
OT and apo;ogies to Willis for going OT.
BBC radi0 4 Material World has broadcast an interview with Dr Cohen of MIT which states satellite data reveals that the world is not only warming up but the warming is causing winter cooling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01bmn02
Argo data being cooler is extra puzzling since Argo doesn’t measure temps of ice covered areas, which I assume would lower the average temp.
What regions ar.e excluded from the other estimates you quoted ?
Surely the Southern Oceans are more tepmperature-uniform because of the absence of the large blocking landmasses in the Northern Oceans.
One thing that stands out to me, Willis, is that you report four measures of the same thing – global ocean surface temperature. They all report “95% confidence intervals”. If those were truly 95% confidence about the actual value, one would expect that four such measures would all lie within such a confidence interval. Yet four confidence intervals about four measures of the same thing dont even overlap, let alone coincide. You have presented four measures of global ocean surface temperature, all claiming to be +/- 0.02C, but not one of them is even within 0.04C of any other…
Robert of Ottawa
You’re a braver man than I, Gungha Din. The only reason Darwin Harbour is not infested with sharks is because the Saltwater Crocodiles eat them all.
Okay, obvious context for data:
1)
a) data covers oceans for 2/3 planet, 19.7*C, not top 1/3 and bottom 1/3 of each hemisphere.
b) total planet is supposed to be 14.7*C (?)
c) GISTemp has temp for both NH and SH (? & ?).
d) Oceans cover 70% (?) planet, land 30% (?), broken up by hemisphere (?).
Taking the Argo data as the best, then what the missing data must be for the polar areas and the land masses can be determined by what must be missing to make the Hansen numbers work. What is required to exist outside this dataset is, I’ll bet, greater than can be documented. The Arctic will have to be a tropical paradise, I expect. And Africa is burning up.
2)
a) the Argo data has hundreds of thousands of data points.
b) the error/accuracy limits show up as outlier “fuzz” at the edge of the data and is visible to the naked eye. Especially at the warmer end and in the northern hemisphere.
c) the world’s oceans are supposed to be determined to 4/1000th of a degree accuracy.
This data does not need cross-checking with Peruvian mountaintops to correct for UHIE or observer error/changes of protocol/station equipment. Whatever the accuracy limit is, it is certainly not to the thousandth of a degree. This data puts to boots to any “certainty” as to today’s temperature, let alone yesterdays.
Wow. What an annoyance it must be for the alarmists to know that technically minded people can get at the data for themselves. I’m not saying I/we can reproduce what their prophets can, but I/we can see how reasonable their claims of certainty are.
Fuzzy-wuzzy.
Willis, thank you for this…I’ve been waiting
and it’s just what I thought….
Argo SST’s are not confirming other SST’s
Not Jason, but “Ulysses” by Tennyson. Both Greeks though. You get 1/2 a point.
@ur momisugly Robert of Ottawa ……….. Scuba diving in Darwin bay! Geez, you’re keen. 😉
Argo doesn’t measure shallow areas. Look around Indonesia for example. There is an awful lot of warm surface water there that is not being measured. My first guess would be that this alone is enough to explain the discrepancy. Argo also doesn’t measure temperatures in ice covered areas but these are usually excluded from other measures of average SST as well. This is not unreasonable since if the sea is covered by ice then by definition there isn’t a surface there whose temperature you can measure.
willis
is there a mechanism for ensuring or adjusting the data base so that the sample population is geographically evenly distributed ? (ie one point per grid cell or an equivalent)
A thought Willis, that satellite measurements will measure the surface skin layer whereas the Argo may measure a few cm below the surface and during daytime there is a significant difference between them.
Willis-san, Don’t worry yourself about those inconvenient temperature discrepancies between ARGO and other ocean temperature data sets.
I’m sure Hansen et al will find the “fatal flaw”, which accounts for ARGO’s lower temperatures and will have those numbers “get their mind right” in no time.
I’m sure it’s just a, um,…calibration issue….
Always remember, Willis-san, “if you torture data long enough, it will confess….”~ Ronald Coase (1991 Economics Nobel Prize Laureate)
maybe the current, cool temperature compared with a ten year average ?
“Argo doesn’t measure shallow areas”
Well by definition these are not ocean. They are continental shelf. Ocean depth is rarely less than a couple of km except around hotspot activity (Hawaii or Iceland).
You know what this indicates to me? No more raw data will be released. The ‘experst’ will tell us what the raw data indicates.
So, with CO2 heating the air via the “greenhouse effect” to an average of 14C. The oceans average (for an argument) 20C……
Point of interest:
How do you boil your cup of coffee by breathing on it?
Re: Ian H
> Argo doesn’t measure shallow areas. Look around Indonesia for example. There is an awful lot of warm surface water there that is not being measured.
Let’s assume that the shallow areas between 60N and 60S (the area Willis is talking about) makes up 5% of the total surface area ( looks a bit generous but… ) then in order for it to raise the average from 19.7 to 20.3 the average surface temperature of the shallow water must be 31.7 degrees.
From an entirely layman view – I can see a benefit in not including shallower areas when looking at ocean heat content or overall ocean temp averages – (a.) the shallow areas tend to be much more reactive/sensitive to short term fluctuations and thus not a good measure of long term trends, and (b.) the “volume” of these areas represent a small portion of the overall oceanic volume … couple the much higher sensitivity to short term changes with the small volume and it would seem including would have an adverse impact at long term ocean trends
Is the Argo data being corrolated with ENSO, ADO events??
It seems somewhat misleading to report SST measurement averages from 1854 and 1870 to 5 decimal places. The average does have many decimal places, but the underlying observations during that period wouldn’t have been precise to more than 1 or 2 decimal places.
Also, wouldn’t the earlier measurements, taken before telemetry, have systemic artifacts as the thermometer was raised from the water to the deck (due to wind and evaporation, or sunlight and ambient air temperature)? Unless, of course, some corrections were applied to remove the artifacts. Somehow I doubt that that those corrections would be the case – you would have to correlate original observed air temp., wind speed, ship speed, sunlight condition, relative humidity, instrument type, etc. etc. against imprecise measurements, so there would be little definitive gain in accuracy, with great cost. The transition to better measurement technology and telemetry would have taken place ship-by-ship over some time. How can you correct for that?
Other systemic problems with earlier measurements might involve ships avoiding hurricane nurseries (off West Africa), Saragossa Sea (and other becalming traps for sailing ships), and places where there is nothing to sail to (equatorial Pacific) – that is, some of the warmest areas in the warmest part of the year. And avoiding icebergs (colder geodesic route from North America to Europe).
All these metadata issues, and I only browsed the 1st page of each dataset. I’m beginning to have some understanding (if not sympathy) for why some prolific authors seem to prefer models to data.
Conrad
The white in Figure 1 is really good for showing what hasn’t been measured. I had a little trouble with the dots in the Argo post prior to this that showe what had been measured. Very nice.
The flat top of ocean surface temperatures in the tropics is interesting. The atmospheric temperature above the ocean surface is what controls the transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. And this says to me that there is a limit to atmospheric tropical temperatures. Release more heat from the oceans and all that happens is it gets transmitted to space faster.
@Andyj re: “How do you boil your cup of coffee by breathing on it?”
Easy, coincide said breathing with a considerable change in altitude. 😉 🙂