Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Anthony has an interesting post up discussing the latest findings regarding the heat content of the upper ocean. Here’s one of the figures from that post.
Figure 1. Upper ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA), 0-700 metres, in zeta-joules (10^21 joules). Errors are not specified but are presumably one sigma. SOURCE
He notes that there has been no significant change in the OHCA in the last decade. It’s a significant piece of information. I still have a problem with the graph, however, which is that the units are meaningless to me. What does a change of 10 zeta-joules mean? So following my usual practice, I converted the graph to a more familiar units, degrees C. Let me explain how I went about that.
To start with, I digitized the data from the graph. Often this is far, far quicker than tracking down the initial dataset, particularly if the graph contains the errors. I work on the Mac, so I use a program called GraphClick, I’m sure the same or better is available on the PC. I measured three series: the data, the plus error, and the minus error. I then put this data into an Excel spreadsheet, available here.
Then all that remained was to convert the change in zeta-joules to the corresponding change in degrees C. The first number I need is the volume of the top 700 metres of the ocean. I have a spreadsheet for this. Interpolated, it says 237,029,703 cubic kilometres. I multiply that by 62/60 to adjust for the density of salt vs. fresh water, and multiply by 10^9 to convert to tonnes. I multiply that by 4.186 mega-joules per tonne per degree C. That tells me that it takes about a thousand zeta-joules to raise the upper ocean temperature by 1°C.
Dividing all of the numbers in their chart by that conversion factor gives us their chart, in units of degrees C. Calculations are shown on the spreadsheet.
Figure 2. Upper ocean heat content anomaly, 0-700 metres, in degrees C.
I don’t plan to say a whole lot about that, I’ll leave it to the commenters, other than to point out the following facts:
• The temperature was roughly flat from 1993-1998. Then it increased by about one tenth of a degree in the next five years to 2003, and has been about flat since then.
• The claim is made that the average temperature of the entire upper ocean of the planet is currently known to an error (presumably one sigma) of about a hundredth of a degree C.
• I know of no obvious reason for the 0.1°C temperature rise 1998-2003, nor for the basically flat temperatures before and after.
• The huge increase in observations post 2002 from the addition of the Argo floats didn’t reduce the error by a whole lot.
My main question in this revolves around the claimed error. I find the claim that we know the average temperature of the upper ocean with an error of only one hundredth of a degree to be very unlikely … the ocean is huge beyond belief. This claimed ocean error is on the order of the size of the claimed error in the land temperature records, which have many more stations, taking daily records, over a much smaller area, at only one level. Doubtful.
I also find it odd that the very large increase in the number of annual observations due to the more than 3,000 Argo floats didn’t decrease the error much …
As is common in climate science … more questions than answers. Why did it go up? Why is it now flat? Which way will the frog jump next?
Regards to everyone,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You two learned gentlemen should critique the ARGO data QC procedure to them, examine their procedure in detail, and get back to us. 3200 probes? Someone spent some money on this, did they get their money’s worth?
@Michael Moon
I hope this discussion has helped you look more analytically at the statements that are being made about Global Warming. I thought it was true 15 years ago. However, as I looked into some of the claims I found that essentially every one of them had hidden/missing data. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the whole AGW theory was more like a Michael Crichton novel. Not knowing his writing stile back in the 70’s, I was convinced that one of his early books was fact/history/ government secret instead of fiction. I spent many hours trying to prove his “account.” I was able to verify a large portion of his account. And, with the help of some of my government access I was able to verify some of the things that were not available to the public. I was convinced that his account was true – “with the names changed to protect the innocent.” I was dumbfounded, when 10 or 15 years later I learned that most of his “fiction” uses 99.9% verifiable, believable facts that he weaves into a “pseudo history” fiction novel. This is what I believe the AGW crowd has done. They provide us with reams and reams, terabytes and terabytes of data all verifiable and repeatable. However, they are missing that .1% that makes it absolutely true. An instrument that has an accuracy/precision to 0.001% is touted over and over, but they do not mention that it is not suitable for making the measurements they are making. They hide the data that lets informed individual determine that it is being used in an inappropriate manor, and even hide the accuracy of the complete system.
A good analogy is the numbers given on Stereo equipment. Years ago they would tell you the Stereo had a frequency response of 1 Hz to 100 kHz. It sounded good in the showroom and you bought it. However, they did not tell you that the harmonic distortion was greater than 2-3% for frequencies below 60 Hz and above 10 kHz. They also never told you that the best available speakers had a 3 db. per octave loss below 100 Hz. Would you want to listen to that? Works great for speech and AM radio. That is what SBE is doing. That is what 90% of the data collectors and instruments providing AGW data are doing – you just have to know what to look for and not get caught into the trap of believing that Michael Crichton was writing “history” or government secrets. As I recall, his last book was supposedly going to explode the myth about AGW. I followed his writing on AGW back when he was posting them on the web.
Take Care.
Further to: Willis Eschenbach says: February 28, 2013 at 10:24 am
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Willis
At times, it would appear that precision in the use of language is not your strongest talent. An objective observer to these exchanges may well conclude that the offence you claim that you have sustained at my comment (February 26, 2013 at 2:04 am), to be feigned, and your response thereto to be petty and/or immature and/or it makes you look ridiculous.
At times, it would appear that you misconstrue what is said. Whether this is deliberate or unintentional, I do not know. I do gain the impression (from quite a number of your comments) that it appears that you like engaging in games with people, and often a plank in this game is a misconstruction of what has been said to you.
You state: “I still expect a retraction and an apology, Richard. You lied about my proven willingness to answer your often idiotic questions.” However, I have not said that you have ignored my comments, nor that you have been unwilling to respond to them, nor that you have offered no explanation whatsoever. I have merely said that you have not explained various issues.
There is, as a matter of English language (I understand this to be the language practiced in the USA) a difference between ‘offering no explanation whatsoever’ and ‘having not explained’ Objectively, it is possible for someone to offer an explanation but if, for example, that explanation is incomplete, or is wrong, then that has not explained the issue/question/matter. You are misconstruing, as a matter of English language, the meaning of ‘not having explained’ with ‘not having offered an explanation’. They are quite different concepts. This difference is quite elementary and I am surprised that time has to be wasted on pointing out this difference.
Let me give you an example of this difference that may help you understand the difference in the meaning of these words/expression. Say I read an article about the geology of some moon rock which had been collected by Neil Armstrong when he walked on the moon. Being the idiot that you imply that I am, I did not know nor could I understand how Neil Armstrong got to the moon, walked around, collected some rock and brought it back to Earth. Fortunately for me, I have this good friend called Willis who I meet from time to time in the pub. One night after a heavy boozing (drinking) session, I ask him whether he can explain how Neil Armstrong got the moon rock and was able to get it back to Earth. Willis explained to me that ‘Neil Armstrong has a trampoline in his garden which is positioned under a tall tree. One day Neil Armstrong went into his garage and picked up his son’s plastic bucket and spade. He then climbed the tall tree and jumped onto the trampoline from a great height. The trampoline went boingngngng and catapulted him all the way to the moon. Neil Armstrong then used the spade to dig up some rock which he put in the bucket. Then Neil Armstrong jumped up. The moon has far less gravity than Earth and because of this Neil Armstrong jumped so high that he was able to jump all the way back to Earth clutching the bucket. Fortunately, Neil Armstrong landed safely in the sea swam ashore, where he used the bucket and spade to make a pretty sand castle which he decorated with the moon rock that he had collected.’ Now my good mate Willis has offered an explanation as to how the moon rock was collected by Neil Armstrong and brought back to Earth, but he has not explained how it was done. If a couple of days later, I meet up with my good mate Willis and I say to him that he has not explained how the moon rock was collected, this is not a lie since although Willis has proffered an explanation, he has not in practice explained matters.
You accuse me of lying. This is a slanderous accusation. However, I am man enough not to take offence since it is apparent that your incorrect assertion is based upon your misconstruction of the English language, and I do not expect a scientist to be a master of language (although precision of language is important when it pertains to describing a scientific principle).
In your response of February 28, 2013 at 10:24 am you state: “Here is my previous comment to you [ie., the comment of February 26, 2013 at 10:05 am], since you have ignored it COMPLETELY…” (my emphasis). Willis, this is yet another illustration of your failure to understand the meaning of a word (ie., in this case, the word “completely”) and/or the deliberate or inadvertent misconstruction of language. As a matter of logic, how is it possible that I have completely ignored your post of February 26, 2013 at 10:05 am when I responded to that very post at February 28, 2013 at 4:40 am by stating “Willis I revert further to your comment at February 26, 2013 at 10:05 am which calls for my response…” I may not have dealt with all the points that you raised, or dealt with them only indirectly, or not dealt with them to your satisfaction, but the assertion that I have completely ignored your comment of February 26, 2013 at 10:05 am is patently incorrect. If you were in my position faced with an assertion that I had completely ignored something when that clearly is not the case, you would be calling that out as a lie and demanding a retraction and an apology. Fortunately, I am not so immature to feign offence by such an incorrect statement having been made by you against me. It is probable that the irony of your patently false assertion is not lost on the reader.
You further to state; “You lied about my proven willingness to answer your often idiotic questions.” Leaving aside for one moment the assertion that I “lied” (which assertion is incorrect for reasons detailed above), the remainder of your assertion boarders on the slanderous since it carries with it an inference that the author of the ‘idiotic questions’ is idiotic since the most probable explanation for someone asking an idiotic question is that they themselves are idiotic. I suspect that you had that inference in mind when you chose the language that you used. If I was to adopt a petty attitude I would be calling you out on that to identify each and every one of the idiotic questions, to explain why you consider that the question(s) is idiotic and in the absence of a reasonable explanation form you justifying your assertion, demanding a retraction by you and an apology from you. However, I am not so petty.
Now if we can both be man enough to move on and not waste time with petty exchanges of this ilk, and instead concentrate upon addressing the science, I will revert with some questions that I consider to be relevant. You will be at complete liberty to point to any question that you consider to be idiotic and at the same time explaining the reasons behind your holding that view, but hopefully, you will be more constructive and perhaps we can narrow some of issues and hone in on the importance of any scientific matter that may arise. As I said earlier, you might like to consider an article on ‘radiating the oceans, part 2’ in which you consider the wider issues that arise, and perhaps incorporate into such an article some of the points that you have made when considering the ARGO data.
Let me know whether you are now willing to move on and address the science and i shall revert with some relevant questions/issues. If you are not so inclined, I am not going to waste further time addressing petty semantics.
@richard Verney and Willis: Richard offers intellectual responses reminiscent of “As the World Turns” including quite eloquent prose. Much of the insults within the prose contains lengthy analogies, which I find demeaning. There is troubling sardonic tone and mincing of words with some olive branches seemingly asking for a truce. Truthfully, I am not sure what you really want to accomplish with regard to a good hashing of the science here between you and Willis. To me, you should soften things with an apology and admit you were trying to hurt. To say it another way, there is no reason to make statements that border on slander because you feel Willis did not answer your questions as you would have expected or liked. It does seem you are lashing out in anger about them and needed to vent – but I’d rather hear you and Willis explain and discuss this neat science and physics stuff.
Michael Moon say: “They use a Platinum Resistance Thermometer, a very accurate thermocouple.”
++++
Not to nit pick. And the spirit of what you are saying is true. But I’ve found many engineers use the word thermocouple and temperature sensor as one in the same. And I thought this was a good place to explain the importance of what’s different.
Inadvertently, they don’t realize that there are significant difference in sensor technologies. The platinum based sensors are a type of RTD (resistance temperature detector), and they are very accurate for a number of reasons, esp the ones that use platinum. First, however, thermocouples work by measuring the voltage generated between two different metals across a range of temperatures. As well, there is a voltage drop across the cold junction (where the end of the leads are connected) and that temperature needs to be known and subtracted from the temperature of the point of interest. If not, the temperature of the cold junction will affect the reading by the same delta t as the varying cold junction. Most engineers in the solar hot water industry that I’ve met don’t even know this – and it has led them to drive a lot of sensor engineers and controls engineers crazy!
Thermocouples are cheap, easy to make and reliable and rugged. They are best used in applications that would harm other sensors… we used to use them to measure molten steel. They were good for a few dips before they’d burn up!
RTDs operate with a very low current and the measured voltage across the sensor element deduces the resistance (which correlates with a precise temperature curve based on several constants). The idea is not to heat the sensor with current flow so as not to change the temperature of what you are trying to read!
Anyway, the best sensors also measure the resistance of the lead wires in the circuit so use 3 or 4 wires instead of just 2. By measuring the resistance of the lead wires, you can more accurately measure the resistance of the sensor. The newer 1000 ohm RTDs are less sensitive to lead wire resistance and so, for most applications, the lead wires’ resistance is negligible.