Ocean Temperature And Heat Content

Let’s see if I’m following this right.
“Phobos” is mainly referring to Levitus 2012 and its Appendix as the font of knowledge where all of this is explained, and if all you ignorant denying slobs would (could?) just read and understand it, you’d all know (and especially Willis would know) why you are all wrong.
Levitus 2012:
Comment On Ocean Heat Content “World Ocean Heat Content And Thermosteric Sea Level Change (0-2000), 1955-2010″ By Levitus Et Al 2012
by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
An Ocean of Overconfidence
by Willis Eschenbach
More Ocean-sized Errors in Levitus et al.
by Willis Eschenbach
Levitus data on ocean forcing confirms skeptics, falsifies IPCC
at Niche Modeling
Comment On “Levitus Data On Ocean Forcing Confirms Skeptics, Falsifies IPCC” At Niche Modeling
by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
The Overstatement Of Certainty In The Levitus Et Al 2012 Paper
by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Yeah, I see Phobos’ point. If only that lousy slacker Willis had ever read Levitus 2012, he would naturally understand how he’s completely wrong and Phobos is so perfectly correct.
Also I’m getting that Phobos says you must have your own numbers to challenge other numbers. Much like how it’s not enough to prove to the judge that you weren’t doing 60 in the 45mph zone thus the ticket is wrong, but you must provide a verified speed value measured with certified instruments traceable to national standards showing you were below 45.5mph (allow for rounding) to beat the rap.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 27, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Thanks for bringing many of us up to speed.

Willis
I revert further to your comment at February 26, 2013 at 10:05 am which calls for my response.
Willis, your present Article, is on certainties and error margins in the measurement/assessment of ocean temperatures and hence the heat content of the oceans, and on that point I am fully with the general thrust of your observation. My comment that has apparently caused you offence was not a comment on the present Article (concerning measured/assessed “Ocean Temperatures and Heat Content”) but was instead a comment on a comment made by another commentator. As such, my observation was only partially germane to your present Article.
I am familiar with your post “Radiating the Oceans”. You have posted many good articles on WUWT, but, with respect, your article on “Radiating the Oceans” was not one of your best, in fact I would venture to say it was one of your worst.
The reason I hold this view is that the most important aspect to understanding climate and in particular whether AGW is real (or if real is more than merely nominal) is understanding the oceans and the atmospheric conditions above the oceans on a micro and macro basis. Not only does the heat capacity of the oceans dwarf that of the atmosphere, the oceans act as the heat sink and as the heat pump of planet and in so doing they are the key driver of Earth’s climate. The heat pump being both the generator and power force behind the water cycle, and also the ocean current conveyor belts which in turn distribute the vast energy received, in the equatorial, tropical and sub tropical areas, pole wards. There can be no AGW unless the oceans are heating, and there can be no cAGW unless the top metres of the ocean are warming at a significant rate; if heat energy is being sequestered and dissipated to lower depths (say much below the thermocline, or at any rate below the 700m level) then subject to that being only a very transient phenomena of short duration, there can be no cause for immediate alarm. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider the role of GHGs and consequential claimed backradiation (DWLWIR) in detail. Your article on “Radiating the Oceans” was, with respect, far too superficial, contained little in the way of science, and did not address the fundamental issues that arise, and in failing to do so, it shed very little light on this vitally important topic (quite probably the most important topic in the context of cAGW) and failed to take the science or the debate forward.
Materially, your article did not consider the significant difference between the interaction between DWLWIR and land, and DWLWIR and water. In the case of the former, IF DWLWIR can heat the land, say a rock, the effect of this does not cause the rock to evaporate and the energy flux in the rock is downwards such that heat gained/inputted at the top surface of the rock can be conducted downwards and into the rock structure below. Water on the other hand is different since it evaporates and energy absorbed in water would tend to increase the rate of evaporation from the very place where the heat energy is being received/inputted which leads to latent heat issues and a cooling effect of the top layer of the water, and as far as the oceans are concerned in the top layers of the ocean the energy flux is upwards so heat cannot be transported downwards by conduction. These are significant issues and are issues that cry out to be addressed in your article. Regrettably, it did not seek to address them. It also erroneously looked at the position from an average perspective. You put forward what you claim to be the average energy budget for the oceans. However, the oceans do not receive the average energy budget since once you remove the frozen poles, the land masses disproportionally in high northern latitudes the oceans are not equally balanced over the entire latitude of planet Earth. They are located disproportionally within the sub tropical band. Further and even more importantly, it is necessary to consider what is going on in the equatorial, tropical and sub tropical ocean. As your article on ARGO noted theoretically these oceans receive enough solar energy to heat them to a temperature in excess of 40degC and yet for the main part they appear capped at 30degC. In my opinion, this is mainly because the ocean current conveyor belt is absorbing this excess energy and taking it pole wards before the equatorial, tropical and sub tropical ocean can heat themselves to a higher temperature (places where the ocean current conveyor belt is less strong, eg the Red Sea, off the coast of Ghana, the Gulf of Mexico etc obtain higher temperatures more in the region of 36degC). As I have pointed out to you before, there is a reason why the ocean say off the coast of Iceland does not freeze whereas the sea in the Baltic at the same latitude does freeze even though the ocean/sea in those areas (same northern latitude) for practical purposes receives the same radiative energy budget; I would suggest that it is because the sea off Iceland gets the benefit of the warm ocean current conveyor belt whereas the sea in the Baltic does not receive the same benefit. As you are aware, I hold the view that the reason why the oceans do not freeze is the large amount of energy inputted into the equatorial, tropical and sub tropical ocean some part of which is distributed pole wards. I hold the view that looking only at an average condition paints a very distorted picture and hides what is going on in the natural world.
I am of the view that one cannot begin to properly discuss ‘radiating the oceans’ without considering; (i) what is the optical absorption characteristics of LWIR in water, (ii) how much DWLWIR reaches the oceans (in considering this one has to consider the effect of wind swept spray and spume and to what extent it acts as a LWIR block and thus a barrier preventing some or all of the DWLWIR penetrating the ocean and instead imparts that energy received into the atmosphere immediately above the ocean below, AND whether any, and if so how much, DWLWIR is reflected back off the surface of the oceans so that it does not penetrate the ocean but is instead bounced off into the atmosphere), (iii) given the optical absorption characteristics of LWIR in water, how much energy is absorbed in the top micron(s) layer (bearing in mind that DWLWIR is omni-directional such that DWLWIR which interacts with the ocean say at 10 degrees to the horizontal will penetrate through the water predominantly horizontally with little vertical downward component), at what speed is this energy absorbed (bearing in mind we are talking about energy being received in joules per second) and what is the affect of the absorption of that energy; in particular what does it do, where does it go and how (through what mechanisms and/or physical processes) is that energy distributed and/or transported from the top few microns, and over what time scale does this dissipation take place (when considering this issue one needs to consider the mechanical process of ocean overturning and whether this slow mechanical process dissipates the energy in the top micron layer which is being received in joule seconds at a rate faster than that energy would excite water molecules in those microns to a level at which they would evaporate), (iv) what is the temperature profile of the ocean both in the top micron layers, the top surface layer, the first 10 metres, down to the ocean thermocline and below; and (v) is the energy budget for the oceans effectively that they are receiving: 170 W m^-2 (solar) + 320 W m^-2 (DWLWIR), and are losing 390 W m^-2 (surface radiation) and 100 W m^-2 (sensible heat/convective/evaporative losses), thereby balancing at 490 W m^-2, or is it the null hypothesis (the energy flux) position that the oceans receive: 170 W m^-2 (solar), and are losing 70 W m^-2 (radiation loss) and 100 W m^-2 (sensible heat/convective/evaporative losses), thereby balancing at 170 W m^-2, and what evidence and/or scientific literature supports one or other energy budget.
When considering those issues, it is very important to not mix heat and energy. On a science blog such as WUWT, I would have thought that those issues, amongst others, would have been considered and addressed in any worthwhile article dealing with ‘radiating the oceans.’ As WUWT is a sceptical blog, one might also have considered the atmospheric composition immediately above the oceans. Water vapour not CO2 is the main GHG, and over the oceans (particularly the equatorial. tropical and sub tropical oceans) there is a greater concentration of water vapour than the global average water vapour, such that one could pontificate upon whether a small increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately above the oceans could have any significant affect in driving up ocean heat content when it is so overwhelmingly dwarfed by levels of water vapour (which the ocean itself is producing). That, of course, is a slightly different issue but sufficiently germane since most readers are interested in whether ocean heat content is rising and if so why.
As you are aware, Scienceofdoom carried an article on whether ‘back radiation heats the oceans’. To their credit, unlike your article, they considered the absorption characteristics of LWIR in water and conceded that approximately half of all DWLWIR is fully absorbed within the first few microns of the ocean. What they failed to do, perhaps because there has been very little scientific research, is to go on and consider the implications of this absorption. In particular, they dodged the bullet by not considering the effect of this absorption, eg., how much energy is thereby assimilated within the first few microns, what does that energy do, how is it dealt with by the oceans on a molecular basis, how is this energy dissipated and by what mechanical and/or physical process and/or processes is it dissipated and over what time frame this dissipation takes place. These, of course, are issues that you also have not addressed in your various articles/posted comments. In fact, I would venture to say that you would have been better to refer the reader to the Scienceofdoom four part article on the subject than to read your own version “Radiating the Oceans.” This observation is meant as a constructive critique and not put forward with any malice or an attempt to in some way belittle you. It is just my personal opinion of your Article, and I do not know to what extent I may be alone in holding that opinion as to the worth of your Article.
I do not wish to get embroiled and thereby side tracked by a debate on semantics as to the meaning of ‘an explanation’. I recall that we have briefly touched on that before, and I commented that we shall have to beg to differ upon the meaning of explanation.
Not wishing to put words in your mouth (and apologies if I am so doing), my perception of your comments, made over a period of time, can reasonably fairly be summarised as: (i) It is a fact that the oceans are not frozen; and (ii) the energy budget for the oceans is that they are receiving: 170 W m^-2 (solar) + 320 W m^-2 (DWLWIR), and are losing 390 W m^-2 (surface radiation) and 100 W m^-2 (sensible heat/convective/evaporative losses), thereby balancing at 490 W m^-2 ; and (iii) if one were to remove the 320 W m^-2 (DWLWIR), received by the oceans, in that energy budget, the oceans would gradually cool and freeze; and (iv) since the oceans are not frozen QED they must be receiving 320 W m^-2 of DWLWIR. Sorry, but I do not consider that to be an explanation of the issues arising. Indeed, since the energy budget employed by you in (ii) above is contested, as a matter of first principle, it cannot itself be used as the means by which to establish its own validity. It is no more proof of its own validity than my citing the null hypothesis energy budget (the oceans receive 170 W m^-2 (solar), and are losing 70 W m^-2 (radiation loss) and 100 W m^-2 (sensible heat/convective/evaporative losses), thereby balancing at 170 W m^-2) and saying look DWLWIR is irrelevant it can be completely ignored since it is no part of the null hypothesis energy flux budget. Merely citing your claimed version of the energy budget, or my merely citing the null hypothesis energy budget, is not proof that either one of those budgets is correct. We need to consider in detail the implications of those budgets on the physical world and what affect they would have on the physical world if they were correct, further we need extraneous corroborating evidence in support of one or other.
Unfortunately, in climate science, notwithstanding the vast sums thrown at it, little is known and even less understood. For practical purposes, all the data sets are not fit for purpose (too short a period, collection issues, contamination, a failure to consider errors and uncertainties, bastardisation through countless adjustments the need and correctness of which is unclear etc) and there is a lack of empirical observational evidence and experimentation. It is unfortunate that climate scientists repeatedly use averages since the use of averages sheds very little light on the real world; one of the few things that you can be reasonably sure about, is that in the real world the average condition is rarely encountered. Models are not objective and can tell us little more than the assumptions pre-programmed into them as a result of the prejudices of the programmer and it is difficult to see how the average of ‘crap’ is pure gold; the average of numerous sow’s ears does not produce a silk purse. The upshot of this is that we are all fumbling around in the dark; so for main part, it is difficult to know and understand what is going on. I consider myself to be a sceptic, by which I mean I am sceptical of the correctness and/or relevance of nearly all contentions in support of AGW, and I am sceptical of the correctness and/or relevance of nearly all contentions countering against AGW, and I have an open mind to be persuaded of the relevance and correctness of any issue whether it be in support of AGW or against it. I am only interested in getting to the bottom of the issues and learning the truth. I want to know what is going on, and why, and how. I would have thought that that would be a view that you also share so it is not constructive to get side tracked with semantics unless those semantics have a bearing on the scientific principles involved.
I will revert later today (or tomorrow) with a list of questions germane to “Radiating the Oceans” on which i would appreciate receiving the wisdom of your views. It may well be that some of the questions cannot be answered due to the poor state of climate science, but even to hone in on areas than cannot presently be properly/fully answered, say due to lack of research and/or experimentation, is in itself useful.
Willis, it is apparent that you are an intelligent man. It is also apparent that you have much experience with the sea. I would have thought that you might wish to put that intelligence and experience to good use and actually address head on some of the varied issues that arise should the ocean energy budget be as you claim in your Article “Radiating the Oceans”. In fact these issues would make a good topic for a follow up Article. Perhaps you could pen an article on “Radiating the Oceans, Part 2” in which you could take the science and debate forward.

Phobos says:
“How so?”
The actual size of the universe you are sampling dwarfs your number of sampling points. Your universe in this case could be considered semi-infinite for all of the potential locations where instruments could be sited. And of course no amount of sampling of infinity results in any confidence interval whatsoever. Plus the arguments regarding precision of instruments, siting, methodolgy, etc. Sample size error, though questionable in itself in this instance, is only one source of potential error so quoting the precision levels being claimed is highly questionable

I’m really surprised at the lack of understanding of SAMPLING. When I see people using terms like “statistical sampling” it makes the hair on my neck stand on end. As if just taking lots of “samples” and applying statistical mathematics, is of any value.
Sampling is at the center of all modern communications. Fiber optics transmission systems work at such high capacity, because any single signal doesn’t have to occupy the whole fiber. A continuous (analog) signal can be sampled at regular intervals, in such a way that the whole signal can be represented by just the (near zero length) samples, which means there are long gaps between one sample and the next. Those gaps are a perfect place to put in samples of some completely different signal, or even hundreds of different signals. Clever circuitry allows one to sort out the samples, and send those for any one signal to a place where the entire original analog signal can be reconstructed.
The rules are quite simple; the signal must be “Band Limited”, meaning there must be some cutoff frequency, beyond which there is no information from the signal. All real signals are band limited, but one may have to curtail the bandlimit (B) to some orgainzed value. The next rule is the important one; the samples must be taken at least as often as one sample for each half wavelength at the Band limit frequency. So for example, an audio telephone signal limited to say 4 kHz, must be sampled at least as fast as once every 125 microseconds.
This rule is known as the Nyquist Sampling Theorem. Theoretically if you obey those rules, you can in principle exactly reconstruct the complete continuous signal.
If you violate that rule, and have a signal at a frequency of B+b while sampling at a frequency 2B, you will find that the reconstructed message will now be bound to contain signal components at B-b frequency.
Well so what ? Well B-b is a frequency that is within the signal bandwidth B, that was NOT present in the original signal, so it is an error or noise component, that cannot be removed by any means without at the same time removing components of the real signal. No amount of statistical prestidigitation or central limit theorems can buy you a reprive from a violation of the Nyquist criterion; the message is corrupted forever.
Well you may say, in climate or weather data sampling, we really don’t need to reconstruct the original continuous function; say a continuous local Temperature value, it is sufficient to calculate say the average Temperature over say a 24 hour day.
Well we still have a problem; that erronious noise component has a frequency B-b, for a signal outside the band limit by (b). So what if (b) = (B) so the signal has a component which is equal to the sampling rate (2B). The reconstruction noise component is now at B-B = 0. Zero frequency.
Well the zero frequency component of a signal is just the average value of that signal over a complete cycle.
So if you sample a Temperature just twice a day, and that Temperature has a 24 hour fundamental frequency component, plus some higher frequency components due to the daily Temperature cycle not being a pure sinusoid, then you can’t even recover the average value of the Temperature over the day.
So now if you throw in spatial variations of the Temperature over say the whole of planet earth, then you better not have any cyclic changes in Temperature over distances less than twice the spacing of your measurment (sampling) stations.
Hansen seems to think that 1200 km is a perfectly good distance to be representing by any single Temperature made at one point. So what about weather in the SF Bay region, where Temperatures can vary wildly over distances of a few km.
Well I don’t want to belabor the point, but the bottom line is, that BEFORE you apply your statistical magic to any set of numbers, you better be sure that each of those numbers is indeed a valid sample of the quantity you want to study. Otherwise, you are simply applying statistics to completely meaningless noise components, which don’t represent anything useful.
Now in the case of Argo buoys that are ducking and diving, you certainly are seeing what they read as they rise to the surface, but the local water is changing with ocean current meanderings, and two nearby buoys, can be in quite different water streams.
At certain times in tidal flows inside San Fracisco bay, you can lean over the side of your fishing boat, and put one hand in each of two completely different water bodies; one can be muddy brown coming down from upstream rivers, and the other the normal not to clear water of the bay.
Statistics doesn’t correct for improper sampling procedures.

Sorry, “systematic” error…

Michael R. Moon says:
February 28, 2013 at 12:19 pm
“So what you are telling us is, above 85 F and below 30 F, the instruments are not as accurate as inside that range. Above 85 is virtually never, and below 30 is impossible unless under the ice where they don’t go anyway.”
Aren’t some of them near the equator and don’t all of them surface (into sunlight) part of the time? How is 85 “virtually never?” Don’t we need a plot of this activity?

Michael Moon says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:05 pm
“Sea Bird Electronics makes commercial equipment. Maybe there is another customer, maybe there is not. I am not in that business.
If you suggest that there are no instruments accurate as these fellows offer for sale with guaranteed accuracy, I would ask, “Why not? Clearly the technology exists.” If they made some error, buy one, prove the error, and sue for your losses.”
Given this comment, I would say that your experience working with instruments of this sort is zero.

Michael Moon says:
February 28, 2013 at 3:40 pm
“I don’t quite get what all the fuss is about here. Theo Goodwin has made an unkind remark to what purpose? It is true, I never bought a thermometer accurate to 0.001 C with a drift of 0.0002 C/month, so what?”
I did not mean to put you down. I did not mean to question your experience generally. I meant to say that you have no experience with this set of instruments. For example, if it surfaces near the equator then it will exceed 85 degrees Fahrenheit.