Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’ve been thinking about the Argo floats and the data they’ve collected. There are about 4,000 Argo floats in the ocean. Most of the time they are asleep, a thousand metres below the surface. Every 10 days they wake up and slowly rise to the surface, taking temperature measurements as they go. When they reach the surface, they radio their data back to headquarters, slip beneath the waves, sink down to a thousand metres and go back to sleep …
At this point, we have decent Argo data since about 2005. I’m using the Argo dataset 2005-2012, which has been gridded. Here, to open the bidding, are the ocean surface temperatures for the period.
Figure 1. Oceanic surface temperatures, 2005-2012. Argo data.
Dang, I like that … so what else can the Argo data show us?
Well, it can show us the changes in the average temperature down to 2000 metres. Figure 2 shows that result:
Figure 2. Average temperature, surface down to 2,000 metres depth. Temperatures are volume-weighted.
The average temperature of the top 2000 metres is six degrees C (43°F). Chilly.
We can also take a look at how much the ocean has warmed and cooled, and where. Here are the trends in the surface temperature:
Figure 3. Decadal change in ocean surface temperatures.
Once again we see the surprising stability of the system. Some areas of the ocean have warmed at 2° per decade, some have cooled at -1.5° per decade. But overall? The warming is trivially small, 0.03°C per decade.
Next, here is the corresponding map for the average temperatures down to 2,000 metres:
Figure 4. Decadal change in average temperatures 0—2000 metres. Temperatures are volume-averaged.
Note that although the amounts of the changes are smaller, the trends at the surface are geographically similar to the trends down to 2000 metres.
Figure 5 shows the global average trends in the top 2,000 metres of the ocean. I have expressed the changes in another unit, 10^22 joules, rather than in °C, to show it as variations in ocean heat content.
Figure 5. Global ocean heat content anomaly (10^22 joules). Same data as in Figure 4, expressed in different units.
The trend in this data (6.9 ± 0.6 e+22 joules per decade) agrees quite well with the trend in the Levitus OHC data, which is about 7.4 ± 0.8 e+22 joules per decade.
Anyhow, that’s the state of play so far. The top two kilometers of the ocean are warming at 0.02°C per decade … can’t say I’m worried by that. More to come, unless I get distracted by … oooh, shiny!
Regards,
w.
SAME OLD: If you disagree with something I or anyone said, please quote it exactly, so we can all be clear on exactly what you object to.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
tallbloke says: “Interesting to compare the post-adjustment data Willis uses to Craig Loehle’s 2009 work which shows cooling from 2004. I wonder if the folk at Colorado.edu have one leg shorter than the other. The sea level altimetry they output has a distinct tilt too.”
Having lived in Colorado and observed the Denvizens thereof, my explanation is hypoxia.
tallbloke says:
March 2, 2014 at 1:26 am
Interesting to compare the post-adjustment data Willis uses to Craig Loehle’s 2009 work which shows cooling from 2004. I wonder if the folk at Colorado.edu have one leg shorter than the other.
================
The Argo data is suspect because they selectively turned off the low reading floats, without turning off the high reading floats. In other words, they changed the data to match expectations.
Imagine you were conducting a test of a new medicine. 1/3 were cured, 1/3 unchanged, and 1/3 died. But however, since you didn’t expect 1/3 to die you removed them from the study and reported instead a 50% cure rate.
This is exactly what was done with Argo. The low reading floats were removed because they provided data the scientists had not expected to see. They had expected to see the oceans warming, so they removed the floats that showed cooling. What was left is biased to meet experimenter expectations.
rgbatduke says: “c) As always in climate science, no error bars. Everything is smoothed. We cannot see which parts of the globe are oversampled (because ocean currents create an eddy that collects more than its share of buoys) and undersampled (because prevailing currents push buoys away, or because currents are depleted by buoys trapped in eddies). “
I’m wondering if differential viscosity would tend to move a float preferentially into the plumes above volcanic vent locations, rather than away.
Great comments, as always. Sehr niftlich, even.
Actually the data shows nothing. Data from 2005 to 2012 is meaningless. There is no significant trend of any type. I would say that over a 100 year period its more likely lt to be a 0C trend
Steve Case says: “…But all that aside, the data stream from the ARGO floats is a manipulation created by Dr. Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Like everything else, it’s been adjusted to fall into line with Global Warming theory.”
There’s no question that it’s been “adjusted,” but based on statements of some who know him, I can’t draw the conclusion that Dr. Willis consciously did so to fall into line with AGW theory.
Im saying this (Previous post above) because the alarmist’s will of course say 0.03C decade equals 30C over 10000 years which is highly significant and of course they were right all along. This is why short term 7 year data like this should never be interpreted to mean anything except noise. They will use this data to say that is where the missing heat has gone re Trenberth
It is essential to realise that the latitudinally shifting ‘heartbeat’ shown so graphically in Fig 1 represents the global thermostat in action. It is a full and fast negative system response to ANY internal system forcing element.
The seasonal adjustment observed in Fig 1 is a consequence of internal system changes arising from the orbit of Earth around the sun and the angle of presentation of the Earth towards the sun which alters the proportion of solar energy able to enter the oceans during the course of each year.
That latitudinal shifting is the negative system response cancelling out the variations in solar input to the oceans fully and completely each year.
It is significant that the CO2 record at Mauna Loa closely follows that annual latitudinal shifting.
ENSO is part of that negative system response because residual imbalances do accumulate over years and so ENSO deals with them in periodic discharging or retention of solar energy.
If energy is being added to the system then El Ninos become more prominent and discharge energy from the oceans more rapidly.
If energy is being lost by the system them La Ninas become more prominent and retain energy in the oceans for longer.
The baseline system energy content that such shifting always seeks to restore is determined only by atmospheric mass within a gravity field plus external insolation (if we disregard geothermal energy as too small to matter though it must play some part).
Willis has already shown the effectiveness of the system thermostat but, initially at least, considered it to be a tropical thunderstorm feature.
Figure 1 supports my contention that the thermostatic mechanism involves the entire global air circulation system as it constantly shifts latitudinally between the poles.
That is the basic climate principle that just does not seem to be grasped by either alarmists or sceptics (excluding Roger Tattersall) despite my having gone on about it for the past eight years.
If the Earth tries to warm up to a level above that permitted by atmospheric mass and insolation as a result of a change in some internal system forcing element (such as GHG amounts) then that latitudinal climate zone shifting simply adjusts its latitudinal extent to cancel the effect.
Likewise, if the Earth tries to cool down as a result of internal system changes.
The thing is that solar and oceanic variability have substantial effects which are constantly interacting with one another such that any effects from changes in CO2 amounts become imperceptible in the wider natural variations.
If an external source such as solar wavelength and / or particle variability then tries to affect system energy content by interfering with the proportion of insolation able to enter the oceans (by altering global cloudiness in the way I have previously described), then the latitudinal shifting will compensate for that too, hence Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and the Current Warm Period.
It really is that simple.
It is all there, in Fig 1.
Dr. David Evans at JoNova site says the ARGO floats’ uncertainties are around 0.1 C. This is of course far larger than the change over 7 years, implying that once again Dr. Brown has it right, this number (the change in ocean temperature) would be correctly recorded as 0.0 degrees C!!!
Stephen Richards says:
March 2, 2014 at 1:19 am
The warming is trivially small, 0.03°C per decade.
Ooooh, that’s 30°c / 10,000 years. That’s massive. /sarc ;)) :))
You may laugh but that means the oceans were 60°C colder at the end of the last glaciation. (climate science™)
rgbatduke says:
March 2, 2014 at 7:02 am
Would the state of North Carolina (in comparison) be well-represented in the land surface record by no more than three thermometers?
In Jim Hansen’s world? Probably one would do – near the ocean.
The difference between Fig 1 and Fig 2 is interesting.
The latitudinal shifting is greatest at the top of the oceans and reduces as one goes deeper.
The ocean surface temperatures, then, must control the latitudinal positions of all the permanent climate zones and, therefore, jet stream behaviour as the jets thread between those climate zones.
See my ‘Hot Water Bottle Effect’:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-hot-water-bottle-effect/
and:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/weather-is-the-key-after-all/
Tanks, Willis. A superb article.
Figure 1. Oceanic surface temperatures, 2005-2012. Argo data, and Figure 2 are impressive.
jorgekafkazar says:
March 2, 2014 at 8:55 am
There’s no question that it’s been “adjusted,” but based on statements of some who know him, I can’t draw the conclusion that Dr. Willis consciously did so to fall into line with AGW theory.
=============
Exactly. All humans are biased, and it is this bias that prevents us from seeing ourselves or our actions as biased. Instead we see our biased actions as being neutral and our neutral actions as being biased.
Thus, to correctly adjust the data, the experimenter must do so in a blind fashion, otherwise he/she will unconsciously introduce bias and mistakenly believe it to be neutral.
In the case of the Argo floats this was not done. Floats were selectively removed based on the trend they showed. This allowed the experimenters to unconsciously bias the results, by deciding which trend was correct and which trend was not.
As a result the Argo floats are not measuring ocean temperatures. They are measuring the experimenters unconscious bias.
Stephen Wilde says:
“If energy is being added to the system then El Ninos become more prominent and discharge energy from the oceans more rapidly.”
Still the wrong way around Stephan, look at fall in solar plasma velocity at 1997/98 and 2009/10:
http://snag.gy/nf9SK.jpg
Ulric,
Thanks for noticing my comments but I think the data shows that I have it right.
The late 20th century warming spell showed high solar activity, reduced global cloudiness, a poleward drift of the climate zones and jets plus more El Ninos.
Observations will always prevail in the end 🙂
From reading the literature at the time, the Argo adjustments came about because the floats were showing decreasing average ocean temperature over time. This led to the belief that something must be wrong with the floats. Had the floats shown increasing average ocean temperatures, researchers would have instead concluded that the floats were correct.
Thus, the adjustments are a result of experimenter expectations, not ocean temperatures. Thus the result cannot be relied upon.
In the Olympics they know enough to throw out the high and low scores before calculating the average. In this fashion you minimize bias and error. The Argo adjustments threw out the low scores but left the high, thereby cooking the results.
Figure 1. reminds me of lyrics from the song: “Machinehead”, by Bush– “breathe in, breathe out…”
Roy Spencer:
May I take a shot at the imbalance? And I have another question…
Taking peak to peak, I’d say it’s ±4.4e+22, or 8.8e+22 j total deviation. I’ve been using 5.101e+14 m^2 as the surface area of the earth (42% more than the ocean, but from a radiative balance perspective using the entire earth area made more sense to me). So that would give us 8.8e+22/31536000 seconds/yr = 2.79e+15W. 2.79e15 / 5.101e+14m^2 = 5.74W/m^2 peak to peak imbalance. I’ll have to leave the CERES question to Willis…
Now on to the more important question I’ve been wanting to ask you. I’ve been saying (as I did above), that if the earth’s surface hasn’t warmed in 17 years, and if the only heating we can seem to find on this planet is 0.5W/m^2 (which is just OHC from Levitus 2010 expressed as W/m^2), AND if we agree that the surface and atmosphere have a negligible heat capacity on this timescale, AND if we take the CO2 forcing as 3.7(log(400/280,2), or 1.94W/m^2, would the estimate of 26% of the direct forcing (0.5/1.94) not be a reasonable estimate of climate sensitivity? Meaning that feedback is negative? I realize I should take the area under the curve of the forcing over time and accumulate the energy, which makes my estimate a little on the aggressive side, but based on this, would you agree that either climate sensitivity is very low, or that we are in the influence of the back side of a natural influence (a sine wave at 90°+)?
Doing the same analysis using Levitus 2010, and going back to 1957, which should tend to suppress most natural cycles, I get a factor of 0.664 of the direct forcing. Meaning I took the area under the curve (total energy in by CO2 forcing * area * time * X) and X turned out to be 0.664 to match Levitus’ measured ocean heat. So by method 2, I also get a very low sensitivity. And if we have only 0.5W/m^2 imbalance, it also means we only have the potential to heat the earth 0.13°C before it reaches equilibrium. Which means it’s at equilibrium now for our ability to detect it.
Would you mind taking a few minutes to punch some holes in that theory? Why does this conclusion not support low sensitivity? No one seems to want to take this question on, and I know it annoys the crap out of alarmists when I explain how insignificant “4 hiroshimas/sec” is, and how wonderful and earth saving their discovery is, and how I wholeheartedly applaud their sharing it since it will save so many lives. So I would appreciate your comments. I realize you don’t respond to every hare-brained theory but I hope mine deserves some merit. Thanks in advance.
Final question… How does one pronounce Levitus? Lev eye tis? Lev eh tis? Leev eye tis?
Just weather: We drove in from the place to Greenville Tx this moring.
Driving back had the pleasure of a “Thunder Sleet” just a few min. ago.
27% ground level.
Tonight 10% F.
But nothing like friends of ours up in Oklahoma.
Just weather. Costly, long term harsh, terrible weather.
“Most of the time they are asleep, a thousand metres below the surface. Every 10 days they wake up and slowly rise to the surface, taking temperature measurements as they go. When they reach the surface, they radio their data back to headquarters, slip beneath the waves, sink down to a thousand metres and go back to sleep …”
When does the argo go down to 2000 meters?
“Well, it can show us the changes in the average temperature down to 2000 metres.”
Probably a typo somewhere?
As always, thanks for posting, Willis. Please say something to the error-margin in the follow-up.
apachewhoknows says:
March 2, 2014 at 9:44 am
Just weather: We drove in from the place to Greenville Tx this moring.
Driving back had the pleasure of a “Thunder Sleet” just a few min. ago.
27% ground level.
Tonight 10% F.
But nothing like friends of ours up in Oklahoma.
Just weather. Costly, long term harsh, terrible weather.
____________________
“Thundersleet”- that’s exactly right. I’m in central Oklahoma and listening to/marveling at the thunder while it snows/sleets.
Thanks, Willis, good post. A couple of observations:
1) The .03 degrees of warming in the past decade is after the data is adjusted. Without adjustments, there is no warming.
2) If there has been warming in the oceans (and that is a big IF), it is likely unrelated to CO2 and AGW theory. The primary mechanism for heating the oceans is direct heating by the sun. Atmospheric transfer plays a relatively small role. Decreasing cloud cover is the likely explanation IF warming is occurring. Additionally, heating related to CO2 ALWAYS begins in the atmosphere. It is not credible that atmospheric heating could heat the oceans without some residual heat remaining in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere hasn’t warmed in the time period we have had the Argos floats, it clearly can’t be responsible for warming in the oceans.
tty says:
March 2, 2014 at 1:38 am
Those are not covered by the ARGO data because it is measuring down to 2,000 metres, and they are all shallower than that … however, that also means that the volume isn’t that large. In fact, the areas not covered by the Argo floats because of shallow depths only represent about 0.2% of the total ocean volume …
w.
Richards in Vancouver says:
March 2, 2014 at 2:16 am
They all sleep at about 1,000 metres. However, some of them wake up, drop down to 2,000 metres, and then measure temperatures from there.
w.
“The margins of error must be considerable, considering the huge areas not covered by Argo”
very similar to the way GISS estimate temps up to 1200 kilometres from weather stations around the world.
Is this the first time anyone has done this sort of presentation of Argo data? It’s really something. Congratulations, Willis. It seems to be a real innovation in data presentation.