Comparison of global climatologies confirms warming of the global ocean

Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences

200635_web

IMAGE: Deployment of an APEX float from a German research ship.

Credit: Argo

The global ocean represents the most important component of the Earth climate system. The oceans accumulate heat energy and transport heat from the tropics to higher latitudes, responding very slowly to changes in the atmosphere. Digital gridded climatologies of the global ocean provide helpful background information for many oceanographic, geochemical and biological applications. Because both the global ocean and the observational basis are changing, periodic updates of ocean climatologies are needed, which is in line with the World Meteorological Organization’s recommendations to provide decadal updates of atmospheric climatologies.

“Constructing ocean climatologies consists of several steps, including data quality control, adjustments for instrumental biases, and filling the data gaps by means of a suitable interpolation method”, says Professor Viktor Gouretski of the University of Hamburg and a scholarship holder of the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ President’s International Fellowship Initiative (PIFI) at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the author of a report recently published in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters.

“Sea water is essentially a two-component system, with a nonlinear dependency of density on temperature and salinity, with the mixing in the ocean interior taking place predominantly along isopycnal surfaces. Therefore, interpolation of oceanic parameters should be performed on isopycnals rather than on isobaric levels, to minimize production of artificial water masses. The differences between these two methods of data interpolation are most pronounced in the high-gradient regions like the Gulf Stream, Kuroshio, and Antarctic Circumpolar Current,” continues Professor Gouretski.

In his recent report, Professor Gouretski presents a new World Ocean Circulation Experiment/ARGO Global Hydrographic Climatology (WAGHC), with temperature and salinity averaged on local isopycnal surfaces. Based on high-quality ship-board data and temperature and salinity profiles from ARGO floats, the new climatology has a monthly resolution and is available on a 1/4° latitude-longitude grid.

“We have compared the WAGHC climatology with NOAA’s WOA13 gridded climatology. These climatologies represent alternative digital products, but the WAGHC has benefited from the addition of new ARGO float data and hydrographic data from the North Polar regions”, says Professor Gourteski. “The two climatologies characterize mean ocean states that are 25 years apart, and the zonally averaged section of the WAGHC-minus-WOA13 temperature difference clearly shows the ocean warming signal, with a mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984”.

###

From EurekAlert!

0 0 vote
Article Rating
128 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Bromley
May 10, 2019 4:04 pm

Mumbo jumbo. Delivered as a press release

steve case
Reply to  Mike Bromley
May 11, 2019 2:22 am
Rob
Reply to  Mike Bromley
May 11, 2019 4:28 pm

Yep. I’m likely the most scientifically ignorant person to love this blog, but I know bullshit from a mile away.
This article is absurd.

Mike Bromley
May 10, 2019 4:06 pm

0.05 C??? Monthly resolution? Does this idiot know what climate is?

R Shearer
Reply to  Mike Bromley
May 10, 2019 4:55 pm

Noise combined with Mike’s Nature trick

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Bromley
May 10, 2019 4:59 pm

The final number is less than the uncertainty of the instruments they are using.

And that’s before factoring the fact that they are using a single instrument to guess at the average temperature of 10’s of thousands of cubic kilometers of sea water.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2019 6:07 pm

MarkW

I disagree slightly: the difference is larger than the uncertainty of the calculated final values. The uncertainty of the measurements is, individually, much smaller than the difference.

The missing term is the propagated uncertainty which is made up of (not the sum of) the uncertainties. Take the square root of the sum of the squares of the absolute uncertainty for each measurement. The result will be more that one degree C.

Greg
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 10, 2019 7:40 pm

“The two climatologies characterize mean ocean states that are 25 years apart, and the zonally averaged section of the WAGHC-minus-WOA13 temperature difference clearly shows the ocean warming signal, with a mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984”.

So having stated that they use different raw data and different processing methods the esteemed professor tells us that apples in 2009 are bigger than oranges in 1984.

We must act now !

ATheoK
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 11, 2019 8:28 am

Crispin:
Perhaps.
But, only if each instrument is tested and certified annually.

Even then, the uncertainty is based upon the results of the testing and certification.

As it stands now, applying the best potential laboratory uncertainty to individual instruments deployed in the oceans.

Where algae, seaweed, gull droppings, barnacles and other sea live infest and contaminate the instruments. All of which should degrade the instrument’s accuracy over time.

Ron Long
Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2019 6:09 pm

Yea, and you can bet they are not just interpolating, they are extrapolating. Big nothing-burger!

Charles Higley
Reply to  Mike Bromley
May 10, 2019 8:23 pm

That 12/10,000ths of a degree per month, if they really mean monthly resolution. No such measurements can be made. Poppycock.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Charles Higley
May 11, 2019 3:48 am

“The two climatologies characterize mean ocean states that are 25 years apart, and the zonally averaged section of the WAGHC-minus-WOA13 temperature difference clearly shows the ocean warming signal, with a mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984”.

At least they are admitting that the ocean waters have been warming up (since the end of the LIA)

But they are not going to admit enough “warming” to justify the past 60+ years of increasing atmospheric CO2 which would negate their CAGW “junk science” claims and cut off their Grant monies.

Concord Mike
May 10, 2019 4:12 pm

” WOA13 temperature difference clearly shows the ocean warming signal, with a mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984”. This is such a tiny increase it can’t be distinguished from data noise. Meaningless.

May 10, 2019 4:13 pm

The final phrase: “…clearly shows the ocean warming signal, with a mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984.”

0.05°C in 35 years? Really??

Richard M
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 10, 2019 4:49 pm

Doesn’t sound like much unless you state it in Hiroshimas.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 10, 2019 5:00 pm

The idea that we know what the temperature of the ocean to within even 1C 35 years ago is so absurd that only those who are totally uninterested in reality could make it.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2019 5:01 pm

Heck, the idea that we know what the average temperature of the oceans is TODAY, within 1C is utterly absurd.

Loydo
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 10, 2019 5:17 pm

“a mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984”

Thats a huge volume and a huge amount of energy. What about 300-m, the layer that interacts with the atmosphere? It looks like it’s pushing 0.4°C from here: https://www.ocean-sci.net/14/1127/2018/os-14-1127-2018.pdf

What about the 50-m layer how is it going? I see the surface is galloping past 0.5°C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

Meh, I guess a watched pot never boils.

fxk
Reply to  Loydo
May 10, 2019 6:04 pm

“a mean temp increase of 0.05 degrees C”?
…and the error of the estimate is…?
…and the “thermometers” are accurate to … what?
Can a temperature “average” be any more accurate than the resolution of a single thermometer?
In math, it can calculate to as many decimal places as required, but isn’t that exercise pointless?

That ought to melt a couple Antarctic ice sheets in NO TIME!

At least we “know” the ocean is warming. Imagine if the results showed THAT MUCH COOLING!

john harmsworth
Reply to  fxk
May 11, 2019 9:50 am

It would require a different “adjustment”.

Reply to  Loydo
May 11, 2019 12:07 am

If the top 50 meters warmed by an average of 0.5°C, and the next 1450 meters didn’t warm at all, then the average warming for the top 1500 meters would be 0.0167°C. So fully one-third of the total warming of the upper 1500 meters is attributable to warming in the top 50 meters.

Reply to  Loydo
May 11, 2019 10:51 am

Loydo wrote, “What about 300-m, the layer that interacts with the atmosphere? It looks like it’s pushing 0.4°C from here”

I haven’t read that paper, but if the top 300 meters warm by 0.4°C, that would, by itself, warm the average temperature of the top 1500 meters by 0.08°C. So if the top 300 meters warm by 0.4°C and the average temperature of the top 1500 meters only warms by 0.05°C, then it means the 300-1500 meter water has cooled.

steve case
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 10, 2019 5:54 pm

Dave Burton … 4:13 pm
0.05°C in 35 years? Really??

You aren’t paying attention. That’s old hat. The IPCC’s AR4 Chapter 5
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter5-1.pdf
tells us in the first sentence of the Executive Summary:

The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.

Well OK, maybe 0.05°C in 35 years IS more ridiculous than 0.10°C in 42 years, but let’s not quibble (-:

Reply to  steve case
May 11, 2019 12:46 am

0.10°C in 42 years
= 0.02380952 °C/decade, for the top 700 meters.

If the next 800 meters didn’t warm at all, that would be
= 0.01111111 °C/decade, for the top 1500 meters.

0.05°C in 35 years
= 0.01428571 °C/decade, for the top 1500 meters.

That’s 0.00317460 °C/decade faster warming!

It’s Worse Than We Thought.™

steve case
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 11, 2019 2:18 am

Dave Burton May 11, 2019 at 12:46 am

It’s Worse Than We Thought.™

From my file of tag lines, quotes & smart remarks:

If the Climate Change headline says,
“Worse than previously thought”
Historical data is being re-written.

Malcolm Carter
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 10, 2019 11:09 pm

We can at least assume from this 0.05 ºC + or minus ?? over 35 years, that the increase in temperature is small and that unsurprisingly the oceans act to moderate the global temperature with their large heat capacity. The surprise is that the atmosphere is apparently showing about a 10x larger change over this same period. Is this difference caused by a limited mixing of ocean waters? Can atmospheric temperatures get that far away from ocean temperatures?

May 10, 2019 4:20 pm

I don’t believe it, how can one research vessel plus some other data say
that the vast Oceans are warming, or cooling.

As with all things it depends on just where one measures things, the
Equator or the Pole, or in between.

MJE VK5ELL

Eric H
May 10, 2019 4:20 pm

0.05C… impossible to get that high a degree of resolution from that amount of samples on that large a scale.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric H
May 10, 2019 5:03 pm

The best instruments they have barely manage to get to that degree of resulution.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2019 7:07 pm

Beg to differ. From ARGO’s FAQ page.

“The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002°C and pressures are accurate to ± 2.4dbar…”

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2019 7:14 pm

Hope this isn’t a duplicate, but here goes.

Beg to differ. From the ARGO FAQ page.

“The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002°C and pressures are accurate to ± 2.4dbar…”

Tim Gorman
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 11, 2019 8:00 am

I believe the argo floats use thermistor sensors for temperature measurement. I can find no commercial thermistor that has an accuracy of more than 0.1degC based on the assumption of a linear change in resistance. Manual calibration curves could potentially lower than by a factor of 10 to 0.01degC. While the Argo specs are +/- .002degC I suspect that is actually the *resolution* and not the accuracy. A micrometer can read down to +/- .0005m but that doesn’t mean the accuracy is +/- .0005m.

Muppets are us
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 12, 2019 6:34 am

I have a fancy LED display on my milling machine that can tell me the position of the table within 0.0005″, the mill was made in 1942 so what the LED says and reality are completely different. And as 0.005″ is enough for my needs I tell it to only display the first 3 digits.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 13, 2019 7:58 am

@Tim Gorman
Well, here you go:

https://us.flukecal.com/products/temperature-calibration/probes-sensors/platinum-resistance-thermometers-prts/5627a-precisio?quicktabs_product_details=2

I offer this only as an illustration, not a comment on the AGRO claim of 0.002.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 13, 2019 10:24 am

D.J. – the figures on the unit you linked to are “calibrated” figures. Like I said, you can probably gain a 10-times increase in accuracy by using a manual calibration curve for each unit. That would put the uncalibrated accuracy for this unit at +/- 0.4degC at 0degC. There *are* better units out there. You also need to look at the drift rate, +/- .04degC The drift rate is nearly equal to the measurement tolerance at 0degC. None of this gives me any confidence in the +/- .002degC figure of the Argo float. I still say that is probably the resolution, not the actual accuracy.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 13, 2019 8:30 am

Interesting link, D.J. Hawkins.

Re: “Drift Rate (k=2) ± 0.04 °C at 0 °C after 100 hours at 420 °C”

Does only drift if you get it hot? Or does it still drift even if you never raise its temperature above 40 °C?

Bengt Abelsson
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 11, 2019 8:41 am

Well, how many cubic kilometers is each ARGO bouy supposed to measure.
1000, 10,000?

Ben Wilson
May 10, 2019 4:20 pm

I’m impressed with the accuracy and stability of those temperature sensors.

Imagine — multiple sensors in a sea environment to a depth of 1500 Meters with a sensitivity of less than 0.05 degrees and stable over 25 years.

Unless, of course, that’s not exactly what they did. . . .

lee
Reply to  Ben Wilson
May 10, 2019 10:53 pm

You mean that “high quality shipboard data”? 😉

Reply to  lee
May 11, 2019 1:03 am

Water temperatures taken from engine intakes are taken at different depths depending on how heavily the ship is loaded. An empty tanker rides a lot higher in the water than a full one, which certainly must affect the temperature of the water coming in.

You might think that water temperatures taken by tossing a canvas bag over the rail and hauling it back up could be fairly consistent, but I doubt it. The railing you toss your bucket over will be higher above the water on an empty ship — did you adjust the line length on your bucket? Also, full ships are slower than empty ships, which probably affects the depth to which your bucket sinks. Also, full ships churn the water deeper, causing local mixing, which probably also affects the water temperature in your bucket.

Also, typical ship sizes and speeds, and probably routes, have changed over 35 years, and that surely affects temperatures, for all of those same reasons, and probably introduces a spurious trend.

The bottom line is that I agree with the rest of you folks: there’s no way this data is good enough to support their conclusion.

Gordon Dressler
May 10, 2019 4:27 pm

Sounds very much like a preface for the need to “Karlize” the accumulated Argo data to get rid on the zero slope of temperature increase over the last 19 years, and thus to show that oceans over the globe support the CAGW meme.

John Robertson
May 10, 2019 4:32 pm

0.05Celsius.
The horror.
Um, what might the error bars be?

On this;””Constructing ocean climatologies consists of several steps, including data quality control, adjustments for instrumental biases, and filling the data gaps by means of a suitable interpolation method”, says Professor Viktor Gouretski “.

I realize it is too much to ask of the practioneers of Climatology to honestly state the variation in range of their “educated guesses”.
But to claim a signal of 0.05 after making the above statement is just too much.

As my work occasionally calls upon me to calibrate temperature sensors, the claim or even suggestion that a remote operating bouy can produce data that is reliably accurate to 0.01 C is stunningly absurd,that it would stay within calibration over the seasons is an even more asinine assumption.

The willful ignorance of measuring systems and methods that pervades Climatology is the primary reason it will never rise above being a cult.

Rant over.Yes I am fully aware that in this business of policy based evidence maanufacturing, requires such dishonesty.

Joel O’Bryan
May 10, 2019 4:36 pm

”with a mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984”.

so less than 0.20°C/century. That seems okay to me.
CC is not a question of IF, but a question of “how much.”
We can definitely live with that “how much.”

Tim Gorman
May 10, 2019 4:36 pm

And, once again, we see a “mean” offered up with no associated error band. For a 0.05degC mean to make physical sense the temperature measurement devices would have to have an an error band measured in thousandths of a degC otherwise this is nothing more than an artifact of arithmetic. Are we truly supposed to believe these measurement devices have errors measured in the thousandths of a degC? Once again, means calculated from independent measurement devices measuring independent samples do not follow the rule of large numbers and an error band for the measurement devices must be presented in order for the mean to make sense.

How has this requirement gotten so lost today in the field of science?

Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 10, 2019 5:23 pm

Tim G,

To sum up: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

frederic brillant
May 10, 2019 4:37 pm

clearly shows five hundreth celsius since 1984.scary

Michael S. Kelly, LS BSA, Ret
May 10, 2019 4:41 pm

I know the ARGO float website claims that the “The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002°C,” but the temperature and salinity data are truncated to two decimal places. There is no way on earth anyone could derive a +0.05 C temperature rise from such data.

And, by the way, the ± 0.002°C accuracy citation refers to the platinum resistance thermometers, not the installed and as-operated temperature sensors.

Latitude
May 10, 2019 4:44 pm

“Constructing ocean climatologies consists of several steps, including data quality control, adjustments for instrumental biases, and filling the data gaps by means of a suitable interpolation method”

…and we added all the numbers up…divided by how many numbers we had….and got 0.05

Did BEST teach them how to do that?

MarkW
May 10, 2019 4:57 pm

“and filling the data gaps by means of a suitable interpolation method”

Otherwise known as a best guess.
Usually the guess that’s chosen is the one most likely to result in the answer you were looking for in the first place.

May 10, 2019 5:10 pm

Yes, WAG HC is a very appropriate acronym. WAG indeed.

Reply to  Bryan-oz4caster
May 11, 2019 12:35 am

Ha! “WAG Hydrographic Climatology” — perfect!

Latitude
May 10, 2019 5:15 pm

5/100th of a degree…in 35 years…..I think they just disproved global ocean warming

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Latitude
May 11, 2019 3:05 am

Heat as apposed to temperature……
Try working out the mass of the 1.5Km of water and multiply that by 4 (SH) to obtain a comparison with the temperature that that amount of energy would manifest in air.

The top 1.5Km of oceans weighs more than 100X that of the whole of the atmosphere.
The SH of water is 4x that of air.
So the 0.05C of warming would be 400x greater if applied to the whole atmosphere (and could somehow be stored).

That gives 200C.

“I think they just disproved global ocean warming”

On the contrary my friend.

comment image

paul courtney
Reply to  Anthony Banton
May 11, 2019 7:21 am

What is it with tr0lls and this “my friend” snot? This guy probably has .05 friends, but his math produces 200, a very popular guy by his own reckoning.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  paul courtney
May 11, 2019 12:21 pm

If you say so my friend.

May 10, 2019 5:21 pm

I see that even my amateurish mind balking at 0.05 C. in a fit of laughter was not too far off base.

And, even if it were remotely possible, in hell-frozen-over, to measure the “global ocean” [more laughter] to this number of decimal places, it’s … ZERO, POINT, ZERO, FIVE DEGREES ! ! ! — beyond any sensible and rational quantity worth concern — practically ZERO — meaning no warming.

Seriously, indeed !

And Friday was going so well.

Loydo
May 10, 2019 5:26 pm

Look it’s ok, most of that increase is tucked away at the north pole, wait…

James Clarke
May 10, 2019 5:34 pm

“The global ocean represents the most important component of the Earth climate system. The oceans accumulate heat energy and transport heat from the tropics to higher latitudes, responding very slowly to changes in the atmosphere.”

What changes in the atmosphere?

It appears that they have started with the assumption that CO2 will make the atmosphere warmer and that, in turn, will make the oceans warmer. They use completely inadequate sampling of the oceans from which no scientific conclusions could possibly be made, then use statistical methods to squeeze out the results that they intended to find in the first place.

Once again, natural cycles in the oceans are ignored, along with natural climate cycles, and the assumption is that every change, real or imagined, is the result of a slight change in the concentration of a trace gas in the atmosphere.

This isn’t science. This is putting together a jigsaw puzzle with the no picture on the box, but a preconceived idea of what the picture should be. The method is simple. Force the pieces to go together! If they don’t go together, throw the errant pieces away and claim you are getting close to solving the puzzle!

Dirtman
May 10, 2019 5:46 pm

Since the Argo system didn’t exist in 1984, it’s not possible to make accurate comparisons using it in his research.

Seems to me the conclusion was reached before the work began.

Stephen Rasey
Reply to  Dirtman
May 10, 2019 10:21 pm

Someone might get me to accept an average temperature increase in the upper 1500 m of water HAD THEY LIMITED THE DATE RANGE to that of the ARGO data, which begins in late 2007 when they reached 3000 floats in operation.

The data prior to 2005 is far too undersampled and poorly distributed to make any claim of temperature change. The claim of 1984 destroyed any credibility the authors had to that point.

Roald J. Larsen
May 10, 2019 5:48 pm

0,05 .. I.e. no warming ..

Reed Coray
Reply to  Roald J. Larsen
May 10, 2019 6:59 pm

If your oven warmed at that rate, dinner would be delayed several centuries.

Reply to  Reed Coray
May 11, 2019 12:26 am

Hehe, yeah…

I typically bake at 350°F to 400°F. To warm the oven from 80°F ambient on a summer day to 350°F = a change of 270°F = 150°C.

150°C × (35 years/ 0.05°C) = 105,000 years = 1050 centuries.

If the recipe calls for preheating the oven to 350°F, you can start baking sometime during the next interglacial.

Mr Bliss
Reply to  Reed Coray
May 11, 2019 1:22 am

I think you would find that in 12 years, that dinner would be burnt to a cinder

Kurt Linton
Reply to  Mr Bliss
May 11, 2019 2:42 am

Except you’d have to refrigerate it while it cooked to keep it from spoiling.

Robert of Texas
May 10, 2019 6:05 pm

“mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984”

A little yellow Minion with hard hat and red light jumps out: “Weeedooo-weeedooo-weeedooo!”

So the ocean has warmed on average 0.05C in 35 years? Let’s just pretend their margin-of-error is less than that (come on, I know its hard, but PRETEND) and imagine Natural warming has occurred at somewhere around 1C per 100 years. The ocean would be trailing as it will warm much slower, so if the warming in the atmosphere (call it 0.35C over 35 years on Average) were 100% natural, than this amount of ocean warming would actually be expected.

Please…they actually spend government money for someone to publish this stuff? I want a REFUND!

David Chappell
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 10, 2019 7:20 pm

Chinese government money, so that’s OK…

Jerry Palmer
May 10, 2019 6:06 pm

I won’t believe it until Mickey Mann produces a kelp ring graph that confirms it.

Loydo
May 10, 2019 6:22 pm

“assumption”

But it’s a reasonable assumption. If it didn’t “make the atmosphere warmer” a whole lot of basic physics would need over-turning. Is that what you propose?

“What changes in the atmosphere?”

The observed, rapid ones. The picture, including natural cycles, is clearly on the box you just need to open your eyes.

David Chappell
May 10, 2019 6:27 pm

“available on a 1/4° latitude-longitude grid” Is that one quarter of a degree, in other words 15nm of latitude?

John Mason
May 10, 2019 6:45 pm

And the increase in rate of sea level is where?

And the decrease in the earth’s rotational rate?

John
May 10, 2019 7:04 pm

How much CO2 out gassing would that create?

Duncan
May 10, 2019 7:45 pm

Argo data from 1984? What did I misread there?

Bah. Splice two disparate records and you can make up anything you like.

Reply to  Duncan
May 11, 2019 2:03 am

Call it the “Chinese Academy of Sciences Ocean Temperature Nature Trick” (h/t Tony Heller).

If anyone reading this doesn’t get the reference, here’s background:
https://sealevel.info/climategate.html

stinkerp
May 10, 2019 8:41 pm

The ARGO float data is completely useless for measuring ocean temperature over time. They float freely so you cannot measure temperature changes in a specific location over time. Gridding the data is worse than a bad joke; it’s statistical malfeasance. The only thing they are good for is measuring temperature changes with depth, but only brief snapshots over a single measurement period. Any study purporting to show ocean warming from ARGO float data is a farce.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  stinkerp
May 10, 2019 9:36 pm

stinkerp, I think that you misunderstand how the ARGO deep diving buoys actually work. From their parking (drift) depth of about 1000m below the surface, about once every 10 days they first descend to 1500-2000 m depth then begin measuring an ascending profile of temperature, salinity, etc. This profile is obtained over a typical ascent duration of about 6 hours. Once the buoy reaches the surface it radio transmits the just-completed profile measurements as well as its GPS position, typically through the Iridium satellite system. Having completed this data communication, the buoy then descends again to its parking (drift) depth to repeat the cycle. ARGO floats vary slightly in design and mission due to continuing hardware and software improvements.

Given the range of lateral velocities of typical ocean currents and that such currents are in relative narrow ranges of depth , it is doubtful that during the 6 hours ascent duration the location of the measurement profile would be spread over more than the 0.25 deg latitude x 0.25 deg longitude grid spacing discussed in the above article (equivalent to 69 statute miles by 60 sm @equator/49 sm@45-deg latitude).

Thus, it is fair to say that ARGO diving buoys (not “floats”) are indeed useful for measuring quite localized (0.25 deg x 0.25 deg) ocean temperatures/profiles for each ascent they make, which itself ends with GPS-accurate positioning.

stinkerp
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
May 10, 2019 9:51 pm

Ummm…Gordon, I already knew that, which is why I wrote what I did. The buoys float freely in the ocean which means that temperature data over days, weeks, and months are for different areas of the ocean. There is no temporal precision beyond a single measurement dive (6 hours) or two. Useful for measuring the temperature profile at a single random location, but completely unusable for measuring temperature changes over time because of the drift.

stinkerp
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
May 10, 2019 9:54 pm

And they are indeed “floats” not “buoys”. Look it up yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

A buoy is anchored to the ocean floor. The ARGO floats are not anchored. They drift freely with the current.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
May 10, 2019 10:02 pm

Ooops . . . at the end of my second paragraph above, the statute mile distances are for a full degree of lat & long (I forgot to divide by 4). The corrected sentence should read ” . . . would be spread over more than the 0.25 deg latitude x 0.25 deg longitude grid spacing discussed in the above article (equivalent to 17 statute miles by 15 sm @equator/12 sm@45-deg latitude).

I stand by my conclusion given the following additional information:
“On either side of the equator, in all ocean basins, there are two west flowing currents: the North and South Equatorial. These currents flow between 3 and 6 kilometers per day and usually extend 100 to 200 meters in depth below the ocean surface. . . . Flowing from the equator to high latitudes are the western boundary currents. These warm water currents have specific names associated with their location: North Atlantic – Gulf Stream; North Pacific – Kuroshio; South Atlantic – Brazil; South Pacific – East Australia; and Indian Ocean – Agulhas. All of these currents are generally narrow, jet like flows that travel at speeds between 40 and 120 kilometers per day. Western boundary currents are the deepest ocean surface flows, usually extending 1000 meters below the ocean surface. . . . Flowing from high latitudes to the equator are the eastern boundary currents. These cold water currents also have specific names associated with their location: North Atlantic – Canary; North Pacific – California; South Atlantic – Benguela; South Pacific – Peru; and Indian Ocean – West Australia. All of these currents are generally broad, shallow moving flows that travel at speeds between 3 and 7 kilometers per day. . . . The world’s oceans also have significant currents that flow beneath the surface. Subsurface currents generally travel at a much slower speed when compared to surface flows.” — source: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q.html

Gordon Dressler
May 10, 2019 8:44 pm

One needs to carefully note the quote of Professor Gourteski given in the very last sentence of the above article:
“The two climatologies characterize mean ocean states that are 25 years apart, and the zonally averaged section of the WAGHC-minus-WOA13 temperature difference clearly shows the ocean warming signal, with a mean temperature increase of 0.05°C for the upper 1500-m layer since 1984”.

1) The World Ocean Atlas 13/World Ocean Database 13 database did not exist in 1984; an earlier version must have been used (e.g., WOA05/WOD05, WOA09/WOD09, whatever).

2) There was no ARGO data gathering system, or anything comparable, in the years (decades) leading up to 1984, so clearly subtracting a “1984” dataset from the WAGHC dataset (which includes the ARGO data measurements) is mixing apples with oranges.

3) What is the procedure for either “zonally averaging” each section of each database prior to “subtraction”, or alternatively, for “subtracting” the earlier data from the more recent data for each zone prior to “averaging” the data across the zone?

4) Most interestingly, why did this study only look at the 25 year time span from 1984 (i.e., not consider data from 2009 until the last year or two)? Is there something in the last 10 years of data, particular that coming from the extensive ARGO precision measuring network that might result in a contrary or inconclusive finding? (And please, don’t claim that it took about 10 years to get this report published!) Is this a classic case of cherry picking the data to obtain an end result?

As it stands right now, the above issues and questions lead me to assert the above-referenced report is so much GIGO.

Loren Wilson
May 10, 2019 8:59 pm

Like the nice auditor that spent four days at our facility this week, I would like to see the calibration results for these thermometers. What was the scheduled calibration frequency, was it adequate, what was the as found condition, etc.? So many variables to control in a decent lab to claim that kind of accuracy, so much harsher conditions 1500 meters below the surface of the ocean. I’m not from Missouri, but show me.

Stephen Rasey
May 10, 2019 10:34 pm

Why was the ARGO project built in the first place? Because we couldn’t measure ocean temperature well until then. Prior to ARGO, ocean temps were measured not deep enough and concentrated in areas important to anti-submarine warfare.

ARGO is like trying to sample the heights of people randomly sampled around the world from different countries, ages, sexes. Suppose I try comparing those data with a 1984 study that quantified the heights of people in military boot camps. It is a silly comparison. It is possible to do the arithmetic, but it is either a STUPID exercise, or a MISLEADING exercise.

Just so with this study to compare ARGO with a non-ARGO study. Their claim of 1984 destroyed any credibility they ever had. Or will have. How could any self-respecting scientist put their name to such drivel?

Rod Evans
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
May 11, 2019 12:53 am

It is amazing what people will do and/or claim to have done, in order to get their grant money signed over.
Anyone fancy a trip down to the Galapagos islands to test the water temperature? There is a research grant with your name on, to do that.

Prjindigo
May 11, 2019 12:02 am

Uhuh… because ARGO works correctly (it doesn’t).

The entirety of ocean temperature data collection prior to ARGO was a sloppy 3°C error fest and even with ARGO its still a sloppy 2°C error fest.

MangoChutney
May 11, 2019 12:16 am

0.05C

No wonder all the coral, fish, prawns, whales, kelp etc are dying faster than evah

MrGrimNasty
May 11, 2019 12:22 am

“Constructing ocean climatologies consists of several steps, including data quality control, adjustments for instrumental biases, and filling the data gaps by means of a suitable interpolation method…”

So not real measurements again then! And they only managed to find 0.05C – that must be the ‘climate science’ wooden spoon winner right there!

Rod Evans
May 11, 2019 12:49 am

Here is an idea. Do some limited research up to say 1984, then graft on some other data from a more modern data source to ensure the end result looks like a…… well a flat hockey stick.
Then to ensure the research gets full coverage in the world wide press, get the BBC preferably using David Attenborough, to declare the ocean’s temperature is increasing at an astonishing rate. Make a natural world documentary, showing Chinese street sellers stir frying fish, then tell the wider public, the Ocean temperature has risen by 500 degrees C in just 35 years! The fact most watching won’t know the difference between 5 hundredth of a degree and 5 hundred degrees is just detail.
After all what is a “th” between friends in the global warming community.

Bill Murphy
May 11, 2019 1:23 am

Have to wonder if their choice of 1984 was a Freudian Slip or possibly even a conscious subtle clue that they knew that this paper is little more than Orwellian Doublespeak thinly disguised with a dose of statistical and data splice masturbation.
Meanwhile, while reading this post my body temp went from 37C to 37.05C and my BP went up from 120/60 to 120.05/60.05. Yikes! running a fever and hypertensive both! Must be from the CO2 I inhaled when I opened that last beer. Better get to the ER fast or I won’t be around to watch the world end in 12 years!

Stephen Rasey
Reply to  Bill Murphy
May 12, 2019 9:16 am

Nice catch. I missed the connection.

Julian Flood
May 11, 2019 1:36 am

Maybe they should carry out a real scientific research project.

1. Look for ocean areas that are warming more than the average.
2. Look for a reason.

JF

nobodysknowledge
Reply to  Julian Flood
May 11, 2019 2:26 am

I agree. I think Guoretski is working out a kind of baseline that can be useful. And he is one of the most serious scientists.
And I get tired of all the comments at WUWT that meet every scientific finding by spitting it out. You need no intelligence to do that. There is no willingness to learn, and understand. The real interesting question is how energy is distributed. And this is about ocean currents.

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  nobodysknowledge
May 11, 2019 3:55 am

It takes intelligence and honesty and common sense to be a serious scientist – none of those are evident in this type of work.

PeterGB
Reply to  nobodysknowledge
May 11, 2019 4:54 am

Nobodysknowledge, your last sentence is probably the most pertinent. Possibly the most valuable information at the moment (I nearly wrote ‘currently’) from ARGO is increasing knowledge of ocean currents and oscillations and their mechanisms. Gordon Dressler has listed some of those known above, there must be many more we are as yet unaware of and some of them will operate far below the depths of ARGO.
The absolute temperature measurements are of interest, but will not be of great value until their statistical validity is improved by greatly increased sampling. Also, is it more relevant to measure the temperatures within a moving column of water (ARGO) or would there be more value in measurements at a fixed geographic point?
Calibration, sensor aging and the effects of pressure on measuring instruments are variables which are not taken into great account and has been said many times already in these comments, Guoretski ‘s work, as you say, a foundation for others to build on, is devalued by concatenation. Without reference to his original work I will not comment on the lack of error bars, but five hundredths degree K in a third of a century seems neither significant nor relevant to current discussions.

Gamecock
May 11, 2019 3:41 am

Gouretski uses a decimal point to show he has a sense of humor.

Rod Evans
May 11, 2019 5:03 am

Just so we are clear about this shattering study.
The top 1500 metres of the oceans which are roughly 3700 metres deep, is all of 0.05deg C warmer than it was 35 years ago.
Call me Mr Underwhelmed, but are we supposed to
a) take this 0.05 figure as real or just best guess?
b) be in any way concerned about it?

Gamecock
Reply to  Rod Evans
May 12, 2019 4:13 pm

It’s worse than you think. I don’t feel like looking it up, but each argo float represents about 45,000 square miles. The simple fact is: WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THE OCEAN’S TEMPERATURE IS.

Each argo float floats in the water it is in. It doesn’t measure a new area; it measures the same water it measured 10 days before, just in a new location.

CO2isLife
May 11, 2019 6:56 am

Someone needs to explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ can possibly warm the oceans. The warming of the oceans is the greatest evidence that CO2 isn’t causing the warming. What warms the oceans warms the atmosphere, and it ain’t CO2.

Why the Sun Controls the Climate and CO2 is Meaningless
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/why-the-sun-controls-the-climate-and-co2-is-meaningless/

Reply to  CO2isLife
May 11, 2019 8:55 am

CO2isLife asked, “Someone needs to explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ can possibly warm the oceans.”

When water (or anything else) absorbs radiation of any wavelength (including 13 -18 µm radiation), it warms.

When air warms, for any reason, it warms anything in contact with that air (or, if the thing in contact with the air was already warmer than the air, the air cools it more slowly).

Any other questions?

May 11, 2019 7:41 am

Doesn’t 0.05 C since 1984 over the top 1500 m equate to a bit less than 0.20 W/m2 average over the Earth’s surface? Or about 100 ZJ in total? That is rather less than other datasets indicate, I think.

Reply to  Nic Lewis
May 11, 2019 9:32 am

Nic Lewis wrote, “Doesn’t 0.05 C since 1984 over the top 1500 m equate to a bit less than 0.20 W/m2 average over the Earth’s surface? Or about 100 ZJ in total?”

Well, let’s see…

The oceans cover about 3.618 × 10^8 km² (sq-km) = 3.618 × 10^14 m² = 3.618E14 m².

So the volume of the top 1500 m of the ocean is about:
1500 m × 3.618 × 10E14 m² = 5.427E17 m³ = 5.427E20 liters.

It takes 1000 cal to raise one liter of water by 1 °C.
So, to raise 1 liter of water by 0.05 °C requires 1000 × 0.05 = 50 cal.

So, to raise 5.427E20 liters of water by 0.05 °C requires 50 × 5.427E20 = 271.35E20 cal = 2.7135E22 cal.

1 cal = 4.184 J, so 2.7135E22 cal. = 11.3533E22 J = 1.13533E23 J.

1 ZJ = 1E21 J, so 1.13533E23 J = 1.13533E22 ZJ = 113.533 ZJ.

It’s been pointed out that their “since 1984” apparently only ran through 2009 (why?!?), so it’s 25 years, rather than 34 or 35.

1 W = 1 J/sec.
25 years = 25 × 265.25 × 24 × 60 × 60 = 572940000 sec = 5.7294E8 sec.

So, 1.13533E23 J / 5.7294E8 sec = 1.9816E14 W.

1.9816E14 W / 3.618E14 m² = 0.5477 W/m².
(If you’d used 35 years instead of 24, it would work out to 25/35 of that = 0.3912 W/m².)

Reply to  Dave Burton
May 11, 2019 12:13 pm

CORRECTION:

I typo’d a couple of the numbers, starting with the number of days in a year. The last four lines should be:

25 years = 25 × 365.25 × 24 × 60 × 60 = 788940000 sec = 7.8894E8 sec.

So, 1.13533E23 J / 7.8894E8 sec = 1.4391E14 W.

1.4391E14 W / 3.618E14 m² = 0.3978 W/m².
(If you’d used 35 years instead of 25, it would work out to 25/35 of that = 0.2841 W/m².)

Ken Irwin
May 11, 2019 7:54 am

Even if this study is accurate – which it almost certainly isn’t – it doesn’t matter as it still does not explain what warmed the oceans as CO2 simply can not do it.
The downwelling argument does not address where the energy magically came from nor does it explain how something that can only penetrate the oceans by ±10µm) which would by the IPCC’s own typically optimistic calculations warm the oceans by only 0.002°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is literally too insignificant to measure and certainly too little to be discerned against the background noisiness of the data.
The oceans are heated by the Sun and practically nothing else.
Further the oceans give up that heat to the atmosphere via the hydrological cycle / latent heat of evaporation etc.
Air temperature is colder over the oceans (generally) than the air above – as Flanders and Swan once sung “you can’t move heat from a cooler to a hotter, you can try it if you like but you far better notta”. (The Thermodynamics Song).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw-brvKO-Z

For the atmosphere to (generally) heat the oceans violates the second law of thermodynamics and the problems of boundary effects prohibit warm air from heating the oceans in any case (try heating a bowl of water using a hot air gun against the surface only and see how far it gets you).

The temperature of the atmosphere drives the phenomena of “Weather” out to about 2-3 weeks but longer term weather, atmospheric temperatures and thence “Climate” is driven by ocean temperature hence the desperation of the alarmists to prove that something patently impossible within the accepted laws of physics is driving Climate Change.

They need to prove CO2 is heating the oceans !

CO2 does not and can not warm the oceans – Solar variance and the Milankovic cycles do – but man is not responsible for those.

Any argument that clashes with the second law of thermodynamics is doomed.

Ergo: man made climate change via the miniscule thermodynamics of CO2 is impossible – QED

Reply to  Ken Irwin
May 11, 2019 10:39 am

Ken Irwin wrote, “The downwelling argument does not address where the energy magically came from nor does it explain how something that can only penetrate the oceans by ±10µm) … you can’t move heat from a cooler to a hotter … For the atmosphere to (generally) heat the oceans violates the second law of thermodynamics … CO2 does not and can not warm the oceans … [etc.]”

I am so, so, so tired of this “sky-dragon slayer” nonsense. ☹️

Please, everyone, just stay away from those anti-scientific “Principia-Scientific International” nutters, unless you like being lied to and confused.
 

Ken wrote, “(try heating a bowl of water using a hot air gun against the surface only and see how far it gets you).”

Why don’t you try it, Ken? Measure out two bowls of water, as nearly identical as you can manage. Put two identical thermometers in them, and verify that they show the same temperature. Then hit one of them with a hot air gun for a few minutes. Then measure the water temperatures again.

Or, if you don’t have a heat gun, you could a similar experiment at lower temperatures: Measure out two bowls of warm water (warmer than room temperature). Put one of them in the refrigerator overnight, and leave the other one on the kitchen counter. Check their temperatures in the morning.

Notice how much warmer the bowl left on the counter is, even though the air temperature in the room was cooler than the water temperature. The air in your kitchen kept the water warmer, even though the kitchen ambient air temperature was cooler than the water temperature — and the 2nd Law was not violated.
 

Ken Irwin wrote, “…how something that can only penetrate the oceans by ±10µm)…”

If you want to understand how the top 10µm of a body of water can absorb 15 µm LWIR radiation without losing that absorbed energy to evaporation, see this comment on Steve Carson’s blog.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 11, 2019 2:08 pm

Dave, point taken – your suggested “cooler” experiment does not violate the second law but does not address the problem as I postulated it.
The atmosphere over the oceans is generally cooler than the oceans and is heated by the oceans via evaporation / condensation delivering the latent heat to the atmosphere etc.
For the (generally) cooler atmosphere to heat the oceans requires the violation of the second law.
The hot air gun is hyperbole – but it is ineffective – try it with a hair dryer on cool (still a greater differential than you will find on Earth for the small area that is subjected to offshore warmer winds) and between boundary and evaporative cooling effects you will find your experiment confounded.
“Soundbite” science either way, entire explanations are lengthy, tedious, incomplete and contentious.

Reply to  Ken Irwin
May 11, 2019 8:14 pm

Ken Irwin wrote, “For the (generally) cooler atmosphere to heat the oceans requires the violation of the second law.”

Wrong. That’s the “sky dragon slayer” fallacy.

If you were right, then it would mean coats are a scam. There would be no point wearing a coat in freezing weather, because a coat is always cooler than 98.6°F (37°C), so it could not possibly warm your body, since that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

That sort of confusion is why you should not read the garbage that PSI disseminates. (I assume that IS where you read it, right?)

It is such pure, refined nonsense that it inspired me to wax poetic. With apologies to the late, great Ogden Nash, I give you:

‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍ Sky Dragons

‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍The Second Law they twist and shove,
‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍to slay their dragons from up above.
‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍But this I know by actual test:
‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍Use a blanket and you’ll shiver less.

The title (“Sky Dragons”) is from the name of a truly awful book entitled, “Slaying the Sky-Dragon.” Avoid it, unless you like being lied to and confused.

Reply to  Dave Burton
May 11, 2019 6:33 pm

As I understand it, even if DWIR did purely drive evaporation (which it doesn’t) it wouldn’t change the fact that this can still be part of the oceans accumulating heat content. The amount of evaporation that can happen is constrained by Clausius-Clapeyron (humidity / saturation vapor pressure etc.) and therefore the energy used to drive evaporation is energy that (on average across the global ocean) would have otherwise have been ‘taken’ from the water (warmer water naturally evaporating more). Less evaporative cooling of the water with consistent solar heating means the water warms. In that framing the DWIR is more like an insulating role (insulation warms your room by slowing heat loss from it, not by heating it directly). But there is a lot of IR…

Andy Pattullo
May 11, 2019 8:27 am

This type or reanalysis is really just “scientific” self stimulation. It allows that if the “researchers” have an underlying agenda (to find warming whether real or not) they need only continuously play with measurement tools, numbers, statistical tests, models of data etc. month after month and ignore every result but the one which shows their deepest desire – then publish that. If that is what they have done then it is not science but advertising for a product (global warming catastrophe) which they are selling at a high profit to themselves. As for the discovery of methods for measurement that may have more accuracy I have no argument – if they are used reliably and consistently to measure into the future rather than to try and reanalyze the past.

CO2isLife
May 11, 2019 6:25 pm

BTW, the heat content of the oceans is known, the change in heat content is known, the W/M^2 of IR back radiation from CO2 is known, the BTUs associated with that back radiation is known, it is very easy to calculate that even if 100% of the CO2 back radiation is absorbed by the oceans, there is no way to warm the oceans that much. The warming of the oceans is clearly due to fewer clouds and a cleaner stratosphere allowing more blue visible radiation to reach the oceans.

El Ninos are driven by warming due to visible radiation, and when they release all that energy into the atmosphere and roll over into a La Nina, the temperature change in the oceans would take CO2 decades to replace all the lost energy. Only visible radiation significantly warms the oceans.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  CO2isLife
May 12, 2019 12:39 am

” there is no way to warm the oceans that much.”

Why is it so difficult to understand??

They are NOT being warmed.
They are NOT being allowed to COOL as efficiently.

CO2isLife
Reply to  Anthony Banton
May 12, 2019 5:09 am

“They are NOT being allowed to COOL as efficiently.”

That is absolute nonsense.
1) El Nino’s do the cooling in a very very rapid manner. At best, CO2 could slightly decrease the time between El Ninos
2) H20 saturates the LWIR between 13 and 18µ above the oceans, so with or without CO2 the back radiation is identical. You can check this with MODTRAN and put the settings to looking up into the lower 0.1 km of the atmosphere.

Reply to  CO2isLife
May 12, 2019 5:39 am

CO2isLife wrote, “H20 saturates the LWIR between 13 and 18µ above the oceans, so with or without CO2 the back radiation is identical.”

That’s incorrect. Here’s the Earth’s measured LW IR emission spectrum, looking down from a satellite over the tropical western Pacific:

comment image

The effect of water vapor’s absorption is circled in blue.
The effect of CO2’s absorption is (appropriately) circled in green.

As you can see, there is a fair amount of overlap on the long-wavelength side of CO2’s absorption band. But H2O doesn’t absorb much on the short side of CO2’s absorption band.

It is true that additional atmospheric CO2 has only a small & logarithmically diminishing warming effect, but it’s not mainly because of the water vapor. It’s mainly because there’s already so much CO2 in the atmosphere. MODTRAN tropical atmosphere calculates that just 0.002% CO2 (by volume or molar fraction) would have fully half the warming effect of the current 0.04%.

CO2isLife
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 12, 2019 6:35 am

“That’s incorrect. Here’s the Earth’s measured LW IR emission spectrum, looking down from a satellite over the tropical western Pacific:”

Once again, pure nonsense. This effect is modeled in MODTRAN. What is relevant to the oceans is the back radiation immediately above the oceans, not the stratosphere. LWIR in the stratosphere isn’t warming the oceans. That air is so thin there in no energy being trapped anyway. Astronauts would freeze to death in the “hot” thermosphere. Place a bag of water in the “hot” thermosphere and it will freeze. Total amount of energy is what warms the oceans, not some IR temperature measurement.

Chart #9 and 10: The other problem with ground measurements is that water vapor saturates the Greenhouse Gas Effect of the lower atmosphere. The CO2 “signature” isn’t even measurable until you are at an altitude of 3.5km or above. 100% of all ground measurements are taken in the layer of the atmosphere where CO2 has absolutely zero impact. By relying on the “adjusted” ground measurements, Climate Alarmists are allowed to claim warming, and attribute it to CO2. In reality, the only warming in the lower atmosphere is due to greater sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and oceans, water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect and intentionally biased data “adjustments”, not CO2.

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/comprehensive-climate-change-debating-points-and-graphics-bring-it-social-media-giants-this-is-your-opportunity-to-do-society-some-real-good/

Mike Borgelt
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 12, 2019 7:22 am

” LWIR in the stratosphere isn’t warming the oceans.” Absolutely correct!….not only that, LWIR from anywhere in the atmosphere isn’t warming anything.

LWIR from the atmosphere is retarding cooling, it doesn’t “warm.”

Just like a winter jacket in cold weather!!!

Reply to  Dave Burton
May 12, 2019 7:28 am

P.S. — in that image, of the Earth’s LWIR emission spectrum over the tropical western Pacific, you’ll see a trace marked “thunderstorm anvil,” which approximately follows the 210 K blackbody curve.

Here’s a nice page about “thunderstorm anvils,” with some very nice photos of of them:
https://fox41blogs.typepad.com/wdrb_weather/2012/07/crazy-clouds-the-thunderstorm-anvil.html

Thunderstorm anvils are composed of ice crystals, and they form at the tropopause, which is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, where the “lapse rate” drops to zero. Temperatures there are around 210 Kelvin (-63.15°C = -81.67°F), the coldest altitude in either the troposphere or stratosphere.

The fact that CO2’s “green notch” in the Earth’s emission spectrum, centered on 15 µm, dips right down to the same weak intensity that you’d expect from a 210 K blackbody (same as the thunderstorm anvil temperature) tells us that at the center of CO2’s 15 µm absorption band the average “emission height” is right at the tropopause.

Higher CO2 levels raise that 15 µm emission height, but (contrary to erroneous information found on many sites, including both RealClimate and SkepticalScience) that wouldn’t decrease emissions of 15 µm radiation, because the lapse rate is approximately zero at that altitude. So the warming effect from additional CO2 is mainly from the fringes of that green notch, at wavelengths where the emission height is lower, because CO2 only weakly absorbs & emits at those wavelengths.

RealClimate (here) and SkepticalScience (here), both get that wrong. But not all the climate alarmists are confused about it. Ken Rice gets it right on his ATTP blog.

CO2isLife
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 12, 2019 7:37 am

“It is true that additional atmospheric CO2 has only a small & logarithmically diminishing warming effect, but it’s not mainly because of the water vapor. It’s mainly because there’s already so much CO2 in the atmosphere. ”

That is absolutely pure nonsense.

CO2 is 400 ppm, and its marginal addition to W/M^2 of anthropogenic CO2 is measured in very very low single digits. A simple cloudy day can wipe out months of back radiation from CO2. The marginal absorption of energy by CO2 shows a rapid logarithmic decay, so doubling CO2 will barely alter the energy balance.

The problem the Climate Alarmist’s scam faces is that the W/M^2 absorbed by CO2 isn’t linear like the CO2 trend, it shows a logarithmic DECAY. Unlike the “Hockey Stick” that shows linear warming with the linear CO2 increase, the marginal W/M^2 actually DECREASES with additional CO2. From the following chart, CO2 added 29.8 W/M^2 to the atmospheric energy budget when it increased from 0.00 ppm to the pre-industrial 300 ppm maximum level. The post-industrial CO2 increase from 300 to 400 ppm added an additional 1.38 W/M^2, and doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will add an additional 3.33 W/M^2. To put those numbers in perspective, a simple cumulus cloud layer can “trap” 28.7 W/M^2 without any catastrophic consequences to warming.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/hockeystick-con-job-co2-cant-cause-temperature-dog-legs/

John Dowser
May 11, 2019 11:24 pm

0.05° in water on global scale is a lot of energy. That point seems lost on many readers.

As for instrument accuracy, some types of statistical noise will simply cancel out with mass readings. As such accuracy can indeed go up from a single reading. There are different problems with the black art of averaging and potential bias in methods but the potential to read numbers to this degree of accuracy appears as factual.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Dowser
May 12, 2019 5:00 am

John:
1. Statistics (i.e. the theory of large numbers) don’t work with independent measurement devices measuring independent things. It only works with one measurement device taking multiple readings of one thing.
2. Accuracy and resolution are two different things. Being able to “read” a measurement to a specific number of significant digits doesn’t mean that measurement is accurate.

CO2isLife
May 12, 2019 5:12 am

CO2 Can’t Cause Catastrophic Warming as Long as El Niño, La Niña and Hurricanes Exist

Water has the highest specific heat of any other common material at 1 calorie/gram °C = 4.186 joule/gram °C (Source), and therein lies the problem, CO2 and Long-Wave Infrared Radiation between 13 to 18µ doesn’t provide a lot of energy to warm the oceans. Visible radiation, the radiation that penetrates and warms the oceans, very high energy radiation between 0.4 to 0.7µ bathes the oceans with about 1050W/m^2 on a sunny summer day at noon. (Source) Anthropogenic CO2, the difference between 270 and 410 ppm provides a marginal 0.94W/m^2 24×7. (Source) CO2’s contribution is literally like adding a garden hose to the Alaskan Pipeline.

Rita and Katrina cooled some parts of the oceans by a full 4°C. One m^3 of water contains 1,000,000 grams. CO2 can warm 1 gm of water every 4.45 seconds (4.186/0.94). To warm one m^3 of water 1°C would take 4,450,000 seconds or 75,000 minutes, or 1,250 hours, or 7.44 weeks or 1.86 months…and this assumes Long-Wave Infrared Radiation between 13 to 18µ actually warms the oceans. To replace the full 4°C of energy lost would take over 7 months…JUST TO GET BACK TO EVEN!!!

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/19/co2-cant-cause-catastrophic-warming-as-long-as-el-nino-la-nina-as-well-and-hurricanes-exist/

Anthony Banton
May 12, 2019 9:05 am

“and this assumes Long-Wave Infrared Radiation between 13 to 18µ actually warms the oceans.”

Only those who do not the science “assumes LWIR …. warms the oceans”.
Just as on land it, is an ‘insulating’ effect.
Because back-radiated LWIR is increasing, the oceans are cooling to space less effectively.
Solar SW warms the oceans, and back-radiated LWIR slows cooling to space.

CO2isLife
Reply to  Anthony Banton
May 12, 2019 9:13 am

“Solar SW warms the oceans, and back-radiated LWIR slows cooling to space.”

Unless MODTRAN is wrong, CO2 has absolutely 0.00% impact on the energy balance in the atmosphere below 3km. The only time the CO2 signature is even measurable is when the H2O precipitates out and the atmospheric temperature drops to around the blackbody temp of 15µ. At that altitude, the thinness of the air alllows for radiation to COOL the atmosphere, not slow its warming. Radiation out moves much faster than conduction or convection. You can show no warming of the stratosphere with an increase of CO2, nor can you show a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere. It makes absolutely 0.00 sense to claim that the oceans can absorb 15&micro, but water vapor doesn’t. MODTRAN also shows that H2O does effectively absorb 100% of 15µ

Anthony Banton
Reply to  CO2isLife
May 12, 2019 11:07 pm

“MODTRAN also shows that H2O does effectively absorb 100% of 15µ”

No it does not, as H2O does not fully mask CO2 around that wavelength….

comment image

And here shows HITRAN doesn’t “effectively absorb 100% of 15 micron” …

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00704-016-1732-y/MediaObjects/704_2016_1732_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

As a sup material to …
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-016-1732-y

HITRAN shows also that there is a strong absorption line at 4 micron that H2O barely touches.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
May 13, 2019 1:40 am

Good info, Anthony B.

However, the 4 µm absorption band doesn’t matter much. At 4 µm the Earth emits little radiation, so there’s little or no so-called “greenhouse effect” from the 4 µm absorption.

A rule of thumb is that the cutoff wavelength, below which (longer than which) the Earth emits more than it receives, is about 4 µm. Google finds lots of graphs:
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+and+sun+emission+spectra&tbm=isch
E.g.:
comment image
comment image

The so-called (misnamed!) “greenhouse effect” only works with wavelengths longer than about 4 µm.

CO2isLife
Reply to  Anthony Banton
May 13, 2019 7:02 am

Anthony, that spectrum is most likely from a gas cell of about 10cm long. You are 100% correct, H2O does not absorb 100% in a 10cm distance. Take it up to 2 m or the height of a Stevenson Screen and you will see H2O absorbs 100%. You can verify that at Spectral Calc. They have a gas cell calculator there.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  CO2isLife
May 13, 2019 9:20 am

“Take it up to 2 m or the height of a Stevenson Screen and you will see H2O absorbs 100%. absorbs 100%.”

islife: Yes, when there is any of significance there.
The GHE works primarily where is is little WV- aloft, over deserts and the poles (except it works in reverse – at least some of the time – in Antarctica).

I refer you to:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072

“Table 1 presents the contributions of the individual gases (derived from the areas
under the curves in Figure 4(b)). The second row in the table shows the impact of the
individual gases on downward radiation incident at the surface. This component is
dominated by H2O due to the very strong emission of radiation by the near-surface
atmosphere through the H2O continuum described above. At the top of the atmosphere,
however, the continuum has little effect as most of the radiation emitted by H2O in lower layers has been absorbed and the emergent radiation has been emitted
from layers at lower temperatures. For CO2, on the other hand, some of the radiation
from the surface manages to reach space. Thus the net effects of H2O and CO2 at
the top of the atmosphere are much more similar than at the surface and it can be seen
that, despite having a concentration of less than 0.04%, CO2 is responsible for nearly a
quarter of the total greenhouse trapping of radiation in the current atmosphere under
clear-sky conditions.”

“The CO2 15μm band occurs close to the peak of the blackbody function at temperatures
representative of the Earth’s atmosphere and surface. It also happens to occur where
water vapour absorption is weaker and thus it plays a key role in infrared radiative transfer in Earth’s atmosphere. “

Reply to  CO2isLife
May 13, 2019 10:09 am

CO2isLife wrote, “Take it up to 2 m or the height of a Stevenson Screen and you will see H2O absorbs 100%.”

I don’t think so, CO2isLife. The measurements which go into the HITRAN database are, indeed, lab measurements. But the graph that Anthony showed is the result of a calculating the effect of those measurements on the entire atmosphere.

Anthony B’s graph is consistent with the satellite-measured emission spectrum: substantial H2O absorption on the long-wavelength side of CO2’s absorption band, but only weak H2O absorption on the short-wavelength side of CO2’s absorption band, as you can see:

comment image

1sky1
May 12, 2019 4:32 pm

Based on high-quality ship-board data…

Pray tell, where does one find such?

Alan Tomalty
May 17, 2019 7:10 am

From that web site that sells the thermometer

Calibrated Accuracy† (k=2) ± 0.026 °C at -196 °C
± 0.046 °C at 0 °C
± 0.077 °C at 200 °C
± 0.124 °C at 420 °C

Johann Wundersamer
May 18, 2019 8:44 pm

“Digital gridded climatologies of the global ocean provide helpful background information” so nowadays it’s easy to pick and choose the most suitable climatology.

%d bloggers like this: