On Resplandy Et Alia (2018)

Fig. 1 WOD Layers

I. Background

Today's post is about the research paper that recently made headlines all over the place (Beware of Double Downers).

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

This post speculates as to why the error was made and is akin to the long lasting "ghost water" phenomenon of a year or so back (NASA Busts The Ghost).

In other words, this post is not a criticism of the authors of the paper, it is a reflection on how any and all researchers can be misled.

II. One Problem

One problem that leads us astray when we are researching is not having a grasp of where to find and use data.

That paper focused on ARGO data and criticized all in situ measurements because ARGO data was said to be defective to the point of requiring a new way to find out about the ocean without using measurements of the ocean:

"The ocean is the main source of thermal inertia in the climate system¹. During recent decades, ocean heat uptake has been quantified by using hydrographic temperature measurements and data from the Argo float program, which expanded its coverage after 2007^2,3. However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007^4,5. Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O₂) and carbon dioxide (CO₂)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer."

(ibid, Resplandy et al. 2018). It seems as if the authors were saying that there are not a sufficient number of viable sources for in situ ocean measurements.

That is why I suggest using the very best sources, then being careful to point out areas of concern (Build Your Own Thermosteric Computational System, 2; Build Your Own Sea Level Change Fingerprinting System).

The sources we have are adequate for fully exposing the obvious catastrophe facing current civilization (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

But, far too many researchers have been muzzled into the trance of denial about such matters:

One scientist who was recently arrested at the White House, and who had to retire from NASA, put some scientific observations to work on this scientific reality:

"I suspect the existence of what I call the `John Mercer effect'. Mercer (1978) suggested that global warming from burning of fossil fuels could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with a sea level rise of several meters worldwide. This was during the era when global warming was beginning to get attention from the United States Department of Energy and other science agencies. I noticed that scientists who disputed Mercer, suggesting that his paper was alarmist, were treated as being more authoritative.

It was not obvious who was right on the science, but it seemed to me, and I believe to most scientists, that the scientists preaching caution and downplaying the dangers of climate change fared better in receipt of research funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out. I could vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981) that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research, specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication (MacCracken 1983).

I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more readily if they do not push too far and are larded with caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency for `gradualism' as new evidence comes to light may be ill-suited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse is concerned."

(Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise, James Hansen)

(On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 8). When it is time to sound the alarm, sound it long and loud.

III. My Take On The Issue

I think that the real problem is one caused by the misapplication of the current loud and clear data we have.

It is said and written over and over that the global oceans together absorb over 90 percent of the excess heat in the climate system, but more important than that, is where that heat is headed:

"The vast Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, plays a starring role in the future of climate change. The global oceans together absorb over 90 percent of the excess heat in the climate system and roughly three-quarters of that heat uptake occurs in the Southern Ocean. In addition, the global oceans absorb around 25 percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and the Southern Ocean alone accounts for about half of the uptake of CO2.

Despite its critical role in our climate system, the Southern Ocean has gone almost completely unobserved. Scientists have struggled to gather precise measurements because of the harsh environment and extreme remoteness. The changing dynamics of the Southern Ocean will in turn drive key aspects of our future climate, including how sensitive the Earth will be to further warming and increases in carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, improved observations are crucial to helping scientists understand and predict how our climate will change."

(Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers - 6). That post was written while Resplandy et al. (2018) were putting the finishing touches on their paper.

Researchers are not, due to the Mercer effect,  paying sufficient attention to where the heat that is absorbed is headed ("The global oceans together absorb over 90 percent of the excess heat in the climate system and roughly three-quarters of that heat uptake occurs in the Southern Ocean", ibid).

IV. Oh Yeah, The Graphs

The graphic at Fig. 1 is the oft posted WOD map of zones of in situ measurements (it covers the globe).

I used that data (including SOCCOM & GISTEMP) to produce the graphs at Fig. 2 - Fig. 4.

The theme of these graphs is that one can detect the movement of the warmth from the surface of the ocean down into deeper depths where currents carry that warmth to the Southern Ocean (Antarctica).

That freeway down to and around Antarctica is not too shabby:

"The Antarctic Circumpolar Current moves 140 million cubic meters (4.9 billion cubic feet) of water per second around Antarctica. That single current moves more water than all the rivers on the planet combined. The world's rivers move 1.3 million cubic meters (46 million cubic feet) of water per second."

(Mysterious Zones of Antarctica - 2). If one wants to watch the area where "the doomsday glacier" keeps on calving, then they should stay away from research about the Baltic Sea.

Anyway, the graph at Fig. 2 shows: 1) the GISTEMP temperature anomalies, 2) the seven percent staying in the atmosphere, and 3) the ninety some odd percent going into the oceans.

Additionally it shows the Resplandy et al. (2018) paper's estimation of heat energy custom retro graphed back to 1880 (informed by GISTEMP data).

The graph at Fig. 3, bottom pane, shows the result of graphing every in situ ocean temperature measurement in the WOD, SOCCOM, OMG, WHI, etc. datasets (billions of measurements).

Along with the graph at Fig. 4, which shows that the Southern Ocean temperatures (around the largest ice sheet location and the coldest air) are warming more than the other oceans are.

That dove-tails with the statements I quoted above ("The global oceans together absorb over 90 percent of the excess heat in the climate system and roughly three-quarters of that heat uptake occurs in the Southern Ocean.").

V. Go Where The Money Is

I have written more than once about the detective who asked the suspect "Why do you rob banks?" and then received the answer "Because that is where the money is."

Researchers will do well ("go where the money is") to use the official datasets which have ample data with which to avoid bad results (The Warming Science Commentariat - 11).

VI. Conclusion

I hope that all the authors of the paper do not give up on their quest for alternative means and methods of discovery.

That angle is apt to lead to good things.

But, at the same time I hope that they stop trashing what we have now, and what we can find out about playing in the majors without playing with the minors.

"Outside in the cold distance, a wild cat did growl, two riders were approaching, and the wind began to howl." (All Along The Watchtower" - Dylan).

The next post in this series is here.

---

All along the research watchtowers ...

---