Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 9:27pm:



That must be why the graph is presented there as Courtesy: Lijing Chen, IAP same as in the Eschenbach post.

Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 9:27pm:


And you still don't understand the data.

Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 10:11pm:


Poor petal.

"Cheng, L., J. Abraham, Z. Hausfather, and K. E. Trenberth, 2019: How fast are the oceans warming? Science, 363, 128–129, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7619. "

Collectively known as Cheng et al, 2019.

*et al  - and all.

Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 10:11pm:



And yet you have "downloaded" the paper and don't understand it.

BTW- That graph on Watts is actually a screenshot from Hausfathers twitter account.

Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 11:03pm:
and
, but you just cant grasp the obvious.
I am glad you finally got it.

Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 11:03pm:


And you will be wrong AGAIN. I gave the the data file remember.  The data file gives the amount of Zettajoules for 2000m for both 1955 and  2018 and you can't grasp the obvious.


Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 11:03pm:


So has hausfather said that the graph from Lijing Chen is a fake? or is it real?

Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 11:03pm:



but i have you sussed.

Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 11:29pm:


Seeing the graph is from the lead author as stipulated, it would be safe to say it is real. 

Unless you think Hausfather, one of the authors has been duped.

Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 11:29pm:



Poor petal. He doesn't understand the data.

But back to the paper.

"2.6 scenario, the models project an ocean warming (0 to 2000 m) of 1037 zettajoules
(ZJ) (~0.40 K) at the end of the 21st century (mean of 2081–2100 relative to 1991–2005)"

So if 1037 Zettajoules equals ~0.40K then 1K equals approximately 2592.5 Zettajoules or 2600 Zettajoules per K. This agrees with Eschenbach.

I'll let you work through the rest. Tell us how much he is out.

Robot wrote on Jun 13^th, 2019 at 4:52pm:


Perhaps you can find a peer reviewed article from 1955 that confirms your belief. or alternatively  just look at the modelled data to find out.

So what technology did they have for 2000m below sea surface temperatures back then? Submarine sensors in the engine room pipes?

BTW - BT's had a depth range of about 295m and XBT's, which came before Argo buoys and were still used up to 2013, had a depth range of  between 460m and 1830m. So no 2000m data there.

Also BTW -Robot wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 7:51pm:



Quoting Desmogblog? A blog? as a source? 

But perhaps that is why he has written for Nature among others.

"Page 9
Publications, Patent, and Papers

2006
“Problems with publishing scientific information on the web: how unusual were
temperatures in Svalbard, Norway?”, Energy and Environment magazine, 1/2007.

2004
“Global Warming Not the Cause of Lake Tanganyika Decline”, Nature magazine, 7/2004.

2004
“Tuvalu Not Experiencing Increased Sea Level Rise”, Energy and Environment magazine, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2004."

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqnhc0aw562k79j/Willis_Eschenbach_CV.doc?dl=0

Edit: A copy of problems with the xbt's -

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a092954.pdf

Robot wrote on Jun 13^th, 2019 at 8:54pm:


But I keep giving you information. information you ca't absorb.

Robot wrote on Jun 13^th, 2019 at 8:54pm:



And much better than you petal. All your objections down the drain.

Metrics not mentioned - wrong.

Wrong metrics - wrong

And that's after you "read" the paper. And having all the data you can't even try to refute it.

Remember you are the one saying he is wrong. Prove it.

Perhaps you can show the observations going back to 1955 to 2000m.

I have looked. i can't find it. I suspect it is a reanalysis that then becomes "data".

Robot wrote on Jun 13^th, 2019 at 11:04pm:


Because you disagree with the numbers? Oh that's right you found it too difficult to check.

Because you like your "appeals to Authority"? 

You seem to be one of those people who believe in the Gamblers Fallacy.

If you take a number of temperature readings with a thermometer that has accuracy of +/-0.5C, the accuracy doesn't improve for the averaged product. The accuracy stays the same, +/-0.5C.

Like the Sea Level Rise using the Jason satellite series. They have an accuracy of 3.3cm or 33mm. Yet claim they can tell the SLR to within 0.1mm.

And all that with an earth that is ellipsoid, subject to tidal influence, waves, storm surge among others. And they can tell SLR down to the merest windblown ripple.

Robot wrote on Jun 13^th, 2019 at 11:04pm:



Who needs it when the "tool" is you?