James Annan, Syd Levitus and the 35% exaggeration of Ocean Heat Content rise

Posted: April 4, 2018 by tallbloke in alarmism, Analysis, censorship, climate, modelling, Ocean dynamics

ClimategateFictionI ran across this interesting exchange recently. In it, James Annan, one of the IPCC authors who got Pattern Recognition in Physics shut down after we published our findings on the solar-planetary theory in it because he thought it was wrong, doesn’t seem as bothered to deal with errors by his fellow oceanographer Syd Levitus. Not even when it’s a whopper that has been costing the taxpayer billions due to the climate! panic! James and his colleagues have promoted for years.

James Annan did eventually write a short letter to the journal, but it went unpublished. The Levitus papers were never corrected, though later IPCC reports show a figure for 1955-96 closer to 13×10^22J than the 18×10^22J Levitus et al reported. The increase was actually caused by the reduction in cloud cover letting more sunshine through, as measured by the ISCCP. The latest graphs have also ‘disappeared’ the fall in OHC between 2003-9 measured by ARGO buoys and replaced it with a rise.

“Warming of the world ocean” and “Anthropogenic warming of earth’s climate system”
James Annan
4/16/02
1 Warming of the World Ocean. Levitus et al, Science vol 287 2000
2 Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s Climate System. Levitus et al,
Science v 292 2001
Has anyone else here used the data presented in these papers? A
colleague and I have, but we cannot reproduce the net heat gain of
18.2 x 10^22 J in the worlds’ oceans for the period 1955-1996 which
was mentioned in [2].According to [2], this number comes from a straight line fit to the
5-year averaged ocean data from 1957.5 to 1994.5 (the year index
refers to the mid-point of the 5 year averages), extrapolated out to
cover the original 41 years 1955-1996. Ie a trend of 0.44 x 10^22 J
per year. The data are presented in Fig 4 of [1], and available from
the authors.We get a much lower answer of 13.5 x 10^22 J, ie 0.33 x 10^22 J per
year. It’s only a least squares fit, so I don’t see what we could have
done wrong. But our number is a long way off the published value, and
also a long way short of the model result (which was 19.7 x 10^22 J).James

Click here to Reply
Jim Scanlon
4/17/02
In article <35ac5ae8.0204…@posting.google.com>,
jd…@pol.ac.uk (James Annan) wrote:(see below)Have you contacted the authors or written to Science?
Jim Scanlon

– show quoted text –
James Annan
4/17/02

Jim Scanlon <jsca…@linex.com> wrote in message news:<jscanlon-7AAE0F.22003516042002@netnews.attbi.com>…

> In article <35ac5ae8.0204…@posting.google.com>,
jd…@pol.ac.uk (James Annan) wrote:(see below)
>
> Have you contacted the authors

Yes, I got the data from one of them in the first place, and he
explained how they had calculated the figure (the description in the
paper isn’t brilliant). But as soon as I pointed out the error, he
stopped replying.

James

Jim Scanlon
4/18/02
In article <35ac5ae8.02041…@posting.google.com>,
jd…@pol.ac.uk (James Annan) wrote:

> Jim Scanlon <jsca…@linex.com> wrote in message
> news:<jscanlon-7AAE0F.22003516042002@netnews.attbi.com>…
> > In article <35ac5ae8.0204…@posting.google.com>,
> > jd…@pol.ac.uk (James Annan) wrote:(see below)
> >
> > Have you contacted the authors
>
> Yes, I got the data from one of them in the first place, and he
> explained how they had calculated the figure (the description in the
> paper isn’t brilliant). But as soon as I pointed out the error, he
> stopped replying.

Suggest you write to the journal. This is the way science is supposed to
work. Reviewers are supposed to check for errors.

About twenty years ago there was a mathematician who lived in Berkeley,
I can’t remember his name, but I think it was Serge Lange or something
like that, who specialized in finding math errors in published papers. I
helped a medical doctor format a paper for publication and found a error
in addition. One can’t be too careful.

Jim Scanlon

James Annan
4/19/02

Jim Scanlon <jsca…@linex.com> wrote in message news:<jscanlon-6682C1.22400317042002@netnews.attbi.com>…

> Suggest you write to the journal. This is the way science is supposed to
> work. Reviewers are supposed to check for errors.

I suppose so. Unfortunately I see that Science has a 6 month cut-off
for letters discussing previous publications. Which is doubly
unfortunate since we actually discovered the mistake inside 6 months
and have been twiddling our thumbs (*) waiting for a reply from the
authors ever since!

James
(*) not literally of course, but doing other things…

If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of
giants.

Comments
  1. A C Osborn says:

    Just another total exageration that went unpunished.

  2. Bloke down the pub says:

    Should’ve learnt the lesson that if you go giving people the data and your method, they’ll only go picking fault with it. Much safer to keep that sort of thing hidden from view.

  3. dennisambler says:

    The late Oceanographer Robert Stevenson, wrote a critique of Levitus et al (2000)

    Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not “Global Warming” by Dr. Robert E. Stevenson

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

    “At a press conference in Washington, D.C., on March 24, 2000, Dr. James Baker, Administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announced that since the late 1940s, there “has been warming to a depth of nearly 10,000 feet in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.”

    “In each ocean basin, substantial temperature changes are occurring at much deeper depths than
    we previously thought,” Dr. Baker said, as indicated by research conducted at NOAA’s Ocean Climate Laboratory. He was referring to a paper published in Science magazine that day, prepared by Sydney Levitus, John Antonov, Timothy Boyer, and Cathy Stephens, of the NOAA Center.

    For 15 years, (in 2000) modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken place.

    Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back to haunt us. They’ve needed such a boost to prop up the man-induced greenhouse warming theory, but have had no observational evidence to support it. The Levitus, et al. article is now cited as the needed support.”

    Well worth a read.

  4. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Tallbloke. I enjoyed reading that.

    Cheers.

    Bob

  5. It was the Sun wot did it!!

  6. Scute says:

    The cut off period for Science Magazine is rather disturbing. One should be able to correct 100-year old papers if they’re wrong.

    I “twiddled my thumbs” for a year after contacting the authors of an astronomy paper re a mistake. That paper was in Astronomy and Astrophysics who luckily don’t have a cut off (or at least they didn’t tell me of any cut off).

    So I contacted A & A after a year, saying the delay was because of the authors not bothering to respond. They sent my correction to both authors (lead and second) whom I had originally emailed and also the person who had reviewed it. The reviewer immediately saw the mistake and graciously said “so where do we go from here? Do we issue an erratum or do we ask the authors to do a rewrite?” I wrote

  7. Scute says:

    ….continued (got posted prematurely- fingers slipped

    I wrote back saying it should be a rewrite but then the authors came back with their reply denying any mistake. And then the all too common “and even if we did, it didn’t affect the result”. So instead of getting the reviewer or a third party to arbitrate, A & A left it to me to write a paper on it to prove my point…but I’d proved it in my letter to them in great detail with diagrams. They were just fobbing me off and I haven’t had time to do a proper paper yet. Another year has now passed and the faulty paper has been cited two dozen times.

  8. Scute says:

    I don’t think root 2 (1.41) crops up in a least squares fit. However 13.5 x 1.41= 19. This is quite close to both the 18.2 and the 19.7 that they’re trying to replicate. (i.e. 18.2 e22 or 19.7 e22)

  9. oldbrew says:

    The latest graphs have also ‘disappeared’ the fall in OHC between 2003-9 measured by ARGO buoys and replaced it with a rise.

    The result is fixed – settled science etc. How you get there is incidental :/
    If the data say no, the data must need ‘adjusting’ – or if that’s too difficult, burying discarding.