Title: Correction to “Recent cooling of the upper ocean”
Abstract: Geophysical Research LettersVolume 34, Issue 16 OceansFree Access Correction to "Recent cooling of the upper ocean" This article corrects the following: Recent cooling of the upper ocean John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, Gregory C. Johnson, Volume 33Issue 18Geophysical Research Letters First Published online: September 20, 2006 Josh K. Willis, Josh K. Willis [email protected] Search for more papers by this authorJohn M. Lyman, John M. LymanSearch for more papers by this authorGregory C. Johnson, Gregory C. JohnsonSearch for more papers by this authorJohn Gilson, John GilsonSearch for more papers by this author Josh K. Willis, Josh K. Willis [email protected] Search for more papers by this authorJohn M. Lyman, John M. LymanSearch for more papers by this authorGregory C. Johnson, Gregory C. JohnsonSearch for more papers by this authorJohn Gilson, John GilsonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 August 2007 https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030323Citations: 49AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL [1] Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used in "Recent cooling of the upper ocean" by John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, and Gregory C. Johnson (Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033). These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated by Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work. [2] Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles. This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ for more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling. Acknowledgments [3] J. M. L. and G. C. J. were supported by the NOAA Climate Program Office and the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This research was carried out in part at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. PMEL contribution 3069. JIMAR contribution 07–364. References Gouretski, V., and K. P. Koltermann (2007), How much is the ocean really warming? Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01610, doi:10.1029/2006GL027834. Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling in the upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033. Citing Literature Volume34, Issue1628 August 2007 ReferencesRelatedInformation