Observational and energetics constraints on the non-conservation of potential/Conservative Temperature and implications for ocean modelling

This paper seeks to elucidate the fundamental differences between the nonconservation of potential temperature and that of Conservative Temperature, in order to better understand the relative merits of each quantity for use as the heat variable in numerical ocean models. The main result is that potential temperature is found to behave similarly to entropy, in the sense that its nonconservation primarily reflects production/destruction by surface heat and freshwater fluxes; in contrast, the nonconservation of Conservative Temperature is found to reflect primarily the overall compressible work of expansion/contraction. This paper then shows how this can be exploited to constrain the nonconservation of potential temperature and entropy from observed surface heat fluxes, and the nonconservation of Conservative Temperature from published estimates of the mechanical energy budgets of ocean numerical models. Finally, the paper shows how to modify the evolution equation for potential temperature so that it is exactly equivalent to using an exactly conservative evolution equation for Conservative Temperature, as was recently recommended by IOC et al. (2010). This result should in principle allow ocean modellers to test the equivalence between the two formulations, and to indirectly investigate to what extent the budget of derived nonconservative quantities such as buoyancy and entropy can be expected to be accurately represented in ocean models.

Metacognition and proofreading: the roles of aging, motivation, and interest

Objectives: The current study examined younger and older adults’ error detection accuracy, prediction calibration, and postdiction calibration on a proofreading task, to determine if age-related difference would be present in this type of common error detection task. Method: Participants were given text passages, and were first asked to predict the percentage of errors they would detect in the passage. They then read the passage and circled errors (which varied in complexity and locality), and made postdictions regarding their performance, before repeating this with another passage and answering a comprehension test of both passages. Results: There were no age-related differences in error detection accuracy, text comprehension, or metacognitive calibration, though participants in both age groups were overconfident overall in their metacognitive judgments. Both groups gave similar ratings of motivation to complete the task. The older adults rated the passages as more interesting than younger adults did, although this level of interest did not appear to influence error-detection performance. Discussion: The age equivalence in both proofreading ability and calibration suggests that the ability to proofread text passages and the associated metacognitive monitoring used in judging one’s own performance are maintained in aging. These age-related similarities persisted when younger adults completed the proofreading tasks on a computer screen, rather than with paper and pencil. The findings provide novel insights regarding the influence that cognitive aging may have on metacognitive accuracy and text processing in an everyday task.