OR…. There are Increases in Trend with Each Update While The Causes of Downward Biases Are Deleted
Guest Essay by Bob Tisdale:
In the recent WUWT post Something hinky this way comes: NCDC data starts diverging from GISS, the differences between GISS and NCDC global temperature anomaly data was discussed. I commented that the GISS and NCDC global surface temperature anomaly data relied on two different SST datasets.
NCDC has their own SST anomaly dataset for their global surface temperature product, and they calculate anomalies against the base years of 1901 to 2000. GISS has used the NCDC OI.v2 SST anomaly data since December 1981, and before that they had used the Hadley Centre’s HADSST data. GISS then splices the two datasets together. This post does not discuss the HADSST data, but delves into the differences between the multiple NCDC SST anomaly datasets, one of which is used by GISS.
GRAPHS OF GLOBAL OI.v2 (USED BY GISS) and “NCDC Ocean” SST ANOMALY DATA
I have not been able to find GISS SST anomaly data as a separate dataset, so for a short-term comparison, I’ll use their source, the OI.v2 SST anomaly data available through the NOAA NOMADS system. Unfortunately, the OI.v2 SST data uses a third climatology for their anomalies (with base years of 1971-2000), but don’t let that concern you. It just makes for an unusual comparative graph.
Figure 1 is a short-term comparison (November 1981 to April 2009) of the OI.v2 Global SST anomaly data (used by GISS) and the NCDC’s “Global Ocean Temperature”. The NCDC data is available toward the bottom of the NCDC Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php
Specifically:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
http://i41.tinypic.com/sec4kh.jpg
Figure 1
The two datasets appear to track one another, and the obvious difference, the shift in the data, is a result of the different base years. But if we subtract the OI.v2 SST data from the NCDC “Global Ocean” SST anomaly data, we can see that one dataset rose more than the other since November 1981. Refer to Figure 2. The NCDC “Global Ocean” SST anomaly dataset rose at a greater rate than the OI.v2 SST anomaly data that’s used by GISS. This would bias the NCDC global surface temperature upward over this time span, or bias the GISS data down, depending on your point of view.
http://i39.tinypic.com/qzlsvo.jpg
Figure 2
So to conclude this section of this post, part of the difference between the GISS and NCDC global surface temperatures discussed in WUWT post Something hinky this way comes: NCDC data starts diverging from GISS results from the use of different SST anomaly datasets.
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DATASETS?
The use of satellite data appears to have an impact.
NOAA describes the Optimum Interpolation (OI.v2) SST anomaly data (used by GISS) as, “The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SST’s plus SST’s simulated by sea-ice cover.” The in situ data is from buoy and ship measurements. The full description of the OI.v2 data is here:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html
The NCDC identifies the “Global Ocean Temperature” dataset as SR05 in its Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php#sr05
Linked to the webpage is a paper by Smith et al (2005) “New surface temperature analyses for climate monitoring” GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L14712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023402, 2005.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-comparison.pdf
On page 2, Smith et al describe the SR05 data as, “The SR05 SST is based on the International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS [Woodruff et al., 1998]). It uses different, though similar, historical bias adjustments to account for the change from bucket measurements to engine intake SSTs [Smith and Reynolds, 2002]. In addition, SR05 is based on in situ data.”
It appears, from that quote and the rest of the paper, the SR05 SST dataset does NOT use satellite data. This is consistent with NCDC’s other long-term SST datasets. They also abstain from satellite data.
COMPARISON OF SR05 TO THE NCDC’s OTHER TWO SST ANOMALY DATSETS
In addition to the SR05 SST data, the NCDC also has two other long-term SST datasets called Extended Reconstructed SST (ERSST) data. The ERSST.v2 (Version 2) data was introduced in 2004 with the Smith and Reynolds (2004) paper Improved Extended Reconstruction of SST (1854-1997), Journal of Climate, 17, 2466-2477. Many of my early Smith and Reynolds SST Posts used ERSST.v2 data through the NOAA NOMADS system. Unfortunately, ERSST.v2 data is no longer available through that NOAA system, so the latest ERSST.v2 global SST anomaly data from NOMADS I have on file runs through October 2008.
The ERSST.v2 data was updated with ERSST.v3 data. In my opinion, it provides the most detailed analysis of high latitude SST in the Southern Hemisphere (the Southern Ocean). The ERSST.v3 data was introduced last year with the Smith et al (2008) paper: Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006), Journal of Climate,21, 2283-2296. The NCDC updated it with their ERSST.v3b version later in 2008, but more on that later. A limited number of datasets (based on latitude) for the ERSST.v3b data are available from NCDC (though it is available on a user-selected coordinate basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer website, as is ERSST.v2 data).
I have found no source of SR05 SST anomaly data, other than the Global, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere “Ocean Temperature” datasets linked to the Global Surface Temperature webpage.
Figures 3 and 4 are long-term comparisons (1880 to “present”) of the “NCDC Global Ocean” (SR05) SST anomaly data to the ERSST.v2 and to the ERSST.v3b SST anomalies. Based on the linear trends, the “NCDC Global Ocean” (SR05) data resides between the older ERSST.v2 and the more recent ERSST.v3b data.
http://i40.tinypic.com/am84ma.jpg
Figure 3
########
http://i43.tinypic.com/2u9pwk6.jpg
Figure 4
But note that the trend increases with each SST dataset improvement.
THE ERSST.v3 DATASET ONCE USED SATELLITE DATA
In “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)”, Smith et al note the use of satellite data for ERSST.v3 data in their abstract, “Beginning in 1985, improvements are due to the inclusion of bias-adjusted satellite data.” That’s a positive description. They further proclaim, “Of the improvements, the two that have the greatest influence on global averages are better tuning of the reconstruction method and inclusion of bias adjusted satellite data since 1985.” In fact there is a whole subsection in the paper about the satellite adjustments.
WHY THEN DID THE NCDC DELETE THE SATELLITE DATA IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION, ERSST.v3b?
Reynolds, Smith, and Liu write in a November 14, 2008 attachment to their main ERSST.v3b webpage, “In the ERSST version 3 on this web page WE HAVE REMOVED SATELLITE DATA from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.” [Emphasis added.]
The link for that quote is here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/merged-product-v3.pdf
Note that the “merged product” referenced above is their ERSST.v3b-based land plus sea surface temperature data.
Figure 5 illustrates the difference between the ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v3 global SST anomaly data (ERSST.v3 data MINUS ERSST.v3b data). The “dip” after 1985 would appear to be the satellite bias.
http://i43.tinypic.com/6yfx8h.jpg
Figure 5
Hmmm. It looks as though, if you’re a SST data producer, downward biases are bad, but increases in trend with each update are good.
SOURCES
The ERSST.v3b SST anomaly data is available through the NCDC’s ERSST.v3 webpage:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
Link to the available datasets:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo
I used this dataset for this post:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.90N.asc
The NCDC’s “Global Ocean Temperature” dataset is available through:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php
Specifically:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
ERSST.v2 data are no longer available through the NOAA NOMADS System. I relied on ERSST.v2 global SST anomaly data from my files for this post. I also used the ERSST.v3 I also had on file for the comparison to the ERSST.v3b data.
The OI.v2 data is available through the NOAA NOMADS system:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Holy data fraud batman….
Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way? As Lindzen observed “To be sure, models and data are often uncertain, but that correcting data always leads to consistency with models is highly unlikely.” One could say the same for corrections which always seem to lead to more warming. How implausible can you get?
“Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way?”
Because if there is a potential for “crisis” then there is the potential for funding to “study” it. If the crisis goes away, so does the funding.
Thanks Bob, for making this clear. It is getting tiresome of the same upward adjustments, effectively so if a downward adjustment is removed, to a dataset. It wouldn’t be so obvious if it wasn’t done every single time. How smart is that?
In “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)” (referenced above), Smith et al noted that the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) made the SST observations discussed therein since about 1985. Actually, AVHRR measurements come from several different satellites that replaced each other over time. Data from the same satellites was used by Steig, et al to conclude that Antarctica was warming, instead of cooling (see Antarctica warming? An evolution of Viewpoint (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#more-5224 and several subsequent posts on this blog by searching “Antarctica.”)
The Steig et al paper came out in January 2009, yet as noted above Reynolds, Smith and Liu in November 2008 REMOVED the AVHRR data because it was apparently deemed unreliable “where in situ data are sparse.” There should be no argument that in situ data in Antarctica are sparse.
So, if we follow the same logic of Reynolds, Smith and Liu and REMOVE the AVHRR data for Antarctica as well, based on their argument that “in situ data are sparse,” then the Steig et al paper would be left without any foundation. Or is there some flaw in my logic?
@ur momisugly Bob Tisdale
Have you read this?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/conveyor-belt-model-broken
“In the ERSST version 3 on this web page WE HAVE REMOVED SATELLITE DATA from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.”
In my experience as a biochemist, ignoring an entire dataset like that sounds a lot like data fraud to me.
Bob Tisdale,
Thank you for your very thorough analysis of this recent data set divergence. While I find the manipulation of data to maintain the illusion of dangerous warming to be distressing, I now accept that this behavior has become routine for many involved in climatology. If global temperatures were remaining stable I would be more concerned, as these manipulations could keep the hoax going for many more years. However as temperatures continue to fall, manipulations to show warming trends become increasingly futile. A long hard battle against the continuing malfeasance of some climatologists may not be necessary in a cooling world. It is necessary to record the actions of those playing these games with data, and helpful to let it be publicly known that these records are being made. Thank you for your effort.
Too right it “caused problems for many of our users”. Can’t have genuine data upsetting the warming alarmism.
In my experience as a nuclear physicist, you ignore data at your peril.
The AGW camp seem to follow the following code: “If observation doesnt fit your hypothesis, than the data must be wrong”.
The missing hotspot is there only the thermometors are wrong
The satellites are wrong as they show cooling
The sun doesnt drive climate because there was no MWP
etc… etc…
I was told a temperature station was a “bad site” recently as it showed cooling!
As einstein once said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Anthony, Off thread, but for your information
http://www.omc.uq.edu.au/news/documents/ModellingImpactsVegetationCover.pdf
might take some critical inspection
Anthony, Off thread – full site for above
http://www.omc.uq.edu.au/
news/documents/ModellingImpactsVegetationCover.pdf
Bob,
Thanks for yet another blow to the consensus based climate fraud.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ghazards/ghaz.shtml
Have ya seen the NWS Climate Services Customer Satisfaction Survey?
DR: You asked, “Have you read this?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/conveyor-belt-model-broken”
In effect, yes. Something very similar. Anthony posted “Uh, oh. 50 year old ocean thermohaline model sinking fast, climate models may be disrupted” a few days ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/15/uh-oh-50-year-old-ocean-thermohaline-model-sinking-fast-climate-models-may-be-disrupted/
Good stuff. Interesting thing is, when I combined HadCrut3 till 1978 and MSUAH since, it looks a lot like SST trend. It is clearly visible that the strongest temp. rise was in 1907-1942 and 2008 is similar to 40ties again.
Is it just me or does the phrase “there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 ” mean that the temperatures as measured, had, in fact, fallen, rather inconveniently?
As such is the case, then the three words “residual cold bias” are weasel words, defined as words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available.
An example, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar, would be replacing “firing staff” with “streamlining the workforce”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
Let us hope that GISS, the Met Office, NCDC & the rest of the obscurantists are damn soon streamlined with extreme prejudice.
Sorry but the only significant “anomaly” in the difference between GISS and NCDC that I can see is the sudden drop roughly 203 months ago (around month 397), see my graph of the last 50 years
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/ShJlvNl_vlI/AAAAAAAACcg/7w16Hg-JBR4/giss-ncdc-difference-50-years.JPG
Visually, there is no statistically significant change of the behavior in recent years.
Konrad: Thats why we have sites like these popping up:
http://mikelm.blogspot.com/2007/09/left-image-was-downloaded-from.html
idem for ice data as far as I can see (except one event which was far to obvious due to satellite drift and data was put “up” back to normal
It’s a familiar story. See also
Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems.
Levitus et al, Geophys res lett 36, L07608 (2009)
“We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data”.
Perhaps someone should collate all these examples of inconvenient data being deleted or ‘adjusted’ upward. It would be a long list.
My apologies for being OT.
Just want to point the readers to an outstanding publication by Joanne Nova called:
The Skeptics Handbook
http://joannenova.com.au/
Everything in a nutshell!
Thanx, Bob.
Speaking of data sets, where can I find the list of CRN ratings for the USHCN stations that we’ve been toiling so hard to generate?
I’ve sorted through surfacestations.org, and haven’t found the link yet. Clicking the big google earth map comes up with a “File not found” error.
It’s been suggested before, but maybe we could do something with the CRN 1 and 2 stations, or generate some error bars for the 3, 4, and 5 ones.
I know you have a glossary, but it would be useful to lay readers like me if articles full of acronyms started with the expanded versions (or there was a brief summary of the more regular ones somewhere on the same page).
Also, and this may be more contentious, it would be nice to have a guide to context. I have no idea if your National Climatic Data Centre is held in higher regard to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies or, say, NASA (I do know that one). Or are they all as suspect as our UK Met Office? 🙂
BTW, commenting on the glossary is invited, but doesn’ t seem to be available.
The data manipulation appears to be scientific fraud. But since it is done to protect political and religious beliefs it is done with a clear conscience. It is much more then funding that the data manipulators are protecting. They are protecting a worldview that is vital to their belief structure. Many true believers would have a psychic breakdown if they objectively looked at the science. I believe there is no amount of falsification that can dissuade the true believers. It took the Catholic Church 400 years to admit that the helio-centrists were correct. The same helio versus geo battle is taking place today.
The quote was:
—————
THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.” [Emphasis added.]
—————
Heavens! We can’t have THAT now, can we?!
.
That’s an OUTSTANDING find, Bob! Great job!