Guest Post By Bob Tisdale
The Seth Borenstein AP article about the recent high sea surface temperature…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLv3LpI0fw21ULmgkJtinBFrwm7AD9A6OUF06
…is misleading. There is a significant difference between what Seth Borenstein reported and what NOAA stated in the July “State of the Climate”.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?reportglobal&year2009&month7
Borenstein does not clarify that it is a record for the month of July, where NOAA does. NOAA writes, “The global ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous July record set in 1998.” Refer to Figure 1, which is a graph of SST for July from 1982 to 2009 (NOAA’s ERSST.v3b version).
http://i28.tinypic.com/2ut3rzp.png
Figure 1
Borenstein readers are told that July 2009 Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) were the highest since records began, but that is false. Figure 2 illustrates monthly SSTs from November 1981 to July 2009. I’ve added a red horizontal line to show the July 2009 value.
http://i28.tinypic.com/wwho49.png
Figure 2
Whether or not July SSTs represented a record is also dependent on the SST dataset. NOAA’s satellite-based Optimally Interpolated (OI,v2) dataset presents a different picture. That dataset clearly shows that July 1998, Figure 3, had a higher SST.
http://i32.tinypic.com/2ynkzsm.png
Figure 3
And looking at the monthly OI.v2 data since November 1981, Figure 4, there are numerous months with higher SSTs.
http://i31.tinypic.com/2hzslme.png
Figure 4
The Borenstein article also claims that Arctic SST anomalies are as high as 10 deg F (5.5 deg C) above average. Wow!! Really??
I used the SST map-making feature of the NOAA NOMADS system to create the map of high latitude Northern Hemisphere SST anomalies for July 2009. The Contour Interval was set at 1 deg C to help find the claimed excessively high SST anomalies. Alas, Borenstein was right, BUT, as you will note, the ONLY area that reaches the 5 to 6 deg C range is the White Sea (indicated by the arrow) off the Barents Sea.
http://i26.tinypic.com/1yk3v7.png
Figure 5
And to put that in perspective, Figure 6 is the global map. Based on the Kartesh White Sea Biological Station website…
http://www.zin.ru/kartesh/general_en.asp
…the surface area of the White Sea is approximately 90,000 sq km. If the surface area of the Arctic Ocean is 14 million sq km, the White Sea represents less than 0.6% of it. And for those who want to compare it to the surface area of the global oceans, its surface area is 361 million sq km. Too many zeroes after the decimal point to worry about.
http://i26.tinypic.com/vzd36t.png
Figure 6
And the SST anomalies of one miniscule area do not represent the SST anomalies for the Arctic Ocean, as is obvious in Figure 7. Arctic SST anomalies have declined over the past few years.
http://i31.tinypic.com/nv8l8k.png
Figure 7
SST anomaly graphs through July 2009 for the Arctic Ocean and other individual oceans can be found at my July 2009 SST Anomaly Update.
To sum up the Borenstein article, it’s factually incorrect in places, and in others, it raises alarmism to ridiculous levels by dwelling on a meaningless statistic, the July SST anomaly of the White Sea.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
excellent piece, the warmist can’t get much past you guys. but there begining to show desperation
would also be intresting to see if there is some sort of cause of that heavy localised anomamly.
If you read other Seth Borenstein articles, you’ll see that his pen is an ever-flowing fountain of untruths, misstatements of facts, and distortion. His “reporting” is literally the worst I have ever seen in two decades of being an avid news reader.
His agenda could not be more plain, and if he belongs anywhere in the news world (which he doesn’t), it’s on the opinion page. At least there, he could present his slanted views for what they are, instead of the illegitimate tripe he passes off as reporting.
Seth Borenstein is literally the worst “reporter” I have ever seen. His agenda could not be more plainly a disgrace. Every article he writes is alarmist and biased
The absolute worst of the worst, and calling him a “reporter” is an insult to every man and woman who has ever written a story with objective facts.
And the temps north of 80deg have been at or below normal all summer.
I agree with Des. They are starting to struggle. More superb work, Bob.
Now what do you suppose Putin is doing in the White Sea these days to get it all heated up?
Thanks for providing maps from an external source instead those from the areas “infested” by the virus GW1 (Global Warming 1).
Precisely you all may consult the FAO work on cold waters fish catches, which shows we are now in a deep of its prediction curve, at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/Y2787E00.HTM
and at Google:
http://books.google.com.pe/books?id=q3mGCiLjkBIC&dq=Climate+change+and+long-term+fluctuations+of+commercial+catches:+the+possibility+of+forecasting&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=eeMbhAuqBz&sig=_1lsR1rSR_VCIgSqgHop2hvARQk&hl=es&ei=AhmMSsnhFsiQtge1mejCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Thank you very much for your splendid work Mr. Tisdale! AGW propaganda patterns on seizing minutia and inflating it to catastrophic levels. Somewhat like finding a liver spot and announcing to your family in grim tones… that you have cancer.
We are indebted to you.
Another good piece of debunking by Bob Tisdale. I’d only add the observation that SSTs on a truly global scale are known only during the satellite era. Prior to that, Surface Marine Observations made four times a day by ships of opportunity were virtually the only source of data. SMOs are available primarily from heavily traveled sea lanes, leaving great swaths of ocean with but sparse, sporadic coverage.
The switch from various sampling buckets (which conformed to oceanographic practice) to ship engine intake temperatures, which took place gradually prior to WWII and acccellerated thereafter, introduced a bias to the data set that has never been adequately accounted for. Engine rooms are pretty hot places and the heat transfer to the intake water by metal is much greater than with standard buckets.
On the other hand, engine intakes are well below the levels from which water would be sampled by buckets and diurnal variations at a depth of several meters are insignificant, unless sufficient wind mixing is taking place. I’m not convinced that the “bucket adjustment” introduced by Folland adequately accounts for all these factors, leaving the pre-satellite global average SST highly uncertain.
Completely off-topic… I found this page thoroughly entertaining…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327155.800-metal-comes-to-the-rescue-of-revolutionary-plane.html
Why?
It’s an article about Boeing again having issues getting their 787 into production and service. It contains this quote:
And this advertisement image:
… on a cover of the very same periodical talking about sea level rise being “worse than we thought.”
It is getting truly humorous now. I just hope it is publicly obvious when the emperor looks down and realize he is naked.
That large of an anomaly would make me look for new power plant warm water discharge into the sea or perhaps changes in local drainage into the sea, bringing in warmer water from some continental source. I wonder if there is a high resolution Infrared satellite shot of that area out there that might show up a hot water plume from some industrial activity in the area.
That large of a SST change would imply either a heat source or a badly sited or corrupted temperature measurement network in the White Sea.
At least that would be the first two things I would look for rather than taking that large of a temperature change at face value.
Larry
rbateman (08:21:27) :
“Now what do you suppose Putin is doing in the White Sea these days to get it all heated up?”
He’s been conducting the beautiful piece of music by the Finnish compser, Jean Sibelius. I gove you the “Valse Triste”…
Misleading? Naw, he’s just “emotionalized” things a bit. It’s all part of the lead- up to Copenhagen, where “emotionalizing” will be brought to an art form.
well, what about the idea that humanity DOES need to cut down on pollution? let’s say that the earth is NOT warming, how about cutting down about all of the industrial pollution there is in the world?
Larry, that is a huge area to warm up from a powerplant discharge. I don’t think humans have the capability to warm an area of the sea that much. I’d look for errors in the data before I’d look to a physical cause.
All of these graphs show one thing quite transparently. Global warming did not peak in 1998. Temperatures have plateaud since then as a result of short term effects like La Nina and reduced solar activity. The long term trend has not broken – and the satellite measurements back this up.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=7
” # The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the fifth warmest on record, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).
# July 2009 was the 33rd consecutive July with an average global land and ocean surface temperature above the 20th century average. The last July with global temperatures below the 20th century average occurred in 1976.
# The global ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous July record set in 1998. The July ocean surface temperature departure from the long-term average equals June 2009 value, which was also a record”.
The idea of a global average SST is just as silly as the idea of a global average land surface temp.
phoenix mattress (08:46:48) :
You will find no one here who will disagree with you.
Stick to the topic phoenix, we’re talking about GW hysterics not pollution.
This smacks of the typical situation:
1. outlandish AGW article on page 1
2. AGW blogs all over it
3. Article quickly found to be wanting in accruacy
4. correction to article either not found or on page 57.
We’ll see
The arctic anomalies have been at the mentioned level for almost all July in many places (why plot July 1st?)
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.7.30.2009.gif
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.7.27.2009.gif
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.7.23.2009.gif
etc.
The current efforts to cut CO2 such as the Taxman-Malarkey bill result in industrial production being shifted to China and India, with the result that more particulate pollution is created worldwide.
phoenix mattress (08:46:48) : That’s a good idea: Take you mattress out to the garden, burn it and then buy another new one. 🙂
If we add all sources, say of SO2 contamination from all the world, I am sure it will be only a minuscule fraction of one what the active volcanoes are sending right now to the atmosphere. Of course, that contamination is disgusting, to say the least, when in our neighbourhood, but if away its OK.
The only contamination the supporters of climate change want to remove is human beings. That is called Malthusianism. The founders of these ideas would be deeply surpised if they could revive now in present days because they would find that the people they wanted to disappear, as the chinese, indians and SA indians, are the ones who are supporting the economies of the “superior” races, which, as you know ARE BROKE and just surviving through the magic of printing paper money. How much will it last?
Will they be able to buy that hateful and contaminant oil or gas for heating their houses during the next Maunder Minimum with their exausted credit cards or fake money?
Seth does not lie. He is, however, very selective about what truth he wishes to report….
phoenix mattress: You wrote, “well, what about the idea that humanity DOES need to cut down on pollution? let’s say that the earth is NOT warming, how about cutting down about all of the industrial pollution there is in the world?”
Pollution is one thing. Anthropogenic global warming is another. This thread has nothing to do with pollution. It is about misleading and less-then-factual reporting.
Regards
I was intrigued by your name so I clicked the link. I guess you do what it says on the tin!
I saw a shop in Kuala Lumpur called ‘The Sofa King”. The guy’s line was that they were “Sofa King good…”
It’s the first time I’ve seen you on this site – hang around – Anthony has won a fantastic community here where open debate is the mandate. No matter what your views are on AGW you are welcome here.