Yesterday NOAA announced with much fanfare that:
The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.
Besides the UAH data for August I cited, Bob Tisdale shows that some other datasets don’t agree with NOAA’s conclusion. – Anthony
Record Sea Surface Temperatures Are Only In NOAA ERSST.v3b Dataset
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
The NOAA press release claims the August Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) was the warmest on record.
The record ERSST.v3b SST for August can be seen in Figure 1.
http://i32.tinypic.com/2jaiydh.png
Figure 1
And of course SST anomalies, Figure 2, were also at record levels in August 2009.
http://i28.tinypic.com/ive0y1.png
Figure 2
RECORD NOT CONFIRMED BY NOAA SATELLITE SST DATA
August 2009 SST, Figure 3, and SST anomalies, Figure 4, for the NOAA satellite-based OI.v2 SST dataset were not records. NOAA writes about the Optimum Interpolation (OI.v2) data, “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. Before the analysis is computed, THE SATELLITE DATA IS ADJUSTED FOR BIASES using the method of Reynolds (1988) and Reynolds and Marsico (1993).” [Emphasis added.]
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html
http://i29.tinypic.com/2zgi8n7.png
Figure 3
############
http://i31.tinypic.com/ajp9ap.png
Figure 4
NOAA does not use satellite data in its ERSST.v3b SST dataset. However, when NOAA originally released the ERSST.v3b dataset in 2008, they included satellite data to supplement the buoy- and ship-based data. This was discussed in my post “Recent Differences Between GISS and NCDC SST Anomaly Data And A Look At The Multiple NCDC SST Datasets” and repeated here:
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.
But the satellite data was removed because it was felt the satellite data caused a downward bias. 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 RESIDUAL 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.
RECORD NOT CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER SHIP- AND BUOY-BASED SST ANOMALY DATASET
The Hadley Centre’s HADSST2 does not show record SST anomalies for July, August, or for the Summer of 2009. Far from it. Refer to Figure 5. The Hadley Centre uses different techniques to smooth and infill missing data. The differences between the Hadley Centre and NOAA methodologies are explained in the NOAA paper about the ERSST.v3b data, “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)”.
http://i27.tinypic.com/kbuets.png
Figure 5
CLOSING
It appears that the methods used by NOAA to calculate Global SST in their ERSST.v3b dataset and the removal of the satellite data from those calculations created an upward bias.
SOURCES
NOAA’s ERSST.v3b SST anomaly data is available here:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.90N.asc
NOAA’s ERSST.v3b SST data was downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
NOAA’s OI.v2 SST and SST anomaly data is available through their NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=
THE HADSST2 SST anomaly data is listed in the second column in the following webpage. The other columns list the uncertainty ranges for measurement and grid box sampling, for coverage, for bias, and for the combination of those uncertainties:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
UPDATE
While doing a visual check of the sources against the graphs, I noticed a difference between the SST anomaly data presented by NOAA for the same dataset. I’m noting it in case someone else spot checks the graphs. The Monthly Global Ocean Temperature Anomalies (degrees C) uses 1901 to 2000 as base years, but the ERSST.v3b data uses 1971 to 2000. Confirmation here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
For those who want to split hairs, the difference in the base years changes the rankings of SST anomalies, Figure 6. But it has no impact on the SST data rankings.
http://i30.tinypic.com/5y6xcx.png
Figure 6
Can you blame NOAA for doing this, hey they want their cut of the global warming taxes.
See the problem?
Oookaay.
Soo…
How did they determine that the satellite data was biased, and not the other data source(s)?
Or were the simply cherry picking the data sets to confirm their own “observer” bias?
Scuse me for asking, but what kind of BS graph paper are they using; that looks like some kind of phony logartithmic x axis scaling.
The graph looks phony to me too; more like a tide plot, with one large tide, and an intervening smaller tide, so what do they attribute that to.
Of course it is impossible to tell with that graph paper axis.
Does anyone have the original raw data; that data set seems to be suffering from sampling inadequacy; I’m getting a bit tired of data that is improperly sampled.
I guess my comments refer to their figure 1.
“But the satellite data was removed because it was felt the satellite data caused a downward bias.”
Says it all for me.
Thanks Bob,
I linked to your post from tAV earlier.
But the JAXA ice line is nicely heading fro 2005; and look at that 2 1/2 somersaults the arctic temperature dive is doing.
I guess those Walrussians knew when to get out of the water, while the going was good; they might have been iced over if they had waited.
When are the NOAA climate scientists going to be “adjusted for bias”?
George E. Smith (10:04:27) : “Scuse me for asking, but what kind of BS graph paper are they using; that looks like some kind of phony logartithmic x axis scaling.”
Phony or not, I don’t see anything but Cartesian coordinate graphs, here.
Please tell me you contacted them so they can “fix” their mistake?
We have had satellites in space since the 1960s that can read a newspaper over your shoulder, peer inside storms, and measure the tempurature of your coffee.
No use relying on them to plot daily temps, however. That is left to reliable hockey stick models.
The average global temperatures over the last ten years were showing a cooling trend, but I have discovered that this is because night-time temperatures were showing a downward bias. I have now removed them and I can now report out-of-control warming of the planet. It’s worse than we thought.
TomLama (10:40:49) :
We have had satellites in space since the 1960s that can read a newspaper over your shoulder, peer inside storms, and measure the tempurature of your coffee.
Maybe someone needs to sit in the middle of the ocean reading a newspaper and drinking a cup of coffee in the middle of a storm so we can get some accurate readings.
Stupid question here, but wouldn’t increased sea temps be indicative of the oceans releasing heat into the atmosphere and therefore cooling?
Does anybody know how much of the SST changes over the last 2 years was caused by the wind blowing, or not blowing, icebergs out of the arctic? I would expect more icebergs going south would lower SST, while fewer bergs would allow SST to be higher. Would the effects last more than just the one season.
ooops, the term “increased sea temps ” should read “increased sea surface temps “
Doesn’t really matter that much, whether its the warmest on record or not. There is an uptick, but when the pacific ocean is going through an el-nino, and it spans 1/3 the globe… one would figure the global sea surface anomaly to be affected.
In short, this argument is meaningless from all sides. As a believer, you cannot use it to demonstrate anything of value with regards to global temperature. As a skeptic, you cannot use it to demonstrate any real problem with data since all the data sets show an uptick (and expectedly so).
The temporal geography is a major clue that is being overlooked in the climate discussion:
“The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere”
How many blatant clues of this magnitude will it take before alarmists start considering natural factors in climate as factors in climate? (Maybe they are reading the literature selectively?…)
Yes but Jeremy, what it shows is how quickly “they” use any data to demonstrate “their” claims…
Nobody in their right mind, or rather, no HONEST scientist would make claims of record temps after discarding a dataset that shows otherwise.
And really, I personally don’t get concerned if temps go up or down. We’re well within the range of expected, normal variation. Anyone hyperventilating in either direction doesn’t understand variability.
George E. Smith: You wrote, “Scuse me for asking, but what kind of BS graph paper are they using; that looks like some kind of phony logartithmic x axis scaling…”
Graph paper? It’s simply a standard time series graph that’s the output of EXCEL. I prepared it, not they.
Then you qualified your comment with, “I guess my comments refer to their figure 1.”
The source is listed in the post:
NOAA’s ERSST.v3b SST data was downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Have at it.
Jeremy: I agree with much of your 10:55:07 comment. This is much ado about nothing. The multiyear and multidecadal changes in Global SST anomalies appear to reflect the ocean’s ability to integrate ENSO.
Jeremy,
“In short, this argument is meaningless from all sides. As a believer, you cannot use it to demonstrate anything of value with regards to global temperature.”
No it is not meaningless. When a trusted government research organisation at one time merges data sets to get the desired trend, and later removes one of these datasets because “it showed less of a trend”, then It is not what it tells us about climate change so much as what it tells us about NOAA that this story is about.
Hoskald: You wrote, “Stupid question here, but wouldn’t increased sea temps be indicative of the oceans releasing heat into the atmosphere and therefore cooling?”
Nothing stupid about it. Ocean heat content rises during La Nina events and decreases during El Nino events. It’s easy to see in a comparison of NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the OHC of the tropical Pacific.
http://i25.tinypic.com/wrz71x.png
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
Just a funny comparison for me… I got my M.S. in criminal justice, and one of the big problems that has occurred is how police departments across the country record crime numbers. What cheifs and politicians like to do is start recording crimes more stringently when they are going to start a new program i.e. community policing and then once they get the funds for said program begin “down grading” crimes. For example, if I stole a $1100 TV, they would report that as a financial loss of $700, so that it would reflect misdemeanor theft rather than felony theft. So in 5 years, they can show their amazing graphs showing how their program fixed the crime problem. If you really want to get depressed, check out what happened in Philadelphia in 1953.
George E. Smith: You wrote, “Scuse me for asking, but what kind of BS graph paper are they using; that looks like some kind of phony logartithmic x axis scaling…”
“Graph paper? It’s simply a standard time series graph that’s the output of EXCEL.”
Not having M$ EXCEL, I hadn’t realized it was their standard output. But I’ve seen those types of graphs before, and I agree with George. Of what use are the lines? E.g., what are the anomalies in 1996 on Figure 6?