Borenstein's AP Sea Surface Temperature Article Is Misleading

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Des

excellent piece, the warmist can’t get much past you guys. but there begining to show desperation

Des

would also be intresting to see if there is some sort of cause of that heavy localised anomamly.

Alex

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.

BarryW

And the temps north of 80deg have been at or below normal all summer.

Jimmy Haigh

I agree with Des. They are starting to struggle. More superb work, Bob.

rbateman

Now what do you suppose Putin is doing in the White Sea these days to get it all heated up?

Nogw

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

Pragmatic

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.

John S.

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.

Jeremy

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:

“Data from the test did not match our computer model,” says Boeing vice-president Scott Fancher. That highlights the difficulty of predicting the behaviour of advanced CFRP materials being used in very large structures for the first time.

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.

hotrod

rbateman (08:21:27) :
Now what do you suppose Putin is doing in the White Sea these days to get it all heated up?

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

Jimmy Haigh

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”…

Bruce Cobb

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?

woodNfish

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.

dennis ward

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.

Jimmy Haigh

phoenix mattress (08:46:48) :
You will find no one here who will disagree with you.

Dave

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

Flanagan
Tom_R

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.

Nogw

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?

MattN

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

Jimmy Haigh

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.

Tom_R

Dennis Ward
Sea surface temperatures are so few and far between as to be meaningless before satellite data came on line. Land surface temperature are also spotty before then, and adjusted so much as to be laughable. So to say that blah,blah,blah was the 5th warmest on record only means that it was the 5th warmest in the last 30 years.

Jimmy Haigh

woodNfish (08:54:15) :
“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.”
But isn’t the AGW case that we humans are affecting the ENTIRE CLIMATE OF THE PLANET????… which is just a wee bit bigger in the grand scheme of things than the White Sea.

Sam the Skeptic

“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?”
I don’t think you’d get any argument from anyone on this site, or any other honest blog anywhere on the internet.
One of the difficulties we skeptics have is in trying to convince the less intelligent supporters of the paradigm that we are not agin recycling (where it makes sense) or energy economy (where it is realistic) or not wasting the earth’s resources of useless packaging or not getting rid of unnecessary industrial pollution.
But we are not in favour of a civilisation (I use the word advisedly) akin to the late 17th century with all the drawbacks that would follow from that just because a bunch of misguided fanatics is possessed of some illusion that there was some sort of golden age when we all lived in harmony and “where every prospect pleases and only man is vile”.
It never existed; it doesn’t exist; it never will exist.
And furthermore the entire concept is anti-social and anti-human because it is intended to maintain the living standards of the elite few while ensuring that all the less fortunate nations of the world remain in their current state of relative poverty.
On that test alone it deserves to be condemned.

Jimmy Haigh

Tom_R (09:11:15) :
“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.”
Yup. I’ve been to China but only the bit from Beijing to Tianjin and it was actually not too bad on the pollution front. I’ve also been to India – mostly Mumbai – and I am sorry to say that it is the filthiest place I have ever been to. Bits of Venezuela are pretty depressing too. I haven’t been to Nigeria but I’ve heard that that isn’t too salubrious either.
NIMBY is the word.

Flanagan: You wrote, “The arctic anomalies have been at the mentioned level for almost all July in many places (why plot July 1st?),” and provided all those lovely links of daily SST anomalies.
The maps represent SST anomalies for the entire month of July 2009.
The coding “00Z01Jul2009” in the map titles does not represent July 1st 2009. Here’s the link to the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&varlist=on&new_window=on&ptype=map&dir=
As you can see it says “data available from nov 1981 to jul 2009 at 1 months intervals”. I set the parameters I wanted and clicked on plot.
Recreate what I’ve done, and read the output.
Regards

Antonio San

Well with an unlikely record Arctic sea-ice melt, the MSM has to find something they can report on before Copenhagen…
In Canada the Globe and Mail was so predictable and jumped on this one…

AnonyMoose

Nogw – As long as “garden” means a place with grass. You don’t want to fertilize your vegetables with mattress.

hunter

The question bears repeating:
What claim about climate, made by an AGW promoter, has withstood any sort of critical scrutiny?

Vincent

Dennis Ward is quoting the NOAA website for to convince himself that global warming is continuing. I had to laugh at how desparate they sound. Look at this:
“# The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the fifth warmest on record, at 0.57°C.”
Does FIFTH warmest sound like a) continuation of rising temperatures or b) hand waving?
# July 2009 was the 33rd consecutive July with an average global land and ocean surface temperature above the 20th century average.”
Does this tell us about a) long term average or b) a new rise in temperatures?
“# 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.”
This is the subject of the current and previous thread and may/probably be debunked in the next few days. What does the argo network say?

gp2

Data reported in the article are correct, NOAA global mean ocean temperature are available here:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php
July mean ocean temperature (1901-2000) is 61.5°F or 16.4°C
The anomalie has been +1.06°F or +0.59°C thus mean july 2009 ocean temperature is 62.6F or 17°C which is also the higher value of the entire time series( june and july has the higher mean temperature and july has the higher anomaly of the entire time series)…
This is the NOAA global ocean temperature dataset,you reported that oiv2 has a negative bias from AVHRR thus i do not understand why you still look at that dataset…

George E. Smith

“”” John S. (08:37:28) :
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. “””
John, I have also seen that the “bucket tests” were further contaminated since the on deck readings often took place in the presence of evaporation from the bucket.
More importantly due to ocean current meandering; a ship can return to the exact same co-ordinates, and be in completely different water from a previous visit. Then there is that killer reported by John christy et al in Jan 2001 as a result of about 20 years of ARGO buoy data, comparing the water temperature (at a fixed one metre depth) with the air temperature at a fixed 3 metre altitude; which showed that they aren;t the same, so the bucket tests don’t fit into the lower tropo air temp picture. More importantly, Christy found they aren’t correlated (why would you expect them to be) so the true air temperature data, is not recoverable from all those useless ancient bucket measurements going back 150 years, or how ever long they were doing it.
So I don’t believe either GISStemp, or HADcrut data prior to around 1980; which also pretty much coincides with the launch of polar orbit satellites that give us UAH and RSS data, not to mention that evil ice data.
And we are supposed to believe millidegree changes in highly statisticated “derived” numbers ? Humbug !

George E. Smith

“””Jimmy Haigh (08:40:49) :
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”… “””
Yeah; gimme a break. If there is one composer that Putin would not be conducting, it would be Jean Sibelius; so perhaps he would do “Finlandia” for an encore. Yeah and risk having the Finns invade Russia to grab his sorry A***.
But hey thanks for the musical interlude; just hits the spot for a Friday morning.
George

Per the article: Good Job and “well played!”. Nice bit of “media forensics”…
phoenix mattress (08:46:48) : 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?
I’m all for it. You know, things like NOx and SOx and polychlorinated biphenyls and heavy metal ions, for sure. Cadmium, IMHO, ought to be (nearly) completely banned world wide. It substitutes for Zinc in a whole bunch of enzyme systems and just royally screws up living systems.
That the EU gives NiCd batteries a ‘pass’ in their near complete ban on Cd gives you an idea what politics does to wisdom…
The problem, and it is a major problem, is when folks (like the one this article is about) use fraudulent analysis to declare CO2 to be a “pollutant” (which they have done). At that point, your statement becomes a problem (perhaps against your will).
I have absolutely no desire, and the earth has absolutely no need, to reduce the CO2 generation in the world. To do so would result in horrid catastrophic results both for humanity and for the natural world I want to protect (No, that is not hyperbole. People who know me know that I tend toward understatement and do not bend the truth to support an agenda.) The path to “saving the world” passes directly through a modern technical and wealthy global society, and THAT passes through fossil fuels.
So your statement, as given, suffers from the “rubber ruler” syndrome in that “pollution” is ill defined (and is now being redefined based on political agenda). Make it a specific list of issues, especially those with demonstrable and bad impacts on specific living metabolic systems and I’m all for it. (Basically, prevent the ruler from being stretched and warped…)
“Bad money drives out good.” is a truth for all time. And the present tendency of the radical greens and looney left to corrupt and redefine words makes those words “bad money”. That is being done to the word “pollution” (and in a broader sense to science in general…).
The end result is that folks move on to other words (and other methods of learning the truth). The radical right tries to do some of this too (“moment of silence” – heck call it a prayer moment and be honest. The constitution does not ban public prayer, it bans establishment of a state religion…) but far less effectively. Note that I’m an equal opportunity lambaster 😉
So as soon as you go fishing for support for “reducing pollution” I now have warning flags and hackles raised. Not because I’m against cleaning up the world, I’m all for it. But because your words have been corrupted into “bad money” by the AGW movement and that leaves me wondering what you really mean…
And frankly, that “stealing and corruption of good words” is one of the things that bothers me most about the PC movement and AGW advocates. It makes it very hard to keep a tidy mind and be honest above all else. How can you retain honesty when the words themselves are changed to lies?
Sidebar: An amusing example of this, not science related, is the constant mutation of “male worlds” into “female words”. “Girl” in Shakespeare’s time meant a young male. It became a somewhat effeminate male, added some women to the group, then mutated into what we think of today, a young female. Similarly, “Guy” once meant “Mature Male” as in Guys and Dolls as contrasts. Now “guy” has become non-gender (as in “you guys want to go to the mall?” aimed a mixed gender group). Give it a few more decades it may well mean what (the now politically incorrect) Doll used to mean – “Mature Female”. We regularly invent new “male words” that regularly get PC’d to include females, that then get abandoned for use for males. A “PC” takeover of a word only works for a short time, in any generation.
So, “Phoenix”, the problem you have is that the word “pollution” is going to be abandoned. (Heck, this posting shows I’ve already abandoned it for precision uses.) So I can not support your statement as made, because it is based on a rubber ruler for “bad stuff in the environment” that now includes “good stuff for plants”. But make it more precise, and dump and PC’d words from it, and I’m all in favor of taking truly toxic things out of the air, water, and soil.
(And yes, the fact that I have to go through all these gyrations because some folks corrupted the word “pollution” does peeve me greatly.)

Stu

Hi Phoenix (above)
I agree, you have a good point. I have a few problems with the prevailing climate change hysteria. Number 1 is that people feel it’s ok to lie in order to advance a cause. When people base what needs to be done on lies, half facts, willful distortions or simple assumptions, it means that we’re not reacting effectively to what’s actually going on- we’re not interacting with the real world, but an ideologised one. That ideologised world may fit with our understandings and beliefs about how things work, but it’s still wrong! If we’re going to pour an endless amount of money and energy into reducing C02, while C02 was never a problem to begin with, for the sake of feeling good about doing something… I just can’t see a value in that.
That ties into the second problem I have- the problem of flattening the whole environmental cause down to a single issue- CO2. There are other environmental problems to deal with, including the various forms of industrial pollution that you mention, and of course pressing humanitarian concerns, but it sometimes seems like no-one’s interested in these things anymore.(?) Indeed, it starts to feel as though we’re ready to do anything to cut down on C02 and avert warming (probably the first culture in the history of humanity to view warming as a bad thing), including bizarre geo engineering schemes such as pouring hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere. Time and money… and who knows what else?
Until a few years ago I was a dyed in the wool AGW believer. I started questioning what I was hearing when media reports of the record 2007 arctic melt failed to include information about the record gains occurring at the same time in the Antarctic. That’s when I realised that it’s not what you’re being told, it’s what you’re not being told, that makes all the difference.
At the end of the day- who wants to be lied to? How human is that? How responsible is that? Without wanting to sound over simplistic-just do what you gotta do because it’s the right thing to do. 🙂
PS, the global sea ice story…
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/seaice_threepanel2009_5.gif
Cheers 🙂

Cassandra King

the art of emotionalizing AKA the art of lying and using deception to promote a perceived greater good.
Dictatorships throught the ages have used the very same principle to mobilise a recalcitrant population, such leaders as Mao,Hitler,Stalin have used it to great short term effect, the channeling of a miriad of different interests in order to create a singular will.
This usually involves the creation of a scapegoat or exterior threat, fear is a great tool as there is almost no limit to what people will do when suitably frightened enough, hence you have fear of the Russian hordes,capitalist running dogs,Jews,peoples enemies the list is endless all chosen to unite a population behind to face a perceived threat and/or to change a populations behaviour patterns.
The truth begins to fade rapidly, the truth becomes merely an uncomfortable irritation when it invetitably impinges on the artificial political construct called in this case AGW/AAM/MMCC.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions we are told from a young age and its just as well because history is littered with such examples of good intentions turned into living nightmares.
The question I ask is, is it worth running the risk of a runaway downward spiral of lies to promote what is considered a worthy cause?
I have little doubt that many people who peddle the theories of AAM have the best of intentions believing that they are safeguarding humanity yet they show as yet little awareness of the possible dire side effects of their means to an end.

Nogw

phoenix mattress (08:46:48) : Perhaps there is one misunderstanding here. Perhaps you are thinking in CO2 gas being BLACK, but IT IS NOT, IT IS the gas WE ALL EXHALE and PLANTS BREATH and enjoy.

“dump ANY PC’d words’…

Nogw

Sam the Skeptic (09:25:17) You are correct when saying:
all the less fortunate nations of the world remain in their current state of relative poverty.
And this is indeed relative. A few days ago, last sunday, I was talking to a client, owner of a chemical plant, who told me that in his childhood as a “poor” indian in a village high in the peruvian andes, he and his family used to buy only salt and sugar, because that was all they needed to live, totally different to our case “rich” people who if we lose our job the next day we are starving. (He added that, in some years, they managed even not to buy salt but get it from a near salt mine, carrying it using some donkeys to their village. In those cases it lasted for a year).

Rainer Link, PhD

Excellent work Bob.
The AGW catastrophist really get “angst”!!

gp2: You wrote, “Data reported in the article are correct, NOAA global mean ocean temperature are available here”
I didn’t question the data. This post discussed the less-than-factual reporting of the data. You must have missed that.
You wrote, “you reported that oiv2 has a negative bias from AVHRR thus i do not understand why you still look at that dataset…”
First, NOAA corrects for satellite high-latitude bias in OI.v2 data. OI.v2 is satellite data that is supplemented with buoy and ship-based data.
I use OI.v2 data because GISS uses it in their GISTEMP product.
I use it because the data is available on weekly and monthly bases directly from NOAA through their NOMADS website. Also, your statement assumes that buoys and ship-based readings don’t have biases in the other direction.
Consider this. The NCDC went to a lot of work to create their new ERSST.v3 dataset. It was released early in 2008, heralded with a paper that described all of the benefits of the satellite-based data. Other parties complained of the downward bias in recent years and the NCDC stopped the monthly ERSST.v3 updates. Four or five months later they released the ERSST.v3b dataset, with the explanation of why they eliminated the satellite-based data. In effect, it was peer pressure. The satellite data lowered the short-term and long-term trends.
Also, the satellite bias, if it exists, impacts only recent years. The late 1990s don’t appear to have any drift problems. And If they know of the drift problem, why don’t they correct it? RSS and UAH make drift corrections all the time.

tty

The White Sea is very shallow and almost cut off from the ocean, so potentially it can heat fairly quickly if the weather is fine and sunny. Still I rather doubt that figure, at least for the present date. Solovetsk Island in the White Sea had max and min temperatures of 12 and 8 degrees Centigrade yesterday, which indicates a sea temperature around 10 degrees. Coastal sites like Archangelsk had minimum temperatures barely above freezing which does not suggest very varm waters either.

Reed Coray

phoenix mattress (08:46:48) :
“””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?”””
As long as man is on the earth, anyone can proclaim “humanity DOES need to cut down on pollution”. As such, the “idea” (or statement) in isolation is valueless. Unless you’re in the camp that “man and everything he does are inherently evil”, the “idea” that has merit involves tradeoffs between the beneficial and harmful effects of man’s activities, both to man and the environment in general. If people took the time from their busy to consider the issue, I believe that most humans would agree that man should continually be aware of his effect on the environment; but that doesn’t mean man should cease all industrial activity. Man is part of the environment, too.
And if after analyzing the tradeoffs of one or more of man’s industrial activities, you conclude that those activities are inappropriately polluting the environment, then instead of voicing platitudes, you should (1) make your case, including tradeoffs and describing specific ways to improve the situation, and (2) be upset with the AGW alarmists because their unsubstantiated claims are causing legitimate arguments to lose credibility with the general public.
Reed Coray

Jimmy Haigh

Nogw (10:14:52) :
Your story is similar to this one. I worked in the foothills of the Andes for a month in 1998. Me and another geologist spend 4 weeks in a tent while doing field mapping in the Amazon jungle. It was an absolutely fascinating place. Billions of ants, bees the size of your fist and frogs as big as basketballs. We stayed near a place called Isinuta. We arrived there on their ‘national day’ and all the males of the village were pissed out of their minds and drinking something that looked like blood mixed with curdled milk. We both like a beer but we declined their offer of joining them in a toast. The village population was about 1000? All the women were pregnant – some of them I guessed were about 12 years old. Everyone looked the same and basically they were one big family who sirvived by inbreeding. A group of about 4 women had just returned from a 6 day return trip on foot to the town of Trinidad where they had gone to buy salt. The idyllic green lifestyle?
When I went there I was pretty fit and weighed about 10 stone 7. When I got back to civilisation after the 4 weeks there I weighed 9 stone 7.

L

Something else for the Armageddonistas to obsess over: The White Sea anomaly is caused by radiation leaking from a sunken Soviet-era ‘boomer’ that went down when some Marxist moron reading Pravda forget to close the silo hatches.

Jack Simmons

phoenix mattress (08:46:48) :

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?

phoenix,
Assume for a moment, you are in charge.
What would you have humanity do?
Regards,
Jack