Dr. Roy Spencer sent me a notice of his most recent post in email. He offers an invitation for anyone to help “figure this one out”. The result could be “worse than we thought”. – Anthony
(edited 8/23/09 0710 CDT: Changed plots & revised text to reflect the fact that NCDC, not CRU, is apparently the source of the SST dataset; also add discussion of possible RFI interference in satellite measurements)
(edited 8/22/09 1415 CDT: added plot of trend differences by month at bottom)
By Dr. Roy Spencer
In my previous blog posting I showed the satellite-based global-average monthly sea surface temperature (SST) variations since mid-2002, which was when the NASA Aqua satellite was launched carrying the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E). The AMSR-E instrument (which I serve as the U.S. Science Team Leader for) provides nearly all-weather SST measurements.
The plot I showed yesterday agreed with the NOAA announcement that July 2009 was unusually warm…NOAA claims it was even a new record for July based upon their 100+ year record of global SSTs.
But I didn’t know just HOW warm, since our satellite data extend back to only 2002. So, I decided to download the NOAA/NCDC SST data from their website — which do NOT include the AMSR-E measurements — to do a more quantitative comparison.
From the NOAA data, I computed monthly anomalies in exactly the same manner I computed them with the AMSR-E data, that is, relative to the June 2002 through July 2009 period of record. The results (shown below) were so surprising, I had to go to my office this Saturday morning to make sure I didn’t make a mistake in my processing of the AMSR-E data.
As can be seen, the satellite-based temperatures have been steadily rising relative to the conventional SST measurements, with a total linear increase of 0.15 deg C over the 7 year period of record versus the conventional SST measurements.
If the satellite data are correct, then this means that the July 2009 SSTs reached a considerably higher record temperature than NOAA has claimed. The discrepancy is huge in terms of climate measurements; the trend in the difference between the two datasets shown in the above figure is the same size as the anthropogenic global warming signal expected by the IPCC.
I have no idea what is going on here. Frank Wentz and Chelle Gentemann at Remote Sensing Systems have been very careful about tracking the accuracy of the AMSR-E SST retrievals with millions of buoy measurements. I checked their daily statistics they post at their website and I don’t see anything like what is shown in the above figure.
Is it possible that the NCDC SST temperature dataset has been understating recent warming? I don’t know…I’m mystified. Maybe Frank, Chelle, Phil Jones, or some enterprising blogger out there can figure this one out.
UPDATE #1 (8/22/09)
Here’s the trend differences between the satellite and in-situ data, broken out by calendar month. The problem seems to be mainly a Northern Hemisphere warm season phenomenon.
UPDATE#2 (8/23/09)
Anthony Watts has suggested that the radio frequency interference (RFI) that we see in the AMSR-E 6.9 GHz data over land might be gradually invading the ocean as more boats install various kinds of microwave transmitters. While it’s hard for me to believe such an effect could be this strong (we have never seen obvious evidence of oceanic RFI before), this is still an interesting hypothesis, so this week I will examine the daily 1/4 deg. grids of AMSR-E SST and compute a spatial “speckle” statistic to see if there is any evidence of this kind of interference increasing over time. I should note that we HAVE seen more RFI reflected off the ocean from geostationary TV communication satellites in the AMSR-E data in recent years.
UPDATE#3 (8/24/09)
OK, gang, this is what I found out today before having to leave work. I downloaded the monthly grids of SST from NCDC (both their v2 and v3b products), and I computed the monthly anomalies at each gridpoint relative to the June 2002 through July 2009 period (since that is the period we have AMSR-E measurements for).
I then differenced the later part of the period (since 2007) with the earlier part (during and before 2004), separately for the NCDC and AMSR-E products.
Then I differences THOSE differences.
What it shows is that AMSRE has either spuriously warmed, or NCDC has spuriously cooled, by 1 to 2 deg C over all of the ‘warmer’ waters of the globe. The problem seems to diminish and then go away poleward of about 30S latitude, and poleward of 45N latitude.
This does NOT look like an RFI issue…it is too uniform spatially. Someone has made a major boo-boo…and I hope it isn’t me. 🙂
El Nino releases energy to the air which then warms but ocean heat content declines unless the sun is strong enough to counter the energy loss as seems to have been the case from 1975 to 2000.
La Nina holds energy back from the air which then cools but ocean heat content increases unless the sun is putting less into the oceans thus offsetting the gain from La Nina. That seems to have happened in 2006/7
The current situation is that since 2003 the oceans have been losing energy slowly even though there was a recent powerful La Nina. That would be because of the weak sun.
Now there is a mild El Nino releasing energy to the air faster but the sun remains weak. Despite that increase in energy supply to the air the northern continents continue to cool and Arctic Ice is recovering. I would have expected a bigger uptick in tropospheric air temperatures from current ocean conditions if there were 10 years of CO2 forcing in the background but it seems not to be there.
The test of my suggestion would be whether we will shortly find that the decline in ocean energy content has accelerated following the current El Nino conditions.
At least there is a means of testing my description.
Stephen Wilde (06:01:46) :
Now all that suggests a pretty high responsiveness of the global air temperatures to combined solar and oceanic trends but that remains at odds with what we think we know about the energy quantities involved
I will add a “petty” theory of my own (as Leif would say), and this is the “teaspoon stir theory”, this happens whwenever sea waters become agitated and so release more energy, during earthquakes and tsunamis. We can remember those big earthquakes such as the one in Valdivia, Chile (the stongest in recorded history), in the 60′ s and the Huaraz, Peru, quake (70,,000 deaths) in the 70′.
Stephen, by what mechanism are you supposing the Sun is being so variable in its ability to heat the ocean? Are you supposing that the Sun is creating or removing clouds that are reflecting shortwave infrared away or allowing it through thus changing solar insolence? Or are you saying that the Sun is changing the strength of its infrared radiation at its solar source?
Gary (05:30:47) :
On heat gradient, for calibration, can you point us to any papers to read how that is done?
How sensitive is the signal to the depth into the ocean or height above the ocean?
Can you point us to any papers discussing the absorptivity vs depth above/below the ocean surface?
Stephen Wilde (06:19:45) :
The test of my suggestion would be whether we will shortly find that the decline in ocean energy content has accelerated following the current El Nino conditions.
That was my suggestion several months ago on this blog too.
I’m glad we concur. 🙂
_Jim (18:00:22) : Observation of the TV spectrum shows things are normal with no large-scale, area-wide mixing problems present (equipped with the tools to ‘troubleshoot’, measure, identify and such interference here on this end). Dorothy needn’t click her heels together quite yet and return back to Kansas and analog broadcasts quite yet.
Jim, I am in no way advocating a return to analog. And while I find your trust in the perfection of equipment touching, my point was not about the spectrum and cross modulation per se, more about the response of some particular bits of equipment to changes in their environment (and any such problem would be the fault of the equipment, not the broadcaster).
But don’t let that compel anyone from otherwise blaming that which is not observable ‘without instrumentation’.
Plenty of things are observable “without instrumentation”. Almost universally the “instrumentation” is brought in to figure out what’s really happening after something is observed “without instrumentation”. (Though one could make the case that a cheesy cheap receiver front end is a kind of crappy instrument… so it isn’t really without instrumentation…)
Reminds me of the sage advice to the newbie ham operator wishing for a tower:
I’m more a SWL than a HAM (though a licensed HAM is part of my household). And yes, it’s always fun when you put up a new antenna as a SWL and someone complains about your TRANSMITTER screwing up their TV! Believe it or not, this is a common problem for SWLs…
(SWL is Short Wave Listener – i.e. no power in the antenna because you have no transmitter…)
But, while rare, it is possible for a passive tuned element to cause reflections and re-radiation of signals and other problems. (The Soviets were especially good at exploiting this, with passive “bugs” that were irradiated with microwaves, but modulated by voice vibrations, and ‘re-radiated’ a modulated signal) That’s where the instrumentation is handy. To show there is no energy there; or where it’s going. The “spook business” is full of interesting exploits for grounds as antennas, or as power feeds, and for passive objects as antennas and / or modulators.
_Jim (18:23:37) : But, that’s our job, E.M., to understand the RF environment and understand the propagation of those signals, plan for the signal levels (for receive) and also what is necessary in the way of transmit signal purity so as not be a ‘nuisance’ on the band to adjacent ’services’
Do I detect a bit of defensiveness?
Jim, I’m NOT tossing rocks at the broadcasters!
I’m simply pointing out that a lot of energy has moved to higher frequencies and we added more total power (especially during the transition) and that might cause a marginal shift in the behaviour of the satellite front end. More stations moved to UHF (especially when some of them were simultaneously broadcasting Analog, HDTV, and DTV ) and it got crowded. More stations popped up around UHF 50. More total energy. More of it on a sub-multiple of the satellite frequency. More of it concentrated in Single Sidebands and not in carriers.
That could either swamp a badly shielded and poor rejection filtered front end on a <$40 cheap wireless gizmo on the ground near a station (i.e. the anecdotal ground gear observations) OR cause the very expensive sat front end to have a small shift in how the very sensitive front end amplifier handles the signals it’s getting (and thus slightly change the reported “temperatures”). In both cases the fault would lie with the end user gear, not the broadcaster; but my point was not about “fault”, it was about the potential for a bit of gear that “worked fine” in one context to change it’s behaviour with a change of context.
Basically, the satellite might have tested “to spec” or been “calibrated” in one context, but suffer a shift when it starts getting a few hundred kW more total signals tossed at it in higher frequencies.
If you don’t think that’s possible, drive near a broadcast transmitter with your radio on. I regularly get a commercial broadcaster bleed through at high enough power… antenna about 200 yards from road. Or just point a 100 kW radar at your TV and see what reception you get. Yes, much more dramatic than anything I’m thinking might be happening with the satellite, but it demonstrates the point that the equipment is not a perfect filter and does not have unlimited compliance.
So basically I’m saying that cheap (i.e. <$40 type) wireless gear on the ground might serve as a 'canary' to say "go dig here" and discover IF there is an issue with the rejection capacity of the satellite (NOT an issue with DTV!).
I have yet to see, except under really, really adverse conditions that the atmosphere and to a slightly lesser extent the ionsophere acts as anything but a linear, passive bi-directional ‘medium’ when it comes to signals;
It dramatically changes propagation at some frequencies. The total power “visible” to the satellite could easily change by a large factor based on how much signal was reflected off the ionosphere vs how much penetrated to the satellite. It would be a “good idea” to investigate it to see how much (if any of significance) the total power to the satellite front end changes with atmospheric and ionospheric changes. Until you know the numbers, you’re just guessing (or, perhaps better as “I’m just guessing”). So all I’m suggesting is that it’s a thing that ought to be measured to make sure it isn’t an issue. (If the satellite can reject, for example, a 100 kW line of sight signal at 1/10 bandpass while amplifying a 1 microwatt signal in the desired band; and works fine with a strong ionospheric shield, but at low ionization it “sees” 1000 kW total from multiple ground stations, that could interfere with the ability of the front end to properly and LINEARLY amplify the desired signal.
And yes, I know that “skip” is very unusual at TV frequencies. Yet there are folks who “work DX” for TV signals. (There are even specialized TVs that let you choose your modulation method to pick up foreign “skip” signals properly). Again: I am not attributing causality, I am brainstorming things worth investigating (most likely to prove they are not the “issue” but possibly to discover where the issue is.)
So far, for this RF engineer, if you respect the channel plan, build equipment for the dynamic range of the signals expected, restrict or control emissions from one’s transmitters per established or industry standard norms, everything works out (at least to the degree that the system design engineers planned for).
Unless the receiver or it’s antenna have “issues” that their designer failed to handle properly. My point is not about the channel plan nor the broadcasters, it’s about the guy building the OTHER END equipment having something that passed acceptance but is now in a different environment and it’s not working quite the same…
I suspect there are other issues as yet unexplained affecting those > 200 MHz wide, AMSR 6.9 GHz ‘receivers’ e.g. as malfunctioning equipment (and that does happen; I have stories in that category too).
Don’t forget that the DTV modulation is an 8 level vestigial sideband signal. More energy going into one sideband. It’s easier to filter out a nice sin wave carrier than it is to filter a high modulation sideband. My point here is not to say SSB is bad (it isn’t, it’s god’s gift to long distance on low power SWLing). Simply that the environment changed for the satellite front end and it may have tickled a design limitation that was not caught before with nice fat analog signals with broad power distribution.
SIdebar: One of my favorite antennas is an aluminum frame picture window with 2 slider windows in it. I can just “clip on” and get decent reception. Moving the “clip” can tune it a little, as can moving the “sliders”. I would speculate that it’s acting as a kind of ‘quasi-fractal’ antenna. It “outperforms” some simple long wire antennas (but not my inverted V tuned dipole). I know, SWLs don’t need to worry about transmitter coupling efficiency and SWR like HAMs do; but it’s still a ‘neat trick’. (Though it did bug me for a few years that the window frame was better than the wires I strung up… but it gradually “grew on me”…)
The point being that there are many times that a chunk of metal hanging in insulted space behaves in ways the designer (and sometimes the user) did not expect. Especially when it comes to radio energy. There are plenty of opportunities for slightly oxidized or sulphated joints to start acting as diodes and mixers; for “accidentally tuned” elements to act as antennas. Etc. Anyone trying to get a decent high frequency ground system debugged will “have stories”. It isn’t a theoretical world and it isn’t perfect.
David L. Hagen (10:00:11) :
Gary (05:30:47) :
On heat gradient, for calibration, can you point us to any papers to read how that is done?
No studies with engineer’s design but recently reread Feynman’s “QED”, Princeton, ca. 1985. Lights interaction with matter is probabilistic, the “reflection” at a surface is illusory, in fact an electromagnetic interaction with the intervening layer’s electrons. The resulting percentage reflection changes with the layer’s depth, oscillating between extremes, e.g., for glass, 4% to 16%.
The reflection is occuring everywhere but the infinity of resultant paths cancel except for those at the near and far margins.
In this case, engineers would have calibrated the AMSR-E recieved energy levels with actual temperatures measured by other means. Presumably this was done over a time period wherein atmospheric depth changed diurnally over some range that is now not representative.
“”” Bob Tisdale (16:42:38) :
maksimovich: You asked, “The absence of Volcanic “forcing” in the 19th century eg Krakatoa 1883 and Tarawera 1888 seems to be absent in this dataset,is this a mix of hadcru ?”
No. It is an NCDC product, ERSST.v3b. It is not a product of the Hadley Centre. The paper discussing the ERSST.v3 data and the differences between it and HADSST data is here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/SEA.temps08.pdf “””
The Mt Tarawera Eruption occurred in 1886; not 1888; perhaps the worst of all NewZealand Natural Disasters. Apart from what it did to the mountain (blew the whole middle of it, out so it is almost two mountains now) it also blew to smithereens the fabulous Pink and White Terraces; which were the largest silica terrace formations on earth. Some thought they were just buried under the volcanic ash; but later studies proved they were completely destroyed, and pieces were found almost 100 miles away. The locals really haven’t fully accepted that they are gone forever.
But the eruption did also create the Waimangu Geyser; which for many years was the larges and most spectacular geyser on earth; It too is gone now as a result of a later (local) eruption
I’m still enamored of the idea that the SST is more a function of mixing via cyclonic storms than of other inputs like solar. The idea being that years of lower hurricane activity (for example) would show higher SST while those with lots of storms would show lower SST.
What causes the hurricane energy to modulate is a different question… but you have a process that moves vast quantities of heat from the ocean to the stratosphere. Seems reasonable to me that the SST would be variable based on how many of these happen…
I know, it turns the normal causality view on its head. (Typically the assertion is that higher SST drives more hurricanes via providing the energy for them). But what if it’s a two way street to some extent? More energy allowing for more cyclones, but if you have fewer cyclones in some year, the SST rises for “a long while” until you do get a high cyclone year…
tallbloke (06:11:47) : The oceans, their varying salinity, and their currents both lateral and vertical are a good deal more complex than a bucket experiment, but be my guest. 😉
tallbloke I have a day job and a gf and other committments which I have been neglecting.
And where is the data to confirm your statement this happens? “SST data, OHC data, sea level data, LT data.”
No I want only SST data. You said: the SST record shows that this is what happens when the sun gets quieter, like at the end of the C19th, and now.
And remember I am a climatology illiterate. I dont know what OHC and LT stands for. I am barely better than Al Gore, but can restrain myself from saying the earth has a fever or a cold. All that I’ve learnt is thanks to him giving me the shivers.
But before we get bogged down in water skin experiments, methinks we should first understand what Dr Spencer has written. I’m not sure that I do. I just shot my mouth off looking at the 3 graphs above
..I thought I would take a look at what the combined AMSR-E & TMI instruments on NASA’s Aqua and TRMM satellites (respectively) had to say…the combined SST product produced by Frank Wentz’s Remote Sensing Systems provides complete global coverage only since the launch of Aqua (mid-2002)…
..The large and frequent swings in global average temperature are real, and result from changes in the rate at which water evaporates from the ocean surface….
…I decided to download the NOAA/NCDC SST data from their website — which do NOT include the AMSR-E measurements — to do a more quantitative comparison…
…From the NOAA data, I computed monthly anomalies in exactly the same manner I computed them with the AMSR-E data…
…If the satellite data are correct, then this means that the July 2009 SSTs reached a considerably higher record temperature than NOAA has claimed…
[this is the part I dont understand]
…Is it possible that the NCDC SST temperature dataset has been understating recent warming? [In other words they have made a mistake and the SST’s anomalies are actually more?]
Many questions – AMSR-E data shows it is less? Have they been inaccurate? Why should the NCDC SST temperature dataset be more accurate?
..Frank Wentz and Chelle Gentemann at Remote Sensing Systems have been very careful about tracking the accuracy of the AMSR-E SST retrievals with millions of buoy measurements…
buoy measurements? someone help me out. Many more but I have to rush
“Pamela Gray (09:47:49) :
Stephen, by what mechanism are you supposing the Sun is being so variable in its ability to heat the ocean? Are you supposing that the Sun is creating or removing clouds that are reflecting shortwave infrared away or allowing it through thus changing solar insolence? Or are you saying that the Sun is changing the strength of its infrared radiation at its solar source ?”
Hi Pamela,
I’m not actually supposing that the sun is particularly variable.
I am suggesting that the oceans themselves appear to alter the rate of energy emission to the air on various timescales due to internal behaviour of the oceans. Sometimes creating a net release to the air and sometimes a net absorption from the sun. Ocean energy content duly follows.
The Enso cycle is quite short and largely self cancelling but behind that we have 25 to 30 year phase changes which make noticeable differences to the global air temperature trends and shift all the air circulation systems latitudinally in the process.
For all I know there could be even longer term ocean cycles as well but our period of observation of ocean behaviour is not yet long enough.
For the 20th Century the ocean phase changes describe everything we have seen save for a small background warming trend but that could be explained either by multi century scale small solar changes since the bottom of the LIA or possibly by longer ocean cycles as yet undiscovered.
I think that internal oceanic variability is the best way of narrowing the current gap between the energy value of solar variations and the energy value of observed climate changes.
Paul Vaughan: You asked, “Do you know of any related literature?”
I haven’t seen any papers written on the ERSST.v3b depiction of the Southern Ocean.
And you asked, “– or other time series that show the same general pattern?”
I asked the same question in this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/does-anyone-recall-any-other-data-sets.html
Which then leads one to why would the curve of the “Hours of Bright Sunshine” over the Armaugh Observatory, inverted, have the same shape as the Southern Ocean SST anomalies?
E.M.Smith: You wrote, “The idea being that years of lower hurricane activity (for example) would show higher SST while those with lots of storms would show lower SST.”
Other than the Gulf of Mexico and a small part of the Caribbean, the areas with elevated SST anomalies are outside of the tropical Atlantic.
http://i32.tinypic.com/ilanx5.png
OK, gang, this is what I found out today before having to leave work. I downloaded the monthly grids of SST from NCDC (both their v2 and v3b products), and I computed the monthly anomalies at each gridpoint relative to the June 2002 through July 2009 period (since that is the period we have AMSR-E measurements for).
I then differenced the later part of the period (since 2007) with the earlier part (during and before 2004), separately for the NCDC and AMSR-E products.
Then I differences THOSE differences.
What it shows is that AMSRE has either spuriously warmed, or NCDC has spuriously cooled, by 1 to 2 deg C over all of the ‘warmer’ waters of the globe. The problem seems to diminish and then go away poleward of about 30S latitude, and poleward of 45N latitude.
This does NOT look like an RFI issue…it is too uniform spatially. Someone has made a major boo-boo…and I hope it isn’t me. 🙂
Roy I wonder if it is the USHCN2 implementation at NCDC ?
Anthony
Does it mean that the July SST’s are pretty much meaningless?
..This does NOT look like an RFI issue…it is too uniform spatially. Someone has made a major boo-boo…and I hope it isn’t me. 🙂
Mama mia!! Lets wait and see
Re: Bob Tisdale (13:12:47)
Bob, thanks for the response.
Have you ever written to the people at COADS about your post on the 1945 discontinuity?
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/large-1945-sst-discontinuity-also.html
http://icoads.noaa.gov/participants.html
Specifically, I’m curious to know if any officials have clarified the roles of the various series in constructing the various other series. For example, has the cloud cover series in-part been estimated from the SST records?
I would go as far as suggesting that your blog post on this subject demands a formal & fully-public response from officials — or at least the establishment of a permanent page on their website devoted to providing important clarification.
Ignore my previous comment, I was thinking of the Land+Ocean dataset which USHCN2 would affect.
Here is a more likely candidate:
NOAA Global July temps release.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=7&submitted=Get+Report
Note the note at the bottom of the release, excerpted below:
Please Note: Effective with the July 2009 State of the Climate Report, NCDC transitioned to the new version (version 3b) of the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) dataset. ERSST.v3b is an improved extended SST reconstruction over version 2. Most of the improvements are justified by testing with simulated data. The primary difference in version 3b, compared to version 2, is improved low-frequency tuning that increases the sensitivity to data prior to 1930. In ERSST v3b, satellite data was removed from the ERSST product. The addition of satellite data from 1985 to present caused problems for many users. (who, the warmers?)
Although the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data, a small residual cold bias remained at high southern latitudes where in situ data were sparse For more information about the differences between ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v2 please read Summary of Recent Changes in the Land-Ocean Temperature Analyses and Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006) paper (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/SEA.temps08.pdf – (ironically this paper lauded the use of satellite data – yet 6 months later it was yanked?)
Temperature anomalies for July 2009 are shown on the dot maps below. The dot map on the left provides a spatial representation of anomalies calculated from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) dataset of land surface stations using a 1961-1990 base period. The dot map on the right is a product of a merged land surface and sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly analysis developed by Smith et al. (2008). Temperature anomalies with respect to the 1961-1990 average for land and ocean are analyzed separately and then merged to form the global analysis.
????
WTFarce?
“Most of the improvements are justified by testing with simulated data. The primary difference in version 3b, compared to version 2, is improved low-frequency tuning that increases the sensitivity to data prior to 1930.”
So, they are “checking” the “new” way of processing data with “simulated” data – rather than comparing it to REAL DATA of REAL datasets?
Then the “change” is affecting comparision of new information to old reported data (corrupted data (er, corrected data) actually) of recorded temperature information prior to 1930.
What’s wrong with actual raw data? Oh right. HADCRU claims THAT’S state secrets.
Roy Spencer (13:55:08) :
“What it shows is that AMSRE has either spuriously warmed, or NCDC has spuriously cooled, by 1 to 2 deg C over all of the ‘warmer’ waters of the globe. The problem seems to diminish and then go away poleward of about 30S latitude, and poleward of 45N latitude.
This does NOT look like an RFI issue…it is too uniform spatially.”
—–
If it behaves like that, look for a cosine function interface of (latitude of the measurement) and the difference between the (magnitude of the original temperature, or received energy amount) and the reference (expected) value. Sounds like a term is getting “erased” in the processing.
As the receiver (data point) gets higher, the value becomes more accurate with respect to previous values.
We KNOW – by observation and surface temperatures – that temperatures worldwide didn’t really get warmer magically and suddenly in July. In May and June the difference between baseline and worldwide levels were (literally!) zero.
However, we are told that the “calculation” of the worldwide temperature suddenly changed at that time in July: so what is (should be!) suspect: the world – previously very inconveniently “cold”? Or the calculated (corrupted) temperature plot by people who NEED a sudden warming for their September publicity tour, and who therefore have little reason to check (very convenient) rising temperature records?
Roy Spencer (13:55:08) :
What it shows is that AMSRE has either spuriously warmed, or NCDC has spuriously cooled, by 1 to 2 deg C over all of the ‘warmer’ waters of the globe.
That’s a lot.
I wonder if NCDC is taking the opportunity to bring it’s data back closer to reality during an el nino spell when it’s not so noticeable.
This plot compares the SST’s of the rather similar solar situations and el nino events of the last 8 years and the end of the C19th. The difference is more like 0.2C than 2C, though these are global figures rather than equatorial.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=sst-1892.gif
Perhaps Roy could clarify his “1 to 2 deg C” ?
Oceans Regulate
http://nov55.com/gbwg.html#tropo
Humans cannot influence the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, because oceans regulate the amount to the most minute degree. Propagandists sometimes acknowledge this and sometimes contradict it. They acknowledge that oceans are absorbing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, when they are pretending that the oceans are being harmed by the result. They contradict it in claiming humans determine the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
It is a fact of chemistry that water absorbs carbon dioxide and establishes an equilibrium with the amount in the air. Equilibrium means absorption and release is continuous, while the concentration on either side is defined by the chemistry. Warmer water releases more carbon dioxide, and so does saltier water. If the oceans were not high in salt, there would not be enough carbon dioxide in the air to sustain plant growth.
As oceans heat up, they release more carbon dioxide into the air, which is why carbon dioxide levels in the air track with ocean temperatures. The reason why there has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the air over the past 150 years is because the oceans have been heating up, not because humans are producing more.
This equilibrium is observable when atmospheric carbon dioxide is measured. These measurements are made on a mountain in Hawaii, where the air is not disturbed by nearby human activity. The measurements show that when the Pacific Ocean heats up due to an El Nino, the carbon dioxide in the air increases; and when the El Nino disappears, the CO2 level in the air normalizes. This shows that oceans control the amount of carbon dioxide in the air rapidly and to the most minute degree.
Carbon dioxide is not self-regulating based on supply and demand, because the upper limit of toxicity is very high, and the lower limit of availability is almost nonexistent due to the large amount in the oceans. A stable level only exists because the oceans regulate through solubility equilibrium.
wattsupwiththat: Anthony, regarding your 18:32:52 comment, I wouldn’t lie to you.
Refer to my 8/22/09 comment at 13:00:38 which begins:
Dr. Roy and Anthony:
The NCDC SST Anomaly data…
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
…is the NCDC’s ERSST.v3b data…
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.90N.asc
…except it has the years 1901 to 2000 as its base years, instead of the “normal” NCDC SST climatology.
Regards
Paul Vaughan: You asked, “Have you ever written to the people at COADS about your post on the 1945 discontinuity?”
Nope. ICOADS is the keeper of the data. They aren’t attempting to correct for the discontinuity. It’s the researchers from University of Colorado, Hadley Centre, Univerity of Washington, and CRU. Refer to:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/case-against-climate-change-discredited-by-study-835856.html
Bob Tisdale & Others,
I’ve dug for some basic background towards researching further the very interesting Southern Ocean patterns depicted on Bob’s blog:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/closer-look-at-ersstv3b-southern-ocean.html
The following appears to relate to the spatial variation within the Southern Ocean:
Antarctic Oscillation Spatial Loading Pattern:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.loading.shtml
Notes:
–
Southern Ocean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean
“The ocean-area from about latitude 40 south to the Antarctic Circle has the strongest average winds found anywhere on Earth.”
“The Antarctic Circumpolar Current […] comprises the world’s longest ocean current”
–
Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_circumpolar_current
“Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) […] the largest ocean current […]. It keeps warm ocean waters away from Antarctica […]”
“The Circumpolar Current is driven by the strong westerly winds which are found in the latitudes of the Southern Ocean. In latitudes where there are continents, winds blowing on light surface water can simply pile up light water against these continents. But in the Southern Ocean, the momentum imparted to the surface waters cannot be balanced in this way. Different theories of the Circumpolar Current balance the momentum imparted by the winds in different ways.”
“Because of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, that water gets transported around the Southern Ocean fairly rapidly, so that the water in the Southern Ocean south of, for example, South America, resembles the water in the Southern Ocean south of New Zealand more closely than it resembles the water in the mid-Indian Ocean. Several processes operate along the coast of Antarctica to produce, in the Southern Ocean, types of water masses not produced elsewhere in the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. One of these is the Antarctic Bottom Water, a very cold, highly saline, dense water that forms under sea ice.”
–
Antarctic Convergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Convergence
“There is no Arctic equivalent, due to the amount of land surrounding the northern polar region. This line, like the Arctic tree line, is a natural boundary rather than an artificial one, like a line of latitude. It not only separates two hydrological regions, but also separates areas of distinctive marine life associations and of different climates.”
Arctic and Southern Oceans Contrasted:
Arctic Ocean: Warm ocean moderates frigid land.
Southern Ocean: Icy landmass feeds cold ocean.
–
Images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_frontal-system_hg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica-Region.png
For comparison, an alternate boundary for the Southern Ocean is 60S (a more artificial boundary that is nonetheless more convenient for preliminary computational purposes):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Southern_Ocean_-_en.png
–
Jacobs, G. A.; & Mitchell, J.L. (1996). Ocean circulation variations associated with the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave. Geophysical Research Letters 23(21), 2947-50.
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/gb/gb3/jacobs.html
“The Southern ocean is the one region of the world where such a process could freely develop. In other areas, land masses would act to interfere with the surface temperatures which drive the atmosphere. Thus the ACW possibly represents a fundamental mode of variation in Earth’s environmental system.”
–
http://www.iugg.org/iapso/JointAssembly97/abstracts/jpgm10.html
“The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) is the only simply connected current around the world. Research has been undertaken to study effects of the ACC variability on the Earth Rotation (ER) and it has been shown that seasonal variations of currents through the Drake Passage (DP) can be related to seasonal changes of Length of the Day (LOD)”
–
Gross, R.S. (2007). Earth Rotation Variations – Long Period. In: Herring, T.; & Schubert, G. (eds.) Treatise on Geophysics, Volume 3 (Geodesy), 239-294.
ftp://euler.jpl.nasa.gov/outgoing/EarthRotation_TOGP2007.pdf
“The cause of the decadal-scale polar motion variations is currently unknown. Gross et al. (2005) found that redistribution of mass within the atmosphere and oceans cannot be the main excitation source of decadal polar motion variations during 1949–2002 since it amounts to only 20% (x-component) and 38% (y-component) of that observed, and with the modeled excitation being 180 [degrees] out of phase with that observed.”
Then it gets more interesting:
“However, the ocean model used in their study was not forced by mass changes associated with precipitation, evaporation, or runoff from rivers including that from glaciers and ice sheets, and so had a constant total mass. Thus, their study did not address the question of the excitation of decadal polar motion by processes that change the total mass of the oceans, such as a nonsteric sea level height change associated with glacier and ice sheet mass change.”
–
Schmitz-Hubsch, H.; & Schuh, H. (1999). Seasonal and short-period fluctuations of Earth rotation investigated by wavelet analysis. Technical Report 1999.6-2 Department of Geodesy & Geoinformatics, Stuttgart University, p.421-432.
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/gi/research/schriftenreihe/quo_vadis/pdf/schmitzhuebsch.pdf
“The main other cause for the semi-annual variation in lod is the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) (e.g. Dickey et al., 1993). It is responsible for the variation of the semi-annual oscillation of lod because it feeds the cold Humboldt current from South to North along the West coast of South America. During strong El Nino events (marked by thin vertical lines in fig. 1b,c) the Humboldt current is being disturbed by the warm water of the El Nino moving from North to South along the South American West Coast. There are many interferences in the currents and as a consequence the semi-annual variation in lod almost vanishes. This is clearly visible on fig. 1b, e.g. during the very strong El Nino event in 1982/83.”
–
Biological Perspective
See Figure 2 here:
Dewar, W.K.; Bingham, R.J.; Iverson, R.L.; Nowacek, D.P.; St. Laurent, L.C.; & Wiebe, P.H. (2006). Does the marine biosphere mix the ocean? Journal of Marine Research 64, 541-561.
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/1912/1501/1/JMR_64_541.pdf
The lifeforms know nothing of anthropogenic computer fantasies. Note the correspondence with the Southern Ocean geography Bob has shown us – i.e. “something different” about the Southern Ocean south of the SouthEast Pacific.
Related – See Figure 3.3 here:
http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter03.html#t3.3
Note the spatial anti-node for the Southern Ocean. Due to factors including the asymmetric distribution of Earth’s continents, the equator is not the balance point. [If one plots the interannual rate of change of CO2 (related to photosynthesis) across a latitudinal gradient one will find only the deep-south/Antarctica (i.e. not the whole southern hemisphere) out-of-phase with the northern hemisphere.]
–
http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/crystal/sustainability%20resources/Lessons%206-7.pdf
“The Antarctic Circumpolar Current
The Southern Ocean is the only ocean that circles the globe without being blocked by land. It contains the Antarctic Circumpolar current and is the world’s largest ocean current.
The Antarctic bottom water (cold, salty, and dense) sinks into the deep sea, spills off the continental shelf, and travels northward hugging the ocean floor beneath other water masses. This is a huge amount of water that pushes the warmer water out of the way, usually by flowing underneath it, causing new flows and currents in other directions. It travels as far as the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans. The bottom water flowing away from Antarctica has to be replaced by other water, so the warmer waters in the north tend to flow southward to fill the gap. Then they cool down and the cycle keeps going.
The Antarctic Circumpolar current has a powerful influence on much of the word’s climate as it redistributes heat, influencing patterns of temperature and rainfall.”
–
Other Links:
Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Bottom_Water
Rintoul, S.R.; Hughes, C.; & Olbers, D. (2001). The Antarctic Circumpolar Current System (book chapter). In: Ocean Circulation And Climate. Academic Press.
http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Rin8888b.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_gyres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_oscillation
–
As for Armagh sky conditions:
Let’s recall Ian Wilson’s presentation:
Wilson, Ian (2008). Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
Ian highlighted a relationship between NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) and length of day (LOD).
So what is the connection with Antarctica?
Sidorenkov has the answer in figure 1:
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2003). Changes in the Antarctic ice sheet mass and the instability of the Earth’s rotation over the last 110 years. International Association of Geodesy Symposia 127, 339-346.
Alternately, see Figure 7 here:
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf
If you flip it over, you get a clear match with:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/closer-look-at-ersstv3b-southern-ocean.html
–
The most interesting thing arising out of this side-theme (which was sparked by the main theme of this thread) is not the answers found, but rather the questions raised.
For example are we looking at a continuation of the decadal timescale anti-phase seen in figures 9, 10, & 11 (thanks Basil) here?….
Carvalho, L.M.V.; Tsonis, A.A.; Jones, C.; Rocha, H.R.; & Polito, P.S. (2007). Anti-persistence in the global temperature anomaly field. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 14, 723-733.
http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/npg-14-723-2007.pdf
http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/gem/papers/npg-14-723-2007.pdf
And:
What about those deep-south cold-anomalies that seem to have seriously offended alarmists?
At least we are learning that the equator is not always the equator.
–
Other notes:
Figures 8e & 9a are interesting here:
Landerer, F.W.; Jungclaus, J.H.; & Marotzke, J. (2008). El Nino-Southern Oscillation signals in sea level, surface mass redistribution, and degree-two geoid coefficients. Journal of Geophysical Research 113, C08014. doi:10.1029/2008JC004767.
“An intriguing aspect of Figure 8e is the large-scale pattern of positive bottom pressure correlations in the Pacific, and negative correlations in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean. It appears that the mass balance between these ocean basins is influenced by ENSO […]”
“The atmosphere as the third water storage subsystem can hold only a very limited amount of water, but up to 80% of the variance of total atmospheric water vapor can be
explained with ENSO.” [Related: See figure 5.]
“For the subpolar North Pacific gyre region, others (Y.T. Song and V. Zlotnicki […]) have found ocean bottom pressure signals that are well correlated to ENSO,”
Song, Y. T.; Zlotnicki, V. (2008). Subpolar ocean bottom pressure oscillation and its links to the tropical ENSO. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29(21), 6091-6107.
This links nicely with R. Gross’ landmark findings (which raised a lot of questions).
Related:
Trenberth, K.E.; Stepaniak, D.P.; & Smith, L. (2005). Interannual variability of patterns of atmospheric mass distribution. Journal of Climate 18, 2812-2825.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/massEteleconnJC.pdf
–
I think it might be interesting to start contrasting ocean basin (& region) sea-levels and their interannual rates of change with an eye for patterns related to Bob’s & Sidorenkov’s observations. I’m convinced that we need to refine our understanding of what EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) are recording. I will speculate that something of fundamental importance has been completely missed (or perhaps kept top secret since there are aerospace engineering applications, including military targeting applications). I will further speculate that this is interfering with efforts to understand variations in other geophysical variables, thus contributing to costly sociopolitical conflict and the corruption of both the environmental movement & science.