We should all thank AP’s Seth Borenstein for this, IMHO. Without his article on July SST’s being the hottest ever and it not making much sense, people such as Dr. Spencer may not have been immediately motivated to figure out what was going on with the SST’s. – Anthony
—
Spurious Warming in New NOAA Ocean Temperature Product: The Smoking Gun
Dr. Roy Spencer August 27th, 2009
After crunching data this week from two of our satellite-based microwave sensors, and from NOAA’s official sea surface temperature (SST) product ERSST v3b, I think the evidence is pretty clear:
The ERSST v3b product has a spurious warming since 1998 of about 0.2 deg. C, most of which occurred as a jump in 2001.
The following three panels tell the story. In the first panel I’ve plotted the TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI) SST anomalies (blue) for the latitude band 40N to 40S. I’ve also plotted SST anomalies from the more recently launched AMSR-E instrument (red), computed over the same latitude band, to show that they are nearly identical. (These SST retrievals do not have any time-dependent adjustments based upon buoy data). The orange curve is anomalies for the entire global (ice-free) oceans, which shows there is little difference with the more restricted latitude band.
In the second panel above I’ve added the NOAA ERSST v3b SST anomalies (magenta), calculated over the same latitude band (40N to 40S) and time period as is available from TRMM.
The third panel above shows the difference [ERSST minus TMI], which reveals an abrupt shift in 2001. The reason why I trust the microwave SST is shown in the following plot, where validation statistics are displayed for match-ups between satellite measurements and moored buoy SST measurements. The horizontal green line is a regression fit to the data. (An average seasonal cycle, and 0.15 deg. C cool skin bias have been removed from these data…neither affects the trend, however.)
I also checked the TMI wind speed retrievals, and there is no evidence of anything unusual happening during 2001. I have no idea how such a large warm bias could have entered into the ERSST dataset, but I’d say the evidence is pretty clear that one exists.
Finally, the 0.15 to 0.20 deg. C warm bias in the NOAA SST product makes it virtually certain that July 2009 was not, as NOAA reported, a record high for global sea surface temperatures.
UPDATE: Dr. Spencer has an update to this post here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/31/spencer-always-question-your-results/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Anthony-
Well, it’s a serious subject.
It’s about the most serious subject there is, wouldn’t you agree?
The future of the biosphere, not just of humanity, but the biosphere itself, is after all a subject that we all have a stake in, wouldn’t you agree?
I don’t think I “post bomb”, but I do try to find what I believe are the underlying logical and scientific fallacies displayed on this blog.
It’s too important a subject not to be honest about, wouldn’t you agree?
We’re all in this together, Anthony.
Every single one of us.
Hi Richard-
I posted this because it is a pretty devastating summary of the situation that we are in when it is summarized like this.
Let me excerpt it for you:
By the way, there won’t be any retraction from NOAA, because there was no mistake made in the first place, IMO.
So, we’ve got the warmest ocean temperatures ever for July, combined with the fifth highest combined land and sea temperatures for July. This all seems pretty non-random and ominous.
So, we’ve got the ninth warmest land temperatures on record, in July.
So, July summer sea ice extent is the third lowest on record. As ICESat shows, this is not just due to the wind shoving ice around, but is a true decline in ice volume, as well.
Guys and gals, it’s just too many temperature records, set lately, for this to be a random variation.
Even increased ice extent in Antarctica, can be seen as due to increased heating of the southern hemisphere, with a certain amount of the moisture ending up as precipitation in Antarctica. Granted that this is a negative feedback, there are bigger positive feedbacks apparently going on in the Arctic. And some West Antarctic glaciers are accelerating dramatically.
I do disagree with the majority of people on this blog, but it’s the future of the biosphere we’re talking about here.
I believe that global warming is not only real, it is on the verge of running away, and will do so unless we drastically, radically change “business as usual”.
It’s too important a subject not to be honest about.
REPLY: See my note, take a rest. And….if you want to lecture us here about honesty, I suggest you take a good hard look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Palmer
My view is if you can’t be honest with putting your name to your writing, then you shouldn’t lecture others about honesty. – Anthony
Leland Palmer (17:22:50) “Should I believe the thousands of NOAA scientists and the huge preponderance of evidence, or should I believe Dr. Spencer?”
I’m trying to think of a place where I’ve worked where everyone agrees and isn’t obliged to toe the company line…
–
Leland Palmer (22:56:03) “The future of the biosphere, not just of humanity, but the biosphere itself, is after all a subject that we all have a stake in, wouldn’t you agree? […] I do disagree with the majority of people on this blog, but it’s the future of the biosphere we’re talking about here.”
You seriously underestimate Nature.
–
Leland Palmer (22:56:03) “I believe that global warming is not only real, it is on the verge of running away, and will do so unless we drastically, radically change “business as usual”.”
“Business as usual” could use an overhaul, but I encourage you to tone down your extremism. “Drastic” & “radical” change would lead to instability and the next thing you know you might have something like a nuclear winter on your hands. Sensible restraint is in order. Panic is not the answer in a crisis, nor is it constructive when there is not a crisis.
–
Leland Palmer (22:56:03) “It’s too important a subject not to be honest about, wouldn’t you agree? We’re all in this together […] Every single one of us. […] It’s too important a subject not to be honest about.”
There are MUCH bigger threats to the biosphere than anthropogenic computer-climate fantasies. I encourage you to step back – way back – and get some sober perspective on the broader array of threats we face.
Sincerely,
Paul Vaughan
Ecologist.
“REPLY: See my note, take a rest. And….if you want to lecture us here about honesty, I suggest you take a good hard look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Palmer
My view is if you can’t be honest with putting your name to your writing, then you shouldn’t lecture others about honesty. – Anthony”
You are of course right, Anthony, about the length of Lelands contributions (does anyone read them at all ?). But you must admit that the gentleman’s pseudonym is well chosen and fits him like a glove fits a hand.
A note to Leland Palmer:
If you’ll post a comment (that won’t be made visible here) that allows me to verify your handle, with some public record, or address, I’ll withdraw my contention that your handle is simply a “twin peaks” character.
One thing that has not been addressed in the 3 threads on this theme: the nature of fluctuations of different records about one another on different temporal scales. My impression is that it is not generally considered that drift might oscillate on a variety of timescales according to known &/or unknown factors differentially affecting different instruments. Discrepancies between records are a learning opportunity (as Dr. Spencer has nicely illustrated). Attempts to make series match one another could be robbing us of the the most interesting information (i.e. the subtle nuances).
Paul, if I understand you correctly, would tend to agree that instrumental drifts could, given enough time, oscillate to some extent. I suppose it would depend on what is causing the drift in each system.
Hi Anthony-
REPLY: Info confirmed thank you. Mr. Palmer is using his real name, and not that of a twin peaks character. – Anthony
Hi Paul Vaughn-
I disagree.
I’ve worked in analytical chemistry labs for a long time, doing analytical method development.
You have to learn to recognize a positive result (when a theory is making good predictions) as well as a negative one, regardless of where the theory came from, or how unusual the situation is, or whose idea it is.
In this case, way too many temperature records have been broken by way too big a margin for there to be anything seriously wrong with the AGW hypothesis.
Risks are generally assessed by multiplying the consequences of a scenario by the probability of the scenario.
The probability is looking huge, and the consequences of runaway global heating are off the scale.
Leland Palmer (14:56:22) :
“In this case, way too many temperature records have been broken by way too big a margin for there to be anything seriously wrong with the AGW hypothesis.”
Can you provide some examples?
Hi Just The Facts-
Please look at the NOAA link provided in the thread above:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090814_julyglobalstats.html
It’s those sorts of statistics that I am referring to that impress me. Al Gore’s book is also full of such statistics.
We can’t talk about wildfire statistics on this thread, but these are also up, dramatically around the world.
“The probability is looking huge, and the consequences of runaway global heating are off the scale.”
The probability of runaway global warming is precisely zero. If it could then it would have done during the previous 400 million years. Because it didn’t, even from higher starting temps and higher CO2. It didn’t run away even when flood basalts blew our climate to smithereens, it still restabilized.
[snip – Mr. Palmer I’ve told you when we have a thread on methane, you can post all you want bout it. Until then no more posts from you trying to hijack this thread to your liking. -A]
Leland Palmer (15:38:49) :
Per the article you cite, “records began in 1880.” The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, so NOAA has 130 years of questionably accurate data on 4,500,000,000 year-old planet. The sample size seems very small to draw any concrete conclusions from.
Can you provide any examples demonstrating that that the warming cited by NOAA is usual as compared to the normal/natural long-term temperature variances in Earth’s climate system?
Also, why if temperatures have increased so much, is Antarctica’s Sea Ice Extent trending above average?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Mr. Palmer keeps trying to hijack this thread with off topic issues that he wants to push. He just posted two more attempts that have nothing to do with this thread.
The issue in discussion is sea surface temperature data.
Mr. Palmer has therefore been banned from posting further comments on this thread.
Don’t make me ban you from the blog. Stop being a troll and stick to the discussion topic.
Leland Palmer (15:38:49) : Putting aside how easily impressed you apparently are…
“We can’t talk about wildfire statistics on this thread, but these are also up, dramatically around the world.”
This is just plain absolutely false.
Riaño, D., J.A. Moreno Ruiz, D. Isidoro, and S.L. Ustin. 2007. Global spatial patterns and temporal trends of burned area between 1981 and 2000 using NOAA-NASA Pathfinder. Global Change Biology, 13, 40–50.
“The global trend statistics in the total number of pixels burned in any month or annually were not significantly different from 0 (at alpha = 0.10 significance level). Therefore, no significant upward or downward global trend was found in the burned area data.”
“Al Gore’s book is also full of such statistics.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Okay, I should sue you for that. I’m literally rasping with laughter.
Just The Facts (16:12:03) :
Also, why if temperatures have increased so much, is Antarctica’s Sea Ice Extent trending above average?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Well it isn’t so your question is moot.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
Phil. (17:03:16) :
Is 0.8 +/- 0.7 a positive trend? Is a point on that trendline “trending above average”?
I ask this in the context of a corrected temperature trend of 0.12 +/- 0.12 deg per decade not being a material correction to a paper that appeared on the cover of Nature, with the original story being that the temperature in Antarctica was going up “significantly”.
Leland Palmer
You appear to be a well meaning but highly credulous person.
You seem to believe that very short term measurements-such as those provided by satellites-should be taken as indicating unprecedented changes over pre satellite readings. You also seem to believe that the data sets you are presented with are always accurate, scientific and beyond reproach.
To stick to the subject, SST’s were very poorly measured in the past and remain so to this day.
This gives some idea of the manner in which data is reconstructed. You will come across the word reconstructed and interpolated a lot in climate science.
http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/~alexeyk/Papers/Kaplan_etal1998.pdf
For example the IPCC global sea level data derives from three North European tide gauges which have huge chunks of data missing yet purport to show heights back to 1700.
The Hadley global temperatures relied on 20 imperfect stations globally in 1850 which have since changed enormously in location and numbers.
Arctic ice levels have fluctuated considerably over the millenia, the most recent example of melt being during the period 1920-1940.
All is not what it seems with the statistics you seem to believe are gospel and I do urge you to look a little harder at the authenticity of the information you believe to be so impressive.
tonyb
Phil. (17:03:16) : How extremely disingenuous. In the first place, the image you linked to has a positive linear trend fitted to it which is barely significant but IS nonetheless. You describe it as saying that such an such is “not happening”. But you missed the caption, which says July anomalies. Why not show all months, or the annual averages? Oh right. Because that has a positive linear trend which is significant at the .001 level:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
Since in my experience you (Phil) believe yourself to be lord god of the sea ice data and analysis thereof, know this-I’m not going to bother to explain to you just how wrong you are. Figure it out for yourself.
Leland Palmer (14:56:22) “I disagree […] way too many temperature records have been broken by way too big a margin for there to be anything seriously wrong with the AGW hypothesis […] the consequences of runaway global heating are off the scale”
Distortion & narrow perception of natural phenomena do not constitute a solution to either real or imagined threats.
I don’t think this exchange can go anywhere productive; you seem to be operating on false premises, including ones about the readership of this site.
If you want to do something useful for the environment, I will offer 2 suggestions:
1) Advocate that more pavement be abandoned so that natural (not genetically-engineered) forests can take over (naturally – i.e. not “selected” & “planted” trees — just let nature do what nature does at nature’s pace …naturally!).
2) Oppose toxicity.
No CO2 scare-mongering necessary.
Phil. (17:03:16) :
“Well it isn’t so your question is moot.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png ”
What? You’ve just posted a chart that shows Antarctica’s Sea Ice Extent with a positive slope of .8% per decade and an end point that’s above average, i.e. Antarctica’s Sea Ice Extent is trending above average. Am I missing something?
Sorry that should be .0001 level.
TonyB (17:15:09) “Arctic ice levels have fluctuated considerably over the millenia, the most recent example of melt being during the period 1920-1940.”
When we become aware of discrepancies like the one Dr. Spencer has illustrated, it reminds us to be more conscious of the stunning array of loose ends in our understanding of natural climate. Thanks to Anthony & the moderators for their hard work.
Does anyone know of any good (& preferably concise) references/links to journal articles &/or datasets on the 1920-1940 sea ice melt? After a quick google search, I get the impression that, like the 1930s severe drought in North America, this phenomenon remains poorly understood.
Re: Cold Lynx (14:30:06)
Thanks for the link – very interesting graphs, particularly 1930-1940 in the contour plots:
Xue, Y.; Smith, T.M.; & Reynolds, R.W. (2003). Interdecadal Changes of 30-Yr SST Normals during 1871-2000. Journal of Climate 16, 1601-1612.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/xue-etal.pdf
– –
Some made a fuss upthread about July 2009 Arctic SST anomalies —– Relevant:
Polyakov, I.V.; & Johnson, M.A. (2000). Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability. Geophysical Research Letters 27(24), 4097-4100.
http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/pdf/50yr_web.pdf
“Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.”
Leland Palmer (14:56:22) : … I’ve worked in analytical chemistry labs for a long time, doing analytical method development.
You have to learn to recognize a positive result (when a theory is making good predictions) as well as a negative one, regardless of where the theory came from, or how unusual the situation is, or whose idea it is.
In this case, way too many temperature records have been broken by way too big a margin for there to be anything seriously wrong with the AGW hypothesis.
The probability is looking huge, and the consequences of runaway global heating are off the scale.
Mr Leland Palmer, I just couldn’t let that go. You seem to have a very poor grasp of probability and also seem to have forgotten your basic science.
If there is evidence contrary to the hypothesis, the hypothesis is proved wrong and has to be discarded. This is the scientific method, which is the very foundation of scientific knowledge.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein
I have to go out and will come back with the contradictions later but two hurried observations:
Only looking at the temperature records a level or falling trend for 10 years with CO2 rising, is a very unusual event for the hypothesis. But if this continues for another 5 years the hypothesis would find it very difficult to be sustained. NOAA ran several simulations with their models and the simulations ruled out (at the 95% level) zero trends for 15 consecutive years or more.
If arctic ice is thin now it would have been even thinner during the Medieval warm period and was very probably absent during the summer months.
Re: the sea temperature record only NOAA says its so. Even the Hadley data doesnt show it as the warmest.