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.
tallbloke (04:50:48) :
So how come the arctic melted less this year than the previous two years?
—
Did it?
Some people think last year wasn’t a record minimum for the Arctic ice. They think the amount of ice is measured from the surface extent only. In reality, it’s all about volume. This was record low last year again, as more than half the multiyear ice left over from 2007 had gone.
It remains to be seen if there stil is ice older than 3 years this summer.
The paradox comes about from the fact that most of the ice melts from below, the simple consequence of increasing SST. This lengthens the de facto melt season, although surface cover will begin to increase in a couple of weeks time (it will increase very fast, skeptics, because it will become winter again!). As the topmost layer of water in the Arctic sea is virtually sweet water, winter ice will exist there for a long time from now.
@RR (1:21:19)
, So where`s the DATA on Ice Volume,? Facts please not speculations
Leland Palmer (22:56:03) :
The planet’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for July
By the way, there won’t be any retraction from NOAA, because there was no mistake made in the first place, IMO.
I would suggest that the NOAA ocean anomaly for July is too high. No other source supports a July record. Hadsst2 shows July 2009 SST cooler than July 1998 – consistent with Roy Sencer’s analysis. NOAA is the odd man out.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the fifth warmest on record
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.
These 2 facts (even if true) are not independent. If we have warm ocean temperatures then it follows that, because the ocean covers ~71% of the earth’s surface, the combined Land-Ocean temperatures will also be high.
The global land surface temperature for July 2009 was (0.51 degree C) above the 20th century average of 57.8 degrees F (14.3 degree C), and tied with 2003 as the ninth-warmest July on record.
This suggests an alarming over-confidence at NOAA. Jim Hansen is on record as saying “For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.” See
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
It sounds as though most of this drivel comes from the PR dept.
“Phil. (22:20:44) :
Yes, basically 100*sin(lat) for a symmetric case like this.”
Since you like to nitpick as much as I do, let me point out that the correct formula is
simply sin(lat) = 100% * sin(lat) . And by “basically” you mean “if the earth is approximated by a sphere”.
Paul Vaughan
Here is an article I wrote about the 1815-1860 arctic melting.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
I am currently working on the 1920-1940 follow up article.
In the meantime google ‘bob bartlett and the Morrisey’ where his adventures in a melting arctic in the 1920’s to 30’s can be found.
Tonyb
Someone needs to be able to distinguish between statement of fact and statement of opinion.
A statement of fact would look something like: July temperature records this year were more numerous than any previous number of July records.
A statement of opinion would look something like way too many or way too big a margin or for there to be anything seriously wrong with the AGW hypothesis. A statement of opinion would also link data to a conclusion (AGW, in this case) in some way that the speaker has not supported.
rtgr (04:02:08) :
@RR (1:21:19)
, So where`s the DATA on Ice Volume,? Facts please not speculations
—
NSIDC press release including references (containing the facts):
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
This picture might do, though: http://www.knmi.nl/cms/mmbase/images/29518
“”RR (07:27:10) :
“rtgr: So where`s the DATA on Ice Volume,? Facts please not speculations”
NSIDC press release including references (containing the facts):
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
This picture might do, though: http://www.knmi.nl/cms/mmbase/images/29518“”
There is no data there.
We want a TABLE with NUMBERS. And we want a CURVE.
Ice-Volume only is a topic because the AGW’s lost on ice-extend; so they need to change the subject. Volume will probably cease to be a topic when the good people in Bremerhaven finally publish their Polar-5 measurments.
From the Alfred-Wegener-Institute:
http://www.awi.de/de/aktuelles_und_presse/pressemitteilungen/detail/item/new_record_arctic_sea_ice_cover_minimum_climate_researchers_from_bremerhaven_and_hamburg_present_ne/?cHash=6d1fea9ba6
Die exakte Vorhersage für den jeweils nächsten Spätsommer ist jedoch nicht möglich. Das liegt an zwei Faktoren: Zum einen ist – im Gegensatz zum Eisbedeckungsgrad – die Eisdicke am Ende des Winters in ihrer räumlichen Verteilung nicht bekannt. „Deren Kenntnis ist jedoch von entscheidender Wichtigkeit für eine gute Prognose”, erklärt Gerdes vom Alfred-Wegener-Institut.
Translation: The thickness of the ice at the end of winter … is not known.
Alexej Buergin (09:24:34) :
“”RR (07:27:10) :
“rtgr: So where`s the DATA on Ice Volume,? Facts please not speculations”
NSIDC press release including references (containing the facts):
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
This picture might do, though: http://www.knmi.nl/cms/mmbase/images/29518“”
There is no data there.
We want a TABLE with NUMBERS. And we want a CURVE.
Try here for example, last few slides:
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/34395/5/Maslowski.pdf
By the way Alexej you might want to rethink this equation. 😉
Since you like to nitpick as much as I do, let me point out that the correct formula is
simply sin(lat) = 100% * sin(lat)
Die exakte Vorhersage für den jeweils nächsten Spätsommer ist jedoch nicht möglich. Das liegt an zwei Faktoren: Zum einen ist – im Gegensatz zum Eisbedeckungsgrad – die Eisdicke am Ende des Winters in ihrer räumlichen Verteilung nicht bekannt. „Deren Kenntnis ist jedoch von entscheidender Wichtigkeit für eine gute Prognose”, erklärt Gerdes vom Alfred-Wegener-Institut.
Translation: The thickness of the ice at the end of winter … is not known.
Actually what it says is that ‘the spatial distribution of ice thickness at the end of winter is not known’.
The ICESat measurements would appear to supply that data though:
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaIce/index.php
“”” Phil. (21:59:48) :
More pedantically, the “equipartition Law” says that the thermal energy is equally distributed among the degrees of freedom in a system; and the amount assigned to each is kT/2, and NOT kT which I assert before; but it is per degree of freedom, and a single atom has three degrees of fredom (x, y, z displacements), so the energy of a monatomic gas is 3kT/2), and 5kT/2 for a diatomic gas, which has two more rotational degrees of freedom that a mono gas doesn’t have. Rotation about the axis joining two atoms of a diatomic molecule, is not an energy storage mechanism that is excitable from an external stimulus. Tri and polyatomic molecules have 3kT per molecule since they do have the full three rotational degrees of freedom; now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
To be even more pedantic you’ve forgotten about the vibrational modes so a diatomic gas has 3 translational, 2 rotational and one vibrational, the rotational and translational modes each contribute kT/2 whereas the vibrational contribute kT (both PE and KE). Rotation is excitable by an external stimulus provided that it is a heteronuclear diatomic. “””
Well I take your word on that Phil, since you are a lot more conversant with this stuff than I am.
I didn’t exactly for get about the vibrational degrees of freedom; and on checking with my thumbnail Physics “handbook (Edited by Walter Benenson, John W. Harris, Horst Stocker, and Holger Lutz; they too mention vibrational modes (in gases) as excited mostly at very high temperatures; and incidently cite the lack of an axial rotationl mode in the diatomic molecule as being a consequence of the extremely small moment of inertia, and hence requiring very high energies to excite such a mode; for an ideal gas that moment would be zero.
I’ll accept your level of pedantry; but perhaps in the realm of the real atmosphere; those extra degrees of freedom are not going to contribute significantly to the energy of the system.
In any case my point was really to establish that the concept of temperature, and the mechanical energy properties of real matter are inextricably intertwined. It had been asserted by others that “heat” does not reside anywhere; that it is energy in transit.
George
Paul Vaughan, John Finn and others thanks for your excellent points.
Today I am full of anger – Anger because my Prime Minister, who I voted for, is teaming up with the labour party, who I voted against, to pass the cap-n-trade scheme, possibly because his science minister, who is an expert on premature babies or something like that says 1. anthropogenic global warming is a fact and 2. Will be very harmful and 3. cap n trade of our tiny country, (or indeed the world), will somehow fix this “problem”.
Those idiots in power have forgotten that that their power comes from us and its our opinions that count ultimately, and not the ruling caucus, who can team up with the opposition to stab us in the back.
Anger also because I am forced to devote time to this scam, which will effect our lives for the worse, though global warming, natural or man-made wont.
This is just my take on the history of the issue. In the 1950’s someone discovered that CO2 was going up and that it was due to our carbon emissions. Some people thought this would be bad and built a tentative hypothesis around it. Today this hypothesis has got a momentum of its own quite divorced from the facts around it.
[snip ~ direct attacks on other posters are prohibited. I personally suggest you just ignore him ~ ctm]
We are arguing about every degree of temperature that rises in Texas or falls in Labrador. Every icicle that drips in Greenland or ice floe that melts in the Ocean.
I thought to myself lets step back and get some perspective on the issue.
When we look at our climatic history of the last few million years, we live in a cooling world. What is virtually certain is that there will be another ice-age sometime in our future and what is virtually certain is that there will not be unstoppable run-away global warming due to the pathetic amounts of one greenhouse gas that we are putting into the atmosphere through the natural process of combustion of natural substances, or for that matter due to any other foreseeable event in the future.
The real importance of Dr Spencers discovery is not that the oceans are indeed not as “hot” as portrayed to be, but that rather the evidence put forward by the fanatics of AGW has to be examined and questioned at every step, because science seems to be abandoned and manipulated for ideology.
Perhaps what is needed at this stage in the climate change discussion is an array of naturally catastrophic warming scenarios (to see if it is possible to get alarmists to acknowledge the power & complexity of nature).
“TonyB (06:20:18) :
I am currently working on the 1920-1940 follow up article.
In the meantime google ‘bob bartlett and the Morrisey’ where his adventures in a melting arctic in the 1920’s to 30’s can be found.”
—
Don’t forget to use the recently publicized Soviet measurements from the 1920, 30’s. They would fly a plane and land on the Arctic ice to measure thickness. They landed planes on places where nowadays there is only water or, from October through May, first year winter ice.
” Paul Vaughan (14:37:13) :
Perhaps what is needed at this stage in the climate change discussion is an array of naturally catastrophic warming scenarios (to see if it is possible to get alarmists to acknowledge the power & complexity of nature).”
—
‘The God Delusion’, in this case the delusion that man is not a part of nature while at the same time powerless to influence nature.
The increase of [CO2] has been proved already in 1961 to be the strict result of burning of fossile fuels. Of course humans have had nothing to do with this.
“Phil: By the way Alexej you might want to rethink this equation:
“Since you like to nitpick as much as I do, let me point out that the correct formula is simply
sin(lat) = 100% * sin(lat)””
Since 100% is another way of writing 1: 100% = 1
these are not just equations, but identities (an equation which is valid for all values of its variables). Sometimes peolple use an identity-sign with 3 horizontal = instead of 2. Example: (a+b)^2=a^2+b^2 is an equation, (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2 is an identity.
For lat=40°:
My result: 0.64 = 64%
Your result: 100*sin(40°)=64 means that part of the earth-surface is 64 times as big as the whole.
“Phil:
Actually what it says is that ‘the spatial distribution of ice thickness at the end of winter is not known’.”
You are perfectly right. And that means one cannot calculate a precise value for the volume.
“Alexej Buergin (03:05:06) :
You are perfectly right. And that means one cannot calculate a precise value for the volume.”
That looks like science. One can arrive at pretty sharp estimates but no ‘precise values’. Never.
“RR: That looks like science. One can arrive at pretty sharp estimates but no ‘precise values’. Never.”
I would consider a number of km^3 as a “precise value” in this example, if the first digit is correct and the second one maybe not (2 significant figures). The sea-ice extend JAXA publishes
( “The latest value : 5,447,188 km2 (August 31, 2009)” )
is unscientific nonsense being much too exact. I would write e.g.
G = 6.673(10) * 10^(-11) N (m^2) kg(-2)
the (10) in brackets being 1 SD in units of the last digit.
Of course there is a limit to precision as Heisenberg established.
From Webster’s: precise
2) being exactly that and neither more or less (your use of the word)
6) exact in measuring, recording (my use)
Alexej Buergin (02:43:41) :
“Phil: By the way Alexej you might want to rethink this equation:
“Since you like to nitpick as much as I do, let me point out that the correct formula is simply
sin(lat) = 100% * sin(lat)””
Since 100% is another way of writing 1: 100% = 1
these are not just equations, but identities (an equation which is valid for all values of its variables). Sometimes peolple use an identity-sign with 3 horizontal = instead of 2. Example: (a+b)^2=a^2+b^2 is an equation, (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2 is an identity.
For lat=40°:
My result: 0.64 = 64%
Your result: 100*sin(40°)=64 means that part of the earth-surface is 64 times as big as the whole.
Sorry you missed my point, the lhs of the original equation clearly should be something other than ‘sin(lat)’ I would suggest the following:
% of total area = 100 * sin(lat)
Your examples of identities vs equations seem to be mixed up since (a+b)^2=a^2+b^2 is only valid if either a or b is zero.
A ^ is missing in G:
G = 6.673(10) * 10^(-11) N (m^2) kg^(-2)
Alexej Buergin (03:05:06) :
“Phil:
Actually what it says is that ‘the spatial distribution of ice thickness at the end of winter is not known’.”
You are perfectly right. And that means one cannot calculate a precise value for the volume.
Well that’s their opinion, as the reference I gave showed there is data available from ICESat.