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.
“Phil
1) 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)
2) 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.”
1) This way it is correct, even from a nitpicking point of view.
2) And that’s precisely why it is an eqation, but not an identity, and a=0 or b=0 or a=b=0 are the solutions.
Re: RR (01:41:50)
I’m not sure if you are arguing semantics or suggesting that humans are unnatural. Also, I can’t see how your comment about CO2 fits in unless I assume you are making assumptions that you assume others are making about assumptions that yet others have made. In summary: Perhaps we are looking at the same thing from different angles and seeing different threats to ‘nature’ – not necessarily a bad thing. Cheers!
Re: Paul Vaughan (02:07:35)
I was being ironic.
You wrote: “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).”
Very little people, even very little ‘alarmists’ would not acknowledge the power and complexity of nature. But sometimes one has to acknowledge that some evolutions in nature are quite simple to understand. And often one has to acknowledge the power of that part of nature called ‘homo sapiens’. Including the power to rise [CO2] in the atmospere to a level that hasn’t existed since the Neanderthaler still belonged to nature.
“RR: one has to acknowledge that some evolutions in nature are quite simple to understand”
With the Pettenkofer method they measured a higher value of CO2 concentration as today in 1820, 1860 and 1940. It is known that (much, as in Ma) earlier it was much, much higher, too. And then one has to explain positive forcing, otherwise CO2 is quite harmless. He who calls that “simple” is either a genius, or has not understood anything at all.
Alexej Buergin (07:24:49) :
With the Pettenkofer method they measured a higher value of CO2 concentration as today in 1820, 1860 and 1940.
—
Only in those years?
Where did ‘they’ measure this, in cities perhaps? (investigate and find out ‘they’ did!).
How come these higher concentrations are not found in trapped air in ice caps en elsewhere?
CO2 traps infrared radiation. It is not one of those mysterious unicorn gases that cool when they trap energy. Call that ‘harmless’; it is not without effect.
” RR (07:46:13) :
Alexej Buergin (07:24:49) :
“With the Pettenkofer method they measured a higher value of CO2 concentration as today in 1820, 1860 and 1940″.
Only in those years?”
I was sloppy. These years were the peaks, and practically all measurements were higher than ice-core Antarctica (up to 440 ppm).
RR (02:55:51) “And often one has to acknowledge the power of that part of nature called ‘homo sapiens’. Including the power to rise [CO2] in the atmospere to a level that hasn’t existed since the Neanderthaler still belonged to nature.”
There appears to be some misunderstanding. Perhaps you are making unfounded assumptions about the readership of this blog (which is not uniform – the readership is a diverse group — this is no ducks-in-a-row charade – people here disagree with one another seriously on a whole range of interesting climate issues).
If you are going to continue disrupting the harmony here, I’m going to encourage Anthony & the moderators to keep a watch on you – and if you keep it up, I encourage them to consider calling upon you to reveal your identity rather than indulging the twisted shots you are taking from behind the cover of a handle. [Click on the “Policy” link at the top of the page.]
I wish you wisdom & penetrating insight.
Paul Vaughan (12:47:36) :
“Perhaps you are making unfounded assumptions about the readership of this blog…”
No, I am responding to specific posts. And perhaps you are making unfounded assumptions about me.
“(which is not uniform – the readership is a diverse group — this is no ducks-in-a-row charade – people here disagree with one another seriously on a whole range of interesting climate issues).”
Correct, and that makes this an interesting place. Why are you suddenly playing ad hominem here?
“If you are going to continue disrupting the harmony here, I’m going to encourage Anthony & the moderators to keep a watch on you…”
Thank you. You should now rest assured knowing this possibility exists. Please return to the subject matter. Please keep up the harmony, you are disrupting it by suddenly taking shots at me!
” – and if you keep it up, I encourage them to consider calling upon you to reveal your identity rather than indulging the twisted shots you are taking from behind the cover of a handle. [Click on the “Policy” link at the top of the page.]”
I have already added my surname to my initials having remembered the policy. RR Kampen or Remko Roderik Kampen is my real name. Misuse of this identification will be punished.
” RR (07:46:13) :
Alexej Buergin (07:24:49) :
“These years were the peaks, and practically all measurements were higher than ice-core Antarctica (up to 440 ppm).”
—
Yes, they were, because they were taken in or very near cities. There CO2-concentration is always much higher than in the average lower atmosphere.
RR Kampen (02:30:32) “Correct, and that makes this an interesting place.”
Thank you for the clarification Remko.
Paul, with the quote you chose from my reply we are agreed; thank you for your response.