From the NOAA press release, just in time for Copenhagen. Of course the satellite record for August tells another story that is not quite so alarming as NCDC’s take on it.
AMS Fellow and CCM, Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP has this to say about it:.
Icecap Note: to enable them to make the case the oceans are warming, NOAA chose to remove satellite input into their global ocean estimation and not make any attempt to operationally use Argo data in the process. This resulted in a jump of 0.2C or more and ‘a new ocean warmth record’ in July. ARGO tells us this is another example of NOAA’s inexplicable decision to corrupt data to support political agendas.
– Anthony
Global surface temperature anomalies for the month of August 2009. Temperature is compared to the average global temperature from 1961-1990.
Visualization of world’s land and ocean surface temperature.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.
NCDC scientists also reported that the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998. For the June-August 2009 season, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was third warmest on record.
Global Highlights – Summer
- The June-August worldwide ocean surface temperature was also the warmest on record at 62.5 degrees F, 1.04 degrees F above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F.
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the June-August season was 61.2 degrees F, which is the third warmest on record and 1.06 degrees F above the 20th century average of 60.1 degrees F.
Global Highlights – August
- The worldwide ocean surface temperature of 62.4 degrees F was the warmest on record for any August, and 1.03 degrees F above the 20th century average of 61.4 degrees F.
- Separately, the global land surface temperature of 58.2 degrees F was 1.33 degrees F above the 20th century average of 56.9 degrees F, and ranked as the fourth warmest August on record.
- Large portions of the world’s land mass observed warmer-than-average temperatures in August. The warmest departures occurred across Australia, Europe, parts of the Middle East, northwestern Africa, and southern South America. Both Australia and New Zealand had their warmest August since their records began.
- The Southern Hemisphere average temperatures for land and ocean surface combined were the warmest on record for August.
Other Notable Developments
Current sea ice extent as measured by NOAA’s GOES, POES, and DMSP satellites.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
- For the year to date, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature of 58.3 degrees F tied with 2003 for the fifth-warmest January-August period on record. This value is 0.99 degree F above the 20th century average.
- According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Arctic sea ice covered an average of 2.42 million square miles during August. This is 18.4 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent, and is generally consistent with a decline of August sea ice extent since 1979.
- NSIDC data indicated Antarctic sea ice extent in August was 2.7 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This is consistent with the trend during recent decades of modest increases in August Antarctic sea ice extent.
Watch NOAA’s visualization of the world’s land and ocean surface temperature.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the oceans to surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
” hswiseman (09:00:20) : ”
That same thought occurred to me. Not a lot of tropical storms this year creating a large store of heat at depth.
Wonder if we will have a bad year for Nor’easters on the East Coast this year.
Facts matter less than perception when policy is the objective. The warmers control the funds, the journals, and the press. With the exception of Russia, China, and India, they control most of the major government bureaucracies and the UN.
It should come as no surprise that that are willing to cherry pick data in advance of the most important policy meeting of this decade. They have been getting away with this tactic for over a decade. Their attack dogs marginalize any who dare to speak out against them.
While I “hope” that this situation will “change” and that honest science once again become relevant, I do not see this happening soon.
DR:You replied, “ARGO may only surface only every 10 days, but it would still provide valuable comparison data.”
Do we know for a fact that NOAA does not use ARGO data in their ERSST.v3b and OI.v2 products? I can find nothing that says they do not other than the statement by Mr. D’Aleo.
You asked, “How often does ARGO release their data for public consumption?”
Here’s a link that may help you to find the answer to your question.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
You wrote, “Since NOAA removed the OI.v2 data, was that for the entire record or just beginning last November?”
OI.v2 SST data is still available.
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
It’s updated weekly. I have heard of no plans to delete the OI.v2 dataset.
masonmart (07:05:51) :
Yes, I remember the forest fires that raged through the New Forest on a regular basis. One raged for over 5 days. As the weather was continues calm hot days without any clouds the sea became warmer than I have ever experienced in England. I was able to walk in without the usual 5 minute aclimatisation. What was disappointing was going to swim around the Dorset coast and finding the sea cold. The shallow sandy bay in Bournemouth and calm conditions allowed the sea to warm up here. Around the coast where there are no beaches and the sea floor drops away, the sea was it’s usual UK temp.
Well there haven’t been higher sea temperatures around Scotland. No higher authority than the BBC says, although it may only be a blip apparently. It was good for Sand Eels and seabirds as a result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8238664.stm
Mary Hinge,
If you look at the satellite data, August 2009 definately is NOT the warmest month ever, and there are several higher peaks preceding it, but NOAA have said that August IS the warmest on record. I would have thought folks are right to question this.
However, that said, it is clear that surface temperatures are not a robust metric for climate change because they respond to ENSO events. At risk of going OT, we should be mainly interested in the global energy budget which should be revealed in ocean temperatures down to 750 meters, not surface temperatures. But hey, why spoil a good headline!
“NOAA: Warmest Global Sea-Surface for August and Summer”
So What!
What relevence does this have to atmospheric CO2
“What relevence does this have to atmospheric CO2”
Warmer water outgases CO2 to the atmosphere.
But please keep in mind that surface temperatures are generally a proxy for wind speed.
Warmer seae were caused by
slowed up Gulf Stream no
longer transferring much heat toward
the north pole–
Yes, the Gulf Stream has SLOWED.
And, yes, that does mean that the big
glaciers are coming.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=772&page=5
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090910-sea-levels-rise.html
I think the most interesting thing in the article is that NOAA decided to drop sat data from the data set. That allowed for the apparent jump in temp.
The greatest transport of energy out of a body of water is generally evapiration and not radiation or conduction. Just a bit less average surface winds would result in lower evapiration and higher surface temperatures due to less mixing of lower and higher air strata.
Or maybe they are just fudging the data.
From the NOAA press release, just in time for Copenhagen.
Expect more research corruption and spin as the Copenhagen free loaders convention draws near.
What the NOAA data distorters didn’t want you to see.
Only if you remove this.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/UAH-Jun2Aug.jpg
Ditto.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/UAH-Aug.jpg
And higher peaks in September. You do realise the difference betwen the earths surface and tropospheric temperatures don’t you? This is also the third consecutive month of record SST’s.
Of course surface temperatures respond to ENSO events, even the most ardent creationists would probably agree! Mind you, during and after the strong La Nina in 2007 and 2008 that fact was conveniently forgotten by a number of contibutors. You can use previous ENSO events as a guide, surface and sea temperatures are now comparable to the extremely strong El Nino of ’98 and this developing El Nino is nowhere near as potent as that one, and don’ forget we are in a -PDO phase….and lets not mention the continuing quiet sun.
You are wrong to say it isn’t an anagram, it is. All Spoonerisms are anagrams, not all anagrams are Spoonerims!
This is how La Ninas result in lower SST’s, evaporation is much greater during a La Nina.
Here in new zealand it was the warmest August on record(It was the warmest August since records began 155 years ago, with a national average temperature of 10.2°C (1.7°C above the long-term August average).
We in 2009 have alot more weather stations reporting data than we did back when the old record was set. wouldnt be right to only use the same weather stations from back then to justfiy a ture temp comparison . in the last 50 years we have more than doubled the number of reporting sites.
Mary Hinge (02:32:21) :
This is how La Ninas result in lower SST’s, evaporation is much greater during a La Nina.
Hmmm…. Cooler surface temps result in greater evaporation. Yeah, that works?
yes it does actually! Increased winds and drier air lead to increased evaporation. An interesting paper on oceanic transport of freshwater and the effects of ENSO is here: http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/esrg/papers/WG_WWR_96/glob_warm96.html
“The most noticeable change is the sign reversal in the freshwater balance in the central Pacific Ocean. Evaporation exceeds precipitation by about 200 cm year-1 during the La Niña conditions of 1988-89, whereas precipitation exceeds evaporation by about 200 cm year-1 during the El Niño of 1991-92.
”
Interesting things ENSO events when you start looking at the many complexities!
[REPLY – The post is innocuous, but on reflection we would appreciate it if you changed your pseudonym. You are not fooling anyone, and it is offensive. ~ Evan]
Mark (02:49:58) : said
“Here in new zealand it was the warmest August on record(It was the warmest August since records began 155 years ago, with a national average temperature of 10.2°C (1.7°C above the long-term August average).”
The Royal society of New Zealand established 12 sites around 1861 to cover the whole of New Zealand. These were of variable quality. With such variability, poor spatial placing and subsequent discontinuity of data in such a geographically varied country only NOAA -which is where the report originates from- could claim these figures with such certainty.
NZ seems to have had a very warm period centred around 1750 and early 1800’s.
Tonyb
Mary Hinge (02:32:21) :
This is how La Ninas result in lower SST’s, evaporation is much greater during a La Nina.
Tim Clark (06:55:02) :
Hmmm…. Cooler surface temps result in greater evaporation. Yeah, that works?
Mary Hinge (08:40:21) :
yes it does actually! Increased winds and drier air lead to increased evaporation. An interesting paper on oceanic transport of freshwater and the effects of ENSO is here:
From your reference:
El Niño and La Niña years
In order to examine interannual variations in the FWB and FWT, two twelve months periods are chosen for analysis : May 1988 – April 1989 and August 1991 – July 1992. The first period characterizes the peak of the 1988-89 La Niña event, while the second period includes the warm conditions associated with the 1990-95 El Niño.
RESULTS
The surface freshwater balance, E – P, for the period 1988-93, Figure 1a, shows the expected large-scale climatological features. Precipitation exceeds evaporation along the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), over the maritime continent in the eastern Indian and western Pacific Oceans and over the western boundary currents in Asia and North America. By contrast, evaporation exceeds precipitation over the subtropical high pressures in both hemispheres. For comparison, Figure 1b shows the budget E – P, where E is computed with COADS data only and P is estimated with satellite data.The time variability of E – P during 1988-93 is seen in the time/longitude section along the equator (Figure 2).
The most noticeable change is the sign reversal in the freshwater balance in the central Pacific Ocean. Evaporation exceeds precipitation by about 200 cm year-1 during the La Niña conditions of 1988-89, whereas precipitation exceeds evaporation by about 200 cm year-1 during the El Niño of 1991-92.
This paper succinctly illustrates your inability to skeptically analyse data, resulting in misinterpretation of conclusions, which I have pointed out to you before. Reread the bolded parts and explain to me how you interpret those statements as indicating that absolute evaporation is greater during La Nina relative to El Nino, or conversely, that absolute precipitation is greater during El Nino relative to La Nina. There are no absolute precipitation data or evaporation data for the two periods in the paper, only relative amounts for the difference. Also the paper, as you warmista are quick to quip, is antiquated, and cherry picks only one year of the El Nino 5 year existence.
I think you have an inability to read, let me highlight the relevant parts for you:
Evaporation exceeds precipitation by about 200 cm year-1 during the La Niña conditions of 1988-89, whereas precipitation exceeds evaporation by about 200 cm year-1 during the El Niño of 1991-92.
Let me explain how it works in simple terms for you, are you siting comfortably?
Under normal climactic conditions a huge area of warm water is situated along the equatorial Pacific. Heating and evaporation builds storm clouds which are then carried west by the trade winds in a continuous cycle. Sea water lost to evaporation is replenished when cold water from the deep ocean rises, keeping temperatures closer to the surface at 60-70 degrees Fahrenheit.
During an El Niño the trade winds subside. Consequently the large area of warm water is not diminished by the continuous evaporation cycle, so instead widens, moving closer to the eastern tropics. No cold water rises from the depths so the waters continue to warm.
During a La Nina the trade winds increase. As a result the aforementioned area of large water is increasingly diminished and the replenishment of cold water is more rapid.
See, obvious when you look at it logically isn’t it?Now to your over less polite points:
1996 is certainly not ‘antiquated’ and this paper was very relevant to your original sceptism. The paper took a period of time (1988 to 1993) and this encompassed the two ENSO events. How can it be ‘Cherrypicking’? I picked a paper relevant to the ‘discussion’, you have, as I’m afraid your ilk are inclined to do’, have just tried to question the validity of a set of results without any firm data to support your point. Do you have any evidence to support what is clearly a false hypothesis?
Hi Evan,
point taken and amended, I don’t know about the not fooling anyone though. Nearly two years before you rumbled 😉
Walter Dnes (21:44:05) :
I notice a “hotspot” at the southern tip of South America. Could that be related to steam, hot gases, and hot ash the Chaiten volcano in Chile?
Many hot-spots, including in Africa, are due to mantle plumes. Molten lava has a tendency to warm a place up a bit. I’ve been a bit impressed in recent years (not) at the ability of politically endorsed science to be able to use data from these areas and regurgitate it as global data rather than regional data, or to relate it to human caused warming. Perhaps if we wouldn’t stomp around up here like we do, material would not fall into the lower mantle and heat up like it does. It really is all our fault, ya know 😎
Benier duster (11:24:09) :
Tim Clark (11:13:16)
Reread the bolded parts and explain to me how you interpret those statements as indicating that absolute evaporation is greater during La Nina relative to El Nino
I think you have an inability to read, let me highlight the relevant parts for you:
Sorry for the slow response, I was out of town for the weekend. I knew I should have given an example for the intellectually challenged.
Original premise:
Mary Hinge (02:32:21) :
This is how La Ninas result in lower SST’s, evaporation is much greater during a La Nina.
Hypothetically, suppose you have 400mm of precipitation during a La Nina and 600mm evaporation. However, you have 800 mm of precipitation and 600 mm of evaporation during an El Nino. Mathematically this scenario meets all the requirements of the paper, except Mary’s statement that evaporation is much greater during a La Nina is not true. The amount of evaporation is identical. Without the absolute values (not available in the paper) for the four unknowns: La Nina evaporation & precipitation – El Nino evaporation & precipitation, we cannot state the facts as Mary attempts. Add 100mm of both evaporation and precipitation during the El Nino ( 700 and 900) and Mary’s statement is totally invalidated.
And you should read the paper, the cherry picking statement still stands.
Tim Clark (06:35:22) :
….and as expected not one shred of scientific evidence to support your stance, not even a dubious blogosphere semi-scientific attempt.
Even with a dumbed down and simplified description of how ENSO events develop you still haven’t admitted you are wrong, go on admit there is greater evaporation during a La Nina. If you don’t want to admit you are wong then please supply evidence to the contrary. Asthey say in Yorkshire ” Put up or shut up”!
Original premise:
Mary Hinge (02:32:21) :
This is how La Ninas result in lower SST’s, evaporation is much greater during a La Nina.
Benier duster (10:33:37) :
You’re making this into an ego battle. It’s quite simple. I don’t care if evaporation is greater or when. It’s irrelevant to this discussion. Mary and others have a proclivity for drawing erroneous conclusions from the data given in the literature.
1> Does the data presented in the paper cited by Mary support the premise above, as stated. I contend that the data indicates that evaporation is greater than precipitation during a La Nina and contrawise for an El Nino. The data in that paper does not support the claim that “evaporation is much greater during a La Nina”. If you believe Mary’s conclusion, then you need to provide the citation. I will read it and determine if it supports the contention that “evaporation is much greater during a La Nina”.
errrr…its exactly what this, now apparently one-sided ‘discussion’ is about.
You still nave no evidence, merely childish wordplay! It is obvious from the mechanics of ENSO events that there is greater evaporation during a La Nina yet your ‘ego’ can’t face the fact you are wrong. Unless you can come back with some evidence to support the contray this conversation is closed.
You must be one of the 40%….earth over 10,000 years..etc etc.