Yesterday NOAA announced with much fanfare that:
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.
Besides the UAH data for August I cited, Bob Tisdale shows that some other datasets don’t agree with NOAA’s conclusion. – Anthony
Record Sea Surface Temperatures Are Only In NOAA ERSST.v3b Dataset
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
The NOAA press release claims the August Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) was the warmest on record.
The record ERSST.v3b SST for August can be seen in Figure 1.
http://i32.tinypic.com/2jaiydh.png
Figure 1
And of course SST anomalies, Figure 2, were also at record levels in August 2009.
http://i28.tinypic.com/ive0y1.png
Figure 2
RECORD NOT CONFIRMED BY NOAA SATELLITE SST DATA
August 2009 SST, Figure 3, and SST anomalies, Figure 4, for the NOAA satellite-based OI.v2 SST dataset were not records. NOAA writes about the Optimum Interpolation (OI.v2) data, “The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SST’s plus SST’s simulated by sea-ice cover. Before the analysis is computed, THE SATELLITE DATA IS ADJUSTED FOR BIASES using the method of Reynolds (1988) and Reynolds and Marsico (1993).” [Emphasis added.]
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html
http://i29.tinypic.com/2zgi8n7.png
Figure 3
############
http://i31.tinypic.com/ajp9ap.png
Figure 4
NOAA does not use satellite data in its ERSST.v3b SST dataset. However, when NOAA originally released the ERSST.v3b dataset in 2008, they included satellite data to supplement the buoy- and ship-based data. This was discussed in my post “Recent Differences Between GISS and NCDC SST Anomaly Data And A Look At The Multiple NCDC SST Datasets” and repeated here:
In “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)”, Smith et al note the use of satellite data for ERSST.v3 data in their abstract, “Beginning in 1985, improvements are due to the inclusion of bias-adjusted satellite data.” That’s a positive description. They further proclaim, “Of the improvements, the two that have the greatest influence on global averages are better tuning of the reconstruction method and inclusion of bias adjusted satellite data since 1985.” In fact there is a whole subsection in the paper about the satellite adjustments.
But the satellite data was removed because it was felt the satellite data caused a downward bias. Reynolds, Smith, and Liu write in a November 14, 2008 attachment to their main ERSST.v3b webpage, “In the ERSST version 3 on this web page WE HAVE REMOVED SATELLITE DATA from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDUAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.” [Emphasis added.]
The link for that quote is here:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/merged-product-v3.pdf
Note that the “merged product” referenced above is their ERSST.v3b-based land plus sea surface temperature data.
RECORD NOT CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER SHIP- AND BUOY-BASED SST ANOMALY DATASET
The Hadley Centre’s HADSST2 does not show record SST anomalies for July, August, or for the Summer of 2009. Far from it. Refer to Figure 5. The Hadley Centre uses different techniques to smooth and infill missing data. The differences between the Hadley Centre and NOAA methodologies are explained in the NOAA paper about the ERSST.v3b data, “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)”.
http://i27.tinypic.com/kbuets.png
Figure 5
CLOSING
It appears that the methods used by NOAA to calculate Global SST in their ERSST.v3b dataset and the removal of the satellite data from those calculations created an upward bias.
SOURCES
NOAA’s ERSST.v3b SST anomaly data is available here:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.90N.asc
NOAA’s ERSST.v3b SST data was downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
NOAA’s OI.v2 SST and SST anomaly data is available through their NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=
THE HADSST2 SST anomaly data is listed in the second column in the following webpage. The other columns list the uncertainty ranges for measurement and grid box sampling, for coverage, for bias, and for the combination of those uncertainties:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
UPDATE
While doing a visual check of the sources against the graphs, I noticed a difference between the SST anomaly data presented by NOAA for the same dataset. I’m noting it in case someone else spot checks the graphs. The Monthly Global Ocean Temperature Anomalies (degrees C) uses 1901 to 2000 as base years, but the ERSST.v3b data uses 1971 to 2000. Confirmation here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
For those who want to split hairs, the difference in the base years changes the rankings of SST anomalies, Figure 6. But it has no impact on the SST data rankings.
http://i30.tinypic.com/5y6xcx.png
Figure 6
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Question for you experts out there. If higher sea surface temperatures generate tropical storms/hurricanes then where are they? I should point out that, as I do every hurricane season, I watch what the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) does, because the further north it is the more Atlantic storms develop. This year the ITCZ has stayed well to the south. May the prevailing winds and the jet stream be having an effect that kept the ITCZ closer to the equator? Or is it possible the surface temperatures went up later in the year? Or perhaps a combination of these events?
George E. Smith: You asked, “But what happened to the minor grid lines; am i just seeing them faded out, and not printed; or what.”
The minor grid lines appear fine to me. The graphs are reduced in size here at WUWT, which is one of the reasons I provide the direct tinypic links for the full-sized versions after each graph.
You wrote, “The later graphs such as 4/5/6 I have no probelm with other than the minor time increment lines, but #s 1 and 3 both have that strange look about them; that is hard to equate to more or less random data.”
The title blocks and the text in the post for Figures 1 and 3 state that they are SST data (not SST anomalies). The title blocks and text in the post for Figures 4, 5 and 6 state that they are SST anomaly data.
You asked I assume with respect to Figures 1 and 3, “To what do they ascribe the fact that one cycle has a big swing, and the next just a minimal p-p range ?”
George, “they” don’t explain the data. But here’s a similarly sized NINO3.4 SST anomalies graph for the same time span. Are you seeing the effects of ENSO?
http://i25.tinypic.com/5mc0wk.png
Ken S: You wrote, “I do not understand why so many of you are compaining about the graph!”
I don’t understand it either. There are links to the full-sized graphs after each one.
DR: You asked, “When I asked in the other thread if satellite SST data was removed, I was referring to whether it was removed from the ERSST data set last November.
“In other words, did the removal affect only this year, last year or the entire record?”
I misunderstood because in the other thread you had asked if they deleted the OI data. I would assume that the removal of the satellite data from ERSST.v3b should only have impacted the satellite period from 1981 to present. However, there were also other changes made between ERSST.v3 and ERSST.v3b well before that period that have not been explained.
http://i43.tinypic.com/6yfx8h.jpg
From my post here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/recent-differences-between-giss-and.html
Henry chance: You wrote, “Thanks for Dr Tisdale.”
There’s no Dr. before my name. Just Bob before the Tisdale.
George E. Smith (14:43:24) :
“”” Bob Tisdale (11:07:55) :
George E. Smith: You wrote, “Scuse me for asking, but what kind of BS graph paper are they using; that looks like some kind of phony logartithmic x axis scaling…”
Graph paper? It’s simply a standard time series graph that’s the output of EXCEL. I prepared it, not they.
Then you qualified your comment with, “I guess my comments refer to their figure 1.”
The source is listed in the post:
NOAA’s ERSST.v3b SST data was downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Have at it. “””
Well thanks Bob; actually I subsequently guessed that the actual graphs migh be your plotting of their data. But what happened to the minor grid lines; am i just seeing them faded out, and not printed; or what.
Your monitor resolution is screwing them up look at them at a lrger magnification.
John M (14:57:58) :
Click on the graph to view a larger image.
It’s an image scaling/resolution thing, not an axis scaling thing.
Yup, makes all the difference. Thanks.
When the length of observation is as short as that provided by satellites, and the monthly anomalies are as choppy as they are, any monthly record is hardly meaningful. Although Ashville claims this to be an all-time record, they don’t have the global data coverage prior to satellites to back up such a claim.
First, let me say that I am a climate skeptic.
Let us put aside whether August 2009 is a SST record or not. I doubt that it is, but no matter.
Is it “almost an SST record” after all the relevent data is included?
If so, is this surprising given the relatively weak El Nino in August 2009?
What will happen as El Nino strenghens, as is predicted by NOAA?
Is this warm SST surprising, considering the quiet Sun?
These are honest questions for discussion, if there is any interest.
When do we expect SST’s to start falling again?
Regards to all, Allan
P.S. Examining the huge short-term fluctuations in air temperature, sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it is apparent that natural short-term fluctuations are several times larger than any possible human impact. Detecting an actual human component in this data would not be easy, if it even exists at all.
__________________________________
EL NIÑO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION (ENSO)
DIAGNOSTIC DISCUSSION
issued by
CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER/NCEP
10 September 2009
ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory
Synopsis: El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2009-2010.
A weak El Niño continued during August 2009, as sea surface temperature (SST) remained above-average across the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). Consistent with this warmth, the latest weekly values of the Niño-region SST indices were between +0.7oC to +1.0oC (Fig. 2). Subsurface oceanic heat content (average temperatures in the upper 300m of the ocean, Fig. 3) anomalies continued to reflect a deep layer of anomalous warmth between the ocean surface and the thermocline, particularly in the central Pacific (Fig. 4). Enhanced convection over the western and central Pacific abated during the month, but the pattern of suppressed convection strengthened over Indonesia. Low-level westerly wind anomalies continued to become better established over parts of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. These oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect an ongoing weak El Niño.
A majority of the model forecasts for the Niño-3.4 SST index (Fig. 5) suggest El Niño will reach at least moderate strength during the Northern Hemisphere fall (3-month Niño-3.4 SST index of +1.0oC or greater). Many model forecasts even suggest a strong El Niño (3-month Niño-3.4 SST index in excess of +1.5oC) during the fall and winter, but current observations and trends indicate that El Niño will most likely peak at moderate strength. Therefore, current conditions, trends, and model forecasts favor the continued development of a weak-to-moderate strength El Niño into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2009, with the likelihood of at least a moderate strength El Niño during the winter 2009-10.
Expected El Niño impacts during September-November 2009 include enhanced precipitation over the west-central tropical Pacific Ocean and the continuation of drier-than-average conditions over Indonesia. Temperature and precipitation impacts over the United States are typically weak during the Northern Hemisphere summer and early fall, generally strengthening during the late fall and winter. El Niño can help to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity by increasing the vertical wind shear over the Caribbean Sea and tropical Atlantic Ocean (see the Aug. 6th update of the NOAA Atlantic Seasonal Hurricane Outlook).
This discussion is a consolidated effort of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA’s National Weather Service, and their funded institutions. Oceanic and atmospheric conditions are updated weekly on the Climate Prediction Center web site (El Niño/La Niña Current Conditions and Expert Discussions). Forecasts for the evolution of El Niño/La Niña are updated monthly in the Forecast Forum section of CPC’s Climate Diagnostics Bulletin. The next ENSO Diagnostics Discussion is scheduled for 8 October 2009. To receive an e-mail notification when the monthly ENSO Diagnostic Discussions are released, please send an e-mail message to: ncep.list.enso-update@noaa.gov.
Climate Prediction Center
National Centers for Environmental Prediction
NOAA/National Weather Service
Camp Springs, MD 20746-4304
I’ve just noticed that the ERSST.v32 and the ol.v2 datasets have a strong seasonal signal. According to them, average SST increases by 0.5C from NH winter to NH summer. Which is strange because the SH has a lot more of the world’s oceans than does the NH, and consequently a seasonal signal should be in the opposite direction.
Which makes me think, there are large hemispheric biases in these datasets.
I see a steady, long term temperature rise in all the graphs.
bugs (17:56:13) “I see a steady, long term temperature rise in all the graphs.”
What causes the “steady, long term temperature rise” you see?
Philip_B (17:52:12) : Refer to “Characteristics of the annual cycles” in the following discussion of SST at AVISO:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/newsstand/newsletter/newsletter05/sea-surface-data/index.html?type=98
bugs, you see a small short term rise (30 years) in temps. The question is, do such rises of such duration come and go historically? Is there anything unusual or alarming? Or is this like looking at the period June-October and saying that you see a definite steady decline? Without realizing that the climate is seasonal?
I don’t know. But I don’t think there is much point getting too worried about small 30 year trends UNLESS there is evidence something unusual is going on in a timescale of centuries or millenia.
Well OK now I can see the lines. I have a 24 inch diagonal monitor that is 1920 x 1200 resolution and if I need more than that I am in trouble; but I guess WUWT is eliminating them; a classic case of a Nyquist violation, if I ever saw one.
Sorry Bob for all the wasted fuss.
George
Hey, I think I am now catching on to this stuff.
Now that I have my grid lines back, I can see that the “global SST” graphs (1 & 3) have a big dip almost right on the year lines, and a small dip half way in between; so can I conjecture that the big dip is the SH winter, and the little dip, is the NH winter; winter in this case being defined as the time of lowest SST (locally).
And yes I would expect the anomalies to wander aimlessly around as they seem to.
Dang it is hard keeping up with you guys. Of course I’m still not sure what it all means, since everybody seems to have his favorite data set.
Hey I like Gaia’s data set; she gets it all right everywhere all the time. Gaia is a really great exeperimental climatologist.
IMHO.
George
Not sure if I am splitting hairs, but when I look at fig 6 in the full scale blowup, on my screen the red and the brown lines are not the same shape; they appear different in other than vertical placement.
Not much but not visually identical.
So why does the choice of baseline change the data, other than by shifting every data point by the difference between the two baseline numbers, each of which presumably has some finite number associated with it, and therefore the difference ought to be a simple y-axis shift; shouldn’t it ?
Yes, Bugs, no one debates that temps in the last ten years have been hotter than the previous 20. However, temps in the last 10-13 years haven’t changed much, and seem to be on a declining trend, which frankly, worries me a good deal more than any warming.
In many areas, average temps increased by up to 2 deg in the 1920-1940 period. So did the polar bears die? Was it a catastrophe? Doesn’t seem to have been. Why then, if allowing it would happen, would another 2 deg matter now? What’s different from 1920? Is there something ‘special’ about current temperatures?
OT: Am I missing something, or are there only four posts on Real Climate in the last month? Is anyone manning the barricades?
“The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users” hillarious!
The data was inconvenient so they “adjust” it to please its users – They seem to only want to support their ideas rather than actually understand how the climate works and follow the principles of science!
Yes, Bugs, no one debates that temps in the last ten years have been hotter than the previous 20.
Is this whole surface stations project a waste of time?
REPLY: Is determining the quality of any set of measurements a waste of time?
Re: George E. Smith (18:48:18)
The big dip is NH winter.
You might find figure 1 here interesting:
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
–
George E. Smith (18:48:18) “And yes I would expect the anomalies to wander aimlessly around as they seem to.”
You might find the figures here illuminating:
Y.H. Zhou, D.W. Zheng, & X.H. Liao (2001). Wavelet analysis of interannual LOD, AAM, and ENSO: 1997-98 El Nino and 1998-99 La Nina signals. Journal of Geodesy 75, 164-168.
http://www.shao.ac.cn/yhzhou/ZhouYH_2001JG_LOD_ENSO_wavelet.pdf
–
George E. Smith (18:55:49) “So why does the choice of baseline change the data, other than by shifting every data point by the difference between the two baseline numbers, each of which presumably has some finite number associated with it, and therefore the difference ought to be a simple y-axis shift; shouldn’t it ?”
Each month gets a different average when you change base-periods …so it’s not just one shift of the whole curve, but rather 12 shifts.
Funny how we are expected to ignore 30 year warming trends but jump for joy at the current two year trend of Artcic ice extent.
So let’s also ignore the 30 year trend and look at the 100 year or even 200 year trend.
See where I am going?
And if we are to accept that temperatures should be expected to rise with the current weak El NIno why should we not also expect temperatures to cool after the strong El Nino of 1998? I can’t get my head round that one.
In my opinion it’s time the cherry pickers and nit pickers packed it in and looked at the long term benefits of global warming. The opening up of the North East passage and possibly soon the North West passage to commercial shipping will be immensely valuable to global trade. And look at all that fertile frozen land in Canada and Russia ready for cultivation.
Alternate link for …
Y.H. Zhou, D.W. Zheng, & X.H. Liao (2001). Wavelet analysis of interannual LOD, AAM, and ENSO: 1997-98 El Nino and 1998-99 La Nina signals. Journal of Geodesy 75, 164-168.
http://202.127.29.4/yhzhou/ZhouYH_2001JG_LOD_ENSO_wavelet.pdf
[The link I posted earlier appears to be dead now.]
What interests me is that there clearly has been a significant rise since 1980, and that it is not simply turning right back down although we know the Sun is in a blue funk and land temperatures are down. These graphs are an easy message for warmists to interpret as “it’s obvious” etc. But I want to look at another factor: slow thermal inertia buildup effects from the ocean. This also shows up IMO in Ferdinand Engelbeen’s observation that although recent Greenland summers have been cooling, the Greenland mean temp has not really changed. So that when the Sun starts to “cool” the cooling surface is still overbalanced by the ocean depths returning the signals of warming. Like Akasofu described in his pic of a 60-year (?) cycle overlaying a steady return from the Little Ice Age. We know that the ice cores show CO2 changes lagging temperature changes by ~800 years which would seem to correspond to the thermal inertia effects of the global thermohaline current.
Thanks Bob for the link.
In summary, the NH has a much greater annual temperature range (14C) versus 7C for the SH because of the larger landmasses.
This results in a large SST annual range in the NH mid lattitudes off the east coast of the continents and in the semi-enclosed seas like the mediterranean.
I assume this is due to greater ocean cooling by westward moving cold air masses in winter. In which case, NH SSTs should on average be significantly colder than SH SSTs, especially given the fact the SH gets 5% more solar radiation than the NH.
In fact the opposite is true and SH oceans are colder at all lattitudes. Which means NH continents must have a large warming effect on the oceans in summer, which I understood was physically impossible. Or maybe it’s reduced ocean cooling in NH summer.
I realize I am getting off the seasonal signal in SSTs. Just trying to understand how it all works.