GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

There are numerous blog posts and discussions about how the GISS global temperature anomaly product GISTEMP differs from the Hadley Centre and NCDC datasets.

The repeated reasons presented for this are, GISS uses 1200km radius smoothing to fill in the areas of the globe with sparse surface temperature readings, and the area this has the greatest impact is the Arctic. Typically, a map or comparison of global temperature anomaly maps is included, similar to Figure 1. The top two maps were cropped from Figure 3 in the Real Climate post “2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen”. I added the third.

The bottom map was created at the GISS Global Maps webpage. It’s a map of the GISTEMP Global Temperature Anomaly product with 250km radius smoothing for the calendar year 2005, the same year as the top two maps. I did not include a temperature scale because the bottom map was provided to allow a visual comparison of the spatial coverage of the HadCRUT product and the GISTEMP product with 250km radius smoothing. Examine the Arctic and the ocean surrounding Antarctica, the Southern Ocean. Notice a difference? In 2005, the HadCRUT data had better coverage of the Arctic and Southern Oceans than the GISTEMP dataset with 250km radius smoothing. What’s missing in the GISTEMP product? There’s no sea surface temperature data.

http://i45.tinypic.com/htsgeq.jpg

Figure 1

GISS DELETES POLAR SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA

The general regions where GISS deletes Sea Surface Temperature data are shown in Figure 2. Three areas are highlighted: two cover the Arctic Ocean, and a third surrounds Antarctica. The specific locations are clarified in the following. GISS then uses their 1200km radius smoothing to replace the sea surface data with land data.

http://i48.tinypic.com/33adj86.jpg

Figure 2

Tilo Reber in his recent “Diverging views” post at Watts Up With That? noted that the GISS Current Analysis webpage includes the following statement:

“Areas covered occasionally by sea ice are masked using a time-independent mask.”

This means that vast regions of Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly data in the Arctic Ocean and Southern Ocean are deleted from the GISTEMP record. GISS does not delete all of the Arctic and Southern Ocean SST anomaly data, just the data from the areas where the annual sea ice melt occurs, and those are good portions of them.

I have looked for but have not found an explanation for this exclusion of Sea Surface Temperature data in the papers provided on the GISTEMP references page.

THE AREA OF THE ARCTIC OCEAN WHERE GISS DELETES SST DATA

Figure 3 shows four Arctic (North Pole Stereographic, 65N-90N) maps prepared using the map-making feature of the KNMI Climate Explorer. The maps illustrate temperature anomalies and sea ice cover for the month of September, 2005. The calendar year 2005 was chosen because it was used in the RealClimate post by Jim Hansen, and September is shown because the minimum Arctic sea ice coverage occurs then. The contour levels on the temperature maps were established to reveal the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies. Cell (a) shows the Sea Ice Cover using the Reynolds (OI.v2) Sea Ice Concentration data.

The data for the Sea Ice Cover map has been scaled so that zero sea ice is represented by grey. In the other cells, areas with no data are represented by white. Cell (b) illustrates the SST anomalies presented by the Reynolds (OI.v2) Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data. GISS has used the Reynolds (OI.v2) SST data since December 1981. It’s easy to see that SST anomaly data covers the vast majority of Arctic Ocean basin, wherever the drop in sea ice permits. Most of the data in these areas, however, are excluded by GISS in its GISTEMP product. This can be seen in Cell (c), which shows the GISTEMP surface temperature anomalies with 250km radius smoothing. The only SST anomaly data used by GISS exists north of the North Atlantic and north of Scandinavia.

The rest of the SST data has been deleted.

The colored cells that appear over oceans (for example, north of Siberia and west of northwestern Greenland) in Cell (c) are land surface data extending over the Arctic Ocean by the GISS 250km radius smoothing. And provided as a reference, Cell (d) presents the GISTEMP “combined” land plus sea surface temperature anomalies with 1200km radius smoothing, which is the standard global temperature anomaly product from GISS. Much of the Arctic Ocean in Cell (d) is colored red, indicating temperature anomalies greater than 1 deg C, while Cell (b) show considerably less area with elevated Sea Surface Temperature anomalies.

http://i46.tinypic.com/dpygcj.jpg

Figure 3

Basically, GISS excludes Arctic Ocean SST data from 65N to 90N and, for round numbers, from 40E to 40W. This is a good portion of the Arctic Ocean. Of course, the impact would be seasonal and would depend on the seasonal drop in sea ice extent or cover. The sea ice extent or cover has to decrease annually in order for sea surface temperature to be measured.

I’ll use the above-listed coordinates for the examples that follow, but keep in mind that they do not include areas of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere south of 65N where sea surface temperature data are also deleted by GISS. These additional areas are highlighted in Figure 4. They include the Bering Sea, Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk to the southwest of the Kamchatka Peninsula.

http://i50.tinypic.com/28j9u6u.jpg

Figure 4

Note: GISS uses Hadley Centre HADISST data as its source of Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data from January 1880 to November 1981 and NCDC Reynolds (OI.v2) data from December 1981 to present. To eliminate the need to switch between or merge SST datasets, this post only examines the period from 1982 to present. And to assure the graphics presented in Figures 3 and 6 are not biased by differences in base years of the GISTEMP data and the Reynolds (OI.v2) SST data, the latter of which has only been available since November 1981, I’ve used the period of 1982 to 2009 as base years for all anomaly data.

WHY WOULD DELETING SEA SURFACE TEMPEATURE DATA AND REPLACING IT WITH LAND SURFACE DATA BE IMPORTANT?

Land Surface Temperature variations are much greater than Sea Surface Temperature variations. Refer to Figure 5. Since January 1982, the trend in GISTEMP Arctic Land Surface Temperature Anomalies (65N-90N, 40E-40W) with 250km radius smoothing is approximately 8 times higher than the Sea Surface Temperature anomaly trend for the same area.

The Arctic Ocean SST anomaly linear trend is 0.082 deg C/ decade, while the linear trend for the land surface temperature anomalies is 0.68 deg C/decade. And as a reference, the “combined” GISTEMP Arctic temperature anomaly trend for that area is 9 times the SST anomaly trend.

http://i46.tinypic.com/1zpheme.jpg

Figure 5

By deleting the Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data, GISS relies on the dataset with the greater month-to-month variation and the much higher temperature anomaly trend for its depictions of Arctic temperature anomalies. This obviously biases the Arctic “combined” temperature anomalies in this area.

GISS DELETES SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, TOO

Figure 6 shows four maps of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean (South Pole Stereographic, 90S-60S). It is similar to Figure 8. Cell (b) illustrates the SST anomalies presented by the Reynolds (OI.v2) Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data. SST anomaly data covers most of the Southern Ocean, but GISS deletes a substantial portion of it, as shown in Cell (c). The only SST anomaly data exists toward some northern portions of the Southern Ocean. These are areas not “covered occasionally by sea ice”.

http://i50.tinypic.com/aensly.jpg

Figure 6

Figure 7 illustrates the following temperature anomalies for the latitude band from 75S-60S:

-Sea Surface Temperature, and

-Land Surface temperature of the GISTEMP product with 250km radius smoothing, and

-Combined Land and Sea Surface of the GISTEMP product with 1200km radius smoothing, the GISTEMP standard product.

The variability of the Antarctic land surface temperature anomaly data is much greater than the Southern Ocean sea surface temperature data. The linear trend of the sea surface temperature anomalies are negative while the land surface temperature data has a significant positive trend, so deleting the major portions of the Southern Ocean sea surface temperature data as shown in Cell (c) of Figure 6 and replacing it with land surface temperature data raises temperature anomalies for the region during periods of sea ice melt.

Note that the combined GISTEMP product has a lower trend than the land only data. Part of this decrease in trend results because the latitude band used in this comparison still includes portions of sea surface temperature data that is not excluded by GISS (because it doesn’t change to sea ice in those areas).

http://i45.tinypic.com/im6q29.jpg

Figure 7

ZONAL MEAN GRAPHS REINFORCE THE REASON FOR THE GISS DIVERGENCE

When you create a map at the GISS Global Maps webpage, two graphics appear. The top one is the map, examples of which are illustrated in Figure 1, and the bottom is a Zonal Mean graph. The Zonal Mean graph presents the average temperature anomalies for latitudes, starting near the South Pole at 89S and ending near the North Pole at 89N. Figure 8 is a sample. It illustrates the changes (rises and falls) in Zonal Mean temperature anomalies from 1982 to 2009 of the GISTEMP combined land and sea surface temperature product with 1200km radius smoothing. The greatest change in the zonal mean temperature anomalies occurs at the North Pole, the Arctic. This is caused by a phenomenon called Polar Amplification.

http://i48.tinypic.com/spd4li.jpg

Figure 8

To produce a graph similar to the GISS plot of the changes in Zonal Mean Temperature Anomalies, I determined the linear trends of the GISTEMP combined product (1200km radius smoothing) in 5 degree latitude increments from 90S-90N, for the years 1982 to 2009, then multiplied the decadal trends by 2.8 decades. I repeated the process for HADCRUT data. Refer to Figure 9.

The two datasets are similar between the latitudes of 50S-50N, but then diverge toward the poles. As noted numerous times in this post, GISS deletes sea surface temperature data at higher latitudes (poleward of approximately 50S and 50N), and replaces it with land surface data.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2uzfc6r.jpg

Figure 9

Figure 10 shows the differences between the changes in GISTEMP and HADCRUT Zonal Mean Temperature Anomalies. This better illustrates the divergence at latitudes where GISS deletes Sea Surface Temperature data and replaces it with land surface temperature anomaly data, that latter of which naturally has higher linear trends during this period.

http://i45.tinypic.com/xnsp40.jpg

Figure 10

SOURCE

Maps and data of sea ice cover and temperature anomalies are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steven mosher
June 1, 2010 7:38 am

“Generally, this map points to a physical limit to how high GISS can make the anomalies, at least in September. The 1200 km smoothing algorithm should show ZERO anomaly for the areas which are still ice covered in September because the sea surface temperatures should be close to -2.0C and slightly lower.”
As I’ve said before in the GISS SOURCE DATA for 1880-1992 THERE IS NO SST
where there is ICE. there is a missing value. do you
1. fill in this missing value with a SST from under the ICE OR
2. estimate the airtemp OVER THE ICE by using land station data from miles away?
I suppose if they used the SST under the ICE (-1.8C to 2.0C) as opposed to the airtemp over the ice people would argue that some months the air over the ice is Colder and that they were biasing the record by using unobserved SST.
using land temps from nearby stations is one solution. I know 1200km freaks people out. hmm. if I’m stuck in the arctic, stranded at 0.0 with 1200km to walk which way would I walk? hehe. thats a joke, but also folks need to consider correlation scales in that part of the world.

Mark
June 1, 2010 7:39 am

During autumn, winter, and spring, the monthly mean correlation length scales are approximately constant at about 1000 km; during summer, the length scales are much shorter, i.e. as low as 300 km.
Does 1,000 mean between 1,010 and 990; between 1,100 and 900 or even between 1,500 and 500?
Similarly what is the what is the accuracy of the 300 number?
The new analysis provides12-hour fields of air temperatures on a 100-km rectangular grid for all land and ocean areas of the Arctic region for the years 1979–1997
Is this new data or has the old data been somehow “upscaled” to a higher “resolution” than it was actually collected at?

Steven mosher
June 1, 2010 7:41 am

Bob,
Judy Curry complained the other day that the SST data was a bit of a challenge ( err mess ) At some point the folks doing there own GTIs are bring in SSTs. Your knowledge of the datasets would be really helpful..

Enneagram
June 1, 2010 7:41 am

John Blake says:
May 31, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Things really have gotten to the point where nothing any official body cobbles up regarding SST or any other climate indicator seems even worth discussing.

I do agree. Why to get worried about technical details where the motivations are not technical. We should discuss how to smooth the smoothers. Do they belong to a Union of Warmists as nobody can remove them from their jobs?…kind of “Warmists United will never be defeated”?

Bill Illis
June 1, 2010 7:54 am

Bob 7:53 am
Sorry, I hate when the links don’t work.
I’ve saved and uploaded them here.
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8504/giss1200kmsmoothingmap.gif
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/4999/hadsst2006map.gif
Or you can get them from GISS here. (change the Mean period to 1 month and the Time interval to 2006 to 2010 so the resolution is high enough – there are different options for which temperature series to use).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/time_series.html

Steven mosher
June 1, 2010 7:56 am

Enneagram:
there is a technical question on the table. we know the data for SST is missing for those cells under ice ( in hadisst) when construction an average of global temps how would you handle that. infill with some constant or extrapolate from the nearest land station. Observe: the water temp under the ice will likely be around -2.0C. the air temp above the ice can be much colder or warmer. your constructive suggestion is welcomed

June 1, 2010 8:22 am

Steven mosher says: “Judy Curry complained the other day that the SST data was a bit of a challenge ( err mess ) At some point the folks doing there own GTIs are bring in SSTs. Your knowledge of the datasets would be really helpful.”
Judy Curry is observant. I’d be happy to help. When and where and how? You can leave me your email address in a comment at my blog. I won’t post it. Or you could ask Anthony for mine.

June 1, 2010 9:12 am

Bob Tisdale,
you did a very good analisys.
I can’t understand what is the point of Steven Mosher.
To estimate the surface temperature in the polar regions is not as easy as elsewhere?
So, that doesn’t mean you have to do it in a stupid way as GISS does.
Anyway, you said that a warm bias “will occur anytime sea ice declines”.
But in the Antarctic ocean there is not a general decline in sea ice, we are told, yet Gistemp is warmer than UKMO-CRU also in the southern ocean.

Dave Springer
June 1, 2010 9:18 am

Why don’t we have a thermometer at the North Pole? Surely an automated station with a radio-thermal power supply reporting by radio would only need to be visited once a year (if that) to reposition it. An Osprey VTOL refueled in midair a couple times by a KC-130 tanker could get in and out whenever needed. Not an inexpensive proposition but compared to big ticket budget items in national climate research like satellites its cost would be like one drop in a bucket.

June 1, 2010 9:25 am

Steven mosher: You asked, “Can we work with a narrower slice in long?”
The effect in the output should be the same no matter which slice in longitude you pick. 40E to 50E does seem to get a lot of sea ice variation.
http://i48.tinypic.com/14nh6rq.jpg
But don’t put yourself out in an attempt to satisfy me. I’m more interested in what GISS presents to the world as an output, and that’s visible in the comparison of the GISTEMP land-only and combined products.
http://i48.tinypic.com/34o3hjq.jpg
There’s no difference in the data, which again means the SST data has been deleted between the time it is downloaded and the time it is output.
Regards

Steven mosher
June 1, 2010 9:26 am

Bob,
Just ask charles. leave a note to the moderators. he will probably read it tonight.

June 1, 2010 9:32 am

Bill Illis: Thanks for the links to the plots you were talking about. You wrote earlier, “The same map using SST numbers from HADISST and Reynolds have much lower anomalies (closer to the reality of the ice melt) but it is cut-off at 80N and 65S.”
And for the data north of 65N, that data should only represent the SST data north of the North Atlantic and Scandinavia.

A C Osborn
June 1, 2010 9:34 am

I agree with dr.bill says:
June 1, 2010 at 2:37 am
We do not measure the temperature of the ground over land, we measure the Air Temp.
So why not do the same over the Sea, by using the Sea temp you must bias it a lot warmer in the Winter, but then again the Gridded Global temp is pretty meaningless anyway to average folk.
It is only important to those with a “CAGW” message to try and frighten us with.

June 1, 2010 10:39 am

I’ve gone through the Global Map images in some detail and it is clear that geographical coverage of the high arctic was expanded in 1933, 1939, and 1947. My question is how would this data have been incorporated into the over all 64N to 90N zonal mean that gisstemp reports?
If the data was simply added as additional anomaly data against the 1951 to 1989 mean and averaged across the geography, then polar amplification would result in the region as a whole showing higher anomaly changes than before those stations were added. If an adjustment was made, on the other hand, to arrive at an average temperature adjustment for the geography with the additional coverage normalized, the colder raw temperatures would suppress temperatures for the period the extra coverage was added in. This time period (1930 to 1950) featured a large rise in global temperatures. I would be curious to understand if adding this additional coverage influenced that period up or down. After 1947 my expectation is that it would make no difference, but prior to 1933 it would be difficult to compare trends for that latitude band versus current coverage.

Michael Larkin
June 1, 2010 10:44 am

dr. Bill,
I really enjoy your posts. Thanks and keep them coming! 🙂

June 1, 2010 10:57 am

I’ve gone through the Global Map images in some detail and it is clear that geographical coverage of the high arctic was expanded in 1933, 1939, and 1947.>>
oops and 1912 as well. That was the beginning of that warming period. Did the additional coverage reduce, increase, or make no difference to the anomaly data for the area as a whole.

Gail Combs
June 1, 2010 11:35 am

Steven mosher says:
June 1, 2010 at 7:56 am
Enneagram:
there is a technical question on the table. we know the data for SST is missing for those cells under ice ( in hadisst) when construction an average of global temps how would you handle that. infill with some constant or extrapolate from the nearest land station. Observe: the water temp under the ice will likely be around -2.0C. the air temp above the ice can be much colder or warmer. your constructive suggestion is welcomed
_________________________________________________________________________
Steve, Would not the temperature just above ice be 0C or colder thanks to the ice acting as a heat sink?

Gail Combs
June 1, 2010 1:25 pm

Gail Combs says:
June 1, 2010 at 11:35 am
Steven mosher says:
June 1, 2010 at 7:56 am
Enneagram:
there is a technical question on the table. we know the data for SST is missing for those cells under ice ( in hadisst) when construction an average of global temps how would you handle that. infill with some constant or extrapolate from the nearest land station. Observe: the water temp under the ice will likely be around -2.0C. the air temp above the ice can be much colder or warmer. your constructive suggestion is welcomed
_________________________________________________________________________
Steve, Would not the temperature just above ice be 0C or colder thanks to the ice acting as a heat sink?
_________________________________________________________________________
Out of curiosity I tried a kitchen experiment. I keep gatorade quart jugs 1/3 full of ice in the freezer. I took one out filled it with water and set it in the frig for a couple of hours so it would come to equilibrium at about 0C/32F per thermometer reading of the water above the ice. I then poured out the water and suspended a thermometer 4″ above the ice and let stand for another 2 hours.
The kitchen is 82F and the thermometer above the ice read 43F so the ice does modify the temperature directly above its surface when there is no wind.
I would suggest a better experiment. The historic range of temperatures reported by official sources for arctic summers on land is available. Set a walk-in type fridge to the hi, lo and mid range of those settings and suspend a thermometer over ice at the regulation height. Take a number of reading at the various temperatures. This should give you at least a ballpark figure for the offset in temperature due to the ice. You can also do this for water at the temperature reported for the open water in the arctic ocean.
Compare the lab results to what ever real life results you can get your hands on.
Anyone who sail will tell you the temperature over open water in the summer is a lot cooler than that on land. This can be verified with SST vs land temps in nearby areas. (Note I am talking about summer. In the winter the temps are warmer. This is known as the “lake effect” to those from the great lakes area.)

June 1, 2010 1:42 pm

A C Osborn: Regarding Sea Surface Temperature and Marine Air Temperature:
Sea surface temperature data was determined by the powers that be to be more reliable than the air temperature dataset for the oceans known as Night-time Marine Air Temperature or NMAT, hence the use of sea surface temperature in global temperature products.

June 1, 2010 2:17 pm

Gail Combs, Enneagram, Steven mosher: Regarding polar HADISST data in early years:
Keep in mind that most of the polar ocean SST data in early years are infilled completely. There were very few SST readings in southern portions of the Southern Ocean as late as the 1960s and 70s. Sample of the ICOADS readings in 1975:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2rm71aw.jpg
I set the contour levels low so that the data locations would show up better.
Even the Southeast Pacific was still bad in 1975, and for the datasets that aren’t satellite based (HADSST2 and ERSST.v3b), it’s not much better there now. No ship traffic yields no SST readings.
Also keep in mind that major portions of the SST data in all ocean basins in the early part of the instrument temperature record are also infilled. Here’s a one-month snapshot of the ICOADS SST readings in 1885:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2pt2bkn.jpg
From that, the Hadley Centre fills in the rest for their HADISST dataset, and NOAA does the same for their ERSST.v3b data. The HADSST2 data leaves the gaps but expands the grids to 5deg lat by 5deg long.

Paul Vaughan
June 1, 2010 2:17 pm

Well-said Bob:
Bob Tisdale wrote (in response to Nick Stokes):
“How do I think GISS should deal with areas with seasonal sea ice? Not sure what you feel would be so difficult. Use SST data when it’s available. They could extend land surface data out onto ice when there is no SST data. But if the land surface data can’t extend to its full 1200km because there’s open ocean in the way, they could then use the Reynolds SST climatology or another climatology for the remaining sea ice areas.”
Bob Tisdale wrote:
“If the SST data is available, why not use it?”
You’ve made it simple for the administrators.

sky
June 1, 2010 2:47 pm

I’m with Anna V on the folly of mixing intensive metrics such as temperature with extensive metrics of energy. And this goes double for the folly of mixing air temperatures with SSTs. What you get is an artificial measure of nobody-knows-exactly-what!

June 1, 2010 3:14 pm

dr bill,
Your suggestion that they should use SST= -1.8C in winter misses the point of SST measurement. It’s about climate. When there is a water/air interface, air near the surface is near thermal equilibrium with the water, so SST is a stable accessible proxy for average air temperature. When there is no interface, it’s not. Winter Arctic air temperatures are far lower than -1.8C.

June 1, 2010 3:21 pm

Gail Combs,
I analysed the “Bolivia effect” here. It’s pretty weak stuff.

dr.bill
June 1, 2010 3:30 pm

Gail Combs: June 1, 2010 at 11:35 am
re “walk-in fridges and blocks of ice”

That is a brilliant suggestion! And I mean that in the North American sense, i.e. genuinely brilliant.
/dr.bill