By Steve Goddard
WUWT reader “Roy” astutely noted that the NOAA SST map shows a lot of hot yellow, in regions which are just barely above normal temperatures. So I tried an experiment to remove all colors between -0.5C and 0.5C anomaly (i.e normal.) The blink comparator below shows the difference. In the original map, the Pacific looks about 50/50. But when the normal temperatures are removed, the Pacific appears colder. The reason being that there are a lot more pixels in the 0 – 0.5 range than in the -0.5 – 0 range.
The video below takes a tour of the earth with “normal” SST’s painted white.
Note that all of the water around Antarctica is normal or below.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steve: Climategate is about doing what you just did..
… The Euros asked Hansen’s U.S. boys to “JUST CHANGE A LITTYLE.
You are ELIMINATING DATA.
This makes you a FRAUD.
In case anyone forgot those clear words of Hansen on the Letterman show, showing he did not support the exaggerations of the Euros
: ” Tenths of a degree … TENTHS OF A DEGREE ! !
The reason the Arctic shows changes is because it has changed SEVERAL degrees (well, 3, in Fahrenheit) as the low-angle Sun & pristine Sun-reflective surfaces magnify the cooling effects of Sulfur ( x7 relative to the Equator) & the warming, of Soot (wish I’d seen numbers on that)
Specifically, from Shindell’s April 2009 work: .39 degrees C GLOBAL cf to 1.48oC Arctic, 26% Global, 45% Soot (therefore) 29% Sulfur reductions.
Remember, Dr. Roy Spencer puts the 0.39 oC GLOBAL change in the last 30 odd years as 85% the Natural Cycles, 15% unknown.
IPCC is roughly the other way. Given the small change (but DOWN) since 1998, I’d say more like 60-40 to 70-30 (Natural has to be More or it’d still be going UP … right ? The Cycle turned over in 2007: since mid year: 3 La Nina (Cold water irruptions) & 1 El Nino (hot).
Daily JAXA ICE Update:
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Ahead Aug 3_____541,562=7days__no____________no__
(2009 now 174,532 behind 2010 = 4 days)
Daily:
J31-Aug1 ______ – 51,250 _____-102,500
Aug 1-2 _______ -106,563 _____- 88,281
Aug 2-3 _______ -107,656 _____ -79,844___(-47,500 2009)
Aug 3-4 _______ -108,594 _____ – ?????___(-55,467 2009)
SITE: BEST ICE MAP http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_nsidcice.html
… apparently the NSIDC Concentration map we get is the “dumbed down” version just for us Yokels.
It looks like Moths have been eating the Ice (of course, it may look like that every year). And:: note the central white area is the no-data gap: larger
than the NSIDC site has, does that mean more “bridging” of gaps like in the GISS maps ?? cf http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index click the thumb below for concentration of add: /images/daily_images/N_daily_concentration.png
even the 8.2 mb version has the small hole: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_conc_hires.png
But … This is REALLY good news! Previously it was all colored RED – what colour’s next … Blue perhaps ( tongue firmly held in cheek)
tallbloke,
Thanks for the Unisys link. Yellow and blue makes green, no? Where is the green? Coming from a cult where green is the obsession, why don’t they use green in their map? Should we conclude that all of the land (black) in their map is cold? Their color scheme just doesn’t work.
Am I the only one a little troubled with the earth spinning in the wrong direction?
I did the same but changed both of colours for the range -0.5 to +0.5 to a light green as this is a better neutral colour between both warm and cool anomalies.
I selected the colours from the scale with a variant of 0 to get the exact colour and in paintshop pro did a select -> similar on the image to get all pixels in the image with an identical shade and hue as the scale colour. Then swiped over them all with the brush tool.
It was a pretty close result to yours though.
False-color maps are routine in geophysical imaging, especially following the era of the colored pencil. Maps commonly use the full spectrum, which has middling values in shades of green. As humans can resolve shades of green relatively well, I would recommend the full spectrum to both NOAA and Steve Goddard.
I’m not a fan of the Unisys coloring scheme, as they use a cool color for small positive anomalies.
This is odd…Hudson bay on the Unisys map is quite cold in the southern parts, but on the NOAA/NESDIS map the entire bay is quite hot, at least +3 C anomaly. Anyone know why the discrepancy? Thanks in advance.
Now it makes sense.
Some one should break out an ergonomics textbook and find guidelines for present graphic information objectively. There are way to use color and intensity appropriately based on the way we percieve colors.
I can see if there’s anything in my old undergrad book sometime.
tallbloke says:
August 4, 2010 at 5:10 am
That is a much more serious map. Those bad “kids” should be punished by making them pay all the injet they use in their XXX massaged maps.
Every time that a NOAA SST map is presented it must be compared to UNISYS map, you will see, for example, that in the atlantic ocean region there is not that much heat to power their so wishfully expected hurricanes.
P&G could not do better for brand HOT HOT HOT!
I hope these egregious “man-made global warming” techniques come to the notice of legislators. I think a “handbook of sneaky tricks” used by the ideologues should be prepared and sent to every congressman (and parliamentarian).
Being a sceptic I’ve always preferred the Unisys chart. Warmists I’m sure prefer the NOAA map.
Is it me, or does there seem to be pixels < -0.5 being removed, but -0.5 < pixels < 0.0 remaining? It's like the map has more blue colors than the color bar.
I have discovered something interesting. They do not use the same colours on their map as they do on the scale.
I have selected every colour in turn on the scale using the colour replacer tool in PSP, and then swiped the entire image with 100% opacity step 1, density 100% to get every pixel of every colour in the scale and replace it with a light green.
I swiped the scale with each pass and it did replace the colour that they use in their scale.
It did NOT replace all the colours in the map. Far from it!
It hardly replaced any of them.
Take a look:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_By_CNJu4i4g/TFlssyhB93I/AAAAAAAAADw/jHsVtYFTVwI/s1600/seamap.png
So they are not using the same colours on their map as indicated by the scale.
Steve, REMOVING “a little” DATA IS CLIMATEGATE.
…tallbloke: GOOD IDEA. Changing Colors is OK — REMOVE data: NOT OK.
Besides, it is ALL, “Tenths” of a Degree.
Remember the Shindell work: Arctic = 1.48 degrees C.since 1974; Soot = 45% Sulfur = 29% Global = 26%
Yes: Global 35-year change = 0.39 oC … Less than the 0.5 you “eliminate”
Remember Hansen scolding Letterman: tenths of a degree, TENTHS OF A DEGREE !! .
… as Global is going DOWN, but slower than the Up, I make the Split 60-40, maybe 70-30. Natural MUST be over 50% or it would still be going UP. Yet: IPCC says 15-85 (cf Dr. Roy Spencer says 85% Natural -to-15% = AGW or something else).
Ice Update: 2010 ahead of 2009 by 174,532 but trails 2007 541,562 km2
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
J31-Aug1 ______ – 51,250 _____-102,500
Aug 1-2 _______ -106,563 _____- 88,281
Aug 2-3 _______ -107,656 _____ -79,844___(-47,500 2009)
Aug 3-4 _______ -108,594 _____ – ????? ___(-55,467 2009)
GREAT MAP http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_nsidcice.html
…like MOTHS are eating the ice. Note the Large White Spot in the center: DATA is not bridged over the Polar GAP as much as other NSIDC maps, even the “conc_hires” (8 MB high-resolution) has a smaller hole: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/
The 6-week Arctic Low seems about to die: Expect Major Melts for 2 Months, nearly straight. http://weather.unisys.com/gfsx/9panel/gfsx_500p_9panel_nhem.html
Pity you cannot read the discussion of how long the La Nina time lag might be in my SEA ICE OUTLOOK, caus the new supervisor cut 80% including all mention of Wayne Davidson & his La Nina = Clear Skies claims.
Looks like the Cold Tongue Index (better for La Nina watching) “won” & it is a 6 week Cloud-filled delay (from June 26), not 3 or 9. CTI defined as = SST anomalies over 6N-6S, 180-90W … at:
PS Steve: get the current PIOMAS. June 18 is long gone.
With 2 July Updates, the 10,700 Anomaly is now “only” -10,150 = a bit under 3000km3 ahead of 2007’s pace {YET also 2000+ behind my extrapolated April-June Pace). No wonder there are so many gaps in the Ice.
Regardless of the temperature colors (and I prefer the scheme used by http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf), I would like to once again reiterate that 3 month overlapping averages used to determine cool or warm SST conditions could be useful matrices to ward against undue panic over land temperature change. Applied to oceans, any SST change equal to or more than +.5 or -.5 is considered to be a significant departure from the neutral range. Notice that if this were applied to global land temps, the entire AGW thesis would immediately be dead.
oops. Bad pasted link. See the color scheme used in the following weekly review of SST:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
These websites did not show up in my post: Wayne D.: http://www.eh2r.com/ … CTI = http://jisao.washington.edu/data/cti/
If they do not show up this time, they must be auto-rejected: maybe insecure or something.
The SST map used in this post is based on a dataset that uses only nighttime SST anomalies, and it’s only presented by one specific branch of NOAA and that is Coral Reef Watch:
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/methodology/methodology.html
Refer to my post “A Note About SST Anomaly Maps”:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-about-sst-anomaly-maps.html
Regards
Every once in a while I review how the SST models are doing against the observation. Very interesting stuff and well worth reading. Don’t ya wish we had something like this for land temps? If they took the time to do a land-based 3 month running average analysis and then develop a bank of statistical and dynamical prediction models, we could have something like this.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
NOAA map doesn’t agree with NOAA map:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstweek_c.gif
Your tax dollars already provide a more neutrally colored sst anamoly map.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/oi-daily.php