Resolving the biases in century-scale sea surface temperature measurements reveals some interesting patterns

This new paper in GRL takes on the well-known buckets-vs-inlets issue (Steve McIntyre also visited the issue several times) related to ship based sea surface temperature measurements and as a result, produces an improved dataset. The results show a surprising period of warming, but not in the time period expected.  How would AGW advocates explain that most of the warming in the near surface layers of the ocean came well before Dr. Hansen’s supposed “safe” value of 350ppm of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. How would they account for the big rise before 1940?

Even more interesting, if you look at panel (b), (surface temperature in red) you see essentially no change from over 100 years ago. The shape and slope of Panel (a) looks much like the BEST and other surface data up until the mid twentieth century, then post WWII population growth set in. The differences between the two sets post 1980 (when we have the best measurements) is quite stark: 

Here’s the paper:

Consistent near-surface ocean warming since 1900 in two largely independent observing networks

Viktor Gouretski, John Kennedy, Tim Boyer, and Armin Köhl

We compare historical global temperature time series, based on bias-adjusted sea-surface temperatures with independent temperature time series, for the upper 20 meter layer

of the ocean based on the latest update of an historical hydrographic profile data set. Despite the two underlying data sets being different in number of data points, instrumentation and applied adjustments, both of the time series are consistent in showing an overall warming since 1900.

We also extend records of temperature change in the upper 400 m back to 1900. Noting that the geographic coverage is limited prior to 1950, the temperature change in the 0–400 m layer is characterized by two periods of temperature increase between 1900 and 1940–45 and between 1970 and 2003, separated by a period of little change. Citation: Gouretski, V., J. Kennedy, T. Boyer, and A. Köhl (2012), Consistent near-surface ocean

warming since 1900 in two largely independent observing networks,

Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L19606, doi:10.1029/2012GL052975.

Introduction

Numerous studies have identified an overall rise of the surface temperature of the Earth since the nineteenth century [Smith et al., 2008; Hansen et al., 2010; Morice et al.,

2012]. The global-average surface temperature is estimated from a composite dataset that includes both land- and seasurface temperature (SST) observations. In addition to studies

analyzing surface temperature data, collections of historical hydrographic temperature profiles have been used to estimate the change in heat content of the global oceans

[Levitus et al., 2005, 2009, 2012; Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007].

Two main sources of uncertainty affect both the surface and subsurface time series based on in situ data. The first is related to insufficient data coverage both in space and time, with extremely irregular sampling in the earlier parts of the records. The second arises from instrumental biases which can be comparable in magnitude to real variability in the

climate. Jones and Wigley [2010] identified biases in SST measurements as the most important remaining uncertainty associated with estimating global average temperature change.

Prior to the 1980s, SST measurements were mostly made using buckets or in the engine rooms of ships. Folland and Parker [1995] described systematic errors in SST observations

associated with the use of uninsulated buckets for water sampling and developed adjustments. Uncompensated biases associated with a shift in the database from engine room measurements (relatively warm biased) to bucket measurements (relatively cold biased) occurred at the end of World War II and led to an apparent drop in observed SSTs in late 1945 [Thompson et al., 2008]. More recent studies [Kennedy et al., 2011a, 2011b] attempt to quantify SST biases and their associated uncertainties in the post war period.

However, Kennedy et al. [2011b] note that “Until multiple, independent estimates of SST biases exist, a significant contribution to the total uncertainty will remain unexplored. This remains a key weakness of historical SST analysis”.

Gouretski and Koltermann [2007] revealed significant biases both in the eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) and in the Mechanical BathyThermograph (MBT) data used

to measure subsurface ocean temperatures. The effect of this instrumentation problem appeared as an artificial pattern of ocean warming around 1975–1985 in the Levitus et al.

[2005] time series of ocean heat content within the upper 700 meters. Further studies have confirmed the general characteristics of the biases described by Gouretski and

Koltermann [2007] and correction schemes have been developed for both MBT and XBT data [Wijffels et al., 2008; Ishii and Kimoto, 2009; Levitus et al., 2009; Gouretski and

Reseghetti, 2010].

However, Lyman et al. [2010] showed that even in the recent record (1994–2008) the uncertainties of the bias adjustments applied to subsurface data were a major component of the total uncertainty in estimates of ocean heat content. It is often difficult to assess the effectiveness of bias adjustments in reducing the imprint of systematic errors in climate data because independent test data are rarely available. In this analysis an initial approach to resolve this uncertainty is made by comparing two independently derived estimates of near-surface ocean temperature. In addition, a time series of the mean temperature within the upper 400 meters of the world ocean is calculated back to 1900.

[…]

Conclusions

1. The time series of the temperature anomalies within the upper 20-meter and 400-meter layers were extended to the beginning of the twentieth century, although there are

gaps around the two world wars for the 0–400 m layer. Previous estimates started around 1950.

2. A good agreement is observed between the time series based on the sea surface and the near-surface data respectively, but differences suggest either residual uncertainty

of around 0.1C in the adjustments applied to minimize the effects of systematic errors, or actual differences between temperatures at the sea-surface and in the upper 20 meters.

3. The upper 400 meters of the ocean warmed by about 0.3–0.7C since 1910, with a central estimate around 0.5 to 0.6C. The temperature change is characterized by

two periods of stronger temperature increase between 1900 and 1940–45 and between 1970 and 2003, separated by a period of little change in the global average.

4. Decadal mean SST and 0–20 m layer anomalies calculated relative to the reference decade 2001–2010 give evidence of the general warming of the global ocean since

1900. However, large regions of the oceans have experienced cooling since the 1990s. Whereas cooling in the tropical Eastern Pacific ocean is associated with frequent La

Nina events in the past decade, the cause of the cooling within the Southern Ocean remains unknown.

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who has a copy of the paper online here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Vaughan
October 7, 2012 4:55 pm

Aggressive suggestion for Mosher, Tallbloke, Wilde, Vukcevic, Clark, & others:
Pay more respect & attention to the Russian luminaries:
Sidorenkov, N.S.; Lutsenko, O.V.; Bryazgin, N.N.; Aleksandrov, E.I.; & Zakharov, V.G. (2005). Variation of the mass of the ice sheet of Antarctica and instability of the Earth’s rotation. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 8, 1-8.
The Russians are well ahead of NASA JPL on this particular file:
Solar Driven Geomagnetic Jerks:
http://i48.tinypic.com/4na4n.png
Glaciologists:
Important: See Sidorenkov’s conclusions. This is the opportunity of a lifetime to make a major contribution to human understanding of multidecadal climate.
——–
Vukcevic, do they [ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm ] use TSI as an input to their field models? (I wrote to ETH Zurich requesting basic info. The response: No reply despite the passage of many weeks …and no wonder, given the tremendously counterproductive chill climategate put on private climate-related correspondence with academia. Suggestion for everyone: Do cost/benefit, not just benefit when accounting.)

pat
October 7, 2012 4:58 pm

Oh oh. There is no loss heat. There is no heat storage level in the sea. There obviously is no atmospheric heat retention (it would be apparent at the surface). If there is any global increase in temperature it is entirely transitory.
Time for a study of earth temperatures. Literally. A pattern of thermometers in virgin soil about 18″ deep. Remotely sensed for about a decade or so.

RACookPE1978
Editor
October 7, 2012 5:09 pm

pat says:
October 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Oh oh. There is no loss heat. There is no heat storage level in the sea. There obviously is no atmospheric heat retention (it would be apparent at the surface). If there is any global increase in temperature it is entirely transitory.
Time for a study of earth temperatures. Literally. A pattern of thermometers in virgin soil about 18″ deep. Remotely sensed for about a decade or so.

Weeelllllllllll ….
Lettuce sea.
How about a long-term 4 inch soil temperature?
When I last lived in Idaho, near the Idaho National Engineering Lab (nuke testing and reactor facility in the high lava deserts ..) the radio reported “the daily 4 inch soil temperature” every hour for the potato farmers.
Too cold? Can’t plow for planting.
Too hot? Need irrigation water.
Not cold enough? Can’t dig ’em up and harvest yet.
Those guys ought to have some 100+ odd years of continuous daily temperatures in what can ONLY be described as “thoroughly non-urban” non-hotspots.

P. Solar
October 7, 2012 5:16 pm

It was argued here: judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2
that hadSST3 was removing most of the variability from most of the SST record on the basis of speculative bias corrections.
This new assessment of near surface temps seems to leave that variation in. This probably accounts for the significant difference in pre-1940 sections of their graphs.
It is unfortunate that they did not go back to 1880. There is a significant downward trend of which we just see the end here during 1900-1910. This was also played down in hadSST3, it would be interesting to see how the ‘near surface’ data shows this period.
When you see two downward sections and two upward sections, it’s hard not to realise that there is a (majoritarily) strong cyclically varying component in the record.
One thing I cannot understand in the graphs presented here is that absolute temps shown in figure 1b both seem to show a clear downward trend since 2000, however, this is not apparent in 1a showing the ‘anomalies’.
Now, as I understand anomalies to be calculated , that should not happen. Can anyone explain why we do not see the same downward trend in the anomaly plot?

pat
October 7, 2012 5:48 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
Re 4″ continuous temperature record of upper soil.
Wow. I was totally unaware such a body of knowledge existed. Even if the soil itself were degraded (i envisioned short horizontal tunneling) the body of data would be entirely consistent for an analysis of true atmospheric temperature change in the region.

silver account
October 7, 2012 5:51 pm

These sea surface temperature maps are based on observations by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. The satellite measures the temperature of the top millimeter of the ocean surface. In this map, the coolest waters appear in blue (approximately -2 degrees Celsius), and the warmest temperatures appear in pink-yellow (45 degrees Celsius). Landmasses and the large area of sea ice around Antarctica appear in shades of gray, indicating no data were collected.

LazyTeenager
October 7, 2012 6:04 pm

Charles Gerard Nelson on October 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm
I use highly accurate, professional, calibrated equipment both digital and analog. I am torn between laughing at them and wanting to smack them across the head!
———-
Yeah, I have the same reaction when someone demonstrates they don’t understand averages.

October 7, 2012 8:28 pm

Charles Gerard Nelson says:
October 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm
With all due respect….(love that phrase!)
With all due respect, I as a matter of course, in the course of my work, measure the temperatures of air, gases and liquids.
I use highly accurate, professional, calibrated equipment both digital and analog.
You know what?
Every time I read someone’s solemn assertion that the ‘Global’ SST in 1820 was…something POINT something degrees, or 1900 ‘Global’ Land temperature was something POINT something degrees…. I am torn between laughing at them and wanting to smack them across the head!
==================================================================
“Significant digits” is something I wonder about when global temperature is talked about. Especially average (Hi, LT!) surface temperatures in light of Watts et al. Just how significant are any of those “digits”? Significant enough to base our economy on them?

David Ball
October 7, 2012 9:50 pm

murrayv says:
October 7, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Good post. Thank you.

David Ball
October 7, 2012 10:23 pm

LazyTeenager says:
October 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“Yeah, I have the same reaction when someone demonstrates they don’t understand averages.”
Ok LT, now I am going to ask you to demonstrate your understanding,……

Editor
October 7, 2012 11:26 pm

Nick Stokes says:
October 7, 2012 at 2:59 pm

“if you look at panel (b), you see essentially no change from over 100 years ago. “

I think that’s an effect of the axis scale. For near-surface it’s an extraordinary change – from 5°C to 20°C. I agree with wayne – we’d need to know more about that. Bob T suggests that they are measuring in different places. That makes the plot pretty useless – another reason why anomalies are better.
REPLY: I was referring the surface temperature in red in panel b, updated for clarity – Anthony

I understand what you mean, Anthony. In Figure 1 a), which shows anomalies, there is a rise in the anomaly in fits and starts from beginning to end. The most recent period is the warmest.
But in Figure 1 b), which shows the actual average temperatures, the surface temperature peaks in the 1940s and decreases since then … I’ve put a ruler over Figure 1 b) to show what I mean.

Let me suggest an explanation. This is an artifact of the varying locations of the samples as you go back in time. Which brings up its own set of problems, but that’s another story.
w.

phlogiston
October 8, 2012 12:33 am

Paul Vaughan says:
October 7, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Aggressive suggestion for Mosher, Tallbloke, Wilde, Vukcevic, Clark, & others:
Who are you calling a Solar Driven Geomagnetic Jerk?

phlogiston
October 8, 2012 12:40 am

Slightly OT but the BoM Monthly Subsurface Pacific Ocean Equatorial Temperature Anomalies down to 400 Meters shows significant cooling from west to east across the Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif
The absence of east-west asymmetry that normally drives ENSO does suggest a period of neutrality, although some major new upwelling could possibly push the system toward yet another La Nina.

tallbloke
October 8, 2012 1:21 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 7, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Let me suggest an explanation. This is an artifact of the varying locations of the samples as you go back in time. Which brings up its own set of problems, but that’s another story.

Hi Willis. The legend to the graphs states that:
(b) Time series of
the sea surface temperature (red) and of the 0–20 m layer temperature (blue). Both time series are obtained by weighted
averaging of 5  5-degree box absolute temperatures.

So the weighted averaging of the boxes should take out a lot of the effect of varying location. I would agree with you that there will still be some regional biases, though this should cancel out.

markx
October 8, 2012 2:07 am

Paul Vaughan says:October 7, 2012 at 4:55 pm
“…..Pay more respect & attention to the Russian luminaries: Sidorenkov, ……”
Paul, I think you are on to something there.
Record (satellite era) low sea ice in the north, record high sea ice in the south, sure sounds orbit and tilt related …..
Sidorenkov etal may be the only ones looking in the right direction….. some of his charts are impressive: Figure 7. Temporal variations in the specific mass of ice in Antarctica: curve 1, the theoretical value curve 2, the empirical value.
Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions Vol. 24, No. 5, October 2005, 425–439
Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities N. S. SIDORENKOV*

Abstract This paper generalizes the results of investigations on the instabilities of the Earth’s rotation and related geophysical processes. Long series of observations of the Earth’s orientation parameters are demonstrated. The tidal variations in the length of the day are described. The temporal variations in the atmospheric angular momentum and their contribution to the instabilities of the Earth’s rotation are studied. The mechanisms of seasonal variations in the length of the day and polar motion are discussed.
The probable geophysical processes responsible for the decades-long (2–100 years) instability of the Earth’s rotation are discussed.
Keywords: Earth; Rotation; Instabilities

Nick Stokes
October 8, 2012 2:39 am

Willis,
“Let me suggest an explanation. This is an artifact of the varying locations of the samples as you go back in time.”
Yes, that’s what the authors say:
“As illustrated by Figure 1b the mean monthly absolute temperature time series for the sea surface and for the 0–20 m level diverge before 1940 with nearsurface sampling being biased to higher latitude resulting in a colder mean temperature.”
You can see this in the little maps in Fig 1a. Although SST is better measured than near-surface, there is much variation. And I don’t think weighting is helping (per TB); elsewhere they refer to area weighting (converging longitudes), and I think that is what is meant here. It won’t help with missing data.
Another giveaway is the stated average temp – about 20°C. Now I don’t swim much in the ocean nowadays, but that’s not my memory. In fact, since average global temp is about 14°C and 3/4 of that is SST, something is wrong. I think it is that they are (in 1b) trying to average absolute temperatures rather than anomalies.

P. Solar
October 8, 2012 3:09 am

Willis Eschenbach … I’ve put a ruler over Figure 1 b) to show what I mean.
That’s exactly what I pointed out here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/07/resolving-the-biases-in-century-scale-sea-surface-temperature-measurments-reveals-some-interesting-patterns/#comment-1103693
but your ruler makes it very clear and indisputable. How is it possible that this downward trend in the data is not present in the ‘anomalies’?

P. Solar
October 8, 2012 4:22 am

Gourestski et al : ” The higher trend in the subsurface analysis prior to 1945 is
also seen in the SST analysis subsampled to have the same
coverage as the subsurface analysis and is therefore likely to
be due largely to poor geographical sampling. The subsurface
data for the years before ca. 1920 have a strong geographical
bias with the majority of the data coming from the (North)
Atlantic Ocean (see Figure 1a). ”
Yet if we look at papers covering hadSST we see that increase in that pre-1940 period is reduced on the basis of NMAT , deck height and bucket bias adjustments , not geographical bias. Smith and Reynolds found that if they did not use NMAT adjustments: “1854-1941 bias correction is about constant”.
This is discussed in more detail with John Kennedy here:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#comment-188254
and here:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#comment-187260
Hadley remove about 2/3 of the variation from this part of the data. None of that on the basis of geographical bias.
The 5×5 degree grid smoothing would not remove inter-regional bias between one ocean basin and the global average, however, the difference between ICOADS 2×2 grid processing and Hadley 5×5 has been shown to be the operation that removes much of 50y to 100y scale variation.
In the extensive literature on HadSST processing they have never directly invoked this geographical bias, though there may be some geographical component to the NMAT “correction”.
The current paper also says:
” The second [uncertainty] arises from instrumental biases.
which can be comparable in magnitude to real variability in the
climate.”
Here “real” variability presumably means what they believe to be real as a result of their “corrections”. In fact it is simply a confirmation that the changes they are making in the name of bias correction are comparable to what is left. This is in agreement with Goodman’s statement that hadSST3 processing removes 2/3 of the long term variation from the majority of the record.
A statement that John Kennedy was forced to agree with in that discussion. He also agreed that the bias adjustments were based on hypothesis not observation.

P. Solar
October 8, 2012 4:26 am

Anyone know whether this data is publicly archived are required by GRL publishing requirements?
It seems like someone needs to plot this and calculate the anomalies to see what is going on.

Peridot
October 8, 2012 4:37 am

beesaman says:
October 7, 2012 at 11:44 am
Maybe the BBC are slowly seeing the light?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19848112
Or maybe not – This written report is very different from the television report on BBC News channel. There it was all doom and gloom due to ‘climate change’ linking the loss of ice at the Arctic to all the rain in the UK and drought in the USA. None of the doubt and detail in the written report made it into the recorded report (which was nearly 15 minutes long).
Shukman also, with a straight face (deception or ignorance?) referred to the ice calving off a glacier as being due to the glacier RETREATING!
I wish I could have asked him what he thought an ADVANCING glacier would look like.

P. Solar
October 8, 2012 5:05 am

Nick Stokes says: I think it is that they are (in 1b) trying to average absolute temperatures rather than anomalies.
Why “trying to” and what is wrong with real temperatures (be careful with the the term “absolute temperature” that’s – kelvin scale – which is probalby not what you meant). Anomalies are just a way of removing most of the annual variation without loosing the end of the data as would happen when using a filter.
The usual meaning for “anomaly” is the difference of a monthly (or dailly) value from the mean of the same months (or days) over the reference period.
The two should be similar on the decadal scale though there may be differences in the detail in years that have more/less annual variation than the ref. period.
If your understanding is different to that please explain.
Clearly SST was higher in 1950 than today in figure 1b yet the anomaly plot tells a very different story.

P. Solar
October 8, 2012 5:55 am

Tallbloke: Both time series are obtained by weighted averaging of 5  5-degree box absolute temperatures.
I think that just means that the gobal average plot is an area weighted average of the gridboxe values, this is nothing to do with the averaging that goes into making the gridded data.

October 8, 2012 6:45 am

I found these references useful:
1 – Corrections to Pre-1941 SST Measurements for Studies of Long-Term Changes in SSTs, Jones et al
http://icoads.noaa.gov/Boulder/Boulder.Jones.pdf
2 – Assessing bias corrections in historical sea surface temperature using a climate model, Folland
ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/PublicWeb/amp/mmop/documents/JCOMM-TR/J-TR-13-Marine-Climatology/REV1/joc1171.pdf
3 – Reassessing biases and other uncertainties in sea surface temperature observations, Kennedy et al
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf

JJ
October 8, 2012 6:56 am

Steven Mosher says:
Unfortunately, the hypothesis that solar activity “affects” “global” cloudiness, has no well defined empirical data for its support and no working proven physics to support it.

Nor does it have any well defined empirical data for its refutation, and no working proven physics to deny it. And ‘global warming theory’ is ginned up using multiple ad ignorantiam fallacies that rest on such utter lack of information.

Steve Keohane
October 8, 2012 7:13 am

A little late to the discussion. Here is another version of plot (b), with the Y-axis exaggerated, and .5°C hash marks from 19.5-25°C.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2rqdijs.jpg