Joe Romm Predicts “…All But Certain Ruin for Modern Civilization…” from a NOAA Fisheries Press Release

You can’t make this stuff up.

The April 25, 2013 NOAA press release Sea Surface Temperatures Reach Highest Level in 150 Years on Northeast Continental Shelf has been getting coverage by the mainstream media, including alarmist websites like Climate Progress. Sea surface temperatures may be the warmest in 150 years in specific regions of the Northeast Continental Shelf, but NOAA advised that they’re comparable to sea surface temperatures experienced in the late 1940s and early 1950s:

Sea surface temperature for the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem reached a record high of 14 degrees Celsius (57.2°F) in 2012, exceeding the previous record high in 1951. Average SST has typically been lower than 12.4 C (54.3 F) over the past three decades.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Climate Progress was foolish enough to prolong a myth and include a reference to Hurricane Sandy in their alarmist twaddle, along with a graph of global ocean heat content from Nuccitelli et al (2012)—as if global ocean heat content represents the sea surface temperatures of the Northeast Continental Shelf and Sandy’s storm track. Joe Romm writes:

No doubt it was purely coincidental that six months ago, in the fall of 2012, the Northeast was hit by the “largest hurricane in Atlantic history measured by diameter of gale force winds (1,040mi).” Or not.

And Romm concludes with the absurd statement (my boldface):

But I guess we’ll need some storms even more destructive than frankenstorm Sandy before the nation wakes up to the reality that climate change is unfolding much as scientists had warned — and that means all but certain ruin for modern civilization if we don’t slash carbon pollution rapidly.

We’ve already addressed how, based on the linear trend, the sea surface temperature anomalies along Sandy’s storm track haven’t warmed in 70+ years, and we’ve also seen that there was actually a downward shift in sea surface temperatures of Sandy’s extratropical storm track in the 1960s, as illustrated and discussed in the post here.

And we’ve also discussed how ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data and indicate the oceans warmed naturally. If this subject is new to you, refer to my illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB]. For even more information, there’s more detail in my ebook Who Turned on the Heat? which was introduced in the blog post here. It’s available in pdf form here for US$8.00.

The recent NOAA press release is very similar to another one back in September 2012, Sea Surface Temperatures Reach Record Highs on Northeast Continental Shelf, which I commented on here. The regions identified are not exactly the same, so let’s see what the data shows.

The recent NOAA press release does not state what coordinates they used for sea surface temperatures, but they did include a map. See Figure 2. Figure 1, above, illustrates the sea surface temperature anomalies for the coordinates of 35N-45N, 76W-66W, which is the entire region shown in the map on the right. It includes the Northeast Continental Shelf and extends out beyond the regions NOAA has highlighted. (Note: I’m using NOAA’s ERSST.v3b dataset for sea surface temperature data.) The data for that region, when smoothed with the 12-month filter, shows that recent sea surface temperature anomalies were about the same as they were in the late 1940s. But monthly anomalies around 1950 clearly exceeded recent values.

Figure 2

Figure 2

So let’s look at the data for the two subsets. Figure 3 shows the sea surface temperature anomalies for the coordinates of 40N-45N, 74W-66W, which I’ve identified as New England portion. Those coordinates capture the regions in the NOAA map identified as Southern New England (SNE), Georges Bank (GB), and the Gulf of Maine (GOM). The 12-month running average shows that sea surface temperatures for a recent 12-month period were the warmest for this small region of the global oceans, but the monthly data show comparable temperature anomalies in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Figure 3

Figure 3

The Mid-Atlantic Bight region is captured by the coordinates of 35N-41N, 76W-74W. The sea surface temperature anomaly data for this very small portion of the Northeast Continental Shelf and Sandy’s storm track are shown in Figure 4. Clearly, the monthly and smoothed data both show sea surface temperatures were warmer in the 1940s and 1950s than they were recently.

Figure 4

Figure 4

CLOSING

I’m always amazed how chicken-little alarmists like Joe Romm can turn a simple press release into evidence of “certain ruin of civilization”. Romm must have missed the last sentence in the opening paragraph of NOAA’s press release (my boldface):

These high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are the latest in a trend of above average temperature seen during the spring and summer seasons, and part of a pattern of elevated temperatures occurring in the Northwest Atlantic, but not seen elsewhere in the ocean basin over the past century.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) provides an excellent service for the fishing industry from North Carolina to Maine. With two press releases on the same topic over the past 8 months, one might suspect NOAA is trying to help NEFSC funding. I can’t see how the absurd, increasingly desperate alarmism from Joe Romm would help that. It simply makes reasonable persons ever more skeptical.

SOURCE

The ERSST.v3b data are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latitude
April 29, 2013 9:40 am

when you claim what “normal” is….and claim data you don’t have
…how can you lose

Henry Galt
April 29, 2013 10:01 am

Caleb says:
April 29, 2013 at 8:39 am
Right ****ing on.
The Nuccitelli spewance needs similar treatment.
Someone did a back of the napkin and said something like(I can’t go back to the stink of that particular Gruniad love-in as it makes my skin crawl reading the inhabitants’ projections and insults) – “… 4 Hiroshima bombs a second in the deep ocean means 0.000015C per century …”
I may be up to two orders of magnitude out with my memory – it still wouldn’t be measurable either way.

Chuck L
April 29, 2013 10:09 am

Henry Galt “Someone did a back of the napkin and said something like(I can’t go back to the stink of that particular Gruniad love-in as it makes my skin crawl reading the inhabitants’ projections and insults) – “… 4 Hiroshima bombs a second in the deep ocean means 0.000015C per century …””
I know what you mean, I feel dirty whenever I venture into that morass of wish-casting, mud-flinging and catastrophe-mongering.

Tom in Florida
April 29, 2013 10:33 am

Perhaps misinformed Romm should have read this article, from CNN none the less. It tells the real story of Sandy.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/nolan-hurricane-sandy

Clyde
April 29, 2013 11:16 am

Bob Tisdale
You posted a link about a week ago that showed how many “thermometers” (don’t know exactly what their called) they have/had measuring the ocean temps. I’m pretty sure it was a NOAA link. It went back to when they were hardly any to present day. I tried finding it, but can’t. Can you please post it again?

Louis
April 29, 2013 11:33 am

“But that would increase his carbon foolprint for the day.”

I don’t suppose that “foolprint” was an intentional typo, but it does help highlight what fools these global-warming scaremongers are becoming.

Randy
April 29, 2013 3:19 pm

I remember reading that I think it was NOAA down graded the size of Sandy to if I remember correctly the 4th largest storm in the history of Atlantic storms (satalite era). Anyone else remember tthat?

Jimbo
April 29, 2013 3:32 pm

Joe Romm should stay of the acid and on his medication.

April 29, 2013 4:04 pm

Joe’s been predicting doom and chaos for years. He gets even more ranty as every month goes by – I think it is the current lack of warming that really makes him scared.

Editor
April 29, 2013 7:03 pm

Well done, Bob. Let me point out a totally separate way that they have hugely overestimated the importance of this finding.
The area of the Northeast Continental Shelf is on the order of 230,000 square km. This is not 1% of the ocean area of the planet.
Heck, it’s not even a tenth of a percent of the global area.
It is just under five hundredths of one percent of the ocean.
So. Let us divide up the surface of the ocean into 2,233 parts, with each part being the size of the Northeast Continental Shelf. In a given year, what are the odds that one or more of these sections will OMG! BREAK A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEAR RECORD!!
To calculate that, we have options.
1. Simplistic. If the earth is not generally warming and the temperatures are quick analysis in R says that in the 151st year, we’d expect about fifteen of the areas to set 150-year records.
2. Slightly less simplistic. The earth has been warming for the last several centuries. So in fact, every single year we’d expect more than fifteen of these Northeast Continental Shelf sized areas of the ocean to show records. How many more? Well, back to R …
OK, if we assume a 1°C warming trend over the 150 years, that jacks the number of 150-year records from fifteen to about forty records set in the 151st year..
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill …
Regards to all,
w.
R Code used for the analysis:

testsize=2233 # increase for more accuracy, I ran it at 223300
mybox=matrix(rnorm(testsize*150),nrow=150) # matrix of random numbers, 150 rows
mymaxline=apply(mybox,2,max) # get the column maxima
myshortline=mymaxline[-length(mymaxline)] # remove the last data point
myfirstline=mybox[1,][-1] # make a line for comparison from the first row, excluding the first point
length(which(myfirstline > myshortline)) # compare the new data point to the maxima
warming_trend=seq(0,1,length.out=150)# temperature increase of 1°C in 150 years
warm_matrix=matrix(rep(warming_trend,testsize),nrow=150,byrow=FALSE) # make a matrix of it
warm_box=mybox + warm_matrix # add the warming trend to the random data
warmmaxline=apply(warm_box,2,max) # as before
warmshortline=warmmaxline[-length(warmmaxline)]
warmlastline=warm_box[150,][-1]
length(which(warmlastline > warmshortline))
April 29, 2013 7:27 pm

Willis, your posts are always a pleasure to read. The logic is unassailable.

Jeff Alberts
April 29, 2013 7:39 pm

But I guess we’ll need some storms even more destructive than frankenstorm Sandy before the nation wakes up to the reality that climate change is unfolding much as scientists had warned — and that means all but certain ruin for modern civilization if we don’t slash carbon pollution rapidly.

Joe Romm. Why don’t you lead by example and give up ALL modern conveniences (and when I say modern, I mean anything after the Paleolithic age). We would ALL be better off if you and all the other alarmists stopped using carbon-spewing computers, and clogging up the Internet with pollution.

Jeff Alberts
April 29, 2013 7:48 pm

Caleb says: It is just misinformation after misinformation after misinformation with that man. It really does get tedious, but I feel Bob Tisdale’s response is wisest: Hit Romm with truth after truth after truth.

I think the word you’re looking for is disinformation, as misinformation is simply erroneous. The former is intended to deceive.

Clyde
April 30, 2013 11:21 am

Bob said – I believe you’re talking about the links to the animations I created of the maps of the locations of temperature observations used in the NODC’s Ocean Heat Content data.
Thanks for the links, but the one I’m looking for wasn’t included. They are presented in a graph. You have to scroll down a bit after you click on the link. You posted the link in a reply to a comment. I will try to find it later today. If i do I’ll post it on this thread.