HadSST3 Sets Records, RSS Not So Much (Now Includes July Data)

Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts:

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Note: Featured image and text below updated based upon input from rgbatduke. The graph shows HadSST3 Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly and RSS Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly since 1997, and is offset such that their means are at the same height. Note that the last two blue points for HadSST3 are higher than the highest point in 1998. The previous record anomaly was in July of 1998 at 0.526. June, 2014 had an anomaly of 0.563 and the anomaly for July of 2014 was 0.552. Furthermore, due to the high specific heat capacity of water, I would expect the August anomaly to also beat the previous record from July of 1998.

The average HadSST3 anomaly for the first seven months is 0.439 and 2014 would rank in 1st place if it stayed this way. An average of only 0.384 is needed for the next five months to set a new yearly record which looks extremely likely now. The period of a slightly negative slope for HadSST3 decreased significantly to 5 years and 5 months, which means it is negative from March 2009. The period without statistically significant warming decreased by 2 months to August 1994, or an even 20 years. (C.I. = -0.014 to 1.666)

However the record HadSST3 anomalies this year are not reflected in the RSS data set. RSS had a July, 2014 anomaly of 0.350, which was the fifth warmest July and significantly less than the prior record of 0.605 in July, 1998.

So why is there such a large divergence between HadSST3 and RSS in 2014? Bob Tisdale notes in his recent article that the north east of the Pacific ocean is quite warm at present, whereas during the 1998 El Nino, it was the tropics that were very warm. Would it make a difference to RSS if warm tropics water rose by 3 C rather than if an equal volume of a much cooler north Pacific rose by 3 C? Due to the law of conservation of energy, if more water evaporates, then more water vapor condenses in the lower troposphere. And it becomes warmer. However if a colder part of the ocean warms up, there should be less evaporation and condensation, which could explain some of the divergence between RSS and HadSST3. Also, Sea Surface Temperatures remained elevated for extended periods of time in 1997/1998 and 2009/2010, whereas the recent record HadSST3 anomalies appear to be the result of a brief spike, which could also explain some of the divergence.

Regardless, in the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2014 to date compares with 2013 and the warmest years and months on record so far. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 5 years and 5 months to 17 years and 9 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 11 months. (goes to July)
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since February 2001 or 13 years, 6 months. (goes to July)
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since March 2009 or 5 years, 5 months. (goes to July)
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since June 2008 or 6 years, 2 months. (goes to July using version 5.5)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since November 1996 or 17 years, 9 months (goes to July).

The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping red line indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at­ source

When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.

The actual numbers are meaningless since all slopes are essentially zero. As well, I have offset them so they are evenly spaced. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 17 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on various data sets.

The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website <a href=”http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html”. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.

On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.

The details for several sets are below.

For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249

Section 3

This section shows data about 2014 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 13ra: This is the final ranking for 2013 on each data set.
2. 13a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2013.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and three have 1998 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5.mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year. Note that this does not yet include records set so far in 2014 such as Hadsst3 in June.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. Jan: This is the January 2014 anomaly for that particular data set.
10.Feb: This is the February 2014 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
16.ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I may use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs slightly, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
17.rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. It will not, but think of it as an update 35 minutes into a game. Due to different base periods, the rank is more meaningful than the average anomaly.

Source UAH RSS Had4 Sst3 GISS
1.13ra 7th 10th 8th 6th 6th
2.13a 0.197 0.218 0.487 0.376 0.60
3.year 1998 1998 2010 1998 2010
4.ano 0.419 0.55 0.547 0.416 0.66
5.mon Apr98 Apr98 Jan07 Jul98 Jan07
6.ano 0.662 0.857 0.829 0.526 0.93
7.y/m 6/2 17/9 13/6 5/5 9/11
8.sig Mar96 Dec92 Nov96 Aug94 Oct97
Source UAH RSS Had4 Sst3 GISS
9.Jan 0.236 0.262 0.509 0.342 0.68
10.Feb 0.127 0.162 0.304 0.314 0.45
11.Mar 0.137 0.214 0.540 0.347 0.69
12.Apr 0.184 0.251 0.643 0.478 0.73
13.May 0.275 0.286 0.584 0.477 0.78
14.Jun 0.279 0.345 0.620 0.563 0.62
15.Jul 0.221 0.350 0.549 0.552 0.52
Source UAH RSS Had4 Sst3 GISS
16.ave 0.208 0.267 0.535 0.439 0.64
17.rnk 6th 6th 3rd 1st 3rd

If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.5 was used since that is what WFT used.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.5.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

To see all points since January 2014 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2014. This makes it easy to compare January 2014 with the latest anomaly.

Appendix

In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.

RSS

The slope is flat since November 1996 or 17 years, 9 months. (goes to July)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.267. This would rank it as 6th place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.218 and it is ranked 10th.

UAH

The slope is flat since June 2008 or 6 years, 2 months. (goes to July using version 5.5 according to WFT)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341. (This is using version 5.6 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.208. This would rank it as 6th place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.662. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.197 and it is ranked 7th.

Hadcrut4

The slope is flat since February 2001 or 13 years, 6 months. (goes to July)
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.535. This would rank it as 3rd place if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.487 and it is ranked 8th.

Hadsst3

For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since March 2009 or 5 years and 5 months. (goes to July).
For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.439. This would rank it as 1st place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.416 prior to 2014. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in July of 1998 when it reached 0.526. This is also prior to 2014. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.376 and it is ranked 6th.

GISS

The slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 11 months. (goes to July)
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.64. This would rank it as third place if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.60 and it is ranked 6th.

Conclusion

There is a large divergence between HadSST3 and RSS in 2014. Why?

Advertisements

147 thoughts on “HadSST3 Sets Records, RSS Not So Much (Now Includes July Data)

    • It would be worth finding out how much of this is adjustments. The net “corrections” are positive since about 1998-2000.

  1. As Bob noted in his last post on this, almost all of the warming in SST is in N. Pacific.

    To be more precise it is centred on Berring Sea area and also Labrador Str between Canada and Greenland.

    This article mentions the effects of evaporation but it is the latent heat of fusion ( freezing/melting ) of water that may be more pertinent.

    A quick back of envelope calculation using phycical properties of pure water rather than sea water shows that freesing 1kg of water releases enough heat to warm 100kg of water by 0.8K. That is about the current anomaly in those regions.

    The SST shown has been climbing since 2012. That was the low point of arctic sea ice coverage. There was a recovery in ice volume of 50% in 2013. That implies an enormous transfer of energy, initally to surrounding water.

    It looks like that may be the origin of the recent rise.

    Maps shown in Bob’s post show most of the rest of the world is showing very neutral SST anomalies.

    Most of this warming could be due to the Arctic ice recovery.

      • To ossqss:
        Remember it is anomalies. If -20c air flows over an ocean, then as long as it gains ice, the temperature would be kept just below freezing and not the -20c. The air takes up the heat released from the freezing.

    • Yours is an interesting idea to think about, however I think a lot of the heat released from the phase change from liquid water to solid ice goes up into the air blowing over the open water and freezing it. You notice this especially when a cold air mass from the tundra moves over the open water of Hudson Bay or the Laptev Sea. The air may be minus-forty over the land, but as it moves off shore it nearly immediately warms to a temperature near that of the water.

      Not only is the heat sucked up by the air molecules, but evaporation occurs even at sub-zero temperatures (creating what is called “sea smoke”) and in evaporation the phase change is moving the opposite way, and latent heat is imprisoned rather than freed.

    • Nice comment Greg. I had not considered that the phase change of water to ice would transfer heat to the air and sea.

    • Interesting. This could also account for the high pressure ridge that has been stationary over the NE Pacific, causing not only the drought in the west/southwest US but the cold over the midwest/eastern US.

    • Greg,
      I think we had a brief discussion on this in another post or maybe it was another Greg. There is no doubt that the physics of ice formation releases heat energy which either tends to warm the surrounding water or atmosphere or prevent it from cooling more.
      What I am not certain about is how significant this is relative to other factors? Previously, I have not heard this this is a consideration. It seems as though when there is massive ice growth (or decline) it could be a factor. As I previously indicated some go wild over several hundredths of a degree change while ignoring the latent heat of ice formation.
      I would like to hear Bob weigh in on this.

      • There is no doubt that the physics of ice formation releases heat energy which either tends to warm the surrounding water or atmosphere or prevent it from cooling more.

        I think you hit the nail on the head here. As mentioned by others above, you are not going to get water that is at 5 C to form ice and then warm up to 8 C in the process. Rather, cold water at the freezing point of ice, and perhaps with colder air above it, may cause ice to form. And this newly formed ice emits a bit of heat which just reduces the rate at which further ice is formed. And this emitted heat may warm the air from – 20 C to -19 C, but it will not warm the water so the newly formed ice melts.

  2. Evaporation cools the water surface and air near the surface. Condensation warms the upper air and causes rain. Cloud dynamics is controlling both the atmospheric temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

  3. Where does HadSST3 get it’s Raw Data from and what “Quality Control Adjustments” do they make?
    I bet HADSST3 shows higher current temps and cooler past temps than HADSST2 and HADSST do/did

  4. You would also expect the Lower Trop temps to reflect any surface increase as the Water warms the Atmosphere.
    Do they even match Area wise?

  5. Anomalous warming is different than absolute temperature data. With anomalies, warmth is relative to THAT area. The absolute temperature the tropics may have indeed been hot, hot, hot in 1998. But the absolute temperature rise in the North Pacific still means that one must wear an insulating scuba outfit to keep from freezing one’s family jewels off. So the rise in trend may be up but the absolute temperature may be down.

    Unfortunately, with anomaly graphs, it leaves the impression that absolute temperatures are hotter now than they have ever been in the satellite record. Not necessarily true. It would be useful to display global absolute temperature along side anomaly trends in order to prevent making the assumption that global anomaly graphs depicts the same thing as absolute global temperature data.

    • Good comment about the “family jewels,” Pamela. I have often wondered how many people see those anomaly charts and think the air/water/whatever is boiling hot.

    • “Not necessarily true.”

      If the anomaly is positive, the absolute temperature is warmer than the average of the reference period. Necessarily.

  6. Greg Goodman September 6, 2014 at 8:38 am

    To be more precise it is centred on Berring Sea area and also Labrador Str between Canada and Greenland.

    Yes, and there is also a warm patch in the Eastern Pacific off of Vancouver, which you can sorta see that on HADSST3’s fuzzy map;

    UK Met Office Hadley Center – HadSST3 – Click the pic to view at source

    or you can see much more clearly on the right bottom pane of this ICOADS graphic:

    International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) – Click the pic to view at source

    • thanks, I was looking for something like that but did not have time. Most of the warming does seem to be in regions connecting with the Arctic Ocean.

      If it’s not the heat dumped by the freezing water, it would seen odd that record SST accompanies an “unprecedented” recovery in ice volume.

    • The general Coriolis circulation is clockwise in N. Pac. , that would cause the warming in Bering Sea to spread down the west coast.

      • Yes, the North Pacific Gyre, or more precisely, Oyashio and Kuroshio currents would cause the warming to spread to California current;

        Canadian Museum of Nature – Click the pic to view at source

        but from the ICOADS image above, it also looks like the Alaska current may also be bringing anomalously warm water back to the Bearing Sea.

    • Based on these maps it looks like the most heavily surveyed area is also the warmest. However, the area that is surveyed less (southern oceans) appears to be colder relatively speaking. Could it be that if the southern oceans were more heavily surveyed it would even out the anomaly? Also, if the Arctic sea ice is on an upswing could that be causing a greater amount of cold water to be plunging south into the Bearing Sea thereby displacing and forcing up warmer water?

  7. Werner, your figure 1 isn’t really a fair comparison. If you’re going to do this and comment, you should at least line up the means, not the peaks, especially when the peak in RSS is clearly an isolated event, probably from its sensitivity to a discrete event in the ongoing Super El Nino.

    I think I’m going to contact William Briggs and see if I can get him to do a good statistical rant on the subject of using anomalies as a free-floating hidden parameter of climate model presentations (given that all of the data we ever see is produced by a model — there is no such thing as raw data on any graph produced in climate science, pretty much ever). I just finished reading his 5 episode rant on the simplest of topics — has the climate grown warmer or cooler, and how would we know — but he doesn’t discuss the subtle ways one can manipulate or be misled about outcomes just from things like this — exactly where do you put the base of an anomaly computation when it is the anomaly of a different model leading to a new model that you actually present.

    rgb

    • Yes, land air temps tend to change about twice as fast as SST. Aligning the mean would make more sense.

      Rate of change dT/dt : land surface air temps ( BEST ) vs SST

      • It may be interesting to plot RRS / 2.0 against SST with the means aligned. ( By eye the scaling may be more like 2.5 )

        That would probably the recent rise in SST stand out even more.

      • Looking again at the graph, there is an extended period in 1970s when SST was cooling but BEST shows warming. That will leave BEST land record with a permanent warming offset.

        UHI ?

  8. When Capt. Cook surveyed the the coasts north of the Bering Strait in 1778 he observed ice pack to the north “10 to 12 feet high” as far as he could go (east and west). –AGF

  9. It’s good to recall that wind speed connects SST and tropospheric temperature. The lower the wind speed, the lower the ocean evaporation. Lower ocean evaporation leads to higher SST. Lower ocean evaporation also leads to lower mid-tropospheric temperature as there’s less condensation of moisture in the troposphere (condensation warms the mid-troposphere).

  10. Why are they different?
    Why think they should be the same
    One measures set globally
    The other estimates air temperature kilometers above
    The land and ocean

    • The question was why are they different, not why aren’t they the same when they should be.

      If both are accurate what does it tell us? “Why are they different?”

  11. justthefactswuwt ,
    If you can, please consider increasing the size of the lines used in the WFT plots and avoid combining shades of red and green in the same ‘spaghetti’ plot. The increased line size gives those of us with ‘red/green’ color blindness more pixels to help resolve the color differences. About 7% of the male population and 0.5% of females are afflicted with varying degrees of red/green color blindness. It’s carried through the mother’s X chromosomes and is a recessive trait so female offspring (X-X chromosomes) must inherit 2 afflicted X chromosomes but male offspring (X-Y chromosomes) need only inherit 1 afflicted X chromosome. Lucky us, eh fellers?

    I routinely ‘zoom’ these plots to aid color resolution ….. but still struggle with it.
    Mac

    • Unfortunately, users cannot control the thickness of the lines or the line colors on WFT. However, you raise a good point. Perhaps if someone was to make a small donation to Paul Clark’s tip jar;
      https://www.justgiving.com/WFT/

      and ask him to change his default line colors (along with a suggestion of what colors might work better) and to increase the thickness of his lines a bit, he might do so on his site;
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/

      when he has an opportunity.

      • Lines look fine to me.

        If you don’t like it, you can get the processes data off WTF, download gnuplot and produce whatever you like. ( it’s what WTF uses ) .

      • Thanks, but for a tool that does little for climate discussions than to offer people the means to continue the obsession of fitting linear models to data that has nothing linear about it and whose main data processing tools are the running mean and the detrend,

        You can’t even plot the difference between two datasets.

        I wrote to Paul several times suggesting how he could include so less distorting filters and pointing out the issues, He was not interested ( in a fairly offhand way ).

        I retain the reference WTF.

    • “Those records show that Arctic sea ice has been declining at an increasing pace since 1979—enough data to see a strong signal of climate change. ”

      ” Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

      No error bars on either the sat data nor the earlier data to show how uncertain the early data is. Just pretend it’s all the same.

      No break indicating the difference data.

      Same “std dev” scale for the ensemble, taken from the 1968-1996 satellite period.

      A jump ( drop ) of 2 std dev where they graft the two datasets together that gives the impression of a fairly even decline since 1968. Blend the two datasets together with a running mean.

      Now, if they’d more correctly, used a different line for the different data that mannian “trick” would stand out a mile.

      What more do you need to know about their “science”.

  12. HadSST3 vs. ERSST.v3b (1998-2014):

    HadSST3 vs. HadISST1 (1998-2014):

    HadSST3 vs. Reynolds OI.v2 (1998-2014):

    ERSST.v3b vs. HadISST1 vs. Reynolds OI.v2 (1998-2014):

    HadSST3 definitely appears to be running somewhat high. Also notice how OI.v2 (the global dataset Tisdale normally uses) appears to shift up by ~0.025 degrees at the 2012/13 transition relative to the ERSST and HadISST datasets, seemingly ‘catching up’ with HadSST3. A permanent feature?

  13. UPDATES

    With the RSS August anomaly of 0.193, the average is 0.258 over 8 months. This would rank in sixth place if it stayed this way. To set a record in 2014, the average anomaly over the next 4 months needs to be 1.134. The highest ever anomaly for RSS was in April of 1998 when it was 0.857.

    For UAH version 5.6, the anomaly would have to jump from 0.199 to 0.768 and stay there for the next four months to break a record. The highest ever anomaly on version 5.6 was set in April of 1998 when it reached 0.663. Version 5.6 would come in fourth if the anomaly average stayed where it is after 8 months.

    There is no way that any satellite data will come in first or even second for 2014. So the 1998 records are safe this year.

    Further to Section 2 where I gave numbers according to Nick’s program, Dr. Ross McKitrick has come up with slightly different numbers for the times for no statistically significant warming for three of the data sets.
    His times are as follows:
    Hadcrut4: No statistically significant warming for 19 years.
    UAH: No statistically significant warming for 16 years.
    RSS: No statistically significant warming for 26 years.

  14. rgbatduke
     
    September 6, 2014 at 9:29 am
    Werner, your figure 1 isn’t really a fair comparison. If you’re going to do this and comment, you should at least line up the means

    Thank you! I have aligned the means for RSS and Hadsst3 since 1996.75. The basic conclusion of course does not change. See:

    WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

  15. Greg Goodman
     
    September 6, 2014 at 8:38 am

    This article mentions the effects of evaporation but it is the latent heat of fusion ( freezing/melting ) of water that may be more pertinent.

    You bring up an interesting point in that it may explain the sea surface temperature. My focus was more on why RSS did not follow suit, and for that, evaporation and condensation would be more important.

    • No, your evaporation argument could affect air temps, that’s fine but if you are trying to explain a difference a change to either could be the cause.

      If it explains the change in SST at high northern latitudes, which is basically where the _global_ rise is coming from in the data, then it could account for the discrepancy and answer your question.

      • Greg, Werner, lgl, rgbatduke:

        Ah, but the “Arctic warming” that is ever-so-often claimed is the LAND (tundra, forest, taiga, swamp, marsh, and wetlands) area of the “Arctic” between 60 north and 70-72 north latitude. There is almost NO land north of 72 north latitude – and that either completely ice-covered (Greenland) or isolated islands. The “ice-covered” arctic lies almost entire north of 70 north latitude (the north coasts of Alaska and Canada’s Yukon is below 70 north, the of Canadian arctic is almost entirely islands separated by ice-filled straits, then you have the central ice-covered highlands of Greenland, and one stub of a Siberian peninsula. )

        thus, “Arctic warming” can be entirely ascribed to CO2 -> Because EVERY tree, bush. scrub, moss, and algea up there is darker, longer, fuzzier, greener, and longer-lived BECAUSE of the extra fertilizer now in the air up north. A darker albedo heats the arctic LAND and thus heats the air around the Arctic ocean. Which, by the way, is the ONLY place where the thermometers are measuring a warmer arctic.

        Up where the arctic ocean ice actually is, the DMI summer temperatures since 1959 have been increasingly getting colder since 1959. (Winter – none sunshine days! – above 80 north latitude have been about 5 degrees warmers since 1959 … Again, NOT due to CO2 but that can be due to the decreased albedo of the trees and brush sticking up above the snow. It is ONLY “AVERAGE” Arctic annual temperatures that have increased.

        Else, why would winters be warmer when there is no sunshine to heat the air through increased CO2 concentration?

      • No, your evaporation argument could affect air temps, that’s fine but if you are trying to explain a difference a change to either could be the cause.

        Good point! Thanks!

    • Nice. Note that the white bit is labelled “state of ice unknown”. Don’t assume it ice because it’s white ;)

  16. Werner Brozek

    September 6, 2014 at 11:31 am

    Because RSS doesn’t include data from the poles, how would that change things in your [opinion] ?

  17. A C Osborn
     
    September 6, 2014 at 9:04 am
    You would also expect the Lower Trop temps to reflect any surface increase as the Water warms the Atmosphere.
    Do they even match Area wise?

    By aligning the means as Dr. Brown suggested, and as shown above, there is some relation, although RSS has larger areas, both positive and negative, but this seems to break down very recently.

    • Air temps are more volatile as I already pointed out.

      Someone posted a graph of “normalised” temps which partly aligns things thought I’m not sure that it provided the most appropriate scaling.

  18. The chart shows sea surface temperature anomaly is very variable all over the globe and happens to be well above normal only in the Northern Pacific which would in turn serve to limit above average temperatures in the lower troposphere due to the high sea surface temperature in the Northern Pacific to areas ONLY around the Northern Pacific which would be 100% water which would warm at rates similar or less then the rate of the water beneath it.

    Secondly this warming of the Northern Pacific is causing an atmospheric circulation pattern which is causing the majority of N.H. land areas to the east of it to have much below normal temperatures.

    Hence the average global air temperature does not correspond to the record average high sea surface temperatures which is due mainly to the N. Pacific warm sea surface temperature anomaly. It’s effects on the lower troposphere air temperature being local in nature while at the same time causing lower then normal lower tropospheric air temperatures to land areas to the east of it. Areas like the Eastern Two Thirds of the U.S.A. which experienced a very cool summer.

  19. Pamela Gray
     
    September 6, 2014 at 9:16 am

    It would be useful to display global absolute temperature along side anomaly trends in order to prevent making the assumption that global anomaly graphs depicts the same thing as absolute global temperature data.

    Globally, July is about 3.8 C warmer than January. But to know how warm a slightly warmer north Pacific ocean really is, that would take a different graph. I saw one recently here on a comment at WUWT, but I do not recall where. Perhaps some one knows.

  20. Eric
     
    September 6, 2014 at 10:14 am
    Could it be that if the southern oceans were more heavily surveyed it would even out the anomaly? Also, if the Arctic sea ice is on an upswing could that be causing a greater amount of cold water to be plunging south into the Bearing Sea thereby displacing and forcing up warmer water?

    It seems clear that the south pole is gaining ice and the north pole is losing ice over the last 30 years, so I do not think that the degree of surveying is a factor.
    As for the latter point, one must keep in mind the following: ice + heat water
    Of course, this equation works both ways. So if ice is produced, heat is evolved. And if water is produced, heat is lost. So when a larger amount of sea ice melts, larger amounts of cold water are produced. And this could indeed be “plunging south”.

  21. Greg Goodman
     
    September 6, 2014 at 9:49 am
    It may be interesting to plot RRS / 2.0 against SST with the means aligned.

    It looks interesting! I scaled RSS by 0.5 and offset Hadsst3 by -0.22. The alignment is close!

    WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

  22. David Smith
     
    September 6, 2014 at 10:02 am
    It’s good to recall that wind speed connects SST and tropospheric temperature. 

    What you say makes perfect sense. Do you have any data that indicates that wind speed in the north Pacific has been lower over the last three months than at any other time?

  23. HadSST3’s pattern is clearly annual, with SST maxima during the Artcic sea ice minima. Therefore they are counting Arctic open water temperatureas as 4C warmer than the ice-covered norm, while the Antarctic ice-covered areas are not being counted — so a very denormalized method. RSS does not do this. That’s my take on this.

    • HadSST3’s pattern is clearly annual

      In terms of absolute temperatures, that is the case for all temperature sets. However anomalies should automatically reflect this. But what we have here are record high June and July anomalies for Hadsst3, but RSS had June as the fourth warmest and July as the fifth warmest on record.

  24. lgl
     
    September 6, 2014 at 10:04 am
    Nothing special with 2014

    Taking the mean of 6 is certainly one way to make the records over the last two months disappear! I wonder what taking the mean of 12 will do once December is in. I think it will show a new high peak for Hadsst3, but not for RSS.

  25. Steven Mosher
     
    September 6, 2014 at 10:14 am
    Why are they different?
    Why think they should be the same
    One measures set globally
    The other estimates air temperature kilometers above
    The land and ocean

    I would not expect them to be exactly the same, but due to the lapse rate and due to the fact that 71% of Earth’s surface is ocean, I would expect a reasonably close relationship.

  26. Kristian
     
    September 6, 2014 at 11:04 am

    HadSST3 definitely appears to be running somewhat high.

    Thank you! I just hope that if Hadcrut4 sets a record this year, that it would be a real record and not one where 71% of Earth was running higher than it should have been.

  27. Stephen Richards
     
    September 6, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    Werner Brozek
    September 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
    Because RSS doesn’t include data from the poles, how would that change things in your [opinion] ?

    First of all, do you agree that it is mainly the north pole and not the south pole that would cause the most discrepancy? If so, it would mean very little difference. Here is why:

    RSS goes to 82.5 degrees north.
     
    With the circumference of Earth being about 40000 km, the distance from 82.5 to 90 would be 7.5/90 x 10000 = 830 km. So the area in the north NOT covered is pir^2 = 2.16 x 10^6 km2. Dividing this by the area of the earth, 5.1 x 10^8 km2, we get about 0.42% NOT covered by RSS in the Arctic.

  28. In relation to the scaling difference between air and SST I thought I’d try some manual fiddling on WTF. It is clear that RSS can be scaled by about a factor of two but there is a mismatch in the long term rise. RSS is damn near flat yet there is a small rise in SST.

    Unlike his Lordship, I’m not in the habit of using RSS, I tend to use UAH. I have confidence in the team there and they make accessing the data clear easy and total. All datasets, daily if you want it. So I flipped the data on the plot to use UAH TLT and voila:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/offset:-0.12/scale:0.65/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/offset:0.331/offset:-0.65

    It matches hadSST3 pretty closely, accepting the scaling idea. Both inter-annual and decadal variability seem to match well. Not saying that they necessarily have to, or that this is proof that both UAH and hadSST3 are “right” but it’s an interesting observation.

    Anther interesting feature that now becomes visible is that for a lot of this short period the air temps are lagging by what looks like 6 to 12m. Sadly with the rather limited possibilities on WTF it is not possible to shift the time axis to identify the lag any better, I’ll have to run this through gnuplot locally and regress the lag.

  29. As I have noted before, the Ocean SST records have become corrupted because somebody left a huge amount of seasonality in the numbers (on purpose I assume so that once per year they could claim records are being set).

    July is always very high now in the HadSST3 record and August is always high in the NOAA OISSTv2 record because they have screwed up the seasonality which any first year stats student couldn’t even do.

    It is disturbing to me because even the AMO values are now useless because of this deliberate obfuscation.

    • That’s a very good point about hollering records based up on anomalies. I would not say they’ve screwed it up but it is a problem with one size fits all annual “climatologies” when the annual cycles change in magnitude over the decades. The Cryo Today Arctic ice “anomaly” is pretty unclear since 2007 for the same reason, which is why I did and adaptive anomaly.

      https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/

      If they want to play alarmist games, it serves to leave base period in a segment with less annual variability. If you remove the residual seasonality, this year would not get past 2009-2010 levels.

      Personally I don’t like all this “anomaly” game at all. To get rid of the annual cycle you need to use a low pass filter. This means you loose a bit of data and have to wait about a year longer for the numbers, but climate changes over decades so all the excitement with monthly updates is a bit silly anyway, most of the time.

      Having removed the remaining annual variability, I found I was over-scaling TLT a little.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/scale:0.58/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/offset:-0.242/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8

      The filter looses 14m at the end, so the last point is about March 2013. The match is pretty good.

      • According to Roy Spencer, the difference is minimal, at the level of hundreths of a degree, so they will still not be saying the same thing.

        However, it may take away the slight difference at the end w.r.t hadSST3 where UAH is _slightly_ higher.

        Though it would be nice if the two were telling the same storey it is healthy to have competing teams competing on a dataset. There is too much work going on to try to “homegenise” everything and most of it is polical expedience, not science.

        I think John Christy ( Spencers boss ) has identified what he considers to be uncorrected errors in RSS processing.

        I find the UAH team quick to correct identified errors and more transparent. Rare qualities in climate science and ones that build confidence in thier work.

        Though many here may “prefer” the way RSS data looks, I have more confidence that Christy’s team are the better interpretation of the raw data.

        IIRC the RSS team include data from slightly higher latitudes, that may also account for some differences.

      • Part of the problem is that we are talking about so little in the first place, namely 0.7 C over 160 years that a few hundredths over 30 years could make more difference than we think. I guess we will have to wait and see.

  30. UAH update:

    The version 5.5 August anomaly dropped to 0.118. As a result, the 8 month average is 0.197 which would tie it for 7th place.

    RSS further information. As you know, the time for a slope of 0 is now 17 years and 11 months with the August number.
    The negative slope for 215 months is “slope = -5.54517e-05 per year”. So since the negative slope for 15 years is more negative than the positive slope for 16 years “slope = 2.67567e-05 per year”, one could say that to the nearest month, the absence of warming is indeed 18 years.
    From Walter Dnes:
    “A bit of reverse engineering shows that if September RSS comes in between +0.218 and +0.270, the slope will be slightly negative for October 1996 to September 2014.”
    Since the August value was 0.193, it would require a bit of a spike to avoid 18 years next month. And should it stay at 0.193, then the pause would be 18 years and 1 month with the next anomaly.

  31. Werner,
    You give these pause periods:
    “1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 11 months. (goes to July)
    2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since February 2001 or 13 years, 6 months. (goes to July)
    3. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since March 2009 or 5 years, 5 months. (goes to July)
    4. For UAH, the slope is flat since June 2008 or 6 years, 2 months. (goes to July using version 5.5)
    5. For RSS, the slope is flat since November 1996 or 17 years, 9 months (goes to July).”

    Two months ago the corresponding periods were:
    “1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 9 months. (goes to May)
    4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
    5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
    6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 9 years, 5 months. (goes to May using version 5.5)
    7. For RSS, the slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 9 months (goes to May).”

    GISS, HADCRUT and RSS much the same, but in that two months the Hadsst3 pause has shrunk by 8 years, and UAH by over three. I think this will continue, and surface measures will have a shrinking pause; it’s partly present warmth, but also the 2008 dip receding into the past. I’ve set out some plots here.

    • I agree with you on Hadsst3, but not on UAH, version 5.5. The August anomaly just came out and the 0.118 was below the zero line such that the time for a slope of zero jumped to January 2005, or 9 years and 8 months.

  32. And isn’t the bigger picture the fact that even if they all show warming, that’s still not proof as to the cause of the warming- which is the whole point, right?

    • You are correct. However if there were no warming, there would be no warming to explain. That would make life very simple. But if the warming is half of what the models predict, then that has to be explained.

  33. Dropping all of the means to zero with [offsets] as rgb suggested I fail to see the ‘record’. Does WFT have the latest data yet? Is that what is missing? They all are adjusted data so I see little insight in this exercise… well except they all seem to be adjusting just enough to keep all plots of recent records flat, anomaly-wise that is.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2008.4/offset:-0.21/plot/uah/from:2008.4/trend/offset:-0.21/plot/rss/from:1996.8/offset:-0.229/plot/rss/from:1996.8/trend/offset:-0.229/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001.05/offset:-0.478/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001.05/trend/offset:-0.478/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2009.1/offset:-0.380/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2009.1/trend/offset:-0.380/plot/gistemp/from:2004.65/offset:-0.59/plot/gistemp/from:2004.65/trend/offset:-0.59

    • wayne
       
      September 6, 2014 at 6:14 pm
      Dropping all of the means to zero with offets as rgb suggested I fail to see the ‘record’. Does WFT have the latest data yet?

      I do not think rgb meant what you think since he did not talk about the line of zero slope at all. He talked about the average value and aligning that. So if one set had a average value of 0.5 and the other of 0.3, he intended the 0.3 to be raised by 0.2 so relative trends could easily be seen.
      As for WFT, after the data is posted, they automatically upload at the time of the next upload. I do not know your time zone, but it happens to be at 8:00 P.M. Mountain daylight time.

  34. The record is in the monthly anomaly and is mainly due the annual variability being larger now than it was for the arbitrary period that is used as the reference “climatology” , which is Bill Illis’ gripe.

    If the annual cycle was of a lesser amplitude this years, we’d be seeing “record” warm anomalies in the winter.

    I don’t think aligning the mean is the most informative. There is also a scaling issue since air has a very different heat capacity and so does land. The best way to do it would be by regression fitting both an offset and scaling parameter to minimise the residual difference between the two datasets.

    I have done a quick grab at doing manually as noted above.

    They are both very close until about March 2013 where we see the divergence start to appear.
    .

    • As Bob Tisdale originally pointed out, most of this up swing in the global average is due to northern and north-eastern Pacific SST, Bering Sea and Str of Labrador.

      My reading of this is that melting of ice over most of the reference period was absorbing heat from the surface waters. It takes considerable energy to melt the ice. (78 times more than to warm it by 1 degree Celcius) !

      This means that the summer part of the annual SST cycle would have been attenuated by the energy going into melting ice. Since the ice has been recovering for the last two years now we see less heat than before going into melting ice and thus a larger summer excursion.

      This is reflected in the larger magnitude annual cycle and the positive anomaly that remains once the “average” annual cycle of the earlier reference period is subtracted.

      Conclusion: the record anomalies of this years summer months are not a sign of continued AGW, but a result of the end of the “catastrophic” loss of Arctic sea ice and the notable increase in ice volume over the last two years.

      The effect of less heat going into ice melting in the summer and the heat being dumped by the massive freezing and increase in ice volume measured by Cryosat2 last year will mean and increase in SST in the regions communicating with Arctic ocean.

      Alarmist scientists need to explain what is driving this “unprecedented” increase sea ice despite the notably warmer regional SST.

      • This makes a lot of sense. Now we just need a graph of ice volume in the Arctic superimposed on a graph of ocean anomalies in the north over the last 30 years. But does anything like that even exist? Areas of ice are one thing, but volumes are much tougher to measure.

      • The whole HadCRUT idea is flawed. You cannot average the temperature of land and water.

        Especially when it can be seen that land temps change at twice the rate of SST. It’s like trying to work out the average colour of a box of paints.

        The answer is muddy brown, you then spend 30 years arguing whether is it browner than it used to be and if the trend continues for the next 100y what shade of shit we will be in.

        You will also notice that it does not fit anywhere near as well as UAH TLT.

      • The whole HadCRUT idea is flawed. You cannot average the temperature of land and water.

        Of course you are correct. As well, you cannot compare a 1 C rise of -40 C dry Arctic air with a 1 C rise of moist tropical air at + 40 C. But we were forced to use the tools we had, especially before the satellite era. Then some want to throw deep ocean water into the mix which may have gone up from 3.8 C to 3.9 C and pretend that will come back to bite us somehow.

    • I suppose a long blocking pattern would do something. This relates to an earlier comment about less wind causing less evaporation. So combined with less ice melting, we may be on to something.

    • Lot’s of things affect climate. The objective is to explain what is happening.

      If you have reason to suggest that there has been an unprecedented change in arctic cloud cover over the last 18mo , please show evidence, otherwise such sweeping and banal comments don’t really advance the discussion.

      • If you have reason to suggest that there has been an unprecedented change in arctic cloud cover over the last 18mo , please show evidence, otherwise such sweeping and banal comments don’t really advance the discussion.

        I do not agree here. By bringing out ideas like this, we may be prompted to perhaps start looking for things that we may not even have thought of looking for. Who knows what we may find? It may lead to nothing, but on the other hand, it may lead to something useful.

      • “Banal comments” ? I suggest a mirror Sir. I am talking of the very long term high pressure over the North Pacific. High pressure keeps cloud cover away. Bob Tisdale has done posts on this. Also in such high pressure areas their is a general tendency for winds to be reduced. (There are exceptions) Did you not see the high pressure chart next to the record anomaly SST chart. They are both red in the same area in numerous areas, including the North Pacific. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/06/hadsst3-sets-records-rss-not-so-much-now-includes-july-data/#comment-1729203 (SST warming through solar insolation with reduced winds is both logical and a current observation.)

  35. Anthony, what is going on with comment positioning?

    Since the recent changes ( nearly ) every time I post a comment, the page refreshes at some position about 20 comments in arrears.

    I had not commented earlier since I thought it would get ironed out and I have not been able to note why or where it dumps me but it’s very rare for it to return to my last posted comment, whether it is at the end of the thread or a reply to something higher.

    REPLY: No idea, no other complaints. Try a different browser. This is also the wrong thread for such discussions -A

  36. Anomalies, especially global anomalies tell us whether or not temperature has risen relative to each part of the ocean. It does not tell us absolute temperature. It is even worse when used globally.

    I have encountered many people who believe that when the eastern equatorial Pacific is red with anomalous heat, it is hotter than the western Pacific (because it is shaded in a hue less than hot, hot, hot. I have even encountered people who think the “red hot color” of the northern Pacific means it is now the hottest part of the all the ocean surfaces. People at the street level of understanding of CO2-driven downwelling longwave infrared radiation will go on to explain how that heat is caused by CO2 in the air there heating up that part of the ocean. In addition, this kind of metric allows the presenter to use incredibly bright red colors for oceans that will, regardless of the colors we paint them in, freeze hanging fruit right off the tree.

    Global and regional absolute temperatures down to SW infrared penetrating depth is a much better metric when talking to street level people. And will usually cause quite a surprised look, followed by questions like, “Is that what we are supposed to have our collective panties in a twist over?”

    • People at the street level of understanding of CO2-driven downwelling longwave infrared radiation will go on to explain how that heat is caused by CO2 in the air there heating up that part of the ocean.

      Then there is the problem to explain how CO2 just manages to heat one part of the ocean and not the rest. And why does CO2 heat the Arctic and not the Antarctic?

  37. Greg, you mistake ocean warming processes by thinking each area of ocean water heats up due to a local phenomenon in that area. That paints ocean processes with too broad a brush. Ocean warming is more likely, in the upper northern latitudes, to be caused by waters that were warmed elsewhere, moving into those areas. Melting ice and glancing solar caused heating would be a very tiny drop in the bucket compared to unimaginably huge amounts of warmer than usual water invading northern ocean areas. CO2 need not apply.

    • Pamela, I agree. I don’t see how the abnormal North Pacific warming spikes of the last year, year and a half would have anything to do with the sea ice cover in the Arctic basin.

      • Kristain,
        That’s an interesting conclusion; but some of us fail to see how if the ice mass increases by 40%, one can be certain that that all that heat released is not at all involved in warming spikes since it has to show up somewhere, either in the atmosphere or in the water temperature. Do you know if anyone has calculated the amount of heat released and determined where it has shown up? Not being a climatologist I don’t know, it is just a question of interest. Another coincidence, the ice growth has occurred over the last 2 years and the warming spikes occurred over the same timeframe.

      • Much of what I say here has been said elsewhere, but with nested replies, it is easy to not see it.

        As mentioned by others above, you are not going to get water that is at 5 C to form ice and then warm up to 8 C in the process. Rather, cold water at the freezing point of ice, and perhaps with colder air above it, may cause ice to form. And this newly formed ice emits a bit of heat which just reduces the rate at which further ice is formed. And this emitted heat may warm the air from – 20 C to -19 C, but it will not warm the water so the newly formed ice melts.

        As for the energy released, that can be calculated by multiplying the heat of fusion (334 J/g) for water by the mass. And that heat would marginally warm very cold air. But there is always more colder air to replace any air that may have been slight warmed.

      • Werner says,
        “As for the energy released, that can be calculated by multiplying the heat of fusion (334 J/g) for water by the mass. And that heat would marginally warm very cold air. But there is always more colder air to replace any air that may have been slight warmed.”

        I came to this site as a skeptic on many things but also including global warming. I believe that skepticism is an important aspect as an Engineer even though we frequently become a PIA. As such, I remain to be convinced that forming a massive amount of ice has only a marginal effect absent more data/calculations. We are aware of the heat released in theory, but has anyone calculated the total hear release for the 40% area increase in ice. How much mass is involved? I don’t know.
        Furthermore I fail to see how we know the heat does not go into the water as well as the air. Maybe the air ultimately removes some of the heat heat from the water?
        Any further explanations appreciated.

      • Keep in mind that this 40% increase happened over 365 days so it is not as if a whole bunch of ice formed at once and created huge amounts of heat. The formation of ice would occur in two general places.
        One is at the surface where very cold air that is below freezing causes water in contact with it to freeze. If the heat from this freezing heats the water to above freezing, then it would melt as soon as it froze, but that does not happen. So it must be the air that is warmed. However if the air is warmed to above the freezing temperature of sea ice, then it would melt it right away. Since this does not happen, the air must warm slightly, but still stay below freezing. If it is windy while the freezing is occurring, you may never be able to detect any slightly warmer air.
        The other place where freezing occurs is under existing ice. So let us pretend we have a metre of ice and air at -30 C above the ice. So ice in contact with air is at -30 C. But ice in contact with sea water may be at -2.0 C for example. So you have this gradient of temperature inside the block of ice. And if we assume the freezing point of sea water is -1.8 C, some water at the bottom of the ice freezes. This might temporarily warm the bottom of the ice to -1.9 C from -2.0 C. But it would not warm the sea water, otherwise it would melt what it just froze. But keep in mind the air is still -30 C above the ice, so even if the ice at the bottom warmed a bit for a few minutes, the cold would conduct down to the bottom of the ice and cause more freezing.
        As for calculating exact amount of warming, that could be done in a closed system for example if you had a super insulated garage at -20 C. Then if you brought in a kilogram of water at 0 C and let it freeze, you could calculate how much the air would warm if you know the volume and density of air in the garage. But with an atmosphere that is tens of kilometres thick with all kinds of winds to boot over a huge area, then any calculations that you could do would not be very meaningful. Perhaps the polar vortex that hits you may be at -38 C instead of -40 C if it were not for a lot of freezing occurring on the way.

  38. Werner, when I bring that one up, all manner of silly explanations issue forth from watermelons. No wonder we still have people voting for climate change politicians. They don’t understand their own premise let alone natural variation.

  39. Greg, you appear to be stuck in last place forever. Or actually Nick has. Your last comment that includes a link to Nick appears to be forever moving to the last comment in this post. So either it is the last word, or it is in last place regarding this topic. Now that is a funny glitch! LOL!!!!

    • No he isn’t all fine here. Close/refresh/clear cache. Whatever the problem is it is local to your machine.

  40. There! Someone fixed it! Greg, your comment that contained a link to Nick’s data has returned to its normal place in the thread and Nick’s link is no longer in last place. The poltergeist has apparently moved on. Dang. I rather liked having Nick’s link in last place. It was such a well done study in gnat anatomy.

      • OK, if no one else ( apart from Pam ) is reporting problems…
        I didn’t bother mentioning it before but I thought you should be aware. Maybe others are also no reporting it.

        Presumably related to new threaded format, I’ve never seen it before. It’s annoying but I can live with it ;)

  41. Sea surface temp anomalies, North Pacific – 65-10N, 100E-100W (Reynolds (NOAA) OI.v2), 1990-2014:

    Lower troposphere temp anomalies, North Pacific – 65-10N, 100E-100W (UAH 5.5), 1990-2014:

    The prodigious surface rise in temp anomalies during 2013 and 2014 only leads to a medium tropospheric response, as if nothing special is happening at all.

  42. Try this one, NH extratropics SSTa vs. the lower troposphere above:

    Unfortunately, this includes the northern parts of both the Pacific and the Atlantic basins + the Arctic basin. Would be interesting to examine each basin separately.

    But what’s really interesting here (besides the clear seasonal signal in the SSTa starting in 2003) is how the lower troposphere just above this vast portion of ocean surface seems to respond only after 5-6 months (!) have passed. And the general fit is not impressive. There is sort of a similar course being followed, but lots of noteworthy variability and discrepancies. The troposphere does not appear to manage keeping up with the surface warming over the last year. Still, it looks as though we should expect a tropospheric peak over the next two to three months. But how high? And will it have any major impact on the global mean?

    • Note how the oceanic troposphere in the figure above appears to have a fairly flat trend since 1998, while the ocean clearly has an upward one, peaking in 2013-14.

    • Still, it looks as though we should expect a tropospheric peak over the next two to three months.

      The warmists desperately need a record in 2014. They predicted that Hadcrut3 would have half of the years from 2009 to 2014 beat the 1998 mark. Hadcrut3 has not beaten it yet, and since May has been discontinued. So should Hadcrut4 manage a record in 2014, but if the satellite data do not follow suit and stay in 6th or 7th place where they are now, then a lot of questions are going to be asked.
      You have a real talent for drawing graphs!

  43. Bob Tisdale notes in his recent article that the north east of the Pacific ocean is quite warm at present, whereas during the 1998 El Nino, it was the tropics that were very warm. Would it make a difference to RSS if warm tropics water rose by 3 C rather than if an equal volume of a much cooler north Pacific rose by 3 C? Due to the law of conservation of energy, if more water evaporates, then more water vapor condenses in the lower troposphere. And it becomes warmer. However if a colder part of the ocean warms up, there should be less evaporation and condensation, which could explain some of the divergence between RSS and HadSST3.

    How widely appreciated is that? The change in evaporation resulting from a change in temperature depends on the initial temperature. The change in radiation resulting from a change in temperature also depends on the initial temperature. Both of these relationships are convex, that is with positive curvature. To assess the changes in evaporation and radiation that result from a 1 degree change in temperature both require knowledge of the distribution of the temperatures at the start of the change; working from the change in mean temperature underestimates both the increase in mean vaporization and the increase in mean radiation. That is an instance of consequence of Jensen’s inequality (or a consequence of Jensen’s inequality, whichever language you prefer.)

    • How widely appreciated is that?

      I think this is one of those things that if you asked people about it, they would probably know the correct answer. However it is something they just never thought of before. It puzzled me why we have such high sea surface temperatures without the satellites following along. The length of time for high SST could also be a factor. But in August, both UAH and RSS went down. Perhaps things will change in the next month or two.

      • Query; what is the energy difference between say 3 C in the North Pacific SST, and 3 C on the equators SST? Ditto question for atmospheric T in the same regions. (IE 50 degree F atmospheric T low humidity increasing to 55 F low humidity, and 91 F high humidity changing to 96 F same high humidity)

        Which bring up another question. What is the current humidity in the unusually hot North Pacific, vs. the humidity the last time SST there was normal? Perhaps the energy in that area is average?

      • I do not have the specific answers to all of your questions. However as far as the energy difference between a change of 3 C in the north versus the equator, there is very little difference here for equal volumes. The formula E = mct still applies. This means that energy equals mass times specific heat capacity times temperature change. The important factor here is the difference in vapour pressure since hot water will cause increasingly larger amounts of water to be evaporated.
        As for hot and humid air, it is not the specific heat capacity of the added water vapour that is the most important thing, but the latent heat of the evaporated water that makes a huge difference. If you were to start cooling hot and humid air, the water vapour would condense and give off heat and really slow the cooling down.
        As for the humidity in the Pacific, I do not have those numbers handy. But keep in mind that there are two types of humidity. There is the absolute humidity which is the total amount of water vapour in the air. Then there is relative humidity which is the humidity relative to what the air can hold at that temperature. So air at -30 C can have a relative humidity of 95% and have less water vapour than air at +30 C with a relative humidity of 60%.
        Perhaps other readers have the specific numbers handy that you are looking for.

  44. There is a large divergence between HadSST3 and RSS in 2014.

    fwiw, it is not the first such divergence.

    • fwiw, it is not the first such divergence.

      Good point! From June to November 1998, there seemed to be a divergence, but then RSS kicked in. Time will tell if I was premature here.

  45. Greg Goodman: This article mentions the effects of evaporation but it is the latent heat of fusion ( freezing/melting ) of water that may be more pertinent.

    Do not ignore the latent heat of vaporization, which is about 550 times the specific heat of water.

  46. Re. Greg Goodman
    September 7, 2014 at 6:20 am

    Lot’s of things affect climate. The objective is to explain what is happening.

    If you have reason to suggest that there has been an unprecedented change in arctic cloud cover over the last 18mo , please show evidence, otherwise such sweeping and banal comments don’t really advance the discussion.
    ===============================
    Sorry to bore yu Greg, but my comment/question was both cogent and pertinent. I am talking of the very long term high pressure over the North Pacific. High pressure keeps cloud cover away. Bob Tisdale has done posts on this. Also in such high pressure areas their is a general tendency for winds to be reduced. (There are exceptions) Did you not see the high pressure chart next to the record anomaly SST chart. They are both red in the same area in numerous areas, including the North Pacific. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/06/hadsst3-sets-records-rss-not-so-much-now-includes-july-data/#comment-1729203 (SST warming through solar insolation with reduced winds is both logical and a current observation.)

  47. Greg in the link above look at the North Pacific region That high pressure has been there for a long time, weakening, then coming back.. (Say Calif drought) Solar insolation had been beating on that large area of ocean day after day, month after month. Now look at his chart of ocean currents for the same region.

Comments are closed.