Key dataset helps scientists understand Earth’s climate
An update to a set of widely used ocean temperature data is now available from NOAA’s NCEI. Along with the public release, an article describing the 5th version of the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSSTv5) dataset has been published in the Journal of Climate (link is external).
The new ERSST incorporates more comprehensive ocean surface temperature data collected since the last update in 2015. Oceanographers and atmospheric research scientists constitute the major users of the ERSST dataset—a global monthly sea surface temperature analysis. Ocean surface temperatures are an important variable for understanding Earth’s climate.
The dataset is used for global climate monitoring and assessment, tracking cycles of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), oceanic and environmental research, and applications in various industries and economic sectors, such as agriculture and water resources.
Improvements to ERSST
ERSSTv5 uses newer, more comprehensive data from three key sources:
- The latest international comprehensive ocean–atmosphere dataset (ICOADS R3.0)
- A decade of near-surface sea temperature data from Argo floats
- A new, updated sea–ice concentration dataset (Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature Data Set, HadISST2 (link is external))
Of the major updates, the inclusion of data from Argo floats is particularly noteworthy because it is the first time the data from this global ocean observational network are included in ERSST. Argo floats normally collect water temperatures from the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean. The floats drift at a fixed pressure then submerge to another pressure and collect data on ascent. Once at the surface, the floats transmit the data via satellites to scientists for processing and analysis.
The authors cite another benefit of using Argo: greater coverage. The area monitored by Argo floats has broadened since 1999, such that the number of floats has expanded to make near-global coverage possible today. The floats also provide highly accurate data due to internal and regular quality control processes. This improves the outlook for future long-term monitoring.
One important example of how the new dataset will help scientists is in the tracking of El Niño and La Niña cycles, which occur as part of the phenomenon known as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. ENSO is caused by multiyear shifts in pressure and wind speeds and can have wide impacts on ocean circulation, global weather patterns, and marine ecosystems.
One major improvement in ERSSTv5 is the more realistic spatial structures and magnitudes of the El Niño and La Niña events,” says Dr. Boyin Huang, the lead author“One major improvement in ERSSTv5 is the more realistic spatial structures and magnitudes of the El Niño and La Niña events,” says Dr. Boyin Huang, the lead author of “Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 5 (ERSSTv5): Upgrades, Validations, and Intercomparisons.” Sea surface temperature data are especially useful for identifying the onset of El Niño and La Niña. ERSSTv5 more accurately reflects actual conditions of El Niño and La Niña events at specified locations due to greater accuracy and consistency of observations, as well as adding new criteria that lessen a smoothing effect.
Methods, Feedback, and Quality Assurance
Climate researchers regularly produce improved datasets that incorporate new data and better methods of interpretationClimate researchers regularly produce improved datasets that incorporate new data and better methods of interpretation. ERSST users provided invaluable feedback as the dataset was applied to climate research, monitoring, and assessments. To provide quality assurance to the newest version, the research team validated the new ERSSTv5 against other independently available sea surface temperature datasets. These standard methods of review not only encourage scientific advances but are also designed to add public accountability and transparency.
To learn more about the operational uses of ERSSTv5, the improvements from version 4 to version 5, and preliminary outcomes of its application, consult our Commonly Asked Questions.
Besides NCEI, coauthors are affiliated with the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units at Maynooth University, Ireland, the Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Science at the University of Maryland, Satellite Climate Studies Branch at NOAA’s Center for Satellite Applications and Research, and the Cooperative Institute for Climate, Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, also at the University of Maryland.
The Journal of Climate (link is external) is a publication of the American Meteorological Society.
HT/Our Gracious Host and Blog Owner.
I haven’t even read the post or the “under-lying” data, but whenever I see this kind of post I’m thinking “what are the climate liars fabricating now?”.
What a sorry state for some people, hopefully soon to be put out of their misery.
Not me. I do real science. [snip~ctm]] ’em.
compare an actual SST map
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.gif
with the anomaly map
Note that an anomaly of 3 degrees (shown in dark red) encompasses equatorial waters and arctic waters with an actual temperature range from 34 degrees (equatorial) to 10 degrees (Arctic). Seductive but misleading. An arctic anomaly of 3 degrees means 10 deg instead pf 7 deg. Vewwy skewwy you Waskally Wabbit.
Yes, this was the method by which it was concluded and headlines screamed all Winter that the Arctic was “Incredibly hot”, despite being so cold that a person transported there would be dead very quickly.
But then
http://weather.gc.ca/saisons/animation_e.html?id=year&bc=sea
Anomalies are anomalies, temperatures are temperatures. Apple’s and oranges. T and deltaT.
Not many people are going to think that the Bering Strait waters are the same temperature as equatorial Pacific. The dipping of the toe test might be able to convince a real experimental scientist. Then again somebody might think that they might.
10C is actually tolerable for swimming in the great outdoors here in Canada. I dispute the existence of +10C water anywhere above the Arctic circle in the ocean. Nobody in their right mind would go into that light blue water. It is just ever so slightly above freezing!
In management, we don’t use “anomaly” graphs. We use “difference” graphs. See how changing one word, has changed a useful tool into a scary weapon of mass deception.
….and while musing to myself, thinking about elephants and rooms here, and mental masturbation, perhaps our mm friends below, MMosher and Nick could do a quick calculation for us and explain how back radiation from CO2 at a level of 408 ppm on a background of 30 – 40,000 ppm of water vapor could heat up that mass of water versus CO2 at a level of 280 ppm (yes, I’m giving you since 1850) on a background of 30 – 40,000 ppm of water vapor.
Other than Hanson’s boiling oceans, is this the most incorrect hypothesis in the history of science. How many orders of magnitude would this be off by. I’m guessing about 20, but I’m sure I’ll be set straight with a little climate BS MM. 5, 10, 20, 30, more ?
I missed the part where the Argo readings are transitioned from the Datanotcene to the Adjustocene era.
By their own admissions, they purposely targeted warm blips to be adjusted away
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
“Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, [b][size=150]if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.[/size][/b]
[b]I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately[/b]. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i[b] think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip[/b] (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. [b][size=150]It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”[/size][/b].
Smells like fr@ud to me!
Scientists Find At Least 75% Of The Earth Has Not Warmed In Recent Decades
http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/20/scientists-find-at-least-75-of-the-earth-has-not-warmed-in-recent-decades/#sthash.TLPKyIJ7.hyrzlJCC.dpbs
The NOAA page on ERSST V5 shows this comparison:
The outcome looks pretty similar.
Obviously there’s no need yet for them to adjust the adjustments again.
Baby steps Phillip…baby steps.
The longest journey begins with but a single step…
all adjustments have uncertainty.
take the transition from buckets to intakes.
Folks continue to try to refine this by doing field studies and reducing the errors and uncertainties.
From the raw SSt data to the adjusted data, Many biases that make the raw data too warm are removed.
You knew that right?
RAW SST is Artifically warm, and adjustments COOL the record
Mosh
Bucket adjustments are theoretical. The Met office didn’t characterise the whole process. So again we have a hypothetical data set which is interesting only in the field. Not for real world actions.
I presume perhaps optimistically, that there are records of validation tests of these adjustments? All it would take is a few independent validation vessels and vehicles randomly sampling with extreme accuracy certain positions on the globe then comparing them with the homogenized, adjusted, published values.
I know my presumption is incorrect, it is easier to put in place a global fudge factor so all observations of a certain type get a certain weight of thumb on the scale; but for once it would be nice to see science being done.
Ian, but what do you actually compare? The processed results isn’t any specific instance in time, it’s supposedly the value of it all time. So your measurements have to go through the same contaminating process to see if it actually fits the published value. other wise Apples and Oranges.
1944 is not the warmest WW2 year in the new dataset. This is an improvement because the 1944 blip is likely spurious. There was an el Nino in 1940 but not in 1944.
The whole WW2 peak is still suspicious though, and not reflected in met station data, not even those from coasts and islands only..
WW2 period has a lot of uncertainty. just a stubborn fact
Here, met station data masked to ocean only (from KNMI Climate explorer)
http://postmyimage.com/img2/348_image.png
No 1944 blip, no prominent peak around WW2
“… the 1944 blip is likely spurious. ”
Yes, I think I have worked out the process now. The answer is that the temperature curve must be the same smooth shape as the Keeling CO2 curve. All adjustments will, quite by chance, iterate to that smooth shape.
At which point “scientists will say”: There you are, the temperature curve exactly matches the CO2 curve so CO2 must be causing the temperature changes. We thought so.
graphic, it just follows water vapor as it’s blown over land to cool.
One notable difference is the post 1940 cooling.
In the land thermometer record, the blip has now been successfully removed (as per Climategate emails) such that 1940s through to 1970s is very nearly flat.
By contrast, the seawater data set of almost 0.4 degC
A cooling of 0.4 degC of sea water would equate to well over 0.5degC of cooling of land temperatures which cooling use to appear in the data sets say prior to the mid 1980s/1990, but no longer appears in the land based thermometer data sets following the endless adjustments made post 1990.
It is inevitable that this seawater data set will have to be amended since it shows that there is a problem with the land based thermometer record between 1940 and early 1970s.
Let us see how long it is before there is a revision bit by bit to remove the 1940s – 1970s cooling.
Just to clarify, the above comment is not looking at a comparison between V4 and V5 but rather a comparison of ERSST against the land based thermometer data set(s).
Obviously the Sea Data is errant and still in need of further adjusting
Nick
What is interesting in the plot you attach, is the 0.6 degC of warming between around 1900 to 1940. ALL of this WARMING took place beforeany significant rise in manmade CO2 emissions. It took place before the period when the IPCC claims that manmade CO2 emissions became a significant factor. So why is that, what is the explanation for this warming?
Also you will note (using just the mark 1 eyeball) that there is no change in the rate of warming between 1900 to 1940, and the rate of warming between1970 to 2010. I have not included the 2016 position since the present ENSO cycle has yet to complete and the chart might look somewhat different if we were to visit it in say 2020.
In summary we have about 0.6 deg warming in the 40 year period ~1900 to 1940, and a warming of about 0.6degC in the 40 year period between ~1970 to 2010. Both the amount of warming and the rate of warming is the same, and yet the warming in the earlier period was prior to significant manmade CO2 emissions, whereas the warming post 1970 is said to be driven by manmade CO2 emissions even though there was no amplification in amount of warming or the rate of warming.
THIS CHART DOES NOT FIT THE MANTRA OF AGW (let alone cAGW) AND WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED.
And then you have the problem with the difference / no difference between land and see in both periods. Or same sea warming / very different land warming.
To R Verney
The effect of a change in carbon dioxide concentration as an infrared absorber is more pronounced at lower concentration. i.e. a 20 ppm rise at 280 ppm total concentration as in your first time period is more effective heat trap than a 20 ppm rise at 400ppm total concentration in your second time period. This is due to the effects of saturation of the infrared absorption bands. There was an increase of some 20 ppm in the period 1900 to 1940, there was some 40 ppm increase between 1970 and 2010. Perhaps you are seeing a saturation effect or just a bit of scatter.
However stating that there was no significant rise in carbon dioxide from 1900 to 1940 is completely WRONG whatever your mantra.
plazaeme says, July 20, 2017 at 2:18 am;
Yes, this ridiculous land/sea relationship is of course NOT artificially ‘made’ AT ALL. It is clearly ALL due to the magic abilities of CO2.
Dave
Thanks your comment.
I accept that theoretically the effect of C02 (if indeed the Climate is Sensitive to CO2 at levels above say 250 ppm) is logarithmic. That said, I make 2 points.
First, we do not know with any degree of certainty what CO2 levels were prior to Mauna Loa data. We do know with any great certainty that there was indeed a 20 ppm rise in the early period, but I am not suggesting that there was no rise in CO2 during this p[eriod, merely that the CO2 data has wider error bounds during the earlier period.
Second, my comment about CO2 not being significant is based upon IPCC’s own comments. Even the IPCC do not consider that CO2 was a significant player until after WWII/around 1950. The IPCC accept that such Climate Change/Global Warming as there was prior to around 1945-1950 was (or was substantially) due to natural variation, and not driven by CO2.
plazaeme
You are right that the divergence post ~1980 between the 2 data sets makes the land based thermometer record incredulous.
No problem. Check out what Spencer and Christy did to Improve their record.
1. you get new data
2. you develop new methods
AND…
your Estimation! or prediction of what the temperature was at Unmeasured locations WILL change.
It will improve.
Just ask the skeptics Christy and Spencer, who added huge warming to their satellite record
Argo introduces less warming except for the 2015-16 El Niño.
Mosh
Again here we go. Spencer and Christy can adopt new methods because the positional uncertainty in orbits is around 100 m or less. Additionally they are using a qualified self calibrating instrument. So they have pretty reasonable signal to noise ratios and can apply an engineering level correction.
Surface and sea-surface datasets have a sub unity signal to noise ratio so are good for theory and possibilities but not for actualities.
Both fields are good exercises in thinking but only one can be applied to the real world.
Yeah, better than the old (and OBVIOUSLY flawed) one. But still not quite there. More back-adjusting after 2006 is needed:
Light green curve: NOAA (Reynolds) OIv2 gl SSTa (annual averages 1982-2016).
Josh,
Artificially warm with respect to what?
Someones idea of what should be correct?
Geoff
Mr Mosher
your Estimation! or prediction of what the temperature was at Unmeasured locations WILL change.
It will improve.It won’t necessarily improve. but it will change again and again which is the Chaos Factor. The changing values for the unmeasured sectors isn’t necessarily an improvement just a guestimate
The idea that we know what the ocean temperatures to within a tenth of a degree back to 1860 is utterly absurd.
Anyone making such a claim is either delusional or a liar.
Heck, even today we don’t know the temperature of the oceans to that degree of accuracy.
You are right, it is farcical.
I have spent approx 30 years studying ship’s data, and I know well how it is riddled with errors. There is no quality data on ocean temps prior to ARGO. Prior to ARGO there must be huge error bounds.
Even ARGO must be viewed with a great deal of skepticism since shortly after it was rolled out, a number of buoys showed the oceans to be cooling, and rather than returning a random sample of these (as well as a random sample of the buoys showing most warming) to the laboratory for testing for instrument error/calibration problems etc, NASA simply removed the buoys that showed the most cooling from the data set.
That is a clear example of a priori bias.
Mark – That was the units they recorded the temperature at. Still wonder if 1873 was a ElNino or LaNina year for the 3 stations they measured in that area? Must just do a little backdating the data set for 1860.
The Challenger set sail on 21 December 1872 from Portsmouth, England, with a complement of 243 officers, scientists, and crew. The voyage would last four years and circumvent the globe, as well as collect data at 362 different locations. The route went south from England, around the Cape of Good Hope, through the Indian Ocean past Australia and into the Pacific, around Cape Horn and back to England.
You saying 143 (Station 161 to 303) readings over a 12 month time frame cannot get a baseline temperature for the Pacific or 21 (Station 141 to 160) for the Southern Ocean, “You Just Don’t Know ‘Climate Scientists’.
Report with many of the station data is here – https://books.google.com/books?id=eDo6AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=1860+hms+challenger&source=bl&ots=uexedX9WRL&sig=ROg9hG2Y1zicnKAN2xZJ88olfbs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLrYDFnpjVAhWk7oMKHZgjAOQQ6AEIdjAN#v=onepage&q=1860%20hms%20challenger&f=false
It may be the units they were measured in. But with the woefully insufficient sampling density, it tells us little to nothing about what the temperature for the entire ocean was.
Mr. Mosher, the prediction of temperature at unmeasured locations cannot improve. You have no way of knowing what the temperature is at unmeasured locations. My theory, based on quantum physics, is that the temperature at unmeasured locations is a probability wave, which collapses into a specific value only when you actually measure it.
“…1. you get new data
2. you develop new methods…”
New data from WWII? From the early 20th century? Unless time-travel and direct measurement is the new method, I don’t think it’s particularly viable.
To compare such things to UAH adjustments is downright stupid.
According to new data from WWII we lost the war. Please start speaking German immediately! And forget the “please”!!!
Jawohl mein Herr. Vir sprechen nur Deutsch sofort, und wir machen alle unsere Wetter sehr heis auch. Vorwarts. ( Bitte entschuldigung sie mir fur kein umlauten.)
ich bin aus schottland und ich spreche nicht deutsch
Do we know how the past has changed in this “improvement”?
Yes…they made it “better”.
yay, the good old days 🙂
The new data shows that we must stop have children and start eating bugs, otherwise we are going to commit suicide by climate change.
The Greens would rather we protect the bugs and eat children.
Like the layers in an archeological dig – the past has to always be lower
The past is always changing….. it’s the future that’s fixed.
According with Quantum Mechanical philosophy. /sarc needed?
Why is it that the word “processing” in the phrase “the floats transmit the data via satellites to scientists for processing and analysis.” makes me worry that we may never know what the actual recorded temperatures are ?
After 60 years of so called Catastrophic Warming, there are more people living in the hottest part of the planet than ever before. Food production and standards of living are at an all time high and death and destruction from adverse weather conditions are at an all time low.
Now! What do you need to know about the temperature?
Nothing.
We are fortunate to be living in the benign conditions of an inter-glacial.
Our only concern, and this is something we can do nothing about, is when will this inter-glacial end, as it surely will.
At that time we will experience real and significant climate change, and as it cools, it will not be for the better.
The entire concern behind cAGW is fundamentally misconceived even at the most basic level.
“The monthly global 2°×2° Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) has been revised and updated from version 4 to version 5. This update incorporates a new release of ICOADS R3.0, a decade of near-surface data from Argo floats, and a new estimate of centennial sea-ice from HadISST2. A number of choices in aspects of quality control, bias adjustment and interpolation have been substantively revised. The resulting ERSST estimates have more realistic spatio-temporal variations, better representation of high latitude SSTs, and ship SST biases are now calculated relative to more accurate buoy measurements, while the global long-term trend remains about the same.”
Oh .. they adjusted ship to Buoy. and the answer didnt change.
like we told you
Skeptics: Adjustments Always warm!!
Nice theory
but
“The reconstructed SST is systematically decreased by 0.077°C, as the reference data source is switched from ship SST in v4 to modern buoy SST in v5. Furthermore, high latitude SSTs are decreased by 0.1°–0.2°C by using sea-ice concentration from HadISST2 over HadISST1. “
only your adjustments warm
Did you respond to Goddard’s challenge yet?
Pure sophistry. You know full well the point about adjustments, yet you pretend that you can answer that with two arguments about two totally different things.
Adjusting satellite data using methods that are transparent and objective, and cooling some data because of known and transparent reasons are NOT THE SAME as adjusting data based on opaque methodologies using lower quality data.
Frankly, it is this dishonesty in argument that makes me a sceptic.If you cannot defend what you do with rael arguments, can you actually defend it?
After these cool ocean adjustments, should Tom Karl withdraw his Karlization paper, as it seems to conflict with his hypothesis?
Geoff
The problem is that Huang was nearing completion of V5 when his name was on the Karl paper, which had a warmer V4 (than V5) in recent years. He had to have informed Karl of this. Using V5 would have probably knocked the Karl data from a 21st century warming that was claimed to be significant at p = .10 to even worse than that. They all knew this and published the V4 version anyway because Paris and the pause were somewhat incompatible.
When the history of all of this finally comes to light, it will be one of the darkest periods ever for science…all caused by massive monopoly federal funding for climate data studies. I have stopped using the term “climate science” as it no longer is that.
Well, rather it looks like each and every set bring less natural variation and better correlation with an assumed CO2 effect. This does not mean that this should not be the case; maybe much of what appeared as “natural variation” was caused by measurement biases.
However, it is suspicious when people at a high position on the steps of climatic history declare they want to reduce a blip, and the blip is reduced retroactively. Was good effort done to search for biases which make the natural variation larger? Is the claimed small natural variation even feasible?
Mosh & his “Skeptics: Adjustments Always warm!!”.
No, the Adjustments often ‘Cool’ the Past, like this case of the Ship Temps being the older records. Skeptics: Adjustments Always Increase the Slope to AGW Hell
DD.
“Skeptics: Adjustments Always Increase the Slope to AGW Hell”
Nice Theory.
Lets test it.
1. SST? In SST the adjustments Warm the past, thus DESCREASING the AGW slope.
2. Global. In Global the adjustments WARM THE Past, thus decreasing the AGW slope.
3. Land. On the Land.. Overall the past is cooled, thus increasing the AGW slope.
A) In the US the slope is increased
B) In Africa, the slope is descreased
Skeptical theory? Busted.
But WAIT there’s more.
In version 4 of ERSST the slope during the pause was increased!!! See there sure evidence of fraud
In version 5, the slope is Decreased, Wait? WHAT?
Skeptical conclusion: whether it increases or decreases doesnt matter to us, because its all fraud
and all evidence MUST BE interpreted as such.
So if we went to ALL RAW DATA for the global and the rate of warming INCREASED ( it does)
Then that’s fraud? wait. We adjust the the data because the biases show too much warming..
And THAT is somehow evidence of fraud?
Skeptic logic and theory. Both increasing and decreasing the trend are evidence of fraud. Both using raw data and adjusted data are evidence of fraud.
Nice religion
““The reconstructed SST is systematically decreased by 0.077°C, as the reference data source is switched from ship SST in v4 to modern buoy SST in v5”
Ah, so the data from ships’ engine room intake measurements is capable of differentiation to three places of decimals in Mosherworld, is it?
For the benefit of those who are unacquainted with the subject, here is a description of the equipment used to take those measurements.
Ship’s engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the engineers at their convenience.
There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments or the time of day the reading is taken.
The instruments themselves are of industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. for a class 2 instrument or sometimes even ±4 deg. C, as can be seen in the tables here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation it is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration.
It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce historic trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided.
But hey, this is climate “science” we’re discussing so why would a little thing like that matter?
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0809/full/453601a.html
0.077°C Mosher?
You assert that the data from the ARGO buoys – which are apparently capable of measurements to tenths of a degree or better – can somehow be compared, concatenated, conglobulated or otherwise intermingled with the engine intake data which is accurate to ±2 deg C or even ±4 deg. C, do you?
You get dafter by the post.
You dont get it. Its been explained a hundred times.
“You dont get it. Its been explained a hundred times.”
Oh, I do get it, I’m an engineer with a lifetime’s experience in the application of hard science to real world problems, structures and projects, whereas you’re an English major and a wannabe “climate scientist” who wouldn’t recognise an error bar if you were whacked over the head with it,
You believe you can somehow use your AlGoreithims to Mannipulate datasets that are accurate to ±2 – or even ±4 deg C, mix them up with datasets that are accurate to ±0.01 deg C and assert the resulting mish-mash has any value whatsoever?
Yeah, right.
You can explain it a hundred times, a thousand times, a million times, it’s still arrant nonsense – and you know it.
You’ll be extolling the virtues of Hokey Schticks next.
Get a life, Mosher.
Has anyone taken a serious look at the correlation or otherwise between sea surface and “surface” air temperatures?
In a previous life I was an RAF Buccaneer navigator based in the north of Scotland. Since we were likely to end up in the sea if we were forced to eject, at sea surface temperatures below 10 degC we were required to wear immersion suits, which were uncomfortable and bulky in the cockpit. Every spring we would encounter an (occasional) warm spell (air temps15 degC plus) in which we were sweating while strapping in because the sea temperatures were still below 10 degC, while in the autumn we often took our life in our hands in cold spells, staying in more comfortable flying suits because the sea temperatures remained relatively high. However the real point was that despite major fluctuations in air temperature, sea temperatures changed far more slowly. I realize that everyone knows this; I was wondering how this inconvenient truth is handled when assuming that changes in sea temperatures can be used as a proxy for changes in “surface” air temperatures.
But climate scientists can sit in an office and change the temperature of the oceans at the tap of a button! Maybe the new system should be to eject them from an airplane with a thermometer up the wazoo!
yes. all the time
And Karl went way out beyond the extreme right hand end of the probability curve of the night marine air temperatures (NMAT) correlations to adjust his SSTs, something I have not seen him explaining. Another of his problems was that NMAT didn’t correlate as predicted going forward. And, anyway, Mr. Mosher’s beloved climate models say there should be no positive relationship between SAT and NMAT.
Continued use of dodgy science to prop up a failing dogma will just make the eventual fall that much greater. The world is not warming as predicted by IPCC climate models. Hell, none of the climate metrics are unfolding as predicted.
I can hardly wait to see how the CMIP6 models try to paper over IPCC AR5’s acknowledgements of CMIP5 failures. Jump over to https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html and get a feel for all the assumptions that go into failure.
So [snip] what?
Have we humans now become so depressed, paranoid and easily frightened that we are scared [snip] by The Ocean – and hence need to control it. Who do we think we are?
Its all bollox-
What is ‘global climate monitoring and assessment’ if not day-dreaming as you watch clouds float by from the office (Ivory Tower) window?
What is the point of that if there isn’t a definitive quantification of ‘Climate’
El Nino happens. Tough or Not-Tough as your mileage varies. Grow a pair and live with it
Can’t please all the people all the time.
‘Oceanic and environmental research’
yeah right, self pleasurement in front of a (super) computer that I paid for. Isn’t that nice, someone else pays for your [snip].
‘Industries such as agriculture’
Give Me A Break.
When was the last time A Farmer, any farmer anywhere, consulted the Ocean Temperature Dataset before he/she went out and cut a field of frigging hay?
Hello NOAA – there’s a Real World out here, why not try an (re)join it?
Won’t happen, can’t get their bloated heads/willies/ego/self-importances through the door. ha ha
‘Water resources’
Well, that really did Work A Treat t Oroville and those white elephant desalination plants in Australia.
Just for starters.
How does it help the organisers, right now or a year ago when planning started, of the Secret Garden Party festy I’m currently on my way to – over an inch of rain inside 48 hours at the very height of UK summer. It Is Not Going To Happen.
(Yes, its another JOANI and sadly my personal Government Minister Climate Science Expert couldn’t make it. Probably (see that weasel word) involved in the ongoing traffic wreck on the A1 in Lincolnshire and caused in no small part by [snip] weather. C’mon then NOAA or even UK Wet Office – could you not even take care of one of your own?
Great fun innit.
[Unnecessary “color” deleted. If you have to change a word to avoid the filter, just don’t use it. -mod]
A render of that data with an Antarctic centred view, time lapsed, would be interesting to watch: the -0.5 and -1 degree ‘blobs’ from Antarctica, creeping upward into all the oceans.
It must be having an effect. This has probably been one of the coldest winter’s for oz in recent years…
I guess when a large portion of your data is fake you don’t need error bars
The error bars are there – they are just outside the boundaries of the printed graphs.
😀
Folks, I’m a skeptic. Heck, I’m an outright denier. I don’t think that we have a global warming problem (although I’m sure there’s a bit of warming here and there, cooling too, all the time). As far as worrying about things like “data processing” it’s more than a bit over the top. Many instruments provide direct data in terms of voltage changes or a similar format, and at that level it just isn’t reported. It is true that the algorithms that convert the baseline observation to a graph for human analysis are vetted and follow acceptable rules. We could ask about the quality control on those algorithms for specialty purposes that serve a smaller community. I’m pretty certain that the global warmers have greatly overplayed their hand, and have not been completely honest with data analysis and have probably fudged it a bit, but some of the comments here would just have us throw out all data and all analysis for every field. Many folks aren’t very good at reading a plot of changes in electrical current or voltage. Fortunately the instruments on the market convert the raw signal to something that means something to us. The raw signal is never seen by the scientist unless there is some reason to go digging there. This is true for FTIR, SEM, XRD, you name it. Everything you see with your own eyes is also heavily processed. We see wavelengths and experience “red”. Some people get the same experience for “red” and “green”, but these are clearly different wavelengths in the raw data. I read this site often. I’m more of a denier than pretty much anybody. I used to read Schmidt’s blog way back when. Many of the comments I see here are just as tribal as the comments I saw there. There are problems in science. There always will be. It isn’t perfect, but let’s not tear down the whole enterprise. It has been very useful. Oh well. I posted a rant.
Good rant, Steve. It is always fruitless to wander, as in Mr. Mosher’s Weed Patch. Keep one’s eye on the ball: It has warmed a little bit since the Little Ice Age (ups and downs with no overall correlation to CO2 concentrations) and temperatures and other climate metrics have not responded as predicted by models.
No disinterested observer cares about arguments of minutia; keep hammering on facts/observations/models until the whole CAGW edifice collapses on the weight of its own dogma.
I am waiting with bated breath to see what the CMIP6 modelturbation shows.
Its called “insulating the numbers”, this way you have plenty of head room for a temp. & salary raise in 2017/18
” Among the 3579 active profiling ARGO floats, PROVOR and ARVOR represent about 13% of the global network. note the leadership of the US, which own more than the half of the active network (2020 active ARGO floats). The US go largely far beyond Australia (350 active ARGO floats) and the 29 other countries.”
Argo is not uniform.
“sensors are rated to 7000 m. The specifications of the sensors are as follows: temperature accuracy is 0.002°C with a stability of 0.0002°C yr−1, conductivity accuracy is 0.002 S m−1 with a stability of 0.001 S m−1 yr−1 (or equivalent salinity), and pressure accuracy is ±0.1% of full scale range or 7 dbar with a stability of 0.05% of full scale range ”
New Argo floats are super human.
Or not.
” an initial issue identified with the floats was a battery life of less than 2 years, which was much less than the target of 4-5 years (~150 cycles) (Gould et al., 2004). The problem was addressed, and in 2008 68% of floats deployed in 2004 by the United States were still active (Roemmich et al., 2009). In addition to improvements in design, the number of cycles a float was able to achieve was prolonged by positioning to the Iridium satellite network as oppose to the Jason satellite network (Roemmich et al., 2009) . This switch reduced surface time form 10 hours to just minutes.
the Argo array floats have encountered problems. Floats in low latitudes were limited to profiling the upper 1000m of the subsurface because they were not able to overcome the stratification of the water column. An improvement to the design to reach depths of 2000m (Roemmich et al., 2009). A challenge in high latitudes is the floats becoming trapped underneath ice. A solution to this problem has been to design program that will allow data to be stored until satellite transmission can be achieved (Roemmich et al., 2009).”
In other words the different floats measure using different instruments and report data at different times (TOBS anyone) yet are so super accurate that one can rely on them to 0.0001 of a degree?
First, they are a great start.
But have you calculated how big an area each float is responsible for? Plus it’s not 2m air temp like the land data is, where people live. I get it’s closely related to the water temp, but…..
angech (Comment #157077) at the blackboard
–
Changing the Past? July 7, 2014 by Zeke Hausfather
–
“observers of NCDC’s temperature record have noted that many of the values change by small amounts on a daily basis. This includes not only recent temperatures but those in the distant past, and has created some confusion about why, exactly, the recorded temperatures in 1917 should change day-to-day. The explanation is relatively straightforward. NCDC assumes that the current set of instruments recording temperature is accurate, so any time of observation changes or PHA -adjustments are done relative to current temperatures.
Because breakpoints are detected through pair-wise comparisons, new data coming in may slightly change the magnitude of recent adjustments by providing a more comprehensive difference series between neighboring stations.
When breakpoints are removed, the entire record prior to the breakpoint is adjusted up or down depending on the size and direction of the breakpoint.This means that slight modifications of recent breakpoints will impact all past temperatures at the station in question though a constant offset. The alternative to this would be to assume that the original data is accurate,and adjusted any new data relative to the old data (e.g. adjust everything in front of breakpoints rather than behind them).
From the perspective of calculating trends over time, these two approaches are identical, and its not clear that there is necessarily a preferred option”
–
My favourite quote of all time.
–
Proves Steve Goddard correct re USA temps.
Makes Mosher’s deceptive tactics crystal clear.
“Steven Mosher July 20, 2017
all adjustments have uncertainty.From the raw SSt data to the adjusted data, Many biases that make the raw data too warm are removed. RAW SST is Artifically warm, and adjustments COOL the record”
“Just ask the skeptics Christy and Spencer, who added huge warming to their satellite record”
Instead of the official cooling.
“I used to read Schmidt’s blog way back when.”
Which Schmidt? Gavin, at Real Climate? Hardly a skeptic blog. You must mean Harrison Schmitt (no d), the geologist, moonwalker, later Senator, and strong skeptic, but I didn’t know he had a blog.
Read more closely. I think he was talking about Gavin. A true believer’s blog.
You’re correct. I was referring to Gavin. I disagree with quite a bit of the global warmers viewpoint, but I appreciate efforts to gather additional data. I guess I reacted a bit too strongly to some of the earliest posts that seemed to almost discount data collection out of hand. That is probably not what the authors intended to convey. I was a skeptic years back and went searching on the internet for the viewpoints of folks who worked in the field. I found Schmidt’s blog, and the folks who wrote it can be verified to be climate scientists who were respected in the field. I read it for a year or so, and moved from being a skeptic to being what many would call an outright denier. I tried to focus on the arguments presented by the scientists who ran the blog and was unimpressed. Gavin seemed like a decent enough fellow, but I disagreed with his conclusions. If memory serves there was a younger fellow from Europe who was pretty far out there. I didn’t see much of value in his arguments at all. Anyway, thanks to all for humoring me and I’ll just fade back to where I came from. I don’t intend to demean those who regularly contribute to this blog. It is overall a positive thing. I appreciate that it is here. It often raises good issues and I will keep reading it.
CTM,
Typo: “Of the major updates, the inclusion of data from Argo floats is particularly noteworthyOf the major updates, the inclusion of data from Argo floats is particularly noteworthy…”
Reply: Fixed, if late. Kudos to you for knowing how to get my attention.~ctm
Didn’t V4 use Argo as well? Wasn’t the whole issue that they adjusted the floats to match the ship intakes?
Nope.
Well
Time for a bet.
All good skeptics buy the theory that adjustments ALWAYS WARM the record.
Forget the data that shows this theory is busted.
What do you think? Version 4 had a trend from 2000-2015..
Version 5 Changes this trend.
Does the new version ‘bust the pause’?
does the new version INCREASE the trend during the pause?
or DECREASE the trend during the pause?
Make your bets.. what does your skeptical theory ( this temperature stuff is all a fraud ) what does
that theory predict?
go ahead.
too funny
Finding a lot of Straw Men in your Weed Patch, Mr. Mosher?
1976 black microdot, was it?