August Seas Warmest in at Least 120 Years

sweet. More good news. Well, perhaps people will start to really take notice, or perhaps they'll be a bit like the Once-ler. I'm hoping for the former, not the later.

 

Sure - NOAA removes satellite and exclude ARGO data from the estimate and shazam, and extra ~0.2 C ocean warming! Not to mention of course we are in an El Nino.

Beyond that, we are not seeing the sea level rise one would expect as a result of "thermal expansion" if ocean heat content were indeed increasing.

In fact, we see the opposite - a marked decrease in sea level rise in recent years.

Hardly consistent with an accelerating increase in ocean heat content, don't you think?

 

Does this mean the Farmer's Almanac is incorrect as to the 2010 winter being severely cold? I thought warm oceanic temps influence the winter weather making it somewhat milder.

 

As an addendum to Tim's post, this comment from icecap.us:

What can I say. Between the station dropout (80% of the world’s stations, mostly rural), removal in US or absence globally of any UHI adjustment, bad siting for 90% of the climate stations and the recent removal of satellite input into the ocean temperature assessments, NOAA has ensured that each and every month and season will rank and ‘validate’ their piece of excrement called CCSP and support the governments argument for Cap-and-Tax, carbon regulations and global actions at Copenhagen. This is not an indictment of the hard-working and honest rank-and-file NOAA employees at the local offices and even behind the scenes at NCDC. It is the fault of higher ups and managers whose jobs and reputations rely on perpetrating the global warming hoax long enough so the governments can have their way to control virtually every aspect of our lives and keep the funding at the highest possible level for those who have abused the science to their benefit. See also here, here and here.

There are over 3000 argo bouys measuring ocean temperatures. They measure ACTUAL, OBSERVED temperature. They do NOT show rising temperatures. Here are their locations. They have been in operation since 2003.



New Claims to Refute
All the public education the climate realists have accomplished regarding air temperatures will have to start all over regarding ocean temperatures. Here are some key points to be made:
* Ocean temperatures can be measured adequately only by the Argo buoy network. Argo buoys dive down to 700m, recording temperatures, then come up and radio back the results. There are 3,000 of them floating around all the world’s oceans.
* The Argo buoys have been operational only since the end of 2003. Before that, ocean temperatures were gathered by various methods—usually collected by ships in popular commercial shipping lanes—that lacked uniformity, sufficient geographical coverage, and the ability to measure temperature much beneath the surface. The Argo buoy system has added uniformity and greater reliability to ocean temperature measurements.
* According to Argo temperature measurements, the world’s oceans have shown a slight cooling since Argo became operational in 2003.
* The Argo data contradict claims humans are causing rapid global warming, because ocean temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by global warming alarmists.

 

As usual, I like to take the stuff that TimBikes posts with a large grain of salt, particularly the assertions without attribution as to source.

So, first, I asked what RealClimate had to say about the Argo data. Interested readers should at least look at the problems with the Argo floats, as well as the problems with other data series. The Argo data initially showed cooling because they had faulty depth switches, and were sampling water deeper than intended.

RealClimate: Ocean Cooling. Not.

It might be interesting to read what the guy who actually first put the Argo data together has to say about the early experience with it. Pretty much the same story, with the added poignancy of having to retract his original paper on ocean cooling.



Correcting Ocean Cooling : Feature Articles

I'm sure the nutcases will interpret that as a big ol' conspiracy, but I prefer to think that the balanced description of biases (warm and cold) in the instrument record here, as summarized on realclimate, is probably a more realistic description. The story I've been hearing, for quite some time, is that measuring global sea surface temps is hard, and measuring global total ocean heat content is much harder (which is why that's not the measure of global warming that is used as the benchmark, even though everyone acknowledges that it would be preferable to using global surface temperatures.)

Now, the sea level rise issue is interesting, because, of course, sea level reflects, among other things, the average temperature of the entire ocean. Whereas what's being discussed in the current temperature citation is sea surface temperatures. So I went to visit the U Colorado site where that sea level graph is posted, to see whether they suggest that the satellite-based sea level data contradict the ocean surface temperature data.

I sure couldn't find any evidence that those folks who actually made that graph thought that it in any way contradicted the NOAA analysis. So, once again, the people who actually put the data together do not appear to have quite the same spin on it as TimBikes does. If someone can show me U Colorado's graph, along with a citation to U Colorado saying that this contradicts the NOAA ocean temperature data, then I'll take notice. Otherwise, the only rational interpretation I can make is that what I am looking at is TimBikes' misinterpretation of the data, not anything like evidence contradicting the NOAA announcement.

Now, as to "ignoring" satellite data, satellites don't measure sea water temperatures. Or at least, that's my understanding. I could be mistaken on that, so if somebody has a link to a credible site saying that satellites measure the temperature of ocean surface and near subsurface water, please show it. So, I think the point is that "ignoring" the satellite data meant that NOAA did not make much of the short-term divergence between sea surface temperature measurements and the satellite-based sea level measurements. Looks like the folks who gather the data don't think so, looks like NOAA doesn't think so.

Well, should they have taken note of this?

No, of course not. Let me put aside the basic statistical issues (all of these series have low signal-to-noise ratio, trends taken over relatively short time periods have large associated standard errors). Let me put aside the fact that sea level reflects far more than just ocean surface temperatures.

Fundamentally, TimBikes is confusing the level of temperature with the trend in sea level. I think all NOAA said is that the level of August sea surface temps was high. I don't think they said anything about the recent trend. If NOAA had said that the trend in sea surface temps is accelerating, while the trend in sea level is decelerating, then at least one would be comparing apples to apples. (Possibly incorrectly, but at least I grasp what the point is supposed to be.) But as far as I can tell (and I didn't bother to look very hard, given the quality of what TimBikes usually posts), NOAA isn't saying that. NOAA is saying that the temperature level reached a new high. I'm not going to take the time to sort through the data, but it looks to me like the sea level is continuing to rise. Perhaps the reason U Colorado didn't point out the contradiction between their data on sea level and NOAA's announcement on sea surface temperature level is that they aren't at all contradictory.

NOW, for my reading of the tea leaves on this. Both NASA GISS and the British Meteorlogical Office are on record with some fairly strong predictions of global surface temperature rises in the near future. NASA's 2008 annual summary said they expect a new record by 2010; the Met. Office was not quite as precise but said that they expected a resumption of trend, and that 15 years (ie, a further five years from now) without significant temperature increase would count as a statistically significant (95% confidence interval) anomaly.

So, while short-term temperature movements embody a lot of noise, for some reason, two of the premier organizations in this area have been willing to go somewhat out on a limb with regard to short-term predictions. That's odd.

To me, that's sort of like watching what Warren Buffet's buying. When you see the smartest guy in the room willing to take what looks to you like a foolish bet, the only intelligent thing to do is to figure out what you don't understand that he does.

I wonder if they've been tracking these (noisy and substantially unreliable) ocean surface temps data, checking the El Nino forecast, and proceeding with what looks on the surface to be a foolhardy prediction on the basis of that. If the oceans are much warmer than normal but the air temperatures are not (that is, ocean temp record but not yet global surface temp record), that suggests the oceans are going to release a lot of heat into the air over the next couple of years.

Anyway, I just find it interesting that the two premier climate organizations are both, to some degree, out on a limb with regard to a short-term forecast of global surface temperature. At the same time , the earth's ocean surface clearly embodies a lot of stored heat that (I think) is in disequilibrium with the surrounding air. It reminds me of Buffet's call to buy stocks at the last market bottom, that's all.

 

this new info will be ignored just like all the others concerning GCC simply because it puts a damper on ones day. simply too much thinking required since the obvious steps are not acceptable

 

You are confusing a lot of things, the primary issue being that sea surface temperature (SST) is not the same as ocean heat content and SST is a very poor metric by which to assess climate change (whereas ocean heat content is the right metric).

You are also confusing "weather" with "climate" since, even IF SST was the proper metric to assess climate change (it isn't) a monthly deviation is not meaningful. There was a similar upward spike in 1998 - which was - surprise, surprise - also an El Nino year.

As for the U of Colorado, I don't know that they have commented at all on the recent sea surface temps - probably because unlike you (and the New York Times), they recognize it is not a meaningful metric for the purpose of assessing climate change.

 

Umm - who should take whom with a "grain of salt"?

It is called OI.v2:

"The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SSTs plus SSTs simulated by sea ice cover."

This dataset, BTW, while showing a spike in August sea surface temps, does not confirm the "warmest in at least 120 years" assertion. So my point stands. The data the NYTs trumpets are incomplete and would not support their assertion that a 120 year SST record has been seen.

But again, all of this is really not relevant since it is not talking OCEAN HEAT CONTENT anyway and is nothing more than a short term temperature deviation - not a trend indicator - as is obvious from the chart below, where no real SST trend is discernible since the 1998 El Nino.

If this "spike" stays at this level for an extended period of time, proving to be something more than "weather" and the ARGO and satellite data confirm this, I will concede the point. But when (more likely) it drops back down again in a few months or so, will you concede mine? Somehow I doubt it.

 

Your original point was based on a comparison between the trend in sea level versus the one-point-in-time sea surface temperature measurement. You did that by citing data from U Colorado. I pointed out that U Colorado, as near as I can tell, does not appear to find their data contradictory to the most recent NOAA finding. And , at the minimum, that's because comparing the one-point-in-time temperature to the change in trend is just nonsensical.

If you now want to make a new arguments, based on yet another randomly chosen set of out-of-context references, my response is basically, tough luck. You've already posted a clearly illogical juxtaposition of trend versus point-in-time. You've already cited sources to back you up who clearly, themselves, see no particular contradiction between their findings and NOAA's findings.

In short, if you've already been demonstrably wrong, why should I even consider letting you change the topic? Like, you might by chance hit some better argument the next time around? Flail around enough, you might hit something good?


Either you have some logical argument or you don't. Either you have the capability to understand science or you don't. Basically, you've blown your credibility by making an obviously false argument, then trying to move on, rather than admit that it was clearly incorrect.

So, back on topic. Does U Colorado, the source you cited, find any problem with the recent NOAA research, yes or no? If no, then, you're intellectually dishonest to post their data as if they backed up your point. As I said, you mis-interpret their data. Second, does it make sense to compare sea surface temperature to trend in sea level. No? Then you're made an error to have done that.

That's pretty much the end of the story. You want to go off on yet more tangents, matzol tov. If you are going to make arguments, then ignore them when shown to be wrong, why should I pay any attention to your arguments in the first place?

So, back on point. You want to respond, then clearly detail why it is correct to compare sea level trend to sea surface temperature. Just stop there. You did that. I said that's wrong from first principles. No need to go further. Clearly tell us why it is correct to do that. If not, then you've posted something that's clearly wrong. if you can't say that, then it's hopeless to try to engage you in debate.

To boil it down: You compared sea level trend to sea surface temperature level. Passionately. You asserted that this was critical evidence disproving NOAA's data. Now you want to move on to yet another set of passionately argued points. Nope. To get me to pay even the least bit of attention to your next passionately held belief, first, clear up the evident inconsistencies in your last passionately held belief. The one that you appear to abandon in your last set of posts by failing to defend it.

 

Lots and lots of words, very little substance Chogan.

Sea level is one among numerous of the arguments I have advanced - as you well know yet choose to ignore. My other points included:
- that NOAA excluded satellite data in their analysis
- that NOAA excluded ARGO data in their analysis
- that we are in an El Nino which as we saw in 1998 brought a SST excursion from normal and which likely is doing the same now
- that the claimed increase in SST is "weather" not "climate"
- and that SST are an inappropriate measure to demonstrate climate change

And since you are fixated on what the U of Colorado has to say, I would advise you that one of their premier climate scientists, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. certainly would disagree with your position and the claimed significance of sea surface temps in the NYTs article, since he argues firmly against use of surface temperature measures as a climate change metric:

"Global warming (or global cooling) can be more accurately quantified in terms of the accumulation (or loss) of heat in the Earth system as measured in joules…Because surface temperature is a massless two-dimensional global field while heat content involves mass, the use of surface temperature as a monitor of climate change is not accurate for evaluating heat storage changes."


So if you want to argue further the validity of temporary blip in Sea Surface Temperatures as proof of "global warming", why don't you take it up with Dr. Roger Pielke at U of Colorado? I have emailed him on questions in the past and he is quite amenable to discussion.

 

PS - I'll save you the trouble - I'll email Pielke now and see if he will respond about the significance of this "record" warm sst.

 

is SST had no effect on weather, it would be a non-issue. i am way outside the technical boundaries of this discussion but i am an occupant on the planet and i am concerned about the weather along with GCC. both do affect me in completely different ways and i am not convinced that one does not affect the other, but i am convinced that we are affecting both thru our living habits.

also, i am not sure i would so easily dismiss any data on a subject we really know so little about. the graph posted shows an obvious rise over that past 28 years.

 

I agree - the ocean has a dramatic impact on weather and climate (a point by the way, which most climate models poorly account for).

In the meantime, here is Pielke's response to my email. You will note that his response is much like my prior response to Chogan -- that is, if the anomaly persists, the "spike" in SST would be meaningful from a climate perspective. If it does not, then it is likely not meaningful relative to GHG warming. Here is what Pielke said in a link provided in his email response:

"In the last couple of weeks, the onset of the El Niño, that was discussed on in my weblog on July 11 2009 would appear to be a possible explanation for the sudden increase in lower tropospheric temperatures to a record level (e.g. see the latest tropospheric temperature data at Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellite). ...

This record event is an effective test of two hypotheses.
Hypothesis #1: Roy Spencer’s hypothesis on the role of circulation patterns in global warming (e.g. see) might explain most or all of the current anomaly since it clearly is spatially very variable, and its onset was so sudden. If the lower atmosphere cools again to its long term average or lower, this would support Roy’s viewpoint.
Hypothesis #2: Alternatively, if the large anomaly persists, it will support the claims by the IPCC and others (e.g. see Cool Spells Normal in Warming World) that well-mixed greenhouse gas warming is the dominate climate forcing in the coming decades and is again causing global warming after the interruption of the last few years.

Only time will tell which is correct, however, we now have short term information to test the two hypotheses. The results of this real world test will certainly influence my viewpoint on climate science."


===============================



Pielke also indicated he intends to address the SST issue more directly in the near future and agrees there are "problems" with the NY Times story:


===============================


"I agree there are a number of problems with their [the NY Time's] report. I want to weblog on this topic but am waiting (probably for a few weeks) until I can obtain the latest update on the quality controlled Argo data up through August.

I look forward to the Argo and satellite ocean heat data as a benchmark to compare with the NOAA claims."

 

Again, you are off on wild tangents.

In your original post, you argued that NOAA was wrong about the simple fact of ocean surface temperatures having reached a certain level.

This isn't about the significance of the single-point-in-time ocean surface temperature measurement. This is not about the interpretation of that measurement. This is about the fact of the measurement. You said NOAA was wrong, that sea surface temps are not as NOAA stated.

You cited trends in U Colorado sea level data in your argument. You said that because the measured trend in sea level had fallen, NOAA must be wrong about the level in sea surface temperature.

So, again, show me where the U Colorado says that their sea level tends data contradicts the NOAA sea surface temperature level data.

If you can't, and it's clear that you can't, then you misused their data. Simple as that.

Given that, why should I bother to pay attention to what else you have to say?

So, my response to this latest tangent is, please answer the question that is tied directly to your original post: Does anyone at U Colorado believe that their sea level trends data clear contradicts NOAAs sea surface temperature data? That NOAA's latest measurement must be wrong, because of U Colorado's sea surface trends data? If not, then, hey, you've misused and misinterpreted their data. Simple as that.

 

Chogan - calm down and get a grip.

The issue here is "Are current sea surface temps as reported in the NYT article meaningful"?

We'll see what Dr. Pielke says when he blogs on it - but he seems skeptical of the significance and accuracy of NOAA data presented in the NYT article, as do I.

 

The people of the Maldives sure think so

 

Well, they might be worried IF the sea level was indeed rising there:

 

I shouldn't worry too much about a censored TV documentary. You can see the available Maldives information analyzed in

Mo¨ rner, N.-A., 2004. Estimating future sea level changes from past
records. Global and Planetary Change 40, 49–54.

Mo¨ rner, N.-A., Tooley, M., Possnert, G., 2004. New perspectives
for the future of the Maldives. Global and Planetary Change 40,​

177– 182.

and

Woodworth, 2005 P.L. Woodworth, Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive islands?, Glob. Planet. Change 49 (2005), pp. 1–18.

They came to quite different conclusions. Read them and come to your own? If the literature does pop up on your computer I will assist people who PM me for the pdf files.

The islands were damaged quite a bit by tsunami in 2004. On some islands salt-water intrusion is interfering with agriculture. Global climate change or no, they would not be my first choice of residence.

Globally synthesized sea level data are here and nearby pages:

Author Archive - Church and White

I am not very concerned about data availability and documentation in these fields.