Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 10:43 PM GMT on April 28, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

I recently read a paper in Physics Today entitled The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice by R. Kwok and N. Untersteiner. (Nice essay by Untersteiner) This paper was written for a general scientist audience, and provides a good summary of the state of the science. The primary focus of the article is on understanding the small change to the surface energy balance required to explain the increased rate of sea ice melt in the summer. Some time ago I wrote a few blogs on Arctic sea ice; they can be found here and this one is most relevant: Sea Ice Arctic.

When the IPCC Assessment Report was published in 2007 the Arctic sea ice was in visible decline. In the summer of 2007 there was a record decline that caught the attention of both climate scientists and the broader public. As suggested in Kwok and Untersteiner immediately following the release of the 2007 IPCC report papers started to appear about how the IPCC synthesis had underestimated the melting of both sea ice and ice sheets. Much of this underestimate could be summed up as simplistic representation of the dynamics of ice melting. For example, brine-laden sea ice floating in salty sea water turns over. Snow gets on the top. It melts, then there are puddles and ponds that can flow down into ice. Simplistically, and I am a simpleton, it’s like a pile of ice cubes sitting in a glass versus stirring those ice cubes, or blowing air over the ice, heat gets carried around and ice melts faster.

The presence of large areas of open ocean in the Arctic is new to us. It motivates new research; it motivates claims to newly accessible oil, gas, and minerals; it motivates new shipping routes; it suggests changes in the relationships of nations; it motivates the development of a military presence. (All things Arctic from the Arctic Council) The natural progression of scientific investigation starts to explore, describe, and organize what is to us modern-day humans: a new environment, new ecosystems, and new physical systems. For example, the Mackenzie River now delivers a massive pool of fresh water into the ocean. Fresh and salt – big differences to flow in the ocean because the density is different; big difference to the formation of ice because the freezing temperature is different; and big differences in the plants and animals in the water.

Compared with trying to attribute the contribution of global warming to a particular weather event, it is easier to link the recent, rapid decrease of sea ice to a warming planet. The freezing, melting and accumulation of ice require persistent heating or cooling. It takes a lot of heat for a sustained period to melt continental-size masses of ice. Historically, the sea ice that was formed in the winter did not melt in the summer and there was a buildup of ice over many years – it accumulated; it stored cold. Around the edges of this multi-year ice are areas where the sea froze and melted each year. The melting of multi-year ice, therefore, represents the accumulation of enough heat to counter years of cold. The movement, poleward, of the area where ice freezes and thaws each year is the accumulation of spring coming earlier. The requirement for energy to persist and accumulate to affect changes in sea ice reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the attribution of how much global warming has impacted a particular event.

Understanding the detailed mechanisms that provided the heat to melt the ice remains a challenge. (This is the real point of in Kwok and Untersteiner) We know it takes about 1 watt per square meter of energy to melt that much ice that fast. This could be delivered by the Sun, transported by the air, by the ocean, by warm water from the rivers of Canada and Siberia, by snow – yes, snow is energy. Once the ice is gone in the summer, then the ocean can absorb heat from the Sun. If there is growth of phytoplankton or zooplankton, then they might enhance the absorption of energy – yes, life is energy. Ocean acidification might change. The natural question that arises – do these processes that are active in this new environment work to accelerate sea ice melting or might they contribute to freezing of water. What are the local feedbacks? (This is above – see below.)

Another study that is of interest is the paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, by S. Tietsche and colleagues. This is a model study. With a model the scientist owns the world and can prescribe what it looks like. In these numerical experiments, the Arctic is prescribed with no ice. Then whether or not the ice recovers is explored. In these studies the ice does recover. The ocean does indeed take up extra heat in the summer, but it gives it up quickly in the fall. This is followed by the formation of first year ice in the winter. The ice-albedo feedback that might let the ice melt runaway is limited. Tietsche et al. conclude that it is not likely that Arctic sea ice will reach a tipping point this century.

This does not mean that summer ice loss will decrease. This does not mean that there will not be huge changes in the Arctic. This only says that it still gets cold in the winter.

Models: One of the things I like about the Kwok and Untersteiner paper is their brief discussion of models. They point out that none of the models available for the 2007 IPCC assessment were able to predict the rate of sea ice decrease. Looking forward, they state that the model projections for 2060 range from no sea ice in September to more sea ice than is observed today. The Tietsche et al. paper is a focused model experiment – not a climate projection. It is also a model result that, perhaps, helps to understand the differences in the 2060 projections. That is, how is the recovery of sea ice in the autumn represented in the projection models?

A couple of other points: First, the amount of energy needed to cause the observed melting in sea ice is 1 watt per square meter. If you calculate the amount of energy in the different factors at play in melting of sea ice, then the numbers are 10s of watts per square meter. As suggested above, there are many reservoirs of energy – the Sun, rivers, etc. So when we look at the different ways 1 watt per square meter can be delivered to the sea ice, then there are several paths. The existing models tell us that with the increased heat due to greenhouse gases, energy gets delivered to the Arctic and sea ice melts. The existing models say that there might be several different paths; it is likely, that several of them operate at different times. The second point: Of course the Tietsche et al. paper will enter as an isolated contribution to the political argument, Arctic “death spiral” – as will those of accelerated melt, New warning on ice melt.

r






Figure 1: Simplistic summary of Arctic sea ice

Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 282 - 232

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Quoting MichaelSTL:


LOL:

When the Skeptics Cry "Global Cooling," It's Proof They Don't Know Their Ash From A Hole in the Ground

(none of the recent volcanoes have had much of an effect -- and even if they did, did you know that Pinatubo helped confirm that climate models are reliable?)


LOL is right. It has about as much as an effect as an ant peeing on a forest fire hoping to put it out.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts = Two peas in the same pod.

True--though Tisdale likely has more than a high school diploma, the highest level of education Watts reached before becoming the Big Kahuna of Denialism. (That is, whoever Tisdale may be; I can find absolutely no information on him, so he might just be a manufactured phantom, kinda like the non-existent "Steve Goddard". Denialists invent their own science, so there's no reason to think they wouldn't also invent their own scientists.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Quoting Neapolitan:

Debunked numerous times already. We'd like to discuss science here, please, not antiscience nonsense written by non-credentialed antiscientists working as paid members of antiscience organizations and publishing only on antiscience sites. Please.


If it doesn't come from disgraced sources such as the University of East Anglia, or those who receive their info from those sources, it isn't science, huh? Anyone else who is objective and actually practices the scientific method doesn't rate in your book. Well, you and the five or six peers of yours on this website keep preaching to each other with the support of proven liars. It won't be long before you'll be in your own padded room telling yourself that you're right. You must be proud.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Well, in other news, a volcano recently just erupted in Ecuador.



The Volcanic aerosoles spewed by this volcano could aid the short term cooling caused by La Nina.


LOL:

When the Skeptics Cry "Global Cooling," It's Proof They Don't Know Their Ash From A Hole in the Ground

(none of the recent volcanoes have had much of an effect -- and even if they did, did you know that Pinatubo helped confirm that climate models are reliable?)
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Well, in other news, a volcano recently just erupted in Ecuador.



The Volcanic aerosoles spewed by this volcano could aid the short term cooling caused by La Nina.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting RMuller:
My point is that they are nowhere near what he is saying. Read the article.

Debunked numerous times already. We'd like to discuss science here, please, not antiscience nonsense written by non-credentialed antiscientists working as paid members of antiscience organizations and publishing only on antiscience sites. Please.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Quoting cyclonebuster:


You have been listening to Fox News to much. I am a republican but I can still see through some of the trash they spill out especially when it comes to climate and how ALL GHGs effect it.


Your post should have read "you watch Fox News 'too' much." You must have attended public school, and I'm certain you're a union supporter. You're a Republican? I highly doubt it. I haven't watched Fox News in years. I did watch network news for decades until their biases were too much to take. Land surface temperature stations aren't reliable and are too prone to influences from artificial heat. Most of all satellite-based temperature reports show cooling. But, I know, in the days of "new" science, warming causes cooling. This only exists in the fantasy world of AGW "climatologists." The last post by the operator of this website shows his bias when it comes to temperatures in the Gulf. If anyone can read the article that I originally cited showing Jeff Masters' complete distortion without cringing, than he doesn't possess any sort of scientific thought -- he is simply a hack for the AGW industry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RMuller:


Anything temperature-related labeled "NOAA" automatically increases, whether true or not. I wonder where NOAA gets their temperature records. Hmmmm Is the origin the same organization that is still illegally refusing FOIA requests?

Link


You have been listening to Fox News to much. I am a republican but I can still see through some of the trash they spill out especially when it comes to climate and how ALL GHGs effect it.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Graph Source: NOAA




Anything temperature-related labeled "NOAA" automatically increases, whether true or not. I wonder where NOAA gets their temperature records. Hmmmm Is the origin the same organization that is still illegally refusing FOIA requests?

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Graph Source: NOAA


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
OUCH!

global temperature since 1880.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
OUCH!


Below is the Gulf Of Mexico SST trend in degrees C over past decades.


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting MichaelSTL:




Certainly looks like SSTs have warmed!


According to that graph, it looks like SST Temps were flat from 1950-1970, then rose around the same time the PDO went positive, and then have flatlined since 2000.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
By the way, the influence of ENSO (there is a reason why the graph includes it)?

Notably, the January 2011 global ocean temperature was the warmest on record among all Januaries when La Niña was present.

Link


The same has also been true of other months, and is obvious in that graph (SST anomalies have also recently increased as the minimum is past).

incidentally, I saw a claim that El Nino causes global warming, beyond the known warming associated with it as heat is released from the ocean, reducing its heat content - that heat is then radiated to space since it overshoots the short-term equilibrium; yes, El Nino can cause long-term cooling:

Columbia University Researchers Reveal Surprising El Nino-Like Conditions During Last Ice Age


Using El-Niño and La Niña as examples, we expected that the ice-age tropical Pacific would resemble a La Niña, which normally promotes global cooling. Yet the dominant pattern we observed is that of El Niño, despite the presence of cooler ocean temperatures and a glaciated world."


One reason is that a "permanent El Nino" doesn't have the same effects as what we have today, as summarized in this reply on RealClimate:

Regarding the effect of El Nino on air temperature, llewelly put it well in Comment #6 to the post "Gray and Muddy thinking..." In a La Nina year, the warm water is all bunched up in a thick layer with little area exposed to the atmosphere. In an El Nino, it spreads out, allowing more area to be exposed to the atmosphere. There are other things going on, but this simple effect probably is a good part of the explanation. This argument shows that a permanent El Nino would have a different effect on global temperature than a transient one, since all that newly exposed warm water would eventually cool off. The subsurface water, by the way, is colder than the surface water.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting McBill:

Not at all? I'd think, at the very least, there would be seasonal variation in SST's.





Certainly looks like SSTs have warmed!
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting RMuller:


If you read earlier posts, someone posted a graph of the SSTs which haven't changed since the 1930s.

Not at all? I'd think, at the very least, there would be seasonal variation in SST's.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:

I wasn't responding to anything that Tony Watts wrote, as I said, I care little about what he has to offer. My response was to the following comment posted by you:

"Just can't believe your idol is biased, huh? It's not a record. Just more hype. He could have used a much more exact temperature sample, but chose the one which might have shown a slight increase. There has been no continuous increase in Gulf SSTs. It's just cyclical like everything else."

If you're not willing to stand by your comments, maybe you shouldn't be offering them up.





If you read earlier posts, someone posted a graph of the SSTs which haven't changed since the 1930s.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:


That supposed quote does not appear anywhere in that article. Furthermore, the article doesn't even support your claim that negative feedbacks will predominate in the long run. Maybe you cited the wrong article?






Yeah, you're right. I did cite the wrong article. Ironically, this article is written by the same person who wrote the last article that I accidentally cited.

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/EE2007-ok.pdf
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
As you can see the GOM is part of the Atlantic Ocean.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting RMuller:


As I said before, Watts didn't write the article. The author completely refuted what Jeff Masters had to say about SST temperatures. If you don't read the article, then how can you know what it said? It is pretty damning as far as the "Master" goes. As far as standing up for myself, what do you have in mind? I'm all ears.


I wasn't responding to anything that Tony Watts wrote, as I said, I care little about what he has to offer. My response was to the following comment posted by you:

"Just can't believe your idol is biased, huh? It's not a record. Just more hype. He could have used a much more exact temperature sample, but chose the one which might have shown a slight increase. There has been no continuous increase in Gulf SSTs. It's just cyclical like everything else."

If you're not willing to stand by your comments, maybe you shouldn't be offering them up.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RMuller:


As I said before, Watts didn't write the article. The author completely refuted what Jeff Masters had to say about SST temperatures. If you don't read the article, then how can you know what it said? It is pretty damning as far as the "Master" goes. As far as standing up for myself, what do you have in mind? I'm all ears.

Are Gulf Of Mexico Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Near To Record Levels?
Posted on April 30, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Bob Tisdale shows that once again, the devil is in the details.

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

OVERVIEW

This post illustrates Gulf of Mexico Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data and discusses the post by Jeff Masters at his www.wunderground.com blog in which he states that April 2011 Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are “among the highest on record”, a claim that was then parroted by Joe Romm at Climate Progress. This post will illustrate that the current Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies in the Gulf of Mexico are well below past weekly and monthly record high SST anomalies. It will also show that there is little to no long-term (80-year) trend in the sea surface temperatures of the Gulf of Mexico, a fact that holds true for the three long-term SST datasets (HADSST2, HADISST, and ERSST.v3b) used in global temperature anomaly products.

INTRODUCTION

I, like many, will occasionally drop by Climate Progress to see what Joe Romm is up to. The headline of the post “Masters: Midwest deluge enhanced by near-record Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures” caught my eye. Near record? Claims of “near record” and, in the body of the post, “among the highest on record”, give the impression of a long-term increase in Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies. They are clear attempts to imply that there are anthropogenic bases for the “Midwest deluge”. But I’ve studied Gulf of Mexico SST data, and there is little to no long-term trend in the SST anomalies there since the 1930s. So I continued to read Joe Romm’s post.

Romm writes, “Former hurricane-hunter Masters has a good analysis of how the ‘Midwest deluge [is] enhanced by near-record Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures…’” I’ll let you decide if it was a “good analysis”. And then Romm includes a quote from Jeff Masters’s post “Tornadoes, floods, and fires continue to pound U.S.”, which reads, “The deluge of rain that caused this flood found its genesis in a flow of warm, humid air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the Gulf of Mexico are currently close to 1 °C above average. Only two Aprils since the 1800s (2002 and 1991) have had April SSTs more than 1 °C above average, so current SSTs are among the highest on record.” [Bold face by Romm.]

Jeff Masters includes a NOAA/NESDIS-based SST anomaly map as his Figure 5, with a caption that reads. “Figure 5. Departure of sea surface temperature from average for April 25, 2001. Image credit: NOAA/NESDIS.” His Figure 5 is included here as Figure 1.



Figure 1

The entire paragraph about Gulf of Mexico Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies by Jeff Masters at his blog at Weather Underground reads:

“Midwest deluge enhanced by near-record Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures

“The deluge of rain that caused this flood found its genesis in a flow of warm, humid air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs )in the Gulf of Mexico are currently close to 1 °C above average. Only two Aprils since the 1800s (2002 and 1991) have had April SSTs more than 1 °C above average, so current SSTs are among the highest on record. These warm ocean temperatures helped set record high air temperatures in many locations in Texas yesterday, including Galveston (84°F, a tie with 1898), Del Rio (104°F, old record 103° in 1984), San Angelo (97°F, old record 96° in 1994). Record highs were also set on Monday in Baton Rouge and Shreveport in Louisiana, and in Austin, Mineral Wells, and Cotulla la Salle in Texas. Since this week’s storm brought plenty of cloud cover that kept temperatures from setting record highs in many locations, a more telling statistic of how warm this air mass was is the huge number of record high minimum temperature records that were set over the past two days. For example, the minimum temperature reached only 79°F in Brownsville, TX Monday morning, beating the previous record high minimum of 77°F set in 2006. In Texas, Austin, Houston, Port Arthur, Cotulla la Salle, Victoria, College Station, Victoria, Corpus Christi, McAllen, and Brownsville all set record high minimums on Monday, as did New Orleans, Lafayette, Monroe, Shreveport, and Alexandria in Louisiana, as well as Jackson and Tupelo in Mississippi. Since record amounts of water vapor can evaporate into air heated to record warm levels, it is not a surprise that incredible rains and unprecedented floods are resulting from this month’s near-record warm SSTs in the Gulf of Mexico.”

ARE GULF OF MEXICO SST ANOMALIES THIS MONTH AMONG THE HIGHEST ON RECORD?

I confirmed with Jeff Masters via WunderGround email that his approximation of a +1.0 deg C anomaly was based on the appearance of the NOAA/NESDIS-based map, not on the data itself. In other words, he looked at the scaling of the color-coded contour levels and estimated the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies from them. He has compared an assumed DAILY Gulf of Mexico SST anomaly of 1.0 deg C to MONTHLY SST anomalies to arrive at the claim, “Only two Aprils since the 1800s (2002 and 1991) have had April SSTs more than 1 °C above average, so current SSTs are among the highest on record.” Was the Gulf of Mexico SST anomaly for that dataset on April 25th at approximately 1.0 deg C? Looks like it might be. But a one-day SST anomaly snapshot on April 25 does not represent the monthly average for April 2011. There is data available, so there’s no reason to attempt to read the SST anomalies from the temperature contour levels on a map. Since the month of April has not ended and monthly data is not available for it, why not simply use weekly data and average the data that’s available for the month? Why not? As we will see, it doesn’t provide an alarming answer.

The NOAA/NESDIS SST data used by Masters are prepared specifically for the NOAA Coral Reef Watch program. They exclude daytime satellite-based SST observations. This was discussed in my post A Note About SST Anomaly Maps. This is the only SST anomaly dataset that I’m aware of that excludes daytime data. Since the NOAA/NESDIS SST data excludes daytime SST data, and since the NOAA/NESDIS data is not readily available online in an easily usable format, we’ll use the other NOAA satellite-based SST dataset, Reynolds OI.v2, to determine the month-to-date values. Weekly and monthly observations for Reynolds OI.v2 data are available online through the NOAA NOMADS website:

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh? lite=

Figure 2 shows the WEEKLY Gulf Of Mexico Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies from January 3, 1990 (the start of the weekly Reynolds OI.v2 data centered on Wednesdays) through April 20, 2011. I’ve also included the average of the three weekly April 2011 SST anomaly values for the Gulf of Mexico (+0.79 deg C), shown as the red line. (The weekly observations are +0.68 for the week centered on April 6, 2011, and +0.91 for April 13, 2011, and +0.77 for April 20, 2011. Note that they dropped from the second to the third week.) Jeff Masters’s approximation for April is about 0.21 deg C higher than the 3-week average. Also, the weekly data clearly shows that Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies in excess of 0.79 deg C are a common occurrence, and that the elevated SST anomalies occur at differing times of the year. Note the spike in 2002. It occurred in April and May. The highest weekly April 2002 reading was +1.35 deg C, and it occurred during the week centered on April 24, 2002, but the highest April 2011 SST observation so far was only +0.91 deg C. The current April 2011 high is 0.44 deg C lower than the April 2002 high of +1.35 deg C. On a weekly basis, the current Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are far from the past April record.



Figure 2

But Jeff Masters compared his assumed daily snapshot temperature to monthly data, not weekly data, so let’s examine the MONTHLY Reynolds OI.v2 data from its start year in November 1981. Refer to Figure 3. If we assume the April 2011 SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico will be near to the three-week average of 0.79 deg C, then the claim of “near-record warm SSTs in the Gulf of Mexico” is also a stretch. There is a 0.18 deg C difference between the current value and the record high of 0.97 deg C in April 2002.



Figure 3

Let’s also look at a graph of April SST anomalies using the Reynolds OI.v2 data, Figure 4, since Jeff Masters did specify the month of April. The values for 1982 and 2002 were the only times the current SST anomalies were exceeded. And again, there’s the 0.18 deg C difference between the present 3-week SST average anomaly and the record high in 2002. But note that the SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico do not exceed +1.0 in 1991 and 2002 as Jeff Masters had written. He also observed that this was the case “since the 1800s”, so he’s obviously comparing his assumed value to a long-term dataset, not a satellite-based dataset like the one in the map.



Figure 4

I tried the long-term HADISST and ERSST.v3b datasets and could not confirm Jeff Masters’s statements in his post, so I asked, and he advised the dataset he used was HADSST2. In summary, he’s compared monthly observations from a ship- and buoy-based SST dataset to an assumed daily snapshot of 1.0 deg C from a satellite-based SST dataset.

I considered stopping the post there. But let’s continue and take a more detailed look at the SST anomalies of the Gulf of Mexico. Let’s assume, similar to the assumption Jeff Masters has made, that the monthly HADSST2 data will be the same as the current 3-week anomaly of the Reynolds OI.v2 data for the Gulf of Mexico. Big assumption. Figure 5 shows the April HADSST2-based SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico. They confirm what Jeff Masters had written, which was, “Only two Aprils since the 1800s (2002 and 1991) have had April SSTs more than 1 °C above average…” But the SST anomalies for the month of April have not been reported yet. And the month-to-date SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico for April 2011 (based on the three weeks of April 2011 data) are far short of +1.0 deg C. So there’s no reason to compare to 1.0 deg C. Figure 5 also shows that SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico as high as (the 3-week average of) 0.79 deg C have occurred regularly, and they have occurred as far back as the 1920s.



Figure 5

NOTE: HADSST2 data is available as far back as 1850, but the source SST data for the Gulf of Mexico is sparse before 1900, leaving multiyear gaps in the data. Refer to Figure 6, which is the output graph created by the KNMI Climate Explorer. I’ve used January 1900 as the start month for the HADSST2 data for this reason.



Figure 6

THE MONTHLY HADSST2 DATA FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO IS REVEALING

Based on HADSST2 data, the monthly SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico have exceeded 0.79 deg C many times, even as far back as the early 1900s. Refer to Figure 7. Note also how flat the data has been since the 1930s.



Figure 7

If we start the data in January 1930, Figure 8, we can see the trend in Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies has been basically flat since then. It’s a noisy dataset, but it shows little long-term rise.



Figure 8

Therefore, if the April 2011 Gulf of Mexico SST anomaly should happen to equal or exceed Jeff Masters’s 1.0 deg C guesstimate, it is plainly not a consequence of any long-term (80-year) trend.

And if we smooth the data with a 13-month running-average filter, as shown in Figure 9, we can see that recent SST anomalies are approximately the same as they were in 1900.



Figure 9

THE RESULTS WITH HADISST AND ERSST.v3b DATASETS

HADSST2 is not the only long-term SST dataset that could be used to determine if the recent warming of the Gulf of Mexico is unusual. The Hadley Centre’s HADISST and NOAA’s ERSST.v3b are also available. Both are infilled, so there are no gaps in the data. That means the entire term of the datasets can be graphed easily. The differences between the ERSST.v3b, HADISST, and HADSST2 datasets are further discussed in the post An Overview Of Sea Surface Temperature Datasets Used In Global Temperature Products.

Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 provide the same views of long-term data using HADISST data, from January 1870 to February 2011. (HADISST updates are delayed by a month.) As shown in Figures 10 and 11, there are fewer instances in the past when Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies exceeded the 3-week average of the Reynolds OI.v2 data for April 2011, with very few exceeding the assumed 1.0 deg C anomaly. HADISST might have been a better dataset for Jeff Masters to use for an alarmist post, except the HADISST Gulf of Mexico data also shows very little trend since 1930, as illustrated in Figure 12. And Figure 13 shows HADISST Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies that have been smoothed with a 13-month running-average filter. Note the multidecadal variability. I’ll have to compare that with the AMO. For those wondering about the steep decline at the end of the data, it starts in 2008 and should initially be a lagged response to the 2007/08 La Niña. Why didn’t the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies rise is response to the 2009/10 El Niño? Dunno.



Figure 10

####################################



Figure 11

####################################



Figure 12

####################################



Figure 13

####################################

Similar graphs using the NOAA long-term SST dataset ERSST.v3b are included as Figures 14 through 17. ERSST.v3b runs from January 1854 to present. As you will see, it would have been the wrong dataset for an alarmist presentation. Figures 14 and 15 show that Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies were higher in late 1800s than they are today. Figure 16 shows that the linear trend for the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies is negative since 1930. Nope, alarmists would not like the ERSST.v3b version of the Gulf of Mexico SST data. And the ERSST.v3b data for the Gulf of Mexico shows multidecadal variability quite clearly since 1900.



Figure 14

####################################



Figure 15

####################################



Figure 16

####################################



Figure 17

####################################

CLOSING

Jeff Masters’s claim that Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are “among the highest on record”, which was repeated by Joe Romm, is contrived. It is based on a comparison of a monthly long-term SST dataset to a daily value assumed from the contour levels on a map. The assumed value of 1.0 deg C is 0.21 deg C higher than the three-week month-to-date SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico. Short-term satellite-based data show that the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are a noisy dataset, with the current anomalies well within the normal range of variability. Long-term SST anomaly data show that the trend of the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies is flat or negative since 1930. In other words, over that past 80 years, there is no global warming signal in the Gulf of Mexico SST data.



Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts = Two peas in the same pod.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting RMuller:


I'm not certain what governs their classification strategies. Perhaps it's the major insurance companies. But, in my opinion, many storms have met the criteria for classification, but have not been. When dealing with governmental agencies, it's all politics.


Lordy lets hope not because that would help our case and weaken your case if more are out there and not getting classified.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting McBill:

Hey, if you're going to hang a fat one over the plate like that, I'm probably going to take a swing at it.



As I've said before, a lot of bloggers, especially here, are very brave when typing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


And what may that be?


I'm not certain what governs their classification strategies. Perhaps it's the major insurance companies. But, in my opinion, many storms have met the criteria for classification, but have not been. When dealing with governmental agencies, it's all politics.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RMuller:


Big man behind your computer. Couldn't you come up with something a little more intelligent? Next you'll be insulting my mother.

Hey, if you're going to hang a fat one over the plate like that, I'm probably going to take a swing at it.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:

I was just responding - and refuting - your comment. You know, refuting, as in providing evidence that contradicts your claims. I know, and care, little about what Tony Watts has to say on the subject. Any chance you can quote something from Playboy?

Or maybe stand up for yourself?



As I said before, Watts didn't write the article. The author completely refuted what Jeff Masters had to say about SST temperatures. If you don't read the article, then how can you know what it said? It is pretty damning as far as the "Master" goes. As far as standing up for myself, what do you have in mind? I'm all ears.

Are Gulf Of Mexico Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Near To Record Levels?
Posted on April 30, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Bob Tisdale shows that once again, the devil is in the details.

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

OVERVIEW

This post illustrates Gulf of Mexico Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data and discusses the post by Jeff Masters at his www.wunderground.com blog in which he states that April 2011 Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are “among the highest on record”, a claim that was then parroted by Joe Romm at Climate Progress. This post will illustrate that the current Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies in the Gulf of Mexico are well below past weekly and monthly record high SST anomalies. It will also show that there is little to no long-term (80-year) trend in the sea surface temperatures of the Gulf of Mexico, a fact that holds true for the three long-term SST datasets (HADSST2, HADISST, and ERSST.v3b) used in global temperature anomaly products.

INTRODUCTION

I, like many, will occasionally drop by Climate Progress to see what Joe Romm is up to. The headline of the post “Masters: Midwest deluge enhanced by near-record Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures” caught my eye. Near record? Claims of “near record” and, in the body of the post, “among the highest on record”, give the impression of a long-term increase in Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies. They are clear attempts to imply that there are anthropogenic bases for the “Midwest deluge”. But I’ve studied Gulf of Mexico SST data, and there is little to no long-term trend in the SST anomalies there since the 1930s. So I continued to read Joe Romm’s post.

Romm writes, “Former hurricane-hunter Masters has a good analysis of how the ‘Midwest deluge [is] enhanced by near-record Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures…’” I’ll let you decide if it was a “good analysis”. And then Romm includes a quote from Jeff Masters’s post “Tornadoes, floods, and fires continue to pound U.S.”, which reads, “The deluge of rain that caused this flood found its genesis in a flow of warm, humid air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the Gulf of Mexico are currently close to 1 °C above average. Only two Aprils since the 1800s (2002 and 1991) have had April SSTs more than 1 °C above average, so current SSTs are among the highest on record.” [Bold face by Romm.]

Jeff Masters includes a NOAA/NESDIS-based SST anomaly map as his Figure 5, with a caption that reads. “Figure 5. Departure of sea surface temperature from average for April 25, 2001. Image credit: NOAA/NESDIS.” His Figure 5 is included here as Figure 1.



Figure 1

The entire paragraph about Gulf of Mexico Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies by Jeff Masters at his blog at Weather Underground reads:

“Midwest deluge enhanced by near-record Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures

“The deluge of rain that caused this flood found its genesis in a flow of warm, humid air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs )in the Gulf of Mexico are currently close to 1 °C above average. Only two Aprils since the 1800s (2002 and 1991) have had April SSTs more than 1 °C above average, so current SSTs are among the highest on record. These warm ocean temperatures helped set record high air temperatures in many locations in Texas yesterday, including Galveston (84°F, a tie with 1898), Del Rio (104°F, old record 103° in 1984), San Angelo (97°F, old record 96° in 1994). Record highs were also set on Monday in Baton Rouge and Shreveport in Louisiana, and in Austin, Mineral Wells, and Cotulla la Salle in Texas. Since this week’s storm brought plenty of cloud cover that kept temperatures from setting record highs in many locations, a more telling statistic of how warm this air mass was is the huge number of record high minimum temperature records that were set over the past two days. For example, the minimum temperature reached only 79°F in Brownsville, TX Monday morning, beating the previous record high minimum of 77°F set in 2006. In Texas, Austin, Houston, Port Arthur, Cotulla la Salle, Victoria, College Station, Victoria, Corpus Christi, McAllen, and Brownsville all set record high minimums on Monday, as did New Orleans, Lafayette, Monroe, Shreveport, and Alexandria in Louisiana, as well as Jackson and Tupelo in Mississippi. Since record amounts of water vapor can evaporate into air heated to record warm levels, it is not a surprise that incredible rains and unprecedented floods are resulting from this month’s near-record warm SSTs in the Gulf of Mexico.”

ARE GULF OF MEXICO SST ANOMALIES THIS MONTH AMONG THE HIGHEST ON RECORD?

I confirmed with Jeff Masters via WunderGround email that his approximation of a +1.0 deg C anomaly was based on the appearance of the NOAA/NESDIS-based map, not on the data itself. In other words, he looked at the scaling of the color-coded contour levels and estimated the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies from them. He has compared an assumed DAILY Gulf of Mexico SST anomaly of 1.0 deg C to MONTHLY SST anomalies to arrive at the claim, “Only two Aprils since the 1800s (2002 and 1991) have had April SSTs more than 1 °C above average, so current SSTs are among the highest on record.” Was the Gulf of Mexico SST anomaly for that dataset on April 25th at approximately 1.0 deg C? Looks like it might be. But a one-day SST anomaly snapshot on April 25 does not represent the monthly average for April 2011. There is data available, so there’s no reason to attempt to read the SST anomalies from the temperature contour levels on a map. Since the month of April has not ended and monthly data is not available for it, why not simply use weekly data and average the data that’s available for the month? Why not? As we will see, it doesn’t provide an alarming answer.

The NOAA/NESDIS SST data used by Masters are prepared specifically for the NOAA Coral Reef Watch program. They exclude daytime satellite-based SST observations. This was discussed in my post A Note About SST Anomaly Maps. This is the only SST anomaly dataset that I’m aware of that excludes daytime data. Since the NOAA/NESDIS SST data excludes daytime SST data, and since the NOAA/NESDIS data is not readily available online in an easily usable format, we’ll use the other NOAA satellite-based SST dataset, Reynolds OI.v2, to determine the month-to-date values. Weekly and monthly observations for Reynolds OI.v2 data are available online through the NOAA NOMADS website:

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh? lite=

Figure 2 shows the WEEKLY Gulf Of Mexico Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies from January 3, 1990 (the start of the weekly Reynolds OI.v2 data centered on Wednesdays) through April 20, 2011. I’ve also included the average of the three weekly April 2011 SST anomaly values for the Gulf of Mexico (+0.79 deg C), shown as the red line. (The weekly observations are +0.68 for the week centered on April 6, 2011, and +0.91 for April 13, 2011, and +0.77 for April 20, 2011. Note that they dropped from the second to the third week.) Jeff Masters’s approximation for April is about 0.21 deg C higher than the 3-week average. Also, the weekly data clearly shows that Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies in excess of 0.79 deg C are a common occurrence, and that the elevated SST anomalies occur at differing times of the year. Note the spike in 2002. It occurred in April and May. The highest weekly April 2002 reading was +1.35 deg C, and it occurred during the week centered on April 24, 2002, but the highest April 2011 SST observation so far was only +0.91 deg C. The current April 2011 high is 0.44 deg C lower than the April 2002 high of +1.35 deg C. On a weekly basis, the current Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are far from the past April record.



Figure 2

But Jeff Masters compared his assumed daily snapshot temperature to monthly data, not weekly data, so let’s examine the MONTHLY Reynolds OI.v2 data from its start year in November 1981. Refer to Figure 3. If we assume the April 2011 SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico will be near to the three-week average of 0.79 deg C, then the claim of “near-record warm SSTs in the Gulf of Mexico” is also a stretch. There is a 0.18 deg C difference between the current value and the record high of 0.97 deg C in April 2002.



Figure 3

Let’s also look at a graph of April SST anomalies using the Reynolds OI.v2 data, Figure 4, since Jeff Masters did specify the month of April. The values for 1982 and 2002 were the only times the current SST anomalies were exceeded. And again, there’s the 0.18 deg C difference between the present 3-week SST average anomaly and the record high in 2002. But note that the SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico do not exceed +1.0 in 1991 and 2002 as Jeff Masters had written. He also observed that this was the case “since the 1800s”, so he’s obviously comparing his assumed value to a long-term dataset, not a satellite-based dataset like the one in the map.



Figure 4

I tried the long-term HADISST and ERSST.v3b datasets and could not confirm Jeff Masters’s statements in his post, so I asked, and he advised the dataset he used was HADSST2. In summary, he’s compared monthly observations from a ship- and buoy-based SST dataset to an assumed daily snapshot of 1.0 deg C from a satellite-based SST dataset.

I considered stopping the post there. But let’s continue and take a more detailed look at the SST anomalies of the Gulf of Mexico. Let’s assume, similar to the assumption Jeff Masters has made, that the monthly HADSST2 data will be the same as the current 3-week anomaly of the Reynolds OI.v2 data for the Gulf of Mexico. Big assumption. Figure 5 shows the April HADSST2-based SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico. They confirm what Jeff Masters had written, which was, “Only two Aprils since the 1800s (2002 and 1991) have had April SSTs more than 1 °C above average…” But the SST anomalies for the month of April have not been reported yet. And the month-to-date SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico for April 2011 (based on the three weeks of April 2011 data) are far short of +1.0 deg C. So there’s no reason to compare to 1.0 deg C. Figure 5 also shows that SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico as high as (the 3-week average of) 0.79 deg C have occurred regularly, and they have occurred as far back as the 1920s.



Figure 5

NOTE: HADSST2 data is available as far back as 1850, but the source SST data for the Gulf of Mexico is sparse before 1900, leaving multiyear gaps in the data. Refer to Figure 6, which is the output graph created by the KNMI Climate Explorer. I’ve used January 1900 as the start month for the HADSST2 data for this reason.



Figure 6

THE MONTHLY HADSST2 DATA FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO IS REVEALING

Based on HADSST2 data, the monthly SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico have exceeded 0.79 deg C many times, even as far back as the early 1900s. Refer to Figure 7. Note also how flat the data has been since the 1930s.



Figure 7

If we start the data in January 1930, Figure 8, we can see the trend in Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies has been basically flat since then. It’s a noisy dataset, but it shows little long-term rise.



Figure 8

Therefore, if the April 2011 Gulf of Mexico SST anomaly should happen to equal or exceed Jeff Masters’s 1.0 deg C guesstimate, it is plainly not a consequence of any long-term (80-year) trend.

And if we smooth the data with a 13-month running-average filter, as shown in Figure 9, we can see that recent SST anomalies are approximately the same as they were in 1900.



Figure 9

THE RESULTS WITH HADISST AND ERSST.v3b DATASETS

HADSST2 is not the only long-term SST dataset that could be used to determine if the recent warming of the Gulf of Mexico is unusual. The Hadley Centre’s HADISST and NOAA’s ERSST.v3b are also available. Both are infilled, so there are no gaps in the data. That means the entire term of the datasets can be graphed easily. The differences between the ERSST.v3b, HADISST, and HADSST2 datasets are further discussed in the post An Overview Of Sea Surface Temperature Datasets Used In Global Temperature Products.

Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 provide the same views of long-term data using HADISST data, from January 1870 to February 2011. (HADISST updates are delayed by a month.) As shown in Figures 10 and 11, there are fewer instances in the past when Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies exceeded the 3-week average of the Reynolds OI.v2 data for April 2011, with very few exceeding the assumed 1.0 deg C anomaly. HADISST might have been a better dataset for Jeff Masters to use for an alarmist post, except the HADISST Gulf of Mexico data also shows very little trend since 1930, as illustrated in Figure 12. And Figure 13 shows HADISST Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies that have been smoothed with a 13-month running-average filter. Note the multidecadal variability. I’ll have to compare that with the AMO. For those wondering about the steep decline at the end of the data, it starts in 2008 and should initially be a lagged response to the 2007/08 La Niña. Why didn’t the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies rise is response to the 2009/10 El Niño? Dunno.



Figure 10

####################################



Figure 11

####################################



Figure 12

####################################



Figure 13

####################################

Similar graphs using the NOAA long-term SST dataset ERSST.v3b are included as Figures 14 through 17. ERSST.v3b runs from January 1854 to present. As you will see, it would have been the wrong dataset for an alarmist presentation. Figures 14 and 15 show that Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies were higher in late 1800s than they are today. Figure 16 shows that the linear trend for the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies is negative since 1930. Nope, alarmists would not like the ERSST.v3b version of the Gulf of Mexico SST data. And the ERSST.v3b data for the Gulf of Mexico shows multidecadal variability quite clearly since 1900.



Figure 14

####################################



Figure 15

####################################



Figure 16

####################################



Figure 17

####################################

CLOSING

Jeff Masters’s claim that Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are “among the highest on record”, which was repeated by Joe Romm, is contrived. It is based on a comparison of a monthly long-term SST dataset to a daily value assumed from the contour levels on a map. The assumed value of 1.0 deg C is 0.21 deg C higher than the three-week month-to-date SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico. Short-term satellite-based data show that the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are a noisy dataset, with the current anomalies well within the normal range of variability. Long-term SST anomaly data show that the trend of the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies is flat or negative since 1930. In other words, over that past 80 years, there is no global warming signal in the Gulf of Mexico SST data.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RMuller:


I have. That's why I don't believe a thing they produce. They even have some sort of political agenda when it comes to classifying tropical cyclones.


And what may that be?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting RMuller:


I guess you didn't even bother to read the article. The post wasn't authored by Watts. Can you refute what was written in the original article?

I was just responding - and refuting - your comment. You know, refuting, as in providing evidence that contradicts your claims. I know, and care, little about what Tony Watts has to say on the subject. Any chance you can quote something from Playboy?

Or maybe stand up for yourself?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
LoL...





I see your frequent references to the Marine Corps. Were you ever in, or was it just your father? I have yet to meet a Marine who has sunken to Gaia worship.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:

From what I've seen, Playboy would be a big improvement for you.



Big man behind your computer. Couldn't you come up with something a little more intelligent? Next you'll be insulting my mother.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


You should try reading NOAA literature at some point in your life!


I have. That's why I don't believe a thing they produce. They even have some sort of political agenda when it comes to classifying tropical cyclones.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:

I can only guess that you haven't bothered to read Dr. Masters' blog - you might want to give it a try

Over 300 dead in historic tornado outbreak; one violent EF-5 tornado confirmed

I'll make a two points:

1 - Dr. Masters wrote that the SST's were at near-record levels, not record levels.
2 - Dr. Masters made no mention of long-term SST trends in the Gulf of Mexico.

Not that your idol Tony would be biased, or anything.





I guess you didn't even bother to read the article. The post wasn't authored by Watts. Can you refute what was written in the original article?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
oh that RMuller! what a jokester
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
LoL...



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
Quoting RMuller:


Wikipedia? I'm more inclined to get my facts from "Playboy."

From what I've seen, Playboy would be a big improvement for you.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RMuller:


Wikipedia? I'm more inclined to get my facts from "Playboy."


You should try reading NOAA literature at some point in your life!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting TomTaylor:
Yea, I just didn't want to leave that out for fear of being called a biased hidden agenda al gore worshiper


To expound on what you posted so others don't get hood winked by the playboy readers here.


Ocean temperature and heat content

Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cyrosphere climate system (Levitus et al, 2005). As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source/sink for the lower atmosphere.

Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content using best-known corrections to systematic errors in the fall rate of expendable bathythermographs (Wijffels et al, 2008). For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Correct it is old hat now! We already knew this years ago! They are just trying to pull the blind over our eyes and sugar coat it.

Yea, I just didn't want to leave that out for fear of being called a biased hidden agenda al gore worshiper
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting RMuller:
Just can't believe your idol is biased, huh? It's not a record. Just more hype. He could have used a much more exact temperature sample, but chose the one which might have shown a slight increase. There has been no continuous increase in Gulf SSTs. It's just cyclical like everything else.

I can only guess that you haven't bothered to read Dr. Masters' blog - you might want to give it a try

Over 300 dead in historic tornado outbreak; one violent EF-5 tornado confirmed

I'll make a two points:

1 - Dr. Masters wrote that the SST's were at near-record levels, not record levels.
2 - Dr. Masters made no mention of long-term SST trends in the Gulf of Mexico.

Not that your idol Tony would be biased, or anything.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


Yea, well your leaving out a bit of key info from that wikipedia page, let's not cut stuff out.

Here's the full quote from wikipedia's ARGO page on Data Results:



Basically data from 2003-2006 showed only a slight, but really insignificant cooling. However, the method used to determine that was apparently faulty, and so, when they published the data from 2003-2008 using proper methods, they found a slight warming.

For anyone who doesn't like wikipedia, you can find all the same info from ARGO's page
Link


Correct it is old hat now! We already knew this years ago! They are just trying to pull the blind over our eyes and sugar coat it.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
The EPA and PSAs lying to children.
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Get ya'lls facts straight will ya!

Data results from year 2008 and after

In an article from November 5, 2008, Josh Willis states that the world ocean actually has been warming since 2003 after removing Argo measurement errors from the data and adjusting the measured temperatures with a computer model his team developed.[3][10]

Here is a graph with the 2008/2009 Argo network data included.[15]

Link


Yea, well your leaving out a bit of key info from that wikipedia page, let's not cut stuff out.

Here's the full quote from wikipedia's ARGO page on Data Results:

Data results

It is not yet possible to use Argo data to detect global change signals.[9]
[edit]Data results from year 2006 with undetected errors
The Argo Network has[3][10] shown a continuous declining trend in ocean temperatures. The trend was overstated in media reports because of published data with undetected errors in year 2006. In March 2008, Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory did report that the Argo system show no ocean warming since it started in 2003. "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis has stated.[11] A lot of media has reported the uncorrected data results[12] and even though the revised corrected data appeared in 2008, many articles and arguments still use and promote the uncorrected data results from 2006.[13][14]
[edit]Data results from year 2008 and after
In an article from November 5, 2008, Josh Willis states that the world ocean actually has been warming since 2003 after removing Argo measurement errors from the data and adjusting the measured temperatures with a computer model his team developed.[3][10]
Here is a graph with the 2008/2009 Argo network data included.[15


Basically data from 2003-2006 showed only a slight, but really insignificant cooling. However, the method used to determine that was apparently faulty, and so, when they published the data from 2003-2008 using proper methods, they found a slight warming.

For anyone who doesn't like wikipedia, you can find all the same info from ARGO's page
Link
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Get ya'lls facts straight will ya!

Data results from year 2008 and after

In an article from November 5, 2008, Josh Willis states that the world ocean actually has been warming since 2003 after removing Argo measurement errors from the data and adjusting the measured temperatures with a computer model his team developed.[3][10]

Here is a graph with the 2008/2009 Argo network data included.[15]

Link


Wikipedia? I'm more inclined to get my facts from "Playboy."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
More alarmist manipulation. I guess it will never end until we enter the next ice age. Then it will be beyond denial. I'm thinking about terming "warmists" "deniers," because they won't change their philosophy until it begins snowing in summer.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Get ya'lls facts straight will ya!

Data results from year 2008 and after

In an article from November 5, 2008, Josh Willis states that the world ocean actually has been warming since 2003 after removing Argo measurement errors from the data and adjusting the measured temperatures with a computer model his team developed.[3][10]

Here is a graph with the 2008/2009 Argo network data included.[15]

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Fortune tellers have a better record than alarmist climate "scientists".

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:

And as seen here,


http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

QUOTE

the variability of the air temperature at these
stations during the last centuries shows that the influence of growing CO2
concentration in the atmosphere has been totally eliminated by the system's negative
feedback.

/QUOTE
.


That supposed quote does not appear anywhere in that article. Furthermore, the article doesn't even support your claim that negative feedbacks will predominate in the long run. Maybe you cited the wrong article?




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Is not the GOM part of the Atlantic Ocean?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:


The total ocean heat content would be the same, however, the total land based heat content would increase, which in turn would rapidly warm the Arctic, due to the warmer than normal Ocean Currents, and in turn would melt the Arctic, and the Arctic would warm faster than everywhere else, due to the patches of ocean that would appear, due to melted ice, warming the Arctic, and adding Heat to the Earth's Global Heat Budget. So effectively, the oceans indirectly add more heat, due to the Arctic Albedo, or "reflectance."

It is also important to note that there has been no increase in OHC over the past several years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=88520025

QUOTE

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

/QUOTE



I agree, but disagree. I agree that if there were NO possible Climate Feedbacks, yes, Man has the potential to warm Earth with doubling co2 by 1 Degree F. However, this is not nearly the case, and there are known documented Climate Feedbacks with doubling of co2. One of those is increased evaporation. The evaporated water condenses to form clouds.



When the total amount of cloud cover goes up, the temperature comes down. This is one of the most prominent negative feedbacks co2 has to deal with if it wants to warm the Earth 1 Degree F when there are doubled amounts of co2.

And as seen here,


http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

QUOTE

the variability of the air temperature at these
stations during the last centuries shows that the influence of growing CO2
concentration in the atmosphere has been totally eliminated by the system's negative
feedback.

/QUOTE

The clouds' negative feedback are enough to cancel co2 warming all together. co2 induced warming in the past had negative feedbacks to deal with, it has negative feedbacks to deal with now. That is why in the paleoclimatological data, the co2 is more than ten times as high as current co2 concentrations, but we were in the midst of an Ice Age.






You are correct- but you have stated what they do when there are no climate feedbacks.

Oscillations
With regards to the 3,000 robots (ARGO project), here is a direct quote from their website

"The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.


They've only been collecting data since late 2003. Your NPR news report was issued in 2008. If anyone honestly thinks 4 years is enough time to note climate trends, they're fooling themselves.

link

But if you really think 4 years is enough time, here's the graph they produced (in black)


looks like warming if anything.

And you claim oscillations don't have any net change on the total heat content of the oceans, but do increase total land heat. What is your proof of this?

Feedback loops
About climate feedbacks of CO2, you point out a negative feedback loop (graeter cloud coverage), but you leave out the fact that water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, which causes warming.

You also leave out many other positive feedback loops (melting arctic, methane release from deep seas, methane release from arctic tundra, desertification, deforestation, etc, etc).

The subject of feedback loops in climate changes is very complicated. To go outright and claim that the net effect of CO2's feedback loops is cooling is foolish.




In summary...

Oscillations are not proven to have any net change on the total heat of earth.

CO2 feedbacks are not understood well enough to claim that they cause net cooling.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
And yes, as RMuller correctly points out, the GOMEX SSTs have not increased at all since 1930. One who would look at this graph might actually think there is a cooling trend going on with the SSTs.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Isn't the GOM part of the Atlantic ocean and is included in world ocean temperatures? So it stands to reason why the temps are rising in the GOM also.What does "What's Up With That" have to say about this. Does it know more than NOAA on this?

Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising

While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.



Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2009.


BTW I bet they have to rescale this chart also upwards again this year.







My post had nothing to do with NOAA. It had to do with Dr. Masters using data showing a bias when he could have used different, more accurate data. Can you refute what the original article expounds upon?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 282 - 232

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.