We’re often told that the sea temperature along the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is increasing and that soon the coral will be bleached and the reef be destroyed. But what’s the real story according to the data?
The USA’s National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a web page with recent data and maps, along with links to archived data of sea surface temperatures since 1982. The data is matched to grid cells of 1 degree Latitude and 1 degree longitude and from it I extracted the data applying to the GBR Marine Park and calculated the average across the park for each month.
The sea surface temperature (SST) clearly fluctuates throughout the year by about 5 degrees, typically with highest temperatures in January and lowest temperatures in August. It is also clear that The SST rises with the onset of El Nino events and falls with the onset of La Nina events.
Another method of examining temperature is via the anomaly, which is the variation from the long-term average for that month. The method is not ideal because occasional strong peaks or troughs can distort the average for a particular month and therefore the anomalies, but because global temperatures are usually expressed this way these monthly anomalies are shown in figure 2, along with the 12-month running average as above. The conventional period used for long-term averages is 30 years but because we only have 27 years of data the monthly averages are those for the entire interval.
More time is needed before reasons for the rise in the last few months of 2008 will become clear. At the present time (January 2009) the data might not be fully checked, the cloud cover over the reef may have changed, wind patterns may have altered, the discharge of heavy rainfall in rivers may be to blame and so on.
These graphs make it abundantly clear that the sea surface temperature along Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are not increasing at an alarming rate. The people who say otherwise have no evidence whatsoever to support their claims. These sea temperatures might rise in future but the historical evidence suggests that this will most likely be due to the natural forces of El Nino events.
*********************
John McLean lives in Melbourne, Australia.
This note is republished from Mr McLean’s website with permission. The information at the website, as republished here, was updated on January 5 (today) and is relevant to yesterday’s related blog ‘Global Warming Unlikely Reason for Slow Coral Growth’ http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/global-warming-unlikely-reason-for-slow-coral-growth/
The photograph of Mr McLean was taken at the Australian Environment Foundation Annual Conference in September 2008, in Canberra, Australia, by Jennifer Marohasy.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Eyeballing the above graph, (based on professional experience) suggests a slight increase in SST over the time period.
Right, or wrong?
More importantly it shows a clear cooling trend over the past 7 years.
Very interesting graphs, John.
Note how the high points in both graphs during the 1998/99 El Nino are both produced by warmer winter temperatures, not warmer summer ones? The winter of 1998 was a full 1.5C warmer than the years before and after and this accounts for almost all of the rise in the 12mth average.
And correct me if I am wrong but I fail to see how a slightly warmer winter will pose a threat to coral or anything else. All the usual spiv suspects were busy claiming that a higher annual mean was automatic evidence of midsummer temperature extremes. Yet, just as with the atmospheric temperature series, most warming is made up of an “excess” of winter mildness which poses zero threat.
The anomaly graph, once again, highlights the capacity of this format for misrepresentation by omission. It is no coincidence that the climate mafia places most reliance on this particular tool of trade.
Doesn’t match with Lough GRL 2008 – one’s published – one is not. With an examination of the published literature – well what can one say …. sigh.
So wait, I didn’t see this before:
“The data is matched to grid cells of 1 degree Latitude and 1 degree longitude and from it I extracted the data applying to the GBR Marine Park and calculated the average across the park for each month”
So basically, the now infamous John McClean graph relies on data that is averaged across the entire GBR marine park (24°30’N-10°41’S, 145°00′-154°00’E) – an area of ~344,400 square kilometres that covers >2000km in latitude?
Why is anyone surprised that this analysis doesn’t show a trend?
Thomas
(luke – could you send me a copy of Lough 2008 GRL to thomasmooreis @ gmail.com please?)
The McLean graphs start at 1982, the Lough GRL 2008 graphs are from 1950:
“Annual average SST, 10.5–29.5S, for NW
and NE Australian coastal regions, 1950–2007. Dashed line
is linear trend. (b) Average annual, (c) average maximum,
and (d) average minimum SSTs, 1950–2007, for each
latitude band. NW Australia (red); NE Australia (blue).
Dashed lines in Figures 1b–1d are average SSTs for 1,000
global coral reef sites [Kleypas et al., 1999].”
The Lough GRL 2008 Annual SST graph shows a rising linear trend since 1950. Temperature has been pretty un-exciting since the mid-1980s, with the El Nino peak in 1998, and a falling trend since. The latest temperature on the graph is similar to around 1978.
Paul,
One salient observation is that Lough seems to have calculated for each latitude band, whereas the McClean data amalgamates 14 degrees of latitude into a single graph.
Thomas
I downloaded the SST anomalies for the Great Barrier Reef area going back to 1854 from the Smith and Reynolds dataset – (I’ve been doing a lot of this lately, so it only takes a few minutes to put this together).
I’ve zoomed into the 1982 forward timeperiod and these numbers are almost exactly the same as the above (the ups and downs are about 20% greater in this dataset but the line/trend looks almost identical).
The Oceans have long and short cycles and it looks like the Great Barrier Reef area is no exception but there does not appear to be a long-term trend. There is a trend down to about 1920 and then a slight trend up since. All of the world’s oceans have been increasing in temperature over the past 150 years (about 0.3C) so the upswing since 1920 in this dataset is probably Less than average.
Note this is monthly anomaly and most ocean data shows these wild up and down swings with monthly data. I don’t like smoothing this out since info gets lost. As you cut down the time period (say 30 years), the chart would appear to have less variation.
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7129/greatbarrierreefsstsac5.png
I’ve put a 3 month smooth on the Great Barrier Reef SST data back to 1854.
It is a little easier on the eyes but I don’t recommend using a greater smooth than this.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6971/greatbarrierreef3monthszh0.png
A rising trend is very clear – perhaps John might add a trend line for the graph. AND the graph starts with a strong El Nino and ends with a La Nina.
Using data back to 1900 you get a trend map like this – http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/trendmap/sst/0112/aus/1900/latest.gif . The time series for the coral sea is this – http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/sst/0112/cor/latest.gif . It’s now 10 years since the Coral Sea experienced a below average year.
Let us stop pretending that the oceans around Australia are not warming.
Yes, Thomas, the average is across the entire marine park. I could have weighted the data according to the cosine of each latitude band but given the distance involved the difference between the weighted and unweighted would have been very minor. Had it extended more than 20 degrees I certainly would have.
These graphs are based on NOAA data and it starts in 1982. Lough’s data must come from other sources, such the the dubious methods of the HadSST2 data where I’ve found that Laplacian smoothing has probably ensured that discrepancies in the data (“outliers” if you like) have been smoothed into neighbouring cells and the whole approach is very suspect. I can’t say that this is what happened with GBR and Coral Sea temperatures but I’m highly suspicious about the methodology used for that earlier data.
Sorry David, I refuse to take much notice of trends. Choose the start date carefully and you can prove just about anything. (e.g. The BoM likes to start its climate trends from 1950, a particularly cool and wet year in Australia) Their only real value is in comparing two sets of data across the same interval.
For my money, the use of averages alone can also be a dubious practice because they give undue weight to spurious events of incorrect data and they can minimise the influence of significant events. The only time that I’m relatively happy with them is when they are accompanied by the data they average.
As a general comment, what is it about climate issues that make people lose their civility and commonsense?
Luke tries to say that only graphs that have been reviewed should be accepted. I don’t understand what it is about extracting data and plotting it that he finds so incredibly complex that it must go through several reviewers. I explained where the data came from and that website also describes the file format. Any 1st year student of computer programming should be able to repeat what I’ve done. Surely this is commonsense.
Thomas jumps up and down about an average across a large area. When the BoM gives us averages for all of Australia or even for Western Australia as a whole Thomas’s comment about area alone is somewhat excessive. If he has questions about the method of averaging then simply asking a civil question about weighting would have received an answer. If you want answers then ask questions. If you just want to jump on a soapbox then go right ahead but be prepared for it to collapse if your assumptions are proven wrong.
David,
It seems that there is a rising trend. But let’s get it in perspective. The second chart shows a rise 1900 – 2000 (taking the black line) of roughly 1deg C.
The first chart shows .04 – .16 degC increase overall in Australian waters and 0.12 – 0.16 degC in GBR waters, i.e .04 degC.
That compares with annual variation of aroung 5 degC. Taking the point made by Ian Mott above – the increase is mainly caused by an increase in winter minimums.
The way I see it, that makes it insignificant in terms of health of the reef. That is especially so when it is noted that coral grows better with increases in temperature.
The exception to this is the incidence of El Nino events, which do make maximum temperatures higher, and which have caused coral bleaching in the past.
Whatever else may be going on here, I don’t think that there is any evidence for problems with the reef caused by increases in SST. What do you think?
And then if you look at the temperature anomalies, there doesn’t appear to be a trend over but a mixture of shorter period ones.
As for the incivility concerning climate issues, it’s become a dogma that has to be defended at all costs. Much the same happened with Plate Tectonics when any dissent or questioning of the PT dogma produced hostile reactions from academics. Some students were threatened with failure if they kept referring to expanding earth theories.
It happens when the deductive method usurps the empirical in science – the deductive method relies on well reasoned arguments, often augmented with technically sophisticated numerology,graphology and statistics to demonstrate perceived facts as being true.
If the empirical method was followed, then the last 10 years of temperature data including the anectdotal evidence that the weather is becoming colder would have prompted one to conclude that AGW not supported by the evidence. That this evidence does not seem to convince the AGW proponents simply tells us that we are dealing with dogmatists, hence the incivility when cognitive dissonance occurs.
John,
As a general comment, what is it about climate issues that make people lose their civility and commonsense?
I have been perfectly civil and quite upbeat about all this! No need to get overly defensive so soon.
Thomas jumps up and down about an average across a large area. When the BoM gives us averages for all of Australia or even for Western Australia as a whole Thomas’s comment about area alone is somewhat excessive. If he has questions about the method of averaging then simply asking a civil question about weighting would have received an answer. If you want answers then ask questions. If you just want to jump on a soapbox then go right ahead but be prepared for it to collapse if your assumptions are proven wrong.
Again, no need to be so defensive! I haven’t jumped up and down about anything (yet!).
As for jumping on a soapbox, you made this bold claim in the original post: “These graphs make it abundantly clear that the sea surface temperature along Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are not increasing at an alarming rate. The people who say otherwise have no evidence whatsoever to support their claims.”
Yes, Thomas, the average is across the entire marine park. I could have weighted the data according to the cosine of each latitude band but given the distance involved the difference between the weighted and unweighted would have been very minor. Had it extended more than 20 degrees I certainly would have.
Where is this seemingly arbitrary figure of 20 degrees latitude from? The variance in SST over 14 degrees of latitude is considerable. See Figure 1a in the De’ath et al (2008) manuscript – at a glance, this varies over 3C in SST. Are you sure that you aren’t masking trends by averaging such a huge area? Take a look at Lough’s analysis in her 1994 paper (http://tinyurl.com/95jq6f) – the latitudinal variance in SST anomalies is considerable, and the variance more subtle than you are trying to suggest.
These graphs are based on NOAA data and it starts in 1982. Lough’s data must come from other sources, such the the dubious methods of the HadSST2 data where I’ve found that Laplacian smoothing has probably ensured that discrepancies in the data (”outliers” if you like) have been smoothed into neighbouring cells and the whole approach is very suspect.
But I could use the same criticism on your dataset – you may well have ensured that the outliers (“anomalies” have been averaged across neighbouring cells (each degree of latitude) by spatially averaging your dataset.
I can’t say that this is what happened with GBR and Coral Sea temperatures but I’m highly suspicious about the methodology used for that earlier data.
See above.
So really, when you say “These graphs make it abundantly clear that the sea surface temperature along Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are not increasing at an alarming rate”, what the graph actually shows is “the average sea surface temperature for the entire Great Barrier Reef region is not increasing”.
It seems that “The people who say otherwise have no evidence whatsoever to support their claims” might actually have a very valid criticism of your technique. Can that shows that local or regional coral reefs aren’t showing warming trends? Or even data for latitudinal bands that aren’t spatially averaged over 344,000km2?
Louis,
And then if you look at the temperature anomalies, there doesn’t appear to be a trend over but a mixture of shorter period ones.
Agreed. But, can we also agree that this graph represents the average temperature over 344,000km2?
Thomas
John, Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Bill, Thanks for provision of the additional information. Is the Smith and Reynold’s database available online? Can you please provide more information regarding this database.
David, The paper that sparked my current interest in the issue of sea surface temperatures (SST) at the GBR is ofcourse the paper by De’ath, Lough and Fabricius published last Friday. It suggests a dramatic decline in coral growth rates post 1990 and implicates rising SST. So perhaps the more recent temperature period is of most relevance to the current discussion.
Thomas Moore,
You ask – “can we also agree that this graph represents the average temperature over 344,000km2?”
I’m not sure what point you are aiming at, but if that is a problem then is not the concept of a GLOBAL temperature average even more of a problem?
Jennifer, you can download the Smith and Reynolds extended SST data at this site:
http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/
There is an instruction page here (its a little complicated until you go through it once, then it is easier.)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ERSST-ts.txt
Or you can skip these steps and just use this download page (for a week or so before it expires).
http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp/pdisp2.cgi?ctlfile=ersst_999_18540101_hh00_000.ctl&varlist=on&povlp=noovlp&ptype=ts&dir=&order_num=0023
(I usually save the link in my favorites so it is good for a week or so and you don’t have to go through all the steps again.)
Smith and Reynolds SST reconstruction was the official “goto” ocean temp series covering almost all of the ocean surface until a new dataset was created a few months ago. The older data in this series is what goes into GISS, Hadcrut3 and NCDC temperature histories. The new SST reconstruction dataset is only slightly different and it is based on the Smith and Reynolds dataset – I think people are letting it be tested more before it becomes the newest official series. The new one is here and I haven’t started using it yet so I don’t know how it works.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
Louis – the incivility comes from total distrust of anything that Australian pseudo-sceptics produce. There’s a high chance that anything you guys produce is simply political bullshit and a try-on. Lack of publication in any respectable journal simply confirms the suspicion.
And isn’t it funny that there’s always an objection to every published paper from the pseudo-sceptic denial-osphere yet these little graphs are never published. They just float around as detached beings.
And then when the IPCC go to review the literature these graphs never appear – coz they they don’t exist in the litertaure. So if pseudo-sceptics were real sceptics they’d get published.
I look forward to the rebuttal comment to Science by the Australian faux sceptics on this paper – this will be well worth waiting for … 🙂 Come on guys – how about a joint effort.
But I figure I might be waiting some long loooong time.
BTW AIMS are off to Ningaloo Reef off Western Australia soon – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/05/2459585.htm you’ll have to run to keep up !
Of course, the other interesting point to note from the graphs is the fact that the midsummer peaks associated with El Nino events will only slow the growth rate of coral FOR THAT MONTH or two. Bleaching events during that period only take place in relatively sheltered sections of the reef and predominantly to only limited depth. And even then the damage is corrected by the very next spawning event.
For all the other times of the year, and all the other parts of the reef, the impact of temperature increase (mild as it is) on coral growth is unambiguously positive.
It seems that coral, like humans and just about every other species to boot, slow down in hot weather. Some of the least healthy specimens meet a slightly earlier death than otherwise. The rest get on with their lives when the sun sinks lower. Get used to it.
Luke, you prove my point with your diatribe about the publication of graphs and more generally with your misbegotten belief in the credibility of peer-review and in what seems to be wild assumptions about (a) a level playing field fro climate research funding (and the papers that might be generated) and (b) the censorial nature of many supposedly scientific journals that should know better about open debate.
I can see that you are not interested in discussing what the graph shows so I wonder why you bother to comment at all.
Ian Mott,
Of course, the other interesting point to note from the graphs is the fact that the midsummer peaks associated with El Nino events will only slow the growth rate of coral FOR THAT MONTH or two.
But Walter Starck, an expert on the Great Barrier Reef in the previous post has said that bleaching leaves scars in the coral skeletons and can account for significant downturns in calcification of massive corals. Do you have any references to support your statement?
Bleaching events during that period only take place in relatively sheltered sections of the reef and predominantly to only limited depth. And even then the damage is corrected by the very next spawning event.
I’m surprised such a statement – coral bleaching causes a reduction in lipids and protein levels. This in turn reduces the reproductive output of corals, impacting upon coral spawning events and inhibiting the ability of reefs to recover from coral bleaching events. Do you have any references to back up any of your statements?
Thomas
No excuses John. Of course we know that pseudo-sceptics rarely publish. (And yes we all know that the “evil empire” – a “global conspiracy” is preventing you).
But anyway to the business at hand and to your graph – why do you guys always love to constrain your analyses. Let’s see a full expansion of the analysis.
(1) Put some trend lines through your data – what’s a linear regression look like. Why not show us and not use the camouflage of a moving average.
(2) Why just use a data set from 1982 onwards. Do we have a full description of the metadata pedigree. A graph starting earlier with Smith & Reynolds has a strong trend.
(3) Lough has shown significant variations in temperature affect (with statistical analysis of significance) along the very wide latitude band that is the barrier reef. How about some regional slices/boxes.
(4) SSTs in the NW also look to be rising from her GRL 2008 paper – this issue is more than the NE coast
Ian,
It seems that coral, like humans and just about every other species to boot, slow down in hot weather.
I did a search of Jennifer’s site, and found the following comments from Dr Peter Ridd:
“The scientific evidence about the effect of rising water temperatures on corals is very encouraging. In the GBR, growth rates of corals have been shown to be increasing over the last 100 years, at a time when water temperatures have risen. This is not surprising as the highest growth rates for corals are found in warmer waters.”
“Corals are particularly well adapted to temperature changes and in general, the warmer the better.”
I’m slightly confused as to the general message here. Ridd seems to be saying that there IS an increase in water temperatures, and that corals are increasing in growth rates with warmer temperatures. Starck tells us that warmer temperatures are related to bleaching, and although the temperatures haven’t warmed, bleaching has caused downturns in calcification. Ridd tells us that for corals, the “warmer the better”, whereas now you are saying corals slow down in hot weather.
Which is correct?
Thomas
Kohl,
I’m not sure what point you are aiming at, but if that is a problem then is not the concept of a GLOBAL temperature average even more of a problem?
Can you point me to an example of this? What I’m aiming at, and what my problem with the McClean graph is that the data is averaged over an enormous area for each single point in time. The graph encompasses a considerable area of reef – in the southern GBR the average SST’s are much lower than in the north. By averaging the data from all of the areas, any SST anomalies become averaged.
Take a look at this graph (http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/trendmap/sst/0112/aus/1900/latest.gif) offered by David – I don’t know offhand what area these contour maps encompass, but any given point on the map represents a temporal trajectory for a particular point in time. When you start amalgamating multiple points, the data becomes averaged (which is what the McClean graph is showing).
Thomas
Jennifer:
The paper that sparked my current interest in the issue of sea surface temperatures (SST) at the GBR is ofcourse the paper by De’ath, Lough and Fabricius published last Friday. It suggests a dramatic decline in coral growth rates post 1990 and implicates rising SST. So perhaps the more recent temperature period is of most relevance to the current discussion.
The De’ath et al paper clearly state the SST data set in the supplimentary methods. Figure 1c in the De’ath et al paper clearly shows temperature trends in annual SST for 2 degree latitudinal bands on the GBR. I mentioned this to you in the previous post, and you ignored it, instead preferring to use the McClean graph.
These graphs make it abundantly clear that the sea surface temperature along Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are not increasing at an alarming rate. The people who say otherwise have no evidence whatsoever to support their claims.
The McClean graphs do not make it abundantly clear that the SST along Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are not increasing at an alarming rate. The McClean graphs show that by spatially averaging the SST across fourteen degrees of latitude, there is no increase. This isn’t the same thing, and as a scientist lauding the benefits of layman, you should realise this. As Luke has pointed out repeatedly, there is plenty of evidence to support claims showing that SST has increased along the GBR: multiple lines of peer reviewed evidence which you repeatedly choose to ignore.
Thomas
Bill Illis: The ERSST.v3 data was introduced in a May 2008 Journal of Climate paper. However, I’ve been downloading ERSST.v3 data from the NCDC website since mid-April 2008. As far as I can tell, most of the revisions in the recent update, November 2008, took place in the Southern Hemisphere, with the greatest changes occurring in the Southern Ocean data. Unfortunately, the new dataset, ERSST.v3b, is not available through NOMADS or through the KNMI website. We’ll just have to wait.
BTW, I just finished that post we discussed a few weeks ago. It’s online.
Luke,
Your last post to me confirms my point. Has it never occurred to you that if the sceptics continue with their well reasoned criticism of some of published climate science, that there might be a teensie weensie possibility climate science might have it wrong?
The profound lack of doubt in your science suggests an intellectual deafness, but then if AGW is a scam, alot of you and your mates might be out of work, so it has to be defended down to the last taxpayer funded dollar.
So now Thomas Moore needs a literature reference to allow him to confirm or deny that coral bleaching is not uniform across the GBR? And then he needs another reference to allow him to confirm or deny the fact that healthy spawn from healthy corals re-colonise areas degraded by bleaching?
Have you ever actually seen, or even seen footage of, a coral spawning?
Do you seriously believe the GBR is impacted uniformly?
What next fella? An official peer reviewed paper to confirm that men with beer gawk at big tits?
Spare us the cheap sophistry.
I see some say that Lough and or De’ath used the HadSST2 data whereas John McLean has graphed the Reynolds data which I understand incorporates some satellite input. Re SST data in general, there have been so many large adjustments/corrections mainly around WWII to get SST trends to fit passably with IPCC GW that any reliance on century long and decadal trends to fit this or that theory could be unwise. And of course years ago CRU adjusted coastal SST warmer to fit land data. See;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=56
The next page illustrates the huge adjustments needed to make SST fit land trends and another point is that the older the paper dealing with SST, the less warming trend and the more prominent is warmth in the late 19C.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/sst/
I did some comparisons of Reynolds and Hadley SST data around New Zealand
Page pointing out large variations in temperature trends for NZ region.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/nz/nztdata.htm
Graphic showing differences between Reynolds and Hadley V3 data
http://www.warwickhughes.com/nz/had3minreyn.gif
Graphic showing differences between Reynolds and Hadley V3 data
http://www.warwickhughes.com/nz/had2minreyn.gif
Blog article April 08 pointing out huge global discontinuity between Hadley and Reynolds late 1990’s
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=161
Clearly all these datasets are in a state of flux despite all the pressures on the various teams to please the IPCC and agree closely; any policy-makers who think the science is settled need counselling.
I would like to have the computing facilities to quickly interrogate grid cell differences in these datasets.
Ian,
So now Thomas Moore needs a literature reference to allow him to confirm or deny that coral bleaching is not uniform across the GBR?
No, this is clear that coral bleaching isn’t uniform across the GBR. What I’d like to know is where you got the statement “Bleaching events during that period only take place in relatively sheltered sections of the reef”, and “even then the damage is corrected by the very next spawning event”. Do you have any literature references to back up those two statements?
And then he needs another reference to allow him to confirm or deny the fact that healthy spawn from healthy corals re-colonise areas degraded by bleaching?
Coral bleaching impacts on the fecundity of corals. This sub-lethal impact of coral bleaching can last several seasons, resulting in significantly reduced rates of recovery from coral bleaching. The lethal impacts of coral bleaching are even more severe – recolonisation of dead areas is dependent upon the supply of gametes from adjacent areas of the reef, which is considerably reduced where sub-lethal bleaching impacts have occurred.
So, back to the point: the reason i’d like references to statements such as “and even then the damage is corrected by the very next spawning event” is because there is no supporting evidence to prove your case. There are numerous studies suggest otherwise: bleached corals can take several seasons to recover and regain reproductive output.
Have you ever actually seen, or even seen footage of, a coral spawning?
Not that this has any relevance to the discussion whatsoever, but yes, multiple times in several different oceans.
Do you seriously believe the GBR is impacted uniformly?
Not at all. Latitudinal temperature gradients on the GBR are considerable, as are SST anomalies. If the GBR isn’t uniform, then why are we looking at a graph that averages temperatures across the entire GBR?
What next fella? An official peer reviewed paper to confirm that men with beer gawk at big tits?
Hey, I like beer and big tits as much as the next fella.
However, what I would like to see is more citing of reliable case studies, and less conjecture.
Has anyone played around with the raw data for NOAA Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature Analysis yet?
It’s actually kind of cool. There is a visualisation tool over at the NOAA Site (http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/DataAccess.pl?DB_dataset=NOAA+Optimum+Interpolation+(OI)+SST+V2&DB_variable=Sea+Surface+Temperature&DB_statistic=Mean&DB_tid=22115&DB_did=62&DB_vid=1295)
If you plug in a few variables to cover the entire GBR, and ask it to plot a dataset between Dec 1981 and Nov 2008, this is the output:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/GrADS.pl?dataset=NOAA+Optimum+Interpolation+(OI)+SST+V2&DB_did=62&file=%2FDatasets%2Fnoaa.oisst.v2%2Fsst.mnmean.nc&variable=sst&DB_vid=1295&DB_tid=22115&units=degC&longstat=Mean&DB_statistic=Mean&stat=&lon-begin=142.0E&lon-end=153.0E&lat-begin=10.0S&lat-end=24.0S&dim0=time&year_begin=1981&mon_begin=Dec&year_end=2008&mon_end=Oct&X=lon&Y=lat&output=plot&bckgrnd=white&use_color=on&fill=on&labels=on&cint=&range1=&range2=&scale=100&submit=Create+Plot+or+Subset+of+Data
So, using the same dataset as John McClean’s graph is taken from, the reefs at the northern end of the GBR near the Torres Strait (around 10-11S) are an average of 27.75C, whereas reefs near the southern end of the GBR (such as the Keppels, or the Capricorn Bunker Group) down at 23S average out to be 24.5C.
So John McClean’s graph is spatially averaging 3C of temperature differences across the latitudes? Why don’t we see any of this error in the graph? Even De’ath et al presented their graph with 95% confidence intervals.
Strange that Mottsa in one line moved from coral spawning to “tits’ ?? He’s getting frisky again.
Hey Ian – here’s some great tits to gawk at.
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2553987/2/istockphoto_2553987_great_tits.jpg
Here is a more accurate analysis using co-ordinates from GBRMPA:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/GrADS.pl?dataset=NOAA+Optimum+Interpolation+(OI)+SST+V2&DB_did=62&file=%2FDatasets%2Fnoaa.oisst.v2%2Fsst.mnmean.nc&variable=sst&DB_vid=1295&DB_tid=22115&units=degC&longstat=Mean&DB_statistic=Mean&stat=&lon-begin=142.0E&lon-end=153.0E&lat-begin=-10.41.151S&lat-end=-24.29.904S&dim0=time&year_begin=1981&mon_begin=Dec&year_end=2008&mon_end=Nov&X=lon&Y=lat&output=plot&bckgrnd=black&use_color=on&cint=&range1=&range2=&scale=100&submit=Create+Plot+or+Subset+of+Data
From the very northern end of the GBR marine park, 28.6327C
From the very southern end of the GBR marine park, 23.4818C
Which would make the latitudinal difference across the entire GBR between 1981-2008 (using the same dataset as John McClean) of over 5C.
Warwick Hughes: The reason for the HADSST discontinuity in the late 1990s is their transition to satellite-based data. I posted about it 3 weeks ago.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html
In a comparison to the ERSST.v2, ERSST.v3b, and OI.v2 SST data sets from NCDC, the transition in the HADSST data appears to add approximately 0.05 to 0.1 deg C to their global dataset.
Thomas
Average temperature of what physical object over 344,000 km^2?
Thomas, I find your critique of John McLean’s treatment of the NOAA temperature data very amusing; John has averaged anomalies and by doing so minimised regional deviations to arrive at a standardised figure for the whole GBR; this is eactly what AGW does; this was criticised by McKitrick, Essex and Andresen in their seminal, peer-reviewed paper, much to the chagrin of all the usual AGW supporters who rabett on about peer-review. Does this mean that the GMST will be subject to the same lambasting as John’s perfectly reasonable treatment of an accepted source of temperature data?
Cohenite – he’ll do anything to avoid a trend line ! Ha !
Cohenite,
I haven’t read this seminal, peer-reviewed paper by McKitrick, Essex and Andresen, nor do I know what GMST is, but I disagree with John McClean’s graph and his interpretation. I think this warrants a closer look at the dataset in question.
Thomas
Louis,
like many of these discussions, the ultimate argument for all those unpublished sceptiics seems to be the conspiracy-type one – as you say ‘if AGW is a scam’. What would constitute evidence of a scam.? Tell us your hypothesis, spell it out – I reckon between us all we could then go find the evidence. You could claim the Nobel – what a prospect. Surely what unites us is a passion for the truth and rejection of hypocrisy, so if you can outline what would constitute evidence of a scam, you will get volunteers a plenty to go find.
Thomas; GMST is global mean standard temperature; you can’t have AGW unless you have a global average temperature to increase; regionalism is one argument against this and several papers by Pielke and others looking at how Stefan-Bolzman impacts on the radiative balance of the Earth, which supposedly AGW is upsetting through CO2 capture of IR, seriously question the idea of uniformity which is essential for AGW; the MEA paper is here;
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
Cohenite,
“A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously,
making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically
ill-posed.”
I’m aware of this. http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends is a great illustration.
I am reading the Essex et al paper, but thermodynamics is way outside of my understanding. I have no idea what “Stefan-Bolzman impacts on the radiative balance of the Earth” mean. I’ll digest it and get back to you, but i’m no expert, so there probably isn’t much I can add. I do know that i’m skeptical of the spatial averaging in John McClean’s graph.
GMST is global mean standard temperature; you can’t have AGW unless you have a global average temperature to increase; regionalism is one argument against this
Can I ask a few questions about the premise of AGW though. Does AGW have to be a uniform increase in temperature? Does the increase have to be global? If say 40% of ‘regions’ cooled, and 60% of ‘regions’ warmed, is this net increase in global standard temperature equate to global warming? Honest questions.
Thomas
“If 40% of the ‘regions’ cooled, and 60% of ‘regions’ warmed”; Well Thomas that is anathema to AGW; first look at Stefan-Boltzman; j=T^4; which means the energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature of that surface; from that you can see that hotter surfaces will emit more radiation; if CO2 is increasing then it will trap more radiation, IR/LW, over those hotter surfaces; but what about if there is relatively more warming over cooler surfaces [as is supposed to be happening at the Arctic] then in warmer areas, which may be even cooling; the GMST, which is based on anomalies, will show an increase because the cooler areas may have a larger anomalous temperature increase then the warmer areas which may have little or no anomalous increase; but because of the SB effect there will be only a slight increase, if any, of IR for the increased CO2 to capture; so you may have an increasing GMST but the AGW mechanism, increased IR, may not be occuring. This contradiction is discussed here;
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/average-temperature-vs-average.html
Thomas; GMST is global mean standard temperature; you can’t have AGW unless you have a global average temperature to increase; regionalism is one argument against this and several papers by Pielke and others looking at how Stefan-Bolzman impacts on the radiative balance of the Earth, which supposedly AGW is upsetting through CO2 capture of IR, seriously question the idea of uniformity which is essential for AGW; the MEA paper is here;
there is NO idea of “global uniformity” in AGW. the theory is well aware of local differences.
actually the global average is covering recent developments in the north in the very same way, as an average over a huge sea area might cover real developments over corals.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
(look at the global temp over the last few years, then at the northern latitude one from the second link…)
again: AGW is well aware of this. just denialists aren t…
“global average temperature” is needed, to describe the TREND in temperature all over earth.
when looking at regional developments (like a coral colony), you might want to look at the local water temp…
i fail to see the relevance of the Motl approach. it is a nice mathematical example, but the claim that it affects climate science is dubious.
it needs the assumption, that scientists are staring at the global mean (mostly ignorant of any regional temperature trends), doing some BACKWARD CALCULATIONS from the global mean.
but this is not what is happening. instead, climate models based on PHYSICAL PROPERTIES were able to pretty accurately predict the global mean (and hemispheric) changes in temperature.
the Pielke paper seems completely irrelevant to the subject. it is basically a discussion of the Anthony Watts project into measurement errors on surface stations…
Bazza,
I don’t recall stating that AGW was a scam in this thread – but it’s bad science, if it’s science in the first instant.
Bazza,
Actually David Deming proved it some time back – when he got the email from one of the climate heavies stating that climate science had to get rid of the MWP. No further proof is needed.
And a Nobel prize? What, for politics? Climate Science? Spare me.
Thank you Bob Tisdale, so the impact for this thread is that the Hadley SST’s quoted by De’ath et al would carry this error. And politicians / policymakers / AGW supporters claim the “science is settled”.
sod; you are either being disingenuous or you don’t know what you are talking about; noone said the GCM’s don’t look at regions but, as this thread shows, particularly the fine non peer-reviewed work of Bob, Warwick and Bill, what AGW then does with regional info is the problem; luke may hide behind the authority of the PR literature but until the very real issues of incomplete data and methods of adjusting that data are dealt with then AGW remains a tainted concept.
Anyway AGW is also tainted in theory as well; you obviously don’t appreciate that AGW and greenhouse theory are predicated on the assumption that the equilibruim temperature of a non-greenhouse atmosphered Earth is 255K and with the greenhouse atmosphere the GMST is 33K higher; it is this assumption which is the basis of AGW and the increased greenhouse effect allegedly being caused by extra ACO2 which is increasing the greenhouse equilibrium average temperature of 288K; all this was described in Arthur Smith’s ‘rebuttal’ of Gerlich and Tscheushner’s paper about there being no average temperature and greenhouse effect; see;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.432v1.pdf
Smith’s paper is deeply flawed for reasons including the criticism mounted in Pielke’s paper and Motl’s calculations, namely that Stefan-Boltzman based temperature regional differences in emitted IR can mean no net increase in IR [and therefore that IR available to be trapped by CO2] even while GMST based on regional anomalies is increasing. AGW has also predicted regional increases in temperature; this aspect of AGW, how the model predictions stack up against what actually happening regionally, was looked at by Koutsoyiannis;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/3/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPrSm_.pdf
What utter utter bunk Cohenite
“the fine non peer-reviewed work of Bob, Warwick and Bill,” – barf ! – exactly what have they contributed to climate science actually? Quasi-scientific political rants more like it.
The lack of peer review probably means it’s mere opinion. Afraid to put the ideas to the test?
But then again there are so many ideas – which to choose from is a dilemma. It’s a veritable dog’s brekky mate. The world is cooling, but we don’t know the temperature so how can we know anything, it’s cosmic rays, no it’s solar torque, no “rebounding” from LIA, clouds from 50 different angles, no PDO building heat, volcanoes, it’s the moon, it’s my arthritis, it’s my dog …. spare us…
luke; the Pielke and Koutsoyiannis papers were peer-reviewed. And I don’t think someone who uses an avatar which looks like Quasimodo’s 1/2 brother should use the word “quasi-scientific”.
Luke
“spare us…”
I honestly wish you would.
Lately you have become an obnoxious bore.
Before you were just obnoxious.
Luke: ‘But then again there are so many ideas – which to choose from is a dilemma. It’s a veritable dog’s brekky mate. The world is cooling, but we don’t know the temperature so how can we know anything, it’s cosmic rays, no it’s solar torque, no “rebounding” from LIA, clouds from 50 different angles, no PDO building heat, volcanoes, it’s the moon, it’s my arthritis, it’s my dog …. spare us…’.
Yes your are right to say there are many ideas. Most of the ideas on your list are being explored by scientists, publishing in peer-reviewed literature (except for your arthritis or dog, as far as I am aware). This is how we acquire scientific knowledge Luke, which is different to dogmatic belief in CO2 as the primary driver.
John,
If he has questions about the method of averaging then simply asking a civil question about weighting would have received an answer. If you want answers then ask questions.
I just dropped you an email with a question on the data for SST graph. Apologies if my post came across as uncivil, it wasn’t intended that way.
Thomas
John,
I sent an email to the address on your page (john@mclean.ch), but it bounced with the following error:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
john@mclean.ch
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.1.1 … User unknown CRBL (state 14).
Can you drop me an email (thomasmooreis @ gmail.com) or provide an alternative contact email?
Thomas
AGW has also predicted regional increases in temperature; this aspect of AGW, how the model predictions stack up against what actually happening regionally, was looked at by Koutsoyiannis;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/3/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPrSm_.pdf
cohenite, your use of scientific terms sometimes gets even me confused. so occasionally i really believe that you know, what you are talking about.
the paper you cite in this case, is comparing the results of a GLOBAL climate model to a LOCAL development.
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/3/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPrSm_.pdf
now if you find a single scientist, who believes that the global models will do well in tracking the temperature records of Albany (USA), drop me a line. the paper is complete rubbish.
(when i said “regional”, i was talking more about something approaching the size of a HEMISPHERE. as i mentioned as well…)
Marcus – don’t encourage me.
Cohers – but your gravatar seems to totally lack soul and content – does this reflect it’s owner.
Jen said my Courtney Love gravatar was disingenuous, so I thought the creep theme worked better. But surely I can be Courtney if I wanted to? Would you take my case?
And yes – Koutsoyiannis – well interesting stuff but I wouldn’t expect GCMs to check out at this level of scale. Poor test. So interesting but ho hum.
Hey did you see the neat ongoing educational series by RC – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/langswitch_lang/ja
and I haven’t posted an RC link for months – Ian Castles ticked me off last time …
SOD: “the paper you cite in this case, is comparing the results of a GLOBAL climate model to a LOCAL development.”
Non sequitur.
“your use of scientific terms sometimes gets even me confused”; pretentious, moi? You’re funny sod; Koutsoyiannis is “rubbish” because, I gather, he compares model global predictions with regional results; did you even read the paper? Koutsoyiannis breaks the model outputs into equivalent regional basis for his comparison; if the regional components of the models’ global predictions are woefully inaccurate, how can we take seriously the global predictions, putting aside the fatal problem with GMST which I have referred to? A ‘precise’ regional comparison between the models and a designated part of Earth is dealt with in this study;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6
But really the lies and scams of Hansen and his temp ‘adjustments’ really means that any comparison highlighting the fallacy of the models is superflous beause Hansen simply manipulates data to achieve the desired result; eg;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/08/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-79-would-you-could-you-with-a-boat/#more-4455
This is just plain fraud and you are defending it.
You’re funny sod; Koutsoyiannis is “rubbish” because, I gather, he compares model global predictions with regional results; did you even read the paper? Koutsoyiannis breaks the model outputs into equivalent regional basis for his comparison; if the regional components of the models’ global predictions are woefully inaccurate, how can we take seriously the global predictions, putting aside the fatal problem with GMST which I have referred to?
i took a look at the presentation that i linked above. basically he is contradicting a claim, that nobody makes. a global temperature model can do VERY WELL; even if it gets the summer temperature for Paris in 2020 completely wrong…
A ‘precise’ regional comparison between the models and a designated part of Earth is dealt with in this study;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6
this study at least is looking at a reasonable thing. i look at the graph on page 5, and i am still astonished at how good the models are.
there are good explanations for the discrepancies out there. but the models are sound.
But really the lies and scams of Hansen and his temp ‘adjustments’ really means that any comparison highlighting the fallacy of the models is superflous beause Hansen simply manipulates data to achieve the desired result; eg;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/08/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-79-would-you-could-you-with-a-boat/#more-4455
This is just plain fraud and you are defending it.
if you can proof fraud, please do so.
from my look at the picture, somebody parked a trailer next to the sensor. he shouldn t have done that. this will have no significant impact on the TREND of temperature, that will be measured.
Non sequitur.
sorry, but you don t understand logic at all. so you shouldn t claim logical fallacies.
the part of my post that you quoted, does NOT include a conclusion. so it cant include a false conclusion either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
sod; you are delusional; the Christy and Douglass paper shows that the models are bereft of any connection with reality; at the surface, where there is a bare scant overlap with reality, it is because the models have not factored in an UHI effect which means their unreal warming trends was still more than the UHI effect; at the crucial CEL layer, which you don’t seem to understand given your recent support for the AGW predicted THS, there is no semblance of any consistency; you also do not understand that because the model or GISS has a similar trend to reality doesn’t mean they are doing something right; it does not mean this at all because even though over a short time the trend shapes will be similar over a longer period there will be marked divergence as this shows with Hansen’s fraudulent hysteria;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354
Your dismissal of the Watts link showing the Santa Rosa data before and after GISS gets its hands on it is facile and deserving of no respect at all; look at the graphs from NASA which are in blue and red; this consistent pattern of up-adjusting is mirrored at numerous locations and sites over the US; in addition the GISS record has been shown to have manipulated the whole US record to remove the fact the 1930s were hotter than any other period including post 2000; this sustained and repeated behaviour, which BoM is guilty of also, is indicative of either a peristent ignorance or a deliberate intent; it means that GISS and BoM etc are worthless in this debate; one further illustration of the uselessness of the models;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
I note that CO2 Science has written about this paper.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N1/EDIT.php
Sod,
Who mentioned conclusions? Not I unless I wrote in in the white spaces between the words…..and that confirms your delusionality which cohenite has pointed out.