Global Heat Records: August 2009 and June-August 2009

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xnn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Climate State
Click For Summary
In August 2009, the global average surface temperature was 0.62°C above the 20th-century average, marking the second warmest August on record. The June-August 2009 period was the third warmest for that season, with a temperature 0.59°C above average. Ocean temperatures also reached record highs, with August 2009 being the warmest on record for that month. A weak El Niño was present, contributing to elevated sea surface temperatures, and is expected to strengthen through the winter of 2009-2010. Overall, these trends indicate a continuing pattern of rising global temperatures, despite regional variations.
  • #31
The following paper provides lots of details

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/SEA.temps08.pdf

Note that if the ship–buoy bias were also adjusted with
respect to the ships, then the most recent years would
be warmer, because the ship–buoy difference tends to
be positive and because of the increasing number of
buoy observations. However, as discussed above, these
differences are well within the 95% confidence limits.

The rankings of the
warmest 10 yr are similar for both, with 2005 the warmest
for both followed by 1998, a year with a strong warm
ENSO episode (Table 6).

Rank Merged.v2 Merged.v3
1 2005 0.41 2005 0.40
2 1998 0.38 1998 0.37
3 2002 0.36 2003 0.36
4 2003 0.36 2002 0.35
5 2006 0.35 2006 0.33
6 2004 0.34 2004 0.32
7 2001 0.30 2001 0.29
8 1997 0.27 1997 0.25
9 1999 0.20 1995 0.18
10 1995 0.19 1999 0.17

So, the 10 warmest years have "cooled off" under v3, with the exception of 2002, which remained the same. But, if they adjusted the ship-buoy data were adjusted for ships, then they would be warmer.

Evo; About satellite data:

That is because
both ERSST.v3 and OI.v2 incorporate bias-adjusted
satellite data.

The ERSST.v3 is improved by explicitly including
bias-adjusted satellite infrared SST estimates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32
Evo said:
No, it's not. You apparently misread what I posted, which was that the NCDC stopped using satellite data in July 2009 in their "State of the climate". If you retracted this, I apologize, but you posted so prolifically trying to explain yourself that I honestly can't find it. :-p

Evo, I am sorry if this is too hard to follow, but it is all in the post to which you are replying, and I stand by that post, [post=2359652]msg #18[/post] in the thread, to explain precisely where the NCDC is continuing to use the satellite data, and where it has stopped using it.

Furthermore, you have edited my post, without any notice to me or indication of why you did so. In the process you have removed all the formatting which is intended to make it easy to navigate and locate information. The links are all gone, and quoting indications, and so on. It's a mess. I don't know what else you have changed and it is now almost impossible to follow.

But here is again for you, step by step, concerning the State of the Climate reports.
  • The NCDC no longer uses satellite data for ranking and long term trends, in the initial parts of the report. The impact of this on trends is negligible.
  • The NCDC continues to use satellite data in the report, in particular for the ENSO outlook.
  • Where they use ERSST they are using version 3b, with no satellite data. Where they use the OISST, satellite data is still included.
  • The difference between these datasets and the reasons for having two sets, are explained in the links provided and which you have removed in your edit.

I write prolifically to give this detail, and avoid the simple "yes it is"/"no it isn't" exchange.

You were also incorrect (at the end of [post=2356463]msg #13[/post]) as to WHY this change was made.

Felicitations -- sylas
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
13K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
16K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K