Skip to content

NOAA’s Fake SST’s Not Supported By Atmospheric Data

September 28, 2015
tags:

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

 

Between 1979 and 1997, sea surface temperatures, SST’s, increased at a rate of 0.08C/decade, according to NOAA. This was almost exactly the same rate at which the lower atmosphere above the ocean warmed, using UAH data.

This, of course, is exactly what should be expected. As NASA state:

Sea surface temperatures have a large influence on climate and weather. Even changes of just a few degrees Celsius can influence large-scale weather phenomena, such as El Niño or tropical cyclones. One reason for this big influence is that evaporation from the oceans is the primary source of water vapor in the atmosphere. The warmer the water, the greater the evaporation.

It is this process of evaporation which cools the oceans, and subsequently warms the atmosphere via condensation.

 

However, since 1997 we find a totally different scenario.

While NOAA say that SST’s have continued increasing, atmpospheric temperatures have been falling.

 

image

 

1998 was an anomalous year, so has this skewed the results? Apparently not, because we find the same divergence when we measure from 2001.

 

image

 

Unless the laws of physics have changed, one of the datasets is wrong. UAH trends are very similar to RSS, and their processing methods are consistent and well established. On the other hand, NOAA relies on a mish mash of sparse ship and buoy measurements and missing data, all of which has been heavily adjusted.

I know which I would rather trust.

 

 

SOURCES

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta3

Advertisements
20 Comments
  1. Joe Public permalink
    September 28, 2015 12:32 pm

    Manipulation of SST – further explanations (particularly Tom Wigley’s email of 06:25 28/09/2009):

    http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt

    • September 28, 2015 1:14 pm

      If this was a high school science project, they would fail for ignoring the scientific method.

  2. September 28, 2015 12:37 pm

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” (Sir Walter Scott in “Marmion” his epic poem about the 1513 Battle of Flodden)

    • September 28, 2015 4:03 pm

      The old retort: “But when we’ve practised for a bit, we make a better job of it.” appears inappropriate where NOAA is concerned.

    • nightspore permalink
      September 28, 2015 6:21 pm

      Exactly. It’s catching up with them – as it had to sooner or later. The question that’s continually on my mind is, What kind of dweebs are we dealing with, who thought that they could carry on like this indefinitely?

  3. Jackington permalink
    September 28, 2015 2:31 pm

    Cameron is about to pour £6billion down the global warming drain based on such duff gen as this from NOAA. What a waste..

  4. September 28, 2015 3:48 pm

    Apart from quite a jump in the end point of the first graph and beginning of the second for the UAH line there would appear to be a disconnect. Let’s for now assume that both sets, NOAA and UAH, are correct.
    Which leads to the question: has the atmosphere reached a point where the water vapour content is now such that the small increase in the ocean temp and resulting heat content can not generate enough energy to increase the temp of the more moisture laden air above it in step?

  5. NeilC permalink
    September 28, 2015 3:49 pm

    I think it is the same principal that, when temperatures are going up, it’s CO2 to blame, but I’ve never understood, when tempertures go down, which they do, how the principal can be the same! Odd thing this climate science stuff.

  6. September 28, 2015 11:49 pm

    We have Argo since about 2003-2005 (pick your coverage). All else is biased guesswork.

  7. AndyG55 permalink
    September 29, 2015 1:18 am

    Nice sea level poll on Real Science.. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

  8. AndyG55 permalink
    September 29, 2015 1:22 am

    UAH USA48 trend also matches the cooling in the untainted USCRN trend quite well…..

    …. thus verifying it temperature extraction algorithms.

    But of course USHCN also matches USCRN…. just way too closely to be anything but intentionally adjusted to do so.

  9. KTM permalink
    September 29, 2015 7:22 am

    They used to know that ocean temperature and air temperatures were correlated.

    From the ClimateGate e-mails:

    “06:25 September 28, 2009: email 1254147614

    Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, then this would be significant for the global average—but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

    I’ve chosen 0.15 degrees Celsius here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip …

    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip?”

    They’ve become more brazen in the last 6 years that they no longer worry about pushing a climate narrative that is internally inconsistent.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      September 29, 2015 9:31 am

      Tom says…….”I’ve chosen”

      The AGW farce,and data corruption ….. writ large !!!!

      No Science there, folks

  10. cheshirered permalink
    September 29, 2015 10:40 am

    The single biggest clincher to ALL these bogus adjustments allegations is the truly deafening silence from all the named agencies. NOAA, NASA / GISS / NCDC, HADCRUT etc. They’ve all regularly been cited as cheating and corrupting data. That’s their professional reputations and integrity being allegedly smashed to pieces right there, yet while anyone else would be hot-footing it to their libel lawyers this lot all stay absolutely quiet.

    It’s doubly astonishing when you consider they’re ALL state-funded, so any loss in the legal courts would have little direct cost implication for the leading individuals.

    This fact alone tells any sane observer all they need to know.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      September 29, 2015 2:57 pm

      You forgot one, Australia’s BOM, they were being investigated by a Tony Abbott team, guess what, Tony Abbott gets ousted and replaced by an avid warmist by Goldman Sachs shenanigans.
      No more investigation.
      Follow the Money.
      As for the USA departments they have presidential backing so they can do whatever they want.

      • cheshirered permalink
        September 29, 2015 8:26 pm

        BoM: Yes, you’re right.
        Obarmy: in the US they won’t have him for ever…

  11. September 30, 2015 11:34 am

    ” UAH trends are very similar to RSS, and their processing methods are consistent and well established.”

    Really? Here is a plot of the same data, but with UAH5.6 added, as it stood earlier this year.

    UAH 5.6 was then rising just as fast as NOAA SST.

    • September 30, 2015 11:47 am

      As you know, Version 5.6 has been replaced by Version 6.0, which as your graph shows gives a flat trend.

      • September 30, 2015 11:50 am

        Indeed. But the difference does not seem “consistent and well-established”.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: