NOAA_ERSST_V4 data products - global coverage ?

citizenschallenge · February 2017

Can anyone tell me what area of the globe this data set covers.
What's excluded.

I was looking at their site but not seeing it, untrained eyes and all.
Any informative links with intros, descriptions would also be welcomed.

VictorVenema · February 2017

As far as I know ERSST estimates temperatures everywhere. One of their strengths is estimating the temperature in data sparse regions. For example, this article shows complete maps.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00251.1

citizenschallenge · February 2017

Thank you, that was cool, the entire paper is viewable, it was interesting but didn't address that specific question. Though the maps look liked there could be some significant gaps. Though I guess that's filled in with questimation. Elizabeth Kent's email address was on there, so I've sent her a short note asking. I'll share what I find out.

Sou · February 2017

CC good question. Victor's answered it, but I can add this link to the data, which shows ERSST v4 ocean data going from 90N to 90S.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaaglobaltemp/operational/timeseries/

Thanks for the link to the paper, Victor. I hadn't seen that one.

citizenschallenge · February 2017

Thanks, sometime you gotta spell it out for me. I can't get into the link, password request, just as well. I don't pretend to know my way around the technical stuff.

Back on point, now that I have that straight, the next questions would be

When did they achieve full coverage?
What kind of coverage did they have <2010 when the meme took root?

VictorVenema · February 2017

ERSST has full coverage from the beginning. The uncertainties will be larger in the beginning because they have less data to work with, but they estimate a sea surface temperature value everywhere to avoid a coverage bias. How the temperature where they do not have measurements in early times is related to the temperature where they do have measurements is estimated from the last decades of data where the coverage is good.

citizenschallenge · February 2017

Thanks Victor, I've continued looking around, and of course there's this.

Fyfe 2016
"It has been suggested 20 that the lack of Arctic surface measurements has resulted in an underestimate of the true rate of GMST increase in the early twenty-first century. Independent satellite-based observations21,22 of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT; Fig. 2f) have near-global, time- invariant coverage. Although satellite TLT datasets also have important uncertainties21, they corroborate the slowdown of GMST increase 23 and provide independent evidence that the slowdown is a real phenomenon."

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf

So I been hanging on to a dead notion. Kind of depressing to think I wasn't up on that by now, but so it goes. Besides I known I got a lot to keep on learning, a touch of disappointment in oneself, perhaps depression, so it goes. That stuff is a breeze. It's not about salving egos, it's about properly understanding what's going on, to the best of one's abilities.

And its not the reason I'm feeling devastatingly depressed. It's that paper "Making sense of the early- 2000s warming slowdown" I mean those authors include the best, heroes to me, I've listen to some of them often but that convoluted confusing thing is the best they could come up with when it comes to trying to communicate the situation??? I feel like totally giving up, I really am insane.

I mean why wasn't there an introduction that first described the fundamental situation - namely it's our atmosphere doing the heavy lifting - everything else is trying to track heat moving around a system.

Three times they use global warming - when I fact they are discussing surface measurements. Thus perpetuating an idiotic PR scam - can i hear a SEEPAGE folks? No of course not.

I've glanced at it a couple times this past week, quick skims. This evening I gave it a close reading and it's labyrinthian phrasing and it's seeming desperation to justify the warming rather than using the opportunity as a springboard to explain the limitation of measurements,

We don't even know what those measurements actually translate to. If it's establishing policy we are concerned about, we should look to how global warming driven climate change is already impacting significant areas.

I mean Curry and co make it sound as though accuracy to tenths of a degree are required for leaders to make sound decision - that ludicrous - what's it going to tell them? And serious scientist provide them crazy-makers with ample ammunition.

When will someone start talking about the difference between the map and the territory.

There is a difference between technical perfection and convey what is going on with our planet to people.

The framing of that paper is hideous - it's as though all these people have lost sight that there is something beyond the technical acumen going on here - we got a biosphere beginning to dissolve in front of us (a little Jeramy Jackson anyone) - what little warming that's occurred so far is already taking our weather beyond bounds of what we can handle. (Think Oroville Dam, and the future of California complex water system in the face of droughts followed by atmospheric rivers.)

Paper finished with: "The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown. This is particularly true in the embryonic field of decadal climate prediction, where the challenge is to simulate how the combined effects of external forcing and internal variability produce the time-evolving regional climate we will experience over the next ten years."

Jezz if a fraction of the effort were being put into tracking and categorizing and advertising the increasing tempo of life and infrastructure destroying extreme weather events, that would give our leaders information they needed for future decision -

but no instead we'll spend another decade arguing about fractions that don't even matter anymore, since the physical bottom line is that we continue pushing the peddle to the metal and are guaranteeing ourselves maximum destruction.

Lordie, lordie the fantasies we human preoccupy ourselves with.

FlyingDutchman · February 2017

VictorVenema said:

ERSST has full coverage from the beginning. The uncertainties will be larger in the beginning because they have less data to work with, but they estimate a sea surface temperature value everywhere to avoid a coverage bias. How the temperature where they do not have measurements in early times is related to the temperature where they do have measurements is estimated from the last decades of data where the coverage is good.

Sadly, that will just lead to the deniers crying about us scientists 'making stuff up'. And they wouldn't even be (entirely) wrong. Doesn't really matter for the larger changes over time (especially since the really nasty warming seems to be happening *right now*) but it's always tricky working with gaps in the data and the deniers don't accept any uncertainty.
Wish I knew what to do about it all.

VictorVenema · March 2017

That is a nice line to deceive people who do not want to hear truth, but the deniers would be wrong, interpolation is estimating a variable and not making one up. Interpolation is always performed. The observations are point estimates of the temperature. Even if you have a million measurements in a 100x100km box, when you compute the average of that box you are at least implicitly interpolating.

The only thing you can do with the unreasonable is not to listen to them. There is no science they will accept when the result is not politically convenient to them. To make sure that politicians and the media stop listening to them: get rid of the influence of money on US politics.

citizenschallenge · March 2017

Victor the problem is the powers that be don't give a damned.
Have you seen this: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/09/519425866/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-questions-basic-facts-about-climate-change

And who is there to stop them from inflicting yet more damage???

citizenschallenge · March 2017

Certainly not the scientists - consider Fyfe2016 as an example of the best they can do.

I think I need to drag myself though completing my Bates' review and then extract myself, the hopelessness is starting to over take, with bitterness not to far behind.

FlyingDutchman · March 2017

I'm on the wrong side of the ocean so (reliable) news can be hard to get, but it seems like the Trump side of things might at least get shaken up pretty soon. The more the intelligence agencies go after Trump's connections to Russia, the more likely it is that other conflicts of interest get dragged into the light as well. Unlikely to solve the long-term issue of denialism and corruption, but it might make the GOP a bit more hesitant to work with this kind of obvious cronyism and denial.

I know it might just be hopeful thinking (I certainly don't have any faith in the US keeping itself in check), but it's better than just endless despair.

citizenschallenge · March 2017

We keep hoping, but it feels like Trump is being normalized over here. If I were a praying man I'd be praying blood to be wrong. We shall see soon enough, too soon. The damage this man will inflict on our environment and human civility is horrendous.

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Forums

In this Discussion

Where Australia's electricity comes from

NOAA_ERSST_V4 data products - global coverage ?

Comments

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Forums

In this Discussion