Why Aren’t Global Surface Temperature Data Produced in Absolute Form?

The title question often appears during discussions of global surface temperatures.   That is, GISS, Hadley Centre and NCDC only present their global land+ocean surface temperatures products as anomalies.  The questions is: why don’t they produce the global surface temperature products in absolute form?

In this post, I’ve included the answers provided by the three suppliers.  I’ll also discuss sea surface temperature data and a land surface air temperature reanalysis which are presented in absolute form.  And I’ll include a chapter that has appeared in my books that shows why, when using monthly data, it’s easier to use anomalies.

Back to global temperature products:

GISS EXPLANATION

GISS on their webpage here states:

Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures

Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km. For a more detailed discussion, see The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.

UKMO-HADLEY CENTRE EXPLANATION

The UKMO-Hadley Centre answers that question…and why they use 1961-1990 as their base period for anomalies on their webpage here.

Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90?

Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries measure average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data (see more discussion on this and other points in Jones et al. 2012). Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year (more discussion in Kennedy et al. 2011).

It is possible to develop an absolute temperature series for any area selected, using the absolute file, and then add this to a regional average in anomalies calculated from the gridded data. If for example a regional average is required, users should calculate a time series in anomalies, then average the absolute file for the same region then add the average derived to each of the values in the time series. Do NOT add the absolute values to every grid box in each monthly field and then calculate large-scale averages.

NCDC EXPLANATION

Also see the NCDC FAQ webpage here. They state:

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATASETS AND A REANALYSIS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN ABSOLUTE FORM

Most sea surface temperature datasets are available in absolute form.  These include:

  • the Reynolds OI.v2 SST data from NOAA
  • the NOAA reconstruction ERSST
  • the Hadley Centre reconstruction HADISST
  • and the source data for the reconstructions ICOADS

The Hadley Centre’s HADSST3, which is used in the HADCRUT4 product, is only produced in absolute form, however. And I believe Kaplan SST was also only available in anomaly form.

With the exception of Kaplan SST, all of those datasets are available to download through the KNMI Climate Explorer Monthly Observations webpage. Scroll down to SST and select a dataset.  For further information about the use of the KNMI Climate Explorer see the posts Very Basic Introduction To The KNMI Climate Explorer and Step-By-Step Instructions for Creating a Climate-Related Model-Data Comparison Graph.

GHCN-CAMS is a reanalysis of land surface air temperatures and it is presented in absolute form. It must be kept in mind, though, that a reanalysis is not “raw” data; it is the output of a climate model that uses data as inputs. GHCN-CAMS is also available through the KNMI Climate Explorer and identified as “1948-now: CPC GHCN/CAMS t2m analysis (land)”.  I first presented it in the post Absolute Land Surface Temperature Reanalysis back in 2010.

WHY WE NORMALLY PRESENT ANOMALIES

The following is “Chapter 2.1 – The Use of Temperature and Precipitation Anomalies” from my book Climate Models Fail.  There was a similar chapter in my book Who Turned on the Heat?

[Start of Chapter 2.1 – The Use of Temperature and Precipitation Anomalies]

With rare exceptions, the surface temperature, precipitation, and sea ice area data and model outputs in this book are presented as anomalies, not as absolutes. To see why anomalies are used, take a look at global surface temperature in absolute form.  Figure 2-1 shows monthly global surface temperatures from January, 1950 to October, 2011.  As you can see, there are wide seasonal swings in global surface temperatures every year.

The three producers of global surface temperature datasets are the NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), the NCDC (NOAA National Climatic Data Center), and the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service known as the UKMO (UK Met Office).  Those global surface temperature products are only available in anomaly form.  As a result, to create Figure 2-1, I needed to combine land and sea surface temperature datasets that are available in absolute form.  I used GHCN+CAMS land surface air temperature data from NOAA and the HADISST Sea Surface Temperature data from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.  Land covers about 30% of the Earth’s surface, so the data in Figure 2-1 is a weighted average of land surface temperature data (30%) and sea surface temperature data (70%).

Figure 2-1

When looking at absolute surface temperatures (Figure 2-1), it’s really difficult to determine if there are changes in global surface temperatures from one year to the next; the annual cycle is so large that it limits one’s ability to see when there are changes. And note that the variations in the annual minimums do not always coincide with the variations in the maximums.  You can see that the temperatures have warmed, but you can’t determine the changes from month to month or year to year.

Take the example of comparing the surface temperatures of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres using the satellite-era sea surface temperatures in Figure 2-2. The seasonal signals in the data from the two hemispheres oppose each other.  When the Northern Hemisphere is warming as winter changes to summer, the Southern Hemisphere is cooling because it’s going from summer to winter at the same time.  Those two datasets are 180 degrees out of phase.

Figure 2-2

After converting that data to anomalies (Figure 2-3), the two datasets are easier to compare.

Figure 2-3

Returning to the global land-plus-sea surface temperature data, once you convert the same data to anomalies, as was done in Figure 2-4, you can see that there are significant changes in global surface temperatures that aren’t related to the annual seasonal cycle.  The upward spikes every couple of years are caused by El Niño events.  Most of the downward spikes are caused by La Niña events.  (I discuss El Niño and La Niña events a number of times in this book.  They are parts of a very interesting process that nature created.)  Some of the drops in temperature are caused by the aerosols ejected from explosive volcanic eruptions.  Those aerosols reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the Earth, cooling it temporarily.  Temperatures rebound over the next few years as volcanic aerosols dissipate.

Figure 2-4

HOW TO CALCULATE ANOMALIES

For those who are interested:  To convert the absolute surface temperatures shown in Figure 2-1 into the anomalies presented in Figure 2-4, you must first choose a reference period. The reference period is often referred to as the “base years.”  I use the base years of 1950 to 2010 for this example.

The process: First, determine average temperatures for each month during the reference period. That is, average all the surface temperatures for all the Januaries from 1950 to 2010.  Do the same thing for all the Februaries, Marches, and so on, through the Decembers during the reference period; each month is averaged separately. Those are the reference temperatures.  Second, determine the anomalies, which are calculated as the differences between the reference temperatures and the temperatures for a given month.  That is, to determine the January, 1950 temperature anomaly, subtract the average January surface temperature from the January, 1950 value.  Because the January, 1950 surface temperature was below the average temperature of the reference period, the anomaly has a negative value.  If it had been higher than the reference-period average, the anomaly would have been positive.  The process continues as February, 1950 is compared to the reference-period average temperature for Februaries. Then March, 1950 is compared to the reference-period average temperature for Marches, and so on, through the last month of the data, which in this example was October 2011.  It’s easy to create a spreadsheet to do this, but, thankfully, data sources like the KNMI Climate Explorer website do all of those calculations for you, so you can save a few steps.

CHAPTER 2.1 SUMMARY

Anomalies are used instead of absolutes because anomalies remove most of the large seasonal cycles inherent in the temperature, precipitation, and sea ice area data and model outputs.  Using anomalies makes it easier to see the monthly and annual variations and makes comparing data and model outputs on a single graph much easier.

[End of Chapter 2.1 from Climate Models Fail]

There are a good number of other introductory discussions in my ebooks, for those who are new to the topic of global warming and climate change.  See the Tables of Contents included in the free previews to Climate Models Fail here and Who Turned on the Heat? here.

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in GISS, HADCRUT4, NCDC. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Why Aren’t Global Surface Temperature Data Produced in Absolute Form?

  1. Brian H says:

    Simplified: What’s usual? What’s not?

  2. A C Osborn says:

    Bob, can you tell me how they calculate the Global Sea Surface Temperature,
    do they average all the Argo data readings?
    Or do they average them by Ocean first and then average the oceans?

  3. Bob Tisdale says:

    A C Osborn, ARGO floats are only one of numerous methods by which sea surface temperature data are accumulated. There are other measurements from fixed and drifting buoys and from ship inlets. Two of the datasets also include satellite-based measurements.

    Data are actually compiled on a gridded basis. For example, the monthly data might be determined for 5 deg longitude by 5 deg latitude grids. (The satellite-based datasets are at a much higher resolution). Then if you wanted global data, you’d use a weighted average of the grids, with the weighting accounting for the smaller grid sizes at higher latitudes and the number of ocean grids at specific latitudes. For an individual basin, you’d use a weighted average of all of the grids in that basin, again with the weighting accounting for differences in surface area.

  4. A C Osborn says:

    Bob, thanks for that.

  5. Pingback: A Willful Misleader Leading Those Who Wish to Be Misled | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  6. Pingback: January 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  7. Pingback: January 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?

  8. Pingback: GISS LOTI & NCDC Global Temperature Data Drop in February 2014 | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  9. Pingback: GISS LOTI & NCDC Global Temperature Data Drop in February 2014 | Watts Up With That?

  10. Pingback: March 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  11. Pingback: March 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?

  12. Pingback: April 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  13. Pingback: April 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?

  14. Pingback: May 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  15. Pingback: May 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?

  16. Pingback: June 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  17. Pingback: June 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?

  18. Pingback: July 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  19. Pingback: July 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?

  20. Pingback: August 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  21. Pingback: August 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?

  22. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures

    Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km. …..”””””

    The whole purpose of using “anomalies” which are Temperatures referred to an arbitrary NON-SI temperature scale; where each “reporter” has their own arbitrary non-SI temperature scale, is to create the mythological illusion in the public mind, that planet earth is very close to being an isothermal surface on which we all live, so therefore, completely inconsequential shifts of hundredths of a degree Celsius, are made to look like major events.

    In fact, on any ordinary northern mid summer day, the real SI scale Temperature range on earth, can be as much as 150 kelvin, and quite routinely is at least 120 K. And due to an argument by Galileo Galilei, there are an infinite number of places on earth that have ANY absolute Temperature value within that total range, and all at exactly the same moment.

    That in itself is a sufficient reason to stop using such nonsense, to fool the public; but the real effect is far more serious.
    For that total SI Temperature range, the appropriate Black Body radiant emittance varies by as much as a factor of 12 times, from coldest to hottest spots on earth, and the hottest surface spots are emitting during the daytime, at around twice the W/m^2 radiant emission rate obtained for the supposed “global” Temperature of 288 K. (based on BB calculations.) And thereby are cooling the earth much faster than the claimed rates. Well most surfaces aren’t real BBs, but that is still a reasonable basis for comparing.

    At the purported 288 K global mean Temperature, the resultant BB spectrum envelope to the actual radiant emittance, is peaked at about 10.1 microns wavelength on a wavelength based spectrum (opposite to what chemists use), and 98% of the emissions, lie between about 5.0 microns to 80 microns wavelength. For that range of wavelengths, the absorption coefficient of water lies in the range of 300 (@ 5 u) to 3,000 (@20 u) cm^-1 and around 1,000 over most of that range. So that gives a 1/e absorption depth of as much as 1/300 cm (33 u) to as little as 3.3 u, and averaging about 10 microns.

    So the 99% absorption depth is five times that or 165 to 16.5 microns, or 0.1 mm average.

    Consequently, an ordinary 16 ounce bottle of drinking water, chilled in the refrigerator to 15 deg. C is a quite respectable source for the typical global surface LWIR radiant emissions, that are the cause of all the climate change calamity on this planet. That is what is typically radiating towards the clouds, and the CO2 infested atmosphere. Well I believe Kevin Trenberth, et al, peg that at about 390 W/m^2.

    And it’s a good deal less, than Bill Nye’s 100 W incandescent lamp, that glows at one half of the surface Temperature of the sun (2880 K) and emits at a whopping 10,000 times the radiant emittance of the earth surface, or the water bottle.

    Is it even possible to be more corrupt than that, in trying to depict what the environment around us is doing ??

  23. gymnosperm says:

    Bob, I landed here from a search for absolute lower troposphere temperature data. I have become increasingly annoyed with the notion that “the ocean is eating” global warming. Never mind that the notion begs the question of why the oceans would suddenly develop such an appetite around the turn of the millennium. It struck me that a really good way to refute this notion would be to show absolute LTT maps opposed to (or even layered over) absolute SST maps which are available.

    Couldn’t do it. The information is unavailable to the common man. At least without laboriously deconstructing anomalies to absolute temps.

    Looked into Qnet sea-air fluxes which would amount to the same thing, but gleaned from various NOAA and NCAR sources that this is currently hopeless.

    If you have any suggestions, I would be most appreciative.

  24. Bob Tisdale says:

    gymnosperm, bottom line is you’re looking for SST and TLT data in absolute form. The KNMI Climate Explorer has both.
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

    The RSS TLT data are presented as absolute and anomalies there. Unfortunately, there’s no land mask for the RSS data.

    The other alternative would be to use Marine Air Temperature data, which is listed as “Air Temperature”. They are problematic though.

  25. gymnosperm says:

    Thanks Bob, I had found the RSS tlt previously but been thrown off by the big heading “upper atmosphere”. I really appreciate the help.

    Here is the result:
    http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2014/10/05/the-ocean-ate-it/

  26. Pingback: September 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  27. Pingback: September 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?

  28. Pingback: October 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  29. Pingback: November 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update * The New World

  30. Pingback: January 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  31. Pingback: February 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  32. Pingback: February 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | US Issues

  33. Pingback: March 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  34. Pingback: April 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  35. Pingback: May 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  36. rlbrehm says:

    have you looked at integrating the dataset? it is not the average but the area.

  37. Pingback: Both NOAA and GISS Have Switched to NOAA’s Overcooked “Pause-Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Data for Their Global Temperature Products | Watts Up With That?

  38. Pingback: July 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  39. Pingback: July 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | US Issues

  40. Pingback: August 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  41. Pingback: September 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  42. Pingback: October 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  43. Pingback: November 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update | Watts Up With That?

  44. Pingback: Global temperatures have become so hot that even the charts used by climate change deniers show that it’s getting warmer | TechBook

  45. Pingback: Global temperatures have become so hot that even the charts used by climate change deniers show that it’s getting warmer | Digital Wealth

  46. Pingback: Global temperatures have become so hot that even the charts used by climate-change deniers show that it’s getting warmer | TechBook

  47. Pingback: Even the charts used by climate-change deniers show that temperatures are getting warmer | TechBook

  48. Pingback: Global temperatures have become so hot that even the charts used by climate change deniers show that it’s getting warmer

  49. Pingback: Even the charts used by climate-change deniers show Earth is getting warmer | Digital Wealth

  50. Pingback: Even the charts used by climate-change deniers show Earth is getting warmer | Immune Apps

  51. Pingback: Even the charts used by climate-change deniers show Earth is getting warmer - Responsive | Responsive

  52. Pingback: Even the charts used by climate-change deniers show Earth is getting warmer - bns24.com

  53. Pingback: Mild Signal into New Year's Day - Potential for Christmas Day Slop-Storm - PAUL DOUGLAS

  54. Pingback: Even the charts used by climate-change deniers show Earth is getting warmer

  55. Pingback: Even the charts used by climate-change deniers show Earth is getting warmer | Centre.al

  56. Pingback: Welcome Winter Solstice! Odds of White Christmas at MSP Fade - PAUL DOUGLAS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s