Latest News (hidethedecline)
NOAA - hottest in Europe!
|Posted by Frank Lansner (frank) on 4th May, 2010|
|Latest News (hidethedecline) >>|
This is no news - but still needs to be told. NOAA can in many contexts come up with the hottest temperatures available. Here we take a look at the European Sea Surface Temperatures as of 3 may 2010.
NOAA vs. UNISYS, SST, Europe. When I look at this compare, again and again I have to check if these SST are from the very same date, 3 may 2010. But they are. Differences are immense to an extend where it hardly makes sense to look after the European SST?
NOAA is hotter than UNISYS in for example these waters:
The Baltic Sea, The North Sea, The Caspian Sea,
And in addition,
The Black Sea has NOAA Approx. 3,5 K warmer than UNISYS, and
"The NOAA hotspot area" North of Scandinavia: NOAA Approx. 4 - 6 K warmer than UNISYS .
Is there a valid sound simple explanation for these great differences?
In addition NOAA uses a colour scheme that makes Europe look as if surrounded by burning lava. It’s quite a difference to the impression you get when looking at the UNISYS graphic.
So which graphic is correct? For the Baltic, here’s what the "jury" says, SMHI (From Sweden) has an updated SST for the Baltic Sea from exactly 3 may 2010:
The 3 graphics agree reasonably for the Northern Baltic Sea, but for the rest of the Baltic Sea, SMHI shows in average around - 1,5 degrees Celsius anomaly. Both UNISYS and NOAA show too warm temperatures, but NOAA far worse than UNISYS. So, NOAA is around 2 K warmer in this area than SMHI - the best estimate.
Europe is not the only area where NOAA has warmer temperatures than UNISYS. NOAA appears markedly warmer than UNISYS on the Northern Hemisphere - but a little colder than UNISYS in areas of the Southern Hemisphere:
Link to the daily UNISYS SST:
Link to NOAA SST - use "FULL GLOBAL" to see all:
Link to SMHI detailed SST for Baltic + Danish waters:
Last changed: 6th May, 2010 at 17:52:11Back
|JPA Knowles||By Unknown on 31st August, 2010 at 03:39:25|
|If NOAA are using satellite infra-red readings interpolated to temperatures, perhaps we need to do some checking of their method. It should be easy enough to cross-check actual temperature observations on the Baltic with these satellite images.
From my readings at NOAA's web-site they are pro CAGW which is a poor perspective for scientists. They need to stick to hard-core observation and present it as it is, noise and all, and avoid drawing too many conclusions.
|Amazing, yes -||By Unknown on 5th May, 2010 at 11:23:19|
|I just wonder, howcome the NOAA has so little limits on their warming adjusting? I mean, if you want to get away with something... isnt this a bit kamikaze-like?
And you can make endless number of these NOAA HOTTIES not only from SST as you know, but who has the time to reveal NOAA´s burning graphics all the time?
K.R. Frank Lansner
|Amazing NOAA||By Unknown on 5th May, 2010 at 02:54:35|
I was startled by the NOAA claim that March was the hottest ever, when you guys in the northern hemisphere seem to be enduring a long cold winter and a delayed spring, while here in Australia we had a relatively mild wet summer to autumn on the east coast.
"Average ocean temperatures were the hottest for any March since record-keeping began in 1880" according to the press.
Perhaps this is how NOAA achieve their amazing results....