NASA GISS has released their data for temperature through June of 2015. Prior to now, they have used ERSSTv3b (extended reconstructed sea surface temperature version 3b) for sea surface temperature, but they have now switched to the revised, updated ERSSTv4 (version 4). Let’s take a look at the new data and how it compares to its predecessor.



Graphs of monthly data overlap so much that they’re a bit unclear, therefore I’ve computed annual averages. This year isn’t complete yet, so for 2015 I’ll display “year so far” data which goes through June for the new data, only through May for the prior. And here’s a comparison:

The changes aren’t big, but they do illustrate even more strongly just how much of a myth the whole “pause” idea was. Always has been.

It’s interesting to look closely at the data since 1970:

We can also revise our estimate of the trend since 1970. Using the prior data, the estimate is 0.0165 +/- 0.0028 deg.C/yr, with the new data it’s 0.0174 +/- 0.0028 deg.C/yr. Both estimates are within each others’ 95% confidence intervals.

Of course, deniers are frothing at the mouth about the change. The “hit man” for WUWT, Bob Tisdale has been insulting it as much as he can. He keeps saying things like “Overcooked “Pause-Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Data” and “unjustifiable, overcooked adjustments presented in Karl et al. (2015)” and “magically warmed data.” He especially emphasizes the phrase “pause-busting,” evidently either unaware or unwilling to accept that there never was a pause to bust. That’s just a myth. Sorry Bob, there’s no “pausebuster” action at all — just some pretty good mythbuster fun.

What is especially funny is that when Roy Spencer introduced a revised UAH temperature data set, Bob Tisdale flattered it. He called it “the updated and much corrected UAH atmospheric temperature data” and refers to the change as “enhancements.”

The obvious conclusion is that when revision goes the way he wants it’s “much corrected” and “enhanced” but when it goes the way he doesn’t want, it’s “unjustifiable” and “overcooked.”

UPDATE:

A minor error has been corrected, so I’ve updated the graphs. From NASA:



July 19, 2015: The data and results put on the public site on July 15 were affected by a bug in the ERSST v4 part of the automated incremental update procedure. The analysis was redone after recreating the full version of SBBX.ERSSTv4 separately. We would like to acknowledge and thank Nick Stokes for noticing that there might be a problem with these data.

