No, ScienceNews, Your “Ocean’s Record-Breaking Hot Streak” Claims Are False

A recent ScienceNews (SN) article claims that ocean temperatures are out of control in a year-long record-breaking hot streak. This is false. Numerous ocean temperature data sets show no such record-breaking values and the source SN cited to support its claims was thoroughly discredited when it made similar “record breaking” claims last year.

The entire claim of the article is based on one data set, which is seen below in the SN article:

The problem is this single source isn’t even an “official” ocean temperature data data set, rather the source is: Source: Climate Reanalyzer/Univ. of Maine • Visualization: C. Crockett. In fact, that isn’t temperature data at all, but climate model output. The data SN cited was not official data, but from a private website run by the University of Maine. Examining actual data sets show that SN claim of record ocean heat is a gross error.

The about page for ClimateReanalyser.org (the source of the SN claim) says this (bold authors):

Climate Reanalyzer began in early 2012 as a platform for visualizing climate and weather forecast models. Site content is organized into three general categories: Weather Forecasts, Climate Data, and Research Tools. Pages within the first two groups are the easiest to use and include maps, map animations, and interactive time series charts (with data export options). Research Tools include pages for generating custom maps, time series, and linear correlations from monthly climate reanalysis, gridded data, and climate models.

In other words, they take in temperature data and use models to “reanalyse” it, producing a new output.

This isn’t the first time a media outlet has been duped by Climate Reanalyzer into using model output presented as data rather than actual data. Last year, The Associated Press (AP), among many other media sources reported that July 4th was the hottest day since records began. Irresponsible fear mongering followed, such as this CNBC article, where reporter Sam Meredith wrote:

The planet’s average daily temperature climbed to 17.18 degrees Celsius (62.9 degrees Fahrenheit) on Tuesday, according to the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, an unofficial tool that is often used by climate scientists as a reference to the world’s condition.

“Monday, July 3rd was the hottest day ever recorded on Planet Earth. A record that lasted until … Tuesday, July 4th,” said Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, via Twitter.

“Totally unprecedented and terrifying,” he added.

Almost immediately after the claims were published, they were thoroughly debunked by experts citing unreanalyzed data, posted widely on social media. The AP had to run a retraction.

Climate Realism debunked that claim then, noting:

All those media outlets missed the fact that they were looking at the output of a climate model, not actually measured temperatures. Only one news outlet, The Associated Press, bothered to print a sensible caveat. In the July 5^th story “Earth hit an unofficial record high temperature this week – and stayed there” reporting:

On Thursday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) distanced itself from the designation, compiled by the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, which uses satellite data and computer simulations to measure the world’s condition. That metric showed that Earth’s average temperature on Wednesday remained at an unofficial record high, 62.9 degrees Fahrenheit (17.18 degrees Celsius), set the day before.

Bowing to pressure for corrections, the AP updated its story on July 7th to include this single yet very important paragraph:

NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records. The agency monitors global temperatures and records on a monthly and an annual basis, not daily.

So, in the space of two days, the media claims went from temperature data that was “[t]otally unprecedented and terrifying,” to temperature data that was not suitable for purpose.

Similarly, the computer generated reanalysis of ocean temperatures cited by SN isn’t suitable for purpose in claiming a “year-long record-breaking hot streak.” The SN data isn’t even complete, going back only to 1979.

NOAA reports that although the world’s oceans did have a warm year, the actual temperatures were significantly cooler than SN claimed. NOAA attributes the warmer temperatures to major ocean circulation patterns, rather than climate change, writing:

The year 2023 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850 at 1.18°C (2.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.15°C (0.27°F) more than the previous record set in 2016.

…

Unlike the previous two years (2021 and 2022), which were squarely entrenched in a cold phase El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) episode, also known as La Niña, 2023 quickly moved into ENSO neutral territory, transitioning to a warm phase episode, El Niño, by June. ENSO not only affects global weather patterns, but it also affects global temperatures. … [D]uring the warm phase of ENSO (El Niño), global temperatures tend to be warmer than ENSO-neutral or La Niña years, while global temperatures tend to be slightly cooler during cold phase ENSO episodes (La Niña). … 2021 and 2022 [did] not ranking among the five warmest years on record ….

In other words, we had one warm year in the oceans during 2023, but 2021 and 2022 weren’t abnormally warm at all. 2023 was, but it was driven by a phase shift from La Niña to El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Nature was doing what it has naturally done throughout history.

ScienceNews should stick to reporting actual science based on actual data, rather than using computer model outputs to fearmonger, making claims which aren’t true, but which do correspond to the climate crisis narrative. This SN story was neither news, nor science.