CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Climate variability and modelsOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesCalibration and Measurement Techniques

A Call for New Approaches to Quantifying Biases in Observations of Sea Surface Temperature

Open access
Kent, Elizabeth C., Kennedy, John J., Smith, Thomas M., Hirahara, Shoji, Huang, Boyin, Kaplan, Alexey, Parker, David E., Atkinson, Christopher P. +12 more·2017·Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
DOI 10.1175/bams-d-15-00251.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Global surface temperature changes are a fundamental expression of climate change. Recent, much-debated variations in the observed rate of surface temperature change have highlighted the importance of uncertainty in adjustments applied to sea surface temperature (SST) measurements. These adjustments are applied to compensate for systematic biases and changes in observing protocol. Better quantification of the adjustments and their uncertainties would increase confidence in estimated surface temperature change and provide higher-quality gridded SST fields for use in many applications. Bias adjustments have been based on either physical models of the observing processes or the assumption of an unchanging relationship between SST and a reference dataset, such as night marine air temperature. These approaches produce similar estimates of SST bias on the largest space and time scales, but regional differences can exceed the estimated uncertainty. We describe challenges to improving our understanding of SST biases. Overcoming these will require clarification of past observational methods, improved modeling of biases associated with each observing method, and the development of statistical bias estimates that are less sensitive to the absence of metadata regarding the observing method. New approaches are required that embed bias models, specific to each type of observation, within a robust statistical framework. Mobile platforms and rapid changes in observation type require biases to be assessed for individual historic and present-day platforms (i.e., ships or buoys) or groups of platforms. Lack of observational metadata and high-quality observations for validation and bias model development are likely to remain major challenges.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/bams-d-15-00251.1

Cites

56 of 57 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In situ SST measurements and upper layers of ocean models typically reflect SST at depths between ~10 cm and ~10 m.

    “In situ SST measurements2 and the upper layers of ocean models typically reflect SST at depths between ~10 cm and ~10 m.”

    From Satellite-based time-series of sea-surface temperature since 1981 for climate applications (2019) · cites this paper as [2]

    The section “What Is SST and How Is It Measured?” says drifting buoys measure at nominal depths of 10–20 cm and moored buoys at about 1 m, supporting the in situ portion of the claim. It does not establish ~10 m as the typical lower boundary; it says measurements down to about 20 m have historically been treated as SST. The cited passage also does not establish the stated depth range for ocean-model upper layers. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hirahara, S., M. Ishii, and Y. Fukuda, 2014: Centennialscale sea surface temperature analysis and its uncertainty. J. Climate , 27 , 57-75, doi:10.1175/JCLI -D-12-00837.1. · DOI
  2. JCOMM, 2015: Proceedings of the Fourth JCOMM Workshop on Advances in Marine Climatology (CLIMAR-4) and of the First ICOADS Value-Added Database (IVAD-1) Workshop. JCOM Tech. Rep. JCOMM-TR-079, 30 pp. [Available online at www .jcomm.info/index.php?option=com\_oe&task=view DocumentRecord&docID=15293.]
  3. -, -, B. S. Truscott, and J. S. Hopkins, 1993: The accuracy of voluntary observing ship's meteorological observations-Results of the VSOP-NA. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. , 10 , 591-608, doi:10.1175/1520 -0426(1993)010<0591:TAOVOS>2.0.CO;2. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kent, E. C., Kennedy, J. J., Smith, T. M., Hirahara, S., Huang, B., Kaplan, A., Parker, D. E., Atkinson, C. P., Berry, D. I., Carella, G., Fukuda, Y., Ishii, M., Jones, P. D., Lindgren, F., Merchant, C. J., Morak-Bozzo, S., Rayner, N. A., Venema, V., Yasui, S., & Zhang, H.-M.
Affiliations
  • National Oceanography Centre (GB)
  • Met Office (GB)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
  • Japan Meteorological Agency (JP)
  • Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (US)
  • Meteorological Research Institute (JP)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Global Environment and Marine Department, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tokyo, Japan
ORCID
Venue
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Published
2017-08-01
Volume
98
Issue
8
Pages
1601-1616
ISSN
  • 0003-0007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0477
DOI
10.1175/bams-d-15-00251.1
OpenAlex
W2564806569
Cited by
97
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government (GA01101)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (VE 366/8)
  • Ministry of Environment
  • Natural Environment Research Council (GA 01101, NE/I030127/1, nceo020006, noc010012, NE/J02306X/1, NE/J020788/1, NE/J02306X/2)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014‐12‐1‐0911, N00014-12-1, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Oceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Calibration and Measurement Techniques
Keywords
sea surface temperature, observation bias, surface temperature change, mobile platforms, uncertainty quantification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review