After GISS’s embarrasing error with replicating September temperatures in the October analysis, the NASA GISTEMP website was down for awhile today (at least for me).
This evening, the new gridded data was posted, and I generated a world temperature anomaly map with the new data. It clearly has some changes in it from the previous erroneous version.
See below:
GISTEMP 11-12-08 – Click for larger image
You can plot your own here at this link to GISTEMP’s map maker
Now compare the above corrected version with the erroneous one below:
GISTEMP 11-11-08
I’m sorry for the small map, as I was traveling during much of this debacle, and was not able to be online much at all. This one above comes courtesy of Kate at SDA who saved one (thanks Kate).
Note the bottom scale, the top end on the erroneous one was 13.7°C, while the corrected one tops out at 8°C. That alone should have set off alarm bells at GISS. Personally, I don’t believe the 8°C anomaly either, since much of the Russian weather data is suspect to start with, and the data distribution is sparse.
So far, no mention of the new data beyond this yesterday at the NASA GISS news page:
2008-11-11: Most data posted yesterday were replaced by the data posted last month since it looks like some mishap might have occurred when NOAA updated their GHCN data. We will postpone updating this web site until we get confirmation from NOAA that their updating programs worked properly. Because today is a Federal Holiday, some pages are still showing yesterday’s data.
We live in interesting times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you got the graphs backwards. If the one that maxes out at 8C is the new one, then your text “Now compare the above erroneous version with the corrected one below” does not match. The above and below should be switched. — John M Reynolds
Wow. That was fast. You fixed it already. You can kill my messages now. Thanks. — John M Reynolds
Mike Bryant (13:43:04) :
I’ll wager that when the corrections are made another couple of warm spots will pop up.
Hmmm looks like I was right… Australia and Canada are the most prominent.
What happened to Australia?
As a non-scientist, I have difficulty visualizing the differences and significances since the maps are not on the same scale. Is it possible to show the new data on the same scale as the older one?
as
Why would the correction cause northern Canada to become much hotter and also Australia? I would have thought that the correction would only serve the purpose of cooling off Russia.
Re” I’m sorry for the small map”
I wonder if the GISS is not embarrassed by their error. Probably not. Everyone and anyone can make a mistake but, frankly, such errors seem to be a trend with regard to AGW climate science.
I could explain Australia–it’s south of the equator. But Canada? you got me.
Isn’t it odd that the Arctic ice has refrozen at rates never seen in the satellite age, during October, yet it was warmer in Siberia? Strange indeed.
Doesn’t the mere fact that government scientists are the ones doing the tabulation, makes you just a tiny bit suspicious that the raw data collection and the computer analysis is accurate.
Have they begun to work on the previous years data as well? How would one know which numbers have been corrected/adjusted. Archive procedures and versions would make it auditable. I wonder what the surface stations look like in Russia?
The anomalously warm Arctic stands out as a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, given the impressive ice growth during the month. The 4-8-degree-Celsius anomaly over Russia still looks odd, all the more so over the part of the Arctic basin due north of Siberia, which, again, froze like it was someplace cold.
Can UAH, RSS, and Hadley tell us what their values are for Siberia for the month, so that even the new GISS data can be verified? I.E. I don’t have the technical knowledge to know if the satellites can separate a geographic region that way, or whether they do so routinely.
The artic in October.
Must be all that ice forming
thats doing the warming !
The scales are pretty much the same except for the darkest color. It was greater than 4 and less than or equal to 13.7, now greater than 4 and less than or equal to 8.
Anthony – Can you explain the meteorological phenomena that would cause the step change in the temperature anomaly that occurs across the Bering Straight?
Amazing how the icecap keeps growing in these high temperatures.
At RC #118 gavin Says:
“12 November 2008 at 10:00 PM
The corrected data is up. Met station index = 0.68, Land-ocean index = 0.58, details here. Turns out Siberia was quite warm last month.”
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Interesting. It seems gray indicates no data available since it’s not on their color scale. However, the map based on erroneous data indicates no data for northern Canada and most of Australia (which they apparently didn’t question), yet the one based on corrected data shows available data and also warmer. I wonder if that’s how they’ll maintain their much higher positive anomaly.
Is there any way that the two graphs could be subtracted from each other, so that we may see the differences? It would appear that the only change of scale is for the maximum positive anomaly. All of the other scale marks appear to be identical in the two graphs, yet there are changes in the other values (ranges) also.
I fail to see where the embarrasment is to be found. Siberia is shown to be experiencing a heat wave. 2007, 2005 and 1934 still are the hottest years on record and the variance of 1934 being hotter is around 0.01, so where is the inconsistency, the rebuttal to a multitude of data or the cause for doubt in the first place, based upon real data? The northern latitudes look like they experienced quite a warming, actually from either map.
Did you look over the 2007 graphs, models, and empirical results?
REPLY: Putting identical September data for hundreds of stations in the October data analysis and then touting October is the ‘warmest on record”, based on the flawed replication of data is not an embarrassment?
No need to check 2007 models, graphs and empirical results to see this major flub, except for those that want to change the subject. We are discussing October 2008, not 2007, not 2005, not 1934. – Anthony
Interesting how the artic ice caps are atcually observed to be melting right in front of people’s eyes.
…celsius, for contiguous states.
These GISS maps show one point in time (in this case month) compared to an average of a 30-year period for Oct. It is interesting to compare the map for October 1947 here with the Oct 2008. Why Oct 1947 – it was about the peak of the previous cycle in Siberia.
Here is a graph of HadCRU October data (1900 – 2007 with anomaly base period 1961-1990) for 9 grids in Siberia link. And here (link) is the same data averaged for the 9 grids.
The current warming is similar to the 1940s.
Guys,
please remember that these are ANOMALY charts!!! If the average temp for the baseline is -25C, the -17C higher temp will still freeze ocean water very nicely!!!
Of course, that does bring into question why the Arctic didn’t refreeze as quickly earlier this decade with a cooler anomaly and alledgedly cooler ocean!! 8>)
Here you can see actual measured air temps from the Arctic:
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/newdata.htm
Maybe the legend should say:
“Now compare the above corrected erroneous version with the first erroneous one below:”
What’s the next number in this sequence: 1 2 4 ?
If you guessed ‘8’, go to the back of the class.
It’s 13.7.