GISS Global temperature anomaly – coldest March since 2000

While I have reservations about the GISS dataset due to the many adjustments it endures, the GISS global temperature anomaly data for March 2009 has been published.

The March 2009 global anomaly is 0.47 °C,  making it the coldest March since the year 2000.

As Luboš Motl points out:

That is also colder than March 1990 and 1998, That puts March 2009 out of the “top ten”. Also, the March 2009 global mean temperature differed by 0.03 °C only from the March 1981 figure – from a month when the ENSO/ONI index was pretty much equal to the current value. This cherry-picked monthly comparison would suggest that there may have been 0.03 °C of warming in 30 years.

Another blogger, Lucia plotted long term GISS trends and got some interesting results.

  • 20 year (240 month) trends with end points going back in time and
  • Trends starting on Jan 1979 and ending “N” months ago. So, N=0 ends in March 09, N=1 ends in February 09 and so on.

Here they are:

Figure 1: GISSTemp longish trends.

Figure 1: GISSTemp longish trends.

She notes:

  1. The trend computed from 1979 to now is higher than the trend computed from 1979 to 2001. (This fact is true as can be seen by comparing the trend represented red square that intersects the yellow line indicating Jan 2001 to the red square representing a trend ending in March 2009.)
  2. The 20 year trend ending with the month of Dec 2000 is higher than the 20 year trend computed now. (This is a true fact, as seen by comparing the blue diamond intersecting the yellow line to the blue diamond ending representing the trend ending in March 2009.)
  3. Both facts are supposed to convince us that global warming neither stalled nor ended in 2001.

Well…. I’ve haven’t claimed global warming stopped or stalled in 2001. (In any case I’m not sure precisely what those terms are supposed to mean. If all they mean is temperature trends are down since 2001…. well, they are! If they mean that GHG’s don’t tend to cause warming and warming won’t resume… Well, the data don’t mean that.)

While GISS went up a tiny bit, from 0.41 in February 09 to 0.47 °C in March 09, you could figure that .06 °C to be essentially unchanged month to month and part of the “noise”. The lack of any real increase in trends since 2001  is the most interesting part of the GISS story.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data. Bookmark the permalink.

115 Responses to GISS Global temperature anomaly – coldest March since 2000

  1. Randall says:

    Just the other day, Dr. James Hansen said that within 1 to 2 years we will again face record temperatures.

  2. atmoaggie says:

    So, March was the tenth warmest this century. At least that is what I expect some of our warmies to publish at time now.

  3. Adam from Kansas says:

    Speaking of the ENSO index, the SOI index according to bom.gov has been slowly going up since the beginning of this month and right now is almost to +5, it’s not a surge upward like other cases but it makes it look like a lot of ENSO models could be wrong again if it continues. SST anomolies look as if the easternmost part of the ENSO region is cooling down again which may be driving the SOI up.

  4. Just Want Truth... says:

    Imagine what the anomaly would be without the cooking of data at GISS!!

  5. Obviously James got it right! Atwenty year low is some sort of a record

  6. KimW says:

    What I want to know is the error bar. The max shown in the graph is 0.020 degree trend per year and that is one fiftieth of a degree per year in the real world.

  7. Larry Sheldon says:

    Well, unless he actually said “record HIGH temperatures, he is probably safe.

  8. novoburgo says:

    GISSTemp ahead: Pass at your own risk!

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    The pesty Eurasian hotspot is still there in March, though it does appear to be shifting around a little.

    March 2009 map of GISTEMP global temperature anomalies:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

    And the February 2009 map of GISTEMP global temperature anomalies:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=02&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

    If those links don’t work, here’s the main map generation page:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

  10. John H says:

    Dr. James Hansen said that within 1 to 2 years we will again face record temperatures. Or 3 to 4 or 5 to 6
    or some future year to some future year
    He is certain. The science is clear.

  11. Skeptic Tank says:

    Just the other day, Dr. James Hansen said that within 1 to 2 years we will again face record temperatures.

    Well, that settles it.

  12. DJ says:

    You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not “warming”.

    The days of wiggle watching are numbered. As the sun awakens and El Nino returns one can only guess how HOT the planets going to get.

  13. Marinaman says:

    If the cold had not persisted in North Dakota and Minnesota there would have been even more record flooding due to Global Warming. Dr. Hansen seems absolutely sincere and unfortunately fundamentally wrong.

  14. Tom P says:

    “The 20 year trend ending with the month of Dec 2000 is higher than the 20 year trend computed now.”

    From what I see, the 20-year trend in Dec 2000 was 0.013 degC/year and is now a little more than 0.018 degC/year.

    But anyway, a nice article debunking the oft repeated statement that global warming stopped in 2001.

  15. Jeff Alberts says:

    Just Want Truth… (15:35:24) :

    Imagine what the anomaly would be without the cooking of data at GISS!!

    Imagine if they figured out that an “anomaly” really isn’t, except in their cherry-picking world of “my time frame is better than your time frame”.

  16. Mike Smith says:

    Is the HADCrut data for March out?

  17. RW says:

    According to GISS, of the 129 Marches for which there is global temperature, only 10 have been warmer than the one just past. They are (in order of increasing temperature): 2003, 2001, 1998, 2006, 2004, 2007, 2008, 1990, 2005, and 2002

    I think there is something rather striking and obvious about the years which have been warmer. What do you think?

  18. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    If you are going to refer to data back to 1979, and a 20 year trend – shouldn’t the graph start before 1996?

    I would like to see it with my eyes.

    Thanks graeme

  19. Mike Bryant says:

    How can man survive the terrible whipsaw of up and down absolute temperatures depicted in this graph?

  20. Smokey says:

    Tom P,

    Careful with that word, ‘debunking.’ It works both ways.

    GISS took their 1999 temperatures and “adjusted” them. Here’s a blink gif showing the result: click

  21. pmoffitt says:

    I have always believed the fundamental question is the accuracy of all the temperature data. I find it difficult to believe and counter productive to use any graph which has units of 0.002C. The accuracy of GISS data does not allow any comment to be made that temperatures are rising or falling over this period. The temperature data has never been sensitve enough to make decisions that “will alter civilization as we know it”. Now that temperatures appears to be falling- we should not use statistically flawed GISS information to “prove” the point. AGW relied on statistically questionable temperature data to make its claim- we do ourselves a disservice to use the same questionable data to prove that AGW is false.

  22. Adam from Kansas says:

    According to this I wouldn’t expect any continued warming probably up to next June, a month’s SST readings usually determines where the global temp. goes up to several months after

    And I checked the SOI index, the value is now higher than at any time during the last period where there was no El Nino or La Nina, it’s still early to tell whether or not it’ll continue going up and we get another La Nina, this could make a dent in April’s SST reading depending on whether there’s ocean cooling in other areas for the rest of the month and SOI keeps climbing (though slowly).

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

  23. Mike Bryant says:

    March 2009 is The Coldest March of the Millenium!

  24. Arn Riewe says:

    DJ (15:49:22) :

    “You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not “warming”.

    The days of wiggle watching are numbered. As the sun awakens and El Nino returns one can only guess how HOT the planets going to get.”

    DJ – Your faith is strong. The force will be with you.

  25. Layman Lurker says:

    The temp trends for most of midwest US and western Canada seem too warm. Does anyone else see anything that stands out from their part of the world?

  26. Mike Jonas says:

    Funny things, trends. Here’s a little test using arbitrary numbers :

    Set up a table with years 1979 to 2009.
    Put in zeros from 1979-1995. From 1996-2000 go up 0.2 pa to 1 (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1). Put in 1’s to 2006, then 0.9, 0.8, 0.7 for the last 3 years.
    What you have is a rising trend from 1979-2000 at +0.031 p.a., and a falling trend from 2000-2009 at -0.028 p.a.
    Yet if you combine the two, even though after 2000 you have only added in numbers that stay level or go down, the trend over the whole period from 1979-2009 is ….. +0.042. Higher than both subperiods!
    And guess what, the 20-year trend from 1989-2009 is even higher +0.062.

    They say you can prove anything with statistics. Looks like you can prove anything with trends, too!

  27. It is but a statistical run, nothing to see with reality. Remember all the pictures of weather stations checked by Anthony? Provided these had a thermometer in them none can measure 0.002 of a degree!

  28. Frederick Michael says:

    Let me get this straight. The total solar flux in the heliosphere is the (one year) integral of the flux being emitted now (which is somewhat proportional to sunspots). Low clouds are theorized by some to be somewhat proportional to the total flux in the heliosphere. The first derivative of global temperature would be somewhat negatively related to the low clouds.

    Thus, as we watch the ever-more-amazing solar minimum, we could be watching the second derivative of global temperature (if certain theories are right).

    Those who ridicule those theories because global temperature has not responded quickly to the change is sunspots are missing something (maybe calc 101). The effect should, theoretically, only be slowly accelerating.

    I wonder, was global temperature only painfully low near the end of the Maunder Minimum?

  29. Just Want Truth... says:

    “RW (16:16:41) : According to GISS, I think there is something rather striking and obvious ”

    The only that that strikes me about GISS data is that it is altered.

    Have a look at how their data, the blue line in the top graph at the link, tracks wackier and wackier from 1999 and on :

    Its kinda obvious how the track goes awry, isn’t it?

  30. Ed Scott says:

    How science is corrupted.
    ———————————-
    Scientific Pretense vs. Democracy

    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/14/scientific-pretense-vs-democra

    “We will restore science to its rightful place…”
    —Barack Obama

    Unpacked, this sentence means: “Under my administration, Americans will have fewer choices about how they live, and fewer choices as voters because, rightfully, those choices should be made by officials who rule by the authority of science.”

    Government by scientific pretense runs against the grain of politics in two ways: First, since those who would rule by scientific management eschew arguments on the substance of the things, instead relying on the cachet of the scientists whose mere servants they pretend to be, their success depends on maintaining a pretense of substantive neutrality on the issues—the pretense that if “science” were to pronounce itself in the other direction, they would follow with the same alacrity. But this position is impossible to maintain against the massive evidence that those who hawk certain kinds of social or environmental policies in the name of science are first of all partisans of those policies, indeed that these policies are part of the identity of their sociopolitical class.

    Second, it is inherently difficult for anyone who fancies himself a citizen to hear from another that he is not qualified to disagree with a judgment said to be scientific. Naturally, he will ask: If I as a layman don’t know enough to disagree, what does that other layman know that qualifies him to agree? Could it be that his appeal to science is just another way of telling me to shut up because he is better than I, and that he is justifying his presumption by pointing to his friends in high places?

    Human nature rebels especially violently against those who pretend to special knowledge but who then prove inept, whose prescriptions bring misery. When politicians lay out their reasons why something should or should not be done, when the public accepts those reasons, and then the ensuing measures bring grief, the public’s anger is tempered by its own participation in the decision, and is poured out on the ideas themselves as well as on the politicians who espoused them. But when the politicians make big changes in economic and social life on the basis of “science” beyond the people’s capacity to understand, when events show them to have been wrong, when those changes impoverish and degrade life, then popular anger must crash its full force only on those who made themselves solely responsible. The failed sorcerers’ apprentices’ excuse “science made me do it” will only add scorn to retribution.

  31. Nasif Nahle says:

    Mike Bryant (16:35:32) :

    March 2009 is The Coldest March of the Millenium!

    Yeah! And Earth is cooling… again.

  32. Merrick says:

    Mike Smith – no. They haven’t even updated HadSST2 yet (usually updated the first week of the month). I think their having real difficulty with the numbers. There *must* be something wrong!

  33. Bill Illis says:

    There are some strange hotspots in the GISS March 2009 (250 km radius) map.

    Eastern Siberia as high as +7.9C

    Aral Sea region as high as +6.3C

    Svalbaard Island +4.7C

    Central Antartica +3.15C (south pole at -51C was actually 3.0C warmer than normal).

    (On the other hand, GISS always goes back to Siberia when it needs to bump the number up).

    Map at:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

    Actual temp anomalies by Latitude and Longitude text file here.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_250km_Anom03_2009_2009_1951_1980/GHCN_GISS_250km_Anom03_2009_2009_1951_1980.txt

  34. Merrick says:

    Oh great. I said “their” instead of “they’re.” I can’t wait to be corrected.

  35. Steven Hill says:

    GISS needs more funding for more adjustments….don’t worry, Hansen will arrive at the proper data points to get taxes raised as soon as possible.

  36. Mike Bryant says:

    “RW (16:16:41) :
    According to GISS, of the 129 Marches for which there is global temperature, only 10 have been warmer than the one just past. They are (in order of increasing temperature): 2003, 2001, 1998, 2006, 2004, 2007, 2008, 1990, 2005, and 2002
    I think there is something rather striking and obvious about the years which have been warmer. What do you think?”

    I think we have ascended to the top of the mountain, and now we have begun the descent on the opposite side.
    When I’m using my GPS, I’ve noticed that every time I go up a hill, the altitude numbers go up. Strangely enough, when I start heading downhill, the numbers go down. And when I am only just beginning the descent, it seems that all the previous highs were the most recent ones. Rather striking and odd isn’t it?

  37. naperlow says:

    I am definitely not getting this thread – I’ve stared at the chart several times and still see nothing of significance. What is this chart supposed to be telling me that is of significance? A little help for the slow-minded would be appreciated!

  38. deadwood says:

    Don’t worry all, Jim and Al and their fellow adherents will make sure the numbers are once again adjusted so you will feel the warmth like in the good old days of 1999.

    And remember until then that the heat’s in the pipeline and will come on like gangbusters in 20 or 30 years. Of course that will be long after we’ve gone over the tipping point (3.5 years to go).

  39. Mike Bryant says:

    Spoken like a Scotsman, Ed.
    Those longings for freedom run deep. It will not be easy for any administration to push those feelings down. The French, it seems have forgotten, “liberty, equality, fraternity”, we will NOT forget that all men, ALL MEN, are created equal. We are not a scientocracy, we are a meritocracy.
    Let’s hope that we don’t allow the word. “lysenkoism” to be replaced by “holdrenism”, gorism, hansenism or _______ism(fill in the blank.
    Don’t let the USA become a mediocrity.

  40. jack mosevich says:

    Mike Smith: The link below allows one to view the monthly Hadrcut data:
    I check it after the 10th of the month and it eventually gets updated. It should be updated shortly

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

  41. Bill Illis says:

    Apparently, it was quite warm in the US Mid-West in March,

    +2.4C just south of Chicago
    +2.7C in the corn belt of Iowa
    +2.0C in southern Mississippi
    +1.9C in Oklahoma
    +2.0C in western Arizona

  42. pmoffitt says:

    We are arguing the change in noise- the GISS data cannot be used to reach any conclusion over this range of temperature anomalies. If we take the position that GISS is flawed (given the temperature quality control problems , the paucity of temperature stations, and the adjustments being made to the data)- then it is true any counterclaim is also flawed. GISS data is inadequate to make the claims with respect to global temperature changes -period. The data is nearly useless for these purposes. Scientific discussion will only be possible when GISS puts together a statistically valid data set. Arguing GISS data gives life to its validity.

  43. Pamela Gray says:

    If the warmers are waiting for the Sun to wake up and warm us up to proper CO2 levels, they are just as mistaken as the coolers who, based on a quiet Sun, are waiting for the ice age to cometh.

  44. Bob Tisdale says:

    DJ: You wrote, “You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not ‘warming’.”

    Actually, DJ, we’re at the end of a very MINOR La Nina. It’s not even rated as a “full-fledged minor La Nina”. Global temperatures respond less than 0.1 deg C for every 1 deg C variation in NINO3.4 SST anomaly during an El Nino. So please advise me what GISS global temperature anomaly we should expect to see in reaction to the present minor La Nina conditions. Don’t forget to account for time lags.

    And why are you emphasizing a “protracted solar minimum?” With your statement, you are inferring that there should be a cumulative cooling effect when a solar minimum extends for a period that’s longer than normal. Please cite your source.

    Have a nice day.

  45. Larry Sheldon says:

    “You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not “warming”.”

    At the risk of the ducking stool (no, that was witches, what do they do to heretics–oh, burn at the stake) I will declare that I have every knowingly denied that the planet is warming (at least not when I was thinking about what I was saying).

    The planet is by definition warming. It has been warming since the bottom of the most recent cooling period (“ice age”, “minimum”,what ever).

    It will (did) continue to warm until we (did) head down to the next bottom.

    Did we turn that corner in the last ten year? Elefino–too early to say I think.

    What I do deny are the following (among, probably, others):

    I deny that warm is bad and cold is good. Warm has always been associated with lushness, plenty, abundance, good health and wealth. Cold has always ALWAYS been associate with pestilence, death, want, and starvation.

    I deny that man has much to do with the warming and has no meaningful control over it.

    I deny that it is a good idea to destroy civilization in a doomed attempt “just in case”.

    Seems like I am forgetting something important but the bad part of forgetting is that I can’t remember.

    Looking for Melissa Venema tunes is a better use of my time.

  46. Larry Sheldon says:

    “Seems like I am forgetting something important but the bad part of forgetting is that I can’t remember.”

    I should have buried this in the man-has-much-to-do-with-it denial.

    I deny that the warming is out of control and I deny that the seas will put me on beach-front property (the COE may do that, but that is an unrelated matter).

  47. George Bruce says:

    DJ (15:49:22) :

    “The days of wiggle watching are numbered. As the sun awakens and El Nino returns one can only guess how HOT the planets going to get.”

    Exactly. We can only guess. The science is far from settled. We’ve not yet begun to understand how it all works. It will take quite a while to recover from the negative knowledge of the AGW politicized crap. We will have to go back to the fundamental realization that we don’t have a clue, and work our way up from there.

    At least you are honest enough to admit that we only have a guess. Gore is certain that he knows what will happen. Certain, but wrong.

  48. FatBigot says:

    I love reports like this. Just the mention of “anomaly” and my eyes glaze over in total ignorance, but still I read on. I read of upward trends, downward trends, 10-year trends, 30-year trends and all of them supported by the tiniest fractions of degrees that cannot possibly be measured in the real world only number-crunched from measurements taken in whole degrees or half degrees from real thermometers.

    And don’t give me any of that “satellites can measure to X decimal places” guff, I will believe that the day my car’s satellite navigation system stops telling me to head due south from FatBigot Towers when my destination is four miles due north.

    All these exercises in tweaking minuscule differences between poorly measured raw material seem, to this poor layman, to be as informative as a bowl of tapioca pudding. “If we assume this, adjust that and use a particular starting point we can illustrate what we want to prove”, yes, of course they can but every stage of the process is just contrived nonsense.

    Yet I read on and my little piggy eyes get glassier and glassier.

  49. Tom in ice free Florida says:

    DJ (15:49:22) : ” As the sun awakens and El Nino returns one can only guess how HOT the planets going to get.”

    I hope you are right because warmer is better. Although you probably should have said “IF the Sun awakens” because we all just assume this is part of a repeating cycle. However, lacking any evidence to the contrary it probably is and the Sun will rev up again someday, but then we can never really be sure until it actually happens.

  50. DR says:

    There should be a gag order for all data sets, then all released on the same day at the same time, just for fun.

  51. Pofarmer says:

    GISS took their 1999 temperatures and “adjusted” them. Here’s a blink gif showing the result: click

    This deal with adjusting past numbers downward has GOT to stop. At what point are the numbers considered “Good?”. I’ve never seen a dataset used where the data was changed as you went along.

  52. Mike Bryant says:

    If Pliner is right and the increase in heat is largely driven by the mid-Pacific ridge, doesn’t that sound like a mechanism which explains the increase in CO2? As the ocean plates push, twist and pull on each other, the volcanoes and vents heat the water, which makes it’s way to the equatorial coast of SA. The current upwells and we see the birth of a new Baby boy, El Nino. The heat, in turn also releases CO2 which is measured at Mauna Loa. I’m sure someone has proposed this somewhere before. Do the changes in Mauna Loa CO2 fit with the El Ninos after a short lag?

  53. Ozzie John says:

    DJ (15:49:22) :

    You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not “warming”.

    DJ – I’m glad you have acknowledged that “severe protracted solar minimum” plays a significant role. Please inform Hansen et al so they can update the models to allow for the reverse effects of the past 30 years, not to forget the big cooling to come.

    Keep up the good work !!!

  54. insurgent says:

    Does anyone know why they are no longer putting out actual maps of the satellite temp on
    http://climate.uah.edu ?

  55. Leon Brozyna says:

    GISSTemp data is more like a novelty item, what with its base seeming to be built on bad siting and skewed towards ground temps in urban settings. It’s more like the mirrors in the funhouse; they kinda, sorta reflect what’s happening, but aren’t to be taken too seriously.

  56. Terry J says:

    Is there still a differentiation between accuracy and precision?

    If we have ten or thousands of temperature readings in whole degrees, we can perform wonderous arithmetic operations and end up with lots of places to the right of the decimal point, but do these operations improve the precision of readings in whole degrees? Isn’t the level of precision at least somewhat limited by the least precise data used?

  57. David Ball says:

    Great posts, Larry Sheldon.

  58. pmoffitt says:

    Terry J (21:03:14) The differentiation still exists- but unfortunately its importance has wilted. I was taught measurement to be valid must be accurate and precise-GISS is neither. I find it useless to discuss data that is not valid.

  59. David Ball says:

    One of your best, too, Mr. Bigot, or may I call you Fat?

  60. DJ (15:49:22) :”You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not “warming”.”

    Nah, it’s just “weather.” Doesn’t count. And yes, we were kidding you. Speaking of kidding, how are things down at the Bijou Theater?

  61. Wondering Aloud says:

    DJ

    A “anomaly of .47 Celsius above an artificially chosen base line and using obviously fudged data to make it larger does not make me give up and admit that catastrophy is coming.

    I am freezing! It is clear that the error in the “trend” created by the data fudging is large. Perhaps as large as the entire “trend” over the last half century.

    Speaking of days of wiggle, how many more before you admit that the data set that creates the warming you think is there is worthless; if not actually fraud?

  62. Lance says:

    “According to GISS, of the 129 Marches for which there is global temperature, only 10 have been warmer than the one just past.”

    May I have your attention folks, as I perform my death defying predictions, using only the simple power of the human brain and wearing a blind fold to outside media, whilst preforming without the aid of a computer model!

    A feat only witnessed in my grade school days, my own monumental scientific achievement in between something like the mathematical understanding of Einsteins “E = mc2 “ and the understanding of “Mary baked one pie, give her friends two quarters, what percentage of the pie does Mary have left? ”.

    My prediction for 2010,

    * drum roll

    March 2010 will be the 11 warmest year ever recorded or lower.
    And I’m being super cereal this time guys!

    :p hehehe!

  63. Mike Bryant says:

    GISS is like a work of art. It has been carefully crafted by James son of John, an observer of the stars and the earth. He took the raw materials that had been carefully gathered over many years by faithful stewards. The materials, he found, were static, unmoving. They told no story. With nothing more than his hands, his imagination and a calculating machine, he made these materials jump and dance to his tune. The story that he told to explain this clever, dynamic piece of ever-changing art, astonished his admirers, and brought even more value to his creation.
    The King called James son of John to his side and asked how he could help to make the story even more beautiful and real. Together they planned the transformation of the kingdom. The story and the canvas brought change to the land, and as more people saw the beauty of it they neglected the older practices. Now, not only was the kingdom beautiful but all the people were better for the sacrifices they made.
    Like all art, of course, there are those who do not appreciate it. But they were the common folk who couldn’t appreciate the subtle nuances of this dynamic construction.
    As the King passed law after law and collected more and more of the voluntary taxes, the King and the artisans grew fat. Alas, like any art or edifice, that has been constructed by the hand of man, it could not last forever. The people, unfortunately, were left with little except a lovely piece on canvas and a story of the adjustable lines thereon.
    The King is not the King any longer and the artisans are once again among the people. James is spending his waning years in the company of knaves. The stories he now tells are of former glory and regret.
    The work of art was carefully deconstructed by a few faithful stewards of facts, and the materials were put back into their places never to dance again.
    The people had tired of the story.

  64. Bill Illis (17:38:52) :

    There are some strange hotspots in the GISS March 2009 (250 km radius) map.
    Eastern Siberia as high as +7.9C
    Aral Sea region as high as +6.3C
    Svalbaard Island +4.7C
    Central Antartica +3.15C (south pole at -51C was actually 3.0C warmer than normal).

    This is probably a result of relative few surface stations at these locations so such anomalities (either way) are to be expected. The actual measurements from Svalbard for March are:

    Bjørnøya: -4.2C (+3.4)
    Hopen: -7.7C (+6.0)
    Sveagruva: -12.9 (+3.3)
    Svalbard airport -11.5 (+4.2)
    Ny-Ålesund: -11.9 (+2.3)

    Anomalities are relative to 1961-90 and range from +2.3 to +6.0.

    The -11.5 (+4.2) figure for Svalbard lufthavn makes it the 18th warmest March since 1912 (but data before 1976 are “homogenised”, i.e. modelled). The warmest are:

    2007: -6.7
    1996: -6.8
    1934: -7.5
    2004: -7.6
    1976: -7.6
    1999: -7.7
    1982: -8.5
    1991: -8.6
    1974: -9.2
    1994: -9.4
    1983: -10.0
    1949: -10.0
    1960: -10.1
    1950: -10.1
    1920: -10.3
    1955: -11.2
    1992: -11.4
    2009: -11.5

    March temperatures range from -26.3C (1917) to -6.7 (2007), so big anomalities are pretty common.

  65. Mike Lorrey says:

    ” Layman Lurker (17:14:16) :

    The temp trends for most of midwest US and western Canada seem too warm. Does anyone else see anything that stands out from their part of the world?”

    It snowed on easter day here this year. I remember when i was a kid it being 90 degrees and getting a sunburn on Easter. wtf

  66. Kum Dollison says:

    Let’s don’t overlook the fact that UAH has this Mar at 0.12 Warmer than last year. I assume RSS does, also.

    I’m, also, not sure I’d want to get caught playing with GISS numbers.

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

  67. Just Want Truth... says:

    “Bill Illis (18:16:45) : Apparently, it was quite warm in the US Mid-West in March,”

    Warm? It was cooking!

    Maybe James Hansen will end up on the Food Network some day with his own cooking show. Then everyone will be able to see what he’s been doing for a living. Maybe he’ll be better at it than drawing crowds to protests. ;)

  68. pkatt says:

    Hehe I guess we are going to have to use our /sarc tags.. some of ya didnt get the joke, Smokey got it tho:) That was a real nice temp chart Smokey.. hehe

  69. Roger Carr says:

    FatBigot (19:02:11) wrote: “I love reports like this. Just the mention of “anomaly” and my eyes glaze over in total ignorance, but still I read on.”
    Phew! What a relief, FB… then I am not alone after all…

  70. Ozzie John says:

    This is OT, but a must read for all, especially Australians.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/15/2543797.htm

    It will be interesting to see what the outcome is here. The Garnaut report has been the centrepiece of the AGW campagne for climate change policy in Australia.

  71. rip warming says:

    I wonder what the March 2009 GISS anomaly will be in the future ;)

  72. Perry Debell says:

    The UK Met Office has made a decision.

    “A Met Office spokesman said that it was uncommon for temperatures to get so warm in so early in the year. The highest temperature recorded so far in 2009 was 68.5F (20.3C) in Weybourne, Norfolk on Good Friday.

    “If you look at the average maximum temperatures for the south of England in April, it is around 53.96F (12.2C),” she said. “In the Thames corridor on Wednesday it will go up to 69.8F (21C), which will make it the warmest day of the year.”

    She added: “The rest of the week will be more unsettled. Eastern and southern parts will continue to see the best weather, but other areas will see some showers.”

    The warm and wet conditions are forecast to continue for the next few months, with the Met Office predicting a “typical British summer” combination of downpours and sun.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/5154187/Warmest-day-of-the-year-as-temperatures-hit-21C.html

    So we are going to have a “typical British summer” are we? Does anyone know what that means? Half the days wet, half sunny? One quarter of the days wet? How long is the summer? June 21st to September 21st|? The Easter holiday period in NW London was grey from GF to 3pm on Easter Monday, brighter yesterday morning, rain overnight and grey now at 9-50 a. m.

    Right now, my feet are freezing. I shall have to put the heating on again.

    Perry

  73. Tom P says:

    Wondering Aloud,

    “…how many more before you admit that the data set that creates the warming you think is there is worthless; if not actually fraud?”

    As I noted elsewhere, all of the global temperature datasets (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) show a warming trend, so I presume you think they all are worthless, if not actually fraud.

  74. David Corcoran says:

    GISS data needs this analogy to be clearly understood:

    You are shop foreman at a small manufacturer of widgets. You notice the widget quality control reports don’t seem to match the actual parts. You approach the QC manager, Krej. Krej explains:

    1. There are many types of adjustments for failing, missing or poorly functioning QC equipment.

    2. When one inspector is out, missing inspection reports are computer generated based on averages from reports of other inspectors… or on estimates of what inspection reports should show.

    3. Unexpected results are sometimes thrown out and replaced with estimates. The “estimates” arise from what clients expect to see on the inspection reports.

    4. Inspection reports from decades ago are often changed based on revised estimates of what they should have been.

    How does this tale end? You go to your boss and complain. You are promptly fired, while Krej is given a huge bonus and a plaque.

    …but there will come a day when clients become painfully aware that their widgets don’t match the QC inspection reports… and that they’ve been sold a load of bull puckey.

    It may take a while, but the QC dept. will one day have some explaining to do.

  75. Robert Wood says:

    No No No Mike Bryant @16:35:32

    it should be

    March 2009 is The Coldest <iLleast warm March of the Millenium!

  76. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Please see http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774

    The plot of Surface Temperature ST (Hadcrut3 Global anom) versus Lower Troposphere Temperature LT (UAH Global anom) shows a gradually increasing deviation of ST of ~0.2C above LT since 1979.

    Probably, all of this 0.2C can be ascribed to ST measurement warming bias.

    Absent the ST warming bias, there is no significant global warming since 1940.

    I think both GISS and Hadley ST’s are misleading and exhibit significant warming biases that render them practically useless as a basis to infer actual global warming.

    The satellite-based LT temperature, while not perfect, is a far superior database for such a purpose, in my opinion.

  77. J.Hansford says:

    Ozzie John (01:16:10) :

    That’s excellent….. I heard Prof. Bob Carter talking on the ABC this arvo…. He was telling it straight too.

    Said that Economists like Stern are not competent to be doing Climate science…… Bob doesn’t bandy words that’s fer sure.

    …and of course there is the Senate enquiry into the Emissions Trading Scheme(ETS) that the Liberal Party(Australia’s conservatives) and the Greens (strange bedfellows indeed) have initiated to look into the Labor Party’s ill founded Carbon policy.

    They are taking petitions from both sides of the Debate(yep we Aussies have finally got our opposition party to back a debate on AGW over 8000 letters so far)…. The Greens are screaming blue murder that the EMS is too low and want even more draconian levels and prices on CO2. While the Libs are contending that it will devastate the economy, send investment overseas, won’t work and will cost jobs.

    …. anyway. Game on.

  78. Jari says:

    Record cold in the arctic Svalbard,

    April 1 -26 C, new low record for April
    April 4 -24 C, new low record for April
    April 5 -25 C, new low record for April
    April 6 -27 C, new low record for April

    And cold temperatures are continuing.

    Steinar Midtskogen, could you confirm the above numbers?

    Maybe these temperatures around Svalbard are one reason for the Arctic ice extend reaching normal levels.

  79. John Finn says:

    GISS anomaly lower than UAH – Again!

    The GISS March anomaly relative to the 1979-97 base period is again lower than the UAH anomaly. GISS anomaly is +0.18 while UAH is +021. In February GISS was +0.15 while UAH was +0.36. See below for GISS 1979-97 anomaly map (I hope it works)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1979&base2=1997&radius=1200&pol=reg

    So to all those who think UH, bad siting, deliberate fudging etc are inflating the GISS anomalies – well UAH appear to the same issues.

  80. John Finn says:

    Previous post should read “UAH appear to have the same issues”.

    Incidentally does anyone have a link to UAH anomaly maps.

  81. Robert Bateman says:

    You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not “warming”.

    Who’s warming? It was warmer in the 1930’s than it is now. The 1930’s were sandwiched between the icy teens, 20’s and 40’s. The Modern Warming Period is over. Next one is likely to come around in, oh, say 1,000 years.

  82. Robert Bateman says:

    The H&G ThermoClimactic Panic Control Panel has some explaining to do.
    Exactly why are thier posteriors frozen to their heated chairs?
    Batteries not included?

  83. Larry T says:

    if the east coast us march anomoly is up why did i have to have my heat on all month ( and into april) when i normally have it turned off by this time.

  84. Tom P says:

    Allan,

    The UAH LT data is plotted here:

    and shows a warming trend of 0.13 degC/decade, or 0.4 degC over the period of the data.

    RSS shows even a greater upwards trend of 0.15 degC/decade, with or without the 1998 Super El Niño:

    So your preferred datasets rather refute your assertion of no warming.

  85. Steve M. says:

    So to all those who think UH, bad siting, deliberate fudging etc are inflating the GISS anomalies – well UAH appear to have the same issues.

    John,

    I’ve asked about this before, and from what I understand UAH does not adjust for UHI. So, if UHI affects the UAH readings, it should be higher than GISS.

  86. Just Want Truth... says:

    “Tom P (01:58:39) : As I noted elsewhere, all of the global temperature datasets (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) show a warming trend”

    Without using biased methods would you substantiate this?

  87. Wondering Aloud says:

    Any record that uses the fudged data of the USHCN to determine it’s trend is indeed exactly that. We have no reason to believe records from the rest of the world between 1880 and 1980 are any better, we do have a lot of evidence that these “adjusted” data sets are wildly biased.

    The “trend” in data that does not use these “corrections” is a lot less convincing. Likewise the balloon and satellite record do not show anything like long term massive warming. Take out the crummy corrections take out the recovery from the little ice age and you haven’t got enough of a warming signal for anyone to be excited about it.

    You sure as heck don’t have any data to suggest massive warming this century.

  88. Wondering Aloud says:

    Also your response to Allan

    Take out the super el nino of 1998 and what happens to that trend. Now take out the half a degree or so of bias created by standardizing satellite readings vs ground readings known to be too high. Now what is the trend like?

  89. Mike Kelley says:

    We have more snow here in Southern Montana today. I hear Al Gore’s name used in vain a lot.

  90. CknLitl says:

    Larry Sheldon,

    you say “I deny that man has much to do with the warming and has no meaningful control over it“?

    I was with you until that point :-)

    (sorry, I couldn’t resist having fun with it. All fun aside, I concur!)

  91. STAFFAN LINDSTRÖM says:

    1. Perry Debell [01:55:28] … THAT spokeswoman …(Penny again???) is at least
    RELATIVIZING a little…
    Temperature readings at 19.0C or more in March and 20 first days of April
    at Heathrow:

    1949-03-26….. 19.6C
    1949-04-15….. 23.5C
    1949-04-16….. 27.4C
    1949-04-17….. 23.5C
    1949-04-18….. 19.6C

    1952-04-09….. 20.2C
    1952-04-13….. 19.6C
    1952-04-14….. 20.7C
    1952-04-16….. 20.2C
    1952-04-17….. 21.8C
    1952-04-18….. 22.4C
    1952-04-19….. 23.5C

    1955-04-11….. 19.1C

    1957-04-05….. 19.6C

    1959-1972 TU TIEMPO (SOURCE) HAS NO VALUES…

    1974-04-04….. 19.0C
    1974-04-07….. 19.0C
    1974-04-08….. 19.0C
    1974-04-10….. 20.0C

    1976-04-18….. 20.0C

    1980-04-13….. 20.0C
    1980-04-14….. 21.0C
    1980-04-15….. 21.0C
    1980-04-16….. 19.0C

    1981-04-09….. 20.0C
    ……………AND SO IT GOES…… I realize by now it’s easier to show the years
    the Heat DID NOT hit Heathrow before April 21…

    1986, 1989….[1990 IS AN OUTLIER...March 17 already 22.0C AND the day after
    21.1C ...Warmest ever spring in W Europe, here in Stockholm area, lakes
    could be enjoyed at 18-19C in late April... ]

    1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2008 … BUT Nota Bene: The last
    20 years of increasing UHI at Heathrow much more air traffic etc the max
    temps in March and April are mostly around 20C…Exception 2003: 26C April 16…Coincidentally 54 years after 27.4C in 1949, on the day…

    2. Jari (03:18:06)
    Same source , Tu Tiempo, tells us those readings are at least almost April records…What Station?? Ny Ålesund AP?? Different?? Day record events??
    2003 was a tenth or so colder, -25.8C… AND then came the summer heatwaves
    down in S and central Europe…

  92. woodNfish says:

    Anthony,

    Okay, I’m looking at the chart with Celsius divided into thousands and what I want to know, since you are a meteorologist AND you sell instruments, is just how accurate are the instruments?

    My reason for asking is in another blog a while back a fellow who claimed to calibrate temperature instruments said they were only accurate to within +/- 3 degrees.

    What is the truth?

    REPLY: The mercury thermometers used in Stevenson Screens are accurate to 0.1 degree F in the USA, but the observer rounds to the nearest whole digit, thus 57.6 degrees becomes 58 degrees when recorded in the B91 logbook sent to the National Climatic Data Center. Ditto for the new MMTS electronic instruments. – Anthony

  93. filim izle says:

    If the warmers are waiting for the Sun to wake up and warm us up to proper CO2 levels, they are just as mistaken as the coolers who, based on a quiet Sun, are waiting for the ice age to cometh…

  94. Mr Green Genes says:

    Perry Debell (01:55:28) –

    So we are going to have a “typical British summer” are we? Does anyone know what that means?

    When I was a child we were always told that a typical British summer consisted of 3 hot days followed by a thunderstorm. Does this help?

    By the way, we appear to be having a typical British spring. Some warmth, some ground frosts and some rain. Nothing happening here, move along.

  95. Tom P says:

    Wondering Aloud,

    “Crummy corrections” – again, take this up with Roy Spencer, or better still why don’t you come back with a scientific analysis of why they are “crummy”?

    Saying they give the “wrong” answer is obviously not sufficient.

  96. John G says:

    Like the mountain climber said after he fell into the crevasse, not to worry, I know I’ll reach the summit because the trend is still up.

  97. John Finn says:

    Steve M. (05:45:14) :

    John,

    I’ve asked about this before, and from what I understand UAH does not adjust for UHI. So, if UHI affects the UAH readings, it should be higher than GISS.

    Steve

    UAH should not be affected by siting problems or urban heat since the measurements are taken by orbiting satellites. The argument on this blog (and others) is that GISS is affected by urban heat and other factors. Many posters claim that these factors are artificially inflating the GISS temperatures. While I accept there may be a slight UH effect (particularly compared to ~1900) I don’t believe it is significant over the past ~30 years.

    The fact that GISS anomalies are no higher, and are sometimes lower, than UAH anomalies when compared over the same time period (1979-1997) suggests that I might possibly (not certainly) be right.

  98. William says:

    It’s actually warmer in Northern Europe and colder in Southern Europe.
    The Climate is Up and Down…

  99. John Finn says:

    Wondering Aloud (08:08:33) :

    Take out the super el nino of 1998 and what happens to that trend.

    Not a lot.

    Now take out the half a degree or so of bias created by standardizing satellite readings vs ground readings known to be too high. Now what is the trend like?

    What does “standardizing satellite readings vs ground readings” mean exactly? I think you’re just making it up.

  100. ralph ellis says:

    >>There are some strange hotspots in the GISS March
    >>2009 (250 km radius) map.
    >>Eastern Siberia as high as +7.9C
    >>Aral Sea region as high as +6.3C
    >>Svalbaard Island +4.7C

    You have to understand the politics here.

    The cold war still rubbles on. Russia wants to put a spanner in the US economy, by getting the US to sign up to Kyoto – thus hobbling US industry with extra costs and limitations (while Russia carries on falsifying the data).

    The best way to do this is to convince everyone that Global Warming is real, by inflating all the Russian temperature readings – hence the huge temperature anomalies coming out of Russia.

    Don’t believe me? You only have to watch the Eurovision Song Contest to see what happens over there. Britain is the odd one out in this huge competition, because we vote for the best song. (Mad Brits, who play by the rules of cricket).

    The Baltic states vote for Russia, because otherwise the Russians will send another computer virus attack on them.
    Ukraine votes for Russia, in case Russia stops their gas again next winter.
    Poland votes for Germany, because they buy all their agricultural products.
    Greece votes for Macedonia (and vice verse), because they want them to be a part of Greece.
    Serbia votes for Russia, because they helped Serbia against the American invasion.
    Georgia votes for Russia, or the tanks will be back next year.
    Israel votes for Turkey, because they are their only cheap holiday destination (don’t ask me why Israel is in a Euro song contest).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454564/Eurovision-Cold-War-Eastern-Bloc-ganging-warns-Wogan.html

    You get the idea. There is no ‘real science’ in the East, just as there is no ‘real song competition’. It has always been a matter of ‘what will the result do to help us’.

    .

  101. hotrod says:

    woodNfish (09:55:17) :

    Anthony,

    Okay, I’m looking at the chart with Celsius divided into thousands and what I want to know, since you are a meteorologist AND you sell instruments, is just how accurate are the instruments?

    My reason for asking is in another blog a while back a fellow who claimed to calibrate temperature instruments said they were only accurate to within +/- 3 degrees.

    What is the truth?

    REPLY: The mercury thermometers used in Stevenson Screens are accurate to 0.1 degree F in the USA, but the observer rounds to the nearest whole digit, thus 57.6 degrees becomes 58 degrees when recorded in the B91 logbook sent to the National Climatic Data Center. Ditto for the new MMTS electronic instruments. – Anthony

    The other issue is that there are several elements to accuracy in measurements.

    Take for example precision measurement of machine components.

    You have a micrometer that is certified to be able to measure to 0.0001 inches. A machinist takes that tool and measures a bearing journal and announces with authority that the journal is x.xxxx inches in diameter.

    Implicit in that measurement is :

    The physical precision of the micrometer — was it physically marked accurately so that when it reads a measurement of 1.0000 inches the ends of the micrometer spindle and anvil (the measuring surfaces) are actually 1.0000 inches apart?

    Then you have observational issues — is the machinist actually reading the markings correctly? Was he standing on his head in a poorly lit location holding the micrometer in an awkward position when he took the measurement? Did he accidentally bump the spindle as he pulled the micrometer out to look at it and read the markings? Did he actually “see” what the indicator marks were displaying or make a mental error reading the markings incorrectly?

    Then you also have measurement conditions to consider. Machine part precision measurements are temperature dependent, both the temperature of the part being measured, and the temperature of the measurement device effect the accuracy. In quality control environments they do precision measurements in a climate controlled room so parts do not “grow” or “shrink” due to thermal expansion.

    Add to those elements you have the physical care with which the measurement was made. Did the machinist wipe any dust or grit off the part being measured and checked to be sure the anvil and spindle of the micrometer were clean before he took the measurement? Did he hold the micrometer square and perpendicular with the surfaces being measured? Did he use excessive force tightening the micrometer and spring its frame slightly so that it indicated a measurement smaller than the actual part size?

    The same sort of considerations apply to temperature measurements.

    Is the thermometer accurately marked so that when its body is at x temperature it reads x temperature?
    Did the observer, actually correctly read the temperature indicated on the thermometer?
    Did the observer, make an error of procedure by exposing the thermometer to direct sunlight during observation?
    Is the enclosure properly sited so that the temperature of the thermometer body is actually representative of the local atmospheric temperature?
    Does this particular observer have a conscious or unconscious bias to their observations? Do they tend to round up more often than round down when the measurement is near xx.05 degrees?

    In short measurements in the field are never as accurate as the certified accuracy of the measuring instrument. The above effects always degrade the precision, but the precision can never be higher than the lowest precision element in the process.

    If the physical precision of the thermometer is accuracy to 0.01 degree.
    The ability of the observer to read the actual indication might be accurate to 1/2 a division (if the observer is careful). The precision of the enclosure due to sighting might have a bias of + or – anywhere from 0.5 to 2.5 deg compared to the actual air temperature due to siting issues.

    Maybe one of the math wizards can weigh in here but my gut reaction is that for in the case of the Stephenson screen enclosures based on the survey info so far gathered we should not consider temperature measurements using manual measurements methods to be accurate to more than perhaps 2 degrees from actual temperature, perhaps 3-4 degrees in the poorly sited locations.

    Even digital systems and satellite systems will have these sorts of error build up from multiple possible system errors.

    I find it absurd that they presume to measure temperatures to the accuracy that they do. Even with certified measurement equipment in carefully controlled environments and cautious careful observers errors still crop up. To assume they can “calculate” changes that are a small fraction of the precision of the measurements is silly.

    In answer to the original posting, that person might be quoting you the “real world” precision for typical users, and not the physical limits of the thermometers themselves.

    Larry

  102. John Finn says:

    The cold war still rubbles on. Russia wants to put a spanner in the US economy, by getting the US to sign up to Kyoto – thus hobbling US industry with extra costs and limitations (while Russia carries on falsifying the data).
    But Russia has lots of oil and gas it would like to sell to western countries. This would give it far more power in the world than simply nobbling the US. The Russian Academy of Sciences has spoken out strongly against AGW theory claiming there is no scientific basis. Russia has no interest in anyone signing up for Kyoto and only did so itself for political reasons.

  103. woodNfish says:

    hotrod (18:15:51): In answer to the original posting, that person might be quoting you the “real world” precision for typical users, and not the physical limits of the thermometers themselves.

    Larry

    Thanks Larry. The person who answered my question is Anthony Watts. I specifically asked him because he is a meteorologist and sells weather instruments from this site.

    Anthony’s answer tells me that the graph is nonsense because there is no way they have the resolution from the measurements to know that the temperature has increased from .018 C to .020 C. They cant do better than watching it move in .01 F increments (I am not sure what .01F equals in C, but it is more than .001 C for certain.)

    I agree with you completely Larry, that the calibrated resolution is not going to be maintained in the site environment and Anthony has done a remarkable job documenting just how poor are most of the sites.

    If people like Hanson and Gore weren’t so able to do us serious economic damage by getting leaders to seriously believe them and act on what they say, we could all just move along because when it comes to AGW, now called “climate change”, there really is nothing to see here.

  104. Smokey says:

    woodNfish:

    “I am not sure what .01F equals in C, but it is more than .001 C for certain.”

    Right. The conversion isn’t linear though, it depends on the specific temperature.

    For example:

    .01° C = 32.018° F

    1° C = 33.8° F

    15° C = 59° F

    20° C = 68° F

    25° C = 77° F

  105. Mark T says:

    Uh, that is a linear conversion. ;)

    Mark

  106. Mark T says:

    Oh, and a 0.01 F increment is 0.00555… C increment since the slope is a constant 5/9 from F to C.

    Mark

  107. TS says:

    In Finland, local official observations show that March 2009 anomaly compared with base period 1971-2000 is very close to zero (maybe even negative). GISS offers about 0.6 degrees positive anomaly with same base period. GISS map offers only positive anomalies, but large areas were at -1 anomaly according to local officials. How surprising, why this always happens to GISS, that anomalies are more positive than recorded by locals…

  108. woodNfish says:

    Smokey, you misunderstood what I meant, but Mark T got it, and proves I am right.

  109. adoucette says:

    Once again, a HOT SPOT seems to dominate the global temps:

    See here to see a graph of the temps:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=0\

    3&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980\
    &radius=1200&pol=reg

    Note that 4-8 degree C HOT SPOT that affects an area almost 20 times its size because of the extreme amount of warming compared to the global average.

    BUT

    Then go to the station data in this area:

    See anything STRANGE?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=211358490000&dat\

    a_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=231386960000&dat\

    a_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=211381980000&dat\

    a_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=208407450002&dat\

    a_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=231389270000&dat\

    a_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=231386180000&dat\

    a_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    GISS is BS

    Arthur

  110. Tim Clark says:

    I get an internal service error on your links. Are the links bad, or did giss shut them down?

  111. adoucette says:

    For some reason the last part of the link is not included in the underlined URL
    Click on the link and when you get the error message, add this to the address:

    a_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Arthur

  112. E.M.Smith says:

    Pofarmer (19:55:28) :This deal with adjusting past numbers downward has GOT to stop. At what point are the numbers considered “Good?”. I’ve never seen a dataset used where the data was changed as you went along.

    The numbers will never stop changing. It is a fundamental part of how GIStemp works. The most recent few years are used to re-write past years as some kind of fictional “correction”. Since each year we have a new year, the “correction” value changes… (And if you are wondering why an equipment change in the last 6 years ought to rewrite temperatures in 1919, well, so am I…)

  113. adoucette says:

    What a little analysis of the data reveals:

    Take Kasalinsk here

    In the middle of the wierd global hot spot.

    Its anomaly this month was a +4.81 C, reporting a average March Temp of 3.5 C when the GISS 1951-1980 base period averaged -1.31 C

    A look at the station data quickly shows that the Anomaly in this area is
    accentuated in the Jan-Feb-Mar time frame.

    But, if you compare the temps AFTER the period where the station was offline (~1990 – ~1996) to the decade just BEFORE it went offline (~1980 – 1990) what you find is the average Anomaly for Jan-Feb-March has gone up a more reasonable amount of +0.44 C.

    But

    After the step change these same months report an average anomaly of +4.60 C.

    Clearly this is not due to CLIMATIC CHANGES.

    Clearly there is a LOCAL issue.

    To include this faulty data in the Global Average is clearly bad science.

    Of course it just might be that Hansen spends so much time running around
    drumming up protests to support his beliefs that he has no time to attend to the actual science.

    Arthur

  114. adoucette says:

    In the previous post, append a_set=1&num_neighbors=1 to the link and it will work.

  115. adoucette says:

    I’ve been looking into the March GISS data and the more I look the less I like
    it.

    Here are some more statistical fiddling with the global temps.

    Interestingly the fiddling ALWAYS seems to INFLATE the amount of global warming.

    Coincidence?

    Here is the data for station

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222241430002&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    In this case its quite clear that the choice of what years to use as the base
    temps makes the early 21st century appear warmer than normal.

    Why?

    Well if you take the first ten complete years of the station record (1938-1947) as the base period, then the anomaly for the last four complete years on record (2004-6 & 2008) drops from +1.06 C to a much lower +0.18 C.

    Clearly warming over a 50 year period of 0.18 is nothing to get worried about, hence the fiddling with the base period to accentuate the apparent warming.

    But that’s not all.

    The other fiddling is even more problematic.

    Notice I mentioned COMPLETE years.

    Turns out 2003 & 2007 weren’t complete.
    Each was missing one month of data (999 in the record)

    What is problematic is GISS still computes the ANNUAL record for a station with missing months.

    So, what did GISS use for the missing month?

    In 2003, March was missing.

    GISS substituted a VERY WARM value of -22.3 for the month.

    But, here are the March values on the years before and after 2003

    -26.3
    999.9
    -24.6
    -25.5
    999.9
    999.9 <==2003
    -25.9
    -23.5
    -26

    Or an average March temp of -25.3

    Significantly there are NO months anywhere near as warm as the -22.3 value used by GISS

    Using GISS’s VERY WARM but fictional temperature for March inflates the ANNUAL FIGURE (the only one that really matters) by a SIGNIFICANT +0.25 C.

    Then there is 2007, which is missing December.

    Once again GISS substituted a VERY WARM December value of -30.5

    Here are the actual Decembers before and after 2007 though:

    -31.5
    -42.4
    -32.7
    -30.5
    999.9 <== 2007
    -38.6

    The average for these five years is -35.1

    But, using GISS’s VERY WARM but again fictional temperature for December
    inflates the ANNUAL FIGURE by a SIGNIFICANT +0.38 C.

    This is Global Warming GISS style.

Comments are closed.