GISS for June – way out there

way-out-west

NASA GISS has released their global temperature anomaly data for June 2009 and it is quite the surprise.

In both the UAH and RSS satellite data sets, global temperature anomaly went down in June. GISS went up, and is now the largest June anomaly since 1998, when we had the super El Nino.

Data source:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Here are the June global temperature anomaly comparisons:

GISS .63C

RSS .075

UAH .001

The divergence between the satellite derived global temperature anomalies of UAH and RSS and the GISS land-ocean anomaly is the largest in recent memory.

But that isn’t the only oddity. Over on Lucia’s blog, the first commenter out of the gate, “Nylo” noticed something odd:

Nylo (Comment#16257) July 14th, 2009 at 11:14 pm

Regarding updates in past temperatures, this is not the most important change. Very noticeable is the fact that now 2007 is the second hottest year, having replaced 1998 in the statistics. This has been achieved by lowering the 1998 J-D average temperature anomaly to 0.56 , and raising the 2007 J-D average temperature anomaly to 0.57. Last month they were viceversa.

It is curious to me that such adjustments in GISS seem to occur in a way that enhances the present trend. Perhaps it is like a fine liqueur, aged to perfection.


Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – click image if not blinking
About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data. Bookmark the permalink.

254 Responses to GISS for June – way out there

  1. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    I would be willing to think that this is just in time to motivate the US Senate to pass Cap and Trade… if it wasn’t for Jims public distaste for the W-M Proposal.

    A curious result.

  2. pwl says:

    It’s not blinking?

    REPLY: Click the image

  3. Nylo says:

    Actually, in general, this time there seems to be some cooling of recent temperatures. Most of the years since 1998 have some month whose temperature anomaly drops. 2007 is an exception to this.

    The changes are minimal anyway. Nothing has ever been close to the change that took place in April 2006, that GISTEMP describes as “negligible” for the global temperatures but that nevertheless raised the 1880-2005 trend by a whole 10%.

  4. Phillip Bratby says:

    Curiouser and curiouser cried Alice!

    Is there nothing Hansen won’t do to massage the figures and get the right answer?

    And those are some big adjustments.

  5. pwl says:

    Why is the y-axis of the graph labeled “temperature anomaly”? Why anomaly when it’s clearly a Natural Cycle that is being shown? Why use the word “anomaly”? It seems strange to label the entire graph that way. Sure, if one or two “spikes” were labeled that way I could see why, but the entire y-axis?

    Please clarify for the non-climatologist(s) in the crowd. Thanks.

  6. pwl says:

    Oh, I see it now… what’s up with that (sorry)?

    It seems that that is falsifying the data? I don’t know about you but when I was in science class in high school it was a failing grade to cheat on one’s data reporting! What is the punishment for scientific fraud by those folks and how do they justify getting away with it?

  7. pwl says:

    So the anomalies are that the various means of measuring the temperatures – satellite, ocean and land based methods – are out of whack with each other? Is that what this blink graph is showing?

  8. Richard Heg says:

    Ok so let me get this right there is a disagreement on the temperatures of up to .62C for last month which is not that far off the warming for the entire 20th century and at the same time we are told that from looking at a few tree rings we can be certain that it was some fraction of a degree cooler a thousand years ago.

  9. rbateman says:

    Some people will do anything to erase that embarassing 1930’s peak.
    It must be hard to bear, like a dry cracker on a hot day.

  10. David says:

    New phrase: “Something is aGISS”

    As in, something is aGISS with the algorithm.

  11. Nylo says:

    Also I would not consider it something “odd”. I analise differences in their temperature record every month and this was not something strange in comparison to previous times. It is only “Important” because it will strongly contribute to their marketing strategies. Now they can claim that the 3 hottest years were in the last decade, which is something they couldn’t say last month.

    REPLY:
    I agree, that for GISS, it is not “odd”. But I was speaking from the real world context. – Anthony

  12. rbateman says:

    pwl (23:11:53)

    No, the intent of that graph is to readjust the data to fit the policy.
    Anyone who lives in a rural area with data going back to the start of the US Weather bureau official observer stations knows the adjustment is pure nonsense. Take out the 1988 El Nino and the graph fall off to the right, not the left.

  13. Johnny Honda says:

    These data can lead to two conclusions:
    a) The accuracy of the temperature measurements is very low (+-0.6 °C)
    b) NASA is manipulating the temperature data
    c) combination of a) and b)

  14. Innocentious says:

    I suppose I am still at a loss as to how adjusting temperature accurately reflects anything. Maybe it is just me but anytime you take something and adjust it it sort of calls into question the entire process. I am so sick of this. Can we file a law suit? I mean seriously this data is going to cost me money. Someone, anyone, truth does not seem to be working.

  15. VG says:

    I think its time with this type of data discrepancy that a full blown investigation of GISS take place. UHA , HadcRUT, RSS etc should be audited as well, only reason that this data is being used to justify/not justify some major public expenditures.

  16. Flanagan says:

    I think there could be some reason for this:

    – Satellites don’t cover the poles very much, and the anomaly over the southern pole has been fairly large
    http://www.climat-evolution.com/article-33431441.html

    – another possibility to explain this could refer to the mixing time of the lower troposphere. GISS is actually measuring surface temperatures, with stations on the ground. RSS and UAH measure lower troposphere temperatures (indirectly) at 4.4 km high (at least for UAH). It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). And we’re actually observing rightnow with UAH a strong increase in the anomaly
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

    So I don’t think we should see any obvious error or conspiracy behind this result… Just the consequence of having a pacific with a slightly positive Nino index.

  17. DonK31 says:

    I ar so confoosed. Is their temperature reading from 1998 wrong? If it was, why? Are they incompetent or merely misleading?

    Why is necessary to adjust data at all other than an admission that the raw data is bovine excrement?

    Why is necessary to adjust previous data other than it doesn’t fit the model?

    Soon, we will be hearing how global warming is happening much quicker than we thought, or that it causes cooling, or averageness, all of which are bad?

  18. crosspatch says:

    Ok, so 2007 was hotter this month that it was last month. Maybe Hansen & Co. keep shifting between parallel universes and their data keeps shifting with them. To them it looks all consistent and stuff but to us it looks like it keeps changing. Yeah, that must be the reason.

    One thing I learned from that whole group of ..uh… “salesmen” is about teleconnections. Now when I want to know what the weather will be like tomorrow, I just call Tokyo and ask. Why wait for the weather service?

  19. Antonio San says:

    At this point, GISS results are simply getting irrelevant and it is obvious they need to produce a curve that will help the Copenhagen crowd alarmism.
    As VG poster suggests, audit of HadcruT especially as Steve McIntyre reported Phil Jones is stonewalling, audit of GISS should be conducted. I think through legal means. This whole affair deserves now a full blown legal battle and if Bernie Madoff can get cooled for 150 years, there is no reason these agencies can’t get theirs cooled too!

  20. oakwood says:

    A word of objective wisdom from a commentator on RC:
    “Hadley has something wrong in their system, what it is I don’t know. But not including vast swats of Arctic anomalies don’t help…. 2005 was the warmest year in history, this graph seen alone, suggests that the great melt occurred in 1998….”
    Funny, although this is contrary to the wisdonm of IPCC (the ‘scientific concensus’) which chooses to rely on Hadley, this comment goes unchallenged.

  21. Jos says:

    Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., submitted.

    http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf

  22. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Maybe in a few years we’ll be in a LIA, but GISS will be telling us the earth is frying to death.

  23. Pierre Gosselin says:

    I expect Hadley to cook up a similar result.

  24. Barry Foster says:

    We should take no notice of surface temperatures at all – we shouldn’t even mention them, as they are worthless given bad sitings and rogue measurements. We should only discuss tropospheric temperatures, whether they show warming or cooling. At the top of this web site (instead of the space-taken picture of the tops of clouds) the current combined UAH and RSS graph should be permanently displayed as a reminder to everyone what the present temps are.

  25. NS says:

    Flanagan (23:35:32) :

    “I think there could be some reason for this:
    ………………….
    It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). And we’re actually observing rightnow with UAH a strong increase in the anomaly
    ………….yad,yada……..”

    Or it could be UHI. Nice match for almost all known warming too.
    But yeh, sure, perhaps the air ain’t mixing up right or something. Could we build giant spoon to mix it all up proper?

  26. Mick says:

    You can keep a secret if only two people know it, and one of them is dead.

    Who are the algorithm gate keepers a GISS? Surely not one (the ONE) person?
    Any chance for a whistleblower?
    Or the ONE want to be busted. Out.

  27. An Inquirer says:

    Flanagan (23:35:32):
    So you are saying that consistency is not compromised: as the surface heats up the lower troposphere, the satellite temperatues will follow the GISS numbers.
    It would be most interesting if your scenario plays out; we then would have further proof against CO2-based AGW for in that theory, the lower troposphere heats up the surface.

  28. UK Sceptic says:

    Is this what is known as taking the GISS?

  29. bluegrue says:

    It is curious to me that such adjustments in GISS seem to occur in a way that enhances the present trend. Perhaps it is like a fine liqueur, aged to perfection.

    It’s not like the source of the difference is a major mystery. The changes shown in the blinker occurred for the most part as a consequence of the introduction of the TOBS and SHAP adjustments. The former covers the systematic change of time of observation in the US, the other one corrections for station moves as documented in the station meta data. Which of these adjustments do you object to and on what basis?

    When comparing anomalies, keep in mind that they have different baselines. It’s like comparing height measurements from the ground to others made from the table top and just comparing the numbers.

  30. John Edmondson says:

    Fraud. Simple as that.

    REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony

  31. tallbloke says:

    I notice Roy Spencer has updated the UAH June anomaly to 0.00

  32. Flanagan says:

    NS: it is not a new phenomenon, it’s called the atmospheric upwelling.

    Inquirer: that would not discredit the greenhouse effect at all. In this case we have an El Nino building up, which means hot water goes to the surface and frees energy to the atmosphere. The question is: where does the energy that heated this water come from?

    It is strange to notice that during the deepest solar minimum in a century, we observe the strongest anomalies, no? The El Nino that is forming is not even a strong one (and it’s only the beginning)… Anyway we get anomalies that are the same as in 1998?

  33. imapopulist says:

    The only tipping point that I am aware of is the GISS Data shifting from manipulation to outright fraud and corruption. This cannot be allowed to go on.

  34. pkatt says:

    I bet if you add in seasonal noise we pass Hansens tipping point yearly.

  35. Gene Nemetz says:

    Is it breaking some sort of law to change these numbers?

  36. anna v says:

    Fraud. Simple as that.

    REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony.
    It is not only incompetence and may not even be fraud. A large part is the delusion scientifically inclined people have in favor of their theory of the world. ( a good example: the barycenter followers.)

    It is a hanging on with tenacity on the proposed world explanation ; all scientists are prone to that, from the lowest to the highest in intellect and stature. They would not have entered the field otherwise.
    Of course to be good scientists they would have to be able to , at some point, put aside their favoritism towards their own theory and look clearly at the data, which is something AGW climatologists are not able to do.

  37. Vincent says:

    Flanagan: “It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). ”

    Sounds easy enough to check. The July satellite readings should correspond to the June surface readings. Why don’t we carry out the following audit: compare all the satellite readings against the GISS readings and we will see that the satellites lag the GISS by 1 month. Or not.

    This whole air temperature fiasco is just another nail in the coffin for use as a climate metric. Roger Pielke has been saying for some considerable time that ocean heat accumulation is the most robust metric. Atmospheric temperatures correspond to only a small fraction of global warming and are very fickle.

    Ocean temperatures as observed by the argo network have the advantage in that they can be cross verified by altimetry and gravimetric readings. For example, by subtracting the mass component (gravimetric) of SLR from total altimetry readings, we are left with the thermal expansion component which can confirm the argo temperature readings.

    No accumulation of ocean heat has been observed since 2003.

  38. Robert Wood says:

    Flanagan,

    you make me laugh.

  39. John Finn says:

    Here are the June global temperature anomaly comparisons:

    GISS .63C

    RSS .075

    UAH .001

    The divergence between the satellite derived global temperature anomalies of UAH and RSS and the GISS land-ocean anomaly is the largest in recent memory.

    I still think the majority of the “divergence” is due to the lag from SST changes. I predicted this would happen earlier in the year. GISS and Hadley are ‘seeing’ the warm SST now. UAH and RSS won’t reflect current SST for another couple of months – possibly more. AMSU temperatures already look much warmer in July than June.

    It’s funny no-one picked up on this in Jan and Feb when, relatively speaking, GISS and Hadley were lower than UAH and RSS.

  40. Gene Nemetz says:

    James Hansen was in Washington yesterday. So I am wondering if he made these changes in the data so he could show continued warming in the earth to the politicians and the media ?

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/14/14climatewire-does-nasas-james-hansen-still-matter-in-clim-82897.html?pagewanted=all

    “A House Democrat, meanwhile, labeled (James) Hansen’s Capitol Hill appearance yesterday “irrelevant.” ”

  41. John Finn says:

    NS (00:35:38) :

    Flanagan (23:35:32) :

    “I think there could be some reason for this:
    ………………….
    It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). And we’re actually observing rightnow with UAH a strong increase in the anomaly
    ………….yad,yada……..”

    Or it could be UHI. Nice match for almost all known warming too.
    But yeh, sure, perhaps the air ain’t mixing up right or something. Could we build giant spoon to mix it all up proper?

    UHI? what suddenly in June ? What about last Jan and Feb when the surface anomalies were lower (using 1979-1998 baseline) than the satellite anomalies.

    Look, I’m not a believer in catastrophic AGW, but – and I never thought I’d say this – the warmers are talking a lot more sense than the sceptics on this.

    I suggest we take a look at the UAH and RSS anomalies over the next few months and see what happens.

  42. jeroen says:

    You can’t have a argument for adjusting anomaly’s from 60 years back. Are they realy trying to get that hocky stick back on the chart. maybe there is another Al Gore sequel coming on this fall 2009. Let me gess he will be using Giss adjusment skills.

    Its time this one goes out to al the media.

  43. Manfred says:

    flanagan asked “…where the energy of the el nino came from ?”

    Actually from the sun.

    And el nino doesn’t mean that the heat content of the ocean increased, it is just distributed differently.

    And if a possibly increased number of el ninos would tell us anything for the future, it would be, that this is would be a very strong negative feedback mechanism that transfers surplus energy to the atmosphere and radiate to outer space.

    What was really remarkable, that we had a satellite anomaly of 0.00° this month even in the absence of la nina and though the cumulative effect the string of a few la ninas so far must be still small.

  44. Oldjim says:

    Just been playing with Wood for Trees – I love that site it makes things so much easier – and the surprising thing is the divergence of GISS from Hadcrut3 from 1998 onwards
    I agree that linear trend lines are not much use but this was an eye opener
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend and matches the apparent visual divergence from the actual graphs http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998

  45. Purakanui says:

    No, Anthony, it is not a fine liqueur maturing, it is the heat generated by corruption and rot.

  46. Mark N says:

    Time for an independent investigation. Is it about money, politics, incompetence, time to find out and remove the people responsible.

  47. Purakanui says:

    Never assume incompetence when there is a motive for malice.

  48. Leon Brozyna says:

    GISS again?!

    I can see it now, in the future, year-round snow starts piling up in Canada, a harbinger of future glaciers. Meanwhile, on the 4th of July, snowball fights break out in Central Park in NYC, while GISS is touting the warmest year on record.

  49. pinkisbrain says:

    Flanagan (23:35:32)

    oh no!
    heat from the surface does not wait days or weeks to go up, this happens rapidly and it is very simple thermodynamic!

  50. Mike Bryant says:

    The USA is in the middle of an extended, double psychological mirage.
    The first mirage, which nearly everyone here saw and believed, was the AGW catastrophe which loomed menacingly over the horizon.
    Now, another closer mirage shimmers on the horizon. It is the oasis of man’s only salvation, cap and poverty.
    Unfortunately for our handlers, we have recognized both mirages for what they really are.
    Unfortunately for us, our too aggressive servants, are now shoving the hot sand of socialism down our throats.
    Mike Bryant

  51. Frank Lansner says:

    Giss adjusting trend is obiviously year in year out in favour of their global warming idea. And all major adjustments favour global warming.

    Statistically this is extremely unlikely, and therefore GISS is not relevant as a teperature indicator.

    It does not help GISS credability that they dont play with open cards.

    Always use RSS and UAH for temperature data.

  52. Louis Hissink says:

    For those of you interested go to the Australian Stock Exchange website and do a query on the stock SFR Sandfire Resources. Have a read of the 4 page ASX query (PDF) on a report to the ASX last week. Click on recently reported.

    http://www.asx.com.au

    Steve McIntyre and I are old mining industry types and in OZ we have voluntary codes of conduct and reporting standards. The results reported in this particular instance are no different in motivation than anything reported in climate science. It’s experience with this type of reporting that caused SM and me, independently, to wonder about the Mann Hockey Stick. The rest is history.

    But who then polices the police?

  53. JP says:

    “Look, I’m not a believer in catastrophic AGW, but – and I never thought I’d say this – the warmers are talking a lot more sense than the sceptics on this.”

    So, the sparse suraface network, that must be extrapolated and adjusted can somehow “predict current trends” (in this case, a thin area of surface temperatures of the equatorial East Pacific), and that change somehow will show up in surface data all over the world? Did the same thing occur during the last moderate La Nina? Did GISS data lead the way and show a large negative anomaly in August-October 2007 when the La Nina formed? Is there a new adjustment that we don’t know about – the ENSO asjustment?

  54. rbateman says:

    John Finn (01:49:43) :

    Now you make me laugh. Apparently, GISS and RSS were sitting on a fence, GISS fell off, who was left?
    You may say that GISS and RSSup are eccentric.
    Which is fine if one is selling tabloids at the grocery store.
    Not justifying sending our economy into the dark ages.

  55. Christian S says:

    I only just noticed but you may all have seen or thought of this already:
    They did it under the aegiss of an ALGOREithm
    Groan…

  56. Mike Bryant says:

    James Hansen reminds me of one of my pool buddies. Funny, his name is Jim also.
    When you play pool in a group setting, the players are often distracted. During that distraction, Jim almost always adjusts one ball by a very small amount. If you play nine ball, you know that an eighth of an inch one way or another can change the outcome of the game. Now, everyone knows that Jim does this, and it’s kind of a standing joke since we almost never play for money.
    When we do have a couple of bucks on the line, Jim is watched very closely, because it’s really not funny anymore. In fact several guys won’t even play if Jim is around… It’d be easier and better, though, to just get rid of Jim.

  57. rbateman says:

    I suggest everyone here pick up a copy of the 2009 Farmer’s Almanac (if you don’t already have one) and read the “Sound Familiar” article.
    Folks were just as serious about the climate changing starting in 1894 with the ever-increasing cold prompting geologists to predict an Ice Age right on through the early 20’s. Then the 30’s hit and it was back to cooking.
    Then 1952 the 1st global warming hiccup, with the unprecedented cold of the 60’s to 70’s leading to another Ice Age, now to our current ‘climate change’ and lastly to the decending cold once again.
    Anthony, I think it would be a lot of fun to get Farmer’s Almanac to go along with posting an excerpt of that article here.
    Weather exists for us to gripe about, records for us to guffaw about, but don’t you dare step on my Blue Suede data shoes.

  58. TitoYors says:

    It is very interesting that the anomaly in May and June,in meterological stations, is just the same, +0.77º.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

  59. urederra says:

    Flanagan (23:35:32) :

    I think there could be some reason for this:

    – Satellites don’t cover the poles very much, and the anomaly over the southern pole has been fairly large.

    My back of the envelope calculations say that this can’t be true. If the south pole comprises the 10% of all Earth surface, the anomaly over there should have been like 6º C to make up to the 0.6º discrepancy. And it wasn’t.

  60. urederra says:

    Oh… and if the south pole is “unprecedentedly warm”, Why the sea ice extent keeps growing year after year?

    And, of course, this was predicted by the climate models. At least one of these 23 revised in the last IPCC report predicted that. Meh…

  61. Morgan in Sweden says:

    What GISS has to fight is reality, extrem cold in Peru, colder than normal in Southern and Northern Europe, it is cold in Australia, New Zealand, it is cold in South Africa It is cold in Canada. I wonder what the guys at GISS feel about presenting this almost funny anomaly. Somewhere deep inside they must feel that they are presenting a figure that is highly questionable.

  62. tarpon says:

    Pay more in taxes to the government so the government will pretend to control the weather. And so how will we know that the additional taxes have made the temperature go down? Because the government will tell you it did.

    Like a fish rotting in the noonday sun ….

  63. Curiousgeorge says:

    Given the recent news on the previous couple of threads, I think anyone who believes they know what is happening or not happening relative to the climate is damn fool – aka a politician.

  64. Ron de Haan says:

    This is not weather statistics, it’s politics.

    This a virtual BBQ is made to grill humanity

    1. in the Senate and at EPA

    2. at the G20 meeting in September

    3. at the UN Climate meeting in December

    Just in time for the Christmas dinner.

    We all wear our green shackles around that time.

    The Climate Maffia has taken over America.

    Please do something about it.

  65. David says:

    It would be interesting to see the results of the forcings (those published by the IPCC) using GISS and UAH (or RSS). Anyone knows if this was done? I would imagine that the CO2 forcing using both would be quit different.

  66. Ron de Haan says:

    This is a frontal attack on us.

    We skeptics have been stating all over the web that the earth has been cooling for the last decade.

    Now they can say that this is not true.

    Global Warming suddenly has become recent history.

    How nice to have all these skills with fraudulent techniques.

    I wonder if what the boys of Real Climate will do now.
    Are they back in business?

  67. Jeff Wiita says:

    Could we start a campaign to educate Bill O’reilly on Fox News. He believes GISS and Jim Hansen. Glenn Beck has tried to explain what is going on, but Bill is six cookies short of a dozen. He repeated the GISS nonsense again, yesterday, July 14. His email is oreilly@foxnews.com.

    Jeff

  68. Bob_L says:

    There was “no controlling legal authority” for AlGore’s illegal campaign contributions from the Buddist Monks, and I wouldn’t be surprised it that is the same story here.

  69. Frank K. says:

    bluegrue (00:52:34) :

    “It’s not like the source of the difference is a major mystery. The changes shown in the blinker occurred for the most part as a consequence of the introduction of the TOBS and SHAP adjustments. The former covers the systematic change of time of observation in the US, the other one corrections for station moves as documented in the station meta data. Which of these adjustments do you object to and on what basis?”

    So – why do TOBS and SHAP change as newer data are added? Why is TOBS even needed in the modern era given that temperatures are monitored 24/7? Are there problems getting the USHCN volunteers to record their temperatures at a consistent time?

    I don’t think this is a problem with TOBS or SHAP, but rather it is *** entirely *** an artifact of the extraordinarily bad GISTEMP software…

    By the way, our tax dollars are paying for this abysmal climate “product”…

  70. Ric Werme says:

    rbateman (03:13:40) :

    I suggest everyone here pick up a copy of the 2009 Farmer’s Almanac (if you don’t already have one) and read the “Sound Familiar” article.

    Joe D’Aleo’s article is online at http://www.almanac.com/timeline/ . (It’s both the inspiration for the “Sound Familiar” article and the Almanac’s expectation of decades of cooling.)

    I keep a link at http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html to another good article along that line: Fire and Ice at http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

    This article looks at media reports on the imminent Ice Age (1895), the benefits of ongoing CO2-related warming (1938), how the cooling since 1940 … will not soon be reversed (1975), “Our ability to live is what is at stake” (2006). One of its recommendations is “Don’t stifle debate.”

  71. Miles says:

    lies, damn lies, and GISS global temperature anomolies

  72. Flanagan says:

    pinkisbrain: nice try, but thermodynamics does not give any information about timescales. Unless you refer to nonequilbrium thermo?

    It’s nice to see at least one person (Finn) agress with me on this one. Such a delay was alrady observed in 1998 just before el nino.

  73. Jack Simmons says:

    Flanagan (23:35:32) :

    I think there could be some reason for this:

    – Satellites don’t cover the poles very much, and the anomaly over the southern pole has been fairly large
    http://www.climat-evolution.com/article-33431441.html

    – another possibility to explain this could refer to the mixing time of the lower troposphere. GISS is actually measuring surface temperatures, with stations on the ground. RSS and UAH measure lower troposphere temperatures (indirectly) at 4.4 km high (at least for UAH). It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). And we’re actually observing rightnow with UAH a strong increase in the anomaly
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

    So I don’t think we should see any obvious error or conspiracy behind this result… Just the consequence of having a pacific with a slightly positive Nino index.

    You’re missing the whole point.

    This is not a matter of divergence between different data sets. This is changes within a data set, changes being made by an advocate, changes not explained or documented.

    Imagine how you would feel if your banker made ‘adjustments’ of this sort on your checking account.

  74. An Inquirer says:

    Flanagan: I suggest that you read up on the basic physics of the global warming debate — using explanations from both the pro side and the skeptic side. The Green House theory is not in jeopardy. Its reality is accepted by all sides. The questions are whether increased levels of CO2 swamp natural variations and how extensive are feedback loops. If increases in tropospheric temperatures are caused by El Nino, that discredits CO2-based AGW, not the greenhouse theory. El Ninos preceeded (and will follow) high levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

  75. tallbloke says:

    Flanagan and John Finn and everyone

    I think the real answer is that Hansen had a panic attack in Jan 2008 and shifted CISStemp to a more ocean data based footing around march last year.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003.5/to:2009.5/plot/gistemp/from:2003.5/to:2009.5/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2007.5/to:2009.5/scale:1.8/offset:-0.25

  76. Jeff Id says:

    Donakail!

    Ve Vill NOT Show Coolink!

  77. Nogw says:

    As Anthony has demonstrated repeatedly, the only temperatures records worth of such a name are not from ground stations UAH, because all these have a deviation from 1 to 5!! degrees celsius. And this is perfectly acceptable. I think it is nobody´s fault. We should talk about not of heat islands but of movable heat islands, because of the fact that roads, buildings are being constructed all the time so the only accurate measuring left is that of satellites.
    Hope not satellites are adjusted taking ground stations as a reference.

  78. labrador says:

    Graduates of the Cordon Bleu Academy of Data Handling?

  79. Enonym says:

    Did anybody, anybody at all bother to check the TOBS and SHAP adjustments that were linked to earlier in this thread?

    While this blog is supposed to be a science blog, there is very little scientific content in the comments. One gets the impression that most of the commenters are scientific illiterates. To back up my statement, do a quick count of the number of comments along the line of “I knew it! It’s a scam!”, “Al Gore is fat!”, “Our economy is going to be ruined!”

  80. tallbloke says:

    Mick (00:36:43) :

    You can keep a secret if only two people know it, and one of them is dead.

    Who are the algorithm gate keepers a GISS? Surely not one (the ONE) person?
    Any chance for a whistleblower?
    Or the ONE want to be busted. Out.

    I suspect the algorethms GISStemp currently uses will have to be pried from Jim Hansen’s cold dead fingers. With a crowbar.

    I bet the day he retires, the office computer will ‘lose’ the records.

  81. Shawn Whelan says:

    Even Perry Mason couldn’t defend GISS.
    Give Flannagan credit for trying.

  82. imapopulistnow says:

    “Fraud. Simple as that.

    REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony.”

    Anthony, I beg to differ. The adjustments on the GISS Temp Blink Comparator from 1999 to 2008 indicate a clear and conscious attempt by someone to deceive and mislead. The implications of this action have the potential to be far more disastrous than even the missteps of the financial system. One cannot say that these adjustments are simply incompetence. No, they are an intentional action to restate history. They have corrupted the base data that professional and ethical scientists must depend on to perform objective analysis. This, in my humble opinion, is fraud and corruption. Someone needs to have the courage to demand that this data base be thoroughly investigated by truly independent sources to determine how and to what extent the data has been corrupted. (We already understand the Why).

  83. John Finn says:

    JP (02:58:08) :

    “Look, I’m not a believer in catastrophic AGW, but – and I never thought I’d say this – the warmers are talking a lot more sense than the sceptics on this.”

    So, the sparse suraface network, that must be extrapolated and adjusted can somehow “predict current trends” (in this case, a thin area of surface temperatures of the equatorial East Pacific), and that change somehow will show up in surface data all over the world? Did the same thing occur during the last moderate La Nina? Did GISS data lead the way and show a large negative anomaly in August-October 2007 when the La Nina formed? Is there a new adjustment that we don’t know about – the ENSO asjustment?

    The only thing that kept GISS temperatures high-ish in Autumn 2007 was the high temperature anomaly over the arctic. But that couldn’t have been right – could it. Mind you, the arctic did have a record melt in 2007 which continued into October. I wouldn’t like to suggest, though, that maybe GISS were on the right track with their arctic anomalies.

    Another point. If you want to make comparisons between GISS/Hadley and satellite temperatures you should use a common base period. Both GISS and Hadley had negative anomalies during the 2007/08 La Nina when calculated against the 1979-1998 base period.

  84. papertiger says:

    What planet do you live on where the current admin is going to audit GISS??
    Who do you think would run such an audit even if it were to happen?
    The same people who are so forthcoming with their data manipulations to Steve Mc?
    Might as well believe in GW if you believe that’s going to happen.

    I can imagine a conversation in the halls of congress.
    “What would it take for you to vote yes on the climate bill, Senator?” asks the lobbiest.
    ” I suppose if the Earth started heating up again.” answers the Senator.

    Done.

  85. Jim Cripwell says:

    I find it very sad that some people are suggesting that the GISS data has been “manipulated”. Preumably, the scientists who produce the data have proper degrees. I would hope that they do their science in the way established by Galilleo and Newton. To suggest that this may not be so, shows how badly AGW has fractured science.

  86. papertiger says:

    I’ll be looking for that brutally hot Siberia in the detail map. I’m sure Nome will be shown to have melted.
    Central Asian probably developed a flair up.
    Maybe some snow buried Antarctic mobil temp stations as well.

    And it wouldn’t surprise me if Steig type extrapolation were suddenly deemed sound and incorporated into the GISS record. Prorated with seasonal adjustments.

  87. Andrew says:

    Enonym,

    “It’s a scam!”, “Al Gore is fat!”, “Our economy is going to be ruined!”

    All of these are evident, as far as I can see. Except the second one is not quite accurate. Al Gore is actually REALLY fat. ;)

    Andrew

  88. Flanagan says:

    This is all very funny. The reactions here could be even funnier after the July UAH anomalies which will more than probably be all the way up
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

    What is it going to be then? Roy Spencer is manipulating data? And what would you all have said in 1998, when UAH and RSS were giving much higher anomalies compared to GISS?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998

  89. Smokey says:

    Comparing apples to apples; removing Flanagan’s offsets: click

    Why is GISS so out of step with the others? Especially the satellite data? They do it all the time.

  90. Kum Dollison says:

    Well, like someone said, “The AMSU (channel 5) is Flying.” July could be a Monster.

    Flanagan’s “lag” theory does make a little sense.

    Now is when everyone should be down at the Galapagos Islands checking out the Humboldt/Panama Currents, and the Trades. We might learn something.

    Also, is the SOI still rising. Will it shut the emerging El Nino down? Inquiring minds want to know.

  91. 1.The difference between RSS and GISS temperatures is normal.
    The surface sea temperatures are increasing in the last six months.
    February sst anomaly 0.10
    June sst anomaly 0.29(an exceptional increase)
    Similar variation of the El Nino 3.4 anomaly.
    By contrast ,because of the recent volcanic eruptions,the TLT temperatures are decreasing(look at the sudden increase in the STRATOSPHERIC temperatures )
    2.The Hadcrut3v temperatures will be delivered in few days and they will confirm the warming trend of the recent months.

  92. Flanagan says:

    The offets are just there to adjust for the different periods of reference.

  93. Douglas DC says:

    Here’s the latest SST data: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.7.13.2009.gif This doesn’t look like the Mother of all Nino’s to me…
    BTW for those who don’t know-the Aircraft in Anthony’s Picture is a Lockeed Constellation-direct competitor to the DC6/DC7 Douglas products of the 1950’s
    all were as fast as you could economically go in Pistons…

  94. Ron de Haan says:

    Purakanui (02:44:39) :

    “Never assume incompetence when there is a motive for malice”.

    Every crime fighter knows this.

  95. Dave in CA says:

    This UAH “lag” deal seems to be the new mantra that keeps being repeated, but it wasn’t that long that Anthony had a posted to showed all 4 major temperature graphs together and for the most part the peaks and valleys happen at the same time even if they are of different magnitude.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/19/comparing-the-four-global-temperature-data-sets/#more-7943

    So what’s changed now?

  96. Jim says:

    John Finn (01:49:43) : You seem to be turning a blind eye to the “adjustments” of historical measurements. Is this the “lag” to which you refer? There is an adjustment-induced “lag” in historical temperatures? How can you tolerate this kind of chicanery?

  97. Lubos Motl says:

    Well, I can imagine that the difference is due to the abruptly starting El Nino that manifests itself on the surface faster than in the troposphere. I do expect a pretty rapid warming to show up in the satellites within months.

    At any rate, the 0.6 °C difference in the anomalies as measured by different teams show that the very existence of the “catastrophic” 20th century warming by 0.6 °C depends on the methodology and the precise definition of the “global mean temperature”.

    We’re talking about nothing – something that is not statistically significant and whose very existence is a very subtle question for scholars, surely not a question that politicians or ordinary people should deal with.

  98. Bob Tisdale says:

    Of course with the oceans covering the majority of the globe, much of GISTEMP relies on their SST data source (OI.v2 data since Dec 1981). Based on the SST anomalies…
    http://i30.tinypic.com/2h7qpw6.png
    …much of the rise in GISTEMP in June can be attributed to the rise in SST data.

    The rest of the ocean subsets are here:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/june-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html

  99. Nogw says:

    Douglas DC (07:28:22) :Here’s the latest SST data
    Too much red and orange on that chart. However SOI is negative and that indicates no Nino at all. There is an obvious contradiction, both data are from the same source.
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cgi-tao/cover.cgi?P1=/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/soi_110w_80.gif&P2=700&P3=607&script=jsdisplay/scripts/biggif_startup.csh

  100. Nogw says:

    Errata: SOI it is a little negative.

  101. cotwome says:

    It sure is convenient the highest and most wide spread June temperature anomalies globally, are in the Antarctic, where we have the fewest temperature recording stations per square mile than anywhere on earth. In other words, the is no ‘real data’ on most of Antarctica, it is ‘extrapolated’. By comparison Antarctica with ice cover is about 5,000,000 sq mi., Europe is about 3,930,000 sq mi., and just a guess, but, I’m sure Europe has exponentially more stations to record temperature than Antarctica. That leaves a lot of room for incompetence in reporting the data.

  102. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Flanagan (23:35:32) :

    I think there could be some reason for this:

    – Satellites don’t cover the poles very much, and the anomaly over the southern pole has been fairly large
    http://www.climat-evolution.com/article-33431441.html “””

    Now Flanagan, you really are grasping at straws; “satellites don’t cover the poles very much.”

    On this planet earth in the 21st century orbital configuration; there couldn’t be any place more totally inconsequential to the computation of a “mean global temperature”; or some ersatz “anomaly” proxy for mean global temperature than the south pole. Second place on the list of total nonentities would be the north pole.

    For a start, both places have what must be on average, the lowest atmospheric concentrration of total green house gases (including water vapor); and both places have just about the lowest average surface long wave infra-red radiation emittance anywhere on the planet; so their total contribution to “climate sensitivity” must be completely negligible.

    From the point of view of the total sum of all the thermal processes going on on this planet, that can contribute to the value of the global mean temperature; even given the fact that it is quite impossible for us to measure that anyway; there’s nowhere that is of less significance than those two little polar circles that satellites cannot reach.

    So no cigar on this one Flanagan.

    Perhaps you can do some valuable indepoendent research for us Flanagan.

    Why don’t you see if you can acquire the raw data that goes into that flakey GISS-ticulation above; and prepare two sets, one containing the south and north polar station contributions; and a second set without; and then take a GISS at them with a similar blink comparatir presentation so we can see the huge error caused by the lack of polar data.

    Why don’t you do that for us Flanagan ?

  103. Flanagan says:

    Dave: the graph you referred to plots monthly data averaged into quarters – difficult to sea a 1-month delay in this case…

  104. bluegrue says:

    Here’s a blinker of 1999, 2001 and 2008, showing that the main difference is between 1999 and 2001, whereas the difference 2001 to 2008 is minimal. So the difference is indeed due to the inclusion of the adjustments SHAP, TOBS, etc in the USHCN data set.

    Frank K. (05:02:14) :

    Why is TOBS even needed in the modern era given that temperatures are monitored 24/7?

    Because the bias is still there in the past data.

    I don’t think this is a problem with TOBS or SHAP, but rather it is *** entirely *** an artifact of the extraordinarily bad GISTEMP software…

    Here’s your alleged “artifact … of GISTEMP”: blinker of GISTEMP and NOAA..

  105. Jim says:

    Lubos Motl (08:07:04) : How can that happen? When an El Nino occurs, heating of the air immediately above it should happen in a matter of hours. That air will do what air hotter than its surroundings always does: it will rise. When the Sun heats land, it does not take clouds a month to form, it takes a matter of hours.
    What mechanism do you propose to account for the lag in tropospheric heating vs. surface heating?

  106. richcar says:

    What is the generally agreed on adjustment to GISS to account for the difference between base lines with the satellite data?

  107. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Lubos Motl (08:07:04) :

    Well, I can imagine that the difference is due to the abruptly starting El Nino that manifests itself on the surface faster than in the troposphere. I do expect a pretty rapid warming to show up in the satellites within months.

    At any rate, the 0.6 °C difference in the anomalies as measured by different teams show that the very existence of the “catastrophic” 20th century warming by 0.6 °C depends on the methodology and the precise definition of the “global mean temperature”.

    We’re talking about nothing – something that is not statistically significant and whose very existence is a very subtle question for scholars, surely not a question that politicians or ordinary people should deal with. “””

    Well Lubos, I’m in agreement with you that a lot depends on exactly what is “global mean temperature”; we know for sure that it is a very high number, because much of the earth’s core is at sun surface temperatures or higher; so the global mean temperature isn’t any +15 deg C. The only other rational description would be the global mean surface temperature; bearing in mind that the surface goes from some hundreds of metres below sea level to somewhat over 8000 metres above sea level. Anything else other than the actual surface would have to very ad hoc.

    And from a purely practical point of view it is inherently impossible to correctly sample the earth surface in any way that conforms to the Nyquist Criterion in both space and time co-ordinates. Planet earth can correctly integrate all the energy fluxes everywhere continuously; and get the right answer; but WE cannot perform those same integrals, because we have no legitimate way of acquiring the data.

    But quite apart from the impossibility of even measuring such a quantity; there isn’t any scientific validity (or value) in what ever answer one might come up with.

    It certainly has no physical connection to the earth’s total energy balance relationship; that might relate to whether we are cooling or warming.

    But the global mean temperature proxies, that we call “anomalies” like GISStemp, HADcrut, and there even more ersatz satellite versions, in UAH and RSS; well the first two anyway, do have some substance. There is an actual set of measuring stations that go into those two; and Anthony has shown us just how ersatz those places are.

    But after all is said and done; GISStemp is simply a graphic plot of GISStemp; and it doesn’t have any real physical relationship to planet earth or its climate; or to anything else other than GISStemp. It’s a fictitious ritual of Dr Hansen.

    So Hansen can do whatever he likes with the data; so long as he doesn’t try to hoodwink us in to believing it means anything more, than does the average number in the Manhattan Phone directory.

    George

  108. John K. Sutherland says:

    Jeff:
    ‘Could we start a campaign to educate Bill O’reilly on Fox News. He believes GISS and Jim Hansen. Glenn Beck has tried to explain what is going on, but Bill is six cookies short of a dozen. He repeated the GISS nonsense again, yesterday, July 14. His email is oreilly@foxnews.com

    Jeff, I hit Bill Oreily twice on this mindset to no avail, and I commended Laura Ingraham once on her better position.

    Bill’s a bright guy. I steered his e-mail readers to Monckton and this site. Eventually, the penny will drop with him, and he will be a most useful ally. He already is, in the sense that he doesn’t buy the Cap and tax idiocy, or the alleged driving of temperature by carbon dioxide, so he’s almost half way there.

  109. Paul K says:

    Good grief… Could you make this any more confusing Anthony Watts?

    You talk about global anomalies, and the difference between GISS and UAH for June, then you show a blinking graph of the GISS for the US only, instead of the global anomaly.

    Wasn’t there an error admitted about a year or so ago for the GISS temperature record for the US, which in turn was corrected downward? The impact on the global record was insignificant. Isn’t this what your blinking graph of the US data shows? That most of the change is due to the before and after of that correction? And isn’t it true that a similar blinking graph of the global anomaly wouldn’t show any significant change?

    Why didn’t you show the global anomaly in your blinking graph? Maybe it didn’t give the impression that you wanted to project to your readers?

    REPLY:Good grief Paul K could you be any more transparent? Instead of deflecting with things not relevant, why not take the issue head on – do you think it is OK to adjust past data? That is the issue presented. Get upset about the fact that the blink comparator is for US data all you want. The real issue is data adjustment post facto

    Here is another post on the issue.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/

    – Anthony

  110. John Finn says:

    Dear All

    Why doesn’t someone (not you, Flanagan) check the trends for all 4 data sets
    since 1992. We know there was some disagreement before then, but since the early 1990s I think the trends have matched up quite well.

    I’d prefer this to be someone who is sceptical of the GISS record but who actually knows what they are doing. If the trends are similar I’d suggest there’s nothing dodgy going on.

  111. Indiana Bones says:

    TO: Doc. James Hansen
    GISS, Columbia University
    New York, NY

    FROM: Robert H. Goddard (dec’d)

    Dear Doc. Hansen,

    In light of your fast and loose play with meteorological data, I request that you immediately remove my name from your Institute. Harping on this “global warming” business has nothing to do with rocketry or good science. You might consider replacing my name with, “Piltdown Institute for Space Studies.”

    Thank you.
    RHG

    NOTE: Which makes for an unfortunate but apt acronym.

  112. Paul K says:

    Next point, I applaud you for headlining the difference between UAH and GISS for June, as you did in May. Every year you trumpet the UAH data for May and June. Why?

    Every year the UAH data show a substantial drop in May and June. There is a serious seasonal variability in the UAH data, and it seems to be getting worse. For some reason UAH shows a seasonal rise in the anomaly in February, and seasonal decline in the anomaly for May and June. This has been discussed at several blog sites, such as
    http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/05/uah-annual-cycle-continues-in-2009/

    Interestingly, the UAH data seems to show a much higher seasonal impact than RSS, which only shows a minor seasonal change. Something looks very fishy in the UAH reported data.

    REPLY: “Every year you trumpet the UAH data for May and June. Why?”

    Paul K lets see how well your argument holds up.

    WUWT in May 2007 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/05/ – no mention of UAH
    WUWT in June 2007 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/06/ – no mention of UAH

    WUWT in May 2008 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/ – UAH mentioned because of 4 to .5 degrees C cooler than May 2007 “seasonal anomaly”? Not likely since 2007 didn’t have the same issue.

    WUWT in June 2008 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/ – 1 mention of UAH, due to it being cooler than Hansens 20th anniversary, plus the largest 4 month drop in UAH since 1998

    WUWT in May 2009 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/ – 1 mention of UAH comparing it to RSS at the same time

    WUWT in June 2009 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/ – 1 mention of UAH pointing out the low anomaly near zero

    But wait, let’s look at all the other months…if you’ll go through the archives, you’ll see that I mention UAH almost every month since early 2008. I also mention RSS. Trumpeting? Your reporting trend is non-existent, and you’d be the first to jump on me if I made such assumptions on something else without looking at all the data. You don’t like UAH, you don’t like what I report about it, we get it.

    Christy offers some insight as to why UAH and RSS don’t always coincide:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/07/april-global-temperature-anomalies-rss-steady-uah-dropped-50/

    Once again there is a rather large discrepancy between our monthly anomaly (+0.09 deg. C.) and that produced by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS, +0.20 deg. C). We (John Christy and I) believe the difference is due to some combination of three factors:

    1) we calculate the anomalies from a wider latitude band, 84S to 84N whereas RSS stops at 70S, and Antarctica was cooler than average in April (so UAH picks it up).

    2) The monthly anomaly is relative to the 1979-1998 base period, which for RSS had a colder mean period relative to April 2009 (i.e. their early Aprils in the 1979-1998 period were colder than ours.)

    3) RSS is still using a NOAA satellite whose orbit continues to decay, leading to a sizeable diurnal drift adjustment. We are using AMSU data from only NASA’s Aqua satellite, whose orbit is maintained, and so no diurnal drift adjustment is needed. The largest diurnal effects occur during Northern Hemisphere spring, and I personally believe this is the largest contributor to the discrepancy between UAH and RSS.

    So the real question is, does UAH do a better job than RSS due to platform differences? Does UAH do a better job of representing the planetary temperature than GISS? From my perspective, seeing the issue with weather stations worldwide and the data they produce, and the high number of airports in GISTEMP, I think UAH is free of those biases. Is the “serious seasonal variability” real or an artifact? I don’t know, but I’ll put the question to Dr. Christy.

    – Anthony

  113. Ron de Haan says:

    One example where the doctored GISS data kill the cooling argument:
    Via Icecap.us

    Jul 14, 2009
    Say it ain’t so Joe!

    I recently wrote a letter to Senator Joe Lieberman emploring him to vote no on the proposed cap and trade bill now before congress. Below is the letter that I received from the senators office.

    June 25, 2009

    Dear Mr. Horn:

    Thank you for writing to me regarding your opposition to climate change legislation. I respectfully disagree with your position and view climate change as the most important environmental challenge of our time.Climate change is a very serious problem – not just for our environment, but for our economy and our national security, as well – and the way we produce and consume energy is making the problem worse. We need to pass legislation to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a clean energy economy. To do that, we will have to build a broad coalition.

    To succeed, a bill will need diverse support, which means bringing everyone to the table and really listening to what they have to say. We have to sit down with the environmental community, the business community, and the scientific community. We have to talk to Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle about how best to address this crucial issue.

    This could be a watershed moment. We have near scientific unanimity that humans are causing climate change, we have a Congress poised to take action, and we have a President pushing for progress. In his inaugural address, President Obama told us “each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.” He is absolutely right, and I look forward to working with the President to: (1) promote energy innovation so that we can produce and consume energy more cleanly and efficiently; (2) protect energy consumers from rising power prices; (3) prepare our communities to respond to the impacts of climate change; and (4) create jobs as we transition toward a clean energy economy. I also support including provisions in climate change legislation that would ensure a cap-and-trade system does not increase the deficit.Climate legislation should improve our environment and grow our economy at the same time. In these tough financial times, some have asked whether it makes sense to focus on the environment. The fact is, ignoring climate change until our economic situation improves will ultimately be far more expensive – and destructive – than taking steps to address it now.

    Climate change does not just threaten our environment, it endangers our economy and national security, as well. Left unabated, its impacts will ravage coastlines and coastal communities, destroy large swaths of roadways and railways, and seriously degrade land resources and biodiversity. Additionally, climate-induced droughts will cause famine, threatening already scarce resources and further destabilizing developing nations that are unable to quickly adapt. Every day we fail to reform our energy habits, we guarantee the solution will be far more expensive; and if we wait much longer, there may be no solution. If we are able to pass climate change legislation this year, we will ensure the integrity of our environmental legacy for generations to come. I am working hard to make certain we move toward that important goal. As you may know, on April 17, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a preliminary finding that carbon dioxide emissions harm human health and welfare. Though the finding has not yet been finalized, if and when it is, EPA will be able to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. One option the agency will have for doing so will be to set reduction targets. I believe strongly that cap-and-trade would be the better approach. It allows businesses to comply with reduction targets in the most economically efficient way possible, which, in turn, helps keep American-made goods competitive and keeps energy prices down.

    Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit my website for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

    Sincerely,

    Joseph I. Lieberman, UNITED STATES SENATOR
    JIL:vdh

    I then wrote back to Senator Lieberman with the following.

    Dear Senator Lieberman,

    As a meteorologist and one who has studied this issue at great length I must respectfully disagree with nearly all of your points. I do agree that to succeed we must listen to all, the environmental and the business communities but especially the scientific. The science shows that there has been no warming for ten years. All data show this. We are in the eighth year of cooling, however carbon dioxide levels continue to rise. There has been no correlation between the two for ten years nor was there any correlation with temperature from the mid 1940’s to the late 1970’s when the global temperature data show decades of cooling.

    I agree this could be a watershed moment but in the wrong direction for the United States and the world.
    Mr. Obama was correct when he said “each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries”. But he was wrong when he said “and threaten our planet”.

    All of your statements about future impacts on our world from human caused temperature rise are forecasts. I have made many thousands of forecasts in my life and I’ve learned that only by failing do you learn to walk the narrow and error filled road of prediction. Climate modelers are not forecasters. They have no real world experience in makeing predictions. They have never known what it is like to fail because their predictions won’t verify for 50 to 100 years. If there is no fear of failure there is not limit to what you will forecast. Computer models have many flaws that even the modelers will admit but they also create and maintain careers and funding. A climate model can be tweaked to give you the result you want or need.

    I like this quote “If the facts change I will change my opinion, what do you do sir?”

    Sincerely,

    Art Horn

    Unfortunately the senator never saw this email. For some reason when I tried to respond back to the email I received from Joe it was unable to get through and bounced back to me. I tried four times to resend my response but with no luck. It would appear that at least some of those in Washington are not interested in what the people have to say. I did send my letter to senator Lieberman through his website but I have had no indication if it actually got through or if he saw it, I doubt I will. We can only hope that the senate will have the wisdom to vote no on this bill that is nothing but a tax increase and will have negative effects on the nation and the world since we are it’s largest economy. See full PDF here.

  114. This record at GISS will not stand and will be adjusted within the month. This has happened before and is usually a result of really sparse station and SST data that gets fleshed out more later.

    This is not unusual, it was here on WUWT and I blogged it at a now closed UK site last year when a data point came out that was adjusted quietly later. So be patient and GISS will adjust because there is no way that this reading is correct no matter how warm the SST temperatures are, because we would be in the middle of a HUGE El Nino, and we are not, despite the cheerleading of Flanigan and others.

    BTW Arctic Ice Extent has dipped below 2008..scary.. it is also above 2006 so I think we could have more ice than that year, amazing how you see anything you want.

  115. Fred from Canuckistan . . . says:

    “All of these are evident, as far as I can see. Except the second one is not quite accurate. Al Gore is actually REALLY fat. ;)

    Don’t think of it as fat . . . think of it as Carbon Capture.

  116. sonicfrog says:

    Ooops! That was supposed to say:

    This is not a matter of divergence between different data sets. This is changes within a data set, changes being made by an advocate, changes not explained or documented.

    Imagine how you would feel if your banker made ‘adjustments’ of this sort on your checking account.

    Well, if it went in the same direction as GISS, I’d be all for it!!!!! :-)

  117. Paul K says:

    Mr. Watts: Good grief Paul K could you be any more transparent? Instead of deflecting with things not relevant, why not take the issue head on – do you think it is OK to adjust past data? That is the issue presented.

    My response: I am happy I am transparent and therefore clear in what I posted. To answer your question: Yes, I think it is very important to adjust the data when an error is discovered. The GISS record for the US was adjusted for the period before 2001, as bluegrue discussed the post immediately preceding my post. In fact, even UAH data has been significantly corrected in the past. If I recall, the UAH data corrected even more substantially.

    My point, is that the US is only about 2% of the global surface area, and the data you began the post with, was a comparison of the global temperature anomalies. The UAH global anomalies seems out of whack with other global trends, as shown in the link I posted to above. Check out the graph of anomaly trends by month at the link:

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/05/uah-annual-cycle-continues-in-2009/

    REPLY:” Yes, I think it is very important to adjust the data when an error is discovered.”

    So it is OK to say, adjust temperature data from 1945 or 1960 or and number of points in previous years where the GISS data has been changed? Please explain then how GISS determines that data is in error? I’ve heard the 2% area argument a zillion times, still not impressed. The issue remains is it OK to adjust past measured data, and how is it justified that it is in “error”?

    As for the UAH issue, I’ll put the question to Dr. Christy – A

  118. Ron de Haan says:

    The real deal behind the climate bill:
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12921

  119. John Finn: Your wish is my command…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1992/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1992/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1992/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1992/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/from:1992/trend/plot/rss/from:1992/trend

    If you click on the “raw data” link you can get the actual trends:

    Hadcrut: 0.019 K/yr
    GISS: 0.023 K/yr
    UAH: 0.020 K/yr
    RSS: 0.020 K/yr

    So yes, GISS is a bit higher, but it’s in the same ball-park.

    The offsets that Flanagan used may have come from me: see http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#baselines for an explanation.

    I’m looking forward to testing this theory that the satellites will follow the surface in the next few months!

  120. This “lag after spike” theory does have some ‘form’, at least recently:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:24/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:24/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:24/plot/rss/last:24

    The surface and satellite data seemed to diverge similarly to now around March 2008, and returned to their usual approximate coherence in about September. Are other conditions (ENSO, etc.) similar now?

  121. TallDave says:

    Preumably, the scientists who produce the data have proper degrees.

    So did Bernie Madoff.

    Look, if Hansen wasn’t saying skeptics should be tried for war crimes, comparing coal trains to Auschwitz, and getting himself arrested at coal plants then you would have a point. This is like putting Michael Moore in charge of the government’s economic data. Who ever expects radical zealots to be objective?

  122. tallbloke says:

    Paul K (09:30:59) :
    The UAH global anomalies seems out of whack with other global trends, as shown in the link I posted to above.

    Rubbish.

    The UAH anomaly trend is in line with global SST trends as measured by HADcru. Which is exactly what you would expect given that the ocean controls the temperature of the atmosphere by virtue of the fact that it’s top 8 feet of seawater has as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it.

  123. Jared says:

    I’ve been keeping track of GISS and their ‘legit’ adjustments since last December.

    Time Frame of January 1998 through November 2008

    0.0113 increase in temps with the release of data in December 2008
    0.0123 increase in temps with the release of data in July of 2009

    Every month I do this the warming from Jan 1998 – Nov 2008 gets bigger and bigger. When they release the August 2009 data the rate of increase of temps from Jan 1998 – Nov 2008 will grow again. This is not science, this is a FRAUD.

  124. TallDave says:

    Yes, I think it is very important to adjust the data when an error is discovered.

    It’s apparently only important to find errors that increase the trend, as we haven’t seen any adjustments for the myriad of problems noted at surfacestations.org. Apparently one only finds what one is looking for. Funny how that works out.

    The U.S. is supposed to have the best dataset, so it’s relevant to post a graph of how “corrected” it was.

  125. Adam from Kansas says:

    Warmest June since 1998? This could be expected from a dataset that has a lot of poorly placed stations and a bunch of readings influenced by UHI.

    But just because its from the ‘all knowing’ NASA and supported by the ‘all knowing NOAA’ it should not be questioned anyway?

    About the big run up in July temps. on the UAH site, certainly isn’t feeling exactly like that here in Wichita, we had a big heatwave, but not near enough to make one of the hottest July’s on record, plus the forecast (Intellicast) is now showing a lot more days below 90 than above.

  126. bmcburney says:

    If the present refuses to become warmer the past must become colder. (Hansen’s law)

    In the future, the past is going to get very, very cold.

  127. tallbloke says:

    woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (09:54:43) :

    This “lag after spike” theory does have some ‘form’, at least recently:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:24/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:24/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:24/plot/rss/last:24

    The surface and satellite data seemed to diverge similarly to now around March 2008, and returned to their usual approximate coherence in about September. Are other conditions (ENSO, etc.) similar now?

    With the sun getting quiet the relationship between ocean and air has become more obvious. The air temps lag ocean temps by 4-7 months. The ocean temp sets the air temp.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/scale:0.5/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/offset:-0.4/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/trend/offset:-0.4/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/scale:0.5

    If you align the linear trends of UAH HADSST and GIStemp, you can see GIStemp has switched from predoninantly matching lower troposphere temps to predominantly matching ocean temps. I agree this started last year, around March – June.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/detrend:-0.03/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/offset:-0.113/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/detrend:-0.03/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.19/detrend:0.08/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.2/trend:0.7/detrend:0.08

    Or for a closer look:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003.5/to:2009.5/plot/gistemp/from:2003.5/to:2009.5/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2007.5/to:2009.5

  128. Steve M. says:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2002/offset:-0.25/plot/uah/from:1996/to:2002/plot/rss/from:1996/to:2002

    Flannagan, we don’t see an “upwelling” in the 1998 El Nino, so why this time?

  129. Flanagan says:

    Hi woodfortrees!

    Yes, I used your offsets to align the datasets. Happy to see there’s something maybe in the delay-after-peak theory Finn and I are thinking about. I would say it happens when large variations take place for SSTs. At least it happened in 1998. We’ll see.

  130. rbateman says:

    The US comprises the bulk of the station mix GISS uses. So blinking the GISS records (previous and altered) is highly representative.
    Last time we did this, they had adjusted at two anchor points.
    This time, it’s pre 1895-7 down progressively backwards to 1880 -.3C, 1907-1917 sine reduced arc, 1917-1967 multiple sine shallower arc, and 1967 to present shifted up progressively to +.3C.

    That’s a lot more sophisticated than the 1st attempt, where they kept the middle stationary and lowered the left end / raised the right end.
    It’s still teeters perilously in the realm of cooked books.
    The end result is the same: straighten out the data trend lines to support the policy. Compare the job done last time to the latest one. 3 blinker.
    When it all turns bad it’s going to be the people who were persuaded to do the job on the data that will get thrown under the bus. It always is.
    Whomever they are.

  131. rbateman says:

    Adam from Kansas (10:10:35) :

    We are getting the 4 corners high here in Calif. Not enough to do any major heat record damage, as July 17 is the traditional high-point of the year.
    Balance that out with the Montana-New England chill and it still leaves the nation cool.

  132. Paul K says:

    tallbloke: Did you even look at the graph of UAH monthly anomalies I linked to? The average UAH anomaly for May over the period 1979-2008 was 0.07, whereas NASA, HadCru, NOAA, and RSS show an average anomaly of 0.14. So these temp records show May anomalies roughly double the UAH reported anomaly.

    For June anomalies, UAH shows an average about 0.09, and the others range from 0.14 to 0.17. Again the UAH report seems out of whack with the others.

    In your post you compare UAH anomaly trend with global SST trends as measured by HADcru. Are you looking at the seasonal (monthly) data?

    All I am saying, is to beware of using UAH monthly anomaly data, particularly for May and June, because of previous discrepancies with other monthly reported data sets.

    Yet almost every year, we get some WUWT posts talking about the low anomalies reported by UAH in May and June. Take this information with a grain of salt.

  133. edcon says:

    anna v (01:46:13) :

    Fraud. Simple as that.

    REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony

    When the apparent manipulation of data occurs to be chronic to support a warming agenda the word incompetence is too nice to use where fraud (intentional perversion of truth) is more applicable as it is apparently the result of political motives to support the need for their legislation/control.
    GISS is worthless except for showing the blatant actions to skew the data.
    .

  134. Jim says:

    TallDave (10:09:34) : Even if the US dataset is the best, that is not the same as saying it is good enough for climate research. Probably the best way to massage the US temp dataset is to process it into the circular file.

  135. imapopulistnow says:

    rbateman (10:16:21) : “When it all turns bad it’s going to be the people who were persuaded to do the job on the data that will get thrown under the bus. It always is. Whomever they are.”

    So true. I hope they have a file at home in a safe place that specifically documents each date, time, place, authority, and action required, with any and all documentation in support of the actions they were required to take. Otherwise they will be thrown under the bus. I have seen it happen all too many times.

    Even then, the attorneys will get involved, question their character and turn it all around.

    “If you disagreed then wasn’t it your responsibility to inform management?”

    “Isn’t it at fact that, by your inaction, you bear full responsibility for the bad data that the Agency disseminated?”

    Of course they could go to the Inspector General or the Main Stream Media……. (On second thought………)

  136. papertiger says:

    Northern Californians probably feel like they can’t catch a break in this economy, but they’re getting just that when it comes to energy costs.

    Gasoline prices have fallen back below $3 a gallon, lower-than-normal temperatures have idled air conditioners and comparatively low fuel costs are helping push airfares lower.

    Compared with last year, gas prices are the biggest bargain.

    Front page of the July 15 SacBee.
    Where is that warming at?

  137. Paul K says:

    Wow, the posters on this self-rated “top” science site are accusing the scientists generating either the UAH or the GISS anomaly reports (whichever is ‘wrong’) with intentionally doctoring the data?
    ( I will not use the F word, as Mr. Watts so correctly asks us to refrain from that… I won’t even repeat it, even as poster after poster copies the F word into their posts.)

    Lets see now… from the data and links I have posted, the UAH monthly anomalies for May and June over the last 20 years, have significantly shown results much lower than other temperature records (and January and February results that are seasonally much higher). I would guess that the UAH scientists seem to be using a seasonal correction that might be introducing a seasonal swing in the data.

    But the WUWT posters seem to be concluding that the scientists are likely guilty of intentionally doctoring the data. Wow. What a claim!!! If the UAH data is wrong, do you guys really think the UAH scientists are guilty of your charges? Who are the scientists behind the UAH data? We need to investigate the backgrounds of these possible miscreants!

  138. Deep Climate says:

    I see that my most recent blog post on UAH annual cycle has been cited above by Paul K.

    I previously had a more complete discussion of this phenomenon in two parts:

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/05/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends/

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/26/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends-part-2/

    Also see posts by Tamino (Open Mind) and atmoz (Google search UAH annual cycle).

    An interesting footnote: I see that Eric Swanson had already detected an annual cycle in the UAH antarctic temperature record back in 2003 (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040, doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003).

  139. Adam from Kansas says:

    Here in Kansas you may ask why would this be the month with the highest July temps. ever recorded.

    The local paper had a graphic that showed the 5 hottest Summers ever in Wchita, if this summer was to be one of the 5 hottest on record, we would need more than 40 100 degree days, strangely enough 1998 wasn’t on that list despite it being the warmest year in the satallite record. We’re not even close to breaking that and doesn’t look like it according to forecasts, we haven’t even passed our average no. of 100 degree days yet which is 10.

  140. Pamela Gray says:

    Please folks, if you want to chime in with how the Sun is cooling the planet right now, at least add why you think that so rebuttal can commence. Simply saying it (IE “The current cooling is expected due to Sun, ocean, and cloud influence”) leads to false impressions that a link has been shown between the Sun and weather pattern variation. A link has NOT been shown. Wiggle matching here and there yes, consistent correlation no, causation no, mechanism no. Here is what is known: The Sun is about as powerful as human produced CO2 as a variation driver in that there is a tiny underlying trend that varies with TSI. However, that trend is based on the calculation of the known cyclic mechanism of solar irradiance on Earth’s temperature. The signal is not strong enough to show up in the noisy weather pattern variations, both long and short term, caused by Earth’s oscillating atmospheric and oceanic drivers. In my opinion, to include solar drivers in the same sentence as oceanic drivers on land based short and long term weather pattern variation exposes a potential Sun-bias that is scientifically unsubstantiated.

  141. tallbloke says:

    Paul K (10:20:26) :

    tallbloke: Did you even look at the graph of UAH monthly anomalies I linked to?

    In your post you compare UAH anomaly trend with global SST trends as measured by HADcru. Are you looking at the seasonal (monthly) data?

    I’ve read the articles before that Deepclimate refers to.

    And yes I looked at the monthly data. As you can see from the plot below, the low UAH anomalies in May and June are due to the low SST’s in Dec and Jan. Because the sea has a much higher specific heat capacity, the air temperature change is amplified by the heat transfer from sea to air. For this reason I have reduced the Y axis scale of the UAH plot by a factor of two, in order to make the comparison.

    This is why the downswings seem large compared to GISS in May June. It’s because the sun warms the land in spring and GISS reflects that more with it’s UHI amplified surface measurements than UAH does, at the same time as the troposphere is being heavily affected by the previous seasons lower SST’s.

    Check it out.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/scale:0.5/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/offset:-0.4/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/trend/offset:-0.4/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/scale:0.5

  142. G. Karst says:

    I am a little confused. The GISS is funded by public funds. Doesn’t this mean they can be forced to reveal methodology and be held accountable for use of public money? Considering Hansen’s recent law troubles, cannot the public demand a public look at the inner workings of this rogue agency??

    There must be some smart lawyer, out there, willing to crack this rotten egg.

  143. John Finn says:

    woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (09:39:15) :

    John Finn: Your wish is my command…

    If you click on the “raw data” link you can get the actual trends:

    Hadcrut: 0.019 K/yr
    GISS: 0.023 K/yr
    UAH: 0.020 K/yr
    RSS: 0.020 K/yr

    So yes, GISS is a bit higher, but it’s in the same ball-park.

    Thanks, Paul. That’s very similar to what I get. GISS is slightly higher than the others but there’s almosrt cetainly no significant difference in the trends and I would suggest the warme arctic in recent years could explain the additional 0.003 deg per year.

    There is, therefore, not a shred of evidence that GISS is involved in anything fraudulent. There doesn’t even appear to be grounds to doubt their methodology.

  144. tallbloke says:

    Pamela Gray (11:01:14) :
    Here is what is known: The Sun is about as powerful as human produced CO2 as a variation driver in that there is a tiny underlying trend that varies with TSI.

    With respect Pamela, it is not known. If you hadn’t noticed, there seems to be a shortage of solar scientists saying anything definite about the sun at the moment, and TSI has dropped below it’s usual match with sunspot numbers.

    The jury is sat waiting for the witness, and all bets are currently off.

  145. Nogw says:

    Pamela Gray (11:01:14) How sad should be living without a sun shining above, how cold indeed!

  146. Jim says:

    Pamela Gray (11:01:14) : It will be difficult to demonstrate a long term, i.e. millions of years, global temperature link without millions of years of TSI data. Do you know of any such data and do you deem it reliable?

    On the lighter side, if the Sun went out right now, the Earth would become in short order a cold, inhospitable chunk of rock with maybe some puddles of liquid rare gasses here and there. I think is is safe to say that the Sun supplies most of the energy for our climate system. Someone mentioned the Sun has decreased in intensity over time. How do they know that? Chaos theory says that chaos can appear in an overdriven dynamical system. If the input energy from the Sun IS decreasing, then maybe the swings seen in the past will be less frequent and with less amplitude. I know, there is no evidence of that :)

  147. Phil M says:

    Paul Clark:
    – thanks – i find WoodForTress does exactly what it says on the tin!

    I changed the start date to 1980 to see what happened:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1980/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1980/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/trend

    It shows the trend lines are remarkably close for the 30 year period (1980..)
    – with UAH giving a slightly lower trend
    – but all trends are pointing in the same direction….

    Looking at July’s Satellite info – it looks like this month is going to be a monster!

  148. Phil M says:

    ok – someone beat me to it!

  149. Smokey says:

    Paul K (10:47:20) says:

    Wow, the posters on this self-rated “top” science site are accusing the scientists generating either the UAH or the GISS anomaly reports (whichever is ‘wrong’) with intentionally doctoring the data?

    First off, this is not a “self-rated” site. Voting took place across the internet over an extended time period, and voting was open to everyone. There were numerous categories, “Best Science” being only one of many.

    When all was said and done, WUWT soundly thrashed RC by 10 – 1 [and the year before another skeptic site, ClimateAudit, also trounced the censorship-prone RealClimate].

    Paul K says he can’t believe the alarmist contingent is ‘intentionally doctoring the data.':

    We need to investigate the backgrounds of these possible miscreants!

    Such sarcasm! I think Paul is just a bit naive. There is big money, and there are big egos involved in pushing AGW. Not all scientists are immune from the temptations of money and status — and it appears that those on the alarmist side are more susceptible to temptation than most. Why else would they run and hide out from neutral, moderated debates if they really believed what they’re trying to sell?

    Paul K should read this account of the shenanigans that go on in the warmist camp. And Prof. Richard Lindzen’s account of the back room politics in the climate grant industry is well worth reading, too. Dr. Lindzen states:

    Data that challenges the hypothesis are simply changed. In some instances, data that was thought to support the hypothesis is found not to, and is then changed. The changes are sometimes quite blatant, but more often are somewhat more subtle. The crucial point is that geophysical data is almost always at least somewhat uncertain, and methodological errors are constantly being discovered. Bias can be introduced by simply considering only those errors that change answers in the desired direction. The desired direction in the case of climate is to bring the data into agreement with models, even though the models have displayed minimal skill in explaining or predicting climate. Model projections, it should be recalled, are the basis for our greenhouse concerns… that such corrections should always be in the ‘needed’ direction is exceedingly unlikely. Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty… many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models. Comparisons of models with data are, for example, referred to as model validation studies rather than model tests.

    Those revealing accounts might help Paul shed some of his charming naiveté.

  150. Paul K says:

    Over 142 comments, and I still don’t understand your post Mr. Watts. The title says “GISS for June – way out there” with a poster for a Laurel and Hardy movie Way Out West. You begin the post with a discussion of the GLOBAL anomalies for GISS, UAH, and RSS. From this, I surmised the subject was the discrepancies in the monthly reports for global temperature anomalies.

    But then there is a blinking graph of US temperature record for GISS. The intent of the graph seems to be that GISS adjusted the temperature record for the US. This is true, and a previous poster bluecrue provided links showing the really major adjustment occurred impacting data for the US. I simply wanted to point out that the global anomaly is very different than the US anomaly. You posted this back in reply:

    “So it is OK to say, adjust temperature data from 1945 or 1960 or and number of points in previous years where the GISS data has been changed? Please explain then how GISS determines that data is in error? I’ve heard the 2% area argument a zillion times, still not impressed. The issue remains is it OK to adjust past measured data, and how is it justified that it is in “error”?

    You lost me here. The 2% number simply points out the difference between the ‘US record’ and the ‘Global record’ that seemed to be the point of the post… i.e. The GISS reported global anomaly is WAY OUT THERE, and can be safely compared to joke like a Laurel and Hardy movie. I think putting the US record graph in the post, introduced an apple to orange comparison.

    I can’t see how the previously disclosed adjustments in the GISS US temperature has much impact on the global anomaly. The data I have seen, doesn’t show much impact of the change in the US record on the global record, and you haven’t shown anything that indicates that the US changes significantly impacted the global record.

    I came back, and posted links to analysis that shows the UAH monthly anomalies in May and June seem out of whack, and just possibly may be WAY OUT THERE.

    Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy may in fact, be working at University of Alabama at Huntsville, and not at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

  151. imapopulistnow says:

    Paul K (10:47:20) : Explain to me in a sound, logical, reasonable fashion why the GISS data, that in 1999 was deemed to be correct, has been adjusted in such a manner 10 years later and now it indicates a much stronger global warming trend than it would have if not adjusted?

    This is what I and I suspect many others on this site are upset about.

    Now let us just for drill turn the tables. What if you felt strongly about AGW and the data base was maintained by scientists who have publicly proclaimed, convinced their bosses (Congress and the President) and staked their careers & reputations on the belief that AGW is a false theory. How would you react if the historical data had been adjusted and it now indicates a cooling trend when prior to the adjustments such a trend was not as clear?

    So it is that conservatives are evil and liberals are pure? That is pure bunk and if you don’t know it you haven’t been around the block enough times.

  152. OldJim: Yes, 1998 was an unusual year. I think the difference you’re seeing there is that the satellite sources reacted far more strongly to the 1998 El Nino ‘spike’, which is producing an apparent downward trend to the present day if you start there. The surface sources seemed to react less strongly – is this just thermal mass? I’ve guessed this before but I’ve no idea if it has any physical reality…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:1999/offset:-0.24/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:1999/offset:-0.15/plot/uah/from:1997/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1999

    Note that here too the satellite peak is slightly later than the surface one.

    I think ‘tallblokes’ graphs of SST vs satellite temperature are very compelling – so much so that I’m tempted to make a SWAG of UAH=+0.3 by September, and a crossover with GISS (adjusted for baselines) by the end of the year. Watch this space – or rather, this graph (dynamically updated):

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12

  153. Adam from Kansas says:

    This is interesting, record low high temp. reports according to NOAA are not decreasing in number like you’d expect during a big run-up in global temperatures.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=lomx&month=7&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records

    This leads to two possibilities

    1). Siberia is way above average again
    2). We’re seeing a big run-up in low temperatures, not neccesarily high temps.

    On number 2 it can make sense, if the high was 2 degrees below average and the low is 5 degrees above average, then technically the day was a bit above average and that showing in every location around the globe on average would clearly be seen as a significant jump in global temperatures. There’s also the possibility of Svensmark’s theory of cosmic ray cloud seeding helping this along, as low cloud cover will keep your high temperatures down, but keep your low temperatures up. So the increased low cloud cover is a shade by day and a blanket by night.

  154. Nogw says:

    Ron de Haan (12:04:37) :
    The link you gave perhaps deserves a post here…in fun category, in special the graph which shows “Hansen’s scenario vs.actual temperatures”
    BTW Scenario meaning:
    1. An outline of the plot of a dramatic or literary work.
    2.
    a. An outline for a screenplay.
    b. A treatment for a screenplay.
    c. A screenplay

  155. tallbloke says:

    woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (12:09:40) :

    OldJim: Yes, 1998 was an unusual year. I think the difference you’re seeing there is that the satellite sources reacted far more strongly to the 1998 El Nino ’spike’, which is producing an apparent downward trend to the present day if you start there. The surface sources seemed to react less strongly – is this just thermal mass? I’ve guessed this before but I’ve no idea if it has any physical reality…

    Paul, several factors. The ’98 el nino put a heck of a lot of humid water vapour laden air into the atmosphere. This would have been heated both by the oceans from below and to some extent by sunlight directly, though sunlight passes mostly straight through and warms the sea below. The air has a lot less specific heat capacity than the ocean, so heats up to a higher temperature more than the sea does for the same energy input.

    A lot of the heat released into the atmosphere came from a region called the Pacific Warm Pool, a subsurface body of warm water hidden from surface measurements which had been gathering energy from the strong run of solar cycles, and releasing it in el nino events. The water vapour laden atmosphere above that area restricted the escape of heat to space in a big way. Co2 allegedly causes a restiction on outgoing longwave radiation of 1.7W/m2. The OLR above the nino 3.4 area where the warm pool is dived by 60Wm2 during the el nino. Water vapour kicks ass.

    http://i25.tinypic.com/2035ed.png and see Bob Tisdales blog for more in depth stuff.

    Thanks again and again for your site.
    Can we have a sea level change series? Pretty please with honey on.

  156. tallbloke says:

    Paul K (11:47:53) :

    I came back, and posted links to analysis that shows the UAH monthly anomalies in May and June seem out of whack, and just possibly may be WAY OUT THERE.

    Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy may in fact, be working at University of Alabama at Huntsville, and not at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    I see you chose to ignore my explanation to your question then, [snip]

  157. Thomas says:

    Pamela Gray:

    TSI is only a small part of the solar influence. Research following on Svensmark (1998) suggests strong correlation between solar activity, terrestrial cloud cover, and temperature record. But you must know that already; why do you (like the IPCC) dwell exclusively on TSI?

  158. David says:

    Flanagan (23:35:32) : “It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up).”

    Can you explain why heat from the ocean ‘must go up’, but not heat from CO2?

  159. tallbloke says:

    Aww, come on moderator. You’ve made it look like I called Paul K a rude name, which I didn’t.

  160. Adam from Kansas says:

    Accuweather is forecasting a miserable and cold Winter for the southern US and the Atlantic Seaboard this Winter, but then again you can say what do they know, they said it would get all the way to 97 degrees here in Wichita today and the highest it got (which was in the morning) was 84-87. Intellicast is going to be a lot more accurate in the case of today.

  161. Pamela Gray says:

    This is like May when NE Oregon was under frost warnings. We had frost warnings in June and now in July we are having record lows being recorded all over the place, lows that will stop many veggie plants dead in their tracks (IE below 50 degrees), such as pumpkin, tomato, watermelon, etc. But apparently the NOAA sensors that are out here shivering in the cold are not used in GISS? Too rural?

    The upper NW states are very sensitive to PDO affects and demonstrate closely tied behavior to natural drivers. And right now, the cold is driving many crops right into the ground. I am thinking we should be figuring out a way to capture CO2 from CO2 sources and ship it out to NE Oregon so we can WARM UP!!!!

  162. Pamela Gray says:

    Thomas, the energy available and the cyclic % change of TSI is far greater than any other solar variable. The TSI mechanism is also theorized and can be calculated, not just hypothesized. The equation is even included in IPCC models. The other sources of solar drivers have only been hypothesized and so far have not been demonstrated, repeatable or verifiable using sound scientific research methods. Until they are, considering these other drivers as more plausible than TSI is unsubstantiated at best, and worse than the notion that human emitted CO2 will cause runaway warming.

  163. Pamela Gray says:

    Thomas, I haven’t found any data that suggests or demonstrates such correlations. In fact, the graphs I have seen and the articles I have read show no substantial correlations.

  164. Lubos Motl says:

    Dear Jim,

    your question what is the mechanism behind the surface-to-troposphere lag I mentioned is an interesting one. On one hand, it can be a reason to abandon the idea about the lag.

    On the other hand, I can imagine a lot of processes that slow such things down, mostly things related to turbulence. Much like El Nino always seems to propagate from the Western coast of South America to the West, it may be propagating upwards.

    The speed of winds in the vertical direction is arguably much slower than in the horizontal direction, which makes these signals vertical propagation much slower, too.

    But the ratio of the vertical and horizontal speeds needed to get a sensible lag seems sensible to me. In other words, I want to say that you should ask the very same question about the horizontal propagation: why it takes months for the El Nino to propagate from the typical source near South America to the West?

    This motion is much slower than the winds themselves. It is a pattern that is propagating. One must distinguish very many different speeds there. For example, the signals in the wires propagate nearly by the speed of light – but the electrons only move by inches per second in the wall! ;-)

    I don’t have full calculations of all speeds of patterns of all kinds. Do you? At any rate, if you indicate that every pattern moves by the same speed as the wind itself, I think that you’re demonstrably wrong.

    Best wishes
    Lubos

  165. Flanagan says:

    Certainly David!

    heat from oceans heats the lower layers of the atmosphere, creating a “heavy-over-light” situation which is unstable, in terms of fluid dynamics. It’s like having sirup on top of water (sort of). This heating by below will cause convection and hence movement of warm air upwards – try to look for Bénard cells :0)

    Heating by the top does not cause such type of instabilities (there’s no double diffusion efect in the atmosphere).

  166. Jeff Shifrin says:

    Living in Canada where the winter temperatures often hover around the freezing point, I often laugh when I hear a clueless radio or television reporter say “Yesterday, the high was only 1 degree Celsius. Today, the the high will be 2 degrees Celsius. So, it will be twice as warm today as it was yesterday.” (It doesn’t have the same effect if you use Fahrenheit.) In the case of Paul K., I can’t tell if he is mathematically and scientifically challenged like the clueless reporters, or whether he is just being intellectually dishonest when he attempts to demonstrate that the differences in the June anomalies are not so unusual by saying ” The average UAH anomaly for May over the period 1979-2008 was 0.07, whereas NASA, HadCru, NOAA, and RSS show an average anomaly of 0.14. So these temp records show May anomalies roughly double the UAH reported anomaly.
    For June anomalies, UAH shows an average about 0.09, and the others range from 0.14 to 0.17. Again the UAH report seems out of whack with the others.” Paul, to help you with the math (assuming that you are honestly challenged and not dishonest), the difference between .07 and .14 is .07 – a very small difference. The fact that .14 is double .07 is absolutely irrelevant. The difference between .09 and a range of .14 to .17 is .05 to .08 – again, a very small difference. Meanwhile, with reference to these new June numbers, the difference between .075 and .63 is .555 – relatively, a very large number indeed. The difference between .001 and .630 is .629 – an even larger number. In fact, if you want to use your preposterous method of analysis, .630 is six hundred and thirty times as large as .001.

  167. Manfred says:

    Flanagan,

    in my perspective had a valid point, with the el nino issue.

    However, the same people typically discuss la nina events with data adjusted downwards for the cooling effect, and the without these, we have arrived close to a satellite anomaly of 0.0°.

    He also fails to acknowledge the other component of the divergence of GISS from satellite data in recent years – the so called “GISS” data corrections.

    Of course the effects look smaller in trends on larger timesscales but this is just a plump strategy to hide an increase of approx. 0.2° of recent GISS data. This data outlet has obviously not solved the many issues leading to a overstated temperature anomaly reported on this page, what appears to be rather impossible, even if they wanted, with their budget of just 0.25 man-years.

  168. Manfred says:

    However, the same people typically discuss la nina events with data adjusted UPWARDS for the cooling effect

  169. Oldjim says:

    @woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (12:09:40) :
    You may be correct about the satellite effect but the odd thing is that it is only GISS which is odd – Hadcrut3 is about the same as RSS and UAC.
    Also changing the start date from 1998 to 1999, 2000 and then 2001 all show that the GISS trend is significantly different to Hadcrut3, RSS and UAH
    Now I know that trend lines over such a small timescale are a bit silly but it does tend to show that, for some reason, GISS is not following the other 3 metrics.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2001/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/from:2001/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2001/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

  170. papertiger says:

    I like this one.

    <http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2010/plot/uah/from:1996/to:2010/plot/rss/from:1996/to:2010
    Note the series which is consistently just high enough to give a figleaf of cover to self serving politicians BS claim that such and such year is the “hottest year ever”, “second hottest year ever”, “third hottest year ever” and so on. Note that the two sat series track consistently true, while the surface stations meander in a haphazard fashion puctuated with esspecially wide divergences on those dates when we know WUWT and CA caught GISS padding the numbers. Notice the GISS “hump” for the occasion of Al Gore’s AIT premier, and awards ceremonys.
    And see the extraordinary jump of the green line at the end. Even Hadley is blushing.

  171. jukin says:

    Shut up and pay your energy tax!!!!!!!!1

  172. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Pamela Gray (13:17:54) :

    This is like May when NE Oregon was under frost warnings. We had frost warnings in June and now in July we are having record lows being recorded all over the place, lows that will stop many veggie plants dead in their tracks (IE below 50 degrees), such as pumpkin, tomato, watermelon, etc. But apparently the NOAA sensors that are out here shivering in the cold are not used in GISS? Too rural?

    Yup. Natural thermometers don’t lie.

  173. Paul K says:

    Jeff Shifrin wrote: “Living in Canada where the winter temperatures often hover around the freezing point, I often laugh when I hear a clueless radio or television reporter say “Yesterday, the high was only 1 degree Celsius. Today, the the high will be 2 degrees Celsius. So, it will be twice as warm today as it was yesterday.” (It doesn’t have the same effect if you use Fahrenheit.) In the case of Paul K., I can’t tell if he is mathematically and scientifically challenged like the clueless reporters, or whether he is just being intellectually dishonest when he attempts to demonstrate that the differences in the June anomalies are not so unusual by saying..”

    Jeff, the one day temperature comparison is a joke, I agree. Your analogy to my statement is also a joke. I am linking to data showing the twenty year averages for both the UAH and GISS monthly mean anomalies. It is an average of averages, and to see this much discrepancy in the twenty year averages is statistically meaningful. Either the UAH or the other records are wrong (Mr. Watts jumped to the assumption that the GISS record is WAY OUT THERE) or there is something unusual about the UAH data, but I am simply asking ‘what’s up with that’?

    I found Flanagan’s post (at 6:57 on July 15) linking to the AMSU graphs very interesting. There may be a change in the shape of the annual cycle of warming and cooling measured by the satellites.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

    Select the years from 2003 to 2008 plus 2009 so far, and click ‘redraw graph’. We can see the recent warming all across the seasons, but there does seem to be a delay in the global heating in May and June, with a prolonged and delayed seasonal cooldown compared to the 20 year average.

    Also, clearly the July UAH anomaly is going to be scary, if the trend so far stays up.

    In any case, I don’t find the UAH data persuasive in showing the GISS June anomaly data wrong, unlike Mr. Watts and many of the commenters here. I think that resolving the discrepancy will involve more in evaluation of the UAH data, and understanding what the unusual seasonal trend in the UAH data is telling us.

  174. tallbloke says:

    Lubos Motl (13:48:07) :

    Dear Jim,

    your question what is the mechanism behind the surface-to-troposphere lag I mentioned is an interesting one. On one hand, it can be a reason to abandon the idea about the lag.

    On the other hand, I can imagine a lot of processes that slow such things down, mostly things related to turbulence. Much like El Nino always seems to propagate from the Western coast of South America to the West, it may be propagating upwards.

    The speed of winds in the vertical direction is arguably much slower than in the horizontal direction, which makes these signals vertical propagation much slower, too.

    There’s another way to think about the lag. If you look at this plot
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/scale:0.5/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/offset:-0.4/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/trend/offset:-0.4/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/scale:0.5
    From this period of relative solar quiet, the lag is quite long. A cooler troposphere is going to take longer to react. The ocean has far more heat capacity than the atmosphere, but it’s still a big beast nonetheless. If we think in terms of resonance rather than one to one photon – molecule interactions, the lag becomes more understandable. Waves of energy bouncing up and down inside the atmosphere as the sea emits, and the atmosphere absorbs and reflects, creating evaporation and convection, precipitation and advection.

    Shake and repeat many times during 4 months.

  175. bluegrue says:

    Jeff Shifrin (14:11:34) :
    The joys of using numbers without units, and in this case Paul K. is a culprit, too. The second plot on deepclimate’s blog post is not temperature anomalies by month but decadal trends these monthly anomalies. So whereas RSS, GISTEMP, Hadcrut and NOAA find that the temperatures in May rise by 0.14°C/decade, UAH finds only half the warming rate, i.e. 0.07°C/decade. UAH agrees with the other data sets in December to February. So UAH is the odd one out.

    the difference between .075 and .63 is .555

    is irrelevant, as the RSS anomaly of 0.075°C and the GISTEMP anomaly of 0.63°C refer to different base periods, they are measured from different starting points. How often does this simple fact have to be repeated?

  176. Paul K says:

    oops, I stand corrected by bluegrue… the data is decadal trends.

    In any case, the data is statistically meaningful, and there is a meaningful seasonal trend in the UAH data. This is what seems to be driving the unusual May/June UAH numbers.

  177. Ron de Haan says:

    An extensive publication about this subject is published at ICECAP.US including a PDF.

  178. Phil says:

    Anyone want to play ‘guess the anomaly with this baby:
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

    Either the satellite has gone into meltdown, or we’re in for one heck a result this month!!

  179. Ron de Haan says:

    How much cooling is enough?
    http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/07/how-much-cooling-is-enough.html

    As our politicians live in a virtual world, working hard to solve virtual problems
    that take a lot of virtual money, it does not matter to them what happens in the real world.

    No matter how deep temperatures drop, our politicians proceed.

  180. Jim says:

    tallbloke (15:35:40) : I’m just not getting the vision. Relative to air, water is dense, high viscosity, high heat capacity and I can see why ocean patterns take day to decades or more to play out. But the air is light, easily heated, and has a low viscosity. If you heat or cool a parcel of air relative to its surroundings, it will rise or fall immediately. I hark back to clouds that are born, climb to thousands of feet high, and die all in the course of one day. The atmosphere disperses energy quickly. So, I still don’t see a mechanism for this lag you speak of.

  181. Gail Combs says:

    imapopulistnow (10:39:30) :

    “So true. I hope they have a file at home in a safe place that specifically documents each date, time, place, authority, and action required, with any and all documentation in support of the actions they were required to take. Otherwise they will be thrown under the bus. I have seen it happen all too many times.

    Even then, the attorneys will get involved, question their character and turn it all around.

    “If you disagreed then wasn’t it your responsibility to inform management?”

    “Isn’t it at fact that, by your inaction, you bear full responsibility for the bad data that the Agency disseminated?”

    Of course they could go to the Inspector General or the Main Stream Media……. (On second thought………)”

    I have been there more than once. The only option is to cut and run. If you can hand off the incriminating data to someone who can use it so much the better. Unfortunately the Government was worse than useless in two instances I tried so people in one casewere injuried and in the other died.

    At the third company, who was knowingly endangering peoples health and lives, I suggested to the Union Steward where to find my report with the data after I left…. His father was a lawyer.

    I am sadden to say I found honesty to be a very bad handicap as a scientist in industry. The conflict between loyalty to a corporation and honesty is a major problem. My loyalty ends when the actions of the company can cause significant injury to people. Unfortunately it still can get you blackballed.

    And yes I think this is an example of cooked data. An honest scientist ALWAYS explains corrections to data and why. We do not see this nor do we see calibration and adjustment of the sensors that were identified as off calibration. We are expected to believe badly sited, out of calibration equipment can show the precision of a rise of 0.6 degrees over 30 years when the equipment precision is +/- 5 degrees??? (The 5 degree precision is because the equipment is not calibrated so scientists can not identify drift over time)

  182. M. Simon says:

    Simon’s Law:

    It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.

  183. Adam from Kansas says:

    Looking at the NOAA records again, at first there doesn’t seem to be a straightfoward reason for the big run-up in July, however the number of record high low temperatures reported increased a bit in the last week or so despite a steady stream of record lows and record low highs, but the record low highs, record highs, and record lows were still coming in numbers seen before so part of the run-up could be because of an acceleration in record high low temps if this is what started happening in many areas of the world, at least in the US.

  184. VG says:

    Phil: rte amsu 600 mb nothing unusual CHECK ALL the past years from 1998!

  185. VG says:

    Actually I reckon leave GISS “way out there” it only helps the skeptics case when you think of it….especially when all the others are a hundredfolds lower. ie 0.00 v 0.63

  186. Dave Wendt says:

    The AMSU 600mb is above the 20 yr record high line. The uptick shows up in all the jumps up to 90mb where it disappears. Eyeballing the latest NOAA weekly SST anomaly map vs their June monthly map http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/wkanomv2.png
    http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/monanomv2.png

    the only thing that jumps out is substantial hotspot in the North Atlantic and a lesser one south of Alaska in the Pacific, but these don’t seem substantial enough to be driving the mini hockey stick in the AMSU graph.

  187. David says:

    Flanagan (13:56:36) :

    “Heating by the top does not cause such type of instabilities (there’s no double diffusion effect in the atmosphere).”

    So if there is CO2 heating the atmosphere, it should still be up there now, right? ;-)

  188. Mike D. says:

    Paul K (15:33:35): Also, clearly the July UAH anomaly is going to be scary, if the trend so far stays up.

    Whoo, whoo, I’m scared!!! (sarc-off)

    Sorry PK, but I am bored to tears by Alarmist terror tactics. You may be wetting your pants, but I am not. We just had some record cold days here in July in Oregon. If the globe is warming (scary, scary!) it ain’t happening here.

    Warmer is better, anyway. It is nothing to set your hair on fire about. Nothing to run around in the bushes screaming scary scary, scary.

    Put a sock in it, please.

  189. Nylo says:

    Paul K, a 0.07 difference in trends is irrelevant, according to GISTEMP sources, which call “negligible” any trend difference inferior to 0.1C that happens as a result of changing their methodology, like they did in April 2006.

    In April 2006, GISTEMP introduced a change in methodology that raised their own trend for the period 1880-2005 from 0.49 to 0.54C/100y. The description of that change stands in their Updates and Analisys information page as having a “negligible” impact in global temperatures.

    By the way, the change consisted on deciding to forever ignore data from a number of gridcells close to Anctartic which weren’t showing the “right” ammount of warming. Now the “Global” temperature of GISTEMP doesn’t include those gridcells. It is a bit less “global” than before.

  190. tallbloke says:

    Jim (17:05:37) :

    tallbloke (15:35:40) : I’m just not getting the vision. Relative to air, water is dense, high viscosity, high heat capacity and I can see why ocean patterns take day to decades or more to play out. But the air is light, easily heated, and has a low viscosity. If you heat or cool a parcel of air relative to its surroundings, it will rise or fall immediately. I hark back to clouds that are born, climb to thousands of feet high, and die all in the course of one day. The atmosphere disperses energy quickly. So, I still don’t see a mechanism for this lag you speak of.

    1)The Climate is not homogenous. It takes time for changes in key areas to propogate around the system. This is true both of the ocean and atmosphere.

    2)A lot of the radiation leaving the ocean gets bounced straight back down again to cause evaporative processes, which in turn cause convective processes and precipitation processes, which in turn cause advection and pressure change processes. These all take time to balance the change in SST through the multiple times the energy bounces back and forth between ocean and air. So although big weather events can happen in a single day, the net effect is only a fraction of the energy released or withheld by the ocean. The numbers are something like 330W/m2 radiated by ocean, plus 30 in thermal convection plus 30 evaporation, but only a net 68 escaping without getting bounced back down at any one time.

    These numbers are suspect and the difference is too low, because they are based on incorrect assumptions about ocean heat content. I haven’t yet had time to work on them in the light of the calcs of ocean heat content I did which Leif Svalgaard confirmed as correct.

    I don’t have all the answers and I’m learning as fast as I can. I hope it helps a bit and sorry if my explanation seems muddled.

  191. Innocentious says:

    Fraud. Simple as that.

    REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony.
    It is not only incompetence and may not even be fraud. A large part is the delusion scientifically inclined people have in favor of their theory of the world. ( a good example: the barycenter followers.)

    Perhaps bias is the right word?!?! But if you are changing data to fit your bias is that not a kind of fraud? If I were to change my clinical trial results ( calling them adjustments ) on a new kind of drug would it be looked on with anything less then as a fraudulent act? Incompetence occurs when people DO NOT KNOW BETTER. My assumption is these people have taken basic math classes to know that if you adjust a number it is no longer the same…

    And if you are implying that they do not know that their adjustments are not right… I hate to say this but I think they have heard enough criticism to at least QUESTION it now.

    Is it fraud??? I do not know… Is it incompetence??? Again I am unsure. But the numbers they have cooked no longer have just a scientific meaning to them. Based on the numbers they have cooked I WILL BE PAYING MORE IN TAXES. If someone tells me something is occurring and it is a lie, but they told me the lie to obtain my money… Isn’t that what is refereed to as a Con?

    Again just upset here. Thanks for letting me blow off steam.

  192. Creepy says:

    Did someone notice, that NASA also changed even the normally long manifested GISS data of the last century every month?

    See http://img.umweltluege.de/fudging0809.jpg for example

  193. Jimmy Haigh says:

    John K. Sutherland (09:00:00) :

    Jeff:
    ‘Could we start a campaign to educate Bill O’Reilly on Fox News.’

    I’d go with that. I like Bill and I am Brit – I was once a left wing Brit at that – until I grew up. I don’t know if he drinks but I reckon he’d make a pretty decent drinking mate. I agree with John: once the penny drops he’ll be a useful ally. And I agree on Laura Ingram too – she’s definitely on the ball.

  194. Enonym says:

    @Jeff Shifrin:

    Paul K is comparing ANOMALIES (look it up), not just the difference in temperature. So the joke is on you….

  195. John Finn says:

    bluegrue (15:45:43) :

    Jeff Shifrin (14:11:34) :
    The joys of using numbers without units, and in this case Paul K. is a culprit, too. The second plot on deepclimate’s blog post is not temperature anomalies by month but decadal trends these monthly anomalies. So whereas RSS, GISTEMP, Hadcrut and NOAA find that the temperatures in May rise by 0.14°C/decade, UAH finds only half the warming rate, i.e. 0.07°C/decade. UAH agrees with the other data sets in December to February. So UAH is the odd one out.

    the difference between .075 and .63 is .555

    is irrelevant, as the RSS anomaly of 0.075°C and the GISTEMP anomaly of 0.63°C refer to different base periods, they are measured from different starting points.

    Correct. The GISS June anomaly with respect to 1979-1998 (the satellite base period) is +0.42 deg. Still high but I reckon that UAH and RSS will be heading in that direction in the next month or two. If not my ‘lag’ theory bites the dust. Is it mine or Flanagan’s? If it turns out to be wrong – it’s Flanagan’s.

    How often does this simple fact have to be repeated?

    Quite a lot by the looks of this post ->

    VG (19:59:25) :

    Actually I reckon leave GISS “way out there” it only helps the skeptics case when you think of it….especially when all the others are a hundredfolds lower. ie 0.00 v 0.63

  196. Gary Pearse says:

    Paul K (15:33:35) :

    Your point is that there seems to be something wrong with UAH for Mays and Junes, and, although I am an AGW sceptic and growing more so over the past couple of years of cooling temperatures, I’m sure most scientists on this post would like to have this looked into and resolved one way or the other. The only comment I would make is that this particular May and June and I’m already expecting that July will also add to the cooling picture, has been cool over much of N.Am., and apparently S. Am, Australia is cooler than normal. I’m not manning a satelite or managing a weather station, I’m stepping outside and I’m sticking my toe in the lake and changing my mind about going for a swim – this isn’t because of an 0.07 difference in temperature. Scientists may not look out the window these days for inspiration with all the wonderful gadgets they have to monitor and play with, but the average citizen, whose vote you need to begin your multi trillion dollar remediation programs does go out, has lousy summer weekends at the cottage and farmers look out in dismay at crops that are weeks behind. Paul, you can use your own skin to sense that things are pretty cool these days. The 250 children that froze to death in Peru and the early skiing in Australia and NZ aren’t measuring fractions of a degree change whether it is an anomaly or the whole temperature. This is July the 16th- even GISS with its 2% of the globe is going to have a tough time adjusting this whole summer up.

  197. Gary Pearse says:

    And to add to my post above, if GISS had substituted this in for only one of its weather stations, their numbers may have come in lower than UAH:

    http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/regina-beats-92-year-old-record-low/

    Its even colder today at 3C ( 37.4F) this morning, four days later. This is Canada’s breadbasket country and this minimum is 9C below the average min temp.

  198. Jim says:

    tallbloke (23:22:49) :
    The UAH measurement is a global one, so even if a large high or low pressure area builds and migrates slowly from one spot on the globe to another, it shouldn’t matter. I’m just thinking that the ocean temp changes would be reflected fairly quickly in the air above it, that’s all.

    That’s not to say what you are doing isn’t interesting or meaningfu.

  199. bluegrue says:

    Nylo (21:24:29) :

    Paul K, a 0.07 difference in trends is irrelevant, according to GISTEMP sources, which call “negligible” any trend difference inferior to 0.1C that happens as a result of changing their methodology, like they did in April 2006.

    In April 2006, GISTEMP introduced a change in methodology that raised their own trend for the period 1880-2005 from 0.49 to 0.54C/100y. The description of that change stands in their Updates and Analisys information page as having a “negligible” impact in global temperatures.

    The change in trend of GISTEMP in April 2006 was 0.05°C/100yr. The difference between UAH on the one hand and RSS/Hadcrut/GISTEMP on the other for the month of June is 0.70°C/100yr. It is more than 35 times the correction you complain about; over the period of 100 years this is roughly equivalent to the warming seen in global mean temperature during the 20th century.

    Units. Orders of magnitude. They matter.

  200. Ron de Haan says:

    Life should be simple.
    If temps go up, the graph goes up, if temps go down the graph goes down.

    If a graph goes up while temps go down, something is wrong.

  201. Ron de Haan says:

    OT. The media are currently buzzing with emotional attacks directed at the skeptic community.

    What lacks is the science and the warming.

    See http://www.climate depot.com

  202. rbateman says:

    Where might I find a copy of the US temp trend for 1890-1999?
    Preferrably the one that isn’t altered.

  203. Flanagan says:

    John Finn: yeah, right :0) But time wil tell – let’s wait for the next months to come.

  204. David says:

    Rats, I was really looking forward to Flanagan’s response.

  205. tallbloke says:

    bluegrue (05:52:50) :
    The change in trend of GISTEMP in April 2006 was 0.05°C/100yr.
    Units. Orders of magnitude. They matter.

    The one that puzzles me is the change in the GIStemp anomaly for jan/feb 2008.
    Can you shed any light on that?

  206. bluegrue says:

    tallbloke (09:28:46) :
    You have taken parts of my response to Nylo out of context and cut out part of it, without indicating that you have done so, and distorted the meaning in doing so. I have observed this tactic being used on WUWT before and I do not appreciate it.

    To make it clear: Nylo complained about a change in trend of GISTEMP introduced due to a change in methodology of calculating GISTEMP, so the change in trend for the period 1880-2005 is between two versions of GISTEMP. The “Units. Orders of magnitude. They matter.” was a comment targeted at Nylo, who was unable to get a comparison between °C/decade and °C/century straight, calling a trend small by comparison, whereas actually it was 35 times greater than his example.

    The one that puzzles me is the change in the GIStemp anomaly for jan/feb 2008.
    Can you shed any light on that?

    What change? Change between two months? Change between versions of GISTEMP? …? Elaborate.

  207. Flanagan says:

    David: I really don’t understand your question. What is the “it” that should remain “up there”? If you talk about heat, remember it is diffusing even if there’s no density unstability.

  208. tallbloke says:

    bluegrue (10:23:45) :

    tallbloke (09:28:46) :
    You have taken parts of my response to Nylo out of context

    What change? Change between two months? Change between versions of GISTEMP? …? Elaborate.

    Sorry, wasnt my intention to tack into that discussion. The monthlies. GIStemp jan and feb 2008. Not different versions, just the anomalies as presently given.

    It seems somewhat out of proportion to air and sea data, and the GIStemp record generally seems to be inexplicably erratic through until around August 2008, where it seems to start following ocean SSTs rather than tracking closely with sat measured air temps as it did through to late 2007.

    This illustrates it.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2007.8/offset:-0.23/plot/uah/from:2007.8/offset:0.15/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2007.8

    or for a wider look

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003.5/to:2009/plot/gistemp/from:2003.5/to:2009.5/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2007.5/to:2009.5

    I’d just appreciate your take on it. I like to get views from all sides.

  209. Jim Arndt says:

    ” Phil (16:40:47) :

    Anyone want to play ‘guess the anomaly with this baby:
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

    Either the satellite has gone into meltdown, or we’re in for one heck a result this month!!”

    Try comparing to 2007 you will see a similar spike but just a few weeks earlier. Don’t think much of it since we had one of the strongest La Nina years right after that.

  210. rbateman says:

    Here’s something new to consider:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
    1st graph is the Greenwich-Debrecen Penumbral/Umbral area ratio means for 1874 to 2007.
    2nd graph is the Gr-Deb data inverted and the US 1999 temp. graph in this article expanded and lined up.
    Comments are on web page.
    There is a somewhat correlation to Pen/Umb ratios to Temp changes.
    There is a very strong and interesting correlation to lopsided Pen/Umb ratios of 12:1 and better (these are quite rare) to downtrend movemets of US temp. The whopper was 1954.

    Now, if I knew where to get the data to compute the US montly temp means, or someone could point me to where that data exists (the data that the US Temp 1999 graph is made from), I’d like to do a better job of it.
    Comparing Yearly Means to Monthly Means in 2 different data sets is not what I intend,
    it’s just that I have little choice.

  211. bluegrue says:

    I see, tallbloke. I don’t really look at individual months. As all of the data sets have different coverage of the planet I am not surprised to see them not change in unison. Even RSS and UAH have differences, despite being calculated from the same raw data. I’m content with looking at linear trends or smoothed signals over at least 15 years (preferably 30) and upwards. I don’t know enough about the data to give a meaningful comment about individual months.

  212. Pamela Gray says:

    bluegrue, if you want to state your position from a firm base regarding trend lines and what not, you had best learn about weather pattern variation first. In other words, if AGW has a chance at all of passing the smell test, weather needs first consideration, not dismissal. Because someone simply doesn’t “know enough about the data to give a meaningful comment about individual months” does not mean that they can leapfrog over it and talk intelligently about global warming If you can’t speak knowledgeably about the weather and its variations, your comments on global warming data trends will be dismissed out of hand.

  213. David says:

    Flanagan (11:04:52) :

    If CO2 is the cause of our heating predicament, shouldn’t it be observable via satellite? Instead we are waiting for the Nino signal to show up in the satellite data for an anomaly??

  214. Phil says:

    Jim Arndt (11:54:26) :
    – so your guess is similar to July 2007? (~0.25C)?

  215. tallbloke says:

    rbateman (12:08:12) :

    Here’s something new to consider:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
    1st graph is the Greenwich-Debrecen Penumbral/Umbral area ratio means for 1874 to 2007.
    2nd graph is the Gr-Deb data inverted and the US 1999 temp. graph in this article expanded and lined up.

    Very interesting. And here’s another flipped over data series to ponder that I just discovered. This one is inverted outgoing longwave radiation (thanks Bob Tisdale) above the last three solar cycles.

    http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=ssn-olr-1974-2009.gif

    4Watt/meter^2 swings in OLR matching 0.4W/m^2 changes in TSI at Earth’s surface. WUWT?

  216. tallbloke says:

    I think I’ve cracked it. I calculated the other day that the ocean heat content must have risen 14×10^22J to account for the sea level rise seen by the satellite altimetry, less the melted chunks of Greenland and other ice melt. This is over twice the estimate of ocean heat content given by Levitus the Lead IPCC author in his 2009 paper. I’m sure he’s wrong. His figure matches the co2 radiative forcing, but that’s too convenient…

    14×10^22J is equivalent to 4W/m^2

    That matches the 4W/m^2 upswings in Outgoing Longwave Radiation from the Earth which happen in antiphase to the solar cycle. It’s the ocean emitting heat when the sun is quiet.
    http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=ssn-olr-1974-2009.gif

    Dunno where this is going to lead yet, but I think the implications are far reaching.

    Open Source Climatology, for open minded climatologists.

  217. tallbloke says:

    Those figures are for 1993-2003 solar input to the ocean.

  218. rbateman says:

    tallbloke (14:00:17) :

    Yes, and I see the time lag at work in your graph.
    It’s the things that are ignored that come up from the depths to bite us. Murphy would have said “I told you so”.

  219. Jim Arndt says:

    Phil,

    Your guess is as good as mine. I was only noting the similarity in the spike size and shape. I would not surprise me if it was .25C

  220. tallbloke says:

    rbateman (14:42:44) :

    tallbloke (14:00:17) :

    Yes, and I see the time lag at work in your graph.
    It’s the things that are ignored that come up from the depths to bite us. Murphy would have said “I told you so”.

    The power supply just packed up on my lappy, so I’ll be offline for a bit. As far as I can see, the residual will be positive. Bye Bye co2 hypothesis. :-)

  221. rbateman (12:08:12) :
    The whopper was 1954.
    The spikes come about because you are dividing by a very small number and are thus mainly noise. The way to produce such a graph is to avoid all numbers less than a certain threshold, chosen such as to eliminate the spikes. [granted that this is a bit circular, but there is no way around it – try to plot the ratio the other way around, always dividing by the larger of the two quantities.

  222. Paul K says:

    I saw the NOAA June data is out, and so I rushed over here to read the WUWT regulars take on the data… But NADA, not a single mention. My God, gentlemen, you lampooned GISS for being way out there and caricatured the GISS scientists by comparing them with a couple of buffoonish movie characters. Now the NOAA data comes in and confirms the GISS data, and shows the

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html

    Global Highlights:

    Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record.

    El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) transitioned from ENSO-neutral to El Niño conditions across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2009. If El Niño conditions continue to mature as projected by NOAA, global temperatures are likely to continue to threaten previous record highs.

    [later in the report:]
    Sea surface temperatures during June 2009 were warmer than average across much of the world’s oceans, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across the southern oceans. The global ocean SST for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous June record set in 2005. Sea surface temperature anomalies in all Niño regions continued to warm during June 2009, where the monthly temperatures were more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) above average. If El Niño conditions continue to mature as projected by NOAA, global temperatures are likely to continue to threaten previous record highs. Please see the June 2009 ENSO discussion for additional information.

    My question: What happened to all the flat ocean temperature information that has been trumpeted on this site? (My guess… we had a La Nina last year, and an emerging El Nino this year.)

    Why do WUWT posts and regular commenters push out conspiracy theories (in this post and comments) regarding real climate scientists, and the guys here who claim to know more about the “real” temperature records, are demonstrably naive and ill-informed about the important temperature records?

    REPLY: Paul – Gosh, I didn’t react fast enough for you. Time for smackdown then. Perhaps it might be possible that an article is in the works but not ready for publcation yet? It might be possible that I’m collaborating with some people about the NOAA data and that we maybe want to check out something first? Perhaps there is an interesting puzzle in the NOAA data?

    You were quick to complain about my “trumpeting” of UAH data…but you didn’t look to see how often I report on NOAA data. If I had reported on NOAA data every month and then suddenly this one was late, you might have a point.

    I don’t sit at this screen all day. I can’t. I’ll also point out, that during the day, I don’t do much blogging or research because I have a business to run. For example I’m running this comment at quitting time, 5PM PST. Moderators handle the site from early morning to late afternoon. Occasionally I’ll add a story like I did today (on NCAR’s solar announcement) because I got a direct tip from Leif Svalgaard on my business email.

    So daytime blog updates are the exception, not the rule. Most are done evening and early mornings. So next time you want to beat me up for not reacting fast enough for you but instead choosing to run my business and keep my family fed and clothed, remember that.

    Warmist, chill thyself. – Anthony

  223. rbateman says:

    I’ll give it a go.
    It means my Y-axis scale will be fractional, as Penumbra outnumber Umbra by a large multiple when area measurements are concerned.

  224. wattsupwiththat says:

    Paul K see inline comment above

    Your second comment with link to the Climate Progress website run by Joe Romm was deleted. By me.

    Why you ask?

    Well it is because Romm has a policy of deleting any links to WUWT. Even when he attacks the issues we present here he hasn’t the integrity to allow the reader to follow a link to WUWT and judge for themselves.

    Romm is so inflammatory, even people on his side of the debate are starting to ridicule him. For example Stoat/Connelley

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/06/foaming_at_the_mouth_with_joe.php

    So he gets no favors here until he changes his policy of linkage and tones it down a bit. – Anthony

  225. rbateman says:

    Leif:
    Done.
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
    The anomalies are still there, a bit subdued, and the ones on the other side show up as well. I wouldn’t have thought to do it the other way. Thanks.

    Great way to grab the attention, though.

  226. rbateman (17:45:52) :
    The anomalies are still there, a bit subdued, and the ones on the other side show up as well.
    This is not what I meant. Just inverting the axis is not enough. As an example, you have the ratio for 1953 = 5 and for 1954 = 20 [or so]. Let us say that P was 50 and U was 10 for 1953, that would give r = 50/10 = 5. But let us now assume [for illustration] that for 1954 the numbers were P = 20 and U = 1, then r = 20/1 = 20. The reverse ratios would be 1/r = 0.2 for 1953 and 0.05 for 1954, but because the error on the small U might be relatively large, U might have been anywhere [say] from 0.5 to 2, so 1/r anywhere from 0.025 to 0.1, which looks less shocking than the range of r ratios of 40 to 10. In any event, the usual practice is simply to omit values when the divisor becomes too small.

  227. Wally says:

    “pwl (23:11:53) :
    So the anomalies are that the various means of measuring the temperatures – satellite, ocean and land based methods – are out of whack with each other? Is that what this blink graph is showing?”

    I did not see an answer up the comments on this question, so if pwl is still reading I will attempt one.

    The anomaly refers to the difference in temperature measured to the average temperature at a specific location, which are measured in the same manner. So if June in Seattle averages 60°F measured using a surface thermometer (for some time period, usually a 30 year stretch) and for June 2008 it was 65°F using the same thermometer the anomaly would be +5°F. Anomalies are used to remove seasonal effects and to allow the summation of many measurements from different locations to track overall trends. Say Seattle was 65 vs the 60 average and Spokane was 80 vs the 75 average, both would have the same anomaly but different temperatures.

    The differences in the blink plot shows changes in the GISS UD data over time not differences between measurement methods.

    I decided after looking at the GISS data sets for a while that in the end they were pointless because every time I downloaded them they changed not only the current month as would be expected but large numbers of past month values.

  228. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard (18:46:07) :

    The page wasn’t updated, my apologies. Try it now.
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
    The graphs are not set up to pit one year against the next, but to show the ratio of a particular months umbral area means over penumbral area means
    (and vice versa). Nothing is smoothed or omitted except records which do not exist.
    If I did it by day, I’d have to put up a scrolling image. 48,500 something records is a lot of information.

  229. I decided after looking at the GISS data sets for a while that in the end they were pointless because every time I downloaded them they changed not only the current month as would be expected but large numbers of past month values.

    And Hansen (nor his democrat political leaders) can tell us why the past records are changed, how they have changed, nor what calculations or actual temperatures have changed. Once?

    maybe. Twice? Sure – could be. But inconsistent changes in hundreds of records, every month, across vast areas of this fruited plain?

  230. Paul K says:

    Here is the post I put up on Climate Progress today, submitted roughly the same time I posted a rather innocuous post here, simply giving a link to Joe Romm’s post covering the June global anomaly. My post here was censored, but Climate Progress let my post there, stand. It includes the link to WUWT.

    Paul K says:
    July 16, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    Well, the WUWT guys have been having a good ole time, lampooning the June GISS report, comparing the NASA scientists to Laurel and Hardy. They are convinced there is a massive conspiracy to manipulate the temperature records. If you guys want a good laugh, then read the ridiculous comments there. (But make sure to come back here to post about it. Lets move the discussion over to Climate Progress.)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/ 2009/ 07/ 14/ giss-for-june-way-out-there/

    There are a couple of reasonable posters over there, so look for their posts (bluegrue and Flanagan) and I have some tongue and cheek posts over there suggesting we chase down the miscreants at UAH as well.

    Now the NOAA data comes out, and the entire post and comments make Anthony Watts look ridiculous. He seems to be the real buffoon character, similar to Laurel and Hardy’s movie personnas.

    REPLY: Well of course it would stick in this case. You have negative things to say about me, Romm loves that. Perhaps Romm read my previous message to you, so I’m not at all surprised that in this case he’d leave a link just to prove me wrong. Either way, I’m not concerned. Romm is becoming irrelevant and my advice to commenters here is to simply ignore him and the whole angry rabble there. Anger and derision combined has limited appeal. Romm and the crowd you run with don’t like WUWT or anyone who frequents here, we get it. – Anthony

  231. rbateman (19:13:00) :
    but to show the ratio of a particular months umbral area means over penumbral area means (and vice versa). Nothing is smoothed or omitted except records which do not exist.
    Now it looks more reasonable. Still, sharp spikes [up or down] are probably artifacts anyway. And the record does not seem to have any correlation with temperature.

  232. Hmmmn.

    So AGW-proponents claim that atmopheric warming is “delayed” and takes “time” (implying months!) to get heat up from the ground (the “hallowed” GISS tampered measurements) to the mid-troposphere where satellites can measure it.

    Further, they now claim that the 1998 El Nino heat is in some hidden pipeline where it will take another 20 years to break free and then we will resume their mythical warming.

    OK. Sure.

    Then explain where this “delay” and pipeline are when Iwatch a cold front cross the country in 4 days, dropping temperatures from Canada to Texas to Florida to New Hamphire and over into Far east Canada by 40 degrees F overnight? Where is this pipeline or “atmospheric delay” when those temperatures are maintained low uniformly and consistently in every city and every state: they drop, warm up the day, go down the next night – but not as far, go back the next day to higher temp’s, go back the next night ….

    There is no atmospheric “delay” = the numbers show that GISS is (deliberately or foolishly) manipulating the tiny 6/10 of one degree change we have the past century.

  233. Leif Svalgaard

    My quote above was from your post, but did not include your name.
    Sorry about that.

  234. rbateman says:

    How would you define an artifact in terms of spots that have little umbra to them?
    Nothing can be expected to correlate what with time lags going on (that great big ocean that the Highs & Lows pass over), so it wouldn’t surprise me to not see 100.000% lineups.
    The whole idea was to look for 30 day periods that marked a change in ratio, then compare it to the temperature record.
    You know, like when the Ice Cores come up with warming before the CO2 is released. That sort of thing.
    I read it as showing events in ratios (markedly low/high umbra percentage) sitting at the boundaries of things going south/north. Relatively.
    Would you like a close-up of the data to see what’s up with this?

  235. David says:

    Well Flanagan, I may not be clear enough with what I am saying. If UAH is showing essentially no anomaly, and GISS is showing a much larger anomaly, then obviously there is an issue. You are telling me that the issue is El Nino. I am failing to understand how El Nino warming the surface is helpful to the AGW theory. Please elaborate. It seems to me that you are suggesting that the warming in the ocean is caused by CO2, which would be a new angle for me. If that is it, then please tell me how CO2 causes El Nino. If not, then we are both looking at the same thing, El Nino raising temperature. Where is the CO2 warming?

  236. Robert A Cook PE (21:06:27) :
    Leif Svalgaard, My quote above was from your post, but did not include your name.
    I don’t recognize any of it…

  237. rbateman (21:15:22) :
    How would you define an artifact in terms of spots that have little umbra to them?
    If P = something and U = 0, then P/U is undefined. If U is not zero, but just very small, the P/U will be huge. This could happen occasionally, but in my book for it to be interesting, it must be part of a longer-term issue, like there being many of these, created by a process going on for some time.

  238. rbateman says:

    Here are some sample dates for the high penumbra spots:
    Oct 1906
    nov 1913 11/24
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_REGIONS/DEBRECEN/historical_solar_image_database/1913/19131124.jpg
    1961 Aug.
    1964 Sep.
    1964 Aug.
    1974 Apr.
    1976 Jan.
    1999 Jan.
    2007 Dec.
    http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/DPD/2007/20071207/20071207_10978.html
    And follow this spot as it crosses and grows.
    This might be, or might not be, your link to L&P in the past.
    I can’t think of any other way than old & new images, and if these spots are that effect, here you go.

  239. rbateman (22:06:24) :
    I can’t think of any other way than old & new images, and if these spots are that effect, here you go.
    Calculating P/U when U is zero is not a good idea. From a physical point of view, I would think doing the calculation at the group level: adding up all the Us and all the Ps for the group, before forming the P/u or now Sum(P)/Sum(U) ratios.

  240. Mike D. says:

    Paul K (20:18:03) : Man oh man, that is off the wall rude. All the ad homs and buffoon comments. Is that your best shot?

    I get it that you folks at CP have a vested interest in raising the paranoia level. You all suck off the public teat and need mass hysteria to keep your milk and honey flowing. Alarmism butters your bread. I get that. The whoowhoo scare rants are your stock in trade. They keep the gravy flowing.

    But the sophomoric insults are not helping your cause. Spewing venom is not the same as spewing horror stories. It diminishes you when resort to juvenile snottiness. We see you for what you are: a fouled mouthed brat. Your hysterical Alarmist pronouncements thus have no basis in empathy or concern for your fellow man. You can’t act with compassion because you have none for those who disagree with you. That lack of compassion and courtesy makes your whole fear mongering drivel suspect. There are no ethics behind it; it must be false compassion.

    Do you get that, PK? If you despise your fellow man, then your alleged concern about global warming is a fraud. Warming or no, the concern is a fraud. Do you get that?

    Warmer is better. If it gets warmer, we will have more rain, longer growing seasons, less drought, more biodiversity, etc. Any real concern or compassion for humanity and “the planet” necessarily leads to the realization that warmer is better.

    If you want to be taken seriously; that is, if you want your concerns to be taken seriously, then you have to exhibit some respect and compassion for others. Lacking that, we must assume you are posturing for selfish reasons and your message is tainted by your own social and interpersonal disabilities and failings.

  241. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:05:04) :

    If P = something and U = 0, then P/U is undefined. If U is not zero, but just very small, the P/U will be huge.

    I threw out all the P/U undefined results. They were #DIV/0!
    I also removed any zero’s that make the graph program go to the bottom.
    Greenwich images or heliostats are not available to me, so I can only check those years from Debrecen 1986-2003/2007, SOHO and Kalocsa, Hungary 1880-1919 .

  242. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:22:59) :

    Calculating P/U when U is zero is not a good idea. From a physical point of view, I would think doing the calculation at the group level: adding up all the Us and all the Ps for the group, before forming the P/u or now Sum(P)/Sum(U) ratios.

    That is how the data is processed. Yes.
    Greenwich already had monthy means.
    I ran Debrecen the same way, adding up the entire month of U and P areas then dividing.
    But I have spot checked the individual days to see what the population in a month was doing. That’s where the high Pen. spots show up.

  243. Flanagan says:

    Hi David,

    I never said that the fact an EL Nino is taking place is supporting AGW. There are conflicting predictions about how an increased global temperature will affect the frequency and intensity of El Ninos. I just said that it explains why GISS can be higher BEFORE the satellite data.

    This discussion comes from the fact that you said it actually discredited AGW because “heating comes from below”. Of course, it makes no sense looking at one particular event to contradict a climatic trend. The peculiarity of a greenhouse-effect induced warming is that the troposphere should be warming while the stratosphere is cooling (over a few decades at least). And this is exactly what is observed. A warming related to increased solar activity would have the opposite signature – stratosphere warming faster than the rest. I think it settles things, doesn’t it?

  244. F Kassen says:

    Mike D: “Warmer is better. If it gets warmer, we will have more rain, longer growing seasons, less drought, more biodiversity, etc. Any real concern or compassion for humanity and “the planet” necessarily leads to the realization that warmer is better.”

    You’re not on message here – even we skeptics understand that the effects of warming, if they existed, would be catastrophic. Our issue is with the predictive models and methods, which are flawed, not with the hypothetical consequences. The idea that a warmer world would be better is utterly flawed. That science IS settled, and the “warmer is better” angle is indefensible, honestly.

    In isolated instances of temporarily warmer climate, drought increases. The rapid nature of the hypothetical (and erroneous) global temperature rise would mean ecosystems wouldn’t adapt in many instances (because climate change in the past, e.g., ice ages, has been over long time periods and quite gradual). Canada and other places might see more agricultural opportunities, but places in the tropics and subtropics will see chaos and upheaval as droughts, floods, etc. hypothetically occur, and the huge, not very wealthy populations panic, starve, etc.

  245. bluegrue says:

    Pamela Gray (12:57:44) :

    bluegrue, if you want to state your position from a firm base regarding trend lines and what not, you had best learn about weather pattern variation first.

    There are at least two ways to look at a roulette table. The first is to follow the ball in each individual throw, watching it bounce here and there. Another is to look at a long run of games and check the statistics, whether there are discernible trends or not and whether there are clusters unlikely events or not. The first has its place when you need to repair a wheel, the latter if you need to judge, whether a wheel needs repair. I’m in the latter camp.

    Maybe it is just a difference about what we both consider “meaningfully comment”. I can’t do that, if all I have to go by are one satellite and one ground based time series plus one sea surface temperature record. I consider that tea-leaf reading, sorry. Furthermore, if you insist on interpreting individual months at a minimum the anomalies need to be calculated for a common base period, just offsetting by a constant is not good enough in this case.

    If I were to make a “meaningful” comment, I’d have go to the gridded data, look where the differences originate and do a study of systematic differences between the satellite data and the ground data over longer periods of time to get an understanding of what is usual and what is unusual, trying to pinpoint the origins of these differences in chaotic weather patterns. That’s a multi-week project to answer a single question on a blog, where posters routinely can’t tell the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit, compare raw numbers across various scalings and offsets without even noticing. Just look at all the “Ooooh, look, .63 vs 0.001″ nonsense. Sorry Pamela, you are asking too much.

  246. Paul K says:

    Mike D. (22:28:33) :
    Paul K (20:18:03) : Man oh man, that is off the wall rude. All the ad homs and buffoon comments. Is that your best shot?

    Mike, look carefully at the original post by Anthony Watts, and see who set the stage to use buffoons to illustrate and belittle real climate scientists.

    I get it that you folks at CP have a vested interest in raising the paranoia level. You all suck off the public teat and need mass hysteria to keep your milk and honey flowing. Alarmism butters your bread. I get that. The whoowhoo scare rants are your stock in trade. They keep the gravy flowing.

    Now Mike D, read the first 120 comments, most by WUWT regulars, and see who worked themselves into a tizzy with conspiracy and fraud charges.

    But the sophomoric insults are not helping your cause. Spewing venom is not the same as spewing horror stories. It diminishes you when resort to juvenile snottiness. We see you for what you are: a fouled mouthed brat. Your hysterical Alarmist pronouncements thus have no basis in empathy or concern for your fellow man. You can’t act with compassion because you have none for those who disagree with you. That lack of compassion and courtesy makes your whole fear mongering drivel suspect. There are no ethics behind it; it must be false compassion.

    I came over here to respond to very sophomoric and ridiculous comments made by others. This is stock and trade for WUWT. Your charges above describe the WUWT comments posted on this thread extremely well.

    Do you get that, PK? If you despise your fellow man, then your alleged concern about global warming is a fraud. Warming or no, the concern is a fraud. Do you get that?

    Warmer is better. If it gets warmer, we will have more rain, longer growing seasons, less drought, more biodiversity, etc. Any real concern or compassion for humanity and “the planet” necessarily leads to the realization that warmer is better.

    If you want to be taken seriously; that is, if you want your concerns to be taken seriously, then you have to exhibit some respect and compassion for others. Lacking that, we must assume you are posturing for selfish reasons and your message is tainted by your own social and interpersonal disabilities and failings.

    What a charge! I am posting for selfish reasons? I will answer this charge in my next comment.

  247. Paul K says:

    Mike D., you attacked my motivation in posting here:

    As you can see from my posts above, the UAH monthly global anomalies fall below 0.10 in May and June in most recent years, and rise to about 0.35 in January and February each year. I noticed Anthony Watts loves to focus on UAH monthly data showing low anomalies, so I saw this train wreck coming back in early June when he first posted the May data. I knew eventually he would put out some kind of silly post, comparing UAH to GISS monthly global anomalies (which really shouldn’t be directly comparable).

    But I could hardly believe my eyes when he put up the post three days ago with the Laurel and Hardy comedy theme, and went after the GISS scientists virtually claiming they were intentionally fabricating the results.

    He augmented that mistake, by mixing in US temperature record data in a standalone analysis, when the subject really was the global anomaly. He put up an off-subject “blinking graph” that showed the impact of revisions to the US record made by GISS some time ago, and known far and wide, and implied those revisions impacted the global record. In fact, the impact of the US data revisions on the global record is negligible, and most real scientists, and really anyone who has followed the recent global temperature records, know that.

    Mr. Watts was completely unaware of the seasonal shift in the UAH data, which should be surprising since he touts that temperature record, and pushes the work of Dr. Spencer. But he doesn’t seem to understand the data very well.

    The whole affair reflects extremely negatively on Mr. Watts, and if you read the ‘kill the messenger’ mentality of the WUWT comments above, it makes many of the skeptics look like idiots. They quickly jumped on some kind of mass conspiracy bandwagon.

    I didn’t write the belittling original post, I didn’t attack reputable scientists (except for a sarcastic tongue and cheek comment about investigating all possible miscreants, when the comments above alleged fraud), and I have tried to keep the focus on the data itself, and off attacks on scientists.

    But this post and the comments by WUWT regulars are fair game; if they cross the line into conspiracy and allegations of fraud, then someone has to stand up and show the hypocrisy.

  248. Mike D. says:

    Point by point:

    Paul K (10:20:43) : As you can see from my posts above, the UAH monthly global anomalies fall below 0.10 in May and June in most recent years, and rise to about 0.35 in January and February each year.

    Contention not supported by the data, as was pointed out above.

    I noticed Anthony Watts loves to focus on UAH monthly data showing low anomalies, so I saw this train wreck coming back in early June when he first posted the May data.

    A canard. WUWT posts monthly anomalies from all major sources every month. Obviously you are not a regular reader.

    I knew eventually he would put out some kind of silly post, comparing UAH to GISS monthly global anomalies (which really shouldn’t be directly comparable).

    More insults. It is you who are silly, sir. All major global anomaly sets are comparable; they purport to measure the same thing. If they differ, that is of interest. You have contended that they don’t differ. I submit: that is a comparison. You protest yourself.

    But I could hardly believe my eyes when he put up the post three days ago with the Laurel and Hardy comedy theme, and went after the GISS scientists virtually claiming they were intentionally fabricating the results.

    Fraud charges were discouraged by AW, as they always have been. Obviously you are not a regular reader. The problems with the GISS sets are well-known to include faulty data (UHI) and questionable “adjustments,” all well-documented at WUWT. If you are offended by “virtual” charges, then I suggest you look in a real mirror.

    He augmented that mistake, by mixing in US temperature record data in a standalone analysis, when the subject really was the global anomaly. He put up an off-subject “blinking graph” that showed the impact of revisions to the US record made by GISS some time ago, and known far and wide, and implied those revisions impacted the global record. In fact, the impact of the US data revisions on the global record is negligible, and most real scientists, and really anyone who has followed the recent global temperature records, know that.

    Your contentions of “consensus” are weak and unsupported. It is a typical tactic of Alarmists to claim consensus when there is none. Your charges of “fake” against anyone who disagrees with you are illogical and insipid.

    Mr. Watts was completely unaware of the seasonal shift in the UAH data, which should be surprising since he touts that temperature record, and pushes the work of Dr. Spencer. But he doesn’t seem to understand the data very well.

    More ad hominem attacks. Perhaps it is you who do not understand the data nor the abilities of others.

    The whole affair reflects extremely negatively on Mr. Watts, and if you read the ‘kill the messenger’ mentality of the WUWT comments above, it makes many of the skeptics look like idiots. They quickly jumped on some kind of mass conspiracy bandwagon.

    More ad hominem and broad brush insults. It is Alarmists like you who look like fascist conspirators, in my judgment. To claim there is no Alarmist conspiracy is what is idiotic and puerile. J’accuse. Please reveal your funding levels and sources. Be honest, how is your bread buttered? How do you profit by the Alarmist conspiracy?

    I didn’t write the belittling original post, I didn’t attack reputable scientists (except for a sarcastic tongue and cheek comment about investigating all possible miscreants, when the comments above alleged fraud), and I have tried to keep the focus on the data itself, and off attacks on scientists.

    Your defense is empty. Your words in the thread above are testament to your tone, focus, and casting of personal aspersions. You cannot erase them by claiming you never said them.

    But this post and the comments by WUWT regulars are fair game; if they cross the line into conspiracy and allegations of fraud, then someone has to stand up and show the hypocrisy.

    You sir have claimed conspiracy and fraud. Your own words convict you. If you had something of value to add to the conversation, you could have done so in a polite and considerate manner. But you chose to be snide and belittling from the beginning. WUWT moderators posted your remarks, unlike other sites which censor all contrary views. Wisely, I might add, since your remarks brand you as an Alarmist lacking cooth. “Fair game” is your phrase; it does not excuse your insulting tone and attacks on specific persons and the readership of WUWT in general. It is a troll’s excuse, and not acceptable in polite company.

    I hope that if you choose to participate in future threads here that you can adopt a gentlemanly tone and engage in polite discourse. Otherwise, you brand yourself for all to see as a cad and a bounder.

  249. rbateman says:

    I checked Pravda for word of catastrophic warming, or massive heat wave, being reported for Siberia. Nothing. Not a word.
    So I look at the map for my own neck of the woods, noting the very cool June we had, and see a big red dot. Huh?
    I have been out with the tech who routinely replaces failed sensors with sensors from other problem stations. They have no pool of good replacements as they are alloted only so many for the year. Never enough to keep the system running correctly.
    So, it matters not what opinions we have or don’t have as to why this is going on.
    It really does matter that the output of Global Mean Temp. has a blown head gasket.
    It really does matter that it is so bad that nobody can ignore it.
    It’s even sadder that the folks who are supposed to be running this GMT report could care less how shockingly wrong it really is.
    No one should be surprised, then, or shocked, that many are searching for the reasons.

  250. David says:

    I guess I should post this question here. When GISS says they remove outliers, “Reynolds v2 using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment”, does this mean that they drop temperatures considered to be outliers? I am curious as to what that means. If it means temperatures, then they are set up to a warm bias. July couldn’t have many days (that we would live to write about) 3 stdevs above the norm, but it could below the norm.

    Anyone know what outliers are eliminated?

  251. G. Karst says:

    Re: F Kassen (23:32:12) :

    No FK, it is you that is completely wrong. Warmer is better! The science is certainly settled in regards to warmer, wetter, higher CO2, conditions will increase biomass (our food supply, mainly plants). Many greenhouses employ these very enhancements to increase yields. The ideal climate is not the ideal climate for Man, per se. The ideal climate is the ideal for our food source. Us humans must adapt to the ideal climate for our food source. It is the ONLY way to continuing to feed increasing billions. Any serious cooling immediately decreases yields and the woe begins.

    You exhibit the very intolerance that identifies rabid AGWers. Are you in disguise?? Mike D is a better skeptic than you.

Comments are closed.