By Steve Goddard
There has been an active discussion going on about the validity of GISS interpolations. This post compares GISS Arctic interpolation vs. DMI measured/modeled data.
All data uses a baseline of 1958-2002.
The first map shows GISS June 2010 anomalies smoothed to 1200 km. The green line marks 80N latitude. Note that GISS shows essentially the entire region north of 80N up to four degrees above normal.
The next map is the same, but with 250 km smoothing. As you can see, GISS has little or no data north of 80N.
Now let’s compare the GISS 1200 km interpolation with the DMI data for June 2010.
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
DMI shows essentially the entire month of June below the 1958-2002 mean. GISS shows it far above the the 1958-2002 mean. Yet GISS has no data north of 80N.
Conclusion : GISS Arctic interpolations are way off the mark. If they report a record global temperature by 0.01 degrees this year, this ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ is why.
——————————————————————
Straight from the horse’s mouth.
the 12-month running mean global temperature in the GISS analysis has reached a new record in 2010…. GISS analysis yields 2005 as the warmest calendar year, while
the HadCRUT analysis has 1998 as the warmest year. The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.
– James Hansen
In other words, the GISS record high is based on incorrect, fabricated data. Why did Hansen apparently choose to ignore the DMI data when “estimating” Arctic temperatures? GISS Arctic anomalies are high by as much as 4 degrees, and yet he claims a global record measured in hundredths of a degree. As Penn and Teller would say …. well I guess I can’t say that here.
For Giss the artic is 64N-90N.
Hansen does it because those he feeds this information to and who want it to say warm, aren’t going to don their parkas and mittens and check it out for themselves. It is my opinion that he ignores conflicting evidence because his groupies don’t want conflicting evidence. He is the consummate yes man, which is why he is so attracted to protests. Hansen thinks he is leading, when actually he is the ultimate follower.
For Giss the arctic is 64N-90N.
Sorry this is off topic but i thought that some people here might appreciate an article that a gentleman, Brendan O’Neill, has wrote about the Afghan Wikileaks and a comment he made in it…
“Truth becomes, not something we find out through critical study and investigation, but something we are handed by external forces … this is Truth as a religious-style revelation rather than Truth as the endpoint of thought, interrogation, question-asking, analysis. In reality, it is only through actively engaging with the world and its problems, through gathering facts and objectively analysing and organising them, that we can arrive at any Truth worth its name,”
Original article here:- http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9348/
Just thought the quote was quite near the bullseye in more ways than one.
Lack of data is not a problem. Extrapolate favorable data.
When people get caught with dishonesty, they usually attack, call names and try to punish the accuser.
The scientific method call for observed. The warmist science calls for wishfull thinking.
As Elmer Fudd aims his shotgun, “oh wooky there is anover wabbit!”. Sure glad my thermostat at home works better than the imaginary ones GISS has above 80N.
No insult intended for Elmer Fudd. Just a tad of fun poked at Mr. Hansen.
Bill Derryberry
Very interesting. I don’t trust GISS. However I expect DMI will now come under attack. How do they come up with their numbers?
On their site they explain:
“Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature
The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002, from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.”
It would be interesting to know how many “grid points” they have and use.
About a week ago I wrote an article for our local paper about the inconsistencies with the June temperature data and I was besieged with letters saying I was wrong or a quack. I sent the arctic temperature set, plus other data quirks, as an example of the heavily “massaged” data used to come up with the “record warmth”. That in turn did silenced most of my critics, so Steve, glad to read your post and analysis.
What is with the pie slice of blue above 80 N? Am I colorblind or does that not match anything on the color bar? If that is not a plotting issue, it’s nice to see they have no gradient between a positive 2-4F anomaly and a large negative anomaly. Nope, no interpolation artifacts….evar.
why don’t they just ignore all actual temperature measurements and model the entire planet ? Are all these guys Art History majors ?
Is it not time for a Congressional investigation into such revelations of fraudulent, agenda-driven science at taxpayer-funded agencies?
Maybe if the Republicans can win back at least one of the two houses of Congress, we can find a champion willing to hire expert, impartial staff and hold public hearings on television. It’s time the American people were given the opportunity to see how the wool has been pulled over their eyes by their own employees.
/Mr Lynn
Caleb
There are a number of buoys with thermometers north of 80N, which get used in the DMI analysis.
Ibrahim
Please look at the GISS 250km map. The lack of data is a problem across most of the Arctic, not just past 80N
Kevin G
The slice you are seeing is not blue. It is gray missing data.
In a sense you don’t need to DMI data, it’s just a distraction. Your 2 images of real data sites says it all. Lies, more lies, and more lies. The Obama administration is so totally desperate to kill the US economy that it will do almost anything to maintain the current AGW understanding and that is realy stupid and unnecessary.
I was actually wondering last night how NOAA can get away with making up data for the Artic regions, when other sources have it below normal. This article just explained why, since NOAA estimates what they don’t know, in order to create a headline favoring warming
NOAA has been claiming this is the warmest June, May, April, and I think March on record, but looking at objective satellites 1998 was warmer then this year in those months.
NOAA seems to be desperate to keep everything warming and creating headlines that cause fear into the public, instead of reporting the truth and what’s actually happening.
Steve,
The link to GISS say’s June 2012 instead of 2010.
Unless they are making these maps 2 years ahead of time.
quote: The first map shows GISS June 2012 anomalies smoothed to 1200 km.
Should change the link name to June 2010. At first I thought – OH NO, now they are extrapolating time as well as temperature!
But of course they are, with their projections that at this rate, the ice caps will melt by 2150 or whenever, etc, etc…
Keep after them, Steve
There was a minor typo in the text “GISS June 2012 anomalies smoothed to 1200 km”. It should be 2010 I guess 🙂
Kevin G: The grey area color is for missing data, i.e., there is no matching measurements withing 1200 km for that pie slice.
Thank you Steve Goddard, I gather that if you published these results and continued your study in much more detail in a paper to be peer reviewed you may be on the way to falsifying Hansen and Lebedeff’s surely to be infamous 1987 paper, “Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature”, allowing “lies, damned lies and statistics” to make it’s way into the public policy decisions that spend tax payers hard earned money.
Now what to do about Hansen et. al. at Nasa GISS who continue to make use of fabrication of data in their allegedly scientific profession? I suppose it is one step at a time. I wonder if Hansen et. al. will now have to adapt to a new method of fabrication of their data now that their methods have been falsified by being shown to be biased towards their pet alarmist hypothesis by as much as 4 degrees! That’s a LOT of bias. How long do you give Hansen et. al. at Nasa GISS to come clean and attempt to save their scientific careers from social and legal sanctions? Hmmm..
We need to get this to Wikileaks (sp?), which apparently is the only website the MSM looks at these days.
MODERATOR:
Please change “GISS June 2012 anomalies smoothed to 1200 km” to ” GISS June 2010 anomalies smoothed to 1200 km”
Thx much
[reply] Done.RT-mod
Whenever I see high temp anomalies, I think, “Remember Carefree!”
Er – you do realize that the DMI numbers are also based on interpolated model data right? They’re not raw numbers from a single measurement – thats why its called a reanalysis. Read this to understand where the ERA40 values come from – http://www.mad.zmaw.de/uploads/media/e40Overview.pdf.
REPLY: Oh yes we know that. But the reanalysis data doesn’t seem to have the same sort of problems that GISS has. How can two different techniques show significantly different results? That’s the point. – Anthony
Steven, did you lose all of your “extrapolation is OK” friends? I was rather looking forward to reading another great discussion on how numbers pulled from one’s posterior is preferable to actually reading a thermometer.