by John Goetz
Update: Thanks to an email from John S. – a patron of climateaudit.org – we have learned that the Russian data in NOAA’s GHCN v2.mean dataset is corrupted. For most (if not all) stations in Russia, the September data has been replicated as October data, artificially raising the October temperature many degrees. The data from NOAA is used by GISS to calculate the global temperature. Thus the record-setting anomaly for October 2008 is invalid and we await the highly-publicised corrections from NOAA and GISS.
Update 2: The faulty results have been (mostly) backed out of the GISS website. The rest should be done following the federal holiday. GISS says they will update the analysis once they confirm with NOAA that the software problems have been corrected. I also removed the subtitles since the GISS data no longer reflects October as being the warmest ever.
GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis (GISSTemp) released their monthly global temperature anomaly data for October 2008. Following is the monthly global ∆T from January to October 2008:
Year J F M A M J J A S O
2007 85 61 59 64 55 53 53 56 50 54
2008 14 25 62 36 40 32 52 39 50 78
Here is a plot of the GISSTemp monthly anomaly since January 1979 (keeping in line with the time period displayed for UAH). I have added a simple 12-month moving average displayed in red.
The addition of October has changed some of the temperatures for earlier months:
GISS 2008 J F M A M J J A S O
As of 9/08 14 25 62 36 40 29 53 50 49 ..
As of 10/08 14 25 62 36 40 32 52 39 50 78
The 0.78 C anomaly in October is the largest ever for October, and one of the largest anomalies ever recorded. Although North America was cooler than normal, Asia apparently suffered from a massive heat wave.
Also, after several months of being downgraded to a 0.61 C anomaly, 2005 has been lifted back to 0.62 C.
Sponsored IT training links:
Enjoy the first hand success with 646-046 online training. This all in one 642-975 training package includes everything you need to pass 000-106 exam.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was discovered that this same kind of error has happened before and gone unnoticed. Particularly if it happened at only a few scattered stations here and there. So until someone goes back and checks every single data point from every single station, I really have little confidence in the data as presented. That checking should be coming from Hansen’s budget.
Chris V–re-plot you data over the last 10yrs and you will see a difference
[Chris V: “You also might want to take a look at this:
http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg “]
Also worth checking out lower chart of this:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/upper_air_temps.gif
Not so good for RSS then?
Bob B –
The inset in that graph shows a running 5-year average since 1980. Over the last 10 years, UAH looks to be the outlier (but not by too much). What do you see?
All four series for last 10 years, baselines adjusted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:120/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/last:120/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/last:120/mean:12/plot/rss/last:120/mean:12
The differences are not that great given the radically different way they are calculated, I think.
Chris-
I take it you think that UAH is better (in part) because it agrees better with the surface station data (at least over the time period covered by that graph)?
I have no position on whether UAH or RSS is closer to reality over the long run. But I agree with you that comparison with the surface-stations (either Hadly or GISS-they’re both pretty much the same) is the appropriate metric.
Chris V–if you plot a graph by month you will see a big difference in the slope of the cooling trend. Taking an RMS or RSS fit of the data is deceiving.
Paul-
I agree with you. When four different groups using different methods on different data sets get essentially the same result, I have to think there is some underlying reality there.
I have never understood how people can claim that the satellite results are so much more reliable than the surface stations when: 1) they are all so close to each other; and 2) the two satellite temps differ from each other as much as they differ from the surface stations.
Funny that those who scream the loudest about the implications of this data, show the greatest ineptitude in gathering it. Looks like ol’ Jim Hansen (or “JiHad” as I call him), feeling a heightened sense of the walls crumbling around him, let desperation get the best of him and took his ruse embarrassingly over the line.
It should be priceless to hear his explanation. He now has to explain not only how such a blunder could be made by such an alleged expert, but also try to salvage the credibility of the “peer review” process that he and his ilk give the daily propaganda pieces found at realclimate and elsewhere. In light of such poor fact checking, peer-review seems highly suspect.
Most hilarious of all is that this news comes right on the heels of Gavin Schmidt’s (JiHad’s troll) editorial piece in an Australian publication, defending realclimate as being full of highly accurate scientific data and peer reviewed publishings.
While it is easy to laugh, I think the noble thing to do at this point is extend a gesture of kindness to JiHad and Schmidt. If you see either one of them, be a pal and kindly help them pull the MASSIVE FOOT out of their mouths…
Chris V:
I’m curious. Why would you post one chart [twice] that ends in year 2000, and another chart that ends in 1990?
I’ll see your charts and raise you: click
….speculating…
Putin is playing games in Siberia.
He directs his temperature folks to keep the numbers high to influence the U.S. in their march to Cap & Trade and perhaps others in the West That slowly hobbles the U.S./Western economies and then he can catch up militarily.
He remembers what Reagan did to outspend the U.S. to end the cold war.
Could China do such a thing also?
Has this happened before?
Good point.
It’s never the first time they did it, is it? It’s the first time they got caught.
John Goetz (16:18:33): Exactly my point in my comment at RC.
It is not a conspiracy. The .dly (daily temperature records) do not show the problem. The problem is a bug in software that NOAA wrote in adjusting the .dly records and merging them into the beast known as v2.mean.
Please stop with the silly conspiracy theories.
Chris V
You keep bringing up UAH “twenty year error”. RSS is still in error according to Randall and Herman
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD008864.shtml
Diurnal correction signatures still exist in the RSS LT time series and are likely affecting the long term trend with a warm bias.
What part of that don’t you understand?
There are also a multitude of studies concluding surface station data having a warm bias for the last 30 plus years.
Choose your poison.
Chris V:
Then I guess they don’t “get essentially the same result”…
crosspatch (14:55:32) :
“meaningful world average temperature . . . fixed buoys scattered about the world’s oceans . . . use satellite data to fill in the polar regions.”
I have doubts that you have found the Holy Grail of the global temperature. Year by year, the precise location of ocean currents shift so by fixing a particular longitude and latitude, you could be unduly influenced by inconsistent currents. Also satellite data does not capture the polar regions.”
Chris V. (16:20:08) :
Chris V: I do not think you are fair in equating GISS errors with the need to adjust UAH data.
The GISS error reflects a continuation of sloppy and questionable practices. The need for the UAH adjustment was due to the discovery of a phenomenon not previously explored – orbital decay. The issue was found because UAH data and procedures were so open and reproducible.
The “error in the UAH data was” not ‘ridiculously obvious.’ At the time, GISS and Hadley were using unknown procedures of unknown quality control. (Hadley procedures are still largely unknown and quality control issues still rage.) I do not believe that RSS was in disagreement with UAH – RSS was developed because of the orbital decay issue.
RSS and UAH have a collegial relationship where RSS readily acknowledges UAH help in solving its own shortcomings.
Actually we do have to consider that people do revise data and correct it ect. We’ve all been a bit over the top. However I still do not trust GISS data sorry, because its repetitive and always goes up! LOL
Conspiracy theory? Maybe not, but what government *doesn’t* manipulate data to their own advantage, especially one with a near-dictator in charge? Hell, NASA is an agency of the USA government, and it’s clear that temp data manipulation (ok, ‘adjustment’) has taken place, as documented on this blog over and over again. If we continue forward, as we have, with blinders on, it’s going to be a rough road ahead.
Smokey-
you’re confusing me with Chris (I’m Chris V.). WRT your link, I don’t think 6 years is sufficient to establish a long-term trend. Maybe I’m wrong. In 5? years we’ll know.
DR-
I’m only harping on the UAH correction to counter all the people who are harping on this recent error in GISSTemp. I don’t have a dog in the UAH vs RSS debate. Given all the uncertainties and possible sources of error in determining temps from the MSU data (WAY more difficulties than dealing with surface stations!) I am a little surprised that they are so close to each other, and to the surface stations.
Jeff-
I dunno. When I look at all four temp sets plotted relative to the same baseline, they look pretty similar to me! There’s a lot of noise in the short run, but over the long run they track each other pretty closely. Harping on the little details misses the big picture- kind of like comparing the S and P 500 to the DOW.
Jorgen F: The Scandinavians have been quite smart about this whole AGW thing and have not gone over the top, even though you think they would consider the pretty high anomalies seen over the past few years especially in Sverige. I think they realize that this could actually be “normal” in the context of “climate”. No silly statements or rash actions/commitments have actually come out of Scandinavia compared to USA, Britain or Australia. For example, Australia has committed AUD$50 billion to further cooling a cooling earth! Probably no one has bothered to look at the global temperature record since 2002, LOL.
DR said:
“There are also a multitude of studies concluding surface station data having a warm bias for the last 30 plus years.”
I am unfamiliar with these studies, but is that bias quantifiable? If it is, it is correctable. And GISS and Hadley both take steps to do that.
Do a little research into what goes into processing the raw MSU data to get the RSS and UAH temperatures. There are a ton of variables they have to deal with- orbital drift, instrument drift, interference between various layers of the atmosphere, instrument changes… It’s a lot more complicated than dealing with the surface station data.
For example, did you know that 9 (I think) different satellites have been used to collect the MSU data? Each time a new one comes on line and replaces an old one, there is a “step change” that has to be corrected for. It’s kind of like when a surface station gets moved, except with the satellites, it’s not just one measurement point, it’s the entire data set!
It’s kind of like moving every single surface station every few years! Imagine the fun posters on this blog would have with GISS if the surface stations did that!
UAH and RSS certainly do a very good job in correcting for this stuff, but I hope you will forgive me if I don’t take the satellite measurements as the “ultimate authority” on temperature changes.
ning @ur momisugly (11:57:32) :
ning perhaps we got our wires crossed. Of course climate variability plays a role in wildfire incidence— natural climate variability. We see it in FL (where I burn) every year. Some years are wet (very few wildfires), while some are dry (lots of wildfires). What I’m saying (and an ever-growing number of others) is that “man-made climate variability” is something that has been conjured out of thin air by a group of politicians, Leftist eco-activists and their “scientists” as a means to control every aspect of the lives of the citizens of the world. For “scientists” to make hysterically-inaccurate predictions (yes, the NOAA guy was quoted accurately) and have said predictions be put into Socialist wealth-redistribution schemes, as well as misguided forest management policies, is simply unconscionable.
The more light that is shone on the UN’s IPCC and Algore and his croneys, the more it is becoming obvious that their cause isn’t based upon sound science, but a Marxist political agenda.
Again, thanks for clearing up what I misunderstood about your previous comment.
Now, I must retire for the night so that if the weather is right tomorrow, I and my co-pyros may increase our carbon footprints by a matter of tens, if not hundreds or thousands, of tons. 😉
paulm (16:35:28) :
Ok, but isnt the temp trend still going up? It still looks like GW is real. There have been cooling periods around 1950 and 1965. Its not like the temp is going to go straight up.
No.
Global temperatures have declined slightly the last ten years.
More accurately: From 1995 through 2005, temperatures were essentially stagnant, after rising approximately 1/2 of one degree from 1970 through 1995.
This year’s radical decline over the 2007-2008 winter means that average global temperatures today are about the same as it was in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The current trend (with the current La Nina cold weather oscillation continuing through (probably) the middle of next year) indicate that this cooling trend will continue.
The entire premise of the AGW extremists is based on the single 25 year period (in earth’s history) between 1970 and 1995 when both CO2 and temperatures both rose. Before 1970, temperatures were falling radically while CO2 rose, and after 1995, temperatures have remained steady (or declined) while CO2 rose.
No prediction made by any AGW climate control computer programs has been correct over even short periods of time (1-4 years).