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.
Just after publishing my findings here I can not access http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ anymore. Strange!
I have copies for 2007 and 2005
MartinGAtkins,
I was not referring to the entire data set, but only to the past 14 years. I thought you were, too, in your original post. I think we’re still on the same page.
What has always bothered me is the constant referring to anomalies as always the ‘#X warmest year’, rather than the ‘#X coldest year’ — which is equally accurate. Unless there’s something I’m missing.
It seems that if a particular year is above the mean, it should be called the X warmest, and if it’s below the mean it should be called the X coldest.
Chris V, my apologies for the name confusion.
The reason I posted that chart was in response to the charts that were posted ending eight, and eighteen years ago respectively. We know there was a warming trend during those years, and to post charts ending in 1990 and 2000 misrepresents the current situation. It appears that it was done in order to claim that global warming is still occurring. At the present time, it is not.
I suggest checking out woodfortrees‘ chart: click
The planet is still emerging from the last Ice Age, and it is to be expected that there is a gradual warming trend occurring, interspersed with decades of cooling. That is the standard theory.
But what is now being claimed by some as their new hypothesis is that this natural warming is instead caused by human emitted carbon dioxide, and that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will lead to catastrophic, runaway global warming. The fact that CO2 continues to rise while temperatures fall discredits this claim, and their current fallback position seems to be that CO2 also causes global cooling.
According to the Scientific Method, the burden of proof is on those putting forth a new hypothesis — not on those in the mainstream of science, who understand that the planet has been gradually warming for the past 11,000 years, and continues to do so.
Since the catastrophic AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified, what we are left with is the current climate, which is well within natural parameters. It is entirely normal. The current and expected minor temperature fluctuations are nothing to be worried about.
Those still pushing the failed AGW/CO2 hypothesis have ulterior motives, which is why they consistently hide out from any neutral, moderated debate regarding their AGW/CO2/runaway global warming claims.
Just after publishing my findings here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ became unavailable.
John Philip posted the link to Gavin’s ‘mountains and molehills’ statement, but I dare say many here might not have taken the trouble to read it. Words like ‘craven’ and ‘mealy-mouthed’ come to mind, but tell me if I am being unfair. The link is
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/
It seems the recent GISS error is a molehill, whereas the ocean-cooling story, which was found to be really an ocean-not-warming story after some equipment errors had been corrected, was apparently a mountain.
To my way of thinking, Gavin should have acknowledged and thanked the person/s who brought the error to his attention. Instead, he tried to play it down, and attacked the “Watt’s blog” to boot.
egrey (05:15:10) Hah, John Phillip calls Gavin’s post a ‘dignified and measured response’. Touting models over data and whining about Freedom of Information requests sounds ‘outrageous and hysterical’, to me.
========================================
To the administrator of this site.
Send me an email and I will send copies of the GISS temperture anomaly maps of October 2007, 2005 and 1999 which I copied before the site was closed down.
I can’t get here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ either.
DaveE
Evan Jones, please.
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
FM
[…] El Instituto Goddard (GISS), perteneciente a la NASA, acaba de registrar uno de los meses de octubre más calidos de la historia. Un aumento de 0,78 ºC en la temperatura global. Sin embargo, el investigador Steve McIntyre denuncia que el GISS ha copiado los datos registrados en Rusia en septiembre.Todas las mediciones oficiales apuntan a que 2008 será uno de los años más fríos de la última década. Sin embargo, el Instituto Goddard (GISS), perteneciente a la NASA, uno de los principales organismos de referencia del Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático de la ONU (IPCC) acaba de anunciar que el pasado mes de octubre ha sido uno de los más calurosos de la historia. En concreto, según sus mediciones, la temperatura global registró el pasado mes un aumento de 0,78 grados centígrados respecto a la media de referencia. Una anomalía muy significativa, pero que no encaja con la evolución histórica que viene registrando el aumento medio de la temperatura global en octubre a lo largo de los últimos años (por debajo de 0,6 grados centígrados, y descendiendo), tal y como recoge el portal WattsUpWithThat. […]
I think I hae a stupid question, but can someone help me with this?
I don’t know how to use this site:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Which one of all those altitudes I have to choose?
The health of the entire climate science community is so wretched it has me retching. YUUCK!
I’m not too concerned about posting the bad data, but looking at comparisons from the past few years between mean data provided in WeatherUnderground and those provided by GISS, it really does appear that GISS often lists the temperatures as being 1-2 degrees C higher. I have noticed this less in the US (where temps seem to be the most stable), and much more common in Russia (see my earlier post.)
There may be a reasonable explanation for this, but, at first glance, it raises some concern for me. Has anyone else looked into this? What have you found?
[…] it appears I am not the first to notice this. At WUWT, Dotto commented: Dotto (05:06:28) […]
Is Anthony’s blog on West Coast time? It’s 8:56 and giss.nasa.gov is down for me too!
Dotto–I’d love to see your images. I’m curious to see what was up!
Smokey-
The graphic I posted goes through 2007 (not 2000).
John Goetz:
I have added a simple 12-month moving average displayed in red.
I suggest when you do that not to use Excels ‘moving average’ function [as it introduces a phase shift]. Instead make a column next to your data column [say it was B] with this function =AVERAGE(Bn-6:Bn+6) and omit the first and last 6 points, then plot both columns.
[…] Did we just survive the warmest October ever? […]
Chris V.:
I can see why you would leave 2008 out:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Many governments all over the world are in the final stage of legislation procedures
in the fight against AGW.
This “honest” mistake comes at a convenient moment in time and I am quite sure we can expect some more in the near future.
The media is bombarding the public with bias news and documentaries on any level at an intensity never seen before.
See what will happen after the USA joins the new AGW religion.
Welcome to
The most regrettable part of this is that Steve McIntyre, being a Canadian, cannot run for president of the United States.
Can we get Dotto’s images posted here?
Smokey-
I didn’t make that graph. It doesn’t include 2008 because it shows annual anomalies. 2008 isn’t over yet.
Evanjones-
Two of your links are about UHI- a well-known effect, that GISS adjusts for. You may not like the way GISS does their adjustments, but that’s a separate issue.
Your other two links (about the same paper) are interesting. But their conclusions do seem to be in disagreement with satellite and sea-surface temperature data.
BTW, I assume Mckitrick and Michaels figured out the difference between degrees and radians for this latest paper?
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/
dotto and Lucia
Here you find maps from 2005 2006 2007 2008
http://www.climate4you.com/
I’m unable to enter the GISS site either. May be they’re “adjusting” their graphs to even higher temperatures… LOL. Hansen and company are getting weirder and weirder… perhaps they’re off their meds…
I managed to get copies of the temperature anomalies for October 2007, 2005 and 1999 before http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ was shut down.
If the administrator sends me an email I will be glad to share them.