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.
[…] Doom! DOOOOOM! Al Gore warned you this would happen! […]
Evanjones said:
“We like UAH because it operates in the clear.”
Is their code available? I can’t find it on their website.
Or do they handle it the way GISS did, and just publish their methods in the journals?
Looks like GISS will hear the snapping of the rubber glove for months now.
Very interesting. If you look at the temperature anomlies maps you see that the largest anomalies always occur in Siberia!
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Monthly%20surface%20air%20temperature%20anomalies%20versus%20average%201998-2006%20in%20areas%20between%20%2072oN%20and%2060oN
[…] GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data […]
re: Chris V. (10:47:25) :
BTW, I assume Mckitrick and Michaels figured out the difference between degrees and radians for this latest paper?
BTW, Chris V. here are a few errors that are much more recent. Maybe you’ll want too ensure that they’ve been corrected, too.
Chris V,
It appears that we will disagree on appropriateness to equate the orbital decay issue in UAH vs. errors in GISS. However, I will commend you for your description of the complexity (and opportunity for differing values) in the RSS and UAH satellite data. Your summary is the best that I have seen.
At the same time, I am amazed that you can have such a good handle on RSS & UAH algorithm and at the same time be so dismissive of quality concerns at GISS & Hadley. You state that if there is any warm bias in surface station measurements “GISS and Hadley both take steps to [correct that].” After lengthy resistance and lack of transparency, GISS has given us an explanation (and code) on what it does in that regard; however, that procedure is not convincing, and it is not even reproducible. Many have pointed out that Hadley has not revealed what it does to address the issue. If you have insight on what Hadley does, I am sure that many readers would love to hear about it.
For several years, I was not concerned about what temperature measure to use since they seemed to follow the same basic trends. (In fact, if GISS is using satellite data for SST, then it would stand to reason that trends would be similar.) However, there seems to be increasing divergence recently, and it is not clear that the four continue to complement and confirm each other.
Perhaps you could share some insights on a recent question that I have not seen answered. Often on the GISS website, the graphs show no data available for ocean areas that are far from islands and coasts, but areas close to islands and coasts have temperature values. Is GISS assuming that a surface station temperature is good for 1200 km into the ocean – thus wiping out the need for satellite data in those ocean areas?
Dotto (11:23:16),
That’s because the greatest variation and most rapid swings of seasonal temperatures occur in Siberia.
Or do they handle it the way GISS did, and just publish their methods in the journals?
Getting the code out of GISS was like pulling eye-teeth. And that was a sick dodge: An ASCII dump with no operating manuals.
The “methods” GISS releases do NOT allow replication of adjustments.
I don’t know about public access to UAH code, but they demonstrably share with others (and accept corrections).
Fast timing. Dotto notices problems @ur momisugly 4.29, 4.31, 4.36, 4.37, 4.39. Then at 4.49 Mike Bryant cannot access the website… nor can Dotto et al.
Here are NASA and Humlum “2005 surface temp anomalies” side by side. Even allowing for the possibility that the anomalies are against different baselines, they are, well, DIFFERENT… eh?
It just keeps getting sadder and sadder at GISS.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4325
Makes you wonder how much of what I call the “Great Trans-siberian Heat Wave” that has been driving GISS temps up the past few years is also due to some errors similar to this one.
If you look at the past monthly temp maps from GISS, the one place that seems to see more “global warming” than anywhere else is Siberia. You would think that if Siberia were truely seeing that much warming, you would hear more about ancedotal evidence of it.
Some of the fighters against the climate scam have rest their case.
One of them tells us why. I do not agree with him. I think we should fight and NEVER give up. David Archibald knows exactly where we are up against. We are dealing with people who get paid for their lies.
This is from Hans Schreuder, http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
20 July 2008 – This is the final entry on my mission to prove the irrelevance of carbon dioxide in influencing the climate. Entrenched ignorance can not be militated against.
—–
From Science is Broken
In earlier centuries, science had a positive influence on society in developing social awareness around objectivity and rationality. It replaced the witchcraft and hocus pocus of charlatans with evaluation of objective evidence as the means of determining truth. But now, science is leading the pack for charlatanism and witchcraft, as junk science is acquiring a greater legitimacy than the charlatans ever had.
Wherever there is corruption in science the most important, underlying facts are contrived, while science is applied to more superficial elements of the subject. Omitting the science where it is most relevant isn’t an error, it is fraud. That’s why the word fraud must be used in describing the major corruptions of science.
Nowadays, science bureaucrats require that every detail of research be described in grant proposals; and in the laboratory, the researchers can do nothing but fill in the blanks with numbers. The claim is that doing otherwise would be defrauding the public. So the research has to be done at a desk instead of the laboratory.
Science bureaucrats are not politicians. They are scientists who put themselves in competition with the scientists in the laboratories. The editors and reviewers of science journals do the same. The result is that the laboratory scientists are dominated by office scientists who dictate how their work will be designed and reported.
http://nov55.com/ovr.html
—–
And so I rest my case that nothing will stop the madness that has taken over the western world, an insanity that demands we destroy ourselves over the ludicrous claim that a tiny increase of a trace gas has endangered the world due to an even more ludicrous “atmospheric greenhouse effect”.
Let me therefore conclude my “I Love My Carbon Dioxide” mission by stating the following, which is in the tradition of proper science, not radiative forcing’s greenhouse effect pseudo-science:
1.
The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.
2.
Considering, therefore, that even inside an actual greenhouse with a barrier of solid glass no such phenomenon as a greenhouse effect occurs, most certainly there can be no greenhouse effect in our turbulent atmosphere.
Energy can not be created from nothing, not even by means of re-radiated infra red. Widely accepted theory has it that more energy is re-radiated to earth than comes from the sun in the first place, amounting to almost an extra two suns. All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise. A block of ice in a room does not cause the room to warm up, despite the block of ice radiating its energy into the room. Yet carbon dioxide’s re-radiation of infrared energy warming up planet earth is the preposterous theory hailed by not only the alarmists, but accepted and elaborated by most skeptics as well, with mathematical theorems that do little more than calculate the number of fairies that can dance on a pinhead.
The accepted carbon dioxide greenhouse theory is thus declared a complete and total scam, as more fully detailed in these papers, amongst many (and I salute all scientists who agree with these papers and will gladly publicise all papers on this subject) :
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf and
“Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics”
http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
“Really new trails are rarely blazed in the great academies.
The confining walls of conformist dogma are too dominating.
To think originally, you must go forth into the wilderness.”
S. Warren Carey
“One definition of insanity is the compulsion
to make the same mistake over and over again
all the while expecting a different and successful outcome.”
Phil Brennan
Just over at PC, I posted this exchange:
And that pretty well sums up the attitude……
and this, also left at RC:
Call me paranoid, but IMHO the Russians taken the west for a ride.
Conspired with the greens and the left, feeding falsified data. They have a Trojan
horse placed to the critical places, like Hansen at NASA.
Just think about it, Russia represent a big continent, and the MSM at the west ,
well live in the west. So we just have to except what data they provide. It’s unlikely the MSM pay a visit and ask a “babushka” how hot was the season!!
We domed.
Chris V. (10:47:25) and Dan Hughes (11:30:43)
“BTW, I assume Mckitrick and Michaels figured out the difference between degrees and radians for this latest paper?”
Have Hockey Stickers figured out which end is up yet?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3967
Les (14:50:28) Look at Chris’s four or five comments yesterday afternoon. He may not have been the first to figure it out, but his figuring out is on the record. It’s an amazing little story, and Chris deserves a lot of credit for thinking out loud and publicly.
=================================
@Vincent Guerrini Jr,
The Australian government may well spend $50B AUD on attempting to cut CO2 emissions, however I think that you are mistaken to suggest that this will cool an already cooling world.
Given Australia’s miniscule contribution to world CO2 emissions, and the undetectable impact of CO2 on climate – the $50B will have zero impact on the worlds climate (warming or cooling).
However it is a certainty that (should the current plans be implemented) the Australian Taxpayers will have less disposable income in the future and less resources for hospitals, schools, public infrastructure such as roads, ports, power stations, water supplies, etc, etc.
kim (16:22:55) I’m not trying to detract from John S. I suspect several people were all catching the error at about the same time.
Chris’s record is kind of cute, though. The ongoing expression of his amazement and wonder is classic. Should be in a book, someday.
====================================
Really, a number of the early commenters, from Fred on, were highly skeptical. It simply exposes the GISStemp bureaucratic apparatus as lethally uncritical.
=========================================
The quotatoin above, that “energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise” is both demonstrably false and irrelevant. My house uses a heat pump that extracts heat from cool air outside to further warm the house. Throw a room-temperature blanket over your 98 degree body at night and it will keep you warmer, despite the fact that it’s temperature is lower than yours.
The earth receives radiated energy from the sun, and consequently has to produce a temperature that radiates back to space the energy it receives. Although there is never an instantaneous equilibrium in this exchange, measured over a sufficiently long interval (and this could be a very very long interval depending on the settling time of the climate system as a whole), the net energy exchanged should approach zero. The temperature necessary to shed the received energy from the sun is a function of how efficiently the earth radiates energy; a perfect black body in thermal equilibrium with itself being the most efficient, i.e. the one that has to raise its temperature the least. As more CO2 is accumulated in the atmoshphere, the Earth gets less efficient at re-radiating the energy it receives from the sun (it basically churns the energy around longer and thus introduces a greater delay in shedding instantaneously received energy). Consequently temperatures somewhere in the Earth are going to rise in response.
Having said that, the relevant question is to ask how much temperatures have to increase in response to a given quantity of additional CO2. This is a question that has not, and likely will not ever be, answered with respect to as complex a system as the Earth. Anyone who thinks that you can simply calculate the answer using pen and paper, or a computer for that matter, is beeing foolish. Instead, it the answer has to be experimentally measured, and verified. Experimental procedures to measure the Earth’s actual temperature response to increasing CO2 are not, and will not ever be, possible.
Kim: I agree that Chris was first here, and he should be credited. It was a good catch.
I guess the “revised” number for October is now 0.58.
Ballad of the Climate Scientist
Nibblin on sponge cake
Watchin the sun bake
All of those Russians covered with oil
The map its a-glowin’
With red globs a-growin’
Smell that borscht, it’s beginnin’ to boil
Chorus
Wasted away again in Bloody Mary-ville
Searching for my lost samovar
Some people claim there’s a temp gauge to blame
But I don’t think I’d go that far
I don’t know the reason
Graph shows the the wrong season
(As long as it climbs, I really don’t care.)
But it’s such a beauty
Looks real convo-luty
When the carbon trade starts, I’m getting a share
(Chorus)
We’ll show the heat’s comin’
Just takes us some plumbin’
The data we’ll fudge – just numbers you see
A new algorithm
Yeah, we’re really livin’
I’ll put it right – but I don’t work for free
(Chorus)
Such an eruption
For some data corruption!
I don’t need to be treated like this
If a government bailout
Can’t get the pale out
You surely can’t blame it all on GISS.
(Chorus)
Smoke from the main frame
That Altair is so lame
Could trade her in for a gimlet or two
But its government issue
And I’m supersti-shu
Hell, give her a kick and she’ll turn tricks for you
Wasted again in Bloody Mary-ville
Searching for my lost samovar
Some people claim there’s a temp gauge to blame
If you find out – I’ll be in the bar.