After GISS’s embarrasing error with replicating September temperatures in the October analysis, the NASA GISTEMP website was down for awhile today (at least for me).
This evening, the new gridded data was posted, and I generated a world temperature anomaly map with the new data. It clearly has some changes in it from the previous erroneous version.
See below:
GISTEMP 11-12-08 – Click for larger image
You can plot your own here at this link to GISTEMP’s map maker
Now compare the above corrected version with the erroneous one below:
GISTEMP 11-11-08
I’m sorry for the small map, as I was traveling during much of this debacle, and was not able to be online much at all. This one above comes courtesy of Kate at SDA who saved one (thanks Kate).
Note the bottom scale, the top end on the erroneous one was 13.7°C, while the corrected one tops out at 8°C. That alone should have set off alarm bells at GISS. Personally, I don’t believe the 8°C anomaly either, since much of the Russian weather data is suspect to start with, and the data distribution is sparse.
So far, no mention of the new data beyond this yesterday at the NASA GISS news page:
2008-11-11: Most data posted yesterday were replaced by the data posted last month since it looks like some mishap might have occurred when NOAA updated their GHCN data. We will postpone updating this web site until we get confirmation from NOAA that their updating programs worked properly. Because today is a Federal Holiday, some pages are still showing yesterday’s data.
We live in interesting times.
Over on CA, some are saying that the some September temperatures are still in the database. Is the map going to change again?
Are they north or south of the equator?
Fr. Mosh: Any relation to St. Mosh?
Werner Weber:
Your analysis looks correct, but, once the water covered by a thin ice, most of the heat released by water freezing is transfered to the underneath water, not the air. ( ice is not a good heat conductor, if all heat released by the freezing process is going upward, the top layer ice would melt right away)
The rapid refreezing of Arctic increases the air temperature a lot is not very convincing.
Just like to remind everyone that the map has been distorted to fit into a rectangle
http://www.oup.co.uk/oxed/secondary/geography/atlases/mapswork/roundearth/unpeel/
I’m sure this has been the subject of a post before (can’t find it).
Question: How could the arctic record such an anomalous temperature, when the arctic ice extent, showed a record, or near record, increase during October? The ice went from near record lows (just above 2007 levels ) to near normal levels.
and apparently the data has not been TOTALLY corrected. From Real Climate:
Apparently I should have read from the top down, regarding ice formation.
It should be kept in mind that above aver temps don’t mean above freezing. So in/around Siberia, you can still have seas refreezing and snow falling & persisting on the ground. Areas of the Arctic ocean with less-than-average ice content will naturally be above average (surface) temp, even if it’s refreezing quickly.
Just musing, but it’s possible that the relatively open arctic waters (until the end of October) meant that northery winds in Siberia wouldn’t be as cold/dry as usual, and/or cause a northward movement of the polar jet and diminishing the intrusion of cold air.
They are using the color psycological effect to deceive people again. For some reason, red is hot and blue is cold. They know very well that this map will get published and used by the MSM. Look People, it’s red inthe north, so it must be very hot up there…
Let me get this straight, the freezing ice is heating up the arctic?
Anna V: “I would be quite happy with such a project. I am all for creating green energy if and where possible. New jobs will be great for the economy.”
All very well, but someone has to pay for it – usually the consumer or the taxpayer. The idea of creating new jobs is great, however some jobs create new wealth while others constitute a nett drain on the economy. It’s arguable which side of the fence these fall on.
I still think the Arctic anomalies are wrong. They are probably always wrong. Time for some field auditors to head up the Dempster, or, to visit northern Siberia.
Don’t forget everyone – we are not only talking about deviation from average, but that average is the average of max and min. Therefore, increasing minimums can appear to create the same issues as increasing maximums. In fact, the maximum can drop and the average still go up – as long as the minimum increases more than the maximum drops. It may be worth someones time to investigate could cover effects on maximum and minimum temps to determine if cloud cover changes bias average temperature calculated this way, and if so, with what sign and magnitude. Just a thought…
Oops!
“could” -> “cloud” in previous post! D’OH!
Hmmm, if someone mounted an expedition to Siberia for the express purpose of confirming AGW, I am sure that funding could be secured. Then as the expedition progresses one could always take a few temperature measurements along the way. Let the chips fall where they may.
I’ve also heard that, during the Soviet era, many Russian stations under-reported temperatures in order to get more money for fuel from Moscow.
Don’t know how true this is but, if it is, it could go some way to explaining the current large anomalies.
@Stan Jones (01:36:26) :
“Why would they publish the original figures with the whole of Australia missing in the first place?”
Australia’s easy to miss (Sob…) (Violins play faintly in the background…).
Hang on a second, Australia has approximately the same land area as the Continental US? How could we be missed???
Sekerob,
If you live close to an Italian ski resort, you should at least point out the wider picture in Italy, e.g.
“The Italian resort of Bormio has opened a month early after heavy snowfalls at the end of October and start of November delivered 50ins to the resort’s upper slopes.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1084877/Record-snow-falls-Europe-North-America-mean-ski-resorts-open-early.html
Mike Bryant,
Although I’m perhaps slightly more persuaded by global warming predictions than you, I very much enjoy your uncompromising ridicule of “alarmism”. Your hard-hitting humour is appreciated! Keep up the demolition job……
Chris
Speaking of snow, The continental USA has 19.4% snow coverage.
http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/
Graeme Rodaughan ,
If you included PNG, I’m pretty certain Australia be third, not fifth largest, behind Canada, the land that the world forgets.
And we’ve got more oil than Saudi Arabia … heee heee hee.
Mike – but Russia is still baking.
SIBERIA
I REBIAS
Steven Hill (13:33:48) :
Let me get this straight, the freezing ice is heating up the arctic?
Yes. When water freezes it gives up heat. That heat has to go somewhere, and the somewhere it goes is the atmosphere on its way into space.
. “The public really does see that there is a real opportunity to invest in clean energy and in the process create jobs.”
Creating green energy would require the manufacture, transport and management of countless new products and resources, from windmill parts to solar panels, which would create jobs in many industries
I don’t want to be too harsh on this, because I am sure the poster is well intentioned and believes this to be true and in a narrow sense it is true.
But, I could make the same statement about the multi-coloured, polka dot balloon industry and it would be equally true.
You could create any number of jobs in any industry you like by sufficient investments (also know as subsides) to production and consumption of the industry’s products. However, you destroy a larger number of jobs in other industries by doing so. The number of jobs destroyed is always larger because of the inherent inefficiency of government redistribution mechanisms.
There are 2 valid arguments for sudsidizing ‘green’ (or call it what you will) energy. One is providing seed capital to promising emerging technologies. This doesn’t apply because almost all the subsidies go to technologies already in large scal production. The second argument is subsidizing a public good. In this case reducing CO2 emissions. However, this should be shown as as a cost of $x per ton of CO2 reduced and it never is and is dishonest not to do so. And were they costed in this way, people would balk at the high cost of CO2 reduction and opt for much cheaper mechanisms (assuming they see value in CO2 reduction).
Unfortunately, selling subsidy of green (CO2 reducing) technologies by calling it ‘investment’ and ‘job creating’ is peddling snake oil to the ignorant.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (04:00:36)
I’m pretty sure GISSTemp uses 1950-1980 as a baseline because Hansen started producing his temperature anomaly charts back in the early 1980’s. (1981 is the earliest reference I could find in the literature, although it wasn’t called GISSTEMP back then).
He couldn’t use a more recent time period for the baseline because the data didn’t exist yet.