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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Because you say “arvo” instead of “afternoon”. At least come up with lazy idiom that sounds SOMETHING like the original 😉
Jeff Alberts (22:43:12) :
“Hang on a second, Australia has approximately the same land area as the Continental US? How could we be missed???”
…..
That’s because Australia is in the southern hemisphere and its CO2 hole rotates the wrong direction;
thereby causing the hurricanes to rotate the wrong direction and be recalled into the factory as typhoons;
which corkscrews all their global warming out of the troposphere into into those poor innocent coral reefs;
which forces up the ocean up;
which floods the land and causes trials and tribulations upon the earth.
“This subsequently warms up Alaskan and Northern Canadian polar bears, who immediately have a heat prostration problem and suffer a massive population increase.”
LOL Anthony, now you have visions of naked polar bears dancin in my head:)
We should be a little nicer to Gavin, at least he talks to us, maybe we can turn him away from the dark side eventually:)
The GISTEMP data has been adjusted again – October land/ocean anomaly now 0.55K.
2008-11-13: NOAA combined the data it obtained from their various sources into another, slightly differing version of v2.mean. We ran our analysis again based on this new file; you may have to clear your buffer to see the updated results.
and the map now looks like it’s lost the Canadian Arctic data again:
Now GISSTEMP is beginning to look at least reasonably similar to the satellite temperatures (but cosistently warmer as usual). The main remaining problem area is western South America which has been notably cold for several months, but is a hotspot according to GISS. Has anyone eyeballed the station data there yet?
Steven Hill (13:33:48) :
“Let me get this straight, the freezing ice is heating up the arctic?”
On a smaller scale think of the Orange growers that spray their trees with water prior to frosts. The heat released when the water freezes gives some protection.
This also works when water vapour is converted to water. The condensing steam releases a lot of heat, as you quickly find out if you put your hand anywhere near the spout of a boiling kettle!
I’ve never responded to a blog before, but I couldn’t let pass the jaw-dropping assertion that freezing of water pushes heat into the overlying atmosphere. That goes against the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Heat flux is from warm to cold, not the other way around. Water freezes when surrounded by something colder that draws the heat away.
Robert A Cook PE (23:03:23) :
Sorry, you were quoting a quote I quoted, in other words, you were responding to the wrong person…
Mary Hinge: “This also works when water vapour is converted to water. The condensing steam releases a lot of heat, as you quickly find out if you put your hand anywhere near the spout of a boiling kettle!”
Nothing to do with the fact that the steam is at 100 degrees before it starts condensing then?
Brings to mind Abe Lincoln’s famous quotation.
Hadcrut now out for October at 0.44
Mary Hinge: “On a smaller scale think of the Orange growers that spray their trees with water prior to frosts. The heat released when the water freezes gives some protection.”
The latent heat of freezing of water just means that the air temperature has to fall below freezing before the water starts freezing. It does NOT mean that the air, or orange, is warmed by the water freezing.
From Wiki Answers:
“Although it’s grossly counter-intuitive, whenever citrus groves are in danger of experiencing below-freezing temps, the trees are sprayed with water. This causes frost to form on the rinds of the fruit and provides an extra layer of insulation against the low temperatures that would otherwise freeze the edible portion of the fruit and destroy the crop. “
Seems they’ve posted another ‘corrected’ map. Now the gray area in the Arctic and Hudson Bay area has returned, while the brown over Australia remains.
Truly amazing. It’s as bad as my arithmatic skilz. If I add up a column of numbers 5 times I most likely will give you 5 different answers. This is starting to look like that.
Joyce,
“Water freezes when surrounded by something colder that draws the heat away.”
And where does the heat that was ‘drawn away’ go and what affect does this have on the air immediately around the freezing water?
“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”
Thanks, Chris, I am no scientist, but I know BS when I hear it. I try to highlight the ridiculous while making a point. Sometimes I get a little too crazy and the moderators step in. That too is appreciated since I want to help show alarmism for what it really is. Thanks again,
Mike Bryant
Bill,
Heat energy, despite any computer codes you may write to the contrary, is compelled to follow the laws of thermodynamics. If there is a temperature gradient, heat may disperse by convection, conduction, or radiation, but it cannot just build up.
“And where does the heat that was ‘drawn away’ go and what affect does this have on the air immediately around the freezing water?”
Bill, if the air temperature is below freezing and the water is above freezing, heat will flow from the water to the air at a rate determined by the temperature differential, and the water’s temperature will gradually fall towards freezing point. Once there, the water starts to freeze and the water temperature stops falling, even though the heat continues to flow from the water to the air. Once the water has completely frozen, its temperature starts dropping once more – until it reaches thermal equilibrium with the air.
Joyce (13:34:16) :
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that the heat “built up”.
I think a good way of putting it is that the air is not as cold as it would have been if the ice wasn’t freezing.
We are after all, talking anomalies.
If you’re a chemist or polymer engineer, think about what a DSC looks like when a substance freezes, melts, or has some other type of exothermic or endothermic transformation.
Of course, it would be reasonable for someone to do a reality check and try to calculate how much water is freezing, what the heat of crystallization is, and how much the air temperature might be altered based on its heat capacity and a reasonable estimate of a boundary layer.
Me, I’m just going to go have a beer.
“” This freezing was driven by very low arctic temperatures. Every kg of water frees 80 kcal or 330 kiloJoule of latent heat, equivalent to heating 80 kg of (liquid) water by 1degree Centigrade- or roughly 100 cubic meter of air at surface pressure by 1 degree. 1m3 of water will thus cause a 1 degree temperature increase for 100.000 cubic meters of air at sea level pressure. This is a column of air of 100 m2 which ist 1000 m high. Correct then for the air pressure, and you have a column of air extenting almost to the end of the troposphere. “”
Where do people dream this stuff up ??
Freezing of water into ice frees up not a jot of energy to warm anyplace else.
The material surrounding the water to be frozen, air or whatever has to be colder than the water, to remove any energy from the water by conduction; but the water could lose energy to the surroundings or even to the sun, by EM radiation, but omitting radiation component for the moment, the surroundings have to remove 80 calories per gram from the water, before it will freeze, and the water temperature will not go below zero following the surrounding air until it has frozen. There will be no rise in the external air temperature because the water froze.
If the more remote air is colder still, the boundary air may not cool as rapidly as it otherwise would because of the presence of the water, but no way will the latent heat of freezing cause the surrounding air to heat up.
In the reverse process, the floating sea ice will absorb heat energy from the ocean water (probably warmed by the tropics), because that coupling is much stronger than any thermal connection to the air, so the melting ice absorbs an astronomical amount of energy from the surrounding water, which thereby cools, and since sea water greater than about 2.47% salinity has no maximum density before freezing, the cooling sea water will shrink and the ocean level will go down.
I predicted this in 2004 (see Physics Today for Jan 2005 Letters) and in mid 2006 it was confirmed by a British/Dutch team monitoring the Arctic Ocean, that indeed the sea level had been dropping 2 mm per year for the ten years of their study, using a European polar satellite.
The researchers said they were confident of their results, but didn’t know why that should happen; well now you do.
The latent heat of evaporation is something greater than about 539 Calories per gram depending on the temperature, so when the ocean waters evaporate, an enormous amount of heat is transferred to the atmosphere, to be carried aloft by convection and ultimately deposited out when the vapor condenses into cloud, and perhaps drops another 80 calories per gram if ice crystals form. But that energy doesn’t warm the upper atmopshere; the phase transformation, simply doesn’t happen, unless and until the air gets cold enough to conduct the heat out.
And the forgotten radiation permits additional energy loss even if the surroundings ar not quite cold enough to cause freezing by conduction alone.
Somebody a lot smarter than me said “Heat is not a Noun !” there’s a lot of truth to that. Heating is a consequence of energy input.
George
I’m going to try one more time, because an earlier writer did, indeed, suggest that the rapidly freezing Arctic water would cause the Arctic to have warmer than ususal air temperatures. It seems to me that faster than normal freezing of Arctic water would require a larger than normal temperature differential (i.e., colder than usual air) in the vicinity of the freezing. I agree that heat is released, but it surely can’t be hanging around in Arctic air because that would have the effect of reducing the temperature differential and thus slowing down the freezing.
Kim, thank you for the laiugh.
How many corrections has that been?
If you get a bucket of mud, and scoop it up 5x, it will ooze through your fingers differently each time… – but it’s still mud.
Data that keeps changing with each correction – will the real values please stand up – how is GISS data different from the mud.
jcbmack (00:19:27) Sure, mack, it makes us even. I got a big kick out of watching you jump around over at RC and challenge Les to a debate. You have a superficial understanding of the propaganda of the warmer camp, and an overdeveloped sense of your own knowledge of the controversy. I’ll break it down to something simple for you. The warmers are wrong because they’ve exaggerated the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Show me they are right, if you can.
=================================================
jcbmack (00:19:27) Whoa, mack, I hadn’t even seen your latest act over at RealClimate. Here’s a clue, pal, your own side is starting to give you Hell.
================================================
Here you have a link of Russia Today,
They are talking about an extremely warm autumn
http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33324
jcbmack (03:21:59) The Hell they are giving you is predictable, given the sources. David B. Benson jumps in to defend Wikipedia(by the way, I agree with you about Wikipedia on climate; William Connolley has fatally flawed the section), and Hank Roberts pedantically asks for references. Honey, they don’t trust your overconfidence. You really don’t know what you are talking about, yet. Your curiosity is laudable, however. Keep up the good work.
=====================================