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.
Kim, keep in mind we do have a good idea about climate sensitivity, but that it is always in a bit of flux, so pinning it down exactly will not be possible, however, the GCM’s in conjunction with the sattelite data, IFR spectroscopy data, empirical observations, (extinction of species, changes in drift and shift patterns in ecological niches due to global climate change, artic ice sheets thinning, ice caps still melting) and careful analysis from the min-max thermometers from various weather stations indicate no only a definite warming trend even in lieu of temporary and only partial cooling trends, but also, the violent weather pattern changes and such loss of winter in Virginia, lend examples. Yes we do need more empirical observations in the Artic and as a matter of fact that is exactly what is being planned out now; teams are being assembled to go look more closely at the artic. Dyanmic equilibrium, not static equilibrium; keep that in mind Kim, as water vapor increases, the specific humidity may level as a ratio, however the 5% or so increase in water vapor and the 385 or ppm of CO2 definitely create a potent positive feedback system, and even in lieu of cloud formations, (which also trap in infared lw in addition to having some reflective qualities due to albedo effects) the decreased ice sheet and resulting reflectivity which is diminished, and the Earth is absorbing more sw, and emitting more lw which is reradiated.
No question, the models need still further work due to my previous statement about dynamics,but no water vapor specificallyas we know it tends back towards equilibrium. Cloud microphysics are poorly understood and exact cloud formation trends are not modeled as of yet. If the weather stattions were so shoddy and the models in general so poor, how is it we can predict weather with amazing accuracy for a period of about two weeks, climate a month from now and that Hansen’s original predictions were just so accurate? The Earth has an amazin ability to reset itself and it is not going to go down tomorrow, due to warming, but the sea levels are rising, this is a fact and the shores continued to become more eroded and as plant life, bacteria and plankton reach their upper limits (set points) many do not adapt, which is a basic premise of evolution especially when artificial selection plays such a huge role. I say collect all the data that we can, build upon and improve the models; do more randomization and compile more statistics, send people to the Artic (and the equator) and conitnue the analyses of wind trends and weather systems at all different latitudes. This is exactly what is being done and the data compiled and numbers crunched and input into models and graphs are very much upholding global warming; a mean surface temperature that is getting higher.
To be sure advection, convection, conduction, ENSO and so forth along with wobble and tile and the shape of the Earth’s orbit are being included in the parameters; NASA is well aware of these issues and includes them in their studies and calculations; keep in mind no one or two, 15 grid box, 3 box, six box etc… can include all data, all numbers all considerations, but as we combine these models in both random and other manners there is still a definite global warming trend.
George Smith, you seriously misinterpret what is occuring and your math needs work.
The Nyquist-Shannon theroem, where perfect reconstruction of a signal is possible when the sampling frequency is is greater than twice the maximum frequency of the signal being sampled, or when the Nyquist frequency is (half the sample rate) exceeds the highest frequency of the signal being sampled.
Read this, it will clear things up:
http://www.waset.org/ijit/v3/v3-2-19.pdf
This is also a good discussion on ecological indicators:)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9720&page=116
and infer from
The application of large format, broadband quantum well infrared photodetector arrays to spatially modulated prism interferometers
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Francis M. Reininger,
However, if McKitrick & Michaels and LaDochy are right, the warming trend of the 20th century has been exaggerated by a factor of two.
If that’s true, then all GISS and IPCC bets are off. And models called off for reasons of bad data.
If the weather stattions were so shoddy and the models in general so poor, how is it we can predict weather with amazing accuracy for a period of about two weeks, climate a month from now and that Hansen’s original predictions were just so accurate?
That’s what they are designed for. What they are NOT designed for is the ability to measure global-wide temperature change over a century to a tenth of a degree.
The CRN network, OTOH, is designed specifically to measure longterm climate trends. And all data will be complete, automated, and raw.
(Every time you apply an adjustment, it increases the margin of error.)
jcbmack (12:30:18) No, you don’t have a good idea about climate sensitivity to CO2. The temperature is falling; strong climate sensitivity to CO2 would give a rising temperature. So, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, and all that secondary and derivative stuff may well be from something else besides CO2. Like natural cycles, duh.
==========================================
jcbmack (12:30:18) :
however the 5% or so increase in water vapor and the 385 or ppm of CO2 definitely create a potent positive feedback system
Jcbmack,
I enjoy reading your posts. They stimulate thought and encourage me to think about things critically. I don’t want to jump in this argument. However, I want to suggest the following: It is unlikely that water vapor is “definitely” a positive feedback. If it were, then past trends in climate would be impossible. Yes, it is a “greenhouse gas”, and so if more of it is vapor, then more outgoing radiation would be absorbed. However, water vapor must necessarily also cool the earth (by cloud formation and increasing albedo or whatever). These must act together to stabilize our climate or it would have spiralled up or down ages ago.
Water is prevailant everywhere. Because of our turbulent atmosphere, there is very little lag time (geologically) between change in temperature and change in evaporation. If water vapor were simply a positive feedback enforcer, our climate would be unstable. Any variation, even a local variation, would quickly overwhelm all the other controls for temperature and Earth would freeze or roast. With the big wash of perturbations that our climate experiences, it is amazing that the planet is even habitable. Luckily, water is a great “safety controll” that keeps our temperature stable.
Climate modellers, who should know better than this, keep trying to use water vapor to make global warming go out of control. They should study thermodynamics, reactor control, and climate history to help them in their work.
Kim you are mistaken.
Old Coach, thank you for your post. Yes clouds do get formed, and these are (partially) negative feed backs as well which are underrepresented, and actually most climate modelers do study thermodynamics, reactor control and climate history. Rasmus is a physicist, Gavin is a mathematician who studies paleo- climate, others are ocean chemists and so forth. I have a chemistry, biology, and physics background myself. Water does assist in maintaining temperature, however, it has been shown to be a positive feedback of the effects of CO2, for H-O-H is the major green house gas and even modest increases in CO2 and infared absorption (after a lag phase) will be greatly accenttuated by water vapor, we know of the chemistry of these GHG from physical chemistry and from atmospheric chemical analysis.
Some clouds actually hold in heat as well and even with clouds that have high albedo, there is still a net warming present. I do agree that the models still need to account for certain dynamics, however, because water vapor tends back to equilibrium and specific humidity levels off the long term modeling of climate actually increase in accuracy and by doing comparisons with other grid box models and using randomization (central theorem) and collecting more ecological and surface temperature observations, future models will become both more accurate and precise in their predictions and accounts of will be, present trends. The Earth is not an entirely closed system, this is to be sure, otherwise the warming and toxic gas levels would be more than catastrophic.
The global warming trends modeled and predicted are actually relatively slow, gradual and many forcings and feedbacks are taken into account as well. There are low end, median and high end predictions and possibilities being modeled and analyzed. The scary thing is that the climate is becoming more sensitive to CO2, so even if the reasons are not fully understood, water vapor is we know definitely playing a chief role in the positive feedback of CO2 mediated effects.
Climate is certainly not completely unstable, however, it has been tending towards greater instability; having been through the entire US recently and keeping up with the weather reports and what they used to be, there have been drastic changes, especially over the last 18 years or so (since 1990) and looking at my weather charts I see global changes, and warming related to traveling smoke and so forth from China and India.
jcbmack (19:24:15)
Hah, I’m mistaken according to you, but I note that CO2 is rising and global temperature is falling. What a mistake.
====================================
I should also add, that when I say that we have a good idea about climate sensitivity, keep in mind that I also stated first, we do not have an exact quantitative value, but rather a range and we certainly know the upper limits in which even conservative climatologists know the globe would be in serious trouble. I also stated that I believe Hansen’s latest statements and estimates to be a little more drastic than the actual reality and I have mentioned Gavin’s recent interview in Scientific American and his caution especially regarding both paleo climate proxy studies and climate sensitivity. (Charney sensitivity) What I am referring to is a good idea and the consequences of GHG’s that we are currently witnessing. I am against carbon capture into the ground, skeptical of using garbage as a methane source for energy, and certainly opposed to injecting massive amounts of SO2 into the stratosphere. What I support are: reducing overall emissions (sulfates and CO2, CH4 etc…) and contrary to popular opinion, the new propellants used are no longer contributing to cooling, but contribute slightly to warming; I support more funding and hiring for research into alternative energy sources and the proper implementation of the technology. We will get closer and closer approximate numbers, however, the threat of warming is real, but we do still have time to make a difference… we should not squander this time. The trends are clear, however, as are the potential ramifications in addition to the current trends of plasmodium parasites due to the facilitation of vectors, like Anopheles mosquito which is a carrier of the parasite which causes malaria, the Lemmings being hurt due to changes in the type of snow fall, increased incidence and prevalence of droughts and so forth… net warming, despite dimming; consider the human body: an open system, energy coupling, (exergonic and endergonic, like a planet exothermic and endothermic,) positive feedbacks, negative feedbacks, set points, epigentic and mutations adaptive or consequent to external pressures, (like global forcings) yet the human body has its limits, where no negative feedback can overcome a change of too much magnitude or veocity. (or simply rate) The globe is quite similar to the human body, albeit more vast and overall even more resilient and adaptive.
Nature October 30, 2208.
Earth magazine October 2008
Scientific American November 2008
Nature November 2008
Scientific American Earth 3.0 November- December 2008
Kim show me the data. Show me peer reviewed data and show me how the calculations are being made and the graphs indicating a global cooling. I am looking right at the data, the graphs and math and I still see global warming, so yes you are mistaken. I am not just looking at NASA, NOAA, the journals on nature, but also peer reviewed research from the UK and several research universities as well as my own data for my paper to be submitted for peer review, so where is your evidence? I will tell you; it does not exist. I will even like to look at non peer reviewed literature, as long as it is from legitimate experts with proper citations and research methods. Kim you are mistaken, the globe is warming and you need an education.
Although Tamino does a poor job attempting Spencer, Spencer does have several flaws in his assumptions and explanations both on his site and in his books.
jcbmack:
First off, please read the Wegman Report to Congress. The peer review process within the climate sciences is corrupt and can no longer be relied upon.
That is not to say that many papers are not genuine science. But many are published as a means to an end: obtaining more grant money. And the small clique of reviewers engage in mutual back-scratching, passing each others’ papers through the process because their goal is money and power.
You claim that the planet is still warming. You are wrong. The planet is cooling.
That data you are giving me is wrong. The ARGO floats were recently shown to be improperly calibrated and since the error was fixed, well, the warming trends are shown. Also, keep in mind that when water which has a high heat capacity reaches limits, temperatures rise, the warmer water rises and there is evaporative cooling. Then there is advection and convection processes which will raise water of higher kinteic energy.
The whole peer review process is not corrupt, if it were, then most scientists on earth could not be trusted, that new antibiotic which kills resistant bacteria and so forth would not be credible.
I do want to say, however, that I took the time to read the Mann work, controversies and claims by Mcintyre among others. I notice that although the recommendations for further quality controls and independent verification by experts, are not bad ones, they in no way imply or state that peer review cannot be trusted. I also note that the 14 places in the northern hemisphere (tree rings) are not specifically mentioned and that either not including topics (or sub tropics) or doing so may lead one to find differences in trend analysis, but with the grid box, HADCRUT3 anomaly analysis (larger and smaller boxes) where sampling and number errors can better be controlled for and time resolution in conjunction with spatial resolution, and acknowldgment and reanalysis of such biases mentioned in regards to Mann and others, the results are in fact repeatable and robust.
Time averages are still a great way to smooth out nuances, anomalies and to see what has been occurring in the twentieth and beginning of the twenty first century. The proxy data, as one goes back in time, is subject to criticism on both sides, and for good reason, NASA NOAA and Princeton AOS do not dispute this. Global Climate Systems, an excellent book discusses the issues with proxy data very clearly, candidly and thoroughly. The comparisons being made in this report begin with grand validity, but end in complete absurdity. Of course as one explores possible climate and temperature trends in the 1400’s and 1500’s the magnitude of uncertainty increases, as does the need to infer rather than experiment, observe and validate. Now, paleo climate studies are still necessary, however, they are not a stand alone or chief validation markers in and of themselves, but they serve as guides, windows into past climate trends, which in many cases can be utilized surprisingly, well and with appropriate accuracy, in the proper context of other more immediate, validated data and statistical analysis.
This paper you reference ends up at several points comparing apples and oranges, and even when it is a lateral appraisal, it often ends up being a moot one, as far more data, research and analysis of heat budget, atmospheric chemistry, fluid dynamics and so forth, confirming and evidencing global warming. Interesting how one side accuses the other of lying, while the other states clearly the nature and where known or approximated, the magnitude of uncertainty, bias, errors and need for further research. Science is not about screaming you liar or not fair, it is about going where the evidence leads, and extrapolating the patterns.
E.M.Smith (22:54:11) :
There is also a 1500 year cycle that makes for even more cold, but the last time this happened was Bond Event 1 and the Dark Ages… (See: “Unstoppable Global Warming! Every 1500 Years”).
There is no 1500 year solar cycle. There are Bond events, and Gerard Bond conjectured that these might be caused by the Sun, but we have not found the corresponding solar variations.
So, using sun / planet rather than planet /moon, as the large planets get closer to the sun, and the sun to the barycenter of the solar system, the sun has to spin faster to conserve angular momentum. This, since the sun is not a solid, lets the sun flatten and the equator rotate faster than the poles. This modulates solar output and sunspots.
This is pseudo-science of the worst kind. The distance between the Sun and e.g. Jupiter does not vary at all, except from the eccentricity of the orbit. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Distance-Sun-Jupiter-and-SSN.png is a plot of that distance [simplified a bit, by plotting the closest and farthest approaches and the average of the two (pink squares)] and of the sunspot number [SSN], and as you can see they have no relation to each other, as the phase drifts. The differential rotation between equator and pole is not due to ‘angular momentum’ transfer, but is a result of the Coriolis force acting on the convection zone. The Sun does not flatten because of Jupiter, etc, etc. Worst of the worst.
J Javaraiah paper:
“Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22”
Has already been falsified, as cycle 23 was long.
As I have said repeatedly: combating bad science with worse science is not the way to go.
jcbmack:
I never call others a ‘liar.’ I trust that they believe what they say. Liar is a really venomous word that destroys any chance of reasonable discussion [I know; I’ve been called that plenty].
OK, I had posted some charts for you above, from the very same government entities that you mentioned. They show declining global temperatures, yet you persist in your belief that global warming is gonna getcha.
In fact, the empirical evidence leads us to conclude that temperatures are declining at the same time that beneficial CO2 is rising. That drives a huge nail into the AGW/CO2 coffin, despite the frantic backing and filling of the AGW crowd — who now implausibly argue that global warming causes global cooling! [It’s all in the models, see?]
Recall that James Hansen, globaloney scaremonger-in-chief, testified in 1988 that global warming would get us all in short order. Looking at the zero line here, you can see that the planet’s temperature naturally fluctuates around it.
The only reasonable conclusion is that Hansen was wrong. But in the early ’90’s, Al Gore began stating repeatedly that planetary catastrophe resulting from runaway global warming would happen within ten years. It’s interesting to see that Johnny-One-Note Hansen is saying the same thing today that Gore said fifteen years ago.
Hansen and Gore were both spectacularly wrong. And Hansen’s own organization, GISS– after massaging the raw data upwards — is still forced to admit that the planet is cooling.
So how can you justify your claim that global warming is still occurring?
The graphs I have from NASA, the latest ones, and the various graphs from independent parties show warming and I will post the sites up when I have time.
And again the charts are based upon ARGOS floats that were not properly calibrated.
Here are some graphs for you to look at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
For further insights:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcru-8yr.jpg
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-
They are not admitting to global cooling, you are mistaken and those charts and data are how I justify my “claim.”
noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/460.html
ftp://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/netcdf/
More on the way:)
I had another post with far more references, but it is not being allowed yet or it was lost to cyberspace; I will repost them tomorrow, enjoy!
jcbmack,
Well, I looked at all your links. Against my better judgement, I even looked at the typical realclimate propaganda which, as usual, is bogus.
That leaves us with the other links [some of which are corrupted and cannot be accessed].
I hope you understand that I discarded any link going back into the 1800’s, for the simple reason that it is widely acknowledged that natural cyclical warming took place beginning around 1900, before CO2 was a factor.
However, to squeeze so many years into a small graph makes the result look like the discredited scary hockey stick graph [I am not saying these are hockey sticks, only that it’s hard to discern what has been happening since 1998 in a graph going back over a hundred years — even though they show the same thing].
That leaves us with one graph: click
And your one graph is in agreement with the graphs I posted upthread. Your graph, like mine, shows flat to global cooling over the past decade. No warming.
Thanks for verifying that there has been no recent global warming. None. At all.
You are not even able to read the graph correctly, because you are only concerned with short term weather trends and short intervals in climate. The past decade has seen global warming, not only the past decade, but the bette 30 year data shows the trend quite nicely. You may look at graphs, but you fail to understand them; and I showed many graphs, not one or two showing the global warming trend. Clearly you lack a background in science or math.
Oh and on a final note, a lag phase with CO2 and warming, 1900 would not be a bad time period for warming to begin, but very small trends in warming began in the 1800’s due to the increased burning of coal and so forth. It is therefore not CO2 independent.
jcbmack @19:13:39 :
Thanx, jcbmack, I enjoy your personal ad hominem attacks. They always crop up when nothing else suffices.
In the mean time I will console myself with the fact that no global warming has been detected by GISS or anyone else over the past decade. I especially liked your chart, which confirms that fact.
I’m going out tonight, so you can rant on to your heart’s content. Enjoy yourself! You get to have the last word.
To: jcbmack:
Ref your quote: “The 350 ppm or slightly below goal, may not be very realistic, but that is an accurate median figure in regards to the gateway to more dangerous CO2 levels, increased rate of global wamring and resultant sea level rise. We may have not reached peak carrying capacity, but the GHG’s and the indistrialization of China and India are not helping matters. Humans can adapt to quite a lot, but we should not always test the limits before we do something.”
How many millions do you want to endanger (by poverty, famine, loss of drinking water due to no energy but firewater and animals, no/low/limited energy limiting their economic ability to grow and get healthy, and deaths by cold/heat/malnutrition as YOU demand that THEY sacrifice their lives so you can “feel safe” by setting limits?
To date, the only period (ever) when both CO2 and temperatures were rising was a short 27 year period between 1972 and 1998 – when temperatures rose a little under 1/2 of one degree. Since 1998, temperatures have fallen slightly – and CONTINUE to fall, yet CO2 has steadily risen. From 1940 until 1972, CO2 rose, but temperatures fell 4/10 of one degree. From 1890-1900 until 1940, CO2 is claimed to be steady, but temperatures rose – again – the same 1/2 of one degree that they rose in the last 27 years of the 20th century.
Your ASSUMPTION (faith/creed/desires ?) that CO2 is causing that short period of rising temperature is proven wrong by the evidence of contradictory trends; and you have NO evidence of any type (only approximate models that exaggerate (deliberately ?) the relationship you are striving for.
Do you claim a consensus? Yes.
Is your claim making it really a consensus? No.
Is there really a consensus? No.
If there were a consensus, would that make the consensus a reality? No. Merely a consensus. EVERY “scientific consensus” ever made before – has been proven wrong. And the more viciously a “consensus” is defended by the “scientific” establishment, the more quickly that consensus is proved WRONG.
Is there a consensus that AGW is not present, and that man-made global warming is NOT a threat? Many tens of thousands of engineers, scientists, and weather experts DO believe both statements. But YOU chose to ignore THEM, but rather believe the politicians who pay your salary and who pay your research. Why should “I” trust you to be honest? No environmentalist has yet earned my moral NOR scientific trust, since their previous statements and predictions have been proven wrong. (Or have results in untold horrors of starvation, death, and preventable disease.) Over and over and over again.
You “claim” that only peer-reviewed publications are valid science, but then your “peers” who determine WHO gets funded, and WHO gets published deliberately restrict research to what THEY want to read. To restrict research to what results THEY (you!) want.
Oh. Threats of death, threats of imprisonment and fines, court cases, massed firings of skeptics, the use of such prejudicial language itself, and actual cases of attacks in the literature, public articles, public presses, public televisions and movies, reviews, books, interviews and thousands of political speeches are not “real” threats?
—
By the way, just what ARE the temperature correction equations that Hansen refuses to release for “peer” review? What is HANSEN hiding? Why?
What ARE the real historical temperature readings that NOAA and Hansen refuse to release for “peer” review?
Where ARE the thermometer locations that he refuses to release for “peer” review?
Why are 10 (out-of-calibration, never seen, never audited ?) Siberian thermometers evidence for “the hottest October, September, August, etc. ever” stories – but satellite averaged temperatures that show cooling not evidence of global cooling?
Why did Cromwell die of malaria, if malaria is a “tropical” disease? (Do you think that malaria is increasing – not from a 1/2 of one degree increase in temperatures – but because enviro extremists are preserving mosquitoes by banning DDT rather than people’s lives?
Why is 27 years of rising temperatures evidence of catastrophic global warming, but 120 years of cycling temperatures NOT evidence of cyclical temperatures?
—
What is the multiplier of CO2’s effect on water vapor that Hansen has chosen to use in his “predictions” of future temperatures? 1x? 2x? 4x? 8x? 16x?
You are wrong about global warming. Dead wrong. And your prejudices will be the cause of killing millions.
Because temperatures are falling now, have been higher in the past, and will be lower in the future – The graphs you chose (deliberately) are skewed avoid that inconvenient truth.
Because sea levels are NOT rising catastrophically – they are rising at 1 mm per year.