Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.
True, all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced together. However, in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET etc by NOAA prior to being distributed for use by organizations like GISS. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias.
In the recent data replication fiasco, GISS blames NOAA for providing flawed data rather than their failure to catch the repeated data from September to October. In that case they are correct that the issue arose with NOAA, but in business when you are the supplier of a product, most savvy businessmen take a “the buck stops here” approach when it comes to correcting a product flaw, rather than blaming the supplier. GISS provides a product for public consumption worldwide, so it seems to me that they should pony up to taking responsibility for errors that appear in their own product.
In the case above, what could be the explanation for the product changing?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
try this one for Sydney for very nice UHI effect 🙂
33.8607°S 151.2050°E
oh no!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
I appear to have had posts rejected for the first time at RC. Does that mean I’m a “skeptic”? It sounds kind of nasty. I’d always thought of myself as, well, myself. Now it appears I may belong to a category! I blame a certain dhogaza for provoking me too much.
Still, it seems the “dark side” has both a better sense of humour, and even the chance of free brownies (which blog was that at again, “where climate talk gets baked”?! lol – Lucia you have style!) so it could be worse.
Kate (09:33:16) said
“The GISS temperature record is a conflict of interest.”
How about the UAH temperature record? UAH is a product of Spencer and Christy, who are well-known AGW skeptics.
What’s good for the goose….
IMO, the fact that GISSTemp and UAH agree so closely over the long run
http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg
shows that even if either group has an “agenda”, the underlying temperature signal is still coming through, loud and clear.
Chris, thanks again that was very interesting reading.
“UHI applies whatever the population, whether it’s a large city, Alaskan village, or Siberian base.”
Oops, I meant to say “…..or Antarctic base.” But of course it applies to a Siberian base just as to the others. Perhaps I had Siberia on my mind….. Not to be confused with Iberia of course. Where at the closest operational rural GISS met station to Madrid (up on the sierra at Navacerrada) the mean temp was 6.7C in October. I mean such a figure in northern Siberia would be inconceivable in October right 🙂
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=643082150000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
(1) no codes released
(2) no QA at NOAA
(3) no QA at GISS
(4) insufficient funding for QA
(5) irregular records
(6) crackers records
(7) stations disappearing
(8) stations badly sited
(9) suspect inadequate compensation for UHI
(10) weird retroactive temperature adjustments
(11) lousy level of credits to WU & CA for ongoing audit work
(12) antediluvian programming
For the most hugely costly global project… standards that wouldn’t wash at high school level? Time for Woodward and Bernstein to testify methinks?
Chris, nice link to John Daly’s pages.
In honour of him, GRHS, his familly keeps these pages alive on the web.
This was the first place I met someone who was as sceptical as I. Now people like Anthony, Loehe, Mceh, etc. are continuing the struggle for reason, and slowly gaining ground.
“Vincent Guerrini Jr (16:35:47) :
oh no!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg”
An appropriate moment to remember the following:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2918/anomalykm3.gif
(thanks Mike Bryant, and others)
And perhaps I might also be forgiven here for recycling this recent post of mine from CA in the context of the poles:
Chris:
November 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
It’s also interesting to note that according to RSS TLT, Oct 08 in the Arctic/highest latitudes (60.0/82.5N) at +0.452C was cooler/less warm than Oct 1980 (+0.883C), Oct 1981 (+0.680C) and Oct 1987 (+0.620C). Even given the Arctic is now post-tipping point and 5C above “normal”. (Apparently).
While around Antarctica (-70.0/-60.0S) Oct 08 at -0.696C appears to have been the coldest October in the satellite record (i.e. since 1979). No wonder the ice has been slow to melt there with the approach of SH summer.
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
Phil:
“Why is all of this so important? The Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision in April 2007 apparently held that CO2 was an “air pollutant.”
My understanding ( I read the decision many months ago) is that the Supreme Court simply said that the EPA’s decision that it was not an air pollutant, based on the EPA’s then-existent reasoning, was erroneous, and remanded back to the agency. The Supreme Court did not decide that it was a pollutant – it doesn’t have that authority. It just said that the agency decision wasn’t legally supported. The EPA could still find that it is not an air pollutant simply by concurring that either there is insufficient evidence that CO2 significantly affects temperatures, or that there is no data that any climate change will be detrimental.
I did a couple of posts on this phenomenon last year – http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142 . The principal reason for the change are USHCN adjustments developed by Dr Karl – primarily the TOBS adjustments – the introduction of which to the GISS record is reported in Hansen et al 2001 and have been discussed from time to time at CA.
Paul M:
I’d add one more question:
If the raw temperature data arranged over a time interval does not accurately reflect temperature trends over that interval, how is it possible to verify that the adjustments you make to that raw data DO accurately reflect temperature trends over that interval? In other words, what measurments are used to objectively verify that your adjusted data is in fact an improvement over the raw data?
Robert – yes, I came across John Daly’s site some time ago when I was (innocently) looking into issues to do with global temperature records.
I don’t share your optimism though. The “debate” was lost long ago. IMO ground could only be gained either through a prolonged period of flat temperatures/cooling forcing a revision of consensus assumptions, or through a genius taking climate science to another level. On the first point, at least the work of people like Anthony Watts means that such an outcome would be noted more widely for what it was. On the second point, well, John Daly was “still waiting for greenhouse”, but I’m afraid we’re all still waiting for a truly consensus-busting scientist. (Yes I know Spencer has written interesting stuff on clouds…..And if his logic was that overwhelming he would be a household name by now…….Not saying he’s totally wrong though, please note.)
There is another point which is the whole philosophy of “alarmism”. I instinctively find it quite an unhealthy approach to life, but it’s hard to counter because it plays on not-quite-fully-defined fears – i.e. the fears that unsettle people the most, while being hard to rein in once they spread.
Again I can’t see who might be able to shift the paradigm.
Most likely the world will just “get on with it”, as it always has done, and people will muddle through the greenhouse issue like any other. There is something attention-seeking about “alarmism”, and as such perhaps the best approach is passive resistance or just simplying ignoring such people unless they present a balanced view. It’s bad enough if they get morbidly obsessed with the issue themselves, without more of us becoming forced to get obsessed with countering their obsession. Get out and enjoy life people! That’s what it’s about. There’s no point preserving it otherwise whether at 0C, 3C or 6C warmer….
Chris V. (17:05:00) :
How do you square your scary looking chart with this chart, posted on this site?
Or with this chart? We can observe a more accurate metric by looking at the y-axis zero baseline from 1979 through mid-2008. Note that global temperatures fluctuate both above and below the zero baseline.
Or with this chart, which decimates the claim that satellite temps are inaccurate; they closely track daily radiosonde balloons. It is the surface stations that have skewed temps due to the UHI, among other factors. Note that the entire 0.6 degC warming comes from surface station measurements, not from satellite or radiosonde measurements.
I noticed the source for your chart. It’s an alarmist blog. Even so, it states:
GISS diddles with the base period [among other ‘adjustments’] in order to convey the message they want. Despite your graph showing fictitious global warming, the fact is that global temperatures continue to decline. There is no “warming signal.” The Earth’s temperature has been flat to trending down.
janama, I suspect either the location given for the Geraldton airport weather station is wrong or for some reason the Google satellite image doesn’show the green grass.
Anyway, at the link below there is a picture of the Geraldton airport Bureau of Meteorology office. Note the nice green grass surrounding the building and the where the weather recording station is located (in the foreground).
Forgot the link
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/wa/geraldton/
As a follow-up to Arnost’s comment, the 1940s hump in US temperature is due in part to the significant multiyear El Nino at that time. When smoothed with a 25-month filter that El Nino stands out above all others during the 20th Century.
http://i38.tinypic.com/10nxs84.jpg
Unfortunately, as you’re aware, most GCMs, even coupled GCMs, do not account for ENSO, and those that do do a poor job of it.
Globally, the Indian Ocean response to that El Nino is responsible for much of the hump.
http://i37.tinypic.com/6gy13m.jpg
Arnost’s link to the Model E hindcast also illustrates how GCMs rely on volcanic aerosols to create inter-annual variability. Without it, the Model E simply creates an exponential curve.
http://i33.tinypic.com/ednad.jpg
Here’s the same curve compared to global temperature anomaly.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2a68ggp.jpg
And here’s a graph of the Model E output with all forcings including volcanic aerosols compared to global temperature anomaly.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2h4aza1.jpg
I discussed the Model E in two posts here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/giss-model-e-climate-simulations.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/giss-model-e-climate-simulations-part-2.html
Regards
Chris: apparently I too, am now banned from Real Climate. ah, well, it will save me time to do things like…..well…..work, I guess. If I have too.
Good catch on the Siberian numbers. I hope you have collected all the exchanges, to show to your grand kids.
“…then, just before the great cooling, there was the time I found errors in NASA’s GISSTEMP, AND done by the father of global warming…now, what the heck was his name?”
Bruce Pettingell (15:42:57) :
This article says that, not cycle 24, but cycle 25 is supposed to be the real downer.
Hathaway has revised his prediction many times as it so far refuses to fit the “great conveyor belt” model…but altho i doubt his and Dikpatis’ predictions the fat lady hasnt sung yet.
Lots of others are predicting a far weaker SC24
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
crosspatch (09:15:04) :
This is covered in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/
Surely the world should have access to the raw data archive, together with an archive of supporting information relating to quality, calibration, validation?
Then anyone can produce their own analyses and cross-check for sanity and bias?
smokey:
“How do you square your scary looking chart with this chart, posted on this site? Or with this chart?”
I, for one, would love to see someone elaborate on this. A while back, I compared the monthly trend charts at NASA with the annual trend charts, and invariably I noticed the same seeming discrepancy. The monthly charts show little, if any trend, but somehow, when NASA averages the anomolies over the course of the year, you have this right-hand tail that shoots up.
At first, I assumed it was just a random statistical artifact of where the annual cutoff points are. But when this distinction between the two charts continues, year after year, I can’t make any sense out of it. I don’t think it can be explained merely by scrunching the horizontal data points on the graph in th eyarly chart, nor does it make sense to say that the annual averages keep going up because all the monthlies are above average with respect to a baseline. The latter could occur for one year, but how does year number 2 beat the previous one when the monthly trend over the two years stays the same, or even drops?
Smokey (18:25:13) :
Where did I say that satellite temps were inaccurate? I said UAH and GISSTemp match very closely over the long run. My graph (and yours) both show that.
So what’s your beef?
My guess is that you object to my graph because it shows surface temps back to 1880, so it doesn’t emphasize the recent, short-term fluctuations.
But looking at the big picture shown in the graph I posted, I see quite few time periods where there were five or ten years of flat or declining temperatures (including several during the satellite era) very much like what we’re seeing today.
Yet after those time periods, the long term rise resumed.
I have seen nothing anywhere to suggest that the most recent flattening is any different than (most of) those.
Are these last few years the start of a new trend? Maybe. But right now they’re not much different than the short-term weather noise we’ve seen previously.
Chris: That’s part of the problem. Both Hansen and the IPCC have said that CO2 forcing is now greater than natural variability.
Obviously its not.
Which raises the question: If the current negative trend is natural variability, how much of the previous warming was also natural variability?
Chris V., you didn’t say satellite temps are inaccurate in your post, but the site you linked to did.
In fact, surface station measurements show a significant warming, while MSU measurements do not. Despite the proven UHI effect, James Hansen relies on surface station measurements. Why do you think that is?
And since you want a graph that goes back to the 1800’s: click
We can see that the planet’s temperature fluctuates naturally, both above and below the zero baseline. There is nothing unusual happening to the climate. Nothing. The climate naturally fluctuates, and it is currently within its normal parameters.
There is no cause for alarm.