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.
“Brother, can you paradigm? “
Could anybody teach me the present numbers of temperature data that are used to construct the trend graphs, for GISS and NCDC separately ?
Any information on the historical change (certainly decrease) in the data numbers is very much appreciated. Thanks.
Smokey (19:55:15) :
The site that graph came from didn’t say the satellite temps are inaccurate; it does say that the satellite temps have their own problems (just like the surface temperature measurements).
I’d be happy to discuss some of the problems with the satellite temps, if you like.
As for the temperature trends for the satellite and surface station data (1999-2007):
UAH: 0.14 degrees/decade
RSS: 0.18 degrees/decade
GISSTemp and Hadcru: 0.17degrees/decade
All warming.
Which one is correct? No idea, but I would say that the best evidence we have shows the 1999-2007 warming trend to be somewhere between 0.14-018 degrees/decade.
Of course that doesn’t mean that trend will continue, but you can’t deny that the trend is there!
Regarding the graph you linked to- are your sure thats a GLOBAL temperature? It looks to me like US temperatures (about 2% of the globe). The fact that it’s in Farenheit is suspicious…. 😉
Les Johnson (19:49:05) :
I assume you’re addressing me (I’m Chris V.- there’s a “Chris” who posts here too).
I think they say that CO2 forcing is more powerful than natural variability over the long run. They do not dispute that natural variability can cause big short-term changes (like the super strong 1998 El Nino).
Yes Philip_B – But that’s not the terminal – it’s another building on the same site. You can see the unit on google and it’s dry grass – I suppose it depends on the time of the year it’s taken.
Still waiting for Brother Hansen to explain this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GISSvs_Hansen.JPG
or this
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RSSvs_Hansen.JPG
Chris V.,
Check out Bill Marsh’s links above, then get back to us.
I understand that you’re a sincere believer in AGW, but you really should look at what Hansen is trying to sell.
Smokey (20:57:08) :
Are the 1999-2007 trends I posted wrong?
Whether Hansen is “trying to sell something” is irrelevant. The question is: do other researchers, using their own methods, get the same results as Hansen?
We have four different temp anomaly sets, by four different groups, using two completely different data sources (surface stations and satellites), and they all get very similar results.
If Hansen is fudging the data, he’s not doing a very good job!
Also, if you think Hansen is trying to sell something, do you feel the same way about Spenser and Christy (who produce the UAH temps)? Spenser and Christy (well known AGW skeptics) are certainly as publicly vocal as Hansen. One of the two, I think, is even Rush Limbaugh’s “official climatologist”.
And the temp graph you posted IS for the US only- ushcn is the US Historical Climate Network.
Bill Marsh (20:44:40) :
I dunno, Hansen’s projections look pretty good to me, all things considered.
I would be interesting to compare Hansen’s projections from back then to some from the skeptical side (Gray, Lindzen, Spenser…?) and see who got closer to the mark.
Remember, back then many on the skeptical side were saying there was no warming trend at all.
Does anyone know if the original, unadjusted, uncorrupted temperatures for all stations over the years are still available? I believe it is very likely that all the garbage that Hansen tosses into the soup will be shown (eventually ) to be seriously flawed. Is there a record anywhere of the temperatures actually recorded at each site.
Well, it’s sort of a complicated story.
My understanding is as follows:
NOAA/GHCN collects raw data and applies its own adjustments. The adjusted data is sent to GISS. GISS applies an algorithm that “unadjusts” the NOAA data (why they do not simply start out with GHCN raw data is unknown to me). Then GISS applies its own adjustments.
So you would need the NOAA raw data. (But you would probably want the TOBS adjustment, making it semi-raw. That’s a very legit correction assuming it’s properly made.)
But I have heard a nasty story that the raw historical data was deleted. If if anyone wants to comment on this, I’d appreciate the info. So I can’t say if what you need is available.
(Even if it has been deleted, there’s the off-chance someone has copies.)
What means TOBS, SHAP, FILNET ?
Heads up! These are not in the Glossary and they definitely should be.
TOBS = Time of Observation bias. Depending on what 24-hour periods you use, you can get some very interesting distortions of the data. The TOBS correction fixes this.
SHAP = Station History Adjustment Program. This adjusts for station moves or urban creep. (Or else it doesn’t!) Bad/Incomplete SHAP is at the heart of the surface station problems.
FILNET = A program that fills in a station’s missing data by means of an interpolation algorithm. A subject of great controversy. One of the great advanatages of automated collection of data is that it cuts out the “human element” and (in theory) leaves no gaps in the data record.
Chris V,
Your claims that gistemp and uah are tracking closely are not accurate. Over the last 10 years, giss is rising dramatically and uah is doing the opposite.
gistemp trend vs. uah trend since 1998
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend
I dunno, Hansen’s projections look pretty good to me, all things considered.
Remember, back then many on the skeptical side were saying there was no warming trend at all.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html
One of the two, I think, is even Rush Limbaugh’s “official climatologist”.
That would be Spencer. However, the “official title” is entirely unofficial – and jocular.
The tongue in Rush’s cheek is nearly always lost on his detractors, including those who pride themselves on their fine-honed sense of irony. But such is the way of the wicked world. (Sigh.)
They both hail from the same bolt bin as Hansen. Spencer and Christy share a 1991 NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal.
UAH: 0.14 degrees/decade
RSS: 0.18 degrees/decade
GISSTemp and Hadcru: 0.17degrees/decade
All warming.
Which one is correct? No idea, but I would say that the best evidence we have shows the 1999-2007 warming trend to be somewhere between 0.14-018 degrees/decade.
Whoah, Nellie!
I have no doubt that the trend from 1999-2007 is positive.
But 1999 – 2000 was the big la Nina immediately following the 1998 el Nino.
Either you have to include both the 1998 AND the shallower, but longer 1999-2000 low (which cancel each other out near the left side of the graph) or else you have to plot from 2001.
It should also be noted that there was a triple El Nino 5/02-3/03, 7/04-2/05, and 8/06-1/07. So to be “fair”, you have to include the La Nina that followed and carry forward through 2008 (and on after la Nina ended).
And one should show all this and carefully explain what bumps are included IN and which bumps are included OUT. Otherwise one runs the risk of cherrypicking.
I would also point out that to be even clearer, the trend from 1978-1998 (max gain) should be one graph, the 1998 – 2008 (max loss) graph be another.
In order to consider a cycle, one MUST study it from low point to high point, and then from high point to low point or else you have a far less meaningful measure.
oops, my bad- those trends I gave are for 1979-2007, not 1999-2007.
As I was saying, long-term.
kurt (17:53:19)
I think it will probably take a few more years for this to play out, but, at this point, it appears as if this decision by the Supreme Court will end up having the effect of declaring CO2 to be an “air pollutant.”
James Hansen at GISS, a life long demigog pontificating on political matters which will impact on all of our lives from the safety of a tenured position, is the reason why California voters approved term limits for politicians.
We need term limits for civil service workers also.
oops, my bad- those trends I gave are for 1979-2007, not 1999-2007.
Oh. Alright, then.
I agree that the trend is up. But also consider that we still don’t have a full cycle. We have a full “up” part (1979-98) and we have a stable part with all the main cycles in or about to be in warm phase (1998-2007). And Now we have the beginning of a cool phase starting sometime in 2007 as the PDO reversed and other cycles seem about to follow suit.
When the cycle completes, we can judge underlying trend and (if it is higher) argue if it’s continuing recovery from the LIA or if it’s AGW. If it’s lower, we can argue whether AGW is wrong or else AGW is right but the dead sun is to blame.
The GISS divergence is more apparent after 1998.
Rod Smith (13:49:12) :
As an ancient weatherman, I can truthfully state that every official mercury thermometer I used was quite easily read to the nearest tenth of a degree with no more error induced than plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.
I have been working in nuclear power for 20 years and have never seen an analog thermometer with that kind of precision. We were always trained that one can read half the interval of the scale accurately. In other words, if the instrument is in 1 degree increments, it can be read accurately to 0.5 degree. We used to make fun of guys with a “calibrated” eye who claimed to be more accurate.
That being said, there is a difference between precision, accuracy, and repeatability. Precision has to do with the size of the increments on an instrument. Accuracy has to do with the ability of the instrument to sense the parameter measured and display it correctly. Repeatability has to do with how closely the instrument displays a given temperature, for example, compared to every other time it has displayed that same temperature. I can have great repeatability and precision and still have an instrument that is not accurate (for example, the zero point is shifted 5 degrees). One other item an accuracy, all instruments drift over time and must be calibrated on a regular basis. If the stations that Anthony is surveying are not calibrated, the data is not defendable. Period.
Something else that bothers me on the temperature measurements. The best resistance temperature detector (RTD) we can buy for a nuclear reactor has an accuracy of about 1% of the calibrated range. Most places in the U.S. would need a range of at least 100 degrees F to cover the temperatures experienced over the course of a year. That gives an accuracy of 1 degree for an RTD, probably less for a mercury thermometer. In my world, 0.4 degrees or less of variability is just noise in the data and we spend a lot of time and money to ensure accuracy.
It seems visually clear that the climate temperature record consists of separate time segments each with completely different slopes.
Any model that fails to explain and reproduce those segments is simply inadequate to predict the future.
The first problem is our data coverage, span and quality is inadequate to qualify any model.
The second problem is that we don’t understand the systems well enough to produce good models.
The third problem is that even if we did understand them they would be too complex for the computing power available.
The fourth problem is that even if we had enough computing power we don’t have enough information to initialise the models adequately.
The fifth problem is that the systems are chaotic and we don’t know if the initial conditions determine long term outcomes.
That’s not so different from traditional chemistry where the physical theory might all be known but the test-tube rather than mathematics is both the first resource and the ultimate arbiter.
However, the sixth problem is that in climate science we can’t do experiments – at least at present. We can only observe those nature does for us.
Humility would be a good start.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3458927/Himalayan-glaciers-could-disappear-completely-by-2035.html
Daily Telegraph Uk has a story with pictures from 1968 an 2007 showing Rongbuk glacier from similar viewpoint. One showing snow covered mountains with glacier, other showing almost bare mountains with no glacier.
Does anyone know if this happens seasonlly? Am sure glaciers don’t come and go like that.
Are there other factors that affect this area? Like the humidity does for Kilimanjaro….?
The web page does not seem to have the dramatic half page picture spread that is in the actual paper today.
From the Daly link above, notice this:
NASA 1998: Global temperatures during last century was 0,5 degrees C
See: http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/nasa1998.jpg
In a period later they talked about 0,6 degrees, and today you often se 0,7 degrees.. So its not just the US temps that are creeping up, its also the global temps.
Chris…on “Antarctic” Base Esperanza 72F or 22C … Grouchomarxing it…
If you don’t like that number I have others…:Tu Tiempo +4.6C That was on
Oct 26 2008…They have Sept at -0.1C as opposed to your? link 0.0C! Second
warmest September was 1984!!! Fate’s irony…-1.3C [TT 5 days missing]…
So Weather Underground got their numbers from??? Captain Stormfield??