Guest post by Steven Goddard
The GISS website shows the graph below, which indicates a steady, steep warming trend over the last 30 years. The monthly average anomaly for 2008 (0.44) is 0.26 degrees warmer than the monthly average anomaly for 1980 (0.18.) Data obtained from here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980
By contrast, the UAH monthly average anomaly for 2008 (0.05) is 0.04 degrees cooler than the UAH monthly average anomaly for 1980 (0.09.) Again, data obtained from here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah/from:1980
This 1980-2008 discrepancy between GISS and UAH is important, as it is nearly equal to the claimed warming trend since 1980.
Taking this one step further, I made a graph of the difference between the GISS and UAH monthly anomalies since 1980.
As you can see below, the discrepancy has increased over time. Using Google’s linest() function, the divergence between GISS and UAH is increasing at a rate of 0.32C/century. (GISS uses a different baseline than UAH, but the slope of the difference should be zero, if the data sets correlated properly.) The slope is not zero, which indicates an inconsistency between the data sets.
Click for larger image
Raw data from here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980 Calculations done here.
Factoring in the baseline
Some readers will undoubtedly again point out that the GISS baseline (“normal”) temperature is lower than the UAH baseline. This is true, but as I said above does not affect the slope calculation. The difference between the GISS and UAH monthly baselines is a constant, which affects the relative position along the y-axis – but it does not affect the slope. Subtracting a monthly constant from each point in a graph does not alter the slope over a large set of years. It only alters the y-offset.
The equation of a line is y = mx + b, where m is the slope and b is the y-offset. m and b are completely independent. The different baselines affect only b, not m. If the UAH and GISS data were closely tracking each other, the slope (m) would be close to zero. The fact that GISS shows 2008 temperatures much higher than 1980, and UAH shows 2008 temperatures lower than 1980, is also a clear indicator that the two data sets are divergent.
Steve McIntyre has coincidentally just done a similar comparison of NOAA USA yearly data vs. GISS USA yearly data, and came to the conclusion that the NOAA slope is even steeper than GISS, diverging from UAH by 0.39C/century.
This would imply that NOAA is diverging from UAH by an even larger amount than GISS is diverging from UAH.
Clearly, problems exist with both datasets.
foinavon,
Thanks for the timeline. I sounds like you have documented the improvement of knowledge in the science of satellite temperature measurement. All sciences go through a similar learning process.
Now compare that to the USHCN adjustments, where they have a huge, incomplete database with many degrees of freedom, and huge amounts of missing information. Imagine having to adjust a station temperature, not knowing what time of day the max/min thermometer was reset, not knowing what the error in the thermometer was, not knowing anything about the surroundings, and attempting to adjust to some modern standard within a tenth of a degree. That is an impossible problem.
DJ says:
All that chart shows is that if you choose a short enough period of time then you find that the errors on the trendlines are large and those trendlines can then not be statistically different from zero…but also are not statistically significant from a large positive trend.
Joel Shore,
Reading comprehension, me boy, that’s what it’s all about. I made the ‘click2’ comment, not DJ.
I’ll post my charts, you can post yours… oh, I see. You didn’t post any charts, just an opinion.
No matter. What does matter is whether the “A” in AGW has any validity at all. We’re emerging from the LIA, and as a result there has been natural, normal warming, in addition to natural, normal fluctuations. No one seriously disputes this; it’s that “A” that is disputed. There is no measurable “A”.
Without resorting to any self-serving, always inaccurate, GIGO computer models, show us some solid real world evidence of that frightening “A”. Keep in mind that it is the purveyors of the relatively new [and falsified] hypothesis of the “A” in AGW who have the burden of proof. Assuming, of course, that we agree that there is such a thing as the Scientific Method.
Chris V.:
Actually, it’s the CAUSE that’s important. See my post above.
If the cause is natural [ie, not measurably brought about by human activity] then there is no AGW. There is just routine, natural GW.
But if the cause is rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels… then prove it.
foinavon,
I think you’re framing the argument the wrong way.
Every measurement method has errors. The goal of science is to work to constantly minimize errors. This requires transparency and cooperation. Like an asymptotic curve, you’re never going to achieve a 100% error-free result.
To re-frame the argument: The central problem is not that each method has errors. The problem is the discrepancy between the open and accessible satellite data and methodology, and the grudgingly provided data — sometimes including outright stonewalling and non-cooperation, along with unexplained massaging of the temperature record — by those with custody of the surface station data.
As a result of transparency and cooperation, the MSU accuracy is steadily improving, and it will continue to improve. But because others discourage transparency, their results are necessarily less accurate than the satellite measurements.
I’m curious about apparent discrepancies between two graphic representations which are supposedly based upon the same data.
At the website junkscience.com, there is a graphic presentation of data which is supposedly from UAH’s MSU: http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html . This presentation suggests that 2008 was cooler than 2002 and 2003, and that 1998 was substantially warmer than 2008.
However, at the UAH website http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ it is possible to generate a graphic representation (using chLT) that shows 2008 as warmer than both 2002 an 2003, and even the second half of 1998. 1999 also appears consistently cooler than 2008 on the UAH site but not on the junkscience site.
Can anyone shed any light on this? Are these really the same datasets?
Jan 18 – foinavon (14:31:17) :
I think you are writing nonsense re Spencer and Christy’s UAH LT measurements.
Rather than just quoting all these papers, you should quote the magnitude of the corrections involved.
I think you will find the corrections are practically insignificant.
For plot of UAH LT global temperature anomalies in 2002, see Figure 1 in
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
For a 2008 plot, see
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG
I cannot see any material difference – can you?
Also, UAH and RSS LT temperatures seem to be converging, and the corrections are not all at UAH – many are at RSS.
Please quote the actual numbers if you wish to make a valid point.
Regards, Allan
I wouldn’t take David Archibald’s comments seriously. He says that “Another large La Nina formed in late 2008.” This is totally incorrect as ENSO conditions remain neutral and with equatorial Pacific areas starting to show signs of warming a return to La Nina is looking increasingly unlikely at this late stage. What is much more probable is an El Nino later this year, the initial signs are becoming clearer in the South Pacific.http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.15.2009.gif.
Notice also, as I predicted in September, the PDO is starting to switch off its -ive phase and is now virtually neutral. So much for the 30 years of cold!
Mary Hinge (01:52:02) :
I wouldn’t take David Archibald’s comments seriously. He says that “Another large La Nina formed in late 2008.” This is totally incorrect as ENSO conditions remain neutral and with equatorial Pacific areas starting to show signs of warming a return to La Nina is looking increasingly unlikely at this late stage. What is much more probable is an El Nino later this year, the initial signs are becoming clearer in the South Pacific.http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.15.2009.gif.
Notice also, as I predicted in September, the PDO is starting to switch off its -ive phase and is now virtually neutral. So much for the 30 years of cold!
________________________________________________________
Hi Mary,
Little time to look at your work, but here is the 2008 data I have on the PDO,
from
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
2008** -1.00 -0.77 -0.71 -1.52 -1.37 -1.34 -1.67 -1.70 -1.55 -1.76 -1.25 -0.87
2008 average is -1.29 – there have only been three lower years: 1950, 1955 and 1956, since 1900.
Not virtually neutral, imo…
Wish you were right though – I’m getting tired of this cold.
Regards, Allan
Hi Allan,
thanks for the link. It does show a rapid rise in values in the last few months of 2008 so would estimate it being in +ive territory either in March or April….but then I suppose it might surprise us!
Hi Mary,
PDO bounces around quite a bit.
Here are annual averages.
The Standard Deviation of this population is 0.77
Regards, Allan
PDO
1900 0.45
1901 -0.13
1902 0.77
1903 0.16
1904 -0.25
1905 0.64
1906 0.49
1907 0.12
1908 0.38
1909 -0.12
1910 -0.08
1911 -0.16
1912 0.15
1913 0.57
1914 0.16
1915 0.18
1916 -0.51
1917 -0.43
1918 -0.14
1919 -0.10
1920 -0.91
1921 -0.10
1922 -0.20
1923 0.48
1924 0.14
1925 0.19
1926 1.16
1927 0.14
1928 0.16
1929 0.40
1930 -0.10
1931 0.74
1932 -0.02
1933 -0.68
1934 1.18
1935 0.80
1936 1.73
1937 0.32
1938 0.16
1939 0.07
1940 1.77
1941 1.99
1942 0.47
1943 0.11
1944 -0.13
1945 -0.19
1946 -0.58
1947 0.50
1948 -0.87
1949 -1.23
1950 -1.81
1951 -0.77
1952 -0.87
1953 -0.16
1954 -0.29
1955 -1.95
1956 -1.80
1957 0.23
1958 0.64
1959 -0.03
1960 0.06
1961 -0.82
1962 -1.16
1963 -0.69
1964 -0.77
1965 -0.31
1966 -0.46
1967 -0.73
1968 -0.40
1969 -0.10
1970 -0.40
1971 -1.29
1972 -0.92
1973 -0.80
1974 -0.34
1975 -1.10
1976 0.01
1977 0.23
1978 0.24
1979 0.34
1980 0.60
1981 0.92
1982 0.11
1983 1.65
1984 0.84
1985 0.45
1986 1.24
1987 1.82
1988 0.53
1989 -0.18
1990 -0.36
1991 -0.42
1992 0.93
1993 1.42
1994 -0.15
1995 0.64
1996 0.64
1997 1.46
1998 0.25
1999 -1.06
2000 -0.59
2001 -0.56
2002 0.22
2003 0.97
2004 0.35
2005 0.38
2006 0.19
2007 -0.20
2008 -1.29
NOAA today is still explicitly forecasting continuing La Nina conditions:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Roger Sowell (17:42:34) :
Maybe it is not such a good idea to “first, shoot all the lawyers.” 😉
I thought it was “First shoot all their lawyers. 😉
I am not a scientist, however at work we are having many heated debates about these climate issues as well as others. When I gave this web site to a gentlemen who is so opposed to human created co2, he responded with this web site. Here is his quote. Would welcome any suggestions regarding the comparisons between these two web sites. Thank you
I give you the web site that refute most of your arguments.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Yo, Matt,
You say your pal would “welcome any suggestions regarding the comparisons between these two web sites”?
OK, give this comparison to your pal at work: click
Report back. Thanx.
E.M. Smith,
Actually, I botched the line. I gave the ‘cowboy’ version, I suppose.
Shakespeare’s line is:
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Interesting blog entry on the matter:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/01/shakespeare-and-lawyers/
Good one Smokey…
The graph that shows the amount of adjustments made each year here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
is missing . Anyone know where it went?
RichardB (23:17:15) :
“As I began reading I started to have the same “cold feeling on the back of neck” that I felt in trials when listening to opposing expert witnesses testify: there is something wrong here. My judgment, after studying hundreds of pages of articles, reports, blog entries and graphs, is that AGW is a hoax. I would love to be able to cross-examine some of these people as if at trial where they would be under oath and could not obfuscate or avoid directly answering the questions.”
As an attorney and engineer, I concur most heartily. When the opposition’s expert is lying or otherwise inconsistent, cross-examination can be fun, I suspect you would agree?
Roger Sowell (20:23:41) : Actually, I botched the line. I gave the ‘cowboy’ version, I suppose.
That’s fine. I speak cowboy… with an accent…
Shakespeare’s line is:
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
OK, then my snide repost becomes: I thought it was “The first thing we do, let’s kill all their lawyers.” 😉
I always like it better when the other guy finds himself in a gun fight without a gun… hired or otherwise.
Interesting blog entry on the matter:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/01/shakespeare-and-lawyers/
Fascinating…
In defense of lawyers…
After working on international projects including four years in the Former Soviet Union, I came to realize why they are so poor and we are so rich.
It is primarily due to the Rule of Law – rich countries have it, poor countries do not.
Granted, our legal system is ponderous, expensive and self-serving – but in the absence of Law and Order we would soon have nothing – witness Zimbabwe.
Regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
Allan M. R. MacRae, re lawyers.
Hear, Hear!
I worked as a chemical engineer for 20 years before going to law school. Now having seen both sides, engineering and law, many things are much clearer, at least to me!
So many people who complain or denigrate our legal system (the U.S. system) have little to no idea what other countries have, and why ours is preferable.
The list is long and I won’t recite it all here, but for just a few examples:
Right to Speedy Trial
Right to an attorney
Right to Trial by Jury
Presumption of Innocence
Proof of Guilt beyond a Reasonable Doubt to Convict
Right to Appeal (but government does NOT have that right in a criminal case)
No Ex-Post Facto Laws
No Self Incrimination
No Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Right to Confront Witnesses against you
Right to Free Speech
Right to Petition the Government
Hearsay Evidence prohibited at trial
Liberal Discovery
Prosecution must share all evidence against accused
and the list goes on and on and on…