GISS Divergence with satellite temperatures since the start of 2003

By Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts

Some of the excellent readers of the last piece we posted on WUWT gave me an idea, which we are following up on here.  The exercise here is to compare GISS and satellite data (UAH and RSS) since the start of 2003, and then propose one possible source of divergence between the GISS and satellite data.  The reason that the start of 2003 was chosen, is because satellite data shows a rapid decline in temperatures starting then, and GISS data does not.  The only exception to the downward trend was an El Nino at the start of 2007, which caused a short but steep spike.  Remembering back a couple of years, Dr. Hansen had in fact suggested that El Nino might turn into a “Super El Nino” which would cause 2007 to be the “hottest year ever.”

The last six years (2003-2008) show a steep temperature drop in the satellite record, which is not present in the GISS data.   Prior to 2003, the three trends were all close enough to be considered reasonably consistent, but over the last six years is when a large divergence has become very apparent both visually and mathematically.

Click link for larger source image http://www.woodfortrees.org

Since the beginning of 2003, RSS has been dropping at 3.60C/century, UAH has been dropping at 2.84C/century, and GISS has been dropping at 0.96C/century.  All calculations are done in a Google Spreadsheet here:

The divergence between GISS and RSS is shown below.  Since the start of 2003, GISS has been diverging from RSS at 2.64C/century, and GISS has been diverging from UAH at 1.87C/century.  RSS has been diverging from UAH at minus 0.76C/century, indicating that RSS temperatures have been falling a little faster than UAH over the last six years, as can also be seen in the graph above.

Below is a 250km map of GISS trends from 2003-2008.  One thing which stands out is that GISS has large areas with sparse or no coverage.  Notably in Africa, Antarctica, Greenland, Canada, Brazil, and a few other places.


Click for larger image

Many of the GISS holes seem to be in blue regions on the map. Here is a post and video of the GHCN station loss over the past several years globally, created by WUWT contributor John Goetz:

Here are two images showing the difference between GISS global coverage in 1978 and 2008:

April 1978 anomalies
Click for a larger image

April 2008 anomaly

Click for a larger image

There is a tremendous amount of station dropout in 30 years. Dropout is worst in the high northern latitudes, most all of Canada, and about half of Africa. Of particular note is the red band at the southernmost latitude, which “seems” to indicate a continuous coverage there. Of course we know that is not true, given the paucity of stations in the Antarctic interior. Read more here.

By contrast, while it doesn’t hit both poles (neither does GISS) UAH has much broader global coverage as seen below. Could this be part of the explanation for the divergence between GISS and satellite data?  What do the readers think?

[Image]
Click for larger image

[Image]
Click for larger image

How different would the GISS graph appear, if it showed a -3.6C/century cooling trend over the last six years?  For reference, the steep GISS warming trend from 1980 to 2002 was about 0.4 degrees.

243 thoughts on “GISS Divergence with satellite temperatures since the start of 2003

  1. How does the divergence look when you compare latitude bands or by continents? That would allow you to look at station dropouts on a regional basis to see if that was correlated.

  2. Since there is a weather station at the Amundsen-Scott base right at the South Pole, GISS should actually cover this pole. The northernmost and still operational weather station, on the other hand, is probably located at about 82N, quite far from the pole.
    The Hadley/CRU temperature data set probably also diverges from GISS, since it show world mean temperatures dropping the last couples of years at almost the same rate as the satellite data sets.

    REPLY: I had thought about Amundsen-Scott base, but the the red band seemed so large in area, compared to other stations, that it seemed unrealistic to treat it as a single station. Perhaps one station is being distorted in the map resentation. Mercator projection does that. – Anthony

  3. How is it that they have trend data for 2003-2008 for many areas that are blank in the 2008 map (e.g. northern Canada)?

    Also be aware that the use of this type of map projection is quite misleading, making the polar regions look massively larger and more important than they really are.

  4. DJ,

    The spreadsheet linked in the article shows the standard deviation for the GISS minus RSS plot = 0.09. The trend line for the graph shows 1.6 standard deviations, across the six year period. Reasonably good statistical significance.

    If you want to make any further calculations, please feel free to make your own copy the spreadsheet, and report back any findings you feel are important. That would be a constructive way to get involved in the conversation.

    Thank you very much

  5. Well the thing that stands out like a sore thumb on the first GISS chart is the anomalous warming right across Russia. If that bright red spot on eastern Svalbard happens to be another Russian weather station reporting rather than a Norwegian one, I would be even more suspicious.

  6. I hadn’t realised just how sparse GISS coverage is. Your graphic is truly GRAPHIC on this point. Why would anyone prefer it to HADCRUT. It’s time GISS either invested some serious money on increasing coverage or gave up.

  7. The color scales are weighted to warming.
    There are 5 colours of positive anomalies in the range 0.2 to 8.2, but only four colours of negative anomalies in the range -0.2 to -8.3. There is an extra white colour on the negative side which is the range -0.2 to -0.5.

    So the world map is distorted towards the positive side.

    Just how many of those white areas should in fact be blue?

  8. Speaking as a person with only a high school stats background, I wonder – how many data sets are necessary to validate which (if any) temperature record is the outlyer?
    For example in my world (aviation), we use GPS extensively, but only if we have data from 5 or more satellites. With that many discrete signals, the software in the GPS receiver looks at each set of sat data, and can accurately identify and discard a single bad signal. My question, then, is this – are 4 separate temperature records enough to identify one of them as spurious, to a high level of confidence?

  9. One thing that strikes me as odd is that the GISS map from April has more gray area than the trend map (which must include April.)

    Do the stations sometimes appear and disappear? If so, how can they be included in the trend data?

  10. On a more serious note, I plotted RSS, GISS, and UAH average annual temperatures from 1979 to 2008 inclusive. The linear trends of the three indicate that RSS and GISS agree fairly well and that it is UAH that is not rising as fast. I was personally disipointed that I could not share the plot with you (I am not that computer savvey) but I used Excell on the raw monthly data (a spreadsheet I worked out last week).
    I would imagine that woodfortrees can show nearly the same result. Here is the woodfortrees plot (with GISS offset -.24 so all three are about equal at near 1990)
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:360/trend/plot/gistemp/last:360/trend/offset:-.24/plot/rss/last:360/trend

  11. I am so happy you’ve done this, Anthony and Steve. I’ve been wondering about this but am mathematically challenged. Kudos to you both! Between the fudging of the figures and temperature station dropout, there’s a lot to answer for from Hansen et al.

    Hansen seems to think Obama is a one term President since he believes Obama must make the necessary steps towards economic ruin within his first term. I think the President-elect needs to see this… and quickly before he does great harm to the country.

  12. But you just told us that This 1980-2008 discrepancy between GISS and UAH is important, as it is nearly equal to the claimed warming trend since 1980. , now it is Prior to 2003, the three trends were all close enough to be considered reasonably consistent, but over the last six years is when a large divergence has become very apparent both visually and mathematically.

    Extrapolating, will the next post be on how GISS has diverged from the satellite record since Christmas? ;-)

    Seriously, as I pointed out earlier, the satellite record is more sensitive to ENSO events,and this seems to me a more plausible explanation is that the chart is than any changes in coverage, to repeat myself there was a similar divergence of the opposite sign leading up to the 1998 El Nino, shown clearly in this here chart from a post by Eli that shows pretty conclusively how GISS-RSS delta peaked during the 1998 El Nino, so it seems more sensible approach to look to the recent La Nina as a leading cause of this, so far, short-lived divergence in the other direction.

    Perhaps a regression analysis of the ENSO index vs the divergence would be instructive?

    Bye for Now,

    JP

  13. Slightly more coherent version:

    But you just told us that This 1980-2008 discrepancy between GISS and UAH is important, as it is nearly equal to the claimed warming trend since 1980. , now it is Prior to 2003, the three trends were all close enough to be considered reasonably consistent, but over the last six years is when a large divergence has become very apparent both visually and mathematically.

    Extrapolating, will the next post be on how GISS has diverged from the satellite record since Christmas? ;-)

    Seriously, as I pointed out earlier, the satellite record is more sensitive to ENSO events,and it seems to me a more plausible explanation than any changes in coverage, to repeat myself there was a similar divergence of the opposite sign leading up to the 1998 El Nino, shown clearly in this chart chart from a post by Eli that shows pretty conclusively how GISS-RSS delta peaked during the 1998 El Nino, so it seems more sensible approach to look to the recent La Nina as a leading cause of this, so far, short-lived divergence in the other direction.

    Perhaps a regression analysis of the ENSO index vs the divergence would be instructive?

    Bye for Now,

    JP

  14. Slightly more coherent version with working link. Blimey.

    But you just told us that This 1980-2008 discrepancy between GISS and UAH is important, as it is nearly equal to the claimed warming trend since 1980. , now it is Prior to 2003, the three trends were all close enough to be considered reasonably consistent, but over the last six years is when a large divergence has become very apparent both visually and mathematically.

    Extrapolating, will the next post be on how GISS has diverged from the satellite record since Christmas? ;-)

    Seriously, as I pointed out earlier, the satellite record is more sensitive to ENSO events,and it seems to me a more plausible explanation than any changes in coverage, to repeat myself there was a similar divergence of the opposite sign leading up to the 1998 El Nino, shown clearly in this chart from a post by Eli that shows pretty conclusively how GISS-RSS delta peaked during the 1998 El Nino, so it seems more sensible approach to look to the recent La Nina as a leading cause of this, so far, short-lived divergence in the other direction.

    Perhaps a regression analysis of the ENSO index vs the divergence would be instructive?

    Bye for Now,

    JP

  15. gary plyler (14:16:30) : “On a more serious note, I plotted RSS, GISS, and UAH average annual temperatures from 1979 to 2008 inclusive.”

    Sorry, that manipulation doesn’t work for me. Straight line fits over a long interval remove information that clearly shows in unsmoothed data. The topic here is recent trends; using the 1979 ff data is an OT red herring.

  16. “Below is a 250km map of GISS trends from 2003-2008. One thing which stands out is that GISS has large areas with sparse or no coverage. Notably in Africa, Antarctica, Greenland, Canada, Brazil, and a few other places.”

    -No, one thing that stands out is the dismal coverage of oceans, more than two thirds of earths surface. Africa is bad but the ocean coverage is worse.

  17. Gary,

    It is interesting that RSS tracked GISS closely through 2002, and has started diverging over the last six years, as explained here. Do you have any ideas what might be causing that?

  18. “It’s time GISS either invested some serious money on increasing coverage or gave up.”

    GISS doesn’t set coverage criteria. They get their input data from NOAA. It would be up to NOAA to look into why so many stations are falling out of the network.

    But you will notice that the stations fall out of the network in “steps” and there is no step change in the differences which means that the cause of the divergence is likely to be something other than the missing stations … such as their “adjustment” scheme.

  19. Steven Goddard,

    Do please try to figure out the basic and very obvious fact that the lower troposphere temperatures respond more to ENSO variations than does the surface composite, This was just as obvious in the opposite direction in 1998, Honestly, you could not give more sustained evidence of confirmation bias than you are doing. This is just entirely ridiculous and,frankly, reduces the ‘sceptic’ case to a matter of desperate data mining. Try to approach this with a scientific state of mind, rather than setting out to ‘prove’ your prejudices! Is it really the case that the ‘best science blog’ is running analyses of this kind, without the most basic suggestion of understanding what is being analysed?

    REPLY: I grow rather tired of someone telling me what sort of analyses this blog should and should not do, particularly from someone who uses two different names. The idea of this blog is to explore things that interest me, the contributors, and the readers. This divergence interests us, and if it leads to a better understanding, then that is what we shall do. Often times people pointing out weaknesses or alternate ideas are the best way to learn, and I welcome pointing out mistakes or suggestions for other ways to analyse the data, sans the sort of snark you display.

    Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are not, but, have you anything to illustrate your point about the GISS surface and ocean record being more sensitive to ENSO, other than an ad hominem taunt? If so, show it. Let’s discuss it and learn about it. – Anthony Watts

  20. JP,

    I don’t think the last six years have been marked by any particularly strong ENSO events, other than Dr. Hansen’s mention of the possibility of a “Super El Nino.” It is difficult to see how ENSO could be causing the divergence with RSS.

    Now that Dr. Hansen has forecast that 2009 may be the “warmest year ever” due to his expectations of an El Nino, we will have to pay particularly close attention to the divergence in the coming months, as it is likely to get much larger.

  21. Hmm. But wasn’t the drop in temperatures for 2007/early 2008 even greater for GISS than for UAH or RSS?

    The radical departure does not come until mid-2008. Moreso than at any other point in the graph.

  22. Steven Talbot,

    Suppose that we do get a strong El Nino as Dr. Hansen has forecast for this year. Using your “satellites are more sensitive to ENSO” theory, we should see a huge swing in the GISS minus RSS numbers from positive to negative (as in 1998.)

    Keep your eye out for that!

  23. Jim Norvell (13:39:47) :

    “What would it take to plot the temperature history prior to 1990 using only the post 1990 site data’?”

    I’d love to see that done. As it stands, we don’t have apples to apples coverage of land area before and after the mass extinction event in 1990. I think the problem is that Hanson would have to do it, because he hasn’t (??) provided the code to allow anyone else to replicate his machinations. I’d also like to see the “rural” only data run through the Global “averager” program.

  24. Steven Talbot (15:25:27)

    Always useful to compare different tools. Jobs vary; use of tools does too. Sneering from partial understanding is a poor tool of persuasion for most jobs.
    ================================================

  25. The surface temperature measurers will have credibility problems so long as ANY PART of their procedures are not COMPLETELY out in the open for independent review and replication. Until that happens, surface temperatures will remain in serious question.

    Until that happens, this New Yorker hails from Missouri: Show me.

    It is especially baffling, considering NOAA and GISS are run by public servants, and therefore proprietary issues would not seem to apply.

  26. One more comment about the ENSO theory. The GISS minus RSS divergence since 2003 has been fairly linear, through several ENSO positive and ENSO negative cycles. If the ENSO theory was correct, we would have seen large up and down swings and changes in polarity of the GISS minus RSS numbers, not a linear trend.

    Based on this, I think the ENSO amplification theory is nullified.

  27. Actually, it is only GISS temps that doesn’t respond as much to the ENSO. Hadcrut3 has nearly the same response as the satellite temps.

    NCDC doesn’t have as much response to the ENSO (like GISS) but the NCDC dataset has much, much less noise/variation in it so it is easier to see the impact of the ENSO.

    I think GISS just has more noise in its data and they are trying to focus more on the high latitude polar regions (where there is more variation) and they are sacrificing the tropics region data (where there is more response to the ENSO).

    The result is that GISS has more error in it and then less response to the La Ninas of 2007 and 2008.

  28. Assuming both temperature records are accurate, how can CO2 be the cause of recent warming trends? Since CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere, if it is responsible for excess heat, then shouldn’t the atmosphere warm first, followed by the surface? The 2nd law of thermodynamics is pretty fundamental (heat flows from hot to cold, not the other way around). Am I missing something?

  29. If troposphere responds more quickly to El Nino/La Nina events, is that the same as saying they respond more quickly to PDO changes?

    If that is true than could the divergence be due to the recent 200X PDO switch to negative phase driving troposphere faster than surface temps? Give it a few more years for the effects of the negative PDO to ripple through the full atmosphere and the divergence will be gone (??)

  30. The following comment was made earlier;

    “Below is a 250km map of GISS trends from 2003-2008. One thing which stands out is that GISS has large areas with sparse or no coverage. Notably in Africa, Antarctica, Greenland, Canada, Brazil, and a few other places.”

    reply

    “-No, one thing that stands out is the dismal coverage of oceans, more than two thirds of earths surface. Africa is bad but the ocean coverage is worse.”

    This raises the interesting question as to which- if any- of the land surface types the ocean most resembles with regards to its temperature characteristics? A desert-featureless? Mountains-turbulence? None at all? If so, as 70% of the earth therefore isn’t being measured at all, which only leaves the remaining 30% (which in itself only has 30% coverage) do ‘global’ temperatures have any meaning whatsover?

    TonyB

  31. Based on this, I think the ENSO amplification theory is nullified.

    You think so? Here’s a bit of fun –

    (a) download the ENSO multivariate index from here http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/mei.html

    (b) Calculate a monthly time series of (UAH-GISS).

    Scale to fit and plot a and b on the same graph. Add a 12 month moving average to smooth the trend.

    By eyeball it looks to me like there are periods of fairly good correlation with the temp data lagging the ENSO by about 6 months,I’ve put a quick and dirty representation of 1990 onwards here

    http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pFFm87cBy5_o44oFXNuojPA

    I’m busy right now, but may have a go at a correlation coefficient tomorrow, but first impressions are that ENSO is a bit of a prime suspect for at least some of the short term ‘divergence’, which would fit with the physical explanation that I’ve been banging on about …..

  32. Steven Goddard (15:46:35) :
    ‘Based on this, I think the ENSO amplification theory is nullified.’

    Oh no, not another amplification theory!!!! Isn’t that what got us into this CO2 drives the climate thing?

  33. Mark (15:41:33) :

    Many of the stations haven’t dropped out, it is simply that NOAA does not collect data from them any longer. A ten minute search on the web will locate up-to-date (and historical) data for a lot of those missing stations from the websites of the meteorological agencies of e. g. Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia etc. etc.
    As for why NOAA doesn’t bother to use the data, your guess is as good as mine.

  34. JP,

    This article is about the divergence since 2003. There have been several positive and negative ENSO events during that period, yet the divergence trend has been linear and monotonic, as seen above.

    ENSO can not explain the divergence since 2003. If it were were correct, we would have seen a large negative swing (GISS minus RSS) in early 2007 – which we didn’t.

  35. I see no reason for the data from Australia to be less – we have automatic stations all over the country – we didn’t just recently shut any of them down.

    REPLY: That is correct, and Australia, IMHO, has a better sited and maintained network than that of the USA. – Anthony

  36. stan jones (13:50:23)

    If that bright red spot on eastern Svalbard happens to be another Russian weather station reporting rather than a Norwegian one, I would be even more suspicious.

    Here is a SST anomaly map made up from multiple inputs. Svalbard has had that warm area for over a year. Volcanic?

  37. It’s worse than it looks Models have shown that the satellite trend should be 1.2 times greater than surface trend here’s a quote from John Christy (UAH) on CA.

    J Christy:
    December 19th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

    Ratio factor:

    Climate models display a fairly robust ratio of the troposphere anomalies/trends represented by the surface variation vs. the LT profile of MSU temperatures of 1:1.2 globally, and 1:1.3 in the tropics (Steve: it is 1.3 for the tropics and 1.2 for the globe). These have been called amplification factors. Models indicate that anomalies and trends of the surface become larger by these factors in the LT profile (See CCSP report for example or Douglass et al. 2007 for model results). Observations have not agreed with these model-calculated ratios for long-term trends, but do agree on monthly scale anomalies. (see Christy et al. 2007 on Tropical Tropospheric Temps) and Douglass et al. 2007.

    It’s really an interesting quote.

    The standard deviation of detrended satellite and ground data confirms his remarks. If correct, the divergence is substantially worse than we see.

  38. WOW, nobody really knows if the earth is hotter or cooler in the end…crisis is an opportunity for change! It’s all about the re-distribution of money, that I do know.

  39. Mark (15:41:33) :

    What is the reason for all of those stations dropping out?

    The world wonders. It is a question that has been asked and has remained unanswered for years.

  40. Just wanted to raise an issue for general awareness: if someone has been adjusting published government data with the intent to influence government action, that person could be prosecuted for violation of 18 USC section 1519 and be sent to jail for up to 20 years.

    Given the severe implications that some proposed (and some enacted) legislative schemes could have on the economy and the general welfare of the United States and the entire world, folks who have confidence in their command of the data may be able to have a real impact on the public debate by calling the frauds to account and taking them to task on the data.

    Even if not acted on (federal prosecutors having a great deal of discretion), the simple threat of jail for doctoring records or even manipulating data inputs with the intent to deceive decisionmakers might provide some “forcing” to prevent them from reaching a “tipping point.”

    Thoughts?

  41. Has anyone checked the Hadley trend since 2003. I get -2.53 deg/century so it appears to be more in agreement with UAH/RSS than GISS (using Excel LINEST) – but I’ve had a couple of drinks so a ‘second opinion’ might be advisable.

    John Philip (16:13:47) :

    Based on this, I think the ENSO amplification theory is nullified.

    You think so? Here’s a bit of fun –

    JP

    For reasons given above I’m not looking at numbers now, but following your argument you seem to be saying that Satellite readings are warmer (relatively) than the surface during El Nino events and cooler during La Nina. Since 2002, though, we have had largely ENSO-positive conditions which, according to the “ENSO amplication theory”, means that UAH and RSS should be warmer relative to GISS – so the trends should converge rather than diverge (up to mid-2007 at least). But I do need a clear head to think it through.

  42. Here is what could be done; subtract those gridcells that have less than 2 station coverage from the GISS database and re-calculate the the GISS temps from there. Will they divergence continue or lessen? If it does lessen, by how much? I have thought for a number of years that NASA has taken liberties with the sparsely populated areas of the globe. Most of thier large warm anomalies occur in these gridcells.

  43. In my previous post I appear to have invented a new word, i.e. “amplication” as in “ENSO amplication theory” . That should be “amplification”.

  44. Being a curious cuss, I started wondering when the actual divergence started. It had to have been prior to 2003, since the RSS and UAH trends were already negative by 2003 while GISTEMP was still positive. I also wondered about the HADCRUT trend. So … if one adds HADCRUT to the mix and plugs in the year 2000 to WFT, the results show all four data set trends being still positive, although the slope for all data sets except GISTEMP is very close to flat. I’ll provide links for those who don’t want to spend the time working through the site:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend

    However, if one uses year 2000.1, the results change somewhat – at this point the RSS slope becomes negative while UAH and HADCRUT are nearly flat but still positive.

    If one then uses year 2000.2, the results are somewhat different – HADCRUT is dead flat and RSS and UAH are negative.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000.2/plot/rss/from:2000.2/plot/gistemp/from:2000.2/plot/uah/from:2000.2/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.2/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.2/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.2/trend

    GISTEMP finally goes flat somewhere between 2000.9 and 2001. The WFT site is apparently not sensitive to less than a singe decimal.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000.9/plot/rss/from:2000.9/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/plot/uah/from:2000.9/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.9/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.9/trend

    Using 2001 and 2002, of course, illustrate the increasingly negative slope for all data sets.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend

    And by 2003, we’re back where we started. Except that I also added HADCRUT to the mix:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/trend/plot/none

    I did NOT apply offsets or any other adjustments to the data sets.

    I am, however, curious as to why it’s so hard for GISS and Hadley to understand and accept their own data. Basically 9 years of, at worst (or best), no warming and an increasingly negative temperature trend. Keep your longhandles handy.

  45. avfuktning med kontrollerad ventilation vind – vindsavfuktare says:

    No, one thing that stands out is the dismal coverage of oceans, more than two thirds of earths surface. Africa is bad but the ocean coverage is worse.

    Yeah…That does kind of stand out doesn’t it? It did to me too. So, I followed the link that was provided above and found out why: Anthony and Steve have chosen “none” for the ocean analysis. I.e., they are not showing the data that GISS combines with their own land surface temperatures to get the GISS global Land – Ocean temperature anomaly that they have been discussing. If you go to the site and make a plot again with the ocean analysis chosen as HadI/Reyn_v2, you will see that the ocean coverage is in fact quite complete except very near Antarctica and in the arctic.

  46. Jim Owen says

    I am, however, curious as to why it’s so hard for GISS and Hadley to understand and accept their own data. Basically 9 years of, at worst (or best), no warming and an increasingly negative temperature trend. Keep your longhandles handy.

    Maybe because they understand the huge errorbars in trends computed over such short time periods…And, they can see that one also sees this large variability in trends in the climate models forced by CO2 over similarly short time periods: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

    In other words, they understand the limitations in drawing conclusions from their data better than you do.

  47. Here’s the difference between the two GISS global coverage charts above, ie, the stations that dropped out –

  48. Gentlemen: Sorry for jumping in so late. Regarding the dispute about ENSO and the sensitivity of TLT versus GISS, etc., I’ve compared the two datasets (or a facsimile thereof) over the oceans. GISS has used OI.v2 SST anomalies for their combined data since 1980. Monthly OI.v2 SST data is accessible through the NOAA NOMADS system from November 1981 to present. AHU provides oceanic data in their monthly updated datasets. The outcome:

    There are significant differences between the two, in recent years and in earlier years.

    Here’s the difference (Global OI.v2 SST Anomalies MINUS AHU MSU Global Ocean TLT) from January 2003 to November 2008.

    But here’s the difference (Global OI.v2 SST Anomalies MINUS AHU MSU Global Ocean TLT) from November 1981 to November 2008.

    And here it is inverted (AHU MSU Global Ocean TLT MINUS Global OI.v2 SST Anomalies) from November 1981 to November 2008.

    Based on that curve, the differences for the oceans appear to result from the sensitivities of the two variables to ENSO events.

    Regards.

  49. Anthony says:

    I grow rather tired of someone telling me what sort of analyses this blog should and should not do, particularly from someone who uses two different names. The idea of this blog is to explore things that interest me, the contributors, and the readers. This divergence interests us, and if it leads to a better understanding, then that is what we shall do. Often times people pointing out weaknesses or alternate ideas are the best way to learn, and I welcome pointing out mistakes or suggestions for other ways to analyse the data, sans the sort of snark you display.

    Fair enough…But, if I might throw out my own views (which may or may not be what Steve Talbot was thinking in his comment that you were replying to), what seems to happen here is that a lot of the commenters (and presumably many of the lurkers) take your analysis and jump to conclusions that are completely unwarranted because a more complete analysis would likely not support them. So, if you want to inform rather than misinform, it seems to me that it would work best to first be really really clear on the limitations of your own analysis from the start and second to point out to those who are jumping to unwarranted conclusions that those conclusions are not warranted from your analysis (which I have seen you do occasionally when people really step over the line and start tossing around accusations of fraud).

    Of course, far be it from me to tell you how to run your blog…But I am just trying to give some constructive criticism!

  50. Whoops…I screwed up the coding on my previous post, but the first paragraph is Anthony’s words and the other two are mine.

    REPLY: I fixed that for you. I welcome the suggestions. – Anthony

  51. But note that the station dropouts don’t seem to have made any difference. To get a rate of change of global temperatures over time, you probably don’t need more than a few dozen stations globally.

    REPLY: Gavin Schmidt once said that “only 60 stations are needed”. The surfacestations.org project will identify those best stations, (at least initially for the USA) and once we have done so, we should be able to cull a surface dataset with a higher confidence level. The way it is going thus far, the best stations represent ~ 10% of the total USHCN station set. For GHCN, I anticipate that number being even lower because of the dropout issue as well as the fact that a larger majority of GHCN stations are at airports than the USHCN station set. – Anthony

  52. Roy (17:27:07)

    I don’t think anyone but the very few principals know the answer to your imputed question. It is unseemly to talk of motive without evidence, but there are plenty who wonder. The passion with which Hansen addresses his subject makes one wonder whether he might justify fudging the numbers for a great cause, but frankly, the record is so confusing that motives can not be discerned with accuracy. I don’t doubt that Hansen started out with good intentions, truly might still have them, for the road to paradise is paved with good intentions. You have to watch your step on that road and pay attention to directions and roadside thermometers, or it is easy to lose your way. I think he’s lost, and really, I pity him.
    ===================================

  53. Isn’t AGW a case of analysis with the jump to a conclusion?

    Don’t we have to wait for the future to see if the conclusion is really valid?

    Andrew

  54. Delta often tell stories.

    GISS March 2008, region Jan through April. what happened?

    I wonder if that is a clue on a network sensitivity to winter or summer in one region of the world?

    (delta month from next month and plot, X is N-1)

  55. Expanding on my earlier comment, the TLT anomalies and SST anomalies for some oceanic subsets correlate well. Others are so different I’ve had to go back and double check the data. The following are comparative graphs of TLT and SST for specific ocean subsets I’ve prepared for a post I’m writing now about the dominance of ENSO and volcanic eruptions on segmented TLT data for the Northern Low Latitudes.

    LOW LATITUDE NH TLT vs SST

    The Northeast Pacific data correlate relatively well, and they should since most of the north half of the NINO3.4 area is within that area of the Northeast Pacific. (The coordinates for the Northeast Pacific low latitude data are 0-30N, 180W-122W.)

    The North Atlantic data diverge at times. (The coordinates for the North Atlantic low latitude data are 0-30N, 62W-12W.)

    And in the Northwest Pacific, there is little correlation between the two datasets. (The coordinates for the Northwest Pacific low latitude data are 0-30N, 145E-180E.)

    MID LATITUDE NH TLT vs SST

    Also, I took a look at the Mid Latitude Northern Hemisphere TLT and SST data in a post titled “El Ninos Create Step Changes in the Northern Hemisphere Mid Latitudes” (catchy title, huh?):
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/el-ninos-create-step-changes-in-tlt-of.html

    The Northeast Pacific data correlate better than most. (The coordinates for the Northeast Pacific mid latitude data are 30-60N, 180W-122W.) Figure 9 in the post.

    The North Atlantic data diverge most times. (The coordinates for the North Atlantic mid latitude data are 30-60N, 62W-12W.) Figure 12 in that post.

    But the Northwest Pacific data correlate pretty well in comparison to the others. (The coordinates for the Northwest Pacific mid latitude data are 30-60N, 145E-180E.) Figure 15 in that post.

  56. “Isn’t AGW a case of analysis with the jump to a conclusion?”

    Not really, it was a conclusion followed by analysis hoping to validate the conclusion. In this case the chicken came first.

    “On what basis do you make that statement?”

    Because in a previous thread you can see that when the stations dropped out, there was no sudden change between the ground-based and satellite-based measurements.

  57. “The surfacestations.org project will identify those best stations, (at least initially for the USA) and once we have done so, we should be able to cull a surface dataset with a higher confidence level.

    Would love to see the list. I don’t think that even long to medium range forecast models would be worth much with only 60 reporting stations worldwide.

  58. The world has cooled since 2003 because that is when the oceans starting cooling. Craig Loehle has a paper in press on this subject.

  59. Looked at the correlations between the ENSO time series and the UAH data set.

    The match is really bad using raw data. I shifted the ENSO data (http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html) 6 months and divided by 6 to make the peak values closer to the temperature data. I then adjusted both the ENSO data and the UAH data so that the average slope from 1979 to 2008 was zero by applying a linear transformation to the data. The correlation coefficient for a linear fit to a scatter plot of MEI adjusted to UAH adjusted was 0.188 for the whole series and 0.644 for 1995 to present. Visually there is a good match for the recent data but not so much before 1995 which is verified by the correlation coefficients.

    I have a plot of the time series for GISS UAH and ENSO (MEI) data on a crude plot. The MEI data has been divided by 6. The plot uses the Excel smooth line function.

    http://gallery.me.com/wally#100002/ENSO%20vs%20UAH%20GISS&bgcolor=black

  60. Correction: the plot in the previous plat used 13-month smoothing and the Excel smoothing line plot. 19:09:29

  61. @ David Archibald

    David, you really let it all hang out with the prediction of over -.4C in May. How confident are you or was it basically a SWAG (or less)?

  62. Over and over again we see the same error, but it is not fraud in changes to the numbers: Link https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/14/distribution-analysis-suggests-giss-final-data-is-hand-edited/ . So the disregard to some of the stations use/used?
    Anthony we are getting to a point that we need your certifying of stations
    1,2-3,5 and run numbers on 1,2 V 3,5
    we are running out of time… here comes January 19 (part A) ,20th (part B)
    And BO well be making desions on lack of, or faulty data (not fraud) , just like W got on Iraq!
    God help us all
    Tim

  63. Joel Shore,

    How many temperature stations per square mile are there for the ocean areas???

    Your reasoning is hopeful rather than factual.

  64. C’mon, folks. Y’all have to respect NASA, James Hansen and GISS. There are many reasons to accept GISS data over the silly satellite data:

    1) The ground-based GISS information is provided by THE premiere scientific agency in the world; after all, they sent guys to the moon, for crying out loud. How can you question the almighty NASA ?

    2) The data is provided by NOAA stations and foreign stations which have impecable quality control procedures in place, as documented by Anthony Watts. You can be assured that any irregularities, such as BBQs under the temperature sensors or jet engines blowing on the sensors, have been addressed by the NASA experts, with computer-aided adjustments.

    3) NASA has reviewed all the literature concerning UHI effects and determined that there is a very minor influence, which has been incorporated into computer programs that adjust the temperatures accordingly.

    4) Adjustments have been made to lower all the temperatures in the ’30’s, because the thermometers and recording procedures back then sucked big time. This makes the temperatures of the latest part of the 20th century look high, but that is because NASA knows that CO2 is making them high.

    5) You just gotta trust a governmental agency. After all, what motivation could they possibly have to fake anything or screw up? And have you ever seen a governmental agency screw up?

    6) Computer programs, although written in Fortran, almost unintelligible, and not subject to any known QA/QC programs, have been posted on the Internet for your perusal.

    Oh, and these brilliant people have also produced a computer model that tells us what the temperature will be in 2100!

  65. Crosspatch,

    You are right. I don’t want to see any more analysis and re-analysis ‘supporting’ AGW. The analysis has already been done. It’s a waste of time since we already know what’s going on. The science is in. Nothing else needs to be studied, scrutinized and no more questions need to be asked. No more papers with more evidence, ’cause we don’t need any. No more jumping to conclusions. We don’t need to wait for the future to see what happens.

    Andrew

  66. Joel Shore (18:09:28) :

    “In other words, they understand the limitations in drawing conclusions from their data better than you do.”

    You mean something like claiming we only have 4 years to save the planet? One might think that was a little more extreme than the current discussion. One might also think that “understand the limitations” is NOT something “they” have been practicing.

  67. DR, when you look at the UAH data you will see that since 2001 there is a seasonal fall of 0.3 between December and May, most of the time. You will also see that an El Nino is good for +.2 or more and a La Nina is good for -0.3 or so. We are currently in a big La Nina, so add 0.3 to the 0.3 seasonal fall and you get 0.6 lower than where we are now.

  68. I agree with several posters that the absence of ocean coverage in the GISS is alarming. In my opinion, to leave out 70 per cent of the surface of the planet is a fatal flaw of their data.

    Statistical and sampling theory permits that a random sample of a whole may be used to make an estimate of a certain property in the entire statistical population (eg political opinion polls usually cover only a few thousand people only). But the key to the sample’s accuracy is its randomness and representativity of the entire statistical population. To leave out oceans entirely inserts an inherent bias because it is well known that ocean temperatures do not behave the same as land temperatures (eg they move slower) and because oceans aren’t affected by urban heat island effect.

    GISS is utterly corrupted and useless.

    R.I.P.

  69. crosspatch:

    “To get a rate of change of global temperatures over time, you probably don’t need more than a few dozen stations globally.”

    Ok – I’ll bite. Please tell me where these few dozens should be sited. The variablility in the many and varied areas of the continental US would justify your “few” all by itself, yet comprises little of the NH landmass.

    Personally, I think the more the merrier, with respect to proper siting and orientation, no more “adjustments” and probably automate them. It would give us an opportunity to study climates relationship to weather…that last is a little joke.

  70. I agree with several posters that the absence of ocean coverage in the GISS is alarming. If they leave out 70 per cent of the surface of the planet, this is a fatal flaw of their data. If they use Hadley data for the oceans, then the GISS and HadCrut can hardly be considered as two independent sources of temperature data.

    Statistical and sampling theory permits that a random sample of a whole may be used to make an estimate of a certain property in the entire statistical population (eg political opinion polls usually cover only a few thousand people only). But the key to the sample’s accuracy is its randomness and representativity of the entire statistical population. To leave out oceans entirely inserts an inherent bias because it is well known that ocean temperatures do not behave the same as land temperatures (eg they move slower) and because oceans aren’t affected by urban heat island effect.

  71. steven G (20:03:56) makes a very good point about the 60 station nonsense. For a number like this to be valid it ASSUMEs a homogenized world.

    I don’t think many folks here believe our world is one giant climate. The truth is the world consists of multiple, interacting climates. Anyone who attempts to model the world otherwise is bound to fool themselves. Now, if you put 60 accurate weater stations within those regional climtes you might have something. I think is what the satellites MAY provide, however, I think much work needs to be done in regionalizing the data before using it.

  72. “How many temperature stations per square mile are there for the ocean areas???”

    Well, there are several thousand (3283 to be exact) floats measuring ocean temperature from the surface down to 2000 meters.

    @ Andrew (19:22:02)

    I believe you misunderstood. The most accurate observations show that there has not been any warming for the past 10 years. Ocean temperatures, as David Archibald mentioned in a comment in this thread have also been cooling for at least the past five years. It doesn’t look like there is any “global warming”.

    “Ok – I’ll bite. Please tell me where these few dozens should be sited. ”

    Ok, sure. If you are looking for a global trend over time, it isn’t really going to matter where you site them as long as you cite them away from places that have human causes changes such as land use changes. In theory, all you would need is one station because if the entire globe is warming, that one station should be enough to show that over a long enough period of time to cycle through all natural weather cycles.

    I would place them in locations far away from cities and far away from areas that are actively changing such as in the process of being deforested and the land use changed from, say, forest to farming. Areas that are static would be fine so an area that is currently farmed and probably will be the for next century or so would probably be just great. I might put stations in the middle of large national parks and wilderness areas. Also in places like desert and tundra would work, too. As would large areas of open space that is relatively static such as Northern Canada. I would place none of these stations near population centers. They would be intentionally difficult to reach and automated. They might be visited one or more times a year for calibration and maintenance but would be otherwise quite far from any human influence.

    Or we can just measure the ocean temperature. That is pretty much where the vast majority of the Earth’s heat is stored. I would measure it on the sea floor, though, not on the surface.

  73. @ DA (again)

    Yes, I checked your pattern observation and it follows fairly well.

    However, looking at AMSU-A temps for the last several days, CH05 (600MB) and CHLT(900MB) are going off the charts. Unless they drop like a rock in the next 12 days, January looks to be a leap upward.

  74. from Yahoo story: Americans giving Obama extraordinary support: polls

    “A survey conducted by The New York Times and CBS News found a US public eager to give the president-elect a wide berth as he attempts to turn around a faltering US economy, tackle global warming, help solve the intractable Middle East peace process . . .”

    Al Gore would be proud that tackling global warming is listed second for challenges that the President Obama must confront.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090118/pl_afp/usinaugurationobamapoll

  75. Anthony–

    I am constantly trying to understand the climate science on this web site, and the excellent graphs of data. For someone who is not a climatologist (not sure if that’s the right word), could you put a link on your web site with acronyms and their definitions?

    Thanks and congrats on the 2008Weblog award for science — I voted for you every day.

    REPLY:
    Already there, see Glossary at the top. – Anthony

  76. Oh, and on the question of the divergence from 2003 onward — that is right around the time we began the steep decline to our curent solar minimum. Maybe that effect shows up at different rates in the two measurement systems.

    Or it could be a meaningless coincidence, of course.

  77. The comparison between the maps is rather flattering to the satellite data, to be a fair comparison the ocean areas, data poleward of 82.5° North and 70° South, as well as areas with land or ice elevations above 3000 meters, should be excluded from the satellite data. Not so clear then.

  78. Kim
    It’s the road to hell that is paved with good intentions. Knowing that the end justifies the means is one of the most seductive of good intentions.

  79. Joel Shore (18:09:28) said:
    “Maybe because they understand the huge errorbars in trends computed over such short time periods”

    What you apparently failed to see is that what I gave you was a maximum. Drawing long term (30-year) trends across either a maximum or a minimum might not be a useful exercise. Once a maximum is crossed – as it was in 2000 – then your long term trends don’t necessarily apply. The valid trend line for near-future prediction is what’s happened since the maximum. At least until the next minimum is reached. Then – maybe – your long-term trend will be useful again.

    The question at the moment is – what will the “short-term” trend look like at the end of this year – and for the next 5-10 years. Only the “short-term” trend line can give you a clue about that – maybe. Or not.

    The models have already proven that they’re incapable of predicting long-term. And they will continue to do so until modified to include the myriad of other climate drivers that have so far failed to be seriously considered. The name of the game isn’t CO2 – if you’re gonna talk “science” then the game is – What factors did we miss so badly that our very expensive models have failed so badly? And the answer to that question that doesn’t lie with the IPCC. And possibly not with GISS.

    I do believe that 9 years is sufficient to establish a trend. After all, the boys at GISS managed to establish their trend line is 9 years or so (1979-1988). And they seem to have no problem with using 8-year trend lines to supoort their case when it’s convenient.

    I knew there was a reason I refused to join the atmospheric science team back then.

    “In other words, they understand the limitations in drawing conclusions from their data better than you do.”

    ROTFLMAO! I spent 40+ years drawing correct conclusions from far less and far worse data than they have available. I doubt they understand the limitations as well as you think. Or that I understand them as little as you think.

    YMMV

  80. Mongo (20:05:42) :

    “crosspatch:

    To get a rate of change of global temperatures over time, you probably don’t need more than a few dozen stations globally.”

    Ok – I’ll bite. Please tell me where these few dozens should be sited.

    This problem has been solved by pollsters the world over of how to find a representative population. A similar study should be done for representative locations with the correct weights . Depending on the statistical error that is deemed acceptable for the study the number of necessary stations can be deduced.

    As statistical errors go like sqrt(N)/N. It will not be small if one wants to speak of temperature errors of the order of .1C over 15C. I do not think a few dozen would do the trick.

    Better stick to satellite measurements from now on.

  81. Thank you so much for providing the forum, and congrats on the award.

    Like many who read this site, I am an armchair statistician. Although I had statistics training in college, and did get an honors grade.

    A comment I feel comfortable in bringing to the attention of the forum is that I know that statistical sampling can be more accurate than actually trying to count all the data points. For instance, I believe (sorry, do not have source to cite) that statistical sampling of the population in a country can be more accurate than actually conducting a census. The challenges with marshaling the resources to conduct a census can overwhelm attempts at accuracy.

    In the middle of my last statistics class I asked my professor about this. We had covered many types of statistical analysis in the class, but one thing had struck me about all of them: the margin of error got very small when you got to about 30 data points in all these different statistical analysis methods. He agreed that was the case. A good rule of thumb was you can stop at 30 points if all you need is a trends in business, and it might be sufficient for other purposes too.

    (It would be interesting to see a temperature trend of the “certified installed correctly” temperature stations from the siting project. It would be a relatively small number, but it is an _accurate_over_time_ sample series. How does that subset compare to the satellite data?)

    Of course one can argue in dealing with the example of a population that the undocumented immigrant will not participate in any census. All data can be flawed. And in measuring global temps, is it sufficient to measure temperature only over land? I do not know. The 30% of the surface is a large proportion. However the arguments I have heard over the rates of absorption of CO2 in the ocean seem to say we should be measuring or sampling that, too.

    Which is one reason why the satellite data is so compelling to me, although I think I understand many of the challenges in using it. With satellites there is ONE (or a few) instrument(s) making multiple measurements in multiple locations. It is much easier to discern a trend. When we are discussing trends, does it matter if we are measuring in a cold hole or not? If the Urban Heat Island is dissipated and assumed not to affect climate overall within just a few miles, then perhaps the “cold hole” might be just as local and unimportant in the big scheme of things.

    I hope the comment is helpful to someone with more statistical knowledge than mine. Thank you for the opportunity to convey my thoughts.

  82. There is always a risk of a credibility gap when picking a timescale for looking at temperature trends.

    A big word of thanks for woodfortrees.org for providing such a simple tool for looking at the data. Temperature up, down, or no change, its all there depending on your chosen timescale and start point.

    Similarly its the argument about what is the timescale for “weather” and what for “climate”. How about we all agree that (say) 10 years is the (human) timescale for “climate”, and we don’t pick start or end points based on apparent changes or divergences?

    If we do that then since 1999 all three indexes have risen. GISS by about 2 degC/century and the satellites by 1 degC/century.

  83. teven G (20:03:56) :
    I agree with several posters that the absence of ocean coverage in the GISS is alarming. In my opinion, to leave out 70 per cent of the surface of the planet is a fatal flaw of their data.

    Which is a flaw they don’t have, see for example: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    They allow data to be downloaded from either land only, ocean only or both, for the post above the authors chose ‘land only’, you’ll have to ask them why.

    Statistical and sampling theory permits that a random sample of a whole may be used to make an estimate of a certain property in the entire statistical population (eg political opinion polls usually cover only a few thousand people only). But the key to the sample’s accuracy is its randomness and representativity of the entire statistical population. To leave out oceans entirely inserts an inherent bias because it is well known that ocean temperatures do not behave the same as land temperatures (eg they move slower) and because oceans aren’t affected by urban heat island effect.

    The data in the graphs above are from the ‘land-ocean’ database but the maps are not.

  84. Roy (17:27:07) : wrote:
    Just wanted to raise an issue for general awareness: if someone has been adjusting published government data with the intent to influence government action, that person could be prosecuted for violation of 18 USC section 1519 and be sent to jail for up to 20 years.
    —————————————————

    Forget it Roy. That part of the U.S. legal system is terminally broken.

    Having said that though, some of these people could not imagine the ferocity with which a class action plaintiff’s litigator would go after this if there’s a big damages pay-off to be had. The asymmetric warfare of costs of litigation versus potential damages awards is staggeringly in favor of such a plaintiff.

    I’m not an attorney, but I’ve had the, shall we say, “educational experience” of being associated with a big time science litigation for ten years. Not producing ALL data and notes during discovery does not go over well with a Federal Judge – believe me. Testifying that the debate was over would not be a particularly good defense for ignoring 2008 and prior data either. Think Vioxx (not the one I was involved in). Think civil not criminal. Think big damages. It’s all about their finding a target that can pay up though, so don’t get too excited.

  85. Those who say that 2003-2008 is too short a time period to show anything need to explain why.

    (a) In the absence of any peculiar events such as volcanic eruptions, just where has the additional heat from CO2 forcing gone? There is no evidence it has been stored in the sea or elsewhere is there? How much has gone into melting snow and ice and is that sufficient to account for the temperature drops?

    (b) If the claim is that natural causes have intervened, then surely these must be identified and quantified before it is possible to make any predictions whatever about the consequences of additional CO2?

  86. Re Anthony’s reply to Lars Kamél (13:34:27) :

    “REPLY: I had thought about Amundsen-Scott base, but the the red band seemed so large in area, compared to other stations, that it seemed unrealistic to treat it as a single station. Perhaps one station is being distorted in the map resentation. Mercator projection does that. – Anthony”

    Looking at the GISS maps you referred to they didn’t strike me as Mercator projections. They are I believe “Unprojected Lat Long World Maps” which distort both area and shape at virtually all latitudes, obviously moreso at the higher latitudes. (Mercator at least does preserve shape). However, that is not the issue for this post which was prompted by the “full width” high anomaly band located over Antarctica. Clearly this is reflective of only a few stations in the Antarctic.

    However, if GISS calculates the area of anomaly based on the number of pixels on these maps (for example) then clearly anomalies at high latitudes such as what is shown on the map above reflect a disproportionate amount of the earth surface as having an anomaly compared to that same area on the GISS map being located at an equatorial latitude.

    If you take a mean Radius of the earth as 6371km then a 100 km wide band of anomaly located wholly around the equator would occupy 4,003,017 sq km. The same anomaly located at the extreme top of bottom of the GISS map (which only extends to 80 deg N & S) would occupy 695,116 sq km. This is only 17% of the equatorial area yet on the GISS map shows or implies the anomaly to be the same area.

    I stand to learn and be corrected about how GISS determines the areas of the anomalies in order to assess overall global temperature, but simply looking at the map and assigning a pixel to represent the anomaly, effectively a square of given size at the polar extemity of the GISS map has nearly 6 times the weighting in area of the same size square at the equator.

  87. Having just posted that I see Roger Pielke Sr is just making a similar comment in response to Realclimate’s usual line on this.

  88. Billy Bob lifts the hood… “Now there’s your problem Jamie boy… Your Canada dropped out! And it looks like your central Asian steppes are a bit loose too. You want me to fix it up for ya? I can start on it Tuesday…”

    (Can I really “Blame Canada” with a straight face … giggle… 8-}

  89. OT – sunspeck spotted

    The current SOHO show a speck just below the equator, looking for all the world like a dead pixel, but it shows bright and tight on the magnetogram, too. Could it be that the last cycle isn’t over yet?

  90. I am no AGW believer, but a true skeptic must consider all the possibilities:

    The “GISS divergence” problem since 2003 may not be a problem at all – it is after all only 5 years of data, and MIGHT be a temporary anomaly. Look at how GISS & HADCRUT have varied since 1880:

    Although the differences here never 0.1C, they are both land-based measurements, so you would expect them to be the closer. What is important it that they can ‘diverge’ for DECADES at a time, before coming back together (or even going in the other direction).

    Secondly, it is possible that the satellite data is the source of the divergence, not GISS, although I don’t know what.

  91. tty (16:24:03) :
    A ten minute search on the web will locate up-to-date (and historical) data for a lot of those missing stations from the websites of the meteorological agencies of e. g. Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia etc. etc.

    Ok… so can we just collect all the Rest of World data, unhansenized, and create our own Global Temperature Dataset (probably minus US unless NOAA data directly available)?

    Is it possible to get the ‘more or less raw’ data needed to remove the Hansen bias from a dataset at least as representative as GISS (which seems not that representative… so the hurdle looks low…)

    Basically, can we make one of those world maps, like above, that shows the coverage area of the available non-hansen datasets? And if that coverage area is ‘large enough’ assemble those bits into a cleaner data set? (And then use that dataset to measure the ‘quality’ of others…)

    At least it would let us put Canada back in!

  92. Tom in Texas: You wrote, “Why isn’t the data from ARGO being used?”

    From December 1981 to present, GISS has used what they term Reynolds-Rayner-Smith SST data. The NCDC further identifies the version of data used by GISS as the Optimally Interpolated SST (OI.v2) in their detailed description of the GISTEMP data set here:
    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cdc/data.gistemp.html (In the above comment, I wrote 1980. It’s 1981.) The OI data uses satellite, ship and buoy data, though I don’t believe they’re the same buoys as ARGO. More on the OI SST data here:
    ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/sea_surface_temperature/reynolds/oisst/doc/oisst.html

  93. jae (19:19:33)
    6) Computer programs, although written in Fortran, almost unintelligible, and not subject to any known QA/QC programs, have been posted on the Internet for your perusal.

    Where? (I was pretty good with FORTRAN once. it was my first computer language.)

    I’d love to get a look at the guts for a little QA exercise. (Though if nausea is induced I’m bailing… 8-0

  94. crosspatch (20:28:35) :
    “Or we can just measure the ocean temperature. That is pretty much where the vast majority of the Earth’s heat is stored. I would measure it on the sea floor, though, not on the surface.”

    Ha, ha! Oceans have a rather large range in bottom depth. Let’s say from 150 meters at the continental shelf break to 11,000m in the Mariana Trench. So what is your datum of reference?

  95. Besides, below certain great depths the water temperature is stable at a minimum temperature that corresponds with the pressure and the salinity of the water and is thus not influenced by changes in the ocean’s heat content. Measuring temperatures there wouldn’t mean anything in relation to climate change, be it cooling or warming.

  96. To Alan and others: similar “pauses” in the warming have been observed before: take the 79-85, the 86-95, the 90-96 periods and all you’ll get is an apparent cooling. Nevertheless, no-one in his (her) right mind would dare to say that temperatures decreased since 79, 96 or 90.

    This is short-term variability opposed to long-term trends. By the way, take a look at the UAH tropospheric temperature data for January http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html You can check that the temperatures we have rightnow are in no way “cooler” than what we had the previous years. Despite la nina. And the solar minimum.

  97. Alan Wilkinson (23:41:57) :
    just where has the additional heat from CO2 forcing gone?

    Silly suggestion, but why could this extra heat not have gone into outer space? It seems logical to suggest that if heat [from the sun] can come in, the it should be able to escape also.

  98. Joel (18:09:28)

    Sure, sure, trend length can be argued in circles forever. Look at it this way. Temperature seems to have some of the behaviour of a cycle and 2003 looks like a peak. As the temperature curve’s negative slope steepens you’ll see why attention to inflection points can give understanding about a trend in a manner that arguing about its length won’t.

    Another point I’ve made before with reference to the common use of 30 years as standard length of time to determine a trend. Well if the PDO has a phase length of 30 years, then looking at the last 30 years will always give you the wrong prediction for the next 30, if the PDO is as determinative of climate as I believe it is. Nice, huh?
    ========================================

  99. The GISS minus RSS linear trend does not show any seasonal pattern, so I see no reason to believe it is related to “melting of ice” or any other summer phenomenon. UIUC shows global sea ice right at the 30 year mean. Regardless, why is the divergence occurring? A discrepancy of one month might be overlooked, but 72 consecutive months?

    The reason for land only maps was to highlight the missing areas on land. That is the default setup on their site, but you can generate GISS ocean maps as well from the link in the article.

  100. On preferring Hadcrut to GISS on the basis of coverage: of the 2592 gridcells in Hadcrut about 11% have no data at all, for any year; 27% have data for 10% of the time or less. Mysteriously, Cruabs, the dataset containing the data for the baseline averages that are subtracted to give anomalies, has values for every gridcell. Not what I’d be looking for to take a planet’s temperature.

    That said, I’m interested that a visual “wiggle match” of satellite and ground-based temperature measurement shows pretty good agreement which, to me, suggests that all this temperature data isn’t just pure fantasy.

  101. To Alan and others: similar “pauses” in the warming have been observed before: take the 79-85, the 86-95, the 90-96 periods and all you’ll get is an apparent cooling. Nevertheless, no-one in his (her) right mind would dare to say that temperatures decreased since 79, 96 or 90.

    There was a plausible explanation for the pauses you mention, i.e. El Chichon in 1982, Pinatubo in 1991 and ENSO. Between 2003-2007 there were no volcanos and the PDO/ONI indices generally favoured warming. Remember ‘lack of volcanos’ is one of the reasons (perhaps now the only reason) given for the early 20th century warming.

    I don’t get it. Climate scientists are supposed to have enough knowledge about the climate system that they can confidently attribute late 20th century to anthropogenic influences. But when the climate doesn’t respond as expeted – it’s just natural variability. Now fair enough I can understand that they can’t predict volcanos and probably not ENSO events either but when both these factors are weighted in favour of warming – what other ‘natural variability’ has caused a 5+ year lull.

  102. Hadcrut3 is out now. Huge drop in December to 0.307C (from a revised November number of 0.400C). 2008 average of 0.325C – the lowest since 2000.

    It looks like all the monthly data has been adjusted back to August 2007 so will have to be re-entered for those keeping track.

  103. In most scientific and engineering endeavours, the people in charge of the data respond to discrepancies like this with concern and thoughtful analysis.

    There must be an explanation for the GISS/satellite divergence over the last 72 months, and it would be very helpful to policymakers (who rely heavily on the GISS graphs) to be informed about the explanation.

  104. If you follow the link to woodfortrees and use 1979 instead of 2003, you will notice that the GISS data is usually higher and only converged for high points like 1998.

  105. I hope this gets through. :wink:

    The Treasure Island / I Don’t Know What The Temperature Is Story

    Captain Andrew is a sea captain in Seatown. Drinking one night at a bar, he hears there is treasure on Treasure Island. He vows he must have this treasure and goes to the mapmaker, Mr. Burnes, to buy a map with Treasure Island on it.

    Mr. Burnes (with a pleasant smile): “Our maps are $50”

    Captain Andrew: “Arrrrr!” He buys the map (with a scowl) and sets sail.

    After months on the open sea, braving many storms and starvation and bouts of scurvy he gets to where the map says Treasure Island is, coordinates (x,y).

    No island. He sails around the area looking for it, but can’t find it. He realizes he is running out of water and has to sail home, giving up the search.

    When he gets back to Seatown he angrily goes back to Mr. Burnes, demanding an explantion of why he didn’t find Treasure Island.

    Mr Burnes: “Yeah, about that… while you were gone we found out our map was inaccurate. We have since produced a better one. It’s $100 (inflation)”

    Captain Andrew: “Arrrr!” He buys the map (with a more intense scowl) and sets sail.

    After months on the open sea, braving many storms and starvation and bouts of scurvy he gets to where the map says Treasure Island is, coordinates now (x,y+50).

    No island. He sails around the area looking for it, but can’t find it. He realizes he is running out of water and has to sail home giving up the search.

    When he gets back to Seatown he angrily goes back to Mr. Burnes, demanding an explantion of why he didn’t find Treasure Island this time.

    Mr Burnes (with pleasant smile): “Yeah, about that… while you were gone we found out our map was inaccurate. We have since produced a better one. It’s $150 (inflation again)”

    Captain Andrew: “Arrrrr!” He buys the map (with an even bigger scowl) and sets sail.

    After months on the open sea, braving many storms and starvation and bouts of scurvy he gets to where the map says Treasure Island is, coordinates now (x+10,y+75).

    No island. He sails around the area looking for it, but can’t find it. He realizes he is running out of water and has to sail home giving up the search.

    Captain Andrew is mad as h*ll.

    On his way, he sees a shell of a man in the ocean, who is clinging to a plank.

    Captain Andrew rescues the man, gives him some water, but still angry from his failures he screams at the rescued man:

    “By my beard, you scurvy spider! …Where in blazes is Treasure Island?!”

    Shell of a Man: “It’s around here somewhere. Let’s look at your map.”

    They look at the map together. When he sees the map is made by Mr. Burnes he says:

    “Oh… don’t buy maps from Mr. Burnes. His maps keep changing. You can’t trust him”

    Captain Andrew: “Arrrr!”

    THE END

  106. E.M.Smith (01:12:47) :

    jae (19:19:33)
    6) Computer programs, although written in Fortran, almost unintelligible, and not subject to any known QA/QC programs, have been posted on the Internet for your perusal.

    Where? (I was pretty good with FORTRAN once. it was my first computer language.)

    I’d love to get a look at the guts for a little QA exercise. (Though if nausea is induced I’m bailing… 8-0

    There are several references to GISS’ ModelE at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/06/ncdc-updates-database-for-dec08-ncdcs-own-graphic-shows-10-year-cooling-trend/

    The source is viewable at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    To find that blog entry I Googled “modele werme fortran” and Google include “model” as a search term. That pulled up some ancient history, fortunately not all mine. :-) Leif might enjoy it.

    Bring barf bags, though I did defend ModelE a little bit. (I.e. it was written by scientists, not software engineers.)

  107. Just to clarify the point of the article again, we are not discussing or speculating what the long term temperature trend is. The topic is that GISS and satellite data are diverging linearly over the last 72 months.

  108. “The planet is not anthropologically unstable. The people are.”

    – Rich Gele’

    Welcome to the new millenium folks.

  109. Rich,

    Interesting information. Then you can say almost 40% of Hadcrut gridcells have data 10% of the time or less. Seems to me that this is not something that can be overcome by statistical manipulation. How can HAdcrut publish any data with any confidence?

  110. Pearland,

    Maybe. The orientation is a little odd on that one, however, if it does become a sunspot, it most likely is a Cycle 23. In the southern hemi white-black is a Cycle 23. Not unusual I think for a few previous cycle spots to occur long after the next cycle starts (whenever that was – Jan 08?)

  111. Paul said;

    “Silly suggestion, but why could this extra heat not have gone into outer space? It seems logical to suggest that if heat [from the sun] can come in, the it should be able to escape also.”

    I appreciate that the theory of AGW is in effect based on heat being unable to escape the thick ‘girdle’ of co2 back into space, but in reality how much of the heat that comes in plus the heat we create, disappears into space and over what period?

    TonyB

  112. To Alan and others: similar “pauses” in the warming have been observed before: take the 79-85, the 86-95, the 90-96 periods and all you’ll get is an apparent cooling. Nevertheless, no-one in his (her) right mind would dare to say that temperatures decreased since 79, 96 or 90.

    This is short-term variability opposed to long-term trends. By the way, take a look at the UAH tropospheric temperature data for January http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html You can check that the temperatures we have rightnow are in no way “cooler” than what we had the previous years. Despite la nina. And the solar minimum.

    Flanagan-
    I’m just a lurker here but it seems that the issue is that the while the temperature has gone up very slightly there is also a great deal of disagreement about what that means. Is it catastophic or just normal? What is driving it? Does it require any action and is there any action that would be useful?

    Besides that there is a great deal of question as to if the measurements are accurate much less significant. The science is not settled. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  113. Richard M (20:26:04) said: “steven G (20:03:56) makes a very good point about the 60 station nonsense. For a number like this to be valid it ASSUMEs a homogenized world. I don’t think many folks here believe our world is one giant climate. The truth is the world consists of multiple, interacting climates. Anyone who attempts to model the world otherwise is bound to fool themselves. ”

    As a just a regular average Joe, it seems to me that this statement sums it all up. It has always been a mystery to me as to why we even try to get an average temperature of such a diverse and complex world. What does it really mean? At my locatoin we had lows in the upper 30’s this last few days but before that the lows were in the 50’s and 60’s which is where they are now. With such constant swings in temperature just at my location how can anyone even speak about 1.0 degree C average changes over the entire world? It makes no sense to me at all to even worry about it. And lastly, I never see any reference to the changes in the Earth’s obiquity or the precession of the equinox when discussing long term climate changes. As I have learned from Lief it is not TSI that counts it is solar isolation at the surface that counts and those two factors are the major players in determining that. As I understand it we are in a period of decreasing obiquity with the winter soltice heading for aphelion which should (in the long term) reglaciate the planet and there is nothing we can do about it. Luckily for us, our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will not be around to suffer through that epoch.

    But this is a most interesting blog and deserving of it’s award.

  114. Has anyone ever been able to replicate GISS temp data?
    When in doubt, go with the disclosed, most transparent data.
    Hansen has stated in a public letter to Scientific American that he ahs managed his data to achieve desired results in the past.
    I will be unsurprised if, as has achieved higher and higher status, that his ‘management’ of data is entirely jsutified.

  115. crosspatch (20:28:35) :

    “Ok – I’ll bite. Please tell me where these few dozens should be sited. ”

    Ok, sure. If you are looking for a global trend over time, it isn’t really going to matter where you site them as long as you cite them away from places that have human causes changes such as land use changes. In theory, all you would need is one station because if the entire globe is warming, that one station should be enough to show that over a long enough period of time to cycle through all natural weather cycles.

    C’mon CP, who is going to determine the cycle time of all natural weather cycles? A triffle ambigious, don’t you think? Or is 30 years enough? :<0

    I would place them in locations far away from cities and far away from areas that are actively changing such as in the process of being deforested and the land use changed from, say, forest to farming. Areas that are static would be fine so an area that is currently farmed and probably will be the for next century or so would probably be just great. I might put stations in the middle of large national parks and wilderness areas. Also in places like desert and tundra would work, too. As would large areas of open space that is relatively static such as Northern Canada. I would place none of these stations near population centers. They would be intentionally difficult to reach and automated. They might be visited one or more times a year for calibration and maintenance but would be otherwise quite far from any human influence.

    C’mon again, CP. Siberia is alledgely the farthest you can get from human influences, but look at the data we get from there. And what portion of this globe is entirely removed from human influences such as aerosols, soot, etc. IMHO, I agree with E.M. Smith, ie. global temps are globalogna. But then, I like warm.

  116. The simplest answer is that GISS is affected by increasing UHI, erroneous adjustments, lack of coverage, etc, and satellites aren’t. The differences between the sets goes all the way back to the start of the sat temps (1979), with the differences increasing gradually since then. Not just GISS, but all the various surface temp records show this compared to the sat temps.

  117. Just reporting the humanitarian views of of a real scientist.
    ————————————————————-
    Obama’s Science Guy

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/01/18/questions_for_obamas_science_guy/

    John Holdren White House science adviser.

    “He is also a doom-and-gloomer with a trail of erroneous apocalyptic forecasts dating back nearly 40 years – and a decided lack of tolerance for environmental opinions that conflict with his.”

    Wrong Choice for White House Science Adviser

    http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/1/William%20Yeatman%20-%20Holdren%20WebMemo.pdf

    “…Holdren warned of “ecocide,” an “ecocastrophe” caused by expanding populations and growing economies that exceed the “finite ability of this planet to support people.”5 Holdren became a vocal proponent of population control.”

    “In 2006, Holdren suggested that global sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century.”

    “In 2007, Holdren said ”As droughts, heat waves, floods wildfires and severe storms intensify, damages to ecosystems and human society are growing apace.”

    “Now Holdren is warning of “climate disruption,” (aka “global warming”) which he calls “the biggest environmental issue of our time, and indeed of any time.”16 He has been consistently wrong before, and he is wrong now. That and his cavalier disregard for human well being make him thoroughly unsuitable to be White House Science Adviser.”

  118. E.M.Smith (01:12:47) :

    jae (19:19:33)
    6) Computer programs, although written in Fortran, almost unintelligible, and not subject to any known QA/QC programs, have been posted on the Internet for your perusal.

    Where? (I was pretty good with FORTRAN once. it was my first computer language.)

    I’d love to get a look at the guts for a little QA exercise. (Though if nausea is induced I’m bailing… 8-0

    Might be able to get it over at CA but as far as I’m aware, no-one has been able to compile the source ‘as is’. Those that have been able to modify it to compile have been unable to reproduce the GISS figures.

    Dave.

  119. And here is the plot of the same three over another 72 month period, 1993 to 1999:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1993/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1993/to:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1993/to:1999/plot/uah/from:1993/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1993/to:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1993/to:1999/trend

    Both RSS and UAH show steeper warming than GISS, equivalent to the divergence discussed here but in the opposite direction.

    And here is WFT’s own graph of these three plus Hadcrut over the whole satellite period, with baselines aligned:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

    Which of the four is obviously divergent? Yup, it’s UAH. So, to quote Steven Goddard’s words above: ” In most scientific and engineering endeavours, the people in charge of the data respond to discrepancies like this with concern and thoughtful analysis.” What has been Christy & Spencer’s concerned and thoughtful response to this divergence? What, for that matter, is the response here? Any thoughts?

  120. Steve Goddard, you wrote in your post, “Since the start of 2003, GISS has been diverging from RSS at 2.64C/century…”

    Much of that can be explained as the difference between mediums sampled for the oceans, as noted in my 18:19:21 comment above. A quick extrapolation of the trend line in the first graph linked in my comment leads to a trend of approximately 2.02 deg C/century.

    And as noted by looking at the long-term data, much of that is the difference between the responses of ocean TLT and SST to ENSO events.

    Regards

  121. What’s going on with the AMSU temperature http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps ? Since Jan 08 it has been going up at a rate of approximately 0.1 def F per day.

    Do you mean compared to last year? If so, one explanation might be that recent daily comparisons between 2008 & 2009 correspond to a particularly cold spell last year. But, even so Jan 2009 looks to be comfortably above average – and I stick by a prediction I made on another blog that 2009 will be warmer than 2008.

  122. Yep, it’s a ghost of Solar Cycle 23 Past. It’s discussed over on the 95% sunspots thread.
    ============================================

  123. I think sat measurements are just more sensitive to trends. The surface network is too sparse now, as far as what is making up the dataset, and has siting issues that are less apt to pick up these trends, especially the cooling ones, as man’s influence on the network is strong, and is warm biased. I wouldn’t say we are comparing apples, and oranges, but certain apples are good baking apples, while many others are not.

    It’s too bad are global surface network is in such bad shape. And if AGW were true, then sat measurements should be showing it with ease. Instead, it shows a strong natural signal with minimal human impact. Nature has warmed us much more than now, and I hope the trend continues. Because a cooling planet would be devastating to the human race. Civilizations have risen, and fallen because of natural climate change. It’ll happen again, whether we like it, or not. And, of course, be blamed on AGW. That’s man’s arrogance for you. It’s no wonder that “Pride” tops the list of sins.

    Don’t get me wrong. I think being good stewards of the land, and sea are necessary. Diversity in energy resources, cleaning up pollution in the world, etc. are noble, and necessary. But some things cross the line, and AGW does just that. IMO

  124. “To Alan and others: similar “pauses” in the warming have been observed before: take the 79-85, the 86-95, the 90-96 periods and all you’ll get is an apparent cooling. ”

    Ric,
    El Chicon and MT St Helen’s erruptions in ealry 1903s, and Mt Pinutumbo in the early 1990s explain much of the apparent cooling during those time periods; however, there doesn’t appear to be any short term cooling from 86-90. Not sure what your point is. Anthony picked 2003 to get away from the Super El Nino/ENSO cycle of 1997-2000. The point of this thread isn’t to cherry pick apparent cooling trends, but to point out a serious conflict in 2 datasets. Divergence points to a serious problem. As a matter of fact, the divergence problem MBH9X (the famed Hockey Stick) had sealed the reputation of Mann’s temp reconstruction. The last 30 years of Mann’s proxies diverged significantly with recorded local temps.

    Hansen is attempting to do what Mann et als could not – call it building a Hockey Stick by other means.

  125. Tim Clark

    To get as far away as possible from human influences you need to go somewhere like…oh lets say Mauna Loa. The co2 record is apparently a direct reflection of the upward trend so the temperature records should be equally clear cut.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Hawaii.htm

    Oh! Thats extraordinary… the vicinity of Mauna Loa doesn’t seem to have warmed at all since 1970. Halfway down the page someone has thoughtfully placed the temperature record over the co2 record. It doesnt fit. Nor in any of the national records I have tried this with over the years. The Keeling curve only seems to work with global temperatures.

    tonyB

  126. “C’mon again, CP. Siberia is alledgely the farthest you can get from human influences, but look at the data we get from there. And what portion of this globe is entirely removed from human influences such as aerosols, soot, etc. ”

    There is potentially a serious UHI problem in Siberia, as Anthony posted awhile back. Above ground steam emmiting plumbing used to warm the cities during the most frigid periods of winter may be giving false warming -it all depends upon the siting of the temperature equipment.

    The other problem is, of course, lack of reporting stations. GISS interpolates the temps for the empty gridcells there.

  127. Ric (06:47:25) :

    You point is interesting but does not supply any information. I would ask you simply why do we get these pauses in warming in the past?

    Without an answer to that then looking at climate historically has no value for current conditions, this is especially true if you subscribed to AGW Theory. It pre-determines that the atmospheric composition that we have experienced since the beginning of the record has never existed in the recent historical records, so we have no frame of reference in the “recent” past and the distant past is unknowable at the level of detail we are using.

    All we can do is look at the variations and effects of past factors in an attempt to quantify current ones, then extrapolate from here. This debate is really over who has the best guess.

  128. Steven Talbot,

    1993 to 1999 is not an analogy, because the trends were parallel (no divergence) through 1997, and then the satellites had a step function upwards in 1998 due to a very strong El Nino event which made a large spike in the data.

    The 2003-2008 trend is different in that the divergence is linear and there were no major El Nino, volcanic or statistical events during the period.

  129. Indeed Climate Heretic,

    You are on to the point of the Captain Andrew story. Unless temperature right now is recorded and, you, me, the moderators, the scientists who can’t agree on it, the politicians who won’t agree on it, everyone who ever cared or will care in the future and everyone agrees that’s what it is, and it is considered THE temperature today and no one ever changes it, because it is the history, does any of this have any meaning now or in the future.

    Andrew ♫

  130. A question. NOAA is the source of data for GISS. NOAA is a taxpayer funded organization. Is it not possible to:
    (a) form a nonprofit group,
    (b) request all of the NOAA data for all past years and all stations (even if having to do so via the FOI Act),
    (c) write an independent code set (not using Hansen’s code base) and
    (d) publish the results independently?

    That would be a cross check on GISS, correct? I would think there are enough independent retired scientists, statisticians, and “open source” coders out there that could do the job within 18 months. All it would take would be a small number of well known people to kick this concept off.

    Is this a foolish idea or not?

  131. “global temps are globalogna. ”

    I would tend to agree with that. And there is also a larger problem. We have been attempting to spot trends over too short of time spans. In the Northern Hemisphere, we seen to have a PDO cycle of about 60 years or so. It is looking to me like we get something like 30 years of cooling and 30 years of warming. What I think needs doing is looking at temperatures over several cycles. For example, the cycle that peaked in the 1990’s apparently didn’t get as warm as the cycle that peaked in the 1930’s. It also looks like we still haven’t hit as warm a cycle as we saw in the MWP. The MWP apparently wasn’t as warm as the Roman Warm Period. It looks to me that while we have periods of warming and cooling, each warming hasn’t seemed to reach as warm as the one previous so we have possibly been in a period of general cooling for the past thousand or two years.

    I have a problem with people looking at rates of cooling over a decade or two and extrapolating that rate out over a century in the future when we are probably in only a 30 year cycle. Same with cooling. Superimposed on these cycles appear to be “super cycles” of things such as the Little Ice Age. We haven’t been keeping temperature records long enough (since the thermometer as we know it was invented only in the 1700’s.) to make intelligent projections 100 years into the future because we don’t know what normal behaviors are over periods of several centuries.

    Looking at the warming from about 1976 on to about the early 2000’s, it was probably a mistake to project that warming to continue on for a century into the future and now we see the other half of the cycle coming into play as we appear to be in a period of cooling as we also experienced after the period of warming in the 1930’s during the 1950;s, 1960s, and early 1970’s. It would be equally wrong to project the current cooling for 100 years into the future as that probably isn’t going to happen either.

    We need to look at where these cycles peak. Did this cycle peak at a higher temperature than the last one? If so, by how much? We need to watch this cooling period and see if it bottoms out lower than the one of the 1970’s. This is the only way we are going to see real trends in temperatures because temperature change isn’t linear.

  132. Heck, we should record the temp is as many locations as possible as often as possible and never change them.

    Andrew ♫

  133. Anthony, could you put an e-mail on this site in order to send you information directly, without leaving them in comments?

    For the lack of e-mail… please take a look at this: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warming_is_for_dummies.html

    After “Global Warming for Idiots”, now they will publish the “Global Warming for Dummies” and of course it is all over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation up here.

    Also, Have you heard of this German ship that left South Africa last week in order to dump tons of Iron Sulfide in the ocean to seed the ocean to boost the algea growth… against international laws???!!!
    http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=915801

    Reply: Take a look here. ~ charles the moderator

  134. The more we glean temperature and record it and the more we never change it… that is the “better” we are looking for.

    Andrew ♫

  135. Steven Goddard,

    1993 to 1999 is not an analogy, because the trends were parallel (no divergence) through 1997, and then the satellites had a step function upwards in 1998 due to a very strong El Nino event which made a large spike in the data.

    I wasn’t suggesting the period was simply ‘equal but opposite’. Every period is subject to a different combination of influences. My point was simply that one can readily cherry-pick the same length period which shows GISS warming less against the sat records, just as one can pick a period showing it greater. I’d actually suggest that 93 to 95.7ish is converging and 95.8 to 97.3ish is diverging before the convergence of 98. These are interesting indications that the land-based temperatures do not respond in lock-step with the satellite observations, which is hardly enormously surprising, given that they’re recording different things. As for the period you choose to look at, you say ” there were no major El Nino, volcanic or statistical events during the period”. However, we have recently experienced La Nina conditions and solar output has diminished. Should we expect surface and lower troposphere temperatures to respond equally and immediately to such influences? It seems at least sensible to ask that question before some leap to the conclusion that the best explanation is fraud.

    What is your view of the UAH divergence (in favour of less warming) from all other records over the period of satellite records? To quote you again, ” In most scientific and engineering endeavours, the people in charge of the data respond to discrepancies like this with concern and thoughtful analysis.” Does your concern apply to the much longer-term divergence in UAH or only to the six-year GISS divergence you have raised here?

  136. “” peat (15:55:14) :

    Assuming both temperature records are accurate, how can CO2 be the cause of recent warming trends? Since CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere, if it is responsible for excess heat, then shouldn’t the atmosphere warm first, followed by the surface? The 2nd law of thermodynamics is pretty fundamental (heat flows from hot to cold, not the other way around). Am I missing something? “”

    Could be; for a start HEAT is a verb, not a noun.

    The Earth, emits electromagnetic radiation (energy) corresponding to a thermal source that is at approximately 300 K temperature.

    That radiation disperses to the rest of the universe, and some of it arrives at, and is absorbed, by the Sun which is at a surface temperature of around 6000 K.

    So is that a violation of the second law of thermodynamics; or would you say that that simply cannot happen ? If it can’t happen, what happens to that radiation when it gets to the sun; does it stand off, and wait, knowing that the second law forbids it to land on something hotter ?

    Clausius’ statement of the second law simply says;- “No cyclic machine may have no other effect, than to transport heat from a source at one temperature, to a sink at a higher temperature. ”

    Yes I know he used “heat” instead of “energy”.

    But I think the situation has to do with that restriction to “cyclic” heat engines or machines.

    Earthshine from a cold moon is not denied entry to planet earth which is hotter, and the earth’s thermal radiation is also welcomed at the 6000 K solar surface; and the second law is not violated.

    Clausius also was the first to derive, from the second law, what is now known as the “Lagrange Invariant”, which applies to optical systems, which states that the quantity (nhu) is invariant throughout optical systems. (n) is the refractive index, (h) is the object or image height, and (u) is the divergence angle of cone of light from a point on the object or image. At large angles it becomes NHSin(U), and it represents the fact that the radiance is invariant (absent energy losses). No optical system can form an image that is brighter than the source. It is the most fundamental premise of optical systems, and it was originally derived from thermodynamics, and not from basic optical theory.

    But as to your basic query, there is that small matter of the sun up there which is the original source of the energy, and most of that energy by far, is deposited on the surface; not in the atmosphere; despite the presence of CO2 or any other GHG.

    George

  137. Andrew,

    Exactly correct. It is IMPOSSIBLE to sail from Halifax to Nassau without taking ‘fixes’ along the way.

    Dr. Hansen is using dead reckoning with the help of super computers. He has picked his port of call and has plotted his course. But he will NEVER get there by predetermining what course to steer.

    Regardless of all the technology in the world, you cannot sail from here to there without taking ‘course corrections’ along the way. There are simply too many variables on earth and in the universe.

    Cheers.

  138. Just a taught, how would fog show up from space versus ground observations in terms of temperature?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7838358.stm
    “With fewer fogs, mists and haze, more of the Sun’s energy has been reaching the surface, leading to a rise a rise in temperatures, they tell Nature Geoscience.
    The team’s analysis suggests the clearer air’s contribution to the background warming trend may have been about 10-20% across Europe as a whole; and in Eastern Europe specifically, it may have been as much as 50%.”

  139. “Heck, we should record the temp is as many locations as possible”

    The satellites pretty much do that already, over the entire surface of the planet, not just on land.

  140. “Have you heard of this German ship that left South Africa last week in order to dump tons of Iron Sulfide in the ocean to seed the ocean to boost the algea growth”

    And these are the same lunatics that complain about “ocean acidification”. Iron sulfide is what we use around here to acidify soil that has too high pH.

  141. Crosspatch,

    “The satellites pretty much do that already”

    ‘Pretty much’ is not very scientific. I need a number to see if that is ‘good enough’. ;)

    Andrew ♫

  142. George E. Smith (10:31:12) :

    ‘Could be; for a start HEAT is a verb, not a noun.’

    I could be wrong but I thought as a noun they were synonymous.

    Dave.

  143. OT but very interesting from Spaceweather:

    A new sunspot is emerging inside the circle region–and it is a strange one. The low latitude of the spot suggests it is a member of old Solar Cycle 23, yet the magnetic polarity of the spot is ambiguous, identifying it with neither old Solar Cycle 23 nor new Solar Cycle 24.

  144. Is there a plot somewhere that projects GISS back before 1990 with all the dropped stations removed from the earlier numbers?

  145. crosspatch, before making assessment of people, read how it works in ocean water. Also read on why the increased melting of ice may have in part mitigated the acidification around the Antarctic due elements that have been dragged along with the glaciers. If you have the scientific prowess to back up your statement, return with support.

  146. Anthony,

    You should really normalize the datasets to the same baseline in the woodfortrees graph at the beginning, it gives a more realistic visual comparison (as GISS doesn’t stick out dramatically above everything else over the period). It looks like this: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture10-1.png

    Also, its worth noting that HadCRU3 diverges just about as much from satellite records than GISS, so its hardly fair to just blame the NASA Goddard folks. As for your take away question, well, the GISS temperature graph would look almost exactly the same, except that the 2008 dot would be slight lower (and some prior years would be imperceptibly lower). You can make this graph yourself by plotting GISS till 2003, normalizing UAH and GISS anomalies for the year 2003, and plotting UAH from 2003 to present.

    Now, as far as the connection between ENSO events and the diversion of surface and satellite temperature records, this is something I’ve been personally looking into lately. I posted some analysis over at Lucia’s place the last week (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/moncktons-artful-graph/#comment-8620), but I couldn’t find any significant relationship between the magnitude of ENSO and the divergence between satellite and surface measurements.

    I feel that subtracting the averages of surface and satellite records is the way to go rather than picking a particular set to compare is a better approach: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture1.png
    You can see the juxtaposed curves here: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture2.png
    And the OLS regression here: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture3.png

    Oddly enough, there seems to be a roughly six month lag between ENSO events and large deviations between surface and satellite records, though even adjusted for this lag the relationship is not particularly significant.

  147. “‘Pretty much’ is not very scientific. I need a number to see if that is ‘good enough’. ;)”

    Okay, the entire planet with the exception of a “dead zone” directly over both poles that is not observable due to orbital issues. RSS is from -70 to 82.5 latitude.

  148. “read how it works in ocean water”

    No need. Anyone that goes intentionally dumping stuff to cause changes like this needs to be in a mental institution or jail or possibly both.

    Part of this is a result of the insanity sweeping certain groups that CO2 is harmful. CO2 was being depleted from the atmosphere at record rates until we started putting it back in on a large scale. If anything we have probably extended the life of the biosphere by adding the CO2 back. Decreasing CO2 levels is probably, in the long term, more harmful than beneficial.

    The atmosphere is now recovering to higher CO2 levels that existed during most of the history of biological activity on this planet. Higher CO2 levels are probably more beneficial to the biosphere than lower CO2 levels.

  149. Andrew (18:45:15) :

    Isn’t AGW a case of analysis with the jump to a conclusion?

    Don’t we have to wait for the future to see if the conclusion is really valid?

    There won’t be any way to really tell if the conclusion is valid. How will you isolate a CO2 warming caused by humans from any other warming? All you’ll even have is correlation.

  150. Referring to Joel Shore’s comment in support of GISS/Hadley publications and pronouncements, “In other words, they understand the limitations in drawing conclusions from their data better than you do.”

    If they understood “the limitations in drawing conclusions from THEIR data”, they would welcome discussion from all responsible “scientists” and STOP making the fearful pronouncements OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS. Be definition, “limitations of data”, affect certainty! There are all kinds of “scientists”, and from my own lowly, lay-person, common sense evaluation of limited studies (which include the participants, history and methods of the IPCC, peer-reviewed research on ice, oceans, atmosphere, the sun, historical geology, and links found on numerous blogs), I think that those driving the hysteria over what they now call “climate change” are irresponsible as “scientists”, and that they are driven by those with less than responsible motives.

    When the CO2 “issue” came to my awareness, my first question was, “How do ‘they’ measure the earth’s temperature”? ‘They’ quickly mentioned CO2 less often, perhaps because that part of the equation was rather mysterious to the masses except for catchy phrases like “the carbon foot-print”, “green”, “poisonous greenhouse gases”, and ‘they’ moved toward use of the terms “global warming”, and more recently “climate change” in order to keep a movement going that has global political, social, and economic motives AND consequences. It is obvious that my first question has definitely NOT been answered, and the answer to that one question is really the critical one required to reach any valid conclusions to the hypotheses for AGW.

    I really appreciate the scientific information and polite discourse I have found on WUWT. Science is NEVER settled. Scientific debate is NEVER over. Those who think it is on this issue should review what the scientific method is. It is the best tool we have for finding truth. I am so pleased to see that many responsible scientists all over the world have been coming forward on this issue to counter un-truths and to attempt to educate those in power as well as all the good citizens of the world, most of whom are doing their best to be good stewards of our planet while trying to survive. Reason must prevail, so that humanities’ resources can used to make wise decisions about environmental challenges from weather and natural, sometimes catastrophic, earth events, WHILE cleaning up poisons going into our air, land, and water, addressing poverty, health, starvation, wars, conserving all resources, and doing our best to live in harmony with all life on the planet. We need human and spiritual wisdom, and we desperately need respect for one another!

  151. David Archibald (19:03:46) :

    The world has cooled since 2003 because that is when the oceans starting cooling. Craig Loehle has a paper in press on this subject.

    But, Dr. Loehle is a “denier” so his paper will be hand-waved out of the mainstream, if it ever gets there, unfortunately.

  152. I don’t know whether this has any bearing on the debate in this track but the following CRU INFORMATION SHEET #1 caught my eye. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

    According to this exhibit, it shows the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORD [ANOAMLY [from 1850 to 2007]. Combined global land and marine surface temperatures.

    It shows a net change of 0.362+ 0.423 =0.785 degrees C over 157 years. This reflects an average temperature change of 0.785/15.7 = 0.05 degrees C per decade, ¼ the IPCC forecast for the first two decades or 0.2 per decade. IPCC further projects various scenarios that project temperature increases of 1-6 degrees C over 100 years. This means accelerated warming approaching 2 to 4 times [for say 3.5 degrees C increase in 100 years] their early year’s projections of 0.2 per decade. This translates on the low side to warming decades of 0 .2 x 2= 0.4 per decade or nearly 8 times the historical trend for the last 157 years of 0.05. It isn’t going to happen folks, in my opinion.

    I think their fundamental flaw is that they seem to be using short term, straight line, and highest decadal figures of 1978-2007 trend line or flawed models to project 100 years ahead. As the graph shows above, in 100 years there are 3-4 cycles of warming and cooling for various reasons [ocean temperature changes, volcanic eruptions, etc.] which significantly slow the climate rise and keep this planet’s climate on a more even keel.

    Also the temperature increase between 1913 and 1944 or 0.390 degrees C is almost the same as ‘so called manmade global warming’ increase [ the cause of all the recent panic] of 1976-2007 or 0.491. degrees C. There is only a net difference of 0.1 degrees. So the claim that the recent accelerated warming is primarily due to recent man greenhouse gases seems false since similar warming have occurred before and quite recently .

    If we are turning the global energy strategies upside down because of a false non existent warming threat requiring a massive swing to nuclear energy, we are making a very big mistake. We are jumping from a frying pan into a broiler.

  153. Ok, sure. If you are looking for a global trend over time, it isn’t really going to matter where you site them as long as you cite them away from places that have human causes changes such as land use changes. In theory, all you would need is one station because if the entire globe is warming, that one station should be enough to show that over a long enough period of time to cycle through all natural weather cycles.

    You can’t possibly be serious. If you only have one station, how would you possibly know if anything global is happening? Sheesh!

    We already know from the data we have, however poor it may be, that GW isn’t global by any stretch of the imagination.

  154. John Finn (08:48:07) :

    ” Jan 2009 looks to be comfortably above average – and I stick by a prediction I made on another blog that 2009 will be warmer than 2008.”

    What planet are you on? Comfortably above average? Do you mean all time coldest in Illinois and Maine? You have a very strange idea of comfortable. Seriously though you have about a 50% chance of being right but even though it is the warmest here it has been in 3 weeks I am not going to celebrate. (-15C)
    I am pretty certain that November and December were the coldest in at least a generation around here so it could be warmer than 2008 and still darn cold. Growing season in 2008 was about 3 weeks shorter than typical, a bit more cooling on that stat and we could all get mighty skinny.

    I keep hoping for some global warming to get here, I really do, maybe I should surrender and move to Yuma?

  155. Jeff Alberts,

    I agree but to free the prisoner, and help him escape his chains, sometimes you have to start by finding a way over the barbed wire fence.

    Ya know what I mean? ;)

    Andrew ♫

  156. “We already know from the data we have, however poor it may be, that GW isn’t global by any stretch of the imagination.”

    I’ll that a step further and say we don’t know exactly what we know, because the data has been adjusted.

    Andrew ♫

  157. Taking the change from the 1970’s to the 1990’s and extrapolating a 100 year trend isn’t really much different than taking the change from 6am to noon at my house and extrapolating that at the current rate of temperature change, the Earth will be hot enough to melt steel in 100 years. The only thing different is the duration of the cycles.

    Not taking into account natural temperature cycles having nothing to do with human activity is about as silly as not taking into account the natural diurnal cycle.

  158. “If you only have one station, how would you possibly know if anything global is happening? Sheesh!”

    Because if it is “global” then it is “global” and if it is happening at one place it is happening at them all. In other words, if I have data over, say, 200 or 300 years, that is probably enough to show if there is a trend either positive or negative. Taking data for less than 100 years is likely useless. You need at least one cycle of data just to establish some frame of reference. That takes somewhere along the lines of 50 to 70 years. You then need to measure over a second cycle to see if it has changed from the first. So now we are at somewhere between 100 and 140 years. And then you need a third cycle to see of there is really any trend … to see if the cycles are topping out at higher or bottoming out at lower values over time … and so here were are at about 1.5 to 2 centuries before any kind of real “signal” can be resolved and a real trend line would take, say, 4 or 5 such cycles to resolve.

    In other words, attempting to show “man made global warming” during a period when we were in a period of a natural cycle that has rising temperatures anyway is actually quite silly.

  159. Anthony,

    You asked, “How different would the GISS graph appear, if it showed a -3.6C/century cooling trend over the last six years?”

    It would look exactly like this:

    REPLY: Actually that was Steve Goddard’s question but thank you for answering it. – Anthony

  160. Steve Goddard:

    As a follow up, I remembered a post I had done in May about the GISTEMP 1200km versus 250km smoothing.
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/giss-temp-smoothing-radius-comparison.html

    I had already endured the trouble of retrieving the GISTEMP data with 250 smoothing and wanted to see if it would add anything to the discussion. I went back and cleaned up the delta T (1200km smoothing minus 250km smoothing) graph and took out the poly trend line so not to have to endure the wrath of others who comment here:

    Then I shortened the time span to January 2003 to May 2008. Aha, there’s a positive trend in the 5+ years of data.

    So I went back and tried to update the graph by tacking on the data since May, without looking for any updates there may have been to the earlier data. Here’s the delta-T graph with the update:

    And the short-term version:

    That cluster in recent months concerns me, as does the shift in the trend line, so I’m not sure if that really helped.

  161. It is no answer to my challenge to point to periodic variations in the recent rate of global temperature increase. Unless these are explicable (volcanoes, aerosols, ice melt, redistribution of heat, solar variation) in concrete physical terms they are simply inconsistent with CO2 forcing and current climate models.

    Five years is ample time to confirm these measurements. Even one year should suffice if the data is as accurate and comprehensive as claimed.

    The evidence is clear that natural variability is capable of outweighing CO2 forcing. Since we don’t understand why we cannot predict the future.

  162. For Jim Norvell:
    Last year I analyzed the temp histories (from GISS) of only those stations in existence before 1940. This date was the mid-century peak in temp, as well as the start of CO2 increase. I identified over 400 stations (excl US) whose net increase from 1940 to 2008 was but 0.2 deg C on avg (identical to US graph). This amount was considerably less than the GISS Global Mean (+0.6 deg C). The GISS analysis was corrupted (in my opinion) by the addition of thousands of stations after 1950.
    Sam

  163. Nobody sensible should expect that the 4 major global mean temperature series, 2 satellite, 2 surface based, will ever show 100% correlation. Calculating an estimate of the lower tropospheric temperature from the MSU readings is a complex task and the two agencies that publish such an estimate, while they use the same source data, apply different assumptions about orbital decay, satellite calibration etc. Similarly the two major surface based estimates also share many readings of sea temperatures and land stations in common but make different homogeneity adjustments and notably, GISS extrapolates over the Arctic region from the nearest stations, while HADCRUT does not. The surface and satellite estimates will always differ because they are measuring a different quantity, the near surface temperature and the lower tropospheric temperature respectively, and while the coverage of the satellites is good, it does not extend to the extreme high latitudes. Given these sources of divergence, the actual convergence is, arguably, renmarkable

    Getting onto trends and back on topic, it seems that the satellite indices respond more strongly than the surface based estimates to ENSO events, warming more than the surface based series during an El Nino and cooling more in a La Nina. For example, here is RSS warming more than GISS during the 1998 Super El Nino and here cooling more during the 1985 La Nina.

    To quantify this source of divergence I plotted the ENSO Multivariate index against the difference between RSS and GISS and UAH and GISS respectively. By eyeball the chart shows a striking correlation in some periods, but the match breaks down in others, e.g. the 1998 El Nino gave a large divergence while the 1983 peak did not. Calculating the correlation coefficient for UAH-GISS from 1979 onwards (using all the data, that is) gives an unimpressive result of +0.08 using the raw numbers, however if I time shift the temperature response to 6 months later than the ENSO data, this increases the correlation to a more significant +0.32 , reinforcing the visual impression of a lag between the two. Here is the timeshifted data:

    http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pFFm87cBy5_qaPiWsXRWCEg#

    For Mr Goddard’s carefully selected period of 2003 onwards the correlation coefficient is +0.73 for UAH-GISS and +0.83 for RSS-GISS, however I do not assign huge significance to a dataset of just 72 points. However the proposal that the ENSO factor in the divergence is null is not supported by the data, clearly.

    My little spreadsheet is no substitute for a rigourous analysis of course, just me scratching an itch, I suspected the ENSO had a large role in the satellite/surface differences, and I have now quantified it, to my own satisfaction at least. As to why the ENSO should affect the satellite estimates more than the surface station results, two speculations occur… it could be that the troposphere reacts more strongly than the surface to ENSO, possibly driven by changes in evaporation rates in the tropics, or it could be as simple as the satellite analyses overweighting the tropics, compared to Hadley and GISS.

    Who knows? None of this sheds any light on the real puzzle: which is why the trend in UAH diverges so much from the other three major series over the satellIte era.

  164. “Five years is ample time to confirm these measurements. ”

    It absolutely is not. We had 30 years of cooling going in to the 1970’s. We had thirty years after that. Five years of data would have shown absolutely nothing about what was going on with “global temperature”.

    As the most recent peak in temperatures did not reach the level of the 1930’s peak, it appears that we are in an overall period of cooling shorter term variations of warming and cooling but overall, temperatures appear to be cooling. And the problem with even the “modern” record is that the early part of the record simply shows recovery from the Little Ice Age.

    The fastest rate of rise in the temperature record is during the 1700’s. There was no significant CO2 impact from humans at that time. What Hansen has documented is natural cyclic warming from a positive PDO cycle and extrapolated that over time as if it would continue forever.

    You can absolutely not gain any significant information over a 5 year period in the Northern Hemisphere except to learn what the current natural cycles are doing. Anyone who claims otherwise is practicing voodoo, not science.

    Can you look at the rate of this morning’s temperature change and use that information to predict what tomorrow’s temperature will be? No. Can you look at the rate of change in daily high temperatures in April and predict based on just that information what October’s high temperatures will be? No. But if you have a history of the entire annual cycle of temperature over an entire year, you can get an idea of what the range of summer is likely to be. And it is the same with cycles that are longer than a year.

    We are talking about cycles of natural variation that are several decades long. You can not take readings over a portion of it and extrapolate from that what the temperature will be a century hence.

  165. Said: We had 30 years of cooling going in to the 1970’s. We had thirty years after that.

    Meant: We had 30 years of cooling going in to the 1970’s. We had thirty years of warming after that.

  166. I would like to sincerely thank everyone involved for a fascinating blog that is doing exactly what scientists should be doing with this and other issues – examining it from all sides until no doubt remains.

    My interest in this far exceeds my knowledge – as I count myself more a philosopher than physical philosopher.

    As to those who rudely interupt this discussion with comments designed to stifle debate – I do wish they would go back and re-read Descartes. As the father of modern scientific method [my assertion – debate at your peril :-) ] his methods have been followed in outline from the time he proposed them. We abandon them now at our peril.

    After all – you can’t do any science without using his co-ordinate system.

    Congratulations people – Descartes would be proud.
    And sorry for being slightly off thread.

  167. Peter Jones (20:36:02) : “from Yahoo story: Americans giving Obama extraordinary support: polls ‘A survey conducted by The New York Times and CBS News found a US public eager to give the president-elect a wide berth…'”

    LMAO! Give him a wide berth!!! I tried, guys, I tried!

  168. If my boss asked me to program a report(as part of my job) to take the issue seriously wether AGW is true or not, I would have to know what the claim is.

    If one assumes the face value (in “science” you aren’t supposed to assume, so you have to ask what the claim actually is EVERY TIME, which my experience with people tells me that assumption is already fraught with problems, -my boss and I always fight about what the assumptions are, but for conversation’s sake, let’s say) one has to show the A, the G, and the W for AGW to be true.

    Let’s start with the W, because the A and the G are types of the W. We can break out the A and the G later (personal preference?). Which one should I go after first? Is that a yes or no question?

    Is it warming period? Yes or no? Can the question be answered with a yes or a no? It depends on what the ‘it’ is. Which location should I use as my first ‘it’? Where do I start? Can that question be answered with a yes or a no? I suppose it depends on your preference again? Bad question.

    If ‘it’ is the globe, then the question I should actually start with is ‘Is there Global Warming’? Surely I can answer that with Yes or no? It depends on if ‘it’ (the globe) is warmer now than any time in the past (I can’t assume anything), if I can say yes or no.

    Is there a temperature record for the entire globe? Yes or no? Well, what would be ‘good enough’ to measure warming for the entire globe? Is that a yes or no question? Which personal preference do I use again?

    As you can see, I am stuck with a question ‘Is there a way to measure the temperature of the entire globe right now’ with which the answer is a personal preference. Yes or no? Is there a way that can be accepted as the measure of the temperature of the entire globe right now that someone knows? Yes or no?

    I would say to my boss, ‘I need more information to trouble-shoot’. Here’s a question that ALWAYS gets results- What does the client with the problem actually WANT?

    ;)

    Andrew ♫

  169. Crosspatch, you entirely miss my point. Five years is quite enough to determine the measurements – ie the temperature is not increasing over that period. So the question immediately is why?

    Yes, this is natural variation. But it must be explained. Exactly where is the heat going? If it correlates with PDO, so what? Where is the heat going or being stored?

  170. There is not that much difference in how the different temp series respond to the ENSO. GISS had an unusual response to the 1997-98 El Nino but over the whole GISS record back to 1880, it is not that much different.

    Here are the regression coefficients on the ENSO for the major temp series. (Note ENSO region anomalies can vary up to +/- 3.0C which is a big number compared to the global temp record.)

    UAH – 0.063
    RSS – 0.059
    Hadcrut3 – 0.076
    GISS – 0.053

    And the lag for the ENSO should be 3 months (not 6 months).

    What explains the 3 month lag is the lag between ocean temperatures and surface temperatures. Basically, the ocean lags the surface by about 50 to 80 days. Land temperatures peak about 30 days after the summer solstice (July 21st and the coldest part of the year is 30 days after the winter solstice).

    Ocean temps, however, peak about 80 days after the summer solstice (Sept 12th) – The peak polar ice melt is Sept 12th – the peak Hurricane season is Sept 12th – the actual ocean temps peak on Sept 12th. And the opposite timeline occurs in the winter.

    When the ocean gives back temperatures to the atmosphere, there is also a 50 to 80 day lag until all the ocean heat/cold in the ENSO region is dumped back into the atmosphere (globally of course, Bob Tisdale has shown the ENSO has a long-term lasting impact in the Western Pacific.)

  171. Bill Illis: you got ‘er nailed. And it’s all about heat STORAGE on this planet, not magical radiation cartoons. The radiation is a “symptom” or “measurement” of what is happening.

  172. “Yes, this is natural variation. But it must be explained. Exactly where is the heat going? If it correlates with PDO, so what? Where is the heat going or being stored?”

    The only place heat is stored is in the ocean as atmospheric heat is eventually radiated into space. What changes is where the warm and cold spots are, not really the total amount of heat. When we have changes in wind currents, we have changes in the surface temperatures at various places. When the surface temperatures change, the air temperature changes.

    This is why I would measure ocean temperature at the sea bottom, that would give a better indication, I think, of the heat content of the ocean. If the water near the bottom of the ocean warms a half-degree, we have a large increase in the amount of heat in the ocean. If the surface warms half a degree, it might mean that the trade winds have simply slowed down a little.

    Changes in wind speed and direction can change surface temperatures and cause upwellings to change. Some of these weather patterns are cyclical in long term oscillations. You can just about correlate the sardine catch off of California with changes in the PDO, for example.

    It isn’t so much that the total heat is changing, it is that the locations of the warm and cool spots are changing. This influences weather patterns and can be self-reinforcing. But it could well be that heat builds up until the system switches state, then this heat is released into the atmosphere where it is dissipated into space. Once enough heat has been lost, the system “flips” to the other state and begins to absorbing heat again.

    But the only place that “stores” heat is going to be the ocean and the only place it is going to be “lost” is to the atmosphere and into space.

  173. “Nobody sensible should expect that the 4 major global mean temperature series, 2 satellite, 2 surface based, will ever show 100% correlation.”

    I agree with that. But by the same token, they should show the same basic general direction. They might vary in absolute value but one wouldn’t expect to see a situation where the satellite and two ground-based networks (HADCrut and GISS) show cooling and a third (NOAA) shows warming over the same period. It reminds me of an old Sesame Street song that went something like “one of these things doesn’t belong”.

    Once the CRN gets up and going, it will put a lot of these issues to bed because there will no longer be any need for “adjustments”. This is a network designed from the start to be a climate monitoring network rather than a weather network pressed into service for climate monitoring. It is going to take a considerable amount of time, though, to collect enough data from these stations to get any idea of long term trends. Besides that, the network covers only the US, we still have considerable problems with stations in the rest of the world (ROW) as those tend to have the least assurance in quality of equipment and observations.

  174. @EMH (12:38:29) :

    What you wrote, I am sincerely with you 100% until you get to here.

    “Reason must prevail, so that humanities’ resources can used to make wise decisions about environmental challenges from weather and natural, sometimes catastrophic, earth events, WHILE cleaning up poisons going into our air, land, and water, addressing poverty, health, starvation, wars, conserving all resources, and doing our best to live in harmony with all life on the planet. We need human and spiritual wisdom, and we desperately need respect for one another!”

    To that, all I can say is “kumbayah.” I’m a bit cynical about the current global political climate. I share your wish but I believe herding 10,000 cats is easier than what you’re hoping for.

  175. Crosspatch, the problem is that the ocean temperature doesn’t show that heat is being stored there over the last five years. Both temperature and sea level rises stalled. The onus is on the AGW proponents to show where the heat is being stored.

    The evidence so far as far as I can see is that it is not being stored anywhere on earth. Therefore their forcing assumptions are false.

  176. “ocean analysis chosen as HadI/Reyn_v2, you will see that the ocean coverage is in fact quite complete”

    Don’t Reynolds temperatures include satellite info, thus should be excluded for comparison with satellite temperatures?

  177. RE Crosspatch
    You stated that “the only place that “stores” heat is going to be the ocean and the only place it is going to be “lost” is to the atmosphere and into space”.
    Is that a scientific certainty or only an assumption based on our current limited knowledge about how the sun and this planet interact?

  178. Response to George E. Smith (10:31:12) :

    “HEAT is a verb, not a noun.”
    Heat may to used as a synonym for energy (a noun).

    “The Earth, emits electromagnetic radiation (energy) corresponding to a thermal source that is at approximately 300 K temperature.That radiation disperses to the rest of the universe, and some of it arrives at, and is absorbed, by the Sun which is at a surface temperature of around 6000 K. So is that a violation of the second law of thermodynamics; or would you say that that simply cannot happen ?”

    Obviously, that can happen. The second law in this context merely states that more heat flows from the Sun to the Earth than the other way. This is not at issue.

    “But as to your basic query, there is that small matter of the sun up there which is the original source of the energy, and most of that energy by far, is deposited on the surface; not in the atmosphere; despite the presence of CO2 or any other GHG.”

    I do not dispute that most of the sun’s energy is absorbed at the surface of the Earth, not in the atmosphere. Rather, my earlier post centered around how EXTRA heat due to INCREASED CO2 concentrations (which absorbs infrared from surface emissions) might be in turn be returned to the surface. My point is that such a scheme necessarily requires the atmosphere to INCREASE in temperature by more than the resulting INCREASE in surface temperature. (Obviously, the surface is warmer than the atmosphere. That’s not at issue. I am talking about temperature INCREASES.)

    My query remains.
    peat (15:55:14) :
    “Assuming both temperature records are accurate, how can CO2 be the cause of recent warming trends? Since CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere, if it is responsible for excess heat, then shouldn’t the atmosphere warm first, followed by the surface? The 2nd law of thermodynamics is pretty fundamental (heat flows from hot to cold, not the other way around). Am I missing something?”

  179. I like the last several comments and thoughts therein, especially crosspatch’s idea of a global climate monitoring network. I can change my answer from a ‘no’ to ‘yes’ as soon as it is up! (The millions Al Gore spent on his Global Warming propaganda campaign could have been spent on that.) I think you guys are starting to ‘ask the right questions’, as my boss would say. ;)

    Andrew

  180. peat (15:55:14) :

    Assuming both temperature records are accurate, how can CO2 be the cause of recent warming trends? Since CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere, if it is responsible for excess heat, then shouldn’t the atmosphere warm first, followed by the surface? The 2nd law of thermodynamics is pretty fundamental (heat flows from hot to cold, not the other way around). Am I missing something?

    No, your question is relevant , and it has given rise to several threads on why there is not tropical troposphere hot spot as is necessary for this explanation of green house gasses acting in the atmosphere. The atmosphere should be heating.

    Indeed there are two theoretical physicists from Germany that have attacked the whole concept in http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 .

    There is also a humorous image:
    http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2008/07/nasa-free-energ.html

    This shows a “free energy oven” that illustrates the question of the second law by J.Peden. I do not know if it is the same Peden who posts here.

    BTW heat is a noun in thermodynamic books. In my thermodynamics book, (Sears,Addison Wesley ’59) it is clearly a noun, Q defined as a “flow of heat”, going onto “dU=d’Q-d’W”, for the first law of thermodynamics.

  181. John, Zeke, allmost the entire trend divergence between RSS and UAH can be accounted for with a step change in 1992 coinciding with satellite transition. This step change has been noted by both RSS and UAH and is examined by Dr. Christy in a 2007 Journal of Geophysical Research article. Jeff Id has been corresponding with Dr. Christy and has a post which corrects for this step by removing the discontinuity and substituting trend corrected GISS data. This post is one of several exploring surface vs. tropospheric temp anomaly linear slopes.

    One could argue that the use of GISS to correct tropospheric data may be an issue however Jeff showed in a previous post comparing GISS with UAH that the only real difference with the metrics is with the 30 year linear slopes. When the metrics are detrended, then 2 year slope differences are plotted, the 2 sigma slope difference was a measly .002 C per 30 years! This gave Jeff the confidence to use GISS data in the RSS / UAH discontinuity.

    Another interesting observation when comparing filtered, detrended UAH vs. GISS was that the ratio of standard deviations was consistent with the hypothesized tropospheric amplification factor.

    In summary: 1) Trend corrected GISS / UAH comparisons demonstrate a very tight relationship – it is the 30 year linear slopes which diverge. 2) 2 year slope differences demonstrate tropospheric amplification consistent with hypothesis. 3) When corrected the UAH / RSS slopes become very close.

    All of these things suggest a trend bias in either the GISS surface, or the satellite metrics. The alignment of RSS and UAH slopes does not eliminate a possible common bias but it sure narrows the range of possible explanations as data adjustment methods for the most part are independant. The fact that tropospheric amplification seems to show up in short term trends but not long term would suggest that the true slope difference between surface and satellite should be surface x tropospheric amplification = troposphere. The alignment of UAH and RSS by correcting for the 1992 step would appear to tip the scales toward the GISS surface data containing the bias.

  182. Layman Lurker, as I posted in the previous thread on this topic, the step divergence between UAH and RSS is easily seen here:

    I also pointed out the more recent Douglass and Christy paper here (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.0581v1) which has a detailed discussion in the Appendix with references as to why they believe their UAH series is preferable to RSS.

    Removing the 1992/93 step from RSS would obviously move its linear trend towards UAH. Passage of time will do that as well. Furthermore, the satellite data is said by Christy to be more sensitive to anomalies by a factor of 1.23 and this is also visible in the chart I linked to where peaks and troughs are greater for both UAH and RSS compared with GISS.

    Scaling the satellite anomalies down by that factor will have a similar impact on the satellite trend, further distancing even RSS from the GISS data.

  183. Layman Lurker (22:52:03) :

    The alignment of UAH and RSS by correcting for the 1992 step would appear to tip the scales toward the GISS surface data containing the bias.

    Add to that that the GISS surface data are the output of innumerable convolutions of corrections, even changing the old data when new data comes in, plus the results of the surface station checks Anthony has initiated that point to the elephant in the room clearly.

  184. A minor point about the chart link I just posted is that the trend slopes are deg C per month as the data is the monthly global average temperature.

  185. Here is what the trends look like using Christy’s scaling factor for the satellite data:

    It’s noteworthy and obvious as Mike McMillan pointed out in the earlier thread that the 1998 peak is severely and uniquely flattened by GISS relative to the satellite data. This requires explanation.

  186. Ahh, the famous Gerlisch and Tscheuschner paper. The most praised full-of-bull****-and-fundamental-thermodynamics-errors-never-published-nor-even-reviewed paper! Where (for the sake of simplicity) earth is modeled as a plane always presenting the same face to the sun… I think it’s even worthless to make any more comment on it…

    Surface warms first because the this is where the IR back-radiation comes from. For example, if the sun were to be the major driver of the observed warming, upper atmsophere layers should warm faster than the rest. Which is, well, exactly the opposite of what we see…

  187. Flanagan (03:05:07)

    The criticisms of G&T of the IPCC’s conception of the greenhouse effect are still cogent even if their own conception of the physics isn’t sure. But check out Miscolzi’s, and now Spencer’s, contributions to the destruction of the overly simplistic IPCC conception.
    ============================

  188. Also Flanagan, I think we’re going to find that the oceans warm or cool with the atmosphere following their lead. And yes, the sun is the major driver of temperature change in the oceans. Just how, well, the wheels turn. The climate is the continuation of the ocean by other means.
    ==================================

  189. Flanagan states:

    “Surface warms first because the this is where the IR back-radiation comes from. For example, if the sun were to be the major driver of the observed warming, upper atmsophere layers should warm faster than the rest. Which is, well, exactly the opposite of what we see…”

    You may want to take this up with Gavin Schmidt:

    “On multidecadal time scales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but it occurs in only one observational data set. Other observations show weak, or even negative, amplification. These results suggest either that different physical mechanisms control amplification processes on monthly and decadal time scales, and models fail to capture such behavior; or (more plausibly) that residual errors in several observational data sets used here affect their representation of long-term trends.”

    Link:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1551

  190. An incandescent lamp burns out.

    What caused it? Well, the filament became weak in one spot and it broke.

    How? Well all those electrons coursing through it caused metal migration and at a weak spot, enough metal was moved that it broke.

    Can we say it was the power that caused the problem? Surely it was the power that did it!

  191. I’ve noticed that March of 2008 has one of the largest divergences of late between Satellite and Surface, likely playing a significant part in the diffenence in trend slopes from 2003. Based on the March maps of RSS vs GISTEMP, the areas of divergance look to be Alaska, Northern Europe, Nino Regions 1+2, Northern US, northern S. America.
    My $0.02.

  192. The upper level hot spot is hotlinked [the second ‘this post’ in the first sentence], and discussed within this interesting page: click

    For anyone getting up to speed on the climate issue, the link(s) above deconstruct many of the bogus AGW claims in a single post.

  193. crosspatch (18:27:36) :
    But the only place that “stores” heat is going to be the ocean and the only place it is going to be “lost” is to the atmosphere and into space.

    At present, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that perhaps more heat is being lost into space than previously retained. So to answer the question, “where has the heat gone”, into space is one possible answer…

  194. I wonder what the criteria for station inclusion are. Watts mentioned that there where huge gaps of coverage in Brazil, as confirmed by the maps, However, Brazil does have a well developed metereological system with countrywide coverage and a large number of automated stations reporting by satellite even in the Amazon region. I am not quite sure if this data is available online,though, but I think this website http://www.inpe.br would be a good place to start. Click on ¨Talk to us¨ on the right upper hand side for further information; their main weather section is in Portuguese only.

  195. its pretty clear to me that no one knows what the “world’s” temperature is. And they dont know how to measure it.

    If a scientist is honest, he says this data stinks, I better design a better experiment

  196. PS: the following page http://satelite.cptec.inpe.br/PCD/ can show the distribution of the weather collection stations linked by satellite in Brazilian territory; data for each station can be obtained from this page http://satelite.cptec.inpe.br/PCD/historico/consulta_pcdm.jsp Portuguese only
    One must choose which sensors to use; for max/min temperatures choose tempmax and Tempmin, I do not know what tempint means _maybe intermediate, that is ¨mean¨_, tempair means probably air temperature.

    http://bancodedados.cptec.inpe.br/climatologia/ is the databank of cptec, one must register to use it- option ¨cadastro¨; you can search for stations, including those not linked by satellite by town -cidade-, geographical location -localizaçao- or station -estaçao. A single town can have more than one weather station, because different agencies have installed them for different purposes at different times on different locations. Each station comes identified by agency (not helpful unless one knows what the alphabet soup refers to) and if one clics on ¨visualizaçao¨ a helpful summary of the station, including measurement type, length of operation and number of failures appears. As an example, the city of Piripiri in the state of Piaui has three stations with historical data; two are rainfall only ¨precipitaçao¨ with data available from 1913 to 1995; one includes temp max/min, with data from 1976 to 2007 and, alas, an extremely high failure rate.

  197. Been on vacation and just found this.

    What do I think? It is time to scrap GISS!

    They need to design a system to measure surface temperatures from scratch. Do it right with 21st century technology. No more Wizard of Oz behind the curtain methods.

  198. Talk about divergence, NOAA had predicted the high today to be a bit below 40 and the low to be about 22 degrees F tonight. How have they done so far? The high today was 23 and it is currently 14 degrees F in Lostine.

  199. I only would add following figures. When I look at the 40 most extreme monthly UAH–GISS divergencies since 1979, I see the following results become visible:
    In March: 9 cases; in February: 6 cases; in April and from June to August: each 4 cases. Together, these months cover 78% of the 40 most extreme values of the cited period.
    In order to find a plausible explanation for the divergence between the two agencies, maybe we have to look to the specific climatic conditions in the atmosphere around March and around July.

  200. Could it be that at least some of the divergence could be due to the slowly cooling oceans releasing less heat to the atmosphere from below (2nd law of thermodynamics), while the atmosphere is cooling more rapidly due to it’s lower thermal mass and less insolation from above?

    Just asking. :-)

  201. Anthony, Just for the record, found on Gore Lied a.o in response to this posting :

    Pigs are flying! An email below from Henry Geraedts [arbutuspoint@gmail.com]

    I am drawing your attention to a significant change in GISS GHG temperature trend projections published by Jim Hansen’s team last week, and which appears to have gone largely unnoticed other than by Lucia Liljegren on her site “The Blackboard” [ http://www.rankexploits.com].

    At the very end of the GISS update, under para #4 in the next to last paragraph, Hansen & Co state that: “From climate models and empirical analyses this GHG forcing translates into a mean warming rate of 0.15C per decade”. Given that Jim Hansen is one of the leading and vocal proponents of the AGW/ACC hypothesis, that the GISS temperature data series has yet again come close scrutiny recently [Lubos Motl, et. al] and that GISS temperature data is increasingly at odds with satellite data [ref: today’s posting on that subject at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com ] this revision is singularly noteworthy: the revised GISS GHG driven temperature trend is a whopping 25% lower than the IPCC’s [95% certain] “gold standard” of 0.20C per decade.

    Absent a GISS press release advising all of us of this change [which clearly would have been expecting too much], I thought you and your readers would find this of interest.

  202. Folks,

    I’m incredibly impressed by this site and the thoughtful discussion. It’s very enlightening and, I think, very valuable to those of us who have been “smelling a rat” in the pablum from the media.

    Thank each and every one of you, including the civil skeptics of the skeptics. The interplay is very instructive and helpful.

    Mark

  203. Ron de Haan:

    …the revised GISS GHG driven temperature trend is a whopping 25% lower than the IPCC’s [95% certain] “gold standard” of 0.20C per decade.

    From Lucia’s site: click

    It seems that the IPCC’s AR-4 has been falsified.

  204. Andrew,

    What happened to my comment on temperature retrievals from radiances that did
    not agree with your messsage from Dr. Christy? Is this thread a result of that comment?
    Clearly if the surface station data is being used in the retrievals as I Indicated, then a loss
    of surface data would cause a divergence between the satellite retrievals and surface temperatures. You need to give credit where it is due and not a vague statement
    as at the beginning of this thread.

    Jerry

  205. Anthony,

    What happened to my comment on temperature retrievals from radiances that did
    not agree with your messsage from Dr. Christy? Is this thread a result of that comment?
    Clearly if the surface station data is being used in the retrievals as I Indicated, then a loss
    of surface data would cause a divergence between the satellite retrievals and surface temperatures. You need to give credit where it is due and not a vague statement
    as at the beginning of this thread.

    And what happened to the thread that contained the message from Dr. Christy
    where he so adamantly insisted that there was no use of surface data in the temperature retrieval?

    Jerry

    REPLY: I don’t know what happened to your comment. I have no idea what it was and do not recall it. It has been months since this thread was active, and I have over 67,000 comments on this blog. If it contained something that put it in the spam filter or violated policy it probably was deleted. It is also possible your comment is on another thread. – Anthony Watts

  206. Anthony,

    Where is Dr. Christy’s response to your inquiry about the independence of satellite data
    and surface temperature data. That seems to also have disappeared ( do a search on Christy). That message is why I wrote the my comment s and it seems a bit strange that both have disappeared?

    Jerry

  207. Anthony,

    Please indicate a search key word that will bring up the response of Dr. Christy
    to your inquiry about satellite temperature retrievals being independent of surfact temperature data. Thank you.

    Jerry

  208. Anthony,

    According to the date at the beginning of this thread, it was started on January 18, 2009.

    That is roughly when I sent in my comment in response to Dr. Christy’s message.

    Once we find Dr. Christy’s message this should all be resolved.

    Jerry

    • Gerry

      1. I still have no idea what you are talking about
      2. Search on “John Christy” in the search box upper right for any comments or threads
      3. Nothing has been deleted, especially any comment by John Christy.

      Are you certain it was this blog where you think you saw this? Because absolutely nothing you are saying rings any bells.

      I think you may be talking about this comment at Climate Audit

      http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687#comment-316393

      -Anthony

  209. Anthony,

    I am positive it was this site. I have never had any problem on CA as all comments are time stamped and Steve keeps records of all threads.

    Did you write a message to John Christy asking him about the dependence of satellite temperature retrieval being independent of surface temperature data (with words to the effect that you would go directly to the source to check if that was the case)?

    Jerry

    REPLY: If you’ll pay attention to the header for each comment, you’ll notice that all comments are time stamped here as well and that they remain here also. I wrote no such message to Dr. Christy in this thread. – Anthony

  210. Anthony,

    That is not the comment on CA. You only need to state whether or not you wrote a message to John Christy asking about satellite temperature retrievals.
    Yes or no.

    Jerry

    REPLY:
    In this thread, most definitely no. But if you can speak to the context of the discussion perhaps I can figure out what thread you are talking about. The problem is you keep using the phrase “satellite temperature retrievals” and that does not ring a bell nor any search results. Given that you couldn’t even get my name right, (I’m not Andrew) perhaps you are mistaken about the terminology or phrase.

    Like I said, you can search the entire blog on John Christy in the upper right. No posts from him have been deleted that I am aware of. It is not my responsibility to find things for you, but you are most welcome to search. – Anthony Watts

    • Gerry/Jerry

      Well I though about a bit, this might be it, on UAH MSU technology, way back in August of 08 where I asked Christy about the technology.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/

      There are two comments from you there, one of which where you can’t even spell your own name right. “Gerlad”.

      You might want to work on that before you accuse me of deleting things or losing things. I don’t answer things not addressed to me. You addressed them both to “Andrew” who was also in the thread as another commenter.

      Dr. Christy states in that thread that no surface data is used in the UAH MSU data process. If you have something that says otherwise, I welcome you to share it. – Anthony

  211. Anthony,

    > Well I though about a bit, this might be it, on UAH MSU technology, way back in August > of 08 where I asked Christy about the technology.
    >https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/

    Well so I see you finally found John Christy’s response to your inquiry about satellite
    retrievals of temperature. I wrote John a message last night and asked hin to confirm his response to your inquiry in order to help your recollect ion of your message to him.
    Conveniently you posted the initial date of the thread containing John’s response (August 8, 2008) and not the date of the comment just before mine (January 9, 2009) or the delayed posting dates of my comment (Jan 18 , 2009). Note the close proximity of the dates of my comments and the initial date of the posting of this thread.

    > There are two comments from you there, one of which where you can’t even spell your > own name right. “Gerlad”.

    Oh give me a break.
    Are my comments applicable to the results on this thread (whether or not I mistyped the spelling of my first name that has nothing to do with the quality of the comments)?
    And did this thread suddenly magically appear even though on the thread where John’s
    reply appeared there was no indication of a problem associated with the use of surface data in satellite temperature data retrievals (until my comments). And I pointed out that even the wikipedia site mentioned on the other thread stated there was a problem associated with satellite temperature retrievals.
    Now you suddenly find that the reduction in GISS surface data sites has led to a divergence in satellite temperatures and GISS station data .

    > You might want to work on that before you accuse me of deleting things or losing things. I >don’t answer things not addressed to me. You addressed them both to “Andrew” who >was also in the thread as another commenter.

    So you don’t read scientific responses on your site even if they have a direct bearing on mistakes you have blatantly made. That is a convenient excuse. But in this case the sudden 180 degree turnaround in your approach to the topic leads me to believe that
    this is not the case.

    >Dr. Christy states in that thread that no surface data is used in the UAH MSU data >process. If you have something that says otherwise, I welcome you to share it. –

    Did you read the wikipedia article or understand the results you have obtained on this thread? If the satellite temperature retrieval did not depend on surface temperature data, then a reduction in GISS surface sites would have no impact on the divergence of the two. And yet that is exactly what has happened.

    Did I spell everything correctly?

    Jerry

  212. Anthony,

    RSS evidently doesn’t use surface data – they evidently use climate model temperature profiles. What a hoot.

    BTW I see you were reading comments not addressed to you on the other thread, because you asked for a reference in a comment addressed to someone else.

    Any other statements you would like me to check?

    I can provide a discussion of the problem of using radiances to retrieve temperatures based on tomography concepts. The problems are very similar and the common problem can be seen in the manuscript results posted on CA under the name Sylvie Gravel
    (plus one additional comment I made on CA related to that manuscript).

    Jerry

Comments are closed.