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.
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:
Click for a larger image
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]](http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/browse/AMSU_A_15.latest.a_04.png)
Click for larger image
![[Image]](http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/browse/AMSU_A_15.latest.d_04.png)
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.
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?
“” 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
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.
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%.”
“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.
“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.
crosspatch – maybe they should just use this map to locate the ship!!! http://www.awi.de/de/infrastruktur/schiffe/polarstern/wo_ist_polarstern/
and it was updated today!!!
George E. Smith (10:31:12) :
“Could be; for a start HEAT is a verb, not a noun.”
So George, make that pedantic comment to Pielke Sr for his use of the noun heat in his usage of the term “ocean heat content” in his Physics Today paper http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf
I can feel the heat (noun!!!) already.
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 ♫
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.
OT but very interesting from Spaceweather:
Oops..
Meant heat & energy were synonymous.
DaveE.
Is there a plot somewhere that projects GISS back before 1990 with all the dropped stations removed from the earlier numbers?
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.
Thank you RICH, for the recognition. 😉
Andrew ♫
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.
“‘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.
“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.
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.
That should have been “all you’ll ever have is correlation.”
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!
But, Dr. Loehle is a “denier” so his paper will be hand-waved out of the mainstream, if it ever gets there, unfortunately.
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.
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.
Says here it can be both, but the first definitions are for the noun. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heat