GISS for June – way out there

way-out-west

NASA GISS has released their global temperature anomaly data for June 2009 and it is quite the surprise.

In both the UAH and RSS satellite data sets, global temperature anomaly went down in June. GISS went up, and is now the largest June anomaly since 1998, when we had the super El Nino.

Data source:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Here are the June global temperature anomaly comparisons:

GISS .63C

RSS .075

UAH .001

The divergence between the satellite derived global temperature anomalies of UAH and RSS and the GISS land-ocean anomaly is the largest in recent memory.

But that isn’t the only oddity. Over on Lucia’s blog, the first commenter out of the gate, “Nylo” noticed something odd:

Nylo (Comment#16257) July 14th, 2009 at 11:14 pm

Regarding updates in past temperatures, this is not the most important change. Very noticeable is the fact that now 2007 is the second hottest year, having replaced 1998 in the statistics. This has been achieved by lowering the 1998 J-D average temperature anomaly to 0.56 , and raising the 2007 J-D average temperature anomaly to 0.57. Last month they were viceversa.

It is curious to me that such adjustments in GISS seem to occur in a way that enhances the present trend. Perhaps it is like a fine liqueur, aged to perfection.

Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – click image if not blinking

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Graeme Rodaughan

I would be willing to think that this is just in time to motivate the US Senate to pass Cap and Trade… if it wasn’t for Jims public distaste for the W-M Proposal.
A curious result.

pwl

It’s not blinking?
REPLY: Click the image

Nylo

Actually, in general, this time there seems to be some cooling of recent temperatures. Most of the years since 1998 have some month whose temperature anomaly drops. 2007 is an exception to this.
The changes are minimal anyway. Nothing has ever been close to the change that took place in April 2006, that GISTEMP describes as “negligible” for the global temperatures but that nevertheless raised the 1880-2005 trend by a whole 10%.

Phillip Bratby

Curiouser and curiouser cried Alice!
Is there nothing Hansen won’t do to massage the figures and get the right answer?
And those are some big adjustments.

pwl

Why is the y-axis of the graph labeled “temperature anomaly”? Why anomaly when it’s clearly a Natural Cycle that is being shown? Why use the word “anomaly”? It seems strange to label the entire graph that way. Sure, if one or two “spikes” were labeled that way I could see why, but the entire y-axis?
Please clarify for the non-climatologist(s) in the crowd. Thanks.

pwl

Oh, I see it now… what’s up with that (sorry)?
It seems that that is falsifying the data? I don’t know about you but when I was in science class in high school it was a failing grade to cheat on one’s data reporting! What is the punishment for scientific fraud by those folks and how do they justify getting away with it?

pwl

So the anomalies are that the various means of measuring the temperatures – satellite, ocean and land based methods – are out of whack with each other? Is that what this blink graph is showing?

Richard Heg

Ok so let me get this right there is a disagreement on the temperatures of up to .62C for last month which is not that far off the warming for the entire 20th century and at the same time we are told that from looking at a few tree rings we can be certain that it was some fraction of a degree cooler a thousand years ago.

rbateman

Some people will do anything to erase that embarassing 1930’s peak.
It must be hard to bear, like a dry cracker on a hot day.

David

New phrase: “Something is aGISS”
As in, something is aGISS with the algorithm.

Nylo

Also I would not consider it something “odd”. I analise differences in their temperature record every month and this was not something strange in comparison to previous times. It is only “Important” because it will strongly contribute to their marketing strategies. Now they can claim that the 3 hottest years were in the last decade, which is something they couldn’t say last month.

REPLY:
I agree, that for GISS, it is not “odd”. But I was speaking from the real world context. – Anthony

rbateman

pwl (23:11:53)
No, the intent of that graph is to readjust the data to fit the policy.
Anyone who lives in a rural area with data going back to the start of the US Weather bureau official observer stations knows the adjustment is pure nonsense. Take out the 1988 El Nino and the graph fall off to the right, not the left.

Johnny Honda

These data can lead to two conclusions:
a) The accuracy of the temperature measurements is very low (+-0.6 °C)
b) NASA is manipulating the temperature data
c) combination of a) and b)

I suppose I am still at a loss as to how adjusting temperature accurately reflects anything. Maybe it is just me but anytime you take something and adjust it it sort of calls into question the entire process. I am so sick of this. Can we file a law suit? I mean seriously this data is going to cost me money. Someone, anyone, truth does not seem to be working.

VG

I think its time with this type of data discrepancy that a full blown investigation of GISS take place. UHA , HadcRUT, RSS etc should be audited as well, only reason that this data is being used to justify/not justify some major public expenditures.

Flanagan

I think there could be some reason for this:
– Satellites don’t cover the poles very much, and the anomaly over the southern pole has been fairly large
http://www.climat-evolution.com/article-33431441.html
– another possibility to explain this could refer to the mixing time of the lower troposphere. GISS is actually measuring surface temperatures, with stations on the ground. RSS and UAH measure lower troposphere temperatures (indirectly) at 4.4 km high (at least for UAH). It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). And we’re actually observing rightnow with UAH a strong increase in the anomaly
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
So I don’t think we should see any obvious error or conspiracy behind this result… Just the consequence of having a pacific with a slightly positive Nino index.

DonK31

I ar so confoosed. Is their temperature reading from 1998 wrong? If it was, why? Are they incompetent or merely misleading?
Why is necessary to adjust data at all other than an admission that the raw data is bovine excrement?
Why is necessary to adjust previous data other than it doesn’t fit the model?
Soon, we will be hearing how global warming is happening much quicker than we thought, or that it causes cooling, or averageness, all of which are bad?

crosspatch

Ok, so 2007 was hotter this month that it was last month. Maybe Hansen & Co. keep shifting between parallel universes and their data keeps shifting with them. To them it looks all consistent and stuff but to us it looks like it keeps changing. Yeah, that must be the reason.
One thing I learned from that whole group of ..uh… “salesmen” is about teleconnections. Now when I want to know what the weather will be like tomorrow, I just call Tokyo and ask. Why wait for the weather service?

Antonio San

At this point, GISS results are simply getting irrelevant and it is obvious they need to produce a curve that will help the Copenhagen crowd alarmism.
As VG poster suggests, audit of HadcruT especially as Steve McIntyre reported Phil Jones is stonewalling, audit of GISS should be conducted. I think through legal means. This whole affair deserves now a full blown legal battle and if Bernie Madoff can get cooled for 150 years, there is no reason these agencies can’t get theirs cooled too!

oakwood

A word of objective wisdom from a commentator on RC:
“Hadley has something wrong in their system, what it is I don’t know. But not including vast swats of Arctic anomalies don’t help…. 2005 was the warmest year in history, this graph seen alone, suggests that the great melt occurred in 1998….”
Funny, although this is contrary to the wisdonm of IPCC (the ‘scientific concensus’) which chooses to rely on Hadley, this comment goes unchallenged.

Jos

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., submitted.
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf

Pierre Gosselin

Maybe in a few years we’ll be in a LIA, but GISS will be telling us the earth is frying to death.

Pierre Gosselin

I expect Hadley to cook up a similar result.

Barry Foster

We should take no notice of surface temperatures at all – we shouldn’t even mention them, as they are worthless given bad sitings and rogue measurements. We should only discuss tropospheric temperatures, whether they show warming or cooling. At the top of this web site (instead of the space-taken picture of the tops of clouds) the current combined UAH and RSS graph should be permanently displayed as a reminder to everyone what the present temps are.

Flanagan (23:35:32) :
“I think there could be some reason for this:
………………….
It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). And we’re actually observing rightnow with UAH a strong increase in the anomaly
………….yad,yada……..”
Or it could be UHI. Nice match for almost all known warming too.
But yeh, sure, perhaps the air ain’t mixing up right or something. Could we build giant spoon to mix it all up proper?

Mick

You can keep a secret if only two people know it, and one of them is dead.
Who are the algorithm gate keepers a GISS? Surely not one (the ONE) person?
Any chance for a whistleblower?
Or the ONE want to be busted. Out.

An Inquirer

Flanagan (23:35:32):
So you are saying that consistency is not compromised: as the surface heats up the lower troposphere, the satellite temperatues will follow the GISS numbers.
It would be most interesting if your scenario plays out; we then would have further proof against CO2-based AGW for in that theory, the lower troposphere heats up the surface.

UK Sceptic

Is this what is known as taking the GISS?

bluegrue

It is curious to me that such adjustments in GISS seem to occur in a way that enhances the present trend. Perhaps it is like a fine liqueur, aged to perfection.

It’s not like the source of the difference is a major mystery. The changes shown in the blinker occurred for the most part as a consequence of the introduction of the TOBS and SHAP adjustments. The former covers the systematic change of time of observation in the US, the other one corrections for station moves as documented in the station meta data. Which of these adjustments do you object to and on what basis?
When comparing anomalies, keep in mind that they have different baselines. It’s like comparing height measurements from the ground to others made from the table top and just comparing the numbers.

John Edmondson

Fraud. Simple as that.
REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony

tallbloke

I notice Roy Spencer has updated the UAH June anomaly to 0.00

Flanagan

NS: it is not a new phenomenon, it’s called the atmospheric upwelling.
Inquirer: that would not discredit the greenhouse effect at all. In this case we have an El Nino building up, which means hot water goes to the surface and frees energy to the atmosphere. The question is: where does the energy that heated this water come from?
It is strange to notice that during the deepest solar minimum in a century, we observe the strongest anomalies, no? The El Nino that is forming is not even a strong one (and it’s only the beginning)… Anyway we get anomalies that are the same as in 1998?

imapopulist

The only tipping point that I am aware of is the GISS Data shifting from manipulation to outright fraud and corruption. This cannot be allowed to go on.

pkatt

I bet if you add in seasonal noise we pass Hansens tipping point yearly.

Gene Nemetz

Is it breaking some sort of law to change these numbers?

anna v

Fraud. Simple as that.
REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony.

It is not only incompetence and may not even be fraud. A large part is the delusion scientifically inclined people have in favor of their theory of the world. ( a good example: the barycenter followers.)
It is a hanging on with tenacity on the proposed world explanation ; all scientists are prone to that, from the lowest to the highest in intellect and stature. They would not have entered the field otherwise.
Of course to be good scientists they would have to be able to , at some point, put aside their favoritism towards their own theory and look clearly at the data, which is something AGW climatologists are not able to do.

Vincent

Flanagan: “It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). ”
Sounds easy enough to check. The July satellite readings should correspond to the June surface readings. Why don’t we carry out the following audit: compare all the satellite readings against the GISS readings and we will see that the satellites lag the GISS by 1 month. Or not.
This whole air temperature fiasco is just another nail in the coffin for use as a climate metric. Roger Pielke has been saying for some considerable time that ocean heat accumulation is the most robust metric. Atmospheric temperatures correspond to only a small fraction of global warming and are very fickle.
Ocean temperatures as observed by the argo network have the advantage in that they can be cross verified by altimetry and gravimetric readings. For example, by subtracting the mass component (gravimetric) of SLR from total altimetry readings, we are left with the thermal expansion component which can confirm the argo temperature readings.
No accumulation of ocean heat has been observed since 2003.

Robert Wood

Flanagan,
you make me laugh.

Here are the June global temperature anomaly comparisons:
GISS .63C
RSS .075
UAH .001
The divergence between the satellite derived global temperature anomalies of UAH and RSS and the GISS land-ocean anomaly is the largest in recent memory.

I still think the majority of the “divergence” is due to the lag from SST changes. I predicted this would happen earlier in the year. GISS and Hadley are ‘seeing’ the warm SST now. UAH and RSS won’t reflect current SST for another couple of months – possibly more. AMSU temperatures already look much warmer in July than June.
It’s funny no-one picked up on this in Jan and Feb when, relatively speaking, GISS and Hadley were lower than UAH and RSS.

Gene Nemetz

James Hansen was in Washington yesterday. So I am wondering if he made these changes in the data so he could show continued warming in the earth to the politicians and the media ?
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/14/14climatewire-does-nasas-james-hansen-still-matter-in-clim-82897.html?pagewanted=all
“A House Democrat, meanwhile, labeled (James) Hansen’s Capitol Hill appearance yesterday “irrelevant.” ”

NS (00:35:38) :
Flanagan (23:35:32) :
“I think there could be some reason for this:
………………….
It would not be surprising then to have some delay between the two if the surface heats (the air must go up). And we’re actually observing rightnow with UAH a strong increase in the anomaly
………….yad,yada……..”
Or it could be UHI. Nice match for almost all known warming too.
But yeh, sure, perhaps the air ain’t mixing up right or something. Could we build giant spoon to mix it all up proper?

UHI? what suddenly in June ? What about last Jan and Feb when the surface anomalies were lower (using 1979-1998 baseline) than the satellite anomalies.
Look, I’m not a believer in catastrophic AGW, but – and I never thought I’d say this – the warmers are talking a lot more sense than the sceptics on this.
I suggest we take a look at the UAH and RSS anomalies over the next few months and see what happens.

GISS and make up

jeroen

You can’t have a argument for adjusting anomaly’s from 60 years back. Are they realy trying to get that hocky stick back on the chart. maybe there is another Al Gore sequel coming on this fall 2009. Let me gess he will be using Giss adjusment skills.
Its time this one goes out to al the media.

Manfred

flanagan asked “…where the energy of the el nino came from ?”
Actually from the sun.
And el nino doesn’t mean that the heat content of the ocean increased, it is just distributed differently.
And if a possibly increased number of el ninos would tell us anything for the future, it would be, that this is would be a very strong negative feedback mechanism that transfers surplus energy to the atmosphere and radiate to outer space.
What was really remarkable, that we had a satellite anomaly of 0.00° this month even in the absence of la nina and though the cumulative effect the string of a few la ninas so far must be still small.

Oldjim

Just been playing with Wood for Trees – I love that site it makes things so much easier – and the surprising thing is the divergence of GISS from Hadcrut3 from 1998 onwards
I agree that linear trend lines are not much use but this was an eye opener
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend and matches the apparent visual divergence from the actual graphs http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998

Purakanui

No, Anthony, it is not a fine liqueur maturing, it is the heat generated by corruption and rot.

Mark N

Time for an independent investigation. Is it about money, politics, incompetence, time to find out and remove the people responsible.

Purakanui

Never assume incompetence when there is a motive for malice.

Leon Brozyna

GISS again?!
I can see it now, in the future, year-round snow starts piling up in Canada, a harbinger of future glaciers. Meanwhile, on the 4th of July, snowball fights break out in Central Park in NYC, while GISS is touting the warmest year on record.

pinkisbrain

Flanagan (23:35:32)
oh no!
heat from the surface does not wait days or weeks to go up, this happens rapidly and it is very simple thermodynamic!