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
I’ll give it a go.
It means my Y-axis scale will be fractional, as Penumbra outnumber Umbra by a large multiple when area measurements are concerned.
Leif:
Done.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
The anomalies are still there, a bit subdued, and the ones on the other side show up as well. I wouldn’t have thought to do it the other way. Thanks.
Great way to grab the attention, though.
rbateman (17:45:52) :
The anomalies are still there, a bit subdued, and the ones on the other side show up as well.
This is not what I meant. Just inverting the axis is not enough. As an example, you have the ratio for 1953 = 5 and for 1954 = 20 [or so]. Let us say that P was 50 and U was 10 for 1953, that would give r = 50/10 = 5. But let us now assume [for illustration] that for 1954 the numbers were P = 20 and U = 1, then r = 20/1 = 20. The reverse ratios would be 1/r = 0.2 for 1953 and 0.05 for 1954, but because the error on the small U might be relatively large, U might have been anywhere [say] from 0.5 to 2, so 1/r anywhere from 0.025 to 0.1, which looks less shocking than the range of r ratios of 40 to 10. In any event, the usual practice is simply to omit values when the divisor becomes too small.
“pwl (23:11:53) :
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?”
I did not see an answer up the comments on this question, so if pwl is still reading I will attempt one.
The anomaly refers to the difference in temperature measured to the average temperature at a specific location, which are measured in the same manner. So if June in Seattle averages 60°F measured using a surface thermometer (for some time period, usually a 30 year stretch) and for June 2008 it was 65°F using the same thermometer the anomaly would be +5°F. Anomalies are used to remove seasonal effects and to allow the summation of many measurements from different locations to track overall trends. Say Seattle was 65 vs the 60 average and Spokane was 80 vs the 75 average, both would have the same anomaly but different temperatures.
The differences in the blink plot shows changes in the GISS UD data over time not differences between measurement methods.
I decided after looking at the GISS data sets for a while that in the end they were pointless because every time I downloaded them they changed not only the current month as would be expected but large numbers of past month values.
Leif Svalgaard (18:46:07) :
The page wasn’t updated, my apologies. Try it now.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
The graphs are not set up to pit one year against the next, but to show the ratio of a particular months umbral area means over penumbral area means
(and vice versa). Nothing is smoothed or omitted except records which do not exist.
If I did it by day, I’d have to put up a scrolling image. 48,500 something records is a lot of information.
I decided after looking at the GISS data sets for a while that in the end they were pointless because every time I downloaded them they changed not only the current month as would be expected but large numbers of past month values.
—
And Hansen (nor his democrat political leaders) can tell us why the past records are changed, how they have changed, nor what calculations or actual temperatures have changed. Once?
maybe. Twice? Sure – could be. But inconsistent changes in hundreds of records, every month, across vast areas of this fruited plain?
Here is the post I put up on Climate Progress today, submitted roughly the same time I posted a rather innocuous post here, simply giving a link to Joe Romm’s post covering the June global anomaly. My post here was censored, but Climate Progress let my post there, stand. It includes the link to WUWT.
Paul K says:
July 16, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Well, the WUWT guys have been having a good ole time, lampooning the June GISS report, comparing the NASA scientists to Laurel and Hardy. They are convinced there is a massive conspiracy to manipulate the temperature records. If you guys want a good laugh, then read the ridiculous comments there. (But make sure to come back here to post about it. Lets move the discussion over to Climate Progress.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/ 2009/ 07/ 14/ giss-for-june-way-out-there/
There are a couple of reasonable posters over there, so look for their posts (bluegrue and Flanagan) and I have some tongue and cheek posts over there suggesting we chase down the miscreants at UAH as well.
Now the NOAA data comes out, and the entire post and comments make Anthony Watts look ridiculous. He seems to be the real buffoon character, similar to Laurel and Hardy’s movie personnas.
REPLY: Well of course it would stick in this case. You have negative things to say about me, Romm loves that. Perhaps Romm read my previous message to you, so I’m not at all surprised that in this case he’d leave a link just to prove me wrong. Either way, I’m not concerned. Romm is becoming irrelevant and my advice to commenters here is to simply ignore him and the whole angry rabble there. Anger and derision combined has limited appeal. Romm and the crowd you run with don’t like WUWT or anyone who frequents here, we get it. – Anthony
rbateman (19:13:00) :
but to show the ratio of a particular months umbral area means over penumbral area means (and vice versa). Nothing is smoothed or omitted except records which do not exist.
Now it looks more reasonable. Still, sharp spikes [up or down] are probably artifacts anyway. And the record does not seem to have any correlation with temperature.
Hmmmn.
So AGW-proponents claim that atmopheric warming is “delayed” and takes “time” (implying months!) to get heat up from the ground (the “hallowed” GISS tampered measurements) to the mid-troposphere where satellites can measure it.
Further, they now claim that the 1998 El Nino heat is in some hidden pipeline where it will take another 20 years to break free and then we will resume their mythical warming.
OK. Sure.
Then explain where this “delay” and pipeline are when Iwatch a cold front cross the country in 4 days, dropping temperatures from Canada to Texas to Florida to New Hamphire and over into Far east Canada by 40 degrees F overnight? Where is this pipeline or “atmospheric delay” when those temperatures are maintained low uniformly and consistently in every city and every state: they drop, warm up the day, go down the next night – but not as far, go back the next day to higher temp’s, go back the next night ….
There is no atmospheric “delay” = the numbers show that GISS is (deliberately or foolishly) manipulating the tiny 6/10 of one degree change we have the past century.
Leif Svalgaard
My quote above was from your post, but did not include your name.
Sorry about that.
How would you define an artifact in terms of spots that have little umbra to them?
Nothing can be expected to correlate what with time lags going on (that great big ocean that the Highs & Lows pass over), so it wouldn’t surprise me to not see 100.000% lineups.
The whole idea was to look for 30 day periods that marked a change in ratio, then compare it to the temperature record.
You know, like when the Ice Cores come up with warming before the CO2 is released. That sort of thing.
I read it as showing events in ratios (markedly low/high umbra percentage) sitting at the boundaries of things going south/north. Relatively.
Would you like a close-up of the data to see what’s up with this?
Well Flanagan, I may not be clear enough with what I am saying. If UAH is showing essentially no anomaly, and GISS is showing a much larger anomaly, then obviously there is an issue. You are telling me that the issue is El Nino. I am failing to understand how El Nino warming the surface is helpful to the AGW theory. Please elaborate. It seems to me that you are suggesting that the warming in the ocean is caused by CO2, which would be a new angle for me. If that is it, then please tell me how CO2 causes El Nino. If not, then we are both looking at the same thing, El Nino raising temperature. Where is the CO2 warming?
Robert A Cook PE (21:06:27) :
Leif Svalgaard, My quote above was from your post, but did not include your name.
I don’t recognize any of it…
rbateman (21:15:22) :
How would you define an artifact in terms of spots that have little umbra to them?
If P = something and U = 0, then P/U is undefined. If U is not zero, but just very small, the P/U will be huge. This could happen occasionally, but in my book for it to be interesting, it must be part of a longer-term issue, like there being many of these, created by a process going on for some time.
Here are some sample dates for the high penumbra spots:
Oct 1906
nov 1913 11/24
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_REGIONS/DEBRECEN/historical_solar_image_database/1913/19131124.jpg
1961 Aug.
1964 Sep.
1964 Aug.
1974 Apr.
1976 Jan.
1999 Jan.
2007 Dec.
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/DPD/2007/20071207/20071207_10978.html
And follow this spot as it crosses and grows.
This might be, or might not be, your link to L&P in the past.
I can’t think of any other way than old & new images, and if these spots are that effect, here you go.
rbateman (22:06:24) :
I can’t think of any other way than old & new images, and if these spots are that effect, here you go.
Calculating P/U when U is zero is not a good idea. From a physical point of view, I would think doing the calculation at the group level: adding up all the Us and all the Ps for the group, before forming the P/u or now Sum(P)/Sum(U) ratios.
Paul K (20:18:03) : Man oh man, that is off the wall rude. All the ad homs and buffoon comments. Is that your best shot?
I get it that you folks at CP have a vested interest in raising the paranoia level. You all suck off the public teat and need mass hysteria to keep your milk and honey flowing. Alarmism butters your bread. I get that. The whoowhoo scare rants are your stock in trade. They keep the gravy flowing.
But the sophomoric insults are not helping your cause. Spewing venom is not the same as spewing horror stories. It diminishes you when resort to juvenile snottiness. We see you for what you are: a fouled mouthed brat. Your hysterical Alarmist pronouncements thus have no basis in empathy or concern for your fellow man. You can’t act with compassion because you have none for those who disagree with you. That lack of compassion and courtesy makes your whole fear mongering drivel suspect. There are no ethics behind it; it must be false compassion.
Do you get that, PK? If you despise your fellow man, then your alleged concern about global warming is a fraud. Warming or no, the concern is a fraud. Do you get that?
Warmer is better. If it gets warmer, we will have more rain, longer growing seasons, less drought, more biodiversity, etc. Any real concern or compassion for humanity and “the planet” necessarily leads to the realization that warmer is better.
If you want to be taken seriously; that is, if you want your concerns to be taken seriously, then you have to exhibit some respect and compassion for others. Lacking that, we must assume you are posturing for selfish reasons and your message is tainted by your own social and interpersonal disabilities and failings.
Leif Svalgaard (22:05:04) :
If P = something and U = 0, then P/U is undefined. If U is not zero, but just very small, the P/U will be huge.
I threw out all the P/U undefined results. They were #DIV/0!
I also removed any zero’s that make the graph program go to the bottom.
Greenwich images or heliostats are not available to me, so I can only check those years from Debrecen 1986-2003/2007, SOHO and Kalocsa, Hungary 1880-1919 .
Leif Svalgaard (22:22:59) :
Calculating P/U when U is zero is not a good idea. From a physical point of view, I would think doing the calculation at the group level: adding up all the Us and all the Ps for the group, before forming the P/u or now Sum(P)/Sum(U) ratios.
That is how the data is processed. Yes.
Greenwich already had monthy means.
I ran Debrecen the same way, adding up the entire month of U and P areas then dividing.
But I have spot checked the individual days to see what the population in a month was doing. That’s where the high Pen. spots show up.
Hi David,
I never said that the fact an EL Nino is taking place is supporting AGW. There are conflicting predictions about how an increased global temperature will affect the frequency and intensity of El Ninos. I just said that it explains why GISS can be higher BEFORE the satellite data.
This discussion comes from the fact that you said it actually discredited AGW because “heating comes from below”. Of course, it makes no sense looking at one particular event to contradict a climatic trend. The peculiarity of a greenhouse-effect induced warming is that the troposphere should be warming while the stratosphere is cooling (over a few decades at least). And this is exactly what is observed. A warming related to increased solar activity would have the opposite signature – stratosphere warming faster than the rest. I think it settles things, doesn’t it?
Mike D: “Warmer is better. If it gets warmer, we will have more rain, longer growing seasons, less drought, more biodiversity, etc. Any real concern or compassion for humanity and “the planet” necessarily leads to the realization that warmer is better.”
You’re not on message here – even we skeptics understand that the effects of warming, if they existed, would be catastrophic. Our issue is with the predictive models and methods, which are flawed, not with the hypothetical consequences. The idea that a warmer world would be better is utterly flawed. That science IS settled, and the “warmer is better” angle is indefensible, honestly.
In isolated instances of temporarily warmer climate, drought increases. The rapid nature of the hypothetical (and erroneous) global temperature rise would mean ecosystems wouldn’t adapt in many instances (because climate change in the past, e.g., ice ages, has been over long time periods and quite gradual). Canada and other places might see more agricultural opportunities, but places in the tropics and subtropics will see chaos and upheaval as droughts, floods, etc. hypothetically occur, and the huge, not very wealthy populations panic, starve, etc.
Pamela Gray (12:57:44) :
There are at least two ways to look at a roulette table. The first is to follow the ball in each individual throw, watching it bounce here and there. Another is to look at a long run of games and check the statistics, whether there are discernible trends or not and whether there are clusters unlikely events or not. The first has its place when you need to repair a wheel, the latter if you need to judge, whether a wheel needs repair. I’m in the latter camp.
Maybe it is just a difference about what we both consider “meaningfully comment”. I can’t do that, if all I have to go by are one satellite and one ground based time series plus one sea surface temperature record. I consider that tea-leaf reading, sorry. Furthermore, if you insist on interpreting individual months at a minimum the anomalies need to be calculated for a common base period, just offsetting by a constant is not good enough in this case.
If I were to make a “meaningful” comment, I’d have go to the gridded data, look where the differences originate and do a study of systematic differences between the satellite data and the ground data over longer periods of time to get an understanding of what is usual and what is unusual, trying to pinpoint the origins of these differences in chaotic weather patterns. That’s a multi-week project to answer a single question on a blog, where posters routinely can’t tell the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit, compare raw numbers across various scalings and offsets without even noticing. Just look at all the “Ooooh, look, .63 vs 0.001” nonsense. Sorry Pamela, you are asking too much.
Mike D. (22:28:33) :
Paul K (20:18:03) : Man oh man, that is off the wall rude. All the ad homs and buffoon comments. Is that your best shot?
Mike, look carefully at the original post by Anthony Watts, and see who set the stage to use buffoons to illustrate and belittle real climate scientists.
I get it that you folks at CP have a vested interest in raising the paranoia level. You all suck off the public teat and need mass hysteria to keep your milk and honey flowing. Alarmism butters your bread. I get that. The whoowhoo scare rants are your stock in trade. They keep the gravy flowing.
Now Mike D, read the first 120 comments, most by WUWT regulars, and see who worked themselves into a tizzy with conspiracy and fraud charges.
But the sophomoric insults are not helping your cause. Spewing venom is not the same as spewing horror stories. It diminishes you when resort to juvenile snottiness. We see you for what you are: a fouled mouthed brat. Your hysterical Alarmist pronouncements thus have no basis in empathy or concern for your fellow man. You can’t act with compassion because you have none for those who disagree with you. That lack of compassion and courtesy makes your whole fear mongering drivel suspect. There are no ethics behind it; it must be false compassion.
I came over here to respond to very sophomoric and ridiculous comments made by others. This is stock and trade for WUWT. Your charges above describe the WUWT comments posted on this thread extremely well.
Do you get that, PK? If you despise your fellow man, then your alleged concern about global warming is a fraud. Warming or no, the concern is a fraud. Do you get that?
Warmer is better. If it gets warmer, we will have more rain, longer growing seasons, less drought, more biodiversity, etc. Any real concern or compassion for humanity and “the planet” necessarily leads to the realization that warmer is better.
If you want to be taken seriously; that is, if you want your concerns to be taken seriously, then you have to exhibit some respect and compassion for others. Lacking that, we must assume you are posturing for selfish reasons and your message is tainted by your own social and interpersonal disabilities and failings.
What a charge! I am posting for selfish reasons? I will answer this charge in my next comment.
Mike D., you attacked my motivation in posting here:
As you can see from my posts above, the UAH monthly global anomalies fall below 0.10 in May and June in most recent years, and rise to about 0.35 in January and February each year. I noticed Anthony Watts loves to focus on UAH monthly data showing low anomalies, so I saw this train wreck coming back in early June when he first posted the May data. I knew eventually he would put out some kind of silly post, comparing UAH to GISS monthly global anomalies (which really shouldn’t be directly comparable).
But I could hardly believe my eyes when he put up the post three days ago with the Laurel and Hardy comedy theme, and went after the GISS scientists virtually claiming they were intentionally fabricating the results.
He augmented that mistake, by mixing in US temperature record data in a standalone analysis, when the subject really was the global anomaly. He put up an off-subject “blinking graph” that showed the impact of revisions to the US record made by GISS some time ago, and known far and wide, and implied those revisions impacted the global record. In fact, the impact of the US data revisions on the global record is negligible, and most real scientists, and really anyone who has followed the recent global temperature records, know that.
Mr. Watts was completely unaware of the seasonal shift in the UAH data, which should be surprising since he touts that temperature record, and pushes the work of Dr. Spencer. But he doesn’t seem to understand the data very well.
The whole affair reflects extremely negatively on Mr. Watts, and if you read the ‘kill the messenger’ mentality of the WUWT comments above, it makes many of the skeptics look like idiots. They quickly jumped on some kind of mass conspiracy bandwagon.
I didn’t write the belittling original post, I didn’t attack reputable scientists (except for a sarcastic tongue and cheek comment about investigating all possible miscreants, when the comments above alleged fraud), and I have tried to keep the focus on the data itself, and off attacks on scientists.
But this post and the comments by WUWT regulars are fair game; if they cross the line into conspiracy and allegations of fraud, then someone has to stand up and show the hypocrisy.
Point by point:
Paul K (10:20:43) : As you can see from my posts above, the UAH monthly global anomalies fall below 0.10 in May and June in most recent years, and rise to about 0.35 in January and February each year.
Contention not supported by the data, as was pointed out above.
I noticed Anthony Watts loves to focus on UAH monthly data showing low anomalies, so I saw this train wreck coming back in early June when he first posted the May data.
A canard. WUWT posts monthly anomalies from all major sources every month. Obviously you are not a regular reader.
I knew eventually he would put out some kind of silly post, comparing UAH to GISS monthly global anomalies (which really shouldn’t be directly comparable).
More insults. It is you who are silly, sir. All major global anomaly sets are comparable; they purport to measure the same thing. If they differ, that is of interest. You have contended that they don’t differ. I submit: that is a comparison. You protest yourself.
But I could hardly believe my eyes when he put up the post three days ago with the Laurel and Hardy comedy theme, and went after the GISS scientists virtually claiming they were intentionally fabricating the results.
Fraud charges were discouraged by AW, as they always have been. Obviously you are not a regular reader. The problems with the GISS sets are well-known to include faulty data (UHI) and questionable “adjustments,” all well-documented at WUWT. If you are offended by “virtual” charges, then I suggest you look in a real mirror.
He augmented that mistake, by mixing in US temperature record data in a standalone analysis, when the subject really was the global anomaly. He put up an off-subject “blinking graph” that showed the impact of revisions to the US record made by GISS some time ago, and known far and wide, and implied those revisions impacted the global record. In fact, the impact of the US data revisions on the global record is negligible, and most real scientists, and really anyone who has followed the recent global temperature records, know that.
Your contentions of “consensus” are weak and unsupported. It is a typical tactic of Alarmists to claim consensus when there is none. Your charges of “fake” against anyone who disagrees with you are illogical and insipid.
Mr. Watts was completely unaware of the seasonal shift in the UAH data, which should be surprising since he touts that temperature record, and pushes the work of Dr. Spencer. But he doesn’t seem to understand the data very well.
More ad hominem attacks. Perhaps it is you who do not understand the data nor the abilities of others.
The whole affair reflects extremely negatively on Mr. Watts, and if you read the ‘kill the messenger’ mentality of the WUWT comments above, it makes many of the skeptics look like idiots. They quickly jumped on some kind of mass conspiracy bandwagon.
More ad hominem and broad brush insults. It is Alarmists like you who look like fascist conspirators, in my judgment. To claim there is no Alarmist conspiracy is what is idiotic and puerile. J’accuse. Please reveal your funding levels and sources. Be honest, how is your bread buttered? How do you profit by the Alarmist conspiracy?
I didn’t write the belittling original post, I didn’t attack reputable scientists (except for a sarcastic tongue and cheek comment about investigating all possible miscreants, when the comments above alleged fraud), and I have tried to keep the focus on the data itself, and off attacks on scientists.
Your defense is empty. Your words in the thread above are testament to your tone, focus, and casting of personal aspersions. You cannot erase them by claiming you never said them.
But this post and the comments by WUWT regulars are fair game; if they cross the line into conspiracy and allegations of fraud, then someone has to stand up and show the hypocrisy.
You sir have claimed conspiracy and fraud. Your own words convict you. If you had something of value to add to the conversation, you could have done so in a polite and considerate manner. But you chose to be snide and belittling from the beginning. WUWT moderators posted your remarks, unlike other sites which censor all contrary views. Wisely, I might add, since your remarks brand you as an Alarmist lacking cooth. “Fair game” is your phrase; it does not excuse your insulting tone and attacks on specific persons and the readership of WUWT in general. It is a troll’s excuse, and not acceptable in polite company.
I hope that if you choose to participate in future threads here that you can adopt a gentlemanly tone and engage in polite discourse. Otherwise, you brand yourself for all to see as a cad and a bounder.