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
Flanagan and John Finn and everyone
I think the real answer is that Hansen had a panic attack in Jan 2008 and shifted CISStemp to a more ocean data based footing around march last year.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003.5/to:2009.5/plot/gistemp/from:2003.5/to:2009.5/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2007.5/to:2009.5/scale:1.8/offset:-0.25
Donakail!
Ve Vill NOT Show Coolink!
As Anthony has demonstrated repeatedly, the only temperatures records worth of such a name are not from ground stations UAH, because all these have a deviation from 1 to 5!! degrees celsius. And this is perfectly acceptable. I think it is nobody´s fault. We should talk about not of heat islands but of movable heat islands, because of the fact that roads, buildings are being constructed all the time so the only accurate measuring left is that of satellites.
Hope not satellites are adjusted taking ground stations as a reference.
Graduates of the Cordon Bleu Academy of Data Handling?
Did anybody, anybody at all bother to check the TOBS and SHAP adjustments that were linked to earlier in this thread?
While this blog is supposed to be a science blog, there is very little scientific content in the comments. One gets the impression that most of the commenters are scientific illiterates. To back up my statement, do a quick count of the number of comments along the line of “I knew it! It’s a scam!”, “Al Gore is fat!”, “Our economy is going to be ruined!”
Mick (00:36:43) :
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.
I suspect the algorethms GISStemp currently uses will have to be pried from Jim Hansen’s cold dead fingers. With a crowbar.
I bet the day he retires, the office computer will ‘lose’ the records.
Even Perry Mason couldn’t defend GISS.
Give Flannagan credit for trying.
“Fraud. Simple as that.
REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony.”
Anthony, I beg to differ. The adjustments on the GISS Temp Blink Comparator from 1999 to 2008 indicate a clear and conscious attempt by someone to deceive and mislead. The implications of this action have the potential to be far more disastrous than even the missteps of the financial system. One cannot say that these adjustments are simply incompetence. No, they are an intentional action to restate history. They have corrupted the base data that professional and ethical scientists must depend on to perform objective analysis. This, in my humble opinion, is fraud and corruption. Someone needs to have the courage to demand that this data base be thoroughly investigated by truly independent sources to determine how and to what extent the data has been corrupted. (We already understand the Why).
JP (02:58:08) :
“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.”
So, the sparse suraface network, that must be extrapolated and adjusted can somehow “predict current trends” (in this case, a thin area of surface temperatures of the equatorial East Pacific), and that change somehow will show up in surface data all over the world? Did the same thing occur during the last moderate La Nina? Did GISS data lead the way and show a large negative anomaly in August-October 2007 when the La Nina formed? Is there a new adjustment that we don’t know about – the ENSO asjustment?
The only thing that kept GISS temperatures high-ish in Autumn 2007 was the high temperature anomaly over the arctic. But that couldn’t have been right – could it. Mind you, the arctic did have a record melt in 2007 which continued into October. I wouldn’t like to suggest, though, that maybe GISS were on the right track with their arctic anomalies.
Another point. If you want to make comparisons between GISS/Hadley and satellite temperatures you should use a common base period. Both GISS and Hadley had negative anomalies during the 2007/08 La Nina when calculated against the 1979-1998 base period.
What planet do you live on where the current admin is going to audit GISS??
Who do you think would run such an audit even if it were to happen?
The same people who are so forthcoming with their data manipulations to Steve Mc?
Might as well believe in GW if you believe that’s going to happen.
I can imagine a conversation in the halls of congress.
“What would it take for you to vote yes on the climate bill, Senator?” asks the lobbiest.
” I suppose if the Earth started heating up again.” answers the Senator.
Done.
I find it very sad that some people are suggesting that the GISS data has been “manipulated”. Preumably, the scientists who produce the data have proper degrees. I would hope that they do their science in the way established by Galilleo and Newton. To suggest that this may not be so, shows how badly AGW has fractured science.
I’ll be looking for that brutally hot Siberia in the detail map. I’m sure Nome will be shown to have melted.
Central Asian probably developed a flair up.
Maybe some snow buried Antarctic mobil temp stations as well.
And it wouldn’t surprise me if Steig type extrapolation were suddenly deemed sound and incorporated into the GISS record. Prorated with seasonal adjustments.
Enonym,
“It’s a scam!”, “Al Gore is fat!”, “Our economy is going to be ruined!”
All of these are evident, as far as I can see. Except the second one is not quite accurate. Al Gore is actually REALLY fat. 😉
Andrew
This is all very funny. The reactions here could be even funnier after the July UAH anomalies which will more than probably be all the way up
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
What is it going to be then? Roy Spencer is manipulating data? And what would you all have said in 1998, when UAH and RSS were giving much higher anomalies compared to GISS?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998
Comparing apples to apples; removing Flanagan’s offsets: click
Why is GISS so out of step with the others? Especially the satellite data? They do it all the time.
Well, like someone said, “The AMSU (channel 5) is Flying.” July could be a Monster.
Flanagan’s “lag” theory does make a little sense.
Now is when everyone should be down at the Galapagos Islands checking out the Humboldt/Panama Currents, and the Trades. We might learn something.
Also, is the SOI still rising. Will it shut the emerging El Nino down? Inquiring minds want to know.
1.The difference between RSS and GISS temperatures is normal.
The surface sea temperatures are increasing in the last six months.
February sst anomaly 0.10
June sst anomaly 0.29(an exceptional increase)
Similar variation of the El Nino 3.4 anomaly.
By contrast ,because of the recent volcanic eruptions,the TLT temperatures are decreasing(look at the sudden increase in the STRATOSPHERIC temperatures )
2.The Hadcrut3v temperatures will be delivered in few days and they will confirm the warming trend of the recent months.
The offets are just there to adjust for the different periods of reference.
Here’s the latest SST data: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.7.13.2009.gif This doesn’t look like the Mother of all Nino’s to me…
BTW for those who don’t know-the Aircraft in Anthony’s Picture is a Lockeed Constellation-direct competitor to the DC6/DC7 Douglas products of the 1950’s
all were as fast as you could economically go in Pistons…
Purakanui (02:44:39) :
“Never assume incompetence when there is a motive for malice”.
Every crime fighter knows this.
This UAH “lag” deal seems to be the new mantra that keeps being repeated, but it wasn’t that long that Anthony had a posted to showed all 4 major temperature graphs together and for the most part the peaks and valleys happen at the same time even if they are of different magnitude.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/19/comparing-the-four-global-temperature-data-sets/#more-7943
So what’s changed now?
John Finn (01:49:43) : You seem to be turning a blind eye to the “adjustments” of historical measurements. Is this the “lag” to which you refer? There is an adjustment-induced “lag” in historical temperatures? How can you tolerate this kind of chicanery?
Well, I can imagine that the difference is due to the abruptly starting El Nino that manifests itself on the surface faster than in the troposphere. I do expect a pretty rapid warming to show up in the satellites within months.
At any rate, the 0.6 °C difference in the anomalies as measured by different teams show that the very existence of the “catastrophic” 20th century warming by 0.6 °C depends on the methodology and the precise definition of the “global mean temperature”.
We’re talking about nothing – something that is not statistically significant and whose very existence is a very subtle question for scholars, surely not a question that politicians or ordinary people should deal with.
Of course with the oceans covering the majority of the globe, much of GISTEMP relies on their SST data source (OI.v2 data since Dec 1981). Based on the SST anomalies…
http://i30.tinypic.com/2h7qpw6.png
…much of the rise in GISTEMP in June can be attributed to the rise in SST data.
The rest of the ocean subsets are here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/june-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html
Douglas DC (07:28:22) :Here’s the latest SST data
Too much red and orange on that chart. However SOI is negative and that indicates no Nino at all. There is an obvious contradiction, both data are from the same source.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cgi-tao/cover.cgi?P1=/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/soi_110w_80.gif&P2=700&P3=607&script=jsdisplay/scripts/biggif_startup.csh