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
Warmest June since 1998? This could be expected from a dataset that has a lot of poorly placed stations and a bunch of readings influenced by UHI.
But just because its from the ‘all knowing’ NASA and supported by the ‘all knowing NOAA’ it should not be questioned anyway?
About the big run up in July temps. on the UAH site, certainly isn’t feeling exactly like that here in Wichita, we had a big heatwave, but not near enough to make one of the hottest July’s on record, plus the forecast (Intellicast) is now showing a lot more days below 90 than above.
If the present refuses to become warmer the past must become colder. (Hansen’s law)
In the future, the past is going to get very, very cold.
woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (09:54:43) :
This “lag after spike” theory does have some ‘form’, at least recently:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:24/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:24/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:24/plot/rss/last:24
The surface and satellite data seemed to diverge similarly to now around March 2008, and returned to their usual approximate coherence in about September. Are other conditions (ENSO, etc.) similar now?
With the sun getting quiet the relationship between ocean and air has become more obvious. The air temps lag ocean temps by 4-7 months. The ocean temp sets the air temp.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/scale:0.5/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/offset:-0.4/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/trend/offset:-0.4/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/scale:0.5
If you align the linear trends of UAH HADSST and GIStemp, you can see GIStemp has switched from predoninantly matching lower troposphere temps to predominantly matching ocean temps. I agree this started last year, around March – June.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/detrend:-0.03/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/offset:-0.113/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/detrend:-0.03/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.19/detrend:0.08/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.2/trend:0.7/detrend:0.08
Or for a closer look:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/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
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2002/offset:-0.25/plot/uah/from:1996/to:2002/plot/rss/from:1996/to:2002
Flannagan, we don’t see an “upwelling” in the 1998 El Nino, so why this time?
Hi woodfortrees!
Yes, I used your offsets to align the datasets. Happy to see there’s something maybe in the delay-after-peak theory Finn and I are thinking about. I would say it happens when large variations take place for SSTs. At least it happened in 1998. We’ll see.
The US comprises the bulk of the station mix GISS uses. So blinking the GISS records (previous and altered) is highly representative.
Last time we did this, they had adjusted at two anchor points.
This time, it’s pre 1895-7 down progressively backwards to 1880 -.3C, 1907-1917 sine reduced arc, 1917-1967 multiple sine shallower arc, and 1967 to present shifted up progressively to +.3C.
That’s a lot more sophisticated than the 1st attempt, where they kept the middle stationary and lowered the left end / raised the right end.
It’s still teeters perilously in the realm of cooked books.
The end result is the same: straighten out the data trend lines to support the policy. Compare the job done last time to the latest one. 3 blinker.
When it all turns bad it’s going to be the people who were persuaded to do the job on the data that will get thrown under the bus. It always is.
Whomever they are.
Adam from Kansas (10:10:35) :
We are getting the 4 corners high here in Calif. Not enough to do any major heat record damage, as July 17 is the traditional high-point of the year.
Balance that out with the Montana-New England chill and it still leaves the nation cool.
tallbloke: Did you even look at the graph of UAH monthly anomalies I linked to? The average UAH anomaly for May over the period 1979-2008 was 0.07, whereas NASA, HadCru, NOAA, and RSS show an average anomaly of 0.14. So these temp records show May anomalies roughly double the UAH reported anomaly.
For June anomalies, UAH shows an average about 0.09, and the others range from 0.14 to 0.17. Again the UAH report seems out of whack with the others.
In your post you compare UAH anomaly trend with global SST trends as measured by HADcru. Are you looking at the seasonal (monthly) data?
All I am saying, is to beware of using UAH monthly anomaly data, particularly for May and June, because of previous discrepancies with other monthly reported data sets.
Yet almost every year, we get some WUWT posts talking about the low anomalies reported by UAH in May and June. Take this information with a grain of salt.
@ur momisugly woodfortrees (Paul Clark)
But if you change the start date in your graphs to 1998 a fairly clear divergence appears where GISS is out of step with all the others http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1998/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
anna v (01:46:13) :
Fraud. Simple as that.
REPLY: Let’s not use that word. Never assign malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony
When the apparent manipulation of data occurs to be chronic to support a warming agenda the word incompetence is too nice to use where fraud (intentional perversion of truth) is more applicable as it is apparently the result of political motives to support the need for their legislation/control.
GISS is worthless except for showing the blatant actions to skew the data.
.
TallDave (10:09:34) : Even if the US dataset is the best, that is not the same as saying it is good enough for climate research. Probably the best way to massage the US temp dataset is to process it into the circular file.
rbateman (10:16:21) : “When it all turns bad it’s going to be the people who were persuaded to do the job on the data that will get thrown under the bus. It always is. Whomever they are.”
So true. I hope they have a file at home in a safe place that specifically documents each date, time, place, authority, and action required, with any and all documentation in support of the actions they were required to take. Otherwise they will be thrown under the bus. I have seen it happen all too many times.
Even then, the attorneys will get involved, question their character and turn it all around.
“If you disagreed then wasn’t it your responsibility to inform management?”
“Isn’t it at fact that, by your inaction, you bear full responsibility for the bad data that the Agency disseminated?”
Of course they could go to the Inspector General or the Main Stream Media……. (On second thought………)
Front page of the July 15 SacBee.
Where is that warming at?
Wow, the posters on this self-rated “top” science site are accusing the scientists generating either the UAH or the GISS anomaly reports (whichever is ‘wrong’) with intentionally doctoring the data?
( I will not use the F word, as Mr. Watts so correctly asks us to refrain from that… I won’t even repeat it, even as poster after poster copies the F word into their posts.)
Lets see now… from the data and links I have posted, the UAH monthly anomalies for May and June over the last 20 years, have significantly shown results much lower than other temperature records (and January and February results that are seasonally much higher). I would guess that the UAH scientists seem to be using a seasonal correction that might be introducing a seasonal swing in the data.
But the WUWT posters seem to be concluding that the scientists are likely guilty of intentionally doctoring the data. Wow. What a claim!!! If the UAH data is wrong, do you guys really think the UAH scientists are guilty of your charges? Who are the scientists behind the UAH data? We need to investigate the backgrounds of these possible miscreants!
I see that my most recent blog post on UAH annual cycle has been cited above by Paul K.
I previously had a more complete discussion of this phenomenon in two parts:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/05/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/26/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends-part-2/
Also see posts by Tamino (Open Mind) and atmoz (Google search UAH annual cycle).
An interesting footnote: I see that Eric Swanson had already detected an annual cycle in the UAH antarctic temperature record back in 2003 (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040, doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003).
Here in Kansas you may ask why would this be the month with the highest July temps. ever recorded.
The local paper had a graphic that showed the 5 hottest Summers ever in Wchita, if this summer was to be one of the 5 hottest on record, we would need more than 40 100 degree days, strangely enough 1998 wasn’t on that list despite it being the warmest year in the satallite record. We’re not even close to breaking that and doesn’t look like it according to forecasts, we haven’t even passed our average no. of 100 degree days yet which is 10.
Please folks, if you want to chime in with how the Sun is cooling the planet right now, at least add why you think that so rebuttal can commence. Simply saying it (IE “The current cooling is expected due to Sun, ocean, and cloud influence”) leads to false impressions that a link has been shown between the Sun and weather pattern variation. A link has NOT been shown. Wiggle matching here and there yes, consistent correlation no, causation no, mechanism no. Here is what is known: The Sun is about as powerful as human produced CO2 as a variation driver in that there is a tiny underlying trend that varies with TSI. However, that trend is based on the calculation of the known cyclic mechanism of solar irradiance on Earth’s temperature. The signal is not strong enough to show up in the noisy weather pattern variations, both long and short term, caused by Earth’s oscillating atmospheric and oceanic drivers. In my opinion, to include solar drivers in the same sentence as oceanic drivers on land based short and long term weather pattern variation exposes a potential Sun-bias that is scientifically unsubstantiated.
Paul K (10:20:26) :
tallbloke: Did you even look at the graph of UAH monthly anomalies I linked to?
In your post you compare UAH anomaly trend with global SST trends as measured by HADcru. Are you looking at the seasonal (monthly) data?
I’ve read the articles before that Deepclimate refers to.
And yes I looked at the monthly data. As you can see from the plot below, the low UAH anomalies in May and June are due to the low SST’s in Dec and Jan. Because the sea has a much higher specific heat capacity, the air temperature change is amplified by the heat transfer from sea to air. For this reason I have reduced the Y axis scale of the UAH plot by a factor of two, in order to make the comparison.
This is why the downswings seem large compared to GISS in May June. It’s because the sun warms the land in spring and GISS reflects that more with it’s UHI amplified surface measurements than UAH does, at the same time as the troposphere is being heavily affected by the previous seasons lower SST’s.
Check it out.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/scale:0.5/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/offset:-0.4/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2005/trend/offset:-0.4/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/scale:0.5
I am a little confused. The GISS is funded by public funds. Doesn’t this mean they can be forced to reveal methodology and be held accountable for use of public money? Considering Hansen’s recent law troubles, cannot the public demand a public look at the inner workings of this rogue agency??
There must be some smart lawyer, out there, willing to crack this rotten egg.
woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (09:39:15) :
John Finn: Your wish is my command…
If you click on the “raw data” link you can get the actual trends:
Hadcrut: 0.019 K/yr
GISS: 0.023 K/yr
UAH: 0.020 K/yr
RSS: 0.020 K/yr
So yes, GISS is a bit higher, but it’s in the same ball-park.
Thanks, Paul. That’s very similar to what I get. GISS is slightly higher than the others but there’s almosrt cetainly no significant difference in the trends and I would suggest the warme arctic in recent years could explain the additional 0.003 deg per year.
There is, therefore, not a shred of evidence that GISS is involved in anything fraudulent. There doesn’t even appear to be grounds to doubt their methodology.
Pamela Gray (11:01:14) :
Here is what is known: The Sun is about as powerful as human produced CO2 as a variation driver in that there is a tiny underlying trend that varies with TSI.
With respect Pamela, it is not known. If you hadn’t noticed, there seems to be a shortage of solar scientists saying anything definite about the sun at the moment, and TSI has dropped below it’s usual match with sunspot numbers.
The jury is sat waiting for the witness, and all bets are currently off.
Pamela Gray (11:01:14) How sad should be living without a sun shining above, how cold indeed!
Pamela Gray (11:01:14) : It will be difficult to demonstrate a long term, i.e. millions of years, global temperature link without millions of years of TSI data. Do you know of any such data and do you deem it reliable?
On the lighter side, if the Sun went out right now, the Earth would become in short order a cold, inhospitable chunk of rock with maybe some puddles of liquid rare gasses here and there. I think is is safe to say that the Sun supplies most of the energy for our climate system. Someone mentioned the Sun has decreased in intensity over time. How do they know that? Chaos theory says that chaos can appear in an overdriven dynamical system. If the input energy from the Sun IS decreasing, then maybe the swings seen in the past will be less frequent and with less amplitude. I know, there is no evidence of that 🙂
Paul Clark:
– thanks – i find WoodForTress does exactly what it says on the tin!
I changed the start date to 1980 to see what happened:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1980/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1980/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/trend
It shows the trend lines are remarkably close for the 30 year period (1980..)
– with UAH giving a slightly lower trend
– but all trends are pointing in the same direction….
Looking at July’s Satellite info – it looks like this month is going to be a monster!
ok – someone beat me to it!