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
tallbloke (23:22:49) :
The UAH measurement is a global one, so even if a large high or low pressure area builds and migrates slowly from one spot on the globe to another, it shouldn’t matter. I’m just thinking that the ocean temp changes would be reflected fairly quickly in the air above it, that’s all.
That’s not to say what you are doing isn’t interesting or meaningfu.
Nylo (21:24:29) :
The change in trend of GISTEMP in April 2006 was 0.05°C/100yr. The difference between UAH on the one hand and RSS/Hadcrut/GISTEMP on the other for the month of June is 0.70°C/100yr. It is more than 35 times the correction you complain about; over the period of 100 years this is roughly equivalent to the warming seen in global mean temperature during the 20th century.
Units. Orders of magnitude. They matter.
Life should be simple.
If temps go up, the graph goes up, if temps go down the graph goes down.
If a graph goes up while temps go down, something is wrong.
OT. The media are currently buzzing with emotional attacks directed at the skeptic community.
What lacks is the science and the warming.
See http://www.climate depot.com
Where might I find a copy of the US temp trend for 1890-1999?
Preferrably the one that isn’t altered.
John Finn: yeah, right :0) But time wil tell – let’s wait for the next months to come.
Rats, I was really looking forward to Flanagan’s response.
bluegrue (05:52:50) :
The change in trend of GISTEMP in April 2006 was 0.05°C/100yr.
Units. Orders of magnitude. They matter.
The one that puzzles me is the change in the GIStemp anomaly for jan/feb 2008.
Can you shed any light on that?
tallbloke (09:28:46) :
You have taken parts of my response to Nylo out of context and cut out part of it, without indicating that you have done so, and distorted the meaning in doing so. I have observed this tactic being used on WUWT before and I do not appreciate it.
To make it clear: Nylo complained about a change in trend of GISTEMP introduced due to a change in methodology of calculating GISTEMP, so the change in trend for the period 1880-2005 is between two versions of GISTEMP. The “Units. Orders of magnitude. They matter.” was a comment targeted at Nylo, who was unable to get a comparison between °C/decade and °C/century straight, calling a trend small by comparison, whereas actually it was 35 times greater than his example.
What change? Change between two months? Change between versions of GISTEMP? …? Elaborate.
David: I really don’t understand your question. What is the “it” that should remain “up there”? If you talk about heat, remember it is diffusing even if there’s no density unstability.
bluegrue (10:23:45) :
tallbloke (09:28:46) :
You have taken parts of my response to Nylo out of context
What change? Change between two months? Change between versions of GISTEMP? …? Elaborate.
Sorry, wasnt my intention to tack into that discussion. The monthlies. GIStemp jan and feb 2008. Not different versions, just the anomalies as presently given.
It seems somewhat out of proportion to air and sea data, and the GIStemp record generally seems to be inexplicably erratic through until around August 2008, where it seems to start following ocean SSTs rather than tracking closely with sat measured air temps as it did through to late 2007.
This illustrates it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2007.8/offset:-0.23/plot/uah/from:2007.8/offset:0.15/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2007.8
or for a wider look
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003.5/to:2009/plot/gistemp/from:2003.5/to:2009.5/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2007.5/to:2009.5
I’d just appreciate your take on it. I like to get views from all sides.
” Phil (16:40:47) :
Anyone want to play ‘guess the anomaly with this baby:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
Either the satellite has gone into meltdown, or we’re in for one heck a result this month!!”
Try comparing to 2007 you will see a similar spike but just a few weeks earlier. Don’t think much of it since we had one of the strongest La Nina years right after that.
Here’s something new to consider:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
1st graph is the Greenwich-Debrecen Penumbral/Umbral area ratio means for 1874 to 2007.
2nd graph is the Gr-Deb data inverted and the US 1999 temp. graph in this article expanded and lined up.
Comments are on web page.
There is a somewhat correlation to Pen/Umb ratios to Temp changes.
There is a very strong and interesting correlation to lopsided Pen/Umb ratios of 12:1 and better (these are quite rare) to downtrend movemets of US temp. The whopper was 1954.
Now, if I knew where to get the data to compute the US montly temp means, or someone could point me to where that data exists (the data that the US Temp 1999 graph is made from), I’d like to do a better job of it.
Comparing Yearly Means to Monthly Means in 2 different data sets is not what I intend,
it’s just that I have little choice.
I see, tallbloke. I don’t really look at individual months. As all of the data sets have different coverage of the planet I am not surprised to see them not change in unison. Even RSS and UAH have differences, despite being calculated from the same raw data. I’m content with looking at linear trends or smoothed signals over at least 15 years (preferably 30) and upwards. I don’t know enough about the data to give a meaningful comment about individual months.
bluegrue, if you want to state your position from a firm base regarding trend lines and what not, you had best learn about weather pattern variation first. In other words, if AGW has a chance at all of passing the smell test, weather needs first consideration, not dismissal. Because someone simply doesn’t “know enough about the data to give a meaningful comment about individual months” does not mean that they can leapfrog over it and talk intelligently about global warming If you can’t speak knowledgeably about the weather and its variations, your comments on global warming data trends will be dismissed out of hand.
Flanagan (11:04:52) :
If CO2 is the cause of our heating predicament, shouldn’t it be observable via satellite? Instead we are waiting for the Nino signal to show up in the satellite data for an anomaly??
Jim Arndt (11:54:26) :
– so your guess is similar to July 2007? (~0.25C)?
rbateman (12:08:12) :
Here’s something new to consider:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
1st graph is the Greenwich-Debrecen Penumbral/Umbral area ratio means for 1874 to 2007.
2nd graph is the Gr-Deb data inverted and the US 1999 temp. graph in this article expanded and lined up.
Very interesting. And here’s another flipped over data series to ponder that I just discovered. This one is inverted outgoing longwave radiation (thanks Bob Tisdale) above the last three solar cycles.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=ssn-olr-1974-2009.gif
4Watt/meter^2 swings in OLR matching 0.4W/m^2 changes in TSI at Earth’s surface. WUWT?
I think I’ve cracked it. I calculated the other day that the ocean heat content must have risen 14×10^22J to account for the sea level rise seen by the satellite altimetry, less the melted chunks of Greenland and other ice melt. This is over twice the estimate of ocean heat content given by Levitus the Lead IPCC author in his 2009 paper. I’m sure he’s wrong. His figure matches the co2 radiative forcing, but that’s too convenient…
14×10^22J is equivalent to 4W/m^2
That matches the 4W/m^2 upswings in Outgoing Longwave Radiation from the Earth which happen in antiphase to the solar cycle. It’s the ocean emitting heat when the sun is quiet.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=ssn-olr-1974-2009.gif
Dunno where this is going to lead yet, but I think the implications are far reaching.
Open Source Climatology, for open minded climatologists.
Those figures are for 1993-2003 solar input to the ocean.
tallbloke (14:00:17) :
Yes, and I see the time lag at work in your graph.
It’s the things that are ignored that come up from the depths to bite us. Murphy would have said “I told you so”.
Phil,
Your guess is as good as mine. I was only noting the similarity in the spike size and shape. I would not surprise me if it was .25C
rbateman (14:42:44) :
tallbloke (14:00:17) :
Yes, and I see the time lag at work in your graph.
It’s the things that are ignored that come up from the depths to bite us. Murphy would have said “I told you so”.
The power supply just packed up on my lappy, so I’ll be offline for a bit. As far as I can see, the residual will be positive. Bye Bye co2 hypothesis. 🙂
rbateman (12:08:12) :
The whopper was 1954.
The spikes come about because you are dividing by a very small number and are thus mainly noise. The way to produce such a graph is to avoid all numbers less than a certain threshold, chosen such as to eliminate the spikes. [granted that this is a bit circular, but there is no way around it – try to plot the ratio the other way around, always dividing by the larger of the two quantities.
I saw the NOAA June data is out, and so I rushed over here to read the WUWT regulars take on the data… But NADA, not a single mention. My God, gentlemen, you lampooned GISS for being way out there and caricatured the GISS scientists by comparing them with a couple of buffoonish movie characters. Now the NOAA data comes in and confirms the GISS data, and shows the
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html
Global Highlights:
Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record.
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) transitioned from ENSO-neutral to El Niño conditions across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2009. If El Niño conditions continue to mature as projected by NOAA, global temperatures are likely to continue to threaten previous record highs.
[later in the report:]
Sea surface temperatures during June 2009 were warmer than average across much of the world’s oceans, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across the southern oceans. The global ocean SST for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous June record set in 2005. Sea surface temperature anomalies in all Niño regions continued to warm during June 2009, where the monthly temperatures were more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) above average. If El Niño conditions continue to mature as projected by NOAA, global temperatures are likely to continue to threaten previous record highs. Please see the June 2009 ENSO discussion for additional information.
My question: What happened to all the flat ocean temperature information that has been trumpeted on this site? (My guess… we had a La Nina last year, and an emerging El Nino this year.)
Why do WUWT posts and regular commenters push out conspiracy theories (in this post and comments) regarding real climate scientists, and the guys here who claim to know more about the “real” temperature records, are demonstrably naive and ill-informed about the important temperature records?
REPLY: Paul – Gosh, I didn’t react fast enough for you. Time for smackdown then. Perhaps it might be possible that an article is in the works but not ready for publcation yet? It might be possible that I’m collaborating with some people about the NOAA data and that we maybe want to check out something first? Perhaps there is an interesting puzzle in the NOAA data?
You were quick to complain about my “trumpeting” of UAH data…but you didn’t look to see how often I report on NOAA data. If I had reported on NOAA data every month and then suddenly this one was late, you might have a point.
I don’t sit at this screen all day. I can’t. I’ll also point out, that during the day, I don’t do much blogging or research because I have a business to run. For example I’m running this comment at quitting time, 5PM PST. Moderators handle the site from early morning to late afternoon. Occasionally I’ll add a story like I did today (on NCAR’s solar announcement) because I got a direct tip from Leif Svalgaard on my business email.
So daytime blog updates are the exception, not the rule. Most are done evening and early mornings. So next time you want to beat me up for not reacting fast enough for you but instead choosing to run my business and keep my family fed and clothed, remember that.
Warmist, chill thyself. – Anthony
Paul K see inline comment above
Your second comment with link to the Climate Progress website run by Joe Romm was deleted. By me.
Why you ask?
Well it is because Romm has a policy of deleting any links to WUWT. Even when he attacks the issues we present here he hasn’t the integrity to allow the reader to follow a link to WUWT and judge for themselves.
Romm is so inflammatory, even people on his side of the debate are starting to ridicule him. For example Stoat/Connelley
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/06/foaming_at_the_mouth_with_joe.php
So he gets no favors here until he changes his policy of linkage and tones it down a bit. – Anthony