NASA -vs- NASA: which temperature anomaly map to believe?

Readers may recall yesterday where I posted this stunning image of cold for Europe and Russia for mid December 2009 from the NASA NEO MODIS satellite imager.

Deadly Cold Across Europe and Russia

Deadly Cold Across Europe and Russia

Color bar for Deadly Cold Across Europe and Russia

Click image above to enlarge or download large image (3 MB, JPEG) acquired December 11 – 18, 2009

In that story were links to additional images, and I’d planned to return to them for a comparison. Inspired by my posting, METSUL’s Alexandre Aguiar saved me the trouble. There’s an interesting comparison here between the surface anomaly done by weather stations (NASA GISS) and that of satellite measurement (NASA NEO MODIS) – Anthony


Guest post by Alexandre Aguiar, METSUL, Brazil

COMPARE THE TWO MAPS

NASA GISS on the left, NASA MODIS on the right

Here’s the same images but larger – click either image for full size:

South America: The vast majority of the continent is near average or below average in the NEO map, but according to GISS only the southern tip of the region is colder. The most striking difference is Northeast Brazil: colder in the NEO map and warmer at the GISS.

Africa: Most of the continent is colder than average in the NEO map, but in the GISS most of Africa is warmer than average.

Australia: The Western part of the country is colder than average in the NEO map, but the entire country is warmer in the GISS map.

Russia: Most of the country is colder than average in the NEO map, a much larger area of colder anomalies that presented in the GISS map.

India: Colder than average at NASA’s NEO website and warmer at NASA’s GISS map.

Middle East: Huge areas of the region (Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Syria) are colder than average in the NEO map and average/warmer in the GISS map.

Europe: Near average or slightly above average in the NEO map and much above average in the GISS map.

Greenland: Entire region colder than average at NEO and much of the area warmer at GISS.

Same source (NASA), but very different maps !!!

Why:

At NEO, land surface maps show where Earth’s surface was warmer or cooler in the daytime than the average temperatures for the same week or month from 2000-2008. So, a land surface temperature anomaly map for November 2009 shows how that month’s average temperature was different from the average temperature for all Novembers between 2000 and 2008.

Conclusion

Despite being very warm compared to the long term averages (GISS, UAH, etc), November 2009 was colder in large areas of the planet if compared to this decade average.

See PDF here. December should be very interesting in the northern hemisphere.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Syl

I understand the base periods are different but we can’t let it go at that. Look at western Australia, for example. We’re talking almost a 4C difference in anomaly between the two maps.
Am I nuts in saying that doesn’t make sense to me?

sagi

Look how much of the ocean the GISS graphic incorporates!

Peter Hearnden

Despite being very warm compared to the long term averages (GISS, UAH, etc), November 2009 was colder in large areas of the planet if compared to this decade average.>/i>”
Well, yes, that’s what happens with averages (they being, well, the average – so even in warm months globally some localities are cold) and when you use different baselines for comparison you get, wait for it, different results…..
.

Alan S. Blue

Calibrate the freaking surface stations already.

pat

don’t know if this has been posted yet:
31 Dec: ScienceDaily: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

fishhead

Was GISS done in crayon? That could explain it.

Mooloo

Bah Syl! That’s nothing compared to Ellesmere Island ( just north-west of Greenland). That’s way over 4°C.
Camp Minnesota (Antarctica) also has a huge difference.
What strikes me as odd is in the GISS map there are a couple of places where extremely high anomalies shade very quickly into low ones. Northern Siberia, northern Alaska, west Greenland, Camp Minnesota. Those are huge differentials.
Call me a cynic (as opposed to a skeptic) but why are all the extremely high anomolies, with the exception of South Australia) in the places where no-one can argue that they are wrong, yet have to fall off very quickly to inhabited places.

Richard

The NASA GISS map link is broken

Richard

The top left one that is

It was nice of them to put up a satellite to show how poorly they’re other system does its job–has CRU seen this?

What’s the difference in how these “map representations” are made?

What does Roy Spencer say about this? Who will call for NASA GISS to reveal all of its methods, adjustments, and modifications to the data.

Douglas DC

NASA needs to worry about real threats-like something nasty from space hitting US
-the Russians are….
NASA- to go back to “Boldy going”…

kadaka

Look at that GISS map. Who would have guessed that Hawaii’s measurements were good for, what, 1/120th of the globe?
And wow, the Arctic regions are predominantly running 4 to 9.9 degrees high! No wonder Dr. Al Gore, the noted climate scientist, thinks the ice will be gone by 2035, it’s obvious!

edward

Al Fin
The Nasa Giss website documents all of it’s methods, adjustments and modifications. Where you unable to find that information when you went to the NASA site?
Thanks
Edward

Merrick

Anthony,
Have you seen the new paper by Wolfgang Knorr, supposedly in GRL, that claims their has been no rise in the “airborne fraction of anthropoenic carbon dioxide” over the past 150 years? This contradicts the claim that the existing sinks are saturating and that the rate of atmospheric CO2 will start increasing more rapidly. I haven’t had a chance to check it out yet. But I wanted to give you a heads-up.
Merrick

SandyInDerby

That pretty much confirms that it got warmer up to about ten years ago, the cause being debatable and not certain. Then it has cooled since then, again the cause is not confirmed. Where it goes from here we’ll have to wait and see.

Hang on a minute
The GISS anomaly map is for the month of November whereas the MODIS map is for ONE week (11th-18th) in December. This is not a fair comparison. Leaving aside the fact that the anomaly base periods are completely different should we not at least wait until GISS release their December figures before making any comment.

TeresaV

Part of what we are seeing in the GISS plot is what happens when a sparse data set is used to generate a surface to plot. I’ve seen GMT plotting routines do this with ‘my’ own data set. You can get these weird wrap around areas as the program tries to fill in the empty areas. Of course NOAA/GISS has made the data set sparse by tossing large #’s of surface met stations for no good reasons so they do not get a pass on this, nor on not applying an ocean mask as was done with the Satellite data plot.

Nick Stokes

Given the totally different methods, the correspondence is very good. The base periods are very different – the GISS anomaly reflects all the late 20C warming, which is why the map is so much redder.
Remember that the differences between regional anomalies for one month are often much greater than the differences between global anomalies over a year. Even if the methods gave exactly the same temperatures, you’d still see differences based on this. The sat data probably is based on less than 20 years base data (they should say). If, say, NE Brazil was relatively warm during those years, and relatively cool 1951-80, it will show now as cool relative to GISS, no matter how accurate the measurement. And there will always be places in the world with such a mismatch.

Dave F

Just wondering, is any of the difference in spots where a high SST anomaly changes the colder land temps? It could be that by giving the SSTs a chance to allow the ocean to breathe heat out in colder air masses you get a false reading indicating heat. Am I mistaken?

Andrew30

fishhead (16:52:10) :
“Was GISS done in crayon? That could explain it.”
No it is an overlay of their Light-Bright mapping aligned using an Etch-a-Sketch and photographed using a Barbie Fashion-Master camera.
There are using the technology that is appropriate for the quality of the data.

Henry chance

Say it isn’t so. James Hansen claims to be soo very busy. It is hard work to adjust numbers and tweek the data.

Tom T

I can’t help thinking that Hansen is cherry picking when compares temps to 1951-1980. Why those years. I have often wondered about this.
It is quite clear that not everyone at NASA is nuts like Hansen. A number of times NASA has published studies that disagree with Hansen. The real questions why is Hansen still there?

photon without a Higgs

fishhead (16:52:10) :
Was GISS done in crayon? That could explain it.
They couldn’t keep the orange and reds inside the lines? They overlapped the blues with them?

Mapou

The tale of the two contradicting maps. Which one is correct? James Hansen knows.

phlogiston

pat (16:38:22)
Interesting. I am beginning to be a little suspicious of the almost exact linearity of the current measured increase in CO2 conc. e.g. from Mauna Kea. If – as I an I guess most others have assumed, a significant part of this is anthropogenic, one would expect to see some variation in the slope of CO2 conc. with time, reflecting for instance global economic cycles and even weather. Totally straight seems hard to reconcile with human activity.

boballab

pwl (16:56:50) :
The Baseline normals to make the Anomaly. I just set someone else straight about how when comparing Anomaly maps they both have to use the same baseline. GISS uses the years 1951 to 1980 to figure out what the “normal” average temperature is for the world then subtracts that from the real temp data. So a Normal based on temps from 51 to 80 will be much lower then the “Normal” based on 2000 to 08 the MODIS satellite is based on. Therefore GISS will show a bigger difference then MODIS. Also notice that on the GISS map the areas of “High” anomalies is much more spread out then MODIS. This is due to the fact that the Thermometers died off in alot of those areas abnd GHCN and GISS infills with airport thermometers. See Chiefio’s site for the March of the Thermometers away from cold places and towards the south and the beaches and how they seem to be only able to survive at airports.

DirkH

Looks like MODIS will keep GISS from falsifying the trend from now on.

davidc

I’m in the red blob in the GISS map (+2 to 4C) in South Eastern Australia. It’s 22C here now, well below normal for this time of year.

photon without a Higgs

Al Fin (16:57:13) :
Who will call for NASA GISS to reveal all of its methods, adjustments, and modifications to the data.
I do believe a FOI has been requested of GISS and been ignored for a long time now. A think tank named CEI has issued a Notice of Intent to File Suit against NASA.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/cei-files-notice-of-intent-to-sue-nasa-giss/

Clarity2009

OT but has anyone seen this Science Daily article? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

kwik

Yes, saw that article. So how does this correlate to that linearly climbing Mauna Loa curve? What to believe…..

Andrew30

photon without a Higgs (17:33:54) :
“They couldn’t keep the orange and reds inside the lines? They overlapped the blues with them?”
Actually they ran out of blue pegs, they once had the whole set but the dog ate most of the blue ones 🙁

Someone has to speak up! This “average temperature” fraud is just that.
It is a FRAUD. It’s a trick with NUMBERS.
It’s MEANINGLESS.
I’ll have more to say on this in the next 2 weeks.
Max

Bill H

Just a thought…
NASA places two very different Maps using the same data… one with Sat data incorporated showing no warming and one with land based only data showing significant warming..
these folks need to be defunded…and defended in the court of public opinion.
UHI the most likely cause of temp rise in land based data… Sat data blends temps and show no significant warming…
then you publish both without finding out why there is such a discrepancy….
Is it just me or are these guy out to lunch?

blcjr

OT but has anyone seen this Science Daily article? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
I think I counted three OT references to this. It is “old news.” Anthony covered it back in early November:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/

Bill H

DirkH (17:42:17) :
Looks like MODIS will keep GISS from falsifying the trend from now on.
*********************************************************
Only if we can keep Hansen and crew from tampering with the data…

Mapou

Pat and Clarity2009:
If corroborated, it simply means that man-made global warming is a lie. But don’t expect Wolfgang Knorr’s study to sway the global warmists. It takes a lot to destroy an established religion. That’s why nobody else is talking about this astonishing study except here and a handful of other skeptical sites.

Bill H

John Finn (17:14:53) :
Hang on a minute
The GISS anomaly map is for the month of November whereas the MODIS map is for ONE week (11th-18th) in December. This is not a fair comparison. Leaving aside the fact that the anomaly base periods are completely different should we not at least wait until GISS release their December figures before making any comment.
*********************************************************
With the data temp variation should be less pronounced in the bigger set… and its not…
However, this goes back to publishing things when there is a problem and not correcting it first..

Paul Martin

Clarity2009 (17:48:32) :
OT but has anyone seen this Science Daily article?

Yes, here and over a month ago: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/

old construction worker

Doesn’t Griss do that auto-kinetic, tale-transcontinental portation that tripulated anomalies between New York City and San Diego, hinged in Kansas City, and if that’s out of whack, then they auto-correlate Seattle to Miami temperature trick? (or maybe it’s Little Miami?)
I can’t keep track.

Merrick (17:13:22) :
Anthony,
Have you seen the new paper by Wolfgang Knorr,

Anthony has covered it here on WUWT…..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/

Paul Martin

I agree that we’re comparing apples with oranges here. We know November (GISS map) was much warmer than the second half of December has been (MODIS map), certainly in the northern hemisphere. A more useful comparison would be the mid-November data from MODIS, or the December data from GISS.

joseph murphy

The difference to me is one looks like a real temp. Map and one looks like a lego block crayon drawing.

wayne

Does anyone know where, or how, to obtain either the grid data of the “1951-1980 mean” the anomaly grid is compared to or the single temperature these are differenced against. Also the “2000-2008 mean” would be helpful. That data might be in grid form also.
I’m like Syl as the top post, this cannot be correct even with the different base time periods. All but a few points, being conservative, are showing greater than 2 degrees and that’s conservative.
Am I right here, in IPCC report we are only talking of 1.7 degrees since ~1880s. So the difference between 1951-1980 mean and 2000-2008 mean should be, at most, somewhere around 0.4-0.6 degC. With this in mind there is no way they should be showing 2.0+ degC differences basically everywhere.
I want to investigate further, to be more accurate and check if this thought is correct, but don’t know where the data exists, if it’s public at all.
If someone is already doing that work, I don’t want to duplicate. Let me know if so.

Mariss Freimanis

About the “31 Dec: ScienceDaily: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds” CO2 vs. time graph. There is a bump in CO2 starting about 1935 and ending at 1945. Coincidentally that time span straddles WWII. A lot of industry ramped up ’35 and and a lot of the product of that industry was used to blow up and burn things down in the ensuing 10 years. Any correlation? The steep 1945 negative slope may give some indication how quickly the resulting CO2 was reabsorbed.

Bill H

Can we substitute the paper my kids colored their Easter eggs on for the one map? probably be as accurate..

Gino

At the risk of copyright infringement….”You Lie!”…

Not Amused

Hmm funny…. Is it my old eyes or does the antartica peninsula look mostly blue ? Isn’t this the area they are claiming is warming most in antartica ?