Bob Tisdale shows us that GISS is once again, “way out there” in 2009 compared to other global temperature data sets. It is not surprising, we’ve come to expect it.
Was 2009 The Warmest Year On Record In The Southern Hemisphere?
Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Figure 1
http://i50.tinypic.com/alq6wy.png
Figure 2
The annual NCDC Land+Sea Surface Temperature anomalies from 1982 to 2009, Figure 3, also do not show the record levels in 2009, but the NCDC does not infill with the 1200km smoothing like GISS.
http://i45.tinypic.com/2h2ghdy.png
Figure 3
GISS has used OI.v2 SST data since 1982. Figure 3 is an annual graph of SST anomalies for the Southern Hemisphere, and it illustrates that 2009 was not a record year for SST anomalies. That leaves the GISS land surface temperature anomaly data as the culprit.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2eceu74.png
Figure 4
Hadley Centre data is still not available for December, and they’ve been running late recently. The NCDC and GISS data through KNMI Climate Explorer data should be updated within the next few days, so we’ll be able to do some comparisons and try to determine which of the continents is responsible for the new record GISS Southern Hemisphere temperatures.
SOURCES
OI.v2 SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
The GISTEMP Southern Hemisphere Land Plus Surface Temperature data is available from GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts+dSST.txt
The NCDC Southern Hemisphere Land Plus Surface Temperature data is available here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.00N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
The UAH MSU TLT anomaly data was retrieved from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Posted by Bob Tisdale at 9:06 PM
Pursuing the fractional degree rises and falls a moment: I guess this is why a tipping point had to be introduced, else no one would have even listened.
ajstrata
AJSTRATA:
Darn you! You’ve just taken away my next project. What you did is essentially what I was going to embark on. If you would like 190 years worth of Minneapolis/St. Paul temp data, let me know I have it. (Highs/Lows). You can contact Anthony for my Email.
The one thing I’ve really been TICKED OFF about is the LACK of statistical analysis, which is DAMNING of the various “Phd’s” who are doing this work.
When you look at the GISS, if one does a “Standard Deviation” one finds that the “curve fit” of “trend” is statistically meaningless. Or that’s what I believe by INSPECTION. I have not done the analysis.
Do you have a “csv” file, of the GISS..can you do a quick check? I’m sure I’m right. I think you and I are taking the same approach. And, yes, it makes MINCE MEAT out of the AWG’s arguements that they are seeing ANYTHING of merit in their limited temperature data sets.
Max
Just a thought to get an ideal climate in less than 20 years you could build an impulse sprinkler into the base pole of the temp station, and plant fast growing trees in the circular drip line of the sweep, turn it on every day for 3 hours at mid day. What a wonderful world we could report on to the public, (can you say future immigration problem?)
ajstrata (19:47:43) :
Very interesting. I hope you get some responses from those more in the know that I!
ajstrata:
Nice graphical illustration of temperature variability on one day in a homogenous region smaller than the gridded areas used by GISS to record data. I was actually somewhat surprised by the range of high temperatures. Another nail in the IPCC coffin? Agree with j. pickens, though; some spell-checking and proof-reading is in order. The “there” on the second to last line is particularly jarring. ( I’m hoping meanwhile that I’ve avoided a grammar gremlin in this post – amazing how mistakes slip past one).
@ur momisugly ajstrata (19:47:43) :
Very helpful post AJ. I think your analysis of the surface stations ties in well with what E.M. Smith has been working on and sharing with us. I find it hard to believe anyone would accept the premise that you can have a few thermometers scattered around the globe and then use those small number of readings to extrapolate a temperature profile for the entire globe. It’s not intuitive and as you’ve shown, the math doesn’t work well either.
If GISS keeps up this parade of ‘outer limits’ reporting, there’s going to be a day of reckoning for wayward spenders of taxpayer monies. They are probably alread there or darned close to it.
The southern hemisphere is sparsely populated (compared to the NH) and about 50% ocean. I wonder how accurate the data really is.
BernieL: You asked, “Are we seeing the end of El Nino this southern summer?”
NINO3.4 SST anomalies have dropped the last few weeks.
http://i48.tinypic.com/5d2xzr.jpg
It’s the right time of the year for it to peak. Assuming it doesn’t turn into a multiyear El Nino, the next questions are how quickly will SST anomalies drop, and how significant will the La Nina be?
HORSE HOCKEY!!!
From Wolfram Alpha…
Data from YBAS (Alice Springs Airport) in central Australia from 1945 to present show a decline in temps., with a best fit to the data of…
-0.0024 deg F/y+-0.0263 deg F/y
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+AUSTRALIA+TEMPERATURE
Data from YPDN (Darwin International Airport) for Darwin Australia for the same time frame yields the following best linear fit…
-9.9×10^-5 deg F/y+-0.008968 deg F/y
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=darwin+AUSTRALIA+TEMPERATURE
I’m really getting tired of being preached to by a bunch of idiots and/or liars.
They are obsessed with their high-tech tools, which either don’t work the way they are supposed to or they don’t know how to use them properly, but are incapable of even reading a simple #@ur momisugly$% thermometer.
The data that falsifies their claims is there. Why won’t someone in the field please collate and post it, before they “lose” it, too?
Neville
If we say the LIA ended in 1850 then the temp either goes up or we face a further reduction in temp
1850? I keep seeing that date crop up and am not certain why. The low that preceeded the current warming trend was 1830 on almost every reconstruction and even the cherry picked ones from the IPCC spaghetti graph of 9 reconstructions show it. Further, that low was after a very short cooling period which was preceeded by a low around 1600 or so which the IPCC graph also shows, regardless of how warm the reconstruction highs are compared to the current measured highs, the trend is obvious…. warming since 1600, the IPCC says so and I choose to believe them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
But something like 0.6 C rise? That’s nothing in the overall scheme of things. Common sense please!
0.6 would be almost too little to reassure me that a cooling trend is not in the offing. I’d rather see the temp. increase vs stay the same. Not that I trust even the 0.6.
Can any data from these people be believed?
November 22, 1996: email 0848679780
“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (of the United Nations Environment Program) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (climate scientist at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne, Australia)?
I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but it’s just meant to save time in the long run”.
Any data that has been anywhere within 1000miles of these crooks must be ditched in the bin. Yes they have been “inventing” data, torturing data and misrepresenting , misinterpreting data for years. They are useless for any meaningful scientific analysis.
Irregardless of whether they say “2009 was the warmest on record for Australia” or “such and such was 2nd warmest” etc they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy with important data like global temp readings.
Only if the data used by good blogs like WUWT is untouched, raw, unscrewed and virginal, can we begin to believe what that data may be telling us. Otherwise bin it.
Jimmy Haigh (20:18:06) :
ajstrata (19:47:43) :
Very interesting. I hope
I’m with you Jimmy. It is very logical and easy for laymen (like me) to understand.
i have always though that the data was too variable from place to place, that the margin of error even in reading the data over the years let alone recording was far too great for the AGW folk to arrive at such a certain conclusions for such a small annual increment to have any credibility.
Bolivia.
If it’s too cold they hide the decline. If it’s not hot enough they fudge the ascent.
That reminds me. In a previous thread someone was saying something about clowns. Maybe GISS should adopt the following lyrics as their official climate change theme song:
Don’t you love a farce? My fault, I fear
I thought that you’d want what I want, sorry my dear
But where are the clowns? Send in the clowns
Don’t bother they’re here
SPAusnet a Victoria Australia electricity retailer proposal to increase to 42cKWH electricity during peak time (presently 8cKWH) is a warning of things to come and will be responsible, if (when) it happens for the deaths of thousands of the aged and the babies of poor people who will not be able to afford to run aircoditioning to cool their homes during heatwaves. I am also concerned about the stoic nature of the aged who if they can afford it will not use it because they think they are saving the planet. This is more about electricty supply than climate change nonsense but they are linked. If we are to rely on wind power rather than coal (which we have a plentiful supply of) or nuclear power (which is political suicide in Aus) in the future.
When are the wheels going to fall off this global warming craziness?
January 6, 2005: email 1105019698
David Parker of the UK Met Office to Neil Plummer, Senior Climatologist at the National Climate Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia:
“There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of the IPCC 4AR to stay with the 1961–1990 baseline. This is partly because a change of baseline confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to a newer baseline, so the impression of global warming will be muted”.
So the anomalies will SEEM LESS POSITIVE ha?
I was told by bloggers that changing baselines didn’t alter anomalies. Not so coming from the horses mouth. What baseline do we use and why?
REPLY: From GISTEMP “Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980.” which is part of the reason that GISS is an outlier, since they use a baseline that has some of the coldest weather in the 20th century. HadCRUT uses a 1961-1990 baseline. UAH by necessity uses a baseline starting in 1979, when data gathering first started. – Anthony
gerard (22:13:05) :
When are the wheels going to fall off this global warming craziness?
They coming off as we speak.
Climate Change was the exit strategy for AGW, and we see how well that worked out for them. NOT. They have dug themselves a pit. No exit.
What you hear now are squealings of desperation.
“Hadley Centre data is still not available for December, and they’ve been running late recently.”
Phil Jones still suspended? No records of how to manipulate his computer model? Bet the records show it’s cooler there these days!
Can someone explain why Niwa (NZ) has been saying since 1999 that the 1990s was the warmest decade ever in NZ.
This was repeated by the head man at Copenhagen (James Renwick, Principle Scientist) where he explicitly said that the NZ records show the 2000s were the warmest decade, followed by the 1990s followed by the 1980s.
Yet less than a month later (early Jan 2010) Niwa reports that the warmest decade is the 1980s, followed by the 2000s, followed by the 1970s and trailing the rear are the 1990s.
What happened to the 1990s? Did they offend the King or something?
JC
Unless AGW believers are stupid enough to think that temperatures have remained completely flat up until the industrial age started, they have no case with a rise of only 0.6 C since then.
“it shows not only the very sparse global coverage in the early years, but also the massive drop-out stations post 1980”
Why does everyone say the stations dropped out? They are still there reporting as usual, it’s just GISS doesn’t use there data anymore. Of all the things that most influences the ‘global warming’ it’s the land surface measurements, in themselves open to all kinds of errors, and the GISS then massages the data and we’re supposed to believe them when virtually every adjustment increases global warming.
Terry Jackson (21:46:03) :
“Bolivia.”
Do you mean, as in Bolivia?