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
davidmhoffer (20:57:24) :
“… 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
You forgot the
Ajstrata,
You have some serious problems with your work. First and most glaring is saying 2 degreesF or 2 degreesC is a larger percentage from a low temp day to a high temp day. False. Using your flawed theory your numbers would change just based on which scale the readings are being represented, as in C, F, absolute, K, etc.
Secondly if data is unadulterated by UHI, Station placement etc., a small number of land based stations could end up being accurate on average. Why? Because you have an equal chance of being high or low and an average gets rid of the noise in theory.
The problem of course in lies in the fact that many stations are not unadulterated in some form. Even lay of the land surrounding the station can make a large difference, such as higher or lower to surrounding land masses, open to the breezes the stir the temps and which direction the prevailing breezes are in comparison to temp influencing areas up or down wind from these influences.
But with all these influences obviously in play and they are not throwing out the high and low outliers, what it comes down to is, what is the LSD or noise in the model. I realize this is what you are trying to do but your method needs some major cleaning up……FWIW. Sincerely. John
davidmhoffer (20:57:24) :
“… 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
You forgot the [/sarcasm]
C Osborne,
Actually they interpolate changes using guesstimates. You cannot measure .1% and claim you have a valid number for the globe (absolutes or variances). And in their effort to cover the globe they neglect to add in the natural error (+/- 2°F or greater) introduced in extrapolating distances of 100’s of kms – making their conclusion meaningless. I.e., we see a 0.8°C increase +/-10°???
If they worked for NASA launching and designing spacecraft they would be fired.
Hmm, seems people are more focused on spelling than science??
John Finn
“Fair point about NCDC, but there’s an issue about the GISS 1998 anomaly. It’s always seemed, relatively speaking, much lower that the other datasets.”
John, as I point out above, the polar infill algorithms that GISS uses are garbage. The fact that GISS is cooler than the other sources in 1998 is also a product of the GISS infill algorithms.
AjStrata: I think people are only worried about spelling because in many cases (I am not saying this is true of you!) poor spelling and grammar are an indication of the general quality of the paper.
What I see there is just being in too much of a hurry — what I see are typos and “flow of consciousness” grammar/structure.
You did the write-up in a hurry, and it shows.
John:
a small number of land based stations could end up being accurate on average. Why? Because you have an equal chance of being high or low and an average gets rid of the noise in theory
Your comment on scale affecting variance is right on, these kinds of things should be done in degrees K only. But your comment on averages holds only if the distribution of errors is random and the direction of the errors also random. Since the preponderance of observation stations are located in proximity to human activity, the preponderance of errors from urban heating are all in the same direction. Except for all those Russian stations that were in urban centers that got subsidies in the days of Communism for heating fuel dependant on the winter temperatures and so reported false lows to get more fuel subsidy. The only way station data gets down to an error rate that is reasonable is if you comb through each and every station and adjust it for urban heating index across its entire data set and THEN analyze.
Gail,
“… 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
You forgot the [/sarcasm
Actually I was mostly serious. Most of the reconstructions show a brief cooling period ending in 1830, but an over all warming trend since about 1600, these ones included. The only quible I have with this specific graph is that the tail end is observation data and the “normalization” between observation data and reconstructed data is done in a fashion that makes the reconstruction look relatively cooler. This is in fact the quible I have with almost ALL the IPCC statements. They are technicaly accurate and highly misleading all at the same time.
…and if you want to have a little fun with graphs and exageration and perception… take the CO2 graph from IPCC and extend it out to show CO2 steady at 280 ppm prior to 1920 and rising to meat the IPCC measurements starting in 1960. Then scale it so that the 38% rise in CO2 roughly equates to the 1 degree rise in temp over the same time period, then superimpose THAT on the IPCC temp graph starting in 1880 and it should be very simple to see where the impact of CO2 greenhouse effect kicks in. Too much work? OK, I will do it for you, but you will have to spot the place where CO2 kicks in yourself because I couldn’t:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/temp-vs-c02-long-term1.png
ajstrata (08:54:39) :
Hmm, seems people are more focused on spelling than science??
Not me.
I was asking Oefinell (02:45:04) : how they arrive at a Variance, hopefully they will come back and give me an answer.
Pascvaks (05:40:28) :
Once again from the simple answers department, for those interested in a proxy record of “Southern” temperature anomolies since 1979 up until a couple weeks ago.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
And:
Pascvaks (07:22:11) :
Seemed that Sea Ice cover was a pretty effective way to tell if we were actually cooling or warming from a Macro point of view. Thanks again!
Assuming your interpretation of that graph of Southern sea ice is in an uptrend (more ice), it doesn’t seem to agree with GISStemp.
Tilo Reber (08:09:31) : I haven’t thought the continued warming illustrated by GISTEMP as much of a mystery. The 1200km infilling also adds to the linear trend (when compared to UAH TLT anomalies) for Africa, Asia, and South America. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
So Hansen was simply illustrating one reason for the divergence, not all.
Regards
Ref – Tim Clark (09:54:10) :
“Assuming your interpretation of that graph of Southern sea ice is in an uptrend (more ice), it doesn’t seem to agree with GISStemp.”
________________
Right! While the Southern Ocean temps may be up ‘here and there’, the overall effect on the polar weather seems to say ~what? Seems a good gage of climate change (North or South or the Planet) is the amount of ice (or not). Just looked like a good proxy for climate change. If Gore&Co is right we’ll be sunbathing in Nome soon. If they aren’t, we might be skating in Tahiti soon, or not.
My 2 cents worth:
First I believe using temperature as a base to predict climate is absolutely absurd. Climate in almost every area of the world is defined by more than temperature? (Think moisture, wind, pressure, etc., for starters.)
Average global temperatures are also patently absurd. Such a global average has absolutely no bearing on the the temperature where I live, or my climate.
So if we take poor/inadequate/flawed temperatures, then “correct” them with some (any?) sort of flawed logic, then finally “average” them, what do we have as a result?
Has anyone ever heard of GIGO?
I sometimes wonder how “climate scientists” ever convinced anyone these methods were either realistic or accurate?
Oefinell (02:45:04) :
“…In fact that is well understood by Climate Scientists. That is why they do not measure the absolute temperature at all, they measure the temperature change or variance.
Provided the methodology is consistent from month to month then you can accurately see how temperatures have changed over time. You do not need to calculate an absolute temperature at all….”
The hypothesis is an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature and that CO2 is the primate driving force in the present day climate. So AJ’s, Anthony’s and Willis’ analysis of the temperature data are very important.
Anthony’s US surface station analysis showed changes in the methods used to collect temperature data and changes in the weather station siting and location that effect the temperature trend over time. Willis’ Darwin analysis [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=darwin ] showed how a flat temperature trend was adjusted to show a rising trend. Now AJ shows how large the minimum error is in determining the temperature for a “grid” therefore negating the reasons for adjusting the Darwin data in the first place. On top of that add in the station drop out and the Russian’s complaint about the choice of data stations dropped and I do not care what type of “spin” you put on it, the data is crap and therefore ” the temperature change or variance” is also crap. “Climate scientists” are not comparing the change from the same thermometer at the same location with the same surrounding conditions but are looking at the variations in artificially “homogenized” and adjusted data.
If you have the time you can look at all of the local graphs of non-urban areas collected by John Daly. Some graphs show an increase in temperature, some a decrease but the thing I noticed was the sixty year sinusoid curve peaking in the thirties indicating the influence of the oceans on the weather. http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
I do not see where diverting attention away from temperature to ” ..whether the climate sensitivites included in the IPCC models are correct.” gains us anything.
The argument reminds me of the Delphi technique used by the USDA to gain “Consensus” on animal ID, the technique didn’t work on the farmers either.
Henry Pool (05:00:08) :
“I also thought that last winter here in South Africa was a bit longer and colder than usual, e.g. compared to the last 5 years. Most recently we are experiencing a lot of clouds and cloudiness, and cooler weather….”
I am in central North Carolina USA.For 2009 the spring was cold, the summer cooler than normal, the fall rainy (therefore warm) and the winter (December) was frigid. The summer high temperatures were at least 4F lower than normal and the December temp was an average of 2F below normal.
It is interesting to see where the warmer and where the cooler weather happens.
I still have a problem with using temperature as the defining concept when we are really talking about energy. It has come up in a few posts that measurements of temperature are affected by air pressure, humidity etc. which touches on some of this, but I still can’t get over the changes we are measuring in temperature actually represent massive energy flows.
Given that all of the energy ultimately comes from the sun and there is little variation in this (in relation to the monthly changes in temperature) we have to get to the bottom of where the energy is coming from to warm the atmosphere, and going to when it cools.
I note a couple of mention here that the satellite measurements lag the surface trends and I am assuming that people mean the stratospheric temperatures gain (or lose) energy by exchange with the surface air. This is the kind of thing I am getting at, but when they are both moving – in absolute terms – in the same direction, where is the energy coming from?
In a previous thread it was suggested the oceans were the only place which could “store” the kind of energy and I asked if there was any measurement of the ocean heat content that could be included in the energy audit. People mentioned the SST records, but this is not a full account because it is surely affected as much (if not more) by humidity and pressure. Water loses a lot of energy by evaporation so the surface will constantly be losing energy in this way.
I am sorry for being a cracked record here, but, to me, the energy accounting approach is the only one which can begin to answer the “why is it warming” question.
Several comments have queried the accuracy/quality of the raw temperature readings ‘at the weather station’. These vary tremendously from ‘unknown’ or ‘made up’ through ‘same as yesterday’ all the way up to ‘very good’.
For USHCN and electronic minmax thermometers (MMTS) the basic specs are – inherent accuracy is plus or minus 0.5 deg Centigrade. Electronic display accuracy is 0.1 units (deg Fahrenheit, and readings are captured by the operator to the nearest degree Fahrenheit.
e.g. If 76.6 is displayed, this implies an actual temperature somewhere between 24.3 and 25.3 degrees Centigrade, and would be recorded as 77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 Centigrade).
The system is calibrated annually.
YMMV.
Tilo Reber (09:07:57) :
John, as I point out above, the polar infill algorithms that GISS uses are garbage. The fact that GISS is cooler than the other sources in 1998 is also a product of the GISS infill algorithms.
I’m not sure you can say they are garbage with any certainty. That is the easy response – which probably goes down well on WUWT. It’s clear that that ENSO fluctuations have a sharper impact on satellite troposphere readings. The UAH anomaly for 1998 was 0.54 deg. If we use the same base period as UAH (1979-1998) the GISS anomaly was 0.33deg, i.e. 0.2 deg lower. If we compare GISS to Hadley/CRU using the Hadley base period (1961-1990), the GISS anomaly is 0.50; Hadley is 0.54 deg – much closer.
Since ~1992 the trends of GISS, UAH, RSS and Hadcrut have been within about 4 hundredths of a degree of each other.
I’ve just checked the GISS 2009 SH anomaly relative to the satellite base period (1979-1998). It’s +0.366 deg . The UAH anomaly for the last 6 months of 2009 is +0.365 deg . As I wrote in an earlier post: give it a few more months.
Now AJ shows how large the minimum error is in determining the temperature for a “grid” therefore negating the reasons for adjusting the Darwin data in the first place.
The reason for adjusting the Darwin data was inter alia to account for station moves (the first one was destroyed by bombing shortly after being moved because the original location had become unsuitable).
Pascvaks (05:40:28) :
Once again from the simple answers department, for those interested in a proxy record of “Southern” temperature anomolies since 1979 up until a couple weeks ago.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
Interesting. The problem, aside from those suggested by Bob Tisdale, is it only starts in 1979. This is after the cold of the seventies so it only shows the rise in temperature (recovery)
Too bad the satellite data record is not long enough yet to confirm or deny the sinusoidal curve seen in this graph from John Daly’s site of Jan Mayen Island. Not all of the records show the variation as clearly as this record does. But then it is a small mostly uninhabited island in the Arctic ocean (the Greenland Sea) so the ocean’s influence would be more clearly seen without influence by man.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/janmayen.gif
Has anybody plotted a graph of the divergence of GISS to UAH?
A C Osborn (08:38:42) :
“Oefinell can you explain to me how they calculate the variance without using the Absolute Temperature?
What Temperature do they use in the variance calculation?
Or do they just make it up?”
They just make it up. That is why they “adjust” the early 20th century temp data down and the late 20th century data up, as they did to the Darwin record. Gives nice variance charts for the MSM to show the unwashed masses. That is why Mann just got rewarded with another million dollar plus grant. Honesty of course gets you a pink slip.
Gail Combs,
from looking at data in different parts of the world, the sinusoidal curve comes up again and again, doesn’t it? I was shocked by how widepread the cooling is in the 1940-1970s period.
Warming 1880-1939:
http://82.42.138.62/GHCN/images/GISSraw1880to1939map.png
Cooling 1940-1969:
http://82.42.138.62/GHCN/images/GISSraw1940to1969map.png
Warming 1970-2010:
http://82.42.138.62/GHCN/images/GISSraw1970to2010map.png
Color key: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XKX5ZAAET-Y/S1Sla-dMmsI/AAAAAAAAAD8/Lhv-rmKqaYY/s1600-h/maplegend.png
Link to full post here.