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 (09:23:40) :
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…”
Try this instead: http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
I would not trust any of the IPCC data since reading the climategate e-mails.
“IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers (SPM), are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW).” http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
Authors whose reports have been included have complained about the twisting of their reports. The Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC details some of the problems. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
Pofarmer: You asked, “Has anybody plotted a graph of the divergence of GISS to UAH?”
That’ll be part of the next post on this, but I’m waiting for the KNMI update of the temperature datasets for December.
Ajstrata
I have one concern about you article and that is you used basic statistics which makes certain assumptions about observations ie that they are independent. This is not true of climatic data which shows “persistence” ie the temperature/rainfall will not be dramatically different 100m or even 10km away.
Whatever one may think about Jones of the CRU he does understand the need to use spatial statistical tools in analysing climate data. The wiki article on spatial statistics is very good, see especially spatial autocorrelation and spatial interpolation. For those who understand Time Series analysis, the problems of autocorrelation will be familar.
John Finn: You wrote, “…but there’s an issue about the GISS 1998 anomaly. It’s always seemed, relatively speaking, much lower that the other datasets.”
TLT anomalies can be more volatile:
http://i50.tinypic.com/208jqyq.png
And HADSST2, part of HADCRUT, has a step up in 1998 that is caused by a change in the SST dataset used by the Hadley Centre, which exaggerates its response to the 1997/98 El Nino. The OI.v2 data in the following graph is what GISS has used since 1982:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2gx2nwm.png
From this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/met-office-prediction-climate-could.html
Regards
Phil. (12:34:45) :
“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).”
The adjustments were minus one degree before 1940 and then stepwise up to over two degrees giving a total of close to a six degree per century adjustment to an otherwise flat temperature trend. (Gee makes it look just like Mann’s hockey stick) I can see a need for a one time half a degree adjustment up after the station was bombed and possibly another couple of tenths down after it was destroyed in a cyclone, IF the station was moved a significant distance and/or IF the calibration of the thermometers indicate the need for an adjustment because the thermometer is off. Otherwise you leave the data alone.
To be repeatedly adjusting the data without good solid evidence that an adjustment is absolutely necessary just adds MORE error to the data. Instead information about changes should be noted and if possible parallel readings taken. Since the original locations of the weather stations are often known that still could be done in many cases by going back to the original site and setting up a temporary station for up to a month so a more accurate and SCIENCE BASED adjustment can be calculated. The climate scientists were just too lazy to get off their duffs and do the work.
Reminds me of the “quality control” done on the USA surface station networks. Lazy @ur momisugly#$! government scientists are more interested in attending conferences and writing papers to get more grant money than doing real work aka Steve McIntyre’s “Starbucks Hypothesis” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/steve-mcintyre-on-fox-news-special-tonight-about-climategate/#more-14338
vjones (13:28:30) :
“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. “
Yes it does seem to be seen all around the world although not in all the records. That is why looking at the individual records gives a better idea of what the climate has really been doing. Sort of like this winter where we have abnormally cold weather over the North America, Europe and China and normal weather in the southern hemisphere. Mapping those sorts of changes are going to yield a lot more information than some artificial hype of “Theres a 0.6 C increase in world temp/ it has to be due to increased CO2”
There is a heck of a lot of all sorts of data out there stretching back for more than a hundred years. I would not be surprised if Piers Corbyn and joe Bastardi have put a lot of it together and uses it for their predictions. It really makes me angry when I think of the amount of progress the world could have made in climate science if Mann, Jones et al had been honest scientists instead of…. Oops I’ll get snipped.
Try this instead: http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
I would not trust any of the IPCC data since reading the climategate e-mails
Tx Gail! what a great link!
They mostly confirm what I have seen in other reconstructions… nasty cooling period about 1830ish stuck into a general warming trend since about 1600. Same pattern as the IPCC spaghetti, but showing that it was warmer in the mwp than it is now. Was interested to note though that while almost all of them showed the nasty cooling around 1830, a handfull did not show the same around 1600.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/01/hedgehog-and-hyena.html
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.
I think you are 100% correct. All the temperature record accomplishes is to be a proxy for energy balance. When you try and correlate the models to energy balance there is invariably a hole in the models.
BTW, while you can store energy in the oceans, you can ALSO store “cold” in ice. The transition from ice to water consumes a huge amount of energy. At 1 watt/m2 (the current contribution from man made CO2) it would take about 12 years to warm the top 100 meters of the ocean 1 degree C. If I recall my physics correctly, assuming the ice was already at the melting point, the same would melt about 1.3 meters of ice.
If I recall my physics correctly, assuming the ice was already at the melting point, the same would melt about 1.3 meters of ice.
oops… correction. heat capacity of water is 4j/g/degree at zero and heat of fusion is 80… so assuming I got the heating up the ocean thing right then the ice thing would be about 5 meters.
Australia has found a permanent answer to its poor climate records.
http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml
Can’t wait for the peer-reviewed publication on station siting (17:30:14) :
To the purveyor of nonsense who fails to use his or her real name: What does your link have to do with this the topic of this thread? Or are you just trying to hide it from Anthony by throwing it onto a thread that has nothing to do with the Surface Station Project or with the USHCN…or with the Northern Hemisphere, for that matter? What, are you going to go back to Eli’s now and claim you’ve made your point here at WUWT?
Interesting to see that the surface stations project uncovered a cool bias to the temperature record. Great to see all the hard work of the volunteers come to fruition, though it is worrying that the rapid warming trend wasn’t simply an artifact.
Jay Sezbria: Had you bothered to check, the paper referred to by “Can’t wait for the peer-reviewed publication on station siting” was discussed in a number of posts here at WUWT six months ago. Just type Menne into the search function:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Menne
Also, as I asked in my 18:52:34 reply, what does Menne et al have to do with the subject of this post. You’re in the wrong hemisphere.
Bob Tisdale (14:52:33) :
John Finn: You wrote, “…but there’s an issue about the GISS 1998 anomaly. It’s always seemed, relatively speaking, much lower that the other datasets.”
TLT anomalies can be more volatile:
http://i50.tinypic.com/208jqyq.png
I did acknowledge in my earlier post (John Finn (12:28:17) 🙂 that “It’s clear that that ENSO fluctuations have a sharper impact on satellite troposphere readings”. But, by the same argument, it’s possible that other factors amplify the surface temperatures (relative to the troposphere).
I’m not out to defend GISS, Hadley or the UK met office (certainly not them) but I do like to “play fair”. I’m not implying that you don’t. In fact every post I’ve seen from you suggests that you are as keen as I am to present the facts as accurately as possible.
I would just like to make this observation, though. If GISS are fudging the data to make it appear that it’s warming more than it actually is, they are not doing a very good job of it. Over the last 20 years the difference in trends between UAH and GISS is wafer thin.
Richard M (08:23:14) :
Phil., I want to congratulate you for pointing out the slight seasonable bias that appears in the UAH numbers. I remember you also pointed this out in June when the anomaly was zero. I was wondering if any of the AGW supporters would point this out at this time.
Thank you, it’s still relevant, the annual cycle in recent UAH data gives high anomalies in winter which has to be borne in mind when considering the indication of 20 yr records in the current month. I don’t see what this has to do with ‘AGW support’ or otherwise.
Gail Combs (14:54:22) :
I can see a need for a one time half a degree adjustment up after the station was bombed and possibly another couple of tenths down after it was destroyed in a cyclone, IF the station was moved a significant distance and/or IF the calibration of the thermometers indicate the need for an adjustment because the thermometer is off. Otherwise you leave the data alone.
It was removed a significant distance in ~1941, so no ‘if’ needed
To be repeatedly adjusting the data without good solid evidence that an adjustment is absolutely necessary just adds MORE error to the data. Instead information about changes should be noted and if possible parallel readings taken. Since the original locations of the weather stations are often known that still could be done in many cases by going back to the original site and setting up a temporary station for up to a month so a more accurate and SCIENCE BASED adjustment can be calculated. The climate scientists were just too lazy to get off their duffs and do the work.
Difficult to do that accurately in this case since the effect of the tree growing over the weather station (which was the prime reason for the move) would be difficult to replicate and the destruction of the buildings by bombing will have changed the microclimate.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
You guys should start another temperature station audit, see if you can cover another COOLING BIAS for NASA LOLOLOLOLOLOL
A spectacular own goal! You lot must feel preeeeeetty stupid! 😀
[i]”wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations.”[/i]
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Connor (14:57:39)…
…is such a tool. He can’t see that NOAA is furiously backing and filling because Phil Jones is now blaming them for providing the original raw temperature data to the CRU. Notice the paper was ‘revised’ a few days after Climategate hit? That’s not a coincidence.
Also, notice that raw and urban temperatures match, until they started “adjusting” the data in the ’50’s. Just because a few jamokes put together a paper trying to cover the NOAA’s butt doesn’t mean squat — except to someone who believes that a temperature station sitting on an airport tarmac or next to an A/C exhaust will read the same temperature as a rural station out in a grass field: click
NOAA has been routinely “adjusting” the temperature record to show artificial warming, and now they’ve been caught: click [takes a few seconds to load]
That won’t matter to the True Believers like Connor. Cognitive dissonance has taken hold, and they can’t think straight any more. But the rest of us can see what’s going on. Most all of the inconvenient rural stations have recently been eliminated: click
That leaves the tarmac stations, which – unsurprisingly – show warming. But it isn’t real.
The paper was published in 2010, genius! Ah, it must suck to be full of so much fail like you guys! Epic lulz! 😀
True, I am a genius by comparison; I can read dates.
Cut ‘n’ pasted from Connor’s link:
Reading comprehension, me boy. It matters.
What does TLT means? It is very annoying how in the USA you use acronyms and you do not have the courtesy to post what those acronyms mean. This blog is excellent but it is supposed to be a blog where we laymen can see the extreme fallacies and falsehoods that academia, press and bureaucracy systematically feeds us. But when you use unexplained acronyms you greatly damage the superb work that you are doing with these posts.
[Maybe this will help: http://www.acronymfinder.com/AFAIK.html ~dbs, mod]
Comparing the NZ and Giss 2009 sh T Anomaly ,there seems to be a divergence in the plots ie opposite sign.
With NZ we can see the effects of the ozone hole 9and breakdown of polar transport in AUG however Giss shows a downtrend it night be an interesting exercise to test other nid latitude sites in the SH
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/nzgisst2009.jpg
Maybe if you look hard enough you people will find A YETI!!!! ZOMGLOLWTFBBQ!
Connor (01:30:49) :
“Maybe if you look hard enough you people will find A YETI!!!! “
Well, we have been receiving reports of sightings…