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




RE Smokey (19:52:38) :
Why the is revision date noteworthy? Menne, et al. were probably revising this as soon as they got the review back. It’s more likely that they were working to publish before the surfacestations stuff was submitted and that the paper was not related to the stolen e-mails (unless people think that the riginal submission was done in anticipation of having the e-mails stolen – what forecasting!), which didn’t seem to cover the NASA-GISS temperature record. Kind of a shot across the bow, but that’s just my guess.
The quick turnaround suggest that little revision was necessary – certainly not a major re-analysis. But that’s just based on my experience with reviews.
OMG – should be “Why is the revision…” Guess one typo will void my post. At least the formatting was just fine.
Deech56:
“Why the is revision…”?????
[Actually, I never noticed it until you pointed it out. But now I’ll never let you forget it. Not in a million years! That’s how it must be. It’s in my job description.]
Is revision date the noteworthy because Connor jumped on my comment: “Notice the paper was ‘revised’ a few days after Climategate hit? That’s not a coincidence.”
Climategate hit around 19 November 2009. [We’ll never know what the actual revision was; I just mentioned it because the timing was noteworthy.] But Connor only looked at the publication date.
[Unlike your labeling of the CRU emails as being “stolen” – the rest is speculation]. So, how do you know the emails were stolen? Have you got facts not in evidence?
Anyway, Connor mistakenly thought he had a gotcha on me with the dates. I just had some fun setting him straight, that’s all. Happens all the time.
Is embarrassment the good for him, no?