NASA GISS a temperature outlier again – this time for the southern hemisphere

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

After reading Roger Pielke Sr’s post Reality Check On Science Magazine’s Claim That 2009 Was The Hottest Year on Record in Southern Hemisphere, I plotted Annual GISTEMP Southern Hemisphere Land+Sea Surface Temperature anomalies from 1982 to 2009, Figure 1, and the Annual UAH MSU TLT anomalies for the same period, Figure 2. There’s nothing surprising with those graphs based on Pielke Sr’s post. GISTEMP is showing record 2009 combined surface temperatures for the Southern Hemisphere, while the 2009 TLT anomalies are far from record levels.

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
153 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Deech56
January 26, 2010 6:43 pm

RE Smokey (19:52:38) :

True, I am a genius by comparison; I can read dates.
Cut ‘n’ pasted from Connor’s link:
“Submitted to
Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres
August 27, 2009
Revised December 21, 2009
[Revised right after the Climategate scandal made the news, and 4 months after it had been submitted to the publisher – AKA ‘backing and filling.’]”
Reading comprehension, me boy. It matters.

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.

Deech56
January 26, 2010 6:45 pm

OMG – should be “Why is the revision…” Guess one typo will void my post. At least the formatting was just fine.

January 26, 2010 7:15 pm

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?

1 5 6 7