The GISS Temperature Record Divergence Problem
Guest post by Tilo Reber
“Areas covered occasionally by sea ice are masked using a time-independent mask.”
So if there is sea ice coverage for any part of the year, GISS will not use SST values to cover those cells for the entire year. Those cells must be covered by extrapolations from land for that year. This means that when the area is cover with ice or with water or with part ice part water, it will have it’s anomaly extrapolated from land, regardless. HadCRUT, on the other hand, does not extrapolate their coverage. But they will use SST values for a cell when SST values are available for part of the year. If the area is covered with ice for the entire year, HadCRUT will not assign it a value. Therefore we get polar areas that are covered by extrapolation by GISS and not covered at all by HadCRUT.
When we look at the HadSST2 record, we see that the cool cells that show up above Svalbard in 2005 are consistent with the numbers in that record. And these then go into creating the sea surface portion of the HadCRUT3 temperature record. So, obviously, how cells are filled with data can have a profound effect on the anomaly value that those cells have. This leads one to wonder if extrapolations at the pole are legitimate. I decided to look at some of the northern Russian stations, at the GISS site, that show up as being so hot in the 2005 version of the GISS chart when compared with the 1998 version of the chart. I found that those big changes are in fact represented in the individual records – especially for the coastal stations. Here are three of them.
1998 Annual Mean – -3.39
2005 Annual Mean – 0.60 1998 – 2005 delta 3.99 C
1998 Annual Mean – -14.99
2005 Annual Mean – -10.79 1998 – 2005 delta 4.2 C
Gmo Im.E.K F: 77.7 N, 104.3 E.
1998 Annual Mean – -15.96
2005 Annual Mean – -12.67 1998 – 2005 delta 3.29 C
For comparison, let’s look across the Arctic ocean and see what was happening in Canada and Alaska at the same time.
Eureka, N.W.T.: 80.0 N, 85.9 W.
1998 Annual Mean – -17.38
2005 Annual Mean – -17.34 1998 – 2005 delta 0.04 C
1998 Annual Mean – -8.80
2005 Annual Mean – -10.44 1998 – 2005 delta -1.64 C
So it seems that the North American side of the Arctic changed little, or even got cooler between 98 and 05, the Russian side warmed considerably. Why is that? I think that this ice cover map gives us the answer. As is immediately apparent, the coastal ice cleared out far earlier in 2005 in northern Russia than it did in 1998. This is even though the rest of the globe was slightly warmer in 1998 than in 2005. When dealing with coastal stations, removing the ice and exposing the water is like taking the hatch off a heating source for the coastal thermometers. For stations that are in areas where the temperature is well below zero, exposing the immediate area of that thermometer to a surface that is above zero, changes everything. Looking at Ostrov Vize, we see that it is a small island, and therefore even more subject to changes in coastal sea ice. And when we compare 1998 months on this island with 2005 months we can see that there are differences in some of the monthly means that are larger than 10C. Even a partial ice cover as opposed to a complete ice cover will supply the stations with more heat.
So I think that we can safely say that the huge change in the anomalies of Russian coastal stations is mostly due to coastal sea ice changes. In fact, if we look at stations further inland in Russia, the coastal effect begins to decline. With this in mind, we need to ask if the GISS extrapolations of land based stations, particularly coastal stations, to the poles is appropriate.
The answer would seem to be that it is not, and the Svalbard case makes this perfectly clear. There we had a case where the SST anomaly was actually cool, and yet the land based extrapolation actually turned those sea based cells more than 3C hotter. Reaching across the Arctic Ocean with temperatures that are the result of a coastal sea ice effect cannot give valid answers for what the temperature anomalies away from those coastal stations should be. In fact, taking the variation that is represented by those coastal stations and extrapolating into the interior of Russia is also not appropriate, because the interior areas did not undergo the magnitude of temperature change of the coastal stations.
Looking at the SST temperature anomalies that NOAA uses for 1998 and 2005 it again looks like nothing exceptional was happening in the Arctic (Note, the chart will not retain the months that I selected; so use your own sample months and they will plot). It seems, from this analysis, that GISS polar extrapolations and interpolations are likely to simulate large variations away from the Arctic coasts that are really only present as changes at the Arctic coasts. And the GISS divergence from HadCRUT, as well as from UAH and RSS are likely to be errors instead of enhancements.
I think your conclusion is right, but not for the reason you cite. The emittance of seawater is 0.993, close to a perfect black body. During the local polar winter, seawater will rapidly freeze. Ice slows the heat loss by both its insulating properties and its low emittance. >
My thought has always been that the above is sensible. during a warming cycle, the amount of ice would decrease. As the heat of transition for ice to water is massive, large amounts of ice would tend to keep the temperature stable. As the amount of ice decreases, the effect on stability would decrease as additional open water increased and could rise in temperature above the freezing point, hence radiating more energy. If you plot the nasa/giss temperature data by latitude zone (flawed data acknowledged) the arctic temperatures fluctuate around the mean by about 4 times the variance at the equator:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-versus-equatorial-versus-arctic1.png
Anton Eagle (11:01:15) :
If you want to see examples of science waylaid by farse in your own field of “medical physics,” venture (with caution) towards the field of psychology. If physcial health is something based on sound science, “mental health” is something very much like “global warming.”
They say that every cloud has a silver lining. If any good is to ever come of the shambles “global warming” has made of science, it will be because the lessons learned will be applied across the board, to all science, everywhere.
>>
David Alan Evans (16:46:23) :
I could be wrong, but I believe they moved the reporting station in Death Valley to Badwater which is a ‘hot spot’. All to the good eh?
<<
Interesting. The Badwater move was reported by the late John Daly before he died.
One claim made about CO2 warming is that we’ll see the effects first where it is dry–at the poles and in deserts. During the (supposedly) hot year of 1998, Death Valley had a cool year. They’ve apparently “homogenized” the data over the years, so Death Valley’s cool years aren’t as obvious as I remembered. However, the record does show a cooler than average year during 1998. I guess Death Valley didn’t get the memo.
Jim
After repeated being told that weather isn’t climate, in condescending tones by the alarmists, I think I am going to start referring to anything based on the surface temperature record as weather. Given the enormous variety of error sources, inconsistent measurement methods, and questionable historical record– what does it measure other then local “weather” phenomenon, how can it ever be normalized to a global value of any useful confidence.
Can we not simply conclude that all of his “manipulated data” for the Arctic are simply “nonsense”? (Regardless of how he attempts to re-manipulate the raw numbers.)
Anthony: Look at your own web page, in the link for Arctic temperatures:
“Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2008
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.”
1) Hansen is claiming 1.5 to 2 degrees WARMING for (almost all areas of) the Arctic over the recent time frame. Elsewhere, his AGW “profits” at other centers are claiming a rise (degrees per century) of as much as 4 degrees C. (Thus, over a half century) we should see right under 2 degrees C increase.
If we do not see that increase at a measured location, his “manipulations” are exposed – if not as a deliberate fraud – then as a “mistake” or “error” that must be retracted or explained. (In other words, Hansen is directly claiming (here and elsewhere) that the arctic is increasing in temperature by about 2 degrees, so the raw temperatures (away from heat island effects) MUST be measured with that increase.
2) Visually: Look at the 50 plus years of data for 80 degrees: Visually, it’s easiest to simple click on your link, then sequentially, go to every year since 1958. Then to see all the daily temperatures rapidly, use the “Back” browser button to see all of them quickly.
Result? There is NO increase in summer temepratures at all since 1958. NONE.
In winter temperatures, there is great scatter (the fall winter and spring standard deviation is much, much higher than across the summer) but no measured increase.
3) So, where is Hansen’s “manipulated” raw data from? Why is his manipulated data showing an increase not found elsewhere?
Can we not simply conclude that all of his “manipulated data” for the Arctic are simply “nonsense”? (Regardless of how he attempts to re-manipulate the raw numbers.)
Anthony: Look at your own web page, in the link for Arctic temperatures:
“Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2008
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.”
1) Hansen is claiming 1.5 to 2 degrees WARMING for (almost all areas of) the Arctic over the recent time frame. Elsewhere, his AGW “profits” at other centers are claiming a rise (degrees per century) of as much as 4 degrees C. (Thus, over a half century) we should see right under 2 degrees C increase.
If we do not see that increase at a measured location, his “manipulations” are exposed – if not as a deliberate fraud – then as a “mistake” or “error” that must be retracted or explained. (In other words, Hansen is directly claiming (here and elsewhere) that the arctic is increasing in temperature by about 2 degrees, so the raw temperatures (away from heat island effects) MUST be measured with that increase.
2) Visually: Look at the 50 plus years of data for 80 degrees: Visually, it’s easiest to simple click on your link, then sequentially, go to every year since 1958. Then to see all the daily temperatures rapidly, use the “Back” browser button to see all of them quickly.
Result? There is NO increase in summer temperatures at all since 1958. NONE.
In winter temperatures, there is great scatter (the fall winter and spring standard deviation is much, much higher than across the summer) but no measured increase.
3) So, where is Hansen’s “manipulated” raw data from? Why is his manipulated data showing an increase not found elsewhere?
Quote: Caleb (19:56:59) :
“They say that every cloud has a silver lining. If any good is to ever come of the shambles “global warming” has made of science, it will be because the lessons learned will be applied across the board, to all science, everywhere.”
I sincerely hope that you are right! Astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, solar and space science desperately need relief from decades of consensus thinking!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Anthony…… u suck for RC… no really.
they have this red hot story and you through green house liquid on it (H2O)!
you may be on to the glow bull warming trend .
nice read eah?
The GISTEMP + HADCRUT3 data series 1979 – 2010 show a temperature rise of 0.5°C compared with UAH LT of 0.4°C – RSS is in between.
During that latter period of alleged AGW (i.e. human GHGs being the overwhelming climate driver) there is a slight warming bias in the surface data.
In light of the US ‘adjustments’ (http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/photos/temp_adjust.gif)
and the recent developments, it is the unverifiable period c1945 – 1979 which is very suspect.
>>Actually the TOA TSI varies with the Sun-Earth distance
>>(assuming a constant solar output) from about 1321 W/m^2
>>(just after July 1st) to about 1414 W/m^2 (around January 1st).
>>The 1368 W/m^2 value is the average (at about 1 AU or the
>>semi-major axis distance of the Earth’s orbit).
Would the Earth distance/orbit be coincident with the precession of the equinox?
If so, in 13,000 years time, minimum TSI would be coincident with winter in the N hemisphere, and we would be in for some very cold winters.
.
NASA = Need Another Space Administration. 😉
DR (15:55:59) :
John Finn,
The numbers are:
NoPol
2002-2009……….land………………ocean…………land/ocean
…………………… -.17c/dec…….. .0006c/dec……. -.10c/dec
2005-2009……….land………………ocean…………land/ocean
………………….. -1.27c/dec……. -1.14c/dec…….. -1.22c/dec
Hansen is making up temperatures where none are measured. Satellite at least does even if it isn’t 100% coverage of the Arctic. It really is amazing the extent to which some go to defend the indefensible.
I’m not sure I understand what your numbers are supposed to show. Is this just a case that if 1998 doesn’t work – try 2002. What next 2010? Both GISS and UAH show arctic warming which appeared to peak in ~2005. If we look at the last 20 years (since 1990) the trends are
UAH NoPol +0.68 deg per decade
GISS 64N-90N +0.78 deg per decade
This is not a terribly robust comparison for a number of reasons but a proper analysis may actually show better agreement. The warmer arctic since 2000 (relative to the 1980s and 1990s) will probably mean that GISS is currently running slightly higher than Hadley. But, as Leif (I think) said the Arctic is only a relatively small region of the earth so this shouldn’t make a large difference.
I’ll say this again. If this is an attempted fudge by GISS in order to show a higher rate of warming then it’s not working very well. In the last 20 years there’s been barely a few hundredths of a degree between the 4 metrics.
Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it too much because as we’re regularly being told on a number of blogs; the PDO has shifted and the Sun’s heading for a Dalton minimum at least. This is bound to affect the arctic which will, in turn, have a relative ‘cooling’ effect on the GISS record. Swings and roundabouts.
davidmhoffer (13:42:55) :
David, great piece of reading and Tilo, great piece of investigation.
” UKIP (13:44:08) :
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/monthly/anomaly.png shows UK 1-3c warmer than average in December.”
The metoffice website’s December monthly summary in the UK Climate section states that the average temp for the month was 1.5-2deg C below the 1971-2000 average, flatly contradicting that image.
Don’t they check this stuff?
UKIP (13:44:08) :
Same with Norway. Airtemp december -1.1 C according to met.no http://met.no/filestore/tama1209m.jpg
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer (17:07:30) :
Yes! Occams razor at its best.
No, barry, the artic sea ice shore effect that GISS shows is a much larger variation than any actual warming trend at the poles.
I don’t think that really answers my question. Let me try to be clearer.
I averaged the monthly UAH anomalies for the North Pole for 1998 and 2005. The area is roughly what HadCRUT leave out. The results are:
1998 – 0.5616
2005 – 1.2975
The NP anomaly for 2005 is more than twice that of 1998.
If GISS argue that their ranking 2005 as the hottest year is based on significantly warmer temps around the North Pole than 1998, then this is corroborated by UAH, no?
I checked the UAH data assuming it would be taken seriously here.
I suppose the next step is to determine whether UAH extrapolation techniques for the NP are sound enough.
————————————————–
Hoping you’ll address the UAH corroboration, I have a more general question.
Has the UAH record been subject to similar scrutiny as the surface records? Have there been requests for methodologies, algorithms, primary data and such. Has there been much effort to verify the robustness of the satellite records?
If not, why not?
Layne Blanchard (11:33:05) :
Send a copy to Osama too…..
hahahaha
So, Hansen got busted again…
” davidmhoffer (19:19:14) :
during a warming cycle, the amount of ice would decrease. As the heat of transition for ice to water is massive, large amounts of ice would tend to keep the temperature stable. As the amount of ice decreases, the effect on stability would decrease as additional open water increased and could rise in temperature above the freezing point, hence radiating more energy.”
Let us not forget the impact of salinity.
Lots of ice, salty water, more ice=harder.
Little ice, less salinity, more ice easier.
What do you think of a person who applies equilibrium thermodynamics to a steady state system?
Press Release.
GISSNOAA have just issued a joint statement;
”To stabilize world temp. records, we, the above signed, having debated and modeled various hypothesis, (thousands, then, and now 600) have decided to use only ONE (1) temp. recording device, for all world temp. records. This will be read manually every 5 minutes 24 hours a day.
As to the placement and recording we graciously award this task to Anthony Watts and let him sort it out, (any place but Bolivia, or above 500m )
(sarc off )
Good piece from davidmhoffer showing that overall the Earth maintains a steady temperature but with temporary fluctuations. What worries me is the word ‘temporary’. Does this account for the current three million year old ice age? Sorry guys, you are really in a warming phase at the moment but don’t worry, it won’t last. How about previous epochs when climate was hotter and in some cases cooler?
The problem with david’s scenario is the assumption that the sun’s effect is constant. The scenario makes a good point about the so called greenhouse agents but I think what we really have to look at is our ‘relationship’ to our star. The ice age will resume any time now or maybe not!
“barry (06:03:47) :
[…]
If GISS argue that their ranking 2005 as the hottest year is based on significantly warmer temps around the North Pole than 1998, then this is corroborated by UAH, no?”
You say that UAH has even higher anomalies for the poles in 2005 than in 1998? Well at least they don’t think 2005 as a whole is warmer than 1998:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/17/spencer-hide-the-incline/#more-15346
This indicates to me that the GISS polar extrapolations cause the GISS to rank 2005 as the hottest year. The UAH doesn’t do these extrapolations but uses measurement values. This leads them to different conclusions. Where’s the problem with that? We could now argue whose conclusions are better. I tend to go with the UAH, others might be more inclined to listen to Hansen.
How does the UAH work?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/12/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/#more-15191
HTH
Oliver K. Manuel (20:49:26) :
“…I sincerely hope that you are right! Astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, solar and space science desperately need relief from decades of consensus thinking!”
Do not forget Chemistry. The Kow Towing to the green lobby by the American Chemical Society for the last 40 years has been absolutely nauseating. I could barely stand reading Chem Engineering news and finally quit the society ten years ago.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer (17:07:30)
Thanks, I am still laughing. I am sending the link to friends.
Essentially: Since CH4 aired their Great Global Warming Swindle which levelled
both some questions, and some accusations at the AGW Frat boys. Am I right that none have been answered or refuted? That is why I came to believe the Skeptics were right….as the AGW offerred no sensical response. By the way, the captions for the Copenhagen / DC leg in the naturally occurring, organic carbon powered 747 is “the inflight entertainment will be ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ followed by ‘Catch me if you Can'”!