By Steven Goddard
As discussed in my last post, GISS claims to have better Arctic coverage than Had-Crut, and uses that as an explanation of why they are trending upwards when Had Crut isn’t.
“A likely explanation for discrepancy in identification of the warmest year is the fact that the HadCRUT analysis excludes much of the Arctic ….. (whereas GISS) estimates temperature anomalies throughout most of the Arctic.”
In this post, I will show a number of things wrong with that claim. GISS uses the maps below as evidence of their better coverage.
The problem is though, that GISS actually has very little Arctic data. The “GISS 2005” map above uses 1200 km smoothing (which assumes that the weather in London somehow affects the weather in Monaco.) If we look at the un-smoothed GISS data from 2005 (below) we see something very different.
GISS actually has very few temperature readings in the Arctic. much less than Had-Crut. The map below shows the differences in coverage. Areas where Had Crut has better coverage are shown in green. Areas where GISS has better coverage are shown in red. Note that Had-Crut has more extensive coverage than GISS on almost every continent.
Now, let’s look at some of the specific problems with the GISS smoothing in the blink map below, which alternates between Had-Crut and GISS 2005 data.
- GISS completely missed a cold area north of Svalbard. They show that region several degrees above normal.
- GISS has almost no coverage in the Canadian Arctic
- GISS has almost no coverage in Greenland
- GISS has no coverage in the Chukchi Sea or Arctic Basin
- GISS has very poor coverage around Antarctica
- GISS has very poor coverage in Africa
- GISS missed large regions of below normal temperatures in the southern oceans and Antarctica
Now, let’s compare GISS Arctic coverage with UAH, below. Note that UAH has much better coverage at both poles than GISS (as well as everywhere else.)
![[Image]](https://i0.wp.com/discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/browse/AMSU_A_15.latest.a_04.png?resize=531%2C283&quality=75)
Conclusion: GISS implications that that they have better Arctic coverage than other sources are simply untrue. They have very little actual data near either pole, and their extrapolations in those regions are demonstrably poor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So can we paraphrase:
“the HadCRUT analysis excludes much of the Arctic ….. (whereas GISS) estimates temperature anomalies throughout most of the Arctic.”
as:
Hadcrut reports what has been measured while GISS guesses at the missing bits.
I wrote on my website as a 1st April joke this year that all official weather stations in the country had been shut down and observations were replaced by computer models, which will greatly improve coverage and data quality. The only thing that will limit observations is computer power.
While it was an obvious joke, this is the general direction that we’re heading in.
Mann’s trick applied to temperature? Hide the decline.
Just a few months ago, a Russian think tank complained about mis-measurement by the CRU in Siberia and GISTemp is even worse? Wow.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/
This winter was perhaps the coldest Siberia has ever experienced in the modern era, but a GISTemp winter anamoly map shows a hotspot there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1260132/Russian-weatherman-strikes-blow-climate-change-lobby-announcing-winter-Siberia-coldest-record.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Then a glance at the same map shows the Arctic was relatively balmy. Well, someone’s balmy.
Of course the AGW croud will show that it doesn’t make any difference to the Global Temperature though, just like all the other “Dropped” stations.
Hansen makes some pretty bold assumptions in that paper concerning Arctic atmospheric behavior having a direct correlation to “global warming”. Apparently in his view Igor Polyakov’s research, arguably one of the foremost experts on the Arctic, is completely irrelevant as no citations are referenced.
http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/2-1-observations-arctic-change/pdf/2-1-4-polykov-igor.pdf
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=ipolyakov
Note as well the incorrect claim for stratospheric cooling due to CO2 increases. There is no evidence for that in the observational data; quite the opposite in fact has been the case.
Hansen’s paper is loaded with errors and untested assumptions, which no doubt others will expose.
How much error is introduced by smearing the temperature of a few arctic stations across vast stretches of unmeasured area and then weighting the grid cells equally? Can you calculate the differences between smoothed and unsmoothed grid cells for all cells that have real data and arrive at a meaningful number for the uncertainty introduced by smoothing?
Very succinct and understandable presentation, Steven Goddard. A few well-chosen pictures are worth a thousand words, as they say.
On another topic, one for Anthony, I note that now my name and email address are being primed in the reply box, which is a welcome return to how things used to be. Also, either you have tweaked the layout and it now looks better than when you first introduced the new scheme, or for some reason I have become more used to it. In either case, I am feeling more positive about it than formerly and thought I’d let you know, as I previously expressed negativity.
A C Osborn
I think Hansen’s presentation is explaining how their methodology does make a difference to the global temperature record. I’m surprised that they would be bragging about it though.
My Atari 2600 had better graphics than those GISS maps.
Michael Larkin says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:22 am
“On another topic, one for Anthony, I note that now my name and email address are being primed in the reply box, which is a welcome return to how things used to be. ”
Michael, you didnt by any chance swith from IE to Firefox? The default security settings in IE are set so these things doesnt pop up. On Firefox they are set to pop up.
The sad thing about IE, is that all default settings are set in such a way, that people quickly move to Firefox, instead of trying to sort out the security settings in IE.
I have done so myself. Nothing irritates me more, than having to enter my username again and again.
Of course this isnt as secure as not letting it pop up, but I’m not exactly working for the CIA either.
For The Denver Post the story is still global warming. Since these are a AP stories, I’m sure they are being carried in other cities. The data is gleaned from NOAA. Both articles acknowledge recent cooling in the northern hemisphere
I’ll take it as progress that MSM at least makes the concession prior to dismissing it as just “weather”. Readers may be a bit more demanding that they used to be.
El Nino is blamed for the temps, and “record thinning” of ice in the North.
And the heat goes on: warmest March on record
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID AP Science Writer
Warmest April on record, climate agency reports
The Associated Press
Posted: 05/17/2010 02:03:44 PM MDT
Updated: 05/17/2010 02:03:44 PM MDT
The links are very slow, so I won’t post them here.
Now, let’s compare GISS Arctic coverage with UAH, below. Note that UAH has much better coverage at both poles than GISS (as well as everywhere else.)
UAH has no coverage at either pole, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to?
Steve Goddard: You wrote, “As discussed in my last post, GISS claims to have better Arctic coverage than Had-Crut…”
It is a justified claim. The GISS Arctic coverage is significantly better than the Hadley Centre’s. Has been for years. Here’s a North polar stereographic map (65N-90N) showing the March 2010 CRUTEM3 readings:
http://i50.tinypic.com/fk77ec.jpg
And here’s the same map showing the GISS land surface readings for March 2010, with 250km smoothing:
http://i49.tinypic.com/63srdf.png
Interesting that HadCRUT & GISS seem to avoid any confrontation on who is best, no counter cliams seem to be made. I wonder why? Or perhaps I am too cynical!
Gary says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:50 am
“How much error is introduced by smearing the temperature of a few arctic stations across vast stretches of unmeasured area and then weighting the grid cells equally?…”
___________________________________________________________________________
A. J. Strata looked into the error. he wrote up his finding here:
Alarmists Hide Truth About (Lack Of) Global Warming:
“…I am going to focus this post on two key documents that became public with the recent whistle blowing at CRU. The first document concerns the accuracy of the land based temperature measurements….
The second document contains 155 graphs showing the raw global temperature measurements and ‘trends’ for every country from 1900 though today. It contains two version of the CRU ‘processing’ – one from 2005 and one from 2008. What is just amazing from this ‘raw’ data is the realization that many areas of the Earth are not showing a huge upswing in temperature. The raw data paints a completely different picture than the final ‘results’…”
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
here are other posts by Strata that may be of interest
Proof Why Global Warming Alarmists Are Mathematically Wrong:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12246
Statistical Tricks 101 – How To Create Runaway Global Warming:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11919
BBC Confirms AJStrata’s Take Shoddy CRU Code:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11747
CRU Code & Data A Disaster:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11556
GISS statements of “warmest ever” are a skeptical concensus tool without equal.
10’s of millions of people are reading these statements while putting up with what seems to be a winter that won’t go away, and, on top of that, a totally blown winter forecast.
Makes it’s own gravy.
People know they are being fed a line.
The MSM is so disconnected as to not notice how bad the stuff they report is.
Bob,
Looks to me like Had-Crut has much better coverage than GISS in the Arctic
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_631f2d3svc8
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/SeptemberHadleyanomaly.png
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/giss_area_vs_had_crut.jpg?w=497&h=568&h=568
Phil,
The maps showing UAH coverage near the poles are posted in the article.
stevengoddard says:
May 18, 2010 at 9:25 am
Phil,
The maps showing UAH coverage near the poles are posted in the article.
Unfortunately those lousy maps don’t show latitude so there’s no way of knowing how close to the pole they go (in any case you said coverage at the poles not near the poles). As I recall UAH cover up to 82.5N so that’s no coverage within ~450 nautical miles of the pole.
Steve Goddard, You replied, “Looks to me like Had-Crut has much better coverage than GISS in the Arctic,” and presented the following links of Global Maps, some with sea surface temperatures. I on the other hand presented you with a maps showing the areas of the ARCTIC with actual land surface station readings that are on record as having been used by GISS and Hadley Centre for that month.
Your link…
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_631f2d3svc8
..shows station locations. Obviously they do not all report.
Your link…
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF
..also shows stations loactions but do not indicate which report.
Your link…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/SeptemberHadleyanomaly.png
…shows primarily SST readings in the Arctic. Again, my comparison was for land surface readings–that is, actual station readings.
Your link…
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/giss_area_vs_had_crut.jpg?w=497&h=568&h=568
…represents averages for the year 2005. The stations used by the Hadley Centre do not remain constant over the course of a year. Some are used one month, others the next. By illustrating the annual average, they capture all of the stations employed that year, even though they may not have appeared at the same time. Also, the appearance of better coverage is again skewed by SST anomalies and the bleed-over of SST data onto land, which is another problem with the Hadley Centre’s data.
That would explain the back to average ice extent then ?
No more worrying about which was warmer, 1934 or 1998…it’s all settled now.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/05/2010-is-warmest-year-on-record/1
JimB
Phil,
Here is Greenland zoomed in
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_633g5n729fz
kwik says:
May 18, 2010 at 8:24 am
“Michael, you didnt by any chance swith from IE to Firefox?”
No, kwik. I’ve been using Firefox for years. Only today, with no changes of version or setting, did the primed reply box appear.