What if GISS Holes were Pink?

By Steve Goddard

GISS tells us that it was the hottest May on record. Just looking at that map makes me perspire. It must be wicked hot at the North Pole!

But wait a minute! The DMI record doesn’t look so hot in the Arctic.

What could be wrong? Could it be the fact that GISS has almost no coverage in the Arctic? We often hear the question”what if CO2 were pink?” Answer : it would still be almost invisible at 0.0004 concentration.

Now, let’s turn that around and see what GISS coverage holes would like if they were pink.

Shocking pink, that is. GISS is claiming a global temperature record based largely on the Arctic – in which they have less than 10% coverage. Hansen explains the growing gap between GISS and Had-Crut as being due to the fact that GISS has better Arctic coverage.

Judge for yourself.

GISS has 2010 at #1. Had-Crut has 2010 at #4. Thanks to GISS’ extensive Arctic coverage.

.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jack

Not in Connecticut.

The pink panther stole the climate jewels of integrity and sense (as in sensors in the right places so that data isn’t invented in a process of fabrication).
By any standard, fabrication of data in science = fraud, especially when public policy is based upon such fabricated data and it’s subsequent faulty fabricated conclusions.
GISS clearly fabricates data. What are the consequences?
Surely it makes sense to cast a sensor network at a much higher grid resolution? Say every 10km? or heck even every 100km across all land and water surfaces? Surely increased sensor resolution would help improve the data sets? Or would it?

If GISS holes in the snow
Were so pink they had a glow
Then Jimmy James would blush
His data pure as smeared out slush

Henry chance

So the GISS tells us it was very hot in areas they took no readings. The old term for this was cheating.

kim

Code Pink: Dr. Hansen, STAT!
================

MattN

Don’t ask, don’t tell…

John Eggert

I’m guessing some others will also point out that in the Antarctic, there is a transition from a -4 anomaly to a +4 anomaly. Has anyone checked to see if someone slipped a decimal in (what is almost certainly) one of the two stations used to generate the coverage?

Benjamin

Funny to see such a great correlation between no data and warming.
Maybe the best way to fight against global warming is by addind thermometers ? 🙂

Ken Hall

O/T We won!:
“The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, says he welcomes “the development of a vigorous debate” on climate science.
In an article for the BBC’s Green Room series, he says those on the side of “consensus” must remember that debate drives the evolution of knowledge. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10316910.stm
Has anyone told Al Gore that the debate is not over after all?
And surely IF there is a debate within the scientific community, as acknowledged and welcomed by the IPCC., then there cannot possibly be consensus. To claim that there is only consensus on one side of any argument utterly invalidates the consensus of the whole. There is either consensus, OR there is debate, there cannot be both!
If there is still vigorous and open debate, then the science is NOT settled and the idea that spending trillions of dollars over the next 20 years on solutions to a debatable idea is utterly ridiculous.
The winner in this is real sceptical science.

David L.

It might be really neat looking if the “pink” were set to “transparent”. Then the rotating globe would look like a patchy meshwork.

Lee Klinger

CO2 “at 0.0004 concentration”? Units?

Keith in Hastings UK

But temps are irrelevant now, ‘cos all that oil in the Gulf means we must have Cap’n Trade so as to force you oil guzzlers off your daily fix of fossil fuel (& make carbon exchange founders and traders VERY RICH). I’ll have some windmills on the side too, please. (Sarc/off).
Maybe continuing cold winters will take the edge off Washington’s enthusiasm. Little real sign of it affecting 10 Downing St (UK PM’s residence) unfortunately. Still, we continue to rubbish the surface Temp. sets – well, point out the difficulties & huge error margins – whenever we can!
Keep up the good work tho’. Posterity will want to know exactly when the next Ice Age began….

Enneagram

No one would dare to spend such a lot of color inkjet. Those guys do because it is not their money.☺

Lee Klinger
Concentration is a dimensionless number. It has no units.

David L.
Here is what the holes look like as transparent

Enneagram

…and that funny hockey stick shows a whopping 0.3 °K increase !!!!!. Only detectable by my greatgreat gradmother´s left knee.

Enneagram

These guys, as the only one who carries an alien tenant in his belly , the imcomparable Al baby(a.k.a.” El Gordo”-the fat one-), have become walking-talking jokes. Nobody can believe such extreme and foolish lies.

Robert Morris

Thank you Charles for posting this timely reminder of the paucity of measured evidence to support this fabricated emergency that is AGW.
Imagine how pink it would get if we were able to knock out those stations that are affected by UHI? One day, perhaps. It would certainly be sobering to see how many stations world-wide are affected by UHU “noise”.
Anyhow, thanks again.

Robert Morris

Doh. UHU should read UHI.

wmsc

Dumb question:
If there are no/few stations in the Arctic/South America/etc, how are they measuring the surface temp over the oceans? Strictly by satellite?

Bill Sticker

Still 2-4 Celsius cooler than average and raining last night in the mid Island region of Vancouver Island despite promises of a dry week. Warmer my [snip].
Although given the non temperature monitored areas on the globe, I’m not surprised the forecasters get it wrong. But enough about mere weather.

A G Foster

Klinger, at 0729 asks, “Units?” This is a molecular fraction: for every gas molecule in the atmosphere, there are nearly .ooo4 molecules of CO2. Or 4 per 10,000 or 400 per million (400ppm). 400ppm=.ooo4. And according to the ideal gas law, molecular fractions are very similar to volumetric fractions, if the gases were to be separated out. –AGF

Jim Cole

These GISS anomaly maps drive me nuts. This is certainly a case where the absolute value of the measurement IS MORE SIGNIFICANT than the anomaly.
First, GISS uses corrupted/cherry-picked data around the Arctic, then they extrapolate hundreds of km beyond data points (or beyond ignored/excluded data points), and then they display the results in florid colors intended to imply blazing heat.
Even if an anomaly value of (e.g.) +4C were correct (doubtful), it has little physical significance if it is the difference (e.g.) between 260K and 264K. Both values are below freezing and dang cold.
Color is the smoothest tool of propaganda because we are conditioned to respond emotionally to color
Double-ditto for images of brown-eyed critters.
Put ’em together and you’ve got a WWF fundraiser poster. Or a contribution to IPCC AR4.

Ian B

Does the GISS use a gridding technique (such as Kreiging) to extrapolate across regions without data? If so, how well do they deal with boundaries in their model Earth?
My experience (based on GIS and other data processing applications) of such processes is that the standard processes tend to lead to extreme values (both high and low) around the margins because of a tendency to extrapolate as similar rates of change. Based on this, I wonder if the extremely hot area in eastern Russia and the Arctic is an artefact of the cold spots in Russia/China and NW Canada and a normal or slightly warm reading to the north of these.

HankHenry

Burning embers!
As inspired by the New York Times:
http://www.artistascitizen.org/#/burning_embers_competition/
And others:
“In the IPCC third assessment report, Smith et al. (8) first presented the now famous “burning embers diagram,” a graphic, easily digested representation of the level of threat or risk associated with future projected anthropogenic climate change”

David L.

“stevengoddard says:
June 15, 2010 at 7:39 am
“David L. Here is what the holes look like as transparent”
Thanks for posting so quickly! Even though transparent is “cool looking” the pink is more striking!

Vieras

NASA GISS had a huge 11 degree mistake in their data for March 2010 in Sodankylä, Finland. They claimed, that the mean temperature was +2C, which was ridicilous. They “corrected” the problem by deleting the data and extrapolating. The huge red spot on Finland disappeared and changed to blue. Funny thing was, that one wrong measurement like this turned almost the whole Scandinavia red.
Then two months went and the same idiotic mistake reappeared. Weirdly enough, this happened at the same time when NASA claimed, that the last 12 months have been the warmest ever. No wonder, if your data is 10C off.
Well, the problem is corrected again, but I bet the same mistake will reappear again later this year. They don’t treat the real problem and only treat the symptoms. So keep your eyes open on NASA GISS measurements for Finland in 2010.

Owen

Steve Goddard says: “Concentration is a dimensionless number. It has no units.”
What?? Since when? Concentration always has units: 0.0004 g CO2/g air, or if done by volume 0.0004 L CO2/L air. The grams and L do not cancel as they refer to different species.
This is why we use PPM or PPB as concentration units for a ratios of masses.

Vieras

Continuing still about that 10C huge mistake in Sodankylä. Any red spots on that map should be double checked. Actually, nothing on that map should be believed without scrutiny as NASA obviously does no quality control on their data.

GISS did lose most of Africa and the World Cup, but being part of NASA they did discover something remarkable about the football stadium in Johannesburg.

Phil.

Nice propaganda job Steve, as always. Opening with the subtle ‘trick’ of comparing the GISS monthly anomaly with the DMI daily temperature, classic ‘apples to oranges’. By the way Steve how many stations are used to compile the DMI temperature, how big are their holes? Since you persist in showing your comparison with UAH why not do it correctly and show that they have no coverage north of 82.5ºN?

P.F.

Hansen’s Arctic hole is represented by the color assigned a greater than +5° anomaly (from the bar key below). I know many alarmists (including politicians) who would simply look at the image an conclude that Arctic warming is out of control without even the slightest understanding that the +5° end of the scale actually represents a lack of data and not out-of-control warming. How does Hansen do this with a straight face, let alone scientific integrity?

Lee Klinger

AG Foster – Thanks for the explanation. CO2 is in parts per unit volume.

latitude

It’s always amazed me that people do not see the disconnect between claiming that different areas of the world can be hotter or colder, all at the same time, because of weather, and then claiming that anyone can get a global temperature by adjusting, guesstimating, averaging, fudging the very few temperature stations they have. They even claim that they know exactly how much heat has been added to their stations over the years by people developing the land around them, and can accurately adjust for that too.
and then taking it to the next level by claiming they can get a trend from that………
and that accurate temperatures do not matter, it’s the trend.
Looks like they can just about claim any temperature or trend at any time and get away with it……

glacierman

Benjamin Said –
“Funny to see such a great correlation between no data and warming.
Maybe the best way to fight against global warming is by adding thermometers ? :)”
It fits the predetermined narrative though doesn’t it? It is the only thing that it could be. Wherever there is no data, it must be warmer. After all, it is worse than we thought.

Jim G

Concentration could also be expressed as .04% of the atmosphere, I believe? Not much. Does this not differ by altitude? Do the different gasses which make up our atmosphere not concentrate at different elevations? What effect does that have on their greenhouse effect?

Owen

The notion that a trace component like CO2 can have only a negligible effect due to its ultra-low concentration is an incorrect one, and I find it odd that it is perpetuated here. The absorption by CO2 of outgoing longwave thermal radiation is based on the absorptivity coefficient of the gas and on the optical path length. The actual absorption of radiation by atmospheric CO2 in its frequency range is therefore quite large.

Steve Goddard: What month are you presenting in the second animation?

Mark L

These temp records are just wrong. It is nearly a record winter in Australia/NZ yet the anomaly map shows positive. The positive anomaly is manufactured and in fact we are having serious cooling. Worst spring in 15 years in the Pacific NW. Seriously.

Henry chance says: “So the GISS tells us it was very hot in areas they took no readings. The old term for this was cheating.”
But it’s not that they “took no readings.” GISS deletes Sea Surface Temperature data, which varies less than Land Surface Temperatures, and extends Land Surface Temperature data out over the oceans. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/05/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean.html

Art Ford

Question for Steve (or others).
When visiting the DMI site (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php), their explanation of daily mean temperature is not clear, to me at least. Is the daily “mean” red curve actual measured temps or some type of estimate (extrapolations?)? Does the green curve represent the daily average of actual average temps between 1958 and 2002, or is it some type of average of estimates?
If these indeed are temperature estimates, how is their estimation process different from GISS?

Pascvaks

Per YouTube pic above, it ought’a be pale green. Then Good Ol’Mother Earth would look like a Do-Nut, a KrispyKreme Do-Nut!

DR

Wasn’t it Hansen that claimed only a small number of thermometers are necessary to measure “global” warming? Why then does GISS need the Arctic?
Global warming is neither.

PeterB in Indianapolis

Owen, based upon the amount of energy entering the atmosphere and the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere, the absorbtion of CO2 is actually pretty darn insignificant at the current concentration.

Stan Williams

The GISS folks should pay attention to what is actually happening on the ground, verses trying to confirm their bias toward global warming by force fitting heat into the Arctic. Too many organizations are trying to force the data to prove some kind of climate change model rather than sticking to actual observational data or perhaps they might say: “Huh, I don’t know if the data supports global climate trends.”
It has been cool and wet in Western Canada this year. The Canadian Wheat Board says that over 5 million hectares (12.3 million acres) are too wet to seed or are underwater in the Western Canadian Prairies – the wettest May and June in 40 years. The weather has, in a word, sucked. Maybe we are in a cool wet cycle, but we are not where the large population is in North America. It has been warm and humid in central Canada where the air from Gulf of Mexico air travels to. Coincidentally, that’s where the voters are so, voila! “Global Warming!” The climate seems more like “global schizophrenia” to the casual observer.
Did you see on the news of all those “football” fans in Argentina watching games in fans parks in the rain? Looks like typical fall weather there.

latitude

“”Owen says:
June 15, 2010 at 8:56 am
The notion that a trace component like CO2 can have only a negligible effect due to its ultra-low concentration is an incorrect one””
Owen, if you could answer a few questions for me, that might make it clearer and easier for me to understand.
In percentages:
1. How much atmosphere is CO2?
2. How much of that CO2 is man made?
3. How much of that man made CO2 can we possibly reduce?
4. If temperatures rising is a natural event and not something man-made, how much higher will CO2 naturally rise?

John Finn

UAH NoPol anomaly for May is +2.51
RSS anomlay map (click on anomaly) here
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?channel=tlt
shows arctic regions up to 4 deg warmer than 1979-1998 mean.
GISS arctic temperatures are perfectly consistent with satellite measurements.

hedrat

The Mercator projection doesn’t hurt them either. Vast swaths of land and sea that don’t actually exist, are even now, roasting at an imaginary temperature.

Bob,
The GISS and HadCrut maps in the second animation were taken from Hansen’s paper
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0319.pdf
Figure 12. I believe it represents the entire year 2005.

dr.bill

Steve, that hot pink is a stroke of genius! It’s the perfect candidate for a new international symbol meaning ‘no information’, ‘made up information’ and ‘general bull[snip]’. It certainly sums up the GISS situation perfectly without needing a word of further explanation.
/dr.bill