By Steve Goddard
GISS appears to be working hard to make 2010 the hottest year ever. As you can see in the graph above, they show 2010 with much more area above the 1998 line than below. I did a numerical integration of the graph above, and found that they have 2.8 times as much area with 2010 warmer than they do with 2010 cooler.
How does this compare with other data sources? HadCrut has been adjusting their data upwards, but even using their upwards adjusted numbers, their ratio of above to below area is only 0.04. Seventy times lower than GISS.
UAH has 0.12 times as much area above as they have below. Twenty-five times lower than GISS.
RSS has 0.07 times as much area above as below. Forty times lower than GISS.
The chart below shows how much of an outlier GISS is.
GISS is the only one of the four which shows 2010 as #1. The others aren’t even close. It must be their almost non-existent better Arctic coverage.
Conclusion: Dr. Hansen thinks that warming has continued unabated since 1998, while HadCrut, RSS and UAH think it has stopped or slowed to a crawl.
GISS
Had Crut
Steven: Isn’t 2005 the current record high year for GISTEMP?
Steve
Nice article.
I understand the claim as 2010 being the warmest ever is based on record temperatures from only 17 out of 200 countries. I wonder if in your research you were able to find out which 17 countries this covered?
tonyb
Steven, what happens to the area ratio when you apply the same Y-axis to the GISS graph that you do to the other ones? Let’s say from 0.0 to 0.9.
And what about baseline differences?
Grasping at straws. The future looks bleak for the AGW hypothesis as poor old mother earth decides not to play ball. Add to that the suns less energetic cycles and with La Nina and a changed PDO cooling looks a possibility.
What surprises me is that the proponents of global warming have consistently ignored the influence of the sun and the natural variants stating on more than one occasion that they are basically irrelevant. Now as they observe the fact that CO2 is not the driver they have to convince themselves as well as their adherents that it is still warming, even by data manipulation. The end of the hoax is nigh.
I thought GISS already claimed 2005 was hotter than 1998?
[snip]
August may turn out to still be quite warm (daily UAH temperatures are still very high), but by September I think we will see the delayed effect of the dropping SST kicking in for land and LT temperatures.
We can only laugh.
To start, try Celia Walden’s Daily Telegraph article today (Aug 20). On the web her latest published column is Aug 12, but today’s is worth waiting for.
Well, one way to make sure you break the record would be to use fewer and fewer surface stations and make sure that the ones you do use are in the tropics.
…Fred S. Singer, if you read this, or if somebody who knows you, At KTH Stockholm, September 2006, did you get my pun about the outliers being “outliars”??? And BTW,
you are 39 years older on the day than the love of my life…and there are only 2 women
having that name on this very planet if not a bunch are having secret numbers… if you generous and dot-omitting, the Texan one…Anectdotal and OT…On topic, always
adjustments upwards, after a while… Svenska Dagbladet, Sweden’s 2nd biggest morning paper, publish monthly average temps, precipitation etc for Sweden in general
and Stockholm in particular, the April “presentation” “already” May 26 or something like that,
and, regarding Stockholm Observatory [inner city] 1,0C too high…. Is Nasa
Giss behind that…?? Probably not, they [SvD] also mixed Tullinge 21 km SSE of the
observatory and the observatory up and claimed it was inner city readings…Nobody complained,
to the best of my knowledge… Tullinge can be 3,0C colder a cold winter month,
annual average 1,5C … Hmm… That’s about 2 AGWs…What number in CAGW argumental
handbooks has more
extreme weather, colder winters, hotter summers??? Tullinge is considered a “frost
hole”, located at an abandoned air force airport, I think we have still colder places
nearby…Which someday will be proven…or not!
Tonyb, here’s an overview.
It doesn’t really matter whether 1998 or 2010 was the hottest, because they’re so close.
I suspect the statistical variation will be greater than the difference. Basically at the moment you can say the climate was on plateau for the last 12 years. Let’s see where it goes next.
What if it was?
The Southern Hemisphere just had the coldest winter in 130 years.
The Northern Hemisphere just had its coldest winter since 1984.
The USA, a major land mass, just can’t top any other month this year in being the Hottest.
The bottom chart shows a flat trend with fluctuation.
We have lost critical Ozone production at ground level. It is at safe levels.
We have lost humidity at the highest atmosphere.
So what if is the hottest on record. If we have the worst winter in 130 years like the Southern Hemisphere this year, who will have to explain their numbers at Congressional Hearings?
So, they have better instruments now, too. All those numbers back before 1970 came from weather stations, not from spacemen.
Any outside political influences? Maybe! So what!
Can’t have global cooling before November elections. Maybe it can start in January.
Paul
DaveF says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:57 am
Well, one way to make sure you break the record would be to use fewer and fewer surface stations and make sure that the ones you do use are in the tropics.
No Dave F–just the opposite. Warming is strongest at high latitudes, especially the arctic. More coverage in the arctic, as seen in the GISS data leads to a greater positive temperature anomaly. That is what we have always been talking about.
Whilst we’re on the subject of absolute twaddle:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11030889
Prove it!
I’m not sure which planet these chaps lived on from January 1st this year.
In my neck of the woods (57, 9 deg N, 2, 9 deg W) we had lying snow on the ground until mid April and several very low temps inland that broke low records. We have had little summer weather and absolutely no record highs.
I have been in this location for ten years and I have never seen it colder/snowier in the winter months or for such a duration and as cool/wet during the summer months.
Still there’s a chance that September to December could bring a prolonged Indian summer but I’m not betting my barbeque on it.
Hope it’s cold in Cancun this November.
Gunter
Thanks for the above. So we have heat records from some 8% of all the countries in the world which then supposedly makes 2010 the ‘hottest ever.’
Of those mentioned Niger doesn’t even seem to have a reliable record. Saudi has a highly disjointed record going back to 1965. We have been reading of record cold in such places as Argentina and Brazil so how come they now appear to be record highs?
Is the heat record actually skewed towards Russia due to its large land mass and its presumed weighting therefore in the global record, combined with its very substantial increased anomaly due to the bocking high? Even then not everywhere in Russia has been warm.
Hmm Steve, if you have the time, a closer examination of the record seems in order. Also posted this to Chiefio in the hope he might investigate this further.
tonyb
About the GISS graph above titled “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index”: in which statistical universe does it make sense to compare any two single year values picked from a 10-year running average?
Meanwhile, back on planet sanity, the sun yawns, rolls over, and goes back to sleep.
http://spaceweather.com/
I wonder if anyone will notice?
” BillD says:
August 20, 2010 at 3:37 am
Warming is strongest at high latitudes, especially the arctic. More coverage in the arctic, as seen in the GISS data leads to a greater positive temperature anomaly.”
The arctic is only warming in the imaginary world of GISS. In the real world of the meteorologists (see DMI) it is not warming.
” Bob from the UK says:
August 20, 2010 at 3:28 am
It doesn’t really matter whether 1998 or 2010 was the hottest, because they’re so close.”
According to IPCC 2010 should be at least 0.2°C warmer than 1998.
Lawrie Ayres says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:43 am
Grasping at straws. The future looks bleak for the AGW hypothesis as poor old mother earth decides not to play ball. Add to that the suns less energetic cycles and with La Nina and a changed PDO cooling looks a possibility.
What surprises me is that the proponents of global warming have consistently ignored the influence of the sun and the natural variants stating on more than one occasion that they are basically irrelevant. Now as they observe the fact that CO2 is not the driver they have to convince themselves as well as their adherents that it is still warming, even by data manipulation. The end of the hoax is nigh.
________________________________________________________________
The name of the game is to keep the hoax going long enough to get those big tax and de-development laws passed. Once the laws are in place it will be the devil to get rid of them and the hoaxsters will have plenty of time to steal more wealth from the poor and middle class.
It is always about money and power.
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it. – Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
They’re too late – and I think even they know it.
The name of the game was to try and get the US Congress to pass a bill which would massively regulate the energy industry and divide the loot between the eager claimants. This was to serve as both justification for Europe’s energy scheme and as an inducement (very unrealistic, btw) to China and India to also join the party.
The Energy Bill is dead, and those who supported it are about to be dumped in a wave election in 75 days. The next Congress will not even consider this bill, no matter what kind of fancy temperature records they gin up. Therefore there’s no point to the exercise anymore – they can fake all the data they want, it doesn’t matter.
The US has opted out of the carbon regulation game. Therefore China and India are out, too. Australia looks like it will opt out tomorrow – meaning Europe’s scheme can only hurt them while accomplishing nothing, so they will be under pressure to drop their efforts as well, and I predict that by next summer, they will.
Like I said, it’s too late – the game is over. They’ve run out of time.
tonyb says:
August 20, 2010 at 3:51 am
Gunter
Thanks for the above. So we have heat records from some 8% of all the countries in the world which then supposedly makes 2010 the ‘hottest ever.’
Of those mentioned Niger doesn’t even seem to have a reliable record. Saudi has a highly disjointed record going back to 1965. We have been reading of record cold in such places as Argentina and Brazil so how come they now appear to be record highs?
Is the heat record actually skewed towards Russia due to its large land mass and its presumed weighting therefore in the global record, combined with its very substantial increased anomaly due to the bocking high? Even then not everywhere in Russia has been warm.
Hmm Steve, if you have the time, a closer examination of the record seems in order. Also posted this to Chiefio in the hope he might investigate this further.
While doing so remember that the satellite data is also showing very warm conditions for the year, as I recall UAH and RSS show a close race between 2010 and 1998. The daily data that Roy Spencer shows was at record levels all year until it was adjusted downwards recently (although it’s again testing record territory now).
Also when doing comparisons Goddard should try to compare like with like rather than the nonsensical comparison between the 12 month running average of GISS to 2010 and the annual HadCRUT data to 2009 (note that Goddard rather disingenuously implies that HadCRUT does include 2010).
Günther Kirschbaum
The scales are identical in all graphs. The Y-axis is degrees C, and the X-axis is years. The baseline makes no difference, because each measurement is comparing only one anomaly vs itself.
(T2010 – baseline) – (T1998 – baseline) = T2010 – T1998
Hansen claims that 2010 is the “hottest year ever.” HadCrut, UAH and RSS disagree.
> GISS … have 2.8 times as much area with 2010 warmer than they do with 2010 cooler.
> HadCrut … ratio of above to below area is only 0.04. Seventy times lower than GISS.
2.8 – (70 * 2.8) = -69 * 2.8 = -196 .
96% less I’d agree with, 4% the area I’d agree with, 1/70th the area I’d
agree with. GISS has 70X the area of HADCRUT I’d agree with.
While I understand the idiom, I point out its flaw anywhere there area people who understand math. One of our performance measuring guys at work last week was talking about a performance (in files/second) of our file system on different architectures and had a PPT slide that reported 3X lower performance on one. I pointed out that if I were bicycling at 10 mph for a while and then at 3X less, I’d be going backwards at 20 mph.
I think he would have fixed the slide anyway,
Bob from the UK
A quoted Google Search for “”2010 hottest year ever”” turns up over 16,000 hits.
NASA: 2010 hottest year ever
NASA: 2010 the hottest year in history
2010: Warmest year on record? – National Climatic Data News and …
Copenhagen climate conference: Met Office predict 2010 will be warmest on record
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6780685/Copenhagen-climate-conference-Met-Office-predict-2010-will-be-warmest-on-record.html
0.04 is seventy times smaller than 2.8
2.8 /70 = 0.04
Please do not distract the discussion with meaningless semantics.
Why are we so concerned about GISS?? UAH, looking at the “near surface” temp at AMSU, shows 2010 above 98 and 99 throughtout. In fact, it looks like 2010 is just going to make a straight line right off the graph. It’s been practically flat for 2 months, at a level above every other year.
WhatsUpWithThat??????
Bob Tisdale says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:04 am
Steven: Isn’t 2005 the current record high year for GISTEMP?
—————————-
Not anymore! Even if we go into an Ice Age, Hansen will work hard to make sure it’s the warmest ever recorded…
I still laugh out loud every time I see a graph purporting to show the average global temperature to within a 1/10th of a degree for 1850. 1850! Probably 99% of the world wasn’t within 100 miles of a thermometer, but they know to within 1/10th of a degree!
wws says:
August 20, 2010 at 4:35 am
They’re too late – and I think even they know it.
The name of the game was to try and get the US Congress to pass a bill …
The Energy Bill is dead, and those who supported it are about to be dumped in a wave election in 75 days…..
Like I said, it’s too late – the game is over. They’ve run out of time.
________________________________________________________________–
Actually it is not too late because of the lame duck session from the November elections to the January seating of the new Congress. The propaganda has to be kept in place to protect the facade of “we are doing this for the good of humanity” Democrats, the peoples party, is often used to pass especially bad laws under that banner. (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is a very good example.) I am afraid we will see some really nasty bills passed into law during that time period. Former congresscritters will be scrambling to please their new masters and get a seat on the other gravy train as lobbyists or corporate advisers.
The Revolving Door between Government and Wall Street
http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/208403-wall-street-and-government-revolving-door-spins-at-dizzying-pace
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government-industry_revolving_door
How do we “feel” the solar minimum we are in?, easy!. Where I live, in the SH, the average minimum temperature in august is 16°C, and now we are having an average of 14°, then 2 degrees less; and that´s a lot for an average.
That is what Dr.David Archibal predicted.
If you think this isn’t real, then why are Ontario Electricity bills going to rise 30% next year?
…. hey, you try saying that with your tongue in your cheek!
Bob Tisdale
HadCrut, RSS and UAH do not think this is the hottest year ever.
Other GISS errors from different years are a different topic.
This is more about political science than about climate or weather. A set of data that is so weak and manipulated should not form the basis of statements about the real climate (pun intended). US-Election time, not more than that. There was so much said
on this web-site about the poor construction of the GISS-records that one can only wonder that a serious, non-ideologic publicly financed authority still dares to use it.
Regards from Chile – like neighboring Argentina, Boliva, Peru this winter a damned cold place. But that ceratinly is weather (I would agree), while Moscow and “heat waved” do certainly experience a shifting climate. Would the people freezing in Bolivia,
Peru smile if they only knew that GISS extrapolated a significant warming there. Probably. It’s so easy to make people happy – you dont even need reality or temperature records.
Anthony – great web-site, you and your co-authors keep up the great work,
Matt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6780685/Copenhagen-climate-conference-Met-Office-predict-2010-will-be-warmest-on-record.html
Deanster
Did you actually read this article? UAH does not show 2010 warmer than 1998.
(sarc)
There is a Peasant’s (aka ‘Young Turks’) Revolt ongoing at GISS, they are out to put AGW Guru Hansen behind the ‘8 Ball’ and force his immediate retirement and get one of their own appointed in his stead. Similar sabotage and mayhem against NASA department heads are also occurring, or planned to happen in the next two weeks. This has long been anticipated.
(sarc off)
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 5:16 am
Günther Kirschbaum
The scales are identical in all graphs. The Y-axis is degrees C, and the X-axis is years. The baseline makes no difference, because each measurement is comparing only one anomaly vs itself.
No they’re not because used your usual trick of distorting the axis in an attempt to fool your readers. Your first graph of the post (GISS), has an ordinate range of 0.6 whereas all the others have a range of 0.8 or 1.0, in a blatant attempt to deceive. Just like you do with your histograms where you usually choose an ordinate scale to minimize the quantity you disfavor wrt the others.
BillD: No, I was referring to the discontinuation of the use of data from some surface stations, many of which were in areas which were cooler, thus leading to a suspected bias towards stations in warmer areas. And, just a small point, I’m DaveF, not Dave F – he’s somebody else. Best wishes, Dave.
Conclusion: Dr. Hansen thinks that warming has continued unabated since 1998, while HadCrut, RSS and UAH think it has stopped or slowed to a crawl.
That is quite the cherry you picked eh Steve? Bringing back the ole canard ‘It has stopped warming since 1998’ AND saying the HadCrut, RSS and UAH think that global warming has stopped. Impressive that you can get four false claims into one statement and not a single sycophantic reader will call you on it.
Let me ask: did you check with those organizations to see if they agree with you? Of course you didn’t because they don’t. They would laugh at you for making ridiculous statements like that. As do the rest of the reality based community.
Don’t get carried away now; remember Anthony’s admonition on subjects off topic like this …
.
I have been following articles on Climate Realist where they claim that the satellite temperature recording system isn’t reliable (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6164).
I have been waiting to see if WUWT would pick up on this “news”. I may have missed it though.
If these reports are accurate, then it leaves me wondering if there is ANY reliable record of global temperatures. Certainly surface recording systems can’t be reliable for a long list of reasons, the greatest of which is no stationary recording systems in the 70% of the earth covered by water.
So that means we really know nothing about what has been happening to global temperatures in the past 100 years or more.
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 5:43 am
Bob Tisdale
HadCrut, RSS and UAH do not think this is the hottest year ever.
According to Roy Spencer:
“As of Julian Day 212 (end of July), the race for warmest year in the 32-year satellite period of record is still too close to call with 1998 continuing its lead by only 0.07 C:
YEAR GL NH SH TRPCS
1998 +0.62 +0.73 +0.51 +0.90
2010 +0.55 +0.74 +0.36 +0.63″
My emphasis.
How does satellitegate
(http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6164)
affect the comparison of 1998 to 2010?
Phil. says:
August 20, 2010 at 4:43 am
While doing so remember that the satellite data is also showing very warm conditions for the year, as I recall UAH and RSS show a close race between 2010 and 1998. The daily data that Roy Spencer shows was at record levels all year until it was adjusted downwards recently (although it’s again testing record territory now).
These are all measures of temperature not of heat content.
Whereas measures of ocean temperature are almost equivalent to heat content, measures of atmospheric temperature are extremely inaccurate metrics for heat content. Drier air can have high temperatures and very low heat content.
All this excitement about temperature and it is the wrong metric. Saturated air can contain nearly 80 times more heat than dry air – are the temperature stations that GISS is using in low humidity regions? If so they will have higher temperatures for less heat energy.
The greenhouse effect is supposed to be trapping HEAT so that is what should be measured. All this mathematical and statistical arguing over decimal places in atmospheric TEMPERATURE is completely misguided!
Sigh, given that Gistemp code has been open and online since 2007 with documentation and the methods have not materially changed in recent years as far as I know, this is another of Steven’s Posts which are equivalent to ascribing motives to water running downhill. Oh I’m sorry, you didn’t ascribe motives?
How are they working hard? By letting the code run as it has for years? Numerology and pixel counting (excusing me, measuring the areas of graphs) are no substitute for looking at the code and methods and analyzing the results on that basis.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY&fs=1&hl=en_US]
jeez
There are two basic concepts in computers – code and data. If either one is flawed, the output is flawed.
Besides their regular upwards adjustments, GISS has bumped historical temperatures up repeatedly. I admire their hard work.
Steven,
I think you mean that GISS has bumped historical records downward. I am familiar with this, having assisted in locating some of the older files. I know this process still continues. It is part of the Gistemp code. None of that changes my point. This train has been on the tracks for years. Unless you can point to a recent change in the codebase that accomplishes the goals you ascribe you are behaving irrationally, ascribing an evolving intent to computer code.
That’s all from me today.
Mark S
Either 2010 is the hottest year, or it isn’t.
Tamino’s “cherry picking” zombie troupe is on the march.
ZZZ
Had Crut is surface data.
Ric Werme said: I pointed out that if I were bicycling at 10 mph for a while and then at 3X less, I’d be going backwards at 20 mph.
I think it’s common for most to assume that this semantic means “reciprocal of.” For example, when someone says “That car is moving twice as slow” everyone knows they really mean “half as fast.” Or when a stock person says “that stock is rising 10x slower” everyone knows they meant “rising 1/10 as fast.”
I read “10mph for a while then at 3x less” as 10 – (1/3)10 = (20/3)mph
YMMV, and apparently it does!
Stevegoddard.
Yes .. I read the article. I was not going by the depiction of UAH in the article, I was going by the AMSU site, channel 4, “near surface temperature”.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
When I select 1998, 1999 and 2010, the line for 2010 on channel 4 of AMSU is well above 1998 and 1999 .. although, the line for 1998 only covers the last half of the year and doesn’t include “july”. But that would have had to be one hell of drop in temp from July 98 to August 98 for the graph to show July 98 above July 2010.
Maybe the ch04 data is not what they use for their official temperature metric. Or maybe ch04 is just raw data. I don’t know, and that is why I ask .. WattsUpWithThat??????
dude .. I’m just trying to learn here. I read everything. … and question everything.
jeez
Temperatures before 1960 have gone down. Temperatures since 1970 have gone up. Makes for a steeper slope.
jeez,
Ever read “The Emperor’s New Clothes?”
Some people will delude themselves to almost any degree as part of their need to trust authority.
How about Saddam’s WMDs? President Clinton, Al Gore and the UN were willing to starve a million Iraqi children to convince Saddam to give up his WMDs. According to UNICEF figures.
Ok, one more Steven,
I point out that your analysis is inane and not worthy of a post and describe why and you accuse me of a pathological need to trust authority? Someone is running out of arguments:
Can you understand that by criticizing you and perhaps getting you to tighten up your act I am trying to improve this site not tear it down?
Steve says: ‘either 2010 is the warmest year or it isn’t’.
So what? It doesn’t support your conclusion that only GISS thinks the world has warmed since 1998. Your conclusion statement is totally bogus and you know it. You simply can’t prove that the world isn’t warming by comparing hottest years. It’s a red herring and completely fallacious.
You also don’t deal with that fact that UAH has changed the way they calculate global temps in the past few months to make 2010 look cooler while GISS has been running the same algorithms for some time. (See comment by Jeez that you avoid answering)
jeez says:
August 20, 2010 at 7:04 am
Steven,
I think you mean that GISS has bumped historical records downward. I am familiar with this, having assisted in locating some of the older files. I know this process still continues. It is part of the Gistemp code. None of that changes my point. This train has been on the tracks for years. Unless you can point to a recent change in the codebase that accomplishes the goals you ascribe you are behaving irrationally, ascribing an evolving intent to computer code.
That’s all from me today.
So Jeez the same code has been used BUT the GHCN stations chosen and their number has changed.
That sounds like a good way to alter the result.
Then when individual station records used by GISS are examined they show undocumented and unjustified ‘adjustments’.
Sure the GISS code has remained the same – the garbage being put into it has been changed though and has produced the ‘expected result’.
Ian W
Document such a change and show the other indexes didn’t use the same contaminated station and you may have something worth posting about. My point about Steven is that his posts are nothing more than illustrated suspicions, hunches, and suppositions.
Hansen would claim a Bose Einstein condensate as the hottest year ever. Can we please get rid of the political hacks and get some real scientists working on this stuff at GISS?
Phil in his reply to me at 4.43 said;
“While doing so remember that the satellite data is also showing very warm conditions for the year, as I recall UAH and RSS show a close race between 2010 and 1998. The daily data that Roy Spencer shows was at record levels all year until it was adjusted downwards recently (although it’s again testing record territory now).
Also when doing comparisons Goddard should try to compare like with like rather than the nonsensical comparison between the 12 month running average of GISS to 2010 and the annual HadCRUT data to 2009 (note that Goddard rather disingenuously implies that HadCRUT does include 2010).”
All I am asking is that someone should objectively and methodically examine the claim this is the warmest year ever which seems to be based on 17 countries, most of whom have very limited data sets. If the claim of ‘warmest ever’ is related to back to 1880 how is that possible when Giss seem to be including data sets that are incomplete or only started in 1965?
You are obviously a knowledgeable person who always puts a lot of thought into your posts Phil, why don’t YOU do an analysis for the rest of us to examine? (note: this is NOT sarcasm)
tonyb
With the effects of the solar minimum of 2008-2009 now behind us and solar max ahead in late 2013 or early 2014, a likely El Nino in 2012-2013, look for continued warmth over the next few years and likely record high temps in those years. 2010 tropo temps have been at or nor record highs all year, consistent with GCM’s when looking at the long term forcing from the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s.
What is most remarkable to me during the period the last few years during the long and deep solar minimum is that we didn’t see global temps even fall more, nor did we see the Arctic Sea ice mount more of a recovery. Certainly AGW skeptics were “encouraged” by the solar minimum, and there was much talk of a “rapid global cooling” and the like, but from a GCMperspective with AGW factored in, there is no way this was going to happen, and the warmth of 2010 is is not so remarkable at all. Maybe 2010 will end up as the warmest on record, or only second place, but it really doesn’t matter, as the trend is obvious and we’ll see new records set in the next few years.
Is there any way to send a comment directly to Anthony? I’d like to point out privately (not in the commnets section) that one should not make statements like: “Seventy times lower than GISS”. One can’t compare diminutives in this way. If anything becomes less, it vanishes, so two times, seventy times, etc., less is impossible.
IanM
jeez
You are raising a straw man. I am comparing GISS vs. the other major indices. GISS doesn’t match.
I don’t have the time to look through millions of lines of data and code to find out what it is they are doing wrong. Why don’t you demonstrate what UAH, RSS and HadCrut are doing wrong, since that seems to be your area of interest?
The consequence of these , to say the least, peculiar research, is the following:
China surpasses US energy consumption:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/china-energy-consumption_n_652921.html
Because, as it has been pointed out by many here in WUWT, and by Lord Monckton in particular, the real objective of these scam studies is Global Governance, which to be possible needs a very much more feeble US, in every aspect, so as to achieve theirs “fair world” presided by the UN and justified by the IPCC and its collaborators.
Mark S
If Hansen is going to claim that 2010 is the warmest year ever, he better expect that statement will be analyzed for accuracy.
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 6:50 am
Mark S
Either 2010 is the hottest year, or it isn’t.
Tamino’s “cherry picking” zombie troupe is on the march.
______
Funny Steve. I think when it comes to picking cherries, you are pretty much King of the Orchard.
La Nina is already at work. I don’t know if the word bizarre could describe it if GISTemp 2010 ends up highest in last 12 years.
R.Gates
likely El Nino in 2012-2013
Just wait for that kid comfortably seated, it won’t appear soon.
I take back my comment about diminutives. While my statement is true for numbers in general, Steve is referring to a distance on a graph below a reference point. I over-reacted.
But, still, is there any way to make comments off the record?
IanM
Jeez
I don’t know why you think you can be counted a sceptic. In 2008 over at CA I seem to remember that I left you in charge of Baby ice whilst I went on holiday and when I came back you had let most of it melt 🙂
tonyb
tonyb
perhaps the baby ice was kidnapped by arctic strawmen while I was sleeping?
R Gates
See my comment at 7.28 to Phil. I extend the suggestion to you regarding writing an article on the background to ‘the warmest year ever’ in which the temperature records of the 17 countries who are experiencing their hottest year ever needs to be objectively examined and put into the context of the 183 who aren’t.
Anthony is always looking for good articles and would, I am sure, particularly welcome one from a warmist viewpoint which can be examined by sceptics. Again, as with Phil, no sarcasm intended.
tonyb
Jeez
They were great threads!
tonyb
Its a shame that more and more people arent falling for the crap you try and peddle R Gates and Phil.
Well actually its not a shame. I’m actually greatful that many people no longer buy into your BS. I used to pay some attention to your posts but these days they are so totally lacking in any sort of balance I no longer bother.
Continue your endorsement of the accuracy of GISS and watch ppl slowly tune out to anything you have to post as it continues to move further away from reality.
ROFL – 2010 is going to be the warmest year on record? Next try and tell me the pope is Jewish. Do you have any idea whatsoever how little people respect your opinion when you try and pass off such rubbish.
Gates
Give proof of one occasion when an El Niño ahs been forecast correctly more than 18 mths ahead. Please. Stop flapping your backside. You and Jeez.
Just a general comment about the 2010 temps and the developing La Nina. Even if the La Nina is moderately strong, I don’t see it pushing global temps down in a severe way. Yes, there will be a decline, but there is plenty of warmth elsewhere in the global oceans to modulate the effects of the 2010-2011 La Nina.
R. Gates
You must be getting desperate to reduce yourself to ad homs.
If you have a specific complaint, state it.
Why are so many people intent on changing the subject?
Apparently I must have hit a nerve.
tonyb says:
August 20, 2010 at 7:45 am
R Gates
See my comment at 7.28 to Phil. I extend the suggestion to you regarding writing an article on the background to ‘the warmest year ever’ in which the temperature records of the 17 countries who are experiencing their hottest year ever needs to be objectively examined and put into the context of the 183 who aren’t.
Anthony is always looking for good articles and would, I am sure, particularly welcome one from a warmist viewpoint which can be examined by sceptics. Again, as with Phil, no sarcasm intended
______
While I might enjoy researching and writing such an article, it is hardly my area of expertise, and I am far more familiar with and comfortable looking at the longer term effects on climate, rather than looking at the short-term ups and downs of 1, 2, 3, or even 10 year temperature fluctuations that ride on the back of much longer trends.
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2010 at 7:28 am
“With the effects of the solar minimum of 2008-2009 now behind us”
Sunspots are still pretty close to ‘solar minimum’. My eyeball view is that Sc24 is currently running at about 1/2 of what had been forecast.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/sunspots.htm
The last time we had a solar cycle as sad as the current one folks were ice skating on the Thames.
tonyb
UAH chLT shows daily temperatures this summer well below last year.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdGtqQ0ljZG1JZUVFMmc2dTRyTHRDU1E&hl=en&output=html
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_chLT.r001.txt
The notion that this year is in any way “warm” is laughable here.
As pointed out many times, we’re skipping summer this year. Two days ago was our warmest day of the year and it just touched 29.1C before plummeting in the evening. All of Western Canada (and as I understand it, the Western US as well) will be a tough sell for “warming” alarmists. The ag people I talk to are seriously concerned about having record low crops, if any.
Last year wasn’t much better, our warmest day of the year was September 24.
This year reminds me of 1992… which as we all should know was Pinatubo weather.
Warming? Record warmth? Hottest Year Evah…?! Laughable.
Is HadCrut still omitting Arctic data?
I think it is pointless to dwell on which year is the hottest, although as humans we like to see records broken.
All these indices measure different things, son’t they?
But here are two graphs that show the overall trend nicely.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/?ts=land
and
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/?ts=troposphere
If all the indices were in lock step, then maybe we would have a global left-wing conspiracy to produce one world government.
R. Gates, I take no notice of solar anything. I look to things that actually vary to the degree necessary to produce changes in temperatures. That would be oceanic oscillations, the jet stream, and atmospheric weather pattern variability. These intrinsic causes of temperature changes produce the necessary energy to force temps up and down beyond the error bands. Solar, planets, the moon, and CO2 do not.
Which is why I support a change from a global average to a three month running average by climate zone. That means no infilling from adjacent stations outside of the climate zone. We should have several indices of temperature, not one, which would be far more representative of land surfaces just as the ENSO El Nino, La Nina measure is far more representative of that oceanic region.
It is absolutely ridiculous that “A” global temperature has come to mean so much. If there EVER was a statistic that is data rich and information poor, it would be that one.
With that, you paint sceptics with an overly broad brush in much the same way you treat global temperatures. Your assumptions are making an …
Doug McGee
Here is a comparison of GISS Arctic coverage vs. HadCrut and UAH
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpgrVFoqQL0]
” Ian L. McQueen says:
August 20, 2010 at 7:29 am
Is there any way to send a comment directly to Anthony? I’d like to point out privately (not in the commnets section) that one should not make statements like: “Seventy times lower than GISS”. One can’t compare diminutives in this way. If anything becomes less, it vanishes, so two times, seventy times, etc., less is impossible.”
Having studied mathematics, I should agree with you. I would prefer “GISS is 70 times higher than…”. But on the other hand I doubt very much that any reader other than you did not understand what was meant.
For those of you who think a straight trend is more important than running up and down averages, I suppose you DON’T like the way ENSO SST parameters are statistically displayed for El Nino and La Nina conditions and events. It would be interesting to take those SST numbers and just do a straight trend line. But then we wouldn’t be able to plan for coming attractions based on this important measure. However, that is the way AGW’ers prefer their data so let’s just do it that way. Use straight trend lines and one averaged number for the whole lot of it. And be damned with El Nino and La Nina methods. The world is an uncomplicated entity and one number per month with nothing but straight trend lines oughta do it.
” Doug McGee says:
August 20, 2010 at 8:29 am
Is HadCrut still omitting Arctic data?”
Yes, and if DMI is right and the arctic temperatures were stable, that makes for a little bit of additional warming.
But nothing compared to the clowns at GISS who invent a strong arctic warming that is not there.
One positive to take from Hansen’s numbers – the prices on a nice pellet stove and an emergency heater that I just purchased for some older relatives were quite reasonable. Might even consider getting a snow blower in the off-season.
Can someone please show a link that demonstrates only 17 countries temp data are used forthis “warmest year ever” statement.
” R. Gates says:
August 20, 2010 at 7:34 am
Funny Steve. I think when it comes to picking cherries, you are pretty much King of the Orchard.”
Since you know a lot about cherry picking: What interval would you recommend to calculate the trend of y = ( x – ¦x¦ ) + cos x ?
¦x¦ = absolute value of x
Wasn’t it a NASA employee in an email who effectively stated HadCRUT was a better product for global temperature data?
The comparison of GISS with Hadcrut, RSS and UAH makes the GISS warm bias obvious. Policy makers and the general public should be questioning not only their methods, but also their ethics.
The NOAA index hasn’t been mentioned. It is also (just) running ahead of 1998 at this time, and well ahead of 2005, which is also the hottest (completed) year to date for NOAA.
RobW said;
“Can someone please show a link that demonstrates only 17 countries temp data are used forthis “warmest year ever” statement.”
I originally posed the question at the start of this thread, to which Gunter replied with this link;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/12/heatwave-record-temperatures-world
(I haven’t been able to find the original source so this report is second hand)
I responded at 3.51 expressing surprise that so few countries could skew the records especially as some of the countries cited have experienced weather cold enough to get in the news. Russia has been warm, so maybe its over influencing the record, hence my suggestion to Steve he might like to pursue this with a further article. I then extended the suggestion to Phil and R Gates.
Steve responded at 8.21 with two links which as he says shows this year is not especially hot. So the mystery deepens.
Is this the hottest year ever? No
Is it the hottest year since records began? (in 1880 according to Giss) If you see my post at 3.51 I express my doubts, but it would be good if someone wiuth the necessary skills looked at it.
tonyb
This is a terrible analysis. For GISS, the record is 2005, not 1998. And that record will likely not be broken.
Pamela Gray says: “It is absolutely ridiculous that “A” global temperature has come to mean so much. If there EVER was a statistic that is data rich and information poor, it would be that one. With that, you paint sceptics with an overly broad brush in much the same way you treat global temperatures. Your assumptions are making an …”
Very well said! I always appreciate the wit and wisdom in your comments, thank you.
Who cares if 2010 is the hottest year or not? There is inconclusive evidence that it is. No one can really say why, even if it is so. No one has seen any real proof of what is causing what and the probability that CO2 is a major player is also unproven not to mention that there is no real proof that any addional CO2 exists relative to longer time periods or if it does that it is due to people and what they do. Too much beating flies to death with sledge hammers.
[snip off topic ~mod]
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2010 at 8:12 am
You need at least a tourist trip to Puno, Peru, where you will enjoy -30C. Please do it as many other funny GW believers “gringos” and wear only t-shirts and short pants. LOL!
Alexej Buergin says:
August 20, 2010 at 9:14 am
No, no…you didn’t get it, they are using relativistic transforms.
“Conclusion: Dr. Hansen thinks that warming has continued unabated since 1998, while HadCrut, RSS and UAH think it has stopped or slowed to a crawl.”
Hansen has resorted to plain counterfeiting.
stevengoddard: IN response to my question of Isn’t 2005 the current record high year for GISTEMP? you replied, “HadCrut, RSS and UAH do not think this is the hottest year ever,” and, “Other GISS errors from different years are a different topic.”
You missed the point of my question, so I’ll ask another one. Since 2005 is the current record year for GISTEMP, why are you using 1998 as your reference in the first illustration?
This seems to be a last ditch-effort on the part of Hansen et alia
to “sell” the need for immediate international action on controlling
greenhouse gasses… and an attempt to frog the U.S. political
establishment (and the supporting cast of AGW lobbyists) into
acts of legislation before it’s too late.
“Too late” can be equated with the Senate or the House changing
leadership parties this November.
GISS pronouncements of “warmest” seem to be fraught with
politics, from station siting issues to vague and biased cell-filling
protocals.
It’s sad to see science so sytematically savaged.
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 5:27 am
Oh, don’t sweat it – there has been much worse on other posts.
“Meaningless semantics” is if the HadCrut ratio been -0.04. 🙂
Bob,
Hansen shows unabated warming since 1998. Other indices show differently.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/trendthroughjuly2010.png
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/hadcrut1.gif
Hansen shows 2010 as the warmest year. Other indices say that is not true.
There are only so many degrees of freedom you can analyze at a time. If you want to find out what is wrong with Hansen’s 2005 data, please feel free to do that.
Question: When will 1998 be far enough in the past for GISS to lower its temperature?
“I understand the claim as 2010 being the warmest ever is based on record temperatures from only 17 out of 200 countries. I wonder if in your research you were able to find out which 17 countries this covered?”
Nope. Global temperatures are derived from weather stations all over the world. Surely you knew that?
“I did a numerical integration of the graph above, and found that they have 2.8 times as much area with 2010 warmer than they do with 2010 cooler.”
This does not give a number that has any meaning. You could find out whatever you wanted to by changing your x axis. I suspect you know that.
“HadCrut has been adjusting their data upwards”
In what way?
I don’t get it, the Amcerican dust bowl was ~1930-40. a decade of heat and record temperatures. Over 100F, and some over 120F, the 1936 American heat wave. Most of those records still stand as all time hot temperatures. Those high temperatures would go on for months, the dust bowl went on for a decade.
Yet, 1930-1940 only shows up as a small blip on every temperature graph.
If that small blip can cause a decade of record heat and drought, why are we not seeing something like it with this big huge blip (hockey blade) they are showing now?
Ric Werme,
“times less” implies multiplication. You confused this in your post with “lower” which implies subtraction.
Surely you have better things to do with your time.
Judith Curry said:
“R. Gates, I take no notice of solar anything. I look to things that actually vary to the degree necessary to produce changes in temperatures. That would be oceanic oscillations, the jet stream, and atmospheric weather pattern variability. These intrinsic causes of temperature changes produce the necessary energy to force temps up and down beyond the error bands. Solar, planets, the moon, and CO2 do not.”
These are not “intrinsic” causes, but effects, that you mention. Oscillations, Jet Stream, etc. are effects of the cause, the sun. These do not “produce” energy, but modulate the energy absorbed.
In other words, the sun changes climate — the other things affect the weather (meaning short term, regional climate).
Let’s keep looking at the big picture here. This is, after all, primarily a climate blog.
I wish Willie Soon could comment here.
If we omit tropics with strong ENSO influence and southern extratropics with questionable coverage, the drop in NH extratropics is shaping to be a pretty steep one:
oceans only (Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic 30-90N)
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadsst2_0-360E_30-90N_n_1900:2011a.png
oceans + surface stations per HadCRUT
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_30-90N_n_1900:2011a.png
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2010 at 7:28 am
“…What is most remarkable to me during the period the last few years during the long and deep solar minimum is that we didn’t see global temps even fall more, nor did we see the Arctic Sea ice mount more of a recovery…”
Not at all surprising as the important climate metric isn’t temperature, it’s energy. The atmosphere holds little energy – the oceans hold a lot. The oceans lag the solar cooling effect by 3 – 9 years. Just be patient and you will see what a real NH winter looks like 🙂
Steven Goddard replied, “Hansen shows 2010 as the warmest year. Other indices say that is not true.”
Does not relate to my question.
You continued, “There are only so many degrees of freedom you can analyze at a time. If you want to find out what is wrong with Hansen’s 2005 data, please feel free to do that.”
You are avoiding my question. 1998 is not the current GISTEMP record year. 2005 is. Why then did you plot 2010 versus 1998 and state in your post, “GISS appears to be working hard to make 2010 the hottest year ever” since there is no valid reason to include 1998 data in the illustration?
And you are well aware that I understand why GISS temperatures continue to rise while others have flattened. I’ve written a number of posts about it, so don’t try misdirection. I asked a valid question that points to an error in your post. Why not replace 1998 with 2005 in your first illustration and correct the problem? Wouldn’t that be easier than arguing?
stevengoddard says: “R. Gates–You must be getting desperate to reduce yourself to ad homs. If you have a specific complaint, state it.”
Yeah, our friend Gates isn’t up to his usual standards. I think the RC troupe are setting him a bad example.
Phil. says: “No they’re not because used your usual trick of distorting the axis in an attempt to fool your readers. Your first graph of the post (GISS), has an ordinate range of 0.6 whereas all the others have a range of 0.8 or 1.0, in a blatant attempt to deceive. Just like you do with your histograms where you usually choose an ordinate scale to minimize the quantity you disfavor wrt the others.”
Most people with training in science (as is largely the case on this site) are capable of reading graphs, no matter what the scale. Since the individual graphs are clearly labeled and are only compared internally (read the post, if you must), there can be no “blatant attempt to deceive.”
Here in cental MN we are officially “above normal” for summer according to NOAA, in truth just barely.
We’ve had some warm weather but precipitation and cloud cover is way up meaning highs were about normal, more 90 degree highs than June 2007 thru June 2010 but again nothing above 93. Most of our days are spent clouded over, moss and lichens abound.
Icecap had an article yesterday on “blocking effects” in NH jet stream causing all the extreme weather, high, low, whatever. Svalgaard ally Lockwood even finds evidence that this effect is historically coincident with Solar Minimum.
Bob,
When comparing two teams, you might compare the top performance of team A to the top performance of team B. You would not compare team A’s best performance to team A’s second best performance. That would be pointless.
Similarly, your question is irrelevant the topic of this article.
GISS has 2010 as #1. RSS, UAH and HadCrut have 1998 as #1. I am comparing GISS #1 to everyone else’s #1. GISS’ previous #1 is not relevant or interesting to this discussion.
We could do the same comparison with GISS’ previous record (2005) vs. 1998, and get the same results.
if ( 2010 > 2005 > 1998 )
then (2010 > 1998)
In order for Hansen’s claim of 2010 being #1 to be accurate, 2010 has to be greater than *all* previous years. This should be obvious.
Don’t be surprised at their continued attempts to push AGW. We have learned over the last 10 years something very important about our current generation of Scientists and Politicians. They have an agenda. They will use “any means necessary.”
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 5:16 am
…
“The scales are identical in all graphs. The Y-axis is degrees C, and the X-axis is years.”
This is an incorrect statement. The Y-axis UNIT is not the scale, nor is the X axis UNIT the scale. The scale is the graphical representation of scalar multiplier of the unit as denoted on the graph to provide reference as to the magnitude of units displayed by data.
Testing the statement “the scales are identical”
Graph 1) 0.3 – 0.9 (0.6 units absolute)
Graph 2) 0.0 – 1.0 (1.0 units absolute)
Graph 3) 0.0 – 0.8 (0.8 units absolute)
Graph 4) 0.0 – 1.0 (1.0 units absolute)
The scales are not identical, even though the units agree.
“The baseline makes no difference, because each measurement is comparing only one anomaly vs itself.”
The scale shows the unit area represented by the graph. Given that the X axis scale is constant, the first graph represents 0.6 °C∙year of unit area. The second graph 1.0°C∙year of unit area. And so on.
The mathematical comparison of graph areas covering different unit areas is meaningless.
Therefore each graph stands on its own in terms of representing anomaly, but comparisons between the areas of these graphs are in error.
Graph the information on the “identical” scales and make your area comparisons validly. Having said that, I believe your point will stand, but the magnitude will different and your argument will be transparent.
@Snowlover123:
Great idea for a cartoon. Two cavemen wearing furs worrying about it being the warmest ice age on record =)
This is now two years in a row where all over the globe you read about record lows, lack of summer, etc yet we still get told that they are two of the hottest years on record. Last summer, it never got above 90 in NY. The winter was incredibly long, snow filled and cold throughout the US. England had its worst winter in decades. There have been records for the lowest temperature high in western states this year I believe. In the southern hemisphere we read about record lows in places like Australia and South America. And yes it seems to be hot in Russia, but where’s the heat?
I’m being serious. Something just doesn’t seem right. I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I understand that “weather isn’t climate” but where is it so hot as to overcome all these record lows or coldest winters in the last 50-100 years, etc?
And I know it’s been brought up before on other threads but what of the use of these temp stations to the exclusion of others… I’m in Phoenix and watch the weather every night. Temps over the Phoenix metro area vary by at least 4-5 degrees depending on where you live. Which temp gets chosen as the one that is reported? And Phoenix is really only about 40 miles across. And these programs assign a temp average from places as far as 1200 km away??? Seriously? How is that meaningful data at all?
I know I’m rambling, but the two ideas seem connected to me. Extrapolation of a lot of data that comes from places that probably have a systemic bias built in being used to paint a picture that seems to vary signficantly from the real world. Help me out here….
As my math skills have atrophied to the point of uselessness concerning the current topic, I’d like to make an appeal to common sense. If, as we all seem to agree, the world has been slowly warming since the end of the LIA (exact date thereof irrelevant), should we not expect each passing decade to be slightly warmer (subject to the widely accepted 60-year cycle of temps) than the preceeding one? Likewise, should we not also expect the occasional individual year to be the “hottest ever”?
I take no position on whether or not 2010 is remarkable in any way, but even if it is, so what?
What strikes me as relevant is the “robust” fact of the MWP. If the present trend continues, it looks as if we might reach the temperatures of that age some time in the mid-22nd Century. Wake me when we get there…..
Buffoon
The sales are identical. Degrees C on the Y axis.
If you divide degrees C by degrees C, you get a dimensionless number. It is a ratio that I am comparing.
People are desperately grasping at straws here.
L
You don’t need any math skills. Some confused people are just spreading FUD.
GISS says 2010 is the warmest year. RSS, UAH and HadCrut say 1998 was the warmest year.
Steven,
My alarmist coworker said he calculated the areas under the curves with the plot starting at the temperature anomaly needed to make it snow CO2 in the Antarctic, and he claims there’s virtually no difference in any of the areas. I asked him what value that temperature anomaly is, and he started getting evasive and told me to ask you. Needless to say, he wouldn’t show me his calculations, either. It must be in their DNA to not show their work. But it shouldn’t matter where the plot starts, right?
REPLY: Please take this discussion of “CO2 Antarctic snow” off-thread as it has nothing to do with the current topic. We’ve already proven it can’t happen on earth by calculation and by experiment done for the benefit of WUWT here – Anthony
Steven Goddard replied, “Similarly, your question is irrelevant the topic of this article.”
Actually it is extremely relevant to your post, because as I and others have noted, 1998 is not a record year to GISTEMP. It has no bearing on the record since the record for GISTEMP is 2005.
You continued, “GISS has 2010 as #1.”
They do not. Here’s a link to the GISS webpage for their LOTI. It lists no annual GISTEMP data for 2010.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
And while you’re there. Note that 1998 is not the record year.
You continued, “RSS, UAH and HadCrut have 1998 as #1.”
Very true.
You continued, “I am comparing GISS #1 to everyone else’s #1.”
Wrong. Because 2005 is the record GISTEMP year, not 1998.
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 10:32 am
Bob,
Hansen shows unabated warming since 1998. Other indices show differently.
According to the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index graph that you showed above that is not true, perhaps you don’t know what ‘unabated’ means?
Hansen shows 2010 as the warmest year.
He does not, he shows that the last 12 months in a 12 month running mean plot is higher than any previous 12 months. That is not the same as the year 2010.
Other indices say that is not true.
Have you any links to other indices plotted in the same way which contradict GISS?
Certainly your comparison of the GISS plot with the HadCrut annual anomaly plot is apples to oranges.
If already posted here, apologies. But is this for REAL ????
http://www.iceagenow.com/NOAA_Busted-Reported_temps_may_be_10_to_15_degrees_too_high..htm
regards
Stockbrokers must have loved Hansen in 2000.
jorgekafkazar says:
August 20, 2010 at 11:41 am
Phil. says: “No they’re not because used your usual trick of distorting the axis in an attempt to fool your readers. Your first graph of the post (GISS), has an ordinate range of 0.6 whereas all the others have a range of 0.8 or 1.0, in a blatant attempt to deceive. Just like you do with your histograms where you usually choose an ordinate scale to minimize the quantity you disfavor wrt the others.”
Most people with training in science (as is largely the case on this site) are capable of reading graphs, no matter what the scale. Since the individual graphs are clearly labeled and are only compared internally (read the post, if you must), there can be no “blatant attempt to deceive.”
That has not been my experience on this site and Goddard continually distorts and mis-states facts, in fact my post was in response to his claim that “the scales are identical” which is clearly not true. In fact he claims that the Scale is ºC which calls into question the scientific education of the poster never mind the readers!
Re: stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 8:21 am
[tonyb
UAH chLT shows daily temperatures this summer well below last year.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdGtqQ0ljZG1JZUVFMmc2dTRyTHRDU1E&hl=en&output=html
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_chLT.r001.txt
]
Steve, you may wish to read Dr. Spencer’s latest post and reconsider this.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/daily-global-temperature-updates-on-the-discover-website-an-updated-tutorial/
No day in 2010 has been cooler than the same day in 2009.
Will Hansen be able to afford his future legal fees with all those climate awards or what ever he has received? At least he can’t deny having screwed taxpayers over since he has the awards to show for it.
All I know is that I was told back in May that this was definitely the hottest year on record. But I’m not any ones fool. I’m not just going to take one sources word for it, especially not in May. So I consulted the hockey stick looked to where 2010 is on the chart and sure enough it is the hottest. So there is a consensus which means this is settled so there doesn’t need to be any more debate. 🙂
Can any one explain to me how their can be a consensus when their charts don’t match?
Phil.
So you think that they are different types of degrees C, and anyone who disagrees with you is a liar?
What academic institution is it that you work for?
The way the graphs are formatted makes absolutely no difference to the calculated numbers.
Brego
Maybe the UAH page I’m looking at is sea surface temperatures? It isn’t obvious from the name of the page.
Bob,
Apparently your argument is that GISS 2010 problems are OK, because they were also wrong in 2005.
The world is not centered around GISS.
1DandyTroll says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:48 pm
My bet he is not going to be accountable for anything. all they are on the winning side.
Several new age scientists have had the courage of presenting their arguments here, but, surprisingly never J.H. Now we are interested in knowing how he managed to make that non euclidean graph.
Phil
Go back to your first calculus book and see if a constant multiple c ∫c*f(x) dx affects the ratio of two definite integrals.
You can stretch the way the graphs are drawn any way you want along the x or y axes, and you will get exactly the same numbers I published.
….or is it perhaps because there are different “flavors” of temperatures, like the different flavors of neutrinos supposedly coming out from the Sun?
Who knows!, everything is possible beyond the twilight zone, in the never more land, or rather in a fancy parallel universe where rivers of kool-aid flow.
Bob,
You wrote :
Huh? Hansen is claiming that 2010 is GISTEMP’s #1. That is the whole point of this article.
OT – I know some of you guys are having a great time, giving Steve a hard time.
And Steve’s a great sport about it….
This was posted a few back, does anyone know what this is about??
Steve? Bob? Phil??
===================================================
nevket240 says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:06 pm
If already posted here, apologies. But is this for REAL ????
http://www.iceagenow.com/NOAA_Busted-Reported_temps_may_be_10_to_15_degrees_too_high..htm
regards
Look at Hansen’s graph. Which year is the hottest?
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/trendthroughjuly2010.png
Hint : it is 2010.
Re: stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:05 pm
[Maybe the UAH page I’m looking at is sea surface temperatures? It isn’t obvious from the name of the page.]
You are looking at the Ch4 temps. Dr. Spencer says:
“The bottom line is this: You can rely ONLY upon two channels at the Discover “Temperature Trends” page:
(1) the “Aqua ch.5 v2” channel for global-average mid-tropospheric temperatures, from the AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and
(2) the “Sea Surface” temperatures, which are averaged over the global ice-free oceans (60N to 60S), from the AMSR-E instrument on Aqua.
Do not trust any of the other channels for temperature trend monitoring. This is because, while the Aqua satellite equatorial crossing time is kept very near 1:30 am and pm with periodic orbit maneuvers, the rest of the channels come from the NOAA-15 satellite whose equatorial crossing time has now drifted from its original 7:30 am/pm value in late 1998 to about 4:30 am/pm now.”
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Brego
Maybe the UAH page I’m looking at is sea surface temperatures? It isn’t obvious from the name of the page.
The first line of the file gives it away though:
file created=2010-08-20 20:22:14
title=Daily global average temperature at: Sea Surface
This is what Roy Spencer has to say:
“The bottom line is this: You can rely ONLY upon two channels at the Discover “Temperature Trends” page:
(1) the “Aqua ch.5 v2” channel for global-average mid-tropospheric temperatures, from the AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and
(2) the “Sea Surface” temperatures, which are averaged over the global ice-free oceans (60N to 60S), from the AMSR-E instrument on Aqua.
Do not trust any of the other channels for temperature trend monitoring. This is because, while the Aqua satellite equatorial crossing time is kept very near 1:30 am and pm with periodic orbit maneuvers, the rest of the channels come from the NOAA-15 satellite whose equatorial crossing time has now drifted from its original 7:30 am/pm value in late 1998 to about 4:30 am/pm now.”
The Aqua ch.5 v2 is the one that Brego cited where no day in 2010 is cooler than 2009.
Do you read any of the material you post or do you just bluster away?
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Phil.
So you think that they are different types of degrees C, and anyone who disagrees with you is a liar?
No, I think anyone who doesn’t know the difference between the ‘scale’ of a plot and the ‘unit of measure’ is probably not saying anything worth listening to (repeated the error three times in a few hours despite being corrected by several posters).
The way the graphs are formatted makes absolutely no difference to the calculated numbers.
No but it makes a difference in the perception of that data by many readers, which of course why you persistently indulge in such deceptive practices.
I wouldn’t trust any numbers calculated by you in any case, given your track record.
I think it’s called taking the giss…
In my neck of the woods, flora and fauna are showing definite continued cooling behavior. Huckleberry bushes are IN BLOOM! Yep. In many areas, the fruit hasn’t even set yet. Normal huckleberry season is July. Earlier, morel mushrooms were supposed to come on end of May and it is normally a 1 week season. We were still picking mid June and I found a nice steak sized morel the first week in July. Yellow jackets are AWOL along with hornets that eat yellow jackets. Why? Too cold. Babies didn’t hatch. Bats are down because the insect population is down, and birds are already flocking here in the valley getting ready to migrate.
One of the hallmarks of a cold season are warmer days and much cooler nights. This means that tomato plants will not ripen, and many a gourd garden will have gnome-sized fruit. Buy canned pumpkin now because there will be less to buy come November. All of the signs of cooler temps have continued unabated since three years ago, at least for us in high mountainous and plateau areas.
The real data is in the climate zones and the wisdom collected by agricultural octogenarians. Which brings to mind this complaint (NSIDC are you listening?): How come Inuit knowledge is now thought of as sacred but the wisdom that James and Edith collected down on the farm doesn’t count for diddly?
NOAA is selling it hard too. There is a link on the front page of our local NOAA site for Tampa Bay that takes you to the short PDF report below. Look at the bold blue – there is one that says “warmest weather in recorded history”. Well, they did not bold blue the “some” in front of it – it’s all about presentation! I looked up the numbers and no records have been broken heat wise. The warmest six-months, back in 1949, were warmer by 5F!
Propaganda, plain and simple.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/tbw/TopNews/PDF/FirstSevenMonthsOf2010.pdf
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2010 at 8:12 am
Just a general comment about the 2010 temps and the developing La Nina. Even if the La Nina is moderately strong, I don’t see it pushing global temps down in a severe way. Yes, there will be a decline, but there is plenty of warmth elsewhere in the global oceans to modulate the effects of the 2010-2011 La Nina.
_______________________________________________________
Okay,
The oceans are 70% of the earth’s surface – right?
Parts of Russia, western USA, South America, Australia and New Zealand have been normal or colder than normal – right?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/28/cold-from-seattle-to-sao-paulo/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/cold-snap-freezes-south-america-beaches-whitened-some-areas-experience-snow-for-the-first-time-in-living-memory/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/kold-in-kazakhstan/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/30/record-cold-down-under/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
According to Dr Spencer the SST temperature has been plummeting since this spring:
MAY: Spencer: Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Poised for a Plunge
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/spencer-global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-poised-for-a-plunge/
Graph – end of May: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-and-Nino34-thru-May-19-2010.gif
Graph – mid August: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-and-Nino34-thru-Aug-18-2010.gif
And Dr Spencer’s global average temperature at near surface has recently fallen to 2008 levels.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
So a rough figure is that max 25% of the earth’s surface has to be so drastically hot it can drag the rest of the normal or below normal temperatures to be the “Hottest Evah” globally for the year.
Sorry it doesn’t pass the back of the envelope calculations especially when Dr Spencer’s global average temperature at near surface have recently fallen to 2008 levels.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
(Yes, thanks to the El Nino it will be a relatively warm year but it is not going to be warmer that 1998.)
nevket240 says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:06 pm
If already posted here, apologies. But is this for REAL ????
http://www.iceagenow.com/NOAA_Busted-Reported_temps_may_be_10_to_15_degrees_too_high..htm
regards
As I recall NOAA16 has been unreliable for a long time, RSS don’t use it
From RSS:
Version 3.0 MSU & AMSU – February, 2007
Data from NOAA-16 AMSU are no longer used.
NOAA-16 data appear to be drifting relative to data from earlier satellites.
UAH use it but they use the AMSU microwave channel not the IR channel in the report. See for example:
Update 5 Mar 2010 ***********************************
Since the discussion in Jul 09 below points out that the largest differences
between UAH and other dataset regarding specific monthly trends occurs
in Feb for v5.2, we are instituting the adjustment discussed last
July and calling this v5.3. In essence, the mean annual cycle of the
AMSUs (NOAA-15, NOAA-16 and AQUA) will not include the accumulated
annual cycle anomalies determined for the MSUs (through NOAA-14).
Evidently this accumulation of annual cycle anomalies created a
spurious rather than corrected annual cycle by the time the AMSUs
were on orbit.
stevengoddard says: August 20, 2010 at 5:43 am
“Bob Tisdale
HadCrut, RSS and UAH do not think this is the hottest year ever.”
Roy Spencer (UAH) said today:
“I suppose this is because 2010 is still in the running to beat 1998 as the warmest year in our satellite data record (since 1979).”
stevengoddard says: August 20, 2010 at 5:16 am
“Hansen claims that 2010 is the “hottest year ever.” HadCrut, UAH and RSS disagree.”
Hansen has not claimed that. He said that the 12-month moving average reached a record level in April. Quite different.
stevengoddard says: August 20, 2010 at 8:21 am
“UAH chLT shows daily temperatures this summer well below last year.”
Your second link says, on line 2:
title=Daily global average temperature at: Sea Surface
@Enneagram says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:17 pm
1DandyTroll says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:48 pm
‘My bet he is not going to be accountable for anything. all they are on the winning side.’
I’m sure hansen feel exactly the same too, he’s probably been telling him selves that very same stuff for decades, however, I’m not so sure his former followers still feel the same. And where do insane followers go when they feel being the butt of the joke?
Mr. Goddard,
Since we began taking temperature readings in 1886, the temperatures correlated with sunspot activity. There are 9 such cycles each 100 years.
Temperatures correlate to sunspot activity. Since 1934, temperatures have climbed and dropped respectfully to the cycles as well as reflecting a total accumulated heat at the end of the century.
Now, per Joseph D’Aleo, that accumulation is wiped out at the beginning of each century with a solar sunspot minimum. It doesn’t happen over night, but the “devil is in the details” and Ms. Gray has pointed some of the cooling affects on biological areas.
As for the efforts of our government agencies to create and continue to create panic, not here. This crowd I’d waiting for the shoe to drop.
Man made global warming is for Morons. The best thing that publisher of idiot books could do is write a book called, “Inter-Glacial Ice Age Global Warming For Idiots”.
Best seller for sure.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Have a nice day.
Steve
I think the situation may not be quite as clear cut as you have presented it. Let’s consider the 2010 anomalies for UAH and GISS. So far this year (including July) the average GISS anomaly is +0.69 and the average UAH anomaly is +0.55. However, if we use the 1979-1998 base period (as used by UAH) then the GISS anomaly is +0.44, i.e. UAH is relatively warmer than GISS. This doesn’t suggest GISS is inflating 2010 anomalies.
Now if we consider the 1998 anomalies: UAH is +0.52 and GISS is +0.56 but, again, if the 1979-98 baseline is used the GISS anomaly is only +0.33.
The reason GISS is higher in 2010 (and 2005) than in 1998 is because the GISS 1998 anomaly was, relatively speaking, much lower than the others.
John Finn
The base period doesn’t make any difference.
You can use any baseline you want (use the Traissic if you want) and GISS will still show 2010 higher than 1998.
(2010 – baseline) – (1998 – baseline) = 2010 – 1998
The baseline term disappears.
Nick Stokes
The GISS 12 month running mean is increasing very rapidly, which means that second half (2010) is much higher than the first half (1999.)
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/trendthroughjuly2010.png
Given that the 12 month running mean is the highest on record, it would therefore be (almost) mathematically impossible for 2010 to not be the highest on record.
Phil.
You can view the graphs on your iPhone. You can view them on a 120 inch television. You can stretch them in Photoshop. You can do whatever you want, but it will not change the underlying data.
The integration of the data gives a standard unit (degree-year.) It is completely unaffected by how the graph is represented in this html document. You can’t seriously be arguing this point. This is freshman math.
Nick –
Typo – should read
Methinks certain writers need to go review their textbooks for the definition of ‘scale’ and ‘units’. Hint: They’re not the same.
stevengoddard says: August 20, 2010 at 5:27 pm
“Given that the 12 month running mean is the highest on record, it would therefore be (almost) mathematically impossible for 2010 to not be the highest on record.”
That’s your claim. Why do you keep saying Hansen said it?
Nick Stokes
Is there something about this that is difficult to understand?
http://www.green-blog.org/2010/07/11/2010-might-be-the-hottest-year-ever-recorded-in-human-history/
REPLY: Steve you missed this quote:
“It is likely that the 2010 global surface temperature … will be a record”, Hansen writes.
Nick Stokes says:
August 20, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Nick, this is the source Green-blog used, paraphrased I presume:
This from Dr. Hansens folder and paper: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100601_TemperaturePaper.pdf
I’ll have to agree with Steve, Nick is being rather obtuse with insistence that Hansen isn’t saying this. It’s almost Shawshankian in obtuseness. – Anthony
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26346
Junk science, at best.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDm4_NwRzVU]
stevengoddard says: August 20, 2010 at 6:18 pm
“The paper also shows that the global temperature this year will break the previous record from 2005.”
That’s the blogger’s interpretation. What he quotes is:
“It is likely that the 2010 global surface temperature … will be a record”, Hansen writes.
Likely? Well, you said “(almost) mathematically impossible for 2010 to not be the highest on record.”
REPLY: See my inline comment above. – Anthony
Hansen is clearly pushing his cherry-picked El Nino 12 month period, using inflated data which is not corroborated by HadCrut or satellites, in order to get climate legislation passed before the election and before La Nina really kicks in.
Is he trying to correct the 10,000 or so articles quoting him saying that 2010 is the hottest year on record? Of course not. That is the message he wants people to hear.
Note to Phil.
Your previous comment has been deleted. Right or not, the name calling was uncalled for. Take a 24 hour timeout from WUWT. – Anthony
Steven Goddard wrote: “Hansen is claiming that 2010 is GISTEMP’s #1. That is the whole point of this article.”
Do you have a link to this claim by Hansen? As I linked for you earlier, there is no annual 2010 GISTEMP LOTI data, so Hansen can’t be claiming that 2010 is warmest.
Again, your first graph and the text below it are incorrect because 1998 is not the current record GISTEMP year. You should be comparing 2010 values to 2005 values.
Nick,
GISS shows Jan-July as the hottest on record. GISS shows 2010 far above 2005. Why are we having this discussion?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m2h775UOZI]
Full quote from the Hansen paper I cited above:
(3) the 12-month running mean global temperature in the GISS analysis has reached a new record in 2010. The new record temperature in 2010 is particularly meaningful because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance (Frohlich, 2006; data at http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant) is having its maximum cooling effect.
Bob,
The graph you object to says GISS 1998 vs 2010. It plots 1998 vs. 2010. How can it be in error?
This article compares GISS Jan-July 2010 (which GISS shows as the hottest on record) vs Jan-July 1998 (which UAH, RSS and HadCrut show as the hottest on record.)
GISS is the only one which shows 2010 Jan-July as the hottest on record. GISS is the only one which shows the 12 month running mean as the hottest on record.
If you feel compelled to write an article about 2005 for some reason, please do it. Anthony publishes your articles all the time.
REPLY: Bob is always welcome to guest post here. – Anthony
I had understood that 1934 was the warmest year. I know that the all-time high temp recorded in Indiana (where I grew up) was 116 in 1936. The question was asked why the 1930s didn’t show up as the warmest decade. In Indiana, at least, the answer lies in the cold winters. The state’s all-time recorded low, -35 or -36, was also in 1936. Doubtless extremes came from the extended drought (dust bowl).
Just for those who might not know exactly which organization appears to be pushing the edge of the envelope on high temperatures for this year, I believe ‘GISS’ stands for the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. I know that it is very easy to just gloss over an unfamiliar abbreviation without ever looking it up. Of course, in most cases the reader does not really need to know what these signify to understand the text.
I am somehow reminded of a comment attributed to Air Marshal Dowding during World War II when questioned on the accuracy British reports of enemy aircraft losses, “… if we’re right, they’ll give up; if we’re wrong they’ll be in London in a week.”
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Perhaps it would have helped if Steve came up with numbers and units of his integrations. I presume he integrated the difference of the 2008 vs. the 1998 temperature over time. The graphs are merely incidental – I strongly doubt he measured the area (say, in pixels) of the graph. Had he come up numbers in terms of degree-days, then it would be clear the different scales (in linear pixels per degree).
Steve, please, please work on presenting your observations and claims clearly. I hadn’t noticed that you had stretched the Y-axis on those first graphs, though I might have let that slide. When you say you were comparing areas but then provide graphs where people have to mentally scale one of the graphs to be able to compare the two has resulted in this thread. Yet you are really comparing the integral of a temperature difference. The former is readily understandable by people unfamiliar with calculus (especially if you could flood fill the area!), and the latter requies a bit of thought even among people comfortable with it. The former group should be you target audience – you could cater to them better with better formed graphs.
While I harped on the innumerate “seventy times less,” it did trip up one other person. (I wouldn’t be surprised if there are non-native English speakers who aren’t familiar with the idiom.) I knew you were going to reject my comments. I’m just hoping you’ll gradually figure out that as you make your presentation more clear, there will be fewer threads like these that take up everyone’s time.
Yes, I do “have better things to do with my time”. If you’re not interested in learning from critiques of your presentations, then I’m wasting my time and I’ll go spend it more productively. I really don’t mind it if you continue to handle questions about things that could be more clear.
BTW, speaking of making things a bit more clear: you’re comparing areas, so you’re dividing degree-days by degree-days.
Is it just me? It looks like GISS is the only graph that has more area above 1998 than 2010, the others appear to me to show 1998 with more area above 2010 to my naked eye.
It is just a simple numerical integration of degrees on the y-axis vs. years on the x-axis done by counting pixels. This yields degree-years for the result.
The ratio of area with 2010 hotter to area with 1998 hotter remains fixed, no matter how you stretch or shrink the axes. It doesn’t matter if you use Fahrenheit or centigrade or kelvin or months or lunar years or star dates, you will still get the same ratio.
Hi all. Some suggestions. Suppose you believe GISS is inaccurate due to its extension of data in the Arctic. In the current environment warmer temperatures in Arctic stations are being extended over a wide area to imply a higher global mean. However, if AGW is a hoax, presumably at some point the same stations will experience colder temperatures and be extended to produce equally inaccurate lower global means. As has been pointed out, GISS is open source and is applying its approach consistently.
Alternately, abandon GISS and run with HadCrut. In this case there is no need to worry about anomaly correlation, smoothing routines and so forth. One thing to note however; temperature can be trending higher without making record highs in the short term and temperature can be trending lower without making record lows in the short term. Try taking a 12 year average of HadCrut global temperatures starting in 1970 (say) and repeat moving forward one year at a time until 2009 is encompassed. The direction is clearly up (and barring volcanic eruption will continue to be so in 2010).
It is only a matter of time until the HadCrut 1998 extreme is overtaken.
You can paint all the lipstick on the roasting pig that you please:
Everyone knows the type of beast that is being cooked.
November will bring it’s own reality, irregardless of what GISS marinates data in.
Ammonite
Global warming is not a hoax. It has just been wildly exaggerated.
jeez says:
August 20, 2010 at 6:45 am
Oh I’m sorry, you didn’t ascribe motives?
Four days ago it was intent. Now it’s motive. They aren’t the same.
I know you are concerned that WUWT keeps an unbiased appearance in matters concerning James Hansen. And that is good. It has real merit. But honestly, you seem angry and rash. Maybe if you took some time to lay out your case more carefully it would help to get your point across.
Personally, I don’t think Steven Goddard is doing anything wrong. But you seem to feel you know his intent, which is, to define what James Hansen’s intent is. And you feel that is wrong. In doing that you are doing what you say Steven Goddard is doing—defining intent.
Speaking for myself, I can see from the graphs that GISTemp is radically different than other data sets. It isn’t just as little different. And we all know that James Hansen has made it crystal clear what he is all about. Some of the things he has said and done make me wonder if there is something wrong with him, in his brain, or some psychological or emotional disturbance. Since he is so radical, in my opinion, why is it wrong to think that his radically strong views could be factoring into his temperature product methods thus creating the radical differences in the graphs, i.e., radical man = radical differences in the graphs.
What does it matter that others can use his methods and come up with the same results he does? Why keep going over that point? I don’t see Steven Goddard saying he has used Hansen’s methods and came up with different results. To make a point of that gives the appearance you mean there is nothing wrong with GISTemp, even though you have not said that outright. It can easily be misinterpreted that you do mean that. People are probably getting a wrong image of you.
I think it would help if you took some time to lay out the case for what you mean in a more detailed way—without sarcasm. Maybe then some progress could be made in what you’d like to see happen.
As it is now it seems you are rashly attacking Steven Goddard.
It is much said that weather is not climate, though it contains the building blocks of it.
How it came to be that Goddard Institute for Space Studies usurped weather, to become building block of climate, escapes me.
jeez says:
August 20, 2010 at 6:45 am
Sigh, given that Gistemp code has been open and online since 2007 with documentation and the methods have not materially changed in recent years as far as I know, this is another of Steven’s Posts which are equivalent to ascribing motives to water running downhill.
=========================
No. He is just pointing out error. Nothing wrong with that.
It is a challenge…always with the directive to prove him wrong.
What’s wrong with that??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 5:22 pm
John Finn
The base period doesn’t make any difference.
You can use any baseline you want (use the Traissic if you want) and GISS will still show 2010 higher than 1998.
(2010 – baseline) – (1998 – baseline) = 2010 – 1998
The baseline term disappears.
I know. But I think you’re missing the point. I used the 1979-98 base period to provide a direct comparison between GISS and UAH anomalies.
The GISS 1998 anomaly is relatively lower than the others (HadCrut, UAH & RSS). It is this factor which explains why 2005 and probably 2010 are warmer than 1998 – according to GISS. The GISS 2010 anomaly (1979-98 baseline) is, to date, ~0.1 deg below the UAH 2010 anomaly yet you seem to be implying that GISS has inflated the 2010 anomaly.
If GISS has anything wrong it’s more likely that the 1998 anomaly is at fault because it’s too low .
savethesharks
Really what error? He has pointed out a divergence in trend over an extremely short interval chosen to highlight the divergence. He has implied the divergence is intentional. He has implied that it is due to some insidious manipulation for political gain. But, he has not identified the manipulation or talked to anyone who could help him find it. He has identified no error. He has highlighted a difference in behavior in the execution of a program that generates an index which by definition does not generate exactly the same trend as a different program. And incidentally, Gistemp is is not millions of lines of code, it is thousands.
Over other periods the divergence lessens or goes away. He has showed some of these other periods, but omitted (hid the decline in divergence), some indexes when they show inconvenient results (don’t tell as tidy story). I have shown this in previous posts in this series despite the accusations of my use of a straw man. When Bob Tisdale tries to point out flaws in his reasoning Steven evades and side steps.
There is no scientific meat here. This is numerology. Saying the red thingy is higher than the blue thingy when it shouldn’t be is not science. Under different meteorological conditions the trends could easily reverse and Gistemp could plunge while others spike. Unfortunately this is the kind of post that justifies the criticisms of the Joe Romms and Taminos
Again, I am not a fan of GISS or Hansen. The differential handling of the US vs. ROW and issues such as using nightlights to estimate urban development are known weaknesses. Estimations of historic sea surface temperatures are a huge source of uncertainty. The people who point these things out are doing real work.
Amino Acids in Meteorites,
I have been clear in my criticisms while no doubt too harsh for those who haven’t been following these issues for years. For those who have, my criticisms are clear. I am in fact a bit disappointed in all the cheer leading and back slapping that Steven is getting. In my opinion a serious lack of ”skepticism” is being displayed. I do not have the energy to lay it out any more clearly to explain it to those who do not understand that when there is real data, code, or methods to analyze, the proper way to examine something is to examine the serious information available, seek and find the root errors, not cherry pick trends from some graphic output software and do gotcha science.
Dr. John M. Ware says:
August 20, 2010 at 7:36 pm
I had understood that 1934 was the warmest year. I know that the all-time high temp recorded in Indiana (where I grew up) was 116 in 1936. The question was asked why the 1930s didn’t show up as the warmest decade.
1934 was the warmest year in the US. The US covers about 2% or the earth’s surface so can, in no way, be considered representative of the rest of the world. The 1930s do show up as a warm decade in the US temperature record .
Steven Goddard replied, “The graph you object to says GISS 1998 vs 2010. It plots 1998 vs. 2010. How can it be in error?”
The text pertinent to that graph states, “GISS appears to be working hard to make 2010 the hottest year ever. As you can see in the graph above, they show 2010 with much more area above the 1998 line than below.”
This implies that 1998 is the hottest GISTEMP year prior to 2010. It is not. 2005 is the hottest GISTEMP year prior to 2010. That’s the whole point of my original question.
What I would like to know is how come every time they say this, we have been freezing our asses off?
We’ve had one of the coldest years, winter and summer I can remember (maybe 84 was worse).
I’ve had to buy a new wardrobe, I just don’t have the summer clothes for “cold”
This is global warming? Have they thought how we’re going to heat our homes through global “warming”?
How cold does it have to get before it’s called “cooling”?
Reference to the 1934 Dust Bowl.
Reference Sir Richard Gregory’s work shown in a century old book titled “Through Space and Time” by Sir James Jeans, a collection of his Christmas Lectures at the Royal Society, he showed that the lake levels of Lake Victory “perfectly match” sunspot activity.
From 1878 to 1933 was a milder sunspot cycle series than what we had from 1934 to 1963 and from 1975 to 2007. The cycle from 1965 to 1974 had as many sunspots as the last cycle, but lacked a significant peak as the more robust cycles. It was flat and drawn out. This probably caused the ice age scare back in the 1970s.
That said, the period mentioned above from 1878 to 1933 had an average of one less inch of precipitation than the last 45 years. The Dust Bowl period matched Sir Gregory’s research if one compares sunspot activity to the time of the Dust Bowl.
We are now having the first major droughts around the world during this minimum sunspot cycle.
When an area is flooded from time to time, study the causes and the history of the area. It may be the norm for that area.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
No surprises here more proof that Nasa GISS is run by a climate-change
nutactivist.Steve
Regarding GISS v UAH for 1998, 2005 and 2010. The following table shows the comparsion (UAH – GISS) for the first 7 months (Jan-Jul) of each year. The 1979-98 base period is used
UAH-GISS
1998 +0.14 (El Nino year)
2005 -0.01 (Neutral)
2010 +0.12 (El Nino year)
Notes:
1. The anomalies are consistent. In 2005, the ENSO neutral year, there was only a slight difference. In the El Nino-affected years, UAH anomalies were amplified by 0.12 to 0.14 deg.
2. The ‘El Ninos’ were already established in Jan 1998 and Jan 2010 so there was very little lag effect. The comparison is, therefore, reasonable.
3. Towards the end of 1998 GISS anomalies cooled more than the UAH anomalies (the lag effect). Hence the UAH record for 1998 was relatively much higher than the GISS record. The GISS 1998 record was, therefore, much easier to beat than the UAH record.
4. There is a hint that GISS is cooling faster than UAH at present (as of July 2010) so Steve may have jumped the gun a bit here anyway.
5. Annual records can be an artifact of the constraints of the calendar year. 1998 is a good case in point. The 1997-98 El Nino effect on satellite temperatures began in Jan 1998 and ended sometime around October 1998.
Shona,
When is there global warming and cooling?
This is a summary of 7 years of personal study.
This is part of the insanity of this thread.
There are two types of warming going on.
One is, we are in a small period of time between ice ages when the Earth is overall warm and we can farm very far north and south of the Equator with various crops. 10,000 years ago, farming was between roughly 35 degrees and North and South of the Equator degrees.
That is about as far north as St. Louis and that is why civilization started in the Middle East, Asia Minor, and India, again,generally speaking and what we know so far.
During the last 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age, there has been what people call, mini ice ages. See “Glacial Geology” by Matthew Bennett and Neil Glasser. There have been three of these.
About 1700, the Sun began to roar back into action with more consistent sunspot activity. Most climatologists mark the end of the mini-ice age at different times and as late as the mid 1800s.
I mark the end of the mini-ice age in 1700 when sunspot activity resume.
We are now in one of the final thousand years or so before we begin a 10,000 year slide into the preliminary years of the next ice age.
If you want some fun,
You can play around on this site for hours.
Ifhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
I choose winter months for Annual averages are not as defined as our winter months.
This will aggravate the readers, but this is my personal thumb nail for judging global warming and cooling during this 10,000 year break between Ice ages.
I mark winter break line at 33F degrees.
There is a climate lag time of 5 to 14 years as the Earth slowly warms and cools in this Global warming period.
If the winter averages are above 33 degrees, generally speaking, allowing for minor changes in the climate, we have less glacier and Polar Ice activity and more hurricane activity.
The opposite occurs if the average US winter temperatures fall below 33F degrees.
It sounds crazy, but it is a good thumb nail for me.
That is why Ms Gray mentioned above slight biological changes she has noticed. We went below 33F degrees this past winter. We matched 1984 winter temperatures last year. We match 1996 winter temperatures a year and a half ago.
If the average US winter temperatures hang around 33F things are rather stable.
We are going to cool down for the next 30 years per scientists. We are in a sunspot minimum and they come in pairs.
This will be th biggest challenge for us for it will affect our farming and heating resources. You can read between the lines on that.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
John Finn: Your table above…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/giss-shaping-up-to-claim-2010-as-1/#comment-462691
…indicated that 2005 was ENSO neutral. The 2004/05 El Nino extended into 2005, and with the lag, the global response to the 2004/05 El Nino would have peaked in the second year (2005), just as it had for the 1997/98 El Nino (peaking in 1998), and as it will for the 2009/10 El Nino (peaking in 2010).
It’s best to identify the El Nino by both years, to eliminate the confusion about El Nino years.
John Finn: You wrote, “2. The ‘El Ninos’ were already established in Jan 1998 and Jan 2010 so there was very little lag effect. The comparison is, therefore, reasonable.”
The lags are very apparent:
http://i34.tinypic.com/5xr1cp.jpg
And the lag in 2005 to the 2004/05 El Nino was excessive.
The baseline makes no difference in determining realtive differences between years.
Bob,
I think I understand your concern. In order for 2010 to be #1, it would also have to be hotter than 2005 (and every other year since 1998.) So far, it is well ahead of 2005 according to GISS.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m2h775UOZI]
stevengoddard says: “I think I understand your concern.”
Bingo! Thanks.
What has this ratio of areas got to do with the price of eggs?
Consider two sets of hypothetical anomolies for the first six months of 1998 and 2010:
2010: 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, -0.01
1998: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Ratio of 2010 area above 1998 to 2010 area below 1998: 50
Average 1998 anomoly: 0
Average 2010 anomoly: 0.081666667
versus
2010: 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, -.0.3
1998: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Ratio of 2010 area above 1998 to 2010 area below 1998: 5
Average 1998 anomoly: 0
Average 2010 anomoly: 0.2
JK
Yes, any time you put a very small number in a denominator, you are going to get a large ratio.
Bob Tisdale says:
August 21, 2010 at 3:55 am
John Finn: You wrote, “2. The ‘El Ninos’ were already established in Jan 1998 and Jan 2010 so there was very little lag effect. The comparison is, therefore, reasonable.”
The lags are very apparent:
http://i34.tinypic.com/5xr1cp.jpg
Bob
I’m not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing. I agree with you that there is a lag effect. I would though suggest that the lag is more evident in the satellite records than it is in the surface records. The surface record (in this case GISS) tends to respond quicker to ENSO fluctuations than the UAH LT record – probably because GISS reflects ‘current’ SST.
My point was that, in both Jan 1998 and Jan 2010, the rising part of the UAH lag had passed. Temperatures had peaked for both GISS and UAH. As of July 2010 there has been no significant drop in either record so the UAH-GISS Jan-Jul comparison is, therefore, “reasonable”.
And the lag in 2005 to the 2004/05 El Nino was excessive.
The 2004/05 El Nino was less intense than either 1997/98 or 2009/10 and did not amplify LT temperatures anything like the 97/98 and 2009/01 El Ninos – as can be seen in your plot. Hence the relative UAH-GISS anomaly differences for 2005 were very small – as can be seen from my table.
The table shows more agreement between UAH and GISS than is being suggested by Steve.
Temperatures are supposed to be increasing by about 0.2C per decade.
Although 1997-98 was a bigger El Nino than 2009-10, the net impact on global temperatures should only be about +0.07C bigger so it is not that much different.
Let’s compare conditions in July 1998 versus July 2010.
A large La Nina developing in both cases but the lag means it is has not impacted temperatures in July yet. Solar cycle has started ramping up with TSI about the same in both periods. Aerosols were likely higher in 1998 so it should have warmed since 1998 from the effect alone.
May 1998 Nino 3.4 : +0.71C
May 2010 Nino 3.4 : -0.09C
July 1998 AMO : +0.529C
July 2010 AMO : +0.500C
July 1998 GISTemp : +0.68C
July 2010 GISTemp : +0.55C
Change 1998 – 2010 : -0.13C
The difference in Nino 3.4 should make 1998 about +0.05C warmer and the AMO should make 1998 about +0.015C warmer or 0.065C warmer in total. It is 0.13C warmer so right in the ballpark if there was no global warming since 1998 but it is 0.065C lower including the ENSO and AMO adjusted figures.
Temps should have increased by +0.24C over the period, instead they are down -0.065C.
REPLY: You have the makings of a guest post right here in this comment – Anthony
Steve Goddard,
So if it doesn’t accurately indicate whether a year is hotter or not, why is the ratio of area above / below 1998 of interest?
Pamela Gray says:
August 20, 2010 at 8:49 am
R. Gates, I take no notice of solar anything. I look to things that actually vary to the degree necessary to produce changes in temperatures. That would be oceanic oscillations, the jet stream, and atmospheric weather pattern variability. These intrinsic causes of temperature changes produce the necessary energy to force temps up and down beyond the error bands. Solar, planets, the moon, and CO2 do not
_______
Pamela, I respect your background, but question your statement that you don’t look to “solar” influences in temperature. If you really believe this, then please explain this chart:
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Global temperature and sunspot number
The influence of the solar cycle is clear in the global temperature chart, and you can even see the ENSO cycles in the same chart. True, generally ocean cycles will be a larger influence, but the connection of solar cycles (specifically through solar irradiance which rises and falls in tandem with sunspots) to global temps obvious.
In regards to ocean cycles, clearly these also play their role, as short term fluctuations on top of a longer term trend. While I’m pretty convinced that their is AGW happening, the degree to which it is happening is still an open topic in my mind, as the source of my “skepticism” resides in those unknown longer-term ocean and solar influcences that may be partially enhancing (or detracting) from the signal of CO2 influenced temperatures changes. Beyond that of course, is the whole issue of how much the additional 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s might begin to influence some of those ocean cycles.
Bill Illis says:
August 21, 2010 at 7:45 am
“Temps should have increased by +0.24C over the period, instead they are down -0.065C”
______
In response, I will post the same chart I’ve used many times here:
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Global temperature and sunspot number
If you study the chart you can see several things. First, 1998 El Nino, which was stronger than the 2009-2010 event, occured further into solar cycle 23 than we are right now into solar cyle 24. Total solar irradiance was higher at the time.
Our 2009-2010 El Nino came at the very end of the longest and deepest solar minimum in a century. Solar irradiance was barely starting to climb back from its deep lows. As the above chart clearly shows, the long and deep solar minimum and the timing of the 2009-2010 El Nino (coming at the very beginning of solar cycle 24) easily negated small temperture rise that might have otherwise occurred from CO2 forcing during this period. Regardless of whether 2010 goes down in the record books as the wamest or 2nd warmest on instrument record, should we get a decent sized El Nino closer to the peak of solar max 24, new record high global temps should easily be set.
Paul Pierett said;
“I mark the end of the mini-ice age in 1700 when sunspot activity resume.”
That’s interesting, I mark the end of the LIA according to CET and other European records as being 1698. Too close to your figure to be a coincidence. We have been warming ever since. Pity James Hansen didn’t realise his Giss figures were plugged into the latter stages of a trend and not at the start of it.
tonyb
Mr. Watts, thanks for your earlier reply. I’m new to the site (recommended by a UT professor you may know), so it took me a while to track down the posts you were talking about in regards to CO2 and the Antarctic. That really wasn’t what I was asking about, but it was fun reading WUWT debunk the warmist claim of CO2 snow. I look forward to reading more of the archives.
JK
There are all kinds of analysis which break down near asymptotes, including CO2 vs. temperature.
One version of hansen:
“Given that the 12 month running mean is the highest on record, it would therefore be (almost) mathematically impossible for 2010 to not be the highest on record.”
Hansen: according to Hansen:
“At the time of this writing (May 2010) the tropical Pacific Ocean has
changed from El Nino conditions to ENSO-neutral and is likely headed into the cool La Nina
phase of the Southern Oscillation. The 12-month running mean global temperature (Figure 9b)
may continue to rise for a few more months before the ENSO change causes the next decline. It
is likely that global temperature for calendar year 2010 will exceed the 2005 record, but that is
not certain if a deep La Nina develops quickly.
The point is NOT a fine one. Now, I don’t like a lot of what Hansen says, what he stands for, and the way he talked about SteveMc, myself and other “jesters” who fought to get his code released. BUT, people do themselves no favors in the eyes of the undecided to get Hansen WRONG. They do themselves NO FAVORS, by focusing on the inconsequential details and trying to make federal cases where there is NO CASE. It’s like trying to prosecute OJ for jaywalking, AND GETTING IT WRONG, when the crime is murder. Its petty, it’s counter productive. If you make [snip] arguments about Hansen on THIS issue, then when you come to discuss the real crime, you will have no standing. You will be “that guy”
REPLY: Mosh, first time I’ve ever snipped you, no need to go there -A
Steven Mosher
It is [snip] to take comments out of context. Obviously I was talking about 2010 being #1 so far.
… since I was talking about the 12 month running mean.
The complete quote was :
stevengoddard says:
August 20, 2010 at 12:51 pm (Edit)
L
You don’t need any math skills. Some confused people are just spreading FUD.
GISS says 2010 is the warmest year. RSS, UAH and HadCrut say 1998 was the warmest year.
############################################
you get a F in Math. define a running mean of the last 12 months?
I believe, you know the difference between saying:
A. 2010 is the hottest year ( the mean of all 12 months in 2010)
AND
B As of May 2010, the running mean of the last 12 months, is higher than any previous 12 month running mean.
I believe, that you do KNOW the difference beteen those two claims. Because you do, I have to wonder: did you just write carelessly? that’s ok, just say so. case closed, do better next time. But to persist in the misrepresention is odd.
Mosher,
Hansen has made no attempt to correct the 10,000+ news stories quoting him as saying that 2010 is the hottest year ever.
Take it up with him, not me.
Ammonite says:
August 20, 2010 at 9:00 pm
“It is only a matter of time until the HadCrut 1998 extreme is overtaken.”
______
Indeed it is only a matter of time, but it could be within 5 or 500,000 years. For those, like myself, who believe that GCM’s are likely correct about the effects of recent GHG increases, it will be closer to the former.
R. Gates says:
August 21, 2010 at 9:35 am : paraphrase : TSI was slightly higher in 1998 than today.
Why don’t you contribute to the debate and calculate the temperature impact from that small difference. Post back if you get a number over 0.01C.
The ENSO just oscillates between La Nina, El Nino, Neutral and so on. There is no correlation to the solar cycle or even global warming. It has no trend at all.
R. Gates
Well known climatologist Dr. Charles Keller at Los Alamos believes that “global warming” may have delayed the start of the next ice age. Don’t bet on long term warmer temperatures.
John Finn says:
August 21, 2010 at 12:50 am
The GISS 1998 anomaly is relatively lower than the others (HadCrut, UAH & RSS)….If GISS has anything wrong it’s more likely that the 1998 anomaly is at fault because it’s too low .
1998 in GISTemp shows what is supposed to be seen in the difference between surface temperature and the altitude that satellites measure temperature at during El Nino. Surface is supposed to be lower during El Nino. So it is vice versa of what you’re saying.
JK
If the ratio ends the year greater than 1.0 (Hansen considers a year to be December-November ) then 2010 is warmer than 1998. If the ratio is less than 1.0, then 2010 is colder than 1998.
Given that the ratio is currently 2.9, and that there are only four months left in Hansen’s year, it is quite likely that GISS will show 2010 as higher than 1998.
The other indices will almost certainly how 2010 colder than 1998.
Thanks Tony.
It is good to find support out there in these wicked Lands of Mann, Hanson, Gore and Jones. Sounds like something out of the “Hobbit”.
I still sit here amazed people are arguing CO2. I enjoyed the History Channel’s The Universe this morning while getting the car fixed.
It is amazing that Mars is having the same problems we are having. There is too much Methane and CO2
I didn’t see any cows. There weren’t enough plants to absorb the CO2, so it floats around like dust.
I guess we will be facing that soon as our plant life is choked to death by too much CO2 and the Methane kills off our herds of livestock.
Just joking, readers.
England’s PM Brown had us dead by now. I think this is Day 220 since the world was suppose to end in Copenhagen last Dec.
See ya tomorrow, Lord willing!
I need to stop now and eat some Carbons and Nitrates and do my part to head off disaster and the next Ice Age.
Paul Pierett
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 21, 2010 at 11:48 am
1998 in GISTemp shows what is supposed to be seen in the difference between surface temperature and the altitude that satellites measure temperature at during El Nino. Surface is supposed to be lower during El Nino. So it is vice versa of what you’re saying.
The first 7 months of 1998 and 2010 show similar LT amplification due to El Nino (i.e. between 0.12 deg and 0.14 deg). However, GISS temperatures dropped in the latter part of 1998 which meant that the GISS 1998 anomaly was relatively lower than UAH. The GISS 1998 ‘record’ is (or was), therefore, easier to beat than the UAH record. There is no evidence that GISS is inflating recent anomalies.
stevengoddard says:
August 21, 2010 at 11:34 am
R. Gates
Well known climatologist Dr. Charles Keller at Los Alamos believes that “global warming” may have delayed the start of the next ice age. Don’t bet on long term warmer temperatures.
________
I wouldn’t disagree with the notion that GHG increases might do this, but I might disagree with the notion that we are due for another ice age soon. Based on my study of Milankovitch cycles, the next major glaciation of the current ice age isn’t really due quite some time– anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 years from now.
stevengoddard says:
August 21, 2010 at 11:02 am (Edit)
Mosher,
Hansen has made no attempt to correct the 10,000+ news stories quoting him as saying that 2010 is the hottest year ever.
Take it up with him, not me.
###########################
Steven,
As you are well aware, you, Anthony, Myself and others are very often misquoted by other people. In the press or at blogs, or in comments or at cocktail parties. Steve McIntyre is also agrieved by this process.
KNOWING THAT, knowing that we can only be responsible for what we say, we have an obligation to speak clearly, to QUOTE ACCURATELY, to correct OUR MISTAKES, when we make them. But, it is a good idea to try to clean up some of the misquoting Mess. Lets start with you, number 10001. do your part. Show you are a better mann than Hansen.
“Given that the 12 month running mean is the highest on record, it would therefore be (almost) mathematically impossible for 2010 to not be the highest on record.”
Seriously, Steve, did you mean to say:
“Given that the 12 month running mean is the highest on record, it would therefore be (almost) mathematically impossible for [the current running mean of] 2010 to not be the highest on record.”
OR
“Given that the 12 month running mean is the highest on record, it would therefore be (almost) mathematically impossible for [the annual mean of] 2010 to not be the highest on record.”
The first, if you meant it, is a tautology. The second, a misrepresentation.
Most people don’t have to have all the facts repeated in each paragraph.
Bill Illis says:
August 21, 2010 at 11:29 am
R. Gates says:
August 21, 2010 at 9:35 am : paraphrase : TSI was slightly higher in 1998 than today.
Why don’t you contribute to the debate and calculate the temperature impact from that small difference. Post back if you get a number over 0.01C
________
Considering how deep the solar minimum was in 2008-2009, and how low total solar irradiance went compared to where it was in 1998, given that the average global temperature changes from peak to trough in a normal solar cycle from the changes in TSI can be of the order as high as .2 degrees centigrade, and also given that we were nearer the peak of the solar cycle in 1998 than we were in the 2009-2010 El Nino, I should think that it is more than reasonable to suspect that the difference in impact of the TSI on global between 1998’s and 2009-2010 is easily on the order of .1 C, or roughly ten times your .01 C figure.
See: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/science/introduction.htm
For more.
Bill Illis says:
“Why don’t you contribute to the debate and calculate the temperature impact from that small difference. Post back if you get a number over 0.01C.”
R Gates responds: “Considering how deep…” …&etc.
Didn’t see much calculatin’ there, brother R. ☺
R. Gates,
I was just checking to see if you understood how small it is. The impact from 1998 to today would be between -0.015C to about -0.035C depending on how much feedback effect you want to build in …
… (keeping in mind this is a very short-term timeline and there is no time for longer-term feedbacks to occur) (and the feedbacks are actually negative/missing to date according to Trenberth who has the negative feedbacks at -2.8 W/m2 to date versus the expected positives at +2.1 W/m2).
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/8098/trenberthnetradiation.jpg
The lasp quoted number based on “climate models” of 0.2C is really whack and no climate model would have that number. The forcing in the solar cycle changes by +/-0.5 W/m2 * (1-0.3) / 4 = +/- 0.088 W/m2. This will change surface temperatures by between:
0.088 W/m2 * 0.18 = +/- 0.015C (no feedback) ; to
0.088 W/m2 * 0.4 = +/- 0.035C (generous short-term positive feedback).
The 0.2C quoted would exceed the factor built-into the IPCC’s 140 year long-term lag feedback timeline. [Not to mention that would make the “non-existent” Maunder Minimum pretty darn cold].
Now how has the sulfur aerosols forcing changed in that time.
Smokey says:
August 21, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Bill Illis says:
“Why don’t you contribute to the debate and calculate the temperature impact from that small difference. Post back if you get a number over 0.01C.”
R Gates responds: “Considering how deep…” …&etc.
Didn’t see much calculatin’ there, brother R. ☺
______
Unfortunately, we don’t have exact measurements for 1998’s TSI data that would be comparable to the current TSI data. The Source TSI satellite data began in 2003. If you know of a data set that I’m not aware of, please pass it on. I do however, feel very comfortable with my estimate of .1C in the difference caused by 1998’s TSI during that El Nino and during the 2009-2010 El Nino. Even looking at this graph:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlyNOAA%20and%20HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960.gif
Gives you an idea that I’m roughly correct, and certainly the figure is far higher than .01 C.
R. Gates,
SOHO Virgo is covers the two periods and its daily TSI measurements are here. July 1998 is about 0.5 W/m2 higher than today.
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/virgo/TSI/soho_virgo_v6_002_1007.plt
Steven Mosher says:
August 21, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Show you are a better mann than Hansen.
This idea that Steven Goddard is a worse man, or as bad as James Hansen is only coming from 2 people. I, for one, don’t agree with them.
Anyone can see now that GISTemp is different than other data sets, and not just a little different. This focus on comparing Steven Goddard to Tamino and Romm makes it look like those 2 people are defending James Hansen. I know one has said he isn’t. But both of these commenters are being heavy handed. They may not realize what they look like to readers.
We will know in January what GISTemp will show for the year and what will be reported in the news about it. We will know then if these defenses of James Hansen were reasonable.
I’ve seen comments from both these names before. My opinion of them has changed over this week. Not just from the 2 threads about GISTemp/James Hansen but also from the mountainous valley post. I’m sure in the grand scheme of things my opinion doesn’t mean anything. But I saw things this week that could have been handled differently. They could have used more tact instead of coming out guns ablazin. But maybe I’m realizing I’m seeing something this week I never would have imagined would happen and I’m still knocked back on my heels over it.
TwoPac says:
August 21, 2010 at 10:31 am
> Mr. Watts, thanks for your earlier reply. I’m new to the site (recommended by a UT professor you may know) … That really wasn’t what I was asking about, …
TwoPac says:
August 20, 2010 at 12:51 pm
> My alarmist coworker said he calculated the areas under the curves with the plot starting at the temperature anomaly needed to make it snow CO2 in the Antarctic, and he claims there’s virtually no difference in any of the areas.
Your coworker is confused about what Steve was calculating. Steve was determining the “area” between two curves, one of 2010 temperature anomalies, the other of 1998 temperature anomalies. I put area in quotes because when 2010 values are higher than 1998 values, that counts for negative area.
What your coworker though Steve was doing was computing the area between the zero anomaly and the temperature anomaly curve. That way your coworker could compute the area between a much lower temperature and the anomaly (it doesn’t really make sense to compare a temperature and an anomaly). However, he did that to come up with a much bigger area and that would reduce the ratio between the areas from the various data sources. That way, the ratio between the two would be very close to 1, not 70.
He couldn’t come up with number because he was sure of what temperature CO2 snow can make snow because he doesn’t know what that temperature is (and please don’t open that pandora’s box), and because Steve didn’t provide numbers for his areas, and if he had that wouldn’t be adequate – he’d still need to know the area between a temperature curve and a constant anomaly (like 0).
Steve was trying to quantify the average temperature difference between 1998 and 2010, and apparently your coworker didn’t realize that. Perhaps he began to figure out his confusion when you asked for details.
Welcome to WUWT. You might find browsing the big picture easiest at the monthly and category Tables of Content at http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html
I only have the title lines, so I can get a lot more on a screen, the WUWT daily indexes have the first few paragraphs too, which does help beyond what the title hints at, but there’s only a few per screenful. They’re both useful.
Should there be this much of a difference?
1998 to 2009:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend
I didn’t use to time 2010 because 2010 isn’t done yet.
Bill Illis says:
August 21, 2010 at 6:17 pm
R. Gates,
SOHO Virgo is covers the two periods and its daily TSI measurements are here. July 1998 is about 0.5 W/m2 higher than today.
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/virgo/TSI/soho_virgo_v6_002_1007.plt
_________
Thanks for that. if .’s5 W/m2 is even close to accurate, in looking at some calculations I’ve seen, which show that the difference between the peak solar cycle and the minimum is about .322 W/m2 across the entire planet in terms of irradiance, and this translates into about .2 C in global temp difference on average, then my rough estimate of .1 C in TSI effect in 1998’s El Nino versus 2009-2010 is an undershoot, but either way it looks like the TSI effect in 1998 is far more than the .01 C that some have suggested would be the level to be even significant. The net result is that 1998 was a record warm year because of both El Nino, the fact that TSI was higher at the time from the position of 1998 in Solar Cyle 23, and potentially because of the longer term effect of increased GHG. All this goes back to my forecast that if we see another decent El Nino between now and the peak of Solar Cycle 24, there is a very good chance of seeing record high global temps.
I made global maps over at GISS (July 97-98 and 09-10) and expected to see differences primarily in the Arctic, but it was actually in the Antarctic which is much warmer this ElNino than 97-98
R. Gates says:
August 21, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“SOHO Virgo is covers the two periods and its daily TSI measurements are here. July 1998 is about 0.5 W/m2 higher than today.”
The discussing is somewhat muddled:
1) 1998 was near solar max, so TSI was higher than for the recent solar minimum.
2) VIRGO TSI is plagued by calibration problems. The ‘best’ TSI for the moment is that from LASP http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
The ratio between VIRGO and SORCE should be constant if the calibrations were correct. It is not: http://www.leif.org/research/VIRGO-SORCE-ratio.png
As you can see there is a clearly downward drift in VIRGO. This is because the degradation of the sensors [as happens naturally when they are exposed to the harsh space environment] is not taken into account properly [this is difficult]. In addition there are funny spikes every ~90 days. This is another indication that there are issues with the sensors that have not been taken into account. More about the spikes here:
http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
There are no good indications that TSI was lower this solar minimum than at previous minima. The degradation alone since the end of 2003 has been 0.2 W/m2.
From warm spot to warm spot in ice age periods are roughly 115,000 years apart.
This cycle is elliptical and the next one is circular??? Like I will be in a Jet liner saying “I can feel the Global Warming.”
If I studied the charts right. We have only so much time left be fore we leave this warm period; maybe a few thousand years.
Maybe we have a 7 thousand years before we come out of our present axis tilt to a more upright axis at 22 degrees.
Somewhere in the next 7,000 years, the Earth begins a 10,000 year slide into the starting points of an Ice Age.
Just guessing:
Glacier Bay refills. Juneau ice field wipes out Juneau, and glaciers reform in the northern US states and at higher elevations.
The Great Lakes, Lake Huron tend to stay frozen over and topography begins to move south and north towards the Equator.
The Mediterranean Sea is cut off from the Atlantic by a silt dam at Strait of Gibraltar. The Atlantic is cut off from the Pacific at Argentina.
Then it is roughly 70,000 years into the pit of an Ice Age before it starts back up.
There appear to be prerequisites that need to be in place at the end of that 10,000 years before the Ice Age really kicks into gear.
Certain things must be shut off before the ice sheets can take over.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
R. Gates says:
August 21, 2010 at 8:11 pm
All this goes back to my forecast that if we see another decent El Nino between now and the peak of Solar Cycle 24, there is a very good chance of seeing record high global temps.
=======================
Your “forecast”?
Not a forecast.
Just conjecture or a guess even.
You are NOT a forecaster, meteorologist, climatologist, sea ice expert, or a scientist.
And so you can not really technically make a “forecast.”
A guess, at best. That is all.
I know that in your self-inflated world, you might want to call it a “forecast”.
But it is not.
Some people like me, a spectator, enjoy watching the game, and if a fly ball ends up in my direction, I might be able to catch it.
But just because I can catch a baseball in the stands….does not make me a player.
In the same vein….you.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
So with reference to an earlier article, it seems that the predicted increase from 1946-2010 of 0.8C is coming to pass…
Bill Illis said:
“The lasp quoted number based on “climate models” of 0.2C is really whack and no climate model would have that number…”
_____
The average 0.2C difference between a solar max and minimum is hardly “whack”, and can be easily seen in this chart:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlyNOAA%20and%20HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960.gif
The relationship seems to based on the TSI, and as TSI was higher in 1998 than 2009, when the El Nino’s started, so it is not at all unreasonable to suggest at least .1C of the warming in 1998 came from the TSI influence. Going back to the chart above, and using 1967 as a a baseline, because that year was approximately the same point in the solar cycle as 1998 and TSI was approximately the same. You can see that 1998 peaked at approximately .7C warmer than 1967. Roughtly speaking, it would appear that about .45C of this difference was the El Nino, meaning that approx. .25C was some other long term factors. Some could be the longer term PDO cycle, and certainly some could be from GHG forcing.
And just a comment related to another post– so long as it is not a pure guess, where you randomly pick a number, anyone, Ph.D or not, can make a forecast if it is based on a set of data that you believe are reliable and theoretically related to the item you’re forecasting. This is the difference between a guess (not based on any theoretical relationship, and a forecast. A guess is just that– a guess.Your knowledge of the topic should have some relationship to the accuracy of the forecast (at least that is the theory), but that hasn’t necessarily proved true in practice.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2010 at 9:03 pm
“There are no good indications that TSI was lower this solar minimum than at previous minima.”
_____
I would strongly disagree. TSI is directly correlated with sunspot numbers, and the long and deep solar minimum we just came through where the sun was blank for long periods of time would necessarily mean that TSI was also lower for an extended period of time– certainly lower than we’ve seen in the past many solar cycles– perhaps even going back to the early 20th century. Most surprizing to me is the fact that even during this period we only saw a moderate flattening of temperatures and did not see a dramatic cooling of the globe, and now that the solar minimum has passed, temperatures have rebounded (with a big boost from an El Nino of course).
R. Gates says:
August 21, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I would strongly disagree. TSI is directly correlated with sunspot numbers, and the long and deep solar minimum we just came through where the sun was blank for long periods of time would necessarily mean that TSI was also lower for an extended period of time
This is not what the measurements show. So perhaps your assertion that TSI is directly correlated with sunspot numbers is not quite correct. [it is in fact, not].
I repeat, the measurements from VIRGO has a degradation drift which is the reason for the apparent lower value. Here is the conclusion of the other TSI instrument on SOHO: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf . On page 21: “Good agreement with models assuming no solar minimum
TSI variation.”
I would recommend that such a tight correlation of sunspot correlation be given more space.
We are in a sunspot cycle that per Joseph D’Aleo lasts through at least two. The present size of this cycle is small and should peak about two years from now.
It went black again yesterday.
If it ends up being a sporadic cycle, we may have begun a mini-ice age series of sunspot cycles or a decline towards the next Ice Age, but I still think that is premature.
I have some correlation charts beginning at page 27 or so of “Low Sunspot Activity Cools Global Warming” nationalforestlawblog.com. Oct. Newsletter under my name.
It took nearly 7 cycles to double the number of hurricanes.
It took nearly seven cycles to add one average each of consistent rain.
Of course temperatures climbed.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy reached 1591 in the last cycle.
Topography is about as far north and south as it can go unless there is another Middle-Age type peak, but inter-ice age periods don’t show that pattern.
We should be in a decline Or on the last shelf before decent.
Work your numbers a little longer. It’s there.
Paul
R. Gates says:
August 21, 2010 at 10:06 pm
And just a comment related to another post– so long as it is not a pure guess, where you randomly pick a number, anyone, Ph.D or not, can make a forecast if it is based on a set of data that you believe are reliable and theoretically related to the item you’re forecasting. This is the difference between a guess (not based on any theoretical relationship, and a forecast. A guess is just that– a guess.Your knowledge of the topic should have some relationship to the accuracy of the forecast (at least that is the theory), but that hasn’t necessarily proved true in practice.
================================
Actually, I take part of what I said back.
Even though you are not one, you might just make a good climatologist.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 21, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Should there be this much of a difference?
1998 to 2009:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend
I didn’t use to time 2010 because 2010 isn’t done yet.
You didn’t use 2010 because the UAH, RSS and Hadley trends have change sign (negative to positive) if you use the most recent data. This, though, illustrates the general point. If you use too short a time period the trends can be very sensitive to short term fluctuation in the monthly data – particularly near the beginning or the end of the time period. So, in response to
your question “Should there be this much of a difference?” the answer is that there could easily be a difference of ~0.1 deg over a decade if, as happened, GISS started with a relatively low 1998 anomaly.
I’d give it another 5 years before deciding whether the GISS measurements have been ‘boosted’ recently. Note that the trends for all 4 datasets are in very close agreement over the past 20 years.
Steve Goddard,
I’m afraid I still don’t understand why you’ve introduced this metric of area above / area below. Sure, if it is over 1.0 then 2010 will be warmer. But why not use average temperature anomaly, 2010 minus 1998? That seems to me much more straight forward.
The ratio of areas will diverge to infinity or zero not just when 2010 becomes hot or cold, but also when it converges on the 1998 temperature profile. A rank ordering on area above / area below is not in general the same as a rank ordering by temperature anomaly. A high value of the ratio by month 7 does not in general make it harder for the mean anomaly for the year to fall below 1998. For that, I would think that mean anomaly is a better measure.
What is the intuition that I am meant to take away from the plot showing GISS as an outlier? Of course, it is possible to construct an ‘unnatural’ functional that would make any of the records ‘outliers’. My question is just what motivates you to suggest the area above / area below metric is particularly significant? What additional information beyond mean anomaly is your ratio pulling out?
Leif Svalgaard
The total warming since 1850 has been less than 0.8 degrees. Half of that occurred prior to 1940. Can you please not start this conversation again?
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/hadcrut1.gif?w=510&h=240&h=240
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2010 at 11:58 pm
R. Gates says:
August 21, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I would strongly disagree. TSI is directly correlated with sunspot numbers, and the long and deep solar minimum we just came through where the sun was blank for long periods of time would necessarily mean that TSI was also lower for an extended period of time
This is not what the measurements show. So perhaps your assertion that TSI is directly correlated with sunspot numbers is not quite correct. [it is in fact, not].
I repeat, the measurements from VIRGO has a degradation drift which is the reason for the apparent lower value. Here is the conclusion of the other TSI instrument on SOHO: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf . On page 21: “Good agreement with models assuming no solar minimum
TSI variation.”
______
Thanks for that link. I would like your opinion then on these two charts:
http–www.climate4you.com-images-SolarIrradianceAndSunspots.gif
http–www.climate4you.com-images-TSI%20LASP%20Since2003.gif
Let’s assume that the first chart is correct and the irradiance in 1998 was similar to that in 2004, though they are are opposite sides of the bell curve of solar max 23. We see their sunspots numbers are also similar, though again, one is when the solar max 23 is approaching the peak, and the other when it is coming off the peak. Furthermore, from the second graph we see that the TSI during the solar minimum of 2008-2009, was lower than that of 2004, and 2004 was similar to the level of 1998. My original point was that the warmth of El Nino year of 1998, when compared to the warmth of the El Nino period of 2009-2010, got a little extra boost from a higher TSI during that period– far more than .01C, and probably closer to .1C, if you consider that from the top of a solar cycle to the bottom, that on average there is a difference of around .2C.
[Reply: Please learn how to post hotlinks:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/08/wuwt-operational-note
We have enough to do without having to reconstruct them. Thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
Leif has confirmed we should be using a reduction in TSI since July 1998 of about 0.3 W/m2 which (is actually only 0.05 W/m2 considering Albedo and the fact that the Earth is rotating sphere and this) would translate into a reduction of 0.02C in surface temperatures as a maximum.
So, GISTemp is down 0.045C since July 1998 taking into account the most important natural factors we know about (not up 0.24C as predicted by the IPCC).
JK says:
August 22, 2010 at 3:32 am
In Steve’s August 20, 2010 at 8:39 pm post, he says “It is just a simple numerical integration of degrees on the y-axis vs. years on the x-axis done by counting pixels. This yields degree-years for the result.”
So it seems Steve just took the graphs and used image processing software to measure pixels^2. That makes me worry that Günther Kirschbaum’s observation that the Y axis on the graphs doesn’t have a constant scale in degrees/pixel. If Steve’s numbers are in pixels^2, then that’s not proportional to degree-years across all the graphs, and that would make the ratios between graphs wrong.
stevengoddard says:
August 22, 2010 at 3:40 am
The total warming since 1850 has been less than 0.8 degrees. Half of that occurred prior to 1940. Can you please not start this conversation again?
Depends on which series one cherry picks, doesn’t it. GISS gives a different picture, doesn’t it?
John Finn says:
August 22, 2010 at 2:41 am
I didn’t use to time 2010 because 2010 isn’t done yet….You didn’t use 2010 because the UAH, RSS and Hadley trends have change sign (negative to positive) if you use the most recent data.
The reason I gave is the reason I did it. Your reason you gave for what I did is different that the reason I gave. 2010 is not over. We don’t know what adding 2010 to the record will do yet. El Nino ended a few months and La Nina is at work. You did not address the point I made. GISTemp should not be that different. It’s simple really. By the end of this year the other three could be back in down trend. I don’t think GISTemp will be. I think it will continue to be bizarrely different. And the good thing is it isn’t long until January when will all find out for sure.
There still is the issue of data at GISS changing:
http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
Funny that some fellow have to change data from the past. Why do they have top put so much energy into that?
Oh ya, that’s right, nothing is going on at GISS. Nothing to see here folks, move along. ;-)
“…..20% of the data (i.e. of GISS) changed 16 times….”
starting at 2:17 of this video
John Finn,
This plot may address your accusation toward me
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/normalise/to:2009/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/normalise/to:2009/normalise/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/normalise/to:2009/normalise/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/normalise/to:2009/normalise/trend
My primary concern with GISS is the divergence over the last 12 years. They show no abatement from the 1975-1998 trend. This is not consistent with other sources.
It will be extremely interesting to see how creative they are in graphing the upcoming La Nina.
Ric Werme says:
August 22, 2010 at 6:14 am
JK says:
August 22, 2010 at 3:32 am
Steve Goddard,
I’m afraid I still don’t understand why you’ve introduced this metric of area above / area below. Sure, if it is over 1.0 then 2010 will be warmer. But why not use average temperature anomaly, 2010 minus 1998? That seems to me much more straight forward.
In Steve’s August 20, 2010 at 8:39 pm post, he says “It is just a simple numerical integration of degrees on the y-axis vs. years on the x-axis done by counting pixels. This yields degree-years for the result.”
So it seems Steve just took the graphs and used image processing software to measure pixels^2. That makes me worry that Günther Kirschbaum’s observation that the Y axis on the graphs doesn’t have a constant scale in degrees/pixel. If Steve’s numbers are in pixels^2, then that’s not proportional to degree-years across all the graphs, and that would make the ratios between graphs wrong.
Indeed and Goddard has a history of making errors with his pixel counting when compared against known areas. Also he did not say what he was plotting on the Y axis, we were led to believe that it was ºC in subsequent answers to questions. Are the graphs smoothed monthly averages or daily data, because the areas obtained from smoothed data with be off? His numerical and graphical work is generally sloppy as anyone can see.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 22, 2010 at 8:56 am
John Finn,
This plot may address your accusation toward me
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/normalise/to:2009/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/normalise/to:2009/normalise/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/normalise/to:2009/normalise/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/normalise/to:2009/normalise/trend
I’m not sure what this is supposed to show. The UAH trend since 1979 is ~0.13 deg per decade ; the surface trends are ~0.16 deg per decade. RSS is also ~0.16 deg per decade. We know this. The difference appears to be related to the early period of the UAH record.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 22, 2010 at 8:18 am
The reason I gave is the reason I did it. Your reason you gave for what I did is different that the reason I gave. 2010 is not over. We don’t know what adding 2010 to the record will do yet.
We know that the most redenct 2010 data has changed the UAH trend since 1998 from negative to positive. You appear to have trouble recognising that short term trends can be highly volatile so it ‘s quite conceivable that the GISS trend is ~0.1 deg different to the others especially since it started from a relatively lower base in 1998.
El Nino ended a few months and La Nina is at work. You did not address the point I made. GISTemp should not be that different. It’s simple really.
You keep insisting I haven’ t addressed the GISS point – I have. I’ve just explained it – AGAIN. For various reasons the GISS 1998 anomaly was relatively lower than the UAH, RSS, Hadley 1998 anomalies , so (i) it was more likely to have a positive trend since 1998 and (ii) it was more likely that the GISS 1998 record would be broken.
The GISS trend since 1979 is almost exactly the same as the RSS and Hadley trends, i.e. 0.16 deg per decade. Yuo are focussing on too small a time period.
By the end of this year the other three could be back in down trend. I don’t think GISTemp will be. I think it will continue to be bizarrely different. And the good thing is it isn’t long until January when will all find out for sure.
Perhaps it might be worth pointing out that, relative to the same 1979-98 base period, the GISS July anomaly was the lowest of the 4 main metrics. In other words, the GISS measurements are already responding to La Nina. UAH & RSS, due to the troposphere lag, will follow a few weeks later.
Relative to 1979-1998 base period the July anomalies are as follows:
GISS +0.31
HadCru +0.38
UAH +0.49
RSS +0.61
So your assumption about GISS is wrong. I wonder if Steve Goddard will do a post on this.
Phil.
Document one case where I have made an error in pixel counting. Or stop the ad homs.
Amino Acids in Meteorites
I did not compare Goddard to Tamino and Romm. I said the poor quality of Goddard’s posts, and his defense of them, gives Tamino and Romm extra ammunition in their criticism of this site.
I have not defended Hansen in any way. I have said that GISS and Hansen are being accused of the incorrect things in a poorly thought out and unscientific way. This dilutes the valid criticisms of Hansen and GISS and destroys the credibility of this site.
If you or Goddard called Hansen a zombie space alien and others disagreed would you say that those who disagreed are defending Hansen? As bizarre as that argument sounds, that is how it feels around here. We have Steven’s ongoing sophistry in his presentations and everyone jumps in high-fiving cuz we all know GISS just sucks and here is more proof that Hansen is a doody-head.
It’s sad.
jeez
Cut the ad homs.
No one seems to be able to make an intelligent argument against the article, so they launch in frustrated attacks against the author. It is pathetic.
Arguments have been made multiple times over multiple threads. They do not need to be repeated endlessly. I was addressing the concerns of Amino Acids in Meteorites.
Why don’t you accuse me again of deluding myself with a need to trust authority.
Pot, kettle.
As I sad before, just sad.
jeez,
Instead of making comments like “Goddard’s posts are poor” try challenging me on a specific point. Let’s see how that goes.
Mr. Goddard,
I think the point is made that the GISS is working hard to make it the hottest on record.
As I informed my friends and family weeks ago, this probably more politically motivated than science motivated.
My email to my friends and family.
You will hear this all year by climate warming alarmists,
Here are the charts. 2010 USA Average Temps based on 1885 to 2010:
Jan. Rank 55, 30.96 degrees
Feb. Rank 30, 32.47 degrees
March, Rank 85, 44.46 degrees
April, Rank 103, 54.30
May, Rank 52, 60.89
June, Rank 109, 71.41
In the last 30 years of temperatures, the last 12 months ranks 9th. If one looks at the 30-year chart or the larger one closely, the last 10 years has a downward trend. If Earth’s heat was based on man-made global warming, the trend should be going up. The downward trend reflects the lack of sunspot activity.
This past winter was as cold as 1984 and last year was as cold at 1996. This year should be even colder.
You can rebuild the charts at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
The bottom line is they appear to be desperate to prove a point that can not be supported.
Paul Pierett
Paul,
Exactly! This is a classic case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Some things are so obvious that people can’t see them.
Not just Hansen; that period is considered to be a “meteorological year.” similarly, Dec. thru Feb. is “meteorological winter,” etc.
stevengoddard says:
August 22, 2010 at 3:45 pm
jeez,
Instead of making comments like “Goddard’s posts are poor” try challenging me on a specific point. Let’s see how that goes.
Whenever I’ve challenged you on specific points you’ve lost so your track record isn’t too good.
stevengoddard says:
August 22, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Phil.
Document one case where I have made an error in pixel counting.
Every time when you’ve done it for Polar Stereographic maps without allowing for the variation of scale with latitude. That’s more than one to be going on with.
Or stop the ad homs.
Paul Pierett says:
August 22, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Mr. Goddard,
I think the point is made that the GISS is working hard to make it the hottest on record.
Amazingly far sighted of them to low-ball the value for 1998 to make this possible twenty years later!
Phil.
GISS has lowered the 1998 temperature anomalies by nearly 10% over the last decade. Thanks for highlighting their bad practices.
1999 – 0.63
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
Current – 0.56
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
1998 would still be #1 at GISS if they hadn’t of “adjusted” it downwards.
Phil.
No BS theory allowed.
Show me one specific case where I got a wrong answer in a measurement.
“only 17 out of 200 countries”
representing 19% of the
A record number of record highs.
Last decade had twice as many record highs as record lows.
we just had the
warmest May on record,
warmest June on record
warmest July on record.
*
1,000 year heat wave in Russia,
20 % of Pakistan flooded
“These nations comprise 19 percent of the total land area of Earth. This is the largest area of Earth’s surface to experience all-time record high temperatures in any single year in the historical record. Looking back at the past decade, which was the hottest decade in the historical record, 75 countries set extreme hottest temperature records (33 percent of all countries.)
For comparison, fifteen countries set extreme coldest temperature records over the past ten years (six percent of all countries).”
Every year since 2001 is warmer than any year before 1998 in the temperature records.
Or since about 1830
from solveclimate dot com 8/16/10
304 consecutive months have now had temperatures greater than the mean for the 20th Century
new records this year for:
The warmest March and the warmest April
The warmest January to April period
The warmest January to May period
The warmest March to May period
frflyer
Much of the northern hemisphere had a bitter cold winter and when the next one sets in in a few weeks, everyone will quickly forget about all this record heat hype.
Dear Frflyer,
This is the USA work tool for USA temperatures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html.
My numbers just above in comment 267.
Jan. Rank 55, 30.96 degrees
Feb. Rank 30, 32.47 degrees
March, Rank 85, 44.46 degrees
April, Rank 103, 54.30
May, Rank 52, 60.89
June, Rank 109, 71.41
Please provide your web site or source for your information and let us know what country you live in.
I have been using this US Govt. Agency web site for nearly two years now to verify global cooling.
Thank you.
Paul Pierett
To all,
July’s numbers. Direct quote from the US Government.
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Climate Summary
July 2010
The average temperature in July 2010 was 75.5 F. This was 1.3 F warmer than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 17th warmest July in 116 years.
Web site given just above.
Paul
stevengoddard says:
August 22, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Phil.
No BS theory allowed.
Show me one specific case where I got a wrong answer in a measurement.
As pointed out before every time that you have used your pixel counting method to extract data from a map using the polar stereographic projection (not equal area). You then typically come on here moaning how the graphical data does not agree with your pixel counting. As pointed out to you numerous times by various posters your failure to take account of the projection used makes it mathematically impossible for you to get the correct answer! You have posted here that you didn’t even know what the projection was, Julienne and I at least have told you which one it was to little effect.
A recent example is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/
NSIDC maps continue to show more gain (16%) than their graphs (10%.) I have not been able to get a satisfactory explanation from them about the cause of that discrepancy.
And a post made showing that the graphical data is consistent with the raw data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/#comment-458318
Thanks again Steve. This has to be the shortest Colorado summer I’ve seen since I came here in 1972. The copper-colored hummingbirds that migrate through mid-summer came and left 2-3 weeks early, with much smaller population than normal. The rest of the hummingbird population had their peak feeding a week ago, and appear on the decline. Summer started late, with a lot of past winter damage to the oaks and service berry bushes. We have no apples, but some pears. We had zero ticks where 2-4 a week are normal. I have seen 2 grasshoppers in the past week, zero until then, and normal is a few per sq. yard all summer. Mosquitoes appeared in April, but have been very few all summer due to the deep freeze, 22°F the last week of May. I suspect this freeze did in the apples, and insects. For the past week or two, the ‘dog days of summer’, it has cooled 10-15°F. We hit 41°F the other morning, and many below 45°F since. The leaves are starting to change. I believe in this empirical evidence far more than the fantasy of GISS, or any ground surface data since the 1970’s. One could say it was a ‘weather’ event, that cold in May that postponed summer, but it does not explain the early end to summer. Time to put up more firewood.
frflyer says: August 22, 2010 at 9:56 pm
“These nations comprise 19 percent of the total land area of Earth. This is the largest area of Earth’s surface to experience all-time record high temperatures in any single year in the historical record. “
So you’re talking about 19% of 30%, about 6% of the earth.
stevengoddard says:
August 22, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Phil.
GISS has lowered the 1998 temperature anomalies by nearly 10% over the last decade. Thanks for highlighting their bad practices.
1999 – 0.63
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
Current – 0.56
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
1998 would still be #1 at GISS if they hadn’t of “adjusted” it downwards.
No, had there not been a change in the USHCN datafiles which led to an error in the 1998 numbers the 1998 value would have always been what it is now!
Interesting that you consider correcting a previous error “bad practices”, that would explain why you so rarely do so.
Steve Keohane says:
August 23, 2010 at 7:21 am
Thanks again Steve. This has to be the shortest Colorado summer I’ve seen since I came here in 1972. The copper-colored hummingbirds that migrate through mid-summer came and left 2-3 weeks early, with much smaller population than normal. The rest of the hummingbird population had their peak feeding a week ago, and appear on the decline. Summer started late, with a lot of past winter damage to the oaks and service berry bushes. We have no apples, but some pears.
Well Steve we’ve made up for that in the Northeast where it has been a hot summer, on an agricultural note the Vermont apple growers report that their apple harvest will be 10 days earlier than normal.
Steve Keohane
Since mid-July we have actually been having a summer along the Front Range, for the first time in a couple of years. I dread the cool down which is knocking at the door. Last year was bitter cold by early October.
“July’s numbers. Direct quote from the US Government.”
I’m not altogether certain how to take this qualifier-as guaranteed Truth or total bunk.