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
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