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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.