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.
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.