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.
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.