I was working on a general report yesterday, but in checking background for it, I discovered this recent missive from Dr. Hansen. I suppose when your agency is the “odd man out”, you feel a need to explain yourself. Note the difference in November 2010 global temperature anomaly metrics:
UAH: 0.38 GISS: 0.74°C
Yes, I’d try to explain that too. I’ll have another post on this, but for now, here’s GISS report verbatim as it appears here. – Anthony
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
2010 — Global Temperature and Europe’s Frigid Air
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo
Figure 1:
(a) January-November surface air temperature anomaly in GISS analysis, (b) November 2010 anomaly using only data from meteorological stations and Antarctic research stations, with the radius of influence of a station limited to 250 km to better reveal maximum anomalies. (View large PDF)Figure 1(a) shows January-November 2010 surface temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-80) in the preliminary Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis. This is the warmest January-November in the GISS analysis, which covers 131 years. However, it is only a few hundredths of a degree warmer than 2005, so it is possible that the final GISS results for the full year will find 2010 and 2005 to have the same temperature within the margin of error.
As described in an in-press paper at Reviews of Geophysics (see summary PDF) that defines the GISS analysis method, we estimate a two-standard-deviation uncertainty (95 percent confidence interval) of 0.05°C for comparison of global temperatures in nearby recent years. The magnitude of this uncertainty and the small temperature differences among different years is one reason that alternative analyses yield different rankings for the warmest years. However, results for overall global temperature change of the past century are in good agreement among the alternative analyses (by NASA/GISS, NOAA National Climate Data Center, and the joint analysis of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit).
Figure 1(b) shows November 2010 surface temperature anomalies based only on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and Antarctic research stations. In producing this map the radius of influence of a given station is limited to 250 km to allow extreme temperature anomalies to be apparent. Northern Europe had negative anomalies of more than 4°C, while the Hudson Bay region of Canada had monthly mean anomalies greater than +10°C.
The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. In the past, including the GISS base period 1951-1980, Hudson Bay was largely ice-covered in November. The contrast of temperatures at coastal stations in years with and without sea ice cover on the neighboring water body is useful for illustrating the dramatic effect of sea ice on surface air temperature. Sea ice insulates the atmosphere from ocean water warmth, allowing surface air to achieve temperatures much lower than that of the ocean. It is for this reason that some of the largest positive temperature anomalies on the planet occur in the Arctic Ocean as sea ice area has decreased in recent years.
The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record.
Figure 2(a) illustrates that there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year in the GISS analysis. Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005 for the warmest year.
Figure 2: Global surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 mean for (a) annual and 5-year running means, and (b) 60-month and 132-month running means. In (a) the 2010 point is a preliminary 11-month anomaly. Green vertical bars are two-standard-deviation error estimates, as discussed in our Reviews of Geophysics paper. (View large PDF)
Figure 2(b) shows the 60-month (5-year) and 132-month (11-year) running-mean surface air temperature in the GISS analysis. Contrary to frequent assertions that global warming slowed in the past decade, as discussed in our paper in press, global warming has proceeded in the current decade just as fast as in the prior two decades. The warmth of 2010 is especially noteworthy, given the strong La Nina that developed in the second half of 2010. The La Nina, caused by unusually strong easterly equatorial winds, produces the cool anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean as cold upwelling deep water along the Peruvian coast is blown westward along the equator.
Figure 3: Temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 for the European region defined by 36°N-70°N and 10°W-30°E. (View large PDF)
Back to the cold air in Europe: is it possible that reduced Arctic sea ice is affecting weather patterns? Because Hudson Bay (and Baffin Bay, west of Greenland) are at significantly lower latitudes than most of the Arctic Ocean, global warming may cause them to remain ice free into early winter after the Arctic Ocean has become frozen insulating the atmosphere from the ocean. The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way — Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw. Several ideas about possible effects of the loss of Arctic sea ice on weather patterns are discussed in papers referenced by Overland, Wang and Walsh.
However, we note in our Reviews of Geophysics paper in press that the few years just prior to 2009-2010, with low Arctic sea ice, did not produce cold winters in Europe. The cold winter of 2009-2010 was associated with the most extreme Arctic Oscillation in the period of record. Figure 3, from our paper in press, shows that 7 of the last 10 European winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 average winter, and 10 of the past 10 summers were warmer than climatology. The average warming of European winters is at least as large as the average warming of summers, but it is less noticeable because of the much greater variability in winter.
Finally, we point out in Figure 3 the anomalous summer warmth in 2003 and 2010, summers that were associated with extreme events centered in France and Moscow. If the warming trend that is obvious in that figure continues, as is expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase, such extremes will become common within a few decades.
A copy of this webpage text is also available as a PDF document.
Reference
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys., in press, doi:10.1029/2010RG000345.
Contacts
Please address media inquiries regarding the GISS surface temperature analysis to Ms. Leslie McCarthy by e-mail at Leslie.M.McCarthy@nasa.gov or by phone at 212-678-5507.
Scientific inquiries about the analysis may be directed to Dr. James E. Hansen.
This article had the following paragraph along with a relatively large part of the northern arctic dark brown:
“Figure 1(b) shows November 2010 surface temperature anomalies based only on surface air measurements at meteorological stations ….. while the Hudson Bay region of Canada had monthly mean anomalies greater than +10°C.”
What I find very puzzling is how to reconcile the above statement and graph with the relatively large dark brown area with the following graph:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I had read that the GISS is more accurate since it accounts for the arctic which is warming much faster than other parts. The way I see it, with respect to both October and November, either GISS is right and the other three are wrong or vice versa.
Regarding the October and November data, (as well as the March and April data) I believe the following graph from an earlier post, which compares relative anomalies with respect to different months from different data sets, says it all:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/2010temperatureanomalies.png
As well, among these four data sets, GISS is the only one that does not have 1998 as the year to beat.
So I agree that GISS has some explaining to do. And if GISS later proclaims that 2010 is the warmest year on record, and if none of the other three agree, then GISS has more explaining to do in my opinion.
from mars says:
December 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm
But one thing more:
Yes in November we have:
UAH: 0.38 GISS: 0.74°C
But in SEPTEMBER:
UAH: 0.60 GISS: 0.55°C
Yes in September UAH temperatures were warmer than GISTEMP ones, and this despite that the UAH baseline temperature is higher than the GISTEMP one.
In effect, with the uniformed baseline, Tamino found that UAH temperatures were HIGHER than GISTEMP ones!
Since their change in satellites UAH have found it necessary to make ad hoc adjustment to their monthly values, the month to month changes aren’t very reliable.
NCDC, like GISS, have 2005 as their warmest year globally, and NCDC is likewise on track to be the warmest or second warmest year in their record (2005 was 0.6154C, and the monthly average for 2010 year-to-date is 0.6316C).
GISS have explained the difference in their methods WRT HadCRUt (and NCDC).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf
Hansen writes “Finally, we point out in Figure 3 the anomalous summer warmth in 2003 and 2010, summers that were associated with extreme events centered in France and Moscow.”
For historians, ref Napoleon
The morning of 14 September 1812 was beautiful, there was “the extraordinary autumn weather that always comes as a surprise, when the sun hangs low and gives more heat than in spring, when everything shines so brightly in the rare clear atmosphere that the eyes smart, when the lungs are strengthened and refreshed by inhaling the aromatic autumn air…” (Leo Tolstoy ‘War and Peace’)
But that’s just weather.
barry says at 8.32 pm that different baseline periods are used.
The official explanation is like this –
“Are there differences in the values for the same time period between the 1961–1990 and 1971–2000 normals?
“Differences in monthly values during the overlap period (1971–1990) in temperature and precipitation for a given station are possible due to differences in adjustment methods between the 1961–1990 and the 1971–2000 normals. Generally, the 1971–2000 time series has been subjected to adjustments with combined spatial and statistical quality control, whereas the 1961–1990 time series was based less on spatial comparisons and more on limited quality control. See the methdology section under the products page for more information on the 1971–2000 methodology.”
My simple mind finds it hard to determine if
(a) as the number of stations on the globe change – and there have been big changes – the number in the reference set stays constant for 30 years, thus giving a single value for average
(b) as stations on the globe are dropped and added, they are also dropped and added in the reference period, so its average is time-dependent.
Can someone please help me by publishing the base values used by various authorities for various 30 year terms, so that I can clarify shifts in the absolute temperature, not just anomaly shifts?
I dislike anomaly methods. They can be used for camouflage.
#
#
jason says:
December 13, 2010 at 9:00 am
Steven Mosher: I have seen you allude to people missing the “real” issues several times on WUWT.
Could you not just spell out what you think are the problems we should be focusing on?
### sure.
First let me tell you what are the wrong issues to focus on. Every single word written on them is a word not written on the real issues.
1. Base periods. There is no issue here, this has been shown conclusively (by jeffId no less, if you doubt me)
2. Anomalies. There is no issue here
3. Extrapolation. No issue.
4. the thermometer dropout. no issue
5. thermometer accuracy: no issue
6. number of stations: no issue.
At best these issues add small measures of uncertainty to our knowledge that it is getting warmer.
Issues that need attention.
1. The metadata accuracy
2. uncertainty due to the UHI effect
3. uncertainty due to Microsite issues.
4. Uncertainty due to adjustment/homogenization.
These too, add measures of uncertainty.
And for good measure:
1. emission scenarios
2. model selection.
3. uncertainties in paleo
4. Sensitivity.
When smart people get derailed unto the wrong issues, then there is less attention on the important issues.
for people who think that base periods are evil, let me remind you that JeffId and RomanM ( yes , stats wiz of climate audit fame) have also done a global temperature index that uses NO base period, uses all available data, and a statistically superior methodology to either GISS or CRU. And yes, they show higher temps.
So i ask you, what sense does it make to beat down the methods of GISS and CRU when a superior method shows the same if not more warming? It makes no sense. It’s rhetorically short sighted and a waste of time.
Now, there is another index in the making, one that uses a method just like Jeffs and Roman’s. And it will likely confirm the JeffId results. That will hopefully center the debate where it belongs:
The data
The metadata
Adjustments to the data.
I look forward to that, Steve Mosher. It sounds like an effort to improve the science rather than rhetorically castigate personalities and institutes. While articles like ‘Thermal Hammer’ at the Air Vent contain some strange rhetoric*, the underpinning effort is honest work.
* “While winning the public “policy” battle outright, places pressure for a simple unified message, the data is the data and the math is the math.”
Hopefully upcoming indexes are constructed with no agenda other than to get closer to the truth.
vukcevic says:
December 12, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Mr. Gates
Solar has an effect, but I think not the way most of scientist consider, but in the odd strong pulses of magnetic field known as magnetic storms, or as NASA would have it ‘magnetic ropes. They pump strong currents inducing magnetic field in the highly conducting magma (lithosphere in the Arctic is only some 25-30km thick), while induction can go as deep as 100km or more
Have you noticed (perhaps I am wrong- have to see data-) that now earthquakes have a low depth?…In the good all days they happened deeper (more than 30 miles), now, any reported quake has a depth of about 10 miles or less. Is it because the solar “magnetic” power is lower?
Alden Griffith says:
December 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Very well said, and with remarkable restraint.
Enneagram says:
December 14, 2010 at 4:58 am
………….
No idea.
Number of base stations is not an issue.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/ball120610-2.jpg
Except to the tune of about 1.9°C. Just trivial, really.
Alden Griffith,
Anthony has destroyed your argument with just one revealing graph showing that James Hansen’s GISS mendaciously manipulates the temperature record. But there are more incriminating graphs:
click1
click2 [Natural climate cycles. Click in image to embiggen]
click3
click4 [Anomalies from 1979. Time to panic yet?]
click5 [Pick your base year and get the scary graph you want]
click6 [Time to panic yet?]
click7 [GISS projections vs empirical observations]
click8 [For the true believers who thought the temperature never changed before the industrial revolution]
click9 [ARGO buoys falsify global warming]
click10 [GISS shows rising temps – while all others show declining temperatures]
click11 [December global temperatures]
click12 [Where is that “hidden heat in the pipeline”?]
click13 [Yet another “Should we panic yet?” chart]
click14 [Natural climate variability]
click15 [More natural climate variability]
click16 [Should we panic yet?]
click17 [Time to panic?]
click18 [CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, past 400,000 years]
click19 [Effect of CO2 is insignificant]
click20 [The globaloney implosion]
If you continue to use the pejorative “deniers” on your sparsely trafficked blog, you will demonstrate that you are nothing but a purveyor of climate alarmist propaganda.
My advice is to use the accurate term “scientific skeptics” instead of the deliberately insulting “deniers,” “denialists,” etc. We are happy to debate the issues, but when you sink to that level we all know where you’re coming from: true belief based on cognitive dissonance.
It may surprise you, but the reason that Michael Mann, Phil Jones, the UN/IPCC and the rest of the climate alarmists refuse to follow the scientific method is because if they did it would derail their lucrative grant gravy train.
By substituting the scientific method with anti-science like “consensus,” the climate charlatanism of catastrophic AGW is exposed — and WUWT, by refusing to censor comments from the alarmist contingent, is winning the debate among the undecideds.
So drop the “denialist” insults, and join the real science debate that takes place right here every day; half a million comments on WUWT – and counting.☺
[snip – if you want to insult me have the courage to put your own name to it, otherwise I’m not going to take insults and calls of “denialist” from some anonymous coward. Be as upset as you wish – Anthony]
What do you do when you don’t have any coherent or reasoned argument to counter someone who has just comprehensively demolished a position that you hold dear?
There are a number of techniques:
1. you can introduce a complete non-sequitor to try to detract attention.
2. you can use the blunderbuss effect – fire off a huge number of irrelevant and specious arguments or bits of information that it would take forever, and the patience of Job, to rebut. This also, of course, usefully detracts attention from the issue in question. It’s a particularly useful technique if you have attention deficit disorder and find concentrating on one issue for more than a few seconds difficult.
3. you can express false outrage at some true, but not very flattering observation that your opponent has made.
Most people seem to restrict themselves to using one such technique at a time, but not our Smokey who at December 14, 2010 at 8:46 pm uses all three in response to
Alden Griffith, December 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm.
Smokey apparently doesn’t understand that whilst making one specious argument in a post can be put down to carelessness, making a multitude does begin to look like something more serious.
Hmm. Odd choice of dates there . I smell cherries.
WTF? How hot is a “climatology”. That is such a stupidly vague and meaningless term that is makes the statement unverifiable (ie unchallengeable) . This is typical PR talk. Give the impression of saying something important without actually saying anything at all.
Well it has to be hot somewhere at some time. It was cold in Patagonia , so what?
If we continue to fudge our data as we have been able to do uptil now the whole planet will be covered with fudge within a few decades.
So remember children, if i’ts cold where you live that’s just regional . What is really important is the warming in the Artic where there are no thermometers nor people and we can make up whatever we want.
P. Solar said… “What is really important is the warming in the Artic where there are no thermometers nor people and we can make up whatever we want.”
That would be an accurate statement for ground station data. But not accurate for satellite based data. RSS and UAH data are satellite data and closely match (for the intents of this conversation) the ground based data.
GISS may explain what they are doing, but the following makes me unwilling to accept their explanation.
At the following site, (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/giss-arctic-trends-disagree-with-satellite-data/) this sentence appears: “However, GISS Arctic temperatures have been rising much faster than other data sources. The graph below shows the difference between GISS and RSS (GISS minus RSS) Arctic temperatures.”
Anthony Watts wrote: (December 13, 2010 at 9:04 am)
This is the behavior of a schoolyard bully.
When someone posts a critical comment here anonymously, they get ridiculed. But when someone uses their “real” name, they get threatened with real-world retaliation.
I’m surprised anyone uses their real name here with such a hostile proprietor.
REPLY: And yet, here you are. Heh, be as upset as you wish. You know nothing about real-world retaliation until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes. And the question remains, would the university tolerate such behavior if they knew of it? It is a legitimate question. Why has the answer not been given rather than complaints about “hostile proprietors”?
Tell you what, if you want to come into the light, and explain to everyone here just how right you are, I’ll offer you a guest post. All you have to do is use your name and your University/organization/government affiliation in the author line. The only thing off limits would be libel and ad hom, plus anything in the wordpress.com terms of use, since they are the blog host. – Anthony
Anthony Watts wrote: (December 16, 2010 at 1:21 pm)
You’re right; I personally have never experienced real-world retaliation or even the threat of it. Whatever your experiences with it, do you feel it justifies doing the same to others?
I’m sure Alden Griffith can take care of himself. I was just shocked at your tone. This blog seems to benefit from fostering discussion and debate, and Alden’s posts sound very respectful to me. Threatening to “tattle” on people you disagree with will only discourage their contributions.
“Let’s find out” is not a question; it is a threat (at the very least, a taunt).
Is this offer open to anyone who uses their real name or just me?
Correction to above: the 1-yr step in average was 1.5°C, not 1.9.
Hadcru and NCDC are in and it’s obvious that Hadcru is the “odd man out” this november and this year, not GISS: http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1617/gissncdchadcruthadcrut3.jpg