UPDATE: 8/22/12 9AM The problem has been solved, GISS responded to my complaint -Anthony
Like the erroneous graph at California Governor Jerry Brown’s climate denier slam site, here’s another one of those things that I’ve been sitting on for about a week, waiting for somebody to fix it. Since they haven’t, and I’ve given adequate time, I suppose it is time to bring this latest GISS miss to the global attention of everyone.
Last week during my email group exchanges, somebody (I forget who) pointed out this graph from NASA GISS:
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif (click to see yourself)
That is part of the GISTEMP graphs page here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
I chuckled then, because obviously it is some sort of data error, and not worth reporting since I figured surely those RealClimateScientists would notice in a day or two and fix it. Nope. But still there a week later? Now it is newsworthy.
That “off the charts” Figure D image has been around on this highly cited NASA GISS page, apparently unnoticed, since August 13th, 2012, here’s the proof in the image info:
I decided I’d have a look at the tabular data they offer, to my surprise, what I discovered was an “unprecedented” value in the dataset, larger than the hottest years of 1934, 1998, and 2006:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
Year Annual_Mean 5-year Mean 1930 0.1060 0.1156 1931 0.9860 0.2346 1932 -0.0360 0.5856 1933 0.6520 0.5716 1934 1.2200 0.4072 1935 0.0360 0.3868 1936 0.1640 0.4110 ... 1997 0.1330 0.5700 1998 1.3020 0.6248 1999 1.0630 0.8214 2000 0.6920 0.9284 2001 0.9170 0.8046 2002 0.6680 0.7124 2003 0.6830 0.7560 2004 0.6020 0.8304 2005 0.9100 0.8824 2006 1.2890 0.7766 2007 0.9280 0.6926 2008 0.1540 0.6276 2009 0.1820 0.5006 2010 0.5850 0.8220 2011 0.6540 * 2012 2.5350 *
Wow. 2.53°C ? I thought maybe the very warm, and warmest to date this year, July 2012 was the issue causing this. But, we know that can’t be right, because NOAA tells us in their July State of the Climate analysis:
The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 3.3°F (1.8°C) above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month since national records began in 1895.
So, I’m not sure where they come up with 2.53°C since NASA uses NOAA’s data, and one month shouldn’t skew half a year so much, but that is what seems to be happening. Plus they have the 2.53C in the annual mean column, which as we know isn’t complete yet, since 2012 is not complete.
GISS makes no direct caveat about presenting monthly data in the section on Figure D, though by inference, they possibly suggest it in the “five year running mean”, but aren’t clear if that is a monthly or annual calculated running mean.
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Even so, if that running 5 year mean is using monthly data rather than annual data, updating one part of an annual graph with monthly data (for the annual mean as seen in the tabular data) can be very misleading to the public, and as we know, that page at GISS is used worldwide by media, scientists, and advocates. Therefore, it is very important to present it accurately and not mix monthly data and yearly data types without explanations of any kind.
I wanted to look in the Wayback machine to see what the Figure D graph said earlier this year, like maybe up to June, but to my surprise, GISS apparently prevents that public page from being indexed by the Wayback machine. In fact, they seem to have prevented a lot of content from being indexed and stored since 2005, see the dates:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/*
In fact if you look at this graph of plots
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
…and then try to go to the GISTEMPS graphs page, you get a lot of this:
I find it troubling that the publicly funded NASA agency GISS would block archiving of such an important global resource. This is not cool, guys.
Fortunately, Steve Goddard archived the GISS figure D image on January 29th, 2012, right after the year 2011 was updated with annual data:
So clearly, the effect is in 2012 data to date, but why would they plot monthly data to date on a graph depicting annual values?
This brings up some points.
1. The current US data Figure D graph compiled by GISS for 2012 is clearly erroneous the way it is presented.
2. The Figure D graph at GISS is clearly being updated with incomplete annual data, since this update showed up on the GISS website on August 13th, 2012. The graph portrays annual data. No mention is given of monthly data. This is wrong and misleading.
3. As before, as I pointed out to Governor Browns office, (now corrected) if I made a dumb mistake like this in a time-series, plotting incomplete months and presenting it as annual data, Tamino and his followers would “rip me a new one” (his words).
4. Why do I have to be the one to keep pointing these things out? Doesn’t the Governors Office and NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies have any quality control procedures for the climate data they present to the public? Apparently not.
5. Why does GISS block the archiving of such important resources like the global temperature data they produce by such public domain services like the Wayback machine? Could it be they don’t want inconvenient comparisons like this one below to be made with their graphs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
h/t to Art Horn for the reminder today.
UPDATE: Shortly after this piece published, I emailed Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS:
From: Anthony
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:44 PM
To: Gavin.A.Schmidt@nasa.gov
Subject: courtesy note
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
I doubt you’ll credit me when you fix this, or even acknowledge receipt of this message, but I’m informing you of the error anyway.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/climate-fail-giss-is-presenting-2012-us-temperature-as-off-the-chart-while-preventing-older-data-from-being-archived/
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts
UPDATE2: Commenter Jim P. points out 2012/08/21 at 1:50 pm
Anthony, there’s no error. It’s just the chart doesn’t extend high enough for this year.That’s the data for the year to date, not July.
As you can see from this NOAA chart: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=7&year=2012&filter=ytd&state=110&div=0. The mean temperature for the year-to-date is 56.4F, or 13.6C. The normal is 52.2F, or 11.2C. The departure is 2.4C or close to what GISS is reporting.
REPLY: Yes, I see, thank you. But, presenting monthly year to date data, in a graph labeled annual mean data, with no caveat at all, is most certainly wrong and misleading. I’d be excoriated by the climate community at large for presenting an annual mean graph with incomplete data for a year like that, so why should they get a pass for being sloppy like the California Governor? – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/climate-fail-giss-is-presenting-2012-us-temperature-as-off-the-chart-while-preventing-older-data-from-being-archived/#comment-1063549
Mr. Courtney’s own words in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/climate-fail-giss-is-presenting-2012-us-temperature-as-off-the-chart-while-preventing-older-data-from-being-archived/#comment-1062706
It is a fact that there has been no statistically discernible rise in global temperature over the last 10 years.
[…]
So, we have had arguments on this thread concerning whether a 10-year period is – or is not – meaningful. Clearly, in this case it is meaningful: i.e. it means the observable global warming since 1970 has stopped. This is an incontrovertible conclusion.
Global warming “has stopped” = No global warming (anymore) = No (warming) trend
What am I missing here?
Jan P Perlwitz:
At August 23, 2012 at 6:38 pm you ask me
I answer: four things; viz.
1. a brain (and I suggest you borrow one).
2. integrity.
3. logical ability.
4. reading comprehension.
And as my final response to your offensive nonsense, I refer you to the famous case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)
http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm
I offer you the same response and for the same reason.
Richard
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/climate-fail-giss-is-presenting-2012-us-temperature-as-off-the-chart-while-preventing-older-data-from-being-archived/#comment-1064076
My question was meant seriously. I wanted to know at what point I have misunderstood something, or where I have made the mistake of applying a logical fallacy in my argumentative chain. Mr. Courtney has repeatedly made statements on this blog, not just in this thread here, where he said global warming had “stopped” or “ceased”. The statement global warming had stopped is equivalent to the statement that there wasn’t any global warming trend present. He claimed the conclusion followed from the fact that there hadn’t been any statistically significant global temperature change over a time period of 10 years. Here is once more the quote by Mr. Courtney where he concluded his statement about global warming from the fact regarding the statistical significance of the temperature trend:
It is a fact that there has been no statistically discernible rise in global temperature over the last 10 years.
[…]
So, we have had arguments on this thread concerning whether a 10-year period is – or is not – meaningful. Clearly, in this case it is meaningful: i.e. it means the observable global warming since 1970 has stopped. This is an incontrovertible conclusion.
(Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/climate-fail-giss-is-presenting-2012-us-temperature-as-off-the-chart-while-preventing-older-data-from-being-archived/#comment-1062706)
I am willing to correct any mistake I possibly have made with my interpretation of Mr. Courtney’s statements and views, if such a mistake can be shown to me. I’m not infallible. Instead, Mr. Courtney increasingly loses his countenance, and he resorts to insults against my person. I take this as an admission that my interpretation has been correct, and Mr. Courtney tries to compensate this with a lot of noise. There seems to be a pattern in this behavior by Mr. Courtney.
I’m going to cite the above statement by Mr. Courtney also in the future as an example where he draws a logically fallacious conclusion from statistical analysis tests.
Since Mr. Courtney announced his previous post was his final response I do not expect any further reply by him in this matter.
Friends:
I apologise that I have been out of contact for about a week (WUWT regulars know I often am).
I write to make clear that my four points to Perlwitz were completely serious. If Perlwitz did not lack those four abilities then he would know that my above posts show he is wrong.
Indeed, I spelled-out what I think Perlwitz is doing in this thread in a post in another thread (n.b. Perlwitz also made posts in that thread). The thread and my explanation were as follows. Please note that my explanation was earlier than Perlwitz final post in this thread.
Richard
In
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/us-record-lows-outpace-record-highs-127-to-4-this-weekend/
richardscourtney says:
August 23, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Werner Brozek:
Thankyou for your post to me at August 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm. It concludes
Yes! I strongly agree.
However, alarmists and members of the global warming industry (e.g. Perlwitz) always respond to your point about recent trends with
“But that is not long enough time to show warming has stopped so we must continue to do something about the warming”.
I say that the confidence with which we can detect warming may have been sufficient to act in the past but it is not now. And the alarmists don’t have an answer to that.
Indeed, the lack of an answer to that is why Perlwitz tries to misrepresent my position by falsely claiming I say
“no significance” = “no trend”.
He is trying to change the subject from what I am saying back to the familiar territory of “that is not long enough time”.
Remember, a trend is a statistical construct. And in this case linear trends are being applied to data which is probably cyclical. Hence, the trend itself is probably a mistaken construct. Talking about what was detectable but is not now forces recognition of that.
Anyway, I agree your point.
Richard