GISS shows temperatures rising sharply since July. We have been having a record cold La Niña since then, and everyone else shows temperatures plummeting.
GISS also showed a huge spike in March which nobody else saw. Does this have anything to do with Hansen’s constant claims of 2010 as the hottest year ever? He shows peak La Niña temperatures almost as warm as peak El Niño temperatures. That is simply ridiculous.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/
GISS is not credible.
“GISS shows temperatures rising sharply since July. We have been having a record cold La Niña since then, and everyone else shows temperatures plummeting.”
============================================================
That’s because the rest don’t have his spiffy imaginary thermometers and algorerhythm.
I would imagine that when you project your “warm” southern values out over cooler northern regions, that you would get hotter than actual readings.
They have the entire polar regions hotter than they are, to compensate for the cold, cold reality.
This is a far larger problem than just a little fudging of the data. This appears to be fraud and criminality on a huge scale.
And guess which temperature figures the mainstream media will be touting.
Thanks, Steven for posting this comparison. Since I saw GISS’ number for november on Lucia’s site, I’ve been waiting for someone with the ‘know-how’ to connect the dots – that’s why I frequent your site.
The Weather Clown strikes again.
Well I don’t think NASA/GISS takes their own data seriously, remember this gem from the GISS e-mails obtained by FOIA last March:
NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.
The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climate-gate-data-giss-admits/
Dr. Hansen, like many other aging hippies, is upset that the revolution never took hold and changed the political/economic realities.
So, bottom line, if we refuse to change the political and economic realities, the least he can do for us (to us?) is to ignore the climate realities.
What a sad little band of liars we have, posing as scientists. Scientists are the very people we should be able to trust as the authoritative last word on such matters. I must admit, though, that Reto Ruedy is a snazzy name, and I would gladly trade it for my own, were such a thing possible.
Four major global temperature sets out there, and a discrepancy of 0.4C (which is HUGE) between them.
If they can’t even agree what the temperature is today, how can anybody take them even remotely seriously when they tell us what it is going to be in 50-100 years time?
Steve’s plot is misleading. He hasn’t used a standardised baseline period. GISS anomalies are relative to the 1951-1980 period while UAH and RSS are relative to the 1979-1998 period. UAH has been consistently ‘warmer’ than GISS throughout 2010.
The baseline is independent of the slope. GISS is rising during a La Nina. How many times do I have to explain this to people who don’t bother to read the article before posting?
John – I have not seen the actual raw data from the orgs but I do believe that UAH and RSS data are low altitude atmospheric whereas GISS is land-based and HadCrut is land/sea-based. The fact that UAH is warmer than GISS in absolute terms means nothing. They are measuring different entities. Steve’s comment that the 2010 slope is damning of the GISS data is very poignant.
This is all smoke and mirrors. How does a hack like Hansen have any credibility?
Without the GISS, NOAA and Britain’s Meteorological faulty logic and data, the Global Warming looters could not have existed. Who is John Galt?
In your first figure, did you offset GISTEMP by 0.24 and HADCRU by 0.15 ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#baselines
I obtained this result:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/offset:-0.24/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2010/offset:-0.15/plot/uah/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010
I didn’t offset anything. During ENSO events satellite data gets amplified. In 1998, all four lined up with no offset.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/offset:-.24/from:1995/mean:3/plot/rss/from:1995/mean:3/plot/uah/from:1995/mean:3
Exactly. Note that in 1998, Satellite temperatures were much higher than land based temperatures. That is to be expected at 14,000 feet during El Nino.
Hansen has bumped up 2010 to equal satellite temperatures and uses that as justification for hottest year ever. Do you think the land surface moved up 14,000 feet in the last 12 years?
I remember when Hansen was spouting out about 2010 on schedule to be the warmest year on the record. Some of us on WUWT joked about whether this was a promise. ;O) It looks like it was no joke afterall, he really meant it. :O(
“Exactly. Note that in 1998, Satellite temperatures were much higher than land based temperatures. That is to be expected at 14,000 feet during El Nino.
Hansen has bumped up 2010 to equal satellite temperatures and uses that as justification for hottest year ever. Do you think the land surface moved up 14,000 feet in the last 12 years? ”
2010 El Nino was far less powerfull than 1998 El Nino:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/
therefore a smaller difference between sat and surface is expected
We don’t see much difference between RSS and HadCRUT. GISS is the outlier.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998
GISS only uses the best and latest Al-Gore-Rhythm applied to the most reliable anally produced extrapolations. The other reporting groups can not come close to the end product from GISS when the SMELL Test is applied!!! 😉
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/snake-spider-warning-after-new-south-wales-floods/story-e6frf7jx-1225969622410
Even the snakes and spiders in Australia that believed Hanson are in trouble and are running away from rains that would never ever ever happen again
Steve,
Please learn about offsets or you are comparing apples and rutabagas. Someone who writes a climate blog should not so openly flaunt his ignorance.
Had you passed seventh grade geometry, you would know that the y-offset of a line (b) is independent of the slope (a.)
y = a*x + b
Well, you know the equation for a straight line! That’s a good start. However, if you claim that the GISS temps run higher than the others, you better get the offset right. Otherwise, it is a case of purposeful disinformation.
Try actually reading the article before posting. You are making a fool out of yourself.
GISS is so far offset from reality by their own admission why even bother with the fabrication?
All the records based on GHCN need to be discarded.
Let’s start with your contention that GISS shows “a huge spike in March that nobody else saw.” Total fabrication. See the Wood for Trees plot with proper offsets: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2010/offset:-.24/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:2010/offset:-.15
GISS is below both RSS and UAH in March. The November value for GISS is high, but you are making much out of one month.
It is the strongest La Nina on record and GISS shows a large increase in temperature up to El Nino levels. Obviously their error is *much* greater than their claimed record.
By the way, what are your credentials in science?
ROFL
Steven:
You forgot MAO! 😉
But the question did produce a smile!
You keep saying its the strongest la nina on record. Evidence?
Look through my articles today.
The GISS-manufactured “heat” should not surprise anyone. Hansen’s “political scientists” are going to give the boss exactly what he expects. There are mortgages to pay and kids to put through college.
GISS = global incentivizing for scorching statistics
THey KNOW in their faith that we are warming and see no reason to accept data that would show anything else.
Pingback: Countries Agree To Redistribute Wealth For Climate Change, As Snow Collapses Metrodome : Stop The ACLU
Pingback: Kari Arvola » Hansen tuotti lämpimän vuoden
Climate Sleight of Hand
Alarmist rants
noone’s listening.
They want more grants
they must be kidding.
A ridiculous sight
their heads are not right.
What part of “no” don’t they understand?
Their demise was their reliance
on a silly pseudoscience
They tried to hide the decline
but everything’s fine
Just reject their goofy theory out of hand.
In Cancun they tried to build a tax deal
and regulations set to cascade down.
They said “Grab your ankles”
We said “Get real!”
We’ll keep our cheeks tight while you’re around!
Michael Mann
did conspire
to tell us all the world’s on fire.
But the stick he displayed
was clearly Mann-made
and should have put him on the witness stand.
In ’88 Hansen was the point man
as the king of climate he was crowned.
Now he cannot even get on C-Span
claims of ruin since have run aground.
When it snows
They say it’s warming.
Our climate history they’re transforming
We should lock them away
or have our own Bastille Day
when they’re back across the Rio Grande.
UN IPCC must disband
For their shameful climate sleight of hand.
Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 366
Collusion of government and science? Wow – how could that ever happen? Freaky!
Pingback: GISS Temperatures Out Of Line With The Rest Of The World - The Vette Barn Forum - A Community for Corvette Lovers
NCDC up to +0,694 for november. That means GISS and NCDC are almost similar in 2010:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5937/gissncdc2010.jpg
And GISS has a lower reference period. Hadcru is not yet.
UAH and RSS: There’s no reason to think the temperature thousands of meters above the surface should be the same as the surface.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/
So the question I have is whether we should believe Goddard or Tamino??
The arctic is quite warm this year and yet Goddard claims GISS should not be different when it is the only reconstruction which effectively covers the arctic.
Arctic is having its coolest year since 2004 http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
“So the question I have is whether we should believe Goddard or Tamino??”
Lol, Tamino? Seriously? Notice Steve’s link he just provided to back his claim. Its plain, simple and a real independent site.
In your link provided, Tamino, or Grant, or whoever he wishes to be, went through some very skillful mechanisms to provide you wrong information. Where is he wrong? From his very first premise.
“There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). “
He almost got it right. All 3 share the same data. Most coming from NOAA the parent of NCDC. (For the record, I do agree with Tamino, in that sat. data and thermometer data is an apples to oranges comparison and shouldn’t be done.) But when it comes to thermometer readings that use the same readings to a 90% ratio, it is really only interpretive analysis that’s the difference. Tamino goes to great lengths in trying to show you that they’re not different.
I won’t use NCDC data, mainly because it would be redundant, and the website that illustrates my point doesn’t. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979
Yes, GISS and HadCru look very similar. But, you have to look closer. The divergence is more clearly seen after 2001. (for now) You don’t need principle components to see the obvious recent divergence.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2010.75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2010.75/trend
Essentially the same data over the same period of time.
Now compare to the decade prior…….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1990/to:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:1999/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:1999/trend
Notice the almost parallel linear trends.
Also note, that in a few day, none of this will count, in that the data is expected to be altered. You should click on the raw data link at the bottom and copy and paste it to a text file to track the changes.
To answer your original question, is because Steve is more believable. Huge flags and bs warnings should sound when someone has to resort to statistical gimmickry to make a simple comparison of places that use 90% of the same data.
Hadcrut is in now, and it seems that Steve should have waited a bit, and rather names the thread: “Hadcrut Temperatures Out Of Line With The Rest Of The World”… :
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7629/gissncdchadcrut2010.jpg
hadcrut3vgl is not in. Can we have this discussion a few more times today?
That will probably not make much difference… :
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1617/gissncdchadcruthadcrut3.jpg
Hadcrut3vgl didn’t make any difference at all…
Hadcrut Temperatures Out Of Line With The Rest Of The World:
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1617/gissncdchadcruthadcrut3.jpg