NOT SO GREEN  |  No ! !  Really ! !

By steven d keeler | Jan 25, 2016
Source: NASA / NOAA

 

This time we're CERTAIN our data doesn't misinform .

NOAA  Global Analysis - Annual - Land & Ocean - 2015

See Here

Understanding & Interpreting Uncertainty Ranges

And Here


Much of the stated record warmth for the globe can be attributed to record warmth in the global oceans. Ocean temperatures for the year started with the first three months each third warmest for their respective months, followed by record high monthly temperatures for the remainder of the year as one of the stongest El Niños in the historical record evolved.

The 2015 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2015 record, at 0.65°F (0.36°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). It was also third highest on record, at 0.47°F (0.26°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).

The 2015 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles to six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 1979–2015 record, at 0.49°F (0.27°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and fourth highest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by RSS.


2015  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.90 ± 0.08 °C     + 1.62 ± 0.14 °F    extracted from website on 01/20/16
2014  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.69 ± 0.09 °C     + 1.24 ± 0.16 °F
2013  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.62 ± 0.09 °C     + 1.12 ± 0.16 °F
2012  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.57 ± 0.08 °C     + 1.03 ± 0.14 °F
2011  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.51 ± 0.08 °C     + 0.92 ± 0.14 °F
2010  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.62 ± 0.07 °C     + 1.12 ± 0.13 °F

Up until 2009 NASA / NOAA were not reporting data error ranges


2009  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.56 °C                (+ 1.01 °F)
2008  -  Land and ocean      + 0.49°C                 (+ 0.88 °F)
2007  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.55°C                 (+ 0.99 °F)
2006  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.54°C                 (+ 0.97 °F)
2005  -  Land and Ocean     + 0.62°C                 (1.12°F) ** Improved Data, Smith & Reynolds
2004  -  Land and Ocean        + 0.54°C     (0.97°F) **
2003  -  Land and Ocean        + 0.56°C     (1.01°F)
2002  -  Land and Ocean        + 0.56°C     (1.01°F)
2001  -  Land and Ocean        + 0.51°C     (0.92°F)
2000  -  Land and Ocean         no annual data
1999  -  Land and Ocean        + 0.41 C     (0.74F)



** The 1880 - 2003 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C ( 56.9°F )


DISCUSSION FOLLOWS

The essence of the story is that (a) in 1998 NOAA said the 1997 global average temperature was 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit, (b) in 2016 NOAA said that the 20th century global average temperature was 57 degrees Fahrenheit, and (c) in 2016 NOAA said that 2015 global average temperature was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century global average .

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv

According to the above URL ( link ), NOAA now says that the the absolute temperature for 1997 was 14.41 C (13.9 baseline plus 0.51 anomaly). 14.41 C = 57.94 F.

So in 1998, NOAA said the average temperature for 1997 was 62.45 F.

NOAA has since changed their baseline, and they now say that the average temperature in 1997 was 57.94 F.

I’m not saying it was justified for NOAA to adjust their temperature data. but it also isn’t honest to say that NOAA has made a simple math error because they say 2015 was the warmest year and 62.45 F is 3.83 degrees warmer than 58.62 F when NOAA no longer says the temp in 1997 was 62.45 F. They now say it was 57.94 F, which is 0.68 F cooler than what they now say 2015 was.

The only thing we can say is that NOAA now says that 1997 is 4.51 F cooler than what they said it was in 1998.

I don’t believe it was a simple math error. More likely it’s a continual shift in methodology, basically rendering all past reports invalid by definition, and making individual reports incomparable with each other. It’s similar how to the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) has shifted the definition of “unemployment” over the decades. We use U-3 now, but during the Great Depression it was something closer to U-6. Just as the NOAA has politicians pressuring them to show continual warming, the BLS has politicians pressuring them to show low unemployment. So they’re always tweaking the methodology.


The anomaly for 1997 was different than for 2015 because the 30-year-average baseline was different.

For 2015 they used the 20th century average as the baseline. For 1997, they used the 30-year average (1961-1990) as the baseline.

Check this source:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv

It shows a single table.  So, this single table does not use a common base line ?

That single table does use the same baseline. In the original 1997 report, they used a different baseline average than they do today – presumable to show more warming, since the 1997 baseline was a 30-year average from 1960-1990, whereas in 2015 the baseline was the average from 1900-2000. Since the latter baseline will be lower, the calculated anomalies will appear higher now than they would’ve using the same baseline from 1997.

The baseline temp is only used for calculating the anomaly, not the global temperature.


The different versions of global average temperature (GAT) are unique so cannot be used to indicate anything about each other. Each team that provides estimates of GAT uses its own and unique definition of GAT and, therefore, provides different weightings and different homogenization to the source data (and, incidentally, the teams also alter their definitions most months so change their past data with this effect). Different definitions of GAT provide different values of GAT ( apples and oranges are fruit but an apple is not an orange ).

That is the point of this discussion,. In 1997 GAT was an apple. In 2015, 1997 GAT had become an orange. In 10 years time 1997 GAT could have turned into a tomato. Which is the correct fruit ?

“ If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees ? ”   MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen.

 

Comments (0)
If you wish to comment, please login.