Data Comparisons

HadCrut, GISS, NOAA Temperature Anomalies Up in July.

19 Comments

HadCrut north-south average temperature anomaly rose from 0.312 C in June to 0.403 C in July. See Hadley North-South hemisphere blend. The area average is also up from 0.317C to 0.407C see Area averaged monthly averages.

GISS land ocean temperature anomalies are also up from 0.27C in June to 0.51 C in July. See GISS Temp Land/Ocean

NCDC/NOAA global anomaly measurent is is up slightly from 0.4713 C to 0.4919 C in July. See NOAA.

I checked Climate Audit and Watts Up… I read Anthony’s post on HadAT2 Steve M blogged about the difference in Northern and Southern Hemisphere trends.

Did I actually manage to scoop this?!

Or am I just so out of it looking at model data that I missed the announcements?

It’s the weekend so plots will be deferred until at least Monday. But, while Chicago seems to remain cool, I guess the world warmed up last month.

19 thoughts on “HadCrut, GISS, NOAA Temperature Anomalies Up in July.”

  1. Yes I guess you could call it a “scoop” except that I was aware of GISS and HadCRUT being posted, but just hadn’t gotten around to putting them up yet.

    Steve is busy with the disgraceful Caspar Amman saga of biased science, so he probably didn’t see it as pressing, since I usually do it.

    So revel in your scoop. 😉

  2. It’s just so unusual!

    I usually can’t get these posted anywhere near fast enough. I figure you run some sort of program that checks every day just so you can get them up. Otherwise, I can’t imagine how you manage to be so quick to post.

  5. Re: #5081
    Nothing to do (I’m sure) with the fact that this month doesn’t fit into the global cooling meme…

    Oh, and throw in an irrelevant distraction as well.

  6. Anthony had posted that UAH was up, and that NOAA posted hotter US temperatures.

    Anyway, I post whatever I get. I’ve always said the temperatures will start going up at some point! The issue is how much.

  7. OK, hep me out here folks.

    0.091 degree difference. Is that before or after the tens of degrees of error corrections, adjustments, allowances, and insider discounts were applied?

  8. Larry–
    I”m sure they are all using the same process they always use. We had an La Nina. Temperature were bound to go up.

  9. I was trying to suggest that up or down, it might summarize to “not statistically significant”.

  10. Larry–
    Hadcrut publishes uncertainties for individual monthly measurements. The ±95% interval appears to be roughly 0.15 C about the mean. 0.08C. So, actually, you often can’t say whether the temperature really rose or fell, from one month to the next. But, you can say whether the reported reading is higher.

    The values reported in July are higher than those for June. What will we get in August? Who knows?

  12. Did you notice that Hadley has been GISS-ified? There were a few changes in recent data between the May and June versions, but the changes between June and July have been GISS-like. This time they go back to 1851. The early changes (1929 and earlier) seem to be mostly cooling, and the later changes (2007 onwards) seem to be mostly warming. Is this “manmade global warming” or what? Please tell me I’m doing something wrong.

    Here’s output from a “diff” that I ran between the 2 months. My weird “internal” date format goes like so…
    1850.083 = 1850/Jan
    1850.167 = 1850/Feb
    …
    1850.833 = 1850/Oct
    1850.917 = 1850/Nov
    1851.000 = 1850/Dec (yeah, it looks weird)

    Webboards suck; bring back usenet. Because webboards interpret angle brackets as HTML commands, I edited the output using “remove” and “insert” instead of angle brackets.

    18c18
    remove 1851.500, -0.269
    —
    insert 1851.500, -0.268
    465c465
    remove 1888.750, -0.255
    —
    insert 1888.750, -0.256
    803c803
    remove 1916.917, -0.609
    —
    insert 1916.917, -0.610
    888c888
    remove 1924.000, -0.071
    —
    insert 1924.000, -0.072
    950c950
    remove 1929.167, -0.675
    —
    insert 1929.167, -0.676
    1892,1894c1892,1894
    remove 2007.667, 0.362
    remove 2007.750, 0.410
    remove 2007.833, 0.367
    —
    insert 2007.667, 0.370
    insert 2007.750, 0.412
    insert 2007.833, 0.370
    1896,1897c1896,1897
    remove 2008.000, 0.212
    remove 2008.083, 0.054
    —
    insert 2008.000, 0.220
    insert 2008.083, 0.050
    1900c1900
    remove 2008.333, 0.254
    —
    insert 2008.333, 0.267
    1902c1902,1903
    remove 2008.500, 0.314
    —
    insert 2008.500, 0.312
    insert 2008.583, 0.403

  13. Great, another data source where the historical temperature record depends on what day you pull the data.

  14. The only thing that none of these data sources tell you is that they are all preliminary, so ya really have to wait about 6 months. They have to wait to get the records from Jester (12 pack for lunch) the Coop observer, or from deep in the Congo and etc. It was like March this year, GISS started at .68 and are now down to .6. Nevertheless, 2008 will be down from 2007 on all datasets at the end of the year so expect the fireworks to be healthy til at least 2009.

  15. > Mike C (Comment#5094) August 17th, 2008 at 1:24 am

    > The only thing that none of these data sources tell you is that
    > they are all preliminary, so ya really have to wait about 6 months.

    That covers the 2008 and maybe even the 2007 data, *BUT* how do you explain 1851, 1888, 1916, 1924, and 1929???

  16. I’m sorry Walter, I was addressing Lucia. I suggest you send an email to Hadley and ask about the changes earlier in the record.

  17. “That covers…???”

    I don’t understand why that isn’t clear. The current adjusted, corrected, interpreted readings didn’t show any warming, correcting, adjusting and interpreting those years fixed the problem.

  18. According to UAH, globals were up from about July 17th thru Aug 4th and were above last year, since then globals have been falling again. I’m not surprised that July’s came in higher. August may be a surprise to some folks.

Comments are closed.