ORH_wxman Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Ehhh....a shade below an "epic" fail....UAH finally out: YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS 2011 1 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372 2011 2 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348 2011 3 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342 2011 4 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229 2011 5 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043 2011 6 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233 2011 7 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204 2011 8 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155 2011 9 +0.289 +0.304 +0.274 +0.178 2011 10 +0.116 +0.169 +0.062 -0.054 2011 11 +0.123 +0.075 +0.170 +0.024 www.drroyspencer.com I'm a bit surprised there was no drop either. Just based on Channel 5 you would have thought maybe about +0.05 comparing to 2008...that's what I thought it would come in at...but as we know, channel 5 doesn't always work out, and this month proves it. It worked for RSS but not UAH. 2007 showed it too when its channel 5 wasn't THAT cold, but it came in colder than 2008 in retrospect. December is really in a nose dive right now though so I'll be surprise if we see it happen again next month. It gives a good indication MOST times but there are exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 skier...i respect your knowledge, but i find so many of your posts irritating and condescending ...this one ranks near the top. you have an internet attitude problem. not sure i get it. why act like this? - overcompensating for something else? i'm embarrassed for you. The only thing embarrassing here is the perversion of basic logic by those with an obvious agenda. People can reasonably disagree over complicated questions, but a line is crossed when somebody starts perverting the most simple and basic logic to produce the desired result. When that line is crossed, it deserves nothing but ridicule. It should not be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Who's theory is this? Its wrong The measurement of surface and tropospheric temperatures, especially tropospheric temperatures, are not precise enough to make a determination yet. Tropospheric magnification is supported by sound physical concepts (and applies to all types of warming not just GHGs) and so it is likely that as our ability to measure temperature changes especially in the lower troposphere improves, we will find the theory to be validated empirically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I stumbled across a very detailed comparison of all the global temperature agencies.....nirvana for the statistical freaks.... http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global%20temperature%20trends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Okay, let's hypothetically assume that GHGs are the primary reason for why the stratosphere has cooled overall since the satellite era began. If skier is right that variability in Ozone can temporarily "hide" the long term decline in GHG induced stratospheric cooling, why can't a long term decrease in Ozone be responsible for the stratospheric cooling if simple variability in Ozone over a short timeframe can overwhelm the stratospheric cooling induced by GHGs? It could. Nobody ever said that the cooling stratosphere is automatically attributable to GHGs. If I remember correctly, the IPCC does in fact attribute much of the long-term cooling of the stratosphere to both ozone in addition to GHGs. The attribution of causation is based off of physics and not just glancing at graphs in a void as you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 The only thing embarrassing here is the perversion of basic logic by those with an obvious agenda. People can reasonably disagree over complicated questions, but a line is crossed when somebody starts perverting the most simple and basic logic to produce the desired result. When that line is crossed, it deserves nothing but ridicule. It should not be taken seriously. Dude...Just be cordial. It sucks to come in here looking for info and data and constantly have to read your bickering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Dude...Just be cordial. It sucks to come in here looking for info and data and constantly have to read your bickering. I'm perfectly cordial with all parties here in good faith just not those here pushing their agenda of lies. This is a science forum. There is no room for blatant lies and twisting of logic which even the majority of self-described 'skeptics' would not condone. It's just as bad as coming in here claiming the world's going to end in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I'm perfectly cordial with all parties here in good faith just not those here pushing their agenda of lies. This is a science forum. There is no room for the blatant lies and twisting of logic which even the majority of self-described 'skeptics' would not condone. I think its important to just report these people and not engage with them. For every "blatent liar" and "twisting the facts" poster here, we have one from the "other side" too with 2015 ice free estimates and what not. There is no need to engage if you think you are better than that. We've starting banning a few people from the climate forum recently for getting over the top. We'd hope people will not stoop to their levels. It makes more sense to let the argument speak for itself...or attack the idea, not the poster. When you start attacking the poster, you open yourself up for someone to attack your character too and that is usually when this forum degrades at its worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I'm perfectly cordial with all parties here in good faith just not those here pushing their agenda of lies. This is a science forum. There is no room for blatant lies and twisting of logic which even the majority of self-described 'skeptics' would not condone. It's just as bad as coming in here claiming the world's going to end in 2012. well whatever...i don't want to run the thread way OT. just saying...you should tone it down, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I'm a bit surprised there was no drop either. Just based on Channel 5 you would have thought maybe about +0.05 comparing to 2008...that's what I thought it would come in at...but as we know, channel 5 doesn't always work out, and this month proves it. It worked for RSS but not UAH. 2007 showed it too when its channel 5 wasn't THAT cold, but it came in colder than 2008 in retrospect. December is really in a nose dive right now though so I'll be surprise if we see it happen again next month. It gives a good indication MOST times but there are exceptions. Yeah, and if it falls another .07 or more over the next few days/weeks, we will have hit the lowest 14k foot global temp. (-21.28C) in 10+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Yeah, and if it falls another .07 or more over the next few days/weeks, we will have hit the lowest 14k foot global temp. (-21.28C) in 10+ years. Yeah it will be very interesting to see how RSS and UAH compare for December. Spencer's new drift correction will be in effect for December 2011 temps apparently for the first time in an operational sense...which is supposed to stabilize the temps even more on a short term scale. I think unless we see a massive spike up on channel 5, Dec will come in minus on UAH/RSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 The measurement of surface and tropospheric temperatures, especially tropospheric temperatures, are not precise enough to make a determination yet. Tropospheric magnification is supported by sound physical concepts (and applies to all types of warming not just GHGs) and so it is likely that as our ability to measure temperature changes especially in the lower troposphere improves, we will find the theory to be validated empirically. You're kind of missing the point. The question wasn't regarding the accuracy of satellite tropospheric temperatures, it was how do those measurements corraborate to surface temps in relation to AGW theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 You're kind of missing the point. The question wasn't regarding the accuracy of satellite tropospheric temperatures, it was how do those measurements corraborate to surface temps in relation to AGW theory. I understand that, and if tropospheric and/or surface temperature measurements are not adequately accurate, there cannot be a violation of theory. All we can do is wait for accurate data. And given the theory is quite sound and supported by other lines of evidence, I have little doubt that when that data does arrive, it will corroborate the theory. And it is important to note that tropospheric magnification has nothing to do with 'AGW theory' (your words). Tropospheric magnification applies to all types of warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 From sept 22nd-present the temp anomalies from 60-90N from the surface to 500mb go from super warm to pretty even. The warmth really stops between 3000-6000ft. I would assume this Is localized to the arctic because of sea ice loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I understand that, and if tropospheric and/or surface temperature measurements are not adequately accurate, there cannot be a violation of theory. All we can do is wait for accurate data. And given the theory is quite sound and supported by other lines of evidence, I have little doubt that when that data does arrive, it will corroborate the theory. And it is important to note that tropospheric magnification has nothing to do with 'AGW theory' (your words). Tropospheric magnification applies to all types of warming. Again, the discussion was not whether or not the theory was being violated. It was whether or not the LT temps should reflect the same general trend as the surface temps, per AGW theory. In the context of the questions I was addressing, it did have to do with AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Global Temperatures are continuing their freefall and are now 0.13 Degrees below the previous record low set in 2008 for that timeframe in the AMSU record at 600 mb. A negative anomaly seems very likely in December on the satellite data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Again, the discussion was not whether or not the theory was being violated. It was whether or not the LT temps should reflect the same general trend as the surface temps, per AGW theory. In the context of the questions I was addressing, it did have to do with AGW. I answered that question earlier in the thread. The mid troposphere (especially in the tropics) should warm faster than the surface due to the water vapor feedback and how that affects the vertical lapse rate.. The surface has warmed 0.8C over the past century. That should support more atmospheric water vapor being lifted to mid levels releasing latent heat, especially in the tropics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I guess no one has anything to say about the arctic heat release. Intersting that it is technically a heat sink but is the main driver behind wide scale N. H. Temp anomalies at the surface. Expecially in the fall. Also does anyone know the conversion between the Sats and Giss by baseline? I know one is surface and the other is TLT. But to use 1980-2010 as your baseline skews what normal represents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 You should be using adjusted data or modal output. Real data. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 You should be using adjusted data or modal output. Real data. LOL. The active buoys and moorings in the arctic back what ive said at the surface. They also track how much solar insolation reaches the water. As well as how much heat is stored in the water and where. So what Exactly are you laughing at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 HadCrut out earlier than GISS....first time in awhile: Down to .263, pending any future revisions..... 2010/11 0.464 0.481 0.447 0.589 0.340 0.464 0.457 0.590 0.338 0.590 0.338 2010/12 0.267 0.286 0.247 0.401 0.133 0.267 0.260 0.402 0.131 0.402 0.131 2011/01 0.206 0.227 0.186 0.359 0.054 0.206 0.200 0.360 0.053 0.360 0.053 2011/02 0.262 0.282 0.242 0.403 0.122 0.262 0.256 0.404 0.120 0.404 0.120 2011/03 0.321 0.339 0.303 0.482 0.160 0.321 0.314 0.483 0.159 0.483 0.158 2011/04 0.399 0.416 0.383 0.541 0.258 0.399 0.393 0.542 0.257 0.542 0.257 2011/05 0.324 0.340 0.307 0.492 0.155 0.324 0.317 0.493 0.155 0.493 0.154 2011/06 0.425 0.441 0.410 0.570 0.281 0.425 0.419 0.571 0.280 0.571 0.280 2011/07 0.460 0.475 0.444 0.650 0.270 0.460 0.453 0.650 0.269 0.650 0.269 2011/08 0.447 0.461 0.434 0.672 0.223 0.447 0.441 0.672 0.222 0.672 0.222 2011/09 0.367 0.382 0.352 0.555 0.179 0.367 0.361 0.556 0.178 0.556 0.178 2011/10 0.345 0.361 0.329 0.485 0.205 0.345 0.338 0.486 0.204 0.486 0.204 2011/11 0.263 0.281 0.245 0.385 0.141 0.263 0.257 0.386 0.140 0.386 0.139 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Channel 5 has risen above 2008 again in the past couple of days. Through the 18th, 2011 was averaging 0.054C colder than 2008 so we'll have to see how much ground is made up from the current rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I would expect giss to be around .35 to .45 for November because of the arctic. December on Giss will be cooler for sure. So far Antartica is cooler in December. And most of the artic is around normal with a small area way above normal reaching near normal. Giss wont account for these large anomalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I would expect giss to be around .35 to .45 for November because of the arctic. December on Giss will be cooler for sure. So far Antartica is cooler in December. And most of the artic is around normal with a small area way above normal reaching near normal. Giss wont account for these large anomalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 November Giss came in at .47 and .70 just land, .23 just ocean. AMSU Channel 5 temps have finally gone up quite a bit, but are still among the lower years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 GISS continuing to deviate warm. Sometimes I wonder why GISS is even mentioned, NCDC might be a better choice with higher resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 GISS continuing to deviate warm. Sometimes I wonder why GISS is even mentioned, NCDC might be a better choice with higher resolution. GISS runs warmer because it includes the arctic, while HadCRUT does not. GISS trends for the arctic are fairly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 GISS runs warmer because it includes the arctic, while HadCRUT does not. GISS trends for the arctic are fairly accurate. NCDC includes the arctic too but doesn't deviate in trend like GISS, and NCDC has higher reso (smaller grid boxes). There's a reason HADCRUT3 w/ UAH infilling in datagaps gives a lower trend than GISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 NCDC includes the arctic too but doesn't deviate in trend like GISS, and NCDC has higher reso (smaller grid boxes). There's a reason HADCRUT3 w/ UAH infilling in datagaps gives a lower trend than GISS. NCDC is much more similar to GISS than it is too HadCRUT. smaller grid boxes is not better at all. The only thing that matters is the number of stations being used, which GISS has just as many as the others. And your last statement is completely false. HadCRUT+UAH infilling gives more warming than GISS, and is the warmest possible source of all. All of the differences between GISS and HadCRUT over the last 14 years have been due to differences in the SST data used and the fact that HadCRUT leaves the arctic blank, while GISS forms a reasonably accurate approximation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 November Giss came in at .47 and .70 just land, .23 just ocean. AMSU Channel 5 temps have finally gone up quite a bit, but are still among the lower years. The land-ocean table shows +0.48°C for November: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/_tabledata3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt Are you using a different source for GISS? I just want to make sure that I have the most up-to-date link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.