bdgwx

Yes. UAH's TLT product is too high to be a reliable proxy for the surface temperature. Obviously that raises concerns with contamination from the cooling stratosphere, but its been suggested that there are other methodological problems that may be partly to blame for their significantly lower warming trend estimate.

I think the flag made sense at the time. I have to be honest...my first thought was that something may have been wrong with the data. That was before I had learned of the record breaking SSW event in the SH and the RSS data. Looking back through commentary it appears like a few experts had already expected UAH and RSS to record these unusually large regional anomalies and modestly large global anomalies. Until this event I had no idea a SSW event in the SH could cause such a dramatic change in the global mean temperature. Fascinating stuff. BTW...Spencer and Christy have confirmed that their data is correct. This statement now appears in the data files. *****UPDATE 4 Oct 2019***** After further analysis, September 2019 values are credible. see https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/10/record-antarctic-stratospheric-warming-causes-sept-2019-global-temperature-update-confusion/

I'll go ahead and get this kicked off since I have something interesting to talk about. So UAH is usually super quick at publishing monthly numbers. They posted a +0.61 for September 2019 which was an unexpectedly large increase. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt The data file is even flagged with: *****CAUTION****** SEPTEMBER 2019 DATA APPEAR TO BE ERRONEOUSLY WARM. WE ARE INVESTIGATING. The warming seems to be the result of unusually large anomalies in both the stratosphere and troposhere in the southern hemisphere with a whopping +13.65 at the south pole on the TLS product. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt But...RSS just released their September data and they too show the unusual warming. http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLS_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Southern Polar_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt It seems as though there was a sudden stratospheric warming event in the SH. And it was record breaking at least according to UAH and RSS. I'm thinking the UAH (and RSS) data may be legit. UAH may be justified in removing the warning message without any changes to the data.

The September mean was 4.316 which is the 3rd lowest behind 2012 and 2007. Assuming the last 5 years of means and trajectories would approximate the remainder of the 2019 a top 3 finish in the annual mean seems plausible.

Speaking of Joe Bastardi...he is listed on Principia Scientific International's member page. This brings us full circle to another topic that was discussed in this thread; namely the litigation of Mann vs. FCPP/Ball. See, it was John O'Sullivan's article posted on July 4th, 2017 on the PSI's website in which the claim that Mann refused to release his data regarding MBH98 first appeared. John O'Sullivan, it turns out, is the CEO and operator of PSI. He also happens to be an associate of Ball via their authorship of the book Slaying the Sky Dragon and had, at least until Ball ditched him, a mutual agreement that he would act as legal counsel for Ball. Except...that O'Sullivan is neither an expert in climate science nor a lawyer. But, in a strange twist, he did happen to find himself involved in the Mann vs. FCPP/Ball case anyway. I'll let you guys read the relevant court documents here and here and make your own judgement regarding Mr. O'Sullivan and Bastardi's support of him and his site.

Assuming it is correct this is the largest one day NSIDC decline within ±7 days of 9/17. -111k...9-17-2019 -99k...9-13-2006 -98k...9-18-1990 -95k...9-22-2003 -91k...9-17-2010

Great link. Thanks. On a global basis in the last 365 days daily highs have outnumbered lows by about 1.8-to-1. On a global basis in the last 365 days all time highs have outnumbered lows by about 4.9-to-1.

After a bit more research I was able to find the court documents. It is important to point out that the Mann vs. Ball case is related to Mann vs Frontier Centre for Public Policy as well. The alleged defamatory statements by Ball occurred via an FCPP interview. The Mann vs. FCPP part of the case was settled just a few months ago. Ball was a codefendant in the same case along with 3rd unnamed party. The case number is VLC-S-S-111913 and is accessible here for a nominal fee. It's possible that the admission by the FCPP that "untrue and disparaging accusations" made toward Mann (and presumably by Ball) may have been a factor in Ball's petitioning the court for dismissal before the court made a judgement based on the merits. Seeing the favorable response Mann had with one defendant it would not be unexpected if Mann were to appeal the dismissal against Ball. Refer to the FCPP's letter below.

932mb near Boston. Edit: That was the 0Z cycle. 12Z cycle isn't out that far yet.

Yeah, and take a look at what the EPS control run does with it past hour 240. Yipes!

The Weaver vs Ball case is similar. This case was dismissed largely because the judge equated Ball's article with similar ludicrous, outrageous, and unbelievable comments which lacked a sufficient air of credibility to be believable in the first place. In other words, it's not defamation if the defendant isn't credible in the eyes of rational thinking persons. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm [75] First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Ball which paradoxically favored Ball in the eyes of the court. With the precedent set it makes me wonder if the Mann vs. Ball case would have transpired the same way had Ball not petitioned the court for dismissal on what has been said by Mann's legal team to be related to Ball's health (and not the merits of the case). I was not able to find the official court documents for Mann vs Ball, but here is what Mann posted on social media regarding the matter.

That top chart is misleading indeed. First, it's not peer reviewed. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a huge red flag. Second, Dansgaard was among the first ice core researchers. His 1969 work is based on ice core samples from Camp Century in Greenland. So this isn't a global temperature proxy. It is a Greenland temperature proxy using oxygen isotope techniques. And "present" is in reference to 1967 which is the last data point in his dataset. So we're missing the last 50 years of warming which for Greenland is at least 1.0C (and possibly higher) according to Berkeley Earth and various other compilations of Greenland temperatures. So if Bastardi is giving his blessing to this chart then he's going to have to accept that temperatures (at least in Greenland) are higher today than at any point in the last 2000 years. And the recent warming occurred at a rate that is unusual for the holocene and during a period in which temperatures were on a secular decline falling off from the holocene climate optimum circa -6000 BCE. Here is Dansgaard's 1969 dataset. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/2429 https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/gisp/campcentury/cc-1ynew.txt

That statement isn't just misleading but completely incorrect. There are all sorts of fingerprints that can be used to narrow down which physical process resulted in the warming. Dr. Spencer knows this so I don't why he would make such a statement anyway. So yeah, that was far beyond just being misleading. There were a couple of other statements that leaned more toward the misleading end of the spectrum too though. For example, "I’m not saying that increasing CO2 doesn’t cause warming. I’m saying we have no idea how much warming it causes...". This is a very misleading statement. We might not know exactly how much warming will occur, but our understanding of the process and feedbacks involved gives us far better understanding than just "no idea". And then through inference he conflates uncertainty with faith. Again...very misleading. Uncertainty is not the same thing as faith. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Uncertainty especially when quantified is itself based on evidence. The message people are getting from statements like these is that anything less than 100% perfect knowledge is the same as having no understanding whatsoever.

And in keeping with the spirit of this thread here is another example of a blog post or statements by an expert which I feel contains misleading information. For those that don't know Dr. Spencer is one of the maintainers of the UAH satellite temperature dataset and is often labeled as a "skeptic". He fully acknowledges that CO2 is a GHG and that humans can and likely are having a significant impact on the climate. I happen to respect him and his contributions to the science, but I do disagree with him on many points namely on his downplay of the magnitude of the anthroprogenic effect, our confidence in this conclusion, and our ability to make decisions from what we've learned so far. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/the-faith-component-of-global-warming-predictions

Assuming the remaining 4 monthly means are close to the averages of the last 5 years then 2019 might be expected to finish 3rd or 2nd for the annual mean.

I like the new NSIDC sea ice extent chart. You can add the ±2σ band to the display now.

According to a 5yr moving average from a consensus of many surface based datasets the warming trend is about +0.15C/decade from 1958 to 2018. Note that solar activity peaked in the late 1950's. And from 1998 to 2018 that trend is likely over +0.20C/decade. Oceanic Heat Content (OHC) is increasing at a rate of 10e21 joules/yr with OHC breaking records pretty much on a yearly basis now. The energy imbalance on the planet is at least +0.6 W/m^2 as of 2019.

No one is saying that the Sun can't ever be a significant agent for a warming event. What is being is said is that the Sun is not a significant agent for THIS particular warming event. And there's not just one line of evidence used to base that claim from. There's actually multiple lines of evidence; many of them quite convincing. Haven't I gone over all this with you before?

I agree. 3% is too low. 10-20% sounds pretty reasonable to me as well.

Why does it say "using unadjusted temperature dataset"? Is the temperature displayed on it? What am I missing? And what agenda do you think the original charts had?

Yeah, it takes a lot of energy to make the phase change from solid to liquid. Global mean surface temperatures are running a bit behind of most model predictions while Arctic sea ice is declining faster than originally predicted. I wonder if more of the planetary energy balance is going into the cryosphere and less in the atmosphere could explain the discrepancy? Anyway, it does appear like 2019 is shaping up to have yet another well below normal minimum extent...possibly top 3 lowest.

Sea ice area continues to decline though. This means the ice is spreading out. As noted above this typically means extent is poised for a significant drop.

Arctic sea ice extents have taken a plunge recently and are now in record territory for this date dropping below 2006, 2016, 2017, and 2018 levels. So the melt season is already off to an aggressive start.

Yeah so it looks like the ensemble range on this study is 2040 to 2055 with a mean of about 2047 for the first ice-free (< 1e6 sq km) September.

You guys are so due for something big.