Snow

[BethesdaWX]

Here we are less than one year removed from what was or nearly was, depending on the source, the warmest year on record and you guys are speaking of a pronounced cooling trend. Laughable! Last year's El Nino elevated global temps to near or above 1998 and 2005 levels, and now we see a La Nina dropping temps significantly. What we are experiencing are large magnitude, short term deviations from the mean which carry no predictive value on there own as to where the long term trend is headed.

Will reduced solar, -PDO etc. depress global temps somewhat? Of course they will. Will volcanic activity impact global temps? Of course it will. Will an enhanced greenhouse effect outweigh these factors in the long run? You better believe it. The forcing from CO2 alone will outweigh the full range of solar variability in less than one decade. Ocean cycles average out to zero impact. Volcanic activity near the tropics if frequent enough would introduce a relatively strong cooling effect.

Not true at all, especially given Co2 has very little to do with our current warming.

(I'm not interested in discussing computer model hypothesis formulas for CO2 in the atmosphere)

To put this in perspective.

Current global temps are in the process of running below the "cone of confidence" given by the IPCC. To barely scrape the bottom of the cone, we needed the Sun, ENSO, PDO/AMO, and Low Volancanism.....all to be aligned AS WARM AS POSSIBLE. Even yet, the warming seen matches those drivers, no Co2 warming needed.

Examples.....Since 1997, or 14 years, the PDO/AMO have been positive on avg, El Nino's have dominated, and Co2 has risen sunstantially. The Sun cycle has a warming impact on the downward side of its maximum.

What have global temps done? They have Cooled! What has turned the warming trend into a cooling trend? The natural drivers and Co2 were both warm, so, why would we cool?

[BethesdaWX]

The past month? How about the past year? Russian heat wave and fires, Pakistan floods, multiple flooding events in the US, Brazilian flood, Australian floods (western Pacific very warm), deep incursions of cold to the south and warmth to the north. Atlantic as warm as ever measured this past summer. If you isolate on the past month then maybe you have a point, I just don't think you can disregard the global warmth of the past year so quickly.

A complex system is at it's most unstable when it is in the act of change. These type events become more likely in a changing climate.

please read completely.

The act of "change", in this case, is our entering into the next "cool period", not the other way around. Examples.....

The AO/NAO are unrelated to global temperature fluctuations, and are more a result of 2 things.

1) PDO/AMO. Note the AO/NAO go through 30-40 year cycles, just as the PDO/AMO do, and they closely follow the AMO/PDO. When the PDO went cold....guess what what happened to our winters? They turned markedly colder, since 2007, our winters have been very cold. The AMO, on the other hand, has a different "niche" in the climate system than the PDO. The AMO tends to have dominance over the Arctic regions, and does not directly cool the Earth. However, when you cool the arctic, what happens to snowcover, ice cover, & the resulting airmasses over the NH? The PDOs, both NH & SH, and the driving of the ENSO, will directly bring down temperatures, as it becomes even more pronounced over the next decade.

2) The Sun. The Sun could very well be responsible for all of the long term warming we have seen since the LIA, and there is evidence the Sun has single handedly created Ice Free arctic summers, warmer temps globally, and higher sea levels, these periods are known as the MWP, & RWP. The LIA offers an example to the contrary. Note....the historic eras of severe HLB have coicided with a period of low solar activity, not global temperatues, which not only show no correlation to the NAO/AO,but are also a direct result of Solar Activity, PDO/AMO, and Volcanism, not Co2. Co2 does not have the power to alter the climate significantly.

[WeatherRusty]

This is the kind of thinking that I just don't follow. If the worlds temp rises1,2,3... degrees, we lose some habitable land near the ocean. I get that. But we would gain land that now is simply too cold for large human populations. We would adapt. Some species of animals would become extinct, but wouldn't others thrive? If, if the dire global warming predictions come true, I think the planets plants and animals will adapt just fine in most instances. Maybe you are suggesting pretty much the same thing, that the world will simply change, and I'm just misreading what you wrote.

You make the necessary adaptations seem so easy to accomplish.

1) Periodic flooding of coastal cities decades before they go under for good. Subways flooded out during storm surges for instance.

2) The Canadians and Russians would gain better habitable land. Who then becomes in the drivers seat of world politics?

Arable land changes determine who becomes world producers verses consumers of food and clothing.

3) The natural pathways taken by animals and plants as climate changes are severely disrupted by human habitation and land changes as those plants and animals are forced to migrate geographically and at a pace that exceeds their ability to do so.

[WeatherRusty]

This is true, but there was definitely a global effect as well in terms of cooling the climate. Wouldn't it be hard for temperatures not to fall at least somewhat if we did have a solar minimum in between the Maunder and Dalton with a strong -PDO/-ENSO pattern? It seems inevitable that we'd see some degree of global cooling if this plays out regardless of carbon's influence.

Whether you get warming, cooling or stagnation is dependent on the net strength of all the climate changing variables combined. Some of these factors will be positive while others will likely be negative. The individual strength of each of the factors makes all the difference as the system struggles toward dynamic equilibrium.

Global temp will be cooler than otherwise would be the case during La Nina, -PDO or reduced solar output. The point of AGW is that human activities and the resulting positive forcing will easily outweigh the cooling effects of the natural negatives in the long run.

[WeatherRusty]

Truthfully, the weather here in the Willamette Valley, Oregon has been pretty unremarkable this year.

However, the most extreme weather I can remember were 3 winters that all happened during the last solar minimum during the late 60's and early 70's. . I think I'd tend to attribute the recent cold winters to the solar minimum we're currently in... just like the 60's and 70's, rather than blaming the cold on the hypothesized warming.

We regularly have had wildfires in the western USA and California for as long as I can remember. I'd be reluctant to blame a wildfire on AGW when it is more likely attributable to a careless camper, or a dry thunderstorm which happens periodically.

Say we can attribute 1/10 events being exacerbated by the hypothesized global warming. We'll never know which 1/10 of the events it actually was. But, people want to blame all the unrelated events on it.

Was the earthquake in Haiti caused by Global Warming too?

Let's stick to the point of what is actually likely attributable to a warming planet. Everything else is just political rhetoric.

Attributing singular events to global warming is not possible. Certain particular type events have been identified as more likely to occur in a warming environment. So we must look to statistical correlation to ascribe likely attribution to cause and effect.

[WeatherRusty]

Not true at all, especially given Co2 has very little to do with our current warming.

(I'm not interested in discussing computer model hypothesis formulas for CO2 in the atmosphere)

To put this in perspective.

Current global temps are in the process of running below the "cone of confidence" given by the IPCC. To barely scrape the bottom of the cone, we needed the Sun, ENSO, PDO/AMO, and Low Volancanism.....all to be aligned AS WARM AS POSSIBLE. Even yet, the warming seen matches those drivers, no Co2 warming needed.

Examples.....Since 1997, or 14 years, the PDO/AMO have been positive on avg, El Nino's have dominated, and Co2 has risen sunstantially. The Sun cycle has a warming impact on the downward side of its maximum.

What have global temps done? They have Cooled! What has turned the warming trend into a cooling trend? The natural drivers and Co2 were both warm, so, why would we cool?

As long as you deny science like that we will have very little to discuss.

[BethesdaWX]

As long as you deny science like that we will have very little to discuss.

what?

Computer simulations of Co2 effect on the atmosphere are hypothesis......hypothesis ain't science. Since we cannot test Co2 like a chemist can a chemical, its tough.

Even if CO2 radiative forcing is the same in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean the end result in temperature will be the same as has been modeled.

That notion has already been vindicated. My previous post

Current global temps are in the process of running below the "cone of confidence" given by the IPCC. To barely scrape the bottom of the cone, we needed the Sun, ENSO, PDO/AMO, and Low Volancanism.....all to be aligned AS WARM AS POSSIBLE. Even yet, the warming seen matches those drivers, no Co2 warming needed.

Examples.....Since 1997, or 14 years, the PDO/AMO have been positive on avg, El Nino's have dominated, and Co2 has risen sunstantially. The Sun cycle has a warming impact on the downward side of its maximum.

What have global temps done? They have Cooled! What has turned the warming trend into a cooling trend? The natural drivers and Co2 were both warm, so, why would we cool?

[WeatherRusty]

what?

Computer simulations of Co2 effect on the atmosphere are hypothesis......hypothesis ain't science. Since we cannot test Co2 like a chemist can a chemical, its tough.

Even if CO2 radiative forcing is the same in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean the end result in temperature will be the same as has been modeled.

That notion has already been vindicated. My previous post

Current global temps are in the process of running below the "cone of confidence" given by the IPCC. To barely scrape the bottom of the cone, we needed the Sun, ENSO, PDO/AMO, and Low Volancanism.....all to be aligned AS WARM AS POSSIBLE. Even yet, the warming seen matches those drivers, no Co2 warming needed.

Examples.....Since 1997, or 14 years, the PDO/AMO have been positive on avg, El Nino's have dominated, and Co2 has risen sunstantially. The Sun cycle has a warming impact on the downward side of its maximum.

What have global temps done? They have Cooled! What has turned the warming trend into a cooling trend? The natural drivers and Co2 were both warm, so, why would we cool?

Again, as long as you deny reality we have little common ground to discuss. The CLIMATE has not cooled. The past decade has been the warmest in the record.

[BethesdaWX]

Again, as long as you deny reality we have little common ground to discuss. The CLIMATE has not cooled. The past decade has been the warmest in the record.

Again.....what? I said global temperatures have cooled since 1998...they have...1.5 decades bud. You're denying here, not me.

"What have global temps done? They have Cooled!"

How about you respond to my post in its entirety.

[Clifford]

It depends on the estimate, and whether 1998 was the hottest on record or not.

According to the NOAA estimate, the temperatures have plateaued for the last decade.

A line at about 0.58 °C intersects with 9 out of the past 13 years, with the remaining 4 years falling below the line.

[BethesdaWX]

I use Satellite data, mainly UAH, to base the global temperature data off. I'm a 100% satellite guy.

I ignore GISS completely, HADCRUT mostly. The only time I've ever looked at GISS is responding to a warmist post....otherwise, its like junk mail to me.

[skierinvermont]

I use Satellite data, mainly UAH, to base the global temperature data off. I'm a 100% satellite guy.

I ignore GISS completely, HADCRUT mostly. The only time I've ever looked at GISS is responding to a warmist post....otherwise, its like junk mail to me.

Sort of funny you use satellite data even though RSS shows 50% more warming than UAH since 1979, and other analyses of the same satellite data show 75% more warming. There is not a lot of agreement on how to analyze the satellite data which accounts for the large discrepancies between UAH (.11C/decade), RSS (.17C/decade) and UW + Fu et al. which find .2C/decade based on nearly the exact same data.

Also funny that you prefer HadCRUT over GISS when they are really nearly the exact same thing except GISS correctly has extrapolated the warming across the arctic while HadCRUT has erroneously left this out.

Seems like your selection of data source is based simply on which shows the least warming. You chose UAH over RSS for no reason except that it shows 50% less warming based on the same data that RSS uses (MSU satelltie data). And you chose HadCRUT over GISS based on no reason other than it showing less warming because it MISSES the rapid warming occurring in the arctic. Just goes to show how biased you are.

[salbers]

Sounds like the surface station measurements are at least as consistent amongst themselves as the satellites.

[nzucker]

Sort of funny you use satellite data even though RSS shows 50% more warming than UAH since 1979, and other analyses of the same satellite data show 75% more warming. There is not a lot of agreement on how to analyze the satellite data which accounts for the large discrepancies between UAH (.11C/decade), RSS (.17C/decade) and UW + Fu et al. which find .2C/decade based on nearly the exact same data.

Also funny that you prefer HadCRUT over GISS when they are really nearly the exact same thing except GISS correctly has extrapolated the warming across the arctic while HadCRUT has erroneously left this out.

I agree that Bethesda selectively chooses sources, but the satellites do make more sense ultimately than surface data. There's just too many problems with GISS/HadCRUT to take them seriously: station dropout, siting issues, large areas of extrapolation, lack of coverage at high latitudes, etc. Also, there's really no need to extrapolate or miss data anymore when we have it available through satellite analysis. I don't understand what the issue is with just using the anomalies released by RSS and UAH; why do we need other studies to interpret what those running the satellite analysis say the anomaly is? I'd be interested in your posting more of that research here, claiming that the UAH analysis is incorrect and underestimates the warming trend globally.

Remember, though, HadCRUT misses both the warming in the Arctic and the Antarctic's cooling...obviously the north has warmed more than the south has cooled, but it's not just a problem of universally being too cool. Also, do you even recall the discussions we had about poor extrapolations from GISS? I pointed out several areas that looked suspicious when comparing GISS to the RSS MSU data, you acknowledged these issues, and then you seem to have forgotten. Where is your consistency?

[BethesdaWX]

Sort of funny you use satellite data even though RSS shows 50% more warming than UAH since 1979, and other analyses of the same satellite data show 75% more warming. There is not a lot of agreement on how to analyze the satellite data which accounts for the large discrepancies between UAH (.11C/decade), RSS (.17C/decade) and UW + Fu et al. which find .2C/decade based on nearly the exact same data.

Also funny that you prefer HadCRUT over GISS when they are really nearly the exact same thing except GISS correctly has extrapolated the warming across the arctic while HadCRUT has erroneously left this out.

Seems like your selection of data source is based simply on which shows the least warming. You chose UAH over RSS for no reason except that it shows 50% less warming based on the same data that RSS uses (MSU satelltie data). And you chose HadCRUT over GISS based on no reason other than it showing less warming because it MISSES the rapid warming occurring in the arctic. Just goes to show how biased you are.

Notice the conistancy. I choose HADCRUT over GISS because HADCRUT has more data. I choose UAH over RSS because UAH has more data. Satellite data agrees with HADCRUT more than GISS. I want the best, most widespread data available, I don't like crap data. HADCRUT/GISS/RSS can all kiss my a$$. We don't even need them, all we need is UAH. RSS can kiss my a$$ as well, I don't post it for a reason.

UAH actually does not have a "warming trend" at all. It is a 2 step sequence that correlates to the AMO/PDO shift 100%. UAH also has the slight cooling trend since 2002 now, almost a decade. 1.5 decades of flatlining.

ok?

[tacoman25]

Sort of funny you use satellite data even though RSS shows 50% more warming than UAH since 1979, and other analyses of the same satellite data show 75% more warming. There is not a lot of agreement on how to analyze the satellite data which accounts for the large discrepancies between UAH (.11C/decade), RSS (.17C/decade) and UW + Fu et al. which find .2C/decade based on nearly the exact same data.

I would appreciate it if you could post the graphs directly comparing UAH to RSS. I would like to see this divergence represented graphically, since from what I remember, it is due at least in part to the starting point being different.

[skierinvermont]

I would appreciate it if you could post the graphs directly comparing UAH to RSS. I would like to see this divergence represented graphically, since from what I remember, it is due at least in part to the starting point being different.

I apologize the correct numbers are .142C/decade (UAH) and .163C/decade (RSS) from 1979 to 2010. I always make that mistake for some reason and then correct myself (you may remember me making that mistake before and then correcting myself not that long ago). It's still much larger than the difference between Had vs GISS, which is the point I am trying to make. It is also important to note that UAH includes the arctic but RSS does not, so if RSS included the arctic it would add to the trend slightly. Here's the graph:

And let's not forget that other analyses of the same MSU satellite data find .2C/decade. As my post below explains and in particular the review by Thorne et al. shows it is generally agreed that the tropospheric trend since 1979 is .2C/decade and that RSS and UAH are too low.

[skierinvermont]

I agree that Bethesda selectively chooses sources, but the satellites do make more sense ultimately than surface data. There's just too many problems with GISS/HadCRUT to take them seriously: station dropout, siting issues, large areas of extrapolation, lack of coverage at high latitudes, etc. Also, there's really no need to extrapolate or miss data anymore when we have it available through satellite analysis. I don't understand what the issue is with just using the anomalies released by RSS and UAH; why do we need other studies to interpret what those running the satellite analysis say the anomaly is? I'd be interested in your posting more of that research here, claiming that the UAH analysis is incorrect and underestimates the warming trend globally.

Remember, though, HadCRUT misses both the warming in the Arctic and the Antarctic's cooling...obviously the north has warmed more than the south has cooled, but it's not just a problem of universally being too cool. Also, do you even recall the discussions we had about poor extrapolations from GISS? I pointed out several areas that looked suspicious when comparing GISS to the RSS MSU data, you acknowledged these issues, and then you seem to have forgotten. Where is your consistency?

Many many experts much more familiar with the data and the methodologies than you are agree that station dropout, siting issues, and extrapolation do not cause a bias. There are many papers dealing with these issues which I find highly persuasive. The errors of the HadCRUt and GISS datasets have been quantified in several papers.

RSS and UAH do not have a monopoly on the MSU satellite data which is collected by NOAA. It's not even their data and there are several analyses of it of which RSS and UAH are only two well known because they update monthly. I have posted the papers dealing with superior analyses of the MSU satellite data before upon your request. I hope you read them this time. In 2005, UAH updated their analysis from version 5.1 to 5.2 and the long term trend since 1979 increased 40% in the new version due to corrections that had been pointed out by other researchers. There are ongoing efforts to resolve differences between analyses and this correction should by no means be considered the final correction. One of the main problems with both RSS and UAH is that their temperature records include 10-15% contributions from the stratosphere which biases them to the colder side. This is detailed in the first reference Fu et al.

Fu et al. 2004: http://www.ncdc.noaa...2524-UW-MSU.pdf

Vinnikov et al. 2005: http://www.atmos.umd...005JD006392.pdf

Zou et al. 2009: http://journals.amet...ournalCode=clim

A good overall review by Thorne et al. 2010 which details previous errors and corrections made to the UAH analysis and the current state of affairs: http://onlinelibrary...1002/wcc.80/pdf

A number of recent technical papers are summarized in Thorne et al 2010 which have essentially definitively concluded that the tropospheric trend is ~.2C/decade. This is the consensus among researchers in the field. It corresponds well with the theoretically predicted 20% tropospheric amplification of surface trends.

[tacoman25]

I apologize the correct numbers are .142C/decade (UAH) and .163C/decade (RSS) from 1979 to 2010. I always make that mistake for some reason and then correct myself (you may remember me making that mistake before and then correcting myself not that long ago). It's still much larger than the difference between Had vs GISS, which is the point I am trying to make. It is also important to note that UAH includes the arctic but RSS does not, so if RSS included the arctic it would add to the trend slightly. Here's the graph:

And let's not forget that other analyses of the same MSU satellite data find .2C/decade. As my post below explains and in particular the review by Thorne et al. shows it is generally agreed that the tropospheric trend since 1979 is .2C/decade and that RSS and UAH are too low.

1. Yeah, I thought that 50% greater percentage seemed awfully high. .02C difference over three decades...not really significant, imo. I do not think your statement that this .02C is "much larger" than the difference between Had vs. GISS is accurate, considering how much the land sources have diverged over the past decade.

2. As I suspected, RSS started considerably cooler in 1979 than UAH, for some reason. That is definitely part of the reason their trend is greater, and if you look at the graph since then, they mirror each other pretty closely for the most part.

3. I don't see any compelling reason to favor this other analysis over UAH and RSS. You are saying that UAH/RSS analysis is biased cold because it includes a small portion of the stratosphere...and yet it also includes the mid troposphere, which is supposed to be warming faster than the surface.

[easternsnowman]

If it was up to Hansen and his kind they will make us a third world country with the government in charge of everything., literally a socialist utopia!

[Peter M]

If it was up to Hansen and his kind they will make us a third world country with the government in charge of everything., literally a socialist utopia!

Is that worse then the Pseudo science of fascism? You tell me-- what is fascism- and what is socialism, or Communism?

I am waiting for the far right ot explain the differences.

[aslkahuna]

Is that worse then the Pseudo science of fascism? You tell me-- what is fascism- and what is socialism, or Communism?

I am waiting for the far right ot explain the differences.

Take this to PR.

Steve

[skierinvermont]

1. Yeah, I thought that 50% greater percentage seemed awfully high. .02C difference over three decades...not really significant, imo. I do not think your statement that this .02C is "much larger" than the difference between Had vs. GISS is accurate, considering how much the land sources have diverged over the past decade.

The difference in trend is larger than the difference between HadCRUT and GISS over the period 1979-2010. HadCRUT showed slightly more warming than GISS prior to 1998. I agree with you the divergence over the last 10 years between the two has been quite large, although as I have said before I believe much of this divergence is due to HadCRUT "missing" most of the rapid arctic warming that has occurred this decade.

2. As I suspected, RSS started considerably cooler in 1979 than UAH, for some reason. That is definitely part of the reason their trend is greater, and if you look at the graph since then, they mirror each other pretty closely for the most part.

Since the trends are centered on zero - by definition if RSS has a larger trendline it must start at a lower anomaly value. I don't really see what your point is here. The differences are also quite clearly attributable to methodology, because RSS has tried to include some of the recent corrections into their analysis, while UAH has not.

3. I don't see any compelling reason to favor this other analysis over UAH and RSS. You are saying that UAH/RSS analysis is biased cold because it includes a small portion of the stratosphere...and yet it also includes the mid troposphere, which is supposed to be warming faster than the surface.

Well first of all, it's not just one other analysis, there have been at least a dozen papers showing that UAH and RSS are biased cold. Once you remove the stratospheric contribution, and properly calibrate the satellite data, you find the troposphere has warmed at ~.2C/decade which is indeed higher than the surface trend.

[Clifford]

I agree that Bethesda selectively chooses sources, but the satellites do make more sense ultimately than surface data. There's just too many problems with GISS/HadCRUT to take them seriously: station dropout, siting issues, large areas of extrapolation, lack of coverage at high latitudes, etc. Also, there's really no need to extrapolate or miss data anymore when we have it available through satellite analysis. I don't understand what the issue is with just using the anomalies released by RSS and UAH; why do we need other studies to interpret what those running the satellite analysis say the anomaly is? I'd be interested in your posting more of that research here, claiming that the UAH analysis is incorrect and underestimates the warming trend globally.

Remember, though, HadCRUT misses both the warming in the Arctic and the Antarctic's cooling...obviously the north has warmed more than the south has cooled, but it's not just a problem of universally being too cool. Also, do you even recall the discussions we had about poor extrapolations from GISS? I pointed out several areas that looked suspicious when comparing GISS to the RSS MSU data, you acknowledged these issues, and then you seem to have forgotten. Where is your consistency?

I agree that the Satellite datasets are the way to move forward, and they seem to have much more stability than the land based data sets, especially through the earlier records (70's through 90's), so I'm leaning towards the huge jump in the NOAA dataset from 1980 to 1997 being an artifact, although I suppose we are missing the endpoints on the satellite data, so we don't know what the satellite would have shown from 1970 to 79 (another NOAA jump).

The other issue with the satellites is keeping everything calibrated... which is part of the reason that each agency has different results.

My question is whether the apparent jump in the satellite data between 1997 and say 2002 is "real" or also an artifact noting a shift from MSU data to AMSU data around 1998. It would be interesting to see the dataset calculated solely based upon MSU data.

[skierinvermont]

I agree that the Satellite datasets are the way to move forward, and they seem to have much more stability than the land based data sets, especially through the earlier records (70's through 90's), so I'm leaning towards the huge jump in the NOAA dataset from 1980 to 1997 being an artifact, although I suppose we are missing the endpoints on the satellite data, so we don't know what the satellite would have shown from 1970 to 79 (another NOAA jump).

The other issue with the satellites is keeping everything calibrated... which is part of the reason that each agency has different results.

My question is whether the apparent jump in the satellite data between 1997 and say 2002 is "real" or also an artifact noting a shift from MSU data to AMSU data around 1998. It would be interesting to see the dataset calculated solely based upon MSU data.

Read the studies I posted. The current consensus is that the satellite-derived tropospheric trend 1979-2010 was ~.2C/decade which is higher than the surface trend of .17C/decade (GISS). If you read the studies and come up with a good argument why they are wrong, then maybe we can talk.

[JBG]

This should give pause to those who argue that the Earth has been warmer in the past, yet somehow life flourished. Yes it has been warmer in the past. I'm talking about centuries to millennia such as previous interglacial periods which were not much more that 1C warmer than today, yet sea levels were many meters higher. Even the lukewarmers should take note of how close paleo-data places us to a much different world for human habitation should temps rise only another 1C-2C....

None of the things you cite can be conclusively linked to AGW. In fact, there is more evidence that they are probably linked to a change in blocking/pressure patterns recently. Much like what was recorded in Europe and other places when earth was entering the LIA. See, I can use the same evidence for global cooling/solar influence!

The only predictions that can be clearly linked to global warming are actual global temperatures. And Hansen has repeatedly been off in his predictions of those. Though his own source, GISS, has been closer than most.

I think that Hansen is correct about what the effect of warming would be. What he doesn't establish is that any warming is man-made rather than cyclical, that there is anything much we can do about it, or that we indeed warm further from here. All of this is rank speculation on his part, make that sensationalism.

[tacoman25]

Since the trends are centered on zero - by definition if RSS has a larger trendline it must start at a lower anomaly value. I don't really see what your point is here. The differences are also quite clearly attributable to methodology, because RSS has tried to include some of the recent corrections into their analysis, while UAH has not.

Thank you for the detailed response. By the way, I find the bolded part interesting...isn't it true that RSS actually shows less warming/flatter trend since 2002, yet UAH is the one "not trying" to include corrections in their analysis? So going by what you're saying, why would UAH show a warmer trend?

[tacoman25]

Well first of all, it's not just one other analysis, there have been at least a dozen papers showing that UAH and RSS are biased cold. Once you remove the stratospheric contribution, and properly calibrate the satellite data, you find the troposphere has warmed at ~.2C/decade which is indeed higher than the surface trend.

But don't you find it odd that both UAH and RSS choose not to remove stratospheric contribution (I was under the impression they did try to adjust for this in the tropospheric numbers, just as GISS/etc try to account for UHI, etc), and that both apparently do not know how to properly calibrate their data, yet this third party has all the answers?

You are basically asking us to believe that GISS's methods are essentially flawless, while UAH and RSS are incompetent. And GISS is run by an outspoken political activist who has a very vested interest in the results of his data.

[skierinvermont]

Thank you for the detailed response. By the way, I find the bolded part interesting...isn't it true that RSS actually shows less warming/flatter trend since 2002, yet UAH is the one "not trying" to include corrections in their analysis? So going by what you're saying, why would UAH show a warmer trend?

Well the differences in methodology I believe apply to the whole dataset, for which RSS shows .02C/decade more warming. I'll try to dig into this some more. Spencer and Christy have been very resistive to the changes other agencies and researchers are making and there's an active debate in the literature ongoing, although Spencer and Christy are in a minority and I wasn't really persuaded by their argument.

But don't you find it odd that both UAH and RSS choose not to remove stratospheric contribution (I was under the impression they did try to adjust for this in the tropospheric numbers, just as GISS/etc try to account for UHI, etc), and that both apparently do not know how to properly calibrate their data, yet this third party has all the answers?

You are basically asking us to believe that GISS's methods are essentially flawless, while UAH and RSS are incompetent. And GISS is run by an outspoken political activist who has a very vested interest in the results of his data.

Yes I do find it kind of odd.. will also try and look into this some more. It may be that UAH and RSS are simply intended to report on the raw temperatures for particular satellite "channels." That's just a guess though and isn't totally satisfactory so I will dig more.

It's worth noting that NOAA (which is responsible for the raw MSU satellite data) on their MSU satellite homepage they give the RSS and UAH data, but also have the disclaimer that Fu et al. 2004 finds a higher trend by removing the stratospheric contribution.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...and-precip/msu/

Analysis of the satellite record that began in 1979 indicates that global temperatures are increasing in the mid-troposphere, but the magnitude of the trend differs based on the analysis methods used in adjusting for factors such as orbital decay and inter-satellite differences.

Mid-tropospheric and lower stratospheric temperature data are collected by NOAA's TIROS-N polar-orbiting satellites and adjusted for time-dependent biases by the Global Hydrology and Climate Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). An independent analysis is also performed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and a third analysis has been preformed by Dr. Qiang Fu of the University of Washington (UW) (Fu et al. 2004).

Fu et al. (2004) developed a method for quantifying the stratospheric contribution to the satellite record of tropospheric temperatures and applied an adjustment to the UAH and RSS temperature record that attempts to remove the satellite contribution (cooling influence) from the middle troposphere record. This method results in trends that are larger than those from the respective source.

[tacoman25]

Well the differences in methodology I believe apply to the whole dataset, for which RSS shows .02C/decade more warming. I'll try to dig into this some more. Spencer and Christy have been very resistive to the changes other agencies and researchers are making and there's an active debate in the literature ongoing, although Spencer and Christy are in a minority and I wasn't really persuaded by their argument.

Yes I do find it kind of odd.. will also try and look into this some more. It may be that UAH and RSS are simply intended to report on the raw temperatures for particular satellite "channels." That's just a guess though and isn't totally satisfactory so I will dig more.

It's worth noting that NOAA (which is responsible for the raw MSU satellite data) on their MSU satellite homepage they give the RSS and UAH data, but also have the disclaimer that Fu et al. 2004 finds a higher trend by removing the stratospheric contribution.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...and-precip/msu/

Analysis of the satellite record that began in 1979 indicates that global temperatures are increasing in the mid-troposphere, but the magnitude of the trend differs based on the analysis methods used in adjusting for factors such as orbital decay and inter-satellite differences.

Mid-tropospheric and lower stratospheric temperature data are collected by NOAA's TIROS-N polar-orbiting satellites and adjusted for time-dependent biases by the Global Hydrology and Climate Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). An independent analysis is also performed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and a third analysis has been preformed by Dr. Qiang Fu of the University of Washington (UW) (Fu et al. 2004).

Fu et al. (2004) developed a method for quantifying the stratospheric contribution to the satellite record of tropospheric temperatures and applied an adjustment to the UAH and RSS temperature record that attempts to remove the satellite contribution (cooling influence) from the middle troposphere record. This method results in trends that are larger than those from the respective source.

Hmm...guess I'm more confused. I thought the published UAH and RSS anomalies were supposed to represent the LT (lower troposphere), not the mid-troposphere. I can see how the stratosphere would effect the middle tropopsheric numbers a little, but not so much the lower troposphere.

In addition, I find the phrasing in that last paragraph a bit odd: the adjustment is an "attempt to remove the cooling influence". Makes it sound like Fu set out to "correct" things warmer, rather than just apply a better analysis.