GISS vs CRU/RSS/UAH

[tacoman25]

Well one thing is to consider is that when I did the graphs and trends for 1990-present.. we all thought that UAH infilling had magically made the divergence disappear (HadCRUT +UAH agreed with normal GISS). In reality, as I suggested and you probably guessed as well, the divergence was still there 2000-present. When I redid the graphs 2000-present... the divergence appeared to reappear .. (HadCRUT+UAH diverged from normal GISS). In reality chopping off 1990-1999 just made it stand out more.. even though it was sitting in plain site before we didn't "see" it. (Although I did suggest that GISS looked too cold 1999-2001 and too warm in 2007).

In other words, the divergence between HadCRUT+UAH infilling and GISS 2000-present was still right there on my graph 1990-present.. but we couldn't see it because it blurred into the general picture of their agreement 1990-present. Even though normal HadCRUT still disagreed with GISS. If normal HadCRUT agreed with GISS 1990-present, then I would say UAH infilling of the poles doesn't "fix" anything. But UAH infilling of the poles "fixes" the divergence 1990-present. Even though it doesn't "fix" the divergence 2000-present. So UAH infilling of the poles is still a powerful explanation for the divergence to me.

It's a partial explanation. But it's also now clear that the increasing divergence the past decade is not just satellite/surface. This adds evidence that something is causing GISS, for the time being, to be on its own in some ways.

[skierinvermont]

I think a valid question is why 1997-present has basically half the warming of the previous 2 decades...despite a relatively ENSO neutral landscape.

We can blame 2002-present on a -PDO shift I think...though it really didn't take effect in earnest until 2007. A 9 year trend that is actually negative is a bit weird in the AGW modeling...even with with the PDO shift. Its obviously not a huge sample size, but its not pathetic either and likely not to change in the coming several years.

Well sort of shockingly... UAH infilling of the arctic bumps down the trend 1980-1996 quite a bit... then it bumps it up 1997-present.

For UAH infilling the Had and GISS trends 1997-present were .08 and .11C/decade.

For 1980-1996 infilling of the Had and GISS trends were both a mere .06C/decade.

If that's correct then the warming 1997-present has actually been faster than the warming 1980-1996. !!!!!!!!

That would be a pretty shocking result... also pretty shocking how slow the warming is 1980-1996 if we use UAH infilling of the poles on HadCRUT and GISS. That's usually considered a period of quite rapid warming.

I will have to double check that. That's really quite an astonishing result... here's the graph again .. as you can see.. UAH infilling has quite slow warming 1980-1996...

I almost think I must have done something wrong.. but I don't think I did.

[tacoman25]

There's a lot of explanations needed though even if its half natural. TSI doesn't correlate well enough to explain it via solar cycles...though geomagnetic flux and cosmic ray theory seems to be doing better....also the lack of knowledge on extended solar max or extended min doesn't help. There is research in its infancy that there is a secondary (and more significant) temp lag during decadal periods of high solar activity and low activity.

Ocean cycles can explain the dip in 1940s-1970s time range and perhaps the recent flattening of the trend, but it shouldn't matter in the long run since we make up for it in the positive/warm ocean cycles.

We also don't all the feedback mechanisms...esp cloud feedback.

Well, if natural cycles are at least half responsible, it would make sense that a -PDO cycle would cut the rise in temps at least in half...

[skierinvermont]

What you say makes sense to a point...but at some point, we need to see GISS come back to the pack. The argument you present is that this past decade is too small a sample to make a big deal out of it...which might be true. But when does it become a big deal? GISS has been criticized recently for warming the present and cooling the past...and whether those claims are scientifically valid (meaning GISS has a legit reason for it) or not still creates some pressure on them since people are focusing on GISS recent trends.

I'd agree that a decade isn't long enough to jump to any conclusions, but its clear they are diverging right now and at some point we'll need to see them come back to the pack (or the pack catch up to them) to make those questions go away.

Well I don't expect or demand that GISS come back to the pack of HadCRUT/RSS/UAH.

What I would expect/demand of it is that it come back into agreement with HadCRUT+UAH infilling of the poles. If it continued to diverge from HadCRUT+UAH infilling of the poles, as it has for the past decade (despite agreement on the last two decades), that would cause me alarm.

[ORH_wxman]

Well sort of shockingly... UAH infilling of the arctic bumps down the trend 1980-1996 quite a bit... then it bumps it up 1997-present.

For UAH infilling the Had and GISS trends 1997-present were .08 and .11C/decade.

For 1980-1996 infilling of the Had and GISS trends were both a mere .06C/decade.

If that's correct then the warming 1997-present has actually been faster than the warming 1980-1996.

That would be a pretty shocking result... also pretty shocking how slow the warming is 1980-1996 if we use UAH infilling of the poles on HadCRUT and GISS. That's usually considered a period of quite rapid warming.

I will have to double check that. That's really quite an astonishing result... here's the graph again .. as you can see.. UAH infilling has quite slow warming 1980-1996...

That is bizarre...what is UAH's overall trend for 1980-1996?

Maybe you just proved that the warming 1980-1996 was much less than people thought....lol, jk. I think something is weird there. Is UAH homogeneous in the arctic? I know they switched to TIROS satellite at some point to help them with their polar temps, but I do not know when that was.

I know pinatubo was a real biatch in the arctic...so that might be screwing the trend line since we stopped so soon after it. UAH 1980-2001 would probably explain the difference much better....I knjow they had a significant increase in arctic temps after 1995 through about 2001 or 2002 and then they flattened quite a bit.

[tacoman25]

Well sort of shockingly... UAH infilling of the arctic bumps down the trend 1980-1996 quite a bit... then it bumps it up 1997-present.

For UAH infilling the Had and GISS trends 1997-present were .08 and .11C/decade.

For 1980-1996 infilling of the Had and GISS trends were both a mere .06C/decade.

If that's correct then the warming 1997-present has actually been faster than the warming 1980-1996.

That would be a pretty shocking result... also pretty shocking how slow the warming is 1980-1996 if we use UAH infilling of the poles on HadCRUT and GISS. That's usually considered a period of quite rapid warming.

I will have to double check that. That's really quite an astonishing result... here's the graph again .. as you can see.. UAH infilling has quite slow warming 1980-1996...

Given where you are splitting the time periods, it makes sense to me. 1980-1996 were almost all cold AMO years (which is correlated to Arctic temps), and the 1992-94 period was cooled significantly by Pinatubo.

1997 came right after the AMO flipped positive and as the biggest El Nino in history was just commencing. So Arctic temps were shooting up, and global temps followed shortly.

[ORH_wxman]

Given where you are splitting the time periods, it makes sense to me. 1980-1996 were almost all cold AMO years (which is correlated to Arctic temps), and the 1992-94 period was cooled significantly by Pinatubo.

1997 came right after the AMO flipped positive and as the biggest El Nino in history was just commencing. So Arctic temps were shooting up, and global temps followed shortly.

I think ending near pinatubo and before the 1997-1998 el nino makes the regression slope a lot flatter than if you go to 2000 or 2001.

[skierinvermont]

Given where you are splitting the time periods, it makes sense to me. 1980-1996 were almost all cold AMO years (which is correlated to Arctic temps), and the 1992-94 period was cooled significantly by Pinatubo.

1997 came right after the AMO flipped positive and as the biggest El Nino in history was just commencing. So Arctic temps were shooting up, and global temps followed shortly.

Bingo.. I think you've got it.. Pinatubo. If I had included 97 98 99 on that graph the trend would shoot up a lot. Doh.

It's still interesting that the UAH-infilling of the arctic really shaves off a bit though. I imagine that would still be true if I add on 97 98 99.

That's opposed to 97-present where UAH infilling makes HadCRUT bigger.

I really like this infilling of the poles w/ UAH.. and if we use it we find a little less warming '80-2000 and more 2000-present.

I still don't think UAH infilling of the poles should be a replacement.. but it's good for corroboration. There are some notable differences, especially in the Antarctic.

[ORH_wxman]

Bingo.. I think you've got it.. Pinatubo. If I had included 97 98 99 on that graph the trend would shoot up a lot.

It's still interesting that the UAH-infilling of the arctic really shaves off a bit though. I imagine that would still be true if I add on 97 98 99.

That's opposed to 97-present where UAH infilling makes HadCRUT bigger.

Arctic really warmed a lot after pinatubo...it really didn't warm that fast in the 1980s...it was warming, but not at break neck pace like happened in the late 1990s. They almost flat lined in the 1980s after shooting up in th elate 1970s...then they blasted up again in the late 1990s

[skierinvermont]

I think a valid question is why 1997-present has basically half the warming of the previous 2 decades...despite a relatively ENSO neutral landscape.

We can blame 2002-present on a -PDO shift I think...though it really didn't take effect in earnest until 2007. A 9 year trend that is actually negative is a bit weird in the AGW modeling...even with with the PDO shift. Its obviously not a huge sample size, but its not pathetic either and likely not to change in the coming several years.

Well you probably know I'm in agreement that the recent trends aren't consistent with the higher sensitivity models... but I do think TSI is a powerful explanation for most of the missing surface warming this decade.

Guess I could work on a statistical model for that... with something like .15C peak to trough.

[tacoman25]

Bingo.. I think you've got it.. Pinatubo. If I had included 97 98 99 on that graph the trend would shoot up a lot. Doh.

It's still interesting that the UAH-infilling of the arctic really shaves off a bit though. I imagine that would still be true if I add on 97 98 99.

That's opposed to 97-present where UAH infilling makes HadCRUT bigger.

I really like this infilling of the poles w/ UAH.. and if we use it we find a little less warming '80-2000 and more 2000-present.

I still don't think UAH infilling of the poles should be a replacement.. but it's good for corroboration. There are some notable differences, especially in the Antarctic.

Well, I think as you have established, anytime you infill Hadley with Arctic temps, it makes a difference. Since the Arctic was in a cold phase 1980 to mid 1990s, it makes sense that this makes Hadley colder...especially with Pinatubo at the end.

And of course, the opposite effect as the Arctic has warmed up since.

The Antarctic really is a big question mark. So much focus is put on the Arctic here in the NH, that it is easy to overlook what's going on down there sometimes.

[ORH_wxman]

Well, I think as you have established, anytime you infill Hadley with Arctic temps, it makes a difference. Since the Arctic was in a cold phase 1980 to mid 1990s, it makes sense that this makes Hadley colder...especially with Pinatubo at the end.

And of course, the opposite effect as the Arctic has warmed up since.

The Antarctic really is a big question mark. So much focus is put on the Arctic here in the NH, that it is easy to overlook what's going on down there sometimes.

Antarctica is the poster child of climate model futility....there are a lot of theories of why they aren't warming...but there has yet to be a great explanation. Climate models have it warming faster than anywhere except the Arctic. Yet its not doing anything and probably slightly cooling. (though GISS disagrees with that)

[skierinvermont]

I'd agree that a decade isn't long enough to jump to any conclusions, but its clear they are diverging right now and at some point we'll need to see them come back to the pack (or the pack catch up to them) to make those questions go away.

Well I don't expect or demand that GISS come back to the pack of HadCRUT/RSS/UAH.

What I would expect/demand of it is that it come back into agreement with HadCRUT+UAH infilling of the poles. If it continued to diverge from HadCRUT+UAH infilling of the poles, as it has for the past decade (despite agreement on the last two decades), that would cause me alarm.

Wondering if you guys agree with this?

[tacoman25]

Wondering if you guys agree with this?

I mostly agree, though I'd say if GISS continues to diverge further with satellite temps, that would also be disconcerting.

[skierinvermont]

Antarctica is the poster child of climate model futility....there are a lot of theories of why they aren't warming...but there has yet to be a great explanation. Climate models have it warming faster than anywhere except the Arctic. Yet its not doing anything and probably slightly cooling. (though GISS disagrees with that)

Do you disagree with the O'Donnell trend of +.05C/decade since 1950 in Antarctica?

[ORH_wxman]

Wondering if you guys agree with this?

Well assuming Hadley remains pretty straight forward (and no weird zone trends where the data is thin)...then yes. No reason to think otherwise. They've been that way recently.

I haven't even gotten to UAH trends yet on my own excel file, but was wondering do you have the UAH trend since 2002 vs the Hadley+UAH polar fill?

[skierinvermont]

I mostly agree, though I'd say if GISS continues to diverge further with satellite temps, that would also be disconcerting.

Well I would agree with that, although it would be unclear in that case if the error was with GISS or the satellites.. and of course as you know I've already suggested that globally the satellites may be biased too cold slightly.

Oh it would also cause me alarm if GISS 60-60 and HadCRUT 60-60 continued to diverge (half the divergence since 2000 is attributable to 60S-60N).

[tacoman25]

Do you disagree with the O'Donnell trend of +.05C/decade since 1950 in Antarctica?

Isn't that 1980-present trend pretty much neutral, though? That definitely flies in the face of climate models.

[ORH_wxman]

Do you disagree with the O'Donnell trend of +.05C/decade since 1950 in Antarctica?

I haven't really followed it that far back...I have been mostly concerned with the past 20-30 years. Most of that must have been in the 1970s though, since most data shows a slight cooling since the early 1980s, but again I haven't followed that closely that far back. I know the 1970s did see warming at both poles.

[tacoman25]

Well I would agree with that, although it would be unclear in that case if the error was with GISS or the satellites.. and of course as you know I've already suggested that globally the satellites may be biased too cold slightly.

Right. At this point, the overall evidence seems to point to a compromise between GISS and UAH decadal trends as being the most accurate trend. But like you said, if Hadley+UAH continues to diverge from GISS, then the evidence would lean towards GISS being more off.

[ORH_wxman]

Right. At this point, the overall evidence seems to point to a compromise between GISS and UAH decadal trends as being the most accurate trend. But like you said, if Hadley+UAH continues to diverge from GISS, then the evidence would lean towards GISS being more off.

I think one of the more alarming trends for GISS is that they have passed Hadley for warming in the non-polar regions. Hadley used to be warmer there, but no longer. I guess its not overly "alarming" since its only a decade, but if it keeps up, then GISS has more questions to answer since it won't just be the polar regions where they extrapolate that are under scrutiny. Hadley has recently converged pretty hard toward the satellites...and GISS has gone the other direction.

Again, only a decade sample, so no need to jump to too many conclusions, but if it keeps up another decade, then its a huge mess that needs to be explained.

[skierinvermont]

I haven't really followed it that far back...I have been mostly concerned with the past 20-30 years. Most of that must have been in the 1970s though, since most data shows a slight cooling since the early 1980s, but again I haven't followed that closely that far back. I know the 1970s did see warming at both poles.

I haven't found a free version of the published paper yet, but O'Donnell has made draft versions available here.. and he definitely finds slight warming 1982-2006... looking at the figure I'd say about .07C/decade. The finding of .05C/decade 1957-2006 was of course intended as a refutation of Seig's finding of .12C/decade.

most recent draft

http://www.climateau...0Submission.pdf (see table on page 43)

all drafts

http://www.climateau.../data/odonnell/

[ORH_wxman]

I haven't found a free version of the published paper yet, but O'Donnell has made draft versions available here.. and he definitely finds slight warming 1982-2006... looking at the figure I'd say about .07C/decade. The finding of .05C/decade 1957-2006 was of course a refutation of Seig's finding of .12C/decade.

most recent draft

http://www.climateau...0Submission.pdf (see table on page 43)

all drafts

http://www.climateau.../data/odonnell/

Well thats interesting...it disagrees with UAH and the lesser data that Hadley has there (though obviously they don't have much past 75S)....but given the uncertainty and lack of good obs there its not surprising. Regardless of whether its a slight cooling or a slight warming...that region remains an enigma in the climate models. Its supposed to be torching relative to the rest of the globe except the arctic.

[skierinvermont]

Well thats interesting...it disagrees with UAH and the lesser data that Hadley has there (though obviously they don't have much past 75S)....but given the uncertainty and lack of good obs there its not surprising. Regardless of whether its a slight cooling or a slight warming...that region remains an enigma in the climate models. Its supposed to be torching relative to the rest of the globe except the arctic.

It's sensitive to end points I just noticed ... he has another figure 1979-2003 which looks like net cooling. 1982-2006 was warming though. I think O'Donnell probably falls between the UAH trend and the GISS trend.

[ORH_wxman]

It's sensitive to end points I just noticed ... he has another figure 1979-2003 which looks like net cooling. 1982-2006 was warming though. I think O'Donnell probably falls between the UAH trend and the GISS trend.

Well UAH has continued to cool down there since 2006, so its possible it has a net cooling since the early 1980s even using O'Donnell's analysis. But either way, there has been little or no warming at all down there. A strange enigma in the climate models that we need to understand.

[skierinvermont]

Well assuming Hadley remains pretty straight forward (and no weird zone trends where the data is thin)...then yes. No reason to think otherwise. They've been that way recently.

I haven't even gotten to UAH trends yet on my own excel file, but was wondering do you have the UAH trend since 2002 vs the Hadley+UAH polar fill?

Ah sorry.. don't have UAH global annual values yet. Keep in mind that comparing UAH to the surface based measurement tends not to be very useful over short time periods because they are affected by ENSO profoundly differently.

Both in terms of the lag effect.. but also if it's a net +ENSO period satellites will show more warming because they are more sensitive to the +ENSO effect. And the opposite for a -ENSO trend period.

[skierinvermont]

Well UAH has continued to cool down there since 2006, so its possible it has a net cooling since the early 1980s even using O'Donnell's analysis. But either way, there has been little or no warming at all down there. A strange enigma in the climate models that we need to understand.

If you haven't read much about the O'Donnell paper... it's interesting stuff.. it basically vindicates what all the skeptics were complaining about a year ago when Steig published his +.12C/decade.

[tacoman25]

Ah sorry.. don't have UAH global annual values yet. Keep in mind that comparing UAH to the surface based measurement tends not to be very useful over short time periods because they are affected by ENSO profoundly differently.

Both in terms of the lag effect.. but also if it's a net +ENSO period satellites will show more warming because they are more sensitive to the +ENSO effect. And the opposite for a -ENSO trend period.

Wasn't 2002-2010 pretty close to a neutral ENSO trend, though?

2002-03 Moderate Nino

2003-04 Neutral positive

2004-05 Weak Nino

2005-06 Neutral negative

2006-07 Moderate Nino

2007-08 Moderate Nina

2008-09 Nuetral negative

2009-10 Strong Nino

[tacoman25]

If you haven't read much about the O'Donnell paper... it's interesting stuff.. it basically vindicates what all the skeptics were complaining about a year ago when Steig published his +.12C/decade.

Steig's just looks ludicrous. For one thing, it doesn't even show the peninsula torching like it clearly has been, and then most of the continent is uniformly painted with the same degree of warming. Meanwhile, O'Donnell shows a much more detailed picture with the peninsula torching and some areas cooling.

[skierinvermont]

Wasn't 2002-2010 pretty close to a neutral ENSO trend, though?

2002-03 Moderate Nino

2003-04 Neutral positive

2004-05 Weak Nino

2005-06 Neutral negative

2006-07 Moderate Nino

2007-08 Moderate Nina

2008-09 Nuetral negative

2009-10 Strong Nino

Nope.. 02-05 was just an extremely positive period.. it's strongly negative at the surface using a 2 month lag, and moderately negative for the troposphere using a 6 month lag. I'm only posting the 6 month lag.. but trust me the 2 month lag is even more negative (as you might imagine since it would include more of the recent nina.. less of the neutral at the startt)

6 month lag:

(this is ONI '02-'10 btw.. sorry for no axes labels etc.)