GISS vs CRU/RSS/UAH

[tacoman25]

Can't really tell what causes the divergence after 2006 when your graph ends... it's not that big though.

RAOBCORE, RICH, STAR don't confirm UAH over RSS.

For TLT globe, RICH/RAOBCORE are pretty close to RSS/UAH, but slightly warmer. That is of note. UAH RSS are basically the same (.006C/decade difference).

For TLT tropics, RICH/RAOBCORE/RSS all substantially higher than UAH.

For TMT globe and TMT tropics, RICH/RAOBCORE/STAR/RSS all substantially higher than UAH.

Then it should also be of note that STAR is at least that much warmer than all other sources on TMT globe and tropics.

[skierinvermont]

So it's definitely not an outlier for radiosonde.

For TMT globally, it is no more an outlier than STAR. RSS and RICH are just as close to UAH as they are to STAR.

It certainly has the lowest trend overall. However, RSS has actually been moving towards UAH over the past decade. So if UAH is wrong, RSS is getting "wronger".

All valid observations. It's still the lowest by far for TLT tropics, TMT globe, TMT tropics. I would qualify STAR as an outlier too for TMT globe and TMT tropics.

I would argue that for TLT globe, radiosonde suggests UAH and RSS might be slightly too low. Not a big deal though.

For TLT tropics, radiosonde/RSS in good agreement on the higher .15C/decade.

For TMT globe and tropics, radiosonde and STAR suggest UAH, and possible RSS are too low.

[skierinvermont]

By the way, going back to this...if this is the case, wouldn't this kind of make your graph meaningless? I mean, if .03C/decade isn't going to effect the trendline because of the magnitude, then the "match" with GISS doesn't mean all that much. Right?

It is still very meaningfull .. the match occurs because rapid warming has occurred in the arctic on both the GISS extrapolations and the UAH measurements.

A .03C error in UAH is meaningless to all this.

If UAH showed less warming, for example .2C/decade instead of close to 1C/decade, that would tell us GISS is wrong. Instead it approximately agrees with GISS and gives us good confidence GISS extrapolations are reasonable approximations.

[skierinvermont]

Dear god I have been saying I would go to bed for hours.. good night!

[nzucker]

Can't really tell what causes the divergence after 2006 when your graph ends... it's not that big though.

RAOBCORE, RICH, STAR don't confirm UAH over RSS.

It just seems uncanny that UAH can match HadAT to 1/1000th of a degree, as well as the fact that its global trend was very similar to GISS until the last decade. It has clearly demonstrated the ability to concur with other sources over measurements in specific areas. The fact that UAH is cooler (.14C/decade) vs. HadAT (.2C/decade) must be mostly due to the Southern Hemisphere, and potentially the slight cooling in Antarctica that Will was commenting on. The greater coverage in the Southern Hemisphere may be one reason that UAH is cooler than RSS in the global temperature trend since 1979, but it is probably mostly luck.

By the way, going back to this...if this is the case, wouldn't this kind of make your graph meaningless? I mean, if .03C/decade isn't going to effect the trendline because of the magnitude, then the "match" with GISS doesn't mean all that much.

The non-match doesn't mean all that much; UAH is only .04C cooler than GISS in the long-term global trend, and the recent divergence may be due to luck in the extrapolation process. UAH is remarkably close to RSS with only a .02C difference. I think we can probably assume that the main divergence is due to the surface warming more than the lower troposphere; Skier, do you think this could be because of the loss of sea ice and snow cover? I remember how we were remarking in the fall that arctic 850mb temperature anomalies on the GEFS, when they were warmer than average, never turned out to be nearly as extreme as the positive 2m anomaly. I wonder if GISS is just better at picking up on the albedo changes influencing the Earth's temperatures. Of course, the increase in Antarctic sea ice may have cooled temperatures there to a certain degree, but given that the GISS doesn't use SSTs or much data from ocean areas at all, this might be irrelevant for the GISS anomaly and another reason why it is diverging from UAH/RSS.

In any case, this argument is mostly academic since the error bars on all these sources generally exceed the disputed divergence.

[ORH_wxman]

Oh - I didn't use GISS's calculated non-polar anomalies for 64S to 64N. I can see how a major problem would arise if I had though, as you said that would amount to leaving in an extra 8 degrees of GISS.

I took GISS globally and then subtracted off the arctic and antarctic mannually - and I weighted each as only 5% of the earth's surface area. That is about the equivalent of 70N-90N.

EDIT: OK this is a tangent, but come to think of it, if I had used GISS's automatically calculated 64S-64N anomalies, I actually would have biased the "GISS-arctic-antarctic+UAH arctic+ UAH antarctic" (purple line) too cold. I would have been subtracting off 52 degrees worth of GISS, but then I only added 40 degrees worth of UAH back on. Remember, I weighted everything as 5% which equates to an area equivalent to 70N-90N.

Well I think you have to go further out than 70 degrees as GISS was still quite warm biased down to 60 degrees....it was actually warmer than hadley all the way to 50 degrees. The same problem still arises...you are weighting GISS too heavily when going down to only 70 degrees.

[skierinvermont]

Well I think you have to go further out than 70 degrees as GISS was still quite warm biased down to 60 degrees....it was actually warmer than hadley all the way to 50 degrees. The same problem still arises...you are weighting GISS too heavily when going down to only 70 degrees.

No I'm not. I am subtracting 5% of the earth's surface area, and then adding back in 5% of the earth's surface area.

[ORH_wxman]

No I'm not. I am subtracting 5% of the earth's surface area, and then adding back in 5% of the earth's surface area.

Didn't you just say that only covers 70 degrees onward? That's not enough. In order to get a true evaluation of the questionable area, we'd have to chop off GISS down to a minimum of 60 degrees...you said it yourself, there were heavy extrapolations down to that latitude.

The GISS anomaly is still being weighted too high if we only do 70 degrees onward on each pole. What we essentially want is an accurate way to measure GISS only between 60S and 60N and then fill in the rest.

[skierinvermont]

It just seems uncanny that UAH can match HadAT to 1/1000th of a degree, as well as the fact that its global trend was very similar to GISS until the last decade. It has clearly demonstrated the ability to concur with other sources over measurements in specific areas. The fact that UAH is cooler (.14C/decade) vs. HadAT (.2C/decade) must be mostly due to the Southern Hemisphere, and potentially the slight cooling in Antarctica that Will was commenting on. The greater coverage in the Southern Hemisphere may be one reason that UAH is cooler than RSS in the global temperature trend since 1979, but it is probably mostly luck.

The non-match doesn't mean all that much; UAH is only .04C cooler than GISS in the long-term global trend, and the recent divergence may be due to luck in the extrapolation process. UAH is remarkably close to RSS with only a .02C difference. I think we can probably assume that the main divergence is due to the surface warming more than the lower troposphere; Skier, do you think this could be because of the loss of sea ice and snow cover? I remember how we were remarking in the fall that arctic 850mb temperature anomalies on the GEFS, when they were warmer than average, never turned out to be nearly as extreme as the positive 2m anomaly. I wonder if GISS is just better at picking up on the albedo changes influencing the Earth's temperatures. Of course, the increase in Antarctic sea ice may have cooled temperatures there to a certain degree, but given that the GISS doesn't use SSTs or much data from ocean areas at all, this might be irrelevant for the GISS anomaly and another reason why it is diverging from UAH/RSS.

In any case, this argument is mostly academic since the error bars on all these sources generally exceed the disputed divergence.

The exact agreement with HadAT during that period was entirely luck...if you change the start or end points slightly the agreement disappears. Extending the end point to the present, for example, creates a small divergence of .02C/decade. A longer period is more meaningful than a shorter one.

In response to the second part of your post, I don't think the surface is actually warming faster than the troposphere. That violates some pretty basic and well accepted physics (that have nothing to do with AGW). Most likely either the surface measurements or the satellite measurements are wrong. My opinion is that most of the error is in the satellites, especially UAH.

For global LT, radiosonde suggests both RSS and UAH are a little too low.

For tropical LT, radiosonde and RSS are much higher than UAH.

For global MT, radiosonde is a little higher than RSS and 2X UAH. STAR is even warmer than radiosonde.

For tropical MT, radiosonde is a little higher than RSS and 2X UAH. STAR is even warmer than radiosonde.

If we use a combination of radiosonde and STAR we find that the global LT, tropical LT, global MT, and tropical MT all are warming at near the expected scaling ratio (SR) to the surface. RSS isn't bad either and is within the error bars for all four categories.

The tropical LT and tropical MT are of particular interest because the SR is supposed to be largest in the tropics (IE the 'hotspot').

[skierinvermont]

Didn't you just say that only covers 70 degrees onward? That's not enough. In order to get a true evaluation of the questionable area, we'd have to chop off GISS down to a minimum of 60 degrees...you said it yourself, there were heavy extrapolations down to that latitude.

The GISS anomaly is still being weighted too high if we only do 70 degrees onward on each pole. What we essentially want is an accurate way to measure GISS only between 60S and 60N and then fill in the rest.

I can repeat the analysis weighting each as 7% if you like... the end result isn't going to change much at all. I will be subtracting out more warmth from GISS, but then I will be just adding back in a proportionately greater amount of warmth from UAH. The end result will be the same, replacing GISS polar anomalies with UAH polar anomalies leads to the same result.

I'm not sure you understand what I am doing...

I am subtracting out 5% of the earth's surface area at each pole. Then adding back in 5% of the surface area at each pole.

The anomalies for the subtracting out are defined by GISS 64N-90N. Whereas the anomalies for adding back in are defined by UAH 60N-85N.

If anything this would lead to me subtracting out more warmth than I am adding back in, because the warming at 60-85N (what I am adding in) has been ever so slightly slower than that for 64-90N (what I am subtracting out). This would lead to me subtracting out more warmth than I add back in. If I had data for UAH 64N-90N (instead of 60-85N), it would show more warming, and when I added it back in it would make the UAH replaced GISS even warmer. Which would just further reinforce my point that UAH infilling is just as warm (if not warmer).

[ORH_wxman]

I can repeat the analysis weighting each as 7% if you like... the end result isn't going to change much at all. I will be subtracting out more warmth from GISS, but then I will be just adding back in a proportionately greater amount of warmth from UAH. The end result will be the same, replacing GISS polar anomalies with UAH polar anomalies leads to the same result.

I'm not sure you understand what I am doing...

I am subtracting out 5% of the earth's surface area at each pole. Then adding back in 5% of the surface area at each pole.

The anomalies for the subtracting out are defined by GISS 64N-90N. Whereas the anomalies for adding back in are defined by UAH 60N-85N.

If anything this would lead to me subtracting out more warmth than I am adding back in, because the warming at 60-85N (what I am adding in) has been ever so slightly slower than that for 64-90N (what I am subtracting out). This would lead to me subtracting out more warmth than I add back in. If I had data for UAH 64N-90N, it would show more warming, and when I added it back in it would make the UAH replaced GISS even warmer.

Clearly not. The result won't be the same as GISS if you take out its polar trends and replace them with UAH...its impossible to, because the UAH trends are not as extreme as GISS, that's already been shown. So its mathematically impossible for it to have the same result...at least in the time frame I am looking at...mostly the last 8-9 years.

I have the links to the data now, so I'll take a look at it closer and maybe I'll try and graph it myself if I have the time in the next 2 days before this snow event.

The ideal way to graph this is to get GISS anomalies for 60S to 60N and then fill in the missing with UAH. It does look like GISS has anomalies from 64N to 64S to add up...but squeezing it more would be ideal because that still encompasses some of the region where GISS has been running very warm relative to Hadley.

[tacoman25]

I can repeat the analysis weighting each as 7% if you like... the end result isn't going to change much at all. I will be subtracting out more warmth from GISS, but then I will be just adding back in a proportionately greater amount of warmth from UAH. The end result will be the same, replacing GISS polar anomalies with UAH polar anomalies leads to the same result.

I'm not sure you understand what I am doing...

I am subtracting out 5% of the earth's surface area at each pole. Then adding back in 5% of the surface area at each pole.

The anomalies for the subtracting out are defined by GISS 64N-90N. Whereas the anomalies for adding back in are defined by UAH 60N-85N.

If anything this would lead to me subtracting out more warmth than I am adding back in, because the warming at 60-85N (what I am adding in) has been ever so slightly slower than that for 64-90N (what I am subtracting out). This would lead to me subtracting out more warmth than I add back in. If I had data for UAH 64N-90N (instead of 60-85N), it would show more warming, and when I added it back in it would make the UAH replaced GISS even warmer. Which would just further reinforce my point that UAH infilling is just as warm (if not warmer).

I would appreciate it if instead of making the chart (which shows little difference even if there is one between GISS and UAH...I'm still not clear on how much of that is due to the magnitude of the warming or to the small percentage of the earth that the Arctic is), you would show the math formula and how the numbers change (if at all), when UAH numbers are applied to the Arctic/Antarctic instead of the GISS numbers. Especially over the past decade.

You have yet to solidly disprove the idea that the divergence between GISS and other sources in recent years is partly due to GISS extrapolating too much warmth across the Arctic (and perhaps Antarctic). Perhaps this is just because it is hard to understand what exactly your graphs are showing...it would be easier, for me at least, to see the calculations numerically.

[skierinvermont]

and how the numbers change (if at all), when UAH numbers are applied to the Arctic/Antarctic instead of the GISS numbers. Especially over the past decade.

Huh? That is exactly what my graph does.

I subtract out the the arctic from GISS and then add it back in using UAH numbers.

Each is weighted equally as 5% of the earth's surface area.

[tacoman25]

Clearly not. The result won't be the same as GISS if you take out its polar trends and replace them with UAH...its impossible to, because the UAH trends are not as extreme as GISS, that's already been shown. So its mathematically impossible for it to have the same result...at least in the time frame I am looking at...mostly the last 8-9 years.

I have the links to the data now, so I'll take a look at it closer and maybe I'll try and graph it myself if I have the time in the next 2 days before this snow event.

The ideal way to graph this is to get GISS anomalies for 60S to 60N and then fill in the missing with UAH. It does look like GISS has anomalies from 64N to 64S to add up...but squeezing it more would be ideal because that still encompasses some of the region where GISS has been running very warm relative to Hadley.

Why not use Hadley 60S to 60N and then fill in with UAH? That's what skiier was attempting to do, though I'm still not sure how his calculations add up percentage-wise. 60 to 85 would certainly be easily greater than 5% of the earth's surface, given that 66 to the pole is 6% (remember, lower latitudes encompass increasingly more area than higher). Not sure how to arrive at a precise percentage, though.

[tacoman25]

Huh? That is exactly what my graph does.

I subtract out the the arctic from GISS and then add it back in using UAH numbers.

Each is weighted equally as 5% of the earth's surface area.

Right, like I said I would like to see the numbers for the entire calculation. The graph apparently doesn't change much based on the numbers, so I think it would make more sense to break it down through the formula. That way, we can actually see how the numbers do change, and what difference does or does not exist between UAH Arctic data and GISS...and how that in turn does or does not really effect global temperature trends.

[ORH_wxman]

Right, like I said I would like to see the numbers for the entire calculation. The graph apparently doesn't change much based on the numbers, so I think it would make more sense to break it down through the formula. That way, we can actually see how the numbers do change, and what difference does or does not exist between UAH Arctic trends and GISS.

I think part of the issue might be "subtracting out the arctic" from GISS...really we shouldn't be subtracting anything. We should be taking GISS's mid-latitudes and then adding UAH arctic in to fill the gaps if we want to perform this theoretical experiment accurately.

If you take the entire global anomaly of GISS...then subtract out 5% of its polar anomaly, you are still left with some significant GISS polar anomaly in the new value, so we have failed to isolate it using that method. That's why I'd like to just use 60N to 60S and not have to worry about any GISS polar anomalies in there in the first place.

I'm going to try and do the numbers in the next day or two, and I'm thinking that explanation above will be the main reason why the graphs skier posted weren't much different from original GISS.

[tacoman25]

It is still very meaningfull .. the match occurs because rapid warming has occurred in the arctic on both the GISS extrapolations and the UAH measurements.

A .03C error in UAH is meaningless to all this.

If UAH showed less warming, for example .2C/decade instead of close to 1C/decade, that would tell us GISS is wrong. Instead it approximately agrees with GISS and gives us good confidence GISS extrapolations are reasonable approximations.

I think this might hold some of the answers. UAH may indeed be cooler for much of the high latitudes than GISS...but because it the high latitudes have seen relatively rapid warming and represent a relatively small area of the earth's surface, the differences are probably not meaningful to the global trend.

However, skiier's summation that this proves GISS extrapolations are reasonable is not necessarily correct, as those extrapolations at lower latitudes (even a little lower) are more significant percentage-wise, and the difference with UAH becomes more profound. In addition, this conclusion actually disproves the idea that the Arctic is wholly responsible for the increasing GISS divergence from other sources the past decade. How could it? Think about it...GISS and UAH have differences in the Arctic, yet it isn't enough to significantly alter their trends, and therefore is not enough to cause them to diverge in global trends. But they do, significantly!

[skierinvermont]

Right, like I said I would like to see the numbers for the entire calculation. The graph apparently doesn't change much based on the numbers, so I think it would make more sense to break it down through the formula. That way, we can actually see how the numbers do change, and what difference does or does not exist between UAH Arctic data and GISS...and how that in turn does or does not really effect global temperature trends.

The reason GISS doesn't change much when you replace most of the arctic with UAH is that the UAH numbers and the GISS numbers are quite similar, as seen below. There are some slight differences but they are similar enough that replacing one for the other doesn't lead to a large change in GISS. The only two notable differences are 1999 and 2000 when GISS extrapolated too cold in the arctic. And indeed, as a result, we observe that the purple line in my graph of GISS with UAH replaced poles is above the red (original GISS) line in 1999 and 2000.

[skierinvermont]

I think this might hold some of the answers. UAH may indeed be cooler for much of the high latitudes than GISS...but because it the high latitudes have seen relatively rapid warming and represent a relatively small area of the earth's surface, the differences are probably not meaningful to the global trend.

Bingo.. the differences between UAH and GISS in the arctic are minutiae compared to the massive changes that have occurred. The small differences don't matter because it is only 5% of the earth's surface area. The massive net warming that occurred on both, does matter, and is what led to the divergence between GISS and HadCRUT (or HadCRUT w/ UAH infilling of arctic VS normal HadCRUT).

[skierinvermont]

Here are the two graphs for side-by-side comparison. As you can see, replacing GISS arctic with UAH arctic makes years like 1999,2000, 2004 a bit warmer, and years like 2007 a bit colder. Which makes sense given the first graph. However, the differences are minutiae compared to the general phenomenon. Removing the arctic makes GISS (green line) the same as HadCRUT (blue line). Adding it back in using UAH (purple line) makes it like the original GISS (red line).

[tacoman25]

Bingo.. the differences between UAH and GISS in the arctic are minutiae compared to the massive changes that have occurred. The small differences don't matter because it is only 5% of the earth's surface area. The massive net warming that occurred on both, does matter, and is what led to the divergence between GISS and HadCRUT (or HadCRUT w/ UAH infilling of arctic VS HadCRUT).

The divergence between HadCRUT and GISS has been primarily the past 8-9 years. I would like to see the numbers comparing UAH Arctic/Antarctic temps/rest HadCRUT vs. GISS for that period. If the overall difference in temps is higher, and your percentage was more like 7% Arctic (more accurate for 60N than 5% for sure) + 7% Antarctic = 14% of the earth's surface, your conclusion may not be supported.

[BethesdaWX]

The error bar on GISS since 1979 is .04C/decade. This is smaller than UAH's .05C/decade. You claim that "even the IPCC knows UAH has smaller error." This is a blatant lie. Stop lieing. I have quoted the IPCC error estimates for the different sources several times. Here is again. The error estimates are smaller for GISS than UAH.

This chart comes directly from the ipcc report. Don't claim they agree with you because they don't. I have disproved this lie nearly a half dozen times now.

Moreover, UAH's error bars for a small region of the earth are going to be much larger than its error bars for the earth as a whole.

UAH is also directly contradicted by STAR, a newer satellite analysis.

Umm, What? Slow down and take a deep breath.

I linked you the info friday. Do we need to go into this all over again? UAH isn't HadAT, UAH is a seperate, more complicated system using over 15 different satellites.

1) Your "study" regarding UAH "error" is no longer valid unfortunately, as Roy Spencer/John Christy have gone into detail on the issue. I'd trust their word on their satellite.

2) UAH uses RAOBCORE & RICH too dude, what are you talking about there? You think STAR is the only one that uses differing methods? Difference is the AQUA on UAH implemented in 2002 has eliminated alot of potential error, and is the biggest step forward in satellite technology we have seen thus far.. I linked the Peer Reviewed Study.

The peoblem is STAR uses unproven and un-verifyable Homogenization methods, ok?

Info on AQUA,link to peer reviewed papers inside this link. http://magicjava.blo...-satellite.html

2) I also explained the issues with STAR, it uses an unproven homogenization method that not only assumes errors in the 1970's/80's, but there is no testable verification for it. AQUA satellite puts UAH worlds ahead of STAR regardless.

From Roy Spencer, John Christy:

The standard deviation of these seasonal differences from the mean ranges from 0.050 °C to 0.081 °C. UAH has the smallest standard deviation of "errors" with progressively larger standard deviations for the HadAT, RSS, RAOBCORE, RICH, and RATPAC, respectively. RATPAC has the largest differences likely due to the lower geographic sampling with only 21 stations, a fact referred to later. In Figure 3 we show the individual decadal trends (least squares regression) for years ending in 2005 to 2009 for TLT and Tsfc for direct comparison of all products.

A problematic issue impacts RAOBCORE and RICH and is related to a warming shift in 1991 of the upper troposphere in the ERA-40 Reanalyses on which the two datasets rely. This was shown in [19] to be likely spurious due to a mishandling of a change in an infrared channel, a diagnosis acknowledged by the ECMWF (see also ECMWF Newsletter No. 119, Spring 2009). The shift also led to a sudden and spurious increase in estimates of (a) tropical rainfall, (200 hPa divergence and © low-level humidity. Since this has direct influence on RAOBCORE and to a lesser extent RICH, we would expect these products to display warmer-than-actual trends especially for TMT (which is shown in [9]

[tacoman25]

The reason GISS doesn't change much when you replace most of the arctic with UAH is that the UAH numbers and the GISS numbers are quite similar, as seen below. There are some slight differences but they are similar enough that replacing one for the other doesn't lead to a large change in GISS. The only two notable differences are 1999 and 2000 when GISS extrapolated too cold in the arctic. And indeed, as a result, we observe that the purple line in my graph of GISS with UAH replaced poles is above the red (original GISS) line in 1999 and 2000.

I like how the cooler source is always "too cold". The warmer source is always right!

Just looking at your graph, you can see how from the early 2002 or so to present, GISS has a much steeper rise than UAH. That coincides with the growing GISS divergence....

[skierinvermont]

I like how the cooler source is always "too cold". The warmer source is always right!

Just looking at your graph, you can see how from the early 2002 or so to present, GISS has a much steeper rise than UAH. That coincides with the growing GISS divergence....

Well the whole assumption of this exercise is that UAH is more accurate than GISS extrapolations. It seems quite probable given the satellite data that GISS extrapolated the arctic too cold in 1999 and 2000 and too warm in 2007.

To your second comment. Again.. you are nitpicking minutiae. If the UAH rise were much slower than the GISS rise, we would see the purple and red lines diverge. We don't, we see general agreement between the red and purple lines. And general agreement between the blue and green lines.

[tacoman25]

Wait, wouldn't it make more sense to have that second graph have a linear HadCRU + UAH Arctic/Antarctic? Shouldn't that equal GISS?

[skierinvermont]

The divergence between HadCRUT and GISS has been primarily the past 8-9 years. I would like to see the numbers comparing UAH Arctic/Antarctic temps/rest HadCRUT vs. GISS for that period. If the overall difference in temps is higher, and your percentage was more like 7% Arctic (more accurate for 60N than 5% for sure) + 7% Antarctic = 14% of the earth's surface, your conclusion may not be supported.

If we can find a source which gives good latitude bands for HadCRUT (preferable 60S to 60N) then I can do that. Perhaps KNMI?

[BethesdaWX]

Well the whole assumption of this exercise is that UAH is more accurate than GISS extrapolations. It seems quite probable given the satellite data that GISS extrapolated the arctic too cold in 1999 and 2000 and too warm in 2007.

To your second comment. Again.. you are nitpicking minutiae. If the UAH rise were much slower than the GISS rise, we would see the purple and red lines diverge. We don't, we see general agreement between the red and purple lines. And general agreement between the blue and green lines.

You're arguing GISS has not diverged from the rest of the pack? Holy Hell...

Why are you defending GISS when we have better systems available? Its not the measurements that Kill GISS, it is the extrapolations that create the massive divergence.

GISS

-worst resolution

-only outlier

-only system showing antarctic warming

-run by Jim Hansen

-on its own

anything else need be said here? GISS is probably one of the worst systems we have, yet you hug it like no other?

WHY?

[BethesdaWX]

Skier, please link me to your Graphing Site

thanks

[skierinvermont]

Wait, wouldn't it make more sense to have that second graph have a linear HadCRU + UAH Arctic/Antarctic? Shouldn't that equal GISS?

Yeah I would do that except I can't find HadCRUT latitude bands. The CRU site doesn't have it. I used GISS because the NASA site gives 64N-90N which allowed me to subtract off most of the arctic (weighted as only 5%).

[skierinvermont]

Skier, please link me to your Graphing Site

thanks

umm..

http://office.micros...om/en-us/excel/

http://www.ed2go.com/landing-pages/pages/microsoft-excel-classes.php.html