Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

How do they come up with October Monthy Temp Anomalies?


The_Global_Warmer

Recommended Posts

compday.75.132.160.218.300.1.10.18.gif

That is -15 to +15 anomalies for surface air temps.

To bet a better perspective of how wide they were.

compday.75.132.160.218.300.1.12.44.gif

Almost all of Antarctica is normal of above. With a good 30 percent 5C+ above. There is those two areas with -5C or colder but that is much smaller than the warm anomalies.

Africa, Australies, and South America are all below normal, combined just looking at the map around -1C maybe a bit colder.

North America looks 2-4C above normal with almost no minus anomalies. When you really look at the CA as well....it adds to it.

Asia is very warm as well in the 2-4C range.

Europe is pretty split with warm anomalies west and north, normal in the central, and cool south.

the Oceans are even for the most part but the arctic is boiling in comparison and definitely tilts air temps over the ocean to above normal.

Greenland is colder and will cut into the global deficit.

2010:

compday.75.132.160.218.300.1.28.10.gif

2009:

compday.75.132.160.218.300.1.29.33.gif

1996:

compday.75.132.160.218.300.1.30.41.gif

Huge difference.

Can anyone explain to me how accurate this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn

I basically was showing how October 2011 is torching at the poles. And I know the total land/ocean anomaly won't be over .5 even with it looking so warm over do much of the earth. I guess the oceans make it up

what is the base period for the map? There's probably a good chance that GISS will be above .5C for the month on a 1951-1980 baseline.

But the primary reason the maps usually look so warm is what you said.. that the poles where the warmth usually is are a very small % of the surface area of the earth. Smaller than you might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is the base period for the map? There's probably a good chance that GISS will be above .5C for the month on a 1951-1980 baseline.

But the primary reason the maps usually look so warm is what you said.. that the poles where the warmth usually is are a very small % of the surface area of the earth. Smaller than you might think.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/nssl/day/

1968-1996

So probably a bit warmer than the GISS anomalies. I read on these boards that the 50s were warm.

Take a look the entire NH is warm except for Greenland and a couple small areas.

Antartica is also torching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.esrl.noaa...sites/nssl/day/

1968-1996

So probably a bit warmer than the GISS anomalies. I read on these boards that the 50s were warm.

Take a look the entire NH is warm except for Greenland and a couple small areas.

Antartica is also torching.

No the 50s and 60s were quite cold. The 1968-1996 baseline is a much warmer base than the GISS base. I just checked.. .11C difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

That NOAA site (ESRL/PSD) uses 30 year climatology for "normals". Just take your month, say October. Add up the temps each day for each October from 1981-2010 and divide by the total number of days (930). That's all they do.

In general, data from well populated places are more accurate than data from sparsely populated places (like Antarctica). That site uses NCEP reanalysis data for its fields. The data are put through a computer model and the analysis (time = 0) fields are what you see there. This means that the data are assimilated and forced to be consistent with the known equations which govern the atmosphere (better than simple statistical interpolation).

Edit: oh, hey! someone showed that the base period is not actually 1981-2010, sorry! Most of the maps at ESRL/PSD are 1981-2010 though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an SST (NOAA OI) map of the same period, with the same color scale... I'd say the results are comparable...

I don't know how to run a map for the whole month, but take a look at these maps.

post-558-0-36238300-1321916122.gif

post-558-0-48402300-1321916311.gif

post-558-0-49577900-1321916317.gif

EDIT: I guess a lot of it probably just has to do with color shading, as 0 to -1 is white on the map you posted, while all below normal is blue on my maps. Makes the below normal area look smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...