2012 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

Spencer says the long term 1979-present trend won't be affected. But it could lower shorter trends like 2005-present.

[skierinvermont]

And not to say I am some all seeing know it all which it may seem like I think I am, but I always back my thoughts with endless data and ideas.

But I have thought over and over to myself this would happen the last week or so if this kept going on. I told myself not to make a hoopla becuase of Faith I placed in Roy, but Christy is a joke. You know he said 5 weeks ago that 1938-1943 had summer ice mins like todays' ice min's which is such a lie it's obvious he would do anything to ruin AGW in Science.

But what is more obvious to me is that AMSU apparently has a 4.0C+ noise issue on a scan to scan basis from some baseline. this mean the error margin for extrapolating a 0.2C warming issue with be extremely hard to contest, and it will be contested by someone but there is so much to the extrap method of sat temps it will end up in argument and dropped unless it can be proved that it was cooked.

The part that realllllyyy scares me is this:

Sounds almost like a pleas of appeasement because maintaining the continuity of the data set to appease the super super super majority of the Science community would be better than nothing if you want to shy away from multiple groups vigorously checking their data so that they can squash the record warmth now, which is more important than the entire data set showing the warming by far because it would continue the flat line creating one if there isn't even when GISS, Hadcrut, NCDC respond at the surface becuase there is always differences.

RSS doesn't cover the arctic which is where intense warming is taking place. So it would dampen the UAH rigging when comparing the two.

Also are they going to revise the data set every month or two? How can they keep using AMSU and avoid this? How can spuriously warming only at certain times. But be amplified right now?

Ironically the noise has not gone up for this period the last 30-40 days.

It sure would be easy to accept if say this didn't fit so perfectly with the global regime.

I guess co2 isn't as powerful or are-sols are taking over. I mean even so the energy budget keeps going up at record levels and is higher than ever.

This post is ridiculous Friv. You seem to be assuming that they are rigging it for no other reason than it has been warm the last few weeks. They were working on the revision before that. Also I disagree that short-term trends are more important than the long-term trend.

Also I have no idea what you are saying in some paragraphs like this one:

"But what is more obvious to me is that AMSU apparently has a 4.0C+ noise issue on a scan to scan basis from some baseline. this mean the error margin for extrapolating a 0.2C warming issue with be extremely hard to contest, and it will be contested by someone but there is so much to the extrap method of sat temps it will end up in argument and dropped unless it can be proved that it was cooked."

[tacoman25]

Spencer says the long term 1979-present trend won't be affected. But it could lower shorter trends like 2005-present.

Which is roughly the same period that RSS has established a cooler trend.

[The_Global_Warmer]

To find 0.2C of spurious warming that apparently is in the AMSU satellite the last month with a 4.5C noise factor gives a giant latitude to come up with this spurious warming compared to if the noise range factor was only up to 1.0C vs the other data set of 0.5C or so with there consistency.

It's also interesting that:

The results suggest that there has been a spurious warming in Aqua AMSU LT which has reached close to 0.2 deg. C last month. It has been increasing over the last couple years. Do NOT expect the long term warming trend during 1979-2012 to decrease, though, because there are other changes to the long-term time series which cancels out the recent spurious warming.

So when the noise stops increasing at the height of the spurious warming I think that should be questioned.

It also is just weird that they knew this was getting worse and haven't corrected it until now.

It's also weird there just happens to be other changes in the long term data set that were not picked up until after the last update so in 2012 that keeps the continuity of the data set but will clearly lower the warming trend RIGHT NOW.

So the flat-line will continue but somewhere in the back the data will be warmed up or cooled down to keep the warming consistent.

Yet the quick warming shows up globally else where. Looks like the NCEP/NCAR people need to check for spurious warming too.

display plot oiv2.ctl

ssta 1

20aug2010 to 26sep2012

global sst's.

2010 has already been adjusted. 2012 is going to be adjusted to be cooler than 2010 by upwards of 0.2C during September? The last 6 months that averaged .32C will also go down even though land based temps have been near record highs while global ssts have climbed to normal moderate to nearly strong NINO conditions.

So where is the energy vanishing off to?

Snow cover from April-Now has been at record lows.

Ice from Late May to now has been at record lows in the NH and way below normal globally.

So snow and ice albedo have been crap, which is why the NH lands are torching month after month.

Oh and the guys running this data set are extremely Skeptic and DENIERS. One of them tells bold face lies and submits crap data to congress.

There are as many red flags here as yellow cake and aluminum tubes.

And no it would have nothing to do with the last few weeks except it's called a trigger. Conspiracy's are made over long periods of time, usually made for a trigger.

Conspiracy's get smoked out when the auxiliary evidence doesn't support the claims that would change an on going trend.

In the case of yellow cake and aluminum tubes. It changed the peaceful times to a war time.

If the top of the United States Federal Govt can conspire to trick the public to start a war that could ruin the country I think a few climate deniers if they believe they will get away with it would manipulate a data set to show there extremes views vs their view being destroyed.

How on Earth can they continue to sell books and promote climate change denialism if their own Data set backs AGW? You haven't heard them recant have you? I think Christy just lied bold facilely to congress about the arctic sea ice? And submitted Watts et al to congress or am I wrong?

Sorry you don't see that.

EDIT:

the NCEP/NCAR folks really need to get their spurious warming under control. They also think the last few days 2012 has vaulted past 2010 like the AMSU data shows. Clearly Spurious warming is running rampant. I wouldn't put myself out there to the obvious incoming ridicule by skeptics and deniers and people who care more about there reputation and image on this board than seeking out the truth at all times. And this one attm seems to come completely UN-backed by every single piece of data we have about our climate. And there for deserves the scrutiny I have brought on it today.

To add, if every single shred of evidence didn't back 2012 vaulting into record warmth the last month, it would of already been pointed out here by many skeptics. It's not like global ssts are 0.1C and channel 5 temps moved to record highs with the ncep charts showing cold air over land, no there is equal torching going on save Australia!

VS 2010:

[skierinvermont]

Which is roughly the same period that RSS has established a cooler trend.

Yes I was thinking the same thing. Although it's possible that the error in UAH is also affecting RSS and so it wouldn't help close the 2005-present divergence.

If it only affects UAH, then it will close the short term 2005-present divergence but make the long-term 1979-present divergence worse. But Spencer says that other corrects will increase the long-term trend which would mean that the long-term difference would remain the same (and it has already closed a lot over the last 5 years. I haven't checked recently but there might not be much long-term divergence left any more).

So the various corrections to UAH could make it more consistent with RSS in the short term while maintaining the improved similarity in long term trends that resulted from the possibly spurious short term warming of UAH.

This is all highly speculative as we haven't yet seen the revisions or whether the new methodologies pass peer-review...

[skierinvermont]

To find 0.2C of spurious warming that apparently is in the AMSU satellite the last month with a 4.5C noise factor gives a giant latitude to come up with this spurious warming compared to if the noise range factor was only up to 1.0C vs the other data set of 0.5C or so with there consistency.

So when the noise stops increasing at the height of the spurious warming I think that should be questioned.

It also is just weird that they knew this was getting worse and haven't corrected it until now.

It's also weird there just happens to be other changes in the long term data set that were not picked up until after the last update so in 2012 that keeps the continuity of the data set but will clearly lower the warming trend RIGHT NOW.

So the flat-line will continue but somewhere in the back the data will be warmed up or cooled down to keep the warming consistent.

Yet the quick warming shows up globally else where. Looks like the NCEP/NCAR people need to check for spurious warming too.

display plot oiv2.ctl

ssta 1

20aug2010 to 26sep2012

global sst's.

2010 has already been adjusted. 2012 is going to be adjusted to be cooler than 2010 by upwards of 0.2C during September? The last 6 months that averaged .32C will also go down even though land based temps have been near record highs while global ssts have climbed to normal moderate to nearly strong NINO conditions.

So where is the energy vanishing off to?

Snow cover from April-Now has been at record lows.

Ice from Late May to now has been at record lows in the NH and way below normal globally.

So snow and ice albedo have been crap, which is why the NH lands are torching month after month.

Oh and the guys running this data set are extremely Skeptic and DENIERS. One of them tells bold face lies and submits crap data to congress.

There are as many red flags here as yellow cake and aluminum tubes.

And no it would have nothing to do with the last few weeks except it's called a trigger. Conspiracy's are made over long periods of time, usually made for a trigger.

Conspiracy's get smoked out when the auxiliary evidence doesn't support the claims that would change an on going trend.

In the case of yellow cake and aluminum tubes. It changed the peaceful times to a war time.

If the top of the United States Federal Govt can conspire to trick the public to start a war that could ruin the country I think a few climate deniers if they believe they will get away with it would manipulate a data set to show there extremes views vs their view being destroyed.

How on Earth can they continue to sell books and promote climate change denialism if their own Data set backs AGW? You haven't heard them recant have you? I think Christy just lied bold facilely to congress about the arctic sea ice? And submitted Watts et al to congress or am I wrong?

Sorry you don't see that.

EDIT:

the NCEP/NCAR folks really need to get their spurious warming under control. They also think the last few days 2012 has vaulted past 2010 like the AMSU data shows. Clearly Spurious warming is running rampant. I wouldn't put myself out there to the obvious incoming ridicule by skeptics and deniers and people who care more about there reputation and image on this board than seeking out the truth at all times. And this one attm seems to come completely UN-backed by every single piece of data we have about our climate. And there for deserves the scrutiny I have brought on it today.

To add, if every single shred of evidence didn't back 2012 vaulting into record warmth the last month, it would of already been pointed out here by many skeptics. It's not like global ssts are 0.1C and channel 5 temps moved to record highs with the ncep charts showing cold air over land, no there is equal torching going on save Australia!

VS 2010:

First, Surface and satellite sources have absolutely zero correlation from month to month, so the fact that NCEP says it was warm at the surface provides zero evidence that the satellite anomaly should be record warm. No evidence whatsoever. You can't even tell what the global anomaly is or on what baseline it is just by looking at the pretty red colors on those maps. Even if you could, as I've already said, it's completely 100% irrelevant.

Second, The short-term trends have absolutely no bearing on the validity of AGW, so if it was a conspiracy theory, it would be a pretty stupid one. Why would they manipulate the short term trend which has nothing to do with AGW, but adjust the long-term trend which is relevant to AGW upwards? It sounds like you're more mad that these revisions will mess up your monthly and/or annual temperature forecasts than because they might violate the principles of AGW (they don't).

Third, UAH has been peer-reviewed. I'm not familiar enough as to why they keep having to do more revisions. But it is peer-reviewed and generally accepted as a reasonable interpretation of the AMSU data within the bounds of considerable uncertainty. I guess all of the peer-reviewers are in on the conspiracy theory too?

I am no fan of conspiracy theories of any kind.

[skierinvermont]

I would like to point out that I have been saying for years on this forum that satellite temperature measurements are not cast in stone. Some posters ignored that and claimed that the last round of major revisions would be the last. As you can see from the fact that we're now on to version 6 of UAH with several significant revisions, it is doubtful we will ever have exact precision from satellite temperature measurements until a more sophisticated observation system is put in place.

Which would require that we actually fund NASA and congressional republicans stop trying to defund climate research.

[The_Global_Warmer]

No, as already pointed out the out side peer reviewers have almost exclusively brought adjustments to make the data set warmer.

While Christy writes papers to make it cooler, or did in 2007.

Time is linear, the climate is non-linear.

So how one reacts to one thing before may not react the same now.

I have looked for explanation peer reviewed analysis on the most recent updates and couldn't find them. Another paper came out in 2012 sometime about UAH being to cool, Spencer wrote a long blog post on it, but I couldn't find a paper about that either which I believe he promised at the time.

Update 1 Dec 2011 *************************

Roy and Danny are looking at a new, more robust method of calculating

(empirically) the diurnal drift effect on the AMSU instruments as noted

last month. In very preliminary results, it appears that the AMSU on

AQUA may have a slight spurious warming in AMSU5 over the last 3 years. Since this

AMSU is our backbone satellite since 2002, we have intercalibrated the

other satellites to it, which means when all is said and done, we may

be lowering the anomalies since 2008. However, there are still many

uncertainties in the process, but I wanted to give an update on the

preliminary findings.

Update 8 Nov 2011 *************************

Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell are working on a diurnal correction for the

AMSU channels. To date we have relied on AQUA AMSU due to the fact it was

a NASA science spacecraft with on-board propulsion and thus a stable (non-drifting)

orbit. AQUA will not last forever, and there are signs of increasing noise,

so it will not be suitable as an anchor satellite much longer. The diurnal

corrections will allow more data from NOAA-15, -16 and -18 to be utilized. At

this point we terminate their use when a drift in temperature is

detected: (YEAR/DAY)

Spacecraft with AMSU used in UAH products as of Oct 2011

START TERMINATE

NOAA-15 1998/215 2007/365

NOAA-16 2001/032 2004/233

AQUA 2002/221 Present

NOAA-18 2005/152 2010/182

We are also looking to bring in the AMSU data from METOP and NOAA-19.

When the testing is completed we will be issuing version 6.0 of the

temperature products. We do not know when such testing will be completed.

[ORH_wxman]

No, as already pointed out the out side peer reviewers have almost exclusively brought adjustments to make the data set warmer.

While Christy writes papers to make it cooler, or did in 2007.

Time is linear, the climate is non-linear.

So how one reacts to one thing before may not react the same now.

I have looked for explanation peer reviewed analysis on the most recent updates and couldn't find them. Another paper came out in 2012 sometime about UAH being to cool, Spencer wrote a long blog post on it, but I couldn't find a paper about that either which I believe he promised at the time.

They said it was irrelevant as version 6 would be out fairly soon. Version 6 would not get passed peer review if it was obviously too cool. They might post a rebuttal to that paper as well, but I'm sure that won't come until after version 6 of UAH is out.

[The_Global_Warmer]

What do you think it would take for Spencer and Christy to recant there life long positions? How would they react if there ideology was destroyed by there own data set? The 4th order polynomial trend Roy has entertained is with as long as it shows cooling going forward would actually start showing a warming trend in global temps, now they will make it go back to it's cooling position.

They are not just taking September down they are going to downward adjust from the last update to now, they just are saying it's weighed towards September that reached 0.2C but is also after a .34C month and would be showing record warmth.

So August might go from .34 to .21 or something even with global sst near 0.30C and land based warmth above that, think about it Oceans over turn and release heat but the global ssts entering September dropped from .31 to .275. So there is no heat loss the heat driven out would be very consistent across the globe if one regions cools another warms and it evens out very quickly. while snow cover anomaly's were near record lows, Sea Ice has been way below record lows, land based temps have torched. I get that the TLT is weighted heavily between 750-950MB. And spans 400MB to the surface or so. It doesn't add up to me.

I would be a lot more convinced if the Earth wasn't blow torching on land with the oceans at record warmth given the ENSO state, OHC at last check was at seasonal record warmth while surface albedo was near or at record lows.

I remember when you sharply called them out for changing the baseline to add the heat of 2001-2010 because it was so obvious it would make their data look cooler than the surface data sets based on the cooler climate. You were right, if you ever read denial blogs hundreds of comments about how we are as cold as the 1970s or 80s because UAH showed negative temp anomaly's.

Christy told congress sea ice in 1938-1943 was similar to today's minimums, if he lies about that why would he care if he has integrity with UAH?

I guess I am seeing ghosts then. The data for August, July, and so on shows that we are warm, where did the energy vanish off to? It's not one month or a few weeks, it's been longer than that. I can't wait to see how it is explained

[ORH_wxman]

What do you think it would take for Spencer and Christy to recant there life long positions? How would they react if there ideology was destroyed by there own data set? The 4th order polynomial trend Roy has entertained is with as long as it shows cooling going forward would actually start showing a warming trend in global temps, now they will make it go back to it's cooling position.

They are not just taking September down they are going to downward adjust from the last update to now, they just are saying it's weighed towards September that reached 0.2C but is also after a .34C month and would be showing record warmth.

So August might go from .34 to .21 or something even with global sst near 0.30C and land based warmth above that.

I guess I am seeing ghosts then. The data for August, July, and so on shows that we are warm, where did the energy vanish off to? It's not one month or a few weeks, it's been longer than that.

A 4th order polynomial would hardly be affected at all by a few months of warmth...even through the roof record warmth. It would have to stay warm for several years to really affect that line. I highly doubt they are cooking data so that a line that has nothing to do with their peer review work doesn't "bust" in the future.

And why do you keep bringing up SSTs? UAH data lags the uptick in SSTs or downtick in SSTs by usually 2-3 months or so. This is why UAH was still putting up values near +0.30C in October/November 2010 despite SSTs way down near their 3 year lows and didn't bottom out until March 2011 despite hitting their low in December.

[TerryM]

Friv

Is this the same Spencer that published a paper that was so bad the editor resigned in protest after being coerced into publishing it?

Has he managed to find someone else that will publish his stuff?

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Oct2010 - NH Extent Ocean 0.01 SH Extent Ocean 0.16 Tropics 0.39

Nov2010- NH Extent Ocean -0.21 SH Extent Ocean 0.23 Tropics 0.30

Oct 2010 - NH Extent Land 0.31 SH Extent Land 0.49 Tropics 0.29

Nov 2010 - NH Extent Land 0.07 SH Extent Land 0.94 Tropics -0.21

Global SST anomaly's: Oct: 0.14 Nov: 0.10

Oct2011 - NH Extent Ocean -0.07 SH Extent Ocean 0.08 Tropics 0.06

Nov2011- NH Extent Ocean 0.02 SH Extent Ocean 0.26 Tropics 0.07

Oct2011 - NH Extent Land 0.03 SH Extent Land 0.41 Tropics 0.11

Nov2011 - NH Extent Land 0.02 SH Extent Land -0.03 Tropics 0.47

Global SST anomaly's: Oct: 0.11 Nov: 0.09

Is there other years or crunched data supporting a 2-3 month lag.

2010 and 2011 show the land being their difference.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv

Is this the same Spencer that published a paper that was so bad the editor resigned in protest after being coerced into publishing it?

Has he managed to find someone else that will publish his stuff?

Terry

Yeah same guy

[nflwxman]

This post is ridiculous Friv. You seem to be assuming that they are rigging it for no other reason than it has been warm the last few weeks. They were working on the revision before that. Also I disagree that short-term trends are more important than the long-term trend.

Also I have no idea what you are saying in some paragraphs like this one:

"But what is more obvious to me is that AMSU apparently has a 4.0C+ noise issue on a scan to scan basis from some baseline. this mean the error margin for extrapolating a 0.2C warming issue with be extremely hard to contest, and it will be contested by someone but there is so much to the extrap method of sat temps it will end up in argument and dropped unless it can be proved that it was cooked."

For me, it's more the timing of this announcement. Let's assume that the data is in fact showing quite a bit of warm bias, does that mean they have been adjusting anomalies the last 3 years? If not, why wait until now..in which we are clearly in a multi-period of record warmth (according to many data sets- not just theirs) to announce this to the world?

I believe they will work in good faith (what choice do they have- the scientific community is very sensitive to UAH since there have been serious issues with the datset before). It's just the timing of this announcement that seems so...not coincidental.

[nflwxman]

Dr. Spencer has in fact released version 5.5 of the software. Significant cut in the anomalies over the past 3 years according to this new release.

New anomalies:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2012 01 -0.134 -0.060 -0.203 -0.256

2012 02 -0.135 0.018 -0.289 -0.320

2012 03 0.051 0.119 -0.017 -0.238

2012 04 0.232 0.351 0.114 -0.242

2012 05 0.179 0.337 0.021 -0.098

2012 06 0.235 0.370 0.101 -0.019

2012 07 0.130 0.256 0.003 0.142

2012 08 0.208 0.214 0.202 0.062

2012 09 0.338 0.349 0.327 0.155

Old Anomalies:

2012 1 -0.09 -0.06 -0.12 -0.13

2012 2 -0.11 -0.01 -0.21 -0.27

2012 3 +0.11 +0.13 +0.10 -0.10

2012 4 +0.30 +0.41 +0.19 -0.12

2012 5 +0.29 +0.44 +0.14 +0.03

2012 6 +0.37 +0.54 +0.20 +0.14

2012 7 +0.28 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33

2012 8 +0.34 +0.38 +0.31 +0.26

He says it's more in line with the RSS. Doesn't the RSS exclude the arctic though?

[ORH_wxman]

Dr. Spencer has in fact released version 5.5 of the software. Significant cut in the anomalies over the past 3 years according to this new release.

New anomalies:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2012 01 -0.134 -0.060 -0.203 -0.256

2012 02 -0.135 0.018 -0.289 -0.320

2012 03 0.051 0.119 -0.017 -0.238

2012 04 0.232 0.351 0.114 -0.242

2012 05 0.179 0.337 0.021 -0.098

2012 06 0.235 0.370 0.101 -0.019

2012 07 0.130 0.256 0.003 0.142

2012 08 0.208 0.214 0.202 0.062

2012 09 0.338 0.349 0.327 0.155

Old Anomalies:

2012 1 -0.09 -0.06 -0.12 -0.13

2012 2 -0.11 -0.01 -0.21 -0.27

2012 3 +0.11 +0.13 +0.10 -0.10

2012 4 +0.30 +0.41 +0.19 -0.12

2012 5 +0.29 +0.44 +0.14 +0.03

2012 6 +0.37 +0.54 +0.20 +0.14

2012 7 +0.28 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33

2012 8 +0.34 +0.38 +0.31 +0.26

He says it's more in line with the RSS. Doesn't the RSS exclude the arctic though?

RSS includes most of the arctic...it goes to 82.5N. Where its missing more data is actually down in the Antarctic where it only goes to 70S. Given that the UAH data in Antarctica has been cold this year, they should theoretically actually be a bit colder than RSS in 2012. I haven't checked the RSS numbers though for 2012 to see if that is actually the case.

[tacoman25]

For me, it's more the timing of this announcement. Let's assume that the data is in fact showing quite a bit of warm bias, does that mean they have been adjusting anomalies the last 3 years? If not, why wait until now..in which we are clearly in a multi-period of record warmth (according to many data sets- not just theirs) to announce this to the world?

I believe they will work in good faith (what choice do they have- the scientific community is very sensitive to UAH since there have been serious issues with the datset before). It's just the timing of this announcement that seems so...not coincidental.

Again, I wouldn't ignore RSS, the other satelllite LT measuring system. UAH has been running warmer than RSS for the last few years.

And actually, the last few years have not been the warmest on record if you look at all sources across the board. The distinction for warmest 3 years on record currently belongs to either 2001-03 or 2005-07 for most temp sources.

EDIT: I see you did address RSS in the next post. As ORH showed, nothing about RSS's coverage suggests they should be running cooler than UAH.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Dr. Spencer has in fact released version 5.5 of the software. Significant cut in the anomalies over the past 3 years according to this new release.

New anomalies:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2012 01 -0.134 -0.060 -0.203 -0.256

2012 02 -0.135 0.018 -0.289 -0.320

2012 03 0.051 0.119 -0.017 -0.238

2012 04 0.232 0.351 0.114 -0.242

2012 05 0.179 0.337 0.021 -0.098

2012 06 0.235 0.370 0.101 -0.019

2012 07 0.130 0.256 0.003 0.142

2012 08 0.208 0.214 0.202 0.062

2012 09 0.338 0.349 0.327 0.155

Old Anomalies:

2012 1 -0.09 -0.06 -0.12 -0.13

2012 2 -0.11 -0.01 -0.21 -0.27

2012 3 +0.11 +0.13 +0.10 -0.10

2012 4 +0.30 +0.41 +0.19 -0.12

2012 5 +0.29 +0.44 +0.14 +0.03

2012 6 +0.37 +0.54 +0.20 +0.14

2012 7 +0.28 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33

2012 8 +0.34 +0.38 +0.31 +0.26

He says it's more in line with the RSS. Doesn't the RSS exclude the arctic though?

Yeah, 70s to 82.5N so not a biggie but still obviously going to lose a bit of warming, not to much though.

He is just a big fraud and ORH has no idea what he was talking about in terms of Dr. Frauds entertainment 4th order of the Gould.

I guess he just couldn't handle his life's convictions going down the drains.

Could there be some spurious warming? Sure, but is it what he says, no way, this is so wrong.

Old Graph, oh look his little game backfired and is literally a couple warm months from showing a long term warming trend.

ANYONE ELSE NOTICE THE SPURIOUS WARMING WAS ONLY IN SUMMER? NO SPURIOUS WARMING IN THE WINTER? YET THE NOISE WAS OUT OF CONTROL FOR A FEW YEARS?

WHY WOULD YOU NOT COOL DOWN THE WINTER AS WELL? WELL IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE IF IT WASN'T SO FREAKING OBVIOUS, HIS LITTLE CURVE LINE WOULD BE DRAGGED DOWN AND IT WOULD APPEAR THEN EVEN IF IT'S SLIGHTLY TO BE LESS SLOPED AND MORE STRAIGHT BY SEPTEMBER.

Get it? We are being played. We have zero way to check up on any of this. Unless you can read algorithmic code in how they come up with each satellites function at each channel, we can't even bother. Even people dissenting in the Science world will have a hard time, this is writing new code for how you interprete the data, not orbital decay adjustments. This is thoroughly sad.

August of 2012 had averaged almost .30C global sst anomaly.

Global sst anomaly's in the tropics were .22C in August but Roy has overall tropics at 0.06C? The globe at 0.21C now So the land was cool? No, it wasn't. How sad.

Eat your heart out Roy you got your downward trend line back.

The red line is kicked out because it show spurious warming. yet there are times the blue line is much warmer than the Green line. Just not as much.

[LakeEffectKing]

He is just a big fraud and ORH has no idea what he was talking about in terms of Dr. Frauds entertainment 4th order of the Gould.

Eat your heart out Roy you got your downward trend line back.

Your head is about to explode......isn't it???

[TerryM]

Simply googling Roy Spencer & Heartland brings up enough to know that anything he's involved with is suspect.

When a scientist aligns himself with with an organization that exists solely to undermine science. He loses credibility.

When a scientist teaches "intelligent design". He's placed belief before rationality.

When he alters data. Watch out!!

"He is a member of the Heartland Institute, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, and the favorite climatologist of Rush Limbaugh. In addition to being skeptical about the existence of climate change, Dr. Spencer also doubts the theory of evolution"

Friv is right to be suspicious.

Taco

What source do you have for those dates? I don't follow global temperatures, but I've heard over and over that the temperatures keep going up and new records are being set.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Your head is about to explode......isn't it???

It was. I almost had a heart attack. But I am ok now.

[tacoman25]

Friv, please delete one of your posts, they are duplicate.

And you have no basis for saying Spencer is altering UAH to be cooler against the actual data, when in fact the other major satellite LT source has been running cooler over the same period. Why haven't you been attacking RSS for running cooler than other sources? Logically inconsistent.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Simply googling Roy Spencer & Heartland brings up enough to know that anything he's involved with is suspect.

When a scientist aligns himself with with an organization that exists solely to undermine science. He loses credibility.

When a scientist teaches "intelligent design". He's placed belief before rationality.

When he alters data. Watch out!!

"He is a member of the Heartland Institute, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, and the favorite climatologist of Rush Limbaugh. In addition to being skeptical about the existence of climate change, Dr. Spencer also doubts the theory of evolution"

Friv is right to be suspicious.

Taco

What source do you have for those dates? I don't follow global temperatures, but I've heard over and over that the temperatures keep going up and new records are being set.

Terry

I gave it a 75/25 that he rigged it, now it's 100/0. Thanks Terry.

He must of had the BIBLE BEATEN into him as a child to have the ability to get a PHD and still be the way he is.

[tacoman25]

Yeah, 70s to 82.5N so not a biggie but still obviously going to lose a bit of warming, not to much though.

He is just a big fraud and ORH has no idea what he was talking about in terms of Dr. Frauds entertainment 4th order of the Gould.

I guess he just couldn't handle his life's convictions going down the drains.

Could there be some spurious warming? Sure, but is it what he says, no way, this is so wrong.

Old Graph, oh look his little game backfired and is literally a couple warm months from showing a long term warming trend.

ANYONE ELSE NOTICE THE SPURIOUS WARMING WAS ONLY IN SUMMER? NO SPURIOUS WARMING IN THE WINTER? YET THE NOISE WAS OUT OF CONTROL FOR A FEW YEARS?

WHY WOULD YOU NOT COOL DOWN THE WINTER AS WELL? WELL IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE IF IT WASN'T SO FREAKING OBVIOUS, HIS LITTLE CURVE LINE WOULD BE DRAGGED DOWN AND IT WOULD APPEAR THEN EVEN IF IT'S SLIGHTLY TO BE LESS SLOPED AND MORE STRAIGHT BY SEPTEMBER.

Except all data sets have been running cooler in the winter the last few years. Did you fail to notice that?

[tacoman25]

I gave it a 75/25 that he rigged it, now it's 100/0. Thanks Terry.

He must of had the BIBLE BEATEN into him as a child to have the ability to get a PHD and still be the way he is.

So should atheist scientists be dismissed because their belief system shapes the way they interpret the world as well?

It's a two-way street Friv. If you want to condemn someone as a scientist because of their beliefs, you have to acknowledge the fact that personal beliefs shape all of our interpretations. Science is not immune to this by any means.

[ORH_wxman]

Friv, you are starting to sound ridiculous. UAH and RSS are peer reviewed data sets and they really aren't that different than GISS or Hadcrut on a long term basis.

Did you accuse Hansen of rigging GISS when they retroactively cooled January and February this year?

[TerryM]

So should atheist scientists be dismissed because their belief system shapes the way they interpret the world as well?

It's a two-way street Friv. If you want to condemn someone as a scientist because of their beliefs, you have to acknowledge the fact that personal beliefs shape all of our interpretations. Science is not immune to this by any means.

The thing is that evolution is scientifically established. For a scientist of any faith - or lack thereof - to publish the non scientific view is just wrong. I live in a country where our Minister of Science, believes the world is 6,000 yrs old. His funding proposals for most scientific research is understandably picayune.

A scientist, regardless of his education, ceases to be a scientist when he abandons the scientific method. Roy Spencer seems to have cast his lot with with another group, which is fine, as long as he informs everyone that he's speaking as a preacher, or as an advocate for the FF industry and not as a scientist.

BTW I really was hoping to see what data sets you were using when you came up with the hottest global temperatures occurring nearly a decade ago.

Terry

[nflwxman]

Friv, you are starting to sound ridiculous. UAH and RSS are peer reviewed data sets and they really aren't that different than GISS or Hadcrut on a long term basis.

Did you accuse Hansen of rigging GISS when they retroactively cooled January and February this year?

ORH,

I agree we should take a hard and calm look at this, but Friv does make a good point when he points on the cold (La Nina effected datasets) appear to be only slightly altered when the more recent warmer months appear to have much higher altering. Not accusing Dr. Spencer of anything here. It's just something that should be accounted for in thorough investigation. I think looking at SSTs, NCEP renalysis products all paint a holistic picture of global temperatures. We should not just accept any adjustments Dr. Spencer makes to the dataset at face value, but rather dig deeper as to WHY those adjustments are valid/invalid. One reason why the warmer surface temps may not make it into UAH is that it's reading mid troposphere instead of surface (we have seen this lag before). This may mean October or November will be much higher than 0.34 on UAH.

On a broader analytical note, it's just simply unacceptable that this dataset has had as many problems as it has in the last decade. GISS obviously has made some adjustments here or there, but they are fairly transparent in their methods and haven't really majorly altered a multi-year trend.

[ORH_wxman]

ORH,

I agree we should take a hard look at this, but Friv does make a good point when he points on the cold (La Nina effected datasets) appear to be only slightly altered when the more recent warmer months appear to have much higher altering. Not accusing Dr. Spencer of anything here. It's just something that should be accounted for in thorough investigation. I think looking at SSTs, NCEP renalysis products all paint a holistic picture of global temperatures. We should not just accept any adjustments Dr. Spencer makes to the dataset at face value, but rather dig deeper as to WHY those adjustments are valid/invalid. One reason why the warmer surface temps may not make it into UAH is that it's reading mid troposphere instead of surface (we have seen this lag before). This may mean October or November will be much higher than 0.34 on UAH.

On a broader analytical note, it's just simply unacceptable that this dataset has had as many problems as it has in the last decade. GISS obviously has made some adjustments here or there, but they are fairly transparent in their methods and haven't really majorly altered a multi-year trend.

I agree that we shouldn't just "accept" the adjustments. But then again we don't have to. UAH will not get peer reviewed in version 6 if the adjustments are bogus. Satellite temps are tricky because the satellites used have life spans on them, and when those satellites start nearing their end, you get a lot of noise in the data. RSS just had to revise too back in January 2011 to a new version which changed their trend somewhat.

GISS just updated their dataset too...in fact, they do it almost all the time without having to issue a new peer reviewed set. Their newest adjustments made Jan/Feb colder and affected scores of previous months too. It was actually more like a GHCN adjustment versus a GISS adjustment, but it affects the GISS dataset all the time. they just don't normally issue press releases when they do. They usually reserve that for larger changes that will have a more noticeable impact on the trends.

I used to think Hansen had alterior motives (well maybe he still does) with the GISS dataset, but after reading how the datasets are reviewed, I'm pretty confident that the temperatures they are getting out of the data that is available to them is pretty sound. If I had a bigger beef, its probably with GHCN/USHCN dataset that GISS uses versus GISS or Hadcrut itself.

UAH had been diverging quite a bit from the other data sets in the past couple of years to where their 10 year trend was an outlier compared to GISS/RSS/HadCRUT. There's reason to believe that they are not making up the idea of spurious warming. If they are, then once again, it will not pass peer review.

As for the timing of the announcement...that is pure conjecture. Maybe they had a motive or maybe they didn't.