2012 Global Temperatures

[ORH_wxman]

Have the downward adjustments to GISS that ORH pointed out been submitted for review? Let's look at this evenly.

I have yet to see anyone who is questioning UAH acknowledge the fact that this adjustment brings UAH more in line with recent trends in the other global temp sources.

As a major peer reviewed source of global temps, UAH adjustments, if major, will have to stand up to outside criticism...if not, it will get debunked in peer review. I'm sure their new version will get plenty of eyes on it.

[TerryM]

We've provided these links many times over in the past. Its not a new concept that UAH/RSS/HadCRUT/GISS are peer reviewed sources for global temperature data. It doesn't take much effort to look up one of these datasets.

A more obscure or newer study would certainly be link-worthy.

As I've said before, global temperatures aren't my thing. I've always found time to either provide a link when my statements have been challenged, or to retract the statement if I couldn't find it (for whatever reason). Different topic - different rules (apparently).

I assume that you went to 36 month temperature records because a 3 year span is what is usually used for comparison, not because monthly, seasonal or annual records would have belied the claim.

Slightly off topic, but if a scientist claimed that the germ theory was wrong, and that disease was caused by impure thoughts, would this be enough to give you pause?

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

I assume that you went to 36 month temperature records because a 3 year span is what is usually used for comparison, not because monthly, seasonal or annual records would have belied the claim.

I showed them because tacoman wanted to compare the warmest 3 year period. As for warmest month on record, they are as follows:

GISS: tie...July 2005/Feb 2010

RSS: April 1998

UAH: February 1998

HadCRUT: February 1998

Warmest year:

GISS: 2010

RSS: 1998

UAH: 1998

HadCRUT: 1998

[PhillipS]

Its not my job to do your research on a well known claim. You don't think its peer reviewed? Then show us that it is not.

Regardless, you can see one of the original papers on their dataset they did back in 2000 here:

https://docs.google....PqBfAwh3rbfwUmQ

You are now touting the same conspiracy theories that many accused IPCC scientists of during "climate gate"...which was "pal review".

Why don't you show how the claims of spurious warming are inaccurate rather than use conspiracy theories. Its not that difficult to put it up against other temperature datasets over a period of several years.

"well known" is not synonymous with "true". Many well known things are totally false. And it is your responsibility to support your claims - nobody else's. That is a fundamental principle of this forum, as you well know.

I know that Spencer and Christy have published papers on their methods but that is not the same as saying that the UAH temperature record itself is peer reviewed. If it were truly peer reviewed by some independent entity then it should be easy for you to share with us the review dates and the reviewer comments. And a 2000 paper on methodologies that have needed to be repeatedly revised and corrected is laughably out of date. . Your touting the UAH temperature record as 'peer reviewed' when it is not is a good example of the logical fallacy "appeal to authority".

And your claim that I am touting conspiracy theories is simply an ad hominem attack. You should be embarrassed to be be stooping so low.

[SVT450R]

[Vergent]

ORH

Do I have this right.

http://www.atmos.was...hedley.2012.pdf

UAH v5.4 was shown to have a cold bias, so they came out with v5.5, which Spencer now claims has a warm bias in part by comparing it to v5.4.

So now he is coming out with v6.0, and is sending up a trial balloon that v6.0 will be as much as 0.2C lower than v5.5.

[nflwxman]

I'm all for train wrecks, but we should stick to the topic at hand. 2012 global temperatures. I really thought Friv did a good job outlining why he thought the recent warmth on AMSU was not spurious for the last few weeks. Even if there is in fact a 0.1-0.2 warm bias on the AMSU data- we are now siting at approximately 0.2 degrees warmer than the 2nd closest year (2009) on the dataset. Perhaps October-December will put a dent in Dr. Spencer's Polynomial fit.

[SVT450R]

I'm all for train wrecks, but we should stick to the topic at hand. 2012 global temperatures. I really thought Friv did a good job outlining why he thought the recent warmth on AMSU was not spurious for the last few weeks. Even if there is in fact a 0.1-0.2 warm bias on the AMSU data- we are now siting at approximately 0.2 degrees warmer than the 2nd closest year (2009) on the dataset. Perhaps October-December will put a dent in Dr. Spencer's Polynomial fit.

I just think it's kind of comical just yesterday all was fine now it looks like some want throw UAH temps out now.

[nflwxman]

I just think it's kind of comical just yesterday all was fine now it looks like some want throw UAH temps out now.

I'm more disturbed by the fact it took so long for them to report this issue. It's just a long line of large adjustments for sat datasets. It's disapointing is all. This is not going to change anyone's thinking on AGW ultimately. Most of us still rely on NOAA and GISS since they are surface temps.

[ben4vols]

I'm more disturbed by the fact it took so long for them to report this issue. It's just a long line of large adjustments for sat datasets. It's disapointing is all. This is not going to change anyone's thinking on AGW ultimately. Most of us still rely on NOAA and GISS since they are surface temps.

A good amount of money was spent on putting out a more reliable station network (USCRN) but it is hardly even mentioned or used. I know it's not a global temp. but it is a good start. I agree though it is disappointing and the jumping to conclusions so quick is not doing any good either. It will work itself out.

[Jonger]

A good amount of money was spent on putting out a more reliable station network (USCRN) but it is hardly even mentioned or used. I know it's not a global temp. but it is a good start. I agree though it is disappointing and the jumping to conclusions so quick is not doing any good either. It will work itself out.

It will be nice to track CRN temps from here on out, but sadly we don't have older data from them. You really need to have a site by site study done and ONLY use 75+ year stations, with no human structures built within 50 feet. I personally pay NO attention to any urbanized stations... They are all reading high by about 1 degree since 1880.

[nzucker]

Determining what the Earth's temperature is represents a complicated proposition. UAH and RSS have their problems, as do the surface-based sources. I don't think it's possible to arrive at a perfect number when there are so many issues such as siting problems, UHI, station drop-out, drift, calibration, etc. It's an inexact science, But we do have a reasonable consensus that the Earth is warming around .15C/decade in the last 30 years and around .05C/decade in the last 10-12 years. It's much easier to ascertain a trend, or change in trend, than a specific anomaly.

[TerryM]

Thanks OHR, Bluewave

I had no idea this stuff was so contentious. Am I right in concluding that 1998 (the year of the big ENSO) and 2010 are about tied?

So is it the consensus that Dr. Roy's stuff is actually peer reviewed or not?

"peer review of satellite derived temperatures" shows no hits.

"peer review of UAH" - no hits

"UAH peer review" - no hits

"roy spencer peer review" - elicits a diatribe against peer review by Marc Morano (no relative)

"UAH spencer" peer - just gets a bunch of stuff about the problems they've had with their math

I'll get back to you when I've thought of some more search options.

Terry

[tacoman25]

"well known" is not synonymous with "true". Many well known things are totally false. And it is your responsibility to support your claims - nobody else's. That is a fundamental principle of this forum, as you well know.

I know that Spencer and Christy have published papers on their methods but that is not the same as saying that the UAH temperature record itself is peer reviewed. If it were truly peer reviewed by some independent entity then it should be easy for you to share with us the review dates and the reviewer comments. And a 2000 paper on methodologies that have needed to be repeatedly revised and corrected is laughably out of date. . Your touting the UAH temperature record as 'peer reviewed' when it is not is a good example of the logical fallacy "appeal to authority".

And your claim that I am touting conspiracy theories is simply an ad hominem attack. You should be embarrassed to be be stooping so low.

Please show me the same independent peer review for GISS (RSS, HadCRU, etc) that you for some reason only require of UAH. Which has seen the warmest trend lately.

[tacoman25]

I'm all for train wrecks, but we should stick to the topic at hand. 2012 global temperatures. I really thought Friv did a good job outlining why he thought the recent warmth on AMSU was not spurious for the last few weeks. Even if there is in fact a 0.1-0.2 warm bias on the AMSU data- we are now siting at approximately 0.2 degrees warmer than the 2nd closest year (2009) on the dataset. Perhaps October-December will put a dent in Dr. Spencer's Polynomial fit.

How about the points you keep ignoring (and why Friv was NOT doing a good job)?

1. UAH has been the warm outlier of all the global temperature sources the last few years.

2. If we demand independent review of UAH, shouldn't we also demand the same of all other temperature sources?

3. Does Friv have any reasonable proof for his allegations against Spencer?

The truth of the matter is that Friv threw a fit because he was enjoying tracking/celebrating warm UAH anomalies (meanwhile ignoring RSS the whole time...for some reason), and now this throws a bit of a wrench in that.

[ORH_wxman]

How about the points you keep ignoring (and why Friv was NOT doing a good job)?

1. UAH has been the warm outlier of all the global temperature sources the last few years.

2. If we demand independent review of UAH, shouldn't we also demand the same of all other independent sources?

3. Does Friv have any reasonable proof for his allegations against Spencer?

The truth of the matter is that Friv threw a fit because he was enjoying tracking/celebrating warm UAH anomalies (meanwhile ignoring RSS the whole time...for some reason), and now this throws a bit of a wrench in that.

Also, using sfc temps from NCEP maps is not a viable way to prove any accuracy or inaccuracy in UAH data for September 2012. They differ all the time. Using SSTs is even worse since there is a lag trend during times of significant SST rise or fall.

Finally, as was stated at least twice already, this issue was not just brought up. Spencer and Christy made a little press release about it last year. It just kept getting worse in 2012.

[ORH_wxman]

Thanks OHR, Bluewave

I had no idea this stuff was so contentious. Am I right in concluding that 1998 (the year of the big ENSO) and 2010 are about tied?

So is it the consensus that Dr. Roy's stuff is actually peer reviewed or not?

"peer review of satellite derived temperatures" shows no hits.

"peer review of UAH" - no hits

"UAH peer review" - no hits

"roy spencer peer review" - elicits a diatribe against peer review by Marc Morano (no relative)

"UAH spencer" peer - just gets a bunch of stuff about the problems they've had with their math

I'll get back to you when I've thought of some more search options.

Terry

I provided the link to their original peer reviewed paper when they first launched the dataset as operational in my response to phillipS. Bluewave posted another about the mid-tropospheric temps on UAH that was published more recently.

[skierinvermont]

The truth of the matter is that Friv threw a fit because he was enjoying tracking/celebrating warm UAH anomalies (meanwhile ignoring RSS the whole time...for some reason), and now this throws a bit of a wrench in that.

Agree. Kind of surprising this even became an issue.

[ORH_wxman]

Most of the temperature stuff is nitpicking in the larger scheme of global temperature datasets. We might see tweaks of a hundreth or two in the decadal trends every now and then, but all 4 datasets are pretty close in their trends since the inception of satellite usage in 1979:

UAH: 0.136C per decade

RSS: 0.133C per decade

Hadcrut: 0.143C per decade

GISS: 0.152C per decade

[ORH_wxman]

Please show me the same independent peer review for GISS (RSS, HadCRU, etc) that you for some reason only require of UAH. Which has seen the warmest trend lately.

I wasn't even aware that reviewer comments are made transparent anyway to the general public. I'd like to see them for other datasets like this if we are demanding them for UAH.

[ORH_wxman]

You can read the paper on RSS version 3.2 here from 2009...version 3.3 was launched at the beginning of last year IIRC.

http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/support/Mears_and_Wentz_JAOT_2009_TLT.pdf

You will find plenty on UAH in here as well along with references to their work if you are interested in learning more about satellite temperature data.

[skierinvermont]

Most of the temperature stuff is nitpicking in the larger scheme of global temperature datasets. We might see tweaks of a hundreth or two in the decadal trends every now and then, but all 4 datasets are pretty close in their trends since the inception of satellite usage in 1979:

UAH: 0.136C per decade

RSS: 0.133C per decade

Hadcrut: 0.143C per decade

GISS: 0.152C per decade

Interesting! UAH actually past RSS... I mentioned in a post yesterday that this might have happened but didn't check. My guess was we weren't quite there yet. Pretty cool.

[ORH_wxman]

Interesting! UAH actually past RSS... I mentioned in a post yesterday that this might have happened but didn't check. My guess was we weren't quite there yet. Pretty cool.

Yeah RSS used to be like 0.02C per decade more than UAH....but that was like 2 years ago. It will be interesting to see how much the UAH adjustments affect the trend...but another RSS adjustment in last year closed the gap quite a bit and I think this recent warmth by UAH put it over the top. RSS apparently came out with their version 3.3 in early 2011 which lowered their trend. I haven't seen a paper yet on the new 3.3 version though...so I'm not exactly sure what the changes were.

[skierinvermont]

Yeah RSS used to be like 0.02C per decade more than UAH....but that was like 2 years ago. It will be interesting to see how much the UAH adjustments affect the trend...but another RSS adjustment in last year closed the gap quite a bit and I think this recent warmth by UAH put it over the top. RSS apparently came out with their version 3.3 in early 2011 which lowered their trend. I haven't seen a paper yet on the new 3.3 version though...so I'm not exactly sure what the changes were.

Spencer says that because of other long term adjustments upwards, the long-term trend won't change despite the recent data being adjusted down. So it will still have very close agreement with RSS.

[ORH_wxman]

Spencer says that because of other long term adjustments upwards, the long-term trend won't change despite the recent data being adjusted down. So it will still have very close agreement with RSS.

Oh right, he did say that. Though it could be changed enough to put RSS back on top, though when talking about one thousandth of a degree on the decadal scale, its completely insignificant.

It sounds almost like he is doing what RSS did in early 2011...they cooled their present a bit. The only difference is that UAH might have to cool their past a bit too along with their present, which would have put them more in line with RSS anyway before RSS made their early 2011 adjustment (and obviously before any UAH present adjustments)

[ORH_wxman]

The difference in decadal trends between all 4 data sets is statistically insignificant anyway on the decadal scale since 1979....which tells us they are fairly reliable when you combine their error bars. We can pretty confident all 4 datasets are getting the global temperature trend accurately in that time.

Again, that doesn't mean shifts can't happen like 0.16C per decade to 0.13C per decade or vice versa...but it doesn't matter much.

[The_Global_Warmer]

There is supposed to be continuity with global sst's and the Earths temperatures. I was told there is a 2-3 month lag I proved their example wrong, they haven't proved me any other reference. If you don't want to discuss looking into this then don't bother saying anything else to me I won't respond.

I should have listen to skier about how horribly unreliable the sat data is. The calibration method is also absurd. But like the folks who wanted to believe Cryosat2 because of the sheer amount of data and it being a satellite over a model that uses obs like the NCEP.NCAR analysis. It was assumed correct I assumed sat data would be better because of the incredible daily data that was ingested. But when your data can be so radically altered it's next to worthless. This is very dissapointing there are to many holes in the GISS and NCDC sets to make them worthwhile, RSS leaves out the poles and has a different weighing function that UAH.

The worse part is noise = spurious warming. So version 6.0 will be warmer than 5.5 because the changes won't be as extreme as just throwing AMSU out the window on top of that the other sat's have to be re calibrated now since they were calibrated on faulty data.

So now we have 2012 being colder than 2011 despite the Earth's oceans being much warmer, OHC being higher, ice and snow being lower, and land being slightly cooler(because of Antarctica, which is said to be unreliable in data sets now too, the AMO being much higher*, TSI being higher.

Great link on how this all goes down.

http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/seminardocs/2012/Po-Chedley20120613.pdf

http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part2.html

Version 5.5

Year M G NH SH Tropics

2011 01 0.022 0.036 0.007 -0.382

2011 02 -0.003 0.005 -0.011 -0.350

2011 03 -0.066 -0.013 -0.120 -0.336

2011 04 0.083 0.132 0.034 -0.233

2011 05 0.101 0.082 0.120 -0.061

2011 06 0.260 0.292 0.229 0.183

2011 07 0.343 0.290 0.396 0.169

2011 08 0.300 0.247 0.353 0.143

2011 09 0.290 0.280 0.301 0.128

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

Global SST's.

Southern Hemisphere

Northern Hemisphere:

Tropics:

[ORH_wxman]

Friv, its nice you just posted 2011 to 2012 SST graphs...its also nice that global temperatures have risen from 2011 to 2012. You have proved absolutely nothing wrong about the global temperature dataset.

Especially when you take into account the lag associated with SSTs and global temp rise. I think you need to read up more on the interaction of El Nino and La Nina with global temp rise...its not linear and its not always the same exact lag depending on the strength, but its generally pretty close. But the weaker the rise or fall, the more other variables like solar, convection, and clouds will play a role.

Thank you for the lesson on global temp data.

[skierinvermont]

Friv, its nice you just posted 2011 to 2012 SST graphs...its also nice that global temperatures have risen from 2011 to 2012. You have proved absolutely nothing wrong about the global temperature dataset.

Especially when you take into account the lag associated with SSTs and global temp rise. I think you need to read up more on the interaction of El Nino and La Nina with global temp rise...its not linear and its not always the same exact lag depending on the strength, but its generally pretty close. But the weaker the rise or fall, the more other variables like solar, convection, and clouds will play a role.

Thank you for the lesson on global temp data.

The main problem is his idea that you can prove one data set wrong (UAH) by using 1 or 2 or 3 others (ssts, surface temps etc.). There are no perfect correlations between any of those sources because they all measure separate entities. It is impossible to invalidate one with any combination of others.

The temperature progression this year is about what you'd expect based on ssts. That is all that can be said. I would probably expect October and November to be even warmer than September.

[ORH_wxman]

The main problem is his idea that you can prove one data set wrong (UAH) by using 1 or 2 or 3 others (ssts, surface temps etc.). There are no perfect correlations between any of those sources because they all measure separate entities. It is impossible to invalidate one with any combination of others.

The temperature progression this year is about what you'd expect based on ssts. That is all that can be said. I would probably expect October and November to be even warmer than September.

This is because of SSTs....Friv is right on one thing....SSTs do predict global temps very well, but just not on the timeline he thinks it does...and also not on absolute level of max/min. This year's global SSTs are already falling and will continue to fall since the Nino is dying. But they got very high despite a weak El Nino ala 2005.....so we should expect some pretty high global temps in the winter.

September sea surface temps are a horrible metric to use for global temps in the same month. More like May-July sea surface temps depending on the rate of increase or decrease.