2012 Global Temperatures

[Jonger]

Every bit of building you see around the plant was added after 1975. The WWTP was expanded several times to meet the growing population. The natural wind direction is from the SW/W/NW and moves the air over the newly placed trailer-park, gas stations and larger steaming/warm holding tanks.

Now, we aren't talking about massive warming in this location anyhow... But since we are splitting hairs, do you really believe a 0.2-0.5 degree impact isn't possible or even likely?

Remember, there is really no logical way for temps to be artificially lowered, unless a station is moved and the records don't indicate it.

[TerryM]

Satellites have the luxury of measuring every spot they can see which is far greater than our surface network. Having a system that can do this accurately is only beneficial.

It's this accuracy that is proving to be such a problem. As I understand it, two dyed in the wool religious and political ideologues (terms that I'm sure they would agree with), set out to prove that AGW was bunk by attempting to measure tropospheric temperatures. Their measurements proved to be so far from reality that when a second group started doing similar measurements the two were forced to acknowledge problems with their data and made a series of revisions. Some years later (now), they announce that their revisions have been wrong, and they're going to re-revise things to again show cooler temperatures. At this point Friv, who had been using their revised figures to make a point, becomes suspicious of their motivations - which seems reasonable to me.

I'm in total agreement that if we had a satellite system aloft that could accurately measure troposcopic temperatures it would be a good thing, and the political, funding and religious baggage that the developers may carry around would not matter. Since we don't have anything that anyone claims is accurate, why not just junk the whole concept until such time as a verifiably accurate measurements can be made.

Watts said at the outset that he would agree with whatever BEST came up with. Two major figures from the skeptical side were involved in the study, and it was funded by the fossil fuel industry. I don't think you can reasonably expect to get a fairer hearing than that.

Rather than bicker about figures that neither side will ever agree about, why not use what figures we do have available, that were measured by methods that date into hoary antiquity and whose authors were chosen by the Koch brothers.

If nothing else it might lower the levels of vitriol.

Terry

[TerryM]

Remember, there is really no logical way for temps to be artificially lowered, unless a station is moved and the records don't indicate it.

What do you mean by that sentence?

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

It's this accuracy that is proving to be such a problem. As I understand it, two dyed in the wool religious and political ideologues (terms that I'm sure they would agree with), set out to prove that AGW was bunk by attempting to measure tropospheric temperatures. Their measurements proved to be so far from reality that when a second group started doing similar measurements the two were forced to acknowledge problems with their data and made a series of revisions. Some years later (now), they announce that their revisions have been wrong, and they're going to re-revise things to again show cooler temperatures. At this point Friv, who had been using their revised figures to make a point, becomes suspicious of their motivations - which seems reasonable to me.

I'm in total agreement that if we had a satellite system aloft that could accurately measure troposcopic temperatures it would be a good thing, and the political, funding and religious baggage that the developers may carry around would not matter. Since we don't have anything that anyone claims is accurate, why not just junk the whole concept until such time as a verifiably accurate measurements can be made.

Watts said at the outset that he would agree with whatever BEST came up with. Two major figures from the skeptical side were involved in the study, and it was funded by the fossil fuel industry. I don't think you can reasonably expect to get a fairer hearing than that.

Rather than bicker about figures that neither side will ever agree about, why not use what figures we do have available, that were measured by methods that date into hoary antiquity and whose authors were chosen by the Koch brothers.

If nothing else it might lower the levels of vitriol.

Terry

The satellite temps agree with the sfc temps though...so I'm not sure what your specific problem is other than posting conjecture on the motives of Roy Spencer and John Christy...we have an entirely different satellite dataset not authored by those two and they both agree. I can sit here and write conjecture on James Hansen's motives while he is getting arrested during a global warming activist protest to try and debunk GISS, but I won't because it is completely useless and irrelevant to the science itself. To debunk the temperature record, we use observations. Other datasets help us confirm the observations.

We can yip yap all day long about the motives of Roy Spencer and James Hansen....yet in the end, their temperature datasets match pretty closely. Why? Beecause they are inaccurate? My guess is no...because they are pretty accurate.

[ORH_wxman]

Aside from RSS and Hadcrut being in agreement too, wouldn't a rational thinker deduce from the fact that GISS and UAH have been converging closer to together (and not diverging) over the years (despite being authored by two completely different ideaoligical thinkers in the AGW science) that the datasets are pretty accurate? Especially when there has not been any major peer reviewed evidence to say they are not?

[skierinvermont]

It's this accuracy that is proving to be such a problem. As I understand it, two dyed in the wool religious and political ideologues (terms that I'm sure they would agree with), set out to prove that AGW was bunk by attempting to measure tropospheric temperatures. Their measurements proved to be so far from reality that when a second group started doing similar measurements the two were forced to acknowledge problems with their data and made a series of revisions. Some years later (now), they announce that their revisions have been wrong, and they're going to re-revise things to again show cooler temperatures. At this point Friv, who had been using their revised figures to make a point, becomes suspicious of their motivations - which seems reasonable to me.

I'm in total agreement that if we had a satellite system aloft that could accurately measure troposcopic temperatures it would be a good thing, and the political, funding and religious baggage that the developers may carry around would not matter. Since we don't have anything that anyone claims is accurate, why not just junk the whole concept until such time as a verifiably accurate measurements can be made.

Watts said at the outset that he would agree with whatever BEST came up with. Two major figures from the skeptical side were involved in the study, and it was funded by the fossil fuel industry. I don't think you can reasonably expect to get a fairer hearing than that.

Rather than bicker about figures that neither side will ever agree about, why not use what figures we do have available, that were measured by methods that date into hoary antiquity and whose authors were chosen by the Koch brothers.

If nothing else it might lower the levels of vitriol.

Terry

The old revisions weren't found to be wrong. New revisions had to be made because of new problems with the satellites.

Also given that GISS, HadCRUT, BEST, and NCDC are not perfect either and have various potential issues that could affect their accuracy, satellite temperatures have significance both as a complimentary data set that stands side by side with those 4 for purposes of comparison, and also for the scientific value of comparing how different levels of the atmosphere are warming relative to the surface.

The latter function only becomes significant when large statistically significant differences appear, or if the accuracy of the data improves.

I tend to give the surface measures (those that include the arctic) the most weight because the methodologies have relatively small potential inaccuracies (for example issues of UHI and station siting are accounted for well but perhaps not perfectly). I see more potential error with the satellites, especially given the history of revisions. The satellite sources also have slightly larger statistical error margins.

[tacoman25]

It's this accuracy that is proving to be such a problem. As I understand it, two dyed in the wool religious and political ideologues (terms that I'm sure they would agree with), set out to prove that AGW was bunk by attempting to measure tropospheric temperatures. Their measurements proved to be so far from reality that when a second group started doing similar measurements the two were forced to acknowledge problems with their data and made a series of revisions. Some years later (now), they announce that their revisions have been wrong, and they're going to re-revise things to again show cooler temperatures. At this point Friv, who had been using their revised figures to make a point, becomes suspicious of their motivations - which seems reasonable to me.

I'm in total agreement that if we had a satellite system aloft that could accurately measure troposcopic temperatures it would be a good thing, and the political, funding and religious baggage that the developers may carry around would not matter. Since we don't have anything that anyone claims is accurate, why not just junk the whole concept until such time as a verifiably accurate measurements can be made.

Watts said at the outset that he would agree with whatever BEST came up with. Two major figures from the skeptical side were involved in the study, and it was funded by the fossil fuel industry. I don't think you can reasonably expect to get a fairer hearing than that.

Rather than bicker about figures that neither side will ever agree about, why not use what figures we do have available, that were measured by methods that date into hoary antiquity and whose authors were chosen by the Koch brothers.

If nothing else it might lower the levels of vitriol.

Terry

So if you believe the ideology of Spencer/Christy is influencing the data interpretation of UAH, you do recognize that you are opening up the door for others to accuse Hansen and others involved with GISS of letting their ideology influence their interpretation of data? After all, Hansen has been among the most vocal proponents of catastrophic AGW as well as a political activist for a long time.

In addition, what about the fact that RSS, the other satellite temp source, shows virtually the same longterm trend as UAH?

[TerryM]

The old revisions weren't found to be wrong. New revisions had to be made because of new problems with the satellites.

Also given that GISS, HadCRUT, BEST, and NCDC are not perfect either and have various potential issues that could affect their accuracy, satellite temperatures have significance both as a complimentary data set that stands side by side with those 4 for purposes of comparison, and also for the scientific value of comparing how different levels of the atmosphere are warming relative to the surface.

The latter function only becomes significant when large statistically significant differences appear, or if the accuracy of the data improves.

I tend to give the surface measures (those that include the arctic) the most weight because the methodologies have relatively small potential inaccuracies (for example issues of UHI and station siting are accounted for well but perhaps not perfectly). I see more potential error with the satellites, especially given the history of revisions. The satellite sources also have slightly larger statistical error margins.

I won't argue with any of the above, and the bolded is exactly the point I was trying to make.

When the measurements are made accurately, the prejudices (we all have them) of those doing the measuring are totally irrelevant was the other point I was striving for.

Since both sides seem to be in agreement that surface based temperatures are the most accurate at this time, why not use these until another metric proves itself. Or am I wrong in assuming that both sides do agree with this?

Are the "skeptics" claiming that a measurement of tropospheric temperatures as a proxy for surface temperatures is a more accurate method of measuring surface temperatures than measuring the surface temperatures themselves? - even a sentence describing the process seems unnecessarily convoluted.

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

I won't argue with any of the above, and the bolded is exactly the point I was trying to make.

When the measurements are made accurately, the prejudices (we all have them) of those doing the measuring are totally irrelevant was the other point I was striving for.

Since both sides seem to be in agreement that surface based temperatures are the most accurate at this time, why not use these until another metric proves itself. Or am I wrong in assuming that both sides do agree with this?

Are the "skeptics" claiming that a measurement of tropospheric temperatures as a proxy for surface temperatures is a more accurate method of measuring surface temperatures than measuring the surface temperatures themselves? - even a sentence describing the process seems unnecessarily convoluted.

Terry

There is not much of a difference between sfc and satellite temps via error bars. Skier is correct that the peer review data shows slightly higher error bars in the satellite temp data, but that does not mean we should stop using it. Why would you suggest that? It wasn't a big difference. Its getting better all the time as we advance in technology. Aside from that, satellite tmep data gives us so much more than sfc temp data can....it is 3 dimensional. Its is a vital part of studying our atmospheric temperature trends in the upper troposphere and stratosphere. Especially above layers where RAOB lauch data gets very sparse.

Surface data is not infallible either. Just because it has slightly lower error bars doesn't mean it is not open to scrutiny. Why do you think GISS just adjusted their recent temperatures lower (which nobody mentioned at all before this UAH stuff was brought up by friv) ? There are adjustments all the time. GISS used to show the mid 1930s as significantly warmer than the late 1990s in the U.S. back as recently as 2000...but Hansen came out with a revision. Does that mean GISS shouldn't be trusted? Perhaps...but that is splitting hairs since the temps were close anyway. Adjustments are made because we learn more as time goes on. Its not a "conspiracy" or proves that a dataset is flawed. Adjustments actually make the datasets more believeable as long as there isn't any peer reviewed dats to say otherwise. I'm not sure why you would frown upon this.

[skierinvermont]

Are the "skeptics" claiming that a measurement of tropospheric temperatures as a proxy for surface temperatures is a more accurate method of measuring surface temperatures than measuring the surface temperatures themselves? - even a sentence describing the process seems unnecessarily convoluted.

Terry

Yes that is a frequent argument. I don't think anybody here is arguing that (except maybe BB and Jonger). But some of us arguing that satellite temperature data is on equal or near equal footing as surface data at measuring (or inferring) global surface temperature change.

Practically this means the fact that UAH and RSS show slightly less warming since 1979 as GISS gives some evidence to the possibility that GISS is slightly over-estimating surface temperature change, especially given the fact that the lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface. But given the inaccuracies of all the temperature sources nothing can be concluded firmly. They're all within each other's margin of error. Especially given the fact that GISS is probably somewhat more reliable than the satellite data and I would probably side with GISS over UAH/RSS. But it is all useful evidence for figuring out the finer details of the puzzle. The general picture is well known. The globe has been warming at roughly .15C/decade since 1979.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Correction. There is one data set that could be compared directly to UAH month to month and that's RSS, as others have already pointed out. It's the only source that is actually measuring the same quantity (lower tropospheric temperatures).

Comparable but different wieghing functions, and different back-bone satelittes. As we can see Noaa-18 and Noaa-15 have much different numbers. I still think comparing UAH to UAH is better, but RSS is the next closest comparision. But doesn't have pole data.

well 82.5N or 70S

Also glaring is that RSS and GISS adjusted cooler recently too...independent of the Aqua issues on UAH. Both of their trends were adjusted downward since 2002 in the latest updates (GISS just a few weeks ago and RSS in early 2011).

How much did they cool?

Friv, post a graph of the aqua readings versus the other two several years ago (say before 2011)...you only posted 2012 on that graph which doesn't give us any reference point of how that satellite acted before its spurious warming. Of course it was the warmest in 2012....because it had spurious warming.

An actual legit scrutiny would be how warm was that satellite earlier in the 2000s before it started having problems in recent years.

Of course I would if i had access to it. I have no idea where to go get that from. The one is from spencer's web page. I am sure the data is out there but I am not a graph wizard, it would be nice if one of us here could create graphs on the fly.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes that is a frequent argument. I don't think anybody here is arguing that (except maybe BB and Jonger). But some of us arguing that satellite temperature data is on equal or near equal footing as surface data at measuring (or inferring) global surface temperature change.

Practically this means the fact that UAH and RSS show slightly less warming since 1979 as GISS gives some evidence to the possibility that GISS is slightly over-estimating surface temperature change, especially given the fact that the lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface. But given the inaccuracies of all the temperature sources nothing can be concluded firmly. They're all within each other's margin of error. Especially given the fact that GISS is probably somewhat more reliable than the satellite data and I would probably side with GISS over UAH/RSS. But it is all useful evidence for figuring out the finer details of the puzzle. The general picture is well known. The globe has been warming at roughly .15C/decade since 1979.

How well have we accounted for the huge loss in snow and ice albedo?

They would have a huge effect on surface temps vs TLT's.

[ORH_wxman]

How well have we accounted for the huge loss in snow and ice albedo?

They would have a huge effect on surface temps vs TLT's.

You are somehow implying that global temps are much higher because they havent accounted for arctic sea ice loss? This despite the temperature datasets showing massive rises in the arctic temperatures? Do you want them to raise them even higher?

The measurments don't have to take into account anything (at least natural) because they are measuring the temps as they are. The only adjustments made are UHI, siting, and TOBS adjustments for the surface based datasets. All of them very valid.

Why would they "adjust" for sea ice loss? Do they think the thermometer up in the arctic is too cold because the sea ice loss was greater? That makes zero sense.

[ORH_wxman]

ORH

you will be revered as one of the great prevaricators, that led us into the future, No lesser a person could do this.

verg

Before I ban you...would you exactly outline what I have "lied" about? Since that is exactly what you are implying. we have a lot of discussions here, but a personal attack like this is rarely tolerated.

I'm being fair here and giving you a chance to explain this...or just say you were wrong. Otherwise, good bye and good riddance.

[ORH_wxman]

ORH

you will be revered as one of the great prevaricators, that led us into the future, No lesser a person could do this.

verg

Good bye. You were in this thread mutiple times and never commented.

We'll miss your predictions.

[SVT450R]

ORH

you will be revered as one of the great prevaricators, that led us into the future, No lesser a person could do this.

verg

[Jonger]

Good bye. You were in this thread mutiple times and never commented.

We'll miss your predictions.

He gets testy during freeze-up season. Basically, he sees this time of year as a setback.

[Entropy]

September could turn out warm too. It's late on the 3rd and still no update from Dr. Spencer. If it were a cold month, it would have been updated first thing on the 1st.

Who would have thought when I posted this (as a joke, by the way) that Dr. Spencer would, in fact, wait a few days to make adjustments to lower the temperature anomaly?

[Vergent]

Before I ban you...would you exactly outline what I have "lied" about? Since that is exactly what you are implying. we have a lot of discussions here, but a personal attack like this is rarely tolerated.

I'm being fair here and giving you a chance to explain this...or just say you were wrong. Otherwise, good bye and good riddance.

I apologize for the choice of word. it was inappropriate

You get upset when "warmists" ascribe AGW as the cause of a storm or drought, forrest fire etc. How can 0.8C over a century be a cause of an acute event? Good point. But then can't the came thing be said for the AMO as a cause? And, isn't a big part of the AMO that has been measured over the last century just a non-linearity in AGW? Aerosols? Black carbon? Fluorocarbons? It just seems that you on the one hand "know" that they are wrong to do so, yet when you ascribe the AMO as a cause for a 3C temperature spike under the arctic ice cap, aren't you are doing the same thing?

[tacoman25]

Who would have thought when I posted this (as a joke, by the way) that Dr. Spencer would, in fact, wait a few days to make adjustments to lower the temperature anomaly?

Read the rest of the thread. Educate yourself. And then refrain from ignorant, accusatory comments like this that have nothing to back them.

All joking aside, are you accusing Spencer of fraud? Illegitimate adjustments? Then please post your proof and offer a logical reason why adjustments that bring UAH more in line with the other temperature sources are fraudulent.

[TerryM]

I apologize for the choice of word. it was inappropriate

You get upset when "warmists" ascribe AGW as the cause of a storm or drought, forrest fire etc. How can 0.8C over a century be a cause of an acute event? Good point. But then can't the came thing be said for the AMO as a cause? And, isn't a big part of the AMO that has been measured over the last century just a non-linearity in AGW? Aerosols? Black carbon? Fluorocarbons? It just seems that you on the one hand "know" that they are wrong to do so, yet when you ascribe the AMO as a cause for a 3C temperature spike under the arctic ice cap, aren't you are doing the same thing?

Lied is a bad word. Could I suggest a few phrases for those thought to have but tenuous ties to truth?

Baghdad Bobbish, Goddardian, Goebbelian, Luntzian, and of course Wattsish

It's possible that Spencerian may at some time enter the lexicon, but at the moment even to suggest such a possibility would be ludicrous.

It seems as though the ranids (thanks dabize) require even more than an ebullient Arctic to jumpstart their survival instincts, in the meantime the bouillabaisse warms - unless Spencerian methodologies of measuring the miasma rather than the stew are accepted.

Terry

[Jonger]

Lied is a bad word. Could I suggest a few phrases for those thought to have but tenuous ties to truth?

Baghdad Bobbish, Goddardian, Goebbelian, Luntzian, and of course Wattsish

It's possible that Spencerian may at some time enter the lexicon, but at the moment even to suggest such a possibility would be ludicrous.

It seems as though the ranids (thanks dabize) require even more than an ebullient Arctic to jumpstart their survival instincts, in the meantime the bouillabaisse warms - unless Spencerian methodologies of measuring the miasma rather than the stew are accepted.

Terry

I joke around with my dad and occasionally reference tweaking numbers... Call Mike... Just hide the decline.

Jon

[ORH_wxman]

I apologize for the choice of word. it was inappropriate

You get upset when "warmists" ascribe AGW as the cause of a storm or drought, forrest fire etc. How can 0.8C over a century be a cause of an acute event? Good point. But then can't the came thing be said for the AMO as a cause? And, isn't a big part of the AMO that has been measured over the last century just a non-linearity in AGW? Aerosols? Black carbon? Fluorocarbons? It just seems that you on the one hand "know" that they are wrong to do so, yet when you ascribe the AMO as a cause for a 3C temperature spike under the arctic ice cap, aren't you are doing the same thing?

No, I am not doing the same thing. I have constantly said I think AGW is a big part of the arctic warming. I just said the AMO was also a big part and people here were opposed to that idea despite the overwhelming evidence that it does contribute to arctic temps.

Look, I'm not here because I deny AGW. I think it exists. But pretending natural variation doesn't exist is every bit as bad as pretending AGW doesn't exist too.

[tacoman25]

No, I am not doing the same thing. I have constantly said I think AGW is a big part of the arctic warming. I just said the AMO was also a big part and people here were opposed to that idea despite the overwhelming evidence that it does contribute to arctic temps.

Look, I'm not here because I deny AGW. I think it exists. But pretending natural variation doesn't exist is every bit as bad as pretending AGW doesn't exist too.

Balanced viewpoints are shunned by too many on here.

[Midlo Snow Maker]

Balanced viewpoints are shunned by too many on here.

+1000

[dabize]

Lied is a bad word. Could I suggest a few phrases for those thought to have but tenuous ties to truth?

Baghdad Bobbish, Goddardian, Goebbelian, Luntzian, and of course Wattsish

It's possible that Spencerian may at some time enter the lexicon, but at the moment even to suggest such a possibility would be ludicrous.

It seems as though the ranids (thanks dabize) require even more than an ebullient Arctic to jumpstart their survival instincts, in the meantime the bouillabaisse warms - unless Spencerian methodologies of measuring the miasma rather than the stew are accepted.

Terry

Veuilliez lire "La Chute de la Maison Usher"?

http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_Chute_de_la_maison_Usher

[Snow_Miser]

This is from Dr. Spencer's Blog for those of you that missed it:

http://www.drroyspen...ber-2012-deg-c/

I’ve been receiving an increasing number of e-mails asking, basically, is there something wrong with the Aqua satellite daily global temperatures which are posted at the NASA Discover website?

Well, John Christy and I are ready to say, “yes, there is”.

Version 6.0 of our dataset will take care of the diurnal drift effects, but due to our other responsibilities, John and I have not quite finished v6.0. Nevertheless, we think we can we produce a preliminary update in the next couple weeks. 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.

[dabize]

This is from Dr. Spencer's Blog for those of you that missed it:

http://www.drroyspen...ber-2012-deg-c/

I’ve been receiving an increasing number of e-mails asking, basically, is there something wrong with the Aqua satellite daily global temperatures which are posted at the NASA Discover website?

Well, John Christy and I are ready to say, “yes, there is”.

Version 6.0 of our dataset will take care of the diurnal drift effects, but due to our other responsibilities, John and I have not quite finished v6.0. Nevertheless, we think we can we produce a preliminary update in the next couple weeks. 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.

When John Christy is the answer, it is best not to repeat the question

[The_Global_Warmer]

RSS which does not use AMSU comes in warmer for September than UAH.

2012 1 -0.0591

2012 2 -0.1218

2012 3 0.0724

2012 4 0.3312

2012 5 0.2317

2012 6 0.3378

2012 7 0.2907

2012 8 0.2552

2012 9 0.3833

[LakeEffectKing]

RSS for Sept '12 (bold):

2011 9 0.287 0.153 0.519 0.190 0.999 0.924 0.255 0.380 0.189

2011 10 0.087 -0.064 0.353 -0.025 0.629 0.129 -0.079 0.202 -0.033

2011 11 0.031 0.023 0.099 -0.034 0.594 -0.012 0.323 0.073 -0.014

2011 12 0.115 0.027 0.235 0.087 0.576 -0.379 0.614 0.163 0.064

2012 1 -0.059 -0.113 -0.053 -0.004 0.631 -0.552 1.593 -0.077 -0.041

2012 2 -0.122 -0.158 -0.027 -0.182 1.205 -0.191 0.630 -0.074 -0.172

2012 3 0.072 -0.123 0.321 0.030 -0.089 0.112 3.297 0.140 0.002

2012 4 0.331 -0.121 0.915 0.225 1.421 -0.047 1.750 0.532 0.122

2012 5 0.232 -0.044 0.847 -0.110 1.338 -0.241 1.383 0.551 -0.103

2012 6 0.338 -0.024 0.831 0.224 1.828 -0.087 1.202 0.535 0.132

2012 7 0.291 0.235 0.597 0.027 0.757 -0.642 1.427 0.453 0.120

2012 8 0.255 0.128 0.487 0.152 0.380 0.238 0.717 0.339 0.167

2012 9 0.383 0.208 0.618 0.333 1.029 -0.010 0.277 0.451 0.313