2012 Global Temperatures

[Snow_Miser]

I am aware of this minor issue. "A few hundredths of a degree" does not come remotely close to explaining the .14C disparity over the last 14 years. .14C is over an order of magnitude greater than a few hundredths of a degree.

There are large uncertainties (and thus probably large inaccuracies) associated with both satellite sources, which is why they exhibit such large disparities, even over a 15+ year periods.

The main reason being though, in addition to the minor satellite drift error, is because UAH was significantly colder in 1997 than RSS was, even after adjusting the UAH basline back up .1 Degrees C to match its old baseline (which is the RSS baseline.)

1997 1 -0.043 -0.230 -0.074 0.203 -0.289 -0.310 -0.085 -0.136 0.054

1997 2 0.053 -0.200 0.191 0.194 -0.179 -0.032 0.411 0.077 0.028

1997 3 -0.003 -0.192 0.260 -0.068 0.713 0.272 0.778 0.094 -0.104

1997 4 -0.063 -0.304 0.239 -0.111 1.591 -0.185 -1.539 0.051 -0.183

1997 5 0.024 -0.073 -0.005 0.166 0.043 -0.045 -0.515 -0.013 0.063

1997 6 0.017 0.045 0.057 -0.058 0.176 0.460 0.044 0.066 -0.035

1997 7 0.165 0.491 0.060 -0.095 -0.032 -0.411 0.009 0.215 0.113

1997 8 0.202 0.406 0.238 -0.071 0.304 -0.307 -0.144 0.304 0.094

1997 9 0.190 0.510 0.258 -0.248 0.802 -0.844 0.995 0.335 0.038

1997 10 0.220 0.422 0.254 -0.049 0.613 -0.183 -0.102 0.292 0.144

1997 11 0.158 0.474 0.053 -0.090 0.231 0.386 -0.711 0.164 0.152

1997 12 0.302 0.754 0.091 0.012 -0.213 -0.163 -0.097 0.315 0.289

RSS for 1997.

UAH has a slightly more than -0.3 Degree monthly anomaly in 1997, and even adjusting that upward by .1 Degrees C, that doesn't come close to any of these values in RSS.

[forkyfork]

I have no doubt that the data points above are accurate - the sine wave however was apparently appended by Dr.

Roy for 'entertainment purposes only'. I'd think that a graph purporting to have some scientific validity might forgo adding 'entertaining' embellishments, particularly when these embellishments might serve to misrepresent the data to the less than discerning viewer.

The UAH data is having enough problems retaining credibility as it slides further and further from surface temperatures and RSS without being presented on 'entertaining' graphs.

Terry

the sine wave tricks the eye... if you squint to blur it out, the graph clearly shows a linear trend upward

[WEATHER53]

Are more particulates being suspended in the air allowing for extreme tornado action of last two years?

Seems like moisture droplets far outnumber man made suspensions? Would think planet has warmed and cooled over the eons and mankind may be exacerbating this uptick but not causing it?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Are you treating this as a foregone conclusion? Is this your forecast?

No, just a possible course of action.

But I do forecast channel 5 temps to rise back into the pack the next two-three weeks. The pattern is going to warm up large parts of North America and Europe. While the largest deposit of cold moves over the coldest regions of the globe typically and the Pacific ocean. Africa warms up over the Desert with expanding 30C+ 850 mb temps. The antarctic see's a warm air intrusion over it's currently coldest regions. Australia and South America get cool air intrusions at the expense of the Antarctica ones, but they are not very cold because it is still to far into the warm season and the separating ocean is to warm.warm. Two large deposits of cold air will travel over the North Atlantic and Pacific East/NE of Japan. Both air-masses will travel over ocean water that will modify their cold.

This should help warm up the atmosphere overall at least for this period a little bit.

[skierinvermont]

GISS has a trend of 0.10C per decade since 1997 while Hadcrut has a trend of 0.01C per decade....an order of magnitude difference. Looks like we should "look deeper" on the surface too.

As zucker pointed out, comparing GISS and HadCRUT is comparing apples and oranges. They cover different areas. When we restrict GISS to the same area as HadCRUT, the trend since 1997 is much closer, though still divergent. The divergence between UAH and RSS (which is an apples to apples comparison) is larger.

Finally, most of the remaining disparity between GISS and HadCRUT is due to differences in their satellite analyzed SST data over the oceans. Which again points to the unreliability of satellite measurements.

[skierinvermont]

RSS covers less of the arctic than UAH...

Only slightly. And when we remove the arctic from UAH and GISS, the RSS vs UAH divergence is much larger than the HadCRUT vs GISS divergence. And as I pointed out above, most of the remaining Had vs GISS divergence is due to satellite SST data over the oceans, not land based surface readings.

[skierinvermont]

The main reason being though, in addition to the minor satellite drift error, is because UAH was significantly colder in 1997 than RSS was, even after adjusting the UAH basline back up .1 Degrees C to match its old baseline (which is the RSS baseline.)

1997 1 -0.043 -0.230 -0.074 0.203 -0.289 -0.310 -0.085 -0.136 0.054

1997 2 0.053 -0.200 0.191 0.194 -0.179 -0.032 0.411 0.077 0.028

1997 3 -0.003 -0.192 0.260 -0.068 0.713 0.272 0.778 0.094 -0.104

1997 4 -0.063 -0.304 0.239 -0.111 1.591 -0.185 -1.539 0.051 -0.183

1997 5 0.024 -0.073 -0.005 0.166 0.043 -0.045 -0.515 -0.013 0.063

1997 6 0.017 0.045 0.057 -0.058 0.176 0.460 0.044 0.066 -0.035

1997 7 0.165 0.491 0.060 -0.095 -0.032 -0.411 0.009 0.215 0.113

1997 8 0.202 0.406 0.238 -0.071 0.304 -0.307 -0.144 0.304 0.094

1997 9 0.190 0.510 0.258 -0.248 0.802 -0.844 0.995 0.335 0.038

1997 10 0.220 0.422 0.254 -0.049 0.613 -0.183 -0.102 0.292 0.144

1997 11 0.158 0.474 0.053 -0.090 0.231 0.386 -0.711 0.164 0.152

1997 12 0.302 0.754 0.091 0.012 -0.213 -0.163 -0.097 0.315 0.289

RSS for 1997.

UAH has a slightly more than -0.3 Degree monthly anomaly in 1997, and even adjusting that upward by .1 Degrees C, that doesn't come close to any of these values in RSS.

You obviously do not understand how a line of best fit is calculated. Start and end points are only one of many data points that affect the trendline.

[Jonger]

RSS out for Feb.....2nd coldest monthly anomoly in 18.5 years:

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

2011 1 0.086 -0.299 0.213 0.390 1.804 -0.098 -0.789 0.043 0.131

2011 2 0.053 -0.221 0.057 0.361 -0.103 -0.584 -0.553 -0.010 0.118

2011 3 -0.027 -0.284 0.214 0.011 1.388 0.098 0.074 0.058 -0.115

2011 4 0.106 -0.157 0.367 0.129 0.562 0.087 0.131 0.208 -0.000

2011 5 0.124 -0.027 0.231 0.183 0.810 -0.170 -0.466 0.172 0.073

2011 6 0.296 0.165 0.468 0.262 0.892 0.431 0.524 0.372 0.216

2011 7 0.327 0.232 0.538 0.210 0.583 0.607 1.427 0.414 0.236

2011 8 0.287 0.212 0.565 0.074 0.759 0.692 1.187 0.433 0.133

2011 9 0.288 0.155 0.522 0.190 1.001 0.926 0.258 0.382 0.189

2011 10 0.090 -0.061 0.357 -0.024 0.633 0.133 -0.075 0.206 -0.031

2011 11 0.032 0.024 0.102 -0.034 0.596 -0.010 0.326 0.075 -0.013

2011 12 0.115 0.028 0.236 0.085 0.577 -0.378 0.616 0.164 0.063

2012 1 -0.059 -0.113 -0.052 -0.006 0.632 -0.551 1.594 -0.076 -0.042

2012 2 -0.121 -0.157 -0.024 -0.182 1.207 -0.189 0.633 -0.071 -0.172

1993 9 -0.272

2008 5 -0.130

2012 2 -0.121

Who funded this conclusion????? Exxon, BP, Haliburton.... Fess up!

[Jonger]

Do you understand that the AMSU sensors don't actually read temperature data at all? The RSS and UAH temperature vlaues are indirect measurements in which the AMSUs sense several channels of microwave emissions from O2 in the atmosphere and use models of the relationship between temperature and microwave emission to derive temperature values. The microwaves are the proxy for the true temperatures.

And do you understand that the satellites carrying the AMSU units aren't hovering and making continuous readings? Most of the satellites have been launched in sun-synchronous orbits in which they measure swaths of data at the same local time on each pass. For example, NOAA-18 crosses the equator at 1400 local time on the ascending limb of every orbit. For most of the Earth, an AMSU sensor will measure only one daytime and one night time data point for a given location, and the model has to extrapolate that into minimum and maximum temperature values for that day.

Since UAH began generating global temperature values back in 1979 there have been a number of adjustments to the temperature records as errors were discovered in the orbital dynamics model, the sensor performance model, and the proxy to temperature model. UAH has annouced that yet another adjustment is in the works and should be released shortly. It almost certainly won't be the last data adjustment. The same is true of the RSS temperature records.

How are the models calibrated? By direct temperature readings from ground stations and from airborne sensors such as radiosondes.

So - given a choice between direct temperature measurements (GISS, HADCRUT, NCDS) and model outputs derived from proxies (RSS, UAH), which you put more faith in?

After the studies done on ground stations, its a flip of the coin.

[LakeEffectKing]

After the studies done on ground stations, its a flip of the coin.

Well, A. Watts with his substation research demonstrated that the UHI adjustments that are being performed, and the "issues" with many sites, are certainly trivial compared to what the hypothesis was, at the beginning of the project.

The substation project was a good one, that needed to be performed. It would have been interesting to see the reactions if the project had concluded a larger warming bias.

[Snow_Miser]

You obviously do not understand how a line of best fit is calculated. Start and end points are only one of many data points that affect the trendline.

I know how a best fit line is calculated.

It involves all of the datapoints to calculate the best fit line.

My point is that if the starting temperature is significantly cooler on UAH than it is on RSS, that could play a role in the steepness of the trend.

[donsutherland1]

FYI, the unlabeled curved line has nothing to do with the global temperature trend (UAH dataset). It should not be incorrectly referenced as indicative of a trend. The global trend line for the UAH dataset is positive (+0.13°C). One can find the global trend and regional trends at the bottom of the UAH dataset: http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt

[skierinvermont]

I know how a best fit line is calculated.

It involves all of the datapoints to calculate the best fit line.

My point is that if the starting temperature is significantly cooler on UAH than it is on RSS, that could play a role in the steepness of the trend.

That's exactly the point. UAH has warmed much more than RSS over the past 15 years. If the two data sources cannot remotely agree on how much temperatures have changed over the past 15 years we cannot regard their accuracy with anything more than great uncertainty.

FYI this is just one demonstration of the published error bars of +/-.07C per decade uncertainty over 30 years (and probably about twice that uncertainty over a 15 year period).

[Tropopause_Fold]

[Tropopause_Fold]

feb 12 coolest land temps since 94. 37th warmest.

[PhillipS]

feb 12 coolest land temps since 94. 37th warmest.

But you just posted a NOAA graph showing it was the coldest since Jan 2008 - where do you get the 1994 date from?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Those land temps are seeing a complete reversal.

wild times.

[Tropopause_Fold]

But you just posted a NOAA graph showing it was the coldest since Jan 2008 - where do you get the 1994 date from?

"Looking only at land, the global land surface temperature was 0.68°F (0.38°C) above the 20^th century average of 37.8°F (3.2°C), making this the 37^th warmest February on record and coolest February since 1994. "

noaa climate report

[TerryM]

"Looking only at land, the global land surface temperature was 0.68°F (0.38°C) above the 20^th century average of 37.8°F (3.2°C), making this the 37^th warmest February on record and coolest February since 1994. "

noaa climate report

Any idea why anyone would look only at land?

[PhillipS]

"Looking only at land, the global land surface temperature was 0.68°F (0.38°C) above the 20^th century average of 37.8°F (3.2°C), making this the 37^th warmest February on record and coolest February since 1994. "

noaa climate report

Ah, you meant coolest Feb since 1994, not coolest temp. I understand now.

[mike2010]

Gulf temps are already several degrees above normal, and some sea temps already at 80 and it's not even April. Has there been any talk of possible adverse marine effects (fishing etc) if temps get too warm / hot ? Temps around 90 seem to be a given by the time the summer's out.

[The_Global_Warmer]

No, just a possible course of action.

But I do forecast channel 5 temps to rise back into the pack the next two-three weeks. The pattern is going to warm up large parts of North America and Europe. While the largest deposit of cold moves over the coldest regions of the globe typically and the Pacific ocean. Africa warms up over the Desert with expanding 30C+ 850 mb temps. The antarctic see's a warm air intrusion over it's currently coldest regions. Australia and South America get cool air intrusions at the expense of the Antarctica ones, but they are not very cold because it is still to far into the warm season and the separating ocean is to warm.warm. Two large deposits of cold air will travel over the North Atlantic and Pacific East/NE of Japan. Both air-masses will travel over ocean water that will modify their cold.

This should help warm up the atmosphere overall at least for this period a little bit.

I guess I have begginers luck.

As of March 21st Channel 5 temps have stepped their way back into contention.

This is not just from channel 5 but up to 8

They are virtually tied with a bunch of other years for third.

The amo in february went bsck positive.

The NW area of the natl is running cold.

Mid latitude ssts around the usa are boiling.

I would expect the amo to stay positive the rest of the year. Pending the enso outcome and weather patterns we might see a jump up in the .25 to .33 range by summer.

With the solar max coming the northern hemisphere could see a very warm summer.

If we do see enso go neutral or slightly + we could seeb another top 5-10 year.

If it goes 1-1.5 by mid to late summer and a .25 to .40 peaking amo I would expect a top 5 year and time

above 2010.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Channel 5 AMSU temps have moved into 3rd place and are right behind 2nd place.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml

I am not that familiar with ENSO forecasts and trends. But there is definitely a change away from the cool anomalies to a neutral or El Nino.

In the short term, I think channel 5 will peak tomorrow then drop a bit. Channel 8 dropped today and 6 and 7 flat-lined.

From what I've seen channel 5 is last to drop when it comes from the top down.

[LithiaWx]

Channel 5 AMSU temps have moved into 3rd place and are right behind 2nd place.

http://www.cpc.ncep....e/wkxzteq.shtml

I am not that familiar with ENSO forecasts and trends. But there is definitely a change away from the cool anomalies to a neutral or El Nino.

In the short term, I think channel 5 will peak tomorrow then drop a bit. Channel 8 dropped today and 6 and 7 flat-lined.

From what I've seen channel 5 is last to drop when it comes from the top down.

The Linked chart has a bias to be too extreme. This one is preferred.

and if you are going to use the one from the CPC these are the preferred ones.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Thanks.

It is going to be fun tracking this as the EL Nino or positive index ratings take place.

I think if we hit even by May and are .5 to 1.0 for most of the rest of the year, 2012 will be at the top of the global temp anomaly by mid to late summer.

the colder start in Jan/Feb will make it hard to come close to 2010's record. But 2011 will be blown out.

[LithiaWx]

Thanks.

It is going to be fun tracking this as the EL Nino or positive index ratings take place.

I think if we hit even by May and are .5 to 1.0 for most of the rest of the year, 2012 will be at the top of the global temp anomaly by mid to late summer.

the colder start in Jan/Feb will make it hard to come close to 2010's record. But 2011 will be blown out.

I'm still learning about global temps. The reason I stay away from posting in this thread is because of my lack of knowledge on the subject. For now I'll just keep reading. As for Nino, I think Neutral to weak is a pretty safe bet by late summer. I'm pulling for a weak Nino come winter for some juiced up winter storms.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'm still learning about global temps. The reason I stay away from posting in this thread is because of my lack of knowledge on the subject. For now I'll just keep reading. As for Nino, I think Neutral to weak is a pretty safe bet by late summer. I'm pulling for a weak Nino come winter for some juiced up winter storms.

I don't think you should deliberately not participate because of that. Jump in there and start the trial and error process. You have already shown good anticipatory knowledge of Enso and the AO/NAO. On top of that you can see a much more moderated stance and message from you now than when you first started posting here.

It looks like your prediction is likely to be right or close.

[Jesse]

Thanks.

It is going to be fun tracking this as the EL Nino or positive index ratings take place.

I think if we hit even by May and are .5 to 1.0 for most of the rest of the year, 2012 will be at the top of the global temp anomaly by mid to late summer.

the colder start in Jan/Feb will make it hard to come close to 2010's record. But 2011 will be blown out.

I thought global warming was a bad thing?

You sound pretty excited at the prospect of it.

Kinda sick.

[LithiaWx]

I thought global warming was a bad thing?

You sound pretty excited at the prospect of it.

Kinda sick.

In fairness to Friv the last comment was uncalled for. I also don't think he is pulling for a catastrophe. I think he is excited about the subject not the outcome he sees in the future.

[PhillipS]

I thought global warming was a bad thing?

You sound pretty excited at the prospect of it.

Kinda sick.

Why do you feel that it is sick to enjoy observing a dynamic process unfold?

Do you also feel that storm chasers are sick for wanting to observe tornados? Tornados are 'bad' things, too, aren't they?