Jonger Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Big discrepancy between dataset numbers for May. NOAA claiming the 3rd warmest May on record globally, UAH 14th warmest and even GISS is significantly lower than GHCN. Will this be revised? And if its wrong, why was it publicly released information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Big discrepancy between dataset numbers for May. NOAA claiming the 3rd warmest May on record globally, UAH 14th warmest and even GISS is significantly lower than GHCN. Will this be revised? And if its wrong, why was it publicly released information? +0.66C for NCDC (NOAA)....that's def warmer than they usually are vs GISS. But it sometimes happens. They were 0.09C warmer than GISS in February this year....but that counteracted them being 0.08C colder than GISS in January. They seem to be a bit all over the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Warming has started back up. Can someone link me to the graph that was posted before showing the daily anomaly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Warming has started back up. Can someone link me to the graph that was posted before showing the daily anomaly? Looks like it has warmed back to about +0.05C for the moment. http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2012.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Warming has started back up. Can someone link me to the graph that was posted before showing the daily anomaly? Should be midway down the page where you get those maps unless it's a paid subscription only type thing in which I'll post it when I get on a computer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 thanks. I have no idea where it will end up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 +0.66C for NCDC (NOAA)....that's def warmer than they usually are vs GISS. But it sometimes happens. They were 0.09C warmer than GISS in February this year....but that counteracted them being 0.08C colder than GISS in January. They seem to be a bit all over the map. What was the UAH compared to NCDC in ranking for Feb? For May, its 15th on UAH versus 3rd on NCDC. That's quite an amazing difference, I would have to assume land form changes such as UHI contaminate records during high solar months in the NH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 What was the UAH compared to NCDC in ranking? For May, its 15th on UAH versus 3rd on NCDC. That's quite an amazing difference, I would have to assume land form changes such as UHI contaminate records during high solar months in the NH. No. NCDC is warm in the Southern Hemisphere. It's baseline is 1900-2000 or something like that. It's probably much warmer in Antarctica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 What was the UAH compared to NCDC in ranking? For May, its 15th on UAH versus 3rd on NCDC. That's quite an amazing difference, I would have to assume land form changes such as UHI contaminate records during high solar months in the NH. I don't see any pattern to NCDC vs GISS/weatherbell. Its noisier is really all I can gather. It generally runs close to GISS, but it has plenty of outlier months too but they tend to average out. (like Jan/Feb couplet this year) I don't see any seasonal bias either, so high solar months don't make any difference. Comparing it to UAH or RSS is useless on timescales of 1 month because they aren't measuring the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 No. NCDC is warm in the Southern Hemisphere. It's baseline is 1900-2000 or something like that. It's probably much warmer in Antarctica. We are talking 0.66C, this entire debate is over slightly more than half a degree, its not unreasonable to assume that high solar times of the year are going to yield the worst UHI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 We are talking 0.66C, this entire debate is over slightly more than half a degree, its not unreasonable to assume that high solar times of the year are going to yield the worst UHI. Difference between GISS and NCDC was 0.10C this month, which is on the high side. Not 0.66C...0.66 was the actual anomaly for NCDC. GISS was 0.56. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Difference between GISS and NCDC was 0.10C this month, which is on the high side. Not 0.66C...0.66 was the actual anomaly for NCDC. GISS was 0.56. Right, when was the last time UAH and NCDC were this far off in ranking? I would assume they tend to stay pretty close in ranking, since thats about all we can compare between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Right, when was the last time UAH and NCDC were this far off in ranking? I would assume they tend to stay pretty close in ranking, since thats about all we can compare between the two. No, they can be very far off in ranking (I'd have to look to see the last time they were far off was, but I know its happened). Sometimes UAH and RSS will be one month out of step with the surface stations. The lower troposphere occasionally is a lot warmer or colder on scales as short as 1 month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Big discrepancy between dataset numbers for May. NOAA claiming the 3rd warmest May on record globally, UAH 14th warmest and even GISS is significantly lower than GHCN. Will this be revised? And if its wrong, why was it publicly released information? That seems extremely fishy. I wouldn't be surprised if they issue a press release correcting the number. It doesn't match with any of the other datasets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 That seems extremely fishy. I wouldn't be surprised if they issue a press release correcting the number. It doesn't match with any of the other datasets. No, it commonly doesn't match. I just gave an example of February and January this year with GISS. It usually averages out close annually but on a month to month basis its relatively common to see it differ. Not sure why ya'll are making such a big deal over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 OMG. BASELINES: UAH- 1981-2010 GISS- 1951-1980 NCDC- 1901-2000 If you can't understand how this will throw off the "likeness" of each data set because of how differences in spatial distribution of the anomaly's on Earth then just stop posting. UHI is not a problem. This is insane talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 OMG. BASELINES: UAH- 1981-2010 GISS- 1951-1980 NCDC- 1901-2000 If you can't understand how this will throw off the "likeness" of each data set because of how differences in spatial distribution of the anomaly's on Earth then just stop posting. UHI is not a problem. This is insane talk. Its a bit further off than normal even when taking into account the baselines....but it doesn't really matter anyway. Its a deviation that is fairly common on the scale of 1 month. I agree that its silly to get up in arms over it. If it was off for like a whole year, then maybe it would be worth discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 No, it commonly doesn't match. I just gave an example of February and January this year with GISS. It usually averages out close annually but on a month to month basis its relatively common to see it differ. Not sure why ya'll are making such a big deal over it. Its a bit further off than normal even when taking into aco**** the baselines....but it doesn't really matter anyway. Its a deviation that is fairly common on the scale of 1 month. I agree that its silly to get up in arms over it. If it was off for like a whole year, then maybe it would be worth discussing. Aco**** lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 The baselines aren't that relevant, its still going to give you an anomaly. Anyhow, I'm going to look over some anomalies for UAH and NCDC tomorrow and see where this compares to past discrepancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 When considering a place like Antarctica being at the center of large negative anomaly. the baseline can become much more relevant. I would assume Antarctica would skew much "colder on NCDC with the 1901 beginning causing May to not be as "anomalous". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 This happens all the time. Monthly rankings often vary greatly by source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 No, it commonly doesn't match. I just gave an example of February and January this year with GISS. It usually averages out close annually but on a month to month basis its relatively common to see it differ. Not sure why ya'll are making such a big deal over it. I still definitely have my doubts over the veracity of it though, since it currently is an outlier on the warm side. It could definitely be right, but I'm skeptical. HadCruT4 should be interesting to see if it sides with NCDC moreso than GISS or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 OMG. BASELINES: UAH- 1981-2010 GISS- 1951-1980 NCDC- 1901-2000 If you can't understand how this will throw off the "likeness" of each data set because of how differences in spatial distribution of the anomaly's on Earth then just stop posting. UHI is not a problem. This is insane talk. Baselines don't matter in relations to rankings when you're talking about the source with the longer baseline having a much higher monthly ranking (#3) and the shorter baseline source being much lower (#14). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I still definitely have my doubts over the veracity of it though, since it currently is an outlier on the warm side. It could definitely be right, but I'm skeptical. HadCruT4 should be interesting to see if it sides with NCDC moreso than GISS or not. I'm guessing the NCDC baseline that is used is the one that has been heavily revised (cooling the past, warming the present)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I'm guessing the NCDC baseline that is used is the one that has been heavily revised (cooling the past, warming the present)? Well, there are many adjustments made to the Surface datasets, and are legitimate, such as the TOBS bias correction. As tacoman pointed out, the difference isn't necessarily the anomaly, but the placement. GISS/UAH/RSS were 11th-14th warmest. NCDC's 3rd warmest seems a bit too warm. I think that HadCruT4, when it comes out for May, won't be quite as warm as NCDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I'm guessing the NCDC baseline that is used is the one that has been heavily revised (cooling the past, warming the present)? Well, there are many adjustments made to the Surface datasets, and they are legitimate, such as the TOBS bias correction. As tacoman pointed out, the difference isn't necessarily the anomaly, but the placement. GISS/UAH/RSS were 11th-14th warmest. NCDC's 3rd warmest seems a bit too warm. I think that HadCruT4, when it comes out for May, won't be quite as warm as NCDC. Surface measurements aren't the greatest representations of atmospheric temps anyhow, 2m temps are terrible for comparison for long term trending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Surface measurements aren't the greatest representations of atmospheric temps anyhow, 2m temps are terrible for comparison for long term trending. What is wrong with sfc temps? They are tracking satellite temps fairly closely. Even if you believe they might be a little bit biased warm (due to subjective corrections with UHI/TOBS/etc), its not going to make a huge difference. They are around +0.15C per decade during the satellite era while satellites are around +0.13C per decade. So were talking about a difference of only 10-15% or so. I have my doubts too about some of the adjustments made prior to the satellite era, but even if you go back and try to dissect them, you will have trouble realistically altering the trend by more than about 10-15%. So its mostly a nitpick rather than a major game changer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 What is wrong with sfc temps? They are tracking satellite temps fairly closely. Even if you believe they might be a little bit biased warm (due to subjective corrections with UHI/TOBS/etc), its not going to make a huge difference. They are around +0.15C per decade during the satellite era while satellites are around +0.13C per decade. So were talking about a difference of only 10-15% or so. They do track satellite temperatures relatively well, though the surface temperatures appear to be warming faster than the satellite depiction of the Lower Troposphere during the satellite-era post-1979. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 They do track satellite temperatures relatively well, though the surface temperatures appear to be warming faster than the satellite depiction of the Lower Troposphere during the satellite-era post-1979. Yes, I already mentioned that...you can see from your graph that the sfc temps have warmed roughly 0.05C more than satellites in 34 years...or roughly 0.015C more per decade. That's the difference between satellites (about 0.135 C per decade) and surface (about 0.15C per decade) since 1979. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.