2010 Global Temps

[tacoman25]

Perhaps not.. but it would bring them much closer

Maybe...but I don't think it's accurate to base anything off of 2005, since GISS and HadCRUT have seen the big divergence in the years since. That was my point.

[salbers]

Perhaps not.. but it would bring them much closer

There was a study about this on the GISS website I mentioned on Eastern Wx...

[skierinvermont]

That's interesting...but really disappointing it ends in 1999. Kind of misses the period most in question.

Well even in that period there's a distinct difference between observed and modeled. Still reading.. curious what conclusion they come to

[tacoman25]

There was a study about this on the GISS website I mentioned on Eastern Wx...

About the big 2006-10 divergence between GISS and HadCRUT? What did the study say?

[skierinvermont]

About the big 2006-10 divergence between GISS and HadCRUT? What did the study say?

It doesn't really go into that.. it is mostly about the vertical profile of warming not the surface.

I haven't quite finished yet but it suggests that the observational vs model discrepancy in the vertical profile is due to a combination of us having more La Ninas than the 80s which cools the LT disproportionately, Pinatubo which cools the LT disproportionately, and observational uncertainties (UAH/RSS/radiosonde data is not high confidence data).

[BethesdaWX]

I read through it, and they definitely make some good points, and come to an interesting end result, and thus answered alot of my questions.

However, there are a few strange quirks. 1) If there was an ulterior set to the actual profiled temperature increase, it could be easily fixed, as they would for UHI as a distant example of modification for a set of extrennious forcings. 2), the deviation is over the top since 2006 or so, no reason it should be that high, regardless.

[skierinvermont]

I read through it, and they definitely make some good points, and come to an interesting end result, and thus answered alot of my questions.

However, there are a few strange quirks. 1) If there was an ulterior set to the actual profiled temperature increase, it could be easily fixed, as they would for UHI as a distant example of modification for a set of extrennious forcings. 2), the deviation is over the top since 2006 or so, no reason it should be that high, regardless.

What do you mean by #1?

I agree on #2.. I'd love to see this with another 4 years of data.

[skierinvermont]

OK finished reading...

they basically acknowledge that the observed vertical profile of warming is inconsistent with models in some regards (specifically amplification of warming in the LT). RSS is sort of on the edge of the models' confidence interval.. while UAH is totally at odds in some aspects. They call into question the validity of UAH/RSS/radiosonde data but also say that UAH/RSS/radiosonde data cannot be thrown out just because it doesn't agree with the models. More work is needed.

Also, they say that the general features of climate models are corroborated (surface warming, overall warming of the LT, cooling of the stratosphere, warming of SSTs, warming of ocean heat content, rising water vapor etc.) but that there are certain specific where differences exist.

[salbers]

About the big 2006-10 divergence between GISS and HadCRUT? What did the study say?

Here's a copy of this article, though it shows cases from just 1998 and 2005. Would be interesting to see the mask applied for more recent years.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf

[nzucker]

The problem I have with GISS is that it consistently shows massive heatwaves covering most of Asia, Africa, and the Arctic...not only is this fairly unrealistic to have such huge anomalies over such large areas on a consistent basis, but these areas also have some of the sparsest/least reliable temperature records on the globe.

It's total BS obviously. Look at the November 2010 anomaly map from GISS: you're telling me that half of Asia was 4-10C above the 1951-1980 average, even when the PV sat over them half the time? As well as widespread 2-4C anomalies over Africa where temperature doesn't vary that much? Sounds like pure garbage...I just know that it's rare to have big anomalies in temperature for an entire month. I mean take a look at the anomalies for this year in the eastern US, which has been one of the warmest...most months are still only like 2C above average with many of them being less than that. The idea that half of Asia and the Arctic were +7C just seems absurd.

And yes, the above average warmth always appears in the places that the fewest people would be able to protest. You never see the stripe of deep red across the eastern US, it's always in the Canadian Archipelago and Northern Siberia or central Africa where there's no one to notice.

[skierinvermont]

It's total BS obviously. Look at the November 2010 anomaly map from GISS: you're telling me that half of Asia was 4-10C above the 1951-1980 average, even when the PV sat over them half the time? As well as widespread 2-4C anomalies over Africa where temperature doesn't vary that much? Sounds like pure garbage...I just know that it's rare to have big anomalies in temperature for an entire month. I mean take a look at the anomalies for this year in the eastern US, which has been one of the warmest...most months are still only like 2C above average with many of them being less than that. The idea that half of Asia and the Arctic were +7C just seems absurd.

And yes, the above average warmth always appears in the places that the fewest people would be able to protest. You never see the stripe of deep red across the eastern US, it's always in the Canadian Archipelago and Northern Siberia or central Africa where there's no one to notice.

Maybe you should get your facts straight before posting more nonsense.. NCEP shows that it was a scorching month across the same areas GISS does. >4C anomalies are even more extensive than GISS shows. In other words, the weather pattern favored extreme warmth right where GISS said it was warm.

4C anomalies in the EUS are rare.. but if you knew or thought anything about atmospheric physics you would know that that is much easier to get in the high latitudes and that it does frequently occur.

Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you can't adhere to a bare minimum of factuality and objectivity.. don't post. And don't give me your BS about how I should tolerate other opinions. Your opinion is worthless because it doesn't even make sense and is directly contradicted by facts. You just came on here and made another one of your raving biased posts without considering any of the evidence.

[BethesdaWX]

OK finished reading...

they basically acknowledge that the observed vertical profile of warming is inconsistent with models in some regards (specifically amplification of warming in the LT). RSS is sort of on the edge of the models' confidence interval.. while UAH is totally at odds in some aspects. They call into question the validity of UAH/RSS/radiosonde data but also say that UAH/RSS/radiosonde data cannot be thrown out just because it doesn't agree with the models. More work is needed.

Also, they say that the general features of climate models are corroborated (surface warming, overall warming of the LT, cooling of the stratosphere, warming of SSTs, warming of ocean heat content, rising water vapor etc.) but that there are certain specific where differences exist.

Read through skiers article, How can they claim their models to better than Satellites? It just doesn't make sense to me for GISS to almost 0.4C above the LT temps measured by satellites which were supposed to warm faster. Jim Hansen.....ayyyyyyyeeeeee!

The Satellites are our only way of measuring LT temp anomalies, and have better coverage, in both global area, & local Pinpoint, than GISS/Hadley Centre by a long shot..... Yet they claim the models, which have no ability to measure LT, to Put RSS & UAH in doubt? I'd take OBS over "Modeling" any day.

[salbers]

Don't some of the satellites miss polar regions also?

[skierinvermont]

Read through skiers article, How can they claim their models to better than Satellites? It just doesn't make sense to me for GISS to almost 0.4C above the LT temps measured by satellites which were supposed to warm faster. Jim Hansen.....ayyyyyyyeeeeee!

The Satellites are our only way of measuring LT temp anomalies, and have better coverage, in both global area, & local Pinpoint, than GISS/Hadley Centre by a long shot..... Yet they claim the models, which have no ability to measure LT, to Put RSS & UAH in doubt? I'd take OBS over "Modeling" any day.

GISS isn't .4C above the satellites... it's only about .1-.15C above the satellites if you adjust the base period so that they both use a 1979-2000 base period.

They specifically say they don't doubt UAH and RSS because they disagree with the models. There is doubt in UAH and RSS 1) because UAH and RSS disagree with each other 2) UAH and RSS have had errors in the past

Also 3) keep in mind that RSS doesn't really disagree with the models.. it is not the same but it is pretty close.

[skierinvermont]

Don't some of the satellites miss polar regions also?

UAH covers the arctic RSS doesn't. I don't think either cover the antarctic. Interestingly UAH is lower than RSS even though UAH covers the arctic (UAH does agree it has warmed a lot in the arctic and UAH would be even cooler if it didn't cover the arctic). For the rest of the world minus the arctic UAH is much cooler than RSS.

[BethesdaWX]

GISS isn't .4C above the satellites... it's only about .1-.15C above the satellites if you adjust the base period so that they both use a 1979-2000 base period.

They specifically say they don't doubt UAH and RSS because they disagree with the models. There is doubt in UAH and RSS 1) because UAH and RSS disagree with each other 2) UAH and RSS have had errors in the past

GISS is using 1950-1980 as a base? Then what is HADCRUT using?

RSS & UAH disagree with eachother more than HADCRUT & GISS do with eachother...........

[BethesdaWX]

UAH covers the arctic RSS doesn't. I don't think either cover the antarctic. Interestingly UAH is lower than RSS even though UAH covers the arctic (UAH does agree it has warmed a lot in the arctic). For the rest of the world minus the arctic UAH is much cooler than RSS.

UAH does cover the antarctic, remember the whole GISS warming UAG cooling thing?

Not sure if RSS has the antarctic, but I think it does. I'll google and see If I can find anything

[skierinvermont]

UAH does cover the antarctic, remember the whole GISS warming UAG cooling thing?

Not sure if RSS has the antarctic, but I think it does. I'll google and see If I can find anything

Does it cover the whole antarctic though? I thought it might be only down to 82.5S.

[skierinvermont]

Ok RSS is 70S to 82.5N.. still looking for UAH. I know UAH covers to 90N.. not sure about antarctic though.

[BethesdaWX]

Here is UAH Arctic & Antarctic.....UAH has the arctic COOLING until 1994.......

[skierinvermont]

See.. the divergence is not that large.. it barely shows up on a graph of 1979-2008. GISS has diverged about .1C overall from the satellites (not .4C).

[skierinvermont]

Here is UAH Arctic & Antarctic.....UAH has the arctic COOLING until 1993.......

Yeah a little bit-- but the 30 year trend is up. And the 30-yr UAH trend in the arctic (.3C/decade) is higher than the UAH trend globally (.11C/decade)... which means that there's a big difference between UAH and RSS for 70S-82.5N.

[BethesdaWX]

See.. the divergence is not that large.. it barely shows up on a graph of 1979-2008. GISS has diverged about .1C overall from the satellites (not .4C).

Skier......where is the record 2005 warmth in that one?

[skierinvermont]

Skier......where is the record 2005 warmth in that one?

I think it's there... look closely the second half of 1998 got quite cold on GISS. 2005 stayed hot the whole year.

[nzucker]

Maybe you should get your facts straight before posting more nonsense.. NCEP shows that it was a scorching month across the same areas GISS does. >4C anomalies are even more extensive than GISS shows. In other words, the weather pattern favored extreme warmth right where GISS said it was warm.

4C anomalies in the EUS are rare.. but if you knew or thought anything about atmospheric physics you would know that that is much easier to get in the high latitudes and that it does frequently occur.

Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you can't adhere to a bare minimum of factuality and objectivity.. don't post. And don't give me your BS about how I should tolerate other opinions. Your opinion is worthless because it doesn't even make sense and is directly contradicted by facts. You just came on here and made another one of your raving biased posts without considering any of the evidence.

I am adhering to objectivity; the RSS analysis doesn't show it to be this warm, as I suspected and remember seeing when it first came out for November 2010. You can see that RSS has most of the Northern Asian area around 2-3C whereas GISS looks to be around 6-7C anomaly...GISS has China as part of that warm tongue whereas RSS says it was below average. GISS also extrapolated the warmth from Alaska and the High Arctic into the Yukon and Northwest Territories, at least that's what I think happened, because the satellites say it was a cooler month for NW Canada and I specifically remember an area of -20C 850s sitting there. Also, the GISS extrapolated the Himalayas to be very warm as well. I'm not saying it wasn't a warm month in some areas, but the GISS anomalies are unlikely to have occurred, and satellites don't support such an extensive area of warmth.

Pretty glaring disagreement here, even considering GISS colder base period:

GISS:

RSS:

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah a little bit-- but the 30 year trend is up. And the 30-yr UAH trend in the arctic (.3C/decade) is higher than the UAH trend globally (.11C/decade)... which means that there's a big difference between UAH and RSS for 70S-82.5N.

It is quite warm in the arctic. The +AMO shift is evident, but the up trend should be slowing very soon if it is natural cycles.

Of course, that would mean the antarctic would need to begin warming too.

[nzucker]

Amazing how Skier just thinks he can come in here and rip me even when I'm backed up by plenty of evidence that GISS is a joke. If half the world was +10C for these months, I think we'd be hearing a lot more about heat waves and a lot less about snow and cold.

[BethesdaWX]

I think it's there... look closely the second half of 1998 got quite cold on GISS. 2005 stayed hot the whole year.

Using 1950-1980 as a base seems to be throwing things off then.

Anyway, GISS had the year at +0.6......then 2008 should have been well below avg.

What is this Map again?

[skierinvermont]

I am adhering to objectivity; the RSS analysis doesn't show it to be this warm, as I suspected and remember seeing when it first came out for November 2010. You can see that RSS has most of the Northern Asian area around 2-3C whereas GISS looks to be around 6-7C anomaly...GISS has China as part of that warm tongue whereas RSS says it was below average. GISS also extrapolated the warmth from Alaska and the High Arctic into the Yukon and Northwest Territories, at least that's what I think happened, because the satellites say it was a cooler month for NW Canada and I specifically remember an area of -20C 850s sitting there. Also, the GISS extrapolated the Himalayas to be very warm as well. I'm not saying it wasn't a warm month in some areas, but the GISS anomalies are unlikely to have occurred, and satellites don't support such an extensive area of warmth.

Pretty glaring disagreement here, even considering GISS colder base period:

GISS:

RSS:

First of all.. the difference between the 1951-1980 and 1979-2000 base periods for the areas in question is .5-1.5C which pretty brings your two maps into very close agreement.

Second of all, using RSS to corroborate the amplitude of the warmth isn't very helpful since RSS shows less warming than GISS or HadCRUT do overall (************* when you are comparing the same regions - IE RSS shows less warming than HadCRUT does for the areas HadCRUT covers). All you are really pointing out is that the satellites show less warming than the surface data does. But that doesn't prove anything - the surface could have warmed more in actuality.

[BethesdaWX]

whoops, broken link, one sec