2010 Global Temps

[skierinvermont]

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.

No you are not- you have no evidence.

[BethesdaWX]

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.

So, NOAA/NASA are wrong? It would go against basic laws of AGW if the surface warmed more than the LT.

[skierinvermont]

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?

The difference between the 1951-1980 and the 1979-2000 base periods is .23C. So if you are converting from one to the other add or subtract .23C.

On the graph I posted it looks like 2005 averaged around .37C which yields .6C for 2005. It looks like 1998 averaged .3C which yields .53C.

So you agree the graph is accurate?

[BethesdaWX]

The difference between the 1951-1980 and the 1979-2000 base periods is .23C. So if you are converting from one to the other add or subtract .23C.

On the graph I posted it looks like 2005 averaged around .37C which yields .6C for 2005. It looks like 1998 averaged .3C which yields .53C.

Then why isn't 2008 showing up on that graph? If it was near normal compared to 1950-1980, it sould end up below the warmer 1979-2000 mean.

[skierinvermont]

So, NOAA/NASA are wrong? It would go against basic laws of AGW if the surface warmed more than the LT.

Well RSS is warm enough that there's no real contradiction between RSS and GISS yet... at least according to that study we read. It's borderline - it doesn't quite fit expectations but it's close.

Remember how it mentioned Pinatubo cooled the LT disproportionately and all the El Ninos warmed the LT disproportionately back then. That helps to explain some of the failure regarding lapse rates.

[skierinvermont]

Then why isn't 2008 showing up on that graph? If it was near normal compared to 1950-1980, it sould end up below the warmer 1979-2000 mean.

Wait a minute... GISS was .42C above the 1951-1980 mean. On the graph I posted it looks like it would have been around .2C above the 1979-2000 mean.. so it all makes sense doesn't it?

Remember, the graph I posted only ran up to the start of 2008. The graph you posted looks to only run up to 2006 or 2007.

[nzucker]

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.

Some areas of Northern Asia are shown at +2.5C on RSS, such as those bays north of Siberia, whereas GISS shows them around +7C.

Besides that though, the two depictions disagree fundamentally on which areas were below/above average. RSS shows west Africa cooler than normal. GISS shows it warmer than normal. RSS shows eastern China colder than normal; GISS shows it as well above average as part of the Asian warmth. RSS shows the north coast of the NW Territories/Yukon around average...GISS has it around +4C. These are fundamental, significant differences, dude. Why is this happening? Why don't we have agreement on who was warmer/cold than normal between two sources basically measuring the same thing?

No you are not- you have no evidence.

See above...looks like I provided plenty about sparse data areas that have been filled in with warmth on GISS where the satellites actually detected normal/below normal temperatures. In any case, there's no point extrapolating surface data if you have a satellite that actually measures that area, totally dumb.

[BethesdaWX]

Well RSS is warm enough that there's no real contradiction between RSS and GISS yet... at least according to that study we read. It's borderline - it doesn't quite fit expectations but it's close.

Remember how it mentioned Pinatubo cooled the LT disproportionately and all the El Ninos warmed the LT disproportionately back then. That helps to explain some of the failure regarding lapse rates.

I agree with your 2nd point about Pinatubo. It did make things quite lopsided, but all that El Nino probably outdid the cooling somewhat, because once the trend reverses after the ash halts the trades, it takes awhile to get that gunk out, and the El Niino can then boost the +PDO, which has an effect on the AMO in years down the road.

[skierinvermont]

Some areas of Northern Asia are shown at +2.5C on RSS, such as those bays north of Siberia, whereas GISS shows them around +7C.

Besides that though, the two depictions disagree fundamentally on which areas were below/above average. RSS shows west Africa cooler than normal. GISS shows it warmer than normal. RSS shows eastern China colder than normal; GISS shows it as well above average as part of the Asian warmth. RSS shows the north coast of the NW Territories/Yukon around average...GISS has it around +4C. These are fundamental, significant differences, dude. Why is this happening? Why don't we have agreement on who was warmer/cold than normal between two sources basically measuring the same thing?

See above...looks like I provided plenty about sparse data areas that have been filled in with warmth on GISS where the satellites actually detected normal/below normal temperatures. In any case, there's no point extrapolating surface data if you have a satellite that actually measures that area, totally dumb.

What are you talking about GISS doesn't even have a +7 category all it says it was >4C.

[skierinvermont]

I agree with your 2nd point about Pinatubo. It did make things quite lopsided, but all that El Nino probably outdid the cooling somewhat, because once the trend reverses after the ash halts the trades, it takes awhile to get that gunk out, and the El Niino can then boost the +PDO, which has an effect on the AMO in years down the road.

OK - my basic point was the trend on RSS/UAH is reduced because 1) Pinatubo makes them cooler during the 90s 2) all the El Ninos in the 80s made us warmer in the 80s.

Get rid of 1 and 2 and the 1979-present trend on UAH/RSS would likely be a bit larger. That would give us a little bit of LT amplification. (Not with UAH but UAH would be closer)

[nzucker]

What are you talking about GISS doesn't even have a +7 category all it says it was >4C.

It has a 4-10C category. You can assume that areas well inside the massive blobs of >4C are significantly warmer than that. Even RSS shows the >4C bubble of GISS in SW Asia actually being around 5C or so, and that's not the most widespread extent of the bubble.

[BethesdaWX]

Wait a minute... GISS was .42C above the 1951-1980 mean. On the graph I posted it looks like it would have been around .2C above the 1979-2000 mean.. so it all makes sense doesn't it?

Remember, the graph I posted only ran up to the start of 2008. The graph you posted looks to only run up to 2006 or 2007.

This is kind of why I prefer satellite data

[skierinvermont]

It has a 4-10C category. You can assume that areas well inside the massive blobs of >4C are significantly warmer than that. Even RSS shows the >4C bubble of GISS in SW Asia actually being around 5C or so, and that's not the most widespread extent of the bubble.

Yeah maybe 5C.. not 7C. If you are going to claim RSS is different from GISS-- you need to demonstrate that GISS actually shows 7C anomalies where RSS shows 3C anomalies.

[nzucker]

What are you talking about GISS doesn't even have a +7 category all it says it was >4C.

I want an answer to my question. How can you shoot down what I am saying when the comparison between RSS and GISS shows massive differences?

Amazing how you always criticize me for saying things that are obvious (like hey, most places don't have >4C anomalies all the time, and hey, what a coincidence it always occurs in hard to measure areas)....then I back it up soundly, and you just ignore it. It obviously gives you satisfaction to ridicule.

[BethesdaWX]

OK - my basic point was the trend on RSS/UAH is reduced because 1) Pinatubo makes them cooler during the 90s 2) all the El Ninos in the 80s made us warmer in the 80s.

Get rid of 1 and 2 and the 1979-present trend on UAH/RSS would likely be a bit larger. That would give us a little bit of LT amplification. (Not with UAH but UAH would be closer)

yes but it doesn't work out equalibrium like that. A Tropical Volcano may temporarily cause cooling, but it will enhance warming for many years afterwards. The High solar cycle then didn't help either.

Not sure of you knew, but the airborne fraction of CO2 dropped in correlation with the eruption

[nzucker]

Yeah maybe 5C.. not 7C. If you are going to claim RSS is different from GISS-- you need to demonstrate that GISS actually shows 7C anomalies where RSS shows 3C anomalies.

Doesn't matter...take a look at eastern China, Northern Europe, South America, and NW Territories/Yukon...massive differences between RSS and GISS, and it seems to be mostly because of extrapolation given where the differences occur.

Also, why isn't NASA required to check the data they extrapolate against satellite measurements to make sure it fits?

[skierinvermont]

Some areas of Northern Asia are shown at +2.5C on RSS, such as those bays north of Siberia, whereas GISS shows them around +7C.

Besides that though, the two depictions disagree fundamentally on which areas were below/above average. RSS shows west Africa cooler than normal. GISS shows it warmer than normal. RSS shows eastern China colder than normal; GISS shows it as well above average as part of the Asian warmth. RSS shows the north coast of the NW Territories/Yukon around average...GISS has it around +4C. These are fundamental, significant differences, dude. Why is this happening? Why don't we have agreement on who was warmer/cold than normal between two sources basically measuring the same thing?

See above...looks like I provided plenty about sparse data areas that have been filled in with warmth on GISS where the satellites actually detected normal/below normal temperatures. In any case, there's no point extrapolating surface data if you have a satellite that actually measures that area, totally dumb.

1) Eastern China: I don't see a discrepancy when you add the .5-1C due to base period change

2) Coast of NW territories/Yukon... you must be blind. RSS has the immediate coast 2-3C above. Add on the base period change of 1C and you have agreement.

I can point out areas where GISS is colder too.. for example the southern ocean SE of Africa near antarctica it has a large area of negative anomalies which RSS says is interspersed with +anoms. The tropical pacific.. GISS has bigger -anomalies. The southern atlantic ocean... RSS has +.5-1C ... GISS has it around average. And that is despite +.2C from the base period change.

[skierinvermont]

Doesn't matter...take a look at eastern China, Northern Europe, South America, and NW Territories/Yukon...massive differences between RSS and GISS, and it seems to be mostly because of extrapolation given where the differences occur.

Also, why isn't NASA required to check the data they extrapolate against satellite measurements to make sure it fits?

First of all you are greatly exaggerating the areas that GISS has as warm that RSS doesn't ... you aren't factoring in the base period change.

Second of all .. you clearly don't understand the principle of extrapolation if you are asking that question. In some spots it will extrapolate too warm.. in others it will extrapolate too cold. Overall it evens out. Statistics.. law of large numbers. Etc... blah blah blah

[nzucker]

1) Eastern China: I don't see a discrepancy when you add the .5-1C due to base period change

2) Coast of NW territories/Yukon... you must be blind. RSS has the immediate coast 2-3C above. Add on the base period change of 1C and you have agreement.

I can point out areas where GISS is colder too.. for example the southern ocean SE of Africa near antarctica it has a large area of negative anomalies which RSS says is interspersed with +anoms. The tropical pacific.. GISS has bigger -anomalies. The southern atlantic ocean... RSS has +.5-1C ... GISS has it around average. And that is despite +.2C from the base period change.

I am going to draw a map to show you my qualms with GISS.

[skierinvermont]

I am going to draw a map to show you my qualms with GISS.

Make sure you check out the southern atlantic between Africa and brazil/uruguay while you're at it. RSS is way warmer... must be a conspiracy

.. and the waters off Antarctica SE of Africa

.. and the tropical pacific

[BethesdaWX]

yes but it doesn't work out equalibrium like that. A Tropical Volcano may temporarily cause cooling, but it will enhance warming for many years afterwards. The High solar cycle then didn't help either.

Not sure of you knew, but the airborne fraction of CO2 dropped in correlation with the eruption

Just to add to the mix, Volcanoc activit overall was quite low in the 90s.

[skierinvermont]

Oh yeah and GISS is way too cold around (especially the western side) the black sea.

[nzucker]

1) Eastern China: I don't see a discrepancy when you add the .5-1C due to base period change

2) Coast of NW territories/Yukon... you must be blind. RSS has the immediate coast 2-3C above. Add on the base period change of 1C and you have agreement.

I can point out areas where GISS is colder too.. for example the southern ocean SE of Africa near antarctica it has a large area of negative anomalies which RSS says is interspersed with +anoms. The tropical pacific.. GISS has bigger -anomalies. The southern atlantic ocean... RSS has +.5-1C ... GISS has it around average. And that is despite +.2C from the base period change.

The base period change explains .26C difference. This doesn't explain why GISS shows Britain as -1C or so whereas the satellites show -3/-4C. We happen to know there was an historic arctic outbreak there so think I'm going to trust RSS which corroborates what I read in the paper. It doesn't explain why the area around Northwest Territories/Yukon and Kamchatka is near average on RSS but 2-3C above average on GISS. It doesn't explain why GISS has a maximum anomaly of -1C in South America where RSS has some -3C deviations. Obviously GISS must have some warm spots because it came in warmer event when we adjust for the base period.

Second of all .. you clearly don't understand the principle of extrapolation if you are asking that question. In some spots it will extrapolate too warm.. in others it will extrapolate too cold. Overall it evens out. Statistics.. law of large numbers. Etc... blah blah blah

Why shouldn't all extrapolations be subject to quality control? You can clearly introduce a bias if you're extrapolating aggressive areas that have shown warming. It doesn't even out if you constantly extrapolate warm.

Amazing you are defending James Hansen and GISS when you used to be a skeptic. What a joke.

[skierinvermont]

I am going to draw a map to show you my qualms with GISS.

Well I can see what you are saying about your bubbles in the UK and in S. America. But I disagree with the Kamchatka one and the NW territories one. In eastern Siberia around Kamchatka RSS looks around 2C to me and you need to add on .5-1C to that.. which puts it in agreement with GISS. The NW territories RSS is warmer in the bubble you have drawn than you say it is.

[nzucker]

Well I can see what you are saying about your bubbles in the UK and in S. America. But I disagree with the Kamchatka one and the NW territories one. In eastern Siberia around Kamchatka RSS looks around 2C to me and you need to add on .5-1C to that.. which puts it in agreement with GISS. The NW territories RSS is warmer in the bubble you have drawn than you say it is.

There is a bubble in the Northwest Territories that RSS shows to have had near average temperatures despite being surrounded with warmth in the Alaskan and High Arctic areas. GISS washes out this smaller area of relatively cool temperatures and just shows everyone way above normal. This is clearly a precision error with extrapolation and should be cross checked each month with satellites, which NASA doesn't do to my knowledge. And probably wouldn't want to do for obvious reasons.

[skierinvermont]

The base period change explains .26C difference. This doesn't explain why GISS shows Britain as -1C or so whereas the satellites show -3/-4C. We happen to know there was an historic arctic outbreak there so think I'm going to trust RSS which corroborates what I read in the paper. It doesn't explain why the area around Northwest Territories/Yukon and Kamchatka is near average on RSS but 2-3C above average on GISS. It doesn't explain why GISS has a maximum anomaly of -1C in South America where RSS has some -3C deviations. Obviously GISS must have some warm spots because it came in warmer event when we adjust for the base period.

Why shouldn't all extrapolations be subject to quality control? You can clearly introduce a bias if you're extrapolating aggressive areas that have shown warming. It doesn't even out if you constantly extrapolate warm.

Amazing you are defending James Hansen and GISS when you used to be a skeptic. What a joke.

Regionally - esp. in the areas that were in question in our conversation before the changes are as high as 1.5C between the base periods mostly .5-1C anywhere in Asia or Canada. I checked.

You obviously don't understand the statistical implications of extrapolation. In any given month you are just as likely to extrapolate warmth into cold as cold into warmth. The only time this is not the case is if you can make a physical argument for the thermometers more often being located in spots that are warming faster than the surrounding area.

[nzucker]

Make sure you check out the southern atlantic between Africa and brazil/uruguay while you're at it. RSS is way warmer... must be a conspiracy

.. and the waters off Antarctica SE of Africa

.. and the tropical pacific

Of course the ENSO is going to register colder in GISS since the satellites have such a long lag.

[skierinvermont]

There is a bubble in the Northwest Territories that RSS shows to have had near average temperatures despite being surrounded with warmth in the Alaskan and High Arctic areas. GISS washes out this smaller area of relatively cool temperatures and just shows everyone way above normal. This is clearly a precision error with extrapolation and should be cross checked each month with satellites, which NASA doesn't do to my knowledge. And probably wouldn't want to do for obvious reasons.

There is a small region of the NW territories where GISS looks warmer than RSS.. but it's not where you drew your bubble.

There are also many areas as I have pointed out where GISS is extrapolating a cold bias.

1) The area around the black sea was WAY WAY warmer than GISS says. (There is a large area where GISS is 1-2.5C too cold)

2) between brazil and Africa GISS has a blue area that RSS has red (add on the base period effects and the discrepancy is even larger)

3) the tropical pacific

4) the coastal waters of Antarctica SE of Africa where GISS has a blue bubble - RSS disagrees

We can go back and forth forever on this.. but until you understand the law of large numbers... we aren't going to get anywhere. It averages out in the end.

[nzucker]

There is a small region of the NW territories where GISS looks warmer than RSS.. but it's not where you drew your bubble.

There are also many areas as I have pointed out where GISS is extrapolating a cold bias.

1) The area around the black sea was WAY WAY warmer than GISS says.

2) between brazil and Africa GISS has a blue area that RSS has red (add on the base period effects and the discrepancy is even larger)

3) the tropical pacific

4) the coastal waters of Antarctica SE of Africa where GISS has a blue bubble - RSS disagrees

We can go back and forth forever on this.. but until you understand the law of large numbers... we aren't going to get anywhere. It averages out in the end.

Well I didn't draw the bubbles exactly.

It doesn't balance out though because GISS has been consistently coming in warmer than RSS/UAH despite the fact that the troposphere is supposed to warm faster. I believe that any extreme extrapolation showing big anomalies should be checked against the satellites.

[skierinvermont]

Well I didn't draw the bubbles exactly.

It doesn't balance out though because GISS has been consistently coming in warmer than RSS/UAH despite the fact that the troposphere is supposed to warm faster. I believe that any extreme extrapolation showing big anomalies should be checked against the satellites.

And the satellites corroborate the spatial pattern of the warmth shown on GISS.

Therefore any problem that exists with GISS also exists with HadCRUT ... GISS and HadCRUT are in agreement in the areas they both cover. The discrepancy between the two is that HadCRUT has missing warmth in the arctic. The satellites actually PROVE that HadCRUT is missing a ton of rapid warming in the arctic. For example... take HadCRUT.. then use the satellites to fill in the areas that HadCRUT is missing... you have basically the same thing as GISS.

Therefore any problem that exists is with the physical thermometers themselves... not the algorithm or methodology used. If you are blaming GISS you must also blame HadCRUT since they basically agree except HadCRUT is missing the arctic warmth that we know is occurring.

OR

1) the problem is with UAH and RSS (which is quite possible given the large discrepancy BETWEEN RSS and UAH and the LARGE corrections that have been made in the past)

2) Lower tropospheric amplification is not occuring for a yet unknown reason.

It's silly to take the satellites as proof that HadCRUT is wrong when there is a 30% difference between UAH and RSS