nzucker Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 DEC Probably finishes near 0.2C....we probably drop to 0.0 in maybe 50-55 days IMO, the fall -0.1 to -0.2C below avg by Early/Mid spring. Channel 4 has had an amazing drop on the AMSU site and is now as cool as 1999, the last strong La Niña. Definitely running at the bottom of the pack now there although there has been some difficulty with reporting in the last few days...maybe someone else is celebrating New Year's too? Channel 5/AQUA hasn't cooled down as much though....definitely looks as if we've been slightly cooler than December 2009, which came in at +.284 on UAH. Not much drop since the start of the month unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Channel 4 has had an amazing drop on the AMSU site and is now as cool as 1999, the last strong La Niña. Definitely running at the bottom of the pack now there although there has been some difficulty with reporting in the last few days...maybe someone else is celebrating New Year's too? Channel 5/AQUA hasn't cooled down as much though....definitely looks as if we've been slightly cooler than December 2009, which came in at +.284 on UAH. Not much drop since the start of the month unfortunately. yeah I was looking at AMSU. I'm pretty sure AQUA didn't have big drop earlier either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHSnow Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 RSS came in at +.251 for December. http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 UAH- +.18 for December 2010... 1998 is still the warmest year... continuing the plummet... Dec. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.18 deg. C By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD. NEW 30-YEAR BASE PERIOD IMPLEMENTED! Sorry for yelling like that, but if you have been following our global tropospheric temperature updates every month, you will have to re-calibrate your brains because we have just switched from a 20 year base period (1979 – 1998) to a more traditional 30 year base period (1981-2010) like that NOAA uses for climate “normals”. This change from a 20 to a 30 year base period has 2 main impacts: 1) because the most recent decade averaged somewhat warmer than the previous two decades, the anomaly values will be about 0.1 deg. C lower than they used to be. This does NOT affect the long-term trend of the data…it only reflects a change in the zero-level, which is somewhat arbitrary. 2) the 30-year average annual cycle shape will be somewhat different, and more representative of “normal” of the satellite record than with 20 years; as a result, the month-to-month changes in the anomalies might be slightly less “erratic” in appearance. (Some enterprising person should check into that with the old versus new anomaly datasets). Note that the tropics continue to cool as a result of the La Nina still in progress, and the Northern Hemisphere also cooled in December, more consistent with the anecdotal evidence. I will provide a global sea surface temperature update later today. YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS 2010 1 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635 2010 2 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759 2010 3 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721 2010 4 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633 2010 5 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706 2010 6 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485 2010 7 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370 2010 8 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321 2010 9 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237 2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106 2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117 2010 12 0.180 0.213 0.147 -0.221 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'm not happy with what UAH did by using the entire 30yr base, because now the readings will deviate.......& It will look silly to be measuring anoms at -0.5C come 2030.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I don't like it because base periods are entirely arbitrary and changing it only causes confusion. Now every data source uses a different base period and it is impossible to switch between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Anyway, heres the New UAH & SST anoms Sea Surface Below Avg LT temps continue to cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I don't like it because base periods are entirely arbitrary and changing it only causes confusion. Now every data source uses a different base period and it is impossible to switch between them. 1979-2000 was a weird base period, though, and I always wondered if it would be changed. At least 1981-2010 matches the NWS normals. It is weird that GISS uses 1951-1980, however, seems very outdated and not in line with how NWS handles the climate normals at all. You'd think the government would want to even things out but perhaps not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Global SST is only below average if you are using 2000-2010 as your base period. Use a longer base period and you see that SSTs continue to be well above average: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 1979-2000 was a weird base period, though, and I always wondered if it would be changed. At least 1981-2010 matches the NWS normals. It is weird that GISS uses 1951-1980, however, seems very outdated and not in line with how NWS handles the climate normals at all. You'd think the government would want to even things out but perhaps not. No. Changing base periods is entirely arbitrary and only causes confusion. Pick a base period and stick with it. 1951-1980 also happens to coincide with the full long term average of the GISS and HadCRUT data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Anyway, heres the New UAH & SST anoms Sea Surface Below Avg LT temps continue to cool. 02-10? that is a joke and wasting everyone's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 02-10? that is a joke and wasting everyone's time. huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Global SST is only below average if you are using 2000-2010 as your base period. Use a longer base period and you see that SSTs continue to be well above average: Why was it below the 0.0 for so long? then exploded up for the last century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Why was it below the 0.0 for so long? then exploded up for the last century. It wasn't I'm very happy with the way things are changing in the Gov't though. Looks like all data withn NASA/NOAA, everything, will be released to the public sometime within the next 5 years....expect them to fight it for obvious reasons. After all, its our tax money thats paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Global SST is only below average if you are using 2000-2010 as your base period. Use a longer base period and you see that SSTs continue to be well above average: This chart only goes to August 2009 so how could you determine that SSTs are above average in January 2011 using it? That was during a developing strong El Niño in Summer 2009 whereas now we're in a strong La Niña. Once again you are showing your AGW bias by presenting irrelevant data. No. Changing base periods is entirely arbitrary and only causes confusion. Pick a base period and stick with it. 1951-1980 also happens to coincide with the full long term average of the GISS and HadCRUT data. It is going to be annoying for sure, but I think we should get all the base periods to be equal. Why can't everyone just switch to 1981-2010 like the NWS and UAH are doing? That would help clarify things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 This chart only goes to August 2009 so how could you determine that SSTs are above average in January 2011 using it? That was during a developing strong El Niño in Summer 2009 whereas now we're in a strong La Niña. Once again you are showing your AGW bias by presenting irrelevant data. I thought a smart lad like you could put two and two together. I usually assume my readers are smart enough to figure these things out themselves and not be tricked by a pesky x-axis. The chart in the post before mine shows SSTs have dropped .29C since the peak. That means that they would still be running above average in both of the charts I posted. I am sorry that I could not find an updated chart through 2010. I will contact Bob Tisdale immediately and demand an update so as to avoid my overwhelming heart wrenching AGW bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 It is going to be annoying for sure, but I think we should get all the base periods to be equal. Why can't everyone just switch to 1981-2010 like the NWS and UAH are doing? That would help clarify things. The NWS switches individual U.S. climate sites to a 1981-2010 base but they keep their U.S. climate index at an earlier base period. Considering the vast amount of publication done using GISS and HadCRUT changing them would not clarify anything, it would cause incredible confusion. Pretty pointless discussion over an entirely arbitrary base period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 DEC anoms pretty "cool".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I thought a smart lad like you could put two and two together. I usually assume my readers are smart enough to figure these things out themselves and not be tricked by a pesky x-axis. The chart in the post before mine shows SSTs have dropped .29C since the peak. That means that they would still be running above average in both of the charts I posted. I am sorry that I could not find an updated chart through 2010. I will contact Bob Tisdale immediately and demand an update so as to avoid my overwhelming heart wrenching AGW bias. It looks as if the peak was around .22C and now we're around -.11C so the drop is closer to .35C than .29C at least eyeballing the charts and the blue line showing instantaneous SSTs. Your charts are definitely deceiving in that one goes out to around 2005 and the other 2009, so you don't show the drop due to the current La Niña which has been significant. That's the topic of conversation here, the recent drop in global temperatures and SSTs, and you're trying to hide that by showing generalized charts of long-term warming. Honestly, if SSTs are around the 1981-2010 average when we've just started a strong Niña, we're doing pretty well...definitely shows that there's no reason to "freak out" about global warming as we'll probably drop below average soon with the Indian Ocean and Atlantic showing great cooling in the past few weeks. We're expecting a lot of La Niñas in the next 20-30 years with the -PDO so doesn't look as if we'll see skyrocketing SSTs or surface temperatures, and that doesn't even include the historic solar minimum. So basically once again, the point is that the threat of global warming has been exaggerated and that deviations from normal today are in the realm of a few hundredths of a degree, not something I want to lose sleep over or spend millions of dollars "solving." Especially with the Dalton Minimum coming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 DEC anoms pretty "cool".... Backed up pretty well with what RSS showed for December 2010 anomalies...given the cool temperatures in Antarctica that RSS blanked out, looks as if the actual anomaly was probably less than the +.25C suggested by RSS analysis: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 It looks as if the peak was around .22C and now we're around -.11C so the drop is closer to .35C than .29C at least eyeballing the charts and the blue line showing instantaneous SSTs. Your charts are definitely deceiving in that one goes out to around 2005 and the other 2009, so you don't show the drop due to the current La Niña which has been significant. That's the topic of conversation here, the recent drop in global temperatures and SSTs, and you're trying to hide that by showing generalized charts of long-term warming. Honestly, if SSTs are around the 1981-2010 average when we've just started a strong Niña, we're doing pretty well...definitely shows that there's no reason to "freak out" about global warming as we'll probably drop below average soon with the Indian Ocean and Atlantic showing great cooling in the past few weeks. We're expecting a lot of La Niñas in the next 20-30 years with the -PDO so doesn't look as if we'll see skyrocketing SSTs or surface temperatures, and that doesn't even include the historic solar minimum. So basically once again, the point is that the threat of global warming has been exaggerated and that deviations from normal today are in the realm of a few hundredths of a degree, not something I want to lose sleep over or spend millions of dollars "solving." Especially with the Dalton Minimum coming... Considering my charts were smoothed, you need to use the .29C drop in the smoothed portion of Bethesda's graph. The point of contention was Bethesda's assertion that "SSTs are below average." They are not. I'm not "hiding" anything. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Considering my charts were smoothed, you need to use the .29C drop in the smoothed portion of Bethesda's graph. The point of contention was Bethesda's assertion that "SSTs are below average." They are not. It just depends what average (baseline) you are using as in everything. Global SSTs should drop below average on your chart soon, anyway, though The point is that we're definitely cooling fairly rapidly. It just seems pointless to post charts of SSTs in 2005 and in August 2009 during a strong El Niño when we're talking about the drop caused by a strong La Niña in January 2011. You definitely weren't clear that there had been a major drop since the cut-off on the graph and that we'd likely fall below average soon. That's why I am citing a certain AGW bias I see in you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 It just depends what average (baseline) you are using as in everything. Global SSTs should drop below average on your chart soon, anyway, though The point is that we're definitely cooling fairly rapidly. It just seems pointless to post charts of SSTs in 2005 and in August 2009 during a strong El Niño when we're talking about the drop caused by a strong La Niña in January 2011. You definitely weren't clear that there had been a major drop since the cut-off on the graph and that we'd likely fall below average soon. That's why I am citing a certain AGW bias I see in you. Would anybody "tricked' by my highly tricky use of charts terminating in 2009 and 2005 please raise their hand? I apologize for my extreme bias. Bethesda is right... SSTs ARE WAY BELOW AVERAGE AND WE ARE HEADING INTO A ****ING ICE AGE!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Would anybody "tricked' by my highly tricky use of charts terminating in 2009 and 2005 please raise their hand? I apologize for my extreme bias. Bethesda is right... SSTs ARE WAY BELOW AVERAGE AND WE ARE HEADING INTO A ****ING ICE AGE!!!! I just didn't see why you posted those charts...they seem rather irrelevant to the current discussion about 2011 temperatures/SSTs. There is reason to believe we may be headed into a cooler regime with the La Niña, extremely low solar activity, and -PDO. I'm not convinced of any of these BS alarmist Ice Age forecasts, but I'm becoming less worried about global warming with satellite temperatures not reaching 1998 levels this year despite a strong El Niño and record high +AMO, coupled with the natural factors that point towards cooling and the anecdotal reports around the world about Britain's coldest December in 100 years of records, near record cold in Siberia, constant blizzards/cold here in the East, ice and snow in Southern California etc. I'm also seeing that the AGW crowd is starting to backtrack; instead of saying winters will be warmer and shorter, they're now finding excuses why it's actually colder which is a sign things aren't going as expected. Where is the accelerating warming going to come from? Also, it seems as if most of the damage to society is coming from cold/snow in unexpected places. In a recent e-mail to me, climate journalist and activist Bill McKibben talked about how 2010 was the warmest year ever, the damage from the fires/heat waves in Russia, etc. However, he never mentioned the incredible travel delays in Europe due to excessive snowfall, the Christmas blizzard in NYC leading to 3 deaths, the 100 deaths in Poland from temperatures 15F below average this December, etc. Humans were born to a tropical climate, so it makes sense to me that extreme cold and snow are more an impediment to us than warmth. I think many people in Europe and the US right now wouldn't mind a slightly milder winter, same goes for Siberia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I just didn't see why you posted those charts...they seem rather irrelevant to the current discussion about 2011 temperatures/SSTs. It's very simple. Try to follow along. Bethesda said global SSTs are below average. I posted the charts to show that they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 It's very simple. Try to follow along. Bethesda said global SSTs are below average. I posted the charts to show that they are not. Its not that simple. You never respond to an entire post, instead take 1 statement, and ignore the rest of the damning evidence to the AGW theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Its not that simple. You never respond to an entire post, instead take 1 statement, and ignore the rest of the damning evidence to the AGW theory. The rest of your post was quite accurate. That one statement just so happened to be blatantly false so I corrected it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 It's very simple. Try to follow along. Bethesda said global SSTs are below average. I posted the charts to show that they are not. Again, it just depends what average we are using, and what average we think it's fair to use. I can follow the argument, dude, stop your fricking sarcasm. It is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Again, it just depends what average we are using, and what average we think it's fair to use. I can follow the argument, dude, stop your fricking sarcasm. It is disgusting. I propose using 1998 as "average". It is has been below average every other year in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Global SST is only below average if you are using 2000-2010 as your base period. Use a longer base period and you see that SSTs continue to be well above average: This map is a year and a half old, when we had an El Nino. We now have a completely different ENSO phase, so this chart is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.