2010 Global Temps

[bobbutts]

If glaciers were that much smaller in the MWP, then sea level would have been higher. There isn't much evidence for that. I also haven't seen any higher methane measurements from that period.

Well there is something we can do - namely help support the cause of transitioning away from fossil fuels, unless they can be sequestered or otherwise removed from the atmosphere.

I suppose I may be unrealistically negative, but IMO this idea is simply never going to fly. It's done nothing but sidetrack the argument into politics.

Unless we get a higher density and cheaper fuel before it's gone, we're burning it all.

[salbers]

Maybe we can get another thread going related to how climate, society, economics, politics, and technology all interact.

Looking at things from an economic standpoint, fossil fuels are getting more expensive, and some alternatives are getting cheaper, so these trends will continue to encourage some switching.

[tacoman25]

Please try and state accurate facts so we can have an intelligent discussion in this forum. NOAA is also reporting 2010 as tied for the warmest. We have yet to hear from the UK folks.

Also NOAA/NCDC does release a lot of observational data. Have you had a chance to look at it?

NOAA/GISS are essentially the same. Look who runs both, and both consistently run higher than other sources.

[salbers]

Apparently only 0.01 degree higher than UAH, in terms of 2010 ranking.

We'll see what HadCRU reports.

[tacoman25]

Apparently only 0.01 degree higher than UAH, in terms of 2010 ranking.

We'll see what HadCRU reports.

I think the most objective approach is to look at all the sources. RSS, UAH, GISS, HadCRU.

One thing you have to keep in mind: UAH was .01C cooler than 1998, GISS was tied with 2005 (no other source had 2005 nearly as warm as GISS). So even though both were very close to the record, the record was actually warmer for GISS. So GISS was more than .01C warmer in 2010 than UAH.

[GaWx]

I just read a 1/13/11 NYTimes article that has this headline:

"Figures on global climate Show 2010 Tied 2005 as the Hottest Year on Record"

They claim that it and 2005 are the hottest years since records began in 1880! the article said that two agencies, NASA and NOAA, reported this. The NOAA data have 2010 a having been +1.12 F above the 20th century average.

Any opinions on this? I thought that 1998 was hotter than 2010. Also, I didn't know that 2005 was the hottest before 2010.

[tacoman25]

I just read a 1/13/11 NYTimes article that has this headline:

"Figures on global climate Show 2010 Tied 2005 as the Hottest Year on Record"

They claim that it and 2005 are the hottest years since records began in 1880! the article said that two agencies, NASA and NOAA, reported this. The NOAA data have 2010 a having been +1.12 F above the 20th century average.

Any opinions on this? I thought that 1998 was hotter than 2010. Also, I didn't know that 2005 was the hottest before 2010.

First of all, GISS and NOAA use mostly the same data, so they are more like one temperature source. The four main, separate temperature sources are: GISS, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS.

Here is the history:

When 1998 occurred, all sources agreed that it was easily the warmest year on record. When 2005 happened, only GISS reported it as warmer than 1998. In fact, none of the other sources had it even that close to 1998. Once again in 2010, GISS will be the only source showing it as the warmest year on record. UAH had 2010 as almost as warm as 1998, but still not as warm as GISS since GISS had 2005 even warmer than 1998.

[skierinvermont]

To add onto what tacoman said about the 4 major sources (HadCRUT, GISS, UAH, RSS) I would say that although GISS is on its own with respect to the other three, I believe HadCRUT is biased cold by the fact that it doesn't include data for the arctic where we have had extreme warmth the last 10 years. It leaves most of the area above 65N as data blank, but we know from multiple other sources that this area has been extremely warm the last decade. GISS includes this but HadCRUT does not. If you account for this, HadCRUT is in closer agreement with GISS (but is probably still a little cooler due to some differences in other parts of the world).

What we really have going on then, in my opinion, is a discrepancy between the satellite data (RSS, UAH) and the surface data (GISS, HadCRUT) which have diverged warmer over the last 10 years (if you account for the missing arctic warmth on HadCRUT).

This discrepancy may either be real, OR the surface and/or satellite data is incorrect.

If the surface really is warming faster then that would be counter to AGW theory in which the lower troposphere measured by UAH+RSS should theoretically be warming slightly faster, but it might be too short of a period to analyze for something like that (the discrepancy may only be temporary).

On the other hand, the surface and/or satellite data could be slightly incorrect. The surface could be biased warm if UHI has not been properly accounted for (there have been studies of this and I think it has been properly accounted for). Or the satellite data could be biased cold. I'm not too familiar with analyses done to test the accuracy of the satellite data, however what I do know is that since 1979 UAH has a warming trend of around .142C/decade, while RSS has a trend of .163C/decade. So if the satellite data can't even agree on the decadal trend for 30 years within .02C, they can't be that accurate.

I have also heard that Fu et al. 2004 analyzed the satellite data and found decadal warming at a rate of .19C/decade, which is much higher than UAH or RSS, even slightly more than GISS. Not too familiar with this study though.

[BethesdaWX]

If glaciers were that much smaller in the MWP, then sea level would have been higher. There isn't much evidence for that. I also haven't seen any higher methane measurements from that period.

Well there is something we can do - namely help support the cause of transitioning away from fossil fuels, unless they can be sequestered or otherwise removed from the atmosphere.

Now that you read my links about the Antarctic being hit with the MWP, & the smaller glaciers at both poles, what is your response?

Here it is again in case you lost the link

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

Its fact, There was less ice at both poles during the MWP... that was completely solar related. Higher Global Trelines... all solar. Heck, the summers were probably ice free...completely solar.

Again....Satellite Era alone, 100% of this can be explained through Solar & Ocean. Sure, we could peg Co2 as a Cause as well... but that doesn't change the fact that it Could be explained 100% naturally.

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completelyt representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor. Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease in the CC definitely have nothing to do with CO2 increase

Resized to 76% (was 880 x 506) - Click image to enlarge

[tacoman25]

To add onto what tacoman said about the 4 major sources (HadCRUT, GISS, UAH, RSS) I would say that although GISS is on its own with respect to the other three, I believe HadCRUT is biased cold by the fact that it doesn't include data for the arctic where we have had extreme warmth the last 10 years. It leaves most of the area above 65N as data blank, but we know from multiple other sources that this area has been extremely warm the last decade. GISS includes this but HadCRUT does not. If you account for this, HadCRUT is in closer agreement with GISS (but is probably still a little cooler due to some differences in other parts of the world).

What we really have going on then, in my opinion, is a discrepancy between the satellite data (RSS, UAH) and the surface data (GISS, HadCRUT) which have diverged warmer over the last 10 years (if you account for the missing arctic warmth on HadCRUT).

This discrepancy may either be real, OR the surface and/or satellite data is incorrect.

If the surface really is warming faster then that would be counter to AGW theory in which the lower troposphere measured by UAH+RSS should theoretically be warming slightly faster, but it might be too short of a period to analyze for something like that (the discrepancy may only be temporary).

On the other hand, the surface and/or satellite data could be slightly incorrect. The surface could be biased warm if UHI has not been properly accounted for (there have been studies of this and I think it has been properly accounted for). Or the satellite data could be biased cold. I'm not too familiar with analyses done to test the accuracy of the satellite data, however what I do know is that since 1979 UAH has a warming trend of around .142C/decade, while RSS has a trend of .163C/decade. So if the satellite data can't even agree on the decadal trend for 30 years within .02C, they can't be that accurate.

I have also heard that Fu et al. 2004 analyzed the satellite data and found decadal warming at a rate of .19C/decade, which is much higher than UAH or RSS, even slightly more than GISS. Not too familiar with this study though.

I really don't think that .02C is a huge margin of error. Anyway, if you look at a graph of satellite temps over the past 30 years, they clearly agree for the most part.

[cheetah440]

Maybe we can get another thread going related to how climate, society, economics, politics, and technology all interact.

Looking at things from an economic standpoint, fossil fuels are getting more expensive, and some alternatives are getting cheaper, so these trends will continue to encourage some switching.

These trends are the only thing that will encourage "switching". And it still won't happen in our lifetime.

[skierinvermont]

I really don't think that .02C is a huge margin of error. Anyway, if you look at a graph of satellite temps over the past 30 years, they clearly agree for the most part.

It's more than the difference in the 30 year trend between HadCRUT and GISS. Across a 30 year period that means that RSS is .06C higher than UAH, and that Fu et al. 2004 study I mentioned is an additional .09C warmer than that. So quite a bit of disagreement it seems about how to interpret the satellite data. Fu et al. 2004 would be warmer than GISS or HadCRUT but is based on much of the same data that RSS and UAH uses.

Also, I believe that John Christy (the skeptic behind UAH along with Spencer) has acknowledged in published journal articles that there is a large degree of uncertainty with regard to the satellite data. I think it has to do with how to adjust for orbit decay and how to calibrate replacement satellites.

[tacoman25]

It's more than the difference in the 30 year trend between HadCRUT and GISS. Across a 30 year period that means that RSS is .06C higher than UAH, and that Fu et al. 2004 study I mentioned is an additional .09C warmer than that. So quite a bit of disagreement it seems about how to interpret the satellite data. Fu et al. 2004 would be warmer than GISS or HadCRUT but is based on much of the same data that RSS and UAH uses.

Also, I believe that John Christy (the skeptic behind UAH along with Spencer) has acknowledged in published journal articles that there is a large degree of uncertainty with regard to the satellite data. I think it has to do with how to adjust for orbit decay and how to calibrate replacement satellites.

Here's to no bias!

At least those skeptics can admit their methods may not be foolproof and have some uncertainty.

[skierinvermont]

Here's to no bias!

At least those skeptics can admit their methods may not be foolproof and have some uncertainty.

He is a self-described skeptic. It doesn't make me biased to describe him as such.. what else am I supposed to describe him as? I'm not saying he's biased, I'm just saying that if anybody were going to deny the uncertainties in the satellite data it would be Christy, and he doesn't. Which is a pretty good indication that there are some uncertainties.

[tacoman25]

He is a self-described skeptic. It doesn't make me biased to describe him as such. All I'm saying is even certain in-the-know skeptics admit the satellite data has large uncertainties.

It was the way you described it..."behind UAH". That phrasing is usually reserved for "behind the conspiracy" or "behind the crime spree".

I don't think you even realize half the time when your bias is seeping through.

[nzucker]

I really don't think that .02C is a huge margin of error. Anyway, if you look at a graph of satellite temps over the past 30 years, they clearly agree for the most part.

Pretty much an insignificant difference given the large uncertainties in arriving at an estimate of global temperatures.

[skierinvermont]

Pretty much an insignificant difference given the large uncertainties in arriving at an estimate of global temperatures.

It's not insignificant. It's by far the largest discrepancy between any of the temperature measuring methods. Pretty funny that someone who harps endlessly over minor discrepancies between HadCRUT and GISS says that a difference which is much larger between UAH, RSS and Fu et al. is insignificant. Hypocrisy at its finest.

.02C/decade difference between UAH and RSS is quite large and is not insignificant. We have UAH at .14C/decade, RSS at .16C/decade, HadCRUT and GISS both are at .17C/decade. So UAH is by far the odd one out.

And then we have other analyses of satellite data that conclude warming at .19C and even .2C/decade which would be even more warming than GISS. The surface trend is well known and has very small errors on timescales of 30+ years. The satellite trend has wildly large errors and could be much larger or much less than the surface trend.

[skierinvermont]

It was the way you described it..."behind UAH". That phrasing is usually reserved for "behind the conspiracy" or "behind the crime spree".

I don't think you even realize half the time when your bias is seeping through.

Oh ok I can see how it could be read that way.. all I'm saying is if anybody were going to be honest about satellite measurement error it would be Christy and yet he acknowledges (along with everyone else) that there's a fair amount of uncertainty.

[BethesdaWX]

Pretty much an insignificant difference given the large uncertainties in arriving at an estimate of global temperatures.

GISS/HADCRUT are alot worse than UAH/RSS have ever been this decade. Usually, its best to go by the satellite that has the most data...this is UAH.

On the warmist team, its HADCRUT.

[skierinvermont]

GISS/HADCRUT are alot worse than UAH/RSS have ever been this decade. Usually, its best to go by the satellite that has the most data...this is UAH.

On the warmist team, its HADCRUT.

Yep.. let's just ignore large uncertainties about satellite decay and accept UAH as our deity.

GISS is likely closer to the true surface temperature because HadCRUT misses all of the extreme warmth in the arctic.

[nzucker]

It's not insignificant. It's by far the largest discrepancy between any of the temperature measuring methods. Pretty funny that someone who harps endlessly over minor discrepancies between HadCRUT and GISS says that a difference which is much larger between UAH, RSS and Fu et al. is insignificant. Hypocrisy at its finest.

.02C/decade difference between UAH and RSS is quite large and is not insignificant. We have UAH at .14C/decade, RSS at .16C/decade, HadCRUT and GISS both are at .17C/decade. So UAH is by far the odd one out.

It's not hypocrisy...I find GISS dishonest because it doesn't actually measure temperatures in much of the Earth; the extrapolation techniques are dubious at best and often do not jive exactly with satellite data...I circled several areas on the globe where GISS showed a much warmer measurement for December 2010 than RSS. This just seems a bit fishy with a guy like Hansen running the show, as well as the fact that both major mistakes made by GISS/NASA leaned towards warmth. I just think .02C/decade is an irrelevant difference, not something that changes our understanding of global warming.

Yep.. let's just ignore large uncertainties about satellite decay and accept UAH as our deity.

GISS is likely closer to the true surface temperature because HadCRUT misses all of the extreme warmth in the arctic.

But HADCRUT misses the cooling in Antarctica. For example, December 2010 was WELL below normal in Antarctica and yet much of this would have been blacked out...so the argument can go both ways, although clearly the temperature change in the Arctic has been greater.

[BethesdaWX]

Yep.. let's just ignore large uncertainties about satellite decay and accept UAH as our deity.

GISS is likely closer to the true surface temperature because HadCRUT misses all of the extreme warmth in the arctic.

Satellite decay....is that your basis for doubting UAH? GISS misses the cooling in the Antarctic.

I'm not sure when UAH will be replaced, but they're already working on the replacement.

[skierinvermont]

It's not hypocrisy...I find GISS dishonest because it doesn't actually measure temperatures in much of the Earth; the extrapolation techniques are dubious at best and often do not jive exactly with satellite data...I circled several areas on the globe where GISS showed a much warmer measurement for December 2010 than RSS. This just seems a bit fishy with a guy like Hansen running the show, as well as the fact that both major mistakes made by GISS/NASA leaned towards warmth. I just think .02C/decade is an irrelevant difference, not something that changes our understanding of global warming.

That's because you don't understand statistics.

You can form an accurate index of global temperatures by randomly selecting as little as 60 stations from around the globe and extrapolating much much farther than GISS does. The multitude of stations used by GISS and the very short extrapolations that result are extraneous. The extrapolations balance out in the end.

And it is hypocrisy regardless.. you go on and on about how wrong GISS is (Incorrectly no less) compared to HadCRUT when the difference between HadCRUT and GISS is much less than the difference between UAH and RSS... never-mind alternative uses of the satellite data like Fu et al. 2004 which are even warmer than GISS.

You are saying one difference is significant but a much larger difference is not. If the difference between UAH and RSS is not significant, then the difference between GISS and HadCRUT is entirely trivial. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Just admit you are wrong and that the difference between UAH and RSS IS significant. Just about everybody else recognizes it as significant which is why there are so many papers published debating the satellite data.

[skierinvermont]

Satellite decay....is that your basis for doubting UAH? GISS misses the cooling in the Antarctic.

I'm not sure when UAH will be replaced, but they're already working on the replacement.

Great response. I will take your word that satellite decay is no big deal. I am so relieved. Denial at its finest.

[BethesdaWX]

Great response. I will take your word that satellite decay is no big deal. I am so relieved. Denial at its finest.

What evidence do you have that satellite decay is causing data errors? You're beating a dead duck.

[skierinvermont]

What evidence do you have that satellite decay is causing data errors? You're beating a dead duck.

The published work of many scientists including skeptics like John Christy.

http://www.climatesc...nal-execsum.pdf

Christy co-authored the above which says that differences between different satellite analyses are due to differences in how the satellites are calibrated to one another after drift.

You can start with Fu et al. 2004

http://www.ncdc.noaa...2524-UW-MSU.pdf

Vinnikov et al. 2005

http://www.atmos.umd...005JD006392.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Yes, the way they're calibrated has nothing to do with satellite decay bringing faulty measurements. Again, GISS/HADCRUT have a larger window of error than satellite.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, the way they're calibrated has nothing to do with satellite decay bringing faulty measurements. Again, GISS/HADCRUT have a larger window of error than satellite.

The reason that the satellites have to be calibrated to each other is that older satellites decay.

The point is even John Christy, a skeptic and one of the scientists responsible for UAH, says that there is large uncertainty in the satellite temperature measurements here:

[skierinvermont]

Yes, the way they're calibrated has nothing to do with satellite decay bringing faulty measurements. Again, GISS/HADCRUT have a larger window of error than satellite.

The reason that the satellites have to be calibrated to each other is that older satellites decay.

The point is even John Christy, a skeptic and one of the scientists responsible for UAH, says that there is large uncertainty in the satellite temperature measurements here:

http://www.climatesc...nal-execsum.pdf

Not only does UAH disagree with RSS, but other analyses of satellite data are even warmer than RSS.

You can start with Fu et al. 2004

http://www.ncdc.noaa...2524-UW-MSU.pdf

Vinnikov et al. 2005

[skierinvermont]

Yes, the way they're calibrated has nothing to do with satellite decay bringing faulty measurements. Again, GISS/HADCRUT have a larger window of error than satellite.

The reason that the satellites have to be calibrated to each other is that older satellites decay. This calibration process introduces uncertainty because there is disagreement about how to calibrate.

The point is even John Christy, a skeptic and one of the scientists responsible for UAH, says that there is large uncertainty in the satellite temperature measurements here:

http://www.climatesc...nal-execsum.pdf

Not only does UAH disagree with RSS, but other analyses of satellite data are even warmer than RSS.

You can start with Fu et al. 2004

http://www.ncdc.noaa...2524-UW-MSU.pdf

Vinnikov et al. 2005

http://www.atmos.umd...005JD006392.pdf