iceicebyebye Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 A new year calls for a new look at global temps....Discuss 2011 results and related items here. As a starting point, here is a quick recap of two of the board's two favourite temp profiles as of end of year 2010: GISS: +.62, tied with 2005 for the warmest year in the global surface temp record; 34th consecutive year with temps above 20th century average UAH: +.41, slightly behind 1998's +.42; Spencer acknowledges the "difference is nowhere near statistically significant" We patiently await the CRU lads as they finish up their data analysis. This GISS image shows the striking high latitude anomalies: So what's in store for 2011? The influence of Nina should be felt relative to temps at least through the first half of the year. Then, if the good Dr. Hansen is correct, we may approach or exceed a record figure in 2012 (he allows for an extended Nina however, with relevant impacts). One thing is for sure: we will happily travel along BAU emissions paths, and we will continue to lock in global heating in the long term. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I'm looking forward to the global cooling phase this decade honestly.... GISS doesn't count of course. I'll be Posting RSS, UAH, & a number of other datasources suc as AMSU. UAH is currently at 0.28C for DEC....January has actually dipped lower than the mean. Latest Euro weeklies have a mega NH cooldown week 3! Something that would be unheard of in recent memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 GISS and NCDC are pretty useful I think since they cover a longer time (a century) compared with the satellites. Since around 1990, we've been able to see the GISS matches the satellites within roughly 0.1C. And GISS shows close to 1 degree C rise over the past century. We can thus surmise that if satellites were available in 1900, they would show (within 10%) about the same difference relative to now. So satellites are perhaps confirming the validity of GISS and NCDC (and other surface based analyses). And even now in the midst of a La Nina cooling we are much warmer than the 20th century mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 GISS and NCDC are pretty useful I think since they cover a longer time (a century) compared with the satellites. Since around 1990, we've been able to see the GISS matches the satellites within roughly 0.1C. And GISS shows close to 1 degree C rise over the past century. We can thus surmise that if satellites were available in 1900, they would show (within 10%) about the same difference relative to now. So satellites are perhaps confirming the validity of GISS and NCDC (and other surface based analyses). And even now in the midst of a La Nina cooling we are much warmer than the 20th century mean. Uh, GISS has the largest deviation of anyone recently... Satellites are alot better, so why not go with the more accurate data? If you're gonna post a model instead of OBS to measure temps, HADCRUT has better Reso for sure. La Nina cooling tends to start 6 months after it gets going.....we've just started. We're +0.28C now...If current trends continue, we'll tank around +0.1C for the JAN anomaly, down to avg in FEB, then maybe -0.1C In MAR. Actually, the 1st 1/2 of JAN has been below the mean totally, so maybe we go even lower... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It seems like you have yet to grasp the point of my post - so I'll spend some extra time to repeat. Please appreciate this. Surface based measurements are better in the sense that they cover a longer time. And during the period we've had both (surface and satellite), they match within about 0.1 degree. So we can probably accept the changes we see over the century in the surface record, since the surface measurements have been validated by satellites within about 0.1C. Comparing the surface datasets, HadCrut has about the same change over the century as GISS and NCDC. January 2011 is still above the mean of the 20th century - I'm glad you implicitly agree with this, since you haven't countered this point. You have a funny way of showing your agreement I'm glad you totally agree with me though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It seems like you have yet to grasp the point of my questions - so I'll spend some extra time to repeat. Please appreciate this. Surface based measurements are better since they cover a longer time. And during the period we've had both, they match within about 0.1 degree. So we can probably accept the changes we see over the century in the surface record. Absoutely not, they are horrible for measuring the global mean. I don't care what anything says pre-satellite at this point, we're not even measuring the same way now.....>>GISS would not have the extrapolation issues if we hadn't deleted 75% of the stations, most at higher lattitudes. Then the adjustements botched the record... there was no data given to show what was wrong with the old data..............then the old data was Deleted once people began to FOI for it, again, why? So no, I really don't even pay attention to GISS, and I don;t give a rats a$$ what it says. FYI, The LT is supposed to be warming faster than the surface... its throwing the laws of AGW down the toilet at this point. To think, it takes GISS & its warm bias to tie the warmest year ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 January 2011 is still above the mean of the 20th century - I'm glad you implicitly agree with this, since you haven't countered this point. You have a funny way of showing your agreement I'm glad you totally agree with me though Are you Crazy? Satellite cannot be compared with Surface Data....they are different data! Satellite is much better than surface data in all aspects..... coverage, accuracy, reso..everything. The 20th Century mean...You're kidding me, right? http://discover.itsc...e.csh?amsutemps January below the avg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Below the average of what? I think your baseline is well above the 20th century mean. You are again omitting one very important aspect of the surface data / satellite comparison. Surface data has been around longer than satellites. Thus we can see the longer term AGW trend more clearly, without being sidetracked by decadal things like PDO, El Nino, etc. I'm asking you to think outside the box a bit and do a thought experiment on what the satellites would have measured in 1900 if they were available then. And it is interesting that even though satellites and surface obs measurements look at different things they agree on the decadal changes in the last 20 years to within about 0.1 degree. Thus I can infer they would have agreed within 0.1 degree if the satellites were available in 1900 as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 You are omitting one very important aspect. Surface data has been around longer than satellites. Thus we can see the longer term AGW trend more clearly, without being sidetracked by decadal things like PDO, El Nino, etc. I'm asking you to think outside the box a bit and do a thought experiment on what the satellites would have measured in 1900 if they were available then. And it is interesting that even though satellites and surface obs measurements look at different things they agree on the decadal changes in the last 20 years to within about 0.1 degree. Before Adjustements, maybe. Now, I don't buy what it it shows in the 1930's/40'. Around 1850-1915, that I might buy...based upon the Dalton Minimum. Also, it depends what you want to call a "trend". Satellites Show the "2 steps" Between the +PDO then +AMO, as evidenced by the flat line from 1979 thru 1996, then the Flat line from 1998-2011... the transition took place during the Rapid switch to +AMO..........We now have a cooling Trend from 2002-2011, interupted by El Nino, of course. If we turn around and resume warming in the coming decade, with the -PDO & cooling AMO, I would probably change sides barring a substantial increase in Solar Activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Below the average of what? I think your baseline is well above the 20th century mean. Uhhh, how about you read the link? Why would we compare satellite avg to Station Data back to 1900? It makes no sense, especially after unwarrented adjustements & the removal of stations..causing extrapolation issues. Also, one is surface & one is LT....different data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The link isn't working for me right now. I thought though the baseline for AMSU was much more recent than a 20th century mean. So when you say Jan 2011 is below the mean, I say it is still above the longer term average. And if surface and satellites measure different things (which they do), why do we see them in lockstep (decadally) within about 0.1C? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The link isn't working for me right now. I thought though the baseline for AMSU was much more recent than a 20th century mean. So when you say Jan 2011 is below the mean, I say it is still above the longer term average. And if surface and satellites measure different things (which they do), why do we see them in lockstep (decadally) within about 0.1C? Baseline is 1971-2000 if I remember correcty. 20th century mean does not apply to satellites because they are different data. That doesn't change the fact that LT should be warming faster than Surface, otherwise basic laws of "Physics" are thrown off..... () Again, its all relative... you can use the final number for a decade....or you can look objectively at the trend. Satellite cleary shows the response when the +AMO hit. We were flat from 1979 to 1996...a Full 17 years with the +PDO. We Went through a transition with the +AMO growing in sync with the +PDO for a few years, then we flat-lined from 1998-2011......along with a cooling trend from 2002-2011, with the Interruption of the strong El Nino. It all is very logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Funny though how the long term trend keeps going up despite these fits and starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Funny though how the long term trend keeps going up despite these fits and starts. You mean since the LIA? Satellite data has only been around since 1979...so, yes, it should have risen as all drivers were warm! If you want to talk Long Term station Data....2 words... Modern max. Year 1850 to year 2002 ironically. The Lag time for the 11yr cycle & that of the multi century increases are completely different, the imprint of the modern max on our climate is very much alive & well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If you want to talk Long Term station Data....2 words... Modern max. Year 1850 to year 2002 ironically. Are you arguing that there was a modern max and it ended in 2002? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Are you arguing that there was a modern max and it ended in 2002? Damn Straight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Damn Straight? Thank you for clarifying. I think the reason I didn't understand is that I could not figure out how the rest of that post was connected to what I quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Thank you for clarifying. I think the reason I didn't understand is that I could not figure out how the rest of that post was connected to what I quoted. Well, now you do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 For those of you that have Accuwx Pro, check out JB's latest Long Ranger. The GFS brings the Global Temperature over the next 7 days to -.4 Deg C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 For those of you that have Accuwx Pro, check out JB's latest Long Ranger. The GFS brings the Global Temperature over the next 7 days to -.4 Deg C. The ECMWF weeklies are also bringing it to almost -.5C in the NH by week 3, and signs of an even larger drop afterwards! (albeit a bit of a recovery beforehand). The reasoning for this....the stratosphere over much of the globe (not just the pole) is actually warming in sub-par with a compact area of cooling right over the pole, in this time frame, which is unusual given the circumstance. Global temps looks to head into a downward spiral for a bit.....to put it lightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 A new year calls for a new look at global temps....Discuss 2011 results and related items here. As a starting point, here is a quick recap of two of the board's two favourite temp profiles as of end of year 2010: GISS: +.62, tied with 2005 for the warmest year in the global surface temp record; 34th consecutive year with temps above 20th century average UAH: +.41, slightly behind 1998's +.42; Spencer acknowledges the "difference is nowhere near statistically significant" We patiently await the CRU lads as they finish up their data analysis. This GISS image shows the striking high latitude anomalies: So what's in store for 2011? The influence of Nina should be felt relative to temps at least through the first half of the year. Then, if the good Dr. Hansen is correct, we may approach or exceed a record figure in 2012 (he allows for an extended Nina however, with relevant impacts). One thing is for sure: we will happily travel along BAU emissions paths, and we will continue to lock in global heating in the long term. Cheers! But of course! Hansen has predicted record-breaking years on several occasions since 1998, but there has been no consensus record warm year since then. His track record on predictions really isn't that great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 But of course! Hansen has predicted record-breaking years on several occasions since 1998, but there has been no consensus record warm year since then. His track record on predictions really isn't that great. If you have to use Hansen data to prove AGW, you know you're desperate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Uh, GISS has the largest deviation of anyone recently... Satellites are alot better, so why not go with the more accurate data? If you're gonna post a model instead of OBS to measure temps, HADCRUT has better Reso for sure. La Nina cooling tends to start 6 months after it gets going.....we've just started. We're +0.28C now...If current trends continue, we'll tank around +0.1C for the JAN anomaly, down to avg in FEB, then maybe -0.1C In MAR. Actually, the 1st 1/2 of JAN has been below the mean totally, so maybe we go even lower... We have been over this before and you have yet to demonstrate how GISS is biased warm. GISS matches HadCRUT in the areas they both cover. Then GISS extrapolates across the arctic. The extrapolations across the arctic are validated by the satellites because UAH and GISS show nearly the same trend in the arctic. So GISS and HadCRUT are in complete agreement. GISS just covers the arctic, and those extrapolations are validated by a variety of sources including UAH. You also have shown no evidence that GISS has been falsely adjusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 We have been over this before and you have yet to demonstrate how GISS is biased warm. GISS matches HadCRUT in the areas they both cover. Then GISS extrapolates across the arctic. The extrapolations across the arctic are validated by the satellites because UAH and GISS show nearly the same trend in the arctic. So GISS and HadCRUT are in complete agreement. GISS just covers the arctic, and those extrapolations are validated by a variety of sources including UAH. You also have shown no evidence that GISS has been falsely adjusted. How many times do I have to correct your errors? I feel like I'm you 5th Grade teacher! What the Heck? GISS & Satellite are VERY different in the arctic....Look at how much the GISS differs! Its a horrible Warm Bias! Do I have to explain this to you again? This isn't just the arctic dude.. its the Globe as well. Satellites do not show the same trend in the arctic... & Certainly not in the Antarctic... GISS adjusted the antarctic...we're all still waiting for your "analysis" into why that is.... Will is waiting too... GISS is biased warm because every other source is cooler globally.. & in the same camp.... GISS is the only outlier Globally.... the arctic is 5% of the globe. GISS has the worst Resolution, the Least Data Globally, & is the Only Outlier! Why is GISS bullsh*t, you may ask?......... GISS has NO data in the arctic, extrapolating warm anomalies through the arctic with NO data is a NO-NO! Satellites are cooler than GISS in the Arctic, & Show Cooling until the AMO went warm in 1996......GISS also has poor data coverage in most of the globe... its actually pathetic & hilarious when compared even to HADCRUT, let alone satellites. FYI...Look... the Arctic was COOLING from 1979 until the AMO went warm! Antarctic has been cooling the whole way through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 How many times do I have to correct your errors? I feel like I'm you 5th Grade teacher! What the Heck? GISS & Satellite are VERY different in the arctic....Look at how much the GISS differs! Its a horrible Warm Bias! Do I have to explain this to you again? This isn't just the arctic dude.. its the Globe as well. Satellites do not show the same trend in the arctic... & Certainly not in the Antarctic... GISS adjusted the antarctic...we're all still waiting for your "analysis" into why that is.... Will is waiting too... GISS is biased warm because every other source is cooler globally.. & in the same camp.... GISS is the only outlier Globally.... the arctic is 5% of the globe. GISS has the worst Resolution, the Least Data Globally, & is the Only Outlier! Why is GISS bullsh*t, you may ask?......... GISS has NO data in the arctic, extrapolating warm anomalies through the arctic with NO data is a NO-NO! Satellites are cooler than GISS in the Arctic, & Show Cooling until the AMO went warm in 1996......GISS also has poor data coverage in most of the globe... its actually pathetic & hilarious when compared even to HADCRUT, let alone satellites. FYI...Look... the Arctic was COOLING from 1979 until the AMO went warm! Antarctic has been cooling the whole way through I congratulate you on your excellent use of selective starting points. Looking at 1990-present UAH and GISS show nearly the same trend for the arctic. GISS is not warmer than HADCRUT, they are approximately the same for the areas they both cover, and HadCRUT is simply missing the rapid warming that we know is occurring from multiple sources including RSS UAH ECMWF NCEP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I congratulate you on your excellent use of selective starting points. Looking at 1990-present UAH and GISS show nearly the same trend for the arctic. GISS is not warmer than HADCRUT, they are approximately the same for the areas they both cover, and HadCRUT is simply missing the rapid warming that we know is occurring from multiple sources including RSS UAH ECMWF NCEP. You just botched your own friggin argument. GISS & Satellites do not show the same trend, no matter the starting point....you are Wrong....(as usual). GISS is extremely warm compared to satellites in the Arctic by almost 1C, & actually has NO ARCTIC DATA. You Cannot claim a warming trend where there is No data! This is why Satellite measurements are more accurate, they cover more area, have higher Resolution, & are actual OBS, not modeled temps. GISS also has the least amount of Data Globally compared to HADCRUT & Satellites, & the lowest resolution of everyone. Just look at the Grids... its pathetic! Either way, the Arctic alone cannot explain the entire GISS warm bias globaly..where HADCRUT has more data at mid lattitudes, its cooler....where less Data is given, its warmer.....Coicidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 You just botched your own friggin argument. GISS & Satellites do not show the same trend, no matter the starting point....you are Wrong....(as usual). GISS is extremely warm compared to satellites in the Arctic by almost 1C, & actually has NO ARCTIC DATA. You Cannot claim a warming trend where there is No data! This is why Satellite measurements are more accurate, they cover more area, have higher Resolution, & are actual OBS, not modeled temps. GISS also has the least amount of Data Globally compared to HADCRUT & Satellites, & the lowest resolution of everyone. Just look at the Grids... its pathetic! Either way, the Arctic alone cannot explain the entire GISS warm bias globaly..where HADCRUT has more data at mid lattitudes, its cooler....where less Data is given, its warmer.....Coicidence? UAH and GISS show nearly the same thing in the Arctic if you don't use selective starting points as you did. The difference is not statistically significant. They both show >1C of warming in the arctic in the last 20 years. The fact that HadCRUT misses nearly ALL of this extreme warming, makes it cool biased over the last 10 years. HadCRUT and GISS use the same data. Over the areas they both cover, they show nearly the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I congratulate you on your excellent use of selective starting points. Looking at 1990-present UAH and GISS show nearly the same trend for the arctic. GISS is not warmer than HADCRUT, they are approximately the same for the areas they both cover, and HadCRUT is simply missing the rapid warming that we know is occurring from multiple sources including RSS UAH ECMWF NCEP. But it is fact that GISS shows greater/more rapid Arctic warming over the past decade than other sources. Which is a big reason they have deviated from other temp sources over that same time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 UAH and GISS show nearly the same thing in the Arctic if you don't use selective starting points as you did. The difference is not statistically significant. They both show >1C of warming in the arctic in the last 20 years. The fact that HadCRUT misses nearly ALL of this extreme warming, makes it cool biased over the last 10 years. HadCRUT and GISS use the same data. Over the areas they both cover, they show nearly the same thing. You must have failed Statistcs. Do you know what makes a trend? The starting point doesn't matter if the trend deviates! GISS has been much warmer than all satellite data since the Mid 90's....thus, the trend is not validated! GISS has NO DATA IN THE ARCTIC... GISS is Much warmer than Satellite data...what don't you understand about that. HADCRUT has better resolution & more data than GISS...it also has slightly more data at higher lattitudes...again, your argument is BS. How long do I have to keep thumping this data into your big head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 But it is fact that GISS shows greater/more rapid Arctic warming over the past decade than other sources. Which is a big reason they have deviated from other temp sources over that same time period. It shows slightly more. However relative to the large magnitude of arctic warming, the difference is small. Infilling HadCRUT with UAH arctic data would bring HadCRUT mostly in line with GISS over the last two decades. What is surprising in this whole story is not the difference between GISS and HadCRUT/UAH/RSS. It is the difference between HadCRUT/GISS (which are mostly in agreement once the arctic is accounted for) vs RSS vs UAH. I say vs RSS vs UAH and not vs RSS/UAH because RISS and UAH are not in agreement with each other. In fact the most striking area of disagreement between all of the sources is UAH vs RSS, followed by surface vs satellite. The differences between GISS and HadCRUT once the arctic is accounted for are smaller than those between surface and satellite and even intra-satellite (RSS VS UAH). Not surprising since GISS and HadCRUT use nearly the same data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.