2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

You need someone

1) He was referring to the spike in 2008 during this time. We are colder than 2008 right now.

2) No, it was colder. -.02 is colder than -.01...end of story. You can argue all you want that it was minor...but he Never said anything about "Major" differences...so he was right about that as well.

3) He said the next few months MAY avg colder...he didn't predict that. We've been colder than 2008 for about a week now...lets see if it continues before you make statements that will dig your ass further in the mud.

1) No he wasn't. He said the second half would be colder. It wasn't. The post doesn't reference 2008 in any way.

2) He said the drop would be impressive. It wasn't. He also seemed to concur with -.1C UAH, IE The low end of my -.05-.1C range.

3) He prefaces every "forecast" with the word "may."

[nzucker]

You need someone

1) He was referring to the spike in 2008 during this time. We are colder than 2008 right now.

2) No, it was colder. -.02 is colder than -.01...end of story. You can argue all you want that it was minor...but he Never said anything about "Major" differences...so he was right about that as well.

3) He said the next few months MAY avg colder...he didn't predict that. We've been colder than 2008 for about a week now...lets see if it continues before you make statements that will dig your ass further in the mud.

Exactly, I've been talking about short-term trends vs. 2008, the fact that this month was probably going to be colder on UAH (verified), and the possibility for us to go below 2008 for the next couple of months given the spike...I even said I thought it'd be hard to stay below with the SSTs being higher, so I admitted that much. I didn't predict anything, that's why I used the word "may," to indicate that we were close but only a possibility, not a forecast.

Yep you've got me pegged. I don't even know how one would go about "proving" that the anomaly for the year is anything other than what the data shows. I've already guessed that it will be one of the coldest years of the decade. But that was just a trick... secretly I am going to disguise the cooling.

I just think you are trying to downplay the cooling. You are also way too interested in disproving my forecasts; it's a constant game of one-upsmanship for you. Elementary school stuff. And I work as a teacher, so I don't need to deal with that crap here.

[skierinvermont]

I just think you are trying to downplay the cooling. You are also way too interested in disproving my forecasts; it's a constant game of one-upsmanship for you. Elementary school stuff. And I work as a teacher, so I don't need to deal with that crap here.

I am not trying to "downplay" the cooling.. I don't even know how one would go about doing such a thing. Numbers are numbers. The idea of "downplaying" is really quite laughable to me. If anything I have guessed too cold thus far.. guess I am a loony denier.

I am also not trying to one-up you. I said right up front my guess was wrong (I guessed too cold), and simply pointed out yours were too. It's just sad that you have to make a federal case about every single forecast you ever make and can never admit you were wrong. According to you every forecast you made last month was correct... when in reality they were by and large incorrect. If I was trying to one-up anybody I wouldn't state right up front I was wrong. I just find it intellectually dishonest and arrogant that you can never just say you were wrong.

Even with your forecast of a record breaking Nina which you repeated over and over again all fall and winter, you still couldn't just say you were wrong in January when it was apparent to anybody with an ounce of objectivity it was only going to be around -1.6. Yet you rudely and belligerently denied this even into January. And then finally when you do say you were wrong, you have to say "but the MEI was stronger" and "but I was one of the earliest to forecast it" and other such things which nobody except you cares about instead of just saying you were wrong. I don't live and die by making forecasts on a weather forum and then defending them to the brink of logic, and I think it is ridiculous that some people here do that.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't live and die by making forecasts on a weather forum and then defending them to the brink of logic, and I think it is ridiculous that some people here do that.

I thought we were all on ignore..

You Live and Die by bashing anyones forecast(s) that aren't completely perfect, as if you have a sick obsession.

I could have pointed out 10+ instances involving you and a busted forecast, if anything needs "correcting", its you bud.

[skierinvermont]

I could have pointed out 10+ instances involving you and a busted forecast, if anything needs "correcting", its you bud.

That's ok - usually I am the first one to say when my forecasts/guesses are wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

Not true, but whatev, I'm done arguing

[nzucker]

I am not trying to "downplay" the cooling.. I don't even know how one would go about doing such a thing. Numbers are numbers. The idea of "downplaying" is really quite laughable to me. If anything I have guessed too cold thus far.. guess I am a loony denier.

I am also not trying to one-up you. I said right up front my guess was wrong (I guessed too cold), and simply pointed out yours were too. It's just sad that you have to make a federal case about every single forecast you ever make and can never admit you were wrong. According to you every forecast you made last month was correct... when in reality they were by and large incorrect. If I was trying to one-up anybody I wouldn't state right up front I was wrong. I just find it intellectually dishonest and arrogant that you can never just say you were wrong.

Even with your forecast of a record breaking Nina which you repeated over and over again all fall and winter, you still couldn't just say you were wrong in January when it was apparent to anybody with an ounce of objectivity it was only going to be around -1.6. Yet you rudely and belligerently denied this even into January. And then finally when you do say you were wrong, you have to say "but the MEI was stronger" and "but I was one of the earliest to forecast it" and other such things which nobody except you cares about instead of just saying you were wrong. I don't live and die by making forecasts on a weather forum and then defending them to the brink of logic, and I think it is ridiculous that some people here do that.

I didn't bring up my forecast, you did Andrew. You were the one who made this thread into a verification of my comments, which weren't even intended as a serious forecast but rather short-term musings. If you hadn't started the whole business of re-quoting every single comment I made (unnecessary to begin with since we all read it already), then the argument would never have occurred. So why are you blaming me for something you got yourself into? And I shouldn't need to say I was wrong when I was right: February came in colder than January, and we dropped below 2008 levels. Game over. The fact that you keep trying to prove me wrong shows how much you invest into this game of one-upsmanship, which is a clear demonstration that you have issues.

I never rudely or belligerently argued about the Niña...I just posted charts and analysis to back up my stance, right or wrong. You were the one who was so dedicated to ensuring the forecast was a bust and that I looked horrible, just as you did with the 12/19 snowstorm which clipped Cape Cod as I forecasted and then you tried to turn it into a bust because I didn't get the temperatures right there despite the fact that my imagined track was way better than any single computer model. Another example of your obsession with disproving my thoughts and forecasts. And about the Niña, the MEI was one of the strongest on record, just not ONI. I did way better than a bunch of energy mets and professionals who were calling for Niños. Why don't you just focus on the positives in my forecast instead of the busts? Why can't you give credit where credit is due? I've contributed so much to this forum, and yet you never congratulate me for any of my contributions, just criticize me endlessly to satisfy your wounded ego. It's really tiresome, I've told you it's tiresome a million times, and yet you keep doing it.

I love how you threaten to put us on ignore and yet keep talking, just shows the desperation. The rest of us have lives and don't really care about global temperature forecasts on a weather forum...you are clearly showing that you don't. It's painful to see.

[skierinvermont]

the 12/19 snowstorm which clipped Cape Cod as I forecasted and then you tried to turn it into a bust because I didn't get the temperatures right there despite the fact that my imagined track was way better than any single computer model. Another example of your obsession with disproving my thoughts and forecasts. And about the Niña, the MEI was one of the strongest on record, just not ONI.

Another classic example... a dozen people told you the forecast was terrible at the time and afterwards. But you somehow think it was a great forecast. You said a dusting maybe 1-2" shortly before the storm hit.. they got up to a foot. Most people were saying much more than that. There were a dozen people trolling you in the SNE threads.. just as Will and Ray et al. have been trolling you the past 2 days and you haven't even noticed.

Whatever dude.. enjoy your fantasy world.

Not surprising they are getting fed up with you given how belligerent you were to Jerry for his 70" forecast for Logan, even after a half dozen people including Will and I told you it wasn't out of the question and you were being too absolutist about it. Looks like Jerry going to bust low. And all the other ridiculously absolutist claims you have made in the SNE threads.

[nzucker]

Another classic example... a dozen people told you the forecast was terrible at the time and afterwards. But you somehow think it was a great forecast. You said a dusting maybe 1-2" shortly before the storm hit.. they got up to a foot. Most people were saying much more than that. There were a dozen people trolling you in the SNE threads.. just as Will and Ray et al. have been trolling you the past 2 days and you haven't even noticed.

Whatever dude.. enjoy your fantasy world.

Not surprising they are getting fed up with you given you mercilessly you attacked Jerry for his 70" forecast for Logan, even after a half dozen people including Will and I told you it wasn't out of the question and you were being too absolutist about it. Looks like Jerry going to bust low. And all the other ridiculously absolutist claims you have made in the SNE threads.

The forecast for Cape Cod was terrible because I thought it would be mostly rain, but the track error was very low....I said the system would probably brush the extreme coastal areas when the Euro was showing an I-95 HECS. A pretty bold call, and ultimately a good one, seemed sensible given the fairly progressive pattern at H5 with a flat ridge over the West instead of a well-defined +PNA as we developed later in the winter. There's a big difference between nailing a track 4 days out and making a small mistake on temperatures in an area whose climatology is unfamiliar.

I didn't mercilessly attack Jerry, we were just having a debate about what the pattern would be for the winter. Civilized people can have discussions in which they disagree, you're unfamiliar with this concept because any time you disagree you get nasty. Jerry and I are friends and frequently talk on Facebook. Will and Ray troll me and call me "socks" as part of a running joke, it's not out of dislike. I haven't noticed them trolling me much lately except for Joe saying that there'd be a snowstorm in late March starting three miles NE of my house. I think we've been having a good pattern discussion with plenty of lively banter.

Would you like to take a guess as to who is more well liked on this forum? Many people have made extremely negative comments about you recently, including Will, Isotherm, Matt, etc. They all cite your arrogance and attitude, which are the same things I've told you are problematic. Maybe you should be taking this advice more seriously, especially considering your hermit lifestyle? You don't socialize much with any of the members whereas I've had people from the forum stay at my house, am going to the NYC G2G March 19th, have gone out for dates with people here, frequently have PM exchanges with others interested in LR forecasting. So I wonder....if this were a popularity contest, would you get schooled? Definitely! But it's not and that's not the point...of course you are your own ultimate demise by posting about people disliking me when it's you who's almost universally loathed here.

Stop arguing and start thinking, Andrew..I know you're better than this. This is garbage, you've gone way downhill on here recently. It's a waste of good meteorology talent.

[skierinvermont]

The forecast for Cape Cod was terrible because I thought it would be mostly rain, but the track error was very low....I said the system would probably brush the extreme coastal areas when the Euro was showing an I-95 HECS. A pretty bold call, and ultimately a good one, seemed sensible given the fairly progressive pattern at H5 with a flat ridge over the West instead of a well-defined +PNA as we developed later in the winter. There's a big difference between nailing a track 4 days out and making a small mistake on temperatures in an area whose climatology is unfamiliar.

I didn't mercilessly attack Jerry, we were just having a debate about what the pattern would be for the winter. Civilized people can have discussions in which they disagree, you're unfamiliar with this concept because any time you disagree you get nasty. Jerry and I are friends and frequently talk on Facebook. Will and Ray troll me and call me "socks" as part of a running joke, it's not out of dislike. I haven't noticed them trolling me much lately except for Joe saying that there'd be a snowstorm in late March starting three miles NE of my house. I think we've been having a good pattern discussion with plenty of lively banter.

Would you like to take a guess as to who is more well liked on this forum? Many people have made extremely negative comments about you recently, including Will, Isotherm, Matt, etc. They all cite your arrogance and attitude, which are the same things I've told you are problematic. Maybe you should be taking this advice more seriously, especially considering your hermit lifestyle? You don't socialize much with any of the members whereas I've had people from the forum stay at my house, am going to the NYC G2G March 19th, have gone out for dates with people here, frequently have PM exchanges with others interested in LR forecasting. So I wonder....if this were a popularity contest, would you get schooled? Definitely! But it's not and that's not the point...of course you are your own ultimate demise by posting about people disliking me when it's you who's almost universally loathed here.

Stop arguing and start thinking, Andrew..I know you're better than this. This is garbage, you've gone way downhill on here recently. It's a waste of good meteorology talent.

I guess you have missed the posts where they are straight up making fun of you the last two days. And you were quite rude and belligerent to Jerry - Jerry is just too nice to complain which is why several people basically told you to back off. You called him an idiot to me several times over the phone.. as you've called folks like Ginx and other SNE posters idiots and eekholes as well.

Difference between you and me -- I don't even consider whether I have "talent" at meteorology or not. Or whether that "talent" is being "wasted."

Just to refresh your memory here are all the posts trolling you declaring your forecast a bust and unfavorably comparing you to JB on 12/19. You originally forecast a big I/95 hit, then 12 hours before the storm hit you flipped and decided 1" maximum on the outer cape. Even as the storm was hitting the cape you claimed subsidence was coming in and would hold down totals. They ended up with more than anybody imagined, and 1200% more than the 1" you forecasted 12 hours before the event.

Everybody agreed that both of your forecasts -- first your too warm all rain forecast, then your OTS forecast were both bad busts that ignored basic evidence at that time like soundings, models, and radar.

And yet you have the gall to claim 3 months later that it was a good forecast. A 1" forecast for a 12" storm 12 hours before the event. Good job. You are a textbook case of what Will was describing in the second quote.

/nzucker/ snow cant fall on the Cape because of too warm temps, and snow cant fall in BOS because it isn't snowing at Dobbs Ferry /nzucker/

Pie on the face is something anyone needs to experience. I have experienced it many times. I have always said many times...but you have to admit your busts or you will never get better. I've always found those who do not admit busts and rationalize themselves are doomed to become basically "weenies/bad forecasters"...and that is not a good place to be.

I like him too, but he deserved a lot of grilling for his "exact forecasts"..esp for the Cape...he completely ignored my sounding post that said if 980mb was the WBZ, it would be snow on the Cape despite the model sfc temps of 40F. It was obvious the Cape had a chance...though I totally screwed the pooch too on how much they would get. But I knew they had a shot. You don't look at model sfc temps that far out...you look at soundings. It screamed 33F wet snow for the Cape for awhile before they flipped 340 wind where they went 29F and heavy snow.

It is snowing here so I think we got rid of the dry air in the boundary layer. Moderate to maybe heavy snow coming in from the northeast. Maybe a change to rain eventually.

Bust.

LOL Jerry's on a crusade this morning.

tubes is suffering from a lat/lon induced case of "if i can't get snow...no one else is allowed to"

You should be in politics....

Only Sox can turn a huge loss into a nice win.

Tubes socks have a lot of holes in them.

My attempt at subtle humor FTL ( I did know what you meant). Sox is sounding a bit Bastardi-like to me.

[Isotherm]

This thread has gone to hell, and honestly I think I speak for all when I say no one here gives a damn what Nate forecasted for a storm three months ago and whether he busted or not. Nor do we care about resurrecting past arguements or interactions between certain posters. I would guess most people are in this thread to talk about global temps. The past couple pages are truly an embarrassment to the climate forum and board.

[skierinvermont]

This thread has gone to hell, and honestly I think I speak for all when I say no one here gives a damn what Nate forecasted for a storm three months ago and whether he busted or not. Nor do we care about resurrecting past arguements or interactions between certain posters. I would guess most people are in this thread to talk about global temps. The past couple pages are truly an embarrassment to the climate forum and board.

I agree. I apologize for derailing the thread. I just can't stand the dishonesty of people claiming nearly every forecast of their's "verified" when they clearly did not. I honestly didn't expect pointing out some basic straightforward errors people, including myself had made, would be such a federal case.

I guess I am the only one who made any errors in predicting the temperature .

[nzucker]

I agree. I apologize for derailing the thread. I just can't stand the dishonesty of people claiming nearly every forecast of their's "verified" when they clearly did not. I honestly didn't expect pointing out some basic straightforward errors people, including myself had made, would be such a federal case.

I guess I am the only one who made any errors in predicting the temperature .

I agree that this thread is a disgrace, but of course no one actually moderates anything anymore, so that's one problem to be dealt with. I apologize for my contributions to this mess.

But Andrew, the point is: you started this whole argument by pointing out what you deemed "mistakes" in my argument. Even though I actually verified on a colder February and a dip below 2008, you tried to turn things around and make it into a bust. I wasn't the one going back and patting myself on the back for past forecasts in the thread...all I did was post the UAH February release, and that prompted you to go searching through the thread and try to identify busts and mistakes. You always do this. You never give me credit for a good forecast or contribution, but you always point out the bust in an arrogant manner. It is not your role to constantly be correcting other's mistakes in a condescending way..you don't need to go back through comments made weeks or months ago to score points. No one cares dude. It's pathetic. You]re not the "policeman" or "truth-seeker" on this board...this is a thread about what's happening with 2011 global temperatures, not what off-hand comment someone made weeks ago or whether someone is a good meteorology forecaster. You clearly enjoy criticizing others, especially me. It's an inferiority complex that you have in the electronic world. So let's stop with this inferiority/superiority/one-upsmanship and actually talk about 2011 global temperatures.

Back on topic: AMSU Channel 5 has taken a slight drop in early March. As of March 2nd, we are .53C cooler than last year on this day, and .06C colder than 2008. The anomaly from average is -.17C, and the satellite average has a big spike around March 10th, so we're likely to remain at least .2C below the mean for Channel 5 AMSU. It will be difficult, but not impossible, to stay colder than 2008 since that La Niña year had a significant drop-off at this time.

[nzucker]

According to Ryan Maue's website, the GFS shows a global temperature anomaly of -.27C for the next eight days, one of the colder values I've seen on this website. Antarctica and Western Canada look to be the main places with much below normal temperatures.

[BethesdaWX]

Finally AMSU is crashing too. Not saying it will last, but we remain below 2008 for over 2 weeks now.....and it looks to continue for the near future.

[skierinvermont]

Finally AMSU is crashing too. Not saying it will last, but we remain below 2008 for over 2 weeks now.....and it looks to continue for the near future.

Here we go again

It isn't crashing "too" (which you obviously mean crashing the same way the surface crashed).

The surface crashed (yes the surface actually did crash) .6C over the course of a couple weeks. AMSU has dropped .08C over a few days. The changes are completely different orders of magnitude. The AMSU anomaly has been on a warming trend since late-January. This is yet another tiny little blip.. but of course you and zucker think each and every little blip since January has been "crashin" and "diving" when we have been on a general warming trend on the satellites. Even though the general trend has been warming (anomaly-wise and absolute temperature-wise) the two of you have made a half dozen posts about "crashing" and "diving" but not a single post about "soaring" or the general warming trend that has been occurring since Late January on the satellites.

And you have no idea whether or not it will continue dropping. The last time Zucker said it was "crashing" and that the second half of Feb would be colder, AMSU started increasing the very next day.

This is why Zucker's prediction that the second half of Feb would be colder than the first half was wrong. And it's why his prediction for us to be colder than 2008 on UAH the next several months has been wrong so far. And it's why his prediction that Feb would be much colder than January on the satellites was wrong (he seemed to think -.1C was a good guess for UAH). Too much attention to daily little blips instead of the trend over the last few weeks.

I don't correct this nonsense to "one-up" either of you, I correct it because the two of you are basically running a dishonest misinformation campaign. CH5 anomalies have been on a warming trend since late January and yet all we hear from the two of you are dozens of posts about the satellites "diving," "crashing," "the next few months may be colder than 2008," "Feb will be colder than Jan. Very impressive." "AMSU will dive the second half of Feb" .... all of which are wrong.

Nobody even posts the 2-week trend... all we hear about are the 5-day AMSU trend from the two of you each time there is a little blip down because any trend longer than 5-days shows warming.

[Clifford]

It looks like the RSS Numbers have come in:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/

TLT Land and Ocean:

Global Dec 0.220, Jan 0.084 Feb 0.051

N Polar Dec 1.401, Jan 1.801, Feb -0.110

S Polar Dec 0.165, Jan -0.098, Feb -0.580

USA Dec -0.853, Jan -0.792, Feb -0.563

TLT Land

Global Dec 0.340, Jan 0.076, Feb -0.174

S Polar Dec 0.277 Jan 0.908, Feb -1.426

TLT Ocean

Global Dec 0.162, Jan 0.088, Feb 0.160

[Jesse]

Here we go again

It isn't crashing "too" (which you obviously mean crashing the same way the surface crashed).

The surface crashed (yes the surface actually did crash) .6C over the course of a couple weeks. AMSU has dropped .08C over a few days. The changes are completely different orders of magnitude. The AMSU anomaly has been on a warming trend since late-January. This is yet another tiny little blip.. but of course you and zucker think each and every little blip since January has been "crashin" and "diving" when we have been on a general warming trend on the satellites. Even though the general trend has been warming (anomaly-wise and absolute temperature-wise) the two of you have made a half dozen posts about "crashing" and "diving" but not a single post about "soaring" or the general warming trend that has been occurring since Late January on the satellites.

And you have no idea whether or not it will continue dropping. The last time Zucker said it was "crashing" and that the second half of Feb would be colder, AMSU started increasing the very next day.

This is why Zucker's prediction that the second half of Feb would be colder than the first half was wrong. And it's why his prediction for us to be colder than 2008 on UAH the next several months has been wrong so far. And it's why his prediction that Feb would be much colder than January on the satellites was wrong (he seemed to think -.1C was a good guess for UAH). Too much attention to daily little blips instead of the trend over the last few weeks.

I don't correct this nonsense to "one-up" either of you, I correct it because the two of you are basically running a dishonest misinformation campaign. CH5 anomalies have been on a warming trend since late January and yet all we hear from the two of you are dozens of posts about the satellites "diving," "crashing," "the next few months may be colder than 2008," "Feb will be colder than Jan. Very impressive." "AMSU will dive the second half of Feb" .... all of which are wrong.

Nobody even posts the 2-week trend... all we hear about are the 5-day AMSU trend from the two of you each time there is a little blip down because any trend longer than 5-days shows warming.

Just some observations from a (for the most part) lurker:

There are a lot of things you are techincally right about, but you have a way of coming off as a completely arrogant jerk when this is the case. It's extremely offputting and something you need to seriously take a step back and look at, then work on.

Anyway, carry on.

[WeatherRusty]

Just some observations from a (for the most part) lurker:

There are a lot of things you are techincally right about, but you have a way of coming off as a completely arrogant jerk when this is the case. It's extremely offputting and something you need to seriously take a step back and look at, then work on.

Anyway, carry on.

What a joke. The misinformation diseminated by the hard core anti-AGW political movement is based almost entirely on trashing climate science, it's scientists and anyone who appreciates the science. We are called alarmists, lairs, conspirators, hoaxers, lemmings, people who can't think for ourselves, shady, gullible, lacking in integrity, socialist or communist in addition to many other derogatory pronouncements for nothing more than engaging in a controversial science.

Maybe it is time for scientists and supporters to fight back in the knife fight the denial machine has brought to us. Being passive, professional demeanored nice guys gets us nowhere.

[BethesdaWX]

Here we go again

It isn't crashing "too" (which you obviously mean crashing the same way the surface crashed).

The surface crashed (yes the surface actually did crash) .6C over the course of a couple weeks. AMSU has dropped .08C over a few days. The changes are completely different orders of magnitude. The AMSU anomaly has been on a warming trend since late-January. This is yet another tiny little blip.. but of course you and zucker think each and every little blip since January has been "crashin" and "diving" when we have been on a general warming trend on the satellites. Even though the general trend has been warming (anomaly-wise and absolute temperature-wise) the two of you have made a half dozen posts about "crashing" and "diving" but not a single post about "soaring" or the general warming trend that has been occurring since Late January on the satellites.

And you have no idea whether or not it will continue dropping. The last time Zucker said it was "crashing" and that the second half of Feb would be colder, AMSU started increasing the very next day.

This is why Zucker's prediction that the second half of Feb would be colder than the first half was wrong. And it's why his prediction for us to be colder than 2008 on UAH the next several months has been wrong so far. And it's why his prediction that Feb would be much colder than January on the satellites was wrong (he seemed to think -.1C was a good guess for UAH). Too much attention to daily little blips instead of the trend over the last few weeks.

I don't correct this nonsense to "one-up" either of you, I correct it because the two of you are basically running a dishonest misinformation campaign. CH5 anomalies have been on a warming trend since late January and yet all we hear from the two of you are dozens of posts about the satellites "diving," "crashing," "the next few months may be colder than 2008," "Feb will be colder than Jan. Very impressive." "AMSU will dive the second half of Feb" .... all of which are wrong.

Nobody even posts the 2-week trend... all we hear about are the 5-day AMSU trend from the two of you each time there is a little blip down because any trend longer than 5-days shows warming.

You're very confused. Get some rest.

You need a lesson here. We've been colder than 2008 for over 2 weeks now, and this may continue into March in looking at the orientatrion of the SSW event, (which will result in another -NAO in a few weeks) . MT waves surfacing in the same areas back in DEC were what allowed the -NAO to constantly retrograde despite the WB/+QBO in the La Nina, which usually boosts the PV, so it would have given any HLB the kick, or at least shorten its stay. This is why so many forecasts had the Blowtorch across the US, you cannot accurately predict the orientation of these before they happen, its very difficult.

So, how does this tie into my point on the Globel temperature in the LT?

1) Timeframes buddy, you cannot look at a 4 vs 10 days, and compare until the drop has commenced fully, as I expect this one to do so. You can quote me and bash me if I'm wrong, as you always tend to do. Its the timing that seems to coincide with what would be a strong signal for global cooling.

2) You make no sense in regards to a "warming trend"....... AGAINST THE MEANS, there has been a continued cooling trend on the AMSU datasite. This will continue the trend.

Again, I'm going on record here as one who believes this will show up as a drop of 0.2C on AMSU by Mid march.

[BethesdaWX]

What a joke. The misinformation diseminated by the hard core anti-AGW political movement is based almost entirely on trashing climate science, it's scientists and anyone who appreciates the science. We are called alarmists, lairs, conspirators, hoaxers, lemmings, people who can't think for ourselves, shady, gullible, lacking in integrity, socialist or communist in addition to many other derogatory pronouncements for nothing more than engaging in a controversial science.

Maybe it is time for scientists and supporters to fight back in the knife fight the denial machine has brought to us. Being passive, professional demeanored nice guys gets us nowhere.

This is the 2011 global temperature thread.

But since you asked for it...

I dunno about you, but there is a reason the objective scientists are winning over the public...objecitivy and a sensible science.

1) We do not use hypothesis-loaded computer models to predict doom for the planet.

2) We abide by the scientific method

3) We realize that using models, in the case so far, has led to failure in the AGW laws.

OBS dictate we're 3-4X too high in our estimated CO2 sensitivty applied into the modeling.

Using UAH/RSS obs to thjose of the UMD group.

Computer Model Temperature Trends versus Observations

http://www.friendsof...html#Greenhouse

The above diagram shows the comparison of temperature trends from 1979 through 2004 of climate models and actual satellite and radiosonde observations, expressed as degrees Celsius per decade versus altitude and atmospheric pressure. The left panel shows four radiosonde results as IGRA, RATPAC, HadAT2 and RAOBCORE. The thick red line shows the mean of the 22 computer model results, and the models' 2 times standard error of the mean are shown as the two thin red lines. Temperature trends from three surface measurement datasets are identified in the legend by Sfc and are plotted on the left axis. The RSS and UAH analysis of satellite data are plotted on the right panel at two effective layers: T2lt represents the lower troposphere with a weighted mean at 2.5 km, T2 represents the mid troposphere with a weighted mean at 6.1 km altitude. A trend is the slope of the line that has been least-squared fit to the data. Synthetic model values corresponding to the effective layers of the satellite data are shown in the right panel as open red circles.

We do not use vague hypothesis to implement gov't policy, spending trillions over a theory that has been falling apart for over a decade now.

The plot shows two types of patterns; linear striations and random spiral patterns. The usual interpretation of this data by climate modelers would be to use the best fit line which shows a slope of 0.7 W/m2/C, which is a very high positive feedback. The actual feedback should be determined by the slope of the linear striations, which is 8 W/m2/C, which is a very high negative feedback. A value of 3.3 W/m2/C corresponds to no feedback. (No feedback means if the temperature of the atmosphere were uniformly increased by 1 C and nothing else changed, the top of the atmosphere would radiate 3.3 W/m2 more radiation to space.) The feedback is observed to occur on shorter time scales in response to evaporation and precipitation events, which are superimposed upon a more slowly varying background of radiative imbalance due to natural fluctuation in cloud cover changing the rate of solar heating Earth’s surface.

The satellite data shows that over short time scales, clouds provide strong negative feedbacks. Spencer also analyzed the radiative flux and temperature variations from climate models used by the IPCC to determine if the short term negative feedback found in the satellite data is also applicable to long term feedback. He found that the short term linear striations and the spiral patterns show up all 18 climate models that he analyzed. Spencer says the slopes of the linear striations do indeed correspond to the long term feedbacks diagnosed from these models’ response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. This strongly suggests that the short term negative feedback shown in satellite data also applies to long term global climate change.

The feedback estimate for a hypothetical doubling of carbon dioxide, using the Terra satellite data gives a climate sensitivity of 0.46 C.

See here for a more detailed discussion of cloud feedbacks.

[skierinvermont]

2) You make no sense in regards to a "warming trend"....... AGAINST THE MEANS, there has been a continued cooling trend on the AMSU datasite. This will continue the trend.

This is just simply wrong. Clifford posted the AMSU CH5 anomalies recently and it clearly showed CH5 bottomed out in late January and have been on a rising trend since then. The first two days of march averaged -.13C on Ch5. Perhaps he would be so kind as to post an updated chart (or tell me how to make one).

[BethesdaWX]

This is just simply wrong. Clifford posted the AMSU CH5 anomalies recently and it clearly showed CH5 bottomed out in late January and have been on a rising trend since then. The first two days of march averaged -.13C on Ch5. Perhaps he would be so kind as to post an updated chart (or tell me how to make one).

Who says they've bottomed out? Looks like a blip to me. The trend since mid JAN has been cooling. For every spike, its cooled even further...don't forget the timeframe of the actual measurements.

I could have said temps bottomed out in early JAN....

Thats the point I've been making to you and you still are not smart enough to understand.

You cannot predict the future

[Jesse]

What a joke. The misinformation diseminated by the hard core anti-AGW political movement is based almost entirely on trashing climate science, it's scientists and anyone who appreciates the science. We are called alarmists, lairs, conspirators, hoaxers, lemmings, people who can't think for ourselves, shady, gullible, lacking in integrity, socialist or communist in addition to many other derogatory pronouncements for nothing more than engaging in a controversial science.

Maybe it is time for scientists and supporters to fight back in the knife fight the denial machine has brought to us. Being passive, professional demeanored nice guys gets us nowhere.

Steve Albers?

[ORH_wxman]

Steve Albers?

The problem with this forum is that a lot of the same stuff that was long debated back on eastern has kind of run its course, but newer posters have recycled the debate from their own perspective...so it basically just degrades into the same 3-4 posters hijacking just about every thread.

A couple posters who already chimed in are correct. This thread is about 2011 global temps. That's what the subject should be.

Some people really need to tone it down a bit though. Otherwise they can just be banned from this forum.

[Jesse]

The problem with this forum is that a lot of the same stuff that was long debated back on eastern has kind of run its course, but newer posters have recycled the debate from their own perspective...so it basically just degrades into the same 3-4 posters hijacking just about every thread.

A couple posters who already chimed in are correct. This thread is about 2011 global temps. That's what the subject should be.

Some people really need to tone it down a bit though. Otherwise they can just be banned from this forum.

I agree with all of this. Nice to see a mod stepping in.

[nzucker]

This is just simply wrong. Clifford posted the AMSU CH5 anomalies recently and it clearly showed CH5 bottomed out in late January and have been on a rising trend since then. The first two days of march averaged -.13C on Ch5. Perhaps he would be so kind as to post an updated chart (or tell me how to make one).

The first half of January was a torch....look at that spike!

We're seeing much more consistent cold now in February and March 2011 on AMSU; that's the point we've been making.

And no one is running a disinformation campaign, it''s amazing how perverted and pathetic you've become. People are just pointing out short-term trends. You continue to deny that I was correct in asserting February would be cooler than January, and that we'd drop below 2008. That's misinformation at its best.

[skierinvermont]

it's amazing how perverted and pathetic you've become

Just stop.

[nzucker]

Just stop.

Funny how everyone seems to agree that you're out of line.

Again, no one is running a disinformation campaign, there's clearly been a trend towards more consistent cold temperatures on AMSU Channel 5, and March has started off cold. Sure, January had a more intense dip but that's also balanced out by the extreme warmth in the early part of the month.

[VAwxman]

The problem with this forum is that a lot of the same stuff that was long debated back on eastern has kind of run its course, but newer posters have recycled the debate from their own perspective...so it basically just degrades into the same 3-4 posters hijacking just about every thread.

A couple posters who already chimed in are correct. This thread is about 2011 global temps. That's what the subject should be.

Some people really need to tone it down a bit though. Otherwise they can just be banned from this forum.

I don't post here that often, but do read, and I have noticed the same thing. It's the exact same debate, just with some different posters involved, and it never really gets anywhere.

Each "side" occasionally makes valid points to me. I don't think anyone should doubt the physics behind CO2 leading to warming, but no one can come close to quantifying how much, if it is contributing to 80% of the warming, 50%, 10%, or whatever. And no debate in this forum is going to solve that issue because it cannot be proven either way, so round and round we will go.

The skier / zucker thing has gotten ridiculous lately. Both of these guys are smart enough to not turn these threads into some juvenile pissing match.