2011 Global Temperatures

[tacoman25]

You can usually get a decent idea by this point within a range. Heck, you can have a decent idea before the month even starts just based on the previous months and the trend.

Not always...look how April 2008 looked at this point based on those criteria.

[skierinvermont]

Not always...look how April 2008 looked at this point based on those criteria.

April 2008 was quite predictable... CH5 ended at -.22 which was basically the same as Feb and March. My guesses are strongly based on persistence from previous months and then slightly modified by recent trends. These are all just estimates but usually it can be guessed within +/-.05 or at least +/-.1 based on these methods.

[BethesdaWX]

AMSU ch5 temps went above average as of April 8th.. looks like April is going to be warmer than we thought. Maybe between -.05 and +.05 (I guessed -.1 to 0 before)

Definitely a crazy spike. Won't last too much longer, although I think warmer guesses have a better chance at verifying.

[tacoman25]

April 2008 was quite predictable... CH5 ended at -.22 which was basically the same as Feb and March. My guesses are strongly based on persistence from previous months and then slightly modified by recent trends. These are all just estimates but usually it can be guessed within +/-.05 or at least +/-.1 based on these methods.

UAH anomaly for April 2008 was -.022...warmer than March by .05 and considerably warmer than February (-.258).

[LakeEffectKing]

More divergence (along with Skier and Bethesda squabbles) .....GISS goes up pretty big in March:

. ... Jan Feb Mar

2011 46 44 57

[BethesdaWX]

More divergence (along with Skier and Bethesda squabbles) .....GISS goes up pretty big in March:

. ... Jan Feb Mar

2011 46 44 57

That really hurts GISS's credibility if Hadley goes down.....definitely going to increase GISS's divergence.

[tacoman25]

More divergence (along with Skier and Bethesda squabbles) .....GISS goes up pretty big in March:

. ... Jan Feb Mar

2011 46 44 57

And as usual, it's primarily due to massive, unbroken warm anomalies across the entire Arctic and northern Asia. Yeah, that looks realistic.

[BethesdaWX]

And as usual, it's primarily due to massive, unbroken warm anomalies across the entire Arctic. Yeah, that looks realistic.

GISS's map also looks nothing like UAH/RSS, which raises a major red Flag for me. UAH recorded MAR as the coldest in almost 2 decades.

The Arctic was Very warm on UAH, but nothing Like GISS's megatorch

[tacoman25]

GISS's map also looks nothing like UAH/RSS, which raises a major red Flag for me. UAH recorded MAR as the coldest in almost 2 decades.

The Arctic was Very warm on UAH, but nothing Like GISS's megatorch

Here is the GISS map on the UAH baseline. I have to wonder....with such widespread, extreme warm anomalies (6-12F above normal across most the entire Arctic and northern Asia), how the hell did the Arctic ice do so well in March?

[tacoman25]

Bethesda, can you post the AMSU map for March?

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda, can you post the AMSU map for March?

Sure. Look at Greenland..that has to be one of the worst extrapolating Jobs By GISS ever.

Remember this is RSS not UAH....UAH covers the entire arctic & Antarctic basically, unlike RSS.

UAH came in Colder than RSS actually, so, yea.

[tacoman25]

Sure. Look at Greenland..that has to be one of the worst extrapolating Jobs By GISS ever.

Remember this is RSS not UAH....UAH covers the entire arctic & Antarctic basically, unlike RSS.

UAH came in Colder than RSS actually, so, yea.

The maps actually match up quite well across the majority of the globe. But there is a .26C difference in March between UAH and GISS (on the same baseline)...which tells us the area they disagree (parts of the high latitudes/Arctic) must be the primary source of that big difference. Again, not surprising.

[BethesdaWX]

The maps actually match up quite well across the majority of the globe. But there is a .26C difference in March between UAH and GISS (on the same baseline)...which tells us the area they disagree (parts of the high latitudes/Arctic) must be the primary source of that big difference. Again, not surprising.

Agree. However, In the Arctic, especially near Greenland, they diverge almost 5C on the same baseline, which I don't see how GISS could miss that.

You bring up a good point on the Arctic...Ryan Maue's GFS had the Arctic quite cold for a good part of March...

[ORH_wxman]

The maps actually match up quite well across the majority of the globe. But there is a .26C difference in March between UAH and GISS (on the same baseline)...which tells us the area they disagree (parts of the high latitudes/Arctic) must be the primary source of that big difference. Again, not surprising.

UAH warmed over 1C in the arctic from February to March for anomalies. But I'll bet that GISS did something like triple or quadruple that. It will be interesting to see what CRU thinks...because UAH did its cooling in the middle latitudes and not the polar regions.

[skierinvermont]

More divergence (along with Skier and Bethesda squabbles) .....GISS goes up pretty big in March:

. ... Jan Feb Mar

2011 46 44 57

That really hurts GISS's credibility if Hadley goes down.....definitely going to increase GISS's divergence.

Totally stupid how you guys focus on the month to month differences between the two. I guess HadCRUT is biased because Nov to Dec GISS dropped .32 but HadCRUT dropped a mere .17. What nonsense HadCRUT is so full of **** biased warm. Oh and look how GISS cooled from Jan to Feb but HadCRUT warmed... what bull****... those ****ers.

Just get over it guys.. month to month sometimes one decreases while the other warms. It works both ways. In the long run, the divergence is almost entirely due to the polar regions, and when we infill HadCRUT with UAH poles, it is the same result as GISS.

Perhaps it would be good to remember this. HadCRUT 60S-60N + UAH infilling of the poles = GISS. This essentially corroborates GISS and its polar extrapolations.

[BethesdaWX]

Totally stupid how you guys focus on the month to month differences between the two. I guess HadCRUT is biased because Nov to Dec GISS dropped .32 but HadCRUT dropped a mere .17. What nonsense HadCRUT is so full of **** biased warm. Oh and look how GISS cooled from Jan to Feb but HadCRUT warmed... what bull****... those ****ers.

Just get over it guys.. month to month sometimes one decreases while the other warms. It works both ways.

Perhaps it would be good to remember this. HadCRUT 60S-60N + UAH infilling of the poles = GISS. This essentially corroborates GISS and its polar extrapolations.

Calm down dude!

Why the hell do you keep infilling UAH at the poles but using GISS as the primary source? Just use UAH! +/- 0.05C decade at most, smaller since 2002 with AQUA, and much better coverage and resolution than basically anyone.

I don't see why you're suddenly sharing a Bed with Hansen/GISS...

[ORH_wxman]

These trend lines will likely continue to diverge after we add 2011 on there.

[LakeEffectKing]

Totally stupid how you guys focus on the month to month differences between the two. I guess HadCRUT is biased because Nov to Dec GISS dropped .32 but HadCRUT dropped a mere .17. What nonsense HadCRUT is so full of **** biased warm. Oh and look how GISS cooled from Jan to Feb but HadCRUT warmed... what bull****... those ****ers.

Just get over it guys.. month to month sometimes one decreases while the other warms. It works both ways. In the long run, the divergence is almost entirely due to the polar regions, and when we infill HadCRUT with UAH poles, it is the same result as GISS.

Perhaps it would be good to remember this. HadCRUT 60S-60N + UAH infilling of the poles = GISS. This essentially corroborates GISS and its polar extrapolations.

Not sure why you skewed my post as a "focusing on month to month differences"......my post (If you read it slowly) is completely devoid of any embellishments you are inferring......just stated the obvious facts.

[skierinvermont]

Calm down dude!

Why the hell do you keep infilling UAH at the poles but using GISS as the primary source? Just use UAH! +/- 0.05C decade at most, smaller since 2002 with AQUA, and much better coverage and resolution than basically anyone.

I don't see why you're suddenly sharing a Bed with Hansen/GISS...

It doesn't use GISS at all.

It takes HadCRUT from 60S to 60N then uses UAH for the poles. Coincidentally, the result closely matches GISS, essentially corroborating GISS's polar extrapolations in the long run.

[skierinvermont]

Not sure why you skewed my post as a "focusing on month to month differences"......my post (If you read it slowly) is completely devoid of any embellishments you are inferring......just stated the obvious facts.

Sorry, I was more referring to Bethesda's comment. Still don't know why we have to post when one goes up and the other goes down.. nobody posted Feb or Dec when HadCRUT cooled less/ warmed more than GISS.

[BethesdaWX]

It doesn't use GISS at all.

It takes from 60S to 60N then uses UAH for the poles. Coincidentally, the result closely matches GISS, essentially corroborating GISS's polar extrapolations in the long run.

Ok whatever...still you're over-complicating things. Just use UAH really. Small window of error...there is really no reason not to use it.

All this infilling different data from UAH,the taking hadley or whatever you use, is just a waste of time. UAH data is higher quality.

I also find your Gigantic Bolding of Words to be Arrogant.

[skierinvermont]

These trend lines will likely continue to diverge after we add 2011 on there.

Yes but we find that when we take periods as short as 12 years HadCRUT 60-60 +UAH poles is closer to GISS than HadCRUT. Only by going to periods as short as 8 years do we find that not to be true. This is just the chance inherent in the extrapolation process.

In the long run we see that HadCRUT is the one diverging from HadCRUT+UAH poles (and from GISS, and from GISS+ UAH poles).

[skierinvermont]

Ok whatever...still you're over-complicating things. Just use UAH really. Small window of error...there is really no reason not to use it.

I also find your Gigantic Bolding of Words to be Arrogant.

GISS and HadCRUT have smaller statistical error than UAH. For a 30 year trend, they have statistical errors around +/-.04C/decade.. vs UAH's +/-.05C/decade. I have posted this before.

The +/-.05C is the statistical error. It doesn't include methodological error. Some error is not quantifiable. UAH likely has large methodological unquantifiable error because we find that when we use different methods, like Fu, VG and Zou, we get much more warming.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes but we find that when we take periods as short as 12 years HadCRUT 60-60 +UAH poles is closer to GISS than HadCRUT. Only by going to periods as short as 8 years do we find that not to be true. This is just the chance inherent in the extrapolation process.

In the long run we see that HadCRUT is the one diverging from HadCRUT+UAH poles (and from GISS, and from GISS+ UAH poles).

We'll see if it trends back the other way, but GISS hasn't been cooler than any other method since 2004.

[BethesdaWX]

GISS and HadCRUT have smaller statistical error than UAH.

The +/-.05C is the statistical error. It doesn't include methodological error. Some error is not quantifiable.

If you'll read the 2010 paper by Roy Spencer and John Christy, it is stated the "final" error potential is +/- 0.05C/decade, warmer or cooler. The two error types are tied in together dude, meteroloogical error creates statistical error...since 2002, AQUA that carries extra fuel avoids satellite drift completely.

Overall error is certainly higher on HAD/GISS, due to extapolations. Maybe less error where the stations measure, but the extrapolations kill it.

[skierinvermont]

We'll see if it trends back the other way, but GISS hasn't been cooler than any other method since 2004.

I'm quite sure that 5, 10 years from now HadCRUT 60-60 + UAH poles will be closer to GISS than to HadCRUT even starting a trend in 2002. HadCRUT will still be lower because it misses the arctic.

[skierinvermont]

Also, the 8 year divergence between GISS and HadCRUT is mostly due to between 60S-60N... in the long run those differences have always balanced out. HadCRUT warmed much faster 60S-60N from 1980-2002. GISS is just catching up.

When we look at 15-20 year trends.. there is no divergence between the two between 60S-60N. But there is a divergence due to the arctic, which is eliminated by replacing HadCRUT arctic with UAH arctic.

[LakeEffectKing]

Sorry, I was more referring to Bethesda's comment. Still don't know why we have to post when one goes up and the other goes down.. nobody posted Feb or Dec when HadCRUT cooled less/ warmed more than GISS.

I pretty much post any of the data as I see it come in, if it hasn't already been posted, whether it shows a divergence or not. Like you, I certainly understand that month to month variations have near 0 argumentative value re: AGW or not.....the reasons for the periods of divergence and convergence of the various anomolies. however, are curious, don't you agree??? I know there is "noise" within all the various observational techniques, but the amplitude (at times) of the swings in the differences seems quite large....and therefore should be defined and noted......as we've all often tried to do here. From there, we can all go our seperate ways as to how we interpret any flaws....ie sheity extrapolation methods, poor sensor readings at the poles, etc.....thus the "skier and Bethesda" comment....

[skierinvermont]

If you'll read the 2010 paper by Roy Spencer and John Christy, it is stated the "final" error potential is +/- 0.05C/decade, warmer or cooler. The two error types are tied in together dude, meteroloogical error creates statistical error...since 2002, AQUA that carries extra fuel avoids satellite drift completely.

Overall error is certainly higher on HAD/GISS, due to extapolations. Maybe less error where the stations measure, but the extrapolations kill it.

There is no such thing as "final" error. There is always some unquantifiable error or potential unknown error. Spencer and Christy have tried to quantify certain aspect of the potential error, but there is no way to quantify all of it into a single error bar.

The statistical error for Had/GISS includes error due to the extrapolations. Even including potential extrapolation error, the error on GISS for a 30 year trend is a mere +/-.04C/decade.

[BethesdaWX]

There is no such thing as "final" error. There is always some unquantifiable error or potential unknown error. Spencer and Christy have tried to quantify certain aspect of the potential error, but there is no way to quantify all of it into a single error bar.

The statistical error for Had/GISS includes error due to the extrapolations. Even including potential extrapolation error, the error on GISS for a 30 year trend is a mere +/-.04C/decade.

1) Don't twist things dude, of course there will always be something tiny...not the point. Total error potential on UAH is +/- 0.05C/decade at most, there is no way around it. UAH has better resolution, coverage, and in the areas where there is NO data for GISS/HADCRUT, data will NOT be +/- .04C.

Where GISS has data, then yes I can see that, but extrapolation errors as displayed today in the Arctic....thats what kills it. Why else would you infill for the Arctic? Because there is no data!

2) You are the only one on this forum that believes GISS is better statistically than UAH, at least I believe so. Its laughable, because its not true.