2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

Once again, most of this has nothing to do with 2011 global temperature discussion; you're again trying to make yourself feel better by falsifying others' predictions. Whether Bethesda guessed the sea ice anomaly correctly is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You're just going on again with your "smarty had a party."

Also, in terms of predictions about the arctic, remember the time frame in which the predictions were made. Everyone was expecting a +NAO/+AO winter which would have led the Arctic to be colder, but of course the opposite happened against Niña climo, and we had stout high-latitude blocking for most of the season. Also, the North American Arctic is seeing an unprecedented cold spell, and I don't ever recalling seeing so much cold air in Canada this late in the season:

Overall, the arctic isn't running that warm now, pretty good balance of cold anomalies on the North American side and warm anomalies on the Eurasian side, except some parts of Central Siberia which are below average...the yearly anomaly will cool down from now on with the +NAO/+AO pattern being dominant. I'm sure a lot of the warmth you're citing comes from the huge block we had for a lot of January:

The idea of a recovery in arctic sea ice, whether Bethesda nailed the specifics or not, has been true...we're running pretty well now on JAXA and starting to cross a lot of the older years:

NORSEX shows us within one SD of normal:

So maybe Bethesda got a little amplified with his predictions, but the idea of a slight recovery in the Arctic with more multi-year ice and a slowdown of the warm season melt was generally correct. The Niña may be the factor that's turning things around, finally getting the extreme block out of the Arctic, as I suspected. Having a more +NAO/+AO second half of the winter really firmed up the ice pack, and that was what I was getting at when I said we'd see better conditions in the Arctic. Let's see where yearly temperatures go from here...declaring someone wrong for a yearly temperature prediction in mid-April seems, well, premature.

Also, remember the predictions about global temps came when many thought the La Niña would take us into very strong territory, not just borderline strong. You even had HM said this one might be going to 73-74 levels in Nov/Dec, so you have to expect the globe to be warmer when the cold ENSO signal ends up being warmer than expected. I think overall, the predictions of cold global temperatures haven't been bad....actually looking relative to ENSO/AMO versus 2008, we're running colder. SSTs were much lower in 2008, yet temperatures haven't been far off, especially for March. That makes me think that this regime of high snow cover/better arctic ice may be having its effects too.

What a terrible post.. basically 100% falsehood and manipulation.

1) If you don't want people to discuss the predictions you make I advise you not to post them on a public message board.

2) I am not trying to have a "smarty party." I believe that verifying predictions improves our understanding. If you are continually making predictions which fail terribly, as you have, then perhaps this is an indication that you need to rethink your methodology and understanding. I think this is an extremely important exercise. If you don't think so, again, I advise you to stop making predictions all over this board. If you can't deal with people criticizing them when they are shown to be so poor, don't make them.

3) You can post single day images all you want, but the fact remains that the JFM period was the second warmest JFM period in the arctic ever. Posting single day images as verification for an annual prediction is a complete joke and is blatant manipulation on your part. You should be ashamed.

4) As for your claim that it is the -AO/-NAO that made the period so warm in the arctic, perhaps you should check what the AO and NAO have actually done in that period. Get your facts straight. The period averaged a +NAO and +AO.

5) There has been no recovery in arctic sea ice.. this just reveals your complete ridiculous bias. The last 10 months have been near or below record low values. He claimed that every year since the PDO flipped has improved. This is blatantly false... we have been running CONSISTENTLY below the 1-yr ago value since May 2010. This makes nearly a full straight year in which ice has been below the 1-yr ago value. Given this, it is logically impossible for there to have been an improvement in extent over the last year.

6) You claim that the "+AO/+NAO second half of winter really firmed up the ice pack." LOL.. It's a well known fact that a -AO/NAO is better in winter for the ice. More blatant error.

7) You claim that this year hasn't been that far from 2008 in temperatures. Blatant falsehood. The JFM period has averaged a full .17C warmer than 2008 on UAH. Just more complete fabrication of facts on your part.

8) You claim that "this regime of better arctic ice" explains why 2011 hasn't been much warmer than 2008, despite the warmer SSTs. Well as already explained, this JFM is drastically warmer than 2008. Second, arctic sea ice has been near or below record low values since June.

[BethesdaWX]

You said the "peak ice peak anomaly." Your words not mine. The graph I gave was of anomalies because that is what I thought you wanted and it's the same graph you quoted in the post in which you made the prediction.

You said quite clearly that every since the PDO went negative the ice has improved. There is not a single metric or way to construe this as true given we have spent the last 12 months near or below record low values.

Since May ice extent has been consistently below the 1-yr ago value. It is logically impossible given this fact for you to construe in any way an improvement in ice over the last year.

LOL!!! Are you going to admit your mistake on the Graph you Posted??? It represents the overall Anomaly, not the "peak ice peak anomaly" or whatever the hell you're saying.

The peak anomaly always occurs around April because that is when the long-term decline has been slowest. The peak anomaly this year will be much lower than last year as seen here:

{{Graph}}

I said Peak Ice Anomaly, not "Peak Ice Peak Anomaly" lol wtf?. Quote me where I said that and I'll give you a f**king medal.

The Ice has improved somewhat, but will NOT improve to the full extent because the PDO has never correlated to the Arctic Ice, but the AMO has. The PDO has correlated better to Global Temps.

[skierinvermont]

LOL!!! Are you going to admit your mistake on the Graph you Posted??? It represents the overall Anomaly, not the "peak ice peak anomaly" or whatever the hell you're saying.

I said Peak Ice Anomaly, not "Peak Ice Peak Anomaly" lol wtf?. Quote me where I said that and I'll give you a f**king medal.

The Ice has improved somewhat, but will NOT improve to the full extent because the PDO has never correlated to the Arctic Ice, but the AMO has. The PDO has correlated better to Global Temps.

well you've said a lot of various things and none of them have been very coherent but here ya go:

I never said that, get your brain checked. I said the peak mean peak ANOMALY has increased relative to avg since the PDO went cold, and will do it again this yr.

"peak mean peak anomaly" whatever the hell that is. Regardless you said according to some incomprehensible metric ice was improving every year. This is logically impossible given ice extent has remained below the 1-yr ago value since May 2010. It is logically impossible for there to have been an improvement in extent when we have bee consistently below the 1-yr ago value.

I know exactly what the graph I posted shows. It shows anomalies.

[nzucker]

What a terrible post.. basically 100% falsehood and manipulation.

1) If you don't want people to discuss the predictions you make I advise you not to post them on a public message board.

2) I am not trying to have a "smarty party." I believe that verifying predictions improves our understanding. If you are continually making predictions which fail terribly, as you have, then perhaps this is an indication that you need to rethink your methodology and understanding. I think this is an extremely important exercise. If you don't think so, again, I advise you to stop making predictions all over this board. If you can't deal with people criticizing them when they are shown to be so poor, don't make them.

3) You can post single day images all you want, but the fact remains that the JFM period was the second warmest JFM period in the arctic ever. Posting single day images as verification for an annual prediction is a complete joke and is blatant manipulation on your part. You should be ashamed.

4) As for your claim that it is the -AO/-NAO that made the period so warm in the arctic, perhaps you should check what the AO and NAO have actually done in that period. Get your facts straight. The period averaged a +NAO and +AO.

5) There has been no recovery in arctic sea ice.. this just reveals your complete ridiculous bias. The last 10 months have been near or below record low values. He claimed that every year since the PDO flipped has improved. This is blatantly false... we have been running CONSISTENTLY below the 1-yr ago value since May 2010. This makes nearly a full straight year in which ice has been below the 1-yr ago value. Given this, it is logically impossible for there to have been an improvement in extent over the last year.

6) You claim that the "+AO/+NAO second half of winter really firmed up the ice pack." LOL.. It's a well known fact that a -AO/NAO is better in winter for the ice. More blatant error.

7) You claim that this year hasn't been that far from 2008 in temperatures. Blatant falsehood. The JFM period has averaged a full .17C warmer than 2008 on UAH. Just more complete fabrication of facts on your part.

8) You claim that "this regime of better arctic ice" explains why 2011 hasn't been much warmer than 2008, despite the warmer SSTs. Well as already explained, this JFM is drastically warmer than 2008. Second, arctic sea ice has been near or below record low values since June.

1/2) If you want to verify predictions, do so in the appropriate thread. The "2011 global temperature thread" shouldn't be the "Skier proving people wrong thread." Predictions that have to do with arctic sea ice don't belong here at all...you are clearly just trying to go after people. It just distracts from the discussion of the actual temperature trend in 2011 and adds a lot of nonsense pages that other people aren't going to want to read through. People looking for a quick update/discussion of 2011 temperatures don't want to wade through 10 pages of you and Bethesda going back and forth about graphs of arctic sea ice anomalies.

3) The point of posting daily images is to show that things have cooled down somewhat. Even on the 80-90N chart, the warmest anomalies were easily back in January/February.

4) January had a pretty stout -NAO block early on, so that definitely increased the temperatures. The poor arctic sea ice performance for the winter average almost certainly has to do with the -NAO block in December. Hudson Bay didn't even freeze until late December, and most of the sea off the Labrador Coast didn't freeze until January/February. That cost us some of the average against Niña climo, which applies to your debate with Bethesda.

4/6) A -NAO/-AO block centered over Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay is bad for arctic sea ice. Generally a -AO is good in winter because it stops the ice from leaving the Fram Strait, but it's bad if the block is so extreme that it prevents Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay from freezing at all. That's a huge amount of open water against climo. Look at the pattern:

You can't claim that a -AO manifested that way is good for the ice. Sorry. The -AO is much better when the block is right over the North Pole which keeps winds quiet and helps the cold anomalies spread. We saw a lot of expansion on the Atlantic side when the NAO/AO relaxed in late January/February.

5) I think having more multi-year ice constitutes a recovery. Weren't you the one preaching volume over extent in the fall? Also, the ice has been slow to melt which is a good sign because the summer usually shows the largest anomaly from normal.

7) I said it hasn't been that far considering that SSTs are way higher since the -PDO isn't quite as extreme at least looking at the GoA/California area. Also, the 2008 had less of a +AMO. I'm making a relative analysis of global temps versus SSTs, and I'd say we're doing pretty good this year.

8) I'd say the snow cover may be cooling land temperatures the most. Maybe the arctic sea ice melting slowly is helping a bit. Not sure, just looking for reasons why we're cooler on land with warmer SSTs.

[skierinvermont]

Both of your statements are wildly inaccurate:

Each Year since 2007 has had more ice area than the other during the Peak Ice Season.......... Both 2009 and 2010 have reached Above Normal Ice Extent at some point... This winter will ne the 4th consecutive year with a higher ice extent and area.....all this since the PDO went cold in 2007

We're starting the long term recovery now probably, this winter should see the arctic ice maintain above normal extent/area etc for a month or two unless the wind becomes unfavorable and flushes/compacts the ice. We probably won't see the ice, in the long run, get back to average for another 7-10 years.

Both statements are wildly inaccurate.

[BethesdaWX]

What a terrible post.. basically 100% falsehood and manipulation.

1) If you don't want people to discuss the predictions you make I advise you not to post them on a public message board.

2) I am not trying to have a "smarty party." I believe that verifying predictions improves our understanding. If you are continually making predictions which fail terribly, as you have, then perhaps this is an indication that you need to rethink your methodology and understanding. I think this is an extremely important exercise. If you don't think so, again, I advise you to stop making predictions all over this board. If you can't deal with people criticizing them when they are shown to be so poor, don't make them.

3) You can post single day images all you want, but the fact remains that the JFM period was the second warmest JFM period in the arctic ever. Posting single day images as verification for an annual prediction is a complete joke and is blatant manipulation on your part. You should be ashamed.

4) As for your claim that it is the -AO/-NAO that made the period so warm in the arctic, perhaps you should check what the AO and NAO have actually done in that period. Get your facts straight. The period averaged a +NAO and +AO.

5) There has been no recovery in arctic sea ice.. this just reveals your complete ridiculous bias. The last 10 months have been near or below record low values. He claimed that every year since the PDO flipped has improved. This is blatantly false... we have been running CONSISTENTLY below the 1-yr ago value since May 2010. This makes nearly a full straight year in which ice has been below the 1-yr ago value. Given this, it is logically impossible for there to have been an improvement in extent over the last year.

6) You claim that the "+AO/+NAO second half of winter really firmed up the ice pack." LOL.. It's a well known fact that a -AO/NAO is better in winter for the ice. More blatant error.

7) You claim that this year hasn't been that far from 2008 in temperatures. Blatant falsehood. The JFM period has averaged a full .17C warmer than 2008 on UAH. Just more complete fabrication of facts on your part.

8) You claim that "this regime of better arctic ice" explains why 2011 hasn't been much warmer than 2008, despite the warmer SSTs. Well as already explained, this JFM is drastically warmer than 2008. Second, arctic sea ice has been near or below record low values since June.

100% BS and Manipulation

False, Manipulation, and error filled post.... boy I could go on and on.

1) I advise you to Stfu and focus on your own predictions, from now on I'm gonna Rip you Silly on every prediction you've make that busts, you've Busted several times in the past month, Including your "leveling off" assertion in which I owned you.

2) Your "understanding" sucks, I'll get to that below

3) MANIPULATION, who gives a sh*t on JFM temps on arctic Ice? The Ice "peak" is FMA, and we've measured only 32 years, in the Regimine of the AMO we're in now.... yeah, its not unusual. The AMO has correlated to past changes in the 1940's/50's, in which the recovery did not occur until the late 1950's. Our recovery would come between 2015-2020.

4) The -NAO/-AO were predominate thru Mid January.... There is something called Carry Over Effect.. why would the Ice Increase back to Normal if the Pack was Already weakened by a Record Breaking -AO/-NAO for 2 of the most important months of the Gain period?? If you want to change your baseline here, asserting a Later Timeframe, you have to account for the Lag in Sea Ice Season

5) The ice Has Clearly Improved since the PDO flip in 2007. Issue is we have the AMO as the primary driver to Arctic SSTs and Ice,Not the PDO.

6) LOL No, a raging -AO/-NAO is not better for ice because 1) There is Less Precipitation to help Form Ice, 2) Temps are warmer, and 3) When temps are warmer, the Rate of Ice Freezing is LESS.

7) The AMO has been warmer this yr than in 2008, AGW won't cause .17C of warming in 3 years, so what are you arguing?

8) I've explained the point above, its simple natural variability, AGW won't cause .2C warming in 2 yrs in the Arctic.

[BethesdaWX]

Both of your statements are wildly inaccurate:

Both statements are wildly inaccurate.

Stop Manipulating

1) I will verify, they Year.. it will

2) "unless conditions become unfavorable"!!!

Don't Manipulate my post.

[BethesdaWX]

If you understood, you wouldn't claim the "spikes" here to be here BECAUSE they were in the winter.

Again... WTF

Yes.. and the peak anomaly almost always occurs sometime around April (you can see the biggest spike in the anomaly all of the past 4 years has been around April).

So your prediction has already busted.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE, THEY ARE UNRELATED, THIS GRAPH IS RELATIVE TO AVERAGE, NOT MOST ICE

[Jesse]

Dear God. You guys need to get a room or something.

[skierinvermont]

1/2) If you want to verify predictions, do so in the appropriate thread. The "2011 global temperature thread" shouldn't be the "Skier proving people wrong thread." Predictions that have to do with arctic sea ice don't belong here at all...you are clearly just trying to go after people. It just distracts from the discussion of the actual temperature trend in 2011 and adds a lot of nonsense pages that other people aren't going to want to read through. People looking for a quick update/discussion of 2011 temperatures don't want to wade through 10 pages of you and Bethesda going back and forth about graphs of arctic sea ice anomalies.

3) The point of posting daily images is to show that things have cooled down somewhat. Even on the 80-90N chart, the warmest anomalies were easily back in January/February.

4) January had a pretty stout -NAO block early on, so that definitely increased the temperatures. The poor arctic sea ice performance for the winter average almost certainly has to do with the -NAO block in December. Hudson Bay didn't even freeze until late December, and most of the sea off the Labrador Coast didn't freeze until January/February. That cost us some of the average against Niña climo, which applies to your debate with Bethesda.

4/6) A -NAO/-AO block centered over Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay is bad for arctic sea ice. Generally a -AO is good in winter because it stops the ice from leaving the Fram Strait, but it's bad if the block is so extreme that it prevents Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay from freezing at all. That's a huge amount of open water against climo. Look at the pattern:

You can't claim that a -AO manifested that way is good for the ice. Sorry. The -AO is much better when the block is right over the North Pole which keeps winds quiet and helps the cold anomalies spread. We saw a lot of expansion on the Atlantic side when the NAO/AO relaxed in late January/February.

5) I think having more multi-year ice constitutes a recovery. Weren't you the one preaching volume over extent in the fall? Also, the ice has been slow to melt which is a good sign because the summer usually shows the largest anomaly from normal.

7) I said it hasn't been that far considering that SSTs are way higher since the -PDO isn't quite as extreme at least looking at the GoA/California area. Also, the 2008 had less of a +AMO. I'm making a relative analysis of global temps versus SSTs, and I'd say we're doing pretty good this year.

8) I'd say the snow cover may be cooling land temperatures the most. Maybe the arctic sea ice melting slowly is helping a bit. Not sure, just looking for reasons why we're cooler on land with warmer SSTs.

1&2.. good I will be creating that thread shortly.

3) this means absolutely nothing. There is always variability. 1 day means absolutely nothing. I expect that for arctic temperatures will remain fairly high the rest of the year.

6) I think we've cleared this up -- I agree the +NAO is better for the early winter extent. Your comment was sort of confusing because it also seemed to refer to MY ice and the overall condition.

7) This year has been way warmer than 2008 .. and it has almost nothing to do with the AMO or the PDO.. it's mostly because we're following a strong Nino.

8) I don't think one needs to look for reasons why this year is cold... ENSO and relatively cold SSTs are explanation enough for me. In fact, based on ENSO and SST comparisons to 2008 we are surprisingly warm.

I'm glad you agree that Bethesda's ice predictions are wrong. Too bad he won't own up. As for your arctic temps prediction, I think you overestimated the effect ENSO has on arctic temps. The correlation is pretty weak.

[BethesdaWX]

I certainly hope I don't see any BS written about me in this "Thread" of yours, or I'll flip a new one

FYI, the best way to Melt/Weaken MY ice is to Warm SST's and Stir up Strange Wind Patterns.

When you have the +AMO and -PDO, crazy things can Happen. It happened in the 1950's, and it will happen through most of this decade.

Around 1958, the ice began to rapidly improve in the Arctic, the NW passage had been open for many years, and its not open now.

[nzucker]

7) This year has been way warmer than 2008 .. and it has almost nothing to do with the AMO or the PDO.. it's mostly because we're following a strong Nino.

I think the AMO has played a significant role. You can see that the warmth in the Atlantic near Europe, and along the equator, is much more extreme in 2011 than 2008.

4/21/2011 SST anomalies:

4/21/2008 SST anomalies:

[BethesdaWX]

Bingo! The AMO may Not have that much of an Impact on the Globe, but it is the Primary driver in the Arctic.

The arctic was actually Cooling until the AMO went Positive in 1994, right on scedule.....the PDO has never correlated to Arctic Temps. The -PDO will definitely help Slow spring Melting, as it was rumored to do in the 1950's, but the AMO has always overwhelmed the PDO in the Arctic Region.

Its so Laughable that people Dismiss the AMO as a driver in the Arctic. Past History and OBS are all we need.

-The NW passage opened up in the 1940's/early 50's, and in the 1880's. Both included +AMO/-PDO phase.

-Right when the +AMO flipped warm as a Base, the Arctic Began warming Rapidly. This correlation is almost too Good.

-Past History is now repeating itself... What else is there to debate?

[Clifford]

FYI:

UAH is once again publishing daily data on all channels except channel 14 - 135,000 ft

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/

Now I've gotten used to viewing the TMT ch 5 data... I'll now have to start looking at TLT ch 4

[nzucker]

FYI:

UAH is once again publishing daily data on all channels except channel 14 - 135,000 ft

http://discover.itsc....edu/amsutemps/

http://discover.itsc...amsutemps/data/

Now I've gotten used to viewing the TMT ch 5 data... I'll now have to start looking at TLT ch 4

Interestingly, it looks as if most of the other nearby channels show us cooler than Channel 5 AQUA. Channel 6 and 7 both show this year's daily temperature running WELL below 2008 levels.

[LakeEffectKing]

Interestingly, it looks as if most of the other nearby channels show us cooler than Channel 5 AQUA. Channel 6 and 7 both show this year's daily temperature running WELL below 2008 levels.

Hell, the entire global atmospheric profile is running pretty low relative to the last 8 years or so...

[skierinvermont]

Interestingly, it looks as if most of the other nearby channels show us cooler than Channel 5 AQUA. Channel 6 and 7 both show this year's daily temperature running WELL below 2008 levels.

Channel's 6 and 7 are like half stratosphere which are supposed to cool in response to AGW. Plus they're completely unprocessed and I don't know what steps would be necessary to interpret them correctly.

If you are interested in other levels of the troposphere then you can use TMT or TLT. TLT is basically CH5. Both TLT and TMT have been warmer than 2008 thus far.

[nzucker]

Channel's 6 and 7 are like half stratosphere which are supposed to cool in response to AGW.

The average height of the tropopause is close to 20km, dude....Channel 6 is at 7.5km and Channel 7 is at 11km, neither of which is part of the stratosphere.

Blatant lies and distortion. Part of the AGW conspiracy. Amazing how frightened you get when someone mentions temperatures are low. Maybe you will have your true "coming out of the closet" as a skeptic in a few years.

[skierinvermont]

The average height of the tropopause is close to 20km, dude....Channel 6 is at 7.5km and Channel 7 is at 11km, neither of which is part of the stratosphere.

Blatant lies and distortion. Part of the AGW conspiracy. Amazing how frightened you get when someone mentions temperatures are low. Maybe you will have your true "coming out of the closet" as a skeptic in a few years.

That's where the channel is centered. Because of the long tails to the weighting function it contains large contributions from the stratosphere. In addition, this is raw data that needs to be processed before being interpreted.

PLEASE educate yourself. You are just demonstrating your complete unfamiliarity with these data products.

The correct way to examine temperatures at other levels of the troposphere would be to use TMT or TLT.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/

[nzucker]

That's where the channel is centered. Because of the long tails to the weighting function it contains large contributions from the stratosphere. In addition, this is raw data that needs to be processed before being interpreted.

PLEASE educate yourself. You are just demonstrating your complete unfamiliarity with these data products.

The correct way to examine temperatures at other levels of the troposphere would be to use TMT or TLT.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...and-precip/msu/

It looks as if a channel at 7.5km like Channel 6 would fall mostly within the troposphere using this as a guide:

[skierinvermont]

It looks as if a channel at 7.5km like Channel 6 would fall mostly within the troposphere using this as a guide:

Individual channels have much longer tails than TMT or TLT which are focused upon particular levels by combining different channels. Channel 6 contains >50% from above 10km and >1/3 from above 15km. Over much of the earth the stratosphere is as low as 10km, even 8km.

Your post was one giant assumption which you belligerently defended when corrected. You have no familiarity with these data products.. you're just making random assumptions about the weighting functions. The weighting function for TLT and TMT are 10 and 20 km respectively. Channel 6's weighting function is much wider at 30km. You falsely assumed that the width of CH6 was the same as the width of TLT or TMT which are in reality much more narrow and focused.

[skierinvermont]

[nzucker]

Individual channels have much longer tails than TMT or TLT which are focused upon particular levels by combining different channels. Channel 6 contains >50% from above 10km and >1/3 from above 15km. Over much of the earth the stratosphere is as low sometimes lower than 10km.

Your post was one giant assumption which you belligerently defended when corrected. You have no familiarity with these data products.. you're just making random assumptions about the weighting functions.

In most areas of the Earth, the stratosphere is 10-50km above the surface; I believe 20km is considered a mean height. Given that 100% of Channel 6 falls under 20km, and more than half of it under the minimum height of 10km (excepting small areas of the poles where the stratosphere can be super low in winter), I think it's fair to use it to judge the temperature trends for this year. Maybe Channel 7 is a bit of a stretch in terms of being an accurate measurement of the troposphere, but it shouldn't matter anyway because the stratosphere hasn't shown a significant temperature trend lately. Given that the CO2 influence on the stratosphere is canceling out with other manmade pollutants, leaving only the troposphere to vary in temperatures in recent times, then there's no problem with using Channel 6 and Channel 7.

The graph I posted clearly shows the weighting functions, and it clearly shows that Channel 6 is within the troposphere mostly. Remember, the largest land area of the Earth is near the equator where the stratosphere is exceptionally high, sometimes up to 50km. Higher latitudes with a lower stratosphere are relatively unimportant to the global temperature trend because there simply isn't much land above 80N/S where the stratosphere can drop to the 5-10km range. So even if you get a little contamination from the polar stratosphere, that is NOT going to affect the trend that much.

Also, all we were saying is that most channels of UAH are running pretty cool right now. Which is true. You were the one who took exception to this idea, so the burden of proof is on YOU to show that data from other channels isn't relatively. And so far, you've not been able to demonstrate that effectively given the weighting profile of Channel 6 and the lack of a stratospheric trend to interfere with our tropospheric trend, anyway. A lot of times, it seems you don't understand who the burden of proof is on in an argument, just like the thing with the skeptical predictions vs. the experts. The burden of proof now isn't on the skeptics to defend their cooling predictions; it's on the scientists to defend their warming predictions since the warming has been less than expected, which is the entire point of skepticism anyway regardless of individual flawed predictions.

[skierinvermont]

In most areas of the Earth, the stratosphere is 10-50km above the surface; I believe 20km is considered a mean height. Given that 100% of Channel 6 falls under 20km, and more than half of it under the minimum height of 10km (excepting small areas of the poles where the stratosphere can be super low in winter), I think it's fair to use it to judge the temperature trends for this year.

More errors..

1) Channel 6 goes all the way up to 30km. (you claim 100% below 20km.. are you blind?.. look again)

2) Over half the earth the stratosphere is lower than 15km... and yet channel 6 contains 1/3 contribution from above 15km. A substantial portion of the stratosphere is as low as 10km, sometimes even lower. And yet Channel 6 contributes ~50% from above 10km.

[nzucker]

More errors..

1) Channel 6 goes all the way up to 30km. (you claim 100% below 20km.. are you blind?)

2) Over half the earth the stratosphere is lower than 15km... and yet channel 6 contains 1/3 contribution from above 15km. A substantial portion of the stratosphere is as low as 10km, sometimes even lower. And yet Channel 6 contributes ~50% from above 10km.

It is a little hard to see but it looks as if only a tiny part of the Channel 6 is above 20km. The Channel is centered at 7.5km, which means that most of the data is coming from that region.

Higher latitudes with a lower stratosphere do not contain an equal amount of area. The bulk of the Earth's surface is between 50S and 50N where the stratosphere is at least 10km high, and in many places as high as 50km.

And anyway, none of this matters anyway because the stratosphere has had no temperature trend since 1995:

Since we don't have a coherent temperature trend from the stratosphere, we don't have to worry about AGW cooling the stratosphere contaminating Channel 6 measurements. Given the lack of a change in stratospheric temperatures, almost all the variability in the Channel 6 data has to come from the troposphere and annual/decadal variability in surface conditions like the PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc.

[skierinvermont]

As I said, Ch6 contains large amounts of stratospheric contribution. But Zucker would rather use this, than use actual tropospheric data like TLT or TMT which has been properly interpreted by scientists at UAH and RSS.

[skierinvermont]

It is a little hard to see but it looks as if only a tiny part of the Channel 6 is above 20km.

It's not hard to see at all. About 15% comes from above 20km. In fact, it's pretty easy to see that a small fraction, maybe 1%, is even coming from 30-40km.

[nzucker]

As I said, Ch6 is contains large amounts of stratospheric contribution. But Zucker would rather use this, than use actual tropospheric data like TLT or TMT which has been properly interpreted by scientists.

No, I almost always use Channel 5 AQUA to comment on temperature trends, but I thought it was interesting how cold the other AMSU channels are running now that they're back online. Of course, I do not think Channel 6 and Channel 7 hold the same relevance to the argument as the final UAH/RSS data or the AQUA Discover data. Once again, you had to turn a small off-hand comment into a huge battle because it suggests that we're not warming much. It's as if there's something sacred to you about AGW theory, like you go down on Hansen every night and then for fun do a little hanky-panky with Viner when good old Jimmy goes back to doctoring his GISS maps for the evening.

And besides, the stratosphere hasn't been warming or cooling since 1995. So it can't contaminate the majority of the channel showing tropospheric variability. Law of Large Numbers, if the stratosphere isn't warming/cooling, then in the long-run the Channel 6 data is going to be an accurate representation of tropospheric variability.

[skierinvermont]

No, I almost always use Channel 5 AQUA to comment on temperature trends, but I thought it was interesting how cold the other AMSU channels are running now that they're back online. Of course, I do not think Channel 6 and Channel 7 hold the same relevance to the argument as the final UAH/RSS data or the AQUA Discover data. Once again, you had to turn a small off-hand comment into a huge battle because it suggests that we're not warming much. It's as if there's something sacred to you about AGW theory, like you go down on Hansen every night and then for fun do a little hanky-panky with Viner when good old Jimmy goes back to doctoring his GISS maps for the evening.

And besides, the stratosphere hasn't been warming or cooling since 1995. So it can't contaminate the majority of the channel showing tropospheric variability. Law of Large Numbers, if the stratosphere isn't warming/cooling, then in the long-run the Channel 6 data is going to be an accurate representation of tropospheric variability.

I did not turn it into a huge argument. I pointed out that Ch6 and 7 contain large amount of stratospheric contributions, which you denied and accused me of lies and distortion. It was a straightforward correction which I was right about. You are now simply trying to distract from how wrong you were and how belligerent you got when I pointed it out.

[nzucker]

I did not turn it into a huge argument. I pointed out that Ch6 and 7 contain large amount of stratospheric contributions, which you denied. It was a straightforward correction.

Well Channel 6 is mostly troposphere, so I think that is a fine tool to use.

And since the stratospheric trend is neutral, contamination can't be an issue.