2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

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.

Because you're obviously a complete expert on this issue and familiar with the products, any corrections that might need to be made to them, and their weighting functions.. as you have so aptly demonstrated in this thread.

There are expert analyses of other levels of the troposphere.. and they show we are warmer than 2008. But instead of using these, you'd rather use CH6 and 7 and claim we are cooler. Complete hackery.

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

[nzucker]

Because you're obviously a complete expert on this issue and familiar with the products, any corrections that might need to be made to them, and their weighting functions.. as you have so aptly demonstrated in this thread.

There are expert analyses of other levels of the troposphere.. and they show we are warmer than 2008. But instead of using these, you'd rather use CH6 and 7 and claim we are cooler. Complete hackery.

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

I didn't make an absolute claim of this year versus 2008. I just said "Other channels on AMSU are running cool, near or below 2008." This is true, beyond a doubt. Whatever else you ascribe to my comment is your business, not mine. I was just comparing AMSU Channel 5 to the other channels, and other years, and made a valid observation.

And indeed, your retort, "Well those include the stratosphere, and that's a contamination because AGW is supposed to be cooling it" is invalid. The current stratospheric trend is around nil, and has been since 1995. You still have not answered this argument...what say you?

[skierinvermont]

I didn't make an absolute claim of this year versus 2008. I just said "Other channels on AMSU are running cool, near or below 2008." This is true, beyond a doubt. Whatever else you ascribe to my comment is your business, not mine. I was just comparing AMSU Channel 5 to the other channels, and other years, and made a valid observation.

And indeed, your retort, "Well those include the stratosphere, and that's a contamination because AGW is supposed to be cooling it" is invalid. The current stratospheric trend is around nil, and has been since 1995. You still have not answered this argument...what say you?

I have answered this argument ..

1) I suggested there are corrections which neither of us know about made to each of the channels.

2) The lower stratosphere which is heavily included in Ch6 may behave differently than the mid or upper stratosphere.

3) TMT shows us warmer than 2008 which contradicts CH6. TMT is calculated by experts familiar with the data products, Ch6 is raw and we are unfamiliar with it. Take your pick.

Regardless.. I simply pointed out that Ch6 contains a large stratospheric contribution. You subsequently went A-wall and got completely belligerent and accused me of lies and distortion, when what I said is 100% correct.

[nzucker]

I have answered this argument ..

1) I suggested there are corrections which neither of us know about made to each of the channels.

2) The lower stratosphere which is heavily included in Ch6 may behave differently than the mid or upper stratosphere.

3) TMT shows us warmer than 2008 which contradicts CH6. TMT is calculated by experts familiar with the data products, Ch6 is raw and we are unfamiliar with it. Take your pick.

Regardless.. I simply pointed out that Ch6 contains a large stratospheric contribution. You subsequently went A-wall and got completely belligerent and accused me of lies and distortion, when what I said is 100% correct.

I didn't say the channels weren't corrected. All I said was that the raw data on Discover was showing up cool, near or below 2008 for many of the channels. That's it, buddy.

Also, I take issue with your worry about stratospheric contamination for 2 reasons:

1)Most of Channel 6 is in the troposphere anyway.

2)Stratospheric temperatures have been in a plateau since 1995, so they won't influence the result on a long-term basis.

You still have not answered WHY stratospheric contribution is important if the trend is 0 anyway.

[tacoman25]

Regardless.. I simply pointed out that Ch6 contains a large stratospheric contribution. You subsequently went A-wall and got completely belligerent and accused me of lies and distortion, when what I said is 100% correct.

AWOL. Military term meaning absent without leave.

[skierinvermont]

I didn't say the channels weren't corrected. All I said was that the raw data on Discover was showing up cool, near or below 2008 for many of the channels. That's it, buddy.

Also, I take issue with your worry about stratospheric contamination for 2 reasons:

1)Most of Channel 6 is in the troposphere anyway.

2)Stratospheric temperatures have been in a plateau since 1995, so they won't influence the result on a long-term basis.

You still have not answered WHY stratospheric contribution is important if the trend is 0 anyway.

You responded to my very straightforward post saying that channel 6 includes stratosphere (which it does) with belligerence and by calling me a liar.

I don't need to answer all the technical questions about channel 6 to know that it's not representative of the troposphere. I trust actual scientists at UAH and RSS to process it reasonably well into TLT and TMT which I then, as a member of the general public, consume. All I know is that channel 6 does contain large portions of stratosphere, that trends in the stratosphere or lower stratosphere may be different from the troposphere. It doesn't include all of the stratosphere just a portion of it and neither of us knows what has gone on in that portion of the stratosphere for the last 3 years. If you know what the temperature between 15km and 25km has been the last 3 years, please do let us know. There are lots of other corrections made before taking raw amsu channel data and creating TLT, TMT TLS etc.

We're not experts.. we don't know how to do those corrections. Which is why we use TLT or TMT. Even UAH and RSS strongly disagree on how to create TMT from the various channels.. RSS shows 100% more TMT warming than UAH. And yet you seem to think we, as amateurs, should just be taking raw CH6 data, when even UAH and RSS can't agree how to process it with any reasonable accuracy.

[nzucker]

You responded to my very straightforward post saying that channel 6 includes stratosphere (which it does) with belligerence and by calling me a liar.

I don't need to answer all the technical questions about channel 6 to know that it's not representative of the troposphere. I trust actual scientists at UAH and RSS to process it reasonably well into TLT and TMT which I then, as a member of the general public, consume. All I know is that channel 6 does contain large portions of stratosphere, that trends in the stratosphere or lower stratosphere may be different from the troposphere. It doesn't include all of the stratosphere just a portion of it and neither of us knows what has gone on in that portion of the stratosphere for the last 3 years. If you know what the temperature between 15km and 25km has been the last 3 years, please do let us know. There are lots of other corrections made before taking raw amsu channel data and creating TLT, TMT TLS etc.

We're not experts.. we don't know how to do those corrections. Which is why we use TLT or TMT. Even UAH and RSS strongly disagree on how to create TMT from the various channels.. RSS shows 100% more TMT warming than UAH. And yet you seem to think we, as amateurs, should just be taking raw CH6 data, when even UAH and RSS can't agree how to process it with any reasonable accuracy.

Did I ever say raw Channel 6 anomalies are the best way to measure global temperatures? No!

All I said was, "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. "

That was the entirety of my post, dude. I was just making an off-hand comment that the channels that recently came back online are running pretty cold. I didn't imply they were final TLT values, I didn't imply they proved 2011 was definitively cooler than 2008. None of that. Most of the accusations you make are reflections of your distrust of me and your discomfort with your position on this board, not a reaction to what I actually wrote. So stick to analyzing the content of my posts, not the fabrications that exist in your mind.

Clearly, this comment was intended as a joke since you have been constantly accusing skeptics of manipulation and lies: "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."

You are taking this whole forum way too seriously, Andrew. Not everything someone posts is an attempt to discredit AGW science, or to attack you. You've clearly developed some sort of personal paranoia that's becoming entirely apparent in the way you interact here on the weather forums. My second comment was entirely jocular, an attempt to light-heartedly make fun of the way you treat the skeptics, and yet you went off on it. What is going on with you dude? Why can't you just have fun on these forums? The point here is just to have a friendly discussion of the data/interpretations; this isn't a peer-reviewed journal or a scientific paper that's going to influence public policy and the health of our planet. No one is socially irresponsible by posting an inaccurate global temperature guess in the poll, and no one on here should deserve to have their predictions thrashed by you in such an inconsiderate, malicious manner. It's amazing that you used to be the skeptic, indeed were the person that interested me in AGW skepticism, and now you're deriding them. Maybe it's YOU who's having the identity crisis, who's having the paranoia and anger that are resulting in these nasty posts. Honestly, I think you and Bethesda BOTH deserve to be five-posted.

[skierinvermont]

I was perfectly calm and simply made a factual statement in response to your comment. You are the one that went completely bat**** insane in response to my calm straightforward and true statement.

Let's examine the course of this exchange chronologically. These are the first 3 comments in their entirety:

1)

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.

All well enough, a true statement.

2)

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.

Also a true straightforward statement. A good clarification for anybody that was confused by your comment and thought Ch6 was good for measuring temperatures.

3)

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.

Nzucker goes haywire starts calling me a liar and distorter and conspiracy theorist and apparently I'm frightened and in the closet. Yikes. I made a very straightforward and true statement and this is the completely off the wall response I got. Then you have the audacity to claim that I "started it."

Plus, you're not kidding anybody. You posted the CH6 data with the intent of using it to represent tropospheric temperatures and now you're backtracking after I've pointed out the inconsistencies with TMT and the large stratospheric contribution. But even if we suspend disbelief and assume you posted it randomly with no intention of using them to represent actual tropospheric temperatures, your comments were still completely out of line. I made a straightforward true statement and you went haywire.

[LakeEffectKing]

You responded to my very straightforward post saying that channel 6 includes stratosphere (which it does) with belligerence and by calling me a liar.

I don't need to answer all the technical questions about channel 6 to know that it's not representative of the troposphere. I trust actual scientists at UAH and RSS to process it reasonably well into TLT and TMT which I then, as a member of the general public, consume. All I know is that channel 6 does contain large portions of stratosphere, that trends in the stratosphere or lower stratosphere may be different from the troposphere. It doesn't include all of the stratosphere just a portion of it and neither of us knows what has gone on in that portion of the stratosphere for the last 3 years. If you know what the temperature between 15km and 25km has been the last 3 years, please do let us know. There are lots of other corrections made before taking raw amsu channel data and creating TLT, TMT TLS etc.

We're not experts.. we don't know how to do those corrections. Which is why we use TLT or TMT. Even UAH and RSS strongly disagree on how to create TMT from the various channels.. RSS shows 100% more TMT warming than UAH. And yet you seem to think we, as amateurs, should just be taking raw CH6 data, when even UAH and RSS can't agree how to process it with any reasonable accuracy.

Wow Skier! You are lashing out at trivial observations of statement......THAT'S A GOOD THING!! It demonstrates the initial internal struggles (not perceptible by you) that you are having with your belief system. You are well on your way to regaining some of your objectivity!! (Loved them psych classes!!!)

Bethesda is still young, though.....his belief systems are in development!!!

[skierinvermont]

Wow Skier! You are lashing out at trivial observations of statement......THAT'S A GOOD THING!! It demonstrates the initial internal struggles (not perceptible by you) that you are having with your belief system. You are well on your way to regaining some of your objectivity!! (Loved them psych classes!!!)

Bethesda is still young, though.....his belief systems are in development!!!

I'm having no internal struggle with my belief system, thank you. My belief system draws upon the actual scientific literature on this subject... so does your pseudo-psychology apply to all of these works of science as well?

[LakeEffectKing]

I'm having no internal struggle with my belief system, thank you. My belief system draws upon the actual scientific literature on this subject... so does your pseudo-psychology apply to all of these works of science as well?

Nope! Scientific literature does NOT prove an overall UNTESTED hypothesis....it is strictly evidence that is MANDATED to be scrutinized via anyone's objective lens, not drank like kool-aid......But again, lashing out in such manner is not perceptible to you, nor can anyone else percieve such individual self behaviors for that matter. Freakin' zuck made a statement that was absolute, and you read some underlying meaning into it that seems to pose a threat to your belief. Classic!

PS (Edit) I went through an eerily similar phase back when I was a true believer!!! I fought tooth and nail.....and then I realized I too could be wrong!!! And to this day, I will never ever forget to have introspection.....I'm having it now!!!

[nzucker]

Nzucker goes haywire starts calling me a liar and distorter and conspiracy theorist and apparently I'm frightened and in the closet. Yikes. I made a very straightforward and true statement and this is the completely off the wall response I got. Then you have the audacity to claim that I "started it."

Plus, you're not kidding anybody. You posted the CH6 data with the intent of using it to represent tropospheric temperatures and now you're backtracking after I've pointed out the inconsistencies with TMT and the large stratospheric contribution. But even if we suspend disbelief and assume you posted it randomly with no intention of using them to represent actual tropospheric temperatures, your comments were still completely out of line. I made a straightforward true statement and you went haywire.

Dude, it was a joke. Did you not notice that I used almost the same words that you use when lashing out at skeptics? It was meant to be ironic.

And besides, what gives you the right to put words into my mouth? I just made a simple observation that Channel 6 was running low along with some of the other revived channels. I'm not backtracking...I still think it's significant they're running low, as Channel 6 is mostly troposphere and the 1995-2011 stratospheric trend is zero so any contamination shouldn't have much impact unless one part of the stratosphere is behaving a lot differently from the level as a whole, which you haven't proved. All I did was make a simple remark about the AMSU data, and you decided you couldn't deal with it because it indicated global temperatures are low. I mean heck, it can't possibly be true that global temperatures are running cool, can it?

Give it up Andrew. It's really sickening. Everyone on this board is coming to despise your posts, for good reason. You've become such an apologist for the AGW side, so uncritical of the radical change in your own thinking about the issue, and so malicious towards other posters' predictions. It's really time for it to stop.

[Jesse]

Dude, it was a joke. Did you not notice that I used almost the same words that you use when lashing out at skeptics? It was meant to be ironic.

And besides, what gives you the right to put words into my mouth? I just made a simple observation that Channel 6 was running low along with some of the other revived channels. I'm not backtracking...I still think it's significant they're running low, as Channel 6 is mostly troposphere and the 1995-2011 stratospheric trend is zero so any contamination shouldn't have much impact unless one part of the stratosphere is behaving a lot differently from the level as a whole, which you haven't proved. All I did was make a simple remark about the AMSU data, and you decided you couldn't deal with it because it indicated global temperatures are low. I mean heck, it can't possibly be true that global temperatures are running cool, can it?

Give it up Andrew. It's really sickening. Everyone on this board is coming to despise your posts, for good reason. You've become such an apologist for the AGW side, so uncritical of the radical change in your own thinking about the issue, and so malicious towards other posters' predictions. It's really time for it to stop.

+1

[skierinvermont]

Dude, it was a joke. Did you not notice that I used almost the same words that you use when lashing out at skeptics? It was meant to be ironic.

And besides, what gives you the right to put words into my mouth? I just made a simple observation that Channel 6 was running low along with some of the other revived channels. I'm not backtracking...I still think it's significant they're running low, as Channel 6 is mostly troposphere and the 1995-2011 stratospheric trend is zero so any contamination shouldn't have much impact unless one part of the stratosphere is behaving a lot differently from the level as a whole, which you haven't proved. All I did was make a simple remark about the AMSU data, and you decided you couldn't deal with it because it indicated global temperatures are low. I mean heck, it can't possibly be true that global temperatures are running cool, can it?

Give it up Andrew. It's really sickening. Everyone on this board is coming to despise your posts, for good reason. You've become such an apologist for the AGW side, so uncritical of the radical change in your own thinking about the issue, and so malicious towards other posters' predictions. It's really time for it to stop.

No it is not true that the other levels of the troposphere are running cooler than 2008, as your original post clearly implied. We know this from both UAH and RSS TMT. You obviously would like for it to be true, but it just ain't.

Moreover you can pretend all you want that you were joking, but we both know you weren't. You went haywire on me for making a straightforward factual statement. CH6 is an unreliable measure of tropospheric trends. I said this- you went haywire... now you come back and say.. "oh it was a joke." Whatever. I didn't think it was funny and it was a completely inappropriate response given the straightforward factual nature of my post. I make a straightforward simple factual statement.. you go haywire and call me a liar, distorter, conspiracy theorist, and that I'm in the closet... how am I supposed to respond? Your arrogance, hypocrisy and manipulation of facts are what's sickening in this forum. You and BB have single handedly driven away any of the well reasoned posters interested in the actual science (MN, DonS, Mallow, manonthewing, etc.) leaving only Rusty and I to refute your disinformation campaign. Thank god he has finally been 5ppd. As Rusty said, we have been attacked and labeled ruthlessly for simply posting quality main-stream science.

[skierinvermont]

+1

You contribute absolutely nothing to this forum. I think 90% of your 26 posts are +1s. That type of amateur cheer-leading is completely unnecessary and out of place in this forum. If you have something to say, say it.

[nzucker]

No it is not true that the other levels of the troposphere are running cooler than 2008, as your original post clearly implied. We know this from both UAH and RSS TMT. You obviously would like for it to be true, but it just ain't.

Moreover you can pretend all you want that you were joking, but we both know you weren't. You went haywire on me for making a straightforward factual statement. CH6 is an unreliable measure of tropospheric trends. I said this- you went haywire... now you come back and say.. oh I din't really mean it. Whatever. I didn't think it was funny and it was a completely inappropriate response given the straightforward factual nature of my post. I make a straightforward simple factual statement.. you go haywire and call me a liar, distorter, conspiracy theorist, and that I'm in the closet... how am I supposed to respond? Your arrogance, hypocrisy and manipulation of facts are what's sickening in this forum. You and BB have single handedly driven away any of the well reasoned posters interested in the actual science (MN, DonS, Mallow, manonthewing, etc.) leaving only Rusty and I to refute your disinformation campaign. As Rusty said, we have been attacked and labeled ruthlessly for simply posting quality main-stream science.

When did I ever say that raw Channel 6 data is the best method of measuring global temperatures anomalies? Could the cool readings in Channel 4 and 6 bolster some skeptics' arguments? Sure, but the point of my participation was simply to show how different levels of the atmosphere are responding to the global regime, information that we haven't had access to for a while. .It was also to demonstrate how the 07-08 Niña may have been a decent analog for this year, with conditions potentially fading to neutral and then rebounding towards La Niña in the fall. You act as if this is some grand conspiracy on my part to use Channel 6 to excoriate AGW theory, and yet all I was doing was adding more data to the argument, which can only help us.

Do you not understand that my comments were a joke about the way you treat skeptics? Are you ever going to learn to develop a sense of humor and easy-going style on here, which is what the forum was designed for. We aren't supposed to be excoriating each other and taking things too seriously with all these punitive prediction threads, foul language across the board. Why don't you just smoke a fattie and then enjoy the inane discourse?

And BTW, don't you think you've driven a lot of posters away from the climate forum with your frequent condescending tone of "Well you don't know the science?"

Well possibly they don't want to feel such a condescending attitude approach them, like when you brought back old quotes from months ago done in casual temperature polls and then excoriated posters who had made a poor guess. Personally, I find you to be much more difficult in this thread than Bethesda.

[BethesdaWX]

Yet another thread trashed thanks to Andrew. Good Job Buddy.

To get attempt to get back on topic, Global Temps are now Back Below 2008 levels on AMSU, pretty much all levels are now @ colder values than 2008 except the "Near Surface Layer".

[Clifford]

Guesses for April Polar Anomalies, RSS/UAH?

Yes, I'm saying guesses, not serious climate predictions (which we would be able to have if we current and historical gridded data sets).

In another thread, it was suggested that the anomalies were at record levels... I guess forgetting that February didn't really set any records.

UAH:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Column NoPol

January +1.57

February -0.16

March +0.91

RSS:

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

Column 60/82.5

January +1.801

February -0.105

March +1.387

I think about half of April had lower warm anomalies than many other time periods. So, I think I'll put the expected temperature as more "normal", with moderate positive temperatures. Perhaps +0.4, with similar values for both data sources.

It is still bitter cold up there

[skierinvermont]

Yes and then I made another simple factual statement that added even more information to the mix (IE CH6 is not an accurate representation) and you went haywire. You can pretend it was just a joke all you want but it obviously was not. You're not kidding anybody. There is nothing funny about what you posted. Perhaps you should learn how to tell better jokes. I posted simple factual information, which instead of responding to, you went haywire. I might as well have said the sky is blue and for some reason that provoked you into getting all nasty. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of starting an argument.

I posted a factual comment about CH6. You went haywire and called me a liar distorter conspiracy theorist. But apparently I'm the one that started an argument.

[BethesdaWX]

1) Dude, you said AMSU 6 & 7 were colder because of AGW cooling the stratosphere, Nate pointed out that there has been no trend in the Stratosphere since 2008, so nothings different. At this point, overall its colder than it was in 2008 everywhere except the surface. In fact, the stratosphere is Warmer now

2) What Nate said to you is the Exact Same way you talk to other people on this forum!, its discusting and its pissing people off.

3) All Nate said was that AMSU 6 & 7 were colder than 2008, nothing more. You created your own argument, and got owned.

[skierinvermont]

1) Dude, you said AMSU 6 & 7 were colder because of AGW cooling the stratosphere, Nate pointed out that there has been no trend in the Stratosphere since 2008, so nothings different. At this point, overall its colder than it was in 2008 everywhere except the surface. In fact, the stratosphere is Warmer now

2) What Nate said to you is the Exact Same way you talk to other people on this forum!, its discusting and its pissing people off.

3) All Nate said was that AMSU 6 & 7 were colder than 2008, nothing more. You created your own argument, and got owned.

I never denied that channel 6&7 were colder than 2008.. what I said was that this is not indicative of the troposphere actually being colder.

The stratosphere as a whole may not be colder, but who knows what's happened in that portion of stratosphere included in Channel 6. Plus there are all sorts of other corrections that are made to Channel 6 and 7 to produce TMT data for the mid troposphere. None of us know how to do those adjustments or what affect they might have.

We know for a 100% fact that the mid troposphere is not cooler than 2008 because UAH and RSS TMT data tells us so. Channel 6 is completely redundant. It's raw data that should be interpreted by scientists. That's what TMT is for. TMT says it's warmer. That's all I said.. .and then zucker went off on me. He's obviously frustrated and taking it out on me. I made a basic factual statement.. CH6 is not a good way to represent the troposphere.. and his response was completely out of line. I might as well have said the sky is blue and he'd still give me the same rude belligerent response. Then he has the audacity to claim I started a nasty argument when all I did was post a straightforward fact which he responded to with nasty insults.

Your claim that everywhere except the surface is colder than 2008 is complete fabricated nonsense. Both TLT (lower troposphere) and TMT (mid troposphere) data say that it is .1-.2C warmer.

[BethesdaWX]

I never denied that channel 6&7 were colder than 2008.. what I said was that this is not indicative of the troposphere actually being colder.

The stratosphere as a whole may not be colder, but who knows what's happened in that portion of stratosphere included in Channel 6. Plus there are all sorts of other corrections that are made to Channel 6 and 7 to produce TMT data for the mid troposphere. None of us know how to do those adjustments or what affect they might have.

We know for a 100% fact that the mid troposphere is not cooler than 2008 because UAH and RSS TMT data tells us so. Channel 6 is completely redundant. It's raw data that should be interpreted by scientists. That's what TMT is for. TMT says it's warmer. That's all I said.. .and then zucker went off on me. He's obviously frustrated and taking it out on me. I made a basic factual statement.. CH6 is not a good way to represent the troposphere.. and his response was completely out of line. I might as well have said the sky is blue and he'd still give me the same rude belligerent response. Then he has the audacity to claim I started a nasty argument when all I did was post a straightforward fact which he responded to with nasty insults.

Your claim that everywhere except the surface is colder than 2008 is complete fabricated nonsense. Both TLT (lower troposphere) and TMT (mid troposphere) data say that it is .1-.2C warmer.

No...................Thats not what I said, I said AMSU Raw (including AQUA), as we speak, is colder than 2008, and also at all levels are exept the "near surface layer", not that the entire month was/has been Below 2008. Thats what I said............I'm NOT talking about a Monthly Mean on UAH, or past Numbers, I was referring to "Here and Now"... on AMSU Raw....

http://discover.itsc...h?amsutemps+002

That is a factual statement... so what are you arguing?

You clearly stated that Channel 6 and Channel 7 are both Part stratosphere, and AGW is supposed to cool them..... Yes, supposedly it is.. yes.............but its unrelated. Nate Never said it was the best method...

Andrew, you and Nate seem to be arguing with a tie-back to your differing positions on AGW... not the OBS.... because both of you made correct statements, and are arguing over nothing really.

[skierinvermont]

Andrew, you and Nate seem to be arguing with a tie-back to your differing positions on AGW... not the OBS.... because both of you made correct statements, and are arguing over nothing really.

Exactly! I know we both made correct statements. I'm glad we are in agreement and you could sort this out. Zucker and I both made straightforward correct statements, and then he called me a liar, distorter, conspiracy theorist etc.

It was completely out of line. I simply made a straightforward factual statement. I might as well have said the sky is blue. And he responded by calling me all sorts of names. Even if he was "only joking" it was still completely out of line.

Maybe if I had said something remotely controversial his comments would be more understandable.. but what I said was just a basic fact and he responded by going nuts. And then he has the audacity to claim I started a nasty argument.

[BethesdaWX]

Exactly! I know we both made correct statements. I'm glad we are in agreement. Zucker and I both made straightforward correct statements, and then he called me a liar, distorter, conspiracy theorist etc.

It was completely out of line. I simply made a straightforward factual statement. I might as well have said the sky is blue. And he responded by calling me all sorts of names. Even if he was "only joking" it was still completely out of line.

dude, both of you (and myself included as well!) are guilty of, on occasion, name calling, insulting, and sometimes twisting words around. Its fine, we've all done it, some more than others, (referencing myself here).

Nobodys opinions here on AGW are "wrong" (YET), because no one here denies AGW exists, its how much will show up is still unknown... AGW has to exist based on physics, but it could manifest as an extremely dangerous catastrophe, or small, unmeasurable and lost in the noise of Natural Variability of the climate system.....We'll find out eventually.

So until we truly figure this out, lets just all enjoy the ride, Go Green, and have Fun

Can we please end this now? It'd be great

[skierinvermont]

dude, both of you (and myself included as well!) are guilty of, on occasion, name calling, insulting, and sometimes twisting words around. Its fine, we've all done it, some more than others, (referencing myself here).

Nobodys opinions here on AGW are "wrong" (YET), because no one here denies AGW exists, its how much will show up is still unknown... AGW has to exist based on physics, but it could manifest as an extremely dangerous catastrophe, or small, unmeasurable and lost in the noise of Natural Variability of the climate system.....We'll find out eventually.

So until we truly figure this out, lets just all enjoy the ride, Go Green, and have Fun

Can we please end this now? It'd be great

I'd be more than happy to forget about it.. I'm just not going to be blamed for an argument that began by me making a simple factual statement and then nzucker going haywire on me. He went haywire.. fine. So have I on occasion. But he could at least admit it instead of blaming me for starting an argument. But no.. he gets to call me all sorts of nasty names and then blame me for starting an argument when all I did was say CH6 shouldn't be used to measure the troposphere.

[skierinvermont]

Guesses for April Polar Anomalies, RSS/UAH?

Yes, I'm saying guesses, not serious climate predictions (which we would be able to have if we current and historical gridded data sets).

In another thread, it was suggested that the anomalies were at record levels... I guess forgetting that February didn't really set any records.

UAH:

http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Column NoPol

January +1.57

February -0.16

March +0.91

RSS:

http://www.remss.com...Ocean_v03_3.txt

Column 60/82.5

January +1.801

February -0.105

March +1.387

I think about half of April had lower warm anomalies than many other time periods. So, I think I'll put the expected temperature as more "normal", with moderate positive temperatures. Perhaps +0.4, with similar values for both data sources.

It is still bitter cold up there

I agree with your guesses.. I might go a tenth or two higher at .5 or .6. it's been a relatively cool month in the troposphere in the arctic although the surface anomalies have been quite warm comparatively.

[nzucker]

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.

Channel 5 isn't processed fully, and yet we use it to for general trends and comparisons. So why is it wrong to use Channel 6?

I think we both agree Channel 6 contains far more troposphere than stratosphere, given it's centered at 7.5km (well below the stratosphere in most of the Earth, especially in the fat parts of the planet like the equator/low latitudes that contribute heavily to an anomaly). Second of all, the stratosphere's temperature has not changed overall since 1995. If this is a steady trend and averages out to represent most of the stratospheric layer, then there's no reason not to use it. You can't contaminate a troposphere trend with a stratospheric trend of zero. Also, the years on Discover are ones where the stratosphere had similar temperatures, for the most part, so we're NOT comparing apples and oranges. Giving a quick glance at Channel 6 to note intra-annual and inter-annual tropospheric variability is a legitimate tactic when done on a casual basis. No, it's not a product you will find in an IPCC report, in all likelihood. But the point of this thread is quick updates/new data. And that's what I was doing. So I believe it was a perfectly appropriate post for the "2011 Global Temperatures" thread. And you are the one who tends to deviate a lot from the thread's intent with random criticisms and searches for old verifications, so I think I deserve credit for keeping us nicely on topic.

No it is not true that the other levels of the troposphere are running cooler than 2008, as your original post clearly implied. We know this from both UAH and RSS TMT. You obviously would like for it to be true, but it just ain't.

Channel 6, which is mostly composed of different, raw measurements of the troposphere, is running cooler than 2008:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

UAH and RSS TMT are different products; I was referring to this one. The reason I was referencing it was quite clear, as it had just come back online and gave some new material for examination. I don't think it's unfair to give a quick description on the trend of a source that's just come up.

I did NOT say all the troposphere/surface was colder than 2008.

[skierinvermont]

Channel 5 isn't processed fully, and yet we use it to for general trends and comparisons. So why is it wrong to use Channel 6?

Because we're fairly familiar with how CH5 usually converts to UAH or RSS TLT but not familiar with how CH6 would convert to TMT. It may be quite inconsistent and require some very different corrections than are necessary for Ch5. Especially considering TLT basically = CH5, but TMT requires a lot more info than just CH6.

I think we both agree Channel 6 contains far more troposphere than stratosphere, given it's centered at 7.5km (well below the stratosphere in most of the Earth, especially in the fat parts of the planet like the equator/low latitudes that contribute heavily to an anomaly). Second of all, the stratosphere's temperature has not changed overall since 1995. If this is a steady trend and averages out to represent most of the stratospheric layer, then there's no reason not to use it. You can't contaminate a troposphere trend with a stratospheric trend of zero. Also, the years on Discover are ones where the stratosphere had similar temperatures, for the most part, so we're NOT comparing apples and oranges. Giving a quick glance at Channel 6 to note intra-annual and inter-annual tropospheric variability is a legitimate tactic when done on a casual basis. No, it's not a product you will find in an IPCC report, in all likelihood. But the point of this thread is quick updates/new data. And that's what I was doing. So I believe it was a perfectly appropriate post for the "2011 Global Temperatures" thread. And you are the one who tends to deviate a lot from the thread's intent with random criticisms and searches for old verifications, so I think I deserve credit for keeping us nicely on topic.

It is still about 30% stratosphere overall and it is centered in the upper troposphere which isn't supposed to warm as much as the mid-troposphere. You're free to post Ch6 data, but if you don't I'm going to point out that TMT data is better and contradicts the Ch6 data.

Channel 6, which is mostly composed of different, raw measurements of the troposphere, is running cooler than 2008:

http://discover.itsc...e.csh?amsutemps

UAH and RSS TMT are different products; I was referring to this one. The reason I was referencing it was quite clear, as it had just come back online and gave some new material for examination. I don't think it's unfair to give a quick description on the trend of a source that's just come up.

I did NOT say all the troposphere/surface was colder than 2008.

I didn't say it's unfair. I simply said that TMT is better and contradicts CH6.

You are trying to use a data product that you know virtually nothing about. I can't find a single source that uses CH6 for temperature data. As a general rule, one should familiarize oneself with a new source before using it. There could be all sorts of problems with using it to represent tropospheric temperatures that you and i are unaware of. The fact that it contradicts TMT, which is one of the best measures of tropospheric temperatures, indicates to me that this is likely the case. I am comfortable using CH5 because I have seen scientists (Spencer, Schmidt) use it to represent tropospheric temps and I am familiar with how it is converted to TLT.

[Jesse]

You contribute absolutely nothing to this forum. I think 90% of your 26 posts are +1s. That type of amateur cheer-leading is completely unnecessary and out of place in this forum. If you have something to say, say it.

I lurk. No problem with that. I've said what I think about you and others, as well as the various issues covered here, a couple times. I really don't think there's anything wrong with my posting style here.

That said, you are an almost humorously nasty poster most of the time.

[skierinvermont]

Well after doing some digging I can give a much stronger explanation of why CH6 contradicts TMT and why you shouldn't be using it at all.

While CH5 onboard the Aqua satellite has its equatorial crossing time fixed at a specific time each day, CH6 onboard a NOAA satellite does not have its crossing time fixed. This means that it's observing the temperatures at a different time each day. It drifts at like 1/hr per year. This introduces strong short-term biases. I do not know if CH6 is used AT ALL in calculating tropospheric or stratospheric temperatures.. this may not be its intended purpose whatsoever. It may be intended for entirely different academic purposes and be completely useless for temperature data.

This is what happens when you grab random sources which you're unfamiliar with and which contradict accepted data (TMT).