2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

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.

I am nasty to the people who are continually nasty to me (namely Nzucker and BB). I have perfectly reasonable discussions with the rest of the skeptics/lukewarmers on this board.

[nzucker]

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).

2011 is lower than 2008 on Channel 5/AQUA, Channel 6 and Channel 7. It is just slightly ahead of 2008 on Channel 4/Near Surface. I think this is a good way of demonstrating that we're in the midst of quite a cool year.

No one is saying we should be using Channel 6 for final anomalies. But it was a natural point to remark on how the newly-opened channels are doing after they were offline for so long. I just thought it was a logical observation to post.

[skierinvermont]

2011 is lower than 2008 on Channel 5/AQUA, Channel 6 and Channel 7. It is just slightly ahead of 2008 on Channel 4/Near Surface. I think this is a good way of demonstrating that we're in the midst of quite a cool year.

No one is saying we should be using Channel 6 for final anomalies. But it was a natural point to remark on how the newly-opened channels are doing after they were offline for so long. I just thought it was a logical observation to post.

As explained, CH6 is on a rapidly drifting NOAA satellite creating a large uncorrected time of observation bias. As such, it is completely unusable for climate purposes. It has absolutely no place in this thread. I could make up random numbers in my head and they would be more representative of tropospheric temperature trends than CH6 is.

Ch6 is 100% irrelevant to whether we are in a cool year. This directly contradicts your false claim that "2011 is lower than 2008 on Channel 5/AQUA, Channel 6 and Channel 7. It is just slightly ahead of 2008 on Channel 4/Near Surface. I think this is a good way of demonstrating that we're in the midst of quite a cool year." This is just 100% wrong. Channel 6 isn't evidence for any sort of comparison to 2008.

I tried to give you all the warning signs that this is crappy unusable data but you ignored me and called me a liar and tried to use it anyways.

FYI CH4 was vastly warmer than 1998 in 2011 (because the time of observation had drifted from morning to afternoon, and guess what? It's hotter in the afternoon than in the morning!).. according to your standard this is evidence that 2011 was hotter than 1998, which it wasn't on TLT, even though CH4 has a very similar weighting function to TLT.

[nzucker]

As explained, CH6 is on a rapidly drifting NOAA satellite creating a large uncorrected time of observation bias. As such, it is completely unusable for climate purposes. It has absolutely no place in this thread. I could make up random numbers in my head and they would be more representative of tropospheric temperature trends than CH6 is.

Ch6 is 100% irrelevant to whether we are in a cool year. This directly contradicts your false claim that "2011 is lower than 2008 on Channel 5/AQUA, Channel 6 and Channel 7. It is just slightly ahead of 2008 on Channel 4/Near Surface. I think this is a good way of demonstrating that we're in the midst of quite a cool year." This is just 100% wrong. Channel 6 isn't evidence for any sort of comparison to 2008.

What I'm saying is that the fact there's so many other channels running cold backs up Channel 5 AQUA and the UAH final numbers.

Sure, specific channels can have their errors and biases, but I think a consensus like this is meaningful. You've got 5, 6, 7 all lower than 2008, with Channel 4 near 2008. I definitely thinks this backs up my hypothesis that there is some special factor making this year cooler since we don't have cold SSTs like 2008.

[skierinvermont]

What I'm saying is that the fact there's so many other channels running cold backs up Channel 5 AQUA and the UAH final numbers.

Sure, specific channels can have their errors and biases, but I think a consensus like this is meaningful. You've got 5, 6, 7 all lower than 2008, with Channel 4 near 2008. I definitely thinks this backs up my hypothesis that there is some special factor making this year cooler since we don't have cold SSTs like 2008.

The other channels don't back up diddly squat. Channel 6 is running colder because it's now measuring in the evening rather than in the mid-afternoon.

Did you know that it's colder at night than in the day? Because if you didn't .. check out CH6.. damn it's so much colder at night! Who woulda thunk!

You have no idea what you're doing .. you are just running your mouth... you have no familiarity with these data products.

TMT, TLT, and the surface are all vastly warmer than 2008. There is no "special factor making this year colder." This year is much warmer at all levels of the troposphere and surface.

[nzucker]

The other channels don't back up diddly squat. Channel 6 is running colder because it's now measuring in the evening rather than in the mid-afternoon.

Did you know that it's colder at night than in the day? Because if you didn't .. check out CH6.. damn it's so much colder at night! Who woulda thunk!

You have no idea what you're doing .. you are just running your mouth... you have no familiarity with these data products.

Most of the channels show a pretty similar relationship among the years with 2008, 2009, and 2011 being clustered together near the bottom of the Discover graph. 2010 is the warm outlier. 2007 runs just below 2010 on all the channels, so it's definitely picking up well with consensus on inter-annual variability such as ENSO.

Channel 6 has 2011 a bit cooler than most, wonder why. I'm sure it's not just blatant, huge errors since all the channels display very similar trends and seem to arrive at mostly a consensus.

[tacoman25]

The other channels don't back up diddly squat. Channel 6 is running colder because it's now measuring in the evening rather than in the mid-afternoon.

Did you know that it's colder at night than in the day? Because if you didn't .. check out CH6.. damn it's so much colder at night! Who woulda thunk!

You have no idea what you're doing .. you are just running your mouth... you have no familiarity with these data products.

TMT, TLT, and the surface are all vastly warmer than 2008. There is no "special factor making this year colder." This year is much warmer at all levels of the troposphere and surface.

Hasn't Spencer said Ch. 5 is the closest thing to follow to get an idea of UAH temps?

[LakeEffectKing]

The other channels don't back up diddly squat. Channel 6 is running colder because it's now measuring in the evening rather than in the mid-afternoon.

Did you know that it's colder at night than in the day? Because if you didn't .. check out CH6.. damn it's so much colder at night! Who woulda thunk!

You have no idea what you're doing .. you are just running your mouth... you have no familiarity with these data products.

TMT, TLT, and the surface are all vastly warmer than 2008. There is no "special factor making this year colder." This year is much warmer at all levels of the troposphere and surface.

It would be interesting to know what value you think some of the other channels have then. I'm sure all the folks who have put a lot of work getting these channels operational would love your take!

[skierinvermont]

Hasn't Spencer said Ch. 5 is the closest thing to follow to get an idea of UAH temps?

Yes.. I'm talking about CH6. I don't understand your point.

It would be interesting to know what value you think some of the other channels have then. I'm sure all the folks who have put a lot of work getting these channels operational would love your take!

It's not my take.. it's the take of scientists including Roy Spencer who explicitly say that the other channels should not be used raw. CH5 can be used raw because it is onboard a satellite with a fixed equatorial crossing time (the AQUA satellite).

The other channels may not be used for temperature data at all, or if they are they are probably heavily corrected. According to RSS, the only channel used to create TLT (lower-trop) and TMT (mid-trop) temperature data is channel 5. So it sounds like the other channels aren't really used at all. Perhaps they have a strictly academic purpose that we don't understand. Or they're used for meteorological data not climate data. I don't know.

[tacoman25]

Yes.. I'm talking about CH6. I don't understand your point.

Because you said all levels of the troposphere and surface are "vastly warmer" than 2008. But Ch. 5, the one most representative of UAH, which we use to get a measure of the LT, is not.

[skierinvermont]

Because you said all levels of the troposphere and surface are "vastly warmer" than 2008. But Ch. 5, the one most representative of UAH, which we use to get a measure of the LT, is not.

I didn't mean at this very moment, I meant overall this year, for which it is .17C warmer.

[tacoman25]

I didn't mean at this very moment, I meant overall this year, for which it is .17C warmer.

Ok...well it seems like the conversation was centered more on current temperatures, which is why I thought your comment was odd.

It would be very strange if 2011 was as cool as 2008 so far, considering that 2011 is following a very strong El Nino, and 2008 was following a weak/moderate Nino that died out a full year earlier.

[LakeEffectKing]

Yes.. I'm talking about CH6. I don't understand your point.

It's not my take.. it's the take of scientists including Roy Spencer who explicitly say that the other channels should not be used raw. CH5 can be used raw because it is onboard a satellite with a fixed equatorial crossing time (the AQUA satellite).

The other channels may not be used for temperature data at all, or if they are they are probably heavily corrected. According to RSS, the only channel used to create TLT (lower-trop) and TMT (mid-trop) temperature data is channel 5. So it sounds like the other channels aren't really used at all. Perhaps they have a strictly academic purpose that we don't understand. Or they're used for meteorological data not climate data. I don't know.

Well, I'd think that Zucker's observation would have some merit considering that he's comparing values that have equal flaws.....ie when comparing 2008's ch. 6 with 2010's ch.6, they have the same inherent flaws you speak of, hence they are comparable. But cross comparing different channels, I agree, require complex QC adjustments.

[Mencken_Fan]

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

I second that.

[skierinvermont]

Well, I'd think that Zucker's observation would have some merit considering that he's comparing values that have equal flaws.....ie when comparing 2008's ch. 6 with 2010's ch.6, they have the same inherent flaws you speak of, hence they are comparable. But cross comparing different channels, I agree, require complex QC adjustments.

No you don't understand.. the errors aren't staying the same, they are rapidly changing because the satellite is rapidly drifting. Spencer says that the other channels should be ignored and are inaccurate. If Ch6 was measuring at mid-afternoon in 2008 and now it's measuring in the evening then of course it's going to be strongly biased cold.

[LakeEffectKing]

No you don't understand.. the erros are rapidly changing because the satellite is rapidly drifting. Spencer says that the other channels should be ignored and are inaccurate. If Ch6 was measuring at mid-afternoon in 2008 and now it's measuring in the evening then of course it's going to be strongly biased cold.

Well, I thought that it came back online because of corrections made. If there isn't an algorithm to account for the drift or they haven't corrected the drift directly, then I agree, the data is not comparible.

[nzucker]

No you don't understand.. the errors aren't staying the same, they are rapidly changing because the satellite is rapidly drifting. Spencer says that the other channels should be ignored and are inaccurate. If Ch6 was measuring at mid-afternoon in 2008 and now it's measuring in the evening then of course it's going to be strongly biased cold.

They all show similar trends so they must have some skill...

It's just tiresome how you continue to defend a defenseless argument. It's clear you have no virtues or morals of your own but instead rely on the establishment to tell you everything you should do.

[skierinvermont]

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

Also just to clear up some confusion that several people seem to be having about definitions:

TLT = synthetic product from T2 MSU data and CH5 AMSU data that uses multiple satellite view angles to focus more heavily on the lower troposphere.

TMT = straight T2 MSU and CH5 AMSU data (with corrections for diurnal drift and all the other corrections that are necessary of course). It is centered in the mid troposphere but also includes data from the lower troposphere all the way up to the lower stratosphere (15% stratospheric contribution).

AMSU CHs 4 and 6 are not used AT ALL by UAH or RSS, as far as I understand. The two tropospheric (TLT and TMT) products released by UAH are produced from CH5 data exclusively.

[skierinvermont]

They all show similar trends so they must have some skill...

The fact that they show similar trends isn't evidence that the data is remotely accurate for making comparisons. Nobody uses this data, and Spencer says that it should not be used period. And yet you persist.

[skierinvermont]

Well, I thought that it came back online because of corrections made. If there isn't an algorithm to account for the drift or they haven't corrected the drift directly, then I agree, the data is not comparible.

They don't need to correct diurnal drift in CH6 because they just don't use it.. they use CH5 onboard the AQUA satellite which doesn't drift, and then they use different satellite view angles to calculate the temperature at different levels of the atmosphere.

[nzucker]

The fact that they show similar trends isn't evidence that the data is remotely accurate for making comparisons. Nobody uses this data, and Spencer says that it should not be used period. And yet you persist.

If the data were useless, they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of reformulating and correcting the errors. Channel 6 just came back online, so it must hold some purpose as the channel which receives most of its input from about 7.5km in the troposphere. Not saying it is the official/final product of course, but it's still something you can consider when you prefer to look at a slightly higher level of the troposphere than Channel 5. Also, given that the product has shown a similar trend, and would have had the same problems at all points of its existence, there is some consistency. I never said it was a perfect measure of global temperatures, just that its cooling trend was a bit more pronounced compared to AQUA Channel 5, but showed a similar spatial relationship with 2008 as those being the coldest years. All fine points until you got into a huff about how it wasn't a "corrected" source and how it was contaminated by the stratosphere, which makes little sense if the stratosphere's temperature isn't changing, and especially if all the years had been equally contaminated on Channel 6.

Bet you wouldn't have made such a fuss if it was running warmer. But the corroboration of the cooling trend bothered you, eh?

In any case, instead of arguing this, let's all say a prayer for those down south who are dealing with one of the worst outbreaks of all time...as fascinated as we all are with the Earth and the manifestations of its climate, the results can sometimes be horrific.

[skierinvermont]

If the data were useless, they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of reformulating and correcting the errors. Channel 6 just came back online, so it must hold some purpose as the channel which receives most of its input from about 7.5km in the troposphere. Not saying it is the official/final product of course, but it's still something you can consider when you prefer to look at a slightly higher level of the troposphere than Channel 5. Also, given that the product has shown a similar trend, and would have had the same problems at all points of its existence, there is some consistency. I never said it was a perfect measure of global temperatures, just that its cooling trend was a bit more pronounced compared to AQUA Channel 5, but showed a similar spatial relationship with 2008 as those being the coldest years. All fine points until you got into a huff about how it wasn't a "corrected" source and how it was contaminated by the stratosphere, which makes little sense if the stratosphere's temperature isn't changing, and especially if all the years had been equally contaminated on Channel 6.

Bet you wouldn't have made such a fuss if it was running warmer. But the corroboration of the cooling trend bothered you, eh?

In any case, instead of arguing this, let's all say a prayer for those down south who are dealing with one of the worst outbreaks of all time...as fascinated as we all are with the Earth and the manifestations of its climate, the results can sometimes be horrific.

Nzucker > Roy Spencer

Yeah go ahead and ignore Roy Spencer.

And NO I would never try and use the other channels regardless of what they showed. CH4 showed last 2011 as vastly warmer than 1998, but I never tried to use it because I know it's useless. I was well aware that it was scorching all of last year.. but I ignored it because I know it's not valid climate data. I'm not a hack unlike some people.

All you are measuring when using Ch6 and making comparisons to 2008 is the fact that nighttime is colder than daytime.

[nzucker]

Nzucker > Roy Spencer

Yeah go ahead and ignore Roy Spencer.

And NO I would never try and use the other channels regardless of what they showed. CH4 showed last 2011 as vastly warmer than 1998, but I never tried to use it because I know it's useless. I was well aware that it was scorching all of last year.. but I ignored it because I know it's not valid climate data.

All you are measuring when using Ch6 and making comparisons to 2008 is the fact that nighttime is colder than daytime.

What does Roy Spencer say about the newly released channels?

I think the whole problem was with old equipment and excessive drifting, which was supposed to be improved with the new launch.

[LakeEffectKing]

Nzucker > Roy Spencer

Yeah go ahead and ignore Roy Spencer.

And NO I would never try and use the other channels regardless of what they showed. CH4 showed last 2011 as vastly warmer than 1998, but I never tried to use it because I know it's useless. I was well aware that it was scorching all of last year.. but I ignored it because I know it's not valid climate data. I'm not a hack unlike some people.

All you are measuring when using Ch6 and making comparisons to 2008 is the fact that nighttime is colder than daytime.

Are Dr. Spencer's comments recent??

[skierinvermont]

What does Roy Spencer say about the newly released channels?

I think the whole problem was with old equipment and excessive drifting, which was supposed to be improved with the new launch.

There was no new launch. AMSU CH6 was launched 8 years ago. You just keep making up things!

[nzucker]

There was no new launch. AMSU CH6 was launched 8 years ago. You just keep making up things!

No, I mean the re-launch of the channels after they were taken off Discover. There was an error that had to repaired.

What corrections were made, and did this solve all the previous problems? Do your Spencer quotes refer to the period after the reintroduction, that is the last few weeks?

YOU are making up things. I didn't mean they literally took the satellite out of orbit.

[skierinvermont]

What does Roy Spencer say about the newly released channels?

I think the whole problem was with old equipment and excessive drifting, which was supposed to be improved with the new launch.

To the bolded:

Really?

Link plz or you are just making this up as usual.

[skierinvermont]

What does Roy Spencer say about the newly released channels?

I think the whole problem was with old equipment and excessive drifting, which was supposed to be improved with the new launch.

Looks like zucker made that bit up about the launch fixing drift issues. Literally inventing facts out of thin air.

The other AMSU channels went down not because they were undergoing a fix but because of a separate mechanical issue causing missing data.

You need to learn zucker that you can't just make up facts whenever you want to. The diurnal drift of AMSU channels onboard NOAA-15 were not "supposed to be fixed with the new launch." There is no new launch.. data reporting from the satellite is becoming sporadic due to a mechanical problem. The data reporting issue is an entirely separate issue from the fact that AMSU channels 4 and 6 drift. This diurnal drift continues unabated, which is why Spencer AGAIN emphasizes that ONLY channel 5 should be used for climate data. Channel 5 is the ONLY data used by UAH for calculating lower and mid-troposphere temperatures (ie TLT and TMT).

THE DISCOVER WEBSITE: NOAA-15 PROBLEMS STARTING IN MID-DECEMBER

For those tracking our daily updates of global temperatures at the Discover website, remember that only 2 “channels” can be trusted for comparing different years to each other, both being the only ones posted there from NASA’s Aqua satellite:

1) only ch. 5 data should be used for tracking tropospheric temperatures,

2) the global-average “sea surface” temperatures are from AMSR-E on Aqua, and should be accurate.

The rest of the channels come from the AMSU on the 12 year old NOAA-15 satellite, WHICH IS NOW EXPERIENCING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MISSING DATA AS OF AROUND DECEMBER 20, 2010. This is why some of you have noted exceptionally large temperature changes in late December. While we wait for NOAA to investigate, it seems like more than coincidence that the NOAA-15 AMSU status report had a December 17 notice that the AMSU scan motor position was being reported incorrectly due to a bit error.

-Roy Spencer on recent missing AMSU data and mechanical issues, and why one should only use CH5

[Clifford]

Whew,

UAH is back online after a week of absence. Probably Tornado Damage.

But, unfortunately they've only posted 1 day's worth of additional data.

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

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

RSS has now released their April Data.

http://www.remss.com...ly_time_series/

TLT Land and Ocean

Global (-70 to 82.5)

2010 12 0.220

2011 1 0.085

2011 2 0.052

2011 3 -0.027

2011 4 0.110

NH (0 to 82.5)

2010 12 0.230

2011 1 0.041

2011 2 -0.011

2011 3 0.057

2011 4 0.225

SH (-70 to 0)

2010 12 0.210

2011 1 0.130

2011 2 0.117

2011 3 -0.115

2011 4 -0.009

USA

2010 12 -0.853

2011 1 -0.791

2011 2 -0.555

2011 3 0.072

2011 4 0.119

NPole (60 to 82.5)

2010 12 1.402

2011 1 1.802

2011 2 -0.105

2011 3 1.387

2011 4 0.580

----------------------------------------------

TLT Land

Global

2010 12 0.340

2011 1 0.077

2011 2 -0.171

2011 3 0.021

2011 4 0.210

TLT Ocean

Global

2010 12 0.162

2011 1 0.088

2011 2 0.159

2011 3 -0.050

2011 4 0.062

April seems to show a moderate increase in anomalies over March in most regions EXCEPT the NORTH POLAR REGION.

However, April 2011 is still significantly below April 2010.

Looks like I was close with my Polar Predictions (along with skierinvermont).

http://www.americanw...146#entry653146

[BethesdaWX]

Looks like I did very well......As UAH is probably between +/- 0.05C (baseline difference), which would validate my Guess from Late MAR.

It may be too late to add a May Guess, but I doubt it changes much, maybe even cools. But I really don't have a clue due to the descending -QBO, which often implies a smaller tropopause, thus a warmer one.

Also, I still cannot get UAH discover site to work