2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

No it's not still there. The number is completely representative of the short-term AMO state of the Atlantic Ocean. Now perhaps some of the effects it has on sea ice take longer to reverse, but the Atlantic Ocean is in a weakly +AMO state, not raging warm.

The AMO is a very simple index unlike the PDO. I could understand what you are saying if you made a similar argument for the PDO state because that is a complex EOF analysis. But the AMO is defined as the anomaly of north Atlantic SSTs which is very simple. It's the average anomaly of the north Atlantic from 0 to 70N.

The north Atlantic is simply not that warm right now. So both qualitatively and quantitatively I would say the AMO is only weakly positive.

Instead of calling it "the AMO" we could just call it "North Atlantic SSTs" because that is what it is defined as. North Atlantic SSTs have been much warmer in recent years. In this case the number represents that fact quite well.

I'm not a fan of the "select" AMO regions.. however.....Short term changes in the AMO regions won't change the climate regime asociated with it that has built up long term, the "+AMO regime".

Just like Anthony Watts f**ked up in 2009 in saying the +AMO Phase was coming to an end, the effects are cumulative, in some aspect, and we're bound to spike again until the positive phase comes to an end, which Watts failed to take into account. If we were to go a few years with the Neutral AMO then we'd see effects, but an avg of +.150 is still positive, and its been about 8 months.

The AMO isn't a powerful global driver like the PDO or IPO, but it is powerful over the Arctic and NH.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not a fan of the "select" AMO regions.. however.....Short term changes in the AMO regions won't change the climate regime asociated with it that has built up long term, the "+AMO regime".

Just like Anthony Watts f**ked up in 2009 in saying the +AMO Phase was coming to an end, the effects are cumulative, in some aspect, and we're bound to spike again until the positive phase comes to an end, which Watts failed to take into account. If we were to go a few years with the Neutral AMO then we'd see effects, but an avg of +.150 is still positive, and its been about 8 months.

The AMO isn't a powerful global driver like the PDO or IPO, but it is powerful over the Arctic and NH.

I'm not saying that the affects of a strong +AMO regime have dissipated. I am just saying, that at this moment, the AMO is only weakly positive. The AMO index represents this phenomenon just fine.

[BethesdaWX]

Well in that case I apologize for my rant. I still am not a fan of the select regions, because the AMO, like the PDO, is a product of overturning ocean currents, so you'd see a "horeshoe" pattern in anomalies.

[nzucker]

AMSU Channel 5 has had a significant drop, now slightly below average for the period and close to 2009.

GFS shows the global anomaly for the next 8 days at 0.23C.

[LakeEffectKing]

HadCrut:

2010/04 0.571

2010/05 0.516

2010/06 0.542

2010/07 0.545

2010/08 0.486

2010/09 0.393

2010/10 0.402

2010/11 0.444

2010/12 0.266

2011/01 0.206

2011/02 0.264

2011/03 0.322

2011/04 0.405

[nzucker]

Global temperatures continuing to drop on AMSU Channel 5.

[Snow_Miser]

Global temperatures continuing to drop on AMSU Channel 5.

Pretty big drop:

[skierinvermont]

With the large spike in temp anomalies over the last month+ my guess of 0-.1C for UAH in May end up being a little low. I guessed that back when AMSU had only updated through May 2nd and I assumed that the CH5 spike that began in early April would reverse soon, but it kept going up until the 10th.

I'd probably bump that guess up to +.05-.15 at this point based on CH5 likely coming in around zero.

[tacoman25]

With the large spike in temp anomalies over the last month+ my guess of 0-.1C for UAH in May end up being a little low. I guessed that back when AMSU had only updated through May 2nd and I assumed that the CH5 spike that began in early April would reverse soon, but it kept going up until the 10th.

I'd probably bump that guess up to +.05-.15 at this point based on CH5 likely coming in around zero.

Must counter posts pointing out dropping temperatures! Nothing slips by! DEFEND THE CAUSE!!

[skierinvermont]

Must counter posts pointing out dropping temperatures! Nothing slips by! DEFEND THE CAUSE!!

Huh? My post has nothing to do with the ones preceding. There has indeed been a modest drop the last week. Not sure what any of this has to do with AGW, but I just wanted to alter my guess for this month's UAH temperatures.

[nzucker]

AMSU Channel 5 showing a strong decrease in LT temperatures to near 2008 levels. We're about .15C below the average.

[Clifford]

AMSU Channel 5 has had a significant drop, now slightly below average for the period and close to 2009.

GFS shows the global anomaly for the next 8 days at 0.23C.

It is interesting that over the last week or so,

Ch4 temperature anomalies have been going UP.

Ch5 temperature anomalies have been going DOWN.

Sea Surface temperature anomalies have been dropping very slightly.

It is a pretty striking disjoint between Ch4 and Ch5, although on a few occasions in the past, Ch4 would change significantly before Ch5, for example during April 2010.

[skierinvermont]

Again, I must correct Clifford's graph. CH4 is NOT TLT. CH5 is BOTH TLT and TMT.

I've pointed this out already Clifford.. continually posting this graph without changing the labels is incredibly misleading.

The CH5 MTD is +.05 which would convert to +.15C on UAH and +.25C on RSS. But I'd guess it drops .05C or so before the end of the month.

I wonder if CH4 being so much warmer will have any effect. Obviously it's not included because of the strong drift but one might be able to use it for month to month relative changes.

[BethesdaWX]

The CH5 MTD is +.05 which would convert to +.15C on UAH and +.25C on RSS. But I'd guess it drops .05C or so before the end of the month.

I wonder if CH4 being so much warmer will have any effect. Obviously it's not included because of the strong drift but one might be able to use it for month to month relative changes.

Yes. Also Comparing RSS to UAH, in APR, UAH was much warmer than RSS last month, I've noticed that UAH APR and May (especially APR) anomalies have always run surprisingly warm, (who can forget APR 2008). But its always been the case since the start of AQUA in 2002. May has run a bit Warm too. But looking at where we're going, its Hard to see May differing much from April in either direction, but probably a bit warmer, and likely June will end up a bit colder than both, not just based on what I think the climate will be doing, but the fact that June has run cool on UAH since the start of AQUA.

As for this month, the record breaking cold in Antarctica will likely contribute on the Cool side this month (Temperatures getting below -115F down there via GFS!) But when the extreme cold is Focused on Antarctica, It usually doesn't show up on the UAH final anomaly, based on what happened in 2007.

PS: Ryan Maue finally changed the colors on his site, so the cold bias is basically gone.

[skierinvermont]

From 2003-2010 the average April CH5 to UAH conversion was +.1... which isn't abnormally high. And in May, it's actually lower than normal at only +.06.

[okie333]

From 2003-2010 the average April CH5 to UAH conversion was +1... which isn't abnormally high. And in May, it's actually lower than normal at only +.06.

I believe you meant +.1?

[skierinvermont]

I believe you meant +.1?

yep, thanks

[matthewweatherwatcher]

yep, thanks

Would you agree that 2011 is on course to not reach the top 10?

[skierinvermont]

Would you agree that 2011 is on course to not reach the top 10?

I think UAH will end up around .1 on the new baseline which would be 9th or 10th all time. I'd assume RSS will be similar.

I haven't been following the surface as closely, even though arguably HadCRUT and GISS are more accurate in the long run, because most posters here are more interested in UAH since it is the coldest source. But I think GISS finishes around 5th. HadCRUT maybe 7th.

[BethesdaWX]

I think UAH will end up around .1 on the new baseline which would be 9th or 10th all time. I'd assume RSS will be similar.

I haven't been following the surface as closely, even though arguably HadCRUT and GISS are more accurate in the long run, because most posters here are more interested in UAH since it is the coldest source. But I think GISS finishes around 5th. HadCRUT maybe 7th.

It has nothing to do with the "coldest source", its about the "best source"..... maybe for you it has to do with the final temperature trend (otherwise you wouldn't be defending GISS, and you'd use NCDC, or HADCRUT with NSIDC filling), but for me at least, that is irrelavent. If I was trying to show cooling, I'd be posting RSS constantly left and right which not has a distinct cooling trend since 1998 and 2002... but I'm mor eobjective than that.

GISS is not the best source for surface Data, NCDC is. For the Globe, both HADCRUT and NCDC have higher resolution than GISS. For the entire LT (completely different), UAH is a better source than RSS, and UAH has run warmer than RSS since the installation of AQUA in 2002. Although I heard that UAH is going to be adjusted downwards after 1998 in a data upgrade or something (I'll try to find this and post it, if I am recalling it correctly).

1) NCDC is "better" than both GISS & HADCRUT, and NSIDC filling in the Arctic is what should be used, not UAH if you're measuring the surface.

2) UAH & RSS are completely different, and measure the entire LT, not just the surface, so comparing them to GISS/NCDC/NCDC is quite irrational. UAH and RSS are the only sources that can be used at this time to measure the Entire tropospheric anomaly.

3) The error bar on UAH is +/- 0.05C/decade since 2002 AQUA regarding all known errors, (meteorological,statistical, etc), since drift is a non-issue, and will not be an issue again.

To measure more than just surface data, which is getting all kinds of boosted warming from Lowering GCC, use UAH.

[skierinvermont]

I'd be happy to use NCDC.. it shows almost the same exact thing as GISS, and follows GISS much more closely than HadCRUT.

Why? Because GISS and NCDC include the arctic and HadCRUT does not, and the arctic has warmed rapidly over the last 20 years.

[nzucker]

GISS is garbage. I've pointed out several glaring mistakes in spatial temperature accuracy that can be easily identified using models and satellite maps. Until they fix these obvious problems, I ain't buying it.

You are the weakest link, goodbye!

[BethesdaWX]

Ok, Good. Now, we can move on Here is NCDC sine 1979.

TO FIND THE GLOBAL ANOM:

- Not Counting the Poles, the Global Surface Temperature system with the Highest Resolution is HADCRUT, so we'll use that for the Global Base. HADCRUT doesn't include the poles, so we'll need to Infill

- For the Poles, we can use UAH, or NSIDC for the North Pole. NSIDC is surface data, so it may work out better by systemiatic method, but UAH has a better Method overall. But we need to use UAH for the Antarctic Region.

- Where HADCRUT/Surface has no data (parts of Africa, South America, Austrailia, etc), we'll use UAH data to infill there.

Thats the best way to do it, we don't need GISS and its horrible resolution stinking up the Data.

As for other Sources, RSS is clearly the coldest. But you don't see me ever mention RSS, do you? Nope!

Although if UAH is adjusted down as RSS has been, then I'd have no choice, so I hope the new version remains the same since you'd be screaming "Conspiracy!". Just know that you shouldn't base a decision off what the data shows.

[tacoman25]

I think UAH will end up around .1 on the new baseline which would be 9th or 10th all time. I'd assume RSS will be similar.

I haven't been following the surface as closely, even though arguably HadCRUT and GISS are more accurate in the long run, because most posters here are more interested in UAH since it is the coldest source. But I think GISS finishes around 5th. HadCRUT maybe 7th.

Nevermind that HadCRU has been much closer to UAH than GISS in recent years...

[BethesdaWX]

Nevermind that HadCRU has been much closer to UAH than GISS in recent years...

Thats a bit decieving since HADCRUT doesn't have Polar Data, so yes it'll be colder since it doesn't represent the entire globe.

HADCRUT Does have the highest reso where it measures, so GISS shouldn't even be Mentioned on this forum, its almost useless, we have NCDC and HADCRUT for surface temps, NSIDC for the Arctic/Pole, and UAH/RSS for the Lower Troposphere. STAR's errors regarding infrared channels have kept from being a mainstream operational system, and really may not be correctable, but whatev.

HADCRUT with UAH infilling on both poles, and in any other spots where HADCRUT shoots a blank can get you a good surface anomaly reading.

[ORH_wxman]

Guys, don't turn this into another source debate thread for global temperatures....we have a thread for that if we want to go that route again. If you are just comparing 2011 temps, that is fine, but this thread is supposed to be for 2011 global temps.

Otherwise, post in this thread:

http://www.americanw...h/page__st__320

[skierinvermont]

GISS is garbage. I've pointed out several glaring mistakes in spatial temperature accuracy that can be easily identified using models and satellite maps. Until they fix these obvious problems, I ain't buying it.

You are the weakest link, goodbye!

You continue to fail to understand the mathematical theory behind spatial weighting. Month to month the extrapolations are not intended to be accurate so your comparisons of monthly GISS to UAH spatial anomalies is very silly. When we remove the longest extrapolations (IE the arctic) and replace them with satellite data, the result doesn't change.

[skierinvermont]

Thats a bit decieving since HADCRUT doesn't have Polar Data, so yes it'll be colder since it doesn't represent the entire globe.

HADCRUT Does have the highest reso where it measures, so GISS shouldn't even be Mentioned on this forum, its almost useless, we have NCDC and HADCRUT for surface temps, NSIDC for the Arctic/Pole, and UAH/RSS for the Lower Troposphere. STAR's errors regarding infrared channels have kept from being a mainstream operational system, and really may not be correctable, but whatev.

HADCRUT with UAH infilling on both poles, and in any other spots where HADCRUT shoots a blank can get you a good surface anomaly reading.

I think we are finally agreeing on this. Your last post about using HadCRUT + UAH or NSIDC polar data is exactly what I've done before. I'm glad to see you finally recognizing the problems created by HadCRUT leaving the poles blank.

EDIT: Sorry Will I just saw your post... will go there now.

[tacoman25]

You continue to fail to understand the mathematical theory behind spatial weighting. Month to month the extrapolations are not intended to be accurate so your comparisons of monthly GISS to UAH spatial anomalies is very silly. When we remove the longest extrapolations (IE the arctic) and replace them with satellite data, the result doesn't change.

But since the early 2000s, it does. You already acknowledged this in the other thread. And that is the point where GISS began to diverge.

The monthly comparisons from GISS to UAH are not silly. You can prove they are if you find months where GISS extrapolates much colder than UAH (which should happen just as often, according to you). I haven't seen any months like that, which is why GISS continues to run considerably warmer than UAH.

[skierinvermont]

But since the early 2000s, it does. You already acknowledged this in the other thread. And that is the point where GISS began to diverge.

The monthly comparisons from GISS to UAH are not silly. You can prove they are if you find months where GISS extrapolates much colder than UAH (which should happen just as often, according to you). I haven't seen any months like that, which is why GISS continues to run considerably warmer than UAH.

Responded in appropriate thread, per ORH's request.