2011 Global Temperatures

[tacoman25]

What do you think of GISS coming down a lot, Taco?

Not that much. A bit surprising, they were still warmer than the satellite temps (on the same baseline), and I'm sure they will finish easily warmer for the year.

[iceicebyebye]

Since nzucker is emphasizing GISS, here is some long term (you know, that stuff related to "climate") data....This shows GISS monthly anomalies, along with a few other tidbits....The last 7 or so months are missing, including the ever so chilly .42 from May.

Nzucker, would you be expecting all of those angry reds to go away in the long term based on your latest projections?

Source: CE Journal

[tacoman25]

Since nzucker is emphasizing GISS, here is some long term (you know, that stuff related to "climate") data....This shows GISS monthly anomalies, along with a few other tidbits....The last 7 or so months are missing, including the ever so chilly .42 from May.

Nzucker, would you be expecting all of those angry reds to go away in the long term based on your latest projections?

Source: CE Journal

Angry reds!! Looks like we're really burning up!

[BethesdaWX]

Since nzucker is emphasizing GISS, here is some long term (you know, that stuff related to "climate") data....This shows GISS monthly anomalies, along with a few other tidbits....The last 7 or so months are missing, including the ever so chilly .42 from May.

Nzucker, would you be expecting all of those angry reds to go away in the long term based on your latest projections?

Source: CE Journal

GISS is just measuring the surface, you need to use UAH or RSS to measure the entire LT, because the surface readings are easily altered by non-AGW effects such as GCC (that is possibly why the surface has warmed faster than the LT, in an avg of 3-4W/m^2 on any given change of 5% in LLGCC). UAH & the new RSS have better resolution, and can measure the enture globe accurate enough to within a few hundreds of a degree C.

And either way, GISS has the word resolution of any surface temperature model, you should either use HADCRUT with UAH infilling over data-holes, or just use NCDC.

Be smart, and use the proper data-sources for the proper reasons.

[BethesdaWX]

It'll be interesting to see where GISS comes in for June since it dropped so much in May. This may be one of the rare cases where the satellites are running warmer than the surface.

GFS has dropped the 8-day global anomaly to .107C, showing the divergence that's been starting w/ the LT...just a few weeks ago, we were at +.3C on GFS:

Also, AMSU SSTs running very low, so Channel 5 seems like the outlier right now. Given that and the move towards Nina, I think we see a cooler finish to 2011. Last month wasn't terribly warm on UAH though, came in at .13C.

Also remember that May didn't change at all from April, depite the spike in Channel 5. Ever since they've done the update, Channel 5 has deviated from every other source, but that deviation has not yet shown in the final UAH anomaly. I'd be shocked if June didn't spike up from May given global synoptics (especially stratospheric influence preceding the descending easterly shear zone), but if it for some reason does not spike, then I'd be hesitant to continue following channel 5.

Also interesting to note that a few days ago, all the data on channel 5 from June 5th or so was removed, and came back the next day, maybe they are still working on the update? Thats the 3rd time they've done that.

[Clifford]

There is nothing unprecedented about the temperature "spike".

I'll try to run some comparisons with the official UAH and RSS TLT and TMT when they come out in July.

It was odd that it began when UAH was reporting temperatures 1 day in the future (forecast). But, even so, they were close to their final numbers. Anyway, I'm inclined to believe the numbers are valid for what their instruments are reading, although they may note be a good representation of surface temperatures.

Now that I have a few months of data from the Maue GFS page, perhaps I'll try to get the numbers typed in. They seem to jump around quite a bit.

[skierinvermont]

Didn't you say recently that it's silly to make daily comparisons?

I didn't (and never would) draw any conclusions. Snowlover did.

Your silly games of "gotcha" are pretty entertaining though.

[skierinvermont]

How many times do I have to explain to you Clifford that Ch5 is not TMT. Ch5 is the SOLE channel used to calculate both TLT and TMT. Your graph is really misleading.

[skierinvermont]

Just continuing the non-warming trend. With NASA's recent announcement about the solar min, IPCC is starting to look like a lost cause.

For a Nina, this year has been shockingly warm by pretty much everybody's expectations. Every single person guessed way too cold on this forum, including myself (though not as much as certain others).

[OHSnow]

Not that much. A bit surprising, they were still warmer than the satellite temps (on the same baseline), and I'm sure they will finish easily warmer for the year.

This is demonstrably false. Didn't think anyone would bother to fact check, did you?

GISS was cooler than UAH last month. GISS averaged .32C above normal for the period 1981-2010. Last month's .42C is .10C warmer than that. UAH was .13C above the 1981-2010 average.

[BethesdaWX]

For a Nina, this year has been shockingly warm by pretty much everybody's expectations. Every single person guessed way too cold on this forum, including myself (though not as much as certain others).

Everything has gone as I've expected thus far, maybe a little on the warm side due to the cold equatorial stratospheric influence preceding the descending easterly shear zone asociated with the -QBO returning(although the +QBO is doing all it can to hold its ground).....we're not even 1/2 way done with 2011, and we're at our warming peak right now. Given that UAH is barely above +0.02C so far in 2011, and due to the fact that we're at the peak now, I think my guess of "avg" may be close to reality.

Actually, the La Nina drop was actually stronger than I could have ever expected, we out-cooled the El Nino Spike in 2010, despite the fact that the La Nina was weaker, and we dropped 0.6C in 4 months...a new satellite era record.

RSS has averaged colder than UAH, and 2011 is now in negative territory on their new satellites. Avging RSS and UAH together, we're actually below avg still!

Note that UAH & RSS are on different baselines here.

[nzucker]

For a Nina, this year has been shockingly warm by pretty much everybody's expectations. Every single person guessed way too cold on this forum, including myself (though not as much as certain others).

UAH has averaged +.023C this year; 2008 ended with an average of -.04C. Besides the fact that the difference is not really statistically significant, I'd say being only .06C warmer than 2008 is quite an accomplishment given that we came off a stronger El Niño, have had a very +AMO, and have had a cold equatorial stratosphere. I don't understand how this constitutes "shockingly warm" but once again you continue to promote an obvious agenda. You had such a harsh reaction personally to being on the skeptic side for a while that you had to be revolted by skepticism when you switched back to mainstream thoughts. Silly...

Also, as I said before, I didn't know this year was over yet. I seem to remember June is only the 6th month of the year. Didn't they teach you back in elementary school that there are 12 months in a year? With the consensus now being weak Niña, the -PDO holding its ground, and the cold stratosphere fading...we should see the satellites come in pretty cold later in the year. SSTs are at the bottom of the pack on AMSU, and that means that it won't be long before we drop (probably 2-3 months). It's the same scenario we had earlier in the year with Channel 5 being as cold as 2008 despite SSTs being so much warmer: eventually, we had to warm to match the oceans, since they control the planet's climate. Same story here, except the other way around.

[Clifford]

How many times do I have to explain to you Clifford that Ch5 is not TMT. Ch5 is the SOLE channel used to calculate both TLT and TMT. Your graph is really misleading.

We've already discussed this in the past.

You are welcome to create your own charts if you wish.

The UAH Discover Site lists Ch5 as being:

"Daily global average temperature at: 14,000 ft / 600 mb (AQUA ch05)"

http://discover.itsc...S_ch05.r002.txt

I will continue to represent 14,000 feet as being in the middle of the troposphere.

The UAH Discover Site lists Ch4 as being:

"Daily global average temperature of near surface layer (ch04)"

http://discover.itsc...S_ch04.r000.txt

Unfortunately with their latest update, they have not continued to supply current Ch4 data.

When comparing the Discover Ch4 and Ch5 data to the UAH Published TLT and TMT Data,

The Ch4 Jumps around a bit, but generally follows the published TLT data.

The Ch5 follows the published TMT data quite closely. It varies significantly from the published TLT data.

While all the Daily UAH Discover data should be considered preliminary until the monthly reports are released, I will continue to represent the CH5 as TMT because the website represents it as the temperature nearest 14,000 feet, and it typically closely follows the published TMT dataset.

You are always welcome to post your own graphs if you think they are better representative of the global climate.

[Clifford]

When you look at the 1999 La Niña, (following the 1998 El Niño).

We really didn't hit the lowest temperatures until January 2000, over 1 year after the start of the La Niña.

We'll see how long the La Niña dominated weather lasts, but at this point one can't call it particularly remarkable either way.

[skierinvermont]

UAH has averaged +.023C this year; 2008 ended with an average of -.04C. Besides the fact that the difference is not really statistically significant, I'd say being only .06C warmer than 2008 is quite an accomplishment given that we came off a stronger El Niño, have had a very +AMO, and have had a cold equatorial stratosphere. I don't understand how this constitutes "shockingly warm" but once again you continue to promote an obvious agenda. You had such a harsh reaction personally to being on the skeptic side for a while that you had to be revolted by skepticism when you switched back to mainstream thoughts. Silly...

Also, as I said before, I didn't know this year was over yet. I seem to remember June is only the 6th month of the year. Didn't they teach you back in elementary school that there are 12 months in a year? With the consensus now being weak Niña, the -PDO holding its ground, and the cold stratosphere fading...we should see the satellites come in pretty cold later in the year. SSTs are at the bottom of the pack on AMSU, and that means that it won't be long before we drop (probably 2-3 months). It's the same scenario we had earlier in the year with Channel 5 being as cold as 2008 despite SSTs being so much warmer: eventually, we had to warm to match the oceans, since they control the planet's climate. Same story here, except the other way around.

To this point 2008 averaged below -.1C... didn't anybody ever teach you not to make an apples to orange comparison?

We have been nearly .15C warmer than 2008 to this point. After June finishes that will probably grow further.

Everybody here guessed way way too cold... to pretend that this kind of warmth was expected in a Nina year is just lying.

[skierinvermont]

This is demonstrably false. Didn't think anyone would bother to fact check, did you?

GISS was cooler than UAH last month. GISS averaged .32C above normal for the period 1981-2010. Last month's .42C is .10C warmer than that. UAH was .13C above the 1981-2010 average.

I guess taco didn't bother to do the math.

[skierinvermont]

We've already discussed this in the past.

You can certainly say that Ch5 = mid troposphere and CH4 = lower troposphere...

but you cannot say that CH5 = TMT and CH4 = TLT. TMT and TLT refer specifically to the calculated temperatures for a specific altitude band from UAH and RSS which are similar to but not the same as the distributions from CH4 and CH5.

Both TMT and TLT are calculated SOLELY based on CH5 data.

Your chart is factually misleading. End of story. Every time you post it I will continue to point out that CH4 is not the same thing as TLT.

In addition, it sounds like you are still using the old CH4 data, not AQUA. The old CH4 data is unsuitable for climate studies due to satellite drift.

[nzucker]

To this point 2008 averaged below -.1C... didn't anybody ever teach you not to make an apples to orange comparison?

We have been nearly .15C warmer than 2008 to this point. After June finishes that will probably grow further.

Everybody here guessed way way too cold... to pretend that this kind of warmth was expected in a Nina year is just lying.

08 started off unusually cold...

[Clifford]

You can certainly say that Ch5 = mid troposphere and CH4 = lower troposphere...

You are just going off the deep end here.

What do you think the TMT abbreviation stands for? Temperature mid troposphere.

On a daily basis, the UAH Ch5 data corresponds well to the TMT data that UAH releases on a monthly basis. See the chart above. I find it doubtful that they are able to recover two distinct data points from a single data point, although obviously they do further calculations on the data.

I have never intentionally represented it as anything other than the preliminary data from the Discover website.

As far as the point above, we will be able to confirm the "spike" in the Ch5 data when UAH releases their final TMT data in early July. Since Ch5 and TMT track very closely together, it will be obvious if it is later interpreted as a spurious reading, but I believe that it will show up in the final UAH TMT data.

Presumably the final June UAH and RSS data will both show a moderate increase in temperatures at both Global TLT and Global TMT elevations.

Since UAH is no longer publishing current Ch4 data, it will eventually be dropped from my comparative charts.

[tacoman25]

I didn't (and never would) draw any conclusions. Snowlover did.

Your silly games of "gotcha" are pretty entertaining though.

You just have a habit of applying different standards at different times. I know it's inconvenient, but I'm always happy to point out your biases.

[tacoman25]

This is demonstrably false. Didn't think anyone would bother to fact check, did you?

GISS was cooler than UAH last month. GISS averaged .32C above normal for the period 1981-2010. Last month's .42C is .10C warmer than that. UAH was .13C above the 1981-2010 average.

I meant for the year they are still easily warmer than the satellite temps. They were just barely cooler in May, yes (actually .11C anomaly vs. .13C for RSS/UAH on the 1981-2010 baseline). That happens occasionally, but GISS always manages to have a few months that are way warmer than RSS/UAH, and so they always end up easily warmer at the end of the year.

There is no doubt in my mind that and the end of 2011, if you put UAH/RSS and GISS on the same baseline, GISS will be warmer.

[skierinvermont]

You just have a habit of applying different standards at different times. I know it's inconvenient, but I'm always happy to point out your biases.

It's not a different standard. Snowlover drew a conclusion from a 1 day comparison. I did not and would never. It's clear that your bias prevents you from noticing these important distinctions.

[skierinvermont]

I meant for the year they are still easily warmer than the satellite temps. They were just barely cooler in May, yes (actually .11C anomaly vs. .13C for RSS/UAH on the 1981-2010 baseline). That happens occasionally, but GISS always manages to have a few months that are way warmer than RSS/UAH, and so they always end up easily warmer at the end of the year.

There is no doubt in my mind that and the end of 2011, if you put UAH/RSS and GISS on the same baseline, GISS will be warmer.

Nice cover up.. however your original statement clearly said that GISS was a bit warmer for the month.

Not that much. A bit surprising, they were still warmer than the satellite temps (on the same baseline), and I'm sure they will finish easily warmer for the year.

[skierinvermont]

You are just going off the deep end here.

What do you think the TMT abbreviation stands for? Temperature mid troposphere.

On a daily basis, the UAH Ch5 data corresponds well to the TMT data that UAH releases on a monthly basis. See the chart above. I find it doubtful that they are able to recover two distinct data points from a single data point, although obviously they do further calculations on the data.

I have never intentionally represented it as anything other than the preliminary data from the Discover website.

As far as the point above, we will be able to confirm the "spike" in the Ch5 data when UAH releases their final TMT data in early July. Since Ch5 and TMT track very closely together, it will be obvious if it is later interpreted as a spurious reading, but I believe that it will show up in the final UAH TMT data.

Presumably the final June UAH and RSS data will both show a moderate increase in temperatures at both Global TLT and Global TMT elevations.

Since UAH is no longer publishing current Ch4 data, it will eventually be dropped from my comparative charts.

Yes I know what they stand for which is why I said that CH4 may be similar to TLT, but it is not the same.

You can talk to Roy Spencer if you don't believe that both TLT and TMT are calculated from CH5. They use different view angles to determine the vertical profile. Or something like that.

I've provided the quotes from Spencer that Ch5 is the only channel used multiple times.

[skierinvermont]

08 started off unusually cold...

No it didn't.

The increase from the first half to the second half of 08 was pretty normal for a Nina year.

I have every reason we will see a similar increase from the first half to the second half of 2011. In fact, we've already seen a large increase so unless we see another large decrease, the second half of 2011 will easily finish much warmer than the first half.

[BethesdaWX]

No it didn't.

The increase from the first half to the second half of 08 was pretty normal for a Nina year.

I have every reason we will see a similar increase from the first half to the second half of 2011. In fact, we've already seen a large increase so unless we see another large decrease, the second half of 2011 will easily finish much warmer than the first half.

I'm sure you agree with Everything that I'm about to say here, (should be obvious), but just to be sure:

1) 2008 had much colder global SST's than we have this yr, at this time, likely due to the Strong 2010 El Nino.

2) The 2011 La Nina weakened Much faster than the 2008 La Nina, (This yr, by April, we were warmer than 2008 ever got). If you do not believe me, look at the SST data: http://www.osdpd.noa...st/anomaly.html The Warm Subsurface this yr made a push, but failed to Revive El Nino. But the effects in the ENSO regions are clear to the eye.

So No, we are not "shockingly warm" by any means, and you need to understand that. We are right where we should be given ENSO & Global SST conditions. The very fact that you'd say "shockingly warm" reveals an inherent bias on your part. I'm sorry dude, you need to sit back and think a bit, because that was one of your most Stupid and Idiotic assertions to date...(Aside from your assertion that the Sun cannot cause major long term changes in global temperature, that is the #1 laugher).

Another point, do you understand why the June/July period this Summer will likely be the technical "peak" of the rebound warming? Can you answer this question? Because I can, and I'm pretty sure you can to, you're a wicked smart dude, so you should be able to.

So Yes, given that RSS is still about -0.10C on the UAH baseline, and UAH is about +0.023C, in the end, with the drop at the end of the yr, we're likely to end up around +0.1C, in the end.

[skierinvermont]

I'm sure you agree with Everything that I'm about to say here, (should be obvious), but just to be sure:

1) 2008 had much colder global SST's than we have this yr, at this time, likely due to the Strong 2010 El Nino.

2) The 2011 La Nina weakened Much faster than the 2008 La Nina, if you do not believe me, look at the SST data: http://www.osdpd.noa...st/anomaly.html The Warm Subsurface this yr made a push, but failed to Revive El Nino. But the effects in the ENSO regions are clear to the eye.

So No, we are not "shockingly warm" by any means, and you need to understand that. We are right where we should be given ENSO & Global SST conditions. The very fact that you'd say "shockingly warm" reveals an inherent bias on your part. I'm sorry dude, you need to sit back and think a bit, because that was one of your most Stupid and Idiotic assertions to date...(Aside from your assertion that the Sun cannot cause major long term changes in global temperature, that is the #1 laugher).

Another point, do you understand why the June/July period this Summer will likely be the technical "peak" of the rebound warming? Can you answer this question? Because I can, and I'm pretty sure you can to, you're a wicked smart dude, so you should be able to.

So Yes, given that RSS is still about -0.10C on the UAH baseline, and UAH is about +0.023C, in the end, with the drop at the end of the yr, we're likely to end up around +0.1C, in the end.

I agree with #1.. but I do not think #2 makes much difference. The ONI for this year has been within a tenth or two of 2008 (a tenth or two lower Oct-Dec and a tenth or two higher Feb-Apr). Pretty much a wash... should make very little difference at all. The primary factor is #1 ... but I do not believe that can account for all of it. You and I both agreed on #1 before this year even started, and yet it will likely end up being much warmer than either of us predicted. We both agreed a Nina following a Nino would be warmer... and yet we both guessed much too cold.

My primary conclusion is just that the 07-09 period was unusually cold for some inexplicable natural reasons which I could only guess at. One of which could be the absolute dead bottom of the solar cycle.

This year is shockingly warm. I can think of no obvious explanations for why 2011 is going to end up being so much warmer than 2008. And I'm NOT saying it's AGW.. which would have a minimal affect over 3 years. I'm saying even considering the fact that this Nina followed a Nino, it still was much warmer than you or I or anybody else thought it would be. Which is the very definition of surprisingly warm. Why I all know your point #1 was going to cause it to be warmer than 2008... and yet we still did not guess warm enough. Clearly it is warmer than we expected.

[BethesdaWX]

I agree with #1.. but I do not think #2 makes much difference. The ONI for this year has been within a tenth or two of 2008 (a tenth or two lower Oct-Dec and a tenth or two higher Feb-Apr). Pretty much a wash... should make very little difference at all. The primary factor is #1 ... but I do not believe that cannot account for all of it. You and I both agreed on #1 before this year even started, and yet it will likely end up being much warmer than either of us predicted. We both agreed a Nina following a Nino would be warmer... and yet we both guessed much too cold.

My primary conclusion is just that the 07-09 period was unusually cold for some inexplicable natural reasons which I could only guess at. One of which could be the absolute dead bottom of the solar cycle.

This year is shockingly warm. I can think of no obvious explanations for why 2011 is going to end up being so much warmer than 2008. And I'm NOT saying it's AGW.. which would have a minimal affect over 3 years. I'm saying even considering the fact that this Nina followed a Nino, it still was much warmer than you or I or anybody else thought it would be. Which is the very definition of surprisingly warm. Why I all know your point #1 was going to cause it to be warmer than 2008... and yet we still did not guess warm enough. Clearly it is warmer than we expected.

Oh, well theres the problem. Check out the differences regarding the timing of ENSO change.

Mid FEB, Mid MAR, Mid APR, Mid MAY, & Mid JUNE comparing 2011 to 2008:

Remember the 5 month Lag

Mid FEB 2011 vs 2008

Mid MAR 2011 vs 2008:

Mid April 2011 vs 2008:

Mid May 2011 vs 2008:

Mid June 2011 vs 2008:

So as you can see, 2008 was overall a colder year...La Nina had a much more potent signal GLOBALLY in 2008 than it has this yr, overall.

I apologize for my unecessary insults towards you in my earlier post, I tend to get carried away there sometimes, I was wrong there, and I regret it.

But the differences in Global SST's, and perhaps simple natural varability in a chaotic climate system, probably account for most of the difference in my eyes.

[tacoman25]

It's not a different standard. Snowlover drew a conclusion from a 1 day comparison. I did not and would never. It's clear that your bias prevents you from noticing these important distinctions.

You have responded negatively to one day comparisons in the past. Yet you have done the same thing yourself. Pretty straightforward. Just like you have held skeptic scientists to different standards than guys like Hansen, and defended Hansen while attacking Spencer.

Your bias certainly does affect your judgements.

[tacoman25]

Nice cover up.. however your original statement clearly said that GISS was a bit warmer for the month.

I'm not covering anything up. I honestly meant GISS was still running warmer for the year. Which is why I finished with "and I think they will finish easily warmer for the year". I can see how it could be read the way you and Ytterbium read it, I was just rushing thoughts together too quickly. I think you can see what I meant as well...my statement never said that GISS was warmer for the month, that's just how you read it.

I would think by now you would know better than to accuse me of lying. Guess not.