2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

Remember that we're on the new baseline though, so .08C=-.02C....and the AMSU charts show we've been falling off a cliff lately in terms of global temperatures, so we'll have to see if that trend continues..that could imply the last third of the month averages farther below normal than the first 2/3.

Interesting that global SSTs seem to be dropping rapidly now, even when 2008 had leveled out some with respect to SST anomalies.

Last month was on the new baseline as well .. so no conversion is necessary. Last month was .18C on UAH.. this month is running .1C colder on CH.5 so so we're probably around .08C right now, but dropping.

[nzucker]

Ok good we agree. Glad you changed your mind.

I think "torch" is a bad word to use, though. Canada will probably finish the winter with near average temperatures given the pattern forecasted for the next few weeks with the bitterly cold polar vortex sitting over Hudson Bay/Baffin Island. Large areas of the country, many of which are crucial to our cold air delivery, have been well below average this winter. I think it's remarkable how many areas of the Northern Hemisphere have seen "extreme cold" this winter including Western Europe, Scandinavia, Japan, Mongolia, and the Eastern U.S. Looking at RSS maps and 500mb height anomaly maps, the area of blue does seem to be expanding. Lots more regions with below average 500mb heights compared to last winter...

So we agree here as well since I said UAH would be about 0-.1C right now. No way to know exactly.. but definitely not the -.2C Bethesda said. I arrive at a similar figure to you based on the fact that Ch. 5 is .09C colder than last month so far and last month was .18C on UAH.

And all of this is relative to a 1979-2010 baseline which is no way representative of the long-term average.

So to claim we are ".2C below average" is just laughable. Even on UAH we are 0-.1C.. and compared to the long-term average we are more like .3-.4C.

I think he was talking about the daily anomaly, you're talking about the monthly anomaly.

Also, "average" is a tricky word...we can always argue about when changing conditions require a changing baseline/standard.

[skierinvermont]

I said todays (JAN 23) alone was -0.3C based on Ryan Maui's site... not the month as a whole... hence the quote "as we speak".

I think "torch" is a bad word to use, though. Canada will probably finish the winter with near average temperatures given the pattern forecasted for the next few weeks with the bitterly cold polar vortex sitting over Hudson Bay/Baffin Island. Large areas of the country, many of which are crucial to our cold air delivery, have been well below average this winter. I think it's remarkable how many areas of the Northern Hemisphere have seen "extreme cold" this winter including Western Europe, Scandinavia, Japan, Mongolia, and the Eastern U.S. Looking at RSS maps and 500mb height anomaly maps, the area of blue does seem to be expanding. Lots more regions with below average 500mb heights compared to last winter...

I think he was talking about the daily anomaly, you're talking about the monthly anomaly.

Also, "average" is a tricky word...we can always argue about when changing conditions require a changing baseline/standard.

Doesn't make a difference.. CH 5 is not representative of the anomaly. Not quite sure why but UAH always runs higher than CH5.

So even if the Ch5 daily is -.3C that would still be around -.1C on UAH for a daily value. Not -.3C.

And that's still using a 1979-2010 baseline which is in no way representative of the long term average.

So to go around claiming the globe is .3C below average is egregiously wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

Doesn't make a difference.. CH 5 is not representative of the anomaly. Not quite sure why but UAH always runs higher than CH5.

So even if the Ch5 daily is -.3C that would still be around -.1C on UAH for a daily value. Not -.3C.

And that's still using a 1979-2010 baseline which is in no way representative of the long term average.

So to go around claiming the globe is .3C below average is egregiously wrong.

Wait until it shows up in 2 days.

[skierinvermont]

Wait until it shows up in 2 days.

I guess, yet again, you did not read what I wrote.

I have no doubt that in 2 days it will show up as -.3C on Channel 5. However, Channel 5 is not representative of UAH. UAH usually runs a couple tenths warmer than Ch. 5.

If there were such a thing as an instantaneous UAH value it would be about -.1C right now.

[BethesdaWX]

I guess, yet again, you did not read what I wrote.

I have no doubt that in 2 days it will show up as -.3C on Channel 5. However, Channel 5 is not representative of UAH. UAH usually runs a couple tenths warmer than Ch. 5.

If there were such a thing as an instantaneous UAH value it would be about -.1C right now.

I did.. I'm using the daily, not the weekly.

I'm basing this off AMSU, usually it runs at most +0.15C in comparison to UAH, sometimes it has come in even lower.

Man, this drop is pretty insane.

[nzucker]

Man, this drop is pretty insane.

Yeah, it's pretty awesome dude. We'll see how long it continues as the UAH data tends to have wild swings on a weekly basis. It's encouraging to see that global SSTs are still dropping, even when the seasonal trend on the AMSU chart usually has them rising at this point.

I am feeling the chill...currently 8.1F outside my house. Must be global cooling. Sweet.

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah, it's pretty awesome dude. We'll see how long it continues as the UAH data tends to have wild swings on a weekly basis. It's encouraging to see that global SSTs are still dropping, even when the seasonal trend on the AMSU chart usually has them rising at this point.

I am feeling the chill...currently 8.1F outside my house. Must be global cooling. Sweet.

hehe, thats pretty fookin cold. 12 degrees here.. with how cold it is, I want a HECS!

Its also great to see cooling since 2002 continues after the El Nino interruption... this consistant with the solar drop. Unfortunately, GCC is canceling alot of it out, as well as the warmer AMO in the arctic & the Sea ice... but, its all good!

[skierinvermont]

I did.. I'm using the daily, not the weekly.

I'm basing this off AMSU, usually it runs at most +0.15C in comparison to UAH, sometimes it has come in even lower.

Man, this drop is pretty insane.

AMSU is quite frequently a full .3C cooler than UAH.For the full month of December AMSU was .18C cooler than UAH.

[BethesdaWX]

AMSU is quite frequently a full .3C cooler than UAH.For the full month of December AMSU was .18C cooler than UAH.

The .18 is the largest anom I've seen in awhile. Usually its below .15, more like .08-.1

[skierinvermont]

The .18 is the largest anom I've seen in awhile. Usually its below .15, more like .08-.1

Wrong. It's frequently more.

[BethesdaWX]

Wrong. It's frequently more.

Not in La Nina dude... You realize in 2008 it ws often lower, right?

[skierinvermont]

Not in La Nina dude... You realize in 2008 it ws often lower, right?

Some recent months from 2008 and 2009

March 08 was -.2C AMSU -.07C UAH; difference +.13C

April 08 was -.2C AMSU -.02C UAH; difference +.18C

Sept 08 was -.01C AMSU .14C UAH; difference +.15C

Oct 08 was -.04C AMSU .13C UAH; difference +.17C

Nov 08 was -.02C AMSU .17C UAH; difference +.19C

January 2009 was -.01C AMSU .15C UAH; difference +.16C

Feb 09 was 0.0C AMSU .16C UAH; difference +.16C

March 09 was -.05C AMSU .09C UAH; difference .14C

June 09 was -.18C AMSU -.01C UAH; difference .18C

[BethesdaWX]

Some recent months from 2008 and 2009

March 08 was -.2C AMSU -.07C UAH; difference +.13C

April 08 was -.2C AMSU -.02C UAH; difference +.18C

Sept 08 was -.01C AMSU .14C UAH; difference +.15C

Oct 08 was -.04C AMSU .13C UAH; difference +.17C

Nov 08 was -.02C AMSU .17C UAH; difference +.19C

January 2009 was -.01C AMSU .15C UAH; difference +.16C

Feb 09 was 0.0C AMSU .16C UAH; difference +.16C

March 09 was -.05C AMSU .09C UAH; difference .14C

June 09 was -.18C AMSU -.01C UAH; difference .18C

This isn't AQUA

[skierinvermont]

This isn't AQUA

Yes it is. It comes directly from here: http://discover.itsc...S_ch05.r002.txt

Note the heading: Daily global average temperature at: 14,000 ft / 600 mb (AQUA ch05 v2)

[BethesdaWX]

Yes it is. It comes directly from here: http://discover.itsc...S_ch05.r002.txt

Note the heading: Daily global average temperature at: 14,000 ft / 600 mb (AQUA ch05 v2)

I meant this isn't AQUA we're talking about here... "this" as the subject, our conversation....grammer dude. I'm going off data from Ryan Maui's site on surface anom, google it and you'll see what I speak of.

[skierinvermont]

I meant this isn't AQUA we're talking about here... "this" as the subject, our conversation....grammer dude. I'm going off data from Ryan Maui's site on surface anom, google it and you'll see what I speak of.

You quoted me and said "this isn't aqua." Therefore "this" is most reasonably interpreted as referring to the quoted text. The quoted text was Aqua. You need to think more about how you communicate so that your intended communication is more clear.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what data source you use. Global temperatures are not .3C "below average" They are most likely around .3C above the long-term average.

[BethesdaWX]

You quoted me and said "this isn't aqua." Therefore "this" is most reasonably interpreted as referring to the quoted text. The quoted text was Aqua. You need to think more about how you communicate so that your intended communication is more clear.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what data source you use. Global temperatures are not .3C "below average" They are most likely around .3C above the long-term average.

Define "long term". The past 120yrs? Who uses that as a base?

In the LIA, we're probably +1C above the mean. In the MWP, we're probably -1C below the mean......my point, the base you choose has to be representative of the atmospheric base during that time... the past 120yrs experienced a fast warming trend, whether it was Co2, Solar, or Aliens..... its not wise to use that timeframe as a base, if we even can do such a thing.

[skierinvermont]

Define "long term". The past 120yrs? Who uses that as a base?

In the LIA, we're probably +1C above the mean. In the MWP, we're probably -1C below the mean......my point, the base you choose has to be representative of the atmospheric base during that time... the past 120yrs experienced a fast warming trend, whether it was Co2, Solar, or Aliens..... its not wise to use that timeframe as a base, if we even can do such a thing.

NOAA's index of globalT does (actually 1900-2000).

The whole point of the temperature index is to measure how much we've warmed. Therefore the best base to use would be something like 1900-2000. No matter how you slice it, saying we are .3C below average is just wrong. Most people would interpret that as being .3C below the long-term average, which we are not. We're .3C above the long term average. And as I pointed out, we're not even .3C below the 30 year average.. more like -.1C.

[BethesdaWX]

NOAA's index of globalT does (actually 1900-2000).

The whole point of the temperature index is to measure how much we've warmed. Therefore the best base to use would be something like 1900-2000. No matter how you slice it, saying we are .3C below average is just wrong. Most people would interpret that as being .3C below the long-term average, which we are not. We're .3C above the long term average. And as I pointed out, we're not even .3C below the 30 year average.. more like -.1C.

The whole point of the base is to determine how huch we've warmed? We can determine how much we've warmed without using the global avg for 120yrs as the base for the global temp anomaly, just so our anomalies look warmer, when the point is to show the deviation from the avg that best represents the current time period.

[LakeEffectKing]

It will be interesting to see just how long the Ch. 5 stays below average now. Obviously several indices are pointing toward a continuation of below the new average base period, but will we be able to tease out the hypothesized solar influence (that many of us suggested should commence immenently after lag) as the ENSO index begins it's inevitable rebound from a La Nina state in a few months or so.....

[WeatherRusty]

It will be interesting to see just how long the Ch. 5 stays below average now. Obviously several indices are pointing toward a continuation of below the new average base period, but will we be able to tease out the hypothesized solar influence (that many of us suggested should commence immenently after lag) as the ENSO index begins it's inevitable rebound from a La Nina state in a few months or so.....

The measured variance peak to trough over the 11 year solar cycle is about 0.1C. It follows from this that global temperature should be near 0.05C below the averaged solar output at the present time, and maybe at bit lower than that given the extended period of solar minimum we have recently experienced.

The concept of a lag period has a physical explanation. The system has not reacted fully to a change in forcing until all warming or cooling is complete to equilibrium with the change in forcing. Usually full equilibrium is not yet reached in the 5.5 year period of one solar phase before the forcing changes direction. Given more time stuck in one phase a more complete equilibrium will be reached and in addition positive feedback will have time to amplify warming or cooling further.

[tacoman25]

You quoted me and said "this isn't aqua." Therefore "this" is most reasonably interpreted as referring to the quoted text. The quoted text was Aqua. You need to think more about how you communicate so that your intended communication is more clear.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what data source you use. Global temperatures are not .3C "below average" They are most likely around .3C above the long-term average.

It's pretty silly that you are saying this about a data source that only goes back to 1979.

Why weren't you insisting we use a 120 year base last year during the El Nino warming? You are clearly now trying to downplay the current cooling.

[skierinvermont]

It's pretty silly that you are saying this about a data source that only goes back to 1979.

Why weren't you insisting we use a 120 year base last year during the El Nino warming? You are clearly now trying to downplay the current cooling.

Hm? I have always said a long-term base or equivalent is best for measuring how much we have warmed.

I wasn't saying it about a data-set that only goes back to 1979. I'm saying it based on multiple other data-sets that go back farther and are more accurate anyways.

[BethesdaWX]

Hm? I have always said a long-term base or equivalent is best for measuring how much we have warmed.

I wasn't saying it about a data-set that only goes back to 1979. I'm saying it based on multiple other data-sets that go back farther and are more accurate anyways.

Nothing is more accurate these days than satellite, because they have more coverage, higher resolution, & no need to extrapolate. You can't comprare a 120yr avg to a dataset that does back 32yrs, its that simple.

[skierinvermont]

Nothing is more accurate these days than satellite, because they have more coverage, higher resolution, & no need to extrapolate. You can't comprare a 120yr avg to a dataset that does back 32yrs, its that simple.

Except, as I already pointed out, we have very little idea how to correct for satellite drift and switching between satellites. That means UAH and RSS are likely to be quite inaccurate. No wonder they are in such large disagreement.

[nzucker]

Except, as I already pointed out, we have very little idea how to correct for satellite drift and switching between satellites. That means UAH and RSS are likely to be quite inaccurate. No wonder they are in such large disagreement.

I don't think they're in that much disagreement with each other, or the surface data, regarding trends (with the exception of the last few years of GISS data where a significant divergence has developed)...Both the satellites and the surface data generally agree on a steady warming trend somewhere around .15C or so per decade, they both show that 1998 and 2010 were two of the warmest years on record globally, that 2008 was a cooler year globally, that global temperatures have decreased significantly in the last couple of months with the onset of a strong -ENSO regime. Considering how difficult it is to measure the world's climate to a hundredth of a degree, I find the concurrence quite remarkable. UAH may be a cool outlier and GISS a warm outlier, but they're all essentially saying the same thing in terms of the science and public policy...we've warmed significantly since 1979, the warming trend has slowed but not stopped completely since 1998, etc.

Also, looking at the RSS monthly temperature anomaly map for December 2010 versus GISS, they both are pinpointing the same areas as warm or cold...it's just that the satellites seemed to be a little more extreme with the cold anomalies over Europe and South America. GISS was a little cooler in the Black Sea region and a bit warmer in Canada, some of the areas that were doubtless extrapolated. Overall, GISS does seem to have a warm bias, and the satellites a cool slant (partially due to the LT warming less due to whatever reason)...but they're pretty close in showing the location of anomalous temperatures.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think they're in that much disagreement with each other, or the surface data, regarding trends (with the exception of the last few years of GISS data where a significant divergence has developed)...Both the satellites and the surface data generally agree on a steady warming trend somewhere around .15C or so per decade, they both show that 1998 and 2010 were two of the warmest years on record globally, that 2008 was a cooler year globally, that global temperatures have decreased significantly in the last couple of months with the onset of a strong -ENSO regime. Considering how difficult it is to measure the world's climate to a hundredth of a degree, I find the concurrence quite remarkable. UAH may be a cool outlier and GISS a warm outlier, but they're all essentially saying the same thing in terms of the science and public policy...we've warmed significantly since 1979, the warming trend has slowed but not stopped completely since 1998, etc.

Also, looking at the RSS monthly temperature anomaly map for December 2010 versus GISS, they both are pinpointing the same areas as warm or cold...it's just that the satellites seemed to be a little more extreme with the cold anomalies over Europe and South America. GISS was a little cooler in the Black Sea region and a bit warmer in Canada, some of the areas that were doubtless extrapolated. Overall, GISS does seem to have a warm bias, and the satellites a cool slant (partially due to the LT warming less due to whatever reason)...but they're pretty close in showing the location of anomalous temperatures.

With respect to the satellites it's not just UAH vs RSS.. it's UAH vs RSS vs Fu et al. vs Vinnikov. The latter showing 1.5X as much LT warming over the last 30 years as the former. And the others being varying points in between.

Also, claiming GISS has a warm bias implies that it's wrong, when in fact it is likely correct. HadCRUT is biased cold by missing the extreme arctic warmth. GISS shows much less warming than either Fu et al. or Vinnikov et al. which are derived from the satellite data.

[nzucker]

More hypocrisy from the one who makes a big stink over how GISS is way too warm, when the difference between UAH and RSS is far larger than the difference between GISS and HadCRUT.

Moreover, with respect to the satellites it's not just UAH vs RSS.. it's UAH vs RSS vs Fu et al. vs Grinsky. The latter showing nearly twice as much LT warming over the last 30 years as the former. And the others being varying points in between.

I just find GISS objectionable because much of the warm anomalies are arrived at through extrapolation, and James Hansen doesn't seem like the type of person I'd want to trust with these techniques and measurements. You have a valid point that the warmth on GISS is partially due to the fact that surface temperatures have unexpectedly warmed more than the lower troposphere; this is contrary to what AGW theory assumed, and the reasons need to be investigated further. But I also found some "questionable areas" on GISS' December 2010 anomaly map. It seems that extrapolation ruins some of the subtleties of climate...for example, most of Northern Canada/Canadian Archipelago was above average, but there was a small area of the Yukon and NW Territories that were colder...you could clearly see this on computer modeling. However, GISS didn't pick up on this whereas RSS did, which makes we wonder if low-resolution extrapolation is a good way to measure global temps.

I'm not familiar with the other studies...I just look at the raw data. But I'll read them if they're public domain or you can post them here somehow.

[skierinvermont]

I just find GISS objectionable because much of the warm anomalies are arrived at through extrapolation, and James Hansen doesn't seem like the type of person I'd want to trust with these techniques and measurements. You have a valid point that the warmth on GISS is partially due to the fact that surface temperatures have unexpectedly warmed more than the lower troposphere; this is contrary to what AGW theory assumed, and the reasons need to be investigated further. But I also found some "questionable areas" on GISS' December 2010 anomaly map. It seems that extrapolation ruins some of the subtleties of climate...for example, most of Northern Canada/Canadian Archipelago was above average, but there was a small area of the Yukon and NW Territories that were colder...you could clearly see this on computer modeling. However, GISS didn't pick up on this whereas RSS did, which makes we wonder if low-resolution extrapolation is a good way to measure global temps.

I'm not familiar with the other studies...I just look at the raw data. But I'll read them if they're public domain or you can post them here somehow.

Again that's because you don't understand the law of large numbers and the fact that the extrapolations balance out in the end. One can form an accurate index of global temperatures for the last 120 years by selecting as few as 60 random stations worldwide and extrapolating 5X farther than GISS typically does. The final result will still match GISS and HadCRUT even though you are using 1/100th the number of stations and extrapolating 5X farther.

The GISS extrapolations are actually much shorter than they need to be to form an accurate index of long term global temperatures. Also James Hansen isn't the one responsible for it.. the code and data is available publicly and is reproducible by any dumb-**** with a computer. It has been reviewed and scrutinized in peer-reviewed journals.

The studies are public here is Vinnikov et al.

http://www.atmos.umd...005JD006392.pdf

Fu et al. 2004:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...2524-UW-MSU.pdf