2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

It would be hard not to...we're not in a strong Niña anymore. Also, February and March were pretty chilly by modern standards with -.01C and -.10C. That being said, I think June and July will be easily the warmest months on the satellites with a dramatic drop as the Niña reasserts itself with the cold stratosphere waning a bit. AMSU also shows that SSTs are just barely above 2008 at this point, so we have room for cooling in that regard. Of course, much will depend on ENSO; if we start heading back into a moderate Niña as the CFS shows, then November/December could end the year pretty chilly given the warmer stratospheric signal with a -QBO/solar min. However, I tend to think the ECM plumes are more realistic with a neutral to slightly neutral-negative regime occurring by Winter 11-12. There's certainly some bubbles of cold water appearing in the subsurface, strong trade winds, and a massive -PDO...so a resurgence of the Niña will need to be watched. I still think the winter is probably similar to 08-09 in terms of ENSO but not quite as strong, maybe -0.5C. All this uncertainty makes it hard to know how we'll finish on UAH/RSS.

+.21C seems like an unrealistic guess, however. AMSU Channel 5 has begun to drop again, global SSTs are below the mean on Discover, and we've only averaged .04C so far. In order to verify that guess, UAH would have to average .33C for the remaining 7 months of the year. I doubt we get there....

It's a bit easier to do in a strong Niño. You knew we'd finish a bit below 1998 but not that far. There were fewer uncertainties with ENSO since you knew we'd peak near 1.8C at that point, and it is clear from history that a dip occurs rapidly after a strong Niño, but not rapidly enough to counteract the warm months given the long lag period. I think this has been a harder year to guess...many of us didn't expect El Niño to give us a run for the money, November and December 2010 came in pretty warm on the satellites which may have slanted some warmer, etc.

The ENSO evolution this year has been very typical following a La Nina... to claim that this was somehow unexpected doesn't make much sense. Maybe if some of the models predicting Nino had actually panned out then, yeah, you might have a point. As it is, El Nino didn't "give us a run for our money" except in model (and Hansen) fantasy land. In reality, we will come nowhere close to El Nino territory and the ENSO evolution will be very typical.

I don't think this year was any harder to predict really... my .03C will still end up being reasonably accurate although a bit too cool. Either the prior year's Nino exerted more influence than I expected, or there is some other inexplicable phenomenon going on, perhaps the more active sun relative to 2008.

[tacoman25]

I predicted both surface and satellite within .01 and .04C respectively 12 months in advance last year... 6 month lead time is much much easier than that. Not only do we know what the temperatures were for the last 6 months but we also have a much much better idea of how ENSO will evolve over the final 6 months of the year.

Given that the first 6 months will average .06C (assuming June comes in at +.2 based on CH5). And the second half of the year will almost certainly fall between .0-.25.. mathematically we know UAH will fall between .03C and .15C for the year.

Unless somehow UAH averages below .00C or above .25C for the final six months.. which I find very unlikely. That's pretty much what I would consider a 95% confidence interval... so between .03C and .15C for the year. Most likely pretty close to .1C.

That's nice, but it was just one year.

[skierinvermont]

That's nice, but it was just one year.

Certain individuals (including myself) have consistently had fairly accurate global temp predictions year after year. And that's with a 12 month lead time... which is much harder than once we're already halfway through the year. Pure math basically constrains us to a pretty narrow range at this point barring some cataclysm. Certain other individuals have consistently predicted incorrectly year in and year out.

Through June UAH will be .06C and the second half will likely finish warmer.

Are you actually suggesting UAH could finish below .03C for the year at this point, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[tacoman25]

Certain individuals (including myself) have consistently had fairly accurate global temp predictions year after year. And that's with a 12 month lead time... which is much harder than once we're already halfway through the year. Pure math basically constrains us to a pretty narrow range at this point barring some cataclysm. Certain other individuals have consistently predicted incorrectly year in and year out.

Through June UAH will be .06C and the second half will likely finish warmer.

Are you actually suggesting UAH could finish below .03C for the year at this point, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Link?

I'm not arguing anything except that 1 year of guessing global temps accurately is a pretty short record that doesn't really prove anything (acting otherwise just makes you look arrogant), and that halfway through the year is too early to draw conclusions about the final numbers for the year.

[BethesdaWX]

Given that we were having an OHC debate here a little while ago, Dr. Roy Spencer came out with an interesting piece on OHC changes and the effects on Global Temperature.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Seems to work in Tandom with what ORH_WxMan had been saying earlier.

[skierinvermont]

Link?

I'm not arguing anything except that 1 year of guessing global temps accurately is a pretty short record that doesn't really prove anything (acting otherwise just makes you look arrogant), and that halfway through the year is too early to draw conclusions about the final numbers for the year.

It is not too early. Unless you are seriously suggesting the second half of the year will finish below 0C or above .25C, the yearly temp will come to between .03C and .15C, and most likely right about .1C. This is just basic math.

So let's be clear.. are you actually suggesting that the global temperature may be below 0C for the second half of the year? That is the only way that anybody's guess for UAH (except Rusty) will be correct.

I will give anyone that wants them 4:1 odds that the second half of the year is above 0C. Pretty funny that anybody would even consider this a possibility at this point.

[tacoman25]

It is not too early. Unless you are seriously suggesting the second half of the year will finish below 0C or above .25C, the yearly temp will come to between .03C and .15C, and most likely right about .1C. This is just basic math.

So let's be clear.. are you actually suggesting that the global temperature may be below 0C for the second half of the year? That is the only way that anybody's guess for UAH (except Rusty) will be correct.

I will give anyone that wants them 4:1 odds that the second half of the year is above 0C. Pretty funny that anybody would even consider this a possibility at this point.

.03C to .15C is a pretty big range for a yearly number.

I am suggesting that acting like your good guess from last year means you are a pro at guessing global temps is just silly. And it certainly doesn't guarantee anything about future results.

[ORH_wxman]

.03C to .15C is a pretty big range for a yearly number.

I am suggesting that acting like your good guess from last year means you are a pro at guessing global temps is just silly. And it certainly doesn't guarantee anything about future results.

Anyone claiming they are a good forecaster over a sample size less than about 15 is a complete clown and even that is stretching it. 15 is only useful if you hit about 12-13 of them. I do short/medium range forecasting for a living so I have a lot of sample sizes in both medium and short range...I always shake my head at people who think they are good because they "nailed" one storm or "nailed" one year if it was an annual prediction (whether its snowfall, sea ice, global temp, departure from normal at BOS, etc)...and I know the feeling of nailing a year or two at a young age.

It creates the feeling of invincibility, but then you are quickly humbled. The single most important aspect of a forecaster is to grade themselves fairly. A lot of forecasters do not...they do the whole "well I kind of got it right, so I'm happy" and do not own up to busts. That is a fast track to becoming a delusional bad forecaster. That's the last thing you want. I'm not out to pick on skier here, but I thought I would make this comment because if anyone is interested in becoming a "skilled" forecaster at any particular parameter of meteorology, you need to be honest about your grading, and also not get carried away with terribly low sample sizes.

[skierinvermont]

.03C to .15C is a pretty big range for a yearly number.

I am suggesting that acting like your good guess from last year means you are a pro at guessing global temps is just silly. And it certainly doesn't guarantee anything about future results.

I'm not saying it based on last year, I'm saying it based on math.

All I said was that the large majority of us will bust too cold. Which you disagreed with. Which means you must think that global temperatures could fall below .03C. Which is extremely unlikely at this point.

[skierinvermont]

Anyone claiming they are a good forecaster over a sample size less than about 15 is a complete clown and even that is stretching it. 15 is only useful if you hit about 12-13 of them. I do short/medium range forecasting for a living so I have a lot of sample sizes in both medium and short range...I always shake my head at people who think they are good because they "nailed" one storm or "nailed" one year if it was an annual prediction (whether its snowfall, sea ice, global temp, departure from normal at BOS, etc)...and I know the feeling of nailing a year or two at a young age.

It creates the feeling of invincibility, but then you are quickly humbled. The single most important aspect of a forecaster is to grade themselves fairly. A lot of forecasters do not...they do the whole "well I kind of got it right, so I'm happy" and do not own up to busts. That is a fast track to becoming a delusional bad forecaster. That's the last thing you want. I'm not out to pick on skier here, but I thought I would make this comment because if anyone is interested in becoming a "skilled" forecaster at any particular parameter of meteorology, you need to be honest about your grading, and also not get carried away with terribly low sample sizes.

I generally would agree about the 15 forecast minimum for most types of forecasts,, but I think when you are able to quantify a forecast well (ie the actual forecast can be reduced to a quantitative #, and you can give standard deviations for the phenomenon being forecasted) then you can grade a forecaster after just 3-4 forecasts. The probability of being within .1 standard deviations 3 times in a row is extremely small by chance alone, and we could probably deduce a high degree of skill.

[ORH_wxman]

I generally would agree about the 15 forecast minimum for most types of forecasts,, but I think when you are able to quantify a forecast well (ie the actual forecast can be reduced to a quantitative #, and you can give standard deviations for the phenomenon being forecasted) then you can grade a forecaster after just 3-4 forecasts. The probability of being within .1 standard deviations 3 times in a row is extremely small by chance alone, and we could probably deduce a high degree of skill.

Being within 0.1 standard devs several times in a row is pretty unrealistic. Its likely aided by luck. Your scenario comes up infrequently...but my general point still stands.

[tacoman25]

I'm not saying it based on last year, I'm saying it based on math.

All I said was that the large majority of us will bust too cold. Which you disagreed with. Which means you must think that global temperatures could fall below .03C. Which is extremely unlikely at this point.

This is what you said and what I was responding to: you said about Weather Rusty's guesses (below) that GISS would be too cold and UAH would be close. I said it was too early to make judgements like that, which is true.

GISS = 0.48C

UAH = 0.21C

[skierinvermont]

Being within 0.1 standard devs several times in a row is pretty unrealistic. Its likely aided by luck. Your scenario comes up infrequently...but my general point still stands.

Well just to give an example, the high temp for Boston can be anywhere from 60 to 100 this time of year with a standard deviation of maybe 7 or 8. Guessing within half a standard deviation 3 or 4 times would indicate that you probably had some skill compared to climo (or you got insanely lucky).

[skierinvermont]

This is what you said and what I was responding to: you said about Weather Rusty's guesses (below) that GISS would be too cold and UAH would be close. I said it was too early to make judgements like that, which is true.

GISS = 0.48C

UAH = 0.21C

Well I wasn't really paying attention to his UAH guess. I later said that it was probably a bit high and that UAH will very likely come in between .03 and .15C on the year.

[tacoman25]

Well I wasn't really paying attention to his UAH guess. I later said that it was probably a bit high and that UAH will very likely come in between .03 and .15C on the year.

Well, my response was before you said that.

And really, it's too early to say his GISS guess was too cold as well, especially since surface sources often respond quicker to ENSO changes, etc. Though I would never bet against warmth winning out with GISS.

[nzucker]

Well I wasn't really paying attention to his UAH guess. I later said that it was probably a bit high and that UAH will very likely come in between .03 and .15C on the year.

It seems like his UAH guess is going to be significantly erroneous, though I guessed -.1C for UAH I believe, so I don't have much merit to complain. UAH will probably finish around .05-1C unless we go back into a moderate/strong Niña which would make it a tick colder, though this seems unlikely given the subsurface configuration. It appears that the warmth has probably peaked for the year at this point: AMSU Channel 5 has had a significant dip, AMSU SSTs have declined slightly, the GFS forecasts have been consistently showing the global anomaly between .1-.15C, compared to nearly .3C during late May/early June, etc. Also, we haven't witnessed a Kelvin Wave/WWB that would drive us more towards El Niño, and most of the models are catching on with neutral-negative the consensus prediction.

OT, but Andrew, I decided to run that Marina de Chioggia squash up a vertical wooden trellis, as you seemed to think was an acceptable solution...I just hope the weight isn't going to cause a collapse since its fruits are pretty heavy, and it's already got a bunch of flowers, leading me to believe it's destined to be prolific without any deer on Weight Watchers taking a few points off with a nibble. I have two wooden trellises that I can attach vertically, leaning the second against the house and receiving some additional help from a well-placed shutter. Also, what do you think about the corn? I have 14 plants in a square that's maybe 6 feet X 6 feet, with a couple of them in pots outside that original square. What is the best method for pollination?

[skierinvermont]

It seems like his UAH guess is going to be significantly erroneous, though I guessed -.1C for UAH I believe, so I don't have much merit to complain. UAH will probably finish around .05-1C unless we go back into a moderate/strong Niña which would make it a tick colder, though this seems unlikely given the subsurface configuration. It appears that the warmth has probably peaked for the year at this point: AMSU Channel 5 has had a significant dip, AMSU SSTs have declined slightly, the GFS forecasts have been consistently showing the global anomaly between .1-.15C, compared to nearly .3C during late May/early June, etc. Also, we haven't witnessed a Kelvin Wave/WWB that would drive us more towards El Niño, and most of the models are catching on with neutral-negative the consensus prediction.

OT, but Andrew, I decided to run that Marina de Chioggia squash up a vertical wooden trellis, as you seemed to think was an acceptable solution...I just hope the weight isn't going to cause a collapse since its fruits are pretty heavy, and it's already got a bunch of flowers, leading me to believe it's destined to be prolific without any deer on Weight Watchers taking a few points off with a nibble. I have two wooden trellises that I can attach vertically, leaning the second against the house and receiving some additional help from a well-placed shutter. Also, what do you think about the corn? I have 14 plants in a square that's maybe 6 feet X 6 feet, with a couple of them in pots outside that original square. What is the best method for pollination?

Just makes sure to support the squashes with something when they form. As for the corn, I've always done a fairly dense 10X10 plot so never any need for hand pollination. 14 plants in 6X6 sounds pretty sparse.. recommended spacing would be like 10" in 30" rows, or one per square foot with really good soil, which would equate to more like 20 plants in a 6X6. I used to squeeze em in even tighter than that but learnt that corn really cannot handle being crowded. With smaller varieties like Early Sunglow, really good soil, and full sun, you can go even denser (like 2/square foot) which would be 72 plants in a 6X6 plot... forget 14. Given your sparser spacing and small plot, hand pollination would probably be necessary. So I just searched gardenweb which I use often and came up with some helpful comments:

"The female flower is the corn silk that comes out of the ears. THIS is the part you want to apply the pollen. You should apply the pollen as soon as the silk emerges from the husk, and ideally, every day for about 3 days."

"just walk thru the patch with your arms extended to shake the stalk. this will cause pollen to fall. It lookes like a fine dust when it falls."

"You can hand pick tassels and gently rub on the silk.Morning time around 10 A.M. is good for hand pollination.In half an hour or so you will see silk changing color to brown, sign of successful pollination.You may repeat the process for few days. Tassels remain usable for about 4 to 5 days.In case if needed you may pick up the tassels from any plant to use on the plant that has no tassels available."

http://forums2.garde...1070721533.html

Be sure to apply mineral oil to the tips of the ears shortly after pollination has occurred to prevent earworms from hatching and eating the entire ear.

[nzucker]

Just makes sure to support the squashes with something when they form. As for the corn, I've always done a fairly dense 10X10 plot so never any need for hand pollination. 14 plants in 6X6 sounds pretty sparse.. recommended spacing would be like 10" in 30" rows, or one per square foot, which would equate to more like 20 plants in a 6X6. I used to squeeze em in even tighter than that but learnt that corn really cannot handle being crowded. With smaller varieties like Early Sunglow, good soil, and full sun, you can go even denser (like 2/square foot) which would be 72 plants in a 6X6 plot... forget 14. Given your sparser spacing and small plot, hand pollination would probably be necessary. So I just searched gardenweb which I use often and came up with some helpful comments:

"The female flower is the corn silk that comes out of the ears. THIS is the part you want to apply the pollen. You should apply the pollen as soon as the silk emerges from the husk, and ideally, every day for about 3 days."

"just walk thru the patch with your arms extended to shake the stalk. this will cause pollen to fall. It lookes like a fine dust when it falls."

"You can hand pick tassels and gently rub on the silk.Morning time around 10 A.M. is good for hand pollination.In half an hour or so you will see silk changing color to brown, sign of successful pollination.You may repeat the process for few days. Tassels remain usable for about 4 to 5 days.In case if needed you may pick up the tassels from any plant to use on the plant that has no tassels available."

http://forums2.garde...1070721533.html

Be sure to apply mineral oil to the tips of the ears shortly after pollination has occurred to prevent earworms from hatching and eating the entire ear.

Thanks for the advice. I have the squash tethered to two wooden trellises now, it seems to attach easily as it sends out those feelers constantly...I think I should be able to support the fruit using this trellis, my larger wooden stakes, and perhaps an old wooden ladder I have commonly employed in the garden for supporting larger plants. The trellis is nicely slatted, so it should be possible to balance the fruits in between the slats and then tie them...the only thing that worries me is that the squash is so big, it may overcome all of the trellis and surpass the height of the trellis and shutters. I won't know what to do at that point...I really wanted to get the squash off the hot asphalt driveway and away from the smaller animals' reach (we have a lot of wabbits here). These two squashes I am experimenting with, the Marina de Chioggia and Cheyenne Bush Squash, are both epic in their own right. The Marina, an old heirloom from Italy, grows so fast and on such vigorous vines that it seems like it wants to run away from me; the Cheyenne is much more compact but has leaves the size of large platters. I think I have about 5 Cheyenne Bush squashes, 5 Marina de Chioggia, 3 zucchini plants, 3 yellow squash plants, 3 Amish Melons, 1 Honeydew, and 1 Watermelon. I really have my hands full with cucurbits. I am also currently sowing Guatemalan Blue Squash, a Patisson Panaché and Fordhook Acorn for a mid-fall harvest; these varieties are all relatively fast-growing and will add some color to the garden when everything starts withering in early October.

I don't think the spacing is sparse at all, dude, quite the contrary...the plants are literally on top of each other. I would say it's more like 5X5 (definitely overestimated), but I have most of the leaves touching each other (long, dangling fronds with this variety), larger plants visibly crowding out the smaller ones, and the corn starting to stretch into another part of the front garden. I actually think it seems too crowded whereas you are saying it is not crowded enough....I couldn't imagine growing 72 plants in this space, I was even struggling to fit in 2 more when I took them out of pots that were overcrowded. I am going to post pictures of the garden in the SNE Lawn Thread, so you'll get an idea what I mean. My neighbor who gave me the seeds said he found this variety to be large (up to 7' tall) with about 4 ears/plant, which seemed pretty generous to me. He didn't do any hand-pollinating or use anything against the worms, and he only grew 3 plants, so maybe this is going to take care of itself? Do you know how different the varieties that we have been growing are? Your pollination technique definitely sounds worthwhile, so I might try it, even though my neighbor and the seed packet didn't seem to see it as important.

I guess I need to investigate more, but I appreciate all your suggestions. Can't wait for the corn to come! This is definitely the strongest garden I have had...I have one eggplant, 3 cherry tomatoes, a 1/4 pound of arugula/spinach, and a couple handfuls of beans that I am going to bring to my parents in the Poconos this weekend. Looks as if a lot more is coming, and I think we're going to see an explosion with temperatures climbing into the upper 80s/low 90s soon after the rain.

[LakeEffectKing]

HadCrut decided to finally report May's anomalies:

2010/05 0.516 0.532 0.501 0.676 0.357 0.516 0.509 0.677 0.356 0.677 0.356

2010/06 0.541 0.556 0.526 0.682 0.399 0.541 0.534 0.683 0.398 0.683 0.398

2010/07 0.544 0.559 0.529 0.726 0.362 0.544 0.537 0.726 0.361 0.726 0.361

2010/08 0.485 0.499 0.471 0.706 0.264 0.485 0.479 0.706 0.264 0.706 0.264

2010/09 0.396 0.410 0.383 0.586 0.206 0.396 0.390 0.587 0.206 0.587 0.206

2010/10 0.410 0.425 0.395 0.555 0.265 0.410 0.403 0.556 0.264 0.556 0.264

2010/11 0.463 0.480 0.445 0.587 0.339 0.463 0.456 0.588 0.338 0.588 0.337

2010/12 0.263 0.283 0.244 0.399 0.128 0.263 0.256 0.400 0.127 0.400 0.126

2011/01 0.206 0.227 0.186 0.359 0.053 0.206 0.200 0.360 0.052 0.360 0.052

2011/02 0.264 0.284 0.244 0.404 0.124 0.264 0.258 0.406 0.122 0.406 0.122

2011/03 0.322 0.340 0.304 0.483 0.160 0.322 0.315 0.484 0.159 0.484 0.159

2011/04 0.398 0.415 0.382 0.540 0.257 0.398 0.392 0.541 0.256 0.541 0.256

2011/05 0.322 0.339 0.306 0.490 0.154 0.322 0.315 0.491 0.153 0.491 0.153

But how confident can we be in their numbers??? Look at how the March numbers (across ALL areas) are within .01 degrees when comparing to May's numbers!!! Just odd...

2011/03 0.322 0.340 0.304 0.483 0.160 0.322 0.315 0.484 0.159 0.484 0.159

2011/05 0.322 0.339 0.306 0.490 0.154 0.322 0.315 0.491 0.153 0.491 0.153

[tacoman25]

HadCrut decided to finally report May's anomalies:

2010/05 0.516 0.532 0.501 0.676 0.357 0.516 0.509 0.677 0.356 0.677 0.356

2010/06 0.541 0.556 0.526 0.682 0.399 0.541 0.534 0.683 0.398 0.683 0.398

2010/07 0.544 0.559 0.529 0.726 0.362 0.544 0.537 0.726 0.361 0.726 0.361

2010/08 0.485 0.499 0.471 0.706 0.264 0.485 0.479 0.706 0.264 0.706 0.264

2010/09 0.396 0.410 0.383 0.586 0.206 0.396 0.390 0.587 0.206 0.587 0.206

2010/10 0.410 0.425 0.395 0.555 0.265 0.410 0.403 0.556 0.264 0.556 0.264

2010/11 0.463 0.480 0.445 0.587 0.339 0.463 0.456 0.588 0.338 0.588 0.337

2010/12 0.263 0.283 0.244 0.399 0.128 0.263 0.256 0.400 0.127 0.400 0.126

2011/01 0.206 0.227 0.186 0.359 0.053 0.206 0.200 0.360 0.052 0.360 0.052

2011/02 0.264 0.284 0.244 0.404 0.124 0.264 0.258 0.406 0.122 0.406 0.122

2011/03 0.322 0.340 0.304 0.483 0.160 0.322 0.315 0.484 0.159 0.484 0.159

2011/04 0.398 0.415 0.382 0.540 0.257 0.398 0.392 0.541 0.256 0.541 0.256

2011/05 0.322 0.339 0.306 0.490 0.154 0.322 0.315 0.491 0.153 0.491 0.153

But how confident can we be in their numbers??? Look at how the March numbers (across ALL areas) are within .01 degrees when comparing to May's numbers!!! Just odd...

2011/03 0.322 0.340 0.304 0.483 0.160 0.322 0.315 0.484 0.159 0.484 0.159

2011/05 0.322 0.339 0.306 0.490 0.154 0.322 0.315 0.491 0.153 0.491 0.153

Yeah, that looks fishy.

[LakeEffectKing]

Yeah, that looks fishy.

The same happened with 12/2010 and 2/2011:

2010/12 0.263 0.283 0.244 0.399 0.128 0.263 0.256 0.400 0.127 0.400 0.126

2011/02 0.264 0.284 0.244 0.404 0.124 0.264 0.258 0.406 0.122 0.406 0.122

Something is F'd up!!!!!

[LakeEffectKing]

Man, I don't know how to explain what I'm finding in the HadCrut data....lots of patterns and seemingly "too many replications" to be just coincidence....for example...look here:

2009/08 0.544 0.559 0.528 0.764 0.323 0.544 0.537 0.765 0.322 0.765 0.322

2010/07 0.544 0.559 0.529 0.726 0.362 0.544 0.537 0.726 0.361 0.726 0.361

Way too similar to be a coicidence...and these data sets are 11 months apart!! And there are lots of these "intriguing" replications in the data. Is it just a matter of they should drop the hundredths and thousandths positions??? But why are there seemingly SO MANY similarities in the data, so far removed in time??

The value of HadCrut, in my eyes, is going to take a tremendous hit, if someone cannot come up with a good explaination.

[Tropopause_Fold]

hopefully we don't gain a-whole-nother .5F by 2020. we might not make it if we do.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110629_newnormals.html

[tacoman25]

hopefully we don't gain a-whole-nother .5F by 2020. we might not make it if we do.

http://www.noaanews....newnormals.html

No mention of the PDO, of course, which is a huge factor in the U.S. climate.

[BethesdaWX]

Man, I don't know how to explain what I'm finding in the HadCrut data....lots of patterns and seemingly "too many replications" to be just coincidence....for example...look here:

2009/08 0.544 0.559 0.528 0.764 0.323 0.544 0.537 0.765 0.322 0.765 0.322

2010/07 0.544 0.559 0.529 0.726 0.362 0.544 0.537 0.726 0.361 0.726 0.361

Way too similar to be a coicidence...and these data sets are 11 months apart!! And there are lots of these "intriguing" replications in the data. Is it just a matter of they should drop the hundredths and thousandths positions??? But why are there seemingly SO MANY similarities in the data, so far removed in time??

The value of HadCrut, in my eyes, is going to take a tremendous hit, if someone cannot come up with a good explaination.

Well the #s like 0.322 / 0.361, 0.726 / 0.764, etc, seem ok enough, but it definitely seems to be a pretty big coincidence with similar anomalies globally. I wouldn't think of it too much yet, I think Phil Jones is a good scientist with plenty of intergrity, he's not Jim Hansen.

[skierinvermont]

Yeah, that looks fishy.

Actually yeah.. that is really weird. Looking through it I noticed something else weird too..

If we compare the May 2011 data to the May 2010 data:

2011/05 0.322 0.339 0.306 0.490 0.154 0.322 0.315 0.491 0.153 0.491 0.153

2010/05 0.516 0.532 0.501 0.676 0.357 0.516 0.509 0.677 0.356 0.677 0.356

I found that even though column #1 was different, if I add that difference (+.194) to all the numbers in 2011 looks what happens to the 2011 numbers:

2011/05 .516 .533 .500 .684 .348 .516 .509 .685 .347 .685 .347

2010/05 0.516 0.532 0.501 0.676 0.357 0.516 0.509 0.677 0.356 0.677 0.356

They're almost exactly the same as the 1 year ago numbers.

WTF? It's almost as if they are using a formula to generate random data each year. This gives me serious doubts about the validity of the data.

[BethesdaWX]

No mention of the PDO, of course, which is a huge factor in the U.S. climate.

Unacceptable to not mention the PDO, and the AMO too had a major impact on the climate, land use changes as well have played a big role. They need to mention CO2 warming as well as natural factors.

The 1971-2000 avges included the old -PDO phase & -AMO phase was present for 24 out of the 30yrs.

+PDO 1977-2007:

-PDO begins:

Including 2011

Keep in Mind the 1994-2011 data is going to be biased warm since we just entered the -PDO.

-AMO:

+AMO

Huge factors.

[LakeEffectKing]

Well the #s like 0.322 / 0.361, 0.726 / 0.764, etc, seem ok enough, but it definitely seems to be a pretty big coincidence with similar anomalies globally. I wouldn't think of it too much yet, I think Phil Jones is a good scientist with plenty of intergrity, he's not Jim Hansen.

The fact that the data is displayed to the nearest thousandths of a degree, and the fact that there are 3 examples over the last couple years (at least) where the global anomoly came out EXACTLY the same to the nearest thousandths of a degree, doesn't sit well with me....I think it was back in 8th grade I learned about significant figures, and when to truncate (round) data off when the value of the data beyond a "significant" confidence level should be culled.

[skierinvermont]

Well the #s like 0.322 / 0.361, 0.726 / 0.764, etc, seem ok enough, but it definitely seems to be a pretty big coincidence with similar anomalies globally. I wouldn't think of it too much yet, I think Phil Jones is a good scientist with plenty of intergrity, he's not Jim Hansen.

The probability of any two rows matching up so closely is exceedingly low.. virtually impossible to have it happen multiple times in a short time period. This is really fishy.

[LakeEffectKing]

`

Actually yeah.. that is really weird. Looking through it I noticed something else weird too..

If we compare the May 2011 data to the May 2010 data:

2011/05 0.322 0.339 0.306 0.490 0.154 0.322 0.315 0.491 0.153 0.491 0.153

2010/05 0.516 0.532 0.501 0.676 0.357 0.516 0.509 0.677 0.356 0.677 0.356

I found that even though column #1 was different, if I add that difference (+.194) to all the numbers in 2011 looks what happens to the 2011 numbers:

2011/05 .516 .533 .500 .684 .348 .516 .509 .685 .347 .685 .347

2010/05 0.516 0.532 0.501 0.676 0.357 0.516 0.509 0.677 0.356 0.677 0.356

They're almost exactly the same as the 1 year ago numbers.

WTF? It's almost as if they are using a formula to generate random data each year. This gives me serious doubts about the validity of the data.

This is what I found regarding their data:

http://www.metoffice...ime-series.html and a more detailed paper on the methodology here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

So it seems the error bars are essentially set in stone, based on your little exercise. That explains a bit of the repetativeness, however, the actual global anomaly figures and how they are determined are seemingly VERY course in any data massageing that they do.

I won't cry foul (yet), but as to my point a post or two above, they should really consider at least, getting rid of the "thousandths place", for it has no value, and only gives the perception that there is some confidence to that level, which there clearly is none.