2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

`

This is what I found regarding their data:

http://www.metoffice...ime-series.html

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.

Dang.. I was really hoping someone would fall for it and take the bait.

Yes.. the columns are error bars not regions or hemispheres. So if two months happen to have the same anomaly, the rest of the columns will appear pretty much the same too.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/time-series.html

The probability of having the same anomaly to the nearest 1,000th place is actually very high. In any given month, the probability that it will have the same anomaly as any other month within the last 5 years is about 60/500... over 10%. And that's just for a single month. The probability that at least one month this year will have the exact same anomaly as another month within the last 5 years is about 80%.

[LakeEffectKing]

Dang.. I was really hoping someone would fall for it and take the bait.

Yes.. the columns are error bars not regions or hemispheres. So if two months happen to have the same anomaly, the rest of the columns will appear pretty much the same too.

http://www.metoffice...ime-series.html

The probability of having the same anomaly to the nearest 1,000th place is actually very high. In any given month, the probability that it will have the same anomaly as any other month within the last 5 years is about 60/500... over 10%. And that's just for a single month. The probability that at least one month this year will have the exact same anomaly as another month within the last 5 years is about 80%.

Nice to see you enjoy games of "gotcha" to self-boost your elitism, rather that help us dumb folk who don't have the luxury of being as knowledgeable as you require us to be, in order to engage in such topics. Sorry I was of little help.

[skierinvermont]

Nice to see you enjoy games of "gotcha" to self-boost your elitism, rather that help us dumb folk who don't have the luxury of being as knowledgeable as you require us to be, in order to engage in such topics. Sorry I was of little help.

What not allowed to have a little fun? Well the accusations of "fishiness" and "lost credibility" were already flying .. figured I'd just see if it would go one step farther.

Noticing a pattern everyone's first though should have been to check the data format and figure out what is the mathematical probability of repetition.. not pondering the possibility that HadCRUT was engaging in a rather transparent fraud. There was obviously a reason for the repetition.. to even consider the possibility that the reason for such a pattern would be anything but legitimate reveals a pretty fundamental bias and disconnect from how this research is actually conducted.

[tacoman25]

What not allowed to have a little fun? Well the accusations of "fishiness" and "lost credibility" were already flying .. figured I'd just see if it would go one step farther.

Noticing a pattern everyone's first though should have been to check the data format and figure out what is the mathematical probability of repetition.. not pondering the possibility that HadCRUT was engaging in a rather transparent fraud. There was obviously a reason for the repetition.. to even consider the possibility that the reason for such a pattern would be anything but legitimate reveals a pretty fundamental bias and disconnect from how this research is actually conducted.

All I said was that it looked fishy, because it does look fishy. I didn't have time to investigate further, and I knew there was probably a good explanation for it. Which is why I made no accusations of fraud or anything like that.

If anything, this should prove to you that we aren't all just a bunch of mindless Hansen-haters who only look for flaws with GISS.

[Clifford]

Sig Figs is part of the whole issue....

My backyard thermometer reads in 2°F or 1°C increments.

If you asked me to go outside and tell you whether it is 0.5°C or 1°F warmer today than it was a decade ago (if I had the records), I couldn't tell you. I don't have the accuracy on my thermometer.

Here is a Watts page on thermometers:

http://wattsupwithth...f-thermometers/

So, 2°F or 1°C thermometers were common in the past, even for the weather stations, and perhaps are still used in some weather stations (hopefully used in some of the stations with longest temperature records).

And if not calibrated, the thermometers can drift up to a few degrees.

The question is whether you can gain significant figures by averaging readings.

If you have 100 readings accurate to 1°C, do you get more significant figures? 1000 accurate to 1°C?

What if you have 900 accurate to 0.1°C, and 100 accurate to 1°C?

Anyway, I think you are reading too much into a few similar readings. But, it could be problems with averages and sig figs.

[BethesdaWX]

Dang.. I was really hoping someone would fall for it and take the bait.

Yes.. the columns are error bars not regions or hemispheres. So if two months happen to have the same anomaly, the rest of the columns will appear pretty much the same too.

http://www.metoffice...ime-series.html

The probability of having the same anomaly to the nearest 1,000th place is actually very high. In any given month, the probability that it will have the same anomaly as any other month within the last 5 years is about 60/500... over 10%. And that's just for a single month. The probability that at least one month this year will have the exact same anomaly as another month within the last 5 years is about 80%.

Haha, and I almost fell for it When you bolded your last sentence "this really makes me suspicious", I became suspicious. If you hadn't done that, I probably would've taken the bait.

[skierinvermont]

If anything, this should prove to you that we aren't all just a bunch of mindless Hansen-haters who only look for flaws with GISS.

Not so bad, I'll give you that.

[skierinvermont]

Haha, and I almost fell for it When you bolded your last sentence "this really makes me suspicious", I became suspicious. If you hadn't done that, I probably would've taken the bait.

I thought the bolding was a nice touch.. guess not

[BethesdaWX]

I thought the bolding was a nice touch.. guess not

If it was GISS you would have gotten me easily...

[OHSnow]

_{UAH in at +0.314 for the month of June above the 1981-2010 mean. Perhaps reflecting a return to El Nino, the tropics rose from -0.043 to +0.235 last month.}

[BethesdaWX]

_{UAH in at +0.314 for the month of June above the 1981-2010 mean. Perhaps reflecting a return to El Nino, the tropics rose from -0.043 to +0.235 last month.}

June Has Spiked Up Almost 0.2C from the Previous May, which is impressive. It has to do with Heat Transfer from the Oceans to the Atmosphere in Alternating, Irregular, Fluxes. Roy Spencer Noted This in his blog today. Remember how Warm ENSO Subsurface Waters were for much of the Spring? You'll notice that those warm anomalies are no longer there (to that extent, at least), where do you think all that Heat went? Into the Atmosphere...heat/relative energy doesn't just disappear, so we should have expected this, so I feel silly for not thinking about it sooner. And it is not just the ENSO regions, but globally as well. So expect us to Come down From the June +0.31C Anomaly fairly soon.

"I would like to remind everyone that month-to-month changes in global-average tropospheric temperature have a large influence from fluctuations in the average rate of heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. In other words, they are not of radiative origin (e.g. not from greenhouse gases). El Nino/La Nina is probably the most dramatic example of this kind of activity, but there are also “intraseasonal oscillations” in the ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges occurring on an irregular basis, too."

[The_Global_Warmer]

So temps so far this year Are much Warner then predicted

[nzucker]

So temps so far this year Are much Warner then predicted

Well, members of the AmericanWx Forum aren't exactly experts at making global temperature predictions.

And it's also extremely hard to make these guesses, especially on the satellites. You need to nail ENSO, nail the stratosphere/AO, etc...and even if you succeed at that, there's still a lot of random variability involved.

[The_Global_Warmer]

oh I know its hard to predict but it is still pretty warm.

The solar is still low, could have big effects.

[nzucker]

June 2011 comes in at +.277C on RSS. May had come in at +.129C on RSS, so the jump was also significant. However, it is a lower anomaly on a colder baseline so it's not seeing quite the degree of warmth as UAH for June 2011.

Here was the RSS AMSU anomaly map;

[nzucker]

Update on global SSTs, still running fairly cool(June data is preliminary):

GFS showing a large global anomaly, +.384C on a 1981-2010/UAH baseline:

[tacoman25]

Update on global SSTs, still running fairly cool(June data is preliminary):

GFS showing a large global anomaly, +.384C on a 1981-2010/UAH baseline:

Hasn't the GFS been running way too warm, though? There is a thread about that in the main forum.

[Clifford]

Update on global SSTs, still running fairly cool(June data is preliminary):

"Fairly Cool" is all relatively speaking.

My calculations with the UAH Discover SST's showed the month being generally flat with no strong negative or positive spikes through the month, generally hanging out just below average for the 2003 to 2011 time period, generally between -0.05°C to +0.01°C. Previous months had swings more than twice that amount.

http://discover.itsc...S_chLT.r001.txt

UAH showed Ocean Temperatures (LT) increasing over the year.

http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Mar 2011: -0.12°C

Apr 2011: 0.05°C

May 2011: 0.14°C

June 2011: 0.30°C

RSS is similar.

http://www.remss.com...Ocean_v03_3.txt

Mar 2011: -0.050°C

Apr 2011: 0.061°C

May 2011: 0.097°C

June 2011: 0.197°C

However, these may be LT temperatures over the ocean.

I haven't been seeing a major shift in the NOAA Sea Surface Temperature Charts.

http://www.osdpd.noa...ht.7.7.2011.gif

There may be other indicators, but I'm not seeing major anomalous temperature shifts from the oceans to the atmosphere at this time.

[skierinvermont]

AMSU temps have spiked to just .03C below 2010, the warmest of the year so far. If they surpass it, temps would be the warmest ever for the date in the AMSU record, although it looks like the spike may have topped off.

[BethesdaWX]

AMSU temps have spiked to just .03C below 2010, the warmest of the year so far. If they surpass it, temps would be the warmest ever for the date in the AMSU record, although it looks like the spike may have topped off.

I wouldn't be surprised if we surpass 2010 for a little while later this month. The impressive Equatorial OHC Subsurface that we had was transferred/released into the atmosphere within a relatively short timeframe, and we have some more to go.

This is the reason for the drop in the subsurface temperature over the past 1.5-2 months. If you look carefully the timing of the LT temperature spike and the abation of the warm subsurface temperatures are right in tandom. I wasn't aware of this until I read Roy Spencer's piece on it with the release of the July LT anom.

Also you can see the beginning of the next La Nina Subsurface anom growing right under region 3.4

[OHSnow]

AMSU temps have spiked to just .03C below 2010, the warmest of the year so far. If they surpass it, temps would be the warmest ever for the date in the AMSU record, although it looks like the spike may have topped off.

What I want to know is how some posters are allowed to repeatedly make up stuff without any repercussions. I remember BethesdaWX insisting UAH was about to be revised downward, but now this week we learn from Dr. Roy Spencer (not exactly a global warming alarmist, ha) that he and John Christy (again, not exactly a global warming alarmist) are confident that UAH is more accurate than RSS in recent anomalies. And that RSS has not switched to the NASA Aqua AMSU but rather is still using NOAA-15, which is now suffering from the effects of diurnal drift.

[roardog]

What I want to know is how some posters are allowed to repeatedly make up stuff without any repercussions. I remember BethesdaWX insisting UAH was about to be revised downward, but now this week we learn from Dr. Roy Spencer (not exactly a global warming alarmist, ha) that he and John Christy (again, not exactly a global warming alarmist) are confident that UAH is more accurate than RSS in recent anomalies. And that RSS has not switched to the NASA Aqua AMSU but rather is still using NOAA-15, which is now suffering from the effects of diurnal drift.

You're the last person on this board that needs to be calling anyone out. You should've been gone long ago since you do nothing but troll this board whenever there is any sign of warmth. I remember a few years ago you were trolling the sports forum on Eastern over the Cleveland Indians. So, I take what I just wrote back. You don't just troll when there is warmth, you troll all the time, that's all you do. You're the most useless poster this board has.

[BethesdaWX]

You're the last person on this board that needs to be calling anyone out. You should've been gone long ago since you do nothing but troll this board whenever there is any sign of warmth. I remember a few years ago you were trolling the sports forum on Eastern over the Cleveland Indians. So, I take what I just wrote back. You don't just troll when there is warmth, you troll all the time, that's all you do. You're the most useless poster this board has.

+500

What I want to know is how some posters are allowed to repeatedly make up stuff without any repercussions. I remember BethesdaWX insisting UAH was about to be revised downward, but now this week we learn from Dr. Roy Spencer (not exactly a global warming alarmist, ha) that he and John Christy (again, not exactly a global warming alarmist) are confident that UAH is more accurate than RSS in recent anomalies. And that RSS has not switched to the NASA Aqua AMSU but rather is still using NOAA-15, which is now suffering from the effects of diurnal drift.

What I want to know is what you're smoking. I said I was told by a local climatologist that UAH may be revised downward upon upgrade within a year. I never said "UAH is gonna be revised downward and we're gonna freeze to death", as you seem to be implying.

Take yourself and your alarmism to the AccuWX forums where you can play with Regg all day and have a hoot. This is not a productive discussion. Get yourself together.

PS: How could you not know that RSS is still using NOAA15? Extra cooling aside, the reason RSS was adjusted down had nothing to do with NOAA15, but error spotted upon upgrade, regardless of whether or not it was too cold originally. Regardless of the AQUA set, a UAH upgrade may require a change in the trend.

[BethesdaWX]

I feel very strongly that a very significant drop in global temps may be looming sometime within the next 40-80 days, not just a run of the mill thing, but dipping well below avg in a free-fall manner.

I think this because, for one, a significant amount of OHC was transferred into the atmosphere over the past 1-2 months, the rate of heat transfer was crazy, much faster than normal, and that should equate to some sort of imbalance. This seems to be expected, given that the surface has cooled off a bit while the LT has been running much above avg as a result, and wonder if global cloud cover has increased, because I don't recall seeing (on the same baseline), the surface run cooler than the LT in this extreme manner, especially after a La Nina. High clouds may be prevolent as well? That, and the fact that SST's have remained relatviely low to the 2002-2011 baseline, and it seems likely that SST's should begin to decrease in the upcoming month or so, I would not be surprised to see temps go into a free-fall sometime relatively soon.

I'm interested to see how this plays out. Has nothing to do with agw, just simply comparing (in the AQUA era) similar scenarios, and overall, I think its inevitable. Anyone else seeing something similar?

[Clifford]

I feel very strongly that a very significant drop in global temps may be looming sometime within the next 40-80 days, not just a run of the mill thing, but dipping well below avg in a free-fall manner.

I've been thinking this for quite some time. Yet, it still isn't dropping. There certainly should be some kind of a "correction" in store.

Here is the updated La Niña chart I posted a while ago.

We have had a very rapid increase in Ch5 temperatures, up into El Niño Territory. But, I don't think this is correlating with sea temperature changes.

I've been anticipating a return to La Niña sea surface temperatures for quite some time, but it remains more neutral.

Nonetheless, I would be very surprised if we don't see another temperature drop this fall. Perhaps in the September time frame.

[BethesdaWX]

That is exactly the reason i feel it could be big time.. With how much OHC was released so quickly, the apparent increase in low clouds, and this being a La Nina SST signal, I feel a major plunge is in store.

[nzucker]

AMSU Channel 5 has started dropping again, we're now .05C below 2010.

AMSU SSTs are still quite low, definitely near the bottom of the recent pack. We're about tied with last year and .21C colder than 2009 when the Niño developed.

GFS 8-day anomaly down to .38C from .42C, and we know the GFS has been running a bit warm.

[Clifford]

No Comments Recently?

The UAH Ch5 anomaly has dropped over 0.25 degrees in the last few days. Current anomaly is 0.16°C

Due to comments from one user on whether the UAH CH5 (orange) anomalies (based on the previously published average temperatures) makes a reasonable proxy for the UAH TMT temperatures, I've added the UAH TMT curve (yellow) with no additional adjustments.

The sea surface temperatures have been waffling, but did jump up slightly (now with a one day drop).

It is my belief that there is a correlation between certain types of solar activity, and a rapid TMT (CH5) temperature response on Earth. In particular, an increase in sunspots and active regions, associated with a decrease in TSI, something that has been happening for the last 7 days or so. TSI is now at the lowest level (short-term) since April, and will likely drop further over the next week as the data gap catches up.

Unfortunately there are data delays, with the F10.7 being reported today (July 17), UAH CH5 reported as of July 14, and TSI being reported as of July 10.

However, this would lead to indications of short-term trends.

• F10.7 Sunspot activity will likely increase for at least one more day (July 18), or perhaps a few days.
• TSI will likely generally decrease (not necessarily monotonous) from July 10 to July 18, or the peak in F10.7 sunspot activity.
• CH5 (TMT) temperatures will likely continue to drop at least from July 14 through July 18, or the F10.7 peak/TSI trough, perhaps an additional 0.1°C, to drop the temperature anomaly down to somewhere between 0°C and 0.06°C.

I suppose you can take this with a grain of salt. But, one should be able to see the effects within the next week or so.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I like your thoughts man. it does at an eyes glance look close.

Can someone lay one on top transparent?

So we can see how close.

How far back do these records go?

[LakeEffectKing]

GISS June: +.50...up from .42 in May.