2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

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.

Still better than GISS/HADCRUT.

[tacoman25]

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.

No, you are definitely more insistent about the "120 year baseline" whenever current cooling is brought up now. You were fine using the anomalies related to the actual data baselines last year.

[tacoman25]

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.

You can't have it both ways, my friend. How many times have you pointed out that the satellites are in general agreement with warming trends from surface-based sources over the past 30 years? And you have admitted that both sources have strengths and weaknesses. But now suddenly you are claiming the satellites are "quite innaccurate", show "large disagreement", and the scientists monitoring them for global temperature trends have very little idea what they're doing or if the process even works?

Ok...

[tacoman25]

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

This still doesn't explain why GISS has consistently been warmer in several large, non-Arctic regions than other sources show. And those regions tend to be the least-populated and most extrapolated.

[skierinvermont]

No, you are definitely more insistent about the "120 year baseline" whenever current cooling is brought up now. You were fine using the anomalies related to the actual data baselines last year.

I really don't give a damn what baseline is used as long as everybody understands what effect the baseline is having. By using a more modern baseline you make the anomalies appear smaller.

[BethesdaWX]

I really don't give a damn what baseline is used as long as everybody understands what effect the baseline is having. By using a more modern baseline you make the anomalies appear smaller.

The whole point is to have the most representative average though... not to show how much its warmed/cooled.

[tacoman25]

I really don't give a damn what baseline is used as long as everybody understands what effect the baseline is having. By using a more modern baseline you make the anomalies appear smaller.

I'm not talking about UAH's old baseline vs. their new one. I'm talking about you interjecting some 120 year baseline when current UAH anomalies are mentioned. Someone mentions the current anomalies, and you feel the need to say: "Well, the real anomaly according to the 120 year baseline would be more like +.3C." It's silly, and you didn't feel the need to do that last year when UAH anomalies were much higher because of the El Nino.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not talking about UAH's old baseline vs. their new one. I'm talking about you interjecting some 120 year baseline when current UAH anomalies are mentioned. Someone mentions the current anomalies, and you feel the need to say: "Well, the real anomaly according to the 120 year baseline would be more like +.3C." It's silly, and you didn't feel the need to do that last year when UAH anomalies were much higher because of the El Nino.

Why would the El Nino make any difference? I could have and probably did point out that the anomalies during the El Nino would be much larger if a more long-term baseline was used. The difference between the short term and long term baselines is the same now as it was during the El Nino.

What I object to is saying we are X relative to average without specifying what that average is or even what temperature source you are using. Are you really going to give me a hard time about this?

How about this.. I am declaring "we are 1C above average." Any objections?

[tacoman25]

Why would the El Nino make any difference? I could have and probably did point out that the anomalies during the El Nino would be much larger if a more long-term baseline was used. The difference between the short term and long term baselines is the same now as it was during the El Nino.

What I object to is saying we are X relative to average without specifying what that average is or even what temperature source you are using. Are you really going to give me a hard time about this?

How about this.. I am declaring "we are 1C above average." Any objections?

That is exactly my point. It is only now that global anomalies have dropped off significantly that you are insisting on this 120 year baseline. Just as you claim UAH adjusted their baseline to more recent to produce smaller anomalies, you are trying to adjust their baseline to an older one to produce greater anomalies.

No way around it...you are downplaying the rather impressive recent dropoff.

[skierinvermont]

That is exactly my point. It is only now that global anomalies have dropped off significantly that you are insisting on this 120 year baseline. Just as you claim UAH adjusted their baseline to more recent to produce smaller anomalies, you are trying to adjust their baseline to an older one to produce greater anomalies.

No way around it...you are downplaying the rather impressive recent dropoff.

No I am not. The dropoff has been .5C. Pretty straightforward.

There is no more incentive today, than there was one year ago, to insist upon a 120 year baseline.

I am simply objecting to the statement "we are .3C below average" without qualification about what data source that comes from or what baseline was used.

Had someone asserted the same thing a year ago, I would have said the same thing.

And if someone went prancing around saying we were 1C above average without specifying they were using an 1880-1910 baseline, I would correct them too.

[Bill_COMET]

Are you Crazy? Satellite cannot be compared with Surface Data....they are different data! Satellite is much better than surface data in all aspects..... coverage, accuracy, reso..everything.

The 20th Century mean...You're kidding me, right?

http://discover.itsc...e.csh?amsutemps

January below the avg.

Last I checked the AMSU temperatures weren't even working properly, after showing a dramatic (and perhaps bogus) drop in December. UA-Huntsville had a note on the graphic saying they were discontinuing near-surface brightness temperatures because of a problem they were with the sensor channels starting in mid-December 2010. Your link above doesn't work, probably because of something squirrelly with the scripts that run the page. Here's the graphic from a screen capture I did:

[nzucker]

Last I checked the AMSU temperatures weren't even working properly, after showing a dramatic (and perhaps bogus) drop in December. UA-Huntsville had a note on the graphic saying they were discontinuing near-surface brightness temperatures because of a problem they were with the sensor channels starting in mid-December 2010. Your link above doesn't work, probably because of something squirrelly with the scripts that run the page. Here's the graphic from a screen capture I did:

Channel 4 is from a different satellite that isn't working properly...

Channel 5 AQUA and Global SST measurements are working fine and considered to be accurate.

[tacoman25]

No I am not. The dropoff has been .5C. Pretty straightforward.

There is no more incentive today, than there was one year ago, to insist upon a 120 year baseline.

I am simply objecting to the statement "we are .3C below average" without qualification about what data source that comes from or what baseline was used.

Had someone asserted the same thing a year ago, I would have said the same thing.

And if someone went prancing around saying we were 1C above average without specifying they were using an 1880-1910 baseline, I would correct them too.

That statement was clearly about UAH, to which a 120 year baseline does not apply. My point all along: you were comparing apples to oranges...even if the person had bad data, the ".3C below average" was clearly in reference to the UAH baseline, so stating "Well, if you look at a 120 year baseline, we are actually still well above average" is silly and unecessary.

Obviously, no one is going to cite an 1880-1910 baseline, because no data source uses that. Just like none use a 120 year baseline.

[skierinvermont]

That statement was clearly about UAH, to which a 120 year baseline does not apply. My point all along: you were comparing apples to oranges...even if the person had bad data, the ".3C below average" was clearly in reference to the UAH baseline, so stating "Well, if you look at a 120 year baseline, we are actually still well above average" is silly and unecessary.

Obviously, no one is going to cite an 1880-1910 baseline, because no data source uses that.

Actually, he wasn't using UAH. It came from a blog by Ryan Maue which I think bases its estimates off GFS/Euro model output. No idea what the baseline is or how accurate it is.

Which is precisely why I am insisting on specifying the baseline and/or data source.

[tacoman25]

Actually, he wasn't using UAH. It came from a blog by Ryan Maue which I think bases its estimates off GFS/Euro model output. No idea what the baseline is or how accurate it is.

Which is precisely why I am insisting on specifying the baseline and/or data source.

I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about the UAH baseline, since he referenced UAH. He was trying to convert that data to UAH anomalies.

Regardless, for you to reference a baseline that isn't even used by any of the major global temp sources in response seemed a little odd.

[skierinvermont]

I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about the UAH baseline, since he referenced UAH. He was trying to convert that data to UAH anomalies.

Well it's not UAH data. It's from Ryan Maue's blog and it's based on GFS/Euro output. And he only tried converting it to UAH after I objected to the unspecified baseline/data source.

[BethesdaWX]

I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about the UAH baseline, since he referenced UAH. He was trying to convert that data to UAH anomalies.

Regardless, for you to reference a baseline that isn't even used by any of the major global temp sources in response seemed a little odd.

I was referencing the UAH baseline. The problem is, Skier did not read my post carefuly to see the depiction I made between Ryan Maue's GFS initialization & AQUA/AMSU baseline, because he never reads anything.

UAH latest value has dropped even lower btw

[skierinvermont]

I was referencing the UAH baseline. The problem is, Skier did not read my post carefuly to see the depiction I made between Ryan Maue's GFS initialization & AQUA/AMSU baseline, because he never reads anything.

UAH latest value has dropped even lower btw

No you didn't. You are lying (yet again). Here is your original post in its entirety.

The Global temperature is -.3C as we speak.

Pretty stupid thing to say without any qualifications. It doesn't even make sense on its own actually because it makes it sound like the actual temperature is -.3C when the earth is much warmer than that.

[nzucker]

Pretty stupid thing to say without any qualifications. It doesn't even make sense on its own actually because it makes it sound like the actual temperature is -.3C when the earth is much warmer than that.

There's no "actual temperature" anomaly...it just depends on what baseline you use. The dailies are close to -.3C using the UAH Channel 5 1981-2010 baseline, so it's not a totally unfair comment. I agree that relative to older/longer standards, we're much warmer, but he never said that.

[skierinvermont]

There's no "actual temperature" anomaly...it just depends on what baseline you use. The dailies are close to -.3C using the UAH Channel 5 1981-2010 baseline, so it's not a totally unfair comment. I agree that relative to older/longer standards, we're much warmer, but he never said that.

I didn't say there was an "actual temperature anomaly" I said "actual temperature." Read. Think. Comment. It works.

He never said anything at all because he never specified the baseline or the source. He didn't even say the word anomaly. He said the temperature is -.3C. All around, a pretty poor comment. Didn't specify baseline, source, and his poor grammatical skills made it sound like he was speaking of absolute temperature rather than relative.

[BethesdaWX]

No you didn't. You are lying (yet again). Here is your original post in its entirety.

Pretty stupid thing to say without any qualifications. It doesn't even make sense on its own actually because it makes it sound like the actual temperature is -.3C when the earth is much warmer than that.

Go see a doctor

If I wasn't referencing the UAH baseline for temps....what was I referencing? The "skier warmista surface data"?

There is no 120yr avg for satellite data, it is a 32yr avg. And its a baseline with the best data we've ever had.

[Mencken_Fan]

Why would the El Nino make any difference? I could have and probably did point out that the anomalies during the El Nino would be much larger if a more long-term baseline was used. The difference between the short term and long term baselines is the same now as it was during the El Nino.

What I object to is saying we are X relative to average without specifying what that average is or even what temperature source you are using. Are you really going to give me a hard time about this?

How about this.. I am declaring "we are 1C above average." Any objections?

Just a quick question if you don't mind; what exactly is Earth's average temperature? (And would you please be kind enough to explain why? E.G. what timeline you use, etc.)

Thank you.

[skierinvermont]

Just a quick question if you don't mind; what exactly is Earth's average temperature? (And would you please be kind enough to explain why? E.G. what timeline you use, etc.)

Thank you.

It's the spatially averaged temperature of the earth. It happens to be about 14C (57.2F) but could be anywhere between 56F and 58F. Link

Think of it as if we had the entire earth covered in thermometers and then took an average of all those thermometers. Since we can't do that we use computer models to infill the missing areas and then take a spatially weighted average. That's why we can't know it precisely.

The absolute temperature of the earth is determined by the greenhouse effect. Theoretical physics can predict the average absolute temperature of the earth, and the above empirical observations confirm these predictions. The average temperature of the earth can be predicted as follows:

On average the rate of shortwave radiation energy directed at the earth by the sun is 1370W/m2 for a square meter facing the sun directly. However, because not all of the earth is directly facing the sun at once, the average value across the whole earth's surface is 342W/m2. Much of this 342W/m2 in SW radiation is reflected back to space by the earth's atmosphere, aerosols, and the earth's surface. The remaining 240W/m2 is absorbed by the earth's atmosphere and the earth's surface. If the earth did not have an atmosphere, according to the blackbody response the earth would only have to have a temperature of -19C in order to re-radiate this 240W/m2 back to space. However, because we do have an atmosphere the actual temperature is much higher than this. Computer codes have long been used to predict the greenhouse effect of various planets and for our planet they yield an effect of 33C which warms us from -19C to 14C. Link

Empirical observation confirms an absolute temperature of around 14C.

However, we can keep track of relative changes to a baseline, in other words anomalies, much more accurately. There's 4-5 different sources, I saw you posted GISS in another thread. GISS uses a 1951-1980 baseline. There's also HadCRUT which uses 1961-1990 as a baseline for its anomalies. Both have anomaly data from pre-1900 to present and they are generally viewed as fairly accurate. There's also RSS and UAH which use satellite data since 1979. RSS uses the baseline 1979-2000, UAH uses 1979-2010. There are also other studies of the satellite data which simply analyze trends and detect more warming using different methodologies to examine the data.

[BethesdaWX]

It's the spatially averaged temperature of the earth. It happens to be about 14C (57.2F) but could be anywhere between 56F and 58F. Link

Think of it as if we had the entire earth covered in thermometers and then took an average of all those thermometers. Since we can't do that we use computer models to infill the missing areas and then take a spatially weighted average. That's why we can't know it precisely.

The absolute temperature of the earth is determined by the greenhouse effect. Theoretical physics can predict the average absolute temperature of the earth, and the above empirical observations confirm these predictions. The average temperature of the earth can be predicted as follows:

On average the rate of shortwave radiation energy directed at the earth by the sun is 1370W/m2 for a square meter facing the sun directly. However, because not all of the earth is directly facing the sun at once, the average value across the whole earth's surface is 342W/m2. Much of this 342W/m2 in SW radiation is reflected back to space by the earth's atmosphere, aerosols, and the earth's surface. The remaining 240W/m2 is absorbed by the earth's atmosphere and the earth's surface. If the earth did not have an atmosphere, according to the blackbody response the earth would only have to have a temperature of -19C in order to re-radiate this 240W/m2 back to space. However, because we do have an atmosphere the actual temperature is much higher than this. Computer codes have long been used to predict the greenhouse effect of various planets and for our planet they yield an effect of 33C which warms us from -19C to 14C. Link

Empirical observation confirms an absolute temperature of around 14C.

However, we can keep track of relative changes to a baseline, in other words anomalies, much more accurately. There's 4-5 different sources, I saw you posted GISS in another thread. GISS uses a 1951-1980 baseline. There's also HadCRUT which uses 1961-1990 as a baseline for its anomalies. Both have anomaly data from pre-1900 to present and they are generally viewed as fairly accurate. There's also RSS and UAH which use satellite data since 1979. RSS uses the baseline 1979-2000, UAH uses 1979-2010. There are also other studies of the satellite data which simply analyze trends and detect more warming using different methodologies to examine the data.

I think he meant Earths avg temperature for all of its existance in time since its creation.

[Mencken_Fan]

I think he meant Earths avg temperature for all of its existance in time since its creation.

No...I was referring to the Holocene era.

It seems logical to base 'normal' on the maximum time line that stays within our current climate epoch.

My assumption has been that ~57F is 'normal'; and current temp is ~58F. Skierinvermont's answer made sense to me.

My guess about the future is: the PDO will stall or dampen further warming for a few decades, then we'll roast.

[CoastalWx]

Here are the data tables I use as a resource:

HadCrut: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly

GISS: http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

RSS: http://www.remss.com...Ocean_v03_2.txt

UAH: http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Thanks LEK.

[BethesdaWX]

wow, absolute freefall in global temps. And we still have more to go!

This has erased the El Nino warming, now we continue the cooling trend since 2002!

[Clifford]

RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) has released their 2011 January Data.

MSU/AMSU data

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/m...ly_time_series/

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/m...hics/tlt/plots/

TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere, i.e. Closest to Earth)

I believe these are a 1979 to 1999 baseline.

Land Anomalies Dec 2010 Jan 2011

Global (-70 to 82.5) 0.339 0.075

Central (-20 to 20) -0.026 -0.116

North (20 to 82.5) 0.609 0.071

South (-70 to -20) 0.068 0.589

N Polar(60 to 82.5) 1.396 1.688

S Polar (-70 to -60) 0.276 0.906

Land Anomalies (TLT)

Ocean Anomalies Dec 2010 Jan 2011

Global (-70 to 82.5) 0.162 0.087

Central (-20 to 20) -0.308 -0.376

North (20 to 82.5) 0.303 0.373

South (-70 to -20) 0.518 0.357

N Polar(60 to 82.5) 1.410 2.029

S Polar (-70 to -60) 0.147 -0.252

Ocean Anomalies (TLT)

Land & Ocean Dec 2010 Jan 2011

Global (-70 to 82.5) 0.219 0.083

Central (-20 to 20) -0.225 -0.300

North (20 to 82.5) 0.470 0.209

South (-70 to -20) 0.460 0.387

N Polar(60 to 82.5) 1.401 1.800

S Polar (-70 to -60) 0.164 -0.100

Cont USA -0.855 -0.794

N Hem (0 to 82.5) 0.229 0.040

S Hem (-70 to 0) 0.210 0.129

Land and Ocean Anomalies (TLT)

So, all the global temperatures seem to be dropping quickly.

Although, the La Niña years typically have lower temps than El Niño years.

The North Polar regions are "HOT" with respect to the average. However, I wouldn't think it would be unexpected with the strong polar weather that is hammering much of the Northern Hemisphere now, as well as the "Blocking Patterns".

I tried to plot the Northern Polar Region vs Northern Hemisphere.

They don't supply pre-compiled data for Northern Hemisphere without the Northern Polar region, so the datasets are combined for the Hemisphere, so to some extent the data must track together, but there are certain shifts like the most recent few moths where the shifts are opposite.

Also, note the + & - variability of the polar anomaly is quite high when compared to the hemisphere anomaly.

[tacoman25]

Coldest January for the continental U.S. since 1988, per RSS. Only colder ones in the record (since 1979) are 1979, 1982, and 1985.

[superjames1992]

Wow, didn't expect the UAH to come in that cold so fast.