Using 250km, you can really see how much estimating goes on for the 1200km. The U.S and Europe are covered nicely.

But things that could proove AGW to be one of mans biggest misstakes are
- We have no temperature rise since 10 years allthough CO2 emissions are raising faster then ever.
- For the last 6 years the temperature has been falling.
- Oceans have not been heating, slight decrease have been measured.
- The ammount of CO2 that is added to the atmosphere seems to follow global temperature much more than anthropogen emissions.

Those are things that can not be explained very well within the current AGW theory, at least as far as I know.

Canada + Greenland 12 million sq km … about half of North America.

For the most part they have no temperatures recorded.

It is also very interesting to look at the GISS map page. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ I recommend setting the smoothing radius to 250km, rather than the default 1200km. Also changing the projection to polar gives a different perspective. Of course neither projection really reflects the fact that 50% of the surface of the globe is between 30S and 30N.

At the 250km smoothing the maps are mainly coloured grey – showing just how much extrapolation GISS do to come up with their figures.

I note that on the GISS maps the oceans are nearly all grey (i.e. missing data) yet HadCRU maps have a reading for almost the entire oceans. Does anyone know why that is?

The same statement can be made about the tropics too.
But take a look at the Southern extratropical differential. It’s increasing over the last decade. Why are the North and South behaving oppositely?

Not the USA part of the NH. It was -.55C.

NoExt Land was 1.34C (30deg up)
NoPol Land was .74C

Pretty much all of North America was cold. Real cold.

And Europe/Asia were hot.

The satellites actually showed NH land being even warmer. UAH showed Northern Hemisphere land as being 1.01C above the 1979-1998 mean. In fact, it was the third warmest NH land anomaly on record behind only January 2007 and February 1998. The only reason the overall anomaly wasn’t as large is because sea temperatures were actually below the 1979-1998 mean.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Where did the .735 come from?

The visualization says between 5C and 10C for huge chunks of Asia.

The rest of the world … not so much.

To answer your question (in my opinion) for land temperatures:

1) Bias in the land temperature record (changes in land use, UHI, etc.)
2) Less man-made aerosols from Former Soviet Union and rural Asia.
3) Less of volcanic ash.

Most of rural Asia (approx. 90% of all Asia) burns all sorts of crap to keep warm during the winter. I’ve seen it myself in northern China. They have corn stover piled higher and wider than the house during winter (it looks like a 2nd addition to the farm house). In more western parts, people burn coal in their homes.

Would it not have been more reasonable for the IPCC to study the most logical reasons for the land temperature rise before resorting to science-fiction inspired reasons? Is anyone else puzzled why GW is localized mainly over Asia (i.e. the biggest land mass in the NH)? According to March’s RSS imagery, the biggest anomalies occur over northern and western China.

The weekly US data shows a strong cooling trend over the last 3 months – 10 out of twelve weeks show a negative anomaly, including all of the last 7 weeks, with the latest week showing the largest negative anomaly.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/mtd.accum.temps.txt

The USA temperature data has shown a divergence from the rest of the world (significantly less warming) and this divergence appears to be increasing. Make of it what you will.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2008/

It is possible that if you analyze UAH data some of these curious signatures seen may not exist or be a bit different than the RSS data. These same types of differences between each group’s MSU lower tropospheric land data have been shown to be from differences in diurnal corrections to the time series (which you would see if you differenced land and ocean). Not saying it would change the overall outcome, but it would be interesting to see. It is also important to calculate the CI in these types of trends to ensure the uncertainty in trends, especially shorter time periods, is well understood. It is possible (for example) that the slight decrease in the Tropics has a + or – that would indicate a possibility of no trend or a positive trend.

Robb

NH Sea 0.204 0.212 0.209
SH Sea 0.028 0.095 0.123

NH Land 0.058 0.304 0.735
SH Land 0.053 0.071 0.124

Where the heck did that .735C come from?