Comments on: A review of the major global temperature metrics for April 2008: Still globally cooler than 1 year ago http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/ Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:18:57 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Pamela Gray http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-16050 Pamela Gray Fri, 30 May 2008 00:35:15 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-16050 Actually I was thinking about all the stations that share common design and placement in each climate "zone" (you know, gardening zones that tell you what plants to have in your garden that can survive the weather). This real, raw data of daily temperature, averaged by month, can then be averaged throughout the zone. The graph would then read that, for example, January averaged 10 degrees above zero in 2007 but averaged 0 degrees one year later. It makes more sense to me that when I am looking at a temperature graph, I can read the actual temperature. Actually I was thinking about all the stations that share common design and placement in each climate “zone” (you know, gardening zones that tell you what plants to have in your garden that can survive the weather). This real, raw data of daily temperature, averaged by month, can then be averaged throughout the zone. The graph would then read that, for example, January averaged 10 degrees above zero in 2007 but averaged 0 degrees one year later. It makes more sense to me that when I am looking at a temperature graph, I can read the actual temperature.

]]> By: Pamela Gray http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15757 Pamela Gray Wed, 28 May 2008 03:39:07 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15757 Well guess what. It is 0.1 degrees warmer today compared to last year in Enterprise, Oregon. <strong>REPLY:</strong> Unless you are looking at city UHI trends, single stations usually aren't a good indicator. Well guess what. It is 0.1 degrees warmer today compared to last year in Enterprise, Oregon.

REPLY: Unless you are looking at city UHI trends, single stations usually aren’t a good indicator.

]]> By: Pamela Gray http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15756 Pamela Gray Wed, 28 May 2008 03:31:30 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15756 re: temperature difference from one year ago today. I have also wondered about this simple way of depicting change. The live weather stations in Wallowa County show the positive/negative differences from a year ago. Even though last year was cold, the change shown this year, day after day after day, has been in the negative. I second the motion. I want raw real-time temperature readings so that we can generate a graph that shows up or down trends for same time, place, same instrument, but one year later. I would think that monthly averages would be fine for this purpose. re: temperature difference from one year ago today. I have also wondered about this simple way of depicting change. The live weather stations in Wallowa County show the positive/negative differences from a year ago. Even though last year was cold, the change shown this year, day after day after day, has been in the negative. I second the motion. I want raw real-time temperature readings so that we can generate a graph that shows up or down trends for same time, place, same instrument, but one year later. I would think that monthly averages would be fine for this purpose.

]]> By: Torange http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15747 Torange Wed, 28 May 2008 01:23:49 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15747 The four global datasets chart near the top of the page has a shape from about 2002 to now that looks like the output from a square wave generator. The four global datasets chart near the top of the page has a shape from about 2002 to now that looks like the output from a square wave generator.

]]> By: Dr. Peter Gangli http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15675 Dr. Peter Gangli Tue, 27 May 2008 04:24:51 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15675 We are disappointed why so much hocus-pocus science is used in analyzing data. Any averaging carries its method's bias. We want to determine the CHANGE of temperature taken (1) AT THE SAME DATE AND TIME and (2) AT THE SAME LOCATION. So a meaningful time differential is T[Montreal May 20, 07 12:00] - T [Montreal May 20, 08 12:00] = Del T/Del (time) If we had the TIME DIFFERENTIAL FUNCTION for a large number of locations over a 10 year period of time, this function would show reliably what TEMPERATURE changes we really have. The real trends will come form the CHANGE OF CHANGE second time differential. Are we asking the obvious? Elementary calculus works in all other fields of science. No sense is setting one averaging algorithm against another. All lead to false notions. Would someone give the source where the RAW location-time-temperature data is available and the rest is simple freshman calculus. Btw this spring Montreal is 10 C colder then it was a year ago. So we got one (1) of the time-temp firest diff function. We are disappointed why so much hocus-pocus science is used in analyzing data. Any averaging carries its method’s bias. We want to determine the CHANGE of temperature taken (1) AT THE SAME DATE AND TIME and (2) AT THE SAME LOCATION. So a meaningful time differential is

T[Montreal May 20, 07 12:00] – T [Montreal May 20, 08 12:00] = Del T/Del (time)

If we had the TIME DIFFERENTIAL FUNCTION for a large number of locations over a 10 year period of time, this function would show reliably what TEMPERATURE changes we really have. The real trends will come form the CHANGE OF CHANGE second time differential.
Are we asking the obvious?
Elementary calculus works in all other fields of science.
No sense is setting one averaging algorithm against another.
All lead to false notions.
Would someone give the source where the RAW location-time-temperature data is available and the rest is simple freshman calculus.

Btw this spring Montreal is 10 C colder then it was a year ago.
So we got one (1) of the time-temp firest diff function.

]]> By: Pamela Gray http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15583 Pamela Gray Sun, 25 May 2008 13:39:56 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15583 Last year my local tiny, conservative, yet weird, newspaper got an award for producing an article on global warming and that the sky is falling. Our editor at the time was an out-of-stater woman who was like an orange peel in the middle of a green lawn. Since then we have changed editors who is equally not like us. Nonetheless, he printed a guest column on how global warming has been questioned scientifically, especially regarding global temperature data massaging. I doubt it will get an award for the paper but the letters to the editor have been coming in from all over the world (strange that people from all over the world would read out tiny little hamlet rag) thanking the editor for allowing such a well-written piece. So in honor of the demise of GW, I would like to propose that we hold an internet wake. To start the roas...er...toast of its demise, I would like to say that GW was such a nice little fellow but a rather gullible. Especially regarding kidney stones. It was later learned scientifically that his kidney stones were actually the result of a tight sphincter. Last year my local tiny, conservative, yet weird, newspaper got an award for producing an article on global warming and that the sky is falling. Our editor at the time was an out-of-stater woman who was like an orange peel in the middle of a green lawn. Since then we have changed editors who is equally not like us. Nonetheless, he printed a guest column on how global warming has been questioned scientifically, especially regarding global temperature data massaging. I doubt it will get an award for the paper but the letters to the editor have been coming in from all over the world (strange that people from all over the world would read out tiny little hamlet rag) thanking the editor for allowing such a well-written piece.

So in honor of the demise of GW, I would like to propose that we hold an internet wake. To start the roas…er…toast of its demise, I would like to say that GW was such a nice little fellow but a rather gullible. Especially regarding kidney stones. It was later learned scientifically that his kidney stones were actually the result of a tight sphincter.

]]> By: hemst101 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15564 hemst101 Sat, 24 May 2008 23:16:37 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15564 Anthony, Just some more on the TLS channel of the RSS. There are two "bumps" on the TLS data. Both coincide with with the two large volcanoes during the satellite data. The anomaly resets to a lower values than before after the effects of each volcano and then, for all practical purposes, stays constant. There have been no more bumps since Pinatubo. There have been no more volcanoes since Pinatubo. Will the one in South America show up soon in the TLS data? The stratosphere reacts to volcanoes The satellite TLT data can be interpreted as a period of states from 1979 to 1997, then an unusually strong El Nino, Now having levelled off at a slightly higher temperature. The Lower Troposphere reacts to PDO, AMO etc These data seem to indicate that changes occur suddenly rather than monotonically (is that the right word) and seem to have little to do with the rise in CO2. Hmmmmm. Just food for thought. Anthony,

Just some more on the TLS channel of the RSS.

There are two “bumps” on the TLS data. Both coincide with with the two large volcanoes during the satellite data.

The anomaly resets to a lower values than before after the effects of each volcano and then, for all practical purposes, stays constant. There have been no more bumps since Pinatubo. There have been no more volcanoes since Pinatubo. Will the one in South America show up soon in the TLS data? The stratosphere reacts to volcanoes

The satellite TLT data can be interpreted as a period of states from 1979 to 1997, then an unusually strong El Nino, Now having levelled off at a slightly higher temperature. The Lower Troposphere reacts to PDO, AMO etc

These data seem to indicate that changes occur suddenly rather than monotonically (is that the right word) and seem to have little to do with the rise in CO2.

Hmmmmm. Just food for thought.

]]> By: Ric Werme http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15531 Ric Werme Sat, 24 May 2008 04:00:43 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15531 "Evan Jones (11:49:49) : > Ric ( “Eric”, right? ): Yup. There are a few other Rics around, but I haven't met one yet. > Emoticons are best expressed via text. > #B^U Hmm. I can't figure out how to hunt that down with Google. 73... “Evan Jones (11:49:49) :

> Ric ( “Eric”, right? ):

Yup. There are a few other Rics around, but I haven’t met one yet.

> Emoticons are best expressed via text.

> #B^U

Hmm. I can’t figure out how to hunt that down with Google.

73…

]]> By: hemst101 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15522 hemst101 Fri, 23 May 2008 23:19:05 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15522 Has anyone look at a plot of the RSS data for all the different channels? ie TLT, TMT TTS and TLS. Plot out the different graphs for Land and Ocean, Land Only and Ocean Only. My first impression is that there is just a whole lot of interesting stuff to be explained. No one will be anxious to draw a straight line through this data again Especially the data for TLS. They want to draw a straight line through this data? Seems ridiculous to me. http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/ Has anyone look at a plot of the RSS data for all the different channels? ie TLT, TMT TTS and TLS. Plot out the different graphs for Land and Ocean, Land Only and Ocean Only.

My first impression is that there is just a whole lot of interesting stuff to be explained. No one will be anxious to draw a straight line through this data again

Especially the data for TLS. They want to draw a straight line through this data? Seems ridiculous to me.

http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/

]]> By: Evan Jones http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15513 Evan Jones Fri, 23 May 2008 18:50:10 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15513 I mean "Ric". I mean “Ric”.

]]> By: Evan Jones http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15512 Evan Jones Fri, 23 May 2008 18:49:49 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15512 Ruc ( "Eric", right? ): Agreed. A pox on all autosmilies. Any smilies anyone sees in my posts are actually right-parens! Emoticons are best expressed via text. #B^U Ruc ( “Eric”, right? ):

Agreed. A pox on all autosmilies.

Any smilies anyone sees in my posts are actually right-parens!

Emoticons are best expressed via text.

#B^U

]]> By: Michael Eden http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15467 Michael Eden Fri, 23 May 2008 08:55:53 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15467 wattsupwiththat, I'm so glad people like you are out plugging away on the horrendous distortion of science that is called "global warming." I myself have been planning to write a detailed article on the subject, but have been too consumed with the issues that fill my own blog. I read the book, "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and by the very first chapter they had already presented a devastating scientific case against anthropocentric GW. The tactics of those who are using pseudo-science as a means of imposing a radical socialistic redistribution of global wealth is quite frankly shocking. wattsupwiththat,
I’m so glad people like you are out plugging away on the horrendous distortion of science that is called “global warming.” I myself have been planning to write a detailed article on the subject, but have been too consumed with the issues that fill my own blog.

I read the book, “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years” by S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and by the very first chapter they had already presented a devastating scientific case against anthropocentric GW.

The tactics of those who are using pseudo-science as a means of imposing a radical socialistic redistribution of global wealth is quite frankly shocking.

]]> By: Paul Clark http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15466 Paul Clark Fri, 23 May 2008 07:45:21 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15466 DAV: I posted how I derived these offsets in comments here a couple of weeks ago: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/rss-msu-lt-global-temperature-anomaly-for-april-2008-flat/ (at 10:34:38 on 6 05 08, about 25% the way down) Given that a lot of people seem to be repeated these figures now I guess I'd better document them on the site! If you've been thinking about this too I'd welcome your thoughts as to whether this makes sense or not. Paul DAV: I posted how I derived these offsets in comments here a couple of weeks ago:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/rss-msu-lt-global-temperature-anomaly-for-april-2008-flat/
(at 10:34:38 on 6 05 08, about 25% the way down)

Given that a lot of people seem to be repeated these figures now I guess I’d better document them on the site!

If you’ve been thinking about this too I’d welcome your thoughts as to whether this makes sense or not.

Paul

]]> By: Brian D http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15462 Brian D Fri, 23 May 2008 05:04:43 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15462 Why the changes from GISS? Missing data filled in. This April 2008 map is what the Jan-Mar 2008 maps used to looked like. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom04_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom04_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif Now, look at the Jan-Mar maps and notice the holes that were filled in. Jan 08 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom01_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom01_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif Feb 08 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom02_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom02_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif Mar 08 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom03_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom03_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif I also am using the HadCRUT base period in these maps. And I would expect more data to be filled in for April and maybe other months in the coming months. Northern parts of Canada are still missing for Dec07-Feb08, but Mar08 is filled in and seems to be a normal coverage for GISS. (looking back prior to Dec07) Why the changes from GISS?

Missing data filled in.

This April 2008 map is what the Jan-Mar 2008 maps used to looked like.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom04_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom04_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif

Now, look at the Jan-Mar maps and notice the holes that were filled in.
Jan 08
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom01_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom01_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif

Feb 08
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom02_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom02_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif

Mar 08
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom03_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom03_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif

I also am using the HadCRUT base period in these maps. And I would expect more data to be filled in for April and maybe other months in the coming months.

Northern parts of Canada are still missing for Dec07-Feb08, but Mar08 is filled in and seems to be a normal coverage for GISS. (looking back prior to Dec07)

]]> By: Ric Werme http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15461 Ric Werme Fri, 23 May 2008 04:39:12 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15461 Paul Clark (09:46:11) : "Write out 100 times: Must put spaces before right-parenthesis in WordPress comments : )" Or ask Anthony 100 times if Word Press has a mechanism to disable smilies. They're sort of cute until they corrupt things. A Preview button would be nice too. Thank you for not posting 7 seconds later. Paul Clark (09:46:11) :

“Write out 100 times: Must put spaces before right-parenthesis in WordPress comments : )”

Or ask Anthony 100 times if Word Press has a mechanism to disable smilies. They’re sort of cute until they corrupt things.

A Preview button would be nice too.

Thank you for not posting 7 seconds later.

]]> By: D. Quist http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15455 D. Quist Fri, 23 May 2008 03:31:59 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15455 Bob Tisdale "..NCDC.. calculate their anomaly data in different manner" (than GISS). Thanks for the clarification! That leaves two issues. -How influential is the NCDC report? -It seems to me, that the NCDC report, that March was the "warmest month ever" is based on some faulty information! If GISS has been adjusted down and the other measurements indicate that March was near average, it would indicate that NCDC is inaccurate. I have been looking at the NCDC reports for over a year now. I just want to know how accurate they are, and/or how biased their reports are. Thanks again for helping me understand. Bob Tisdale
“..NCDC.. calculate their anomaly data in different manner” (than GISS).

Thanks for the clarification!

That leaves two issues.
-How influential is the NCDC report?

-It seems to me, that the NCDC report, that March was the “warmest month ever” is based on some faulty information! If GISS has been adjusted down and the other measurements indicate that March was near average, it would indicate that NCDC is inaccurate.

I have been looking at the NCDC reports for over a year now. I just want to know how accurate they are, and/or how biased their reports are.

Thanks again for helping me understand.

]]> By: Bob Tisdale http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15449 Bob Tisdale Fri, 23 May 2008 01:57:29 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15449 D. Quist: Are you asking, will NCDC revise its data to reflect the change in GISS? If that's what you're asking, the answer is no. They're two different entities and they calculate their anomaly data in different manners. D. Quist: Are you asking, will NCDC revise its data to reflect the change in GISS? If that’s what you’re asking, the answer is no. They’re two different entities and they calculate their anomaly data in different manners.

]]> By: D. Quist http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15440 D. Quist Thu, 22 May 2008 22:46:48 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15440 rex: C. is for correct? Or, for corrupt? I guess we can only watch and wait. I feel a bit helpless against an organization like NOAA, producting these kind of results. If Anthony ran it, he would have updated that report, with the corrected information, faster than one could say AGW. rex:
C. is for correct? Or, for corrupt?
I guess we can only watch and wait. I feel a bit helpless against an organization like NOAA, producting these kind of results.
If Anthony ran it, he would have updated that report, with the corrected information, faster than one could say AGW.

]]> By: McGrats http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15436 McGrats Thu, 22 May 2008 21:55:01 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15436 I have a very basic question: The public is obviously being manipulate by GISS, the NCDC, and others on the taxpayers dime. Is it at all possible to file some type of class action suit against these types under the premise of their using taxpayer funds to spread propaganda similar to Hitler? Just wondering! Any lawyers out there? Jack Koenig, Editor The Mysterious Climate Project www.climateclinic.com I have a very basic question: The public is obviously being manipulate by GISS, the NCDC, and others on the taxpayers dime. Is it at all possible to file some type of class action suit against these types under the premise of their using taxpayer funds to spread propaganda similar to Hitler?

Just wondering! Any lawyers out there?

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

]]> By: Alphonse http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/#comment-15434 Alphonse Thu, 22 May 2008 21:32:21 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?p=1241#comment-15434 What's changed since the end of April? Did GISS suddenly remember they had dozens of unnoticed records, all of them significantly cooler than their extrapolations showed? Did they suddenly notice that they'd read 1000 thermometers too high? Or did they just decide to use a somewhat different algorithm to determine their average? My best guess would be the last option. But if that's the case, shouldn't EVERY average change, from the very beginning of their data? You can't just pick the algorithm you want, each month. If every data point isn't calculated the same way, they're not comparable. Just as importantly, when do the adjustments stop? At what point can we say, "The high temperature at Denver International airport, on January 7, 1997, WAS 2C?" History is the only absolute in life. It's the only thing that CAN'T change. If we allow it to, it ceases to become history, and is nothing more than propaganda. What’s changed since the end of April? Did GISS suddenly remember they had dozens of unnoticed records, all of them significantly cooler than their extrapolations showed? Did they suddenly notice that they’d read 1000 thermometers too high? Or did they just decide to use a somewhat different algorithm to determine their average?

My best guess would be the last option. But if that’s the case, shouldn’t EVERY average change, from the very beginning of their data? You can’t just pick the algorithm you want, each month. If every data point isn’t calculated the same way, they’re not comparable.

Just as importantly, when do the adjustments stop? At what point can we say, “The high temperature at Denver International airport, on January 7, 1997, WAS 2C?” History is the only absolute in life. It’s the only thing that CAN’T change. If we allow it to, it ceases to become history, and is nothing more than propaganda.

]]>