Comments on: RSS July Global Temperature Anomaly – up a bit

By: Sunny Day

Sunny Day — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:06:34 +0000

Sun spots, or rather the lack there of.

By: old construction worker

old construction worker — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:14:32 +0000

According to Co2 science there is evidence of the MWP in both hemispheres.
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Medieval Warm Period Project

The real question is what caused the drop in “temperature” from the MWP to the LIA.

By: dreamin

dreamin — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:36:55 +0000

The MWP was global. Period. MBH99 was wrong, and they lied. Period.

I think you are probably right, but if we assume for the sake of argument that it was limited to the Northern Hemisphere, there still remains the question: What (if anything) caused it?

By: Fred Nieuwenhuis

Fred Nieuwenhuis — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:52:12 +0000

randomengineer,
Agreed. However, you would expect the Global temperature column to agree in both charts. But they don’t, even with rounding up/down into consideration.

By: randomengineer

randomengineer — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:11:32 +0000

Fred Nieuwenhuis

The 5.2 seems to summarize everything Big Picture style whereas the other table seems to break stuff down into data by region/type.

By: Fred Nieuwenhuis

Fred Nieuwenhuis — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:36:12 +0000

Below is a note in UAH’s Global Temperature Reports (not released for July yet) eg. http://climate.uah.edu/june2008.htm

“The processed temperature data is available on-line at:
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt”

By: Fred Nieuwenhuis

Fred Nieuwenhuis — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:49:07 +0000

Understood. My apologies if it seemed that way.

By: Fred Nieuwenhuis

Fred Nieuwenhuis — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:05:34 +0000

Again, what’s the difference between http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 and
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

REPLY: Fred just FYI, I’m a bit busy today, I can’t always drop everything to research and answer a question. I hope that others can answer for you.

- Anthony

By: randomengineer

randomengineer — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:03:01 +0000

counters — “Note that the MWP is not really considered to be a period of global warmth; its effects were most profound in the North Atlantic, and there is not definitive evidence that it occurred to the same extent globally.”

The only way you can get here is to buy into MBH99 or Ammann and Wahl’s defence against M&M05′s proof of MBH99 being wrong. Otherwise the literature is rife with examples showing that MWP was in fact global.

Given that MBH99 is completely and utterly discredited to the point that even the IPCC on AR4 no longer used the hockey stick, yours seems a very curious and telling comment; it’s as if you start with MBH99 and go from there.

The MWP was global. Period. MBH99 was wrong, and they lied. Period.

By: July UAH Global Temperature Anomaly: up a bit and in agreement with RSS « Watts Up With That?

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:24:46 +0000

[...] RSS July Global Temperature Anomaly – up a bit [...]

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:17:35 +0000

As I look at the UAH monthly mean data from 1979, something strikes me. The whole thing pretty much averages out to zero. In, fact almost every month in the record would be rounded to zero, except for some months in 1998. Has anyone else made this observation? Can anyone here even PERCEIVE these differences? I might be making too much of this, but in my view this seems to be much ado about nothing.
Adapting to Zero Climate Change,
Mike Bryant

PS I would like to see this data set rounded to nearest whole number.

REPLY: Mike eyeballing doesn’t reveal the trends all that well. There is a decadal trend of 0.130 degrees in the global data. – Anthony

By: MattN

MattN — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:58:16 +0000

UAH is out for July. .048 global anomaly.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

By: jmrSudbury

jmrSudbury — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:25:39 +0000

And the UAH winner is (2008 7 0.048) up from -0.114 in July.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

John M Reynolds

By: Fred Nieuwenhuis

Fred Nieuwenhuis — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:00:37 +0000

UAH’s out: 0.06!!

By: dreamin

dreamin — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:26:55 +0000

I thought chaos theory and quantum theory pretty much told us we would have limits on how far we could predict in the future. Einstein famously said that “God does not play dice with the Universe” but could not prove otherwise.

Science is not pointless but it has its limits and it is good to recognize those.

I agree, and it’s troubling to me the way people throw around phrases like “chaotic system” without really knowing what they are talking about.

Why is it possible to predict an eclipse? Because a small error in the measurement of the positions and motions of sun, earth, and moon results in only a small error in predicting their positions at or around the time of the next eclipse.

In a chaotic system, these uncertainties have a tendency to multiply, giving results that are difficult or impossible to predict even if one understands the interactions of the system’s elements.