Comments on: RSS Global Temperature for October: RSS revises data to improve quality

By: RSS Global temp anomaly makes a significant jump « Watts Up With That?

RSS Global temp anomaly makes a significant jump « Watts Up With That? — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:57:30 +0000

[...] 2009 was published yesterday and has risen significantly. This is the new data version, 3.2 which changed in October. The change from December with a value of 0.174°C to January’s 0.322°C is a (∆T) of [...]

By: RSS for November is out, up slightly « Watts Up With That?

RSS for November is out, up slightly « Watts Up With That? — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:34:00 +0000

[...] November 2008 was published Today and has risen slightly. This is the new data version, 3.2 which changed in October. The change from October with a value of 0.181°C (V3.2) to November 0.216 is a (∆T) of [...]

By: climatepatrol

climatepatrol — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:32:51 +0000

@Paul Clark Great tool you have. I actually agree with your statement. What I had in mind was the average of the satellite units RSS and UAH versus the average of the surface networks (land-ocean-indexes). I did a slope of the satellite era in Excel. Excel returns a satellite era trend of: RSS + 0.159K/dec. (September + 0.169) UAH + 0.127K/dec. Average for the two satellite units: + 0,142K/dec. (vs.+ 0,148k in Sept.), which is now well below the land-ocean-idexes of + 0,161K in average.

By: Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product « An Honest Climate Debate

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:56:00 +0000

[...] all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced [...]

By: The evolution of the GISS temperature product « Watts Up With That?

The evolution of the GISS temperature product « Watts Up With That? — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:50:19 +0000

[...] RSS Global Temperature for October: RSS revises data to improve quality [...]

By: UAH for October sneak peek | Global Warming Skeptics

UAH for October sneak peek | Global Warming Skeptics — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:21:14 +0000

[...] John Christy, curator of the UAH global temperature anomaly dataset, inquiring about some of the changes in the RSS dataset. In addition to commenting on that, he was also kind enough to send along an advance copy of the [...]

By: anna v

anna v — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:01:04 +0000

Ecotretas (12:21:01) :

CO2 going high by the biggest value for any month since the beginning of Mauna Loa measurements. If temperatures go up next month, the AGW crowd will find a justification!

Must be the way they do their running averages. The end point goes up because of the previous peak. If I add the last 6 red points and divide by 6, I get a lower point, 385.5. They say the black line is “seasonally corrected data”, so anything is possible.

Of course there could be some extra CO2 belching from the local volcanoes at Mauna Loa.

By: woodfortrees (Paul Clark)

woodfortrees (Paul Clark) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:40:52 +0000

‘climatepatrol’: I’m sorry, I don’t agree. The RSS changes seem to reduce the differences in trend between RSS and the two surface sources and (to a lesser extent) to UAH. The real issue now is the difference between RSS/HADCRUT3/GISTEMP and UAH.

Here’s a monster of all four series plus the WTI average of the four, plus trend lines:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/wti/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

By: climatepatrol

climatepatrol — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:18:24 +0000

Great post and insight as ever. Together with your UAH release, it just shows how competing dataseets improve the quality of temperature measurements. It looks like I have to revise the synoptical view and trend of 5 datasets again, once Giss, NCDC and HatCrut are out. Their land-ocean-indexes have just been revised as well. All in all, it looks as if this increases the bias between surface stations and satellite units

By: UAH for October sneak peek « Watts Up With That?

UAH for October sneak peek « Watts Up With That? — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:16:22 +0000

[...] RSS Global Temperature for October: RSS revises data to improve quality [...]

By: David L. Hagen

David L. Hagen — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:30:42 +0000

Kum Dollison (22:00:35) : "David, problem is: Methanol is Poisonous." Gasoline is similarly poisonous. See below. Its just not "NEWS". Its a matter of training the public. Thanks Mike McMillan for: "Ethanol is poisonous, too, and probably kills more of us than methanol does (especially at frat parties)." Kum: "You think they raised a stink over 1.5% MTBE, just wait and see what they do over Methanol. …" Lack of fuel and consequently lack of jobs and food is much more deadly. Some 2-3 million people starved in North Korea 1995-96 due to food shortages caused by shortage of diesel fuel and fertilizer consequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Failure to provide adequate transport fuels to compensate for the pending rapid decline in light oil exports will likely cause hundreds of millions of deaths due to starvation. Kum: "I think something’s wrong with that number. The Plant is incredibly expensive". You must be reading environmentalist propaganda, not commercial reports. See: China Mobilizes Methanol While the U.S. Remains Mired in Oil Methanol from coal is currently the cheapest fuel available. DOE expects methanol costs of $0.50/gal equivalent to $1/gal gasoline. UCG Syngas: Product Options and Technologies The thermal efficiency is about 70% for coal to methanol vs 60% for Gas to Liquid Fisher Tropsch. We need to critically focus on what can be implemented rapidly on a large scale most cost effective.y Fuel Hazards Gasoline: Occupational Exposure Limits: TLV: 300 ppm as TWA 500 ppm as STEL A3 (confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans); (ACGIH 2004). Methanol: Occupational Exposure limits: NIOSH REL: 200 ppm (260 mg/m3) TWA, 250 ppm (325 mg/m3) STEL [skin] Current OSHA PEL: 200 ppm (260 mg/m3) TWA 1989 OSHA PEL: 200 ppm (260 mg/m3) TWA, 250 ppm (325 mg/m3) STEL [skin] 19931994 ACGIH TLV: 200 ppm (262 mg/m3) TWA, 250 ppm (328 mg/m3) STEL [skin] Ethanol OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS: TLV: 1000 ppm as TWA A4 (not classifiable as a human carcinogen); (ACGIH 2004). MAK: 500 ppm 960 mg/m³ Peak limitation category: II(2); Carcinogen category: 5; Pregnancy risk group: C; Germ cell mutagen group: 5; (DFG 2004). OSHA PEL: TWA 1000 ppm (1900 mg/m3) NIOSH REL: TWA 1000 ppm (1900 mg/m3) NIOSH IDLH: 3300 ppm 10%LEL See: 64175 IDLH: “Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health air concentration values” REL Recommended Exposure Limits” TWA Time Weighted Average PEL Permissible Exposure Limits TLV Threshold-limit value STEL Short Term Exposure Limit "Symptoms Irritation eyes, skin, mucous membrane; dermatitis; headache, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion), blurred vision, dizziness, slurred speech, confusion, convulsions; chemical pneumonitis (aspiration liquid); possible liver, kidney damage; [potential occupational carcinogen]" Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) "Symptoms Irritation eyes, skin, upper respiratory system; headache, drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting; visual disturbance, optic nerve damage (blindness); dermatitis" Besides, I think something’s wrong with that number. The Plant is incredibly expensive. About 10 times more expensive per gallon than ethanol, and the process is very labor-intensive - maybe as much as 20, or 30 times.

By: Paul Linsay

Paul Linsay — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:21:19 +0000

I’m always amazed that scientists who deal with a nonlinear system like the climate persist in drawing straight lines for trends. To my eye, a better representation of the data would be a step function, one level pre 1998, and a second about 0.2 C higher post 1998. All those fluctuations pre 1998 are ENSO and have nothing to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

By: Phil M

Phil M — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:38:30 +0000

It’s going to be interesting to how the temps develop over the next few months
- if the temps begin to creep back up to the 0.3C anomaly range then that’s bad news for the skeptics
- but if they stay down in the 0.0 – 0.1C range then that’s good news for skeptics, and bad news for the AGW crowd.

- at the moment, I think it could go either way! (sorry!)

By: Robert Wood

Robert Wood — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:38:25 +0000

Ecotretas, good work with the Portugese web site. Is this in Brasil? Then temps will probably go up next month; unlike here in canada :-(

By: Philip_B

Philip_B — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:41:24 +0000

eventually all that cold water has to find its way up north.

Eventually will be of the order of a few years to a few decades, because the NH and SH are essentially separate climate systems over shorter timescales.

Hence my contention that the Global Warming hypothesis has to be true for both hemispheres. Irrespective of how much warming there is the NH, as long as the SH does not warm, and there has been essentially no SH warming for the last 30 years, the hypothesis is disproven.

And of course any global mean temperature is irrelevant to the GW hypothesis.