UAH is out, like RSS it is down a bit

We are having a wicked Chinook along the Front Range today, with 60MPH winds and a massive fire in Boulder which has forced the evacuation of 11,000 homes. The fire started when a power transformer blew over.

We are over our Chinooks. For now. Twisted my satellite dish all to hell! Several country roads are still closed because entire wheat fields emptied their snow cover onto roads in big drifts. Now we are just trying to keep our feet dry while the rivers overflow. Who knows what January will bring yet. This is some strange stuff! Been watching the jet stream and wind patterns. The models give a pretty good idea of where it will blow next along with cold and warm fronts. This kind of weather sets us up for one storm after another seesawing between frozen snow and warm rain with high pressure/low pressure blows in-between them. With all the rain coming after HEAVY snow, the snow pack water equivalent is a higher over-percentage (yep it is plus 100 %) of normal than the snow pack is in nearly every snow basin that feeds into or is in Oregon. The little river that flows through Pendleton is flooding for godsake. Now that is a once in a lifetime event.

A thought about the last month of weather. While you’all up north were having frigid temps we were having above normal temps down my way. Almost as if the southern jet moving across the south had bottled up the cold air in place, compacting it amplifing the effects. Now that the southern jet has moved south past my location, it seems that the trapped cold air is spreading out which allows it to warm, hence your modifying temps up their.
Just on observation.

Oh I am feeling my oats tonight! Just waiting for some nice young environmentally conscious man to sooth my fretted brow because flooding is to be expected in global warming.

OT.
(please help I’m curious).
Could someone please point me to a viable description of the following points.
1. The component of the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2 that can reliably be attributed to man made emissions.
2. The component of the current atmospheric CO2 that can reliably be attributed to man made emissions.
Thanks.

humph. Sunny and 65 in Dallas today. What’s the problem?

You look at that graph and realize all this hysteria is over a 0.2-0.3 C rise in temps over 30 years.

Has anyone ever looked at the satellite data pre and post the 1998 El Nino by “area” or transit or whatever? Just for fun I looked at the data from the start to and including Nov 1997 and from including Nov 1998 to present. These were arbitrary points that seemed to me to perhaps be the approx start and finish of the El Nino as indicated by the satellite data. (not cherry picking to make a point)
Couple of things that seemed interesting;
RSS Post El Nino – All “areas” are still showing an increasing trend except -70/-20 and the Continental USA which showed a whopping -4.56 Deg C / century!!
60/82.5 showed what everyone knows a +5.4 Deg C / century and
-70/-60 showed a +1.54 Deg C /Century although it was a -0.24 Deg C/Cent Pre the El Nino
UAH Post El Nino shows all “areas” with a positive trend post El Nino except for the USA 48 which was a -3.6 Deg C/Cent. UAH NoPol was +4.44 Post El Nino and 1.56 Pre (4.44 overall !!)
UAH southern “areas” were all negative pre El Nino.
Hmmmm

I have a question related to the UAH lower troposphere data. When I look at the far right column I believe that’s the number of days in the yearly average. How come those numbers are always 365 – shouldn’t it currently be 366 since we’re in a leap year?

mark wagner (20:24:38) :
Dude, you’ve had two ice storms already and will likely have another hard freeze on Saturday (watch those pipes)! Maybe that’s normal for Dallas…
Snow here in Houston and icy bridges in December isn’t normal. It’s artic system, pacific system, artic system, pacific system with a smattering of warm up from the gulf. Lots of clouds – no sun (‘cept today/tomorrow finally). Enjoy it while u can.

Now that was clearly articulated. I imagine the Arctic has some cause and effect here as well as :>).

The 4th order polynomial is a troublesome line. I just don’t like it, as pure data mining and especially with some conditional knowledge. What I see is a cyclic (sinusoidal) pattern with a frequency that varies from 3.5 to 4.5 years and with an amplitude of about 0.6 degrees C. The El Nino year 1998 is an anomaly. Otherwise the trend for 30 years has been upward at about 0.1 degrees per decade. Of course, during all that time we have been in a positive PDO. In roughly 2007 the PDO shifted to negative. It’s difficult to see it in the graph, but I suspect we doglegged about then, and the trend will be downward for the next 30 years. I can’t tell if the 3.5 to 4.5 year cycle disappeared or not; it certainly seems less pronounced this century.
This particular record does support the case that marginal warming has occurred over the last 30 years, up until 2007. The skeptic refrain that the globe has cooled over the last ten years is not strictly true, especially if 1998 is considered anomalous. This year should be very telling. If the patterns of the previous 30 years hold, 2009 should be warmer, with departures approaching +0.4 and above. If, on the other hand, 2009 departures drop to the 0.0 or even +0.1 level, that would indicate a major shift away from previous trends.
btw, if I had any say in the matter, I would choose the globe to be warmer, because I like warmer better. I suspect I am going to be disappointed in that.

Graeme Rodaughan (20:17:18) : OT – Could someone please point me to a viable description of the following points.
1. The component of the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2 that can reliably be attributed to man made emissions.
2. The component of the current atmospheric CO2 that can reliably be attributed to man made emissions.
Hi Graeme, it’s an area that I got interested in. Have a look at my web pages here and here, and at the Forum discussions with Ferdinand Engelbeen and others here and elsewhere. We know that the yearly increase is about half the human emissions. But I don’t think we know for sure how much of the increase is due to us, how much is due to, say, slow ongoing ocean warming recovery from the LIA, and how efficiently the biosphere can sink the CO2 (which I rate highly). What I’m certain of is that the IPCC have been playing fast and loose with the science, that the oceans have a HUGE power to outgas and sink CO2, and that we forget the marine homeostasis involving free Ca radicals ever-ready to turn CO2 into CaCO3 (acidification – humph!).
Anyone interested, don’t go further OT here but post on our forum please!

“I have a strange feeling that the 2009 temps will be higher than 2008…”-Alex
Perhaps they will, but I doubt it.

It’s the “Force” Alex – listen to the force…

My projection was as follows:
UAH: +0.25°C (actual: 0.180)
RSS: +0.28°C (actual: 0.174 )
GISS: +0.51°C
HadCRU: +0.47°C
NCDC: +0.57°C
(0.2°C simply added to Tom Woods’ ).
And I expect my GISS and HadCrut numbers to be too low.

Any chance of getting all four main temperatures shown with a trend line for the past ten years? A lot of people made a big deal out of 1998 being included last year so I’ll like to see the trends based on a start date of 1999.

The update of RSS, GISS gives present length of stagnation in temperatures:
GISS: 8 years 0 mth (since jan 2001)
RSS: 11 year 11 mth (Since feb 1997)
Graphic:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/temp08.gif
SOLAR CYCLE 24 – Hathaway, new interesting correction, sorry if others has mentioned it:
Hathaways predicted max, oct 2008: 137
Hathaways predicted max, jan 2009: 104
– A decrease in expectaion for solar cycle 24 of 30 % ! By the scientist who most of all scientist expected rather powerful solar cycle 24.
Graphic:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/s24correction.gif

Basil (06:58:32) “There’s no one temperature that represents the 0 line.”
But Basil, there has to be a base temperature. That 0 line represents 0.00 degrees difference from the baseline, as this is an anomaly graph. If they are recalculating the baseline average each month, don’t even worry about putting a zero line there, just give us the raw data number. Somewhere, there is a baseline average that is being used. I’m asking if it is now time to recompute that baseline based upon 30 years of available data compiled using the same metric? Also, with a recomputed baseline, are we currently warmer or colder than average?

Lucy Skywalker,
I don’t find it very plausible that half of our emissions end up inte atmospere. All our emissions end up in the atmosphere and the biosphere takes up an amount that is currently half of our emissions. There is an important difference: the take-up rate seems to be fairly well proportional to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence, if we would cut down emissions in a few decades – which is very likely as alternatives fuel becomes economically viable – the more than half of our emissions will be eaten up by the biosphere.

Mike McMillan (21:47:35) :
Pamela Gray (21:07:02) :
Hot air in Texas? Oh Mark I could say something but I will control my feistier side for AGW debate.
As well you should. My current zip code ,77339, is for Humble, TX.
Wait a minute! Humble? In Texas?!

I’m not sure, but I may have beat you to this one-not that it matters when your blog has such a huge readership compared to mine.I’m extremely jealous! Keep up the getting noticed, Anthony. Everyone should hear what you have to say.

Lucy Skywalker (02:05:32) :
Anyone interested, don’t go further OT here but post on our forum please!
Thanks Lucy, much appreciated. Cheers G.

“Hence, if we would cut down emissions in a few decades – which is very likely as alternatives fuel becomes economically viable”
There is currently no “alternative” fuel that I am aware of that would cut CO2 emissions. The only fuel that would cut CO2 emissions that I see available is nuclear generated electricity.
But one must wonder why we even need to cut CO2 emissions. Warming is better than cooling. A warmer planet would make for a more diverse biosphere. Current IPCC predictions of environmental response to CO2 increase has been shown to be greatly exaggerated. If we doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, we would get less warming than we had from natural causes in the 18th century. It would get lost in the noise of natural variability. I see no reason to worry greatly about CO2 emissions.
What is important is that things such as mineral petroleum is too valuable a resource to simply burn up. When we run out of oil, we run out of plastic, paint, fertilizer, computers, televisions, and fibers for clothing. Conserving our petroleum resources will become an important issue but not because of CO2 emissions. It will be important because of all the other things aside from fuel that it is used for. The same applies for coal.
Nuclear energy with recycled fuel is our most environmentally friendly way to provide an inexpensive, large scale energy source that can power a global economy for centuries to come and still leave enough of our mineral petroleum resources to make the other materials we need in a modern society.

Have no idea where to post this but I found it very odd.
http://www.eponline.com/articles/70183/
NASA did a 5 year study and came to the conclusion that clouds associated with severe storms are increasing do to global warming.
Two things I found odd about the conclusion
#1 – How come a 5 year study is okay if it backs up their claim, but an 11 year study of lowering temperatures is not long enough
#2 – Temps have decreased in the last 5 years not increased so if their study found more clouds associated with severe storms wouldn’t that mean they are increasing do to global cooling and not warming

JP
“Occaisonally, when I’m feeling mean, when I come across a really strident AGW proponent I tell said person that if they are really interested in lowering thier carbon footprint they should advocate the boycotting of the Internet.”
I always recommend they kill themselves and save the rest of us from have to slowly roast in the CO2 they exhale.

Crosspatch:
“It would get lost in the noise of natural variability. I see no reason to worry greatly about CO2 emissions.”
They want to kill off all the plants that turn CO2 into the Oxygen that we breathe.