UAH global temperature anomaly for May – down again, near zero

UAH_May09-520

Graph by Anthony (click for larger image) text by Dr. Roy Spencer from his blog here

May 2009 Global Temperature Update +0.04 deg. C

June 4th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

YR MON GLOBE   NH   SH   TROPICS
2009   1   0.304   0.443   0.165   -0.036
2009   2   0.347   0.678   0.016   0.051
2009   3   0.206   0.310   0.103   -0.149
2009   4   0.090   0.124   0.056   -0.014
2009   5   0.043   0.043   0.043   -0.168

May 2009 saw another drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.09 deg. C in April to +0.04 deg. C in May, originating mostly from the Northern Hemisphere and the tropics.

A reminder for those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here:

(1) Only use channel 5 (”ch05″), which is what we use for the lower troposphere and middle troposphere temperature products.
(2) Compare the current month to the same calendar month from the previous year (which is already plotted for you).
(3) The progress of daily temperatures should only be used as a rough guide for how the current month is shaping up because they come from the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite, which has a substantial diurnal drift in the local time of the orbit. Our ‘official’ results presented above, in contrast, are from AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, which carries extra fuel to keep it in a stable orbit. Therefore, there is no diurnal drift adjustment needed in our official product.

139 thoughts on “UAH global temperature anomaly for May – down again, near zero

  1. Even following Dr Spencer’s tips, the AMSU-A daily temperature predicted a much larger positive anomaly. I really wonder now how useful these daily temperature really are…

    I think the most useful tool would be here the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis like the following one, presented on a French website

    http://www.climat-evolution.com/article-32112504.html

    One can clearly see that this reconstruction shows very positive anomalies at the level of the poles, and a relative cooling of the northern hemisphere (as mentioned). This, at least, is consistent with the satelite data which do not cover extreme latitudes and, thus, not the poles.

    I think one should be really careful then with the purely satelite-based anomalies. For example, the poles could be 100 degrees above average and the satelite would still indicate nothing. Does anyone know wether GISS and HadCrut take some polar staiton data into account?

  2. This is very interesting.

    Has anyone been putting together comparisons between temperature anomalies in:

    i. the troposphere
    ii. land surface
    iii. Sea Surface

    to see how these differ and, hence, how different slants on ‘climate change’ may be coming about?

    In particular, are there any indications that trends in e.g. the troposphere show correlation to lagging changes in e.g. land surface?

    This would be very valuable as people start to try to understand how all the different measurements which scientists have been making, often apparently in isolation, may contribute to an overall picture of earth’s temperature cycles, fluctuations and anomalies……..

  3. Seems as though David Archibald’s May 2009 temperature prediction didn’t materialise… Oops… (O_o)
    maybe next year..

  4. ” For example, the poles could be 100 degrees above average and the satelite(sic) would still indicate nothing.”

    That is probably what’s happening… Why didn’t I see it?

  5. Flanagan,
    “For example, the poles could be 100 degrees above average and the satelite would still indicate nothing. Does anyone know wether GISS and HadCrut take some polar staiton data into account?”

    100 degrees above average?? That sounds like a Hansen “temperature data correction” to me!

    Taken from a WUWT article from 7 May 2009:

    ‘Once again there is a rather large discrepancy between our monthly anomaly (+0.09 deg. C.) and that produced by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS, +0.20 deg. C). We (John Christy and I) believe the difference is due to some combination of three factors:

    1) we calculate the anomalies from a wider latitude band, 84S to 84N whereas RSS stops at 70S, and Antarctica was cooler than average in April (so UAH picks it up).

    2) The monthly anomaly is relative to the 1979-1998 base period, which for RSS had a colder mean period relative to April 2009 (i.e. their early Aprils in the 1979-1998 period were colder than ours.)

    3) RSS is still using a NOAA satellite whose orbit continues to decay, leading to a sizeable diurnal drift adjustment. We are using AMSU data from only NASA’s Aqua satellite, whose orbit is maintained, and so no diurnal drift adjustment is needed. The largest diurnal effects occur during Northern Hemisphere spring, and I personally believe this is the largest contributor to the discrepancy between UAH and RSS.’

  6. Not sure how the maths ae calculated here but can someone explain how the global average is 0.043 when the tropics are -0.168 and both NH & SH anomolies are 0.043.

    Am I reading this correctly ?

  7. “I think one should be really careful then with the purely satelite-based anomalies. For example, the poles could be 100 degrees above average and the satelite would still indicate nothing.”

    OK, but who could care less if the temperature is -30C when it should be -31C at these extreme latitudes? It’s not going to melt the ice, and global warming is only a worry, if it’s a worry, where people actually live and work.

  8. So, it *IS* cooler? Well, as I now live in Sydney, Australia, I thought I was actually living in Wellington, New Zealand, at the Brass Monkey cafe!!!

  9. Flanagan:

    “For example, the poles could be 100 degrees above average and the satelite would still indicate nothing.”

    Outrageous hyperbole really is embedded in our culture.

  10. Flanagan, at the risk of stating the obvious, there are no stations near the N Pole! GISS does use the data from the station at the S Pole (and a glance at the GISS data shows that the claim of large positive anomaly there is completely false) .
    What HadCrut currently uses, nobody knows, because they refuse to release this information (see latest post at climate audit).

  11. Flanagan

    The polar hole the AQUA satellite leaves is roughly the size of Lake Michigan. That’s unlikely to tilt the global temperature significantly by it’s omission.

    BTW, how does your French site gather it’s polar temperatures? Are they actual measurements, or WAGs?

  12. Flanagan- “For example, the poles could be 100 degrees above average and the satelite would still indicate nothing. Does anyone know wether GISS and HadCrut take some polar staiton data into account?”

    As far as I recall, GISS uses GCM’s to estimate polar temperatures, adds them to the database and then reports them as ‘measured’. HadCrut does not have polar coverage. This was discussed last year either here or at CA.

    As for your example of the poles being 100 degrees above average- in the spirit of your silly example, they could also be 100 degrees below average.

    Either way, last year Hansen taught us, after having to clean up an error in the GISS database, that the U.S. anomaly ‘does not matter’ in the global picture because it is such a small fraction of the global surface area. Surely Hansen’s philosophy also applies to the polar regions, say 80 – 90 north or south, whether they are warming or cooling?

    “I think one should be really careful then with the purely satelite-based anomalies.”

    What do you suggest as a more accurate, reliable alternative to satellite data, which provides global coverage every day, measured from MSU sensor platforms?

  13. Here are a few charts showing how the Satellite temps stack up against the IPCC’s forecasts from the most recent IPCC report AR4.

    First, here is the forecast from 2000 to 2100 for the A1B GHG scenario from the IPCC. [AR4 rebased the temperature data to the 1980 to 1999 average so this chart actually starts about 0.2C below the normal anomaly we are used to seeing for today.] Effectively, just add 0.2C to it so it makes sense compared to the numbers we are used to.

    The A1B scenario is the most commonly used GHG growth scenario. It is closest to the track we are on now. CO2 reaches 715 ppm by 2100 under this scenario which is perhaps a little high but closer to expectations than the other IPCC scenarios.

    The trend to date from the Satellites show two important points.

    – first, they indicate that the older temperature records may have been adjusted to increase the trend prior to 1979 by about 0.3C.

    – second, the trend indicates that global warming will be much less than the IPCC forecast – only 0.78C to 1.03C temperature increase by 2100 or just 0.7C more to go in the next 90 years.

    RSS versus the IPCC’s ensemble mean A1B scenario.

    UAH versus the IPCC (a little lower than RSS).

  14. Rhys Jaggar (04:37:29) :

    This is very interesting.

    Has anyone been putting together comparisons between temperature anomalies in:

    i. the troposphere
    ii. land surface
    iii. Sea Surface

    to see how these differ and, hence, how different slants on ‘climate change’ may be coming about?

    In particular, are there any indications that trends in e.g. the troposphere show correlation to lagging changes in e.g. land surface?

    […]

    If you plot the UAH Lower Trop. “Land” and “Ocean” data, you can see the two curves track fairly well up until 2003; with “Land” having a bit higher amplitude variation. Since 2003, the two curves begin to divert. The “Ocean” curve starts a gradually steepening cooling trend in 2003; while the warming trend of the “Land” curve diminishes and then begins a shallow cooling trend in 2005.

    The Northern vs. Southern Hemispheres has a similar relationship. The NH warmed more than the SH from 1979-2003…The SH started its cooling trend in 2003 and the NH in 2005.

    It looks like something happened to the oceans in 2003…The Climate Shift of 1976 was linked to a sharp change in oceanic upwelling. I wonder if there are any papers out there on sharp increases of upwelling in 2003.

  15. Flanagan

    the fact that de ice sheat in de northern and southern poles are around normal suggest that the red parts on your french website are false. And you alsow take a average of 68 to 96. that is very suspicious because in the early 70’s you had coulder weather and in 96 you had a sunspot minimum and colder weather.

  16. Climate Progress declares war

    “Watts, who is apparently in the tinfoil-hat and black helicopter club, that poster reveals dark purposes:”

    Tinfoil-hats and black helicopters?

    Ubuntu

  17. It is important to remember that – while ALL of the before-zero (pre-satellites) historical temperatures have been “adjusted” dowward by Hansen’s cronies (thereby increasing the apparent global warming trends) – NONE of the post zero-satellite temperatures CAN BE “adjusted” any direction BECAUSE the satellite temperatures create an honest baseline.

    So, if we compare the above record to the ORIGINAL (pre-Hansen) surface temperature record, what do we find for rural and small town sites? Once UHI effects are removed, what id left? How much have we cooled since 1935-1945?

  18. Rhys Jaggar (04:37:29) :

    A partial answer to your question (LT vs ST data) at

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

    The increase of ST over LT is about 0.07C per decade, probably due to UHI, etc.

    I think Roy Spencer wrote something recently here or on his own blog that included SST.
    ______________________

    Alex (04:52:26) :

    “Seems as though David Archibald’s May 2009 temperature prediction didn’t materialise… Oops… (O_o)”

    A little info please Alex – what was David’s prediction – about -0.3C or so?

    I really don’t remember, but David was still much closer to reality than the IPCC’s catastrophic warming nonsense.

    _______________________________________

    To all – notice in recent years how LT anom drops around this time of year?

    We are freezing here in Western Canada – temperatures should drop below freezing this weekend. Snow is forecast for the California mountains.

    A bit more global warming alarmism would be welcomed here, if it were accompanied by some actual HEAT!

    It would be entirely appropriate if all these warmist imbeciles froze in the dark. It’s the rest of us I’m worried about.

  19. Dug up from the archives at RC –

    1. [Response: Science is about making predictions and seeing if they pan out. This is a relatively new endeavour and has a number of issues (the limits to predictibiilty of ENSO, other sources of variation etc.). But if you look at that data more in detail, there is definite skill – ie. the forecast outperforms persistence (r=0.74 vs 0.36), OLS regression = 0.98 compared to 0.5 (though the bias is less, -0.01 compared to 0.07). It might not be perfect, but the variations are being tracked quite well. Given that, their estimate of relative warmth in 2009 is probably a good bet. – gavin]

  20. Science discussions and debates sit around facts, figures, and plausible theories. Any opposition blog that uses such phrases as “tinfoil hats and black helicopter club” can be dismissed and ignored, even if occasional posts there offer food for thought. They are carving on themselves.

  21. Ozzie John (05:25:12) :
    “Not sure how the maths ae [sic] calculated here but can someone explain how the global average is 0.043 when the tropics are -0.168 and both NH & SH anomolies are 0.043.”

    Ozzie, if I understand your question correctly . . . the NH, SH and tropics are not separate subsets. The tropics overlap with both the NH and SH. Apparently, the higher northern and southern latitudes had higher anomalies to offset the negative tropics anomaly.

  22. Hi everybody,

    of course, the 100 degrees figure was just for fun. The thing is, for what I remember, that the fastest warming regions are around the poles (even if the temperatures do stay below 0 in most parts), so I’m not sure data based on everything-but-the-polar region is really the best choice. RSS should have similar problems.

    The French estimate is based on forecasting models for the polar regions, including boundary conditions known from other data set.

  23. “Watts, who is apparently in the tinfoil-hat and black helicopter club, that poster reveals dark purposes:”

    When you can’t argue the facts one resorts to ad hominem attacks. One shouldn’t, but often one does, especially when “one” is a climate “scientist.”

    The disgustingly low level of dialog on AGW is going to one day be the shame of ALL of us who consider ourselves scientists. The agenda-driven activist “scientists” have forever tarred the profession for the rest of us.

  24. Climate Progress believes in “Mark’s Arctic Death Spiral!” Anagrammed = “Mark’s Patriarchical Edicts”… I didn’t even know the sea ice was alive…

  25. Reported today that in Helsinki Finland we are experiencing the coldest weather in 60 years. So much for GW again.

  26. Flanagan (04:36:06) :

    Yes, the incomplete coverage of the Earth should be considered, but most regular readers of this blog will know that this has been covered before. See:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/

    In it Dr. Christy is quoted to say: (I hope my formatting experimentation works)

    As the spacecraft rolls over the pole it does so at an inclined orbit so
    that the highest nadir latitude is about 82 deg with the scanner looking
    out a bit closer to the pole. Since we apply the scan line data mostly to
    the nadir area directly below the satellite, the actual data only go to
    about 83 deg. In the gridded data I interpolate over the pole, but I
    wouldn’t trust the data too much beyond 85 deg.

    MikeEE

  27. …and I should have included…

    The coverage is such that almost all of the Earth is seen only a few percent is missed.

    MikeEE

  28. Totally OT here:

    Wait for it, everyone…Based on a piece in Yahoo news this morning, some AGW blowhard will, invariably, blame Flight 447’s tragic demise on global warming/climate change/etc.

    “Meteorologists said the Air France jet entered an unusual storm with 100 mph (160 kph) updrafts that acted as a vacuum, sucking water up from the ocean. The moist air rushed up to the plane’s high altitude, where it quickly froze in minus-40 degree temperatures. The updrafts also would have created dangerous turbulence.”

    Any bets on when Al Gore/Hansen/other says something along the lines of: “Before global warming, airliners never had to deal with this”? I give it 48 hours more (unless I just haven’t seen it yet).

  29. Ok, David Archibald was a little too optimistic with his temperature projection but…temperature is still going down. It obviously takes more time before the effects of the current solar minimum materialize.
    We are in a learning process here and there is no scientist in the world who made any progress without engaging a trial and error process.

    I miss the respect for the trial and error process with some of the posters here and I absolutely reject the mentality of burning down people who stick out their necks publishing about subjects to be discussed here.

    Without people like David Archibald, and many others, WUWT would be a blank page and nobody would learn anything.

  30. Anthony. Several people have criticized Archibald’s prediction. ” Those that are without sin cast the first stone”. Before someone is critical of anothers public prediction, ISTM, they should have also made a very public prediction that was substantially more accurate. A little humility goes a long way. fm

  31. The May AMSU anomaly tracks with surface temperatures away from urban heat islands close to the Canadian border (44’62” N). We are 4.6% above the long term heating degree day averages for this year with snow down to 2000 feet last week and frost again in the valleys last night.

  32. 1998 was such a gift to the AGW alarmists who like to terminate analysis around AD 2000.

  33. Dave Middleton,

    Where can I find the UAH Lower Tropospheric data separated by land and ocean? I have only seen global data and data segregated by latitude bands.

    GHD

  34. Ubuntu,
    Climate Progress declaring war on WUWT is like Monaco declaring war on the US.
    But if you need me Dr. Watts, I have my T-hat (with a brain underneath it) and my old beat-up physics books ready to go.

    MKE Bob

  35. Anthony. Is this ” Flanagan”, the same one who said “hot” in California ? NWS is predicting 4-7 inches snow for Ebbetts, Carson and Tioga passes this evening. There are a lot of hikers/backpackers that will be huddled in their tents this evening, cursing their misfortune. Up your way, i see Redding broke a rainfall record yesterday. fm

  36. Somehow, this one doesn’t look quite right. The chart in this post appears to be Spencer’s April chart. When I go to Spenser’s site, his May numbers are not yet posted. If you check out the real-time ASMU temp charts at various altitudes, they appear to show temperatures for May ’09 higher than May ’08.

    What am I missing here?

  37. “Tinfoil-hats and black helicopters?”…It’s a conspiracy theory jab.

    “Tinfoil-hats” refers to people who wear such things to prevent the CIA, space aliens or the UN from using mind control devices on them or reading their thoughts. See the movie Signs for an example.

    “Black helicopters” refers to mysterious black helicopters (presumably UN helicopters) that were supposedly snooping on Americans in the 1990’s. Some of the “black helicopter” crowd also claimed that the Clinton Administration was putting bar codes on the reverse sides of highway signs so that the UN invaders could navigate our highways – UN invaders drive on the wrong side of the road…I guess. I have a friend who literally believed in this sort of crap.

    Basically they are referring to Mr. Watts and WUWT as a bunch of conspiracy geeks because we are skeptical of the AGW fraud. It’s sort of a compliment. It’s like a Creation Science blog referring to a Stephen J. Gould blog as being in “the tinfoil-hat and black helicopter club.”

  38. Ubuntu (06:25:51) :
    NSDIC’s Dr Mark Serreze is carving WUWT a new one on Climate Progress.

    Cute. Dr. Romm lobbed Dr. Serreze a softball and the newly-appointed director of NSIDC responds with an ad-hominem attack on Anthony Watts. Great Science going on over there at Climate Progress. Rather than explaining why NSIDC and arctic-roos graphs are different, the best Dr. Romm can say is “They do things a little differently”.

    I’m sure there is no connection whatsoever, but it is interesting how that arctic ice melt line started going down when Dr. Serreze was apponted.

  39. Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice and the “breathaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat
    From: http://climateprogress.org/

    Congratulations Anthony, I regard it as a compliment when professional warmistas take aim at WUWT.
    It’s like an open invitation.

    It’s only a pitty that they don’t allow you to post a comment if it does not support their overheated ideas.

  40. Very interesting.

    CO2 is going up, but temperature is staying down…. Not what the Hypothesis of AGW says is supposed to happen…. Not to mention the fact that no computer model modeled this outcome…. They are not very good at proving their assertions on climate are they?

    Keep up the good reporting Anthony.

    I had a quick look at ” Climate Progress” Ubuntu, and was a bit appalled at what passed for Journalism there. WUWT is very Fair and Balanced compared to that blog I reckon.

  41. New Scientist quotes Steig’s paper in an article about Antarctic ice. I guess NS didn’t get the memo re Steig is wrong. I don’t trust reconstructions by the Wizards of Oz anymore. Or maybe the approach should be “Distrust and Double-check.”

  42. The AMSU 3,300 ft channel had me wondering initially how the heck the May anomaly could be so low…

    …guess that shows how much I know.

    Abosulte temperature measurements seem nearly impossible, but if you believe what RSS & UAH are saying…then May 2009 was no different than 1979.

  43. Ubuntu (06:25:51) :

    “NSDIC’s Dr Mark Serreze is carving WUWT a new one on Climate Progress. ”

    Hardly surprising coming from one of Al Gore’s climate advisers…

    http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=5042

    “Top climate change expert, Al Gore adviser, gives UW public talk on Arctic ice loss

    WATERLOO, Ont. (Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2009) — One of North America’s leading experts on climate change, Mark Serreze, will give a public talk on the sharp loss of Arctic sea ice during a visit next week at the University of Waterloo.

    One of Al Gore’s key environmental advisers, Serreze is the senior research scientist and Arctic specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, based at the University of Colorado in Boulder. ”

  44. Please Frank Mosher,Keith W. and everybody. The NOAA U.S. Records-Site is really helpful to keep in mind,that there is record cold and record warmth in the U.S. any given day. But funny enough even Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf,german power forward of the hockey team couldn`t resist to note in his website named KlimaLounge,that Potsdam/Germany had a record warm April,unprecedented in 114 years. If you are a layman like me,don`t dare to mention weather events like this.

  45. An open letter to Gavin Schmidt; Gavin, this is a very civil blog compared to any other I have seen on this subject. Please join us in conversation so we can understand better where you are coming from and vice-versa. You have obviously worked very hard to achieve your standing in the scientific community. Would it be so difficult to overcome our differences and discuss the subject as civil people interested in the same subject, albeit differing viewpoints. By mending fences, we could go a long way to further the science . I have a suspicion that you probably read this blog every now and again, and I am hoping you will consider joining us to clarify some of the questions we have. You may have some questions for us as well. I am certain that Anthony and moderators would keep the discourse civil. Hoping to hear from you, ……………… David Ball

  46. Flanagan (07:14:47) :
    Hi everybody,
    of course, the 100 degrees figure was just for fun. The thing is, for what I remember, that the fastest warming regions are around the poles (even if the temperatures do stay below 0 in most parts), so I’m not sure data based on everything-but-the-polar region is really the best choice. RSS should have similar problems. The French estimate is based on forecasting models for the polar regions, including boundary conditions known from other data set.

    Gisstemp uses estimations from ice coverage, the French use models, which you tried to represent as data. Do you laugh when you post this intentionally misleading rubbish? From now on, I will. [Flanagan]=set on hilarious.

  47. Allan M R MacRae:
    “A little info please Alex – what was David’s prediction – about -0.3C or so?
    I really don’t remember, but David was still much closer to reality than the IPCC’s catastrophic warming nonsense.”

    Of course, here is the link: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf

    He predicted 0.4 degrees below the average so he is 0.443 degrees off, which isn’t bad but this was merely a statistical analysis so 100% accuracy was not expected.

    I somehow doubt temperatures will plummet after May 2009, because an El Nino is currently forming, but something tells me that the next La Nina will be a big one, 2010 perhaps? This is just a hunch though, probably won’t happen.

  48. Frank Mosher (07:58:05) :
    Several people have criticized Archibald’s prediction. ” Those that are without sin cast the first stone”.
    I agree, it is OK to be wrong. The problems only begin when one is not admitting to be wrong, like renaming GW to GC.

  49. Does Flanagan think it is proper to extrapolate/interpolate surface station up to ~1250 km? Inquiring minds want to know….

    Of course models which have 0 degrees latitude spatial coverage are always more reliable than satellite data :)

  50. Flanagan: “I think one should be really careful then with the purely satelite-based anomalies. For example, the poles could be 100 degrees above average and the satelite would still indicate nothing.”

    Do some basic math Flanagan – the area not covered by the satellites (above 82% of latitude) represents less than 1% of the global surface area. So what’s your point?

  51. EXCUSE ME! But isn’t a +0.043C anomaly over a record period of 30 years equivalent to a century’s rise of 0.15C or more than 1/4 degree F? Isn’t anyone concerned? My God we are cooking ourselves to death and all you skeptics are making jokes. OH THE HUMANITY!

    By the way Frank K, I haven’t observed any Arctic sea ice at Waterloo this year…could be a problem.

  52. Claude Harvey (08:15:43) : Somehow, this one doesn’t look quite right. The chart in this post appears to be Spencer’s April chart. When I go to Spenser’s site, his May numbers are not yet posted. If you check out the real-time ASMU temp charts at various altitudes, they appear to show temperatures for May ‘09 higher than May ‘08. What am I missing here?

    A reminder for those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here:

    (1) Only use channel 5 (”ch05″), which is what we use for the lower troposphere and middle troposphere temperature products.
    (2) Compare the current month to the same calendar month from the previous year (which is already plotted for you).
    (3) The progress of daily temperatures should only be used as a rough guide for how the current month is shaping up because they come from the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite, which has a substantial diurnal drift in the local time of the orbit. Our ‘official’ results presented above, in contrast, are from AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, which carries extra fuel to keep it in a stable orbit. Therefore, there is no diurnal drift adjustment needed in our official product.

  53. Ozzie John (05:25:12) :

    Not sure how the maths ae calculated here but can someone explain how the global average is 0.043 when the tropics are -0.168 and both NH & SH anomolies are 0.043.

    Am I reading this correctly ?
    =================================================
    Yep. The tropics span both the NH and SH. What this implies is that the extratropical temperature anomaly will be greater than 0.043!

  54. How is the zero level defined?

    For UAH, it’s the 1979 – 2000 average. (NASA uses a 1950-1880 baseline.)

    Does anyone know wether GISS and HadCrut take some polar staiton data into account?

    NASA infers it (mostly from the Siberian Thought Criminal stations). That’s one reason why they run warmer than HadCRUT, which does not do this.

    The satellites (pole-to-pole orbit) also have a hard time, as their sensors are oriented out the side and not the nose, which means they cover the full sweep better as the earth rotates, but can’t look directly down at the poles. Plus there are issues with microwave reflection off ice.

  55. Any one concerned that all three metrics, G, SH, NH are the same? How likely is that?

  56. - first, they indicate that the older temperature records may have been adjusted to increase the trend prior to 1979 by about 0.3C.

    For the US, when you average the trends of all 1221 USHCN stations (weighting all equally), the results are +0.141C for raw, +0.314 for TOBS, +0.589 for FILNET.

  57. evanmjones (09:36:43) : “‘How is the zero level defined?’
    For UAH, it’s the 1979 – 2000 average. (NASA uses a 1950-1880 baseline.)”

    That wouldn’t surprise me at all.

  58. I don’t know how important David Archibald is in the Global Warming discussion, but he predicted an anomaly of -0.4 degrees C for the May 2009 UAH MSU Global Temperature Result here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197

    It goes to show that it’s not that easy to do short-term predictions. Did David Archibald predict anything else lately?

    We have ENSO neutral conditions or an El Niño coming on. If temps stay relatively low the coming year and a half I’ll probably become less of the warmist I am today. We’ll just have to wait and see. First thing on the agenda is minimal Arctic sea ice extent.

  59. What I found very interesting is that if you go to NCDC here and in the “Period” pull down select “Most Recent 12-Month Period” (you will have to scroll the list down, it is the last option) and change “First Year To Display” to something fairly recent … say 10 years or so ago … just to get rid of a lot of the clutter … I selected 1999 as the start year … you see that the climate from the June through May for the past three years, climate in North America has been a nice, stable, steady drop in temperature.

    If you display all the data going back to 1895, it looks like the past 3 years have been one of the most even periods in the record with the exception of the post-1940 cooling. No bouncing up and down.

    If you display data since 1999 you get:

    Most Recent 12-Month Period (Jun – May) 1999 – 2009 Trend = -0.74 degF / Decade

    and you discover that the most recent 12-month period is the second coolest since 1999.

    Now a .74 degree/decade cooling is pretty significant. If that were to continue for another 10 to 20 years, we would see ourselves back in another LIA situation.

  60. Another note on the NCDC graphs, the coolest 12-month period of the past 10 years was in 2001 but is bracketed by much warmer years before and after. What we have seen here is three consecutive cooling years. NOTE that these temperatures are North American land observations only and probably more a reflection of jet stream changes than any global climate.

  61. Thank you so much for the link to the “Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellites” page. The temperature graphs are really fascinating (well for me anyway).

    The 1999 temperatures at 135,000 Feet (CH14) seem to display a strong solar driven signature. The January temperature starts around 251 Kelvin and then DROPS as the Earth moves away from the sun to 248.5 Kelvin.

    However, when we get down to 14,000 Feet (CH5) the pattern is reversed.
    The January temperature starts around 252 Kelvin and then RISES as the Earth moves away from the sun to 254.0 Kelvin.

    This contradiction in the trends just underlines the complexities of climate…

    I am amazed there appears to be only one degree difference in January temperatures between 14,000 and 135,000 Feet… And I am amazed at how little I know…

    I am also really amazed that we are reporting the Global Temperature Anomaly based upon the temperatures at 14,000 Feet… No doubt there are good reasons for this but I was expecting something with its feet firmly on the ground… The 14,000 feet temperature range of -21.5 to -19.5 Centigrade does not seem to reflect many peoples experience of temperatures on earth.

    So excuse my ignorance but don’t we have our head in the clouds (literally) when we look at these numbers?

  62. A note about black helicopters.

    If you read the book Blackhawk Down you learn quite a bit about the black
    helicopter method of operation, at least during the 1990s. Come in fast,
    deploy quick-rope, drop operators, back off 300 yards and hover, wait
    for ground team to give the OK, then leave at high speed.

    This method of operation was not developed, or practiced, in a vacuum.
    Rather, it was practiced where it could be practiced. One of those practice
    sites was Centennial Park in Santa Ana Ca. Near Pendelton, El Toro,
    Seal Beach NWS, Los Alimitos, and directly on a helicopter fly path, the
    Santa Ana River Flyway, Centennial is a really good “target”.

    On suitable moonless nights, battle groups would load from a carrier
    off the coast, fly in and practice the drop, hover and exit. My house
    happens to be 300 yards from Centennial Park, and we have the tallest
    tree around. The tree was used as a landmark.

    There is nothing quite like having a pair of Blackhawk helicopters park
    over your house at night at 200 feet. They are very loud and mostly
    invisible.

    I do not have a tinfoil hat, but I have personally experienced the black
    helicopter problem. This was a Clinton-era problem. Once or twice
    I thought about emptying a few clips from my M1 into the bottom of
    a Blackhawk. I refrained from doing so, but those copters were violating
    so many laws, policies and procedures I lost count.

  63. E.M.Smith (04:33:15) : Wonder what folks will do when we hit negative …

    Sir, I don’t know about you but once temperatures hit negative I intend to buy.. and sell when they rise again! ;-)

    Cheers, LilacWine

  64. I wonder if we’ve seen the last of Dr. Meier here now that he has a new boss with iron boots and a riding crop.

  65. DavidsBSD (09:42:54) :
    Any one concerned that all three metrics, G, SH, NH are the same? How likely is that?
    I would be concerned if G would be different :-)

  66. crosspatch (10:12:16) :

    “…you discover that the most recent 12-month period is the second coolest since 1999.”

    Crosspatch really must learn to communicate in NASA-speak. Let me translate: “…you discover that the recent 12-month period is the 9th hottest since 1999.”

  67. Ozzie John (05:25:12) :

    Not sure how the maths ae calculated here but can someone explain how the global average is 0.043 when the tropics are -0.168 and both NH & SH anomolies are 0.043.

    Am I reading this correctly ?

    Northern Hemisphere means all area to the North from the Equator, not just the northern exratropics. You can get the global average temperature anomaly relative to the 1979-98 period by averaging the NH and SH anomalies.

    The tropics data covers the whole area between 20°N and 20°S, but it is also partly covered by the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

    The current tropical anomaly is negative, when the NH and SH are both standing on 0.043. It means that we can find the larger positive anomaly in extratropical areas.

  68. I wonder if the Mt. ReDoubt eruptions helped out some with the N Hemisphere cooling off this Spring. The added aerosols have to have some effect, one would think. The northern oceans seem to have been staying generally cooler, as well.

    Also of interesting note is how quiet severe weather season has been this year in the States, so far. You have to go back to the mid 90’s, I believe, since the last time we’ve seen lower numbers. (I just picked that tidbit up when I happened to be watching TWC for a forecast.) That’s a good thing.

  69. Brian D (11:54:56) :

    I wonder if the Mt. ReDoubt eruptions helped out some with the N Hemisphere cooling off this Spring. The added aerosols have to have some effect, one would think. The northern oceans seem to have been staying generally cooler, as well.

    Maybe a bit. Volcanic cooling of the lower atmosphere is usually associated with warming of the upper atmosphere. UAH does show a little bit of stratospheric warming over the last few months.

  70. If temps stay relatively low the coming year and a half I’ll probably become less of the warmist I am today. We’ll just have to wait and see. First thing on the agenda is minimal Arctic sea ice extent.

    Can’t argue with that. If more folks took that attitude, there’d be fewer on the warming side today.

    I’m a lukewarmist, myself. And I buy the theory that man (with his 3%/year addition) has caused the increase in CO2 accumulation. But I am a strong CO2 skeptic; I think the mild warming is due almost entirely to natural and non-CO2 anthropogenic causes such as, dirty snow (which has a strong impact on NH ice), land use, etc.

  71. Reinhard Bosch. I agree that every day there are ew records made, both warm and cold. My point was merely that Flanagan’s observation of “hot” in California was not accurate.

    Leif. I have a problem with Warming or Cooling, as they are not absolute values, but relative values. If one is allowed to pick his start point, he can argue either case. IMHO, climate is like life, a lot more complex than is generally acknowledged. fm

  72. Does anybody out there have a copy of this paper? I’m not a subscriber. It might be interesting.

    Journal of Environmental Informatics

    Online ISSN 1684-8799 / Print ISSN 1726-2135

    Volume 8 Number 2 December 2006 = non-subscribed

    doi:10.3808/jei.200600079
    JEI 8(2) 2006, Pages 86-99

    A Serially Complete U.S. Dataset of Temperature and Precipitation for Decision Support Systems

    Z. Chen1, S. Goddard1*, K. G. Hubbard2, W. S. Sorensen2 and J. You2

    Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
    High Plains Regional Climate Center 727 Hardin Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68583-0997, USA

    *Corresponding author. Email: goddard@cse.unl.edu

    Abstract

    The effect of missing data can result in errors that exhibit temporal and spatial patterns in climatological and meteorological research applications. Many climate related tools perform best with a serially complete dataset (SCD). To support the National Agricultural Decision Support System (NADSS), a SCD with no missing data values for daily temperature and precipitation for the United States was developed using a self-calibrating data quality control (QC) library. The library performs two primary functions: identifies outliers and provides estimates to replace missing data values and outliers. This study presents the development of the SCD and the QC library in detail. An in-depth evaluation in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) for the SCD for the period of 1975-2004 is provided. The study shows an impressively low average RMSE in the range of 2.27 to 3.58°F for temperature and 0.07 to 0.23 inch for precipitation for the whole country for 30 years. The goal of this study is to enhance drought risk assessment and environmental risk analysis.

  73. Neven (10:01:13) :

    It goes to show that it’s not that easy to do short-term predictions. Did David Archibald predict anything else lately?

    Yes, David has predicted a 2 deg decline in global temperatures over the next “few years” which is probably even more ridiculous than his May prediction. You say it ‘s not easy to do “short-term predictions”. I disagree. I predicted that David’s prediction would be a “spectacular failure”. I found that quite easy.

    Fortunately, the AGW crowd seem to have largely ignored David’s “predictions”. Thankfully, they appear to recognise that DA’s views are not typical of responsible sceptics.

  74. It’s been raining on-an-off in Denver for weeks.

    The dozen key reservoirs along the front range which serve the Denver metro area are reporting 101% “full” as of June 1, 2009. The historic median for these bodies is 85% full. A 120,000 acre-foot Strategic Water Reserve is at 100%.

    http://www.denverwater.org/reslevelsmore/pdfs/res_levels.pdf

    As we all know, the West is usually arid and hot; one may hope the Greens aren’t too disappointed at the lush profusion of alpine flowers blooming this year along Colorado’s green hillsides, from the glacier cirques and along the wet hillsides. I won’t see first-hand till next week, but Snowtell figures would seem to bear the prediction out, showing the “water-year-to-date”:

    ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/data/water/wcs/gis/maps/west_wytdprecpctnormal_update.pdf

  75. So Unbuntu

    It is clearly Climate Progress that is in the tinfoil hats brigade. The phemomena we are seeing there is called projection.

  76. I’m a lukewarmist, myself. And I buy the theory that man (with his 3%/year addition) has caused the increase in CO2 accumulation. But I am a strong CO2 skeptic; I think the mild warming is due almost entirely to natural and non-CO2 anthropogenic causes such as, dirty snow (which has a strong impact on NH ice), land use, etc.

    I’m a warmist mainly based on the daily research I do. Every time I dig a bit deeper and check things out as thoroughly as I can I return to my subjective interpretation that AGW as a theory has more going for it than not, especially if you do a background search on the messengers. I try to remain open to any possibility as there are many things that are unexplained.

    But for me AGW is just part of a collection of problems that steadily grow more serious and irreversible, such as the peaking of resources (peak oil naturally being the most conspicuous one), ocean acidification, disruption and destruction of ecosystems, etc. I’d be very surprised if all of that is a hoax or caused by natural variability. I think the underlying cause of all global problems (such as the present economic downturn) is the concept of exponential growth. I find it particularly hard to believe that this exponential growth can be infinite in a finite system. But that’s what they have us believe, or at least that’s what almost everybody is urging you not to think too much about.

    Not that there is anything wrong with growth, on the contrary. However, after a certain point growth increasingly takes on the form of a cancerous tumour. And this tumour is threatening freedom, the thing that in the end everyone is most concerned with and every discussion is about essentially. I have a feeling this whole blog is here because of the owner’s views on freedom.

    The problem is that everyone has a different definition for the concept of freedom. Sadly for most people nowadays freedom means nothing more than to have the freedom to do whatever the hell one wants, without much thought for the consequences of this ‘free’ behaviour and thus the responsibility that comes with it. I notice unfortunately that it’s these people that are the most clamorous on the skeptic side of the AGW debate. This is definitely one of the things that keeps me a warmist.

    If AGW is one of the several ingredients of a catastrophic cocktail that’s brewing, there will be a lot less freedom for future generations to enjoy. Now I don’t know what the chances are of AGW projections being right, but I’ve seen some interesting discussions on that between people who know a thing or two about risk management.

    But anyway, let’s see what the Arctic sea ice and perhaps an El Niño have in store for us. Perhaps even some sun activity? If yearly global temperatures don’t make it in the top 5 under those circumstances, the AGW theory has a problem, and not just on a PR level.

    The relative cooling was a lot of fun for a lot of people, but now the real fun begins (or not).

  77. “Before someone is critical of anothers public prediction, ISTM, they should have also made a very public prediction that was substantially more accurate. ”

    I kinda addressed this point on my blog:

    4.3 But Skeptics Have Not Done any Better at Predicting Temperatures

    That may very well be true, but this argument is attacking a bit of a strawman. I’m not claiming that I can accurately predict future temperatures — I’m claiming that Jim Hansen cannot. At least not as well as he thinks he can. Put another way, it’s not necessary for me to accurately predict the future to win this debate.

  78. Just to add to my last comment, suppose Miss Cleo (the psychic) predicts that in 2010, the Chicago Cubs will win the world series. It’s reasonable for me to ridicule her if (when?) her prediction fails to materialize. Even if I admit I am unable to predict world series winners years in advance.

    Because the point is not that I’m a better psychic than Miss Cleo. The point is that she is not psychic and nobody else is either.

  79. “Wonder what folks will do when we hit negative …”

    You will hear a lot more references to “climate change” and a lot fewer references to “global warming.” IMHO

  80. John A (05:03:41) :

    So David Archibald was wrong by about 0.5C – better luck next time!

    Chances are that these temperatures are already “massaged” by more than 0.5C

  81. “I have a feeling this whole blog is here because of the owner’s views on freedom.”

    Actually, I think Anthony has said repeatedly why this blog is here. He wanted a place where he could comment “…on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news. You have the freedom to come into his internet abode here and comment as you see fit, as long as you are a good guest. Freedom is the reason that every one of us is here Neven, including you. IF the internet becomes a place where one’s views cannot be freely expressed this blog and many others will no longer exist. However freedom will not be denied forever.

  82. Alex:I somehow doubt temperatures will plummet after May 2009, because an El Nino is currently forming

    There are no Ninos around I sent them back to school. La Nina just went to the toilette to arrange herself..she’ll be back in a few minutes, don’t worry!.

  83. “Frank Mosher (07:58:05) :

    Anthony. Several people have criticized Archibald’s prediction. ” Those that are without sin cast the first stone”. Before someone is critical of anothers public prediction, ISTM, they should have also made a very public prediction that was substantially more accurate. A little humility goes a long way. fm”

    It is not a requirement to come up with a “better” projection when someone decides to make a prediction that doesn’t past muster. IMO, the delivery of said criticisms chould be delivered in a manner that is without ridicule. The person who delivered the projection also has a responsibility to not personalize their work. It’s a viscious cycle when emotion is injected. Witness the comments on consensus CAGW sites.

  84. Leif Svalgaard (11:29:28) :

    DavidsBSD (09:42:54) :
    Any one concerned that all three metrics, G, SH, NH are the same? How likely is that?

    I would be concerned if G would be different :-)

    True Leif,
    but my bad wording didnt convey my point.
    How likely that both NH and SH are identical. when was last time that happened?
    I have seen errors in reporting anomalies recently and wondered if this too is an error.

  85. Alex (04:52:26) :
    I live far, far away, but it is so gratifying to know that I am foremost in your thoughts.

    I prefer to think that my prediction was just a little ahead of its time, as usual.

  86. Flanagan, Is it not true that UAH/RSS cannot use 2-3% of the globes surface?

    Is it not also true, that Landbased measurements like GISS and Hadcrut only has 30% land area to begin with, and then has to extrapolate over the ocean (Including the arctic ocean..).

    But you think Landbased temperature measurements has better coverage of the globe?

  87. Fine point, David Archibald. I note that the temperature anomalies continue to decline, and as Lucia has pointed out, every month that this happens it decreases the chances that the models are correct, as the autocorrelation works both ways.

    The thing I crave, more than any other, is watching Tamino. He laid out that bet, in such specific terms (good for him) that if it goes wrong he will have nowhere to hide. I only wonder if he has the guts to man up and admit it if he is wrong. Given the arrogance and childishness he displays, it is unlikely, but it will be fun to watch if he can manage it.

  88. wow, I had never been to Climateprogress.com… Their post about WUWT makes me want to start keeping an ad-hominem counter for both sites, and compare the two numbers.

  89. Neven (10:01:13) :
    I don’t know how important David Archibald is in the Global Warming discussion, but he predicted an anomaly of -0.4 degrees C for the May 2009 UAH MSU Global Temperature Result here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197

    It goes to show that it’s not that easy to do short-term predictions.

    The easiest one to predict in UAH is that May will have the lowest anomaly and February the highest. There’s about a 0.3ºC variation through the year.

  90. RE: Frank Lansner (17:04:13) :

    . . .
    “Is it not also true, that Landbased measurements like GISS and Hadcrut only has 30% land area to begin with, and then has to extrapolate over the ocean (Including the arctic ocean..).”

    Your statement is more incorrect than insightful. GISS and Hadcrut do use non-land based estimates for the ocean. GISS does have a convoluted reference to satellite data for the oceans, but its algorithm borders on bizarre and will not be detailed in this post. Hadcrut by necessity does not have a consistent source of data for ocean temperatures, and it likely that Hadcrut over relies on the Northern Hemisphere oceans. Nevertheless, neither GISS nor Hadcrut simply extrapolate land temperatures to the ocean as your post suggests.

  91. David Archibald (16:13:25) :

    I see that the overall direction of anomaly is down on both UAH and RSS.
    When you made your prediction of -.04C for May 2009, what is your reading of the noise/uncertainty factor (i.e the +/-? Even Leif has a +/- in his solar prediction.
    You were off by .083 for the exact reading. How much of that .083 is outside your uncertainty?

  92. RE: George DeBusk (08:11:28) :
    . . .
    “Where can I find the UAH Lower Tropospheric data separated by land and ocean? I have only seen global data and data segregated by latitude bands.”

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

    It has 25 different separations of the UAH historic record. The May data has not yet been added.

  93. The running mean UAH data for the first 5 months of each year

    1998 0.65
    1999 0.11*
    2000 0.03*
    2001 0.20*
    2002 0.36
    2003 0.31
    2004 0.30
    2005 0.38
    2006 0.26
    2007 0.38
    2008 -0.02*
    2009 0.20

    So far, 2009 is cooler than 6 out of the last 7 years
    0.13 degrees below the 2002/7 mean

  94. Flanagan (04:36:06) : One can clearly see that this reconstruction shows very positive anomalies at the level of the poles

    Well, with record rate of ice formation at the poles, I’d not trust a “reconstruction” showing warmth as much as I’d trust the very thick ice formed and observed. But maybe that’s just me… I’m just a Joe Sixpack type at heart who believes what he can see sitting right in front of him more than someone’s manipulated reconstructed interpolated data food product…

    Does anyone know wether GISS and HadCrut take some polar staiton data into account?

    GISS uses Antarctic station data. For the technically inclined (ie. computer code geeks) the process of initial Antarctic data merging is described here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/gistemp-step0-the-process/

    Unfortunately, when creating, er, calculating anomalies they use a satellite homogenized pasteurized processed data food product “SST anomaly map” that is in part based on fabricated, oh, sorry, estimated interpolated synthesized arctic “temperatures” based on ice estimates which, IMHO, are suspect – especially given how the arctic ice sensors on some of the satellites have keeled over and given broken low ice readings…

    A not so technical critique of this is here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/illudium/

    By the time GIStemp is done making it’s “adjustments” the anomalies have little to do with real temperatures. The canonical collection of my critiques, not-so-technical, are here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/

    (Sitting in a cold house with heavy clouds and cold outside, and waiting for the snow forecast in the Sierra Nevada mountains here in California… In JUNE …)

  95. rbateman (22:34:07) :

    David Archibald (16:13:25) :

    I see that the overall direction of anomaly is down on both UAH and RSS.
    When you made your prediction of -.04C for May 2009, what is your reading of the noise/uncertainty factor (i.e the +/-? Even Leif has a +/- in his solar prediction.
    You were off by .083 for the exact reading. How much of that .083 is outside your uncertainty?

    The prediction was for an anomaly of -0.4 not -0.04 . The prediction was off by ~0.44 degrees. There were those of us who said it was complete nonsense at the time but we tend to get ignored. Just as there are those of us who think that current relatively low satellite temperatures are a lagged response to the low SST which were evident a few months back.

  96. Ozzie John (05:25:12) : Not sure how the maths ae calculated here but can someone explain how the global average is 0.043 when the tropics are -0.168 and both NH & SH anomolies are 0.043.

    Because anything to the right of the decimal point is just playing in the error bands of the calculations and is entirely the product of False Precision:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/

    So any time you compare a satellite temperature to a historic “base line” you have temperature records in whole degrees F giving you a false sense of what happened with fantasy values in the fractional part. If the satellite data have accuracy of less than 1/100th degree, then they, too, are just playing in their error band. Somehow I don’t think that they have accuracy to 1/100th degree (NOT precision, accuracy…) with all the junk in the air between the satellite and what it purports to be measuring. Certainly putting up numbers with values out in the 1/1000 place, like 0.043 is just astounding wishful thinking.

  97. Robert A Cook PE (06:44:42) : So, if we compare the above record to the ORIGINAL (pre-Hansen) surface temperature record, what do we find for rural and small town sites? Once UHI effects are removed, what id left? How much have we cooled since 1935-1945?

    The unmolested data are directly downloaded from NOAA by GIStemp. The first steps just merge in some Antarctic data and not much else. Simply take the GHCN data and use it rather than the GIStemp “stuff”. (Input files listed in prior link).

  98. “(2) Compare the current month to the same calendar month from the previous year”

    Do these temperatures not cover an even portion of the globe? Why should we not compare to any month? Seasons should have nothing to do with global temperatures. — John M Reynolds

  99. Neven (13:27:17) : But for me AGW is just part of a collection of problems that steadily grow more serious and irreversible, such as the peaking of resources (peak oil naturally being the most conspicuous one),

    Neven, there is no shortage of resources:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/

    and there is no shortage of energy, and there never will be:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

    disruption and destruction of ecosystems

    This is the real issue that needs addressing.

    I think the underlying cause of all global problems (such as the present economic downturn) is the concept of exponential growth.

    Real biological systems have an S shaped growth curve, not exponential. That is the basic flaw of Malthusian Catastrophe Theory. My dad was one of 12 siblings. I’m one of 4. I have 2 kids. etc

    Please look at the demographics of Europe or Japan. Below replacement rate. Most of the US population growth is immigration, not births. The way to reduce population growth is: Give every woman on the planet a college education and every family a modern, prosperous, western lifestyle. Population growth drops below replacement.

    The way to population catastrophe is to keep folks in poverty and deny them an advanced economy. To the extent the AGW alarmists succeed in stopping economic expansion via Cap and Trade and other economic growth limitations, they guarantee higher population growth rates. (This is not my speculation, this is the standard population dynamics and the impact of modernity stuff in University Economics degree programs).

    I find it particularly hard to believe that this exponential growth can be infinite in a finite system. But that’s what they have us believe, or at least that’s what almost everybody is urging you not to think too much about.

    I don’t know who “they” are, but the idea that population grows exponentially is broken. The early phase looks exponential, but it isn’t.

    Not that there is anything wrong with growth, on the contrary. However, after a certain point growth increasingly takes on the form of a cancerous tumour.

    Actually, this metaphor is broken too. Both population and economic growth tend to be like that of a tree. Rapid at first, then slowing with size. Probably for the same reasons, too. There is a too complicated and off topic discussion that applies here. I’ll just hint at it with this: All these processes have an interesting connection with the math of fractals. A recent breakthrough in biology has shown that the growth pattern slows due to the fractal nature of organism growth. It is literally a mathematical limit / effect…

    http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw29/vicsek.html

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/179/4079/1201

  100. Mike Bryant (14:40:21) : IF the internet becomes a place where one’s views cannot be freely expressed this blog and many others will no longer exist. However freedom will not be denied forever.

    Um, er, ah, some of us, I mean, of some other folks, have already made preparations toward that day…

    Do a google search on “stunnel” and “tcfs file system” …

    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2174

    There has also been interesting work done on shared systems which only become visible once a quorum has signed in. You can compromise up to a configurable limit of individual passwords, but still get nothing. Only when a quorum presents credentials does the data become visible… (Invented in Italy and ideal for certain organizations that I’m sure had nothing to do with the development funding ;-)

    So rest assured that whenever the need arises “someone” can hide an infranet in plain sight…

    The term Infranet is also used to refer to a proposed system of transferring sensitive data masquerading as anodyne data (an example of steganography) over the Internet. Its purpose is to enable people in territories whose régimes exercise strict control over information to have uncensored access to the web without risking censure. The system is currently under development by Hari Balakrishnan, David Karger and others.

    Not that I would ever advocate it, of even know anything about it, in fact, I found this on a Cereal Box… gotta go…

  101. Frank Lansner (17:04:13) : Is it not also true, that Landbased measurements like GISS and Hadcrut only has 30% land area to begin with, and then has to extrapolate over the ocean (Including the arctic ocean..).

    It’s actually worse than that. While we have modest spatial coverage now, it does not have much depth in time, so there are extrapolations / interpolations / fabrications used to fill in most (by a very large degree) of space and time:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/so_many_thermometers_so_little_time/

    It’s almost entirely the USA, Western Europe, and Japan…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/hansen-global-surface-air-temps-1995/

  102. EM Smith,
    I love that phrase. “…manipulated reconstructed interpolated data food product…”
    Maybe the right word for all the new temperature, sea level, sea ice and innumerable other so called data is… VELVEETA DATA or Velveedata…

  103. bill (02:59:15) :
    Bill P (12:59:25) : Come on – science went SI units years ago.

    Bill, science does not depend on what units you use, only on how you use them. Some of us are comfortably multilingual for units. Get over it.

    BTW, an acre is simply 1 chain by 10 chains of area. Very metric, in a way…

    And the foot has a very long and surprisingly rational history and physical basis that has nothing to do with the size of a king’s shoes…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/chasing-the-greek-foot/

  104. Who does among us all feel a 0.5°C difference?.
    Here in WUWT it has been demonstrated that temperature records are wrong up to 5.0°C! (surface stations)…and satellites are “adjusted” according to surface stations…a dog biting its tail.

  105. The fact that the tropics are cool and the higher latitudes are warmer may be telling us something relevant about CO2 warming. If this is how CO2 warming will pan out over time then it demonstrates that AGW will be more beneficial than anything. Areas with warmer climates won’t change much (or get slightly cooler) and areas that are cold will see warmer (=nicer) weather.

    Another possibility is that what we are seeing is negative feedback in action. More rain and clouds in the tropics acting to lower the global temps.

  106. “Leif Svalgaard (11:29:28) :

    DavidsBSD (09:42:54) :
    Any one concerned that all three metrics, G, SH, NH are the same? How likely is that?

    I would be concerned if G would be different :-)”

    Leif, your question reminds me of this Dutch joke:

    Question: What’s the difference between a dead bird?
    Answer: His one wing has the same length.

    So my question is: Different from what, Leif?
    G is almost always different from either SH or NH, hence all three are likely to be different from each other. So why would you be concerned if this is not the case or are you trying to be overly semantic?

  107. Adam Soereg (11:31:22) :
    Ozzie John (05:25:12) :

    Not sure how the maths ae calculated here but can someone explain how the global average is 0.043 when the tropics are -0.168 and both NH & SH anomolies are 0.043.

    Am I reading this correctly ?

    Northern Hemisphere means all area to the North from the Equator, not just the northern exratropics. You can get the global average temperature anomaly relative to the 1979-98 period by averaging the NH and SH anomalies.

    The tropics data covers the whole area between 20°N and 20°S, but it is also partly covered by the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

    The current tropical anomaly is negative, when the NH and SH are both standing on 0.043. It means that we can find the larger positive anomaly in extratropical areas.

    Not only is it surprising that the SH and NH anomalies are equal (as I pointed out above; a quick glance through the UAH data seems to show that it is unprecedented), but also the discrepancy between the tropics and hemispheric data. If my calculus is correct the area between 20ºN and 20ºS is 34% of the surface so if the anomaly there is -.168 then the extratropical anomaly for May should be about +0.15. It’ll be interesting to see the actual data on the UAH site.

    REPLY: I mentally noted this 0.043 for NH and SH and wondered also, perhaps it is a typo made on Roy’s blog. When the actual UAH data is posted we’ll know. – Anthony

  108. Chris Schoneveld (09:27:59) :
    G is almost always different from either SH or NH, hence all three are likely to be different from each other. So why would you be concerned if this is not the case or are you trying to be overly semantic?

    If SH and NH are the same, then G will be the same, so now we have not three coincidences, but only two. And there is a difference between a priori and a posteriori probability. If I consider a 13-card bridge hand that I just got and ask “what is the probability that I should get precisely this hand?” then my answer would be 1 in 635013559600 and should I question if there is something wrong with the deck or the dealer since I was dealt such an improbable hand? This is a priory probability. After having got the hand, the probability is 1. So coincidences are only improbable before they happen.

    Furthermore the two hemispheres are correlated: if one is warm there is a good chance that the other one is too, in fact the correlation coefficient is 0.56.

    Since 1880, there has been 20 cases before this one where the monthly anomaly has been exactly the same to 1/1000 of a degree in both hemispheres, so I don’t think I’m being overly semantic or pedantic.

  109. David Archibald (16:13:25) :

    John Finn corrects my 4am can’t sleep again question.
    But I am still interested in your estimate of uncertainty in your prediction.

  110. rbateman (10:23:44) :
    David Archibald (16:13:25) :
    John Finn corrects my 4am can’t sleep again question.
    But I am still interested in your estimate of uncertainty in your prediction.

    Archibald has already said that his prediction was ahead of its time so it seems that the uncertainty is not in the size [0.5 degrees] but in the timing. Wait long enough and perhaps the prediction will come true and there will come a time when the anomaly then will be equal to the one predicted for now.

  111. Leif Svalgaard (10:21:07) : “Since 1880, there has been 20 cases before this one where the monthly anomaly has been exactly the same to 1/1000 of a degree in both hemispheres”

    That’s a bold assumption since it is highly unlikely that with the earlier measurement techniques and density thereof such an accuracy (to 1/1000 of a degree) could be achieved whilst showing such a coincidence of both hemispheres being in sink.

  112. Chris Schoneveld (11:03:27) :
    Leif Svalgaard (10:21:07) : “Since 1880, there has been 20 cases before this one where the monthly anomaly has been exactly the same to 1/1000 of a degree in both hemispheres”

    That’s a bold assumption since it is highly unlikely that with the earlier measurement techniques and density thereof such an accuracy (to 1/1000 of a degree) could be achieved whilst showing such a coincidence of both hemispheres being in sink.

    Not an assumption:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts.txt

    Do you think that I would say so without having researched this fully? Check for yourself how many times the exact same anomaly is reported in NH and SH. You can argue that the GISS temps are no good and that one can’t measure temps to 1/1000 of a degree, that is irrelevant. What matters is that a long time series such as the GISS [even with random errors] has a fair chance of many such exact coincidences. You may safely assume that I would never say something unless it is backed up with evidence.

  113. I think our global temerature will fall half a degree a year if the sun deep minimum will stay like this if we look at the all the past records of deep solar minimums this could last untill 2039 or even longer since 1980 untill now every solar maximum there have been less sunspots it could well be 1850 the solar wind has droped 30 percent this will effect the jet stream and will move up towards greenland this will allow high pressure to build from the continent and colder winters its happend many times in the past as we know the polar ice caps have been growing for 20 years and air temperature has not risen for the length of time the sun has gone a little dimmer less radiation effecting the earth each global warming cycle has a duration of 130 to 160 years and the peak of each cycle has a duration of 50 to 90 years there for the current global warming cycle will run from 1910 to 2060 itwill peak between 1950 and 2015 the warming will level off around 2015 to fall fast affter or no latter than the year 2030 to 2040 once cooling begins it will take 20 to 30 years to cool so the lowest part of the cooling cycle temperatures like that of 1800s we know over the last 11400 years how many times this has happend through proxy dating in polar ice caps and the rings we are not fully out of the the last ice age yet the sun is in a deep state now allmost like 1913 we are due for a long cold spell we must have warmed the planet up only a little bit around 5% the sun will have the opposite effect on the world temperatuer every time this happens to the sun all what ive been studying over the years it will get colder ive been doing this reasearch for a long time I also study astronomy ive studied astronomy for 30 years i wonder how the sun will stay like this the current warming began in 1500 ad will peak around the year 2000 and end in 2500ad we are dou for a cooling there is cooling breaks in some years we could cool down at a fast rate nothing compared to the last ice age and the gulf stream has changed many times in the past due to warmer climates we are in now the gulf stream could easily slow or stop again because the fresh water coming down from the north pole this will have drastic effects which looks like has happend in other warming periods.

  114. Bob Tisdale

    This is the sea ice level in 2007. 2007http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html

    It would seem to me the 2007 low ice level is “one of a kind” event and not at all a long term trend for diminishing ice . I expect the ice to return as the ocean cooling continues for the next several decades.

  115. rbateman (22:34:07) :

    My day jobs are now impinging heavily on my time and I have less opportunity to defend Western Civilisation. There was no uncertainty in my estimate, and I am extremely flattered by the attention that it received. Just as the warmers aren’t perturbed by data that proves their climate models wrong, I can claim victory because I got the direction right.

    This reminds me of the service I have provided to climate science. Before I came along, rationalists knew that warmers were wrong but couldn’t offer an alternate weltanshchauung. By simply combining Clilverd’s Solar Cycle 24 prediction with Friis-Christenson and Lassen theory, I provided an alternate belief framework. There was another step in the process. If Solar Cycle 24 was going to be as weak as I thought it would be, Solar Cycle 23 would be very long. The first sign of a cold second decade of this century would be a long Solar Cycle 23. It has come to pass.

    It was bizarre. Billions of dollar annually was being spent on climate science, but nobody bothered to look at what the solar physicists were predicting and to consider the consequences of their predictions. Today, each sunspot is examined for its significance.

    I still think that have yet to hit month of minimum. And the cooling effect is 0.002 degrees C per day of Solar Cycle 23 length for you mid-latitude people.

    What is bizarre to me now is that nobody has cottoned on to the significance of the predictive power of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory. I applied it to three US stations to show that it also worked on the western side of the Atlantic as well. If you look at the scatter of points on the Hanover, New Hampshire graph, there is no way a severe cooling can be avoided.

    That gives me an idea for another paper. Once more into the breach.

  116. Several have commented about the June snow in the Sierra Nevada range. It is uncommon, but not rare. Back about 1970, a park ranger at Yosemite told me they have had snow on every date of the year.

  117. Leif: ” You may safely assume that I would never say something unless it is backed up with evidence.”

    I depends what you consider evidence. I strongly question the validity of the data that you consider as being “evidence”

  118. Flanagan, at the risk of stating the obvious, there are no stations near the N Pole! GISS does use the data from the station at the S Pole (and a glance at the GISS data shows that the claim of large positive anomaly there is completely false) .
    What HadCrut currently uses, nobody knows, because they refuse to release this information (see latest post at climate audit).

  119. “I still think that have yet to hit month of minimum.”

    I would say timidly, the current spurt in 24 activity mirrors that of last Oct/Nov. Spots will again subside below a smoothed 1.0 for an upcoming month, possibly more than one.

    But then I check the locks twice on leaving, look bothways multiple times before crossing, etc.

  120. Just had a look at the latest anomaly figures for May 09 in ” Wood For Trees” and they show:-

    UAH fell to +0.043
    RSS fell to + 0.09
    and surprise, surprise GISS went up to+0.55.

    I realise that the RSS and UAH baselines differ from the GISS, We all know that the GISS data is applied to a floating baseline that keeps sinking each month. How long can they keep that AGW dream alive before the politicians start asking questions?

Comments are closed.