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?

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.

Not permanent ones but currently there are 2:

http://www.aari.nw.ru/resources/d0014/np36/default.asp?lang=0
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_weatherdata.html

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

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.

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.

For those interested, I normally post monthly (OI.v2 SST) global, hemispheric, individual ocean, and NINO3.4 SST anomaly data on the 1st or 2nd of each month. Here’s this month’s:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/may-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html

I notice an unusal high spike in 2007 for the Arctic Ocean SST anomaly. Any idea why? [ EL nino 2006-2007?]Could this account for the ice levels in 2007?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.