Comments on: A comphrehensive comparison of GISS and UAH global Temperature data

By: peter schoubye

peter schoubye — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:06:13 +0000

I can strongly recommend another excellent homepage:
http://www.climate4you.com,
It is edited and updated every month professor in physical georgrapy at Oslo University Ole Humlum and gives you all kinds of climate data objectively, easy to read and with no data picking.

By: dennis ward

dennis ward — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:31:20 +0000

Anthony says there are no explosions in temperature measurement so I presume he means ‘Mythbusters’ would not be interested but there is certainly a great deal of heat generated on the subject.

By: Tim Clark

Tim Clark — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:33:26 +0000

The all time record (69) in Dallas of days over 90 deg was set in 1980. Let me know when we get there. The temp here in Kansas today is 104 deg. This is consistent with historical evidence of the 1930's and with my prediction made on this blog that we are returning to that almost identical previous weather.

By: Bob Tisdale

Bob Tisdale — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:18:38 +0000

Charles the Moderator, tallbloke, and Carsten Arnholm, Norway: Thanks for the suggestions.

Anthony: Thanks.

By: timetochooseagain

timetochooseagain — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:09:18 +0000

Allan M R MacRae (20:54:42) :

I wouldn’t assume linearity over time either ;)

Still, its a good point.

Magnus (20:29:26) :

I’m not sure why everyone assumes that 1. The trends should be the same and 2. RSS is superior. Both are incorrect. The trend in the LT should be greater than near surface, and research suggests UAH is superior:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD008864.shtml

Flanagan (01:23:49) :

Say it with me now: W-E-A-T-H-E-R. It happens. Never draw broad conclusions from it (this goes for coolers to!)

By: Flanagan

Flanagan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:23:49 +0000

Heat wave in Texas with new records set:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/weather/06/25/heat.wave/index.html
also in New Orleans, there’s a “heat wave marathon” with people struggling to maintain enough power for conditioning
http://blog.nola.com/tpmoney/2009/06/no_shortage_of_power_for_airco.html
Temperatures will approach or exceed the century mark in Oklahoma
http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10591487&nav=menu192_2

This is all consistent with the NOAA predictions on summer anomalies, with the northwest and northeast having slightly cooler than average temps. But what happens in the rest of the world?

120 die in unrelenting heatwave across India
http://blog.nola.com/tpmoney/2009/06/no_shortage_of_power_for_airco.html
North China wilts under scorching heatwave
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/26/content_8324862.htm

By: dennis ward

dennis ward — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:00:28 +0000

I don’t know if this has been suggested before but has anybody contacted the TV program ‘Mythbusters’ and asked them if they would do an experiment with three stations (or replicas) within about thirty feet of each other, with one in the sunlight all day, one in the shade at least half the day and another within spitting distance of an A/C unit, say. I’m sure there may be other factors to be considered as well but you get the basic idea.

Surely this would prove the case better than anything else as to what effect UHIs have on temperature? And think of the publicity value.

REPLY: There are no explosions in temperature measurement. – Anthony

By: Allan M R MacRae

Allan M R MacRae — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:54:42 +0000

timetochooseagain (19:51:58) :

Well I don’t know about that-without satellites over the period I really don’t feel comfortable talking about what the biases are/might be during the pre-1979 period.

**************************

Actually time, just use the 1940 to 1979 Hadcrut3 data as-is with no ‘UHI adjustment’, and you will reach my conclusion of ‘No global warming since 1940′.

If you assume a UHI adjustment of 0.07C/decade, you will conclude ~0.3C of COOLing since 1940.

By: Magnus

Magnus — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:32:35 +0000

Correction: “(and lose!)” –> “(not lose!)”

By: Magnus

Magnus — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:29:26 +0000

I’ve noticed that the difference in trend between GISS and RSS is almost zero. Until 1979 they probably had lots of UHI and stuff and Hansen may have a hard work to keep (and lose!) the positive bias they have acheived? They may need more powerful stuff than errors from some Finish weather stations? ;)

By: timetochooseagain

timetochooseagain — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:51:58 +0000

Allan M R MacRae (18:53:25) : Well I don't know about that-without satellites over the period I really don't feel comfortable talking about what the biases are/might be during the pre-1979 period. What I do know is that the surface appears to have warmed very little in 30 years. Unless of course for some strange reason the surface could behave differently in relation to the atmosphere in the long term than the short term-or, I don't know, maybe there really is some problem with the satellites. But if that is the contention, then the opponents of the satellites need to publish explaining what could be wrong with them just as surface record critics have.

By: Allan M R MacRae

Allan M R MacRae — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:09:41 +0000

PPS – A very interesting observation is that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales – this subject has been discussed here and elsewhere.

In fact, we don’t even know what truly drives the various changes in atmospheric CO2. Clearly nature dominates on a seasonal time scale.
Seasonal variations in the far North range up to almost 20ppm per year, and are near zero at the South Pole. Then there is that pesky 2ppm annual average increase that the warmists are so excited about – but this has “gone negative” occasionally during ~recent periods of modest global cooling.

What do we know?
That increased atmospheric CO2 does not significantly drive temperature.

What don’t we know enough about?
If and how much temperature drives atmospheric CO2.

See the 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4

By: Allan M R MacRae

Allan M R MacRae — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:53:25 +0000

timetochooseagain (10:27:01) :

From you graphs and trendlines:
0.0152 -0.0087 = 0.0065 C per year
= 0 0.065C per decade
versus my 0.07C per decade, posted at 03:26
Close enough.

The logical extension is that there has been NO net global warming since 1940, despite an ~800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions.

See
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774

Regards, Allan

P.S. The warmists better find another scary story, and fast. Perhaps ocean acidification? Either that, or start saying that increased CO2 causes global cooling. That will soon be easier to support than their current untenable hypothesis.

By: Frederick Michael

Frederick Michael — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:17:58 +0000

Bob Tisdale (15:30:31) :

Nothing’s wrong with the graphs. Refer to the note directly above the dates in the title block of each graph. The data have been smoothed with 12-month running-average filters. This “shortens” the data at each end. The actual period covered can be seen in the start and stop points of the trends.

Good point! I missed that. The endpoint of the regression lines is another clue. We return to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:44:17 +0000

Flanagan (11:04:30) : “Hey, have you seen the series of record high temperatures in Texas? The highest daily temp in San Antonio and Austin were broken, and it’s going to continue for a week or so…”

And while mowing my lawn today at 3pm, while wearing heavy pants, tshirt and sweatshirt, I was still cold, since the outside temp was barely 60. That’s a little north of Seattle.

Global Warming Ain’t Global. The heat just gets moved around from place to place.