“I’m not sure why I should pick any position.”

Well, I guess if you feel contradicting yourself adds to your case then feel free to take these kind of conflicting positions. By stating that US temps have risen, you just deflated your own comeback to E.M. Smith. I guess if you consider that good logic then it’s not too hard to see why you support AGW so blindly.

John, I see you decided to omit the trend lines. Use your same dates and put in trend lines. Notice anything about GISS? Maybe a little steeper? That’s why your last comment was spin. Once you observe the trends it’s pretty obvious GISS is headed into a world of it’s own.

The trends are within a couple of hundredths of a degree of each other. GISS is slightly higher because of the arctic extrapolation (as mentioned in a previous post). I’m sure we can agree that the arctic has been unusually warm in the past few years.

As for your response to me about US temps. I was simply referring to your post (03:39:50) where you claimed it didn’t matter if the US didn’t warm because it was only 2% of the surface. Please pick a position and stick to it. Running around in circles does not help your claims.

It’s true that the US is only 2% of the surface area of the earth. It’s also true that the US has warmed over the past ~30 years and that the warming measured by both GISS and UAH is very similar, i.e. ~0.25 deg per decade. I’m not sure why I should pick any position.

~Tolstoy

As for your response to me about US temps. I was simply referring to your post (03:39:50) where you claimed it didn’t matter if the US didn’t warm because it was only 2% of the surface. Please pick a position and stick to it. Running around in circles does not help your claims.

Temperature data from GISTemp is drastically different from all other data sets, even Hadley. Your spin on that doen’t apply to what I am saying. But it sure does sound like it means something, huh.

In what way is Gistemp “drastically different”?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1992/to:2010/offset:-0.2/plot/gistemp/from:1992/to:2010/offset:-0.25/plot/uah/from:1992/to:2010

By “spin” – do you mean posting actual data?

One last thing to say,

I won’t be responding to you anymore in this thread. I’ve read enough of your comments to see that you spin everything to suit your desired results.

should read,

rapid growing trend in North Pole ice.

and

record growth of Antarctic ice

Temperature data from GISTemp is drastically different from all other data sets, even Hadley. Your spin on that doen’t apply to what I am saying. But it sure does sound like it means something, huh.

And you also claim that news reports of cooling are happening only in the US. But SouthEast Asia, New Zealand, Austraila, Europe, South America, and Canada have been having reports of longer, colder winters.

Also, have you seen the rapid growing in North Pole ice? Also, the redord groth of Antarctic ice?

John Finn, let’s see if I understand you correctly. You’re stating that even though the US is one of the largest emitters of CO2, it’s perfectly reasonable for the US to experience no warming while other regions (eg. Siberia) experience significant warming. And this is what you call global warming. Is that right?

1. The source of the emissions is irrelevant.
2. I don’t believe the US is cooling. The UAH satellite trend for the US is ~0.25 deg per decade over the past 30 years.

I wonder what they forecast for October 2009? They have their current prediction but they carefully hide all previous predictions.

Searched for it here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/fxhw40.html and here http://www.weather.gov/ but no luck. Found this though:

Western and Central Wyoming – THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN CASPER FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 17 WAS 35.6 DEGREES…WHICH WAS THE COLDEST OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 17 PERIOD IN CASPER SINCE OFFICIAL WEATHER RECORDS BEGAN IN 1940.
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN RIVERTON FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 17 WAS 35.9 DEGREES…WHICH WAS THE COLDEST OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 17 PERIOD IN RIVERTON SINCE OFFICIAL WEATHER RECORDS BEGAN IN 1907
October began on the chilly side, then a bitter cold outbreak brought colder temperatures and snow with locally heavy snow to Western and North Central Nebraska. The first 14 days were the coldest and snowiest on record.
Through October 19th, both Columbia and Quincy have experienced the coldest average temperature on record for the period of October 1st through the 19th. St. Louis has observed an average temperature of 52.2 degrees which ranks 2nd all time for the same period.

Squaw Winter?

Oh I see. You’re talking about US warming and cooling. Most of us think it’s a global thing which is not specific to just 2% of the earth’s surface. I did have a quick look at your “analysis”. I am a bit puzzled as to how you are happy to draw conclusions from just 30-odd thermometers in the early 19th century but 200+ more spatially representative thermometers is “cooking the record”.

Give me a link to your data and we can check it against USA48 anomalies in the UAH record.

Gene Nemetz (19:50:14) :

You must not watch weather reports on tv. Or you are in denial. Or both.

Same problem E.M. I notice. You need to understand that the other 98% of the world doesn’t necessarily get the US weather reports.

John Finn (14:45:45) : We’re supposed to have been cooling for ~11 years – yet this year (2009) is still warmer than any other year before 1998.

Oh, and I’d dispute this as well. Using the same “best thermometer” data directly from GHCN. Notice that 1990 has a total of 12.9 while 2006 is 12.6C……

I’m sorry but I’m not sure what are you’re doing here. What do you mean by “best thermometer” data? What’s the source for the data?

….and, more importantly, how come you think we’ve been cooling since 1990 while the UAH satellite record says we’ve been warming at ~0.16 deg per decade.

Rest assured when I wrote that “this year (2009) is still warmer than any other year before 1998″ I had checked this was true for UAH.

…
And the readings are neither similar nor same. GISTemp has higher readings, much higher, off the chart higher.

Do you understand anomalies? It would appear not. GISS anomalies are relative to a different base period (1951-1980) than UAH anomalies (1979-1998). Since 1951-80 was cooler than 1979-98, it follows that GISS anomalies will be larger (bigger numbers) than UAH anomalies. However, if you use the same base period you’ll find that GISS and UAH are remarkably similar considering they are measuring quite different layers of the atmosphere. September 2009 is a good example.

GISS has quite a nice featue which allows you to select the base period. In the following link I have selected 1979-1998 (i.e. the same as the satellite base period)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=09&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=09&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1979&base2=1998&radius=1200&pol=reg

If you look in the RH corner of the the plot you will see the anomaly, i.e. 0.45, which is bang in the middle of the UAH (0.42) and RSS (0.48) anomalies. GISS anomalies are not “off the chart” as you say.

Hadley anomalies are calculated relative to the 1961-1990 base period. This is a slightly warmer period than GISS uses so again we would expect GISS to have slightly bigger numbers than Hadley.

GISS does appear bloated on occasions but seems to be related to the GISS extrapolation over the arctic. If you look at the WUWT link to polar temperatures you’ll notice that the arctic has been relatively warm recently which could have an impact on the GISS October anomaly.

Another reason for discreancies between the various anomalies is the lagged response due to ENSO fluctuations. The surface tends to respond quicker to El Nino/La Nina events. Earlier this year (~June) you may have noticed that the surface anomalies were quite high compared to the satellites but in the following months the satellite anomalies “caught up”.

————————————————

Richard (21:29:39) :

I was pretty intrigued by your March of the thermometers. The temperature stations in the higher latitudes are being dropped. Those in the lower latitudes increased. As the stations march towards the equator viola! global warming increases and “AGW proceeds at a pace directly correlated with the southern march of the thermometers.”

If you’re trying to say what I think you’re trying to say – you’re wrong. The global average is not calculated from an average of all the thermometer readings.

Reply: Perhaps you were thinking CHCN COOP ~ ctm

Oh dear… This is the time I hate. Someone has given me plausible deniability and I have compulsive accuracy problems…

In all the times I’ve read CHCN COOP I never realized it wasn’t G-HCN COOP. And I really was thinking GHCN. And it really is the truth that I marginally don’t need “readers” so I often skip the “now where did I leave them…” step for a quick read. And when I do that I can’t quite always see the little 2 pixels that makes a C into G on my 12 inch laptop screen (that has a couple of dark “dead pixels” so has taught me to ignore one pixel errors) …

I try to remember to always find the readers for proof reading… then I have a quick comment and the readers were left somewhere in the kitchen and; well, the rest as they say is hIst0ri :-}

Reply: Dude…you could at least appreciate the joke. ~ctm