Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA has published the January 2011 global temperature anomaly. It is not far from zero, and dropped quickly much like Dr. Roy Spencer’s UAH data this month. But, there’s a surprise. RSS has changed from Version 3.2 to 3.3 of their dataset, and adjusted it a bit cooler in the near term. Here’s a comparison plot:
Sources:
Curiously, there’s no mention of this new v3.3 data set on their web page describing the MSU data products they produce:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Perhaps they just haven’t gotten around to updating it yet.
Perhaps.
http://bit.ly/ezNW1x
If a instrument require a human reading/interpretation and that is a qualified one then it is explained.
However if an instrument data is adjusted BACKWARDS
Sorry mods, don’t know what happened. What I mean is:
…BACKWARDS, the human intervention have to be explained/reasoned.
Am I seeing things? A temperature record which has been updated which then shows the modern temperatures lower than the earlier version?
What would Hansen say?
Looks like the 66 year sine wave of short term (3x the 11 year solar cycle) climate changes is heading back down.
Now, the question becomes: Has the 400 year long-term climate cycle peaked between 2000-2010, and we begin the Modern Ice Age?
Or do we continue the long climb up from the Little Ice Age towards a Modern Warm Period peaking in 2060-2070? (Then begin the 450 year decline into the Modern Ice Age?)
“Perhaps they just haven’t gotten around to updating it yet. ”
Have some guts and say what you really think
Looks like the oscillation is getting larger. Typical chaotic behavior prior to climate runaway. If we get period doubling and bifurcation, we won’t have to worry about 2012.
racookpe1978 says: February 4, 2011 at 1:07 am
“Looks like the 66 year sine wave of short term (3x the 11 year solar cycle) climate changes is heading back down. “
Hold your horses … one of the characteristics of 1/f type noise is that it appears to have cycles (and trends). That is to say, because low frequency noise dominates, you signal appears to rise and fall as if there were some underlying “force” driving it to move.
So, one must use very strict statistical criteria to determine whether there are cycles and trends (which I know isn’t what the “scientists” do – but we are better than them!
I don’t know which record to trust, does anyone else? This post shows RSS being adjusted downwards. How did that happen? Did the calibration against too-fast-rising land temperatures reveal itself as faulty? In fact, do the satellite sensors depend on the land records for calibration? and if so, is that after Hansen has waved his wand over the mix?
I still incline to unearth rural station records, individual ones at that, preferably ones that can be compared with reasonably nearby urban records. For to date, I think the picture shown by many intrepid collectors of rural records is pretty stunning, and from all over the world too.
Verity published my piece here but I’ve updated the original here
Just an observation from an outsider . Nearly all published statistics nowadays are contaminated with ideological smoothing of reality . Would the singsong of al gore cs be nowadays dropping temperatures then they would be showing unprecedented cooling and robust temperature drops proving their point , no need to flee into drug -related orwellian double speak . Looking into the details of the sst anomalies as presented by unysis certain cosmetics in painting reality can easily be detected . There are very clear maps of the extent of northern hemisphere sea-ice , showing sea-ice west of nova zembla , east of greenland and north of the fram strait . On spots where the ice floor is visible and registered by satellites , the sst surface anomaly registration is showing clearly above mormal temperatures between 1 and 2 degrees celsius . Is the ice too hot over there ? Is there daily smoothing going on to serve a not so hidden agenda ? Is the registration so inaccurate that any anomaly under half a degree celsius is well under that standard deviation in the statistics ? How are the temperatures in and around the fram strait measured and does the possibility exist to verify their correctness ?
I have recently read some speculation by Warmists that man-made greenhouse gases MIGHT make El Ninos stronger. It doesn’t look like that according to the top graph.
Is it me? I don’t seem to be able to determine that 2010 was the second ever “warmist” (deliberate) year after 1998. It looks way down from where I am sitting!
I am still struggling to find a definitive website that explains how we won’t have another ice-age for 50-100,000 years. Could someone kindly point me in the right direction. I can find sites that tell me this is so, but with no evidence or apparent explanation, other than “orbital mecahnics” variation. BTW they appear to be warmist sites, but then I am biased!
Why do we need all this adjustment anyway? Surely the raw data is enough? If we just add up the number of degrees and divide by the number of thermometers, year after year, it may not give an accurate average world temperature, but it will tell us whether it’s getting warmer or not, which is what we want to know. The only adjustment necessary being for increased UHI or for re-siting. Or am I being Simple Simon here?
I’ve started producing a “global temperature simulator” based on a 1/f noise generator. I’d like to find people who could progress this project further so I’ve put the very crude basic model on the internet in the hope of attracting interest.
the urls are:
http://www.haseler.net/pink.ods (openoffice – it works)
http://www.haseler.net/pink.xls (micro$oft excel – as saved from openoffice)
The simple instructions are: “open it, click on tab and press f9” to see how a 1/f type signal behaves over a 2000 “month” simulation (170 years) There’s an email in the files for contact.
For info. I’ve not used macros it is just a simple spreadsheet and graph.
That should say: I’d like to find people who could help progress this project further.
CAGW boffins used up all the trust and good will between science and the public. There was a lot of trust and it went a long way towards wrongly convincing the public that burning fossil fuels was causing irreparable catastrophic harm. Several years ago when I realized CAGW had no foundation in science and was in fact just another FUD-based narrative (FUD = fear, uncertainty, dread) being used to acheive political/ideological goals I suspected the only thing that would stop these criminals in their tracks would be for the climate to start turning colder. After finding there was a 60-year warming/cooling cycle that was due to change I was hopeful it would happen before it was too late.
It looks like the worm has turned just in time. Now however we have to deal with two awful consequences. The first of course is that global cooling is bad. It engenders a need for even more fossil fuel consumption and even worse it adversly impacts agricultural production through shorter growing seasons, late killer frosts early in the season and early killer frosts late in the season.
In earlier times I would have counted on science, engineering, and technology as being able to counter the effect of global cooling and thus let the march of progress and continue the global rise in living standards. Now I’m not so sure. When the global warming brouhaha fully collapses and everyone learns how they’ve been hoodwinked the public trust in science may be harmed to a great extent. The next time the science establishment declares that the sky is falling and we must do this and that to prevent a catastrophe no one will listen and the next time the impending catastrophe may be for real.
What the AGW boffins did is unforgiveable. If it were up to me every last one of them that cried wolf over AGW should be fired and have their credentials rescinded so that they may not be employed in any position of public trust ever again.
“Am I seeing things? A temperature record which has been updated which then shows the modern temperatures lower than the earlier version? ”
They already got all of the play out of the high temps earlier. Now they can quietly reduce temps, making it easier to hit record highs again and at a steeper incline than would otherwise be the case. They get to have their cake and eat it too.
ahab says:
February 4, 2011 at 1:15 am
>>
“Perhaps they just haven’t gotten around to updating it yet. ”
Have some guts and say what you really think
>>
How about have some bloody manners?!
Anthony’s comment seems fairly sensible and I see no justification for your language.
The version notes he links to do not (yet?) have any details concerning version 3.3 . That is rather sloppy since they have published the data. It seems unlikely that they intend to leave v3.3 undocumented.
I’m sure you would not address him a comment like that face to face so why do it here?
I’m always very dubious when I see this sort of adjustment , though I think this must be the first time I’ve seen anyone adjust temperatures downwards. Maybe that reflects their policy bias too.
It will be interesting to see how they document the changes .
This is getting like estimates of crowd sizes at demos. Organisers exaggerate 100% , police cut numbers in half.
Wasn’t it Disraeli who said “there are lies , damn lies and (climate) statistics” ?
“Mike McMillan says:
February 4, 2011 at 1:42 am
Looks like the oscillation is getting larger. Typical chaotic behavior prior to climate runaway. If we get period doubling and bifurcation, we won’t have to worry about 2012.”
Can I have all your money then since you wont need it any more.
Lucy Skywalker says:
February 4, 2011 at 2:02 am
“I don’t know which record to trust, does anyone else? This post shows RSS being adjusted downwards. How did that happen? Did the calibration against too-fast-rising land temperatures reveal itself as faulty? In fact, do the satellite sensors depend on the land records for calibration? and if so, is that after Hansen has waved his wand over the mix?”
One of the satellite guys that regularly posts data here repeatedly states that the satellite sensor is calibrated against an on-board source, clearly suggesting that calibration does not depend on the thermometer records such as GISS. Of course, if calibration did depend on GISS then they would no longer be independent and, worse, the satellite record would be badly contaminated.
I would suggest that the on-board source is used to correct for sensor drift. If so, it is quite distinct to the actual calibration process. To perform the actual calibration you would have to depend on theory alone – or you do indeed calibrate against a more ‘reliable’ source which presumably means thermometers.
I hope that the satellits record is not contaminated by the appalling thermometer records. But I would like to know how precisely the sensor outputs are converted to temperature. I seriously doubt that the on-board source can do this.
Chris
“P. Solar says:
February 4, 2011 at 4:56 am”
Or Mark Twain.
But yes, it is odd that this new dataset is adjusted, either way, I don’t care. It is still adjusted (Mannipulated). Opens up even more questions about their methods, data and “science” IMO. What base measure was used to re-adjust the data? What data was used (Can’t be stuff from UEA CRU, the cat ate it in the move)? Why the adjustment now (After Climategate, the Copenhagen failure, massive cold almost everywhere, dare I say globally)?
I smell a, politically biased, fishy smelling temperature rat!
So the global mean temperature index is back to where it was when I graduated high school [lol]. (…that was back when “Flock of Seagull”s was a popular band…)
Blasphemy! Don’t they know that ALL changes in the near past must be made upward. Downward adjustments must be limited to pre-1960s or so.