A few days ago I posted the results of the RSS Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) global temperature anomaly data by RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA).
For March 2008 it has moved a little higher, with a value of .079°C for a change (∆T) of 0.081°C globally from February.
RSS
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3 0.079
click for a larger image – RSS data here
University of Alabama, Hunstville (UAH) published their data set on April 8th, and it is in good agreement with the RSS data. The ∆T for March was .074 degree C
UAH
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
click for a larger image -UAH Temperature data available here
GISS also published their global temperature anomaly data, which you can see here, and it is significantly different than two global satellite data sets:
GISS
Year Jan Feb Mar
2008 .12 .26 .67
I haven’t bothered to plot the graph yet, but the ∆T of .41 degree C change upward from February 2008 is quite large, and according to one of our commenters, JM:
The GISS Feb to Mar temperature change is the largest one month change in the entire record based on my macro search.
I have not verified that, but it seems plausible. We’ll see if GISS remains the outlier data set when HadCRUT publishes soon, I expect before the end of the week.
How the heck do we top that?
RSS
2008- Jan -0.070
2008- Feb -0.002
2008- Mar +0.079
UAH
2008- Jan -0.046
2008- Feb +0.020
2008- Mar +0.094
GISS**************GISS/RSS Dif ********* UAH/GISS Dif
2008- Jan +.12 ******** +.19 ***************** +.166
2008- Feb +.26 ******** +.28 ***************** +.24
2008- Mar +.67 ******* +.591 **************** +.576
My first thought is it must be a difference in the selection of a baseline. We know the satellite baseline is from 1979 forward. Is the GISSTemp dataset using exactly the same baseline? We can show over and over that the selection of starting and ending points can make a big difference in the trend lines, and as we can see here probably in the mathematical differences.
Summary data posted at the Globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
Corev, Editor (above reference)
UAH is always slightly higher than RSS, so that’s not a surprise. GISS is just simply out to lunch. .5C difference from Jan to March? Pu-lease! Who do these guys think they are fooling? It’s insulting, really.
Hansen is going to have 2008 in the top 5 regardless of the data. He’ll beat it into that spot whether it wants to be there or not.
AW could you post txt file of all 4 indices again. When i looked at earlier on and compared it, there were some differences.
Anthony
What I find remarkable about both MSU datasets is the jump in land temps anomalies. It is nearly as large as the fall from Jan07 to Jan08, and remember, this is MSU satelite data not GISS. CRU UK may well not be as large an anomaly but I think it will be large never-the-less.
JEEZ
That is a truly creative and immensely enjoyable adaptation of Shakespeares Hamlet except here perhaps it is an ode most fitting to the Prince of Darkness (Gore) rather than the Prince of Denmark (in this case perhaps Svensmark?).
The largest change in UAH is .3, that being 1984. There were 28 months that exceeded .2 deg change. I have the breakdown of UAH, RSS and GISS, but don’t think that is the underlying issue other than GISS is extremely diverged from satellite.
Keep in mind the land temp change was very large in both satellite data sets.
It is the ocean data that intrigues me. In every case for UAH the oceans have cooled, except for SoPol which warmed by .01.
A quick look from one year ago and the comparisons are similar, to me anyway. From Feb to March 2007, land temps rose, but ocean temps dropped…..every one, except SoPol which slightly warmed.
This is speculative, but it appears the oceans are releasing large quantities of heat which shows up in land measurements. Given OHC is still stagnant or falling slightly, as the year goes on, in my limited perspective unless the oceans regain that heat loss (SST and deep), the only way for temperatures to go by year’s end is down. To me that is not a good thing.
Certainly, the climate is changing, but it is the oceans that tell the real story.
AW one very simple thing to look at is the average difference between GISS and hadcru. even though they use difference base periods differencing still works.
{(giss-hadcru) from 79 to today has slope = 0}
so, on average GISS has an monthly anomaly that is 0.09C higher than hadcru. this is due
to a different base period ( which we can correct for easily) and some other
factors ( polar coverage) But on average if GISS reports .67 as a monthly
anomaly, then HADCRU will report .58C ON AVERAGE.
the standard deviation is .0748 ( since 79)
so bets on hadcru anyone? will hadcru report more warming relative to GISS or less.
Posted on the climate audit forum by Sphinx002,
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html
Words failed him and me
Well they are already trumpeting the Giss numbers and the new Global heat wave over at Skeptical Science. Claiming it is the biggest up swing ever in a two month period
Given the bias in the way GISS has figured things in the past I wonder if they actually have any data on this or if it is entirely a figment of their adjustment process.
Hold on, wait. GISS is land only?
Why do we even look at that number then? That’s 1/3rd of the story….
I think I see the effects of Hansen’s thumb on the GISS scale.
Face it, Hansen is just giving Kerry and Soros what they paid for.
Looking closer on UAH, it appears NH warmed a bit, while the SH continues to cool. The tropics have cooled a tremendous amount. Almost 1C of cooling in the last 15 months. That tells me this was a very strong La Nina, and considering the tropics are cooler now than anytime in the last 15 months indicates to me La Nina is really persisting.
SH is cooler now than they were this time last year, and they had a very, very harsh winter. Antarctic ice is about 1.5million km^2 above last year too. Should be another record breaker…
jeez: Does this mean we get an “Out, damn’d spot” over in the solar section?
My first thought is it must be a difference in the selection of a baseline.
Whereas my first thought is that the satellites are measuring microwave proxies to determine the temperature of the troposphere while GISS is using (corrupted) surface stations to determine surface temperatures.
I am still somehow not quite satisfied with the correlations and deltas. I trust Christy, don’t get me wrong, every bit as much as I distrust Hansen, but something still seems slightly skewy in the state of Bismarck . . .
If you look at the RSS monthly anomaly chart for March 2008 (found here), you see that there is a very large heat anomaly over North Asia, spreading over to Eastern Europe, dipping down towards the Persian Gulf.
The rest of the world seems pretty balanced and average except for this one “hot spot”. I wonder if GISS is responding to this as well? (Or rather, over-responding.) It isn’t very convincing when those who claim the medieval warm period wasn’t global when they get so excited about this event – which is clearly also far from global.
I note that the largest RSS step (Dec 04-Jan 05, approx. 0.35 deg C) was a small step in GISS (less than 0.2 deg C). It may be that the measurement noise is sufficiently large that these sort of monthly comparisons are always going to throw up inconsistencies.
Paul @ur momisugly 07:59: I do not know if this is the Skeptical Science site you are talking about, but if so, I think that it is a very reasonable post. John Cook says
Regards,
John
REPLY: It only “blows it out of the water” if you beleive GISS and their polar estimates sans measured data that get included in their global anomaly index. Personally I don’t.
Index of Leading Climatic Indicators is a clever/useful idea.
Must include ocean heat content
The Solar activity index ought to be the inverse of Galactic Cosmic Ray flux
Solar “constant” does not exist. TSI not likely to be very useful
Any form of surface temp anomaly is probably useless and would only add noise to signal. I predict a high degree of concordance between surface temp anomaly and frequency of “alarming reports”, however
Peter ,
“Raven, March 2008 saw a considerable and negative snow cover anomaly across the northern hemisphere.
Perhaps, after digesting that, you might withdraw your slur?”
RSS breaks out the Continetntal USA.
Con. USA March 2008 was -0.877
Thats .877 BELOW average.
GISTEMP is a joke.
The GISS Northern Hempishphere anomaly was 140.
I have put together a summary of all the different anomaly magnitude changes in the GISS data that meet or exceed the current month’s. (I use the metered readings only data, so it is different from this. I may change that around at some point, but relatively speaking, it’s showing the same thing).
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/april-2008-update-on-global-temperature-trends-part-1/
Does anyone know of some spot where I can get a good explanation of the differences between the four major measurement methods? I realize there are limitations, and I also realize that there is skepticism about GISS, in particular. But I am very interested in understanding the difference in methodology between measurements. Anything from different instruments to estimation techniques to the global reach of the measurements. I woould be indebted to anyone being able to point me in the right direction.
Somewhat OT:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR
It appears water vapour has a negative feedback on CO2. This article is also on icecap.us
The simple fact is there are billions of dollars invested in man made global warming hysteria, money that could have been much better spent on helping Africa get on its feet or helping China reduce its damaging emissions (SO2 and ash). Ash has a much greater effect on global temperatures, as once it comes in contact with snow it dramatically increases melt rates.
Pierre Gosselin,
I think you have a great idea. Do you know where up to date data (tide gauges or satellite) on the rate of sea level rise anomaly can be found? I have been looking for a source of this.
I realize that this type of data takes a lot of analysis to come up with a simple number, so I have relied solely on journal articles, but there seems to be a puacity of data for the last year or two. (Maybe I’m just a poor researcher.)
Best Regards,
Tom
When the HadCRUT number comes in, we should run the seasonal differences for all for four metrics for some recent period of time. The seasonal differences are the change from year to year for a given month. So for March 2008, we’d be comparing March 2008 to March 2007. Let’s do this, say, for the last 6-7 years. Unless HadCRUT comes out looking like GISS, the latter will stick out like a sore thumb.
Another thing to bear in mind is that normally, the swings in the MSU data sets have been greater than the swings in the land/sea data sets. That makes the GISS jump even more anomalous.
People who want to believe what they are seeing in the GISS jump will trump its superiority for measuring trends at the poles. Is there any way to independently assess whether the GISS jump can be accounted for that way?
Basil
REPLY: I think this is a good idea. GISS uses estimates for the temps at the poles, and of course no actual surface data is used from these high latitudes. In my view the method is complete folly.