HadCRUT global numbers are out, and is at 0.43°C, still lower than the GISS number of 0.67°C.
Click for a larger image
Once again Jim Hansen’s NASA GISS is the highest global anomaly:
RSS (satellite)
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3 0.079
UAH (satellite)
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
HadCRUT (surface, land-ocean)
2008/01 0.056
2008/02 0.187
2008/03 0.430
GISS (surface, land-ocean, polar estimates)
Year Jan Feb Mar
2008 .12 .26 .67
Just looking at the graphs and I noticed what seems to be a pattern. Anybody else out there ever notice the same, or perhaps could evaluate it from a statistical point of view.
In looking at the GISS monthly global temps,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
in comparing that to Hadcrut
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hadcrut_mar08.png
and RSS
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/rss_msu_mar2008_large.png
and UAH
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/uah_march_081.png
One thing I notice, is that the majority of the extremely highs and lows, particularly on the GISS, and the HADCRUT, but to a lesser extent, seem to center right around the solstices. And the GISS graphs seem to have more average temps around the equinoxes.
The RSS and UAH, while have ups and downs, don’t seem to have the peaks and valleys so centered around the solstices.
Anybody else notice that, or could there be any theories as to why? At the outset, I would think it may be based on the fact that the GISS relies so heavy on polar temps, where the RSS and UAH don’t? And could that be a contributing factor as to why the GISS had a bigger drop in Jan, and starting to raise now?
(Or maybe just somebody is cooking the books)
REPLY: See all 4 compared here:
http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/das-met-office-hat-seine-hardcrut3-datenbasis-der-giss-nasa-datenbasis-angeglichen/
When comparing those graphs, the seasonal differences aren’t what catch my eye. It’s the inter-year variability that I find disturbing. Why is there such a pronounced convergence of data in 1998? All the numbers appear to agree within about .08 degrees for that year. But for the rest of the graph, there’s a fairly consistent .25-.3 degree variance. (except for the Hadley numbers looking odd in 2000)
No change in baseline can possibly explain the VARIANCE changing by 300%.
This information seems to be in line with the increase in arctic ice as posted by NOAA.
Nov 22, 2007 ice: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/AK/2007/ims2007326_alaska.gif
Nov. 22, 2008 ice on the same date: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_alaska.gif
That an increase of over 3 million square miles of ice over last year.