I’ve plotted the results of the RSS Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) global temperature anomaly data by RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA).
For April 2008 it has moved a tiny bit higher, with a value of .080°C for a change (∆T) of 0.001°C globally from March.
RSS
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3 0.079
2008 4 0.080
click image for a ZOOMED 1998 -2008 DATA PORTION of the 1979-2008 image
RAW RSS data is available here
Note that there does not appear to be any sustained upwards trend post 1998.
Here is the entire RSS MSU dataset plotted:
click for a larger image
Morgan said: “The warmer temperatures associated with that event most certainly were held up as evidence that the globe was warming – “the hottest year on record”, and were largely responsible for kicking off the current hysteria. There was relatively little comment on the fact that this was the strongest El Nino on record”
But according to the Pogies, the El Nino was an aberration and had little if anything to do with Planet Earth’s temperature. They recently made this statement when painting the current cooldown as the result of natural variations. I’ll find the article somewhere in my stack and post the URL later.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Hi,
Guys take a look at the tropics in UAH -.53. I can’t see how temperature can go up if the tropics stay cool. So far only the NH is warmer than average. I think soon as AMO flips we will really see temperatures drop.
This looks like Feb-April were a slight bump up before the next drop (like June-Aug 07). -.3 global anomaly by summer?
If the El Nino of 1998 was the strongest of the century why was 1934 the warmest year of the 20th century?
Ed, that was only for US temps…
Dormant sun, negative trending PDO and AMO, Asian (SOx) aerosols out the wazoo, Kiluea spewing out more (SOx) aerosols and now stratospheric ash spreading across the SH … we are going to be in a world of hurt.
The caption on the top graph, when you click to enlarge, is incorrect. It should say “1998.”
REPLY: It is a ZOOMED SECTION of the 1979-2008 graph.
pdm: [Seasonally corrected CO2]
At the time I decided to use the raw data (well, the one with interpolated missing values) because we should be able to apply our own seasonal adjustment. For example, here’s the data with a 1-year running mean subtracted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12
But granted this isn’t as sophisticated as their method, so perhaps I should include both; I’ll add it to the (ever-growing 😉 ) list.
Paul
[This comment seemed to get lost earlier, sorry if this results in a duplicate through some time wormhole feature of WordPress that I’m not aware of…]
Folks,
I’ve been wondering about the difference in baselines in the four temperature series, and I couldn’t find a definitive statement of how to align them, so I’ve tried to work one out – I’d appreciate comments…
The four temperature series quote their baselines as follows
HADCRUT: Jan 1961 – Dec 1990 (30 years)
UAH: Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 (20 years)
RSS: Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 (20 years)
GISTEMP: Jan 1951 – Dec 1980 (30 years)
(Note in woodfortrees.org you quote the sample _after_ the last one in ‘to’, so it would be e.g. rss/from:1979/to:1999, and I’ll quote them like that below)
The period of comparable overlap is therefore 1979-1999. I’ve added a feature in the ‘raw data’ output of woodfortrees.org so you can see the mean of all the samples at the end. So if we look at the raw data of the 4 series for that period, we get:
Graph: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1999/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1999
Data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1999/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1999
The means are as follows:
HADCRUT3: 0.146
UAH: -0.001
RSS: 0
GISTEMP: 0.238
So, allowing for a bit of rounding, UAH & RSS are both zero across that period, as we would expect. HADCRUT3 is 0.146K higher, GISTEMP is 0.238K higher.
Before anyone complains about GISTEMP reading high, this is inevitable given that its baseline includes an earlier, relatively cooler period!
So, it would seem that
GISTEMP = UAH/RSS + 0.238
HADCRUT = UAH/RSS + 0.146
and therefore
GISTEMP = HADCRUT + 0.092
I’ve heard 0.24 quoted for GISS before, so it would seem this is reasonable.
Hence we can now provide a 4-series comparison to a single baseline:
1979-1999, baselines adjusted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1999/offset:-0.146/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1999/offset:-0.238
and the data shows all means now roughly zero, as we’d hope:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1999/offset:-0.146/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1999/offset:-0.238
This means we can now compare series properly:
1970 onwards, 12 month mean, baselines adjusted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.146/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.238/mean:12
Last 10 years, baselines adjusted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:120/offset:-0.146/plot/uah/last:120/plot/rss/last:120/plot/gistemp/last:120/offset:-0.238
Last year, baselines adjusted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.146/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.238
(note that HADCRUT & GISTEMP aren’t out for April at the time of writing, but the link will automatically fill them in when they are)
Does this make sense? Can anyone spot any flaws in this logic? The only fly in the ointment that I can see is that the anomalies are quoted against the average of that particular month in the baseline period, so technically doing it on an annual average like this is invalid – but done globally, I can’t see it is going to make a significant difference.
Paul
In response to Jim Arnt’s suggestion that we take a look at the tropics, here are three quick graphs, one each for the tropics, the NH, and the SH, respectively. Plotted are the raw UAH monthly data, and a smoothed trend using HP filtering.
http://s3.tinypic.com/2i13yx.jpg
http://s3.tinypic.com/n4xhlw.jpg
http://s3.tinypic.com/2e0l7bm.jpg
I don’t see a much of a “trend” at all through the “satellite era” in the tropics. The trends in the NH and SH have leveled off, and are moving downward.
UAH satellite temps are out. Small decline in April to +0.015C from +0.089C in March.
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
I am confident that the GISS numbers will show 2008 to be among the warmest years ever, and if they don’t… I’m sure they will after a few “corrections” are made.
I expect they will still be strongly positive as the Ice sheet covers my home.
SteveSadlov,
Relax…we are not all going to die.
We’re only cooling back to normal.
We’ll have a much better picture in a couple of years.
If you start feeling anxiety, just think of them IPCC climate models! 😉
Two German physicists have constructed a very convincing argument against AGW. It is guite lengthy but I can find no errors in their logic. Their math is beyond my abilities to verify so you’re on your own with it.
The translation into English is a little rough in spots.
Check it out.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
Paul,
You have built an awesome tool on your website. I was reviewing similar charts earlier, but without applying the baseline adjustment. I output your data from 2001 onward to Excel and found three sources with downward trends since 2001, and GISS with an upward trend which raises the GISS alarm a little higher for me, though I’m not sure it would still be there with the baseline shift. Is it possible (without a herculean effort) to add trendlines to your graphing program?
Quick question for you statiscians out there – if GISS Temp’s baseline period ends in 1980, why would they still be ajdusting (lower) mid century data? The mean is suppose to have beeen established, so stop lowering it? Or am I missing something?
Sorry, “statisticians” (I’m a lowly EE that can’t spell)
I have a comment about CO2 beeing back on track, it isn’t.
CO2 has shown a significant decrease in growth rate for april, as you could expect with lower global temperatures.
Here are the last 5 years of april CO2 meassurments.
Year _ Month _ CO2(ppm) _ increase(ppm)
2002 _ 4 _ 374,93
2003 _ 4 _ 377,75 _ 2,82
2004 _ 4 _ 380,42 _ 2,67
2005 _ 4 _ 382,18 _ 1,76
2006 _ 4 _ 384,69 _ 2,51
2007 _ 4 _ 386,37 _ 1,68
2008 _ 4 _ 387,19 _ 0,82
AS you can see the growth from april to april is much lower than previous years. Lower temperatures yeilds in a lower CO2 increase in atmosphere.
The increasing CO2 level follows the temperature much more closely than anthropogen CO2 emissions.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2056/2471196255_c3318ee700_o.jpg
So considering those facts this years annual increase will be much lower than previous years due to lower global temperatures. We may see as small increase as 1-1,5 ppm this year.
UAH shows SH has a negative temp anomaly for the last 7 months. Clear cooling trend. Current month is coldest since 1989.
A global climate signal should be clearest in the SH because there are far fewer people, less land use changes, weather is less noisy and a few other reasons.
An unbiased observer would probably say we are seeing an accelerating global cooling trend, largely obscured by local factors in the NH.
Basil, your UAH SH graph shows an uptick at the end, while the UAH SH data has no uptick. Last 6 months are all cooler than the previous month.
And so now Gore is using the Burma cyclone to trump his agenda. Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a ‘Consequence’ of Global Warming.
He chases disasters with his rhetoric like a city lawyer chasing ambulances. And the saddest part is that it is a bald-faced lie.
pAUL cLARK SAID: “Does this make sense? Can anyone spot any flaws in this logic? The only fly in the ointment that I can see is that the anomalies are quoted against the average of that particular month in the baseline period, so technically doing it on an annual average like this is invalid – but done globally, I can’t see it is going to make a significant difference.
Paul, you sure did a hell of a job. I’ve been studying your charts and can’t see any flaw yet.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Rod Duke said: Two German physicists have constructed a very convincing argument against AGW. It is guite lengthy but I can find no errors in their logic. Their math is beyond my abilities to verify so you’re on your own with it.
I read this last year when it first appeared and again last January. Although I have a math and chemistry background, I found it quite a challenge. The Pogies hammered the authors when it was first published, even though they probably didn’t understand a word of it.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Philip_B
I think I have it right. Here’s a portion of the data I imported:
2008 3 0.089 0.424 -0.246
2008 4 0.015 0.170 -0.140
The last number is the anomaly for SH. That’s an uptick, moving from -0.246 to -0.140.
Basil
Oops! I confused SH with tropics. Apologies, you are right.
Dan, read these posts and you basically will understand what Hansen and GISS temp has done. They splice station data together, sometimes selectively choosing which sets to obsolete:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=40
Basil,
You somewhat stole my thunder. At work today (don’t tell anyboby), I plotted RSS data using the following data:
NH minus Tropics (20 / 82.5)
Tropics (-20 / 20)
SH minus Tropics (-20 / -70)
World (-70 / 82.5)
The MONTHLY trend was the following (multiply by 120 to get decadal trend):
Data Source: Monthly Trend Decade Trend
NH minus Tropics (20 / 82.5) 0.0029 0.348
Tropics (-20 / 20) 0.0014 0.168
SH minus Tropics (-20 / -70) 0.0005 0.060
World (-70 / 82.5) 0.0015 0.180
Thus, it appears that the following is true (especially seen when plotted):
– World trend is essentially the same as the Tropics trend. There are very few occasions in the last 30 years where they part. Actually, the last 7 months has been a big exception.
– Very little warming in SH (minus tropics)
– A lot of warming in NH (minus tropics)
– Tropics appears to be the average between NH (minus tropics) and SH (minus tropics)
One last thing, I plotted NH (minus tropics) against SH (minus tropics). I wish I had the time to figure out how to do tinypics. Anyway, here is what’s interesting. NH and SH temp anomalies (minus tropics) are pretty much aligned between 1979 and 1994. Then, 1994 onwards, there is this huge split between them, especially since 1999 (post El Nino). This is unparalled in the history of satellite-derived data. I can’t explain it except for:
a) less aerosols over the land masses of NH causing preferrential heating,
b) land heats quicker than ocean under a hotter sun (NH land >> SH land), c) changes in land use (NH land>>SH land),
d) localized CO2 effect (from industrial activity in NH), preferential absorption of CO2 in oceans (SH ocean>>NH ocean), better atmospheric convection in SH, and finally, better negative feedback mechanisms in SH due more ocean,
e) solar effects that preferentially affects the atmosphere over land masses.
I encourage everyone to do the plots themselves (again, I wish I had time to learn tinypics). Gotta run.