RSS Global Temperature for October: RSS revises data to improve quality

There is some interesting news in the October RSS global temperature anomaly numbers. We are still cooler than one year ago, and the 12 month trend continues to drop. But, the big news is that RSS has revised their dataset to reflect improvements in quality control.

Version 3.1 of the TLT Lower Troposphere data has been replaced with version 3.2 You can view both datasets:

Version 3.1 here
Version 3.2 here

Here is a graph showing the two dataset plotted simultaneously. No October data exists for Version 3.1 For the most part, it looks like Version 3.2 has warmed a bit more in the past for the 1979-1990 period, slightly reducing the overall trend:

rss_31-32_compare-520
Click for a much larger image

Here is what RSS says about this change

Version 3.2 simplifies and improves a number of processing steps. The changes are:

  • Target Factors and Scene Temperature Factors are determined entirely during the merging process using monthly gridded data. In V3.0 and V3.1, the target factors were determined offline using monthly global averages, and then applied to the monthly gridded data. The new methods streamline the data processing, and result in very small changes in long-term trends.
  • A more comprehensive analysis of the intersatellite differences has been performed. As a result of this study, we have identified several satellite-months of data that appear to be inconsistent with measurements from other satellites during the same time period. These typically occur near the beginning or end of a satellite’s life. These data have been removed from processing.
  • We reduced the systematic bias that occurs due to spatial-derivative effects in the TLT extrapolation process that can be large at high latitudes. The effects of this bias are particularly large near Antarctica. (see Section 2c in the preprint for a discussion)
  • Quality control for individual TLT measurements has been improved, which results in less radio frequency interference (RFI). RFI induced artifacts were previously visible in our TLT monthly maps, particularly near Ascension Island in the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

For more details:


Changes from RSS TLT Version 3.1 to Version 3.2

Changes from RSS Version 3.0 to RSS Version 3.2

The changes listed above result in a slight change in the decadal trend, from 0.183°C/decade to 0.180°C/decade. A difference of a mere 0.03°C

rss_tlt_trend_compare-520

Update 11/09: The graph above is from RSS PDF Changes from RSS TLT Version 3.1 to Version 3.2 and represents data from 70.0S to 82.5N. In comments it’s been pointed out that the current RSS 3.2 raw TLT data for the same latitude span shows a .157C/decade trend and elsewhere on RSS own website they show a .158C/decade trend for the same data. We hope to get an answer from RSS on Monday to help resolve this discrepancy.

As for the monthly data for October:

The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for October 2008 was published Friday and has remained essentially unchanged, even with the new data version, from September with a value of 0.241°C (V3.1) for a change (∆T) of  -0.06°C

RSS
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3   0.079
2008 4   0.080
2008 5 -0.083
2008 6  0.035
2008 7  0.147
2008 8 0.146
2008 9 0.241 (V3.1)
2008 10 0.181 (V3.2)

The October 2008 number is  0.181°C

rss_october_2008-520
Click for a larger image

The RSS data is here (RSS Data Version 3.2)

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “RSS Global Temperature for October: RSS revises data to improve quality

  1. They working very, very hard to find a linear trend in that data.

    If the temperatures are cyclical, why try to force-fit a single, simple, linear slope to sinusoid data?

    Then again, maybe they don’t get paid as much for a cyclical curve ……

  2. Last Autumn was fairly warm for the NH. The following Winter NH temp plunged, and that drop was only amplified by the preceeding warming. Overall, global temps have been following ENSO/PDO trends, and if the current neutral ENSO trend shifts negative, 2009 could produce a cool/dry climate for much of the NH.

    I don’t get excited by seasonal trends, but there has been a definite cooling these last 6 seasons. If I was an AGW Alarmists I would be a bit alarmed.

  3. Isn’t it funny when temps don’t go the want thy want they want to change the way temps are recorded.Also on noticed on your sea ice chart we are NOW ahead of all the past 7 years. I wonder if this will make the news as last year did with supposted low ice??

  4. I’m not sure why you measured dT between September and October using 3.1 for September, and 3.2 for October. I realize there is no October for 3.1, but that doesn’t justify comparing the October number from 3.2 to the the September number from 3.1.

    I don’t see how this really impacts anything. Both series show pretty much the same thing.

    REPLY: I realized that might look odd. It is because I have a bunch of posts each month that used 3.1, and I’m really time rich enough for going back to revise each one.

    What I posted last month was 3.1, and in each of these monthly posts, I compare the previous month’s data. Next month will be 3.2 against 3.2. I was going for consistency in the way I do the posts, I can’t help it if the researchers change the data.

    Or I could simply make no comparison at all.

    -Anthony

  5. Southern Hemisphere has another negative temperature anomaly, which makes 7 out of 10 months negative so far this year.

  6. I wonder how the 2007 numbers look along side the 08 ones. It might be an interesting comparison to me it looks like we are headed for cooler times.

    Bill Derryberry

  7. Al Gore has written: The Climate for Change
    New York Times, November 9, 2008
    Following is the comment I submitted in response:

    The critical existential challenge we are facing is not climate change, but the exploding gap between population driven economic growth and declining global light oil production. This requires massive investment into alternative fuels to replace all conventional fuel production by 2030.
    Gore dismisses alternative fuels as too expensive or polluting, or, calls “clean coal,” “imaginary”. Yet Sasol has been making fuel from coal since 1955. South Africa survived the international Apartheid embargo from Sasol’s coal derived fuel.

    Today, China is rapidly making fuel methanol from coal for $0.66 to $1.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent. Running hybrid vehicles on such coal methanol is much cheaper than the photovoltaic and wind driven plug-in electric vehicles Gore advocates. His environmental foot dragging on permitting and funding alternative fuels will be the greatest delay directly causing very high fuel prices as global light oil production inevitably declines.
    Gore calls for an “emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.”

    However: Gore’s carbon taxes or Cap and Trade directly harm the poor.
    They multiply irrigation and fertilizer costs causing starvation.
    They dry up discretionary income and increase unemployment.

    Humans have survived far greater temperature fluctuations than realistic temperature projections from conventional fuels. Gore omits the “inconvenient truths” of tropical fossils beneath Antarctic glaciers, and glaciers extending down to Kansas. Gore ignores the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting from warming till 1998 to cooling for the next few decades of cooling. Solar cycles modulate cosmic rays which then cause clouds to fluctuate. Tropospheric temperatures have been cooling for the last decade, not warming. Climate models have yet to be statistically validated. Independent tests have found them seriously wanting. We must demand objective science with statistically verified climate models.

    Funding climate control will directly deny funds urgently needed to develop alternative fuels. Carbon sequestration is a huge black hole consuming enormous funds with negligible returns. It would starve funds from critically needed alternative fuels, causing massive global economic depression and starvation. Ross McKitrick’s T3 Tax quantitatively linked to objective tropospheric satellite temperature measurements is far more realistic than the nightmare of cap and trade. China’s increase in carbon emissions by 2010 is projected to be 1,000% (ten times) greater than ALL Kyoto promised reductions, of which the EU has only achieved 25%. Pragmatically, constraining CO2 emissions to control climate will be ineffective to say the least.

    Our critical need is to develop alternative fuels faster than declining light oil production.

    Nepal, Eritrea, and Zimbabwe have run out of fuel causing massive economic damage. OPEC production cuts extorted far more from developing countries than from ALL developmental aid. The impact of climate change will be negligible by comparison.

    We have a brief opportunity to extract ourselves from OPEC’s stranglehold over our oil jugular. Our first priority must be to rapidly develop the most cost effective alternative fuels. Developing plug hybrid vehicles will help but will be woefully insufficient. Other infrastructure projects would starve funding from the twenty some trillion dollars critically needed to develop alternative fuels over the next one to two decades.

    I urge you first to prioritize feeding the poor and providing alternative fuel to sustain global economies from catastrophic decline – Not just our own, but especially for our “neighbor” in developing countries.”

  8. My first reaction was that they are being upfront in explaining what they have done. Which then suggests to me good things like objectivity and technical discipline.

    If all temperature gurus could do the same perhaps there wouldn’t be so much contention over temperature constructions.

  9. David, problem is: Methanol is Poisonous. You think they raised a stink over 1.5% MTBE, just wait and see what they do over Methanol. Besides, I think something’s wrong with that number. The Plant is incredibly expensive. About 10 times more expensive per gallon than ethanol, and the process is very labor-intensive – maybe as much as 20, or 30 times.

  10. Hey, I’m in favor of whatever pays in the free market. I think all subsidies and undue burdens should be lifted and let the market decide. I don’t think the government should be in the oil biz. Or the anti-oil biz.

    The two versions do look quite similar. But does this mean they are genuinely fining down their accuracy and that the end result is that much more robust?

    And how does it all compare with UAH?

  11. Bill in Vigo, according to UAH 12 mo running mean 2007 came in at .282 Right now, 2008 is looking like .04. If this hold, and it seems quite possible, we would be looking at a difference of about 0.24 degrees.

    Does that sound about right?

  12. Is there a problem with the value for Sept in the RSS plot shown above in red?
    I was looking for 0.241 but it is not there. What is shown is slightly above the 0.181 for October.
    Not trying to be a pedant but the table and the graph seem to be at odds?
    Now it could be that this has been raised in comments above but I will not be going through these right now. If so my apologies.

  13. Thanks for the work you did on this, especially in the comparison between the two versions. I was just going to run a check myself with Excel {I’m a bit rusty and need the practice}. It looks like the difference you’ve shown confirms what eyeballing the first graph suggests — that most differences of note occur prior to 2003. Perhaps the analysts are becoming more sophisticated in processing the data.

    The data for the next five years should show whether this past year was just a quick blip or the start of a downward trend from the temperature plateau of the past few years.

  14. Kum Dollison (22:00:35) :
    David, problem is: Methanol is Poisonous. You think they raised a stink over 1.5% MTBE, just wait and see what they do over Methanol. …

    Ethanol is poisonous, too, and probably kills more of us than methanol does (especially at frat parties). Up here in Illinois, we’ve had 10% ethanol gas available for a good number of years. It ran about 10 cents a gallon cheaper than real gasoline, and I’m estimating I got about 8-10% worse mileage from it compared with the good stuff.

    We used to buy cans of ‘Heet’ methanol to prevent gas-line freeze in the winter. Now, thanks to huge government ethanol subsidies, I can save the 60 cents every other tankful that I used to pay.

    Where would we be without our government, eh?

  15. The heat is on in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama.

    Temperatures in six Southeastern cities, including Chattanooga; Atlanta; Athens, Ga.; Augusta, Ga.; Huntsville, Ala.; and Birmingham, Ala., ranked in the top 50 of cities across the country showing above-normal average temperatures.

    “The climate has been warming. It’s pretty unprecedented,” said Stephen Konarik, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Peachtree City, Ga.

    The trick here is these comedians are using 2007 data. They must have seen the 2008 summer numbers and decided it was time to throw up a smoke screen.

    http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2778499.html

  16. “from 0.183°C/decade to 0.180°C/decade. A difference of a mere 0.03°C”

    Shouldn’t that be “a mere 0.003…”?

  17. You wrote “a slight change in the decadal cooling trend, from 0.183°C/decade to 0.180°C/decade”. I think you meant warming, but in any case my OLS makes it 0.157°C/decade:

    Graph: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
    Raw data: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss/plot/rss/trend

    I’d just like to check we’re using the same dataset and the same algorithm, because I’m worried one of us may have it wrong (and it could well be me!)

    REPLY: Thanks for catching that I think I wrote originally slight cooling to the decadal trend, but somehow it got jumbled in some of the edits. This article isn’t my best writing because I had started to write it based on just comparing month to month, then discovered that the data didn’t match previous months. So lots of editing an cut/paste ensured. Fixed. – Anthony

  18. I dunno, the RSS changes described seem above board and proactive to me as well as inconsequential re: long-term trends. Wish that were common practice, frankly.

  19. 1. For the time being gas to liquid technology, turning gas into clean diesel is an option.
    2. Looking at the world stock of coal, the coal to liquid process is a logical alternative (for who believes CO2 is non existing problem). It is important to know that coal processing generates high amounts of cheap fertilizer as a by-product.
    3. The most promising bio fuel is made from algae.
    Algae has an extremely high yield compared to all other bio crops (about 10 x).
    A test facility already produced diesel and certified aircraft fuel.
    4. A new found rain forest fungus could also be an option http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/sustainable-crude-oil.html Who knows?
    5. propulsion technologies:
    A. efficient engine technology. New Internal Combustion Engine Designs (ICE) come with an improved efficiency up to 80%.
    (http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Engines (Perfect Engine)
    B. Efficient (hydraulic) transmissions which recapture breaking energy, provide additional power when accelerating.
    A + B can be produced at prices compared to traditional ICE and transmissions.
    This technology is on the road now during the X-prize 100mpg car challenge.
    This technology can also be used for generators, small aircraft engines and boats.

    6. Electric Propulsion
    Electric cars are in the market now.
    There are projects all over the world including the USA.
    Batteries are improving fast.
    The latest developments point to a factor 10 improvement in capacity of the current technology which is respectable.
    The magic word in battery development is nanotechnology and we will see lightweight high capacity battery technology with short re-charging cycles within a short period of time.

    Mass production and broad availability at compatible pricing is key.
    If I was in a position of driving up to 300 miles per day I would drive an electric car.
    and charge it with solar as of today.

    Hybrid.
    Hybrid technology at this moment in time is ideal for city traffic at short distances if plug in electric is available. However, field tests have proved that a Toyota Prius (No.1 in the market) is beaten by cars with an efficient diesel engine (BWW).
    The application of an hydraulic transmission could improve the efficiency of any car, bus or truck (recovering kinetic energy and acceleration support)
    I see hybrids as a transition between ICE and eletric.
    Hybrid technology will play an important role in public transport and distribution (trucks and buses)

    Solar, wind, tidal, all lack storage capacity.

    I question the continuity of solar and wind in a colder climate.
    A solar panel will not produce electricity when it’s covered with snow.
    A windmill can be destroyed when ice covers the blades.

    Both technologies need a back up (in Europe the preferred choice is Gas fueled because of the short start up time of such a power plant)

    The necessity of back up power plants make wind and solar expensive and in Europe these technologies only exist because by the grace of subsidies and regulation.
    In Germany for example the energy companies must pay a fixed price per Kw/h for energy delivered to the grid by private owners of solar and wind energy.
    These owners in return enjoy much lower energy bills.

    Anyhow, Mr. Watts, our host, can tell you all about the situation in the USA because he has solar panels on the roof of his house and he drives an electric car.

  20. Philip B
    That’s interesting. That would mean the oceans down there most likely can’t be warming. eventually all that cold water has to find its way up north. The German Polarstern research vessel has just left for Antarctica. I wonder what data they’ll come up with next spring.

    Last year they dropped the bombshell that the water down there is cooling a bit.

  21. I think the trend is only 0.158C per decade (which is what RSS has on their website as well.)

    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series

    REPLY: Hmm, something is amiss for sure. In the PDF file they published to show the differences between 3.1 and 3.2 they show .180C/decade on their graph in the PDF document which I also used in the post.

    The link you provide may or may not be current. But now we have two things pointing to .157 or .158C/decade, so at this point there must be an error or omission somewhere. I would tend to trust Paul Clark’s trend assessment since it comes from the raw data and his plots have been spot on. I don’t know the data provenance of the graphs in the RSS PDF report. Maybe there is a mistake there.

    I have to travel today, but maybe somebody can pick up the ball while I’m on the road and inquire with RSS tomorrow?

    – Anthony

  22. Ron de Haan:

    You can forget about 80 % efficient heat engines. To reach that kind of efficiency the initial (absolute) temperature would have to be about 25 times higher than the end temperature. Since the end temperature can’t be lower than ambient (say 300 K) the hot end of your engine would have to be at c. 7,500 K. That’s a lot hotter than the surface of the Sun.
    It might just be feasible on Pluto though.

  23. FWIW I redid it manually from the original RSS data with LINEST in OpenOffice Calc, and got 0.158K/decade again (Bill is right, it’s actually 0.015786/yr and I rounded it wrong above).

    Anthony’s PDF link in the reply above gives a nice picture of the Ozone Hole ;-) I think he meant to repeat the link to:

    http://www.remss.com/data/msu/support/Changes%20from%20TLT%20Version%203.1%20to%203.2.pdf

    which contains the original graphic (apologies, Anthony, I hadn’t read this and thought the graphic was yours). The graphic comes from the top of page 2, and the caption reads:

    Comparison between V3.1 and V3.2 of global-averaged (70.0S to 82.5N,
    top panel) and tropical-averaged (20S to 20N, bottom panel) time series. Each time series is shown along with the difference time series. Trends are calculated for the 1979-2007 period (which is different than the 1979-current month period shown on the website, and thus the trends values are likely to be different).

    It is the global average time series (first data column of the file) that WFT uses. If we do 1979 to (end of) 2007, which appears to be what their graph shows:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2008/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2008/trend

    we get a trend of 0.172K/decade. Closer, but still not what they claim. Interesting though what a difference this year has made to the trend.

    The other thing I don’t understand about that graph is that the delta between the two series is hovering around 1K anomaly; it should obviously be near zero – perhaps they just offset it to move it out of the way of the main series?

  24. Curiouser and curiouser… Doing the same thing (1979 to end 2007) on the 3.1 data gives a trend of 0.183K/decade, which is what RSS say it was. I’ve validated this both in Calc and using my raw analyse tool:


    analyse rss to 2008 trend < RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_1.txt
    Read 357 months' values to 2008.67
    #Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2008.75
    #Selected data up to 2008
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0182593 per year
    ...

    compared to:


    analyse rss to 2008 trend < RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt
    Read 358 months' values to 2008.75
    #Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2008.83
    #Selected data up to 2008
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0172291 per year
    ...

    (unfortunately you can’t get at RSS 3.1 through woodfortrees.org any more, but you can fetch the source of analyse there and do this yourself from the original files)

    So, if this is right, contrary to the report the changes from 3.1 to 3.2 reduce the trend from 0.183K/decade to 0.172K/decade, which feels like a more significant change…

    If you include the 2008 (to Oct) data, as I originally did, you get:

    3.1: 0.168K/decade
    3.2: 0.158K/decade

    So the trend appears to be falling both because of passage of time and quality control.

    For comparison, the other sources (from 1979 to latest data) are:

    UAH: 0.128K/decade
    GISS: 0.161K/decade
    HADCRUT3: 0.160K/decade

    RSS used to be the highest 30-year (nearly) trend, but now it seems to have fallen back into line with the surface records. UAH is still the low outlier.

  25. eventually all that cold water has to find its way up north.

    Eventually will be of the order of a few years to a few decades, because the NH and SH are essentially separate climate systems over shorter timescales.

    Hence my contention that the Global Warming hypothesis has to be true for both hemispheres. Irrespective of how much warming there is the NH, as long as the SH does not warm, and there has been essentially no SH warming for the last 30 years, the hypothesis is disproven.

    And of course any global mean temperature is irrelevant to the GW hypothesis.

  26. Ecotretas, good work with the Portugese web site. Is this in Brasil? Then temps will probably go up next month; unlike here in canada :-(

  27. It’s going to be interesting to how the temps develop over the next few months
    – if the temps begin to creep back up to the 0.3C anomaly range then that’s bad news for the skeptics
    – but if they stay down in the 0.0 – 0.1C range then that’s good news for skeptics, and bad news for the AGW crowd.

    – at the moment, I think it could go either way! (sorry!)

  28. I’m always amazed that scientists who deal with a nonlinear system like the climate persist in drawing straight lines for trends. To my eye, a better representation of the data would be a step function, one level pre 1998, and a second about 0.2 C higher post 1998. All those fluctuations pre 1998 are ENSO and have nothing to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  29. Kum Dollison (22:00:35) :
    “David, problem is: Methanol is Poisonous.”
    Gasoline is similarly poisonous. See below. Its just not “NEWS”. Its a matter of training the public.
    Thanks Mike McMillan for: “Ethanol is poisonous, too, and probably kills more of us than methanol does (especially at frat parties).”

    Kum: “You think they raised a stink over 1.5% MTBE, just wait and see what they do over Methanol. …”
    Lack of fuel and consequently lack of jobs and food is much more deadly. Some 2-3 million people starved in North Korea 1995-96 due to food shortages caused by shortage of diesel fuel and fertilizer consequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Failure to provide adequate transport fuels to compensate for the pending rapid decline in light oil exports will likely cause hundreds of millions of deaths due to starvation.

    Kum: “I think something’s wrong with that number. The Plant is incredibly expensive”.
    You must be reading environmentalist propaganda, not commercial reports. See:
    China Mobilizes Methanol While the U.S. Remains Mired in Oil

    Methanol from coal is currently the cheapest fuel available. DOE expects methanol costs of $0.50/gal equivalent to $1/gal gasoline.
    UCG Syngas: Product Options and Technologies
    The thermal efficiency is about 70% for coal to methanol vs 60% for Gas to Liquid Fisher Tropsch.

    We need to critically focus on what can be implemented rapidly on a large scale most cost effective.y

    Fuel Hazards
    Gasoline: Occupational Exposure Limits:
    TLV: 300 ppm as TWA
    500 ppm as STEL A3 (confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans); (ACGIH 2004).

    Methanol: Occupational Exposure limits:
    NIOSH REL: 200 ppm (260 mg/m3) TWA, 250 ppm (325 mg/m3) STEL [skin]
    Current OSHA PEL: 200 ppm (260 mg/m3) TWA
    1989 OSHA PEL: 200 ppm (260 mg/m3) TWA, 250 ppm (325 mg/m3) STEL [skin]
    19931994 ACGIH TLV: 200 ppm (262 mg/m3) TWA,
    250 ppm (328 mg/m3) STEL [skin]

    Ethanol OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS:
    TLV: 1000 ppm as TWA A4 (not classifiable as a human carcinogen); (ACGIH 2004).
    MAK: 500 ppm 960 mg/m³
    Peak limitation category: II(2); Carcinogen category: 5; Pregnancy risk group: C; Germ cell mutagen group: 5;
    (DFG 2004).
    OSHA PEL: TWA 1000 ppm (1900 mg/m3)
    NIOSH REL: TWA 1000 ppm (1900 mg/m3)
    NIOSH IDLH: 3300 ppm 10%LEL See: 64175

    IDLH: “Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health air concentration values”
    REL Recommended Exposure Limits” TWA Time Weighted Average
    PEL Permissible Exposure Limits
    TLV Threshold-limit value
    STEL Short Term Exposure Limit

    “Symptoms
    Irritation eyes, skin, mucous membrane; dermatitis; headache, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion), blurred vision, dizziness, slurred speech, confusion, convulsions; chemical pneumonitis (aspiration liquid); possible liver, kidney damage; [potential occupational carcinogen]”

    Methanol (Methyl Alcohol)
    “Symptoms
    Irritation eyes, skin, upper respiratory system; headache, drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting; visual disturbance, optic nerve damage (blindness); dermatitis”

    Besides, I think something’s wrong with that number. The Plant is incredibly expensive. About 10 times more expensive per gallon than ethanol, and the process is very labor-intensive – maybe as much as 20, or 30 times.

  30. Pingback: UAH for October sneak peek « Watts Up With That?

  31. Great post and insight as ever.

    Together with your UAH release, it just shows how competing dataseets improve the quality of temperature measurements. It looks like I have to revise the synoptical view and trend of 5 datasets again, once Giss, NCDC and HatCrut are out. Their land-ocean-indexes have just been revised as well.

    All in all, it looks as if this increases the bias between surface stations and satellite units

  32. ‘climatepatrol’: I’m sorry, I don’t agree. The RSS changes seem to reduce the differences in trend between RSS and the two surface sources and (to a lesser extent) to UAH. The real issue now is the difference between RSS/HADCRUT3/GISTEMP and UAH.

    Here’s a monster of all four series plus the WTI average of the four, plus trend lines:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/wti/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

  33. Ecotretas (12:21:01) :

    CO2 going high by the biggest value for any month since the beginning of Mauna Loa measurements. If temperatures go up next month, the AGW crowd will find a justification!

    Must be the way they do their running averages. The end point goes up because of the previous peak. If I add the last 6 red points and divide by 6, I get a lower point, 385.5. They say the black line is “seasonally corrected data”, so anything is possible.

    Of course there could be some extra CO2 belching from the local volcanoes at Mauna Loa.

  34. Pingback: UAH for October sneak peek | Global Warming Skeptics

  35. Pingback: The evolution of the GISS temperature product « Watts Up With That?

  36. Pingback: Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product « An Honest Climate Debate

  37. Pingback: RSS for November is out, up slightly « Watts Up With That?

  38. Pingback: RSS Global temp anomaly makes a significant jump « Watts Up With That?

Comments are closed.