I sent a query to Dr. John Christy, curator of the UAH global temperature anomaly dataset, inquiring about some of the changes in the RSS dataset. In addition to commenting on that, he was also kind enough to send along an advance copy of the soon to be posted UAH data for October, which you can see here.
Here is the plot, not much change, essentially steady up .006°C to 0.167°C from 0.161°C
Click for a larger image
Dr. Christy also writes about the RSS data set and it’s recent revise from Version 3.1 to 3.2:
Anthony:
As our last several papers show, we find considerable evidence that our
current procedure better represents the temperature variations than does
RSS’s, particularly in the 1990 period where we show RSS displays a
relative warming to every other independent dataset we’ve studied.
The Oct numbers have been run but not yet mounted on the website. I hope
to do that tomorrow. Globally, Oct almost the same as Sep.
John C.
Sad to report the Geophysical Research Letters have rejected Dr. Christy’s latest papers and furthermore they told him not to resubmit. Shame on them.
Dr. Christy’s comment explains that slight bowing I noticed in this graph:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/rss_tlt_trend_compare.png
When I scroll that image so that the orange line touches the edge of the screen I noticed a slight downward bowing during the ’90’s. Good work on their part to correct what might have been a problem if left in place.
Tony I can’t access the large version of the temp graph. You can delete this comment to make way for real reasoning on the subject.
REPLY: Fixed thanks, the graphics manager had a corrupt file – Anthony
Because Christy says (Douglas & Christy Aug 08)
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
And who, reading New Scientist or GRL, will even realize this?
‘Click for a larger image’ doesn’t work “File not found”
12 month runing trend continues it’s decline…..
The paper is rejected by a publication.
For an observer such as myself, the problem is – how does one determine unambiguously whether the paper was not acceptable for publication at that time for some genuine reason; or whether it was not acceptable for publication because of a bias against papers which state a view(s) contrary to the AGW theory?
Hmmmn.
Seems that “political science” is coming to a stage (er, classroom) near you.
Does this imply Christie is covering his future funding against the election returns, or because GRL is rejecting previous words skeptical about AGW, or because GRL is requiring an equivalent premise of AGW?
I suppose also that – emotionally – I would have preferred to see October’s temperatures continue a downward spiral showing that AGW is indeed continuing to globally going away – BUT (heavy emphasis on the BUT) – rationally we need to continue letting the graphs record the real temperatures.
Not change the graphs to record our wishes.
REPLY: You mean like the monthly GISS revise?
If it is not too much trouble would a blink comparator chart be available 3.1 vs. 3.2?
Yea, a slight uptick…
Not surprising here, we had a wonderful Indian Summer here in Colorado, even broke a several decade record one day. November has stumbled in as very fallish, with temps near freezing on the east slope and plains.
OT, The paper today says Obama is going to use executive order to recind Oil drilling in Utah (and off-shore). So much for the tax break. (quoting the parrot in Alladin) “I might die of a heart attack from not surprise!”
Mike
GISS global temp anomaly for October is 0.88 Celsius. This is the warmest October since… well, ever.
Will be interesting also to follow global temperatures for November. AMSU temperatures indicate it is starting very hot (actually the hottest November so far).
Must be another sign global cooling is on its way.
We can expect however temps to fall a bit again in the beginning of 09, since we have positive SOI for several weeks now and the delay is typically 4-6 months.
REPLY: GISS isn’t considered reliable anymore. It’s an outlier, and does not take microsite biases and UHI properly into account. HadCRUT “appears” better, but they won’t disclose their methods. Hansen would either until last year when the Y2K error that came from site surveys was exposed by McIntyre and there was a loud call for the code. Still can’t get that train wreck of Fortran programming to compile and run properly. I don’t even bother posting reviews on GISS monthly anymore because Hansen is so politically biased, he’s lost track of the science, such as his defense of vandals in England. GISS/Hansen just isn’t credible anymore. Sat data is the key to understanding, not the corrupted surface record. – Anthony
UAH – October, 2008 shows it as the second coldest October this century.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/01_10_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif
More “weather” news.
GISS tells us that the world has just had its warmest month since 2002. Their anomaly for October is 0.78.
With some minor adjustments to other recent months that makes their average for this year so far as 0.428 and the average for the last twelve months 0.431.
Off topic-latest word from Al Gore:
The Climate for Change Published: NYT November 9, 2008
By AL GORE
“….The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.”
Can someone suggest a means to promulgate the real information to public and policy makers ? Something a normal citizen like me can do? Thanks. as
The October UAH data is now available. The data here
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
rounds both September and October to 0.16. But the global numbers mask a lot of interesting regional variation. For instance, global temperature (anomaly) over the ocean fell from .11 to .03. In the Northern Extra Tropics, the temperature over land increased from .28 to .62, while over ocean fell from 0.43 to 0.04! Over USA48, it increased from -0.13 to 0.14, which frankly surprises me in view of the weather we’ve had lately. The RSS change for CONUS is only about half what UAH reports. If you go to this site
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html
and browse the monthly images for September and October, you’ll see some blue (mid south) over CONUS in September that is not there in October, and some red (northeast) in October that is not there in September. I don’t have the time now, but it would be useful to see how well this agrees with spatial variation of surface station reports during September and October.
Patrick Henry: you mean “UAH shows october 2008 is colder than octobers 01-07 but hotter than almost any October in the 20 years before that”.
Steve : have you tried doing the same over Russia… Oops!
OT, but does anyone know why the Arctic Sea Ice News Analysis section of NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) says that “We provide an update during the first week of each month, or more frequently as conditions warrant” and so far there is nothing there for November? Embarassment perhaps? Or they just haven’t found the right words yet to blame the rapid ice increase on AGW? The longer they leave it the worse it will get.
Alaska and Greenland both had one of the coldest Octobers on record. Arctic ice possibly set the record for greatest October increase. Antarctica had a cold October as well, as did many other places in South America, Africa and much of the US.
There are good reasons why we don’t let one of the coaches also referee the game.
how does one determine unambiguously whether the paper was not acceptable for publication at that time for some genuine reason; or whether it was not acceptable for publication because of a bias against papers which state a view(s) contrary to the AGW theory?
You could read the paper! I assume it is this one
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
In my opinion GRL were right to reject, the conclusions are based on unjustifiable assumptions, there is some discussion here…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=595#comment-98850
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=595#comment-98931
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=595#comment-99194
JP
Flanagan,
UAH shows October, 2008 as 10th warmest in the 30 year record, and within one standard deviation (0.19) of the mean. It was cooler last month than in October, 1987.
The GISS data is suspect, at best.
Month after month we hear about the hot weather, and yet…..
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/01_10_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif
I agree with Al. Humans are evil, and should be sacrificed to the climate gods. Let’s start with him.
“There are good reasons why we don’t let one of the coaches also referee the game.”
Beautifully put.