Both RSS and UAH global temperature anomalies are out for Feb 09

I’m unable to setup a graph for these while I’m on the road, so a short table will have to do:

RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)

RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.2)

RSS Jan09   .322

RSS Feb09   .230

UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville)

Reference: UAH lower troposphere data

UAH Jan09   .304

UAH Feb09   .350

Oddly, a divergence has developed, and opposite in direction to boot. The only thing more puzzling today is Andy Revkin.

UPDATE: I spoke with Dr. Roy Spencer at the ICCC this morning (3/10) and asked him about the data divergence. Dr. Spencer had not yet seen that data, since he has been attending a conference. The data of course has been released by his associates and staff back at UAH. Here is what he had to say:

“I believe it has to do with the differences in how diurnal variation is tracked and adjusted for.” he said. I noted that Feburary was a month with large diurnal variations.

For that reason, UAH has been using data from the AQUA satellite MSU, and RSS to my knowledge does not, and makes an adjustment to account for it. I believe our data [UAH] is probably closer to the true anomaly temperature, and if I’m right, we’ll see the two datasets converge again when the diurnal variations are minimized.”

For layman readers that don’t know what diurnal variation is, it is the daily variation of temperature due to the variation of incoming solar radiation from rotation of the earth on its axis.

It looks like this:

Source: http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter3/daily_trend4.html

Advertisements

112 thoughts on “Both RSS and UAH global temperature anomalies are out for Feb 09

  1. That is weird. The eye in the sky reports that Jan was colder compared to what the rabbit hutch on the ground reports. But then for Feb it reverses itself and says that the rabbit hutch reports colder temps than the eye in the sky does.
    Now this is climate change.

  2. Has anyone attempted to calculate error bars for global temperature measurements? Sounds like a job for Steve McIntyre. I laugh because earlier this afternoon I was having a hard time getting 4 thermocouples in the labs to agree with each other within 0.25 degC.

  3. I don’t know whether to cower in fear or sigh with relief…
    Perhaps this is good evidence of why we need several different mechanisms for measuring temperature change to provide a more objective basis to the data.
    (Instead of just relying on surface temps…)

  4. It is common that there is a difference between UAH and RSS.
    Since about 10-12 year ago a 12 month cyclic error has appeared.
    Se diagram that shows the difference between RSS and UAH.
    Normally at this time of year the difference between RSS and UAH should be small. I guess it will get back on track next month.
    The error reaches its maximum in the summer.
    is the 12 month running mean error between RSS and UAH.

  5. Making a second try to make links work….
    I wish there was a preview function available.

  6. This is weird. I read everywhere that the globe is in a downwards temperature mood. El nina, no solar activity, cold winters in parts of the NH,……and yet and yet….Global temperature stays above average ?
    Would it not be logical that in periods like these where all know natural influence point to cooling that the global temperature would be significant below average ?

  7. Difference between UAH and RSS
    When you compare the details, you realize that the SH and tropic data show the same trend in both data sets, but NH differs strongly.
    tot NH SH trpc
    UAH 2009 Jan 0.304 0.443 0.165 -0.036
    UAH 2009 Feb 0.350 0.685 0.016 0.051
    RSS 2009 Jan 0.322 0.449 0.190 0.067
    RSS 2009 Feb 0.230 0.391 0.062 0.130
    The UAH increase seems to be consistent with the AMSUA daily temperatures.
    The more detailed data:
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
    and
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
    are not yet out.

  8. A tenth of a degree difference?
    I don’t really think it’s significant. This is hardly an exact science after all.

  9. This two measurements diverge by a total of 0.138. That is such a large amount that there has to be some gross error somewhere. Or has this happened before?

  10. My first thought was RSS doesn’t include the poles but UAH does. Then the “Sudden Stratospheric Warming” phenomenon that Bill Illis reported on last month in a comment came to mind. But with respect to the inclusion of the poles, the NCDC’s version of global land and sea surface temp based on ERSST.v3b shows a decline this month too and it includes the poles.
    ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.land_ocean.90S.90N.asc
    So that would seem to confuse matters more. Hmm!
    And for those into information overload, the OI.v2 SST data shows a decline in global SST anomalies:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/february-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html
    But there were a few positive SST datasets in the OI.v2 SST data. The North Pacific, the Indian Ocean, the Arctic, and the Southern Oceans were positive, leading me back to the probability that the divergence between the RSS and UAH data may be how they handled the poles.

  11. AMSU seems to indicate UAH rather than RSS to be correct. Unless there is a systematic error. AMSU has indeed shown some significant fluctuation this year. The latest example – the recent March rise of .33C in six days…

  12. Willem de Rode: This is the sort of thing that puzzled me, until I formed the view that natural variation (particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) was masking a genuine underlying warming trend from AGW.
    I explain why I became a climate skeptic here.
    And why I recanted here.
    And where I assess whether we should try to do something here.

  13. Do RSS and UAH cover the same area? Looking at the raw data for RSS (ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt) it looks as if the RSS data covers 82.5N to 70S, so it’s overweighted for NH. My recollection is that UAH is more uniform, so the current difference and cyclical difference (see Jerker post ~5) would make sense if the Antarctic is typically warm in the late southern summer. It looks like they do some adjustment, as RSS global temp is not an exact average of NH and SH temps, but it’s pretty close. I think I trust the UAH with better coverage.

  14. Willem de Rode (23:28:58) :

    This is weird. I read everywhere that the globe is in a downwards temperature mood. El nina, no solar activity, cold winters in parts of the NH,……and yet and yet….Global temperature stays above average ?
    Would it not be logical that in periods like these where all know natural influence point to cooling that the global temperature would be significant below average ?

    There is no “average” world temperature. The charts we refer to when we talk about anomalies refers to an average of temperatures taken at an arbitrary interval of time. It really doesn’t matter what that interval is, as long as everyone uses the same baseline.
    With satellite data we are limited to the years when satellites were first put into orbit. That data is only about 30 years. Collectively, everyone with an interest in the subject could use any interval as the “average”.
    One of the biggest misconceptions out there is the planet is warmer, or cooler, than average. There is no average. There is no optimum.
    For a really good discussion of this topic, see http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#Reflections%20on%20recent%20global%20temperature%20changes
    And see a good discussion of the relationship between CO2 concentrations and world temperatures
    http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric%20CO2
    The author of climate4you has a very calm approach to this whole topic and is very thorough in his documentation. It is my second favorite website on this topic.

  15. To Jack Simmons,
    I agree with your remark. Of course the so called average global temperature is only an average of temperatures measured via the same methode over a limited period of time.
    But even then, if we consider the average global temperature over the period 1980 to 1995 as reference. Still then my remark is standing solidly !
    Now, all known natural variance parameters are pointing to lower temperature conditions. As I can read on this and similar blogs, this is an unique coïncidence that maybe only is seen before during the Little Ice Age.
    But yet, uless all conditions, the average global temperature of the last months is still higher than the average global temperature of the reference period (in which some natural conditions lead to warming !).
    Regardless of defintitions of global average temperatures, this seems very odd to me.
    With all information I can read about the natural temperature-influencing parameters I expect logically that the global temperature would be lower than in these periods in which these parameters would facilitate warming. Discussions about definitions of references will never solve this rather simple logical problem.

  16. Since 2002 temperatures near the earth surface have not changed much, they are flat. However if I look at the temperature at a height of 36km., using the AMSU-A data, I see that from 2002 to 2008 there has been a fall of almost 1 degree C. From 2008 to 2009 there is a further 0.5 degree C fall.
    The upper atmosphere is cooling quickly. It seems to me that the surface is being kept at a constant temperature by heat stored in the oceans while the upper atmosphere is cooling because of less energy from the sun.
    I therefore predict more cooling at the surface.

  17. “UAH is higher than I expected, but still coolest Feb since 2001…”
    Besides last year, I mean (it was early when I posted that…) so, 2nd coolest since 2001…

  18. “The only thing more puzzling today is Andy Revkin.”
    In his piece (found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1) Revkin says:
    “John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama who has long publicly questioned projections of dangerous global warming, most recently at a House committee hearing last month, said he had skipped both Heartland conferences to avoid the potential for “guilt by association.””
    This is exactly what I advised you to do, Anthony. You are losing your independence by associating with all skeptics. Stick to the skeptics that have something to say about the science, stay away from the skeptics that us the AGW debate for political, personal or egotistical gain.
    I do the same thing with environmentalists. I take the ones that have realistic things to say seriously, the greenies who use AGW to take us back to some anarchist or communist society devoid of all technology don’t get much of my attention.

  19. Bob Tisdale (01:24:42) :

    But there were a few positive SST datasets in the OI.v2 SST data. The North Pacific, the Indian Ocean, the Arctic, and the Southern Oceans were positive, leading me back to the probability that the divergence between the RSS and UAH data may be how they handled the poles.

    That’s my thinking too – except I’d expect NoPol and SoPol UAH anomalies to show something. The NoPol is strongly positive (+1.14) but it’s lower than December and January. I realise it could be a bit more complicated than my simplistic analysis. Perhaps the anomaly map will reveal something.

  20. Whatever way you look at it this is showing pretty massive cooling everywhere
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.9.2009.gif . La Nina is really getting strong once again at site 1 (beside Ecuador/Peru)
    have a look at continents COLA site.. same thing exceptions Australia. Also Cryosphere today totally unreliable but not their fault satellite is way off for apprently part of 2008 and all of 2009. Curiously (For Leif) Sun just doesn’t want to take off. LOL There appears to be a discordancy between UAH (AMSU) data this year with last years data with same surface temps. One wondrers if ALL the satellite dat was not caused by one event (Cosmic ray burst at time (Dec-Jan2009 2008) ect?)

  21. I find the MSU data fascinating, particularly it’s apparent quite rapid changes over a few days. These changes in atmospheric heat content appear large.
    What is there cause? The timescale suggests they are linked to weather events, or maybe changes in heat transfer from the oceans.
    Anyone have a more detailed understanding?
    Great blog, great work Anthony. Looking forward to seeing the information from the conference.

  22. Willem de Rode (23:28:58)
    why should temperatures behave like step functions ?
    the system reacts slowly, it requires a string of many la ninas to gradually move the temperature down, rebuild ice and glaciers, just as the string of many el ninos did the opposite over the last 30 years.

  23. Matte,
    You are correct about RSS being weighted more heavily in the NH, which is what makes the discrepancy surprising. UAH is reporting SH as near normal, but NH much above normal. Thus UAH should be lower than RSS.
    Also, RSS shows extreme cold over almost all of Russia and Siberia.
    http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium/global/ch_tlt_2009_02_anom_v03_2.png
    So why is UAH showing NH 0.69 above normal?
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

  24. Consider that last winter temperatures were extraordinary low worldwide, Jan-Feb 2009 is still colder than 2007 before, so the downward trend continues. I am curious whether Archibalds´s forecast for -0,4deg C anomaly for 2009 will come true.

  25. Thank you, Jack Simmons, for that link. I’ve been reading there, and I agree that Climate4You is a great site on this topic.
    I especially liked his point about GroupThink, and how it puts the kibosh on realistic dissent. There are other valid points of view on the importance of CO2 emmissions for climate change besides those of the AGW elite, but GroupThink prevents them from being included in the discussion.
    Thanks again,
    Richard

  26. Neven,
    My advice to you is to stay away from the alarmists that us(e) the AGW debate for political, personal or egotistical gain. i.e. almost all of them.

  27. sod (04:24:58) “i don t think that looking at such short terms makes any sense. even the ten year trend is up”
    You should have cherry-picked a year earlier, the trend is down:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
    sarc off : looking at 10, 11, or thirty-year short trends can tell us interesting things about the weather, but we need a century or two to look at climate trends.

  28. As Bob mentioned, the Northern Hemisphere is being affected by the record Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) event which occurred in mid-January.
    This event has impacted the satellite lower troposphere temperature measurements.
    Temps in the NH stratosphere jumped by up to 50C (no typo) in mid-January to the highest level ever recorded and now they have bounced back to the lowest levels ever recorded. [Essentially, heat just got redistributed in the atmosphere in an unusual but common way for the NH winter and there was no extra heat generated].
    The Tropics and the Southern Hemisphere satellite temps are not showing much change at all and are roughly Zero anomaly right now.
    The lower troposphere satellite temps measure up to about 400MB (25,000 feet) and the troposphere was affected more by this SSW than the surface was.
    You can see the change in temps by atmospheric level and by time with this graph. [1050 MB is the surface and 0.4 MB is the very top of the atmosphere].
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2009.gif
    Or with this chart of the 10MB level.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.gif
    Generally, these events produce (for the NH mid-latitudes only) a slight warming at the surface and in the lower troposphere during the event and then some cooling and other variations over the next 2 to 8 weeks.

  29. sod (04:24:58) : “even the ten year TREND is up.”
    Yes, when you take 1999 as starting point. That’s a perfect example how cherry picking can influence results. 1997 and 2000 would show pretty much flat. 1998 and all the years after 2000 would show a significant downward trend.

  30. I think we have gotten a bit off the logical track here, with our skepticism.
    We have been given a PR present by Gaia these past 7years, maybe 10. Though I am grateful for this, and hope that the next two or three years keep up the good work, I do not lose sight that it is fortuitous PR, as the 30 year warming at the end of last century was fortuitous PR for CO2 alarmists.
    The geologic truth, if we look at the 400.000 year ice core record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png is that we are on a fluctuating flat top of +/- 1C, headed for the next ice drop, as surely as clock work. We are at a fortuitous wide flat top, about a degree C higher than the previous same width heat top, which was not very flat 100.000 years ago. The next drop is anybody’s computer program guess. If we go by the Dryas, it may be only three years away, or 10.000 according to some programs.
    We should be counting our blessings and spending any excess moneys to plan as human societies for the next ice plunge. Hansen’s naive suggestion that we can put off the ice age by emitting greenhouse gases has already been negated by their inability to overcome the cold PDO. Maybe it will be mirrors in space, ( aluminize the moon) or underground cities, or… That is where creativity and money should be spent.

  31. Please keep in mind that the UAH LT anomaly is a mathematical difference – the LT temperature parameter minus the average temperature of a similar parameter from 1979 to 1998 inclusive – and this “LT Base” occurred in a period of modest cyclical warming.
    If global temperatures are indeed natural and cyclical, as I believe, and we are now entering a cooling period, you would see a leveling off of the recent warming around the turn of the century, and now a moderate decline, which is in fact what is happening.
    What will happen next is anyone’s guess, since the science is not settled.
    I will predict further cooling, with up and down irregularities, for the next 20-30 years, based on the PDO shift to cool mode.
    Hope I’m wrong – I like it a bit warmer.
    Regards, Allan

  32. We need to reconstruct the whole temperature record going back the last two centuries first. I thoroughly believe that if we can account for the dimming effect of 19th century urban smog and then the developing UHI effect of the 20th century until present, then we’re going to see a temperature rise of less than half of the 0.6C that is currently banded about.
    That would prove how insensitive the climate is to greenhouse gases and eliminate the alarmist rhetoric that has become divisive, unscientific and cult-like.
    I’m currently watching the German film Die Welle (The Wave) and see so many parallels there with environmental activism and the way the Obama campaign and the media whipped up all that pre-election frenzy.
    This mania has to end.

  33. Neven (03:29:31) :
    I guess you’re implying that Andrew Revkin is unbiased and sensible.
    “…global warming’s skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and weakening support.”
    Really? This is only the image Revkin wishes to relay. He’s quite the wordsmith, isn’t he. In reality this is not what is happening. People on this side of the issue are pointing out how the science is not settled. Revkin sees this as “signs of internal rifts”.
    Revkin also reported last year :
    “Experts Confirm Open Water Circling Arctic”
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/confirmation-of-open-water-circling-north-pole/
    However, this was not confirmed. Revkin put this in bold type anyway, “This is the first recorded occurrence of the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route both being open at the same time.” He didn’t chose to put the part where it was not confirmed in bold print. Do you bias in that, or no, Neven?
    Andrew Revkin may be one of those environmentalists you want to distance yourself from Neven.

  34. @ Neven (03:29:31) :
    “Stick to the skeptics that have something to say about the science, stay away from the skeptics that us the AGW debate for political, personal or egotistical gain.”
    I believe you left out the qualifier “and who are under 50 years of age.”

  35. Just kidding here … Pierre Gosselin wrote “Ooops. Ignore my last comment. I was looking at UAH January temps.”
    No worries Pierre … NASA does this all the time … ‘a month here a month there and soon we’re talking serious GW.’ ☺
    Clive
    PS… ditto what Allan MscR said … wind chill here in S Alberta is minus 34°C this morning … sheesh.

  36. ” Bill Illis (04:51:14) : Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW)”
    Thanks for pointing this out–and it was an easy read. Easy reads are nice.
    DaveE, and others, also pointed out the SSW in an earlier threads.
    Graphs that haven’t been smoothed are bumpy–sudden jumps up, sudden jumps down. All smoothed graphs over the past 10 years, or 5 years, i.e., recent past, are showing a cooling trend in the earth. That would be ‘climate’, wouldn’t it, and not ‘weather’? 😉

  37. Neven (03:29:31) :
    “The only thing more puzzling today is Andy Revkin.”
    In his piece (found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1) Revkin says:
    “John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama who has long publicly questioned projections of dangerous global warming, most recently at a House committee hearing last month, said he had skipped both Heartland conferences to avoid the potential for “guilt by association.””
    This is exactly what I advised you to do, Anthony. You are losing your independence by associating with all skeptics. Stick to the skeptics that have something to say about the science, stay away from the skeptics that us the AGW debate for political, personal or egotistical gain.
    I do the same thing with environmentalists. I take the ones that have realistic things to say seriously, the greenies who use AGW to take us back to some anarchist or communist society devoid of all technology don’t get much of my attention.

    If not for political, personal or egotistical gain this debate over AGW would have never started. That’s all there is to it! Take away the politics and you have an hypothesis that is unproven (if not already falsified) by actual observation.

  38. I was just outside, 7:21 am. I can tell the effects of the SSW are now gone. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. My car is covered in ice for the first time since pre-SSW. It is fricking freezing out there!

  39. re: Jerker Andersson (22:07:25)
    Nice graphs. Tamino did a post on this back in October I think. Jeff Id followed that up with a post and confirmed the annual signal when comparing the differences: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/an-orbital-heating-signal-from-solar-input/
    However, I think the signal shows up in NH summer (not now). Jeff also showed in his next post that there is a 1/2 year signal as well which is common to RSS, UAH, and GISS.

  40. From the data and a paper that I saw recently it appears the lowering of the water vapor in the upper atmosphere is causing a corresponding lowering of it’s temperature. I wish I could find that paper to post a link but it looks obvious in the links at climate4you.com and thanks for posting that link. The paper was on relative humidity but the charts show just water vapor.
    Intuitively we realize that on cloudless mornings in the winter it is much cooler do to radiational escape back to space in a dryer environment as compared to a cloudy humid one. This might be what’s going on but why is the water vapor content of the upper atmosphere decreasing?
    Thanks and great discussion. It’s nice to be on a forum where the flaming of the political AGW posters is minimum. Lets keep discussing the facts and not the politics.

  41. Sven (04:52:45) :
    sod (04:24:58) : “even the ten year TREND is up.”
    Yes, when you take 1999 as starting point. That’s a perfect example how cherry picking can influence results. 1997 and 2000 would show pretty much flat. 1998 and all the years after 2000 would show a significant downward trend.”
    So I’m confused-why are we picking the variations in the 1997-2009 time period and not 1979-present for trending?
    “Just Want Truth… (06:22:21) :
    I was just outside, 7:21 am. I can tell the effects of the SSW are now gone. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. My car is covered in ice for the first time since pre-SSW. It is fricking freezing out there!”
    And it’s 10 degrees above normal the past week in Vermont-so what does either prove?

  42. Talking about dodgy science, the genius that is the Prince of Wales says we have 100 months to act on climate change
    That’s a bit of good news – that’ll take us beyond the end of the Mayan calendar which is more worrisome than AGW.

  43. I swear the Queen will live to 120 years old if that is what it takes to keep prince idiot off the throne. Didn’t Chuckie read the alarmist’s handbook? 8 years? You can’t scare anybody that way, they’ll just tune out. Anything over 100 is too long, assumed technological fixes take the fear out of that, 30 is the sweet spot, most people picture themseves still alive, and fear for the kids. Oh the humanity! Charles, you’ve blown it again.

  44. Steven,
    “My advice to you is to stay away from the alarmists that us(e) the AGW debate for political, personal or egotistical gain. i.e. almost all of them.”
    I already do this as much as I can, and I certainly won’t be starting a blog where I just let everybody and everyone say whatever they want and continuously contradict each other in the process.
    It’s a classical development that you see with all groups. Skeptics (like I said on day 1, mostly grumpy, old men) come together, slap each other on the back, laugh at each other’s sarcastic witticisms and spirits are generally high. Everyone is agreed on the core message, in this case: AGW is not a problem. Then after the initial ‘euphoria’ starts the quibbling about the details, which quite soon turns into people denouncing each other.
    So, maybe Revkin is manipulating, but if it’s true that Lindzen says people should stop (unscientific) speculating about the Sun’s influence because they’re damaging the core message, then to me this is a beginning crack that could easily turn into a rift, once there is a prolonged period of moderate heating or something like a new Arctic sea ice extent minimum. Remember I’ve said this.
    And then the whole thing starts to fall apart and everybody loses, or at least the real skeptics do. Again, this is how it usually goes with groups, especially when a founding and leading figure dies. A good example of this is the field of psychoanalysis after Freud died. It was a nasty mess.
    So what’s the problem with this? I’m one of the alarmed (not alarmist), so I should be wringing my hands at the prospect of the skeptic community collapsing through its own doing, right? Wrong. I think it’s of paramount importance to always have a minority that disagrees, and the more credibility it has the better.
    The real skeptics (of which I suspect Anthony to be one) are in danger of damaging their own credibility by associating with loony and cunning skeptics. They should stay clear of conferences organised by propaganda vehicles such as the Heartland institute.
    If this really is the reason that John R. Christy didn’t go to the conference (‘guilt by association’), my interest in what he’s got to say has increased markedly. Because he probably is a true skeptic. There might be true skeptics at the conference as well, but I can’t discern them between all the pseudo-skeptics.
    Anthony is surfing a nice wave at the moment, but if he’s not careful he might trip and fall into the water. It’s time to take this blog to the next level.

  45. “A tenth of a degree difference?”
    Well, considering the entire “global warming” brouhaha is over a warming rate of a tenth of a degree per decade (one degree per century), a tenth of a degree is more significant to some than to others. A tenth of a degree one way or the other wipes out an entire decade’s “global warming” or doubles it.

  46. Neven,
    So what you are saying is that the current WUWT strategy is working well, so it must be changed.
    Interesting thinking on your part. “You are winning the race, so slow down or run backwards.”

  47. Neven,
    John Christy didn’t go to the conference because he works in a field where tolerance of dissent is extremely low, and people who dare to think for themselves often lose funding.
    The reason why most vocal skeptics are older, is because their careers are more stable and they can’t be swept under the rug.

  48. Bill Illis @04:51:14
    As Bob mentioned, the Northern Hemisphere is being affected by the record Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) event which occurred in mid-January
    Thanks for emntioning that. I had meant to ask exactly what an SSW event is.

  49. Neven,
    Your observations are lacking and presumptuous making your resulting conclusions and advise ridiculous.
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but you certainly misperceived and mischaracterized skeptics and the discussions.
    So your warnings are just a bit suspect to say the least.
    There’s nothing wrong with this blog at all. It’s been quite productive and effective.
    I would advise folks to reject your viewpoint entirely.
    Especially since it’s quite possible you are not simply mistaken but deliberate in misrepresenting both this blog and AGW skeptics et al.
    If you are indeed simply misguided you may want to find the means to move yourself to the next level.

  50. <>
    Absolutely not. People saying what they want and contradicting each other could never create a healthy discourse. Far better to have like-minded and right-thinking people congregate; certain to be better results from that approach.

  51. **I already do this as much as I can, and I certainly won’t be starting a blog where I just let everybody and everyone say whatever they want and continuously contradict each other in the process.**
    Absolutely not. People saying what they want and contradicting each other could never create a healthy discourse. Far better to have like-minded and right-thinking people congregate; certain to be better results from that approach.

  52. Well, considering the entire “global warming” brouhaha is over a warming rate of a tenth of a degree per decade (one degree per century)
    If the last two century’s temperature record was reconstructed to eliminate the 19th century dimming effect from urban smog and the ever-increasing urban heat island effect of the 20th century, we will probably see that the warming rate was about a quarter to a third of a degree celsius over a century and a half.
    We are often accused of focusing on short term trends and not looking at the bigger picture, so it is very important that this reconstruction be done and papers submitted for review and results published widely on the internet. In one swoop the hysteria and politicizing can be beaten and science put back on track.

  53. Neven
    If this really is the reason that John R. Christy didn’t go to the conference (’guilt by association’), my interest in what he’s got to say has increased markedly. Because he probably is a true skeptic. There might be true skeptics at the conference as well, but I can’t discern them between all the pseudo-skeptics.
    Pseudo skeptiks and pseudo alarmists, like Gore? i.e. not scientists?
    You have a very funny idea of scientists, particularly aged ones, I am retired. The ones in my institute, like me a year or so ago, tend to let scientists in other disciplines define their field, and go tsk tsk tsk about alarmism, unless somebody explains the science to them. A year or so ago I would not think of questioning climate scientists’ scientific conclusion any more than I would expect them to question me about the width of the Z ( I am an experimental particle physicist btw). I accorded them the respect I expect for my field.
    I became a climate alarmism skeptic, i.e. convinced that the anthropogenic part of warming is nonsense, after reading the IPCC report on the science base of the claim. Any scientist who looks into the methods and data can with difficulty avoid this conclusion, imo, or at most might become lukewarm i.e : the science is not settled. Unless of course the grants he/she gets need the AGW mantra in the conclusions of each publication. There are billions in grants spent to prove the A in AGW, and money is a strong incentive. This to be contrasted with a few millions from various agencies, even oil, for the study of the opposing propositions.
    So your advice to Anthony is not necessary. He is not financed by big ECO and co. I suppose those dependent on grants from the biased government organizations try to follow the advice to Caesar’s wife, who not only had to be virtuous but also seem virtuous.
    Yes, old scientists and particularly retired scientists owe no allegiance and endanger no graduate students so they are free to express their skepticism to the skies.
    Somebody should make a poll of all scientists once more, anonymous of course. A large circulation newspaper might do.

  54. Jerker Andersson (22:07:25) :
    It seems that the difference is more important during those years when it is “apparently” warmer.

  55. Bill Illis (04:51:14)
    I have found this SSW warming event very interesting.
    You said:
    “Essentially, heat just got redistributed in the atmosphere in an unusual but common way for the NH winter and there was no extra heat generated.”
    Is the heat redistributed or is some portion of it lost to space? What kind of heat is it? latent, sensible. Could you tell us more about this? What is an “unusual but common way”. Small SSWs seem to be common, but this was unusual in it’s magnitude-.Just trying to clarify.
    Roy Spencer on his website states:
    “The fairly large fluctuations seen within individual months are usually due to increases (warming) or decreases (cooling) in tropical rainfall activity, called “intraseasonal oscillations”.” Are these the cause of SSWs?
    Also there seemed to be a lot of precipitation in the tropics about this time (we heard a lot about precip in Nothern Australia about the same time as the fires!!)
    I watched our suface temperatures during the event here. (I have a Davis weather station). The warm air just passed right on over us (I do live in a river valley in the interior of BC just east of the coastal range) and the surface temperatures remained a little lower than “normal”. This seemed to be reflected in the GISS/Hadcrut anomalies too.
    If this seems incoherent, it probably is – just some of the questions that this event brought to mind. I would be nice to see a separate posting on this to maybe get a better understanding of what is going on. :]

  56. Anthony is surfing a nice wave at the moment, but if he’s not careful he might trip and fall into the water. It’s time to take this blog to the next level.

    What is the next level? Silencing people whom he doesn’t agree with? Reviewing somebody’s credentials before they are allowed to post?
    I see a lot of hysteria and unscientific claims among the AGW camp. Do you always try to correct Gore, Hansen, Prince Charles, Sharon Begley, Seth Borenstein each and every time they say something that is not support by sound science? (Which is just about every time they speak, btw.)

  57. “”” Frank Ravizza (21:08:19) :
    Has anyone attempted to calculate error bars for global temperature measurements? Sounds like a job for Steve McIntyre. I laugh because earlier this afternoon I was having a hard time getting 4 thermocouples in the labs to agree with each other within 0.25 degC. “””
    So who said that these are global temperature measurments ? Aren’t they just anomalies like Hansen gets from NOAA’s owl boxes, or Hadley Center gets form their land sensors.
    I for one would really like to know exactly what these satellites measure and the methodology. Anybody got a link to the owner/driver’s handbook for these satellites.
    As for thermocouples; why would you want to try and use them to measure temperature; well to the 1/100ths of degrees that these people keep reporting. They seem ok for measuring the many hundreds of degrees C of a diffusion furnace temperature zone.

  58. Both NH and SH February sea surface temperature anomalies (as per Hadley) dropped about 0.05 degrees from January with the global average at 0.221 – still a significant drop from much of the last decade.

  59. Gibsho (06:43:23) :
    So I’m confused-why are we picking the variations in the 1997-2009 time period and not 1979-present for trending?
    I did not raise the subject, I was responding to a posting and showed how picking any starting point around the time proposed would give a different result, that’s it. Of course picking 1979 would give another different picture and an even stronger warming trend, I’m not arguing against this

  60. anna v (08:43:26) :
    Your experience is very like mine though mine was some considerable time ago.
    I think the reason so many of the skeptics are older is because the older and more established scientists late in their career are less influenced by the need for research grant money. I know it sounds like I am accusing some of lack of integrity but it is simply the case that if belief in an idea means my family eats and disagreement means they don’t it becomes mighty easy to believe.
    On the other hand some adopt fake names to protect the ones they care about from the McCarthyish backlash of the AGW religionists who are in power.
    One problem with this is I am afraid to even ask some questions that I think really need an answer.

  61. “Gibsho (06:43:23) : And it’s 10 degrees above normal the past week in Vermont-so what does either prove?”
    I was talking about the SSW not weather. I said :
    “… the effects of the SSW are now gone…. My car is covered in ice for the first time since pre-SSW”.
    I wasn’t trying to prove or disprove something about co2.
    I wasn’t trying to be tricky like Andrew Revkin. I said SSW twice.
    BTW, I’m open to suggestions on how to improve my communication skill. I’m sure I can evolve to that ‘next level’. 😉

  62. vibenna (01:43:26) :
    Willem de Rode: This is the sort of thing that puzzled me, until I formed the view that natural variation (particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) was masking a genuine underlying warming trend from AGW.
    I explain why I became a climate skeptic here.
    And why I recanted here.
    I read your blogs on why you became a skeptic and why you recanted. I do not think your reasoning for either position, as presented, is “robust”. Might I suggest simply reserving judgment until we understand this climate thing better. After all, the true skeptic position is the null hypothesis, not the position that AGW does not exist.

  63. Everytime someone like Neven posts we should hit the tip jar!
    REPLY: Neven, please post more often, thanks, Anthony 😉

  64. Jack Green (06:37:34) :
    “Intuitively we realize that on cloudless mornings in the winter it is much cooler do to radiational escape back to space in a dryer environment as compared to a cloudy humid one.”
    There is even doubt over that.
    Some think that cloud cover actually forms a boundary layer similar to a real greenhouse preventing convective losses.
    We really know so little.
    DaveE.

  65. neven.
    As I understand it, this blog is tolerant of ALL sides of the discussion, (even the ridiculous.)
    How can you be well informed otherwise?
    DaveE.

  66. ” Neven (07:32:13) : danger of damaging their own credibility by associating with loony and cunning”
    Like Mark Serreze and James Hansen? “Death spiral”, “Death trains”, death, death, death, death….

  67. Posted by Willem de Rode (23:28:58) :
    This is weird. I read everywhere that the globe is in a downwards temperature mood. El nina, no solar activity, cold winters in parts of the NH,……and yet and yet….Global temperature stays above average ?
    Would it not be logical that in periods like these where all know natural influence point to cooling that the global temperature would be significant below average ?
    As I understand it, it will be 4-8 more years before the minimum in Temperature will be reached.
    All of the Natural Variations are pointing downward, and, it is worth noting, the globale temp has been decreasing.
    Landscheidt predicted the 1998 super el nino by looking at the max reached in 1992. So it took 6 years for that Max to manifest as a temp. Likewise, if this holds true, we should expect 2012 or so to begin to show the signs of the extended Solar minimum of 2008.

  68. Robert Austin (13:15:48)
    ‘After all, the true skeptic position is the null hypothesis, not the position that AGW does not exist.’
    Are you referring to the “CO2 drives the climate theory” for A in AGW as stated by IPPC?

  69. “”” Just Want Truth… (05:56:30) :
    ” Bill Illis (04:51:14) : Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW)”
    Thanks for pointing this out–and it was an easy read. Easy reads are nice.
    DaveE, and others, also pointed out the SSW in an earlier threads.
    Graphs that haven’t been smoothed are bumpy–sudden jumps up, sudden jumps down. All smoothed graphs over the past 10 years, or 5 years, i.e., recent past, are showing a cooling trend in the earth. That would be ‘climate’, wouldn’t it, and not ‘weather’ “””
    Actually, graphs that haven’t been smoothed are data, while smoothed graphs, have merel;y thrown away valuable information, and left behind a complete fiction.
    There’s an actual reason for all those wild up and down bumps; that is what the instruments say actually happened in the real climate model; namely planet earth; those measured values were all different so that is why the graph jupms up and down; because that is just what the planet did.
    “Climate” can’tr even define itself correctly; wiki says that climate is the long term average of weather; and if that is true, then climate is simply a single number; not a graph. And one thing that the real model (earth) does not do, is average anything; it actually integrates everything; and what happens tomorrow to the real model is going to start from where that real model is today; not from some mythical average “anomaly”.
    You can’t solve the climate mysteries with statistics; because this is NOT a dress rehearsal; this is the real reality, and we aren’t going to be repeating anything; so you can take a statistical mean of a sequence of identical experiments. This is the one and only experiment, so it has no statistical significance.
    Put away the stat-maths books and go get some physics books; that’s where the answers lie.
    George

  70. Neven
    You seem to forget that AGW alarmists are very much in the ascendancy at present. This generally applies to establisment science, the mainstream news media, government bureacracies and politicians, among others. This scam is costing humanity hundreds of billions of dollars per year and results in much unnecessary misery. This madness must be stopped by all possible means. This blog is doing a great job. Perhaps that is why you want it to change tack?
    Scientific progress thrives on disagreement. The more the better. The truth will come out in the end – whatever you say or do. I for one have no fear of that.
    Jack

  71. sod (16:38:02) :

    i didn t miss the SST part this time

    I think you did.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1999/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1999/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1999
    Anyway, I’ll agree “a significant drop from much of the last decade” is a bit vague, but it certainly looks to me like the current values are below “much of the last decade.”
    And remember, catastrophic AGW as expressed by the IPCC and by Hansen ’88 doesn’t leave much room for a string of years that are only “near” the record. Global records need to be set pretty routinely to meet those scary projections, and that ain’t happenin’.

  72. Although seemingly odd, this type of difference between RSS and UAH (or any of the other pair-wise combination of the five common datasets) is not that rare.
    Here’s a plot of the differences between RSS and UAH since 2000. The red lines represent one standard deviation from the mean for that time period.
    http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/29/rssuah.jpg
    The standard deviations for the other datasets (10 total pair combinations possible, e.g. GISS-NOAA, HadCRUT-UAH, etc.) for the same period run from 0.05 to 0.12, so month to month variation is common.

  73. “George E. Smith (15:51:41) :
    There’s an actual reason for all those wild up and down bumps; that is what the instruments say actually happened in the real climate model; namely planet earth; those measured values were all different so that is why the graph jupms up and down; because that is just what the planet did.”
    George, I understand this. I’m not sure why you needed to say this. I wasn’t negating data or the ‘bumps’. My goal in saying this in the comment was to point out that data is showing the earth is cooling and not warming. The smoothing of the data makes it easier to see. I was trying to make it as simple as possible.
    I understand unsmoothed data and I use it in the stock market. The bumpier graph is the happier I am.

  74. i hope this year gets ridiculously cooler….it would be funny to see how the media and Gore would try to spin it.

  75. I think I’m 53. Not sure. Love birthdays but don’t give a rats ass how old I am. What’s important is that so far, maybe because I’m so short, not much has moved South. It seems that all Irish elfs and gnomes age well. We just don’t grace the centerfold much.

  76. Wondering Aloud (12:43:14) :

    On the other hand some adopt fake names to protect the ones they care about from the McCarthyish backlash of the AGW religionists who are in power.
    One problem with this is I am afraid to even ask some questions that I think really need an answer.

    If you really think the questions are important and you really think the anonymous screening here is not enough, maybe you could send them by e-mail to the surface station project ” info (at) surfacestations.org “. I hope you trust Anthony :).

  77. rip warming (13:24:59) :
    “Everytime someone like Neven posts we should hit the tip jar!
    REPLY: Neven, please post more often, thanks, Anthony ;-)”
    Ok, I’ve hit the tip jar and I suggest everyone else does the same. The entertainment value AGWers bring to this blog is priceless. C’mon do it now. It’s a thankless job being a skeptic.

  78. The full UAH dataset is slightly unusual
    Below is the breakdown of the various regions
    Year M GLOB NH SH TROP.
    2009 2 0.350 0.685 0.016 0.051 28.
    It was the northern hemisphere that caused the global spike upwards with a very high anomoly figure of +0.685. Normally such a large anomoly can be related to a strong El Nino. The SH data seems more in line with the mainly +ve SOI.
    Not sure how the UAH satellite data is calibrated or checked for accuracy ?

  79. Just another observation on the UAH data.
    Down here in Australia there was a wide consensus in the scientific community that proof of Global Warming had now been verified by the bushfire events in Victoria and associated heatwave across SE Australia. In fact there has been much discussion on this blog regarding the fires and AGW links.
    Assuming that the UAH data is correct, then yes we can observe it was warmer than average in February. In fact a whole 0.016 of a degree warmer down under.
    Never let the facts get in the way of a good story ! Al Gore certainly doesn’t 🙂

  80. Allan M R MacRae (05:17:26) :
    Please keep in mind that the UAH LT anomaly is a mathematical difference – the LT temperature parameter minus the average temperature of a similar parameter from 1979 to 1998 inclusive – and this “LT Base” occurred in a period of modest cyclical warming.
    If global temperatures are indeed natural and cyclical, as I believe, and we are now entering a cooling period, you would see a leveling off of the recent warming around the turn of the century, and now a moderate decline, which is in fact what is happening.
    What will happen next is anyone’s guess, since the science is not settled.
    I will predict further cooling, with up and down variability, for the next 20-30 years, based on the PDO shift to cool mode.
    Hope I’m wrong – I like it a bit warmer.
    Regards, Allan
    Notes:
    Corrected text above – used “variability” rather than “irregularity” – a different topic entirely. 🙂
    For those who have difficulty understanding what is happening, please look at a sine wave. Earth average temperature has now crested the top, and is heading downward again, as in the 1940’s. That is why temperatures are still high, and declining. Not very difficult after all…
    Clive (05:51:23) :
    PS… ditto what Allan MacR said … wind chill here in S Alberta is minus 34°C this morning … sheesh.
    Agree Clive – This winter is long and cold, and getting very tiresome.
    Reminds me of the last cold period in the 1970’s.
    It’s bloody freezing here in the West.
    *******************

  81. “I certainly won’t be starting a blog where I just let everybody and everyone say whatever they want and continuously contradict each other in the process.”
    56, in self-imposed timeout for being too “grumpy”. Blogs need content, good luck with that.

  82. For those who have difficulty understanding what is happening, please look at a sine wave. Earth average temperature has now crested the top, and is heading downward again, as in the 1940’s. That is why temperatures are still high, and declining. Not very difficult after all…
    you are mixing up the US temperature with the global one.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/gistemp
    the global temperature only dropped a little.

  83. Does anyone know where I can get the “base” temperatures for UAH and RSS? I.e., the anomalies are differences between the current temperature and a base temperature. I’m curious as to the temperature variation within a year. We’re closest to the sun in January, so the average temperature should be highest then. But I need the base numbers to verify this.
    Also, the difference between UAH and RSS for February seems to be largely because UAH is up in the northern hemisphere and RSS is not. Any ideas why this specific divergence?

  84. It’s nearly mid March, and I woke up this morning to -34C (actual temp, not windchill). This is ridiculous. In my memory, this is the longest cold snap we’ve ever had here in Saskatoon. I’m torn – I want spring to come already, but I also want spring to be late so I can tell my young warmist friends “I told you so”.
    Coldest March 11th on Record for Regina ( http://www.leaderpost.com/Technology/Coldest+March+record+Regina/1377781/story.html )
    I am 51 years old.

  85. Rover Austin – perfect understanding is impossible. Yet we must form views on which to take action. If you think I’m wrong, fire away. But my skepticism was that natural variation swamped AGW effects. Now that I think much of that natural variation comes from the PDO, it seems clear to me that warming will return once the PDO flips again.
    Do you have an alternative hypothesis for the source of unmodelled natural variation?

  86. GISS Feb anomaly is +0.41.
    It’s quite possible that the Hadley (1961-90) anomaly will be below the UAH anomaly.

  87. It’s quite possible that the Hadley (1961-90) anomaly will be below the UAH anomaly.
    Yep – by a whisker. Hadley Feb anomaly is 0.35. Using the same base period (1979-97) as the satellite data puts both Hadley and GISS much closer to RSS than to UAH.

Comments are closed.