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
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!
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.
Oops. Here is link for the 1/2 year signal: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/half-year-cyclic-variaition-in-rssuah-and-giss-anomaly/
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
<>
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.
**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.
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.
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.
Jerker Andersson (22:07:25) :
It seems that the difference is more important during those years when it is “apparently” warmer.
Neven
I note your alarm What do you believe has been happening and what is that based on?
Tonyb
RSS USA Years Monthly.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/USA-TLT-RSS.jpg
RSS USA Years Months February.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/USA-TLT-RSS-Feb.jpg
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. :]
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.)
“”” 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.
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.
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