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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
“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’. 😉
Never trust anyone over 50, man!
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.
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.
here again the graph of that last decade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
i must have missed the “significant drop” part.
Everytime someone like Neven posts we should hit the tip jar!
REPLY: Neven, please post more often, thanks, Anthony 😉
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.
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.
” 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….
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.
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?
sod (13:19:12) :
You also missed the “Hadley” part of it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1999/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1999
Ok, Let’s all post our age on every post.
55
“”” 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
You also missed the “Hadley” part of it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1999/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1999
sorry, i missed the Hadley part indeed. but i still can t see the “significant drop”. the endpoints look pretty average to me. ( i didn t miss the SST part this time.)
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
sod (16:38:02) :
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’.
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.
“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.
i hope this year gets ridiculously cooler….it would be funny to see how the media and Gore would try to spin it.
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.
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 :).
Turning 69 this April
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.
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 ?