RSS Data Source is here
The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for March 2009 was published today and has dropped for the second month after peaking in January. The change from February with a value of 0.230°C to March’s 0.172°C is a (∆T) of -0.058°C.
Recent RSS anomalies
2008 10 0.181
2008 11 0.216
2008 12 0.174
2009 01 0.322
2009 02 0.230
2009 03 0.172
Like RSS, UAH was also announced today, on the blog of Dr. Roy Spencer here who is co-curator of the data with Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
It showed a significant drop, more than double that of RSS:
The change from February with a value of 0.347°C to March’s 0.208°C is a (∆T) of -0.139°C
Recent UAH anomalies:
2009 1 0.304
2009 2 0.347
2009 3 0.208
Oddly, a divergence developed in the Feb 09 data between RSS and UAH, and opposite in direction to boot.
I spoke with Dr. Roy Spencer at the ICCC09 conference (3/10) and asked him about the data divergence. 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.”
Looks like the data sets are converging now.
UPDATE: Barry Wise decided to contribute a plot in comments that I thought readers would find interesting.
He writes:
The 1997/98 El Niño temperature spike seems to have had a long lasting effect that is dissipating. This graph shows what the trend was before the event and how the trend was affected by it. The dashed red line is the trend with all of the data and the purple is the trend based on the data before the area highlighted in red. Notice that there appears to be a decaying oscillation. If correct we’re in the third peak which is less than the previous two, and is much closer to the purple trend line.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The problem we foreigners observe is that you have been taughtto believe in statistics as in polls instead of laws of nature, the data is always “conveniently adjusted” like the figures on the ordinate axis shown above: Those temperature differences are not actually perceived by humans and any “lucky” event in the future, like the 1997-98 el Nino would alter these completely. Actual phenomena is what really counts and it is what WUWT is after, trying to show what nature is telling us confronting it against the “end of the world” preaching.
Alexandriu doru utters the standard alarmist ploy:
When did you stop beating your wife?
Why should you expect me to care about the fate of your grandchildren Mr Doru? Do you think all the people who do not believe in the AGW scam are childless? Or do we not love our children the way you love yours?
It is not up to Lindzen to prove the AGW and CO2 theory wrong – it is up to the proponents of the theory to prove it – and to date I have seen no evidence of this ‘proof’.
alexandriu doru (10:08:54) :
Excerpt from article by Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Harvard astrophysicist), Dr. Tim Patterson (Carleton U paleoclimatologist) and me, published in 2002.
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their predictions of future climate changes are highly suspect. These models incorrectly assume that increased CO2 concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, and also assume large positive feedbacks arising from increased CO2 concentration, for which there is no scientific evidence. Without these speculated positive feedbacks, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical warming of only approximately 1º C.”
(end of excerpt)
I also predicted in another 2002 article that global cooling would start soon, based on a conversation with Tim Patterson.
Score:
All your experts including the IPCC – Zero.
My experts – 2
Everyone has children – you do not own the moral high ground.
As far as the intellectual high ground…
Regards, Allan
alexandriu doru (10:08:54) :
Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.
Questioning authority, whether its climate modelers or investment bankers, is playing games with the fate of our grandchildren?
Good grief. Maybe I should just ask the UN how my kids should dress too. Who knows, it might impact who they marry, and “gasp”, what those grandkids may look like.
Is it OK for me to watch the basketball game tonight, or should I just read what the experts have to say on the pre-game show?
alexandriu doru (10:08:54) wrote:
To john .m.
“comparaison n’est pas raison”
ANY denialist was capable to produce a climate model.
In physics you MUST calculate.
When Lindzen will produce a model with 0.5K/dubling co2 i will reconsider my position.
Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.
Dearest Alexandriu:
Us “denialist”s are not the ones suffering from denial, it is people who hear a sermon and believe it to be the truth. To one degree or another, AGW may be occuring, but analytical people will try to understand our solar/earth system before we subjegate our children and grandchildren to standards of living that are far below our own.
It is a fact that CO2 levels have been at much, much higher levels than they are today, and the earth did not suffer from runaway global warming. You know, the laws of thermodynamics really are true. Only the sun is capable of tranforming enough energy to create life, or change life, on earth as we know it. On Earth, the laws of energy rule; heat energy in = heat energy out, or the temperature rises or cools.
There are no huge hidden energy producing sources on this planet. The sun is our only energy source; everything here on Earth is because of the Sun.
CO2 seems to be a small part of this dynamic system and human beings are almost insignificant to this system.
Alexandriu, please close your bible and open your mind. Bibles and religion, in most cases, are good for instilling morals in our society, but that is about all.
MarkM
alexandriu doru,
every calculation of climate sensitivity is based on some interpretation of physical processes in atmosphere, convective motions, cloud formation, water vapor and precipitation increases as a response to initial greenhouse warming. All calculation that find high climate sensitivity are based, without an exemption, on the assumption of strong positive feedback of clouds and water vapor. This assumption is according to findings of 5 or 6 independent teams completely wrong. Climate is not dominated by positive but by negative feedbacks, and all calculations assuming strong positive feedbacks are simply WRONG. So, your pointing to various “calculations: as a “proof” that climate sensitivity is high is obviosuly without the merit; various guys who make the same mistake do not proof [prove] anything. Just like various so called “independent studies” of Hockey Team in paleoclimatology are not proof of anything, because all them use the same, faulty proxies (like bristlecones and foxtatils) in their calculations of paleo temperatures.
An please stop using that stupid term “denialist”, because it doesn’t make your arguments sounding any better.
“Stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren”
How about AGW advocates stop playing games with the prosperity and freedom of me and any descendants I may have? The “fate of our grandchildren” is not so threatened as you naively believe. As long as they are allowed free determination of their own actions, they can bring themselves up to great prosperity. Wealthy people will have no trouble coping with Climate change, and some climate change is inevitable. The people who are most vulnerable are the poorest among us-especially the third world. They need ~sustained~ development, not “sustainable” development. The world which is best off is the richest one, regardless of how warm it is.
It should be do not “prove” instead “proof”. When you write things quickly and English is not your mother tongue. 🙂
John Finn (04:08:08) : writes:
“eyeballing the 2 graphs suggests to me that we’re simply in a brief La Nina phase – similar to the one in 1998-2001. There ’s no way anyone can, at this point in time at least, reasonably interpret the recent lower anomlies as the beginning of a sharp (or even slight) cooling trend.”
Try eyeballing this one. Driven by the notable drop in th temperature of the great southern ocean, there is no doubt the planet is cooling!!!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1998/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2001/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/trend
alexandriu doru (10:08:54) :
“When Lindzen will produce a model with 0.5K/dubling co2 i will reconsider my position.”
Read this and weep!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/
As he states near the end of the article:
The Bottom Line
The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C
Um, the global cooling argument isn’t helped with stringing the data like that.
Now I will tell you something like this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/to:2004/trend
I started the trend line from 1990 to 2004 and then another one to today, while the trend is up, notice how the slope is becoming less impressive, if the oceans keep cooling we should be back to a straight line in less than a few years.
Anthony,
Thanks for providing this plot. I generally send this monthly plot to many of my friends and others to offset the AGW propaganda that gets streamed daily over the MSM. Your real data and facts are convincing for all who receive and and take the time to read, except for the few who will deny the facts regardless of how strong they are. We skeptics periodically need a dose of reality that you provide. I have discussed this with those to whom I send your information, and they are surprised by the real temperature and ice data.
I wonder if you have ever considered posting such monthly plots and other relavent information on the WUWT home page, along the lines that you do for the sea ice plots, where they can be easily found and sent to another person that needs information other than the MSM Propaganda . Better yet possibly a central location (URL within WUWT?) where one can find a collection of such important plots/data that we can forward to others including the un-informed, media folks, Federal, State, and Local politicians, etc. again to offset the MSM propaganda.
It goes without saying, I’m afraid that we skeptics are loosing the battle of getting the message out, and the consequences are enormous. Just look at the plans put together by Waxman and Obama based on the opinion that CO2 is a pollutant and has caused all the temperature increase since the late 1800’s.
Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I know it takes a lot of effort by you and others!!
Thanks again
Don Shaw
“Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.”
Heh. The skeptics would happy to do so. I think what you actually mean is let’s START playing games with the fate of our grandchildren. For all the AGW crowd know, their prescriptions could be dooming us to another Ice Age, which would be so catastrophically worse than any warming scenario it almost makes one wonder why we would worry about warming at all.
I am more ready to accept the opinion of men who DID a calculation .
This is known as the activity trap. If someone tells you they have calculated that when you next spin the roulette wheel it will land on 17, would you believe them and put a trillion dollars down? And yet so many are willing to believe we can predict within a few degrees the sum all the significant feedbacks in the Earth’s climate, to the point they want us to bet trillions on these models.
At the top under Barry Wise’s chart update he has:
“The 1997/98 El Niño temperature spike seems to have had a long lasting effect that is dissipating. . . . . Notice that there appears to be a decaying oscillation. If correct we’re in the third peak . . .”
All who haven’t read Bob T’s reports on this issue should. First one is:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
P Folkens (08:45:24) :
Actually I think it’s more complex than that. The linked chart shows all of the trends of 10, 30 and 50 year lengths based on the Hadley data which goes back to 1850. Notice the sinusoidal change in the trends the are pronounced at the 30 yr length and above and that the trend of the last 30 yrs is starting to diminish. Peak to trough is about 30 yrs. This leads me to believe that we’re in for a long cold spell.
Hadley Trends
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (04:13:50) :
Nice web site
“alexandriu doru (05:20:40) : This is CONSISTENT climate warming.”
I see you also like the caps lock.
“Consistent” in temperature is a relative term.
It was warmer on earth during the Medieval Warming Period (1000–1350 A.D.) than it is now. And it is even warmer on earth during the Roman Warming Period (600–200 B.C.) than the Medieval Warming Period. And it is yet warmer during the Holocene Optimum (~7000–2000 B.C.) than during the Roman Warming Period.
This is consistent cooling.
How about the Chinese Holocene? Did you know about it?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Changes_in_temperature_Chinese_holocene.PNG
“alexandriu doru (05:20:40) : This is CONSISTENT climate warming.”
I don’t know what your point was in saying this. Because it means NOTHING! (there, how’s that for caps lock 😉 ! )
BarryW
Well isn’t that interesting. I did the same thing about two weeks ago. What were the two slopes? I got 0.72 deg C/Century for your purple line (the same as the 20th century!!) and 1.56 Deg C/Century for your red line. I added ( being used to stock market software) two parallel line going through the top and bottom peaks to get a range. Have you done this using UAH? Now if I can only figure out how to use flickr!!
From http://www.algorelied.com
Apr 03
Letter to the Editor: “…the only thing certain about global warming is the amount of fraud and deception used to promote it….”
From The Messenger (Fort Dodge, Iowa):
To the editor:
If Obama is going to stick us with a “carbon tax” he will have to hurry while there are still some global warming scientists who haven’t defected. One of the latest to jump ship is John Theon. Theon is speaking out against scientists who “have manipulated the observed data” to defend their computer models. Theon was also James Hansen’s superior at NASA.
James Hansen is the “father of global warming.” Hansen is also the “father of global cooling.” In the 1970s Hansen wrote a computer program predicting that the world was on the verge of a “new ice age.” Hansen will say whatever it takes to keep the money rolling in and his face on TV.
Hansen’s institute at NASA was recently caught cooking the books on global warming again. Hansen proclaimed that last October was the warmest October on record but when their data was scrutinized, it was found that they had to substitute some of September’s data to do it. The NASA institute tried to cover this up but with all the scientists defecting from the climate change cult, NASA’s data is subject to more serious examination than it used to be.
Last spring Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT, who was Al Gore’s hurricane consultant for his movie, renounced the connection between hurricanes and global warming. He further said that none of the global warming computer models are believable.
And, Al Gore was also caught in a deception. He used video footage in his “documentary” that was pirated from a doomsday flick, “The Day After Tomorrow.” It turned out that the video he pirated wasn’t even real. It was a computer animation.
Obama says that the science of global warming is certain but the only thing certain about global warming is the amount of fraud and deception used to promote it and the amount of predictions that don’t come true.
A few weeks ago the manatees left the ocean and swam up the rivers in Florida and huddled together next the power plants trying to keep warm. Apparently, Obama and Al Gore forgot to tell the manatees that the oceans are supposed to be heating up because of “climate change.”
Roger Huetig
Fort Dodge
Just checked – I did do it for UAH – the slopes were 0.36 Deg C/Cent and 1.32 Deg C /Cent respectively.
Bring back the lobotomies!
http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/2009/04/lobotomized-science.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2709551.ece
Anthony, This was on Dr. Roy Spencers website
Mr. Gore Recants
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
In an unprecedented about-face, Al Gore last night recanted his claim that mankind is causing global warming. The announcement was made late Tuesday night from his Nashville home through his press secretary. Mr. Gore has remained unavailable for comment. In part, the announcement reads:
“While I will continue to support the development and rapid deployment of alternative energy technologies, I believe that the science can no longer support the view that catastrophic global warming is probable. This decision has required considerable soul searching on my part. But this is the nature of science, and scientific progress. I have no regrets over the path I have chosen.”
The announcement says that Mr. Gore will be publicly renouncing his portion of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to him in 2007 for his tireless efforts to raise global awareness of the climate crisis. In fact, he will no longer be referring to the fight against a ‘climate crisis’, but instead the fight will continue against a “global energy crisis”.
“The need for inexpensive and readily available energy is the most important issue facing the world’s poor”, the statement reads, “and I will be advocating free market approaches to the leaders of Third World countries in order to allow their citizens to enter and contribute to the 21st Century global economy.”
There is also the hint that he is considering returning his Academy Award for best documentary, although he hopes that a new movie category (best movie, science fiction) will be created to accommodate his highly acclaimed motion picture on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.
Please comment and put me out of my misery!
REPLY: April Fools