UAH Global Temperature Anomaly for June 09 ~ ZERO

Love it.
Thanks for the info.
P

An important note:
Generally, people seem to refer to the UAH data here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
However, you will notice that Roy always reports in 3 digits, rather than two. For consistency (not that it makes a difference) these numbers should be used:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
They are directly comparable (this is where Spencer’s values eventually show up) and they also match the digits used by RSS (3)
But it’s a minor point.

Can’t wait for the July data.

Neat work, Anthony. You sure do stay on top of the latest and most accurate findings. And thanks to Dr. Roy Spencer.

Good job, Pamela. I needed a good smile this morning.

‘Click for larger image’ <- not working
FIXED – A

In the UK we’ve just had a couple of hot summery weeks (looks like its coming to an end now). Given the met offices’ recent predictions for 2080 I do not believe this will make an appearance in any MSN publication.

M White… (12:28:00) So you mean everything above 20C is hot??? Note: Luton N of London
never “hotter” than 28C (SMALL airport…) Heathrow W outskirts dito, 30-31C (big AIRPORT…)[4 consecutive days] August 2003 is just a memory now….SO
since the 1930’s and 1940’s, all that asphalting of the planet has made heatwave
max temps to drop 5-6C, WHEREAS average temps are up 1C…The warmest
anomalies seem to be at 500m up to 3000m ASL…

What’s the base period for this anomaly? I followed the link to Spencer’s page, but it didn’t say either.

Cue the Talking Heading music … “I’m on the road to nowhere”

This reminded me of that Nature article from last year:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453043a.html
“Climate change is often viewed as a phenomenon that will develop in the coming century. But its effects are already being seen, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently projected that, even in the next 20 years, the global climate will warm by around 0.”
‘Warm by around zero’, got it. I don’t recall the IPCC projecting any such thing, but they must have, because its happening already! Its warming by around zero sooner than anyone expected…

The article states; “The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade.”
I don’t like applying straight lines to data that obviously doesn’t follow straight lines. But when I look at the MSU temperature data I see a step function at the El Nino year 1998. Prior to that the anomaly is zero. After that it is about .3C. And at the end the temp seems to be ramping downward. Its as if the El Nino drove the temperature temporarily to a higher plateau and now it is returning to pre-1998 levels.

RE my 13:12 post, it appears from http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.17Apr2009 that the base period is 1979-98, unless there has been a subsequent change buried in this readme file. That looks about right relative to the graph.

Take note of coincidence here: The rises are slow & painful, the drops are quick & merciful.
Just like the behavior of the Ice Ages, only in microcosm.
Reminds me of the repeating patterns found by boring down on the edges of the Mandelbrot set. Very natural like.
Two can play this game:
The global temps are falling faster than our graphs predicted.
The Deep Solar Minimum is lasting longer than expected.
Dive! Dive! Bow planes at 80 degrees.

Curiousgeorge (14:01:13) :
Sarah is preparing for the fallout from Cap & Crash.
She’ll be telling everyone “See, I told you so, you bet’cha”.
Hey, what do you get when you mix falling global temps with AGW?
A Green Energy Slushy.

Curiousgeorge (14:01:13) : Would they really be able to contend that effect came before cause? Oh wait…

Ok… we can say that for June the temperature has been average !!!
What is the level of CO2 for June? Has it been rising still? Obviously, the rise of CO2 is related to climate change but is certainly not the driver.

Pamela Gray
Does carbon armageddon = carbongeddon ?

Why do I feel like some far-left wing nut will make a connection between this and Sarah Palin’s announcement today?
Because what else could it be?

Ray (14:14:35) :
Follow ESRL:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Still rising, but the rate at which it does so is modulated by how fast and in what direction the sea surface temperature is changing. The rise itself is emission related, at least mostly. I was working on a simple way to relate these factors but I abandoned the project way back when. Maybe I’ll get back to it one day.
I would also add that while I agree it is not “the” driver, I think it plays some role (a minor, less than alarming one).

To Dennis Wingo: This is what is known as the inversion process in estimation of temperature from microwave (or infra-red) satellites in general. There are a number of approaches to the problem to retrieve the vertical temperature profile from a set of observations. I will not go into the details, but I worked with the pioneering group at MIT who had microwave instruments on the Nimbus E and Nimbus F satellites in the 1970s. The real take home though is that the total brightness temperature of the TLT channel is the integral of the temperature in the atmosphere multiplied by the weighting function + the total microwave energy hitting the surface times the reflectivity of the surface and then reduced by the total opacity of the path from the surface + the temperature of the surface times (1-reflectivity) of the surface. In a quasi window channel like the TLT you are seeing the bottom of the atmosphere and the surface temperature. If the global surface and lower troposphere were to be get warmer, you would see it as you see it in the El Nino peak of the late 90s.

VG (14:41:49) : Nah, they will just say “This El Nino is similar, but different”:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6464

tallbloke (13:47:37) :
Wait a minute!
YR…. MON GLOBE NH……. SH TROPICS
2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003
If TROPICS is included in NH + SH the total anomaly is 0.002
If TROPICS isn’t included in NH + SH the total anomaly is – 0.001!
WUWT?
The global anomaly is calculated by averaging the hemispheric values. NH and SH include the northern and southern half of the Tropics.

For those unfamiliar with the reason for Robert Wood’s cryptic comment on local warming in London, go here
http://www.pepys.info/fire.html
June 1666 CET 15.0 C 2009 June CET 14.8 C
Hmmm
Tony B

If you take the earth in its globality, we can be certain that it is carbon neutral.
According to Le Chatelier’s Principle; “If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counter-act the imposed change.”, how can such a small change of a trace gas could ever induce a major change in the other parameters?

timetochooseagain (14:41:18) :
I know about the Mauna Loa Observatory but never really understood why they measure CO2 there, when you have permanent active volcanos in that area of the world.

The present low temperature level appears over 1 year after the last real La Nina ended. What would happend if a real La Nina started from this temperature level?
So far it seems that a El Nino is on going.. So we will probably see som temperature rise in the next half year, but… The next La Nina.. !!

Hmm no La Nina, in fact that has been running a bit positive for this season, Im betting AMJ sports a plus number, and yet temps are not rising out of control. Wasnt it the La Nina that has stalled global warming? What is their excuse now?? .. they may have to start blaming the sun soon .. hahahahahah.

Jeff Larson (14:58:45) :
Wait a minute! If temperatures are falling now due to the lower than projected CO2 emissions due to the economic crisis, that says the atmosphere is EXTREMELY sensitive to CO2 levels and we must at ALL COSTS prevent further increases in CO2 levels.

Except that, CO2 is still rising at expected rates. I see no change or slowdown in the CO2 rise … do you?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Why not measure from the high of 1998? Clearly that was the year when, if AGW theory is correct, all heck broke loose. The ‘definite signature etc.
If there is anything in AGW, surely the signature should not evaporate in just one year.
AGW promoters pick the start points to suit their predictions for dramatic effect, why not skeptics?

AGW is an excuse to tax — AGW does not have to actually exist.
A couple years after cap & trade passes, they WILL note that temperature is going down. They will credit cap & trade and make the rules even more costly — see its working, we need MORE of the same.
They will get away with it because the news media is complicit.

What will make CarbaGeddonists happy:
When your car inhales C02 and exhales 02.
The engine will run backwards, we have the PolyTechNology.
Polly want a CarbonCreditCracker?

I hate to be a party pooper but the low May-Jun-Jul satellite anomalies were expected. The lag between ENSO events and surface temperatures is less than that of the satellites. Earlier in the year, GISS and Hadley had much lower anomalies relative to RSS and UAH. GISS and Hadley are now refelecting the warmer SST. UAH and RSS should follow suit in the next month or two.

The preliminary estimate for CO2 in 2008 is that emissions still grew. It just grew at a lower rate than previously (1.7% versus 3.5%).
You could think of it in terms of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would have grown by 1.98 ppm but it only grew at 1.96 ppm.

Ray (15:19:57) : They measure it at a lot of places. If you scroll down, you’ll find the global product.

Several commenters have asked about the heat associated with the 1998 El Nino – where it went and when? Bob Tisdale has several posts regarding this episode and the multi-year dissipation of the heat. Maybe someone can alert him to this current go round and either he or WUWT can find the appropriate links. I’m not even keeping up with the things I need to do, so can’t spend the hour doing what Bob or maybe Anthony can do in a moment. Or just search for the topic on WUWT or on Bob Tisdale’s site.

John Finn (16:54:07) :
The goalpost is a tad bit harder to move when it’s frozen in everyone’s mind.
It cannot be retrieved.

The models are right. It’s just that damn data that keeps getting in the way.
OT – I see from SOHO that that high lat, SH plage region has finally erupted into a mighty, ah, speck. This is the region that Catania caught a couple of transient specks a couple days ago. Looks like NOAA’s going to finally give it a number.

It’s the turn of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, I think.
Well, duh. But the shape is truth and beauty. Who could ask for anything more?
=================================

2009 can still make a run at 2008. 2008 increased significantly in the 2nd half. Looks like 2009 is decreasing significantly, as June is the lowest anomaly of the year.
Should be a tight race, but I think 2009 will be a little warmer than 2008. But no where near a record….

==================

Dr. David Archibald…in Brazil Arquibaldo
Congratulations
Bill…congrats (winds, AAM and lunar & solar ….)
0,001ºC or 0,001K

The 2004-09 temp trend contradicts the AGW therry in a thrustful manner, since the period has witnessed a booooosting CO2 emission especially from China.

rbateman (16:26:42) :
‘Except that, CO2 is still rising at expected rates. I see no change or slowdown in the CO2 rise … do you?’
I don’t see no slowdown in CO2 rise.
It’s rising like a Swiss watch keeps time.
A real Steady Eddy, that one.

Yup, that’s my point! CO2 is rising like clockwork, meanwhile, temperatures are declining! Doesn’t look to me like the two are connected at all…

Paul R (17:32:31) :
…
“Having one in five US workers either out of work or not getting enough work and living in homes worth 40 per cent less than they once did does not bode well for a consumer spending recovery, and may not bode well for Obama’s political longevity.
The President’s popularity remains high but ultimately his fate may depend on how deep the water is when he can no longer walk on it.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25729743-30538,00.html

I predict that Obama will eventually wake up realizing he is in very deep doodoo, he is already WAY over his head in so many areas (especially foreign policy). At some point, when he finally realizes what he has done, and that the US will never recover from his agenda’s, he will wake in a very cold sweat. Unfortunately, at that point his policies will have already done irreversible and devastating harm. Keep watching, it’s coming…

Tom in Texas (19:15:23) :
OT: 3 or 4 cycle 24 sunspots have formed.

Please forgive, perhaps I am in need of those glasses now, but I see no such spots. I see something in the SH that *could* be a spot perhaps, but isn’t that cycle 23? Its in the SH, and it’s polarity is opposite that of 24 cycle spots. These dang spots, ummm specks, can never tell if they are on the sun or my monitor.

Man, oh Man. Great Interview with Richard Lindzen. How I’d love to “tip a few” with that guy.
Thanks so much for the link.

Just wanted to say that the only thing that is “happening faster than they expected” is the realization in the public’s mind that CAGW is a failed theory.

Squidly: You asked, “what makes you believe the SST will continue to rise?”
For ENSO, most of the predictions posted by NOAA call for a moderate El Nino. Refer to page 28 of the following weekly CPC report:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) is also predicting a moderate El Nino:
http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/seasonal/forecast/seasonal_range_forecast/nino_plumes_public_s3!3.4!200906!/
Global temperatures lag El Nino and La Nina events by 3 to 6 months. Depending on the variable (surface temperature, SST, or TLT), the global temperature response can be as much as 0.09 deg C for every 1 deg C variation in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. And depending on the type of El Nino and how the El Nino distributes that heat, the temperatures can remain elevated for a number of years. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
Regards

Frank Lansner (15:23:31) :
The present low temperature level appears over 1 year after the last real La Nina ended. What would happend if a real La Nina started from this temperature level?
Ok. You might recall a few months back WUWT posted an article which suggested that La Nina was back. In fact, an ‘official’ La Nina never developed because SST did not remain below the La Nina threshold for the required number of overlapping quarters. There was a fair bit of discussion on this.
However, although there wasn’t an ‘official’ La Nina, ocean temperatures reflected La Nina conditions. This showed up in the GISS/Hadley data earlier in the year – probably because the surface records ‘see’ the SST effect immediately. Anyway, the cooler SST from a few months back, are showing up in the satellite records now.
No-one can really predict future ENSO events, so we can’t really say how things will pan out in the longer term, but in the immediate short term, satellite temperatures look set to rise. And if an El Nino should develop then that rise could be substantial. Note with zero NINO anomalies RSS and UAH had anomalies of +0.3 deg C.
See Bob Tisdale’s (18:10:27) for a more sober assessment of the situation.

E.M.Smith
So pleased to hear about your tomatoes! your earlier post re Siberian and Arctic varieties led me to research and locate seeds available here in Scotland which my wife intends to cultivate next year. This year’s crop of English varieties looks promising, but the previous 2 years were total failures, despite the CET for 2007 and 2008 ramping up hotter and hotter. It takes very little research to discover that the CET series is not in fact a true series, having been changed in it’s locations and it’s readings adjusted, for reasons that seem dubious to a layman like me.

To the comment above about El Nino driving seeming to drive temperature.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalElNino.htm

I have a simple question. I am not really familiar with the whole global warming stuff. To trendy for my taste. But why do you show the data only from 1979. Isn’t it a statement of the supporters of global warming theory that the temperature is rising since 200 years or so?
Would be pleased if you answer me.
Regards,
Rainer

“The Earth has a fever and just like when your child has a fever, maybe that’s a warning of something seriously wrong,” -Al Gore
“If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor.” Al Gore
“Mr. Gore, your baby earth is ok now, please get out of my office, go home and live your life.” -the doctor

I am not sure if anyone has answered where does the heat go after the 1998 El Nino.
Ocean currents appear to move heat around causing temperature spikes recorded by surface thermometers and satellites.
Heat can’t be created out of nothing. It must be in the system (Earth) to begin with, or added/removed from the system.
Which means since ocean are within the system, they can’t explain the loss of heat from the system like the reduction of temperature after 1998. Unless you can’t use temperature readings as a measure of the systems heat content. If you can’t, then temperature readings are useless because you really want to know if heat is going up or down.
We know the Sun adds heat to the system (Earth) and there are mechanisms that slow the removal of heat from the system. CO2 is what the alarmists are saying that is slowing the removal of heat from the system.
But, looking at the 1998-2000 temperatures, it appears that heat can leave the system pretty quickly, regardless of the increased [C02]. The caveat again is if the temperature isn’t a good measure of heat in the system, and the heat is remaining constant, even though temperature dropped.
Again, where did the heat go quickly?
But, we should be measuring heat of the system. D

Rainer (05:15:32) wrote: “I have a simple question. I am not really familiar with the whole global warming stuff. To trendy for my taste.”
“Trendy” on the web: in accord with the latest fad; “trendy ideas”; “trendy clothes”; “voguish terminology” and based on that I suggest your dismissal of this subject so lightly indicates you have failed to realise the implications of this juggernaut to your own future, let alone to the future of mankind. Even a cursory glance at the agenda of those promoting AGW will show there is a malign intent towards freedom and comfort come hell, high-water, or even steady as she goes.
I believe every adult on earth has, at a bare minimum, a duty to at least make themselves familiar of the stakes involved.

I am of the opinion that man starts too many forrest fires. Last year we read of massive fires. The amazon had a lot of fires to defoliate the forests. That also means we lost hundreds of thousands of acres that absorb CO2. After the fires, we have ash and rot of the remaining wood that gives off CO2. In a few years, weeds 3 feet high do not absorb much CO2 nor give off much oxygen. I see no correlation between taxing me and reduction of arson. Double my taxes and it won’t reduce pyromania.

Rainer (05:15:32) :
” But why do you show the data only from 1979. Isn’t it a statement of the supporters of global warming theory that the temperature is rising since 200 years or so?”
Because the satellite data set only goes back to 1979. Anything before that is surface temperature readings, and surface temperatures are very unreliable (for various reasons) for estimating a global temperature.

Comparing FFT Convolution & Recursive Filtering Methods and Long Term Temperature Data
This started as a conversation with my neighbor (ham radio operator) on solar radio interference, sun spots, and finally temperature. Initial analysis was in long term sun spot data and temperature. To evaluate “climatic” data, one would like to take the longest and best data sets available. Two of the oldest are the Central England Temperature from 1659-2008
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
or the Stockholm data STOCKH-GML 1755-2005
http://www.rimfrost.no/
While the English data reflects more of western and the Atlantic effects, Stockholm reflects more of the Eurasian climate. In fact the Stockholm shows considerable less temperature change, especially in the last 50 or so years.
The first step was to do a least squares linear trend, and note how the data grouped about the trend. The trend was about 3 deg./century, and the data was with a few exceptions, within +-1.5 deg. of the trend, indicating no major departures from the trend. This includes the last 150 years. The actual temperature is T_act, and the linear estimation temperature T_linear, is defined below:
T_linear = 8.69 + 0.003*( Yr – 1659) Yr from 1659 to 2008
Both raw and linear estimated temperature (T_linear) are shown in Figure T_est_20, referenced below.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_20-1Vznq.gif
The error between the actual and linear estimation becomes the basis of filtering and comparison of filtering methods. From figure T_est_20, significant shorter term fluctuations are seen. What we were looking for were the longer term trends buried in this seeming chaotic signal. However it took a turn into “global warming”, after he heard one of A. Gore’s comments via the amateur band.
Analysis
The primary analysis method used in known as Fourier Convolution. This method was selected to initially correlate sun spot an temperature fluctuations. As a “ham”, he could understand what I was doing. This method takes the input signal, transforms it into the frequency domain, via the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). In the frequency domain, the various frequencies can be modified (generally attenuated or cut off). However for the “global warming” topic, frequencies above 0.025 cycle/yr ( 40 year periods) are removed to look at the longer term, or lower frequency signals. The filtered frequencies were then transformed back into the time domain for evaluation, minus the higher frequency “noise”. That is all signals with periods of less then 40 years were removed.
For this analysis, the error between the actual and trend was used. This trend line was modified to reduce errors in the FFT convolution. The new trend line was:
T_linear = 8.83 + 0.00325*( Yr – 1659)
so as to pass through both end points, shown in Fig. T_est_21. Fig. T_est_22 shows the resultant error.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_21-Gnm7m.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_22-0gPyI.gif
Figure T_est_23 shows the filtered error superimposed on the original error.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_23-aBkN0.gif
There one can see smoother longer term changes in the temperature, including an apparent downturn in recent years.
Two other analysis methods were used for comparison, a moving average filter (40 year average), and a 4 pole Chebushev filter, with a cut off frequency of 0.025 cycles/year. The figure T_est_24, below shows the comparison of the three methods.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_24-vco3s.gif
The disadvantage of the moving average filter, is that it cuts off prior to the last 20 years. The Chebushev filter, shows a pattern similar to the FFT method, but is extended, or distorted in time due to the phase lag, or time delay associated with these filters. That is, consider a 4 pole filter, a bandwidth of 0.025 cycles/year. With a input signal in the 40 cycle/year range, the output would be delayed 180 degrees or 4 times 45 degrees (1/2 a 40 year cycle). This results in a delay of about 20 years in time. So if one shifts the Chebushev filtered output back 20 years in time, it shows a very close proximity to the FFT filter results, shown below in Fig T_est_25.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_25-avCpP.gif
These two curves are also plotted against the actual data set by adding the trend line values back in. These are shown below in Fig. T_est_26 and 28.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_26-kT1s8.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_28-vwReN.gif
So we have a case where two different filters indicate a peaking, and possible downward trend in the latest 5-8 years. Is there a basis for this recent downward trend? Looking at the composite global temperature, put out by http://www.climate4you.com/
shown in fig. t_est_15.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_15-nrLTG.gif
Superimposing the filtered curves, on the climate4you data, we got the plot shown in Fig T_est_27, below. It would appear all three curves are very close. This is important in that it is a composite of both surface and remote sensing systems such as GISS, RSS, UAH, etc. While they vary, they seem to follow the same trend.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_27-qvBaC.gif
I’ll leave it up to the reader to evaluate how close the above analysis comes to the above shown composite global temperature. More to the point:
From this one data set, can one make the assumption that man(CO2) is causing global temperatures to go up? And if so, why is the temperature, looks like it’s stabilized, in spite of the continued CO2 increases?

Great, the tropospheres temperature is not increasing… that is a good argument to spew more co2 in the air. Why is measuring one part of the atmosphere a clinical argument. There is more than one part to the atmosphere.
Dont worry about the stratosphere and the ice sheets, the troposphere graph will fix it. The ice (our ignorance parachute) is pretending to melt. Bring back CFCs.
Changing the structure of the air is a great idea. 10 million years to stabilize the air and we can change that is 50. Civilization at it best.

Jason (10:04:07) : Wow, that’s incredibly stupid. Let me make this simple for you:
CO2 and other Greenhouse gases would, by increasing in concentration, cause the troposphere to warm, all else being equal. The stratosphere would cool. And the troposphere matters because that’s where we (and all terrestrial organisms) live! (not to mention your “ice sheets”)
CFC’s have nothing to do with AGW really, so your comment is as pointless as arguing about SO2 being a reason to cut CO2 (actually, BTW, that nasty SO2 pollution cools the Earth)
And the atmosphere of the Earth has never been stable, and never will be. The amount of CO2 was declining for hundreds of millions of years before we came along. Much longer and it may have disastrously depleted (Plants, incidentally, were probably responsible for the decline-talking about suicidal tendencies in species…no civilization needed). Life goes on, it might have even survived the next hundred million years without us saving it from it’s tendency to drain CO2 from the atmosphere…but it frankly doesn’t care what we do.

So when will the Ice caps recover then?

What is the baseline for this anomaly? If you add in a colder 2008 to the baseline, then it is easier to get a 0.

hunter (15:57:18) :
Why not measure from the high of 1998? Clearly that was the year when, if AGW theory is correct, all heck broke loose. The ‘definite signature etc.
If there is anything in AGW, surely the signature should not evaporate in just one year.
AGW promoters pick the start points to suit their predictions for dramatic effect, why not skeptics?
Because like any honest skeptic, I don’t want to use the same tools as the AGW crowd uses. Circular reasoning, misinformation, ad hominem, ad nauseam (the list is very long)… I would like to talk about facts and real data, and calling for open debate.
If you are going to criticize someone or a group of people for some reason, behaviour similar to theirs is not adviceable.

Heat – the simple answer: Earth processes move the heat pole-ward where there is a deficit from the Equatorial/tropical areas where there is a surplus. From the high latitudes it is radiated to space – the polar areas cool off and ice forms. The details are complicated. Note Bob Tisdale’s answer @ (14:42:48) and read the various reports he has done on this topic. They are clearly written and up-to-date. I don’t think you can find better explanations for the parts of the processes he covers.
—————————
Jason (10:04:07) : Great, …
I’d respond to you except I’m not sure of what meaning you have tried to convey. Try being simple and direct.
—————————-
Tom, Roger, Smokey ~ versus ≈
The former is on my keyboard, the second one is not. I have to do a symbol insert. So while I know the difference, and know how to make it appear, it is still extra work. What sort of keyboard has ≈?

MikeN (12:47:30) : That was discussed near the beginning of the thread. The base period is 1979-98 inclusive.

Roger Carr (19:29:45) : a note of mystery
I have a horse named Mystery and she knows about ^s (spelling not the same) but not about ≈.
I use MS-Word to compose comments and the software has an insert command under which I can choose a symbol table and therein find a number of things not on the keyboard. ≈ is one of them.

John F. Hultquist (20:39:55) I herewith try your MSWord tip to write ≈ and note Word calls it as ”almost equal to”.
Then I copy to Notepad to rid it of any extraneous formatting, and hope…
(Noting that I no longer have any horses at all and miss them… give Mystery a run for me, huh?)

@ Jimmy Haigh (21:08:05) :
Mark Bowlin (11:30:28) :
” Jimmy Haigh, while shouting “I am a Denier” from the rooftop, you might find it convenient time to paint it white. Has that been mandated yet??
Good point! Maybe white can be our colour! We can all dress in white and take to the rooftops, paint them white and all shout proudly that :”WE ARE DENIERS!!!”
We’ve all been in the closet too long – it’s time to fight back against those that think of us some sort of criminal. (Krugman springs to mind as an example.) ”
Might want to be careful about that. More likely you’d be identified with the KKK ( White sheets ), and targeted by various Govt’ agencies as homegrown terrorists.

Here’s an idea for a color: Blue. As in Vaclav Klaus’ Blue, not a Green, Planet.

This is a good short course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_psychology
The entry for blue is:
“The best color to wear to an interview is blue. Blue is non-threatening, yet confident and stable. Many police uniforms are blue because the color says confidence and security, while being non-threatening. Weightlifters have proven to lift heavier weights in blue rooms[citation needed]. With the good, there’s the bad. Blue can also signify depression. You’ve got the blues is a nod to this attribute.
Blue can symbolize seas, men, productive, interior, skies, peace, unity, harmony, tranquility, calmness, trust, coolness, confidence, conservatism, water, ice, loyalty, dependability, cleanliness, technology, winter, depression, coldness, idealism, air, wisdom, royalty, nobility, Earth (planet), Virgo (light blue), Pisces (pale blue) and Aquarius (dark blue, star sign), strength, steadfastness, light, friendliness, peace, mourning (Iran),[citation needed] truthfulness, love, liberalism (US politics), and conservatism (UK, Canadian & European politics). In many diverse cultures, blue is significant in religious beliefs. It is held to keep the bad spirits, stupidity and misfortune away.”
I’ve emphasized the parts I think are most relevant. (As a note, all colors have political implications. However, by curious accident, the implications are generally opposite in the US than elsewhere. Ordinarily Red is the color of Left-wing politics (especially communism) and Blue more the color of the Right but The Republicans-general center-right-got labeled with red, and Democrats-center-left-got blue-this is an interesting story as to how this happened, but when I picked blue I was hardly thinking of politics (apart from the connection to Klaus) because in my own country blue would signify the opposite of my political orientation).

Hm, well, I guess that would fall under red.
“Red strikes a chord with more cultures than many other colors because of its intensity, passion and invocation of an inherent physiological response. Red is the color of celebration and good luck (China), purity and integrity (India), mourning (South Africa) and communism. When used with a wide brush, red typically makes whatever it’s painted on look larger, whether it’s a torso or wingback chair. The color is bold and audacious, so it usually dilutes the colors around it. For this reason it’s used to accent and highlight objects of importance.
Studies show that red can have a physical effect, including increasing the rate of respiration, raising blood pressure and thus making the heart beat faster. Red is also said to make people hungry (McDonald’s, Burgerville, corner cafés). The red ruby is the traditional 40th wedding anniversary gift. Red is also the color of the devil in modern Western culture.
Red typically symbolizes passion, strength, energy, fire, sex, love, romance, excitement, speed, heat, arrogance, ambition, leadership, masculinity, power, danger, gaudiness, blood, war, anger, revolution, radicalism, Communism, aggression, respect, martyrs, the Holy Spirit, conservatism (US politics), Liberalism (Canadian politics), wealth (China) and marriage (India).”
If you ask me, there are a lot of negative associations and it just seems less fitting than blue.

Well, no less a person than SIR David King, who it was revealed, this morning in the London Times, to have grown up and attended university in that citadel of fair-minded democracy, apartheid South Africa, has strong views on what needs to be achieved at Copenhagen.
Thoughtfully, the article revealed that he played a major role in the Govt’s ‘handling’ of the MMR ‘crisis’, which might point to him simply saying: ‘What does GSK want and give it to them!’ on the basis of the contempt for human engagement with worriers and doubters, which is the reason for dropping levels of vaccination, I’m sorry to say…….
So I’m sure you’ll find him engaging analytically, respectfully and in a fair-minded way at that very important summit…..
Won’t you?

As I do each month to Al Gore’s chagrin, I’ve embellished Dr. Spencers UAH monthly graph…
http://algorelied.com/?p=2429

“”” J. Bob (09:31:26) :
Comparing FFT Convolution & Recursive Filtering Methods and Long Term Temperature Data “””
So JBob; why don’t you try running your Stereo system through some four
pole Tchebychev filter; and tell us if you like the trash that comes out of
your loudspeakers in lieu of music.
You take highly unpredictable time varying function; FFT it to try and get some sort of valid frequency domain representation, and then you filter it through a highly non- linear phase filter and then convert it back to the time domain, and surprise, it rings like a bell at around the cutoff frequency of the filter.
So just what were you expecting; some sort of faithful reproduction of the data. Even a four pole Butterworth Filter would have more than 10% overshoot, and a four pole tchebychev even with only 0.01 dB passband ripple would have over 12% overshoot.
\
Why didn’t you use a filter more like a Bessel, or even Gaussian Filter, if you wanted to get a truer time domain response that is low pass filtered. Try using a Cauer filter if you want to really muck things up royally.
I prefer to see the real data as it comes straight from the instrumentation; I don’t see any point in throwing away real data for some ersatz phony representation of it.
George

Leaving out all politics, I like red.
The color of warmth and passion. Some other words that warmth brings to mind:
affable, affectionate, amiable, amorous, ardent, cheerful, compassionate, cordial, fervent, genial, gracious, happy, heartfelt, hearty, hospitable, kindhearted, kindly, loving, pleasant, responsive, sincere, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, warmhearted, wholehearted, empathetic…
While blue always makes me think of frigidity and cold. Other words that cold brings to my mind are:
arctic, biting, bitter, bleak, brisk, chill, cool, crisp, cutting, frigid, frosty, frozen, glacial, icy, inclement, penetrating, polar, raw, severe, sharp, snappy, snowy, stinging, wintry, Siberian, algid, benumbed, chilled, icebox, iced, numbed, shivery, sleety…
Now can someone remind why we want the earth even colder?
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_low_temperatures_in_46_states_during_June.htm

Jimmy,
Maroon then it is! the color of the Texas Aggies is good enough for me. I may be wrong but it seems to contain more red than blue…
Mike

Awww shucks, only a 0 degree increase, hoping for more – Alaskans for Global Warming.

Did I seriously see Phil. ‘address’ issues with nothing more than the comments: “Not true” and “Again not true”? Wow, how much arrogance does THAT take!

CoBEn2000 (07:23:26) :
I’m sure evryone is looking at the same data here but interpreting it differently depending on your understanding of the whole picture. I see a slight but upward trend over many yrs, the latest dip is but a statistical ANOMALY.
—
Yes. Temperatures have been steadily rising since the mid-1600’s. A LONG ways before any so-called CO2-induced global warming.
Fact remains, for all but 25 years of the past 230 years, CO2 has been flat while temperatures have risen, CO2 has been increasing while temperatures have fallen, and CO2 has been increasing while temperatures have stayed the same. Now, just what IS the relationship between CO2 and temperature that we are spending 9 trillion dollars on?

If possible could someone please explain the discrepancy between these two different readings? Basically the following report says that the June 2009 anamoly was a +0.62 C. What am I missing? Is the difference due to a different starting point? Thanks for helping to educate me.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html#temp

Hello. I’m wondering whether I can post on old threads.