RSS Global Temperature for June 09, also down

Both Lucia and Steve McIntyre beat me on this story, so I’ll defer to them. That’s what I get for going to dinner with relatives last night and sleeping in.

Below is a plot from McIntyre showing the RSS data compared to UAH MSU. Both are down significantly in June 2009 with UAH MSU at .001°C

RSS is down from 0.090C in May 2009 to 0.075C in June 2009

Steve McIntyre writes a little parody of the issue: RSS June – “Worse Than We Thought”

Lucia actually expected RSS to climb and has an analysis here

Even NCDC’s director Tom Karl has something to say about satellite data, read on.

Both of the datasets are available in raw form if you want t plot for yourself.

RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)

RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.2)

UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville)

Reference: UAH lower troposphere data

There had been some comments in the UAH thread earlier that May and  June seem to have cycled lower in the UAH data set in recent years. It seems that RSS is following also.

I expect we’ll hear an announcement from NOAA/NCDC soon about it being the nth warmest June on record. They will of course cite surface data from stations like this one at the Atmospheric Sciences Department, University of Arizona at Tucson:

Tucson1.jpg

Here is a testimony in March 2009 before congress from NCDC’s director Tom Karl, where he complains about satellite data and the “adjustments” required:

It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are rarely useful for climate change studies. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records (CDRs).

You mean “sophisticated technical processes” like these performed on raw surface temperature data at NCDC?

Differences Due to Adjustments

larger image

Areal vs Final Difference

larger image

Source: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html

Advertisements

159 thoughts on “RSS Global Temperature for June 09, also down

  1. Sorry, I’m getting a bit confused here . . . isn’t Global Warm meant to mean the planet gets warmer . . or have I arse about face ?

  2. “It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are rarely useful for climate change studies. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records (CDRs).”
    He is being so ridiculously disingenuous it is hard to believe-either that or breathtakingly ignorant. As far as the temperature products go, many such processes have already been implemented-is he actually suggesting, or trying to suggest, that the data is not yet up to climate analysis quality? Someone is seriously behind the times.

  3. I think he means “it’s bloody difficult to jigger the results to what we want them to be when there is only one or two inputs rather than many hundreds of inputs to hide our jiggery-pokery in”.

  4. It’s a pleasure to read your comments. You give it to them time after time.
    Thanks Anthony.

  5. You have to love the “Difference Between Raw and Final USHCN Data Sets” Graph.
    Is this what they meant by “Hockey Stick”?

  6. I know nothing about this subject. So this comment is pure conjecture. I assume that the satellite sensors have to be calibrated against a different measurement scheme from time to time to correct for “drift” in the instrumentation. I assume the different measurement scheme is temperature data from weather balloons of some sort. So the graph labelled “Difference between RAW and final USHCN Data sets – is this comparing before and after some type of calibration adjustment applied, or are we talking about some GISS level monkeying with the values?

  7. Always the same analysis of small wiggles… Don’t you see that the very fact that a zero anomaly is hailed t like that (for one month only) is a proof that it has become increasingly rare? How many times in the last 10 years (that is last 120 months) did we get close to, or equal to zero? Now compare that to the 90ies…

  8. All the warmers talk about how temps have gone up .8C due to CO2 warming.
    Looking at that graph without drawing any lines for slope where’s the .8C?
    It looks more like .1C-.4c to me.

  9. Found this story about the current Global Cooling
    http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/44463
    There’s also an interesting bit in the story, not the stuff about the alarmists, but it seems to say some trees in parts of New England are starting to show a little fall color in July, am I even reading that right?
    Also, here in Wichita it looks like the temps. will fall well short of the forecast again today, possibly short of 100. Intellicast said 105 and the hourly forecast for 1:00 showed the actual 1:00 temp. fell short of that by 6 degrees.
    Plus it seems like the TAO site is showing NOAA’s dream for a good El Nino is starting to fall apart, some of the signs compared to last year even does not look good for even a moderate El Nino.

  10. I’ve posted on this before, but I don’t suppose it’ll hurt to do it one more time.
    The satellite measurements are behind the curve, i.e. they are reflecting the low SST that were present a few months back. The surface readings are now on the rise. The satellite readings are just now “bottoming out” and will follow the surface readings upwards in the next month or so.
    HadSST2 has just released it’s June anomaly. It is +0.5 which is the highest anomaly since 1998. It is considerably higher than anything seen in the past 4 years. If anomalies of this magnitude persist then we can safely assume that the recent “global cooling” trend has had it’s day.

  11. *Sigh* Can we NOT get a rebuttal in regards to the UPWARD adjustments!
    Not to sound confrontational or anything (scoff).
    Is it just me or is there no information for the justification of those adjustments?
    And what on earth did a station like the one shown in this article begin as X years ago before that parking lot? *Curious!*

  12. Essentially no global warming for 30 years!!!! (forget about trendlines). While useful to a degree, applying linear least squares to this data (and then using the results to influence government policy) is absurd.

  13. Flanagan (11:42:05) :
    Always the same analysis of small wiggles… Don’t you see that the very fact that a zero anomaly is hailed t like that (for one month only) is a proof that it has become increasingly rare? How many times in the last 10 years (that is last 120 months) did we get close to, or equal to zero? Now compare that to the 90ies…
    Wow. I see you want the temperature anomaly to be zero for the entire record? I’d guess I’d be wasting my time pointing out (again) that volcanic events in the first half of the graph increase the slope of the linear trend, creating more below zero anomalies in the 80/90s.
    Edward,
    Try looking at GISS record, that’s probably where you’d find a .8c rise. over 100+ years

  14. Temps are the same as before Mr.Hansen made his first presentation of his models before your congress….so it would be advisable for you to ask, as citizens, to revise his affirmations (or i should say his “predictions”?) and check them if fulfilled.

  15. @Karl from NCDC
    “Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw ……. data”
    Yeah, we know that already, Karl,
    i.e.:
    – NOAA/NCDC + GISS + HadCRUT
    – offical Consumer Price Index (CPI)
    – unemployment numbers
    – M3 (Oops, sorry that isn’t published anymore,
    was too bad to successfully apply adjustments)
    … and so on, and so on
    Jeez, what a [selfsnip] biz you are talking about?

  16. Flanagan (11:42:05) :
    Always the same analysis of small wiggles… Don’t you see that the very fact that a zero anomaly is hailed t like that (for one month only) is a proof that it has become increasingly rare? How many times in the last 10 years (that is last 120 months) did we get close to, or equal to zero? Now compare that to the 90ies…
    Ok Flanagan, you win.
    We are all going to die.

  17. “It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are rarely useful for climate change studies. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records ”
    Sounds like he’s jealous of the satellite’s consistencey and precision.

  18. @ Flanagan (11:42:05) :
    And what would you call all of the AGW hand waving then? That it is proof that AGW doesn’t exist? By your logic, AGW hand waving is proof that AGW doesn’t exist!

  19. Even if the temps were not being “adjusted” where in the history of the world has warmer meant a disaster. Who the heck got to decide what the best temp for the Earth is? Do we get a vote? Cause its not as warm as I would like it.. Oh and in all those hideously top 8 of the last however many warmest whatevers, can ya show me the huge disasters that were caused by man’s Co2 contribution and have never occured in the past?
    Yet the G8 meeting of all of the supposed leaders of our countries promises to hold the temperature of the Earth down to two degrees until 2050. I swear! No acually if I werent a lady, I would swear… My only hope is people these days. Many seem to be coming out of the haze and realizing that our current leaders, even the house and senate, dont really get it do they? It doesnt matter what side you are on. Come on people .. stupid is as stupid does.

  20. Flanagan (11:42:05) :
    Always the same analysis of small wiggles… from Flanagan.
    Dream on, boy,
    but take care, to have good warming clothes at hand
    when you are awakening.

  21. So the graph labelled “Difference between RAW and final USHCN Data sets – is this comparing before and after some type of calibration adjustment applied, or are we talking about some GISS level monkeying with the values?
    It’s NOAA/USHCN only.
    GISS, if you can believe it, does not adjust raw HCN data. They “unadjust” HCN adjusted data (by algorithm), then readjust.
    It looks more like .1C-.4c to me.
    USHCN1 stations, raw data, equally weighted, show ~ 0.14C rise for the 2oth century. With TOBS alone, it’s ~ +0.31C.

  22. John Finn (12:22:53) :
    When I read meteorology I was taught that sea temperatures lag atmosphere temperatures, not the other way aroun.

  23. John Finn:
    “…HadSST2 has just released it’s June anomaly. It is +0.5 which is the highest anomaly since 1998…”
    I’ve noticed this, too. What is interesting is that when the 1997/1998 “super” El Nino began, 1997 June SSTs were ‘only’ 0.32 and by that time the El Nino was a lot stronger than the current one. I suppose the reason is that when the 97/98 El Nino was getting ramped up, basins other than the Pacific had anomalously low SSTs, while currently all basins (except around Antarctica) are dominated by anomalous warmth (especially the North Atlantic). If current SST trends continue, July could easily have the highest monthly global SST anomaly ever recorded (at least within the HadSST2 record going back to 1850).

  24. “Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
    Is Anthony going to have to start a ‘Pompous Buffoonery of the Week’ series?
    If Tom Karl knows so much more about the satellite data than the RSS and UAH teams, how comes the NCDC don’t publish their own monthly analysis of the satellite data?
    Too much of a contrast to the surface data waltz perhaps?

  25. Tom Karl: “It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are rarely useful for climate change studies. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records (CDRs).”
    Hahahha! NOAA and GISS have twisted their raw data so much they look like a pretzel. He seems to have forgotten how much “sophisticated technical processes” NOAA and GISS have to perform to make their data so the temperatures are rising.

  26. Flanagan (11:42:05) : “Always the same …”
    . . . misinterpretation of what is going on. We know why the temperature data spiked in 1998 and remained up for the few following years. Without that El Nino induced rapid release of heat there would likely be very different things being talked about. A slower release would have kept the temperatures up without the spike. No release would have had people writing about the heat stored in the ocean.
    It isn’t the near zero aspect of this that is important but the fact that the warm temperatures of the past ten years are now gone and the temperature appears to be falling again. Note the slope in the years before the El Nino. Meanwhile CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise. Given this result and the rise out of the last glaciation (as far as I know whatever brought this about is still operating), I think it is time for all those who believe in the “scientific method” to boot the notion of AGW into the ash heap of history.

  27. To be filed under: “Weather is not Climate”:
    From New Zealand: “May the coldest on record, Niwa figures show”
    http://www.times-age.co.nz/local/news/may-the-coldest-on-record-niwa-figures-show/3901165/
    Massachusetts reflects on ‘the year without a summer’
    http://www.pembrokexpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1317&Itemid=29
    Pembroke’s Past: The year without a summer
    Written by Karen Proctor
    Thursday, 09 July 2009 10:41
    So — it’s the beginning of July, and it looks like, perhaps, we’re going to have a summer season after all. It has definitely been a long time coming — that cool rain has made for some lush foliage and plenty of weeds, but my garden needs SUN!
    Keeping our recent weather in mind, if you had been around in the year 1816, surely even the unpredictable New England seasons would have had you worried about the weather. That year is known in weather circles as “The Year Without a Summer”: Yes, you read it right. Now read on — if you dare!
    Southern hemisphere, Northern hemisphere must be a coincidence!
    Mike

  28. I do wonder why we’re still seeing so many cold events if GISS and Hadcrut are seeing skyrocketing global temps at the moment assuming they are accurate. You’d think recorded cold events (especially records like lowest max. temp.) would’ve become quite a bit rarer since 1990 on this day, but seeing some of the stories they haven’t (at least over the past 2 years).
    Anchorage is getting a summer a bit warmer than last year, but Intellicast shows plenty of colder air set to settle over large parts of Canada, it’s like this Summer the cool air Anchorage experienced last Summer just shifted a bit to the East.

  29. tallbloke (13:12:06) :
    “Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
    Is Anthony going to have to start a ‘Pompous Buffoonery of the Week’ series?
    ———
    tallbloke,
    I don’t know what Anthony will do. But!
    Personally, Tom Karl’s words did a 10.0 on my open BS scale.

  30. John Finn (12:22:53) :
    I’ve posted on this before, but I don’t suppose it’ll hurt to do it one more time.
    The satellite measurements are behind the curve, i.e. they are reflecting the low SST that were present a few months back. The surface readings are now on the rise. The satellite readings are just now “bottoming out” and will follow the surface readings upwards in the next month or so.

    So, an admission of SST oscillations influencing temperature. You’re one grade above the IPCC, and making progress.

  31. Anthony, you have a sly way of finding the phrases that contain the highest quantity of subterfuge, chaotic thinking, or outright fraud and juxtaposing clear, “simple”, truthful science. Great photo, too. Just like almost all our academic institutions today — U. of Arizona at Tucson can’t do much right if it has to do with climate science or climate. Could it be the money???? The UAT should be ashamed of themselves. And the Atmospheric Sciences Department? Can’t they read government regulations about siting their surface station? Are we dealing with idiots?

  32. “Look Mom–No Warming!!!”
    NCDC has been shown to be an ineffective cooling-preventing artifice that can be of no significant value when used in a conscientiously applied program of amoral hijinks and regular professional scares.
    Buy NCDC! We’re the professional adjusters… Nice and slow, not like that fast satellite stuff!!

  33. Did somebody deliberately place that temperature-measuring station in a concrete parking lot?
    At least we can be glad it’s not black asphalt. . .
    /Mr Lynn

  34. “Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
    Translation:
    “We adjusted the raw data to turn it into acceptable data. We’ve been doing it for twenty or thirty years.”
    Dr. Tom, uhh wait Mr. Tom Karl… they haven’t taken the Mr. away from him yet have they?

  35. Anthony: This was posted on CA
    ken roberts:
    July 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
    “Re: BarryW (#12),
    From what I recently read this is the last data we will get; two of the three on-board lasers have failed and the remaining one is failing”.
    This concerns the satellite JAXA/AMSR ice data apparently (you might double check if worth your while). I’ve suspected this for some time especially when NANSEN withdrew its last years major down adjustments. I suspect they will re-adjust soon again upwards. Visually it doesn’t look like NH ice is melting much this year.

  36. I second the call for a “Pompous Bufoonery of the Week” slot.
    This has to take the biscuit.
    “Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”

  37. Yep, low temperatures combined with increased uv radiation gives a really crapy garden this year.

  38. Can someone send some warming our way in Indiana? It’s over 80 today, but last week was downright cold! I expect my Hoosier summers to be hot and humid; I don’t want a 4th of July that feels like the 4th of April.
    Someone ought to give the politicians a clue–most of us like it a bit warmer rather than on the cold side. Our gardens like it better, too.

  39. “Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
    This statement by Tom Karl of NCDC is absolutely correct. UAH and RSS are not remotely “raw data”. To get the UAH and RSS products, the raw satellite data is run through a series of corrections and adjustments that that make the GISS adjustments look simple.
    But Mr. Karl was not specifically talking about satellite temperature measurements anyway. If anyone had bothered to actually read the link to his testimony, you would see a long list of all the raw satellite data that is available. And all that data needs to be adjusted- for orbital drift, satellite changes, instrument degradation, etc- before it is useful for determining long-term changes.

  40. VG: What satallite are you talking about with the failing lasers? If it’s the NASA Aqua satallite then we could be in for a blackout of the most reliable data and will end up relying on the less reliable ground measurements and the less precise NOAA satallites with decaying orbits, guess we’d have to rely on actual community observation and ocean buoy readings.

  41. Flanagan,
    One can cherry pick the zero point base line for your anomally anywhere.
    I don’t udnerstand why we don’t use the MWP, then we’d still have a negative anomally!

  42. Your link to “the blackboard” on the side window disappeared. Only place i used for a marker.
    REPLY: it is still there, look carefully

  43. John Finn @12:22:53:
    The satellite measurements are behind the curve, i.e. they are reflecting the low SST that were present a few months back. The surface readings are now on the rise. The satellite readings are just now “bottoming out” and will follow the surface readings upwards in the next month or so.
    HadSST2 has just released it’s June anomaly. It is +0.5 which is the highest anomaly since 1998. It is considerably higher …

    Mr. Finn, the surface temeopratures are always rising, didn’t you know that 🙂 It’s just that this only happens at GISS and HCRU. From teh HADSST2 web page
    The SST data are taken from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set, ICOADS, from 1850 to 1997 and from the NCEP-GTS from 1998 to present.
    HadSST2 is produced by taking in-situ measurements of SST from ships and buoys, rejecting measurements which fail quality checks, converting the measurements to anomalies by subtracting climatological values from the measurements, and calculating a robust average of the resulting anomalies on a 5 deg by 5 deg monthly grid.

    I’ll take satellite temps anyday.
    And how about those Argo buoys??

  44. Chris V. (14:56:14) : What appears disingenuous is the suggestion that these adjustments aren’t already being/have been done. This kind of misdirection is done by the Team all the time-it is suggested that certain data still needs adjustments-subtly, but simply saying “satellite records must go through processes to make them into climate quality data” or the like with out mention that the processes have already been applied (which is true in many cases). Apparently intentionally, this gives a baseless reason to reject satellite results-a doggy treat for the Team’s bulldogs and true believers.

  45. John Finn (12:22:53) : Hey John.
    Maybe it doesn’t matter because not just anyone can look at the data. Not only that, we don’t know how it is processed. Sorry, but if the Met office want their work to be taken seriously, they will have to publish it.
    “The Met Office wish to monitor the use of this data and require an acknowledgement of the data source if they are used in any publication. The online application for access to the Met Office SST data includes the Met Office Agreement to be electronically accepted.Please note that the Met Office data sets are available for bona fide academic research only (sorry no undergraduates). If you wish to access the Met Office data for commercial or personal purposes, please contact the Met Office directly.”

  46. Chris V. (14:56:14) : The difference it that the satellite data adjustment is physics based. The land and sea surface adjustments are accomplished with statistical fairy dust with a few educated (or not) guesses thrown in.

  47. timetochooseagain (16:21:49) :
    “Chris V. (14:56:14) : What appears disingenuous is the suggestion that these adjustments aren’t already being/have been done. This kind of misdirection is done by the Team all the time-it is suggested that certain data still needs adjustments-subtly, but simply saying “satellite records must go through processes to make them into climate quality data” or the like with out mention that the processes have already been applied (which is true in many cases). Apparently intentionally, this gives a baseless reason to reject satellite results-a doggy treat for the Team’s bulldogs and true believers.”
    Yes, I also have difficulty with Chris’s assessment. No one sees real raw data, but data that is processed thru computer programs, which handle such things as orbital drift. Karl seems to me to be little more than a pitchman. Are we to assume that published data such as RSS above is raw data all the way back to 1979? Or that Congressmen need to be told that raw data hasn’t been processed?

  48. Man alive;
    I do hope that the University of Arizona Optical Sciences Center, is not as incompetent as their Atmospheric Sciences Department. Looking at that pristine Urban Heat Island Owl Box there, I think I just figured out how the Perkin Elmer Optical Engineers came to make the Hubble Space Telsescope Primary Mirror exactly wrong to 15 decimal places.
    They must all be UofA-OSC chaps instead of Rochester types. I seem to recall that Eastman Kodak, also made a spare mirror for the Hubble; but their’s was exactly correct to 15 decimal places.
    No way in hell you can get into Kodak, if you go to UofA. Happily, I learned my Optics at neither one of those schools.
    What a joy to behold; a University designed Urban Heat Island, instead of those cornfield, and barbecue types in the California Bayous, that Anthony frightened us all with.
    If you are going to screw up, you might as well do it neatly.
    George

  49. Robert Wood (15:26:23) :
    Mr. Finn, the surface temeopratures are always rising, didn’t you know that 🙂 It’s just that this only happens at GISS and HCRU.
    No I didn’t. On checking the 4 main temperature records, I note that since the early 1990s the trends are almost identical. If GISS and HadCrut are rising, it seems that RSS and UAH are also rising.
    I’ll take satellite temps anyday.
    Fine. Let’s see what the satellite record tells us in 6 months time.

  50. Tim Clark (13:45:19) :

    John Finn (12:22:53) :
    I’ve posted on this before, but I don’t suppose it’ll hurt to do it one more time.
    The satellite measurements are behind the curve, i.e. they are reflecting the low SST that were present a few months back. The surface readings are now on the rise. The satellite readings are just now “bottoming out” and will follow the surface readings upwards in the next month or so.

    So, an admission of SST oscillations influencing temperature. You’re one grade above the IPCC, and making progress.
    Yes – but the low point of the oscillation is now the average temperature of 20 years ago. Do you not see we’re slowly shifting upwards. Recent La Nina events are warmer than (or as warm as) past El Nino events.

  51. I’m confused. Does this mean that we’re not doomed, slightly less doomed or doomed not even a tiny wee bit?

  52. Okay – read Tom Karl’s words and they can be condensed down to – “That’s the way we’ve always done things.”

  53. If John Finn is correct then why does this NOAA page say we have had 715 Low Max Temps. when you include new records and ones that tied?
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=lomx&month=7&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records
    There’s plenty of high temp. records if you change it but the low max. temps outnumber them last I checked. The low max temp. records being tied or broken in spades in the first 10 days makes it on track to beating the 1000+ recorded in June.
    Maybe there are neccesarily not higher high temps. But higher low temps?

  54. RoyFOMR (17:31:28) : Yes! You are doomed! Errr … well … you are doomed but the dooming may be put off for some yet to be determined time in the future! Ahhh … Yes, you are doomed, but the dooming may not be as great as the previously dooming vision suggested. Well, you may be doomed … but if you are, you will greatly regret it … that is if the fairy dust and tea leaves hold out.

  55. timetochooseagain (16:21:49) :
    Again, I advise you to read the link.
    The satellite data goes back 50 years in some cases. It was collected using many different satellites and instruments. Most of it was not collected with long-term monitoring in mind. To get a long term record, you have to calibrate the different instruments/satellites to each other- not a trivial process- and adjust for things like orbital decay.
    Much of the information has been collected by satellites designed for weather forecasting.
    Things like orbital drift, inter-satellite calibration, etc, are not significant for weather forecasting (where you’re watching a storm over a period of a few weeks, at most), so the data is not adjusted for that. But they are very important when you’re looking at long -term changes (just ask Dr. Spencer and the other folks over at UAH).

  56. Yes, the climate change had changed back to normal, obviously the fault of some nefarious nations or megacorps intentionally making their volcanoes spew more sulfates.
    No doubt, someone is going to start blaming the quiet sun on the fact so many people are watching, waiting for it to start up again, after all, a watched pot never boils….

  57. Flanagan (11:42:05) :
    Always the same analysis of small wiggles… Don’t you see that the very fact that a zero anomaly is hailed t like that (for one month only) is a proof that it has become increasingly rare? How many times in the last 10 years (that is last 120 months) did we get close to, or equal to zero? Now compare that to the 90ies
    What goes up must come back down. Cheer up, zero anomalies are going to become increasingly common again, followed by negative anomolies.

  58. I figured i would translate some of the testimony regarding satellite data.
    It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are only useful to climate change skeptics. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to obfuscate raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records (CDRs). As defined by the National Research Council, a CDR is a time series of measurements of sufficient length, consistency, complication, and continuity that can be used to distort current climate variability and change.

  59. @ John Finn
    Perhaps you should study Lubos Motl’s reply from a previous thread.
    Lubos said:
    I morally disagree with the popular comments that “something is just weather not climate”. It is true in the sense that one can isolate “weather” and “climate” questions, to some extent, according to the timescales.
    However, what’s wrong is the hidden indication that the “weather” doesn’t matter while the “climate” does. It’s just false. In the real life of any human, animal, plant, company, or nation, what matters at any moment is the weather.
    If the climate were “significantly” warming, according to a practically meaningful definition of “significantly”, that would inevitably mean that the frequency of cold records would plummet rapidly – according to a Gaussian profile. Why?
    Well, if you imagine that the temperatures oscillate with normal distribution around a “central” value but this “cental” value also has an increasing trend, it is clear that the probability distribution for temperature “T” in the year “Y” will be schematically of the form exp(-(Y-T)^2). So if you choose a record low “T” you want to break, the probability that you break it decreases as exp(-Y^2) with the year, with some constants inside.
    The warming becomes significant exactly at the point when this exponential starts to become essentially zero, faster than exponentially. So if we’re still observing record low temperatures essentially as frequently as we would expect in a stationary random world, it simply means that the climate is not significantly warming.
    The weather is perhaps not the climate, but it is the weather, and not the climate (a hypothetical long-term abstraction of the weather), that actually matters and influences the people and events. The fluctuations of the “weather” by 10 degrees of Celsius – in days or weeks – are real and the fact that people and others can easily survive it simply means that changes comparable to 10 degrees are not such a big deal. That’s why it is completely ludicrous to talk about practical consequences of a temperature change by 1 or 2 °C per century.
    There won’t be any. Only sophisticated statistical analysis involving average over the Earth as well as time is needed to observe such small changes, and even with this analysis, such a change remains controversial because it’s too small relatively to the errors. A normal being located at a random place or trajectory on the planet can’t possibly reliably detect such a change, and even if she could detect it, it can’t visibly influence her, especially not with a sign that could be predictably negative.

  60. VG (14:30:14) :
    Anthony: This was posted on CA
    ken roberts:
    July 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
    “Re: BarryW (#12),
    From what I recently read this is the last data we will get; two of the three on-board lasers have failed and the remaining one is failing”.
    This concerns the satellite JAXA/AMSR ice data apparently (you might double check if worth your while). I’ve suspected this for some time especially when NANSEN withdrew its last years major down adjustments. I suspect they will re-adjust soon again upwards. Visually it doesn’t look like NH ice is melting much this year.

    A few problems with this: NANSEN doesn’t use AMSR it uses SSM/I, neither uses lasers they use passive microwave measurements. So it would appear that you have been misinformed.

  61. Good point, DR. If we are getting record lows breaking those set 110 years ago when the global average was .4C cooler, it says on the face of it that warming has 1.) ceased and 2.) is attaining anomaly points far below the current baseline.
    The last one is the killer for catastrophic runaway warming.
    An aside is the racking up of record lows faster than highs.
    Just because the last 4 solar cycles ran high didn’t preclude SC24 from being a late & low cycle, any more that the last 4 solar cycles having a big El Nino at the start of ramp ensures this late cycle as having a gimme El Nino. That would be fool me twice and a really bad case of wish upon a star.

  62. The weather is not climate is a fallacy kept alive by the IPCC in order to discourage any attempt to analyze the weather and its physical processes and translate real observed meteorological parameters into confirming or not the results of the models predicting warming. I am just paraphrasing Marcel Leroux who indeed analyzed meteorological data that demonstrate without ambiguity the non sense of the global warming scare.

  63. More on Holdren at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
    “In 1969, writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”
    In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many”. Currently, the U.S. population is 306,876,000.”
    With such a mental mindset, he should be happy if the planet rushes into another Glacial Period. That will get rid of 90% of the “misery to come”.

  64. Adam from Kansas (18:38:39) :
    One may want to look at this
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/amoarticlel.pdf
    The interesting part is that there was an El-Nino within 12 months of the last four solar minimums and here it is happening again. It’s almost as if there’s an El Nino lying in wait after solar minimum arrives as of recent O.o

    Very interesting observation. I think this is the excess heat stored below the mixed surface layers during a run of high solar cycles coming back out of the ocean when solar influence is at a low ebb.

  65. Clearly the rise in mean global temperatures is man-made…by all the “Corrections” needed to get the “correct” result for their purpose.

  66. Climate is just average weather over some period. And as Lubos Motl points above, the frequency of weather high and low records is just as valid a measure of climate as averages. In fact, high and low records should be a better measure because they will be less affected by the concrete parking lots and airconditioners that seem to affect the averages.
    I believe Anthony and others use the ‘Weather not Climate’ slogan ironically.

  67. Adam from Kansas (18:06:50) :
    If John Finn is correct then why does this NOAA page say we have had 715 Low Max Temps. when you include new records and ones that tied?

    Why do amercans think that the US is representative of the the rest of the world? The area of the US is ~2% of the total surface area of the earth.

  68. “Don’t you see that the very fact that a zero anomaly is hailed t like that (for one month only) is a proof that it has become increasingly rare?”
    Increasingly rare since when? Not since 1998.
    Anyway, your argument can easily be turned around. Suppose we had a 1 month anomaly which reached 1998 levels. Would the warmists “hail” it? Many would, I imagine. Would that amount to a concession that such events are “rare”? Increasingly “rare”?

  69. Another reason for the small spike in temperatures in early 2009 may be the recent reduction in air transport.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/offset:-.2/trend
    Global aviation trends are hard to find, but these stats from the Far East (monthly figures) show a rough 15% reduction in international traffic in 2009.
    http://www.cad.gov.hk/english/p-through.htm
    The contribution of contrails cannot be underestimated. If cosmic rays can create more high-level stratus and cool the planet, then so can 747s and A380s. Coming back across Europe yesterday, the entire sky was blanketed with spreading high stratus, with was all due to contrails.
    However, if this is so, then the rise in air transport over the last 30 years has masked an even larger warming trend than we actually observed. Global temperatures may have been a degree or so higher, by now (but, of course, the cooling in recent years would also have been more marked).
    .

  70. “Antonio San (23:03:31) :
    “The weather is not climate is a fallacy…”
    The better way to look at this is that climate is normal weather. This is the traditional way of looking at climate, i.e. as weather averaged, or normalized, over some generally recognized period of time. Thus we have the WMO 30-year climatological “normals.” So I would say that any weather that falls within an accepted range around the normal is climate, also. And where there is a random element to variability, we expect a few occurrences outside the boundaries of what is considered normal, from time to time, without concluding that anything significant is taking place. So in this sense, all weather is just an expression of climate.
    The real issue is whether climate is changing, and over what period of time, and to what degree, can we demonstrate that climate is changing. Given the wide range of natural variability in climate, we ought to be cautious about claiming to be able to extrapolate significant evidence of climate change based on just a few years of data.
    As I write this, a simple test of the “climate change” hypothesis presents itself. The conventional climatological normal period of 30 years was not chosen without reason. It was chosen because it was thought long enough to smooth out natural, i.e. cyclical, but non-trending, variability. So, take the most recent 60 years of data, break it into two contiguous, non-overlapping 30 year periods, and do a test of means. Are they significantly different? If so, by how much, and in what direction? Given the range of natural volatility in climate data, I wouldn’t be surprised if the differences are not statistically significant. If they are, I would not think that the difference is on the order of magnitude to justify the catastrophic visions of the alarmist crowd.
    Shall I crunch some numbers?

  71. DR (21:12:27) :
    @ John Finn
    Perhaps you should study Lubos Motl’s reply from a previous thread.

    Why? In what way is it relevant to my post(s).

  72. John Finn, what you fail to realize is that I, like most people, do not disagree that “temperatures” have “risen” over the past 150 years. First, this is good, otherwise it would be colder, which is bad – I live in Canada and can attest to that.
    Second, this is due to long term cyclic variations in “global temperatures” not CO2. The CO2 cause is disproved by the current temperatures.

  73. We must remember that the current cooling is just masking a warming trend, in the same way that the warming up to 1998 was masking a cooling trend.
    snigger.

  74. How about considering the whole of the graph:
    There are many periods when temperatures have decreased by 0.3C year on year
    1981
    1983
    1988
    1991
    1996
    2004 (ignoring 1998)
    2006
    2009
    Does this negate the FACT that over 1980 to 2009 there is still a +VE
    slope to rate of change of temperature?
    In 1991 did you all start drooling at the thought that GW had reversed? It must have been a shock to your system when in 1993 to 1996 the temperature drop was again made up!
    I would not like to predict what is going to happen over the next few years from lookng at this plot:
    http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/glb_satellite_2009-06.gif
    The only safe thing to say is that over the life of the plot there is a positive temperature trend.
    A word about anomaly graphs:
    Theses are done to partially to present plots on the same vertical scale for comparison . (A plot of siberian actual temperatures and actual temperatures from Cairo Would contain similar info but would need a scale which will not be capable of showing variations of 1degC
    Whether the averaging period is over 1961 to 1990 or 1981 to 2010 just changes the FALSE zero. The current temp is now average for the period over which the average is taken. BUT all one is interested in is – IS THERE A TREND?
    If the anomaly plot is correctly made it should be creating an average for jan 1 in year 1,2,3….,29,30 and comparing the jan 1st temperature of the date in question to this average.This is repeated for each day in turn (what about leap years!?). This removes seasonal bias. Simply taking an average of 30 years of daily records throws much information away.
    A question raised above – How do you handle the 365.25 seasonal year?

  75. Re Lubos Motl’s excellent Weather vs Climate exposition:
    See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090710/us_nm/us_blight_usa
    You might be able to adjust the GISS temps up, but that doesn’t prevent a Fungus that likes cool weather from spreading.
    “Late blight has never occurred this early and this widespread in the United States,” said Meg McGrath, a plant pathologist at Cornell University’s extension center in Riverhead, New York.
    She said the fungal disease, spread by spores carried in the air, has made its way into the garden centers of large retail chains in the Northeastern United States.
    “Wal-mart, Home Depot, Sears, Kmart and Lowe’s are some of the stores the plants have been seen in,” McGrath said in a telephone interview.
    The disease, known officially as Phytophthora infestans, causes large mold-ringed olive-green or brown spots on plant leaves, blackened stems, and can quickly wipe out weeks of tender care in a home garden.
    McGrath said in her 21 years of research, she has only seen five outbreaks in the United States. The destructive disease can spread rapidly in cooler, moist weather, infecting an entire field within days.

    Arthur

  76. “It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are rarely useful for climate change studies. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records (CDRs).”
    This statement makes me suspicious…

  77. Can’t stop laughing about the “climate” station. Funniest thing I’ve seen in years. Still, most of the countryside within 100 miles of Tucson looks like concrete.

  78. Why do amercans think that the US is representative of the the rest of the world? The area of the US is ~2% of the total surface area of the earth.
    Because if it is changing here to modes that are harsh on existence, it is most likely doing the very same thing in other parts of the world.
    There isn’t any consolation prize for who gets fried, who gets the frosts, who gets flooded out and who gets dried into leather. The lucky few live in the zero-areas in between the harsh reality of changing climates around the baseline.
    The minimalist approach is to declare all is well, pointing out the miniscule rise or fall of the baseline global average.
    The alarmist points to the Arctic Sea Ice and picks out some anomalies and declares the whole globe in runaway melting.
    The realist sees whole regions flip-flopping in directions that make life harder.

  79. We must remember that the current cooling is just masking a warming trend, in the same way that the warming up to 1998 was masking a cooling trend.
    In the same way that we must remember that the last 150, 200, 400, 800, 2000 etc years have seen bigger changes come and go.
    So how’s about dropping the pretense of “all inclusive” blinders only the agenda window of time is right for you. Knuckle down and get to figuring out which period is in charge for how long at the present time.
    When the current agenda predicts a trend based on it’s teacher’s pet time slice falls on it’s collective face, it means that you got the wrong time-slice.
    Back up by a factor of 10 or more.
    If your models won’t let you do that, back up and format the hard drive.

  80. Global warming/Climate Change/The Greenhouse Effect/Global Cooling. Which is it these days? I’m become more suspicious that its a bunch of propaganda.

  81. “Maybe there are neccesarily not higher high temps. But higher low temps?’;
    Looking at some good local temps, this appears to be exactly what is happening. Even some of the AGW proponents have started to acknowledge this. They still think it’s catastrophic, though, while I have a hard time seeing why it matters hardly at all.

  82. Robert Wood (05:28:21) :,
    “The CO2 cause is disproved by the current temperatures”
    Please expand on that.

  83. From here on the Left Coast of the USA this doesn’t surprise me. It’s 8am and 55F on the patio. Wunderground shows the temps right now to be about the same as far south as Santa Rosa and as far north as Ukiah (though it could be further each way, I just did a quick scan of the coastal sites).
    In mid July one expects to be waking up dreading the heat and having just barely gotten that house cooled down to tolerable during the night. One does not expect to have clutched their blanket close and wished for a second… In mid July, one expects to be focused on round two of heat tolerant vegetables for the garden (common bean, cow peas (blackeyed peas), corn, tomato) not planning to start some peas, kale, spinach …
    It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are rarely useful for climate change studies. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records (CDRs).
    You mean “sophisticated technical processes” like these performed on raw surface temperature data at NCDC?

    One needs to remember that the opposite of “raw” is “cooked” …
    Someone is cooking the books. My garden tells me so…
    Plants are my friends. Plants do not lie. And while you can cook plants, they continue to accurately report temperature effects in the process.

  84. “In 1991 did you all start drooling at the thought that GW had reversed?”
    I can’t speak for others here, but in 1991, I believed in “global warming” wholeheartedly. A few years later, I learned how to think critically. Now I recognize “global warming” for the hoax that it is.
    As far as “drooling” goes, I admit that I enjoy each data point which comes in against global warming. I do agree with your implied point that a couple months of (relatively) low surface temperatures doesn’t falsify the hypothesis. But it doesn’t help your side.
    What really damages “global warming” is, IMO, the argos data. If that keeps up, I can do some serious drooling.

  85. VG (15:12:57) :
    Looks like big mainstream media has had enough
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
    watch the thing tumble. Even K Rudd admitted so this morning re Copenhagen
    This statement, by Professor Ian Plimer, sums up the current plight of
    all collected climate data.
    “And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses.”

  86. Oh deary, deary me.
    “Sophisticated technical processes”, oh dear, how unfortunate.
    Back to basics I think. Sophisticated comes from the word Sophistry. This means, according to my trusty 1925 Pocket Oxford Dictionary, to “spoil the simplicity or purity or naturalness of” ORRRRR……………………wait for it…………………..to”corrupt or adulterate or tamper with”! Take your pick! I dare say modern dictionaries define it as “the necessary &/or essential adjustment of something or to someone to demonstrate a desired effect”! I suppose that could mean “worldly, knowledgeable, expert?”
    That’s the trouble with modern language usage & the way it is changed through casual & or incorrect use, & modern dictionaries no longer provide the correct origins of the words within, just what they mean in modern parlance. A pity in many ways.
    I seem to remember many moons ago, when at college in my “yoof” during engineering exams, programmable calculators were forbidden as they could be used to provide the right answers, without a candidate having to demonstrate that he/she understood the question, or the principles invloved to deriving the answers & solutions.

  87. Perhaps you could add a small box that defines what things like “TOBS adjustment” and “FILNET” are / do?
    For example, I don’t now what a SHAP adjustment is, or why it ought to cause a steady uplift over so many decades…
    I guess I’m basically asking for a road map to the buggering process (or perhaps a recipe for the cooking…)

  88. Flanagan (11:42:05) :
    Always the same analysis of small wiggles… Don’t you see that the very fact that a zero anomaly is hailed t like that (for one month only) is a proof that it has become increasingly rare? How many times in the last 10 years (that is last 120 months) did we get close to, or equal to zero? Now compare that to the 90ies…
    Your point has some validity, in that maybe we should continued to conduct unbiased scientific research of our climate. However, given the fact it is a zero anomaly, shouldn’t that at least make us take pause in passing global legislation that most economist estimate will lead to significant decreases in the standard of living for a large percentage of people world wide. In addition, climate policies will result in unprecedented growth in government control of people and increase the likelihood of governments abusing the rights of individual people and groups across the globe. I for one do not want to give my American government any more power based on a ZERO anomaly.

  89. evanmjones (13:07:19) : GISS, if you can believe it, does not adjust raw HCN data. They “unadjust” HCN adjusted data (by algorithm), then readjust.
    I’ve read the code and it does do exactly that. But you left out HOW they “unadjust” it… They take an offset between GHCN and USHCN for a few recent years, then apply that offset TO ALL PRIOR YEARS TOO! So if a site had a MMTS change in the last decade, that would be “unadjusted” out of the 1890 to 1980 data as well, even though it was never in them …
    So look again at those adjustment graphs up top. The rapid rise in the tail of them is what is being subtracted from all prior history… That’s where GIStemp gets it’s temperature anomaly rises from. Read it and weep.
    See:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/gistemp-step0-the-process/
    From my technical notes:
    The questionable things I have found in this STEP0 are:
    1) Temperatures in F.xx from NOAA that have 2 digits of false precision (original daily data report in whole degees F) are converted to C.x with one digit of false precision.
    2) There are duplicate entries in USHCN and GHCN data sets. The GHCN data from years prior to USHCN first data are thrown out, GHCN duplicates are thrown out along with anything prior to 1880. It is not clear to me that 1880 is somehow special (though it is passed as an argument so ‘tuning’ is possible) nor do I know if the criteria used for selecting between GHCN and USHCN are valid. From the do_comb_sept0.sh script: echo “replacing USHCN station data in $1 by USHCN_noFIL data (Tobs+maxmin adj+SHAPadj+noFIL)” with the variable $1 being the GHCN data set. During this process, if both GHCN and USHCN data exist for a given year, that year data are replaced with the USHCN data after an ‘adjustment’ is subtracted from USHCN so that the ‘offset’ induced is removed. Why?
    So what makes GHCN less valid than USHCN?
    From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-daily/index.php?name=bias
    Methods – Bias Adjustment
    At present, GHCN-Daily does not contain adjustments for biases resulting from historical changes in instrumentation and observing practices. However, there is ongoing work at NCDC to develop adjustments that can be applied to daily maximum and minimum temperatures, and a GHCN daily derived product containing adjusted daily temperatures may become available in the future.
    End web quote.
    So it looks to me like the USHCN data have valid corrections (time of day, equipment bias, etc.) that GHCN do not have: why ‘adjust’ for the ‘offset’ induced at all?
    From: gistemp.txt
    Replacing USHCN-unmodified by USHCN-corrected data:
    The reports were converted from F to C and reformatted; data marked as being filled in using interpolation methods were removed. USHCN-IDs were replaced by the corresponding GHCN-ID. The latest common 10 years for each station were used to compare corrected and uncorrected data. The offset obtained in way was subtracted from the corrected USHCN reports to match any new incoming GHCN reports for that station (GHCN reports are updated monthly; in the past, USHCN data used to lag by 1-5 years).
    End gistemp.txt quote
    This makes it sound like a simple swap of corrected data for uncorrected, with the only adjustment being to match the tail end of the data a bit better to any very recent (months time frame) data that might be in GHCN, but not yet in USHCN. While it is true that for stations not in GHCN or for a year where GHCN has no data for a station the USHCN data are used: when there are data for a given station for a given year in both USHCN and GHCN, the reality is much different. Over time, I would expect ever more of the data to be in both GHCN and USHCN, no? What happens then:
    The ‘USHCN-unmodified’ data are NOT replaced by ‘USHCN-corrected’; they are replaced by:
    USHCN_corrected(year,month) – (average of roughly 10 of: [ USHCN_corrected(semi_randomyear,month) – USHCN_unmodified(semi_randomyear,month) ] )
    How does that make any sense? How are these created data any better than valid data from USHCN? Why are these changes applied over a large number of years?
    If the goal is simply to get USHNC_corrected data into the GHCN data set, then they are failing. Any ‘offset’ of ‘trend’ is an artifact of GHCN having unadjusted data with no better record available and ought to be ignored (or adjust the GHCN data to match the better data). This just seems like a very clumsy way to do a ‘fix’ for a problem that is not there. Making the trend ‘look better’ rather than the data overall to ‘be better’.
    […]
    The relevant bit of code is this. (I have left out the data declarations, file reads, & cleanup steps):
    C**** compare data
    40 id=id0
    do m=1,12
    nok=0 ; di=0
    do n=last_yr-1979,1,-1
    if(mo0(n,m).gt.-9000.and.mo(n,m).gt.-9000) then
    nok=nok+1
    di=di+(mo0(n,m)-mo(n,m))
    end if
    if(nok.eq.10) go to 50
    end do
    50 dif(m)=di/nok
    if(nok.lt.1) dif(m)=-9999
    end do
    write(10,'(i10,12f7.0)’) id,dif
    [ ‘mo0’ is the USHCN temp in a given year/month while ‘mo’ is the GHCN temp in a given year/month. -9999 is used as a missing data flag. We count backwards from the last year USHCN data are available (this get longer each year) and for all months in that year with data present, add one to the counter ‘nok’ and keep a running total ‘di’ of the ‘variances’ found by subtracting GHCN HCN temperature from the USHCN temperature for that month (I do not know the typical sign on this result. Do the biases result in a typically positive or negative ‘correction’? To the extent TOB & Equipment et.al. are upward biases, and removing them shrinks USHCN, then di will be negative.) When we have 10 years of corrections in a given month, or reach 1980 (1980-1979=1 the end of loop criterion), we go to line 50 and set the average difference for that month to be di/nok (total of all differences divided by number of data points). There is a ‘sanity check’ to make sure the adjustment value is set to an error flag of -9999 when no valid difference was computed, then we proceed to the next month.]
    At the end, we write out the station ID and the difference values (a single constant for each month) to be used to ‘adjust’ the USHCN data for the ‘offset’ adjustment in the following steps.
    Issues I see:
    You get varying numbers of years and varying range of years used to ‘adjust’ the monthly data (varying both ‘in different months for one location’ and ‘in different locations’). Each location/month adjusted by a different metric on a different base. Maybe OK, maybe not? Hard to detect after the fact (irregular impacts).
    This is based on the assumption that the methodology is valid. What makes it valid to subtract an average of (sort of) 10 years (sort of monthly) deltas as a correction for (whatever) in individual months? If the USHCN data are already better (corrected) why are we removing some of that correction by a strange method?
    Up to 10 years of variance are flattened into a single adjustment number that is then used for all instances of a month in the ‘adjusted’ data over all years. What if the basis years are not representative? What if something, like an ENSO event, colors or biases this adjustment factor in these particular years? Since the years chosen are dependent on coverage in the data collection, and change with the last collected data, this seems subject to error. In particular, TOB bias varies positive or negative depending on morning vs evening TOB. So what if the 10 year span has one TOB and the data ‘corrected’ were collected with another? The implied assumption that all the data were collected at the same TOB seems to invalidate this method.
    END note quotes.
    I’m going to cut off the quote here because this is already a bit long. I thought I’d put a cleaned up summary in my blog pages, but it seems to be gone. Don’t know I it’s bit rot, if wordpress deletes things that are too “old and unread” or if I’m just not remembering it right. I’ll dig through my archival set at some point and figure it out. For right now, though, you get the idea…
    GIStemp subtracts a hashed up version of recent changes from all past history. The graph at the top shows that this recent change data is excessively high, so will excessively bias the past low. That will give a bogus slope of rising temperatures over time.
    IMHO, these lines of code from this specific program are one of the major sources of error and bias in GIStemp.
    It would be enlightening to run GIStemp and remove, one at a time, the various buggeries in it, starting with this one, and watch the globe “cool”…
    What does this have to do with a satellite article? Well, it looks like they are using adjustments in that data to cook it as well… My guess would be that they are “calibrating” against the “historical record” via something like GIStemp. A very bad idea…

  90. The fundamental problem with Holdren is that he doesn’t understand our system of government. In his writings is this gem:

    Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right

    He believes that unless the Constitution specifically conveys a right to the people, then they don’t have that right but government does. His fundamental understanding of how our government works is backwards. Unless it is specifically in the constitution, the GOVERNMENT doesn’t have a right. All other rights are owned by the people. First sentence of the 10th amendment.
    While he is writing about reproduction, this thinking would extend to anything. Our right to anything. He could just as easily be saying, “where in the Constitution is your right to electricity, or a heater, or a car”.
    The answer is, “In the 10th amendment”
    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    There is your right to lightbulbs, cars, heaters, etc.

  91. “when at college in my “yoof” during engineering exams, programmable calculators were forbidden”
    In my “yout” (in NY) we used slide rules – one Physics prof wanted answers
    to 3 decimal places. He would have loved calculators with answers to 17
    decimal places. The difference between Engineers and Scientists.

  92. Pofarmer (08:10:54) : If you do a minimal bit of Googling, you will find some lows of late that have not been seen for decades in the Northern US and Canada. It’s hot down South, but colder than normal up North. Like someone said, it ain’t all the US – that’s why I like UAH GLOBAL data. There is 30 years worth of data there and in some climatological circles, 30 years is long enough to be considered climate rather than weather.

  93. BBC Bloom
    For the regulars here, this post
    Shanta (03:14:54) :
    Did Al Gore deserve the Nobel ‘Peace’ Prize? Discuss this on BBC Bloom:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07
    This must be Shanta Barley who is currently “running” the BBC blog Climate Change The Blog of Bloom. It is about the only source of sceptisism on the BBC and the fact that Shanta has posted here must say something.
    The blog attracts plety of sceptical comment although there is a very irritating troll who rants and rants.
    Cheers
    Paul

  94. E.M.Smith (09:30:43) : Looks like many surface temp data sets are “adjusted” out of all proportion. Your analysis highlights a boat load of that statistical fairy dust. Love it!

  95. -snip- Houston, Tx and tell me if you think this June is cooler than any other we’ve had. We’ve got drought conditions and have been in 100º+ weather for weeks.
    Tell you what… I’ll even let ride you ride in my car that has the AC blown out in it.

  96. Flanagan (11:42:05) :
    “Always the same analysis of small wiggles… Don’t you see that the very fact that a zero anomaly is hailed t like that (for one month only) is a proof that it has become increasingly rare? How many times in the last 10 years (that is last 120 months) did we get close to, or equal to zero?”
    I am not sure whether yoiu are being unintentionally or deliberately misleading. GMT is not characterized as being stable, and therefore zero is not a normal anomaly. From 1993 to 2002 we were on the positive side of multiple oscillations in addition to recovery from volcanic impact. To get back to zero now is not at all surprising for those who do not expect CO2 to dominate. Add on an emergence from the LIA (which a reasonable person could say is not dependent on CO2), and one would not expect zero very often in non-satellite data.

  97. Chris V. (18:50:12) : i have read it and I stand by my statement. If he meant that such analyses have to be done to get climate data and have been in certain cases, he should have noted as such. As it stands it sounds like he is saying that the RSS and UAH data still suffer from those problems, even though they don’t (in RSS’s case there is actually evidence their corrections are overzealous but since no one on the warm side of this seems to care about evidence suggesting that’s the case (UAH MUST be wrong-we just KNOW) I won’t bother.
    The only thing I will change is to say that he is definitely not ignorant. But he is disingenuous or sloppy.

  98. “I’ll even let ride you ride in my car that has the AC blown out in it.”
    A/C repairmen are in high demand in San Antonio right now.
    My better half sets the thermostat at 88°F to save energy ($$).
    It’s not comfortable, but it’s tolerable.

  99. Tom in Texas (11:01:34) :
    “when at college in my “yoof” during engineering exams, programmable calculators were forbidden”
    In my “yout” (in NY) we used slide rules – one Physics prof wanted answers
    to 3 decimal places. He would have loved calculators with answers to 17
    decimal places. The difference between Engineers and Scientists.

    My old dad just gave me one of his old slide rules. A danish 130mm job in a leather slip case. Now I’ll be able to work out the effect of a big solar flare after the next Carrington event hits us.
    My uncle told me engineers used to design things 10x stronger than needed, because an order of magnitude error on a slide rule the wrong way was bad news.

  100. timetochooseagain (12:18:19) :
    i have read it and I stand by my statement. If he meant that such analyses have to be done to get climate data and have been in certain cases, he should have noted as such.
    Are you sure you’ve read it??? He gives several examples where it has been done (page 3, second paragraph). One example he gives specifically deals with UAH and RSS (the report cited in his footnote #3).
    So it’s pretty clear that UAH and RSS meet his criteria for climate data records.

  101. I would love to see, along with these two data lines, a corresponding data line of sunspot activity.
    Can someone point me to that?

  102. Oh, yeah, add to that the CO2 level. I would just like to see for myself where the stronger correlations are.

  103. tallbloke (13:47:26) : “My uncle told me engineers used to design things 10x stronger than needed,…”
    My experience has been that for things that stay on the ground (bridges, a/c systems, etc.), calculate and x2.
    Due to weight, aircraft “safety factor” = +15%.

  104. Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

    Which is EXACTLY what our “Science Czar” said we needed in his book Ecoscience. I think people need to start taking these people at their word. There is a common theme among them.

  105. And from that same article:

    “Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

    So the accuracy of the “global warming” issue doesn’t even matter to them. They don”t care about climate, it is about policy. This is what many have been saying all along, and now they are finally saying it themselves.

  106. E.M.Smith (09:30:43) Thanks for going through the GISS code. Since it substracts a constant offset, that is how the past becomes conveniently colder, so the slope of warming is steeper. I always wondered how that happened.

  107. Chris V. (14:12:52) : Both the report he cites and the conclusions he states are highly misleading. CCSP really spun the RSS results well beyond what could be concluded from them. The claim that the “discrepancy” was resolved, which he parrots, is really misleading. In point of fact, that the (spuriously warm) data sets show about the same warming as the surface data sets strongly suggests that there is something either very wrong with the precious surface data or the models which predict about 1.2 times MORE warming in the troposphere than at the surface. But I don’t think he even expects people to get the spin message-It seems to me that the intention is to suggest that even the applied corrections are inadequate-obviously a necessary precondition for alarm, given the model results and surface data.
    I tend to read more into these things than some, but hey, I’m paranoid. Which in my crazy world makes sense. It’s survival instinct at its best.

  108. Tom in Texas (11:01:34) :
    Must not have been a good instructor (scientist or engineer) since he did not teach you about significant figures.
    Ben

  109. >>“The CO2 cause is disproved by the current temperatures”
    >>Please expand on that.
    The fact that the CO2 trend-line is still positive (blue), while the global temperature line has recently been negative (green). We have a divergence over the last ten years that the CO2 theory does not address.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/offset:-.2/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/offset:-315/scale:0.005
    .

  110. Tom in Texas:-)
    I too used to use a slide rule, but for most calcs in my early engineering days pre-qualifying we used good old log tables to get the job done. Engineering ain’t like science, we don’t need too many decimals because a) we can’t set out to those tolerances, & b) we can’t build to them either! OT I do once remember a scientist asking me if he could set out his heavy electro-magnetic instruments the following day after the concrete foundations were cast, on the grounds that he’d read somewhere that concrete “sets” in about 4 hrs these days! I told him that so did jelly but he wouldn’t want to walk on it! 😉 AtB

  111. Gore Global Governance?
    I’m looking forward to the day when I can sell a fat bunch of carbon credits for not having any children.

  112. ralph ellis (03:12:35) :
    Why I asked for an expansion on the claim that a short-term trend in temperatures as “proof” that CO2 does not effect temperatures is because that claim is a bit dishonest. I mean, there are many variables that effect climate, CO2 being one of them. For folks to present the “other side” of the conversation as CO2 and nothing else is intellectually dishonest.

  113. Also Ralph,
    Look how different our graphs are!
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/offset:-.1/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/offset:-315/scale:0.005
    Your green line looks pretty damning, but you had some nice cherry picking there. If you add a regression line to your data, you should use the full spectrum of data you are presenting.
    Alternatively, you could have presented this graph if you really wanted to start your trend at 2001.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/offset:-.2/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-315/scale:0.005
    That looks like a lot more cooling and should suit your argument better, without ignoring data you are presenting (of course, as we know, you are ignoring a lot of other data, but that’s beside the point).

  114. Benjamin P:
    You are wrong. ALL of the global warming hype depends entirely on the repeatedly falsified claim that CO2 is the primary cause of the lack of empirical evidence for AGW. Everywhere we look, we see the propaganda about the evil “carbon” — by which they mean carbon dioxide. You will rarely see an article about sulfur dioxide, water vapor, or methane. No, it is almost always CO2; “carbon.”
    Why does the AGW scam depend on demonizing this essential, beneficial, and completely harmless trace gas? Because the claim that CO2 will lead to a “tipping point” and cause runaway global warming is the corner that the AGW contingent has boxed itself into.
    You see, if CO2 doesn’t lead directly to climate catastrophe, then there is no rationale for spending $trillions — or any substantial amount of money at all — to mitigate a non-problem. Is there?
    No. So CO2 must be kept as the cause of the CO2=AGW hypothesis. The AGW gang has hung their collective hats on demonizing CO2 — and now it turns out that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature at all. None. The entire argument demonizing CO2 comes from always-inaccurate computer models; real world, empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming is non-existent.
    For you to back away from the failed CO2=AGW conjecture is telling. It means that the realization that CO2 can not be the cause of noticeable global warming is becoming apparent to the general public. Bad news for the climate alarmists.

  115. Smokey, I am sorry, but that is not my understanding of Climate.
    I’ve read articles about Methane, SO2, water vapor, as well as CO2. I’ve read articles about solar variance, oceanic oscillations, el nino and la nina. I’ve read articles about aerosols, albedo, land use changes, etc.
    For you to claim that the warmist say the CO2 is the ONLY variable in climate change is dishonest, because I’ve never met a scientist who makes that claim.
    The only folks I see making the claim that “warmist” say CO2 is the only variable is the “denilists, skeptics, coolists, “.
    Perhaps I am reading the wrong warmists and you could point me to where the claim CO2 is the only variable is claimed.

  116. @ Benjamin P. (10:02:42) :
    The AGW hypothesis is exploited by various warm-mongers, such as Gore, Hansen, Waxman, the Obama administration and the MSM. They misrepresent AGW for their own purposes.
    Smokey is right.

  117. Benjamin P, you’re putting words in my mouth that I never said:

    “For you to claim that the warmist say the CO2 is the ONLY variable in climate change is dishonest…”.

    Can’t let you re-frame the argument like that.
    I thought my point was pretty clear: that the AGW crowd has placed their big bet on CO2 as the main driver of global warming.
    Notice my original statement: “You will rarely see an article about sulfur dioxide, water vapor, or methane. No, it is almost always CO2…”. See the words ‘rarely,’ and ‘almost always’?
    I don’t see anything incorrect in my original statement.

  118. Benjamin P. (10:02:42) :
    Smokey, I am sorry, but that is not my understanding of Climate.
    I’ve read articles about Methane, SO2, water vapor, as well as CO2. I’ve read articles about solar variance, oceanic oscillations, el nino and la nina. I’ve read articles about aerosols, albedo, land use changes, etc.
    For you to claim that the warmist say the CO2 is the ONLY variable in climate change is dishonest, because I’ve never met a scientist who makes that claim. . .


    This is completely disingenuous. Of course all the Warmists will admit that other factors besides CO2 influence climate, but as Smokey points out, the whole raison d’etre of the movement to control ‘carbon’ by establishing vast bureaucracies and spending trillions of dollars on ‘alternative’ ‘clean’ energy is based on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is the great villain, liable at any moment to turn the poor old Earth into an uninhabitable ‘cauldren’ (to use Hansen’s term) like Venus.
    This hypothesis has been abundantly falsified, to the satisfaction of thousands of scientists and laymen here and elsewhere. But nowhere do we see the Warmists, Alarmists, Algorytes, and Eco-fascists saying, “Gee, we were wrong about CO2. It’s not a problem.” Instead they plow ahead with insidious ‘cap-and-trade’ (carbon) schemes, and insane nonsense about ‘sequestering’ ‘carbon’.
    John Galt is right: Smokey is right.
    /Mr Lynn

  119. Mr Lynn, Smokey, et al: This really isn’t that hard to understand. Benjamin P’s point is that the correlation between CO2 and temperatures is not good on short timescales (on the order of about a decade or less) because variability in the climate is dominant on those timescales.
    It is entirely analogous the seasonal cycle: Nobody ever claims that they don’t believe in the seasonal cycle just because we have a week in March or April where the temperature trend here in Rochester is negative. However, people nonetheless understand that one can predict with great confidence that it is going to be considerably warmer here in June than it is in January.
    As for sulfur dioxide, water vapor, or methane: Sulfur dioxide oxidizes into sulfate aerosols that cause cooling. Methane causes warming…and is not ignored…but will not be as major a player as CO2 over the long term, primarily because it has a shorter residence time in the atmosphere. And, water vapor is extremely important but its concentration in the atmosphere is “slave” to the temperature so human emissions of water vapor (at least on the magnitudes that we are currently capable of) are not relevant; of course, the role of the water vapor feedback is very relevant and now quite well-demonstrated (see, e.g., http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;323/5917/1020 ).

  120. Joel Shore,
    We already know that water vapor affects temperature. You set that strawman up and knocked him right down, you he-man, you! Gosh, the ladies must be awfully impressed. But not scientific skeptics.
    Tell us, Joel, why is the planet’s temperature flat to declining, even as the harmless, beneficial trace gas CO2 continues to rise?
    Take your time.

  121. Joel Shore (14:28:57) :
    Mr Lynn, Smokey, et al: This really isn’t that hard to understand. Benjamin P’s point is that the correlation between CO2 and temperatures is not good on short timescales (on the order of about a decade or less) because variability in the climate is dominant on those timescales. . .


    Well, how about a few hundred million years BP? No apparent correlation, and when CO2 rises, it’s generally after temperatures do. Long-enough timescale?
    /Mr Lynn

  122. Try doing some lots of temperature and Ice cores. I found that on exit from an ice age CO2 and temperature rise “simultaneously” entry into an ice age does not seem to be co2 related.
    The simultaneousness is of course difficult to prove since the record has such large time slices. But it does not look as if CO2 is lagging temperature:
    a few examples:
    http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6826/iceage040kkq1.jpg
    http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/521/iceage560650kld7.jpg
    http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3479/iceage750800kqf1.jpg
    http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3331/iceage40100kcp6.jpg

  123. John Finn…
    John the question has never been that temperatures have risen, or will rise, or will fall… All of those things will occur over the course of the next several thousand millennia. The question is what is the driver of that warming and/or cooling.
    CO2 is not powerful enough to do this ( even the IPCC admits to this ) Though it is, I suppose, the gateway gas ( pun intended ) according to the IPCC. Because of the minuscule change in temperature attributed to CO2 they have massive feedback effects that then reshape the temperature to something much higher then it is.
    Add onto this that the datasets we are using are NOT scientificaly accurate ( any data you have to adjust is not very scientific ) It is for this very reason this site came into existence. Anthony started doing something that it still seems no one else has thought about doing. Going and looking at the stations that get the bloody data that gets ‘adjusted’ from this I have to admit that I do not see any scientific merit to many of the sites that we use to even say there is global warming.
    Now you say that the satellites are behind the curve and they are going to be going up, which I suppose makes sense… It also makes sense that we would see the largest gain in 4 years ( you mean since el Nino started to fade and la Nina came into play? ) Which will certainly effect the temperature data. (as it has in many times past )
    I suppose the thing that I am confused about is why any of this is even a question to you? It is readily apparent so why bring it up? A better question would be what is the best way to take the earths temperature so we can actually gauge what is going on. The second question is so long as it is going in the upward direction do we really have anything to be worried about? Hate to say it but I am much more scared of temperatures reversing course on me then I am about them getting a couple degrees warmer. This is mostly because I can see a great many more issues with a colder world then I can a warmer one.
    I do not think I stayed on point here I think I rambled a bit. Bottom line. Temperature over last 2000 years looks pretty damn unstable to me, I would rather be at the high end of the temperature spectrum, rather then the low end ( at least during my life ) I am tired of people saying science is settled and then turning a blind eye to anything that disagrees with their ‘science’ which looks more and more like a belief system to me.

  124. John Galt (11:28:34) :
    So AWG exists solely as a some great conspiracy in an effort to….?
    Smokey (12:15:19) :
    My apologies. I sure thought that’s what you were implying.
    Mr Lynn (12:23:59) :
    You too agree with John that AWG is a means to…? Secretly? Some agenda of some sort? I saw a link from some fellow here that got a lot of praise…green-agenda.com or something like that. Really quite humorous.
    “This hypothesis has been abundantly falsified, to the satisfaction of thousands of scientists and laymen here and elsewhere”
    Not to me–I have not seen this abundant falsification you speak of. I’ve seen Smokey post a graph countless times of the last 10 years of temperature data, maybe that’s what you are talking about.
    Smokey (18:47:35) :
    “We already know that water vapor affects temperature. ”
    But temperature also affect water vapor.
    “Tell us, Joel, why is the planet’s temperature flat to declining, even as the harmless, beneficial trace gas CO2 continues to rise?”
    An interesting read over at real climate. I know, a bunch of conspiracy, anti-science types there, but its a guest post talking about their recent publication. So not so anti-sciencey, grant-money graberish, or heck, their guest post author likely wants some grant money too. Can’t trust anyone who says the earth is warming….okay, too much sass there.
    Read it.
    Swanson, K.L. and A.A. Tsonis, 2009: Has the climate recently shifted? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, doi:10.1029/2008GL037022.
    http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
    But what do I know? I am just a rock loving geologist, not a climate scientist.
    Ben

  125. Benjamin P. (22:57:19) :
    So AWG exists solely as a some great conspiracy in an effort to….?

    Well, it depends if you are open to the possibility that politicians have political plans. There is no conspiracy as such, in the sense of secrecy. What there is though, is an open vocal call for a global response to global problems, which is to say, the creation of a global governance. You can see it called for quite openly here:
    http://www.worldforum.org/
    Read that site, read the names, and see whether you agree with their vision. I would agree with their vision, except I think it is too complex a task for us at the moment. Too many parts of the world simply wouldn’t go with it. But being a global problem, global warming is emphasized.
    Now, the world needs to unite for all sorts of reasons, as there are many global problems, like nuclear proliferation. So it makes sense to emphasize global warming, to start to build global governance, so that we can then begin to deal with other global problems. And if global warming happens to not be a real problem? Well politically we’re still trying to build some sort of global governance, and I can point you to religious quotations where it is indeed ethical to perpetrate a lie for the sake of something good. So it is not hard to believe, rather, it would be hard to believe that politicians are not doing this. After all, the whole world is at stake.

    Read it.
    Swanson, K.L. and A.A. Tsonis, 2009: Has the climate recently shifted? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, doi:10.1029/2008GL037022.
    http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
    But what do I know? I am just a rock loving geologist, not a climate scientist.

    If I get the gist of that right, the temperature swings up and down come about because the climate is more sensitive to swings than previously thought, and this suggests that far from cooling being a sign that the climate is not running away, it could well be a sign that the climate is even more sensitive, and thus more prone to warming. Well, that’s a fine post-rationalised answer. We can all post-rationalise, we’re all very good at it. And that’s fine, I don’t mean to claim that it is only a made up answer, for everything we think is something we created or made up. Rather, it could well be true, but the problem is, how do we know if it is true?
    How would you know if it true?

  126. bill (20:02:08) :
    Try doing some lots of temperature and Ice cores. I found that on exit from an ice age CO2 and temperature rise “simultaneously” entry into an ice age does not seem to be co2 related.
    The simultaneousness is of course difficult to prove since the record has such large time slices. But it does not look as if CO2 is lagging temperature. . .

    Check out these posts (and comment threads):
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/co2-does-not-drive-glacial-cycles/
    /Mr Lynn

  127. Izzere something, I am missing here ?
    Check out; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
    Okay don’t holler I know it’s a wikipedia reference.
    Now cast your eye on the third line from the bottom which is labelled Methane; and note that the scale goes from 0.2 microns to 50 microns wave;ength range, which encompasses the entire of interest solar spectrum range, and earth surface emitted infra red radiation (well it would be nice to go past 100 microns).
    So can somebody please explain to me, using those graphs, just exactly what is the physics that explains why Methane (CH4) is claimed to be 20 times as obnoxious as a GHG than CO2, carbon dioxide is ?
    I can’t see where it has any effect at all in any meaningful partof the spectrum.

  128. It will be telling to see the extent to which El Nino reverses this (if at all). That in and of itself will be a leading indicator regarding how deep the longer term cooling will go.

  129. “. It’s hot down South, but colder than normal up North.”
    Sorry but I am in the southeast (North Carolina) and it has not yet hit 95F. I do not have the AC on it is in the 70’s today) and oh yes I drive a BLACK pickup without AC and work outside so I notice when it is hot.
    So far this summer we have had only 18 days over 90F and NONE over 95F
    In 2008 we had 9 days between 90 and 94 and 11days 95F and over.
    In 2004 (mid cycle 23) we had 24 days between 90 and 94 and 14 days 95F and over.
    What is really interesting is 17 of those over ninety degree days were in May and we hit 98 twice compared to this year when the may high was 89 and only for one day.
    Can someone tell me how that translates to North Carolina being HOTTER? Yes Yes I know its weather NOT climate…

  130. Smokey says:

    Tell us, Joel, why is the planet’s temperature flat to declining, even as the harmless, beneficial trace gas CO2 continues to rise?

    Why, have you missed the other 49 times that I have explained it? It is due to the characteristics of systems that have both an underlying (approximately) linear trend plus noise. Basically, it is for the very same reason that it is not at all unusual to find week-long periods here in Rochester in the spring when the temperature trend is negative even though we know that we have a very strong seasonal cycle and the seasonal “forcing” at that time is positive.
    As Benjamin P. notes, there is also a recent paper by Swanson and Tsonis (and a guest post over at RealClimate by Swanson) that proposes a more complicated hypothesis, which still amounts to climate variability superimposed on the long term warming trend, but with a more multidecadal character…more along the lines of the PDO stuff that has been talked about a lot here…and on this basis predicts a “pause” in the warming. However, I am still skeptical that such an explanation is necessary as there is no real indication that approximately decade-long negative trends should be that unusual. See, for example, Easterling and Wehner http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf (who even show the existence of 15-year negative trends in a climate model forced with steadily increasing GHGs).
    As for your continued use of the word “trace gas” presumably to imply that somehow a gas present at only ~4 parts in 10,000 couldn’t possibly have much effect, I will only remind you (yet again!) that ~99% of the atmosphere is made up of diatomic molecules that are essentially transparent to infrared radiation, so the remaining ~1% play a disproportionately large role in the radiative balance. Furthermore, the fact that the forcing of the IR-active gases depends approximately logarithmically on their concentration over a large range of concentrations also means that small amounts play a disproportionately large role.

  131. George E. Smith (12:30:43) :
    Izzere something, I am missing here ?
    Check out; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
    Okay don’t holler I know it’s a wikipedia reference.
    Now cast your eye on the third line from the bottom which is labelled Methane; and note that the scale goes from 0.2 microns to 50 microns wave;ength range, which encompasses the entire of interest solar spectrum range, and earth surface emitted infra red radiation (well it would be nice to go past 100 microns).
    So can somebody please explain to me, using those graphs, just exactly what is the physics that explains why Methane (CH4) is claimed to be 20 times as obnoxious as a GHG than CO2, carbon dioxide is ?

    Not with those graphs George, they’re little more than cartoons and miss out key data (such as concentration).

Comments are closed.