RSS Global Temperature for June 09, also down

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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

Jim (18:09:41) :
Thanks for clearing that up for me Jim.
🙂

Considering who the administration’s top science advisor is none of this is any surprise.

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.

@ur momisugly 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.