Normally we see the HadCRUT monthly temperature data released by about the 20th of each month. It is now November 2nd, and the data has not yet been published. I can’t recall them ever being two weeks late.
HadCRUT (Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature, UK)
HadCRUT3 anomaly data which can be found here
description of the HadCRUT3 data file columns is here
Perhaps they are a bit flummoxed with recent developments, such as the erasing of “sensitive” temperature data, or maybe they are just busy processing FOI’s?
Or maybe its the new supercomputer holding up the data?
Maybe the row over one tree has them delayed. Or maybe the 25% funding cut?
Who knows, but it sure is odd to see them so late getting the data out the door.
Surprising:
NOAA site states:
“It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures”.
“In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930’s with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)”
“The 1930s through the 1950s were clearly warmer than the 1960s and 1970s. If carbon dioxide had been the cause then the warmest years would have understandably been in the most recent years. But that is not the case”.
“The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño”.
“The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase”.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
HadSST2 issued back on 5th.Oct. shows a sharp reduction for September
0.275 0.220 0.245 0.307 0.355 0.500 0.511 0.496 0.360
Perhaps HadCRUT3 is also showing a reduction. This would not be welcome
Maybe they’re busy playing hockey!
What’s so hard and taking so long about cooking the books? How many CRUs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/
Maybe the data prediction output was too outrageous even for HadCrut.
So they had to shut the thing off and go digging through the code to find out why the contraption had November temperatures high enough to melt lead.
And maybe there are 2 sets of predictions: One for the agenda and the real one.
Surely they know what is actually happening under their noses.
So, if the real prediction is so austerely cold that it shocks even them, they would be in quite the fix over whether to sound the alarm or not.
Ron de Haan (09:30:24) :
“Politicians More Powerful Than Nature
Current Global Temperatures Impossible According to IPCC ‘Science’.
Author Dr. Tim Ball
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16460”
Reply: Thanks for the link Ron, this is an excellent article which destroys the CAGW hypothesis. The last two of my friends who are still unsure will get a copy tonight.
AndrewWH (09:43:30) :
“…October in the UK I assume it cannot have been anything too out of the ordinary….”
Reply: Back in the ’70’s Indian Summers were quite common and temps were much higher than we’ve seen this year. Been too many clouds around for it to get really hot.
Oh my, David Hathaway admits he was wrong and Leif was right….WOW
David Hathaway: Mea Culpa
http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/10/31/david-hathaway-mea-culpa/
“We had just previously gone through three or four sunspot cycles that had been only ten years long each, so for the one in 1996 to 2006, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. But as we now know, we were off by at least two years. And if we take conditions on the sun now, it’s a completely different story. The conditions now – using even that same technique from 2006 – says that the next sunspot cycle is going to be half what we thought it was back in 2006.
Another big prediction in 2006 was based on a dynamo model – a model for how the sun produces magnetic fields – and it suggested a huge cycle.
But there also were people back at that time saying otherwise. A group of colleagues led by Leif Svalgaard, Ph.D., were looking at the sun’s polar fields and saying even at that point, the sun’s polar fields were significantly weaker than they had been before and those scientists back then predicted it was going to be a small cycle.”
Ron De Haan I went to the NOAA site you mention but then they blew it with this…
Fast Facts
To see the full effect of a greenhouse effect, look to the planet Venus. The atmosphere of Venus consists of 96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, with the remaining amount, less than 1%, of other gasses.
The carbon dioxide atmosphere has allowed the temperature of the surface to exceed 900°F (482°C). This is hot enough to melt lead. Space craft that have successfully landed on venus, despite being well protected, have lasted only about an hour in the excessive heat and crushing pressure.
What they left out is Venus being closer to the sun than earth, atmospheric pressure being 96 times higher I believe, which also contributes to temperature rise. Why did they not use mars as an example it also has about a 96% C02 composition as Venus but has very low temperatures, being farther from the sun than earth is one factor, but the main point it has only 1% of the atmospheric pressure of earth, low pressure low temperature. Cherrypicking by NOAA.
Am I correct on this?
No doubt they’ve started a new “public release policy” and ONLY THOSE FEW WHO APPRECIATE THEIR WORK WILL HENSEFORTH BE PROVIDED AN ENCODED COPY.
I believe they are thinking in relocating to Portugal. It’s been quite warm here, and since I’ve liked it, they would love it…
Ecotretas
Yep, the late great Manchester wizard guitarist Peter Bocking, AKA PUK, called it a ‘superconfuser’.
================================
The conspiracy side of me wonders if they are going to delay any cooling data till after Copenhagen.
Well while they are fiddling with the numbers; it is a good time to note that the DMI temperature finally got going again in the downward crash mode. Belated maybe; but at least it is doing what it usually does about this time of the year.
And in response (maybe) the JAXA ice finally escaped the clutches of the 2007 limit case. Well what the heck; it’s all back in the region where it can be quite variable, and quite normal; 2009 was a big improvement over 2008.
Same time, same station next year !
Is there way to turn off the annoying wordpress prefix? Example: in one of the links above, I click on it, it takes me here:
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=htt p://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn96745_30.gif
Where only the last half of the URL is correct. Consequently, any link I click on gets blocked… Is this a “feature”? Thanks.
Ron de Haan
Looks like someone hacked their website. Actually, someone pointed this to G. Schmidt on RC a week ago, and he replied it is unacceptable and he will act.
Bob Tisdale
I am very interesting what they will come with. Change in SST dataset will affect all global temperature datasets. My theory is, that the 0.3 deg C down step by Folland et al was engineered to get warming 1900-1945, then step down, slow warming 1945-1978 and steep warming 1978-2000s. So there is warming during the whole 20th century with no inconvenient cooling. Single drop is not as visible.
I am curious, whether SSTs in 50ties will not be even warmer than in 40ties.
Re FTWJK_JClimate2009_revised.pdf – that chart named “The global-mean response to volcanic eruptions” is interesting, since it attributes (volcano cooling) effect of 1W/m2 to temperature change 0.1K. Doubling of CO2 without any feedbacks should yield, how much? 4W/m2?
Maybe the figures are late because their computer “froze”. Undoubtedly the result of local cooling which is an integral part of global warming….until the entire planet is the locale…
RR Kampen (09:31:40) : They can’t believe the heat in the tropics this time. It is unbelievable. But true.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn96745_30.gif
Now that is truly unbelievable. Specially for the AGW hypothesis. Isnt it NOT supposed to heat up in the equator and heat up in the higher latitudes if it is due to CO2? But this is just the opposite! Unbelievable!
Double, double toil and trouble, fire burn, and cauldron bubble! they are cooking the books – takes time you know…
Ron de Haan (10:24:08) : and NC (11:27:35) : Yes NC you are correct. Your facts are dead right.
It is NOT Cherry picking by NOAA. It is outright misrepresenting the cause.
The reason why Venus had runaway global warming is that:
1. They have 96% CO2 compared to our 0.03% (33,100 times more percentage wise than us)
2. And this is the main reason – they are 28% closer to the sun than us (or we are 38% further)
As you pointed out Mars with 96% CO2, or for that matter Jupiter Saturn etc with their huge atmospheres, being much further from the SUN have no runaway global warming.
We are at the Goldilocks distance from the Sun – just right.
Gumby (07:44:36) :
the dog ate the data
It was a bear trying to get a better winter coat for the extra cold winter hibernation he senses is coming.
AndrewWH (09:43:30) :
“…October in the UK I assume it cannot have been anything too out of the ordinary….”
Oct mean was 11.6C, nothing too special but pleasantly warm and a very nice month.
However October very well illustrated the need to take into account weather conditions, rather than that anything warm is automatically due to AGW. For a large part of October we in the UK had a very strong blast of warm air straight from the tropics, brought on a persistent South or South Westerly wind.
It was so noticeable even the Weather forecasters noted it in their Tv appearances. We neglect to look for the effects of persistent weather patterns/position of the jet stream when seeking more complicated and unlikely answers -including Co2.
tonyb
NC (11:27:35) :
What they left out is Venus being closer to the sun than earth, atmospheric pressure being 96 times higher I believe, which also contributes to temperature rise. Why did they not use mars as an example it also has about a 96% C02 composition as Venus but has very low temperatures, being farther from the sun than earth is one factor, but the main point it has only 1% of the atmospheric pressure of earth, low pressure low temperature. Cherrypicking by NOAA.
Am I correct on this?
Exactly. I saw a comparison of planets in our solar system, where their temperature was shown as function of distance from the Sun and their atmospheric pressure. It did not depend at all what the atmosphere was composed of, they were pretty in line and Earth was no outlier either.
Demesure (07:47:14) :
@Pamela
You mean stuck in the gravy train wreck.
Good one.
They were occupied at the Peirs Corbyn meeting trying to figure how they lost all those bets. 😉
MartinGAtkins (08:50:45) :
Why should they make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
Excellent!!