Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA has published the January 2011 global temperature anomaly. It is not far from zero, and dropped quickly much like Dr. Roy Spencer’s UAH data this month. But, there’s a surprise. RSS has changed from Version 3.2 to 3.3 of their dataset, and adjusted it a bit cooler in the near term. Here’s a comparison plot:
Sources:
Curiously, there’s no mention of this new v3.3 data set on their web page describing the MSU data products they produce:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Perhaps they just haven’t gotten around to updating it yet.
Lucy Skywalker says:
February 4, 2011 at 2:02 am
“I still incline to unearth rural station records…”
That ‘s the most scientific way of approaching the data corruption issue, obviating any guesswork about the magnitude of the bias and error. The downside, of course, is that outside the USA and Australia, there are precious few “rural” records to be found in the GHCN data base. And those that are available are much too often not brought up to date (e.g., China, Turkey). In fact, it seems that that records that do not “perform” according to AGW expectations are being ignored (e.g., Tejon Rancho CA, Sotchi in Russia). forcing ever greater reliance upon urban records in constructing various “global temperature” indices.
That’s a lot more than 13 months. The plan was from 2009, a few months. Probably more like 25 months late.
Dave, Richard Branson and the boy s are still hard at it.
http://www.carbonwarroom.com/about/founders
From their home page:
Note the bolded phrase, which so many Warmists commenting on skeptic sites so belligerently challenge anyone to “source” to actual AGW sources.
Well, there it is, in all its glory.
Oops, just noted the subtlety: it’s “catastrophic climate change”, not “global warming”! Gotta keep up with the au courant euphemisms. I guess “catastrophic climate disruption” would be a bit over-the-top even for these loons.
My own prediction and nomination for the next ratchet-up is “climate damage”; “catastrophic [anthropogenic] climate damage” really says it all, doesn’t it?
😉 LOL
A very cutting remark! Indeed, we all recoil in sheer horror.
Another example of statistical BS-brainwashing is, IMO, the touting of 95% confidence levels as though that was anything but the weakest and squishiest of standards, worthy only of Psychology and other pseudo-sciences. Hardly the 5+ sigma stuff physics is supposed to require! About like a finger-crossed promise not to do any data snooping ….
🙂 😉
LOL+Barf
I have followed the arguments here and elsewhere for two years now. It seems the only way that AGW/CC will be canned and the IPCC finally falsified will be the continuing cool/cold cycle. They can adjust and manipulate as much as they like but long cold winters and wet summers will be the final arbiters. Those are the antithesis of the IPCC projections and Al Gores disaster movie both of which are thankfully well archived. As it is the static temps ,currently showing a 1 degree rise in 500 years, are far from the postulated increase along with CO2 emissions.
Instead of arguing over one one hundredth of a degree we simply have to refer to the projections and how they have failed over and over.
Greg Meurer says:
The trend for RSS v3.3 is 0.1492 per decade.
If you compare the RSS global temperature anomalies to that from UAH, remember that they reference different base periods. The UAH temperature index is relative to the monthly average temperatures for the 30 year period 1981 to 2010. The UAH January 2011 global temperature anomaly relative to 1981 to 2010 was -0.01 C.
The RSS temperature index is still relative to the 20 year period 1979 to 1998. The RSS January 2011 global temperature anomaly relative to 1979 to 1998 was +0.083 C. However, correcting this to the 30 year period 1981 to 2010 (for comparison to UAH) gives a temperature anomaly of -0.034 C. Using the same base period, the RSS anomaly is cooler than the UAH anomaly.
The average of the UAH and RSS global temperature anomalies relative to 1981 to 2010 are:
Aug 2010 0.447
Sep 2010 0.438
Oct 2010 0.258
Nov 2010 0.245
Dec 2010 0.161
Jan 2011 -0.022
A graph of the average of UAH and RSS temperature anomalies, both using the 30 year base period, is updated monthly and displayed on the Friends of Science website at http://www.friendsofscience.org
Click on the small graph under the left navigation menu for a full size graph.
I grabbed the RSS v3.2 temperature anomaly map for January 2009 and the v3.3 temperature anomaly map for the same month and created an animated gif to compare the two. I chose 01/2009 because there is a large difference between the two dataset versions for this particular month. You can see for yourself which areas of the world “cooled down” in the v3.3 version (which isn’t labeled but uses a darker/larger font). The difference is striking:
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2231/294test.gif
What is the red line, and why doesn’t it start until after 1998?
Some one, I think it was Zeke Hausfath from Yale (I think) used to have a real nice chart of all four major world wide temperature plots: UAH, RSS, GISS, and Hadley CRU. It would be nice to see this comparison brought forward to current times and maintained into the future as well. Probably too much to expect.
No doubt the slight adjustment is of interest to experts. But isn’t the most striking feature of this graph the consistent 30-year upward trend of about 0.1 C per decade, which is surely statistically significant? Does anyone know what the regression coefficient is?
“mike sphar says:
February 6, 2011 at 8:40 am
Some one, I think it was Zeke Hausfath from Yale (I think) used to have a real nice chart of all four major world wide temperature plots: UAH, RSS, GISS, and Hadley CRU. It would be nice to see this comparison brought forward to current times and maintained into the future as well. Probably too much to expect.”
See: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/status-on-global-temperature-trends-216.php
WUWT,
This site continues to be among the very best for serious discourse by the brightest bloggers. They routinely challenge conventional thinking. Well done!
You are invited to review the latest press release from the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) posted at 5:00 PM Friday, February 7, 2011 and titled, “Global Cooling Begins and Global Warming Ends with Record Drop in Temperatures.”
This release is available at the SSRC web site at:
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
This important release follows on the heels of another one posted Tuesday, January 25, 2011 and titled “NASA Data Confirms Solar Hibernation and Climate Change to Cold Era.”
It is also available at the SSRC web site: http://www.spaceandscience.net.
Thank You,
John L. Casey
Director
Space and Science Research Center
John Casey invites us to read a press release entitled: “Global Cooling Begins and Global Warming Ends with Record Drop in Temperatures.”
Why should we?
The title of the press release falsely asserts that we have just experienced a “Record Drop in temperatures,” but in fact, the drop in temperature following the 1998 el Nino was clearly much greater than the drop experienced so far following last year’s el Nino (see chart above). What is clear from the global temperature anomaly chart presented in this post is that there has been a 30-year warming trend with a statistically significant upward slope of around 0.1 C per decade.
Alfred Burdett says: February 7, 2011 at 8:36 am
“What is clear from the global temperature anomaly chart presented in this post is that there has been a 30-year warming trend with a statistically significant upward slope of around 0.1 C per decade.”
what is clear from the graph is that since the IPCC predicted global warming of 1.4-5.8C/ century in 2001 — it has cooled
And as far as I am aware there has not been the slightest hint of an apology explanation even acknowledgement that the global temperature has not warmed.
In real science (not climate “science”) people make predictions and then they assess the validity of those predictions against the data. In climate science … they make backcasts … that the data “proves” it is cooling when it cools and that it “proves” it is warming when it warms.
And the rest of us just split our sides laughing!
Mike Hasler said:
“what is clear from the graph is that since the IPCC predicted global warming of 1.4-5.8C/ century in 2001 — it has cooled”
Only if you compare instantaneous measurements, which is meaningless if you are attempting to assess whether there is a trend.
In fact, there is pretty certainly a statistically significant, 30-year upward trend of about 0.1 C per decade from 1979 through either December 2000 or January 2011 which is not incompatible with the lower end of the IPCC predicted rate of warming for the 21st Century.
Not that I’m suggesting that there’s any merit in the IPCC projection — I have no basis to make a judgment. I’m merely suggesting that people look sensibly at the evidence before their eyes.
Apologize if this already was posted. I got a reply from RSS yesterday about the changes. They sent me a link to get it, but it did not work so I went to the directory and got it. ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/support
“The purpose of making the version change is to include data from the AMSU instruments on AQUA, NOAA-18, and MetOP-A. Version 3.2 only used AMSU data from NOAA-15, which is now in its 13th year”
of operation
IIRC, I believe it was revealed that this is programmed in to the models, and the data are retro-adjusted to fit.