Feb Temps

[eric]

MSU/RSS temps for Feb appear to be high, but not quite as high as Jan: anomaly = .588. Looks like the second highest February on record.

ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt

Interestingly, close to a record high in the tropics (over 1C anomaly) and one of the lowest anomalies on record in the US.

[aj1983]

UAH Feb 1998 was 0.76 vs 0.74 this year (V 5.2) Pretty close!! Nearly identical to Jan 2010 which was 0.72. It certainly also shows very warm extratropics and poles.

Seems like Spencer et al. has updated to a new version (but he does not seem to be updating the previous values in the graph, which makes it seem that in the new version early 1998 it was MUCH warmer than now, while in the old version the temperatures now are roughly equal, which is somewhat convenient for their point of view), anyway, this greatly improves the alignment with the surface data, which is good. I do hope however that he will update the complete graph, or it will seem like "hide the incline". However, I do find it hard to understand what they've done to adjust the temperatures (did they decrease the yearly amplitude of the reference temperature, so that for example during some months (e.g. in January and February) the anomaly is smaller, but during some other months it is equally adjusted upward?) This would, however, make any monthly comparisons from UAH completely useless if they don't apply the adjustment on the total data set, or it must have been some sort of drift. Anyway, a more detailed explanation would be very much appreciated...

vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.05Mar2010

[scpg02]

Mar 5, 2010 21:23:59 GMT aj1983 said:

I do hope however that he will update the complete graph, or it will seem like "hide the incline".

I'm sure it is "hide the decline".

[hairball]

I doubt Spencer and Christy would try any funny business they couldn't nail down for their critics. He's sure milking it for chuckle value though; even crediting Watt for the adjustment. He's a funny guy

[magellan]

The LT should be warming more and at a faster rate than the surface, so since the overall trend isn't affected much, the conundrum still exists.

I read somewhere GISS (and other products?) will be issuing a correction to the surface record resulting in more warming. This will further the divergence between satellite and surface.

It would appear the LT/MT is heating up due to ocean heat loss. Look at the ocean data; there's nothing indicating an acceleration of warming, but a redistribution of the heat and an indication it is going upward and outward. It will be interesting to see the OHC data at years end, but would be nice if it were a monthly report.
bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/03/preliminary-february-2010-sst-anomaly.html

Look at it this way: in 12 years we may be able to say it was almost as warm as 2010

[socold]

Can't wait for Watt's to break the UAH update news.

No doubt his readers will be incensed that a scientist has adjusted previously recorded temperatures. How can the temperature of January 2009 change a year later they will ask. How can "adjustments" be made? They will throw around words like "manipulation".

Maybe Watt's will give the post a very leading title like "Curious tale of the changing temperatures", just to give it that pretense that conspiratorial wrong-doing has occurred. No doubt they will all demand Roy Spencer release his source code, raw date (irregardless of whether he owns it) and FOIA for them if he doesn't.

Actually on second thoughts I am not holding my breath on any of the above. May the double standards continue!

[hairball]

Awh, he just reprinted Spencer's blog post without comment socold. Annoying when outrageous things are allowed to pass without official comment, isn't it

[magellan]

socold should be jumping for joy! Satellite anomalies are closer to the surface.

No doubt he'll be here issuing the same critique when the surface records are adjusted upward in the near future

EDIT:

To clarify, I don't have a problem with adjustments as long as they are qualitative.

[Pooh]

Let me suggest reading Dr. Spencer's blog for the recent period (older posts are linked).

Spencer, Ph.D., Roy W. “February 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: Version 5.3 Unveiled.” Scientific Blog. Global Warming (drroyspencer.com), March 5, 2010, updated as of March 6, 2010. www.drroyspencer.com/

"UPDATED: 2:16 p.m. CST March 6, 2010: Added a plot of the differences between v5.3 and v5.2."

He explains what adjustments were done, and shows the differences in table and graph.

For those with other questions about integrity, perhaps a read of the entire current blog will be reassuring. Let me call particular attention to the following entry (at this time still on the current page):

NASA Aqua Sea Surface Temperatures Support a Very Warm January, 2010
February 4th, 2010
"When I saw the “record” warmth of our UAH global-average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product (warmest January in the 32-year satellite record), I figured I was in for a flurry of e-mails: “But this is the coldest winter I’ve seen since there were only 3 TV channels! How can it be a record warm January?”
"Sorry, folks, we don’t make the climate…we just report it."

Kudos.

[nautonnier]

"NASA Aqua Sea Surface Temperatures Support a Very Warm January, 2010
February 4th, 2010
"When I saw the “record” warmth of our UAH global-average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product (warmest January in the 32-year satellite record), I figured I was in for a flurry of e-mails: “But this is the coldest winter I’ve seen since there were only 3 TV channels! How can it be a record warm January?”
"Sorry, folks, we don’t make the climate…we just report it.""

Well step one has been taken we have an observation that raises a question. Is anyone actually researching WHY there is this apparent discrepancy?

Is there a gridded product from Aqua that shows that every area increased above (whatever the comparator is) or that there are balancing areas of extreme warmth vs cold?

Numbers can be interesting - but it is objective science that is needed to explain them.

[trbixler]

"Coal Creek Canyon, Colorado, weather summary for another chilly month"

"At 19.4 degrees, February 2010 was the second coldest February of record here (since 1983), missing February 1989's 18.2 by just over one degree."


icecap.us/images/uploads/Coal_Creek_Canyon.pdf

[jtom]

In the deep South (US), Georgia and Alabama experienced their 109th warmest February on record (since 1895). Lobal warming wasn't quite as bad in Florida, only having its 111th warmest February.

[aj1983]

jtom: Quit the alarmism will you .

[nautonnier]

Mar 10, 2010 12:15:35 GMT aj1983 said:

jtom: Quit the alarmism will you .

If you want alarmism - then the other effect of these Feb temps yet to come will be the shortage of some foods - perhaps lots of them. Much of the Florida crops from citrus to tomatoes has been ruined as have almost all the soft fruits for spring sales. California has not fared too well either with the early droughts being replaced by heavy rains.

Unfortunately, the record warm temps must have been somewhere that food does not grow.

[hunter]

I think the best evidence that these global data sets are useless is the reality that this year's very tough winter, with record cold after record cold, comes out of the climate science Cuisinart as a warming trend.
How much more useless a product can they offer us?