|
Post by magellan on Jan 28, 2009 23:56:03 GMT
I'm guessing about .35. I reserve the right to amend
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 29, 2009 11:29:00 GMT
Is this a guess or do you have a 'method' ?
I don't think it will be as high as 0.35 - I think more like ~0.25. But my estimate is just a first attempt using a very simple regression method. I could be way out.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 29, 2009 13:22:47 GMT
Is this a guess or do you have a 'method' ? I don't think it will be as high as 0.35 - I think more like ~0.25. But my estimate is just a first attempt using a very simple regression method. I could be way out. WAG on my part, no S at all, only that in most years January jumps well above December. The following 3-5 months are of more interest to me.
|
|
vauss
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 55
|
Post by vauss on Jan 29, 2009 21:01:08 GMT
Magellan, Well, looking at the AMSU data, it looks like 2009 tracked pretty well with Jan. 2008 for half the month and is now tracking with Jan. 2007 in the latter half. So I'm guessing this split the difference will result in an RSS anomaly of +.263. I'm guessing about .35. I reserve the right to amend
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jan 29, 2009 21:10:20 GMT
Is this a guess or do you have a 'method' ? I don't think it will be as high as 0.35 - I think more like ~0.25. But my estimate is just a first attempt using a very simple regression method. I could be way out. WAG on my part, no S at all, only that in most years January jumps well above December. The following 3-5 months are of more interest to me. hey mag you think well see a significant drop like archibald has noted?
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Jan 30, 2009 6:37:54 GMT
My 12-month regression, (including manual adjustment because it's been under-predicting lately) gives the following January projected anomalies, using UAH daily data through the 28th. Hadley 0.45 GISS 0.57 UAH 0.29 RSS 0.30
The raw regression gives numbers .05 lower, but it's been too low recently, so I've bumped it up.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 30, 2009 10:20:15 GMT
Walterdnes Re: UAH estimates Have you read Roy Spencer's blog. In particular, this :- www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-monitoring-of-global-average-temperatures/Where it says Use the drop-down menu to pick "ch5" (AMSU channel 5) which is the channel John Christy and I use to monitor mid-tropospheric temperatures. and this This web page should be used as only a rough guide, because there are some data adjustments made before we officially post the UAH monthly updated data. (I post a plot of those data here.) The biggest adjustment is the fact that we don't even use NOAA-15 right now we are using the AMSU data from NASAs Aqua satellite in the final UAH product. Not sure if this helps at all, but it does confirm that Ch5 should provide the best approximation. Also note that the raw (Ch5) measurements are taken at an average heght of 14,400 ft, so won't necessarily be relevant (or not always anyway) to the surface measurements - despite what many posters on here seem to think.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 30, 2009 15:05:11 GMT
Walterdnes Re: UAH estimates Have you read Roy Spencer's blog. In particular, this :- www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-monitoring-of-global-average-temperatures/Where it says Use the drop-down menu to pick "ch5" (AMSU channel 5) which is the channel John Christy and I use to monitor mid-tropospheric temperatures. and this This web page should be used as only a rough guide, because there are some data adjustments made before we officially post the UAH monthly updated data. (I post a plot of those data here.) The biggest adjustment is the fact that we don't even use NOAA-15 right now we are using the AMSU data from NASAs Aqua satellite in the final UAH product. Not sure if this helps at all, but it does confirm that Ch5 should provide the best approximation. Also note that the raw (Ch5) measurements are taken at an average heght of 14,400 ft, so won't necessarily be relevant (or not always anyway) to the surface measurements - despite what many posters on here seem to think. I think most posters are focused on the UAH "lower" tropospheric anomalies which are derived from measurements significantly below 14,400 ft. For several months I have been predicting that the anomalies 3 to 4 months following the neutral ENSO readings of last year will be near the 1979-2007 trend line of 0.27C. The average of the November-December anomalies was 0.22C. I would expect to see something above 0.22C for January since January falls within the 3 to 4 month period. The anomalies for February through at least May should begin to reflect the more recent La Nina conditions.
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Jan 31, 2009 3:02:54 GMT
I use the ChLT (Lower Troposphere) data at 1 km (3300 ft) above sea level. It's more likely to reflect what's happening at the surface.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 31, 2009 16:14:30 GMT
WAG on my part, no S at all, only that in most years January jumps well above December. The following 3-5 months are of more interest to me. hey mag you think well see a significant drop like archibald has noted? No, but who am I to say? 2 1/2 years ago I thought he was nuts, and look at what's happening.
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Feb 3, 2009 5:38:59 GMT
My 12-month regression, (including manual adjustment because it's been under-predicting lately) gives the following January projected anomalies, using UAH daily data through the 28th. Hadley 0.45 GISS 0.57 UAH 0.29 RSS 0.30 I want to get this out before the first of the datasets are published. Due to continuing warmer-than-2008 temps, the regression output using data through January 31 is .02 higher than through the 28th. The manually adjusted values come out as... Hadley 0.47 GISS 0.59 UAH 0.31 RSS 0.32
|
|
|
Post by bob9000 on Feb 4, 2009 6:57:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 4, 2009 17:36:55 GMT
Before it comes out I'm going with UAH at .33
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Feb 5, 2009 22:48:16 GMT
RSS is close to my prediction. I am unhappy that I had to do some guessing/hand-waving to come up with an adjustment to the raw numbers. I'll try to refine it in future. I should not have to make those adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 7, 2009 10:02:05 GMT
RSS is close to my prediction. I am unhappy that I had to do some guessing/hand-waving to come up with an adjustment to the raw numbers. I'll try to refine it in future. I should not have to make those adjustments.
Your UAH prediction is correct as well. The surface anomalies will be interesting . If the sudden strat warming was a factor in the troposphere temperature rise, this should not be as influential in the surface data. I'm just wondering , therefore, if there might be a slight 'disconnect' between surface and satellite readings.
|
|