|
Post by magellan on Feb 7, 2009 17:08:56 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. The recent stratospheric warming by some accounts appears to be an unprecedented event in meteorological records. A similar but much less pronounced warming occurred last winter, and what followed thereafter? Hmm. Is it possible Met O has read the tea leaves and figured they'd better get some CYA PR out to smooth over their "2009 to be a scorcher" AGW stance before they lose complete total credibility even with the MSM?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 7, 2009 19:30:56 GMT
Is it possible the stratospheric warming is part of some tipping point that has been reached?
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 8, 2009 0:47:35 GMT
Is it possible the stratospheric warming is part of some tipping point that has been reached? Anything is possible when you have nearly zero perspicacity.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 8, 2009 4:17:02 GMT
Is it possible the stratospheric warming is part of some tipping point that has been reached? No.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 8, 2009 18:00:56 GMT
Is it possible that arctic sea ice collapse has led to a change in weather patterns, with knock on effects in the stratosphere, odd weather and jet stream changes in the northern hemisphere?
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 8, 2009 18:47:13 GMT
Is it posible there was a mega volcano under the arctic that realeased huge amounts of heat?
...and my dog farted?
Anything is possible when you have nearly zero perspicacity.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 8, 2009 20:40:50 GMT
that's my point. All these posts saying "is it possible that <insert weather event here> was caused by <weather event here>" are just a load of speculation with an obvious answer of "yes"
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 9, 2009 1:35:58 GMT
that's my point. All these posts saying "is it possible that <insert weather event here> was caused by <weather event here>" are just a load of speculation with an obvious answer of "yes" World record announced on turn around! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 9, 2009 18:53:21 GMT
UAH for Jan is .307
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 13, 2009 0:31:53 GMT
GISS is +0.52 which is a bit down on the Walterdnes prediction (he was spot on with UAH and RSS).
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 18, 2009 10:07:10 GMT
Hadley January anomaly is +0.37
i.e. relatively low compared to the satellites. There are a number of factors which affect the different temperature measurements. I expected some 'convergence' in January and this demonstrates the fact that GISS/Hadley are not necessarily wrong - and UAH right. They are just measuring different things.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 18, 2009 14:36:26 GMT
glc writes "Hadley January anomaly is +0.37"
Not a very auspicious start for the UK Met. Office prediction of 0.44 for 2009. Particularly if David Archiblad turns out to be correct.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 18, 2009 15:47:38 GMT
Hadley January anomaly is +0.37 i.e. relatively low compared to the satellites. There are a number of factors which affect the different temperature measurements. I expected some 'convergence' in January and this demonstrates the fact that GISS/Hadley are not necessarily wrong - and UAH right. They are just measuring different things. Keep those after-the-fact predictions coming, glc!
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 18, 2009 17:24:02 GMT
Particularly if David Archiblad turns out to be correct.
Correct about what? The -0.4 deg UAH anomaly for May or the ~2 deg drop in global temperatures over the next "few years".
Keep those after-the-fact predictions coming, glc!
Don't get me wrong I'm not claiming any great predictive skill. It was obvious looking at the NOAA anomaly maps that the surface was running less warm (relatively) than the AMSU record during January. But, to be fair, I did speculate that there might be a 'disconnect' between surface and satellite wrt Walterdnes predictions (see Feb 7th post). He got the UAH and RSS figures spot on but was too high on both GISS and Hadley.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Feb 18, 2009 20:48:09 GMT
When you say
"running less warm"
is that the same as saying
"running colder"
Just checking before the thought police arrive.
|
|