|
Post by walterdnes on Apr 14, 2009 1:08:46 GMT
I had always wondered why GISS had a relatively low peak (versus Hadley+satellite) during the 1998 El Nino, and relatively higher 2005 and 2007 peaks, which matched their low 1998 peak. Factoring in the Arctic ice-cover explains things, without having to attribute malfeasance to the people at GISS. - El Ninos are based in the tropics, and spill over into the temperate zones. But El Ninos don't directly send blasts of hot air to the Arctic (I'm not denying indirect effects out-of-hand). Assuming GISS treats icepack as land, it would show more land NOT affected by the 1998 El Nino, and hence a less steep temperature peak.
- Assuming GISS treats icepack as land, open water would be closer to icepack "land" during the record melt of 2007, and even the parts that didn't melt would be warmer than in previous years when the same location was "further inland" due to more ice between it and open water.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 14, 2009 18:08:30 GMT
GISStemps are in for March. Land (I believe) 0.61. Land + SST 0.47. Not much sign of warming.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 17, 2009 11:03:35 GMT
HAD/CRU for March 2009 seems to be 0.359
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 17, 2009 18:28:41 GMT
HAD/CRU for March 2009 seems to be 0.359 Yep, coldest March since 2000.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 17, 2009 19:31:06 GMT
UK Met Office claim 2009 will be 5th warmest year on record HadCru mean first quarter temps from 1998 todate
1998 0.663 1999 0.401 2000 0.297 * 2001 0.366 2002 0.606 2003 0.462 2004 0.528 2005 0.444 2006 0.375 2007 0.531 2008 0.235 * 2009 0.363 First quarter means are all hotter than 2009 except 2000 and 2008
Ofcourse we must remember that the Met Office can still claim it is the 10th. hottest first quarter on record
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 18, 2009 8:45:25 GMT
Ofcourse we must remember that the Met Office can still claim it is the 10th. hottest first quarter on record Which is still much "hotter" than anything in the 1980s and early 1990s which were the 2 hottest decades in the 20th century. Note: Average UAH anomaly for 1990-1999 is +0.06 Average UAH anomaly for 2000-2009 is +0.22 Average UAH anomaly for first 3 months of 2009 is +0.29 Not much sign of the "solar grand minimum cooling". Even with a lingering La Nina (not forgetting the negative PDO) 2009 is still running above the average for the last 10 years - which itself was 0.16 degrees warmer than the warmest decade of the 20th century.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 18, 2009 9:31:49 GMT
"Not much sign of the "solar grand minimum cooling".
We will just pretend that we have not just had the coldest winter in 20yrs shall we and stick to the models. No point in confusing things with a bit of reality.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 18, 2009 12:09:45 GMT
"Not much sign of the "solar grand minimum cooling". We will just pretend that we have not just had the coldest winter in 20yrs shall we and stick to the models. No point in confusing things with a bit of reality. We haven't just had the coldest winter in 20 years
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 18, 2009 15:16:36 GMT
Hmm! Too repeat the excercise using UAH first quarter data
2000 -0.02 * 2001 0.20 * 2002 0.39 2003 0.37 2004 0.42 2005 0.42 2006 0.38 2007 0.48 2008 0.02 * 2009 0.29
Using UAH data there are still only 3 years colder than 2009 first quarter
Sorry GLC you have suggested 2009 shows an increasing temperature trend when a careful check of EACH INDIVIDUAL year so far this century confirms the downward trend associatied with the on going solar minimum. No doubt the Met Office will seek your advice when presenting their data for 2009 "warming"
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 18, 2009 16:47:17 GMT
"Not much sign of the "solar grand minimum cooling". We will just pretend that we have not just had the coldest winter in 20yrs shall we and stick to the models. No point in confusing things with a bit of reality. We haven't just had the coldest winter in 20 years Please read and you'll discover just how utterly wrong you were in assuming the surface measurements agree with satellites, which they don't and are in opposite directions. Collating the data sets from GISS/Hadley/NOAA is a pain for the tropics, so thanks to Steve McIntyre for updating, there's really no argument. Read and learn why this matters. www.climateaudit.org/?p=5756
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 18, 2009 17:00:04 GMT
Using UAH data there are still only 3 years colder than 2009 first quarter So? We have a "lingering La Nina" I'd expect temperatures to be a bit below normal Sorry GLC you have suggested 2009 shows an increasing temperature trend when a careful check of EACH INDIVIDUAL year so far this century confirms the downward trend associatied with the on going solar minimum. Sorry, Neilhamp, but I've just done a Least Sq linear regression on the the UAH data you provided and it shows a warming trend of 0.12 deg over the decade. There most certainly isn't a downward trend. No doubt the Met Office will seek your advice when presenting their data for 2009 "warming" They won't need to - temperatures are still clearly on the up.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 18, 2009 17:07:25 GMT
Please read and you'll discover just how utterly wrong you were in assuming the surface measurements agree with satellites, which they don't and are in opposite directions. Collating the data sets from GISS/Hadley/NOAA is a pain for the tropics, so thanks to Steve McIntyre for updating, there's really no argument.
Read and learn why this matters. I suggest you read it and tell me what it all means because I think you've misunderstood it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 18, 2009 17:16:05 GMT
Using UAH data there are still only 3 years colder than 2009 first quarter So? We have a "lingering La Nina" I'd expect temperatures to be a bit below normal Sorry GLC you have suggested 2009 shows an increasing temperature trend when a careful check of EACH INDIVIDUAL year so far this century confirms the downward trend associatied with the on going solar minimum. Sorry, Neilhamp, but I've just done a Least Sq linear regression on the the UAH data you provided and it shows a warming trend of 0.12 deg over the decade. No doubt the Met Office will seek your advice when presenting their data for 2009 "warming" They won't need to - temperatures are still clearly on the up. The trend then should be +.12 since 2001 right?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 18, 2009 17:19:42 GMT
Please read and you'll discover just how utterly wrong you were in assuming the surface measurements agree with satellites, which they don't and are in opposite directions. Collating the data sets from GISS/Hadley/NOAA is a pain for the tropics, so thanks to Steve McIntyre for updating, there's really no argument.
Read and learn why this matters. I suggest you read it and tell me what it all means because I think you've misunderstood it. Are you sure you want to go there?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 18, 2009 17:46:27 GMT
Ofcourse we must remember that the Met Office can still claim it is the 10th. hottest first quarter on record Which is still much "hotter" than anything in the 1980s and early 1990s which were the 2 hottest decades in the 20th century. Note: Average UAH anomaly for 1990-1999 is +0.06 Average UAH anomaly for 2000-2009 is +0.22 Average UAH anomaly for first 3 months of 2009 is +0.29 Not much sign of the "solar grand minimum cooling". Even with a lingering La Nina (not forgetting the negative PDO) 2009 is still running above the average for the last 10 years - which itself was 0.16 degrees warmer than the warmest decade of the 20th century. As I said in another thread, if we are starting a prolonged cooldown, it won't happen overnight. Temperatures didn't reach the levels of the 1998-2005 plateau overnight, it took a long time to get there, so to expect global temperatures to return to the levels of decades ago in a couple of years is not realistic. In addition, you are flat out wrong about the first quarter of 2009. Even though you have looked at only UAH, which has run the warmest of the 4 sources so far, most years since 2000 were still warmer through the first three months: 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002 were all easily warmer at this point. And if you look include RSS, Hadley, and GISS in your comparison, you will see that there is good agreement that 2009 has started out cooler than any year since 2001, except last year.
|
|