|
|
Post by glc on Jul 18, 2009 12:41:37 GMT
GISTEMP SST actually shows June 2009 slightly cooler than June 1998 and HadSST2 also shows June 2009 slightly cooler than June 1998 hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly, but it's not particularly a big difference.This is my understanding, i.e. SST is the warmest since 1998. This may, of course, only be a temporary blip but, if it persists it will almost certainly show up in the satellite record in the next few months. Interesting that with a "deep solar minimum" AND a "negative PDO" we're still seeing 'blips' in the warm direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jul 18, 2009 13:13:41 GMT
GISTEMP SST actually shows June 2009 slightly cooler than June 1998 and HadSST2 also shows June 2009 slightly cooler than June 1998 hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly, but it's not particularly a big difference.Interesting that with a "deep solar minimum" AND a "negative PDO" we're still seeing 'blips' in the warm direction. So now our AGW true believers think that there should be no natural variations in a trend? In the bizarre-world of AGW belief, ten year trends are just weather, but one month, or even one day blips in the .0X or even better, .00X, range are 'signals'. Forget that satellite drift, as well as the improbability of getting actual data from such miniscule changes in a large system. When one is a true believer, any portent in the sky is a message from your god and proof of prophecy.  |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 18, 2009 14:01:53 GMT
GISTEMP SST actually shows June 2009 slightly cooler than June 1998 and HadSST2 also shows June 2009 slightly cooler than June 1998 hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly, but it's not particularly a big difference.This is my understanding, i.e. SST is the warmest since 1998. This may, of course, only be a temporary blip but, if it persists it will almost certainly show up in the satellite record in the next few months. Interesting that with a "deep solar minimum" AND a "negative PDO" we're still seeing 'blips' in the warm direction. Hi glc. Interesting is a good word for it. I just want to make sure I understand what you are suggesting. Is your point that the SSTs are spiking due to humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases? Or are you just saying that the ocean-atmosphere system remains poorly understood? Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by lamont on Jul 19, 2009 15:40:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 19, 2009 15:46:49 GMT
Just goes to show that the other three need to get up to speed and correct the errors that UAH data is showing them. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 19, 2009 17:22:20 GMT
As I've already pointed out in another thread, your use of DeepClimate as a credible source is interesting considering he gets lambasted in every forum he attempts to promote his junk. Tamino has been smacked down too many times to count. I don't care to go into detail any more than you did. It's very easy to look up. For instance, I see you posted this reference. Did you even read it? I suggest you read the entire thread  tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/rss-and-uah/After being confronted directly by one of the authors he smeared (Herman and Randall), Tamino quietly concludes: Note: Having compared RSS and UAH to the HadAT2 data set, I find that there’s more divergence between RSS and HadAT2 at the 1992 step than between USH and HadAT2. So I withdraw my opinion that the step change represents a reason to prefer RSS over UAH. Coming here and posting a bunch of links expecting others to do the reading for you and parsing every post is not going to support whatever agenda is. UAH temperatures since 2003-2009 are highly suspect. As you chose 2003-2009 to somehow discredit UAH and that GISS, Hadley and RSS are correct, did you bother to figure out why? Did you ever stop and think that maybe UAH covers a larger area than RSS and therefore collects more data? Nevertheless, RSS shows more cooling in the period you chose   |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 19, 2009 17:50:01 GMT
After being confronted directly by one of the authors he smeared (Herman and Randall), Tamino quietly concludes:
Note: Having compared RSS and UAH to the HadAT2 data set, I find that there’s more divergence between RSS and HadAT2 at the 1992 step than between USH and HadAT2. So I withdraw my opinion that the step change represents a reason to prefer RSS over UAH.
Coming here and posting a bunch of links expecting others to do the reading for you and parsing every post is not going to support whatever agenda is.
Try again.It may not be important, but I believe there is an issue with UAH and/or RSS data. What's more Steve McIntyre does as well, since he's recently posted on it. See www.climateaudit.org/?p=6598There is also an article on WUWT by John Christy here wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/19/christy-on-questions-about-uah-seasonal-signals/where John Christy writes I think the magnitude of the annual cycle in the monthly trends is a legitimate problem to address. The range in the current v5.2 LT looks too large (about 0.12 C/decade)It isn't just the warmers who recognise there is a problem and it seems to be related, partly at least, to the UAH record
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 19, 2009 18:31:52 GMT
After being confronted directly by one of the authors he smeared (Herman and Randall), Tamino quietly concludes:
Note: Having compared RSS and UAH to the HadAT2 data set, I find that there’s more divergence between RSS and HadAT2 at the 1992 step than between USH and HadAT2. So I withdraw my opinion that the step change represents a reason to prefer RSS over UAH.
Coming here and posting a bunch of links expecting others to do the reading for you and parsing every post is not going to support whatever agenda is.
Try again.It may not be important, but I believe there is an issue with UAH and/or RSS data. What's more Steve McIntyre does as well, since he's recently posted on it. See www.climateaudit.org/?p=6598There is also an article on WUWT by John Christy here wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/19/christy-on-questions-about-uah-seasonal-signals/where John Christy writes I think the magnitude of the annual cycle in the monthly trends is a legitimate problem to address. The range in the current v5.2 LT looks too large (about 0.12 C/decade)It isn't just the warmers who recognise there is a problem and it seems to be related, partly at least, to the UAH record The important point in all of this is that the overall global trend of the entire time series ranges insignificantly from +0.123 to +0.125 C/decade even under the different merging methods used to date. This is because the removal of the annual cycle of differences from satellite to satellite does not add any bias
to the time series, so the overall trend doesn’t change. It's nice that you left out his last paragraph.......... |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 19, 2009 18:50:56 GMT
1. NCDC and GISS use basically the same data and are therefore almost always close to agreement. 2. There have been many times in the 2002-09 period where HadCRUT and GISS have diverged quite a bit. One of the most notable is 2007. 3. RSS has tracked much closer to UAH than to GISS. And RSS had June as quite cool (like UAH), not quite warm (like GISS). |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 19, 2009 19:37:51 GMT
The important point in all of this is that the overall global trend of the entire time series ranges insignificantly from +0.123 to +0.125 C/decade even under the different merging methods used to date. This is because the removal of the annual cycle of differences from satellite to satellite does not add any bias to the time series, so the overall trend doesn’t change. It's nice that you left out his last paragraph..........[/i] But when I stated that the UHI effect makes no difference to the GISS trend because, since 1992, the GISS trend has been almost identical to the satellite trends you said I was missing the point. I don't get it. You don't seem to be terribly consistent on these things. I happen to agree with John Christy on this, i.e. there is a clear discrepancy but it's effect is not significant on the overall trend. I'm sure the reason for the problem will become clear one day and there's certainly no reason to reject the UAH data. See what I mean about being consistent. I think the same about GISS, Hadley and RSS. None of them are perfect, but none of them are garbage either.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 19, 2009 19:58:05 GMT
1. NCDC and GISS use basically the same data and are therefore almost always close to agreement. 2. There have been many times in the 2002-09 period where HadCRUT and GISS have diverged quite a bit. One of the most notable is 2007. 3. RSS has tracked much closer to UAH than to GISS. And RSS had June as quite cool (like UAH), not quite warm (like GISS). Haven't you seen Tamino's spaghetti graph? They're all in good agreement ;D But since the CO2 AGW story is falling apart before their eyes, the faithful zombies must take their last gasps before giving up the ghost.  |
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Jul 20, 2009 12:54:25 GMT
Still waiting for HadCRU
Has anyone seen the June figure yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 21, 2009 20:07:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Jul 22, 2009 5:54:42 GMT
The first six month HadCRU data is as follows: -
1998 0.62*
1999 0.33
2000 0.30
2001 0.39
2002 0.53*
2003 0.45*
2004 0.46*
2005 0.48*
2006 0.38
2007 0.47*
2008 0.26
2009 0.40*
Hmm! So far 2009 is the 7th. warmest year since records began
This compares with the Met Office prediction "2009 is expected to be one of the top 5 warmest years on record"
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 22, 2009 6:32:45 GMT
Hmm! So far 2009 is the 7th. warmest year since records began This compares with the Met Office prediction "2009 is expected to be one of the top 5 warmest years on record" Yeah but they say EVERY year is supposed to be in the top 5 or 10 warmest. Of course, this is hardly a bold prediction and sounds nothing like most global warming fanatics think. Since we're in the warmest period we have on record and this period is only a decade long, it's essentially saying "We think temperatures will be about what they have been for the last 10 years." Of course, I'm not entirely sure the met office sees that this is the case either  But even temperatures continuing at current levels for a few years would be a huge stumbling block for the "catastrophic" global warming claims being made. Even adjusting the normal warming/cooling cycle so that there's no cooling during this part of the cycle (which, BTW is approximately 2X observed warming)...we won't hit the lower error bars of the last IPCC models. |
|
