|
Post by bsattu on Oct 7, 2009 18:17:56 GMT
if its warmer, why am i having to have a blanket on in what is usually in the 80's. we have had more record low highs here in austin. Oh, wait its all the cloud cover and rain, that does seem to cool the surface temps.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 7, 2009 19:21:02 GMT
It does appear from the cdc reference that the warm areas seem to have an inverse correlation with the number of temperature sensors, is this a regular occurrence?
The satellite anomaly plots agree quite closely with the surface plots.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 7, 2009 22:53:51 GMT
It does appear from the cdc reference that the warm areas seem to have an inverse correlation with the number of temperature sensors, is this a regular occurrence? The satellite anomaly plots agree quite closely with the surface plots. Yep, spot on....
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 8, 2009 2:07:26 GMT
It does appear from the cdc reference that the warm areas seem to have an inverse correlation with the number of temperature sensors, is this a regular occurrence? The satellite anomaly plots agree quite closely with the surface plots. Yep, spot on.... What is the source of the graph? IT appears there is a huge divergence problem here.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 8, 2009 2:32:06 GMT
Yep, spot on.... What is the source of the graph? IT appears there is a huge divergence problem here. IT appears there is a huge divergence problem here. Ya think? I made the graph a while back.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 8, 2009 9:24:39 GMT
It just gets worse.....
First of all, I wrote (Yesterday at 2:21pm) "The satellite anomaly plots agree quite closely with the surface plots." Yesterday at 5:53pm, magellan responded :
"Yep, spot on...."
which was accompanied by a plot of RSS, UAH and GISS trends since 2003. Sigurdur then chipped in with this
"What is the source of the graph? IT appears there is a huge divergence problem here."
Ok -then
1. I was referring to the plots which indicate warm/cold regions in a given month/week as should have been obvious from my earlier exchange with Nautonnier.
2. There is actually no significant difference in the trends in the 'magellan' plot. The linear trends are -0.0007, -0.0022, -0.0029 for GISS, UAH, RSS respectively. However there are no error bars plotted . If there were I'm confident there would be a significant overlap with such noisy data over such a short period of time.
3. Magellan (or whoever) has chosen to end the plot where it produces the maximum discrepancy. It looks to end in June - at a time when the surface temperatures had already responded to the warmer SST while the satellite were still showing a falling trend due to the lag in the troposphere, a phenomenon that was discussed on this blog by socold and myself.
4. Why isn't Hadley included. This will show a similar trend to UAH over the same period. The reason Hadley and GISS disagree is almost certainly due to the Arctic. The same goes for GISS and the satellites. We cannot deny the arctic has been much warmer than average recently.
Note that the July and Sept satellite anomalies are ~0.4 deg higher than the June anomaly. There is ~20% change in the UAH/RSS trend since 2003 if the last 3 months are included.
There is a lot of this going on, i.e. '2003' seems to be the new '1998'. However the end points of the plots are carefully selected. I've seen some plots which end in Jan 2008.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 8, 2009 16:31:11 GMT
It just gets worse..... First of all, I wrote (Yesterday at 2:21pm) "The satellite anomaly plots agree quite closely with the surface plots." Yesterday at 5:53pm, magellan responded : "Yep, spot on...."which was accompanied by a plot of RSS, UAH and GISS trends since 2003. Sigurdur then chipped in with this "What is the source of the graph? IT appears there is a huge divergence problem here." Ok -then 1. I was referring to the plots which indicate warm/cold regions in a given month/week as should have been obvious from my earlier exchange with Nautonnier. 2. There is actually no significant difference in the trends in the 'magellan' plot. The linear trends are -0.0007, -0.0022, -0.0029 for GISS, UAH, RSS respectively. However there are no error bars plotted . If there were I'm confident there would be a significant overlap with such noisy data over such a short period of time. 3. Magellan (or whoever) has chosen to end the plot where it produces the maximum discrepancy. It looks to end in June - at a time when the surface temperatures had already responded to the warmer SST while the satellite were still showing a falling trend due to the lag in the troposphere, a phenomenon that was discussed on this blog by socold and myself. 4. Why isn't Hadley included. This will show a similar trend to UAH over the same period. The reason Hadley and GISS disagree is almost certainly due to the Arctic. The same goes for GISS and the satellites. We cannot deny the arctic has been much warmer than average recently. Note that the July and Sept satellite anomalies are ~0.4 deg higher than the June anomaly. There is ~20% change in the UAH/RSS trend since 2003 if the last 3 months are included. There is a lot of this going on, i.e. '2003' seems to be the new '1998'. However the end points of the plots are carefully selected. I've seen some plots which end in Jan 2008. All that for making the incorrect statement: The satellite anomaly plots agree quite closely with the surface plots. Here are the plots updated through August 2009: Why is the surface warming faster than the atmosphere? CO2?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 8, 2009 18:59:15 GMT
Here are the plots updated through August 2009:
The Hadley-UAH plot is drivel. Where did you get it?
Why is the surface warming faster than the atmosphere? CO2?
It's clearly not - as your first plot shows. The second plot is complete garbage and I suspect has not had the baseline adjusted. Tell me where you got it from and I'll check it out.
You can see the the second plot is wrong from the Feb 2009 data point.
The Hadley anomaly was +0.36. The UAH anomaly was +0.35 So Hadley - UAH = 0.01
This looks about right on the plot, but the plot claims the baseline has been adjusted. It can't be.
The Hadley anomaly is relative to the 1961-1990 baseline period while the UAH anomaly is relative to 1979-1998 period. There is almost certainly ~0.2 deg difference in the Feb base periods, so the anomaly difference should be ~-0.19.
In other words, relative to the same base period (1979-1998) the Hadley Feb 2009 anomaly was ~0.19 deg cooler than the UAH Feb 2009 anomaly.
This could be a case of someone not understanding anomalies. On the other hand it could be a deliberate attempt to mislead.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 9, 2009 1:58:38 GMT
Early signs of winter to .02 degrees? How about snow pellets around Denver on Saturday and Snow in Great Falls Montana tomorrow. Chilly here Playa Del Rey about 10 degrees under normal at mid 60s.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 9, 2009 2:16:17 GMT
Here are the plots updated through August 2009:The Hadley-UAH plot is drivel. Where did you get it? Why is the surface warming faster than the atmosphere? CO2?It's clearly not - as your first plot shows. The second plot is complete garbage and I suspect has not had the baseline adjusted. Tell me where you got it from and I'll check it out. You can see the the second plot is wrong from the Feb 2009 data point. The Hadley anomaly was +0.36. The UAH anomaly was +0.35 So Hadley - UAH = 0.01 This looks about right on the plot, but the plot claims the baseline has been adjusted. It can't be. The Hadley anomaly is relative to the 1961-1990 baseline period while the UAH anomaly is relative to 1979-1998 period. There is almost certainly ~0.2 deg difference in the Feb base periods, so the anomaly difference should be ~-0.19. In other words, relative to the same base period (1979-1998) the Hadley Feb 2009 anomaly was ~0.19 deg cooler than the UAH Feb 2009 anomaly. This could be a case of someone not understanding anomalies. On the other hand it could be a deliberate attempt to mislead. Note on the anomaly chart 'Adjusted for baseline'. Also note it says 'absolute values', so don't get confused and think the graphs are incorrect. You say Feb 2009 has .01 difference between HadCRUT and UAH, right? I won't say how silly it is to cherry pick a month like that to assume the rest is wrong Feb 2009 (baseline adjustment) HadCRUT = .36 - .146 = .214 UAH = .35 .35 - .214 = .136 or alternately .214 - .35 = -.136, but recall I'm using absolute values. But if you insist, let's make Feb 2009 "spot on" (no baseline adjustment).....that should take care of the drivel This could be a case of someone not understanding anomalies. On the other hand it could be a deliberate attempt to mislead. Really? Look familiar? Oh, but the trend! The trend! www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-.146/plot/uah/from:1998
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 9, 2009 2:28:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 9, 2009 7:54:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Oct 10, 2009 0:39:39 GMT
ugh, I guess it's just local. 17 F in Casper. I'm sure glad there is global warming, it could get real cold. I wonder what the rest of Canada looks like in October. And light snow in Denver tomorrow for the ball game.
|
|
|
Post by youngmg on Oct 10, 2009 1:39:36 GMT
ugh, I guess it's just local. 17 F in Casper. I'm sure glad there is global warming, it could get real cold. I wonder what the rest of Canada looks like in October. And light snow in Denver tomorrow for the ball game. Predicted temperature for first pitch at 7:37 MDT is expected to be 29F and dropping into the low to mid 20's by the end of the game. These are temperatures better suited for a Denver Broncos football game in January. If indeed it is this cold for the game this has to be some sort of record for coldest conditions ever for an MLB game.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 10, 2009 15:35:44 GMT
|
|