|
Post by socold on Sept 9, 2008 23:17:01 GMT
These are the satellite temps which are raw temps (eg not smoothed) UAH 2008 1 -0.046 2008 2 0.020 2008 3 0.094 2008 4 0.015 2008 5 -0.180 2008 6 -0.114 2008 7 0.048 2008 8 -0.010 They aren't raw data, the data gets run through an algorithm just like the surface data does. They're adjusted for satellite drift and have to be adjusted to remove the influence of some parts of the atmosphere,. Additionally the satellites are measuring the entire lower troposphere, not the surface so they are not measuring the same thing. The global RSS satellite record has the following anomolies: 2008 1 -0.070 2008 2 -0.002 2008 3 0.079 2008 4 0.080 2008 5 -0.082 2008 6 0.035 2008 7 0.147 2008 8 0.146 Most of the models forcast neutral: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure5.gif
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Sept 10, 2008 2:53:28 GMT
Point is satellite temps are more accurate than surface temps
yep checking different models they are starting to predict neutral which is curious in a rapidly rising SOI
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Sept 10, 2008 3:25:19 GMT
Well, "when in Rome... " If you wanna' compare apples to apples, then use the favored metric of the group you're in, instead of using whichever one suits your current agenda best. After all, are you really looking for truth or do you just want to subborn everyone else to what you believe to be truth?
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Sept 10, 2008 4:08:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Sept 10, 2008 4:59:42 GMT
I was actually sorta' speaking directly to: NCDC Southern Hemisphere monthly anomolies: Jan 2008: +0.28°C Feb 2008: +0.33°C Mar 2008: +0.32°C Apr 2008: +0.29°C May 2008: +0.35°C Jun 2008: +0.35°C Jul 2008: +0.43°C For my part, since we on this forum generally go with the RSS-UAH-GISSTEMP-HadCRUT metrics, it's just best to stay with them instead of bringing another one into the mix with an even larger offset from its respective mean to try and wow the crowd, which sure as h*ll isn't going to work around here anyway.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 10, 2008 8:32:36 GMT
One point: The Global temperature anomalies could be showing higher temperatures even when its COLDER (sometimes) If daily temperatures are not as warm, and the evenings not as cold, the mean might well be higher when its colder. Its fun to play with this site: Melbourne Climate stats: www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/The data implies both GreenHouse Effect (fewer extremes) but colder. It hasn't been as hot (highest temperatures recorded against Mean of all data on record (I believe) but close to 1971-2000 30 yr baseline. But it also hasn't been as cold: But the warmest night hasn't been as warm: So everyone is right! Its warmer !! Its Colder!!
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Sept 10, 2008 13:58:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 10, 2008 15:34:42 GMT
I got a question. First a bit of background for the question. I assume that these temps are taken twice a day and averaged. I hope that's a good assumption.
The reason I ask is some government report said that the Northeast US was well above average temps for July and/or August, but living here, everyone was saying how cool it was this summer. Wet and rainy. We didn't have but a couple of days hit 90F all summer.
The only explanation I can come up with (other than outright fraud) is that it was much warmer overnight due to all of the cloud cover, so the mean temp for the day is much warmer.
So (drum roll, please) here's the question: if it is cloudy and rainy for a 24 hour period vs sunny and clear at night, how do you compare the numbers? Is there much more ambient heat energy in one case vs. another? Can a computer model take cloud cover and rain and humidity into account, and do they? Is it well understood?
Or is all of this assumed to be noise that is averaged out over the whole system? What if the whole system is rainier? Does rain transfer heat to the lower atmosphere or vice versa? Does this affect these "surface temps"?
OK, it was more than one question.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 10, 2008 15:43:13 GMT
I got a question. First a bit of background for the question. I assume that these temps are taken twice a day and averaged. I hope that's a good assumption. The reason I ask is some government report said that the Northeast US was well above average temps for July and/or August, but living here, everyone was saying how cool it was this summer. Wet and rainy. We didn't have but a couple of days hit 90F all summer. The only explanation I can come up with (other than outright fraud) is that it was much warmer overnight due to all of the cloud cover, so the mean temp for the day is much warmer. So (drum roll, please) here's the question: if it is cloudy and rainy for a 24 hour period vs sunny and clear at night, how do you compare the numbers? Is there much more ambient heat energy in one case vs. another? Can a computer model take cloud cover and rain and humidity into account, and do they? Is it well understood? Or is all of this assumed to be noise that is averaged out over the whole system? What if the whole system is rainier? Does rain transfer heat to the lower atmosphere or vice versa? Does this affect these "surface temps"? OK, it was more than one question. Simple, First choose the case you want to make. Second choose the figures that support your case Third publish the figures as the unmassaged true figures In reality this is a difficult question and there are those who state that talking about 'global temperature' is meaningless for the same reason.
|
|
|
Post by rocketsci on Sept 10, 2008 15:54:21 GMT
Thanks, kiwi - I was thinking about the anomoly data this morning while driving to work, and I came to a similar conclusion (deviation of the mean is still positive, but the deviation of the max is negative). I was going to crunch some data, but you beat me to it! One point: The Global temperature anomalies could be showing higher temperatures even when its COLDER (sometimes) If daily temperatures are not as warm, and the evenings not as cold, the mean might well be higher when its colder. Its fun to play with this site: Melbourne Climate stats: www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/avThe data implies both GreenHouse Effect (fewer extremes) but colder. It hasn't been as hot (highest temperatures recorded against Mean of all data on record (I believe) but close to 1971-2000 30 yr baseline. But it also hasn't been as cold: But the warmest night hasn't been as warm: So everyone is right! Its warmer !! Its Colder!!
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Sept 10, 2008 23:54:00 GMT
I think there should be a law that raw climate figures are published by one agency and predictions done by another. At the moment its too easy for them to fiddle figures to suit agendas and climate models have become too much of a reason not to think.
Looks like we may be getting some warmth here - finally - and its really wanted - its been April since we've had a decent warm day so a very long time between drinks.
............................................................................................
Spring warmth for the weekend Sam Terry, Wednesday September 10, 2008 - 17:37 EST
It's looking to be a quite a warm end to the week, with Spring-like temperatures across southern and eastern Australia.
Most of the eastern states fell below the September average for maximums today, with Sydney only reaching 17 degrees, three below average. Elsewhere in NSW, towns topped at up to seven below average. In QLD it was similar, with some places even staying five below average.
Tomorrow will be slightly warmer, but only just, as dry air and cool winds persist.
However, on Friday, a trough approaching from the west will force warm air from the interior across NSW, VIC and QLD, causing temperatures to reach up to 6 above average.
For Friday and Saturday, Sydney is forecast to reach 24, which would be the city's warmest day since April. Hopefully this is the precursor to a pleasant Spring.
- Weatherzone
© Weatherzone 2008
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 11, 2008 1:03:31 GMT
I was actually sorta' speaking directly to: NCDC Southern Hemisphere monthly anomolies: Jan 2008: +0.28°C Feb 2008: +0.33°C Mar 2008: +0.32°C Apr 2008: +0.29°C May 2008: +0.35°C Jun 2008: +0.35°C Jul 2008: +0.43°C For my part, since we on this forum generally go with the RSS-UAH-GISSTEMP-HadCRUT metrics, it's just best to stay with them instead of bringing another one into the mix with an even larger offset from its respective mean to try and wow the crowd, which sure as h*ll isn't going to work around here anyway. It's always puzzled me why the NCDC surface record is often left out and only the 4 you mention above are talked about. This goes for various sites all over the internet. I must have missed some reason for this. I couldn't find montly southern hemisphere temp anomolies on the GISTEMP site. The HadCRUT ones are here for completeness: Jan 2008: +0.057°C Feb 2008: +0.070°C Mar 2008: +0.131°C Apr 2008: +0.118°C May 2008: +0.156°C Jun 2008: +0.136°C Jul 2008: +0.252°C
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 11, 2008 1:07:55 GMT
truth otherwise Id go along the AGW bandwagon and you? For the record surface temps have been shown to be inaccurate www.surfacestations.org/whereas satellite temps as I understand it are less biased There's no reason to believe that though. Someone could create a website called www.satellitetemps.org in a similar vein to surfacestations.org, it would mean nothing. The two satellite records actually disagree more between each other than the surface records do, so I don't see how they can be described as "more accurate". They aren't even measuring the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 11, 2008 1:33:19 GMT
truth otherwise Id go along the AGW bandwagon and you? For the record surface temps have been shown to be inaccurate www.surfacestations.org/whereas satellite temps as I understand it are less biased There's no reason to believe that though. Someone could create a website called www.satellitetemps.org in a similar vein to surfacestations.org, it would mean nothing. The two satellite records actually disagree more between each other than the surface records do, so I don't see how they can be described as "more accurate". They aren't even measuring the same thing. Satellite measurements are taken as more accurate as they take the temperatures from wide areas of the planet and, tend not to be affected by the UHI and the associated clever 'correction' algorithms to make up for no mis-sited antique thermometers inside 500 miles.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Sept 11, 2008 6:20:43 GMT
truth otherwise Id go along the AGW bandwagon and you? For the record surface temps have been shown to be inaccurate www.surfacestations.org/whereas satellite temps as I understand it are less biased There's no reason to believe that though. Someone could create a website called www.satellitetemps.org in a similar vein to surfacestations.org, it would mean nothing. The two satellite records actually disagree more between each other than the surface records do, so I don't see how they can be described as "more accurate". They aren't even measuring the same thing. Go to the site surfacestations and take an educated look. Weather stations around America are hilarious - sited in car parks, next to AC units, on roofs, next to fireplaces etc - somehow I dont get the feeling satellite temps have the same issue. Spring lambs dying from drought, cold www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/10/2360882.htmA great many lambs have also perished in the cold. I know of one property where they lost about 400 of them, even though they had them in shelter zones and things like that." Mt Hutt Hits 3 Metre Mark; Turoa Sits On Over 4 www.onthesnow.com/news/a/3230/mt-hutt-hits-3-metre-mark-turoa-sits-on-over-4The New Zealand Canterbury Ranges have had a record season this winter, and they are not alone. The North Island's Turoa ski field on Mt. Ruapehu is experiencing a four and a half metre base with more snow forecast this week. New snow boosts Mt Hutt base www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz/index.asp?articleid=12011Mt Hutt was closed four days this week, frustrating Methven tourists and putting paid to school ski trips. However, there has been a pay-off in the form of yet another huge snowfall, which will please weekend powder-hounds and more than adequately set the skifield up for spring. The ski area has received over 65 centimetres of new snow in the past two days, taking its base to a phenomenol 3.2 metres
|
|