|
Post by walterdnes on Apr 2, 2009 2:05:06 GMT
The UAH daily numbers are in for March, 2009. I've run my regressions, and here are my projections... Hadley | GISS | UAH | RSS | 0.325 | 0.38 | 0.144 | 0.110 |
Note that last year, Hadley and GISS went up sharply in March, although UAH and RSS fell. As always, the best correlation with UAH daily temps is UAH monthly temps ( dohhh ). RSS is second best, and Hadley+GISS are so-so.
|
|
mpaul
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by mpaul on Apr 2, 2009 2:14:10 GMT
Walter: if UAH is at .144 C, that is a significant number, in the sense that the present "minicycle" may have peaked. Each month is just so significant to figuring where the trend is going.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 3, 2009 0:23:30 GMT
RSS is out: .172
Cooler than 7 of the past 8 Marches.
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Apr 3, 2009 2:51:18 GMT
Walter: if UAH is at .144 C, that is a significant number, in the sense that the present "minicycle" may have peaked. Each month is just so significant to figuring where the trend is going. Given how much higher UAH was last month than expected, when compared to everybody else, I wonder if it was a one-time anomaly, due to the SSW event (Sudden Stratospheric Warming) we had earlier this winter.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 3, 2009 7:57:40 GMT
Walter: if UAH is at .144 C, that is a significant number, in the sense that the present "minicycle" may have peaked. Each month is just so significant to figuring where the trend is going. If you mean "minicycle" as in, the most common behavior is that every year the anomaly peaks around december/january/february (sometimes a little later) then plunges most of the rest of the year...they yeah. There also seems to be a larger cycle that we should be getting to the end of over the next year (although it's only recent behavior and may just be a fluke). It wouldn't surprise me at all if we had a drop close to (maybe past?) the 2008 drop. This time of course if it's even close to the 2008 drop the press won't feel the need to shrug off global warming. AGW alarmism is a sinking ship. It's already begun. As the whole concept of (significant) AGW because laughable instead of frightening the only sensationalism left will be to tear down the people they've built up. Scientists, no longer fearful of losing their jobs/funding will finally feel free to point out that while they think CO2 MAY be causing some changes it's probably not significant or dangerous. The "consensus" will turn out to have been quite similar to the global cooling consensus. It was very real but much more watered down than the public was lead to believe. Well, I'm hoping it continues that way, at least. I'm so tired of these unfounded, alarmist stories in the media. I'm tired of these idiotic "solutions" to a problem that doesn't exist (CO2 "pollution") which just makes it that much harder to get many nations to fix their ACTUAL problem (actual pollution). It stops people adopting sensible and mature technologies like solar-thermal home/water heating in favor of immature and INSANELY EXPENSIVE technologies like photovoltaics. It also makes people think foisting expensive, renewable energy requirements on developing nations is helping them.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 3, 2009 9:28:07 GMT
If you mean "minicycle" as in, the most common behavior is that every year the anomaly peaks around december/january/february (sometimes a little later) then plunges most of the rest of the year...they yeah. I'm not sure why the anomalies should behave like this. After all Dec/Jan/Feb anomalies are values which are related to 1979-1997 Dec/Jan/Feb averages so it's clear that, if this pattern really exists, it's a recent phenomenon. There was no Jan -> mid year drop last year ... or in 1995 , 1996, 1997 or most of the other years since 1979. It's probably just a coincidence related to 2002-2007 ENSO conditions.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 3, 2009 10:26:12 GMT
If you mean "minicycle" as in, the most common behavior is that every year the anomaly peaks around december/january/february (sometimes a little later) then plunges most of the rest of the year...they yeah. I'm not sure why the anomalies should behave like this. After all Dec/Jan/Feb anomalies are values which are related to 1979-1997 Dec/Jan/Feb averages so it's clear that, if this pattern really exists, it's a recent phenomenon. There was no Jan -> mid year drop last year ... or in 1995 , 1996, 1997 or most of the other years since 1979. It's probably just a coincidence related to 2002-2007 ENSO conditions. Quite possibly...I've mentioned it before and also pointed out that it was a recent behavior. It could be related to solar activity. It could be that this is the natural state of the climate sans perturbations from significant volcanic activity (which, let's face it...has been quite low). It could be a fluke. I just notice it's been doing it quite often lately.
|
|
|
Post by zer0th on Apr 3, 2009 14:22:21 GMT
Very likely a dumb comment, but isn't the southern hemisphere summer closer to the sun than the northern hemisphere's summer? Add a little seasonal lag... wouldn't that suggest a slight boost post December?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 3, 2009 21:52:07 GMT
If you mean "minicycle" as in, the most common behavior is that every year the anomaly peaks around december/january/february (sometimes a little later) then plunges most of the rest of the year...they yeah. I'm not sure why the anomalies should behave like this. After all Dec/Jan/Feb anomalies are values which are related to 1979-1997 Dec/Jan/Feb averages so it's clear that, if this pattern really exists, it's a recent phenomenon. There was no Jan -> mid year drop last year ... or in 1995 , 1996, 1997 or most of the other years since 1979. It's probably just a coincidence related to 2002-2007 ENSO conditions. Perhaps it represents all the freezing thats going on casting heat off into the atmosphere. Haven't had that for awhile. You get those bumps in energy transfer as water goes through its cooling states.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 3, 2009 23:15:06 GMT
Very likely a dumb comment, but isn't the southern hemisphere summer closer to the sun than the northern hemisphere's summer? Add a little seasonal lag... wouldn't that suggest a slight boost post December? The important point here is that we're dealing with anomalies not actual temperatures. You are right about the proximity of the sun in NH winter (SH summer) but that happens every year. It happened throughout the 1970s, 1980s ... and every other decade before and after. Recent higher anomalies in Dec/Jan/Feb suggest that temperatures have increased in those months more than they have in other months in the past few years. I hope this makes sense (as I've just had a few beers). On the subject of NH winter/SH summer and the closeness of the sun. Because of the much larger area of ocean in the SH than the NH, global temperatures in January are lower than those in July.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 4, 2009 11:33:37 GMT
The UAH daily numbers are in for March, 2009. I've run my regressions, and here are my projections... Hadley | GISS | UAH | RSS | 0.325 | 0.38 | 0.144 | 0.110 |
Note that last year, Hadley and GISS went up sharply in March, although UAH and RSS fell. As always, the best correlation with UAH daily temps is UAH monthly temps ( dohhh ). RSS is second best, and Hadley+GISS are so-so. March's UAH number is in: .208
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 4, 2009 19:59:22 GMT
The UAH daily numbers are in for March, 2009. I've run my regressions, and here are my projections... Hadley | GISS | UAH | RSS | 0.325 | 0.38 | 0.144 | 0.110 |
Note that last year, Hadley and GISS went up sharply in March, although UAH and RSS fell. As always, the best correlation with UAH daily temps is UAH monthly temps ( dohhh ). RSS is second best, and Hadley+GISS are so-so. March's UAH number is in: .208 As expected, the weak La Nina lag effect is starting to kick in. Expect the April-June period to be cooler than Jan-Mar was (at least for UAH).
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Apr 5, 2009 1:04:14 GMT
I should give up on this. It's not working. If anything, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS the satellite temps appear to be a trailing indicator behind the Hadley temps.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 5, 2009 10:50:17 GMT
I should give up on this. It's not working. If anything, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS the satellite temps appear to be a trailing indicator behind the Hadley temps Don't give up. You're probably right about the lag, but if you keep running your predictions we might be able to pin it down. Following your Jan predictions (which were pretty good for UAH/RSS) you might remember I suggested the a "disconnect" between surface and satellite was possible. You say "satellite temps appear to be a trailing indicator behind the Hadley temps". This, to me at least, would seem to be perfectly logical since Hadley probably responds first to ENSO fluctuations. Hadley uses a combination of surface thermometer measurements and current SST, so it probably best reflects the current situation, whereas, while the satellite readings (which are measuring the atmosphere) will eventually reflect the change in SST, this may be some time later. GISS is the recent oddball. GISS anomalies (relative to a common base period) are currently lower than the others - much lower in the case of GISS v UAH. This could be related to the Arctic. The very high arctic anomalies seen in recent years have fallen in the past few months. GISS, as many will be aware, uses extrapolation methods to estimate Arctic temperatures. Despite the controversy, I think its possible GISS reflects the global surface temperature better than Hadley. Whatever the case, the fact that GISS anomalies are lower does at least suggest they are consistent. Anyway that's my take on things and I, for one, still find your predictions of interest - regardless of their accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 5, 2009 14:13:16 GMT
I should give up on this. It's not working. If anything, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS the satellite temps appear to be a trailing indicator behind the Hadley temps Don't give up. You're probably right about the lag, but if you keep running your predictions we might be able to pin it down. Following your Jan predictions (which were pretty good for UAH/RSS) you might remember I suggested the a "disconnect" between surface and satellite was possible. You say "satellite temps appear to be a trailing indicator behind the Hadley temps". This, to me at least, would seem to be perfectly logical since Hadley probably responds first to ENSO fluctuations. Hadley uses a combination of surface thermometer measurements and current SST, so it probably best reflects the current situation, whereas, while the satellite readings (which are measuring the atmosphere) will eventually reflect the change in SST, this may be some time later. GISS is the recent oddball. GISS anomalies (relative to a common base period) are currently lower than the others - much lower in the case of GISS v UAH. This could be related to the Arctic. The very high arctic anomalies seen in recent years have fallen in the past few months. GISS, as many will be aware, uses extrapolation methods to estimate Arctic temperatures. Despite the controversy, I think its possible GISS reflects the global surface temperature better than Hadley. Whatever the case, the fact that GISS anomalies are lower does at least suggest they are consistent. Anyway that's my take on things and I, for one, still find your predictions of interest - regardless of their accuracy. We've got a Sunday miracle: I agree with everything glc says! The mere fact that you keep the conversation going is valuable service, Walter. The fact that you are frequently accurate is of note. Harold
|
|