Comments for Deep Climate http://deepclimate.org Exploring climate science disinformation in Canada Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:11:38 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on A first look at UAH 5.3 by Neven http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/#comment-2755 Neven Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:11:38 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1683#comment-2755 Talking about warming: I'm a little bit amazed at how the 2010 anomaly trend at the daily UAH global temperature trend website keeps cruising in 20 year record territory. I wonder when it will go down again. No active sun, a negative PDO (correct me if I'm wrong) and an El Niño that is considerably weaker than the Super El Niño of 1998, and still (near-)record warmth, globally speaking. How can that be? ;-) <em>[<strong>DC:</strong> And given the six-month lag in El Nino effect on global temperature, we still haven't seen the peak, even if it is fairly weak. Yet it does look as if 2010 will be #2 or even #1 in some data sets. I couldn't repair the link because I didn't see the URL target. ]</em> Talking about warming: I’m a little bit amazed at how the 2010 anomaly trend at the daily UAH global temperature trend website keeps cruising in 20 year record territory. I wonder when it will go down again.

No active sun, a negative PDO (correct me if I’m wrong) and an El Niño that is considerably weaker than the Super El Niño of 1998, and still (near-)record warmth, globally speaking. How can that be? ;-)

[DC: And given the six-month lag in El Nino effect on global temperature, we still haven't seen the peak, even if it is fairly weak. Yet it does look as if 2010 will be #2 or even #1 in some data sets.

I couldn't repair the link because I didn't see the URL target. ]

]]> Comment on A first look at UAH 5.3 by crandles http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/#comment-2647 crandles Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:55:16 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1683#comment-2647 >"Also note that there are probably multiple components to the seasonal cycle, some spurious and some "real"." I would assume that at the start of a GHG induced warming you would expect the highest trend in Sep-Nov. Presumably this would lessen as the GHG induced warming became more mature? <em> [<strong>DC:</strong> I think warming was expected to be greatest in NH Winter (i.e. Dec-Feb.). However the UAH cycle was extreme and even showed up in zones where it didn't make sense (i.e. tropics and SH). Recently, Sep-Oct-Nov seems to have come to the fore, as I pointed out a while back in regard to NASA GISTemp (see first chart above). This appears related to rapid warming in the Arctic in those months. See this <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/seasons/" rel="nofollow">post by Tamino which was largely inspired by my previous comments</a>. ]</em> >”Also note that there are probably multiple components to the seasonal cycle, some spurious and some “real”.”

I would assume that at the start of a GHG induced warming you would expect the highest trend in Sep-Nov. Presumably this would lessen as the GHG induced warming became more mature?

[DC: I think warming was expected to be greatest in NH Winter (i.e. Dec-Feb.). However the UAH cycle was extreme and even showed up in zones where it didn't make sense (i.e. tropics and SH).

Recently, Sep-Oct-Nov seems to have come to the fore, as I pointed out a while back in regard to NASA GISTemp (see first chart above). This appears related to rapid warming in the Arctic in those months. See this post by Tamino which was largely inspired by my previous comments. ]

]]> Comment on Open Thread # 2 by J Bowers http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/open-thread-2/#comment-2646 J Bowers Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:58:25 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1675#comment-2646 I can't recall Phil Jones applying for any patents. Many thanks, Rob. I think politicos and lobbyists need to warn scientists up to ten years in advance of any likelihood that they may cast an <i>"Eye of Sauron"</i> over their particular establishment, just in case they need to be implicated for any future manufactroversies. They could even make a model and offer the code to scientists so they can judge how long they should keep data for; a <i>'Moranometer'</i>. I can’t recall Phil Jones applying for any patents. Many thanks, Rob. I think politicos and lobbyists need to warn scientists up to ten years in advance of any likelihood that they may cast an “Eye of Sauron” over their particular establishment, just in case they need to be implicated for any future manufactroversies. They could even make a model and offer the code to scientists so they can judge how long they should keep data for; a ‘Moranometer’.

]]> Comment on A first look at UAH 5.3 by MapleLeaf http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/#comment-2645 MapleLeaf Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:21:14 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1683#comment-2645 DC, thanks for clarifying your role in this, as well as shedding some light on the history of the UAH data. DC, thanks for clarifying your role in this, as well as shedding some light on the history of the UAH data.

]]> Comment on A first look at UAH 5.3 by Deep Climate http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/#comment-2644 Deep Climate Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:34:06 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1683#comment-2644 Using the simple regression model (which is probably not far off since there are only 30 data points), these monthly trends have 95% confidence interval of +-0.07 or 0.08C per decade. So when the spread gets up to 0.14C, as in UAH 5.2, the peak and trough trends are well outside each other's confidence intervals. Using the simple regression model (which is probably not far off since there are only 30 data points), these monthly trends have 95% confidence interval of +-0.07 or 0.08C per decade. So when the spread gets up to 0.14C, as in UAH 5.2, the peak and trough trends are well outside each other’s confidence intervals.

]]> Comment on A first look at UAH 5.3 by Deep Climate http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/#comment-2643 Deep Climate Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:46:22 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1683#comment-2643 Concerning your first point, it would be interesting to compare the standard error of the monthly trends to a measure of the spread of those trends. Or else pairwise correlations between the monthly series within each data set. I'm open to suggestion on that. Concerning your first point, it would be interesting to compare the standard error of the monthly trends to a measure of the spread of those trends. Or else pairwise correlations between the monthly series within each data set. I’m open to suggestion on that.

]]> Comment on Open Thread # 2 by dhogaza http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/open-thread-2/#comment-2642 dhogaza Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:29:56 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1675#comment-2642 <blockquote>What exactly is causing the annual absolute temperature cycle that can be seen in the UAH daily (absolute) temperatures (ch05 20-year average about -21.3 Jan => -19,5 July)?</blockquote> Apparently it's something to do with differences in how the newer AMSU sensors work vs. the older MSU ones. They remove the average seasonal cycle, according to John Christy. He doesn't say how in his brief explanation but I'm sure it's in the published paper trail of their work. Now they were using the average seasonal cycle data they'd constructed for the old MSU sensors to adjust the AMSU data. It appears that differences in the way the sensors work, then, caused that seasonal adjustment to work poorly for the AMSU data. Now, they say, they've "limited the influence", presumably by calculating a new average seasonal cycle, possibly using AMSU data, but I'm just guessing at this point. They'll probably put out something more detailed and technical at some point. <em> [<strong>DC: </strong>There is a longer explanation which is not in the public domain as far as I know, but can be obtained by emailing John Christy, if I recall correctly. Anyway, from reading all the publicly available commentary, it seems that the issue is intersatellite calibration. Each satellite sensor has its own annual cycle in its response which is presumably evident as a difference in response over the time of overlap between two units. Over time the adjustment calibration from previous to succeeding satellite has introduced an ever-widening and spurious annual cycle. So Christy and Spencer "start over" with the AMSUs. To me the need for this ad hoc adjustment points out the difficulties inherent in the satellite record in general. I'm also not sure why this annual cycle issue seems more problematic in UAH than RSS, even after the latest adjustment. ]</em>

What exactly is causing the annual absolute temperature cycle that can be seen in the UAH daily (absolute) temperatures (ch05 20-year average about -21.3 Jan => -19,5 July)?

Apparently it’s something to do with differences in how the newer AMSU sensors work vs. the older MSU ones.

They remove the average seasonal cycle, according to John Christy. He doesn’t say how in his brief explanation but I’m sure it’s in the published paper trail of their work.

Now they were using the average seasonal cycle data they’d constructed for the old MSU sensors to adjust the AMSU data. It appears that differences in the way the sensors work, then, caused that seasonal adjustment to work poorly for the AMSU data.

Now, they say, they’ve “limited the influence”, presumably by calculating a new average seasonal cycle, possibly using AMSU data, but I’m just guessing at this point.

They’ll probably put out something more detailed and technical at some point.

[DC: There is a longer explanation which is not in the public domain as far as I know, but can be obtained by emailing John Christy, if I recall correctly.

Anyway, from reading all the publicly available commentary, it seems that the issue is intersatellite calibration. Each satellite sensor has its own annual cycle in its response which is presumably evident as a difference in response over the time of overlap between two units. Over time the adjustment calibration from previous to succeeding satellite has introduced an ever-widening and spurious annual cycle.

So Christy and Spencer "start over" with the AMSUs. To me the need for this ad hoc adjustment points out the difficulties inherent in the satellite record in general. I'm also not sure why this annual cycle issue seems more problematic in UAH than RSS, even after the latest adjustment. ]

]]> Comment on A first look at UAH 5.3 by geo http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/#comment-2641 geo Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:58:38 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1683#comment-2641 It's also worth noting that Christy didn't actually credit Watts for finding it (nor suggest that Watts was trying to take credit for it). . . just for notifying him that there had been "some discussions" on the web about it. It’s also worth noting that Christy didn’t actually credit Watts for finding it (nor suggest that Watts was trying to take credit for it). . . just for notifying him that there had been “some discussions” on the web about it.

]]> Comment on A first look at UAH 5.3 by carrot eater http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/#comment-2640 carrot eater Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:39:21 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1683#comment-2640 The seasonal variability is reduced; can we get a metric of how much? Maybe the standard deviation of the monthly trends, compared to RSS? The Watts post was just weird because it was comparing anomaly magnitudes straight-up, without correcting for the difference in baselines between UAH and GISS. A recurring issue over there, it seems. <em>[<strong>DC:</strong> Yep. The classic is the anomaly histogram "analysis" that Watts did back in 2008. The actual difference between GISS and UAH in June 2009 was reduced considerably, once you use the same baseline, and remove the UAH annual cycle. ]</em> The seasonal variability is reduced; can we get a metric of how much? Maybe the standard deviation of the monthly trends, compared to RSS?

The Watts post was just weird because it was comparing anomaly magnitudes straight-up, without correcting for the difference in baselines between UAH and GISS. A recurring issue over there, it seems.

[DC: Yep. The classic is the anomaly histogram "analysis" that Watts did back in 2008. The actual difference between GISS and UAH in June 2009 was reduced considerably, once you use the same baseline, and remove the UAH annual cycle. ]

]]> Comment on Open Thread # 2 by Rob http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/open-thread-2/#comment-2639 Rob Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:33:12 +0000 http://deepclimate.org/?p=1675#comment-2639 @J Bowers Our policy states five (5) years on data, twenty (20) years for data that has resulted in a patent, and seven (7) years for data that has led to charges of research misconduct. For students, the data must be kept until the student graduates. This policy follows federal guidelines/laws. @J Bowers

Our policy states five (5) years on data, twenty (20) years for data that has resulted in a patent, and seven (7) years for data that has led to charges of research misconduct. For students, the data must be kept until the student graduates.

This policy follows federal guidelines/laws.

]]>