2010 Global Temps

[skierinvermont]

This NASA satellite measures land surface temperature. Its faily new (only since 2000), but it seems to be pretty detailed. I'm not very familiar with it admittedly............. so, I could be missing something.

Unlike alot of satellites, it heard rumor that it measures without lag. Either way, I like this one.

Notice how it covers the entire globe

http://earthobservat...?d1=MOD_LSTAD_M

Latest Image (SEP 2010)

Cool.. I wonder if that will become more used as the base period gets longer. It could run into problems though because land use changes show up as temperature changes. Given how fast land use is changing, it probably has a major effect.

Also because it is measuring the temperature of the physical surface (ground, trees, roofs, roads, grass, snow, ice etc.) it's not really measuring temperature. Say that areas that used to have snow and ice no longer have snow and ice... well that could show up as a 5, 10, even 20C temperature change even though the actual air might only warm by 1 or 2C.

[BethesdaWX]

This Satellite doesn't measure actual anomalies, but it gives me confidence that, in the future, we can use satellites full purpose, and get rid of GISS/HADCRUT & the extrapolations.

For now, I guess we have not choice but to use them.

[skierinvermont]

This Satellite doesn't measure actual anomalies, but it gives me confidence that, in the future, we can use satellites full purpose, and get rid of GISS/HADCRUT & the extrapolations.

For now, I guess we have not choice but to use them.

Well like I said I am not sure how much faster the surface air temp is supposed to warm than the LT.. you could look into that. If it is only supposed to be a small difference then we may have to start wondering why the surface is warming more than the LT according to the satellites.

Right now the difference is pretty small and it might be explainable by the fact that the surface is supposed to warm more than the LT.

[LakeEffectKing]

No matter what side of the fence (or on the fence) you are, the differences observed in with the sat's. and GISS (and to a much lesser extent) HadCrut, have nothing to do with the degree to which AGW is or isn't affecting global temps, and is actually quite educational as we go forward as to how poorly all methods of measurement handle to poles.....it's even a wonder as to why we bother trying to measure "global" temps to hundreths or event tenths of a degree, when the margin for error can run several tenths of a degree, all because we use a couple readings over several tens of thousands of square miles....

If HadCrut comes in at .4 or lower, we may need to look deeper into overhauling GISS, or leaving it as a propaganda tool.

[tacoman25]

Take off the glasses.. GISS looks colder in Asia to me. NCEP has a large area of +4C in Asia where GISS is only +2-4. NCEP has all of Greenland way above, mostly +4, GISS has the eastern third below. NCEP also has a little +4 in Africa, where GISS is only 2-4.

Also, GISS uses a 1951-1980 baseline while NCEP is using 1968-1996 which makes the anomalies on GISS larger since 1951-1980 was a cold period.

All areas that appear as white or orange below should appear as the darkest red on GISS. You can see GISS is too cold in northern Alaska, in the Middle East, around the black sea, and in Greenland. The extrapolations across Greenland, northern Canada, and the Arctic Ocean are largely correct and if anything miss some of the warmth in Greenland.

Also I know for a fact that when people have taken ECMWF or NCEP reanalysis data, it corroborates GISS and its extrapolations, regardless of whether or not you think it does for this particular month.

I was talking more about the extent of warmth. GISS shows a greater extent of warmth on almost all the continents.

And you cannot deny that the regions GISS consistently has the warmest/most widespread, unbroken warmth are areas that are sparsely populated. That does not just apply to this month.

[tacoman25]

As for sea ice, I did post some records back to the 1950s over in Eastern Wx...

Yes, but unfortunately those records do not go back the 1930s and 1940s, which we were talking about...

[skierinvermont]

No matter what side of the fence (or on the fence) you are, the differences observed in with the sat's. and GISS (and to a much lesser extent) HadCrut, have nothing to do with the degree to which AGW is or isn't affecting global temps, and is actually quite educational as we go forward as to how poorly all methods of measurement handle to poles.....it's even a wonder as to why we bother trying to measure "global" temps to hundreths or event tenths of a degree, when the margin for error can run several tenths of a degree, all because we use a couple readings over several tens of thousands of square miles....

If HadCrut comes in at .4 or lower, we may need to look deeper into overhauling GISS, or leaving it as a propaganda tool.

Disagree.. the margins of error in neither of them are that high. For long term trends the statistical margin of error is a couple hundredths at most.

And as I explained.. there is good reason why GISS is higher than HadCRUT. HadCRUT is likely too low.

[tacoman25]

Well like I said I am not sure how much faster the surface air temp is supposed to warm than the LT.. you could look into that. If it is only supposed to be a small difference then we may have to start wondering why the surface is warming more than the LT according to the satellites.

Right now the difference is pretty small and it might be explainable by the fact that the surface is supposed to warm more than the LT.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure AGW is not supposed to cause the surface to warm any faster than the lower troposphere.

[skierinvermont]

I was talking more about the extent of warmth. GISS shows a greater extent of warmth on almost all the continents.

And you cannot deny that the regions GISS consistently has the warmest/most widespread, unbroken warmth are areas that are sparsely populated. That does not just apply to this month.

Well I think if you were to take a global anomaly off the NCEP map and off the GISS map, they would be roughly the same. Definitely higher than HadCRUT which has missing warmth across Siberia, northern Canada, and the arctic ocean.

[tacoman25]

The problem I have with GISS is that it consistently shows massive heatwaves covering most of Asia, Africa, and the Arctic...not only is this fairly unrealistic to have such huge anomalies over such large areas on a consistent basis, but these areas also have some of the sparsest/least reliable temperature records on the globe.

[skierinvermont]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure AGW is not supposed to cause the surface to warm any faster than the lower troposphere.

Ok I just checked it and I am an idiot. The opposite is supposed to occur. The LT is supposed to warm 1.2X faster than the surface. (From wikipedia - I don't usually use wiki for climate science but it should do for this).

This means that the LT trend is 66% and 81% of expected for UAH and RSS respectively.

[tacoman25]

Well I think if you were to take a global anomaly off the NCEP map and off the GISS map, they would be roughly the same. Definitely higher than HadCRUT which has missing warmth across Siberia, northern Canada, and the arctic ocean.

I thought HadCRUT wasn't out for November yet? Anyway, when their number does come out, I can guarantee you will see some regions where they both have coverage where GISS is warmer. It's not just the areas HadCRUT doesn't have data for, although it's awfully suspicious that GISS is consistently warm for these areas (where they extrapolate the most - least amout of real data).

[skierinvermont]

The problem I have with GISS is that it consistently shows massive heatwaves covering most of Asia, Africa, and the Arctic...not only is this fairly unrealistic to have such huge anomalies over such large areas on a consistent basis, but these areas also have some of the sparsest/least reliable temperature records on the globe.

You could have a point about Africa.. but there is no doubt Asia and the Arctic have warmed dramatically the last 15 years. It's possible that GISS overestimates this warmth, but clearly not including any of this warmth is more egregious (HadCRUT).

[tacoman25]

Ok I just checked it and I am an idiot. The opposite is supposed to occur. The LT is supposed to warm 1.2X faster than the surface. (From wikipedia - I don't usually use wiki for climate science but it should do for this).

This means that the LT trend is 66% and 81% of expected for UAH and RSS respectively.

Ok yeah, that's what I thought. So if surface sources are showing a warmer trend than the lower troposphere, that doesn't fit theory at all...and has to cast more doubt on the surface trend being due as much to AGW.

[skierinvermont]

I thought HadCRUT wasn't out for November yet? Anyway, when their number does come out, I can guarantee you will see some regions where they both have coverage where GISS is warmer. It's not just the areas HadCRUT doesn't have data for, although it's awfully suspicious that GISS is consistently warm for these areas (where they extrapolate the most - least amout of real data).

If you compare GISS and HadCRUT for the areas they both cover they have the same anomaly. GISS with a HadCRUT mask shows .47 in 2005, vs HadCRUTs .48. GISS is actually .01 cooler for the regions they both cover.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/

[tacoman25]

You could have a point about Africa.. but there is no doubt Asia and the Arctic have warmed dramatically the last 15 years. It's possible that GISS overestimates this warmth, but clearly not including any of this warmth is more egregious (HadCRUT).

I believe that some areas have warmed dramatically...but the extent of these massive anomalies that GISS often shows just seems a little ridiculous. Especially since a lot of it is not supported by full data, just extrapolation. I'm not saying GISS is completely wrong...but to me their methods are not the best.

I actually think it's more accurate to only include areas that have real data, even if you miss out on a few regions of the globe. Or use estimates from actual satellite data for those areas.

[skierinvermont]

Ok yeah, that's what I thought. So if surface sources are showing a warmer trend than the lower troposphere, that doesn't fit theory at all...and has to cast more doubt on the surface trend being due as much to AGW.

Perhaps yes - I'll look into this some more. There's also a large difference between RSS and UAH so you have to wonder how accurate either of them are. Especially considering how dramatically they were revised upwards around 2000.

[BethesdaWX]

Cool.. I wonder if that will become more used as the base period gets longer. It could run into problems though because land use changes show up as temperature changes. Given how fast land use is changing, it probably has a major effect.

Also because it is measuring the temperature of the physical surface (ground, trees, roofs, roads, grass, snow, ice etc.) it's not really measuring temperature. Say that areas that used to have snow and ice no longer have snow and ice... well that could show up as a 5, 10, even 20C temperature change even though the actual air might only warm by 1 or 2C.

Exactly. I don't see it being even considered to measure global surface temps.... its the coverage, and detail of the data that gives me HOPE that one day we'll be able to use satellites.

If we can measure the surface matter now, I feel confident about our potential in the next 20 years to nail this ting down

[LakeEffectKing]

Well I think if you were to take a global anomaly off the NCEP map and off the GISS map, they would be roughly the same. Definitely higher than HadCRUT which has missing warmth across Siberia, northern Canada, and the arctic ocean.

Skier, there is a flaw with GISS, whether intentional or not (as Hansen has the reigns, and has shown that he is NOT to be given unfettered trust) we have a La Nina (which no one argues that it doesn't influence temperatures), generally a flip to the PDO, weak Sun....all which are claimed by everyone to have some negative pressure on global temps. Yet GISS has diverged tremendously from the other sources, for no appearent reason other than poor representation of reality. Maybe someone left some temps from last summer in the database? I don't know, but certainly with the roughly estimated .2C/decade forcing due to AGW, the insane Nov. numbers have nothing to due with CO2, which I know you know, but when it comes time to declare 2010 the hottest year ever, you'll not hear a peep as to what the real reason is......(****ty data collection method)....

[skierinvermont]

I believe that some areas have warmed dramatically...but the extent of these massive anomalies that GISS often shows just seems a little ridiculous. Especially since a lot of it is not supported by full data, just extrapolation. I'm not saying GISS is completely wrong...but to me their methods are not the best.

They may overestimate it slightly I can agree with that.. but I think clearly HadCRUT is too low given it doesn't cover where both reanalysis (NCEP, ECMWF, sea ice decline etc.) and theory say it is warming the most.

[tacoman25]

If you compare GISS and HadCRUT for the areas they both cover they have the same anomaly. GISS with a HadCRUT mask shows .47 in 2005, vs HadCRUTs .48. GISS is actually .01 cooler for the regions they both cover.

http://www.realclima...-by-jim-hansen/

Well, they hadn't diverged as much in 2005. It's been the years since then that we've seen the big divergence in GISS and HadCRUT...look at the numbers.

[BethesdaWX]

Ok I just checked it and I am an idiot. The opposite is supposed to occur. The LT is supposed to warm 1.2X faster than the surface. (From wikipedia - I don't usually use wiki for climate science but it should do for this).

This means that the LT trend is 66% and 81% of expected for UAH and RSS respectively.

LOL yeah I was worried to object to the idea of the Surface warming faster.....at the risk of my Rep & total humiliation on the board. No one would take me seriously anymore

[skierinvermont]

Skier, there is a flaw with GISS, whether intentional or not (as Hansen has the reigns, and has shown that he is NOT to be given unfettered trust) we have a La Nina (which no one argues that it doesn't influence temperatures), generally a flip to the PDO, weak Sun....all which are claimed by everyone to have some negative pressure on global temps. Yet GISS has diverged tremendously from the other sources, for no appearent reason other than poor representation of reality. Maybe someone left some temps from last summer in the database? I don't know, but certainly with the roughly estimated .2C/decade forcing due to AGW, the insane Nov. numbers have nothing to due with CO2, which I know you know, but when it comes time to declare 2010 the hottest year ever, you'll not hear a peep as to what the real reason is......(****ty data collection method)....

GISS is in complete agreement with HadCRUT if you factor in the missing warmth in HadCRUT.

[tacoman25]

GISS is in complete agreement with HadCRUT if you factor in the missing warmth in HadCRUT.

In 2006-10? I doubt it.

[BethesdaWX]

If the Lower troposphere is supposed to warm faster, then why is the GISS absurdly warm?

[skierinvermont]

Well, they hadn't diverged as much in 2005. It's been the years since then that we've seen the big divergence in GISS and HadCRUT.

Well as long as we can agree on the principle that HadCRUT by not covering areas that have warmed the most shows a cool bias and that GISS might show a warm bias then I will leave the exact amount of each bias up to personal interpretation. Actual temperature is probably somewhere between the two.

[skierinvermont]

In 2006-10? I doubt it.

Perhaps not.. but it would bring them much closer

[skierinvermont]

If the Lower troposphere is supposed to warm faster, then why is the GISS absurdly warm?

I'm reading this currently, it might have an answer:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

[skierinvermont]

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

Check out the graph on p.98 for a comparison of warming trends 1979-1999 at different altitudes for models vs observed.

[tacoman25]

http://www.climatesc...final-chap5.pdf

Check out the graph on p.98 for a comparison of warming trends 1979-1999 at different altitudes for models vs observed.

That's interesting...but really disappointing it ends in 1999. Kind of misses the period most in question.