How to Tell It's Summer: NOAA Says Earth's Hotter Than Ever

ECR ^ | 16 Jul 10 | EC

[cogitator]

I didn't put any claims on any of the FR deniers if I won. I said (I believe sometime in 2007) that if a new global surface temperature record was not set in one calendar year between then and 2013 (including 2013), I'd disavow my opinion on anthropogenic global warming in a very satisfying manner for any such denier, particularly those who have discussed the issue with me. Basically, if I lose, I will eat my hat, and my shoe, and some crow -- in a written statement, of course.

The record had to be set for all three "major" indices, which is NOAA, GISS, and the UK Hadley Centre.

I also predicted that the next year with a moderate-to-normal El Nino would set a new global temperature record. And that looks like this year. Now, a new 12-month running mean record has been set, which is sort of like the "Tiger Slam" in golf with respect to my bet (No allusions intended.) A few noted names have already been on record as saying that 2010 will be the hottest year ever, most recently Don Easterling.

But because of the La Nina that is following fast on the heels of the El Nino, I don't think all three indices will make it. I think GISS will. NOAA might. Because of the way the Hadley Centre handles polar data, it might not. Also, the cooling Pacific temperatures are going to drag down the global mean temperature.

So right at this moment, despite the June and July heat, I don't think 2010 will set a new global surface temperature record on all three indices. It'll be close; it may even be statistically insignificant from the hottest year for those indices, which differs (GISS is 2005, NOAA and Hadley are 1998, I believe). But I don't think that officially it'll be #1 for all three.

If I'm right, that still gives me three more years.

The thing is, the tactic of making the skeptical-leaning public believe that all surface station data and compilations are suspect has worked for that sector. Tell that to all the drowning Russians. (And I sure wish that some international funding agency would pay for some lifeguards on bodies of water in Russia. Sheesh.)

[palmer]

Since we would be comparing 1998 and 2010, the best way is satellite (e.g. UAH). The only reason to use the surface record is a longer record, but that’s not the issue at hand here. If you expect to be taken seriously, drop the phony appeals to authority and the lie that the three series are independent. Use the satellite to do the short term comparisons since it samples evenly and more accurately. Otherwise, find a dumber skeptic forum to peddle your stuff.

[palmer]

After Gavin chaffed the Klotzbach paper in his "blog", Klotzbach responded with this: http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/klotzbachetal2010.pdf Was there any response to this correction?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It’s an easy thing to paint the data as suspect, when some thermometers are located near such objects as air conditioning exhaust vents or asphalt parking lots. Has there been any success in relocating some of these thermometers?

[cogitator]

Since we would be comparing 1998 and 2010, the best way is satellite (e.g. UAH). The only reason to use the surface record is a longer record, but that’s not the issue at hand here. If you expect to be taken seriously, drop the phony appeals to authority and the lie that the three series are independent. Use the satellite to do the short term comparisons since it samples evenly and more accurately.

As we've discussed, because the surface trend was/is about 0.2 C/decade, I based my "bet" on the surface trend. There's a finite number of weather stations, so pretty obviously the raw data is probably shared. As far as I know, the data is processed independently (which is why there are differences in the results). The three groups cited are the ones that produced a global surface temperature record.

As noted, the satellite data is imperfect with known uncertainties in the tropical troposphere. So I don't view it as the final court of appeal.

Otherwise, find a dumber skeptic forum to peddle your stuff.

Shirley you can't be Sirius.

[cogitator]

It’s an easy thing to paint the data as suspect, when some thermometers are located near such objects as air conditioning exhaust vents or asphalt parking lots. Has there been any success in relocating some of these thermometers?

I have an 11 MB file for you, since you're always so polite and interested. Answers a lot of questions (for me too). What you should examine is the Climate Reference Network (CRN).

Here's the large file (it's a PDF):

NOAA's Temperature Records: A Foundation for Understanding Global Warming

[palmer]

As noted, the satellite data is imperfect with known uncertainties in the tropical troposphere. So I don't view it as the final court of appeal.

And do those uncertainties affect the trend or just the absolute value? Remember all we need to do is compare to 1998, nothing fancy.

[cogitator]

And do those uncertainties affect the trend or just the absolute value?

Not a simple question to answer. Let me take a look.

[palmer]

As noted, the satellite data is imperfect with known uncertainties in the tropical troposphere. So I don't view it as the final court of appeal.

Not uncertainties, but fairly well understood cloud effects that exaggerate the warming from El Ninos. So your argument against using UAH is that the 98 El Nino shows up as an enlarged spike on UAH which is yet to be equaled. But not using satellite means we are forced to accept much more uncertainty (e.g. inaccurate or unknown station metadata).

[cogitator]

sorry for the delay, will reply soon