OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded

My impression is that it is:

Not from NASA's GISS, but HadCRUT-3. A derivative thereof, HadCRUT-3v, is good enough for The Register to use to argue against NASA's GISS in The Register's "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article.

Or maybe it was:

Meanwhile, direct link to a graph of global HadCRUT-3v that I obtained from The Register's "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article is:

And as noted, The Register's "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article says that determination from satellite data for great global coverage is "more reliable". They even refer to 2 determinations both in links to text file determination results and both of them in line graph form over a time period selected to support their case against existence of AGW.

One of those is "channel temperature lower troposphere" by RSS. And, with words from the notably conservative Paul Harvey, "For the rest of the story"...

Atmospheric temperature trends, at least specifically by altitude-layer-level-discernably-alone as well as also discerned by both altitude and latitude, maybe even more such as color-coded maps of the globe, from one of the 2 satellite data interpretation sources cited by The Register in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article:

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

I suspect reluctance (that I myself indulge upon) to order web browsers to go into Russia and nearby Eastern Europe with "modern-Mafia" hacking/spyware and lacking-and-or-corrupted law enforcement.

Meanwhile, I do say that global-HadCRUT-3v as well as "lower troposphere determinations from satellite data" by both RSS (RSS/MSU ?) and UAH are good enough for The Register in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

So far in my experience since my parents first became mortgage-paying homeowners around 1968 or maybe late 1967, all the homeowners I ever knew well enough to know mortgage payments and and energy bills thereof paid more for mortgage payments than for energy bills for the home.

Also, it appears to me that in the few to maybe several years ahead of latter half of 2008, "average mortgage payment" was awfully low in comparison to amount borrowed, with awful reliance on home values inflating faster than the incomes of the families residing in a majority of mortgaged homes.

On a longer time horizon, on average value of a homeowner-owned-occupied home has tracked impressively closely with family income to pay for it.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

I've read the register article at last. Seams fair to me.

To summarise: NASA are fudging their data and it is out of line with hadcrut. Hadcrut and the satellite data basically agree.

The satellite data originally did not show global warming. Reasons were found, circa 1998, to increase the satellite readings in line with the ground based measurements. Presumably this explains the close correlation between the two records.

So we have hadcrut which uses measurements of dubious accuracy. These stations have generic "correction" factors applied to the readings. These corrected readings agree with the satellite readings which also have correction factors applied.

So we are ment to have confidence in a global temperature rise which is less than the value of the correction factors?

And the IPCC is non political?

And again you are happy to ignore any report not from someone who agrees with you.

Slowman will burn in Global Warming Hell ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
 The difference between a horse\'s asshole & Bill Sloman\'s mouth?
                            Lipstick!

In article , To-Email- snipped-for-privacy@My-Web-Site.com says...>

His Hell will be coal fired.

But they agree that the world is warming.

The Register tries to make one think otherwise by showing HadCRUT-3v from a moment when that one's figure for 2008 was average-so-far-for-the-year when that-far-into-2008 the year had nothing but a serious La Nina downward spike. And they show graphs of the satellite data limited to roughly a decade period beginning with a serious upward spike and ending with a serious downward one.

(1998 had the greatest El Nino on record, and the end of 2007 and most of the first half of 2008 had the greatest La Nina in 20 years.)

If you want to see RSS/MSU for the whole stretch since that started in

1979, have a look at:

Lower troposphere temperature line graph is the first one after the four color-coded global maps. It comes with a figure of ".157 K/decade".

Can you provide a cite for that?

I remember a graph of satellite determination in an Exxon ad in Time magazine - turns out it gave me good appearance of being for the middle troposphere rather than for the lower troposphere.

1998 was a good year to not need to fudge to show warming.

I would think the correction factors for global from surface stations are mostly downward for recent years.

There was one abruptly applied by NASA's GISS in 2001 (IIRC) - to adjust urban and "peri-urban" stations into trend-agreement with ones that were and remained rural. The wingnuts surely latched onto that one when it changed "contiguous 48" USA's hottest decade from the 1990's to the 1930's.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Smoothed global HadCRUT-3v shows about .65 K warming since the late

1950's. When a trend occupies 90% of an error band and has yet to reverse more than past temporary reversals, it is usually for real.

That does not negate the fact that in the past few decades, nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere rather than adding.

Atmospheric CO2 content has been well-reported from Mauna Loa observatory since the late 1950's. Global combustion of fossil fuels is fairly well known also.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Closest I've found so far:

First heard it on UK TV a few months back in a progamme supporting AGW.

I agree that nature removes CO2 and that CO2 is increasing and that man is responsible for some or all of the increase.

This is not the same as agreeing to AGW. The link between CO2 and the current temperature trend is still open to debate. As is the link between computer models and reality .

And here:

For some time the only available satellite record was the UAH version, which showed cooling globally. A longer data series and several corrections to the UAH method leaves the UAH series showing warming, though less than RSS version.

Guess what - lower troposphere RSS/MSU determination from its beginning in 1979 to 1997, as presented now, is easy to see as lacking a warming trend. It appears to me that they did not have to change their rules of the game by much for any reason.

Meanwhile, their current rules of interpretation apply to all years of the raw data from the satellites.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

And another from 1999

The 20 year satellite record has shown no warming trend until the major warm El Nino event of 1998.

So can we agree there was no warming from 1979 until 1997?

And as Bill likes to tell me 10 years doesn't make a trend. So we can ignore 1999 to date.

Which only leaves an El Nino event in 1998.

End of AGW.

Q.E.D.

That one says early on that most of the CO2-caused warming is not directly from CO2 but from positive feedbacks, and the debate is on extent of the positive feedbacks.

He claims that the strongest feedbacks are clouds and water vapor.

I would consider cloud feedback to be weak - and notably it is argued whether that one is positive or negative.

Meanwhile, that page ignores another positive feedback - surface albedo. That one is so strong that the Milankovitch Cycles are usually presented not as variations in global insolation, but as variations in insolation at a latitude where that feedback is especially present (65 degrees north). The comings and goings of the glaciations of the Ice Ages surely appear to correlate well to the Milankovitch Cycles! (More with one that does affect global insolation, but still somewhat with the latitude-specific cycles.)

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

The atmosphere is obviously running out of CO2, through hundreds of millions of years of sequestration. This trend would eventually kill off most of the plant life on the planet.

Nature in Her infinite wisdom created humans to dig up all that carbon, oxidize it, and move it back into circulation.

John

And come the next major global cooling, possibly within 500 years, and oil has run out we'll need all the greenhouse effect.

As I recently said, it is easy to see lack of a warming trend from

1979 to 1997 even in the current RSS version.

If that 1998 El Nino spike is squashed down to 1999-2000 levels, the

1979-2008 trend shows obvious warming even though the 1979-1997 stretch remains easy to see as lacking warming.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)