Giss for August .61(fourth)

[ScienceRocks]

.61 was fourth for August and the June, July, August period was third.


this is for the three month period
1998 .67, 2009 .61, 2011 .57, 2005 .57

Uah shown 3rd for August.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

I expect the Sept, Oct, Nov to back off as we're now within yet another nina. Of course it should, but I won't know one way or the other if it doesn't the reason until 2015 at least.

my god look how warm antarctica is.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is giss data for each three month period up to this point of each year

1995 46, 29, 41
1996 31, 25, 32
1997 28, 35, 37
1998 62, 58, 67=.62333 (fourth)(Super nino)
1999 49, 22, 30=.33666(Nina)
2000 33, 42, 36=.37(Nina)
2001 33, 48, 47=.4266(Nina)
2002 64, 66, 59=.63 (third)
2003 51, 51, 50=.5066 (eighth)
2004 62, 48, 31=.47
2005 59, 62, 57=.5933 (fifth)
2006 56, 46, 54=.52 (seventh) (Nino)
2007 74, 65, 54=.64333 (second)
2008 28, 50, 40=.39333 (Super nina)
2009 49, 50, 61=.53333 (sixth) (neutral, but with nina atmosphere for the first half)
2010 68, 75, 53=.6533 (first) (borderline nina)
2011 43, 51, 57=.5033 (ninth)(Super nina)

By looking at this you can tell that the 2008 nina knocked 2007 in the last part of the year down a shit load...2009 really was still under the monster.

For the first 3/4th of the year...We're 9th for the year within a very cold nina year as we go into the 4th. There is no way 2012 gets away with no effect of this nina and in fact I believe if it follows the models that 2012 could start out a nina year its self. There is 3-4 month lag within the effects of a enso event.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is for 1979-2010 like UAH, which had .33 for August. UAH IS HOTTER in the 1979-2010.

Giss is .30 compared to UAH of .33

The eastern Pacific is colder then hell!

But here is 2010 in August for GISS compared to 0.44 for UAH

April 2010 for giss compared to 0.40 for UAh

The giss is constantly cooler on the same baseline then UAH.

 

[westwall]

.61 was fourth for August and the June, July, August period was third.


this is for the three month period
1998 .67, 2009 .61, 2011 .57, 2005 .57

Uah shown 3rd for August.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

I expect the Sept, Oct, Nov to back off as we're now within yet another nina. Of course it should, but I won't know one way or the other if it doesn't the reason until 2015 at least.

my god look how warm antarctica is.

GISS, even less believable then wiki

 

[ScienceRocks]

.61 was fourth for August and the June, July, August period was third.


this is for the three month period
1998 .67, 2009 .61, 2011 .57, 2005 .57

Uah shown 3rd for August.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

I expect the Sept, Oct, Nov to back off as we're now within yet another nina. Of course it should, but I won't know one way or the other if it doesn't the reason until 2015 at least.

my god look how warm antarctica is.

GISS, even less believable then wiki

It is close to the UAH if you compared it to the same baseline. What do you use for your global temperature data?

 

[flacaltenn]

This really illustrates my problem with reducing the whole debate to ONE SILLY number like annual mean surface temperature.. It's childishly absurd to reduce to that level. And not a likely process to find changes on the order of sub 0.5%.

Why aren't we MORE concerned about volatility or STDDEV over a year or from year to year? Or variations by locations? Or daytime/nightime high/low spreads? Or even gaps and biases in daily readings and coverage?

Even a day-trader has more environmental data to look at..
How did the media make AGW a debate over a single number?

It leaves open all these skirmishes over things that aren't even real anomalies.

 

[westwall]

.61 was fourth for August and the June, July, August period was third.


this is for the three month period
1998 .67, 2009 .61, 2011 .57, 2005 .57

Uah shown 3rd for August.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

I expect the Sept, Oct, Nov to back off as we're now within yet another nina. Of course it should, but I won't know one way or the other if it doesn't the reason until 2015 at least.

my god look how warm antarctica is.

GISS, even less believable then wiki

It is close to the UAH if you compared it to the same baseline. What do you use for your global temperature data?

To be honest I pretty much ignore it. I look at what sort of weather the various continents are experiencing and see what their growing seasons are doing and that is a better gauge of what the weather is doing then any temperature estimate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Inevitably we will see a strong El Nino in the next year or two. Given what we have seen in strong La Nina years, the 1998 records will look minor. Growing season;

http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Linderholm_2006_AFM.pdf

Abstract
An increasing number of studies have reported on shifts in timing and length of the growing season, based on phenological,
satellite and climatological studies. The evidence points to a lengthening of the growing season of ca. 10–20 days in the last few
decades, where an earlier onset of the start is most prominent. This extension of the growing season has been associated with recent
global warming. Changes in the timing and length of the growing season (GSL) may not only have far reaching consequences for
plant and animal ecosystems, but persistent increases in GSL may lead to long-term increases in carbon storage and changes in
vegetation cover which may affect the climate system. This paper reviews the recent literature concerned with GSL variability.
# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Giss

Yes, I added the BLACK BOLDED LINE. That is the means. Ladies and gents we live on a warmer planet then we did in the 1970s or 1980s. That is a FACT!

Here is a few truths to consider looking at this data
1# The 1990s were warming at near .17c for the decade, but some of that could of been caused by the vei 6 balance back.
2# The decade of the 2000's slow down...Well it is clear, but you have to consider the negatives of the increase of aerosals and lower sun cycle to understand the -.04 to -.06c rate of the warming since 2005.

:fu

Well at the rate it is going it is clear as all hell the avg will raise into the upper .5s to upper .6s within the next 3-4 years. Yes there is about .15c within the enso on the system.

What I MEAN BY FACT is all the data supports it. It is a way of life that people need to get used to!

 

[westwall]

Giss

Yes, I added the BLACK BOLDED LINE. That is the means. Ladies and gents we live on a warmer planet then we did in the 1970s or 1980s. That is a FACT!

Here is a few truths to consider looking at this data
1# The 1990s were warming at near .17c for the decade, but some of that could of been caused by the vei 6 balance back.
2# The decade of the 2000's slow down...Well it is clear, but you have to consider the negatives of the increase of aerosals and lower sun cycle to understand the -.04 to -.06c rate of the warming since 2005.

:fu

Well at the rate it is going it is clear as all hell the avg will raise into the upper .5s to upper .6s within the next 3-4 years. Yes there is about .15c within the enso on the system.

What I MEAN BY FACT is all the data supports it. It is a way of life that people need to get used to!

Yeah? So? Still not as warm as during the MWP or the RWP. I'll let Dr. Giaver's resignation letter from the APS speak to the truth of the matter....



"Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973


PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information."

 

[ScienceRocks]

Giss

Yes, I added the BLACK BOLDED LINE. That is the means. Ladies and gents we live on a warmer planet then we did in the 1970s or 1980s. That is a FACT!

Here is a few truths to consider looking at this data
1# The 1990s were warming at near .17c for the decade, but some of that could of been caused by the vei 6 balance back.
2# The decade of the 2000's slow down...Well it is clear, but you have to consider the negatives of the increase of aerosals and lower sun cycle to understand the -.04 to -.06c rate of the warming since 2005.

:fu

Well at the rate it is going it is clear as all hell the avg will raise into the upper .5s to upper .6s within the next 3-4 years. Yes there is about .15c within the enso on the system.

What I MEAN BY FACT is all the data supports it. It is a way of life that people need to get used to!

Yeah? So? Still not as warm as during the MWP or the RWP. I'll let Dr. Giaver's resignation letter from the APS speak to the truth of the matter....



"Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973


PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information."

He says it is warming, but believes it's good for humanity. I don't really disagree at least for the time being. Do you agree with him?

 

[westwall]

Giss

Yes, I added the BLACK BOLDED LINE. That is the means. Ladies and gents we live on a warmer planet then we did in the 1970s or 1980s. That is a FACT!

Here is a few truths to consider looking at this data
1# The 1990s were warming at near .17c for the decade, but some of that could of been caused by the vei 6 balance back.
2# The decade of the 2000's slow down...Well it is clear, but you have to consider the negatives of the increase of aerosals and lower sun cycle to understand the -.04 to -.06c rate of the warming since 2005.

:fu

Well at the rate it is going it is clear as all hell the avg will raise into the upper .5s to upper .6s within the next 3-4 years. Yes there is about .15c within the enso on the system.

What I MEAN BY FACT is all the data supports it. It is a way of life that people need to get used to!

Yeah? So? Still not as warm as during the MWP or the RWP. I'll let Dr. Giaver's resignation letter from the APS speak to the truth of the matter....



"Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973


PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information."

He says it is warming, but believes it's good for humanity. I don't really disagree at least for the time being. Do you agree with him?

Of course. The planet has been waming for the last 14,000 years. It has dips and rises but it has remained fairly stable within a 4 degree band for the last 3000 years. That is wonderful. Enjoy it while it lasts. It is cyclic and we can't alter it yet...well we could make it cool down, but that would be a disaster.

If you want to see millions of people die, make it cooler. If you want to see billions of people doing well hope for warmth. All of these prognostications of doom if it gets warmer completely ignore past history. They ignore historical fact to promote a political and financial agenda.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yeah? So? Still not as warm as during the MWP or the RWP. I'll let Dr. Giaver's resignation letter from the APS speak to the truth of the matter....



"Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973


PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information."

He says it is warming, but believes it's good for humanity. I don't really disagree at least for the time being. Do you agree with him?

Of course. The planet has been waming for the last 14,000 years. It has dips and rises but it has remained fairly stable within a 4 degree band for the last 3000 years. That is wonderful. Enjoy it while it lasts. It is cyclic and we can't alter it yet...well we could make it cool down, but that would be a disaster.

If you want to see millions of people die, make it cooler. If you want to see billions of people doing well hope for warmth. All of these prognostications of doom if it gets warmer completely ignore past history. They ignore historical fact to promote a political and financial agenda.

I agree with what you're saying...As a geologist how warm do you think this warm period could get?

 

[westwall]

He says it is warming, but believes it's good for humanity. I don't really disagree at least for the time being. Do you agree with him?

Of course. The planet has been waming for the last 14,000 years. It has dips and rises but it has remained fairly stable within a 4 degree band for the last 3000 years. That is wonderful. Enjoy it while it lasts. It is cyclic and we can't alter it yet...well we could make it cool down, but that would be a disaster.

If you want to see millions of people die, make it cooler. If you want to see billions of people doing well hope for warmth. All of these prognostications of doom if it gets warmer completely ignore past history. They ignore historical fact to promote a political and financial agenda.

I agree with what you're saying...As a geologist how warm do you think this warm period could get?

Well, I feel we are entering into a cooling trend that will last for the next 20 years or so. After that who knows, I sadly won't be around to witness it in all probability.

 

[Old Rocks]

And all the evidence says that you are dead wrong.

RealClimate: Nobel Laureates Speak Out

Nobel Laureates Speak Out
Filed under: Communicating Climate— stefan @ 21 May 2011
On Wednesday, 17 Nobel laureates who gathered in Stockholm have published a remarkable memorandum, asking for “fundamental transformation and innovation in all spheres and at all scales in order to stop and reverse global environmental change”. The Stockholm Memorandum concludes that we have entered a new geological era: the Anthropocene, where humanity has become the main driver of global change. The document states:


Science makes clear that we are transgressing planetary boundaries that have kept civilization safe for the past 10,000 years. [...]
We can no longer exclude the possibility that our collective actions will trigger tipping points, risking abrupt and irreversible consequences for human communities and ecological systems.
We cannot continue on our current path. The time for procrastination is over. We cannot afford the luxury of denial.

OK, my prediction is that within the next three years we will match or exceed 1998 at least once. That within ten years, the temps of 1998 will be the norm. And in twenty years, there will be major CH4 emissions in the Arctic, and two months of commercial ice free shipping for both the Northwest and Northeast Passages.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting point here. One over the hill Nobel Laurette resigns the APS over AGW statement, and there are pages and pages of sites on google trumpeting the fact. Yet 17 Nobel Laurettes state the dangers of AGW, and there is just one site listed on those pages.

Want to make a guess where the money is supporting what.

 

[IanC]

17 nobel laureates get air fare to Sweden, meet with the King, are centre stage for a cerimonial signing session and them get wined-and-dined, all for putting their name on yet anotherfact free AGW document.

1 nobel laureate replies to an inquiry on why he did not renew his membership with a scathing reiteration of how science is supposed to be done.

and Old Rocks believes the one is doing it for money and the 17 are doing it for principles. wow!

I am not saying the 17 did it for money BTW. I am just pointing out that they received a lot of benefit whereas the 1 will be characterized as a crank by the AGW side, and even accused of doing it for the money by some extremists. care to estimate how much money he is getting Old Rocks?

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Ian you are so damned transparent. Yes, you are stating that the 17 did it for the money. Just as you will state that the many score of Nobel Laurettes that supported Kyoto did it for the money.

 

[Old Rocks]

And I did not state that he was doing it for the money. What I stated was concerning the number of sites damning the idea that AGW is reality. Sites that are supported by somebody, somewhere.

 

[westwall]

Interesting point here. One over the hill Nobel Laurette resigns the APS over AGW statement, and there are pages and pages of sites on google trumpeting the fact. Yet 17 Nobel Laurettes state the dangers of AGW, and there is just one site listed on those pages.

Want to make a guess where the money is supporting what.

Want to make a bet where the Nobel Committee gets it's funding from?