HadCrut_NH&SH has been posted. January’s temperature anomaly was 0.47C. Dinner is in the oven, I’m getting ready to eat, so I’m only going to show a plot of the temperatures since 1980:
January temperature are highlighted with blue circles. This is the sixth warmest January in that plot. El Nino is still on, and doesn’t seem to be dying as quickly as some might wish. Feb is likely to be warm… but we’ll see!
Never thought I’d say this, but CRU’s anomaly seems much more realistic than UAH’s to me.
Never thought I’d say this, but CRU’s anomaly seems much more realistic than UAH’s to me.
i a sceptic speaking: the lowest temperature number of all dataset is the right one. no matter which dataset it comes from each month!
.
science, at its best.
Satellite records tend to lead surface records during ENSO years, and a good chunk of warming in January occurred in the Arctic due to the AO weirdness that is not particularly strongly reflected in HadCRUt due to the poor arctic coverage. At least that’s how I see the January numbers from the four series.
Re: Zeke Hausfather (Feb 25 09:18),
I try not to over interpret the month’s numbers– but you may be right.
February channel5 looks very hot.
[quote sod (Comment#34831) February 25th, 2010 at 9:17 am]
Never thought I’d say this, but CRU’s anomaly seems much more realistic than UAH’s to me.
i a sceptic speaking: the lowest temperature number of all dataset is the right one. no matter which dataset it comes from each month!
.
science, at its best.
[/quote]
.
Touché.
.
But the honest truth is I was expecting an anomaly of about +0.4 to +0.5.
Pardon the slight OT, but I just heard, in the Parliamentary questioning, that the purported ‘discrepancies’ of the satellite data had been dealt with several years ago.
Slingo also seemed to say that the satellite data required very tricky math manipulation, as if it was somehow not representative of the actual warming.
So, if this is all old news to you folks who’ve been following it a long time, maybe just point me to the place where GHCN was shown to be the benchmark, against which satellite data was shown to be too complex to deconvolve. (?)
Hopefully it is timely, in light of today’s apparent claims of Slingo et al.
TIA
RR
RuhRoh: the discrepancies between different satellite data sets were largely sorted out in 2005 with the discovery of an error in the UAH data set
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/