March global temperature update

Paul,



You may want to look at Roy Spencers take on March temperatures:



https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/uah-temperature-update-for-march-2011-cooler-still-0-10-deg-c/



Any comments?



/Mango



I don't deny climate change, I know climate changes

Why the new BBC policy to close these blogs down after 1 week?



Still you at least do allow the posts to be reactively moderated, unlike certain other BBC environment types who take upwards of an hour to moderate a post which makes sensible discussion almost impossible



Though going by the stick they take perhaps thats the reason



Anyway, coldest March for 17 years, no increase in global warming for getting on for 14 while at the same time CO2 emissions are still increasing



Exactly what part of the theory of AGW is there left that has even one ounce of credibility left?

I'd take the satellite data over the 'adjusted' data any day.

NASA/GISS is not to be trusted. It is produced to further Hansen's personal agenda. The data is adjusted to give the answer he wants, not the truth. You can't trust corrupt "scientists" - they should be in prison.

The saddest thing about this is that scientists have allowed themselves to politicised and monetised. I suppose climate science is not the first area where this has happened, pharma has been at it for years, but it is not helping human advancement and if it keeps up it will end up pushing us into another Dark Ages - without which we would probably have moved on from fossil fuels hundreds of years ago, and our carbon spike would have coincided with the LIA and been a none event on our timeline. If only......

#2 - openside50 wrote:

"Anyway, coldest March for 17 years, no increase in global warming for getting on for 14 while at the same time CO2 emissions are still increasing"

If you believe the satellite figures that is. Personally I am not confident that they reflect the true picture.

As far as I can tell, RSS coverage is only -70 degrees to + 82.5 degrees and the +60 degree to +82.5 degree anomaly showed a jump from -0.105c in February to +1.387c in March, having been +1.801c in January.

It's not only NASA/GISS global anomaly which shows a rise in March, although it is the most extreme. HadCRUT3 also shows a rising trend since January.

Having said that, none of this is inconsistent with the beginning of a relatively cool period, it's just that the trend hasn't been fully established yet.

QV - It's fair to say that none of these organisations have any substantive data collected nearer the poles - it's not just a satellite issue. As you know, GISS is often accused of being 'too warm' because of their technique/algorithm for averaging temps over massive grid spaces up north.

More confusing still, I've read that temp changes in the polar areas respond disproportionately to energy input due to low humidity. Is this taken into account when global averages are calculated?

"These two measures of global temperatures directly contradict the satellite based measurements, RSS and UAH, which both showed cooling in March, leaving a confused picture."



The satellites are measuring the lower troposphere, while the other records such as gistemp and hadcrut that have gone up are measuring surface temperature. The troposphere cooled last month but the surface warmed. That's not a contradiction, and it's happened before, there's quite often a lag between what happens at the surface and what happens in the troposphere by a few months.



For example the drop in temperature after the last El Nino last year started first in the surface records and it was months later that the satellite records to begin cooling.



To comment on some of the comments above in no particular order.



The satellite records are adjusted too.



Coldest March for 17 years is not unexpected even if the world is warming, as rankings of single month means are very succeptible to ENSO. For example this March is at the minimum of a La Nina, how many previous Marches fell within the minimum of a La Nina? Are we comparing apples with apples? Take for example remember last March was the warmest March on record in the satellite record as it fell at the peak of an El Nino.



GISTEMP is very transparent. The source code and methodology is public (in contrast for example the UAH source code has not been released).



GISTEMP generally shows higher temperature anomalies than HadCRUT in recent years due to the arctic extrapolation method used in GISTEMP where high latitude station temperatures are extrapolated deep into the arctic. In contrast HadCRUT's global average doesn't include most of the arctic.



The GISTEMP extrapolation method was introduced years ago. I can't see how it makes sense that this method was guaranteed to produce warming unless Hansen was psychic. Hansen doesn't control the reports coming in each month from high latitude stations which get extrapolated afterall. The high numbers in GISTEMP are due to those high latitude stations reporting high numbers. The high latitude stations could have reported falling temperatures since 2000, but they have done the opposite. If those high latitude stations start cooling, GISTEMP will extrapolate cooling over the entire arctic. So it works both ways.



Additionally all the records show temperature anomalies increasing as you move towards the pole. Are we to believe there is a "ring of fire" at about 80N of rapid warming but above that trends plummet to only modest warming at global average rates?

A thought provoking essay everybody can take something from:



https://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/04/13/gloomy-greens-miss-bright-global-future/

'Adjusted' temperature readings do not agree with the satellite data. Well there's a change. When did they ever?



Surface data is for 30% of the total whereas satellite datd covers 100% so whatever you do there will be some difference.



I still do not like the term 'adjusted' this is what got Hadcrut into problems in the first place.



Never mind, the sea level data shows a reduction in the overall rise figures now below 3mm pa. This will scotch BBC Look North's claim that since 1953 sea levels have risen by 1.5m instead of the actual 178mm or so.

8.



"GISTEMP generally shows higher temperature anomalies than HadCRUT in recent years due to the arctic extrapolation method used in GISTEMP where high latitude station temperatures are extrapolated deep into the arctic. In contrast HadCRUT's global average doesn't include most of the arctic."



So GISTEMP us better because it extrapolates data from areas it dosnt have sensors, while HADCRUT isnt because it dosnt ?



GISTEMP's methood is the equivelent of the UK metoffice giving us the annual temperature record of Italy using sensors located in Birmingham and Cardiff - its baloney

"The GISTEMP extrapolation method was introduced years ago. I can't see how it makes sense that this method was guaranteed to produce warming unless Hansen was psychic . . . if those high latitude stations start cooling, GISTEMP will extrapolate cooling over the entire arctic. So it works both ways."



Hansen didn't need to be psychic to see that there had been a long term background warming trend and that solar cycles had remained at historically high levels. He didn't need to be a genius to figure out that LTEs notwithstanding, hot goes to cold. The heat would inevitably show up at the Arctic. As mentioned earlier, since it takes less energy to heat cold dry air, the measured effects in the Arctic are somewhat disproportionate and can in themselves, skew the global averages.

It seems to me that higher than average warming in the Arctic will occur whenever the planet warms as a whole - it's not directly related to AGW.

"So GISTEMP us better because it extrapolates data from areas it dosnt have sensors, while HADCRUT isnt because it dosnt ?"



hadcrut does effectively extrapolate data. It extrapolates the global mean into the arctic. Implicitly when HadCRUT is cited as a global temperature record and compared to eg GISTEMP this is what is being done.

"GISTEMP's methood is the equivelent of the UK metoffice giving us the annual temperature record of Italy using sensors located in Birmingham and Cardiff - its baloney"



GISTEMP is extrapolating temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures. Temperature anomalies correlate over many hundreds of kilometers.

"Hansen didn't need to be psychic to see that there had been a long term background warming trend and that solar cycles had remained at historically high levels."



But there are lots of claims that global warming stopped in 1998 or even 1995. Why then do you think it obvious that northern most stations would warm up since 1995? If they had cooled since 1998 or even not warmed or cooled, then GISTEMP would have extrapolated no change or cooling over the entire arctic.

Clearly, the trend over the last 10 years or so is quite flat - but this plateau is at a higher level. It seems reasonable to suggest that the energy currently in the system is going to take quite a few years to escape. In the meantime, the additional energy will continue to make it's way, somewhat haphazardly, to the Arctic.

I've no problem with acknowledging that the planet has warmed. Nor do I rule out the possibility that the rate of warming may increase again in the near future. I just happen to think that by and large, the Sun powers the oceans, and that the oceans (and water in all its forms) control the atmosphere. This is not new thinking by any means, and to my knowledge, has not yet been refuted comprehensively. My visits to Skeptical Science on this subject leave me unconvinced.



Fortunately for all of us, if the Sun plays the game properly and sticks to what appears to be a low solar cycle we may be able to learn something over the next few years.



It's also interesting that ENSO has such an impressive short term impact on temps and yet we appear to be hopeless at predicting it. I've kept an eye on the 'ensemble' predictions page at WUWT over the last few months and have seen enormous month to month shifts in expectations.



The science is a long way from being settled.

"""GISTEMP is extrapolating temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures. Temperature anomalies correlate over many hundreds of kilometers."""



How about 1000kms?



And how about the only reason GISS shows warmer temperatures for any of the 13 years since 1998 is because of those extrapolated Arctic temperatures



None of the other major bodies calculating global tempertures have shown any warming since 98, just GISS



But guess which authority it is that most warmists use when making their doom and predictions?



Yes GISS!



Any sceptics using such dodgy methods would be laughed out of town

"And how about the only reason GISS shows warmer temperatures for any of the 13 years since 1998 is because of those extrapolated Arctic temperatures"



Yes that is true. When GISTEMP uses the same method as hadcrut and doesn't do the arctic extrapolation the results are very similar to hadcrut. But the opposite is also true. The reason hadcrut shows cooler temperatures is because it implicitly underestimates arctic warming by treating it as warming at the same rate as the global average. There's a better case for hadcrut underestimating the warming than gistemp overestimating it IMO.



"But guess which authority it is that most warmists use when making their doom and predictions?"



HadCRUT3, which is the one cited by the IPCC in their charts. It's the most "official" temperature record used by climate scientists in their work. When you look at paleo reconstructions the observational record plotted is usually hadcrut3. In fact I don't recall ever seeing gistemp being used on those charts.

#18 - quake wrote:

"HadCRUT3, which is the one cited by the IPCC in their charts. It's the most "official" temperature record used by climate scientists in their work. When you look at paleo reconstructions the observational record plotted is usually hadcrut3. In fact I don't recall ever seeing gistemp being used on those charts."

But even the UKMO was forced to use GISS to "prove" that 2010 was the warmest year on record, despite the fact that it's own measure, HadCRUT3 suggested it was only joint 3rd (if my memory is correct).

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2010-global-temperature

This demonstrates that the warmests will use whichever anomaly is most convenient to prove their case. I have no doubt that if HadCRUT3 fails to reach the UKMO predicted temperature this year, they will drag in GISS again.

And which annual HadCRUT3 is the correct one, the Hadley Centre version or the C.R.U. version?

"""""""""Yes that is true. When GISTEMP uses the same method as hadcrut and doesn't do the arctic extrapolation the results are very similar to hadcrut. But the opposite is also true. The reason hadcrut shows cooler temperatures is because it implicitly underestimates arctic warming by treating it as warming at the same rate as the global average. There's a better case for hadcrut underestimating the warming than gistemp overestimating it IMO.""""""""



Why di you say Hadcrut underestimated Arctic warming, the lack of sensors in the area means we cant say for certain what is happening there



Seems to me substituting the global average is a better guesstimate than, 'we think it must be warming' so offsetting the figures to suit



Anyway, satellite measurements which suffer far less from these areas without coverage do not see this GISS warming either, Hansens data should be looked upon as maverick and with suspicion



Throw out the extremes and look at the 'concensus' I should have thought warmists would agree with that at least!

Re 19: "The Met Office and the University of East Anglia have today released provisional global temperature figures for 2010, which show the year to be the second warmest on record."



They are talking about hadcrut3. They also mention the GISTEMP and NOAA records but the article is primarily about their results.

Re 20:

"Why di you say Hadcrut underestimated Arctic warming, the lack of sensors in the area means we cant say for certain what is happening there"



There is data from that region from eg buoys. GISTEMP isn't the only word on temperature up there, there are weather products that too, some that use that buoy data. Those show faster than global average warming in recent years - so faster than hadcrut presumes by omitting it.



Here's a direct comparison with one of them:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/land-warming-record



"Anyway, satellite measurements which suffer far less from these areas without coverage"



satellite measurements omit much of the arctic too, they also aren't measuring surface air temperature. Of the arctic lower troposphere that UAH does cover it shows about half a degree C warming since 2000 which is far greater than it's global average.

#21 - quake wrote:

"They are talking about hadcrut3. They also mention the GISTEMP and NOAA records but the article is primarily about their results."

Why mention GISS at all ? Quite simply, because it was the only measure which put 2010 above 1998.

Why not mention the C.R.U. annual figure, which was 0.477c, which made it third warmest, after 2005 (0.482c) and 1998 (0.548c). After all, HadCRUT3 is produced as a collaboration between the UKMO and C.R.U.

Obviously, the reason was that it contradicted the UKMO predictions.

Clearly my sensitivity to UKMO bias is greater than yours.

"Why mention GISS at all ? Quite simply, because it was the only measure which put 2010 above 1998"



Nothing in their article pushes that. There are frequent references to 2010 being 2nd warmest in their record. They mention GISTEMP and the NOAA record as a comparison, eg in the table at the end.



The CRU figure is 0.50C in that table, 2nd place.



Rank HadCRUT3 NOAA NCDC NASA GISS

Year Anomaly * Year Anomaly * Year Anomaly *

1 1998 0.52 2010 0.52 2010 0.56

2 2010 0.50 2005 0.52 2005 0.55

3 2005 0.47 1998 0.50 2007 0.51

4 2003 0.46 2003 0.49 2009 0.50

5 2002 0.46 2002 0.48 2002 0.49

6 2009 0.44 2006 0.46 1998 0.49

7 2004 0.43 2009 0.46 2006 0.48

8 2006 0.43 2007 0.45 2003 0.48

9 2007 0.40 2004 0.45 2004 0.41

10 2001 0.40 2001 0.42 2001 0.40

#24 - quake wrote:

"Nothing in their article pushes that. There are frequent references to 2010 being 2nd warmest in their record. They mention GISTEMP and the NOAA record as a comparison, eg in the table at the end."

Obviously the UKMO bias is too subtle for you.



"The CRU figure is 0.50C in that table, 2nd place."

No it isn't, that's the UKMO annual figure, the CRU annual figure was 0.477c.

There are two versions of HadCRUT3 annual anomalies.

Check it out for yourself:

https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Also, from the same file, the CRU figure for 1998 is 0.548c, compared

to the UKMO figure of 0.517c.

Therefore, no mention of the CRU version by the UKMO, although to be fair to

Phil Jones, he did issue an information sheet saying that 2010 was the joint third warmest year.

https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Although I don't think it was given as much publicity as the UKMO news release.

It was "off message" you see.

The FAQ on the CRU site (https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/%29 addresses this.



"Why do global and hemispheric temperature anomalies differ from those quoted in the IPCC assessment and the media?



We have areally averaged grid-box temperature anomalies (using the HadCRUT3v dataset), with weighting according to the area of each 5° x 5° grid box, into hemispheric values; we then averaged these two values to create the global-average anomaly. However, the global and hemispheric anomalies used by IPCC and in the World Meteorological Organization and Met Office news releases were calculated using optimal averaging. This technique uses information on how temperatures at each location co-vary, to weight the data to take best account of areas where there are no observations at a given time. The method uses the same basic information (i.e. in future HadCRUT3v and subsequent improvements), along with the data-coverage and the measurement and sampling errors, to estimate uncertainties on the global and hemispheric average anomalies. Our alternative technique (used here) produces no estimates of uncertainties, but our results generally lie within the ranges estimated by optimum averaging. The constraint that the average be zero over 1961-90 in the optimal averages also adds a small offset compared to the other data described here.



The present optimal averages with annual uncertainties are accessible from the Hadley Centre. The data include values filtered to show decadal and longer-term variations and uncertainties. This replaces the IPCC 2001 version at the above site (see Parker et al. 2004). All other versions of global and hemispheric temperature anomalies are only steps to the IPCC series. "

I think I see your argument now - you are saying that they cited the hadcrut3 version that the IPCC, WMO and Met Office uses, but not the hadcrut3 version on the CRU site, even though they cited GISTEMP and NOAA.



I've never seen anyone use both hadcrut3 versions when comparing temperature records. Everyone seems to pick one to display. Every graphical and tabular comparison of records I have seen only ever contains one hadcrut3 version, so what this boils down to really is their choice of hadcrut3 version to use, which would be a question even if they hadn't mentioned GISTEMP.

How many years without further warming will it take before the theory of AGW is looked at again, its 13 years now (disregarding the curious GISS 'anomoly') and running



Its simply no good saying 'ah but we could have 20 years without warming and the theory could still be sound'



because we all know that the first year that showed a rise would be greeted as absolute 100% guaranteed proof that catastrophic global warming is taking place

#27. - quake wrote:

"I think I see your argument now - you are saying that they cited the hadcrut3 version that the IPCC, WMO and Met Office uses, but not the hadcrut3 version on the CRU site, even though they cited GISTEMP and NOAA. "



Thanks,

I know there is an explanation for the difference, but my belief is that they didn't use the CRU version because it didn't support their contention that 2010 was the warmest year on record. I am sure that if the CRU version had supported that contention, they would have used it, and that if GISS hadn't supported it, they wouldn't have used it. Of course I can't prove that, but the future will tell.

I must admit, I don't know where HadCRUTv fits into the picture. Those figures are different again, but the data file linked to the Phil Jones Information sheet is for HadCRUT3, except that the figure for 2010 is slightly lower than the figure in the official files.

#28 - openside50 wrote:

"How many years without further warming will it take before the theory of AGW is looked at again, its 13 years now (disregarding the curious GISS 'anomoly') and running."

Unfortunately, I believe that we will need another 20-30 years of data to confirm that the trend is cyclical and that we have entered a temporary cooling phase. After that, another 30 years to confirm we have entered another warming phase.

It is not my contention that there is no warming, only that the rate of warming is much lower than predicted.

None - and I mean NONE of those marvellous models they use to peddle their theories, predicted no further warming for going on 14 years



The frustration of many of the most high profile warmists was evident in many of the hacked e-mails wernt they



'We cant show warming, and its a travesty we cant' ...(paraphrasing)

Over 14 year periods the models show various wiggles. The graphs you usually see are the ensemble means which is the averages of many models, which smooths out those wiggles.



What we need is a better like-to-like comparison before we can conclude warming has stopped. At the very least it would be nice to see where temperature reaches at solar maximum within a couple of years.

@Quake



Am I detecting an ever so slight wobble in certainty?



Regards,



One of the Lobby

If solar maximum occurs at the same time as the next el nino then we will all expect a high GAT number (possibly record) since both will sit on top of the very long term background warming trend. This would not in itself be much evidence of anything, although I'm sure alarmist headlines would be made.

However, if the current solar cycle max is relatively low (as most now predict), and the next el nino runs a year later, I would expect to see nothing special happen until the following la nina turns up on the Solar cycle decline.

This of course would lead to similarly hyped headlines for non-believers like me - but only on the blogosphere. I'm sure the mainstream media would find a way to ignore it.

I am sure warming has continued since 1998 and is still continuing, but in the temperature records this has been hidden behind a curtain of natural cooling factors in recent years (dropping solar output, dropping ENSO). I am suggesting those who don't want to factor in such natural cooling factors, but who want to see the warming trend directly manifest in the temperature records before they accept the world is still warming only have to wait a few years as the curtain is now slowly opening.

Slowly opening?



Has a long way to go yet to reach the temperatures seen the blink of an eyelid ago in terms of the life of the planet, during the Medievil Warm Period



A period for which the alarmists still have no explantion for, as if it really was so much warmer than todays 'unprecedented' heat it begs a few questions

Quake . . . that's sounds fair enough, it's possible.

My own extremely limited understanding of this stuff is that the natural cooling factors you refer to could indeed account for the flattening over the last 10 years or so. What confuses me is that the solar influence is given such a low forcing (0.1 ?) when applied to warming but is somehow assumed to have a more influential affect when cooling. Maybe I've got that wrong.



Quick question if you have the time. I noted last month at Dr Spencer's site, a mid march Global SST update which showed a very significant drop in water vapour.

This led me to a quick scout around various websites, all seemed to mention a fairly recent paper by Solomon which suggested that water vapour has a significant impact on temps. Of course, there was the usual disagreement between blogs as to what the paper actually said.



I wondered if this water vapour content would lend support to either the UAH (slightly cooler) or the GISS (slightly warmer) figures for March.

The medieval warm period was likely cooler than present

Re 37:

I think solar warming is the same from solar min to max as solar cooling is from max to min. The forcing is low, but over a few years a few hundredths of a degree or a tenth of a degree cooling is significant enough to affect trends.



I think both UAH and GISS could be correct, GISS measuring the surface and UAH the lower troposphere, both can be going in opposite directions from month to month.

"""""The medieval warm period was likely cooler than present"""""



Cooler apart from the northern and southern hemisphere where research has shown it was warmer



People with iron age technology survived for generations in areas of Greenland that would only be possible today with imported power and central heating!, they also grew food and raised livestock where it would now be impossible to grow a blade of grass



Same story in parts of the SH too



This may be an inconvenient fact and one which some on the alarmist side have tried to ignore completely but its still a fact

There are no NH or SH reconstructions showing it was definitely warmer during the MWP. They all show it was more likely than not cooler.



I also think what you are saying about greenland is largely hearsay and myth. There are farms in greenland today. There is grass. I don't see how you can conclude suvival in parts of greenland today would be impossible today without imported power and central heating when there have been native tribes living in greenland for thousands of years up to the present day.

Also on: "as if it really was so much warmer than todays 'unprecedented' heat it begs a few questions"



As a general point about periods of large climate change in the past, the primary question that springs to my mind is how could such large climate changes occur and climate sensitivity be low?

'more than likely' - nothing is ever definite with alarmists is it?



its their get out card when things dont go quite to plan, 'well we never said it would definitely happen' like when every computer model got it wrong about this 14 year period with warming



the very same models which we are supposed to believe when predictions of doom are trotted out on what seems a weekly basis



btw Ill start believing the models when they can do something as simple as back -cast the already known and documented climate of the past - they cant

what can't they back-cast?

do you ever wonder why they fail to publicise the analysis of climate models made since the 80's amd see how they compare to actual recorded data?



a nice league table giving who did best would be nice, rather best worse would be my guess

#31. - openside50 wrote:

"None - and I mean NONE of those marvellous models they use to peddle their theories, predicted no further warming for going on 14 years"

As I have pointed out in previous blogs, as at the end of 2010, the global temperature anomaly (HadCRUT3, base period 1980-99 3 year mean) was below 15 of the 17 model projections in IPCC scenario A2. This means that although they may not have predicted no further warming, 2 of the models did predict slightly lower temperatures. The models were BCM2_0,(Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research (BCCR), Univ. of Bergen, Norway), which predicted +0.204c and mri_cgm2_3_2a, (Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency) which predicted +0.215c, compared to the actual figure of +0.254c. Remember this is relative to 1980-99, not 1961-90.

The Norwegian model predictions rise quickly after next year, so I expect actual anomalies to be well below those predictions by next year, or 2012.

The Japanese model rises more modestly and is the lowest of all of the models until 2014, so it may turn out to be the most accurate of the predictions up to that date, although it isn't the lowest prediction over the entire 100 year period of scenario A2. That prediction is by the model ncar_pcm1 (National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), NSF (a primary sponsor), DOE (a primary sponsor), NASA, and NOAA), which predicts a 3 year mean anomaly of +0.247c by 2098 and an annual anomaly of +0.246c for 2099. Yes, NASA and NOAA appear to be involved in the lowest temperature projection in scenario A2!

It is also interesting that the global temperature anomaly is also lower than 12 of the 16 model projections in the "Commitment" scenario, which assumed greenhouse gas levels fixed at year 2000 levels. Yes, temperatures are lower than what 75% of the models predicted if there was zero growth in greenhouse gasses.

Of course, some here will tell us that it is too soon to say that these models were wrong. Only the input assumptions were incorrect.

I should point out that the anomaly figures quoted above are from my own calculations, using projected absolute temperatures from the models, since I have been unable to download projected anomalies. However the anomaly figures do seem to tie in very well with the graphs shown in ch 10 of the IPCC 4th report.

I now realise that my second sentence is possibly ambiguous. It should read as follows:

"This means that although they may not have predicted no further warming, 2 of the models did predict temperatures slightly lower than they currently are."

3 monkeys banging away at a typewriter will eventually write a word perfect copy of........



Hansens made some extraordinary predictions, and as I said earlier they always seem to have a get out clause, but it is in fact disingenuous to point out models with such a wide range of predictions that a new ice age or global dessertification both fall within the range of what was predicted



Lets see a study done from the 80's 90's and 2000's, lets see what they predicted and lets see who did best



I for one am amazed that none of the main agencies can even agree on what the global temperature is at present, let alone what it will be decades in the future



Satellite looks best tho

#48 - wrote:

"I for one am amazed that none of the main agencies can even agree on what the global temperature is at present, let alone what it will be decades in the future

Satellite looks best tho"

Last year, satellite anomalies tended to be higher than the others (after adjustment to the same base period), so you can't really tell.

'tended' there's that vague catch all phrase yet again



higher than GISS?

#50. - openside50 wrote:

"'tended' there's that vague catch all phrase yet again

higher than GISS?"

Yes for all months apart from November 2010.

This year, UAH has been below GISS for the first three months.

Remember, GISS is currently relative to 1951-80, whereas UAH is 1981-2010, so will usually "look" lower. For a true comparison, they need to be adjusted to the same base period.