They have already calculated the 2010 temperatures! Without the last three months of the year. How cool is that?
It is amazing enough to do this for normalised data, but not as skillful as GISS – who can calculate absolute annual temperatures three months in advance.
I wonder if the October-December temperatures in Greenland might be on the chilly side?
 | gelcarrion0t on “You Can’t Hide Yo… |
| gelcarrion0t on Doubling Energy Costs |
| gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
They have already calculated the 2010 temperatures! Without the last three months of the year. How cool is that?
No, they have calculated the YTD anomaly. Not the same thing, is it?
So on January 1, at the peak of La Nina, maybe we will see a blue bar for 2011? That will be fun.
Steve, is calculating the 2010 YTD anomaly the same thing as calculating the 2010 temperature, as you stated?
ChrisD
So you are talking about the black line when you say anomaly? Do you see the red vertical lines after the point where the black line ends? Is this post about the black line or those red lines?
I have to ask you—can you read the graph? Can you understand what the post is about?
You keep doing these things ChrisD—you make everything say what you want it to say. Then, when people tell you you are off topic you go into these ridiculing knipshins and insist they are wrong.
Do you do it intentionally? Or is that you just don’t know what you are doing? Or is it something else?
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Steve, is calculating the 2010 YTD anomaly the same thing as calculating the 2010 temperature, as you stated?
I have carefully read the post again. It is a short post. And I have verified he does not say that. You made that up.
IT IS CLEAR YOU ARE A SPAMMER ChrisD.
Chris, you can’t plot an annual value before you know the aggregate. And, I’ve never seen a year-to-date graph illustrated in that manner. Are you asserting this is common practice for Had Crut?
The voice of reason. Keep fighting ChrisD, I haven’t got the stomach for it
Please tell us where the words YEAR TO DATE anomaly is located on the chart.
Nope. The sidebar states:
HadCRUT3 Temperature Anomaly (Degree C)
Nothing about YEAR TO DATE anywhere on it.
It is misleading because it does make it appear that the ENTIRE year 2010 is already plotted on the HadCRUT3 chart,that Steve posted at the top of the page.
Look at the year 2010 in the right edge of the chart.It does NOT say it is up to Month of September anywhere on it.
ChrisD
You seem to be concerned about details. So what aren’t you pointing out how HadCRUT is showing lower temperatures than GISTemp. You know so much you must have seen both graphs. GISTemp shows higher temperature and a more aggressive warming trend in the last 12 years than HadCRUT. Certainly your attention to detail is bothered by that.
The red bars are in the graph. The red bars are not anomaly. You are making things up ChrisD.
YOU ARE A SPAMMER ChrisD
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
“These datasets will be updated at roughly monthly intervals into the future.”
Also, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow
“Data for Downloading… End Month 2010-09”
You said, “They have already calculated the 2010 temperatures!” Where are the temperatures calculated through the end of the year?
Can’t wait for January, 2011! Global warming down the toilet.
Even in the link you posted.It still fails to tell us what month the chart is up to date at.
It simply shows 2010 on it at the right edge and the red bar appears to fill that year up.Therefore it APPEARS to show the entire year 2010 on it.
The chart needs to be labeled better.
bbttxu
What difference does the reasoning make? The red bars at the end of 2010 make it look like El Nino is happening. But El Nino is not happening. It ended months ago. La Nina is happening.
You global warming believers act like such sticklers for detail. So why aren’t you pointing out this blaring issue of artificially creating warming?
Spam posts will be deleted. We have some idiots who are posting the same thing over and over and over again.
No, you have idiots pointing out facts that you don’t like.
Congratulations on your “no censorship” policy working out so well.
Until you have something intelligent to say, you aren’t going to get your comments posted. I really don’t give a FF about whether or not you believed in global cooling.
There are implications of the particulate theory which I have laid out and you refuse to talk about them. Until you are willing to discuss the science, you are banned. You are posting dozens and dozens of useless repetitive off-topic garbage.
I would not have called you an idiot, Chris.
But if you want to argue about it?
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 3:16 pm
No, you have idiots pointing out facts that you don’t like.
Do you have a persecution complex? Are you imagining things?
stevengoddard says:
October 31, 2010 at 3:20 pm
You are posting dozens and dozens of useless repetitive off-topic garbage.,/i>
After exchanging comments with him about how temperature trend is derived, and after his unusual view of the Salon article I’m wondering what he really knows. A good woman I knew said that the ones who are farthest off beam are the ones that push global warming the most.
stevengoddard says:
October 31, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Spam posts will be deleted.
Sounds fine.
@bbuttux
ChrisD answered your question – it seems they have already released 2010 anomaly – but this is OK since its not temperature – apparently.
YTD anomaly is not annual temperature. These are two very different things. Hadley did not do what Steve claimed. They did not calculate the 2010 temperatures with three months left.
It’s really that simple.
But Steve doesn’t like people pointing out that he’s wrong about anything. That’s spam, apparently. So we’ll see if this gets posted.
I thought you said you have a family. You should probably go spend some time with them.
You have made your point. You don’t care about the science. I understand that. Now stop repeating yourself. You are wasting my time and everyone else’s.
“All the files on this page (except Absolute) will be updated on a monthly basis to include the latest month within about four weeks of its completion”
They’ve posted data through 2010-09 (which ChrisD accurately labeled YTD—Year to date). As stated, their data lags by a month, so on the last day of October, they’ve provided the data through the end of the previous month, September.
Line 71337 of their data dump: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3.zip (53mb!) reads:
” 2010 9 1 36 rows 72 columns. Missing=-1.000e+30″
There are no months past 2010/9. If the temperatures have been calculated through the end of the year, where are they? Please provide values, and a link.
-bbt
So what do you think will happen the rest of the year?
What do you think about GISS calculating absolute annual temperatures without three of the coldest months of the year?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
For 2010, Oct, Nov and Dec have five asterisks for their value. The legend states: “***** = missing”
I’ll expand my earlier question to include GISS as well.
If the temperatures have been calculated through the end of the year, where are they? Please provide values, and a link.
It is incredibly misleading to publish an annual absolute temperature graph using data through September. The current year will always be too high in the northern hemisphere.
Do you really not understand the problem?
The only problem I can see is that you’ve assumed that the data shown in the graph is annual temperatures, when, in fact 1) the graph is not labeled as “annual”, 2) the data does not show monthly values for the complete year (despite your unsubstantiated “They have already calculated the 2010 temperatures!”) and 3) the descriptions of the data, which link to the graphs, clearly state the temperatures listed are YTD.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
This GISS graph does plot “Annual Mean”, but contrary to your question (“What do you think about GISS calculating absolute annual temperatures without three of the coldest months of the year?”), 2010 isn’t plotted on the graph, nor does any “calculated” values exist for those months that remain in 2010.
Feel free to post links that back up your claims.
How about the GISS graph I used in this article and was referring to?
That might be a good place to start?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
I see what you are talking about now. I’ll concede that temperatures YTD in GISS are listed as ‘annual’ for individual stations. Though, you still have yet to proved it for HadCrut.
It looks like you take issue with item 6 on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/seas_ann_means.html, where the annual met mean is computed once 3 of 4 seasonal means are available. This will always happen in the last 3 months of the meteorological year.
Rest assured, that any ‘heating bias’ present in the northern hemisphere is balanced by an opposite cooling in the southern hemisphere, for the past few months of the year.
If you want official 2010 numbers, you’re just gonna have to wait until 2010 is over!
-bbt
-bbt,
They shouldn’t project El Nino warming when La Nina is happening. You should care about that.
bbttxu says:
November 1, 2010 at 12:18 am
I see what you are talking about now. I’ll concede that temperatures YTD in GISS are listed as ‘annual’ for individual stations.
Then the logical conclusion is that all of GISS is completed if the individual are completed. The whole is comprised of the individual parts.
Or do you see it some other way?
“Then the logical conclusion is that all of GISS is completed if the individual are completed. The whole is comprised of the individual parts.”
GISS won’t be ‘completed’ until the year is up. Annual data for 2010 will be available in 2011, until that time, it’s YTD. Again, individual stations show a point on their plots for 2010 YTD, whereas the aggregate (which I linked earlier) does not.
It’s not a projection, AFAICT it’s just statistical. If they have 3 seasonal means, an annual average is calculated, whether or not the year has been completed. In 2008, Nuuk failed to have sufficient data to have a meteorological mean calculated for it.
bbttxu says:
November 1, 2010 at 12:18 am
I see what you are talking about now. I’ll concede that temperatures YTD in GISS are listed as ‘annual’ for individual stations.
You’ll have to be more careful how you word things.
bbttxu says:
November 1, 2010 at 1:20 am
GISS won’t be ‘completed’ until the year is up.
But you seemed to say it was.
bbttxu says:
November 1, 2010 at 1:20 am
It’s not a projection, AFAICT it’s just statistical.
They should not be showing El Nino warming in their statistics in a time of La Nina. Their work is incorrect–whatever their method is. If you and I can sit here on a blog on a Sunday afternoon and see the problem then they who get paid full-time in the work should see it and not be subject to this kind of embarrassment.
If they want to be viewed as unbiased they will have to address this approach. As it is now they are either wanting, or possibly are global warming alarmist, or maybe something else. But they aren’t doing their job with excellence.
I’ll be happy if HadCRUT comes in under 1998. GISS almost certainly will, to much jubilation from warmies but the other 3 records are more interesting.
I’d have thought that while not a complete picture, calculating an ongoing anomaly isn’t really wrong, since each month is compared to previous year’s months (DEC with DEC). Only the onset of La Nina makes the anomoly to date, seem too high. It doesn’t matter that the missing months are the coldest because they could (as they have in other years) be the warmest compared to historical records. On El Nino years you get the opposite effect. The official charts tend to put the current year in green to indicate that it isn’t a final result.
Exactly. Incomplete years should be clearly marked as such. The HadCrut graph is misleading.
The GISS absolute temperature graph is both misleading and dead wrong.
We should not be surprised.
The Met Office was telling us 2010 would be the warmest year even before it started.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html
Paul H,
No it wasn’t.
From your linked information, emphasis mine;
Climate *could* warm to record levels in 2010
A record warm year in 2010 is *not a certainty*, especially if the current El Niño was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010
Your interpretation of reality is funny! I just had to thank you for a good laugh!
Mike,
Perhaps you do find my interpretation of reality funny, I do not find it surprising that is the case because your inability to understand the words ‘could’ and ‘not’ betrays that you probably laugh out loud and uncontrollably at lots of normal things in the real world. I just hope you will always have someone to wipe the dribbles from your chin.
Lazarus,
My point was that they were trying to prime us for such an event so we would accept it when we they finally tell us it had happened.
“My point was that they were trying to prime us for such an event so we would accept it when we they finally tell us it had happened.”
Why wouldn’t you accept it if it happens? Why do you need ‘priming’?
The MO said that 2010 could be the warmest on record. And even with the La Nino it is going to be in the top 5 in the instrument record and may still be the warmest when the data is finally in.
If it isn’t, it isn’t, it doesn’t change the meaning of what they have said either way.
Lazarus
When the Met Office have given up on giving seasonal forecasts for the UK because they are more often than not wrong, you have to ask yourself why they are making these forecasts.
Paul
Mike Davis says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Your interpretation
There’s been a lot of funny interpretation going on.
“Looking further ahead, our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010–2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far — 1998.”
Laz, please read the following paragraph from Paul H’s link. I’ve marked the important parts in bold for you.
Does it not sound as if they are confirming an assumed “fact” based on an experimental process?
‘Wipe the dribble from my chin”! I will let the nurses here at the home know about that one!
The Surface Air Temperature (SAT) is little better than a Wild A## Guess which is a model output from estimates done by those who combine the records and massage them until they fit the desired pattern.
The entire reason for the press releases claiming “Could” and “Not” were phrased to promote the need to be concerned about a phantom menace. If the purpose was to promote uncertainty the papers would not have been released.
The caveats were wimpy CYA attempts because they have burned themselves to many time before with their great predictive ability.
They would have been better off to remain quiet as we already thought them fools, but no, they wanted to provide more evidence of their fantasy.
You fell for it! 🙂
The semantics used by the so-called reporting agencies are misleading to begin with. Without proper phrasing of terms what they are attempting to convey can be interpreted any which way.
In that case each and every person discussing this issue is right and wrong at the same time depending on your interpretation of what is conveyed. I say it is meaningless gibberish meant to confuse the situation so it can be used to promote the desired agenda:
We need more money to get it “Better”!
I personally interpret these data sets to say We do not know S###! But we will baffel you anyway!
Hi Mike
Yes this is what I was trying to say.
The Met Office only made their statement to convince people that global warming was happening.
They stopped being an objective scientific organisation and became political advocates for climate change long the man who ran the WWF, Robert Napier became their chairman.
Paul H:
I was making a general comment and I agree with you. It is possible I wanted to expand on what you were saying. Most of my comments were directed at the “Walking Dead”
If it works out to be a harshly cold winter in the US, and Europe, the doubts about global warming from the man on the street will continue to grow. It would be nice then if both the UK and US government agencies that are telling us about warmest years ever get on t.v. and tell everyone about it. It would be special if it was the faces of James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and Phil Jones doing it.
Amino,
There work is accurate, given the information at this point in time. Look at the data, there is no 2010 temperature for the months of Oct, Nov or Dec. As new data becomes available, then the average will be updated.
If in three months time, the running average for this year has not changed, I will concede that, yes, “They have already calculated the 2010 temperatures!”
The graph does not show the current year as incomplete and is misleading.
Who thinks this year is complete? 🙂
The recording groups use meteorological seasons = 2010 started with winter DJF then Spring MAM then summer JJA and end with Fall SON. There is one month left in the meteorological year and it is doubtful, based on past performance that the records will be changed before sometime next year.
I am surprised the proclamation, Warmest Year Ever, was not shouted from the MSM yesterday
I came here looking for some fresh sceptical views but I don’t think comments like:
“I really don’t give a FF about whether or not you believed in global cooling.”
is what I call arguing rationally with your opponent.
I am off back to WUWT and Climate Audit. Have fun shouting your entrenched prejudices at each other.