You should note that RSS went to version 3.2 for their TLT data which contains significant differences than 3.1.

No La Nina? No warming? What is the excuse du jour from our friends?

Differences between 3.1 and 3.2 are discussed here: http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/support/Changes%20from%20TLT%20Version%203.1%20to%203.2.pdf

Temperature measurements of the troposhere do not necessarily correspond to surface temperatures. Take a look at the 1998 chart where we know there was significant warming along the surafce of the pacific equatorial region.

In addition, the location (elevation) of the tropopause has changed over time as global warming has progressed over the years. So, the troposphere of 1988 is not the same as today.

Still, I realize there are a lot of denialist that like to make a big deal of these measurments. To bad it won't change the reality of what is happening on the surface of the earth.

mmm...still not sure if the global ave temp is going up.

"the time interval of the most recent cooling is still not long enough to have noticeable impact on the overall trend, just like it wasn't with the short duration spike in warming back in 1998."

Exactly. And where is that elusive hockey stick? So much for that theory. And what about the trend going back 60 years? 200 years? What about 5,000 years?

The truth is that we have always had cool and warm periods. There is nothing profound by using the words "climate change".

Anyway, back to 2008.

There is as much or more sea ice in the Arctic ocean today compared to the last 6 years.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Sound the alarm.

Well no, but 1998 was when the whole hysteria started
that we were all going to die.
People/scientists were quoted as saying "if this trend continues"

If 1998 can start that kind of panic because of a short 'warm' spike
why can't the same short 'cold' spike create the same
in the other direction of course.

BTW why is Red only 'warm' and not 'hot'
but yet blue is 'cold' and not 'cool'

Reply: You are reading waaay to much into my comments describing the maps.

What happened to the 'cool' anomaly?
Do lower temps only count if it's extreme?

If you begin the graph in 1980, which is closer to 0,there will be a significant impact to the trend slope.

Reply: I disagree. It would be slight, not significant.

This slight warming since 1979 is in no way unprecedented or catastrophic. I believe, based on historical data, that this warming trend since 1979 is a continuation of the natural warming rebound since the end of the Little Ice Age. This warming began before coal-fired power plants existed and before SUVs roamed the Earth. The dire climate predictions based on computer simulations haven't come to pass, especially since the IPCC predicted substantial warming by now and didn't predict the current cooling trend. CO2 might account for some of the warming, however it's likely that natural variables including the cycles of the sun, oceans, and atmosphere are at play; natural variables can't be ruled out. Again, too many questions about climate remain unanswered, and carbon emissions regulation and taxation is asinine at this time.

When examining the the October data for Shepherd Bay, I wasstruck bythe warm anomaly. Now I see that much of the northeast quadrant of North America was warm. I wonder what the cause of this was.

Reply: -NAO in the early and late part of October.

What does the .158 K per decade change convert to using F? Reply: Look at +.158 K as the same as .158 C

I wish mother nature would either quickly send us into the deep freeze or turn the planet into the sun so we could answer this AGW question once and for all. Going month by month is agonizing.

Thanks Brett for charts. I noticed Canada is warm in all of them so it must be your fault. :)

Reply: Yes, it is indeed my fault.

Andrew,

I apologize if I nit-pick, but you must be using a different definition of "Troposphere," when you state it has "moved."

The lower troposphere begins just above the sphere you stand on. The lower troposphere swirls around your ankles, and extends upwards, but not as high as the highest mountains. That is why areas of the Andes in South America and Himalayas in Asia appear gray in the above maps.

If you are referring to the "tropopause," it does not involve the lower troposphere.

There has been some debate about whether the degrading orbit of the satellite is influencing the RSS temperature readings, but that doesn't influence the location of the lower troposphere.

So I am unsure exactly what you are referring to. Can you clarify?

They are a coming round....slowly.

Ronald Bailey the science correspondent for Reason magazine, who has written some interesting content...
http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html

Now says "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. "

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

RSS's presentation is exceedingly misleading. Calling it a "trend" and using linear regression implies that the temperature is obeying a linear model. Overlaying the graph with the regression line gives the initial visual impression that it is. But download the graph and remove the line, using, for instance, Paint. Cover up everything after 1997 and look at the graph from the beginning, 1979, to 1997. There's virtually no trend at all. Now cover up everything before 2002 and look at the graph from 2002 to the present. If anything, the trend is slightly downward.

Reply: Agreed, but it is only 5 years. Pretty much noise when you look at the big picture, regardless if it was going up or down.

The so-called trend is actually a jump that occurs between 1997 and 2002, mostly around 2001. The slope of the regression line is also influenced by the huge El Nino spike around 1998, since least-squares lines, which minimize the distance squared, tend to follow outliers.

A lot of the warmth over Asia was apparently due to open water in the Arctic Sea, which has now frozen over. It will be interesting to watch Siberia, and see if that part of the anomaly map is less red in November.

The CFS ensemble is more bullish this week, regarding a La Nina developing this winter, and other models seem to be shifting their predictions downwards. It will be interesting to see if the anomaly map shows more blacks and blues west of South America, next month.

I'll bet my nickel that the November RSS graph shows a slight downturn. But I won't risk a dime. Reply: Right, in this economy you may need all thise dimes.

I'm afraid the tough economy may result in budget cuts reducing the money spent on researching "Climate Change." Pity. Currently more is spent on researching Global Warming than on curing cancer. However a golden age in research may be ending. As times get tough, I sure hope they don't neglect this satellite.

Andrew,

Upon rereading, I see you said "tropopause" and not "troposphere." My mistake.

Andrew, you wrote, "Temperature measurements of the troposhere (sic) do not necessarily correspond to surface temperatures. Take a look at the 1998 chart where we know there was significant warming along the surafce (sic) of the pacific equatorial region."

I suggest you check data before you make statements that are obviously in error. Doing so would help your comments have credibility. By October 1998, the Equatorial Pacific was in a severe La Nina mode. You're wrong again. Your recent comments appear to have lost any ties to reality.

I've noticed that believers in CO2 induced global warming are having to extend their line correlations further and further back to justify their belief. The first trend lines presented were on a 3-year average. As temperatures stabilized during the past several years, they adopted a 10-year average to continue to show an upward inclination. Even that doesn't help anymore. Now we see the line presented by Andrew going back to 1979!. The fact is that the earth has not warmed for the past 8 years despite a 4% increase in CO2 levels. In fact, the near-term trend is downward. Even if global average temperature is very high during the last quarter, the average temperature for 2008 will be at least 0.06 deg C below 2007.

This trend is reflected in increasing ice coverage at both poles. The CO2 fanatics correctly point out that Arctic ice is not as thick as it has been. Correct. It will take several years to regain the thickness it lost as a result of the solar induced warming of the '90's, just as it took several years to drop to the state reached last summer.

I look for increasing histerics as the earth stubornly refuses to support a liberal environmental agenda.

Andrew wrote:
"Still, I realize there are a lot of denialist that like to make a big deal of these measurments. To bad it won't change the reality of what is happening on the surface of the earth."

Andrew, you may want to go back and review basic GHG theory. The entire AGW case rests on the notion of a persistent radiative imbalance alleged to occur in the troposphere - not at the surface.

Since heating in the troposphere is nowhere near what the GCM's predict, it's no surprise that the warmistas want to discredit the satellite based MSU TLT measurements. It's actually pretty straightforward and not subject to Hanson's constant historical "adjustments" or to Mann's voodoo statistical treatment.

Hopefully you can forgive some of us WUWT and CA readers if we are a bit skeptical of the fidelity of the GISS and NCDC gridded global surface products.

I'm guessing that CO2 emissions began in 1979 and that is why that date to the present is selected to perform a linear regression. WRONG! That date is selected to give the largest upward temperature trend. Try doing a linear regression from 1950 to the present and you will get a much different result.

Reply: Wrong. 1979 was the year that they started getting that type of temp data.

paulm,

Do you even bother to read or listen to the stuff you link to? A while back, you completely mis-represented a video regarding John Coleman, founder of the former Weather Channel (now the Nuts and Berries Disaster Channel).

With this latest link you post to, I guess your "now" is August 2005.

You're livin' in the pa-a-a-s-s-t, ma-a-a-nnn.

Here is the real deal about AGW. These graphs are for the tropical troposphere. This is where we are told that the warming will show up. Pretty meuc self explanatory.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/UAHTROPICS.jpg
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GHGModsvsReality.jpg

Brett, responding to my comment above:

Reply: Agreed, but it is only 5 years. Pretty much noise when you look at the big picture, regardless if it was going up or down.

We're approaching 2009, so it's actually closer to 7 years. But, that aside, you failed to address the first part of my comment, where I pointed out that there's also no clear upward trend between 1979 and 1997. That's 18 years. Added together, there's no upward trend during 25 of the 30 years. The overall "trend" is due to a jump that occurs over only 5 years, between 1997 and 2002. And about half of that period is occupied by the El Nino spike. The upward step is largely confined to the 2001-2002 period.

Brett, I urge you to present the graphs as I've suggested, with the regression line removed and the three periods -- 1979 to 1997, 1997 to 2002, and 2002 to the present -- shown separately. If you wish, I can send you the files.

Reply: You can send me the files.

Caleb makes up another "fact": "Currently more is spent on researching Global Warming than on curing cancer." Not even close.

Going back to a number of commenters in the recent past on the winter forecast from The Old Farmer's Almanac (OFA) and it's apparent accuracy and how they criticized me for bringing up study that showed how bad their forecasts really are, I refer them to the OFA forecast for the northern plains and the actual events during the past week.

This is a summary directly from Accu-Weather:
The wind Thursday reached hurricane strength, with an 85-mph gust recorded near Rapid City. Wind and snow combined to reduce visibility to zero in many areas, while creating drifts as high as 10 feet.

Deadwood, S.D. topped snow totals Thursday with a whopping 45.7 inches, while Rapid City, S.D. set a daily record with 9 inches.

Additional snow totals through Thursday evening include:
Bob Herz pushes his snowblower through a 3-foot deep snowdrift on his son's Rapid City, S.D. driveway on Thursday, Nov. 6, 2008. (AP Photo/ Steve McEnroe)

* Redig, S.D.: 24 inches
* Deerfield, S.D.: 20 inches
* Sturgis, S.D.: 16 inches
* Logan, N.D.: 12 inches
* Newell, S.D..: 12 inches

The North Dakota Highway Patrol this morning reopened Interstate 94 west of Bismarck, while state and local roads were opened later in the morning.

In South Dakota, state troopers spent the night rescuing hundreds of motorists who were stranded in their vehicles. Interstate 90 this morning remained clogged with abandoned cars and trucks and jackknifed semis.

Meanwhile, here is the OFA weather forecast for the High Plains that includes western North and South Dakota:
http://www.almanac.com/weatherforecast/us/12

Nov. 4-6: Showers, then sunny, cool
Nov. 7-10: Showers, then sunny, mild

and the Upper Midwest that includes eastern North and South Dakota:
http://www.almanac.com/weatherforecast/us/9

Nov. 4-8: Showers, then sunny, mild

In the past, a number of comments on this blog site in the past said (and I am paraphrasing here): "If they can't forecast the weather on a daily basis accurately, how can they expect to forecast the long-term climate patterns?"

"I suggest you check data before you make statements that are obviously in error. Doing so would help your comments have credibility. By October 1998, the Equatorial Pacific was in a severe La Nina mode."

And I suggest you check your recent statements about how oceans have "memory" and "remember" things, which render your comments moot and make you look like a hypocrite. The MEI may have been negative in October 1998, but since you claim oceans remember things, the temperature response wouldn't be instantaneous. Your blog is filled with the use of made-up oscillations and arbitrary use of filters and lags, so you of all folks should know this.

Reply : I should have been more clear. But I did not say that October 1998 was a strong el nino, I said 1998 was. Anyway, El Nino was history by October 1998 as it was a weak la nina. It was not in severe la nina mode, not even close. I don't know what you are talking about in terms of oceans having memory.

For what it's worth, the down trend is longer than 5 years. Here is what things look like for the past 11 years.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html

Double click the chart to enlarge.

Note that an RSS anomaly of .181C for October is still below that falling trend line. And this is after we have had ENSO neutral conditions for the last 4 months.

The argument that the trend is that way because there is an El Nino at the beginning and a La Nina at the end is also not true. There were 7 ENSO events over that time period, and their total effect is almost nil. Here is a ten year chart for HadCrut3 where the raw data is compared with the ENSO corrected data. There is very little difference.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/gavin-schmidt-enso-adjustment-for.html

Brett, thanks for your K explanation.

Bob

I've been reading your linked blog lately and find your data on ENSO interesting to say the least. I cant find an email link to contact you. Not sure if this is on purpose or not.

If interested in discussing it further please contact me: pingpong22@hotmail.com

Funny how, depending upon your viewpoint, you can read the same article from Ronald Bailey and come up with different interpretations of what he's saying. I don't think it's a question of IF it's warming, but by how much.

The last paragraph of the article indicates a downward projection of that warming and is maybe more telling:

"Christy notes, "If you want to say model trends are bolstered, you must remember model trends are all over the map. Which trend is bolstered? Perhaps you want to say those model trends less than 0.2 C per decade are bolstered." Right now the available data sets appear to strengthen the case for arguing that the lower-end model projections for future temperature increases are more likely ones. Christy concludes, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming.""

Mark: First, identify me by name if you are addressing one of my comments. You repeatedly attempt to bash me with your snide, unfounded remarks by quoting my comment, making erroneous statements about it and my blog posts, while failing to direct your remark personally to me. What, are you trying to cowardly sneak them past me by not addressing them to me?

You wrote, "And I suggest you check your recent statements about how oceans have 'memory' and 'remember' things, which render your comments moot and make you look like a hypocrite." Mark, you have again made a statement that you cannot back. Advise me and the other readers of this blog what posts at my website and/or what comments I have made at this blog in which I have stated that "oceans have 'memory' and 'remember' things". Provide the date of the thread and the date and time of my comment or post.

You wrote, "The MEI may have been negative in October 1998, but since you claim oceans remember things, the temperature response wouldn't be instantaneous." Mark, I never claimed that "oceans remember things", so your nonsensical comment has no foundation and is simply an attempt to compound the misinformation you feel compelled to ooze.

You wrote, "Your blog is filled with the use of made-up oscillations and arbitrary use of filters and lags, so you of all folks should know this." Mark, your inability to grasp the bases for the use of filters is telling. I note lags if they appear in the data. Identify the "made-up oscillations".

You then go on to reply to yourself, which is quite unusual, to say the least. Maybe you were attempting to imply that that was my reply. If that's the case, your fictitious babble is laughable.

In closing, if you don't like my comments, don't read them. If you don't appreciate my posts at my blog, stop visiting. I don't need your traffic, Mark. BTW, my posts on SST do not have a skeptical bias; they're neutral, which is why there are links to my website from AGW proponent websites.

Have a nice day.

Mark: Or is that Brett's reply to your comment at 6:40PM on November 7? If it was Brett, disregard that portion of my response to you above.

Reply: I was responding to Mark's comment. I thought he was addressing me since he did not mention any one person in particular, but instead used words such as " your blog".

Brett: Last night while I was preparing my reply (not yet posted) to Mark's fabricated comment to me (November 7 @ 6:40PM), I may have mistaken your reply to him for a further fabrication on his part. I was furious about his comment in which he attributes statements to me that I've not made and in which he throws quotation marks on words as if that adds proof that I wrote them in the context he claims. At that time, I believed the reply at the end of his comment was his attempt to add further to his falsehoods, which was why I called them laughable. I was not stating that the content was laughable. It now appears to me that the reply at the end of his comment was from you, so I wanted to clarify that point. There was no insult to you intended.

Reply: None taken Bob. I thought he was addressing this blog.

Goldfinger: Please use the comment link at the end of a post if you'd like to ask me a question about the posts at my blog.

Thanks

Hey Bob - this is almost as confusing as AGW!

Global Land Temperature Warmest On Record In March 2008

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080418112341.htm

hey John, bring me up to speed then.

paulm: You can thank Mark for any confusion you have about the comments on this thread. He failed to address his comment to the person for whom it was intended, and Brett and I both felt compelled to respond to it.

Bring you up to date?

Well it's sure not going to happen by discussing monthly temperature data from March.