Nenana Ice Classic 2013 - the ice has moved 2013/05/20 14:41

Second latest time from beginning of the year
The record was set in 1964 which was a leap year. The movement happened 140.4868 days from January 1st

This year the movement occurred 139.6118 days from January 1st

Hmmm! Perhaps this all need rejigging to relate the breakup time to the vernal equinox and z-time

Anyway, here are 2 plots using AK time:
The first splits the data into 3 segments
The second assumes that there is no upturn and hence only 2 lines
Smoothing is done with Hodrick Prescott filter from http://www.web-reg.de/hp_addin.html

Breakup data from
http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/

Heres the modified plot with days since vernal equinox instead of start of year:

So this year now becomes the latest date for breakup! Otherwise the shape remains.

Grape Harvest Temperature Reconstructions - More Stuff

Western European climate, and Pinot noir grape harvest dates in Burgundy, France, since the 17th century

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c046p243.pdf

from the document:

And something I did a few years ago.
Note the vertical scales are offset but per division scales are correct

And a comparison to CET

There seems to be no further analysis (more recent than 2003) which was done by:

 Chuine I, Yiou P, Viovy N, Seguin B, Daux V, Leroy Ladurie E (2004) Grape ripening as a past climate indicator.

From the above it seems that grapes despite possible  cultivar changes give a good proxy for temperature.

http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/images/stories/DPTEFonctionnelle/BIOFLUX/Chercheurs/isabelle_chuine/publications/ChuineNature2004.pdf

http://www-ecole.enitab.fr/people/kees.vanleeuwen/articles/PI_36.pdf

Just How good Are Satellite Derived Temperatures (updated)

Many changes have been made to satellite derive temperatures ( I have asked Spencer to explain the differences and unrecorded adjustments on many blogs. BUT never has he bothered to explain).
With the current BEST surface temperature  slanging matches raging on the anti AGW blogs all eyes seem to be turning to the satellite record and opinions seem to suggest that these results are what everyone should be usingas the gold standard (mainly because they only show the last 8 year and these have a cooling trend!!)

What goes up must (in earth orbit) eventually come down.
NOAA-15 was once the satellite producing the temperature records (from 1998) however as the hardware progressively fails the data from the AQUA satellite has been used (data available from 2002)

This gave a 6 year overlap where the temperatures could be compared and corrected. This, according to Leif Svalgaard is what happens with the TSI measurements for solar activity.

My complaint is that there is a LARGE error in data between AQUA and NOAA-15 and no attempt to reconcile the differences is made or explanations given.
Indeed The UAH team handling the data seem to adjust data at a whim.
For example: for channel 05 AQUA between the dates of 2010-07-03 and 2011-10-01 data missing in the earlier plot suddenly appeared in the later plot  (from 2009-02-01 to 2009-02-03 and on 2010-11-25 and 2010-11-26 Why and how? Also in my data the earlier records were one day adrift !! (could have been me however)

People are quibbling about discrepancies of 0.12 K/decade  but looking at the comparison between NOAA-15 data and AQUA this 0.12K/decade is the discrepancies produced by the two satellites and modified by the same team.

Chan 05
.

From the above plot during the overlap period:
NOAA warming is 3.27e-5K/day = 0.119K/decade
AQUA warming is -1.95e-5K/day = -0.0712K/decade
Also of interest is the two plots for the same series but obtained at different times red and blue in the plot these seem to have been revised without explanation (by up to .08K)

Looking at CH 4 data, the current data on their web site runs from 2002 to 2008 (with the last 6 monts failing) The data that was available (NOAA?) went from 1998 to 2011 and despite this being the longer record  is not used on their Discover website.

Again the slope over the valid overlap period is:
AQUA 1.0404e-5K/day = 0.0380K/decade
NOAA 1.1879e-4K/day = 0.434K/decade


Another series CH06

AQUA -4.2323e-5K/day = -0.154K/decade
NOAA -1.7595e-4K/day = -0.642K/decade

Chan 10

AQUA -6.59e-5K/day = -0.2345K/decade
NOAA -9.58e-4K/day = -0.3411K/decade

Chan 13

AQUA -2.1174e-4K/day = -0.754K/decade
NOAA -1.4831e-4K/day = -0.528K/decade

Another plot shows that CHLT (NOAA defunct) and CH04 (recently AQUA defunct) had peaks and troughs occurring at the same time. However comparing CH04 to Sea Surface temperature the temperature of the sea changes BEFORE the air temperature by a couple of months. HOW?

Absolute temperature differences
( CH4 NOAA) - (CH4 AQUA)=-2K
( CH5 NOAA) - (CH5 AQUA)=-0.11K
( CH6 NOAA) - (CH6 AQUA)=-0.99K
( CH10 NOAA) - (CH10 AQUA)=-0.279K
( CH13 NOAA) - (CH13 AQUA)=0.062K

Conclusion

There seems to be many more problems with satellite temperatures than with surface temperatures. Why then are these held up as being the golden standard???

WUWT - A science blog of note

In entry:
Rebuttal to the Skeptical Science “Crux of a Core”

Posted on March 1, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Guest post by Dr. J Storrs Hall

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/01/rebuttal-to-the-skeptical-science-crux-of-a-core/

There is this gem of a scientific annotation to this graph:

(This is GISP2 in green, NGRIP, another Greenland core, in cyan, and the Vostok Antarctic core in blue. The Vostok has been scaled and shifted for a best match with the others; the temperature in Antarctica is colder, with smaller variations, than in Greenland. Furthermore, there are some time-scaling issues — note the temporal divergence of the two Greenland records before about 40 kya. It’s possible that NH/SH actually match better than this plot indicates.  Look here for data.)
 
Consider the supposed desecration of science of hide the decline - see earlier post
 
Storrs Hall
has invisibly shifted a whole data set in time.
has changed the data scaling of a data set
Has used 2 locations on the globe only to prove that AGW is a fraud.
 
Not one post points this out!!!!!!

Grape harvest

Nothing seems to give a useful proxy to temperature. Some of the better ones are grape harvest and budbust dates. But these only go back to about 1300s.



Note that grape harvest has not been converted to temp. so high temp = early harvest!