Comments on: Moberg+ Satellite

By: TCO

TCO — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:08:04 +0000

Every time I see this stitchtogether, I like it less and less. With the noise in the curves, you can’t even see what happens to the proxies in the 20th century. It’s obscured. And it sends a very different signal to an observer than if one just looked at all proxy signals and saw that current temps in moberg are similar to previous MWP temps. And the frigging red color. Sheesh. Have some shame…

By: Pete Petrakis

Pete Petrakis — Sun, 01 May 2005 00:49:21 +0000

I downloaded Moberg’s data from NOAA’s Paleoclimatology website and noticed that he, like Mann et al. and some others, normalizes his data to the 1961-1990 mean. The result of doing that is that all temperature anomalies prior to the 20th century are represented as negative anomalies. It seems rather odd to treat over 1,900 years of temperature data as “anomalously low” when it ought be considered “normal.” Is there a good reason for not normalizing to the mean of the whole 2000-year series?

By: Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:11:52 +0000

You are assuming that the 1979 MSU temperature anomalies mesh perfectly with the 1979 surface and surface proxy data for 1979. How can you justify this assumption other than to say it is convenient?

By: John Cross

John Cross — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:16:02 +0000

What data set are you using for the satellite data?

John Cross

By: John A

John A — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 09:19:23 +0000

Why not ask the DoE for a copy of the data?

Added: It’s interesting how much the surface record warms relative to the satellite record.