Figure 16:   Second-order statistics of surface air temperature, sea level pressure and precipitation simulated by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Phase 2 CMIP2 model control runs (Meehl et al. 2000). The radial co-ordinate gives the magnitude of total standard deviation, normalized by the observed value, and the angular co-ordinate gives the correlation with observations. It follows that the distance between the OBSERVED point and any model’s point is proportional to the rms model error. Numbers indicate models counting from left to right in Figure 38. Letters indicate alternate observationally based data sets compared with the baseline observations: e = 15-year ECMWF reanalysis (“ERA”); n = NCAR/NCEP reanalysis. From Covey et al. (2000) and the IPCC (2001).

Figure 17:   Trend-line maps of Surface Temperature, UAH Ver. D MSU 2LT, and R2-2m for 1979-1996 viewed from North Pole, Full World, and South Pole Projections as reported in Douglass et al. (2004). Note that apart from polar regions (which are shown as colorless circles) cells where Surface Temperature data are missing are made dark blue – and are therefore indistinguishable from their cells that show strong regional cooling. Taken from Douglass et al. (2004).

Figure 18:   Zonally averaged temperature trends for the period 1979-1996 from the Surface Record, MSU2LT, and the NCEP/NCAR 2-Meter Reanalysis as determined by Douglass et al. (2004) and plotted as a function of latitude. Taken from Douglass et al. (2004).

Figure 19:   Comparison of 10-yr mean (1979–88) zonally averaged albedo over ocean regions in the original NCEP/NCAR R-1 Reanalysis (dashed - Kalnay et al., 1996) and the R2-2m update (solid – Kanamitsu et al., 2002) shown as fractions of 1.0. Albedos increase significantly beyond 60 deg. N. or S. latitude toward either pole. Taken gtom Kanamitsu et al. (2002).

Figure 20a:   Change of annual-mean temperature profile in the GISS SI2000 AOGCM for the globe and Northern Hemisphere over the period 1979–1998 based on linear trends. Model results are for oceans A (left) and B (right), with five and six forcings as applied by Hansen et al. (2002). Surface observations are the land-ocean data of Hansen et al. (1999), with SSTs of Reynolds and Smith (1994) for ocean areas. The bars on the MSU satellite data (Christy et al., 2000) are twice the standard statistical error adjusted for autocorrelation (Santer et al., 2000b). Radiosonde profiles become unreliable above about the 100-hPa level. Twice the ensemble standard deviation is shown at three pressure levels for ocean B with six forcings. Taken from Hansen et al. (2002).

Figure 20b:   Change of annual-mean temperature profile in the GISS SI2000 AOGCM for the Tropics/Extratropics and Southern Hemisphere over the period 1979–1998 based on linear trends. Model results are for oceans A (left) and B (right), with five and six forcings as applied by Hansen et al. (2002). Surface observations are the land-ocean data of Hansen et al. (1999), with SSTs of Reynolds and Smith (1994) for ocean areas. The bars on the MSU satellite data (Christy et al., 2000) are twice the standard statistical error adjusted for autocorrelation (Santer et al., 2000b). Radiosonde profiles become unreliable above about the 100-hPa level. Twice the ensemble standard deviation is shown at three pressure levels for ocean B with six forcings. Taken from Hansen et al. (2002).

Figure 21:   The network of surface weather stations used by McKitrick and Michaels (2004) in their study of correlations of 1979-2000 surface temperature trends to parameterized climate, economic, and social factors. The stations were selected from GISS surface records (Hansen et al., 1999) and records from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia. Taken from Michaels et al. (2004).

Figure 22:   Global, land based average surface temperature trends with and without economic and social influences, and their associated standard deviations, as reported by McKitrick and Michaels (2004). Taken from Michaels et al. (2004).

Figure 23:   Global, land based average surface temperature trends with and without economic and social influences, and their associated standard deviations, as reported by McKitrick and Michaels after correction of erroneous latitude inputs to their original SHAZAM regression run. Taken from McKitrick and Michaels (2004b).

Figure 24:   Results of regression analyses with 5 different models designed to reproduce the modeled results of McKitrick and Michaels (2004) to test their derived correlations of surface temperature trends with economic, social, and climatic variables. One model was run using all of McKitrick and Michaels’ data and the remaining 4 were run using various subsets of their dependent variables. Each model run shown used data from stations within the latitude range 75.5° S to 35.2°N for calibration and stations in the latitude range 35.3° to 80.0° N and corresponding depending variables for prediction and evaluation. The trend estimates shown are in deg. K/decade. Taken from Benestad (2004).

Figure 25:   The figure used by Roy Spencer at Tech Central Station (May 5, 2004 – his Figure 1) to dispute the results of Fu et al. (2004), modified to reflect my wording rather than his. Weighting functions for MSU TLT (“Spencer & Christy”), TMT (Ch. 2), and TLS (Ch. 4) from UAH Version 5.0 (Christy et al., 2003) are shown with the effective weighting function of Fu et al. (2004) for the free troposphere (850-300 hPa layer). Spencer claimed that the area shown in red aliased a spurious cooling into the free troposphere trend. Taken from Spencer (2004).

Figure 26:   Figure 25 modified to reflect the layers being detected and trended by MSU2. The region shown in orange is the free troposphere (850-300 hPa layer), the light blue region reflects the tropopause and lower stratosphere, and the red region reflects the surface affected layer. MSU2 measures the entire shaded region, but the layers shown in orange and light blue are known to have differing trends during the satellite era. Adapted from Spencer (2004).

Figure 27:   Figure 25 modified to reflect the layers being detected and trended by the effective weighting function of Fu et al. (2004). The region shown in dark blue reflects the third term in equation 2 and reflects the coefficient weighted MSU4 trend. The combined area shaded in light orange, dark orange, and dark blue is representative of the equation 2 combined trend and is effectively the actual trend of the free troposphere (850-300 hPa layer), shown here in light orange. The red region reflects the surface affected layer. Adapted from Spencer (2004).