Figure 38:   The corrected MSU Channel 2 weighting function derived by Fu et al. (2004) compared with the uncorrected MSU2, MSU4, and 2LT/TLT channels (Christy et al., 2003; Mears et al., 2003). Whereas the actual Channel 2, 4, and TLT functions are everywhere positive, as required for real weighting, the Fu et al. function goes negative above 100 hPa to remove stratospheric effects from the uncorrected MSU2 channel. Global average tropopause height is shown for comparison.

Figure 39:   Trends in monthly mean troposphere temperature anomalies for MSU channel 2 without correction for stratospheric influence (top), and for the MSU-derived 850–300-hPa layer with correction (bottom). Trends are given for the globe, Northern Hemisphere (NH), Southern Hemisphere (SH) and tropics (308 N–308 S). Uncorrected UAH values are from Version 5.0 (Christy et. al., 2003) and uncorrected RSS values are from Version 1.0 (Mears et. al., 2003). Surface temperature trends for the same regions are also shown for comparison. From Fu et. al., 2004.

Figure 40:   Components of space-time errors of surface air temperature (climatological annual cycle) simulated by Coupled Model Intercomparison Phase 2 CMIP2 model control runs. Shown are the total errors, the global and annual mean error (“bias”), the total rms (“pattern”) error, and the following components of the climatological rms error: zonal and annual mean (“clim.zm.am”); annual mean deviations from the zonal mean (“clim.zm.am.dv”), seasonal cycle of the zonal mean (“clim.zm.sc”); and seasonal cycle of deviations from the zonal mean (“clim.zm.sc.dv”). For each component, errors are normalised by the component’s observed standard deviation. The two left-most columns represent alternate observationally based data sets, ECMWF and NCAR/NCEP reanalyses, compared with the baseline observations (Jones et al., 1999). Remaining columns give model results: the ten models to the left of the second thick vertical line are flux adjusted and the six models to the right are not. From Covey et al. (2000) and the IPCC (2001).

Figure 41:   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 42:   The 89 station radiosonde network used by Christy and Norris for their Year 2004 MSUTLT-radiosonde intercomparison study. Stations are shown by their global latitude and longitude location, though continental land masses are not shown for comparison. Stations are delineated by instrument type and recorded instrument changes experienced during the period of record (Jan. 1979 – July 2001). From Christy and Norris, 2004.

Figure 43:   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 44:   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 45:   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 46a:   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 46b:   Change of annual-mean temperature profile in the GISS SI2000 AOGCM for the Tropics/Extra-tropics 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 47:   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 48:   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).