Figure 2a. Several commenters asked for a graph showing the 6.0 beta 2 information using the same color range as was used in Figure 1. This is that graph. It was most interesting to see both the commonalities and the differences of the two datasets. One of the first things that I noticed in both maps was that despite warming in most areas of the planet over the 36 years, there are large areas of the Pacific, the Southern Ocean, the North Atlantic, and Antarctica that have actually cooled over the period. If ever there were a graph to emphasize the complexity of the climate, Figure 2 is a candidate. Next, if I had to choose between the two versions based solely on what I see above, it would be version 6.0 all the way. To explain why, look at say India in both maps. It is well understood and verified that when there is a change in conditions the land generally warms or cools both faster and more than the ocean. We see this on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. As a result, it is unlikely that India would warm or cool at the same rate as the ocean around it, as is shown by v5.6. In the v6.0 results, on the other hand, India is shown as warming at a different rate than the ocean. The same can be seen in western Australia, central Africa, and all over South America. (In passing, let me note that the above graphs were made from the UAH MSU data. This data comes from KNMI at a 5° by 5° gridcell size. I resampled them to a 1° x 1° gridcell size, using the R function "resample" in the package "raster". I was concerned about the accuracy of such a radical change in resolution ... but when I look at say Australia, I gotta say that their "bilinear interpolation" method handled the resampling much better than I expected. The colors line up very well with the black lines everywhere on the map ... and the colors are from the resample while the black lines are from the mapping program.) There are a couple other differences between the two datasets. The overall global decadal trend has decreased by ~ three hundreds of a degree per decade. Also, the range of the trends has decreased by about 60%, from a range of 1.3°C (-0.5 to +0.8 degrees) per decade in the earlier version to a range of 0.8°C (-0.3 to +0.5 degrees) per decade in the later version. Finally, I note that much of the central tropical Pacific has either cooled or stayed about the same for 36 years. Here's how I read that situation. I've described
Figure 3. 3D section of the Pacific Ocean looking westward alone the equator. Each 3D section covers the area eight degrees north and south of the equator, from 137° East (far end) to 95° West (near end), and down to 500 metres depth. Click on image for larger size. SOURCE http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/ Notice in the right half of Figure 3 how the strong La Nina trade winds have hollowed out the surface by pumping away the warm surface water. In addition to moving the warmth polewards where it can radiate away more easily, there is another important effect of the Nino/Nina Pump -- it exposes the cool underlying waters to the atmosphere. Now, bear in mind that for all practical purposes there is an unending reservoir of cold water underlying the tropical Pacific. As I discussed in the post