UAH Global Temperature dips in August

UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for August 2008 was published today and has moved a bit below the zero anomaly line, with a value of -0.010°C, down from 0.048°C in July 2008

The global UAH ∆T from July to August 2008 was .049°C and is 0.287°C cooler than in August 2007. It becomes the fourth time the UAH data has dipped below the zero anomaly line in 2008

UAH
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.180
2008 6 -0.114
2008 7  0.048
2008 8 -0.010



Click for a larger image
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data

About these ads

102 thoughts on “UAH Global Temperature dips in August

  1. So what does the 10 year linear look like? Or 12 month moving average?

    When I mention temps are falling, people are totally unbelieving. Skeptical, you might say…

  2. Pingback: August Temperatures Dip Slightly | Skeptics Global Warming

  3. If you choose an arbitrarily cold period as your reference point, then it is still warmer than it was then. Every warm year is evidence, every cold year is just noise. Unless the cooling continues for, let’s say, 100 years, it still won’t be enough to persuade warmists like Hansen. They are driven by belief systems, not logic or science method.

    I fear that only another ice age will be enough proof that man does not control the weather or the climate. Even then, we will still be the main culprit, because nature never effects the climate, expect when it does.

    Reason, it seems, has taken a long holiday.

  4. The 12 mo. running mean for Aug, 2008 is 0.047

    The 12 mo. running mean for Aug 1980 is 0.087

    That “Global Warming” is a Bear, eh?

  5. The National Weather Service reports that Alaska has had an AGW summer.

    Summer has been one of Alaska’s coldest
    High temperatures this season were 3rd lowest on record

    By CRAIG MEDRED
    cmedred@adn.com

    (09/07/08 00:04:10)
    Summer is officially over in Alaska, and if you got out in the sun to enjoy both days of it you were lucky.

    Those were the two July days the temperature at the offices of the National Weather Service in Anchorage hit 70 degrees or better.

    “Those temperatures occurred at the beginning of the month (of July) and were immediately followed by a long stretch of cool and wet weather.

    “With only two days above 70 degrees this year, that sets a new record for the fewest days to reach 70,” the weather-watching agency reported Friday.

    Add to the lack of heat and sunshine what the agency calls “an astonishing 77%” of days colder than normal, and you get the picture.

    This summer was every bit as bad as you thought it was.

    Gardens didn’t grow. Salmon returned late. Bees didn’t make honey. Swallows didn’t breed.

    And the sunbathing, well, what sunbathing?

    On average, Anchorage sees 16 days that hit 70 or better.

    Not this year. Not since 1980 has there been a summer less reflective of global warming than this one. Consider these 2008 benchmarks from the weather service that say this month won’t be any better:

    Over the course of the past 87 years, September temperatures have reached 70 only 17 times, and two of those 70-degree days came in the same year, according to the weather service.

    On average, a 70-degree September day comes along about once every five years, but those days also tend to come in warm years, not years like this one.

    Overall, the weather service ranks the summer of 2008 as having the third coolest average high temperatures since record keeping began. Only the summers of 1973 and 1971 were worse. In overall average daily temperatures, 2008 ranked 11th place.

    CLOUDS ARE GOOD?

    All that stopped this summer from winning a place as coldest ever was, strangely enough, its cloudy grimness.

    “What seemed like endless days of cloud cover kept the daytime highs averaging 3 degrees below normal,” according to the weather service. “Inversely, the cloud cover helped to keep overnight temperatures up.

    “The minimum temperatures in the summer of 2008 only ranked as the 34th coolest on record.”

    Now, there’s something to cheer about. That and the fact that, though the summer left the birds and the bees struggling, the mosquitoes seemed to be doing just fine.

    So what can you expect from here on out?

    “September climatologically opens with high temperatures around 60 and overnight lows in the middle 40s,” says the local office of the weather service. Followed by October, when temperatures start to really drop, to the 20s and 30s by the end of the month.

    That is the normal pattern.

    This year?

    The National Climate Prediction center is calling for “below normal temperatures along southern Alaska (through September).” Warm waters flowing north into the Gulf of Alaska mean Southcentral Alaska could be back to “normal” — if there is such a thing — by October or November.

    That would be just in time for the snow-sport season that lasts about twice as long as summer.

    Meanwhile, in case you forgot, the days are getting shorter, too.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Contact Craig Medred cmedred@adn.com or call 257-4588.

    ——————————————————————————–

    2008 numbers

    • Anchorage’s average high temperature was 60.9 degrees, 3 degrees below normal.

    • The average low was 47.7 degrees, 1.9 degrees below normal.

    • The average for the season was 54.3 degrees, 2.4 degrees below normal.

    — National Weather Service

  6. Paul Clark,

    I don’t think anyone is “cooking the books,” but when subjective temperature adjustments are made – people tend to bias them towards what they want to see. That is why the satellite data is more reliable – it is much less subjective.

  7. In a letter to the editor of a local daily, replying to mine, professor Martin Vermeer of the Technical University of Helsinki, http://www.tkk.fi, shows the 1979 – July 08 UAH lower troposphere temp series with a rising trendline and explains the data as follows: “The straight trendline was calculated according to the least square method, that is how a long term trend – which climate is – should be determined apart from “noisy” data. (…) The underlying trend can only be calculated from a sufficiently long time series. (…) He notes: “I have included MH’s (or Anthony Watts’s, another statistical analphabet) extreme January 07 and May 08. Teh difference in temperature is quite correctly 0,777 degrees. The time difference is, however, puny sixteen months. Hello? This is weather, not climate.” Prof. Vermeer writes that he does not know if I am a liar or if I believe in my climate garbage myself, writing inter alia that “the trend 2001-2008 is falling and, as ocean currents have shifted to their cold phase, this is a sign that the 60-70 year cycle has turned once more.”
    I feel honoured being mentioned in the same sentence as Anthony! -:)
    Prof. Vermeer can be reached at martin.vermeer@tkk.fi. I am sure he would be glad to discuss statistics.

    Magnus Hagelstam

  8. I understand where he (Paul Clark) is coming from. How is making subjective adjustments that reflect your own bias not the same as “cooking the books”?

    The cooling is showing up in all the data sets including the ones that use surface readings and that we know have a warming bias. Am I wrong to assume the cooling is actually greater than shown because the bias tends to hide it?

  9. The next 12 – 24 months are the key. If temps bounce back up, then the recent drop may be no different than the 1999 period. If temps continue to fall, than I will become a full fledged skeptic.

  10. So Biden’s going to challenge Palin on her view that humans’ aren’t the cause for global warming. May be some one should email this blog’s link to her.

  11. It seems sad to me that even the sat figures have to be adjusted in some form and that then develops a difference between UAH and REMSS.

  12. bsneath

    I don’t see why 12-24 more months of cooling should matter when 10 years hasn’t. If the cooling og the last 16 months continues for another 24 without significant rebound we are going to be hurting in the agriculture sector, which means in the food sector.

  13. Magnus Hagelstam (13:01:47) :

    Martin Vermeer: The difference in temperature is quite correctly 0,777 degrees. The time difference is, however, puny sixteen months. Hello? This is weather, not climate.

    Yes and no. Yes in that it would be nice to see enough data so that cyclic and random data can be analyzed, and no in that it would be nice to see what effect the the PDO shift has in the satellite data. The satellite record doesn’t extend back to the last positive to negative shift. The only negative to positive shift resulted in a step in temperatures, (Joe D’Aleo calls it the Great Pacific Climate Shift).

    So it’s natural and useful to be interested in a puny window, with the caveat that it is not the last word.

  14. Phil…

    The La Nina entered “weak” status in April and ended completely in May. So June, July, and August have been La Nina-free. This can be seen in the warming of tropical ocean temperatures in the Pacific. However, this has not translated to warming overall globally, as evidence by the latest numbers.

    Furthermore, 1999 featured a La Nina that persisted through the entire year (unlike this one). However, 2008 is running considerably cooler than 1999 so far.

  15. To Magnus,

    Least squares regression is not always the best way to determine a long-term trendline. What does least squares tell you about the trendline of this chart.

    What is the least squares regression for a half-circle?

  16. Just to add to my last comment…

    UAH 1999 through August (average): +.042
    UAH 2008 through August (average): -.023

  17. I’ve just had a look at the data and some of the figures are slightly different than yours. Is this because I’m looking at the wrong data or has the data changed? Your figures are in brackets.

    2008 1 -0.046 (-0.046)
    2008 2 0.020 ( 0.020)
    2008 3 0.089 ( 0.094)***
    2008 4 0.015 ( 0.015)
    2008 5 -0.183 (-0.180)***
    2008 6 -0.114 (-0.114)
    2008 7 0.047 ( 0.048)***
    2008 8 -0.010 (-0.010)

  18. I thought I’d bake some cherry pie for you.

    Using the monthly anomalies:

    For the colders the trend from May 1997 is -0.078 per century.
    For the warmers the trend from November 1991 is 2.268 per century.

    Using August anomalies only:

    For the colders the trend from 1995 is -0.4 per century
    For the warmers the trend from 1984 is 1.440 per century

    Of course this all depends on me correctly using the LINEST directive in OpenOffice.

    If your were a gambling man person and, starting in August 1979, bet $1 every year that the following August would be hotter than the current one then you would be up by $3.

  19. Phil (13:59:51) wrote: “Isn’t this La Nina and wasn’t it predicted?”

    Phil, the past LaNina is for all intents over and no, it was never predicted. However it is my understanding cetain [snip] (a name claimed by the anthropogenics in certain areas) are now claiming that the now “deceased” LaNina never ended and may be gaining momentum.

    Reply: Derogatory terms for AGW promoters as well as skeptics are not allowed ~ charles the moderator.

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project
    http://www.climateclinic.com

  20. McGrats,

    I agree that the Nina went neutral in April time frame. There are some in the weather community that did predict the Nina six months in advance, but I won’t quibble with you on that. It is also making a comeback at the subsurface level, and it will be apparent to all that La Nina has returned in the October timeframe.

    Tucker

  21. Yep, I’ve been watching NOAA’s weekly ENSO updates. and from the best I can tell they are predicting a weak la nina to reform (on their maps at least), but in their print they say that ENSO neutral condition are supposed to persist through the fall, so who knows?

    NOAA is also saying they predict the lower 48 to be average or slightly about average this fall, but the darned thing is that NOAA adds a warming trend bias into their reports, where they used to offer both w/ Global Warming and w/o global warming. I’m betting that it will be cooler than NOAA expects, and if this general cooling trend continues into February or March, then we are looking at a cold winter. This might be good news, because it might stall political action during the new president’s first 100 days. With luck it will persist for another 2-3 years until we can elect a new congress.

  22. “bsneath (13:22:02) : The next 12 – 24 months are the key. If temps bounce back up, then the recent drop may be no different than the 1999 period. If temps continue to fall, than I will become a full fledged skeptic.”

    Horrors! Someone who is leting actual data affect their opinion! Where will this lead?

  23. Certainly looks like the beginnings of a La Nina to me. I have no idea why the El Nino of 98 is counted as evidence of AGW and the Mt Pinatubo depression of temps in 91-93, which artificially enhances the upward curve of temps are not
    adjusted out’ of the temperature readings.

    Here’s todays ocean SST — note the huge upwelling of cooler water off almost the entire pacific NW, Western Canada area – some temps in the purple ( -3C below normal) That and look at the temps in the Carib.

    Compare it to just 4 days ago

    or two weeks ago

  24. Rob:
    “Perhaps someone can tell me what caused the medieval warming, what ended it, what caused the Little ice age and what ended that.”

    Shhh! Don’t mention the MWP or LIA. AGW’s try to pretend they don’t exist because it implies that the climate has natural variability. Look at the (in)famous hockey stick graph to see how they treat the data.

  25. La Nina is back… deal with it. The predominance of La Ninas over the next few decades does not invalidate global cooling. Otherwise, the predominance of El Ninos over the past 3 decades should invalidate global warming. You can’t have it both ways, but I’m sure the warm-mongers will try.

    Check the image http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/comp.gif and the discussion at http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/#discussion and you’ll see that after a couple of months of almost dead zero, the index has returned to a weak La Nina. The discussion points out that the last time such a situation occured, i.e. 1974, the result was a la Nina lasting into 1976. A similar scenario now would have a la Nina lasting into 2010. Ouch. Another point to remember is that 1976 was the PDO-flip to positive, which may have prematurely truncated that La Nina. Assuming that the current PDO doesn’t flip back to positive in 2010, we may now be at the beginning of “The Mother fo all La Ninas”.

    Note also the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) at http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/ which indicates a return to La Nina. Negative numbers are El Nino, and positive numbers are La Nina. The 30 and 90 day numbers are SOI, expressed in standard deviations. The raw daily numbers have to be run through a formula to produce standard deviations. See http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/SOIDataFiles/index.html for more details. But as a quick rule of thumb, higher daily raw SOI numbers mean a stronger La Nina.

    Looking at the current ENSO and SOI numbers, let’s just say that if you liked the winter of 2007/2008 you’ll love the winter of 2008/2009. If you *DIDN’T* like it… well… too bad.

  26. Bill, looks like a classic cool phase PDO to me. It followed this years El Nina,
    and is likely partly to blame for the mild summer in Alaska. You may be right about another El Nina.
    If this cool PDO cycle sticks and lasts a few years, it’s liable to put the Kaibash
    on the AGWers for sure.

    Look at the trend, warming to the 40s, cooling to the 70s, then warming to the beginning of this century.

  27. Pingback: Instrument Error in the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly | Atmoz

  28. ENSO is showing a negative for JJA. ( at -.4 it is just below the -.5 needed to label it La Nina ) It is several degrees cooler in the eastern equatorial pacific than it is in the west. Cool water is moving west which means the El Nino/La Nina cycling is still in the negative/cooling phase just not enough to call it La Nina.
    If the slow Northern movement of cooler water off the coast of South America continues we may see an extention of near La Nina conditions into the NH winter.

  29. From the NOAA animation, one cannot tell whether a strong El Nino is developing or whether La Nina is coming back.

    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/anom_anim.html

    We may have to wait for around Christmas which is when El Ninos and La Ninas really solidify themselves.

    But if you speed up the animation (as fast as your computer can handle), you can see that the trade winds have strengthened again and strong trade winds are the real driver of La Ninas (while weak trade winds allow El Ninos to develop). It almost appears that the Atlantic is developing its own La Nina (for the first time) as well.

  30. Pingback: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.

  31. The snow is coming back. Western China and north eastern Siberia. More so than last year.

    Perhaps unremarkable. But, worth watching.

  32. McGrats (16:33:52) :

    “Phil (13:59:51) wrote: “Isn’t this La Nina and wasn’t it predicted?”

    Phil, the past LaNina is for all intents over and no, it was never predicted.”

    I think you are misunderstanding what Phil meant about ‘predicted’. If he was meaning the cooling effect for this year then, yes, it was predicted http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
    It seems that many posters use the ‘lag effect’ in other posts, but not here….wonder why?

  33. McGrats (16:33:52) :

    “However it is my understanding cetain [snip] (a name claimed by the anthropogenics in certain areas) are now claiming that the now “deceased” LaNina never ended and may be gaining momentum. ”

    Er….it went to a neutral phase and is now re awakening, hardly deceased, more of a summer snooze! For deceased you probably should read this…..

    http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-parrot.html

    Reply: Derogatory terms for AGW promoters as well as skeptics are not allowed ~ charles the moderator.

  34. To all of the posters from the UK (where I hail from though a long time ago). The sun is now at over 56 degrees above the horizon here in Brisbane at noon now AND is shining every day! Yippee!

  35. Richard deSousa (13:22:43) :

    “So Biden’s going to challenge Palin on her view that humans’ aren’t the cause for global warming. May be some one should email this blog’s link to her.”

    Maybe someone should also send her ‘The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection’ by Charles Darwin.
    Anyone that believes in Creationism should not be allowed anywhere near a scientific debate….and she could possibly be a president if McCain is elected!!

  36. “F Rasmin (04:27:46) :

    To all of the posters from the UK (where I hail from though a long time ago). The sun is now at over 56 degrees above the horizon here in Brisbane at noon now AND is shining every day! Yippee!”

    Definitely uncalled for, we only had 3-4 days. Not only did I have the heating on this weekend, I even started draughtproofing.

  37. Here in Ottawa, I am already looking fondly back to the balmy warm days of the ’90s. A warm planet is a happy planet.

  38. Down here in Sydney Australia we have just had our coldest August since 1944 !!!

    Of course one cold month means little in the long tem trends, but it’s interesting we are now seeing a general ‘declining’ pattern emerge.

    After much research into the ‘global warming’ debate I conclude along with other scientists that we are seeing completely normal cyclic trends caused by the impact of low level clouds, which in turn is caused by increased cosmic ray intensity as we enter a period of low solar magnetic field strength for the next several decades. This will likely cause temperatures to remain in the negative for several decades. Of course it’s no coincidence that we had increased temperatures during 1985~2005 as this aligns with a period of very low cosmic ray activity. The effect of cosmic rays on global temperatures is a fairly new science and it is the only likely explanation to the recent 30 years of supposed AGW. The cosmic ray intensity is inversely linked to sunspot activity and is the real answer to why sunspot activity has shown a rough alignment to global temperatures. If you use the C14 data (which correlates inversely to cosmic ray intensity) then you get a very accurate match which shows complete alignment, even for 1985~2005. It is worth doing some reading on this topic, on how the cosmic rays enable enhanced cloud formation which reflects back some of the the suns energy. I’m 100% convinced of the connection. I am also interested at a possible linkage between this and the SOI. It is likely that the location of the mid latitude high pressure belt is affected by the cloud cover increase/ lower temps, which in turn affects ocean currents to enhace La Ninya causing a further componding cooling effect at mid latitudes in particular.

    A likely conclusion……..
    30-50 years of below average temperatures (-0.5 to -1.0) below the long term trend. This is substantial considering we have been 0.7 above the trend in recent times. Some scientists are predicting a maunder minimum type period of solar actvity. If this happens it will likely be 2 degrees below the long term trend.

    Either way, the AGW alarmists will end up being frozen out of this debate within a decade !!!

  39. Mike Bryant (05:25:36) :

    I agree! Well, if you can have an Austrian exbodybuilder and actor (in the loosest possible sense of the word) then why not, where do I sign! Better that than a return to the dark ages with a creasionist president. When the science books in the schools are placed on the pyre who will light the first match?
    On a different note and wildly off topic but within the remit of the blog, I would like to say farewell, in case the LHC does something it shouldn’t. If you think they all know exactly what there doing and that any black-hole formed will be too small and contained in a ‘controlled environment’ read this arcticle from the Sunday Times, dated last April, reassuring isn’t it!

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1626728.ece

  40. It’s spring down under here in Sydney but temps are still in the winter range. Today was fine and clear with a light wind but still only reached 16 C (61F) in the CBD and 14 C (58F) at Sydney AP, which is several degrees below average. This morning at Cooma AP which is 350 km to the south the temperature was a very frosty -9.0 C (15F) which is new record low for September and beats the old record by 0.5 C. This follows on from a very cold August which also saw a new record low maximum temp of 3.8 C. This is Australia and it’s not supposed to be cold for any extended period.
    This is surely further evidence that AGW has no boundaries.

  41. I note that the latest NSIDC data points indicate a recovery from the falling trend and a larger gap wrt last years data. It would now seem unlikely that 2008 will see a new low for Arctic sea ice. It will be interesting to track the ice regrowth in the coming months so I hope NSIDC will provide the same attention to ice growth as they have to ice melt, as well as the same publically available trend analysis.

  42. How much heat is being extracted from the oceans during the current hurricane activity?

    Is this heat being replaced or lost to space?

    It would seem logical to be spikes in satellite readings before, during and after large hurricane events. Is that the case?

  43. “It will be interesting to track the ice regrowth in the coming months so I hope NSIDC will provide the same attention to ice growth as they have to ice melt, as well as the same publically available trend analysis.”

    Ice growth this winter is likely to follow a similar path to last year due to the decreased salinity and resulting raised freezing point. The resulting ice is thinner than multi-year ice and melts more readiliy as a result.
    A new low in ice extent is still possible http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    Even if it doesn’t quite make it to the record low it is certainly the largest area of ice loss recorded from the Arctic due to the higher levels of ice this spring.

  44. Hi Mary,

    Forget evolution, forget creationism for the moment. Let’s focus on a thing far simplier.

    Please tell me why there is something, rather than nothing, without using Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created”. An “I don’t know” is probably your best strategy. My point is this: when you look at first causes all we have is faith. Faith in God, Faith in X: but it is faith nonetheless. For myself, I choose to believe in God creating a being in his image for an eternal purpose as opposed to a faith in nothingness creating somethingness to achieve meaninglessness for a return to nothingness.

  45. Anthony,

    This is a total nit but FWIW I only see three dips when looking at the graph. When counting valleys, it’s uncommon to count the hillsides as well, let alone counting only one hillside. June was part of a rise to a July peak following a May low.

    It would be more accurate to say this is the fourth month below zero.

    —-

    The cooling period between 2001-2008 is relatively flat. This is the longest that temperatures have been “stable” since 1979. It certainly looks like the hill has been crested and we are now on the downside.

    Also, I seem to recall looking at a temperature graph with a 100 year baseline a couple of years ago (from the plaque at Badwater, I think). Using 30 year lines, 2000 seemed to be cresting. More evidence — at least in my mind. I’ll see if I can dig it up.

  46. “To achieve meaninglessness for a return to nothingness.”
    Some group may be able to use that as a motto.

    John McDonald, You might be owed royalties!

  47. Hi John,
    sorry, I’m not getting into a religious discussion, not in the scope of this blog. I was using the point that I wouldn’t trust anything on a scientific level that came from someone that believes in creationism when all the scientific evidence supports evolution through natural selection. On the other hand I wouldn’t trust a christian statement coming from someone that does not believe in Christ.
    God and science are not mutually exclusive, belief in creation over evolution most certainly is.

  48. Mary:

    You can always find somthing to be afraid of, if you look hard enough. Whether it is a creationist in the White House, or black holes in the LHC, or insufficent ice in the arctic. The challenge is to discern which items are worthy of concern, and which ones are not.
    If we allow the media to “create” items of concern each day in order to generate enough interest for the current news cycle, we are falling for the “crisis of the day” mentality, that does not allow us to ignore the clutter, and focus on the issues that are really “life-or-death” issues.
    As far as a creationist in the White House, we have had them there before, and we will have them there again. I would rather have someone in that position, thinking that they will have to answer for their “life-or-death” decisions, to an all-knowing God.

  49. Can we stop the religious discussion please? Pro or con. Belief or not. Please just no more posts. Not one more shot at the last word. Nada.

    Thank you.

    ~ charles the moderator

  50. What’s this? Atmoz comes up with magical instrument error to eradicate the temperature drop? Has he ever done this for the Hansen numbers?

    These people will run out of excuses eventually.

  51. To Dr “How much heat is being extracted from the oceans from the hurricane activity?”

    I don’t know if this is a meaningful amount in the whole scheme of things, but the tracks of the last three hurricanes, Gustav, Ike and Hanna, have clearly left a cool track in Carribean ocean temps (-1.5C) which is very evident in this map.

  52. Mary Hinge…

    You do realize, don’t you, that the vast majority of U.S. presidents have been creationists? Including some in the very near past?

  53. Mary Hinge….

    Some cooling was predicted from this recent La Nina, but not nearly as much as has occurred. To claim otherwise would be untruthful.

    Can you explain why temperatures with this past La Nina were cooler so far than with the 1999 La Nina, even though that one was stronger, lasted longer and occurred almost 10 years ago? (Shouldn’t there have been some global warming during that time?)

  54. Mary,

    Not to worry about the LHC. If a black hole is created that reaches a ‘tipping point’ and eventually consumes the earth, it won’t be instantaneous, or so says a Physicist at NSF I was talking with. He said it would take 2-3 months for the BH to grow to sufficient size to break up the planet. Of course it would most likely suck up most of the atmosphere within a couple of weeks, but that should still leave you with time to make your goodbyes. :)

  55. La Nada: Isn’t it interesting that 5 successive 3-month <-0.5 Equatorial SST indicies were required to declare La Nina, and yet conditions change and prior to the first set of numbers indicating its ‘end’ coming out at the end of July it’s declared over.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/ensoforecast.shtml

    The forecasts tip back to La Nina by October.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    We are still in negative territory. Perhaps the JAS number will sneak above zero but I bought new plugs and a battery just in case.

  56. Jared (13:00:02) :

    To say this La Nina was cooler than the ’99 is frankly bizarre, what temperatures are you talking about? Land and sea surface temperatures are higher now than they were 9 years ago, atmospheric temperatures virtually the same.

  57. Mary…

    I already produced the stats for that statement in a previous comment above. Here it is again, according to UAH lower tropospheric data, which this thread/article is about.

    UAH 1999 through August (average): +.042
    UAH 2008 through August (average): -.023

    Globally, 2008 has been cooler than 1999 so far, even though that La Nina was stronger and maintained longer. Explain?

  58. Bill, thank you …. exactly the plight that you place.
    Leif, thank you …. especially on solar activity. Specifically the balance solar electric.
    I think that the mechanism for transfer of heat in the ocean does not follow the equation Navier-Stocks. So below is the rate of diffusion in the lower layers of the ocean there is sufficient time for the temperatures to reach equilibrium, on the other hand observing the phenomenon of convection (cyclones) the answer is instantaneous, Therefore I am trying to go to another equation (daydreams). I will consider that the ocean is neutral and Sun is constant (Hansen has done this and won a Nobel prize, let the criticism on this for later, in fact I am trying to change the equations.). sure, this is the scenario A1B (breathe).

    Considering only the atmosphere, (August/2008)
    I have to ΔF = ΔS – T ΔH
    Whereas:
    Sun spots = zero (Catania ….)
    T in July 2008 ≈ T in August 2008
    Atmospheric pressure = constant
    Once ΔH = 0
    For example, several phenomena occurred in August 2008 for ΔH=0
    Conclusion: the variation of ice in the Arctic and Antarctica occurred due to a ΔS, and not because of a change in global temperature.
    ………Waiting take as little as possible………..

    Gary Gulrud: I agree with you … I hope the return of La Ninã … … against 17 models (all indicated El Niño at the end of the year) but the situation is extremely volatile at this time. For only SOI.

    Anne; welcome and good job

  59. Feel free to correct me (and I’m sure someone will), but according to my calculations, both UAH and RSS have 2008 (so far) as the coolest year since 1993.

  60. ThePenguin (05:56:28) :
    “Down here in Sydney Australia we have just had our coldest August since 1944 !!!”.

    Something has just struck me, we’ve all been complaining about the replacement of the term Global Warming with Climate Change because of the removal of warming part. But, maybe, it’s the global part of the term we should be looking at. If you look at this graphic posted by 00 (12:16:23) : http://climate.uah.edu/august2008.htm you will see differences between north and south.

  61. Is another la nina forming?

    SOI in rapidly rising +15

    SST and winds falling in line

    This would be consistent with predominant La Ninas in a PDO switch to cooling phase\

  62. The GISSTEMP anomaly for August was 0.39.

    Following a few small changes to recent months that gives the average for this year so far as 0.375, which is lower than for any year since 2000.

  63. jared:-
    Try making the same calculation using the summer months of June, July and August and you get a different result. Try it with other global temperatures, not just the lower troposphere and you will see how this summer has globally been warmer than the La Nina of ’99. The SST anomoly charts are suggesting that the heat transfer is occurring below the ocean surface globally in profound ways. Combined with higher air temperatures in recent years this has caused the extra-ordinary melt in the Arctic the last couple of years. Warmer deepocaen currents are melting the ice around the Antarctic causing thinning of the ice, the lower salinity is also paradoxically increasing ice area.
    You cannot say that by comparing the anomolies of one specific measurement in two La Ninas shows that the globe is cooling. There are other factors at work and no two events are the same, the ’99 event closely followed the largest El Nino recorded and the lag in temperatures would have resulted in global temperatures during the ’99 La Nina being raised slightly. This did not happen prior to the recent La Nina. I’m afraid your logic is rather like the Monty Pythons Witch sketch in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, to paraphrase “If she floats, she’s made of wood, therefore she burns so she’s a witch!”

  64. “Not to worry about the LHC. If a black hole is created”

    If they manage to create the Higgs Boson, which is the most coveted goal, that would not result in enough energy to turn over your car’s engine.

  65. Mary Hinge…

    First of all, there are very few surface stations over the Arctic, so it is much more accurate to go by the satellite readings for that area of the globe for sure, at least. And the satellites show that summer 2008 was about 1F cooler over the Arctic than summer 2007. Those are the facts, interpret them as you wish.

    Secondly, I was comparing 2008 so far to 1999 so far, not just the summer months. Remember, the 1998-99 La Nina began earlier, got stronger, and maintained longer than the 2007-08 La Nina. Again, those are the facts. Yet, so far, 2008 is running cooler than 1999.

    You asked me to compare 1999 summer temperatures with 2008, according to a surface metric? Very well…GISS shows summer 1999 to have been slightly warmer than summer 2008. Just the facts, as you wanted.

    Now my question for you: are you looking at the facts first, or forming your opinions first?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=8&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0603&year1=1999&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

  66. Jared (09:40:20) :
    You should really look at the big picture and stop relying on cherry picked comparisons between two differing events. Also try simple maths, use the mean for the three months you get a better picture. While you’re at it try and make some attempt to answer my particular points, which you haven’t even touched on in your response. You don’t have the right to ask me a question until you have at least touched on the points I made. To paraphrase Monty python again
    MP-“This isn’t an argument, it’s contradiction”
    JC “No it isnt, if I argue with you I must take up a contrary position”
    MP “Aaaah, but an argument is a collective series of statements intended to establish a proposition, it isn’t just saying “No it isn’t”
    JC- “Yes it is”
    MP- “No it isn’t”

    So unless you listen to someones points don’t bother asking any questions, just jump up that cherrypicker of yours and sing and dance,do what you like, ’cause no-one is listening to you.

  67. Mary…

    You are incredibly close-minded. I present you with facts, and all you can do is resort to empty accusations of “cherry-picking”? C’mon, show me how I’m cherry picking by comparing the last major La Nina to this one.

    And what questions do you want me to answer? You initially disputed my claims, so I provided you with the facts to back them up.

  68. Mary Hinge (09:15:26) wrote: “Hi John, sorry, I’m not getting into a religious discussion, not in the scope of this blog.”

    Good grief! This coming from the very person who began the entire discussion with her diatribe against Palin!

    Mary continues: “I was using the point that I wouldn’t trust anything on a scientific level that came from someone that believes in creationism when all the scientific evidence supports evolution through natural selection.”

    Could you please list some of the evidence? As far as I knew, evolution is still just a theory, a theory which may have substance on one hand, and not on another. You also have to remember the evolution theory was hammered into everyones’ skulls by the Lamestream Media (ABCNNBCBS) in much the same manner as they are hammering AGW into everyones’ skulls.

    Mary also wrote: “So unless you listen to someones points don’t bother asking any questions, just jump up that cherrypicker of yours and sing and dance,do what you like, ’cause no-one is listening to you.”

    Actually Mary, it seems people are listening to you… in much the same manner as one would listen to a good comedian. Your arguments and arrogant attitude don’t wash.

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project
    http://www.climateclinic.com

  69. Jared (16:00:35) :
    “C’mon, show me how I’m cherry picking by comparing the last major La Nina to this one. ”
    You’ve just answered your own question! They are two similar but different events, you can’t give a direct comparison as the global picture was very different prior to the evnts, you haven’t explained away the ‘lag’ effect of the extreme El Nino prior to this at all! You are basing your entire argument on this one, very narrow point, you are also innacurate, this year so far is NOT the coldest since 2007, but the coldest since 2000. This NH summer is very similar to the summer of 1999, maybe slightly warmer or slightly cooler and with the El Nino lag affecting global temperatures during the following La Nina in real terms this summer would be much warmer than ,99, globally. You also haven’t explained the heat transfer into the sub-surface oceans and the effect this is having on the seas around the poles (both events predicted in global warming models.)
    As for Jack Koening, any credibility you MIGHT have had has gone out of the window and exposes your non-scientific mindset. Evolution IS REAL, it’s happening, it has happened (if creationism can be taken seriously it has to explain why God bothered to ‘design’ trilobites, ammonites, pterosaurs, eurypterids and the like, did he just get bored with them and made them extinct!!) The whole creationist argument is a joke and Palin, by supporting the study of ‘Intelligent design’ in science lessons falls into this catagory.
    You show your ignorance in science by explaining it away as a theory, you should know that science is based on theories and that some theories have been very thoroughly tested and have been strengthened to such a point that no-one of serious scientific thought can deny them. If you want the evidence supporting evolution then I can give it to you, as can any serious scientist on this blog could.

  70. Mary….

    No, my entire argument is not based on the fact that 2008 has been cooler so far than 1999. How about the fact that when ENSO effects are removed from the temperature record, there is a flat or slightly declining trend with EVERY temperature metric from 2001 onward?

    And the 1998 El Nino ended long before 1999 began, so to claim that temperatures in 1999 were still be affected by the El Nino cannot be supported, that is just your speculation.

    This is all a waste of time with you, anyway. You are obviously a die-hard AGW believer who will twist any facts to fit the theory you hold so dear. I dare you to actually open your eyes and look at all the evidence. I did, and now I realize how foolish it is to think AGW is the only explanation for climate change.

  71. Jared:-
    Still avoiding the oceans and the poles ehh!
    Your comment “how foolish it is to think AGW is the only explanation for climate change.” is again preposterous, no scientist regards AGW as the ONLY explanation but it is PART of the problem, and with such a chaotic system as weather and climate small changes can lead to big effects. Your cherry picking of a single event is worthless, to illustrate lets compare the 1989-90 La Nina,( which was a more similar event to the 2007-8 La Nina) against the 2007- 2008 event and see what happens http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=8&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=1106&year1=1989&year2=1990&base1=2007&base2=2008&radius=1200&pol=reg
    Surprise surprise, the world was much cooler then! This type of cherry picking is just as valid as yours, probably more so as it is comparing similar events, but even so I wouldn’t use this as the basis of an argument. Shall I ask you “my question to you is how was it so much cooler then than now?”
    Removing the ENSO effects still produces a small short trend rise since 2001, it is a much higher medium to long trend rise. You seem to think that short term trends are the major ones as they support your theory at the moment, once the short term trends start to rise again (which, due to the nature of climate they will) you will have to change stance again.
    I have looked at the evidence, from paleontological, biological, climate models, the exciting marine work going on at the moment, solar, wind measurement, chemical and computer modelling and you know what, the evidence so far suggests that AGW is happening and the consequences of even small changes to the climate ( especially to agriculture) are too dangerous to ignore and until we have at least some strong evidence to suggest that AGW is not to blame then it would be highly irresponsible to ignore it.
    This is not a therory “[I] hold dear”, I would love it to be wrong, and the facts aren’t twisted to suit the theory, to see that read Jack Koening’s verdict on Evolution!

  72. Mary Hinge (01:34:00) wrote: “As for Jack Koening, any credibility you MIGHT have had has gone out of the window and exposes your non-scientific mindset.”

    Up to your old tricks Mary? Attempt to re-frame the question in your terms and then use circuitous arguments to avoid the real issue? That doesn’t cut it Mary… at least not here. As far as credibility is concerned, I have more in my little finger than you could ever muster.

    Mary continued: “Evolution IS REAL, it’s happening, it has happened (if creationism can be taken seriously it has to explain why God bothered to ‘design’ trilobites, ammonites, pterosaurs, eurypterids and the like, did he just get bored with them and made them extinct!!)”

    I’m not too certain what all that diatribe is about, but once again you can’t seem to comprehend what I said. I never said evolution wasn’t real. All one has to do is look at our changing bodies to realize almost everything evolves. One glaring example would be the generally increasing heights of children from one generation to another.

    Mary continued: “The whole creationist argument is a joke and Palin, by supporting the study of ‘Intelligent design’ in science lessons falls into this category.”

    Nice try at ignoring the issue Mary, but “creationism” and “intelligent design” are two different issues. Your ignorance in the matter is telling!

    Mary also wrote: “You show your ignorance in science by explaining it away as a theory, you should know that science is based on theories and that some theories have been very thoroughly tested and have been strengthened to such a point that no-one of serious scientific thought can deny them.”

    So by stating the above, you posit that because some theories have been tested and strengthened, evolution must be one of them. Huh? Where did you study logic, Mary… Disneyland? This is an old trick right out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”: make any convoluted claim and then state that anyone skeptical of that claim is a nutcase. Nice try, but once again you failed!

    And FINALLY, Mary conclude: “If you want the evidence supporting evolution then I can give it to you, as can any serious scientist on this blog could.”

    Wonderful! Then why don’t you do it? Wasn’t that what I asked for in the first place?

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project

    http://www.climateclinic.com

  73. Mary Hinge (04:40:46) wrote: “I have looked at the evidence, from paleontological, biological, climate models, the exciting marine work going on at the moment, solar, wind measurement, chemical and computer modelling and you know what…”

    Wow! You must be some type of genius to comprehend all that! Where did you study? Any notable degrees?

    Actually, I “Googled” Mary Hinge and all I could find was a strip dancer in England and a few other nondescripts. I also found that the term “Mary Hinge” is commonly used for women with “hairy vaginas” in England

    Is “our” Mary Hinge actually “counters” in drag? They seem to both use the same circuitous arguments, convoluted logic, and contempt for the facts!

    Anthony, do they share the same or similar IP addresses?

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project

    http://www.climateclinic.com

    Reply: Anthony has an established policy against people using more than one alias when posting which he applies universally to all posters as our resident poet can testify (here) . If Mary and Counters were the same person, I am sure he would have taken an appropriate action. Let trust in his judgment in this regard and avoid the ad hominem attacks – Anne, the newbie moderator

  74. An interesting reply but your ignorance somehow managed to shone through!

    “One glaring example would be the generally increasing heights of children from one generation to another.”
    This has nothing to do with evolution in any form but everything to do with diet and health. I feel sorry for you in that you have exposed your lack of understanding of basic science for all to see.
    Also you seem ignorant of religion to, but don’t be too hard on yourself. Creationism is the process of giving life by an intelligent designer so how can Creationism be different from Intelligent Design?
    My point again is that you cannot trust someones scientific judgement if you make such glaring errors in such basic science.
    For the record I have not been ‘ignoring the issue’ or ‘avoiding the real issue’, I have gone straight to the issue but you don’t like it and start spouting nonsense!
    To repeat your error “I never said evolution wasn’t real. All one has to do is look at our changing bodies to realize almost everything evolves. One glaring example would be the generally increasing heights of children from one generation to another.” You are saying you agree with the theory of evolution because of this particular ‘fact’! This is the exact parallel to your climate beliefs, YOU BELIEVE IN IT DESPITE THE ‘FACTS’ TO BE PLAINLY WRONG!!
    Maybe you can understand why I shouldn’t go into giving a full evolutionary discussion, let’s dicuss: Genetic inheritance, mutations, phenotype, genotype, resource competion, fossil records, DNA analysis, monophyly, heterosis, heterochrony, group selection, bottlenecks, genetic load, fitness, extinction, environmental adaptation, epistasis and good old Darwinism, or even neo-Darwinism. There is of course also adaptation, sexual selection, niche adaption, altruism and speciation to go through. Maybe your head is hurting, why don’t you have a lie down…you deserve it; or why not grow some cojones and enjoy the discussion!

    Attention –
    There has been enough creationism and religion on this topic by now. Charles has previous warned people off the topic as well. There are a number of blogs which regularly host this sort of debate that may be better suited to your conversation. Lets move on people, nothing here to see. – Anne

  75. Hi Anne,
    sorry for the religious bits, a good policy not to get involved in them, seems to bring out the dark side! Just for the record I am definately not ‘counters’ nor am I a strip dancer (if only I still had the body!), and as the folicular state of my punani, that’s between the waxer and me ;-)
    To summarise, “Sorry officer, you’ll have no more trouble from me!” No more religion, even if prompted, only exposing those who try to establish their points with untruths.

    Reply: We all are indebted to Anthony for providing us with a safe, thoughtful space to hang out and each one of us should take personal responsibility for maintaining that standard. – Anne

  76. Mary,

    The fact is, I presented evidence that this year has been cooler than 1999. You disputed that. I provided the evidence to show that this was indeed the case. Then, you moved on to dismissing this as meaningful…you never answered my original question, posed to all AGWers here: what is your explanation for how cool 2008 has been?

    And sure, if you compare the 1989 La Nina to this one, that one was cooler. I agree that there has been warming since then. However, that one reached a peak strength much stronger than 2008’s, so I’m not sure why you think it is more comparable. Anyhow, my point is not that there hasn’t been warming since the 1980s, just that there has been little or no warming since the end of the 1990s. All the data points to that conclusion. So the real question is: why? I’m not saying it disproves AGW, but it sure wasn’t expected either.

  77. Hi Jared,
    guess we got a bit side-tracked with Mr Koenig. Your point that there has been little warming, (lower atmosheric warming to be more accurate) since the end of 1999 is valid. This of course doesn’t mean that there has been no warming overall, the oceans take up 70% of the solar energy and research has shown faster than expected warming in sub-surface seas, hence the bevaviour of the with sea ice around both poles. This heat stored under the sea which is released at the surface is one of the manifestations of El Nino’s. I guess my point is that even though the surface temperatures have shown little change, the ocean could well be storing this heat energy to be released at a later time. Further research may show if this is the case or not.
    As for picking the ’89 La Nina I was making the point that you can’t compare 2 La Nina’s as if they are the same entity but at a different time. As you correctly stated the ’89 event was different to the 2007-2008, just as the point I made that the ’99 event was different to the last event.
    It will be interesting to see what happens this winter as a new La Nina looks likely and is within predictions of behaviour seen during a negative PDO.

  78. Mary…

    It is true the oceans and thermocline circulation play a large role in climate…from the data I have seen (ARGO), though, it appears the oceans have cooled just a bit since 2002. So we shall see if that is a short term blip or the start of something bigger.

    It definitely will be interesting to see what happens over the next year. If temperatures this winter (Nina or not) dip cooler than last winter, that to me will be a stronger sign that the -PDO and/or low solar activity is having a real effect on the climate.

  79. The slight cooling of the upper oceans is interesting though its a shame their isn’t a similar scale of meaurements for below 2km under, it’s these deep sea currents that are the most interesting and arguably the most important long term. Still not convinced about the solar part of the story, I think Leif has shown that solar output is pretty much the same during high and low sunspot periods.
    Interesting times though!

Comments are closed.