December UAH global temperature anomaly – down by almost half

December 2009 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.28 Deg. C

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_09

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly fell back to the October level of +0.28 deg. C in December.

The tropics continue warm from El Nino conditions there, while the NH and SH extratropics anomalies cooled from last month. While the large amount of year-to-year variability in global temperatures seen in the above plot makes it difficult to provide meaningful statements about long-term temperature trends in the context of global warming, the running 25-month average suggests there has been no net warming in the last 11 years or so.

[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers carried on the satellite radiometers.]

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
2009 11 +0.497 +0.422 +0.572 +0.495
2009 12 +0.280 +0.318 +0.242 +0.503

246 thoughts on “December UAH global temperature anomaly – down by almost half

  1. But NOAA here in Ne Oregon, promises a warm, dry,than normal January. Praise
    Gaia and her Profit….
    Believe! El Nino is real and he’s wearing a Superbaby outfit….
    This is actually what they are saying that Nino is going save US from winter….
    OK.

  2. About what I expected. The SSTs led by the El Nino are still driving up the global temps. However, if this event is disappearing, as it appears may be happening, it will be real interesting to see exactly what happens next.

    Will the drop be quick? Will it be slow? Will some other factor start to exert its influence? Time will tell.

    All I know is we were supposed to have a mild winter here in the midwest because of the El Nino. Still waiting …

  3. Now that I understand how surface data is collected and compiled, thanks to your surface stations survey Anthony, Stephen Mcintyre’s analysis, and the Climategate data dump… UAH and RSS (in that order) are all I trust.

  4. One burning question: Have those satellites been adjusted with surface stations?, if so, how would these temperatures look if readjusted to checked reality, taking into consideration surfacestations.org recorded error margins?.

  5. Note that the daily temps were rising steeply at the end of December and are possibly approaching record territory in January if they don’t fall off again.

  6. Looking at the latest NOAA sea surface temperature anomaly data, the warm area of the Pacific El Nino is obvious, and the north Pacific off Alaska is till cool (phase of the PDO), but the rest of the global oceans also look ‘warm’ and I wonder if it is ENSO that affects the globe – as I have always been led to believe, or the globe that affects ENSO. If the latter, we would have to be looking at a major shift in cloud cover or a reduction in cloud-free atmospheric transparency (or both) in order to get extra warming SW radiation to the ocean surface on this scale. Does anybody have such up-to-date data?

    Could Atmospheric transparency be affected by magnetic/electrical properties related to voltages? Is there an ENSO signal of that kind that would be global but affect the Pacific more strongly?

  7. It is intersting how Dr Spencer has shifted his running average from a 13 month running average to a new 25 month average. This conveniently “hides” the return in 2009 to well above average temperatures since the cooler (but still warmer than average) year of 2008. The use of the term no “net” warming in the commentary is another clever trick. Any blind freddy reading the graph can see that it shows a warming trend every decade for the past three decades.

    Readers might also be intersted in looking at Australia’s 2009 climate report (released yesterday), which shows this decade was the warmest on record in Australia and that 2009 the second warmest year on record. http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml

    It may help some visitors to this blog shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of cold weeks in a northern winter is proof that GLOBAL warming has stopped.

  8. “Henry chance (07:37:08) :

    Worse than expected. Weather is not climate they say.”

    as in “Reality is not fantasy”?

  9. Interesting footnote. I wonder if Dr. Spencer has caught flak from Monckton’s “the satellite record is just calibrated to the surface record” meme.

    Be careful not to eat one of your own in the frenzy.

  10. Richard M (07:37:09) Do you see any El Nino here?:

    The El Nino was named as such , many years ago, by the fishermen along the northern coasts of Peru, (SA west coast) when such a warm current (el Nino) appeared around christmas, running from NORTH to SOUTH.
    However the fact is, as you see, that the contrary is happening: A cold current, called the Humboldt´s current, it is running from SOUTH to NORTH. (All that blue color along SA coasts).
    If there were an El Nino, that yellow-green color little spots along the central pacific equator line would have streched reaching the SA coasts displacing the humboldt´s current, which has not happened. If you look only at the SOI index, being negative you would believe there is an El Nino, but SOI refers only to difference of pressures between Tahiti and Darwin which, in these interesting times, mean nothing.

  11. What is amazing is that the anomaly in the Tropics actually went up, slightly, from 0.495 to 0.503 (or, rounded, stayed the same). It will be interesting to see UAH’s breakout for USA48, and the Northern Extra Tropics.

  12. Weather is not climate OK, but that is surely most relevant back in the day when all we knew about weather/climate was our own little corner of it.

    But now we know what is happening all over the world at the same time and we know that it is a bad winter all across the Northern Hemisphere from N. America to Europe to Russia to China and Korea and it is also affecting the Indian Sub-Continent.

    We cannot assume that our own little area of sub-zero tundra is balanced out overall by equal or more extensive areas of above average balmy weather. Yes, I am sure there are a few relative warmspots but overall the picture is quite clear. It is a brutal winter all across the NH, not simply a temporary local incursion of arctic air into one particular area.

    Imagine if you will a heat wave all at the same time and killing people all across the Northern Hemisphere from N. America to Europe to Russia to China and Korea and also affecting the Indian Sub-Continent.

    Would this be reported with no mention of Global Warming? I think not. It would be loudly proclaimed as definitive proof of the reality of warming and accompanied by proclaimations of doom for all the world.

  13. Roy, many have been asking if your calculations depend on calibration from the surface records? Please let us know. Is it possible that calibration has injected a positive Delta in your running anomaly?

  14. Not to worry about a wee bit of cooling. The extra CO2 produced by massive increases of people burning fossil fuels attempting to stay warm should kick in any day now. In the meantime keep a sharp eye out for Polar Bears heading south for the winter.

  15. Thanks, Roy, for continuing to post information on reality.

    The conflict with predictions made by an unholy alliance of scientists and politicians is obvious to all.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  16. And as I normally do at this time is link the preliminary December SST anomalies:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/nino34-sst-anomalies-are-approaching-2.html

    The December OI.v2 data won’t be finalized (according to their published schedule) until this coming Monday, the 11th. I’ll do the full post on that day.

    I also took a look at the hotspot (a.k.a the Big Red Blob) in the mid latitudes of the South Pacific.

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/01/south-pacific-hot-spot.html

    It seems to be an artifact of the 1997/98 El Nino. Hotspots in the same location appear now with every El Nino, while they did not appear with any regularity before it.

  17. I think we are now finding out how a negative PDO affects El Ninos. It kind of reminds me in a way of how wind shear destroys cyclones.

  18. Possible weatherman statements:

    Wow, the mercury is dropping!
    Understood by all.

    Man, the alcohol is falling!
    Not that well understood, may be confusing late at night and early in the morning.

    Boy, the bi-metal is straightening!
    Parents might call the station and write letters.

    Change is not always progress.

  19. I was actually surprised that the NH anomaly was as high as it was. I was expecting it to be less than October.

  20. Mjk,
    “It may help some visitors to this blog shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of cold weeks in a northern winter is proof that GLOBAL warming has stopped.”

    It is more a case of the last decade of non warming, as any “blind Freddy” can see.

  21. MJK

    Could you please tell me what created the “silly idea” of catastrophic warming in the first place? It sure isn’t the data or the physics of radiation transport. Nor was it anything to do with thermodynamics.

    Your double standard is showing?

    It isn’t a few weeks, we are talking about 3 years and running with no real summer and brutal winters. I am starting to doubt even the satellite data; when they tell me above normal and we go year after year wildly colder than any time in 35 years. I can accept this as natural variability but the idea of warming…. Well there hasn’t been any in North America in the last 50 years. so it sure ain’t “global”

    The US data sets are the largest and most complete. Even though they are not very good, what makes you so sure that they are wrong and some nudocumented compilation of other data is right?

  22. “MJK (08:00:13) :

    […] This conveniently “hides” the return in 2009 to well above average
    […] The use of the term no “net” warming in the commentary is another clever trick. […]”

    I heard that these are standard colloquialisms amongst “credible climatologists”? From one Dr. Phil Jones? Describing what they normally do?

    Listen MJK. We do not hate you. We are nice people. Nobody of your fellows will find out when you just open your eyes. Don’t let them tell you what to think. Decide for yourself.

  23. So, say that temperatures continue to decline for the next 30 years, as some have predicted. Winters get colder. Arctic sea ice continues to expand….What will be the fallout? Will Dateline NBC run an investigative look at the AGW movement? Will Congress call for hearings? Will people across the globe demand an explanation? Or will scientists wriggle off the hook by steadfastly claiming that a hotter world is still on the perpetual horizon? Will the public’s attention be diverted to a new disaster scenario (e.g., devastating asteroids, massive earthquakes, pandemics, etc.)? Or will the world gain a tiny bit of common sense about these matters? Interesting times…

  24. MJK (08:00:13) :
    Readers might also be intersted i[…] this decade was the warmest on record in Australia and that 2009 the second warmest year on record. […]
    It may help some visitors to this blog shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of cold weeks in a northern winter is proof that GLOBAL warming has stopped.

    It is silly to think 10 years represents climate, or that “warmest year on record” has anything to do with proof of global warming.

  25. Peter Taylor (07:59:31) :

    Looking at the latest NOAA sea surface temperature anomaly data, the warm area of the Pacific El Nino is obvious, and the north Pacific off Alaska is till cool (phase of the PDO), but the rest of the global oceans also look ‘warm’ and I wonder if it is ENSO that affects the globe – as I have always been led to believe, or the globe that affects ENSO. If the latter, we would have to be looking at a major shift in cloud cover or a reduction in cloud-free atmospheric transparency (or both) in order to get extra warming SW radiation to the ocean surface on this scale. Does anybody have such up-to-date data?

    Could Atmospheric transparency be affected by magnetic/electrical properties related to voltages? Is there an ENSO signal of that kind that would be global but affect the Pacific more strongly?

    My model says the oceans start emitting heat-energy when the sun drops below 40SSN. So the since the SSN was above this value for much of the C20th, there is a lot of extra heat built up in the ocean which has caused the big el nino’s as the sun’s high activity values have started to wane since 1992. These big el nino’s propped up the warmth for some time, but we are now starting to feel the effects of the quiescent sun more directly.

    We already had most of the ‘heat in the pipeline’.

    Because the heat is leaving the oceans everywhere at once, there is no big spike in humidity over the east pacific to hold the heat in the atmosphere, and a lot of it is escaping to space, hence the high outgoing LW values since 2000.

    I keep repeating this in the hope someone will listen, but the idea that the oceans don’t store heat is well entrenched, and it helps perpetuate the myth that the sun’s influence on climate is small. It is not small, it is the primary driver of climate change, but because it can’t be shown with nice simple directly correlating graphs, it isn’t believed.

  26. MJK — Any blind freddy reading the graph can see that it shows a warming trend every decade for the past three decades.

    Wow, you figured this out all by yourself? UAH depicts the basic 0.7 degrees C / century rise we all expect. This is not news, nor is it proof of anthropogenic cause, nor is it proof of CO2 warming. The expected temp rise is a continuation of the same trend in effect since the end of the LIA.

  27. “”” JonesII (07:52:24) :

    One burning question: Have those satellites been adjusted with surface stations?, if so, how would these temperatures look if readjusted to checked reality, taking into consideration surfacestations.org recorded error margins?. “””

    That’s an interesting question; I don’t know how you would find out the answer .

    Mind you, you could try reading what Dr Roy Said:-

    “”” [NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers carried on the satellite radiometers.] “””

    If I had to stick my neck out and guess, I would venture that these data were not adjusted to surface thermometers.

    From Roy’s description, I can’t quite figure how this satellite works, but it sounds to me that it is something like doing a calibration by simultaneously heating the sensor (perhaps thermopile) and a PR thermometer, which has a history of good stable repeatability, and calibration.

    Personally, I’m partial to semiconductor bandgap thermometers; but I would agree, that in the radiation environment of satellites, that is not too cool. It’s hard to think of a thermometer that is built more like a brick outhouse, than a platinum resistance thermometer. Hundreds of years of experimentation have established the dependability of those, in the appropriate temperature range.

    But I haven’t quite figured out exactly what the temperature remote sensing physics really is; other than they must be sensing some range of EM radiations; but do they monitor the spectrum, or the peak spectral radiance, or simply the total energy or what, and some how tie it to black body temperatures.

    In any case, I have about zero confidence in ANY surface based data, to compare with a satellite scan; simply because the surface sampling is a joke.

    And when it is all said and done; the temperature, or the temperature anomaly, tells you exactly nothing about the energy balance of the earth; so what good is it; other than to inspire generations of statistical mathematicians to create ever more imaginative statistical analyses, of numbers that after all are all supposed to be different anyway.

  28. Thank you Roy, I always look forward to this data. While there is an El Nino going on, and the “tropics continue warm”, is it unusual for the tropics to exceed the NH anomalies only 5 months of the year, and the SH 6 months?

  29. MJK (08:00:13) : “It may help some visitors to this blog shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of cold weeks in a northern winter is proof that GLOBAL warming has stopped.”

    It might also help some visitors to MJK’s world to shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of warm decades is proof that global warming ever existed in the first place. If one used decadal smoothing (rather than 25 weeks) and reached far enough back for the discussion to really involve climate and not weather, it would become apparent the world is simply recovering from the Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age. Should the long term trend continue, a century or so down the road we might reach the climatic conditions of the MWP. Give it several centuries and we might even reach the Interglacial Climate Optimums of the Egyptian dynasties and Middle Eastern empires five thousand years ago. However, looking at the behavior of previous Interglacials, we are more likely to continue the long-term over-all cooling trend.

    Remember: the AGW Movement is not about weather or climate. It is about Maurice Strong’s efforts to establish a global governance.

  30. With ref to MJK…the words “warmest on record” relate to approx 150 years of a planet that has been around circa 5 billion years.
    The last three decades have been warmer than the previous three but we were heading for an Ice Age 1940 to 1970…allegedly,
    Australia may well be quite warm but the rest of us are not….we have just had three lousy summers and are now on our third very cold winter in succession.
    The Poles are freezing up and we understand that Antarctica had it’s greatest extent of ice ever recorded during the souther hemisphere’s latest winter…but thats only 30 years….out of the 5 billion.
    No increase in overall temp in 11 years whilst CO2 has risen 4-5% and no hot spots in the Troposphere which would be the signal of CO2 related AGW.

    Clearly bigger things are at play…..like the Sun.

    Roy Spencer is trying to take a more balanced view from his data set, unlike CRU Hadley Centre and it’s cast of resident comedians who think they can deny the historical existence of the “Medieval Warming Period”.

  31. MJK (08:00:13) :
    “Readers might also be intersted i[…] this decade was the warmest on record in Australia and that 2009 the second warmest year on record. […]
    It may help some visitors to this blog shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of cold weeks in a northern winter is proof that GLOBAL warming has stopped. ”

    That would be the records that have been adjusted in accordance with ‘accepted international standards’ I presume. See previous discussion about Darwin on this site.

  32. In the graph a “25 month running average” is used. I’d like to learn more about it.

    “In statistics, a moving average, also called rolling average, rolling mean or running average, is a type of finite impulse response filter used to analyze a set of data points by creating a series of averages of different subsets of the full data set. Given a series of numbers, and a fixed subset size, the moving average can be obtained. The average of the first subset of numbers is calculated. The fixed subset is moved forward to the new subset of numbers, and its average is calculated. The process is repeated over the entire data series. The plot line connecting all the (fixed) averages is the moving average. Thus, a moving average is not a single number, but it is a set of numbers, each of which is the average of the corresponding subset of a larger set of data points. A moving average may also use unequal weights for each data value in the subset to emphasize particular values in the subset. A moving average is commonly used with time series data to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlight longer-term trends or cycles. The threshold between short-term and long-term depends on the application, and the parameters of the moving average will be set accordingly.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average

    If you could, please describe the specific equation being used, any weights used, and how it’s useful (e.g. why 25 months rather than some other number) plus what information it can be used to obtain from the temperature data.

    Also, where is the raw data obtained from? Which program is used to generate the graph? Is it open sourced? If so where can it be obtained from? If not, why isn’t it open sourced?

    Thanks.

  33. MJK:

    My math says 2009 is the 7th warmest since 1979. I don’t think anyone is hiding that it is warmer than 2008. That’s gets a “Duh!” considering 2008 was a La Nina year, and 2009 was an El Nino year. In fact, I think it strengthens the argument of how much the global temperature is driven by natural causes (as in, the differnece between a La Nina and El Nino).

    As for the decade, 2009 was middle of the road. 4 years were cooler, 5 years were warmer.

    Meh…

  34. Why do all these charts show temperature anomaly rather than just straight temperature? Every time I look at these charts I have to figure out what the “normal” period is that the anomaly is measured against, and it just confuses things.

    Plus, the setting of the “normal” period seems like an excellent way to massage the numbers to show what you want, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t just providing the average temperature in question remove some of the potential for a misleading chart? Clearly I’m uniformed. Can someone help me out?

  35. MJK (08:00:13) :

    You wrote:
    “It is intersting how Dr Spencer has shifted his running average from a 13 month running average to a new 25 month average.”

    PUHHLEASE… Suppose you can find an n-month smoothing function that suggests via Mann-esque (Mannequin?) statistics a positive linear trend in the data this century. It’s still only weather isn’t it?

  36. “It may help some visitors to this blog shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of cold weeks in a northern winter is proof that GLOBAL warming has stopped.”

    “It may help some visitors to warmer blogs shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of warm years in a late inter-glacial period is proof that GLOBAL warming has started.”

  37. Why on earth do we all focus on the global average temperature anyway? It means nothing at all, almost nobody experiences it, and to those of us in the freezing N hemisphere at the moment, and those baking in Australia, it looks meaningless. Is it really a useful measure, either scientifically or politically?

    Wouldn’t continent by continent or hemisphere by hemisphere patterns look more relevant?

  38. MJK – a lay person, I was under the impression that it was “settled science” that we have had global warming ever since the end of the little ice age. Am I wrong? By the way, what is the ideal average world temperature, on a daily, monthly or yearly basis? And I don’t mean to be a bore but what is the ideal CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in ppm?

  39. Well at least we see that this El nino has a very different look than that of the 1998 El Nino. I shutter to think what la nina will bring.

    I also don’t understand what’s going on in Peru. Isn’t El Nino suppose to bring warm rain to South America’s dry western mountains? Very wierd. More discussion on that phenomenon would be much appreciated.

  40. Q: Is this* the principle used by the AGWarmers?

    > ” *the famous “principle of precaution”:

    Is this sentence garbled?
    “The principle means that no expense should be spared and no risk taken, however small, there is a possible danger to human life.”
    …-

    “Swine flu: France wants its money back

    Swine flu, or rather the lack of it, has added to the winter woes of President Sarkozy. When we last visited the disease, a month ago, France was rushing to be vaccinated and the army had been called in to handle the crowds.

    Now the H1N1 epidemic has turned out to be something of a dud and Sarkozy’s government is under fire for over-reaction. The French tax-payer has forked out nearly one billion euros for vaccines and other drugs but over 750 million’s worth seem unlikely to be used.

    The explanation, as we saw last time, comes down to the famous “principle of precaution”. This is the excess of caution that governments have applied to public health since a series of scandals in which thousands died (HIV contaminated blood supplies in the 1980s, the 2003 heat-wave and so on).

    The principle means that no expense should be spared and no risk taken, however small, there is a possible danger to human life. This led the government last summer to order 94 million doses of swine flu vaccine. That cost 712 million euros. Only five million shots have been used so far and the epidemic is fading. The state also bought 33 million doses of Tamiflu and Relenza, the anti-viral drugs. On top of that it ordered an astonishing one billion masks, few of which have been used. No other nation went as far as that. ”

    http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com/charles_bremner/2010/01/swine-flu-france-wants-its-money-back.html

  41. MJK — Any blind freddy reading the graph can see that it shows a warming trend every decade for the past three decades.

    Thanks MJK for this Oz link. This helps me confirm in my mind that data in one region or data from one time period is meaningless scientifically outside of the proper global coverage and historical time series. I hope he will join the campaign for proper transparency of raw data and full diclosure of sampling protocols and data quality.

  42. tallbloke (09:45:17) : You are right, but, here we are again discussing on temperatures, weather and climate, but knowing that (Pieter F (09:53:36) )…the AGW Movement is not about weather or climate. It is about Maurice Strong’s efforts to establish a global governance
    If we should accept that project we would not hear anymore of “Global warming” or “climate change”, so what really troubles us is that we do not necessarily like drinking “kool-aid” or whatever we have not asked for.
    We know too that there have been guys, out there, who adjusted satellites in order to make diverge TSI with earth temperatures, etc.,etc. and who passionately defend their “hockey sticks” or whatever, from the deepest of their inner beings (their pockets), but truth, as cold sea currents, unexpectedly surface letting us know who are the ones society needs to get rid of in order to rearrange itself according to ethical principles and make earth a place worth living for decent people. Times of changes indeed.

  43. Wind Power.

    And don’t expect wind power to keep you warm when we get these cold events. This is a record of the wind speeds in the Irish Sea (where many of the UK’s windelecs reside) for the last 7 days (when it was bitterly cold).

    http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/getimage.php?code=5&span=2

    Any wind speeds below 5kts will not produce any appreciable power. So with Gordon Brown’s new push for wind power, we would all be freezing and dying by the thousand.

    Are these politicians just stupid or deliberately evil??

    .

  44. George E. Smith (09:47:14) :

    Personally I like Pt100 for it linearity & as you say, it’s pretty indestructible.

    And when it is all said and done; the temperature, or the temperature anomaly, tells you exactly nothing about the energy balance of the earth; so what good is it; other than to inspire generations of statistical mathematicians to create ever more imaginative statistical analyses, of numbers that after all are all supposed to be different anyway.

    I always seem to get laughed down over this one. Without a minimum of temp & RH, we learn nothing about atmospheric energy.

    DaveE.

  45. So, say that temperatures continue to decline for the next 30 years, as some have predicted. Winters get colder. Arctic sea ice continues to expand….What will be the fallout? Will Dateline NBC run an investigative look at the AGW movement? Will Congress call for hearings? Will people across the globe demand an explanation? Or will scientists wriggle off the hook by steadfastly claiming that a hotter world is still on the perpetual horizon? Will the public’s attention be diverted to a new disaster scenario (e.g., devastating asteroids, massive earthquakes, pandemics, etc.)? Or will the world gain a tiny bit of common sense about these matters? Interesting times…

    Oh that’s an easy one to answer: “If it hadn’t been for these anomalous 30 years of temperature decline, it would have been even worse than we thought!”

  46. All these oscillating weather sources don’t dance to the same drummer. I would imagine, in a thought experiment, that some are long regular oscillations with larger regular phases, some are regularly shorter, and some are chaotically shorter. I could go on with this thought experiment and mix/match the ocsillation variables. I could also, in my thought experiment, imagine that certain oscillations catch each other when they happen together and force a long spell of hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or windy conditions.

    This has come to mind once I began studying the Arctic Oscillation together with the AMO, PDO, El Nino, and jet stream. I can imagine a period of cold wet conditions bringing lots of snow to glaciers and freezing up rivers and streams, followed by incredibly frigid weather damming up larger rivers that together continues to build a mini-ice age, followed by warming.

    I went to Google and looked at the satellite topographical map of my ranch. At 3500 feet up, I am sitting right in the middle of what looks like a vast shallow lake below a gouged out terminal moraine. Wonder how many times it happened.

  47. DirkH (08:17:50) :

    Look at this entry in the BBC’s Richard Black’s blog:
    He noticed that the AO went negative. He doesn’t even try to give it much of an AGW spin.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

    ———————————————————

    Somehow, I don’t think that Richard Black got his 3-month AO index diagram from the NOAA. (if he even knows what that is)
    Much easier to have found and bookmarked

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/28/the-arctic-oscillation-index-goes-strongly-negative/#more-14605

    Perhaps he’s climbed to the top of the fence.

  48. This is a central Pacific centered El Nino versus the 98 El Nino that was Eastern Pacific; this shifts the Aleutian low farther west and leaves a ridge over the west coast.

  49. Can I just be sure? The anomaly is with respect to a 79-98 average which is itself calculated entirely from satellite measurements that are entirely independent of any surface instrument. Yes? So I may conclude that Dr Spencer now has a 30 year run of satellite measurements that make no use whatever of surface instruments. (30 years seems to be something of a magic number for climate people.) Anyway, my compliments to Dr Spencer for plotting the moving averages without using “padding” to give the appearance of their spanning the whole period – that “padding” trick always seemed to me to imply that the “Team” were not workers of the highest standards of integrity or competence.

  50. There might be a slight warming here over the 30-year period. And a slight cooling over the last decade.

    But there is nothing dramatic here. There is no skyrocketing, no accelleration.

    This is climate behaving as climate normally does.

    Case closed.

  51. maz2 (10:38:09), you’ve misquoted the Precautionary Principle. Here’s a better version:

    “The principle means that no expense should be spared and no risk taken, however small, if there is a possible danger to a politician’s re-election.”

  52. Please, let’s just go ahead and declare AGW a religion in the US. There’s a constitutional amendment that prevents our government from establishing a religion, so we’d have legal grounds to strike down any law that uses global warming as the root cause… bye, bye cap-and-trade and the EPA could not regulate CO2…

  53. JonesII (11:01:15) :

    tallbloke (09:45:17) :

    You are right, but, here we are again discussing on temperatures, weather and climate, but knowing that (Pieter F (09:53:36) )…the AGW Movement is not about weather or climate. It is about Maurice Strong’s efforts to establish a global governance

    As you said, truth is the stick we will beat them with, and I’m concentrating on trying to find and use the truth about how our climate works rather than getting involved in the endless political slanging match. I am glad some are willing to take that on, and I think my best contribution is to find and hand them truth bombs to lob at the fakirs.

    I have posted details of my energy model today on my blog. Hopefully, people more accomplished than I in statistical methods will assist me in improving the details.

    tallbloke.wordpress.com

  54. I noticed a comment from MJK about this decade being the hottest on record. 150 years of record.

    It’s interesting how often it gets mentioned in the context of “are we currently warming or cooling”. It may be that MJK doesn’t know his/her material so well but I was interested to see that realclimate.org pulls this one out, even though they should know their subject..

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/04/warmest-decade-on-record-and-the-laymans-guide-to-autocorrelation/

    To use the economics analogy in the link, if you wanted to find out whether or not we were in a recession, would pointing to the fact that the current decade has the highest GDP on record be relevant? In fact, I’ve never heard an economist or even a less knowledgeable politician try that in a recession.

    And yet, “real climate scientists” use this flawed approach with warming/cooling and the “warmest decade on record”.

  55. “pwl (10:18:33) :

    In the graph a “25 month running average” is used. I’d like to learn more about it.
    […]
    If you could, please describe the specific equation being used, any weights used, and how it’s useful (e.g. why 25 months rather than some other number) plus what information it can be used to obtain from the temperature data. […]”

    pwl, is that all that you have? How old are you, 15?

  56. Leif Svalgaard (10:54:29) :

    “Roy’s trick to hide the increase” may come back and bite him. 25-month averaging also flattens the 1998 El Niño anomaly – we’re likely to see the highest average global temperatures ever recorded by satellite in a year or so calculated on his new basis.

    This assumes Dr Spencer sticks to 25-month averaging.

  57. Ok geniuses. What is climate?

    El Niño year but different. This el niño has benn different in some fundamental aspect one of which was pointed out earlier. It is that the warmer water has been concentrated at some distance from South America and close to or at the coast. This clearly has had a modified niño effect on USA and SA.

  58. Richard M (07:37:09) “All I know is we were supposed to have a mild winter here in the midwest because of the El Nino. Still waiting …”

    Balmy-warm on the Pacific side of the great divide – warmest winter in recent memory (so far).

    On the other side, you guys are getting hit by AO-.

    This reinforces the nonsense we hear from alarmists who don’t understand that spatial phasing impacts regional & global summaries — killing key signals with spatial smoothing is a way to keep the duller sheeple off the mountain trail to the peak of understanding of true causes of natural climate variations.

    Here’s a clue for MJK, who seems to have some of us pegged all-wrong:

    Check the beats & interannual-contrast cross-wavelet harmonic-coherence and note the time-normalized-power-disruption pattern. Chandler wobble, polar motion, QBO, SOI, GLAAM, LOD, NAM, … all fall out, but who the h*ll could be bothered with the trouble of looking at integrals, derivatives, & timescale-contrasts and additionally thinking conditionally (wo! multivariate paradox — too much!) when 2+2=5 v2.0.1.0.1 is conveniently available?

    Things don’t look so random when you treat the data as ordinal and use phase-aware methods that aren’t fooled by nonlinear strange-attractors (like unconditioned linear-correlation is). The mainstream assumptions of randomness? Sheer idiocy &/or bold deception? – Take your pick – (…only depends on whether one is a leader or a follower in the 2+2=5 scheme).

    The issue isn’t “whether or not there is warming”. Climate is not an environmental issue, but pollution, land use, & population are.

  59. MJK – For sure the satellite data shows warming overall. However, all of the AGW skeptics I know accept that it was warming from ca 1976 through ca 2002. The bits in question are how much and due to what cause. Now look at the satellite record – about 0.3 degrees C over 30 years or 1.0 degrees C per century, hardly catastrophic. Now consider that the surface record clearly shows cooling from about 1944 to 1976. Even the ardent AGW folks accept that. Go farther back and there was warming from about 1910 to 1944, and cooling from 1880 to 1910. Hmm, looks like an approximate 60 year cycle. However going farther back, there is a clear warming trend from ca 1700 to now, with smaller warmings and coolings cycling around the trend. Go way farther back, to the egyptian optimum, and you find a cooling trend from then to now, with a much longer cycle of warming and cooling cycling around the trend. So yes, we have had a recent 30 year warming trend. and a longer 300 year warming trend, and a 5000 year cooling trend, and we are not back to the warmth of even 1000 years ago. Now note that there is a ton of evidence that the surface instrument trend, as reported, suffers from several warming biases, so certainly overstates the warming of the last 100 years, and especially the last 35 years. Back out those biases, and the decade of the 30s is the warmest in the last century.
    Now look at the satellite curve again, carefully. Pick the center point of the big spike of 1997/98 to avoid starting point bias, – that’s January 1998, and plot the trend to now, a slight, but not statistically significant cooling, for 12 years. If 24 years (1976-2000) constitute evidence of a warming crisis, surely 12 years of cooling, ar at least no warming, are significant.
    Now do some research on the concept of “paradigm paralysis”, open your mind and eyes, review all of the evidence holistically, and then get back to us. Murray

  60. Still the warmest decade in the last 150 years? Probably. Casastrophic? No — unless you are a true CAGW believer. So, bye, bye.

  61. Who was the stellar brainiac that came up with the 25 month average?

    Screw 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, lets use twenty five due to its a more logical number much more easily divided by 5. Or what?

    Why not go all “mental” using a 12 month average, midsummer to midsummer, using -98 as a starting point? The alarmist’s equation does work, right?

    (When was it logical to use a 25 month cycle in a 12 month year cycle? If you start in Jan. you end up with starting the next cycle not until Mars two years later. Add another cycle and you end up with starting in April for the next cycle. And so on. Get the problem when it comes to the weather and climate?)

  62. I’m beginning to believe that a zero anomoly is like absolute zero, impossible to obtain. If the current year of cold temperatures is still above normal, I don’t want to know what normal is.

  63. Tom P (12:11:31) :
    “Roy’s trick to hide the increase” may come back and bite him. 25-month averaging also flattens the 1998 El Niño anomaly – we’re likely to see the highest average global temperatures ever recorded by satellite in a year or so calculated on his new basis.

    This assumes Dr Spencer sticks to 25-month averaging.

    He’ll obviously then choose another interval as needed to maintain the trick :-)

  64. Anyone who wishes can see the satellite numbers plotted daily at the following site. Pick a year and pick an altitude. I understand that Roy Spencer uses the temperatures at 14,000 feet for various good reasons. One of the oddities you may note is that the annual swings with season at surface and also 14,000 feet are 180 degrees out of phase with seasonal swings at 102,000 feet. I know why lower elevation temperatures rise and fall in concert with northern hemisphere summer and winter, respectively, (more land mass in the northern hemisphere) but I have never heard an explanation for why temperature at 102,000 feet behaves just the opposite.

    Any answers out there? Inquiring minds want to know.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    CH

  65. I think you need to give that satellite a kick. Where I live (southeast Michigan) December was 1.5F cooler than average. And we were not in an area that was especially hard hit by winter.

  66. “I’m in FL and it dropped down to the 30’s last night.”

    Here, near UAH, it got to 14 early this morning. Unbelievable, for Alabama.

  67. you mention no warming in the last 11 years or so, however what would have been the globe temperature without the pinatubo cooling? so could we extend it to more than 11 years?

  68. On the other hand, maybe I should get a cup of coffee down me and read the 90 some comments above before posting anything!

  69. Paul Vaughan, cute curves. Could you provide some labelling so us less gifted guys have some idea what they are trying to tell us?

  70. I’m not sure why Dr. Spencer uses the 25 month average or why he has used the 13 month average in the past. To my way of thinking a 12 month average seems more logical. But anyway I calculated the trailing 12 month average from the data he presented and it turns out to be 0.26C.

  71. Re: Pamela Gray (11:32:58)

    …and if they are next-door to each other spatially …

    … could be a 0, 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4-cycle ordinal phase-concordance – like a back-eddy opposite to the main flow, along the shore, downstream from a narrows … (might want to look at the 1st derivative smoothed to a main harmonic…)

    The spatial phase-shifts give “interesting” clues …(that get smeared out – or distorted – by amplitude-averages sometimes…)

  72. Even if it is lower than November, it is quite high for December : it’s the 5th or 6th highest December anomaly recorded by UAH. Moreover, January has begun pretty strongly!

  73. Re: 1DandyTroll (12:35:15)

    Rather than “5-month”, “13-month”, “25-month”, the thing to do is AVERAGE(A2:A6,average(A1,A7)) or AVERAGE(A2:A12,average(A1,A13)) or AVERAGE(A2:A24,average(A1,A25)).

  74. Another way to look at the whole AGW situation is to put the whole thing in perspective. An anomaly of .28C over 30 years is just how serious?

    Let’s say we follow the same path. That means in 2040 the anomaly will be all the way up to .56C. Wow, will we able to breathe? Where I’m at right now the mid-afternoon temperature is 5F. Is anyone really (I mean really) concerned that it might be 6F (or even 7F) in another 30 years.

    Do AGW believers like MJK ever look at the situation logically?

  75. Re: David Segesta (13:09:50)

    People use odd-numbered boxcar-kernels for window-centering purposes, but the issues arising from missing the harmonics are easily avoided – [see my note at Paul Vaughan (13:22:25)].

    Btw: You can do spectral analysis with simple boxcar-kernels – it’s a good way to learn how (very seriously) misleading FFT is for nonstationary series.

  76. This story in the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6975867.ece) quotes:
    QUOTE:
    Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked this week’s conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming.
    END QUOTE

    Well, there’s a surprise, the record cold is due to “global warming” after all.
    They’ll still be saying this when Woolly Mammoths are roaming the snow covered streets of Cairo, when the glaciers invade Scotland and when we are up to our necks in polar bears – in London and Paris.

  77. Wow, DirkH (12:06:59), you really contributed to answering my valid questions with your comment. You’re a stellar scientist or science educator. Top Marks – not! You get an F.

    One of the main problems in the ‘debate’ about climate science is that people are so quick to use nasty or mocking or sarcastic ad hominem personal attacks rather than simply answering peoples questions straight up. Not everyone has the inside knowledge of the experts.

    Asking Roy Spencer if he used a “weight” on the smoothing and to show his 25 month running average function are valid question. As is asking what information he gleens from such a running average on temperature graphs. Roy Spencer is the expert after all and I’m learning this subject so it’s appropriate to ask questions, even the most basic questions. Even if I wasn’t learning this topic it would be appropriate to ask someone to show their work so that it can be audited and checked and replicated on my own. It’s known as open (source) science. It’s what WUWT and Climate Audit and Paths To Knowledge dot Net (http://www.PathsToKnowledge.net) advocate.

    Obviously DirkH one can infer from your comment that you don’t advocate learning about a scientist’s graph nor think it’s relevant to clarify it’s construction.

    Maybe this has been discussed before, if someone could please supply a reference I would appreciate it.

    Now often I get this type of response from those that are highly educated in their field. Often that is worse than if the person is just some random commenter since it shows that a scientist looks down at others learning or asking auditing questions. That’s part of the extreme arrogance that many scientists have and it’s a rather repugnant aspect of science as the Climategate Jones, Mann, et. al. alleged scientists have proven drives them. Even worse is when the person is not just educated but also a science educator; for some reason they think that their role as an educator ends when their class ends and they become monsters on the web blasting anyone who asks questions. Typically the worse of these in the climate debate are the “alleged professors”.

    In any event, DirkH it’s a good thing that you’re not a science teacher of mine. Hopefully you’re not an actual climate scientist or scientist either.

    Anyway the questions still stands.

  78. 1DandyTroll (12:35:15) :

    “Who was the stellar brainiac that came up with the 25 month average?”

    It’s nothing more behind it than that a 25-month average, unlike a strict two-year average, has a well-defined monthly midpoint to associate with the average value: for the latest period from December 2007 to December 2009 it’s December 2008.

    On the other hand unlike a two-year average, any seasonal variation will be picked up, though not with much weighting (4%): there are three December values in the average above, but only two of every other month.

    As to to the more important question of why Dr Spencer suddenly changed from a 13- to 25-month average, as I wrote yesterday:

    “The much cooler temperatures of 2008 will now continue to contribute to the smoothed trend line for another year.”

    Or as Leif Svalgaard more explicitly put it today:

    “Changing to a 25-month smooth will henceforth be known as ‘Roy’s trick to hide the increase’ …”

  79. Lief:
    “Changing to a 25-month smooth will henceforth be known as “Roy’s trick to hide the increase” …”
    “He’ll obviously then choose another interval as needed to maintain the trick :-)”

    Very immature Lief. You know that hottest years are not selected from a smoothed line. They are selected based on the average for the twelve months.

    Shouldn’t you be figuring out why the correlation between Svensmark’s theory and the climate is so good? I’m curious to see where you are going to come down with regards to that theory – now that you appear to have bought into the AGW fraud. You seem to be reluctant to place a bet one way or the other on Svensmark.

  80. I agree with Dr. Svalgaard and I think Dr. Spencer will go back to the previous 13 month running average. However I disagree with Tom P (12:11:31) , our planet may not be warmer in a year or so, it may be colder:

    We can approximate the 11.1 year solar cycle with a sine function

    K(t) = A∙sin(ω∙t), where ω = 2∙π/T and T is the period = 11.1 year.

    The accumulated heat from the sun according to the first law of thermodynamics is:

    m∙cp∙dT/dt = Qin – Qout = K(t) – σT^4

    As the temperature is the time integral of the radiation K(t) from the sun the temperature variation may be a sine function with a quarter period delay, which is 11.1/4 = 2.78 year. Thus, the minimum in temperature may come 2.78 years after the solar minimum….

    Do you agree Leif?

  81. Wayne, that uah plot-site is FANTASTIC!

    But isnt this from UAH which started measuring in 1979 ?

    I wonder why it starts in 2003, not 1979?

  82. syphax (08:09:50) :

    “Interesting footnote. I wonder if Dr. Spencer has caught flak from Monckton’s ‘the satellite record is just calibrated to the surface record’ meme.

    Be careful not to eat one of your own in the frenzy.”

    Actually, Spencer informed Monckton about Monckton’s misunderstanding of the satellite’s calibration, and Monckton promptly revised what he said.

  83. Except, there are bugs.
    Try;
    -Tick all checkboxes ON.
    -Click Readraw
    -Then change to Sealevel.
    -All checkboxes are unchecked unless 2009 and 2010
    =>Thats too bad.
    -Now you must check all checkboxes ON again
    -Click Redraw =>It plots one year only…….

  84. I love seeing Peter Garrett making a fool of himself. I hope he keep sit up all the way during the cooling cycle. People already are sick of him. Give it a year or two and he’ll have to go back to his music business. His view that 2009 was warm is nonsense. It has been a typical year not unlike many others over the pat 100 years. So much for rampant global warming. What global warming? Dream on Peter, and all other AGW crackpots.

  85. I think I am missing something here, but all this jumping around from month to month worries me. Temperature is only a measure of energy and so if the temperature really is changing this much, there is one massive transfer of energy going on here. Take June to July this year – almost half a degree – and then October-November-December almost a quarter of a degree up and then down again.

    Are we really seeing a true movement of energy into and out of the system – or is this just the noise generated by sampling and instrument variation?

    I accept that what we are seeing is energy measured in one part of the atmosphere (or whichever part is measured by these satellites) and, since the surface temperature records also measure air temperature (although a different part) it makes sense that they correlate to some extent. But surely we have to be able to find where all the energy is coming from (and going to) before we can hope to get a handle on whether there is more or less energy in the system as a whole. Can sea (surface) temperatures account for this?

    If this was a financial model, you can be d*** sure people would want to know where it all goes to and comes from each month! Maybe that’s why people like Steve McIntyre were the ones who first looked at the models.

    I know I’m coming into this late, but I still don’t see anyone giving an answer on this and it worries me that we are considering temperature a thing in itself and not what it represents.

  86. Leif Svalgaard (12:41:15) :

    This assumes Dr Spencer sticks to 25-month averaging.

    He’ll obviously then choose another interval as needed to maintain the trick :-)

    Dr Svalgaard, sorry if you’ve answered this elsewhere, but what interval would you use?

  87. Aha, now I see it. Instead of plotting all years from 2003 on left side to 2010 on right side…..as was done at first…its now suddenly plotted on top of each other. My mistake.

    Very, very nice stuff! Thanks, UAH.

  88. Murray (13:05:07) “[…] cute curves. Could you provide some labelling so us less gifted guys have some idea what they are trying to tell us?”

    Think of it [very loosely speaking] as an index of radial acceleration of the ‘inner’ solar system relative to the ‘outer’ solar system, as viewed from a reference point at the north pole of the sun. Btw: This has nothing to do with TSI, sunspots, solar activity, etc. – this is about EOP (Earth orientation parameters). You can quickly derive the curve from NASA Horizons (online software) output. See the Russian literature, particularly Barkin & Sidorenkov for related ideas – note particularly Barkin’s challenges of conventional modeling assumptions that simplify math to make it tractable and Sidorenkov’s ideas about the hydrologic cycle (in the context of the Russian school of thought on zonal vs. meridional circulation regimes).

  89. Regardless of the Australian numbers and disregarding Jo Nova’s raw data v BOM adjusted data, Tony Abbott is still correct in that there has been no discernable global temperature rise in a decade. If the WMO is still working where 2009 ranks globally presently at +0.44 deg anomaly plus or minus 0.11deg, I would say that after the NH December freeze that this number will go downwards rather than upwards.

    But I guess after the Copenghagen debacle and the current NH weather Rudd is getting desperate to be able to hang his hat on something.

  90. “RobP (13:50:40) :

    I think I am missing something here, but all this jumping around from month to month worries me. Temperature is only a measure of energy ”

    Consider for a moment that a temp. of say 0 deg C is about 273K, so when it goes up by a degree that’s about a third of a percent.

    For the radiation emitted into space, the absolute temperature is decisive. Seen this way, it’s not much jumping. It’s of course a colossal amount of energy nonetheless due to the sheer size of the planet. If you divide the radiated energy by the area of the surface it gets more manageable again; hundreds of Watts per square meter.

    Shouldn’t make you worry all that much.

  91. I noticed in the emails it also states how bad the Aust data was ,and as we now know they have cooked the books everywhere with the temp data .

  92. Invariant (13:38:39) :

    As the temperature is the time integral of the radiation K(t) from the sun the temperature variation may be a sine function with a quarter period delay, which is 11.1/4 = 2.78 year. Thus, the minimum in temperature may come 2.78 years after the solar minimum….

    That might work if it wasn’t for the fact that l Nino has occurred within 12 months of minimum over the last 5 solar cycles. Problem this time is, there’s no strog uptick in the following cycle to reinforce the warmth coming out of the ocean…

    So you will get the cold 2 years after minimum this time, but not for the reason you thought exactly.

  93. Re: tallbloke (13:55:30)

    Good to see you pulling threads together tallbloke – intense work. I have those curves on file. Cophasing & collinearity are certainly hazards when working with thickly-confounded indices of SSD. I’ll drop a note [about QBO & related terrestrial indices probably] on your blog in the days ahead.

  94. The tropics are warm … that’s laughter you hear … in SWFL, we been freezing cold the last week with a hard freeze predicted by the weekend locally.

    Send some global warming our way, Floridians are not used to below 40F weather. The orange growers are going nuts trying to harvest crops.

    The gulf water is getting so cold, fish kills are eminent.

  95. Re: Invariant (13:38:39)

    Interesting.

    I would be interested in hearing if you know how to work (accumulations of) these oscillations into your model:

  96. What’s the resolution on UAH? Could it be used to QC the surface temperature products from CRU, GISS, etc?

    Given the concerns around UHI, it would be interesting to see what UAH has for the area around Darwin Zero for example… or Siberia, or New Zealand for that matter.

  97. Tom P
    “The much cooler temperatures of 2008 will now continue to contribute to the smoothed trend line for another year.”

    So why not stop your babbling, Tom, and do an ENSO correction on the UAH data set since 1998, run a linear trend line through it, and show us what is really going on.

  98. Tilo Reber (13:38:25) :
    You seem to be reluctant to place a bet one way or the other on Svensmark.
    I have many a times opined that Svensmark’s theory [there were actually people before him with the same] does not match the data.
    Two reasons:
    1) the Earth magnetic field is a much stronger modulator of the GCRs than the Sun, and has varied a lot in the past, without matching temperature variations
    2) direct measurements since 1951 show no long-term trend in GCRs
    Svensmark et al. counter by positing that their cosmic rays are of such a special nature that their variations do not follow that of ordinary GCRs. Special pleading is a negative in my book.
    But, the jury is still out, and we will have to wait for his experiment to disprove the theory.

    Invariant (13:38:39) :
    Thus, the minimum in temperature may come 2.78 years after the solar minimum….
    Do you agree Leif?

    No, but it takes too long to explain why. Unless we have special thread for this.

    Paul Vaughan (12:20:00) :
    Here’s a clue for MJK
    Too lame to drop ‘clues’. Explain yourself, clearly, if possible.

    Nick Yates (13:56:13) :
    Dr Svalgaard, sorry if you’ve answered this elsewhere, but what interval would you use?
    Stick with his 13-month interval, but do it the same way as sunspots are smoothed: average over one year, then over another year starting one month later. Then average those two averages. That gives only half weight to the months that are 13 months apart.

    5
    01
    2010
    kwik (14:00:10) :
    Aha, now I see it. Instead of plotting all years from 2003 on left side to 2010 on right side…..as was done at first…its now suddenly plotted on top of each other. My mistake.

    Very, very nice stuff! Thanks, UAH.

    5
    01
    2010
    Paul Vaughan (14:00:43) :
    Murray (13:05:07) “[…] cute curves. Could you provide some labelling so us less gifted guys have some idea what they are trying to tell us?”

    Think of it [very loosely speaking] as an index of radial acceleration of the ‘inner’ solar system relative to the ‘outer’ solar system, as viewed from a reference point at the north pole of the sun. Btw: This has nothing to do with TSI, sunspots, solar activity, etc. – this is about EOP (Earth orientation parameters). You can quickly derive the curve from NASA Horizons (online software) output. See the Russian literature, particularly Barkin & Sidorenkov for related ideas – note particularly Barkin’s challenges of conventional modeling assumptions that simplify math to make it tractable and Sidorenkov’s ideas about the hydrologic cycle (in the context of the Russian school of thought on zonal vs. meridional circulation regimes).

    5
    01
    2010
    King of Cool (14:00:58) :
    Regardless of the Australian numbers and disregarding Jo Nova’s raw data v BOM adjusted data, Tony Abbott is still correct in that there has been no discernable global temperature rise in a decade. If the WMO is still working where 2009 ranks globally presently at +0.44 deg anomaly plus or minus 0.11deg, I would say that after the NH December freeze that this number will go downwards rather than upwards.

    But I guess after the Copenghagen debacle and the current NH weather Rudd is getting desperate to be able to hang his hat on something.

    5
    01
    2010
    DirkH (14:08:17) :
    “RobP (13:50:40) :

    I think I am missing something here, but all this jumping around from month to month worries me. Temperature is only a measure of energy ”

    Consider for a moment that a temp. of say 0 deg C is about 273K, so when it goes up by a degree that’s about a third of a percent.

    For the radiation emitted into space, the absolute temperature is decisive. Seen this way, it’s not much jumping. It’s of course a colossal amount of energy nonetheless due to the sheer size of the planet. If you divide the radiated energy by the area of the surface it gets more manageable again; hundreds of Watts per square meter.

    Shouldn’t make you worry all that much.

  99. What is the rationale when choosing what constitutes the “normal” temp. time period ? This is confusing to me. Why choose say 1961-1990 (instead of any other time period) ? and say “this year (whatever the year) “is the warmest since (whenever) compared to the “normal”.

    It would be ineresting to see the results when using different “normals” and compare, will it produce different temp. trends?

  100. Sorry that the rest of my post after:
    “5
    01
    2010
    kwik (14:00:10) :
    Aha, now I see it. Instead of plotting all years from 2003 on

    was posted by mistake. Will a nice moderator perhaps help out?

  101. UK is in a grip of freezing cold, but an expert from the Met office on the BBC news said : You HAVE to believe in the Global Warming (note: not climate change but GW). Even the Met’s own data shows that last couple of summers were at the level of those of 1770s (yes 1770s! ), average summer temperatures have risen by only 0.05 degree C / century, or measly 0.15 degrees in over 300 years. However winters have become considerably warmer (unfortunately not this one), increasing by nearly 0.4 degree C / century, or about 1.2 degrees.
    Year Wnt Sum
    1772 2.9 16.4
    1773 3.8 15.9
    1774 2.9 15.6
    …………………
    2007 6.4 15.2
    2008 5.6 15.4
    2009 3.5 15.8

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm

    Any further warming in the winters could be only beneficial to the UK population by reducing heating bills and consequently less carbon consumed. It is ironic even if the ‘AGW’ was real, any reduction of carbon footprint, which HM Government intends to legalise, would be more than offset by necessity of increasing burning of fossil fuels for heating in the winter months.

  102. syphax (08:09:50) :

    Be careful not to eat one of your own in the frenzy.

    How’s Phil Jones tasting?

  103. OT but fascinating – saw this comment on James Delingpole’s blog

    “Just got my Jan 2010 ecopy of Physics Today and I won’t be burning this one. It has an article on the “Hacked Climate Emails.”

    To appreciate the significance of what they report, understand two things: (1) Physics Today is the flagship publication of The American Institute of Physics, an association of 10 academic societies, whose main reason for being is to promote public funding of academic research and (2) AGW is the biggest cash-cow they’ve ever seen.

    They lead with a report of a conversation with a PR operator for one of the world’s leading environmental organizations who didn’t want to be quoted. He said he believed that they were on the verge of convincing the general public that they needed to make sacrifices in order to stop AGW, but all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the [Climatic Research Unit (CRU)] leak is nothing less than catastrophic.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021420/how-to-keep-warm-this-winter/comment-page-1/#comment-100123939

  104. I have to admit, that I am totally non-plussed by either the 13 month running average, or the 25 month running average.

    Consider the following simplistic situation:- The Earth goes around the sun in a 12 month cycle, and that annual trip results in a variation in earth temperatures, simply because of the radial runout of the orbit.

    So let’s assume that there is no other weather/climate influencing effect. One might then expect the temperature to vary perhaps in some roughly sinusoidal cyclic fashion, and if one subtracts off some baseline reference to get anomalies, it too would seem to have an annual sinusoidal variation (remember we now have no other climate/weather effects.)

    So now my anomaly curve is a fixed sinusoid, that repeats year after year.

    So if I now take the annual average of those monthly numbers, I get exactly the same number each and every year, or month, so my graph is a horizontal straight line, If I take a 12 month average, and also if I take a 24 month average, so absent any weather/climate other than sun TSI, I have a perfect zero anomaly curve that never changes.

    Ok, so now we change to a 13 month or for that matter a 25 month running average, instead of 12/24.

    Well now the set of data points contains a single data point added to a full year or two years of data, and that single data point we added, itself is known to have a 12 month sinusoidal amplitude variation, so about 1/13 or 1/25 of the monthly cycle deviation, is now added to our former flatline, and we now obtain a sinusoidal looking cyclic variation, that is a small fraction of the original annual cycle due to TSI variation (or whatever).

    So taking a 13 or 25 month running average has now introduced an apparent signal that does not in fact exist. My anomaly graph is a dead flat line, and now it has grown a spurious sinusoidal noise; for no other reason than the period of my running average, not matching a known cyclic variable interval.

    Now throw in real climate/weather variations, and use the same asynchronous average, and that spurious noise has to still be there fouling up the true climate/weather signal.

    Or am I simply all wet again ?

    I don’t get it.

  105. Hey trolls, go out on main street and start telling people it’s getting warmer. What do you think the reaction will be? Tell them skeptic scientists are hiding the warming by manipulating data to make it look like the earth cooling.

    Go tell those pensioners in the UK who have been dying from cold in the winter in increasing numbers over the last two years that they’re wasting time buying books and burning them. Go tell the people in India and Bangladesh they can sleep outdoors and everything is fine. Tell the Florida farmers to sleep good at night and not be busy trying to save their crops from freezing. Go tell the farmers that had a short growing season this past summer. Go to New Zealand where winter lasted extra long this year. Go to the mountains for Peru where winters have been longer over the last 4 years and increasing numbers of people are dying from the cold.

    You shouldn’t be hanging out here because your comments are useless here. We are listening even less than all the people I just listed. We’ve seen the data and we know what’s really going on. But maybe that’s over your heads to understand.

  106. Ralph (11:10:19) :

    Wind Power.

    And don’t expect wind power to keep you warm when we get these cold events. This is a record of the wind speeds in the Irish Sea (where many of the UK’s windelecs reside) for the last 7 days (when it was bitterly cold).

    http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/getimage.php?code=5&span=2

    Any wind speeds below 5kts will not produce any appreciable power. So with Gordon Brown’s new push for wind power, we would all be freezing and dying by the thousand.

    Are these politicians just stupid or deliberately evil??

    Why use “or” – could be “and”.

  107. Tom P (13:38:12) :

    As to to the more important question of why Dr Spencer suddenly changed from a 13- to 25-month average, as I wrote yesterday:

    “The much cooler temperatures of 2008 will now continue to contribute to the smoothed trend line for another year.”

    Or as Leif Svalgaard more explicitly put it today:

    “Changing to a 25-month smooth will henceforth be known as ‘Roy’s trick to hide the increase’ …”

    Why don’t you ask Leif to show you how to drive the ‘R’ package you downloaded from Steve McIntyre’s site so you can do it right? ;-)

    I find it amusing that those who always complain about cool-heads using short term trends to show cooling, now want Roy Spencer to go back to 13 month averages to show that last itzy bitzy bit of warming before global temp plunges to a new decadal low, which it surely will once el nino abates, given the loss of ocean heat content and the high outgoing LW situation.

  108. AdderW (14:35:34) :

    What is the rationale when choosing what constitutes the “normal” temp. time period ? This is confusing to me. Why choose say 1961-1990 (instead of any other time period) ? and say “this year (whatever the year) “is the warmest since (whenever) compared to the “normal”.

    It would be ineresting to see the results when using different “normals” and compare, will it produce different temp. trends?

    Possibly because it covers the peak period when the baby boomers were young, free, and in love… of the glorious salad days of their youth when all was right with the world… who would want to return to such days of peace and joy…

  109. Vukcevic. Re the UK winter temperatures: Like a lot of what passes for climate science these days it all depends on where you start counting from. The Met Office are little more than a bunch of liars, I’m afraid, because they don’t tell you the whole story. Take a look at this for example http://climate-graphs.co.uk/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=4 It shows that the past 20 years of UK winters shows a flat line in temperature, 20 years! What I’ve done is to cherry-pick a start date, but that’s all everyone does.

  110. Leif:
    2) direct measurements since 1951 show no long-term trend in GCRs.

    I’m sure that you know that when you turn the heat to a certain level on a kettle of water that the water will continue to warm for some time after you have introduced the heat – even if you keep the heat level. And I’m sure that you know that the oceans are a very big kettle of water. There was a large change of GCRs before 1951. So why couldn’t the oceans take some time to catch up with that change. The whole thing also being modulated by PDO of course.

    “But, the jury is still out, and we will have to wait for his experiment to disprove the theory”

    You seem to be fairly certain that it will be disproven. So I think we have your bet down for the record. You think that poor Svensmark doesn’t have the talent of a group of expert solar physicists producing solar cycle predictions that are all over the map.

  111. tarpon wrote: “The tropics are warm … that’s laughter you hear … in SWFL, we been freezing cold the last week with a hard freeze predicted by the weekend locally.

    Send some global warming our way, Floridians are not used to below 40F weather. The orange growers are going nuts trying to harvest crops.

    The gulf water is getting so cold, fish kills are eminent.”

    So does this mean a cooler gulf stream over the next year? If so we are presumably looking at a colder western Europe and more Arctic Ice, i.e. less summer melting during 2010. If I was an alarmist I would start talking about feedback mechanisms and how we are all doomed.

  112. It’s so cold in Chicago Lake Michigan is starting to freeze over.

    Pretty soon, Chicagoans will see a white bear coming ashore from off the ice, and his name won’t be Brian Urlacher.

  113. If Mount Mayon erupts and ejects a significant amount of ash high enough, Lord, it could get cold.

  114. UAH annual ranking update, 2009 is 7th warmest:

    1998 #1
    2005 #2
    2002 #3
    2007 #4
    2003 #5
    2006 #6
    2009 #7
    2001 #8
    2004 #9

  115. Well you see it’s simple thermodynamics coupled with turbulences, like when you boil some water and suddenly you see ice cristals appear in the pot due to chaotic temperature fluctuations. The temperature shifts simply become so violent that there’s chaotic temperature repulsion. Like we see now. Outside. Those anomalous masses of snow. They’re a fluke.

  116. RobP (13:50:40) :

    You’re missing nothing.

    A litre of water in a pan at 100ºF contains a LOT more energy that a litre of air at the same temperature.

    Unfortunately, the battleground has been set on temperature with no regard to things like humidity which can change energy content significantly. I won’t be celebrating if/when temperatures go down, it proves nothing.

    My local climate, (North-East England), hasn’t changed much over the last 60 years that I know of. Anecdotally I can say over the last 100 years.

    As far as I know, my micro-climate is still part of the planet Earth and I doubt anyone elses micro-climate has changed either. (Why should MY micro-climate be different to anyone elses?)

    Sure, the climate has changed, but in both directions in my memory, why should this be considered abnormal? The overall change seems, (at the moment), to be minimal.

    My one big hope is that warming is going to happen. Warm is good!

    DaveE.

  117. What global warming? As far as I can see even from the available scientific evidence (even if it’s corrupted) the world has not changed either way over the past 100+ years compared to longer term trends going back 100’s and 1000’s of years. If anything I find this surprising. I would have thought the climate would either have cooled or warmed a lot more than it already has. So, what’s all the fuss about? Are global warming alarmists on drugs or something?

  118. RobP –

    I think your question is spot on. Take a look at:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/12/19/is-climate-more-than-weather-is-weather-just-noise/

    People keep talking about the year to year variation as “noise”. Noise is measurement error. Also I don’t think a storm or an unusually hot day at the beach is significant. That’s noise = weather.

    But if the amount of heat in the earth’s climate system is lower at the end of the year than at the start there should be a reason.

    Either we can’t measure properly or we don’t understand the physics behind climate well enough. Keith Trenberth, top IPCC scientist, raises this in a paper which is discussed in the blog post (above).

  119. Looking at Roy’s plots at his site raises some questions. There he is using a 20 year average for calculating his anomaly at 14,000 ft (ch05). That would be consistent with the vertical axes in the plot above indicating 1979 to 1998.

    But in looking at the track for 2009 against the 20 year anomaly, he appears to be using the 20 year average for each specific date of the previous 20 years (the yellow line). It would be nice to have the ‘zero’ line 20 year average plotted along with the constantly changing daily one.

  120. Pieter F (09:53:36) :

    It might also help some visitors to MJK’s world to shift their focus from the silly idea that a couple of warm decades is proof that global warming ever existed in the first place.

    —————————————————————–

    Especially taking UHI in to account.

  121. Tilo Reber (14:33:19) :

    So why not stop your babbling, Tom, and do an ENSO correction on the UAH data set since 1998, run a linear trend line through it, and show us what is really going on.

    ——————————————————————–

    I agree Tilo.

  122. RobP (13:50:40)

    I think you are correct to be interested about the meaning of the very noisy pattern of the anomalies, but it is not worrisome. Although it is a tremendous amount of energy when multiplied by 500 million square kilometers, it only takes about 3kWh to warm a square meter of atmosphere from sea level by one degree C. In a 730 hour average month, this only takes 4 Watts out of the 330 W average total solar insolation. So a reduction in cloud cover of a little over 1% would raise the air that degree in a single month.

    So what we are looking at in these charts is really just an artifact of the cloud cover variations and exchanges to the ocean, which has the same heat capacity as the atmosphere in its top 2.5 meters.

    I think the real meaning of these graphs and the graphs of regional anomalies is that 1 or 2 Watts of additional theoretical forcing from more GHG is NOT a catastrophe.

    Peter Moliterno, P.E.

  123. Odd, this bantering about of how Roy Spencer handled this data. So you say he manipulated data so it will show cooling instead of warming because he’s a cooling type of guy?

    Huh. Short memories.

    I remembering him having a question about Richard Lindzen’s ERBE data and that his own calculation showed a slight warming and that was different than Lindzen’s results.

    He didn’t try to show cooling with that data.

  124. Peter of Sydney (15:52:38) :

    “What global warming? As far as I can see even from the available scientific evidence (even if it’s corrupted) the world has not changed either way over the past 100+ years compared to longer term trends going back 100’s and 1000’s of years. If anything I find this surprising. I would have thought the climate would either have cooled or warmed a lot more than it already has. So, what’s all the fuss about? Are global warming alarmists on drugs or something?”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    It seems to be some kind of steroid that locks them into a delusional power trip.

  125. “NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers carried on the satellite radiometers:”

    This is somewhat evasive, Thermometers on board can not direcly measure surface temperature. There is obviously an algorithm being used to convert satellite measurements to surface temperature, and what some folks worry about is that the algorithm can be tweaked to give more “accurate’ temperatures by those who deem them too low.

  126. Leif, I maintain there is no single, definite trend in the temperature data. If you want the world to believe there is one, and even a catastrophic increase, no less, then the burden of proof is on you.
    The only correct way of putting it: if, by handpicking a smoothing averaging, or a “convenient” reference period reasonably long, I can come up with a graph that shows no significant temperature increase, then the DATA shows NO AGW-related increase trend! Sure, there *may* still be one brewing, but it’s not showing, so the AG warming is still a puzzling theory.
    Maybe the choice of Spencer to use a 25-month right now is not entirely fair, but it’s legit. (The 98 El Nino is smoothed out, someone complained… but wait… well, that’s actually a GOOD reason to use a longer averaging base! To decrease the +/- by nino/nina.)
    But you seem to ignore the paramount difference there is between plotting a slightly different moving average over a visible raw data graph that anyone can judge for himself (so that it’s more of a visual aid than anything else) and the nefarious trick of the original “hide the decline”, that implied tampering with the plot of a graph without telling it, to show perfect accordance between datasets that weren’t.
    But what do I know, I’m a neophyte, right?

  127. Peter of Sydney (15:52:38) :

    What global warming? As far as I can see even from the available scientific evidence (even if it’s corrupted) the world has not changed either way over the past 100+ years compared to longer term trends going back 100’s and 1000’s of years. If anything I find this surprising. I would have thought the climate would either have cooled or warmed a lot more than it already has. So, what’s all the fuss about? Are global warming alarmists on drugs or something?

    (IMHO) Root Cause Analysis as to why people continuously submit themselves to the “madness of crowds”…

    Too many people are unable to distinguish between “perceived risk” and “real risk”, which inability is exploited for profit by scaremongers and insurance companies.

    When people are able to make that distinction and collapse the gap between real and perceived risks they are able to make rational decisions about those risks. Without the distinction, people waste resources jumping at shadows.

  128. Thanks to all who replied on the question of energy balance, but perhaps I misled you when using the term ‘worried” (blame my english english). I am certainly not worried about the climate, which will do its own sweet thing regardless of what I or Al Gore may pronounce, but I am worried that we are missing the point by focussing on the temperature as a single factor.

    I think scienceofdoom (15:57:23) puts it a bit more clearly, but the point is that the energy apparently leaving and then re-entering the system is not accounted for in the models. If we accept that the variability in the temperature readings is not measurement error then we have to be able to explain where the energy is going (and coming back from).

    Other comments in this thread have talked about the ocean as a heat (energy) sink and intuitively, this seems like a good place to be looking, but there seems even less data on ocean temperatures than atmospheric. I like the idea that you have to include RH into any temperature measurement, since it seems to me that this will affect the energy balance as well, but is anyone doing this?

    The Trenberth “travesty” comment in the climategate emails sums it up for me, but on a bigger scale altogether. The travesty is that we have not yet properly accounted for all of the energy flows in the system, but some people are telling us that we can fine-tune our climate by fiddling with a trace gas!

  129. Max: You asked, “Why does it show T = Departure from 79 to 89 and not 79 to 09″

    I assume your 89 is a typo and it should read 98.

    UAH uses the twenty years of 1979 to 1998 as their base years for anomalies.

  130. “It may seem that if they could pass off FDR as a great president, Hitler as a conservative, the Tet Offensive as a grand victory for communism, and Barack Obama as qualified to run the country, there is absolutely no lie too preposterous for our liberal elite ruling class to ram down our throats. But even NBC ought to realize that it’s time to pull the plug on the global warming hoax. They can’t even totally suppress the ClimateGate emails that reveal the “crisis” as deliberate fraud; how are they going to hide . . . . .”

    http://www.iloveco2.org/2010/01/global-warming-what-global-warming.html

    . . . . . . the fact that it is COLD everywhere!

    I do NOT believe for one minute that the (meaningless) global average temp is 0.28 degrees to the warm side of what they arbitrarily call “normal.” I don’t care what instruments they say they use, those instruments and the data they generate are only as good as the “scientists” upon whom we depend for that data and it’s interpretation. We have seen from Climategate that they are not to be trusted, and I don’t.

  131. I’m not getting all of the complaints about a 25 month running average. The monthly data are plotted along with it, so nothing is being “hidden”. What’s the beef?

  132. yonason:
    “We have seen from Climategate that they are not to be trusted, and I don’t.”

    Yonason, Roy has nothing to do with climategate. In fact, if any of the cliamtegate cabal saw Roy they would probably spit on him. Roy doesn’t support the idea that CO2 is a big problem. And from what I have seen of his work, I have no reason to distrust him.

  133. tallbloke (09:45:17) :

    My model says the oceans start emitting heat-energy when the sun drops below 40SSN. So the since the SSN was above this value for much of the C20th, there is a lot of extra heat built up in the ocean which has caused the big el nino’s as the sun’s high activity values have started to wane since 1992. These big el nino’s propped up the warmth for some time, but we are now starting to feel the effects of the quiescent sun more directly.

    Couple of questions:
    How long before the oceans’ reserve heat supply is depleted to the point
    where it is no longer a factor?
    Does the currentSSN-40SSN figure scale linerarly in effect?
    ex. – currentSSN=10-40SSN = -30
    so would a previousSSN=0-40SSN = -40, so the previous SSN cools 1.3 times as much as the currentSSN?

  134. pft:
    There is obviously an algorithm being used to convert satellite measurements to surface temperature, and what some folks worry about is that the algorithm can be tweaked to give more “accurate’ temperatures by those who deem them too low.

    Roy Spencer is not an AGW alarmist pft. Those temperatures are the most accurate that he can produce. And you can bet that they are very close to correct. You have to accept that there was some warming in the 70s, 80s and 90s. It may have been more the result of ENSO and PDO than of CO2, but it nevertheless happened.

  135. There is the appearance of a set of 8-year jumps in the global calculated temperature in the last 3 decades or so. With low nodes approximately in 1985, 1993, 2000 and 2008. Continuing a discussion on this from a previous thread, these might be linked to the 8 year climate heat time constant as calculated by (e.g.) Scafetta 2008:

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

    Another paper talked of 4 year and 8 year components of solar forced but heat time constant-constrained fluctuation. It does not take too much imagination to divide some of the above-mentioned 8-year jumps into two 4-year components (OK Pinatubo in 89).

    Just 3 decades is of course a little short to make bold claims about such 8-year (or 4+4 year) jumps. But the temperature upswing from the low of 2008 up to now which has given the beleagured AGW camp false hope, would be the predicted uptick at the start of the latest 8-year jump.

    As well as global (satellite) low atmosphere temps, sea sfc. temps and troposphere over oceans also show these 8 year jumps (e.g. http://www.climate4you.com ).

    One interesting thing about these jumps is where they land – the temp (anomaly difference) between the low nodes at the start and end of each jump. So far:
    1977-1985 (guess from extrapolation): no change or slight decrease
    1985-1993: slight increase
    1993-2000: big increase
    2000-2008: slight increase

    The sort of question you might get in an IQ test would be, how should the next 2-3 jumps go? My answer would be:
    2008-2016: no change or slight decrease
    2016-2024: big decrease
    2024-2031: small decrease

    This of course assumes a monotonous oscillation of global temps. However if a longer term oscillation were to come into play, a more abrupt fall of temps could occur in the next two decades. If a temperature decline steeper than this were to happen in the next decade, and if this decline were to continue without slowing out to 2030 and beyond, it would become hard to hide; then all bets would be off.

    One can speculate that these 8 year jumps represent periodic pulses of heat input from deeper ocean to sea surface. At http://www.climate4you.com under the ocean link, the last item is yearly change in sea level, from 1995 only. This shows corresponding but 4 year jumps (1999-2000 – 2004 – 2008) and with an overall strong downward trend. Could this indicate a recent and current secular fall in heat input to upper ocean and atmosphere with consequent steady global temperature decrease?

  136. To answer a couple of Q’s here, from my limited understanding:

    The ‘anomaly’ is shown presumably because we are not sure of any base point. What we can measure id the difference (anomaly) instead.

    Taking the 79 to 98 average as our baseline in this instance seem a fairly obvious thing to do. This is the first 20 years, and we want to compare to that. I guess taking the first decade may have been acceptable to. Given what seems to happen in 93/4 I am not sure it would be very different.

    Taking a 25 month mean also seems sensible. It smooth out the 12 month cycle to some extent I’d assume. If anyone could try it with an 11 year smoothing it may be interesting, but eyeballing it, I don’t think terribly different.

  137. Regardless of what his motive may have been, Spencer changed the rules of his own game by changing the rolling average calculation for his breathlessly awaited monthly chart. One of the criticisms of the AGW crowd has been that they change the rules of the game each time the old rules produce something they don’t like and leave us comparing apples with oranges. If for no other reason, I think Spencer exhibited a serious lapse in judgment by changing his established convention. It certainly raised my suspicious hackles sufficiently to go back and check the AMSU-A data he purports to use. The charts for 14,000 feet clearly show that from the summer temperature peak of 2009 forward, the 2009 chart exceeds the temperature of any year on the AMSU-A record both in absolute terms and in deviation from the 20-year average, 1998 included.

    I’m a confirmed skeptic and I can certainly read my own thermometer and follow weather reports, so this criticism should not be interpreted as coming from “the enemy camp of the brainwashed”. However, if you wish to hang your hat on the satellite readings at 14,000 feet, you should not fudge things when the satellites embarrass. I think Spencer fudged.

    CH

  138. Across the Chunnel: AGW say, Veni, Vidi, Vici.

    AGW/Gaia’s “Daisy” chain: EUrope, UK, France, Germany, Belgiummm, Copenhopenchangen, etc.

    BTW, Liberal Iffy is in Provence, France, sipping ice whine.

    “And with a new low-pressure system — rather incongruously dubbed “Daisy” — set to move in”.
    …-

    “Brrrrr!

    More Snow Coming for Already Frigid Europe

    It has already been an unusually cold winter across much of Europe. But more snow is on the way in the coming days, and there’s no end to the big chill in sight.

    The irony was difficult to ignore. As world leaders gathered in Copenhagen in early December for what turned out to be a failed attempt to agree on a worldwide plan to combat global warming, temperatures outside the conference were bitterly cold. Delegates from equatorial countries were shivering under multiple layers, and even those from northern Europe had a hard time staying warm.

    Now, almost three weeks after the conference ended in fiasco, Europe continues to be in the grips of frosty and snowy weather. And with a new low-pressure system — rather incongruously dubbed “Daisy” — set to move in over the weekend, much of Central Europe could soon be buried in a new layer of snow.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,670188,00.html

    …-

    “Y2Kyoto: Daily Driver

    Dear Britain,

    Now you know.

    Yours truly,
    Saskatchewan”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi

  139. Alessandro (17:36:04) :
    Leif, I maintain there is no single, definite trend in the temperature data. If you want the world to believe there is one, and even a catastrophic increase, no less, then the burden of proof is on you.
    All I’m saying is that it is bad practice to change the rules in the middle of the game.

    Tilo Reber (15:13:14) :
    There was a large change of GCRs before 1951.
    Indeed, as this graph shows: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
    Trouble is that the temperature graph doesn’t look like this. You can, of course, postulate that the oceans introduce a 23456 year lag [a very BIG kettle, indeed]/

  140. Bart (18:53:05) :
    I’m not getting all of the complaints about a 25 month running average.
    Any amount of smoothing will result in a reduced trend. How about a 1,000,001-month trend?

  141. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology points out in its announcement re 2009 being the second hottest year ever that “An unusual winter-time heatwave occurred during August over large parts of inland Australia and resulted in Australia’s warmest August on record.”

    See … http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml

    August was also the month that the BoM web data suffered a “bug” that needed an upward correction of almost .5 degrees C for all its land station temperatures in Western Australia and, as far as I can ascertain, the other half of the country as well. Allow me to indulge by copying some of my post on WUWT several weeks ago:

    Last week while updating my website (http://www.waclimate.net) with temperatures for November, I noticed something peculiar about August 2009 on the BoM website. The mean min and max temps had all gone up by about half a degree. Below are the min and max temps for the 32 WA locations I monitor, with the BoM website data at the top as recorded from Sep 1 to Nov 17, and below them the new figures since then …

    August 2009

    Albany
    9 16.2
    9.4 16.6

    Balladonia
    5 20.7
    5.5 21.1

    Bridgetown
    5.7 15.7
    6.2 16.1

    Broome
    14.6 29.2
    15.1 29.7

    Bunbury
    8.2 16.7
    8.7 17.2

    Busselton
    8.7 17
    9.2 17.4

    Cape Leeuwin
    11.8 16.2
    12.2 16.6

    Cape Naturaliste
    10.5 16.7
    11 17.1

    Carnarvon
    11.4 23.2
    11.8 23.6

    Derby
    15 32.7
    15.6 33.2

    Donnybrook
    6.7 17.2
    7.2 17.6

    Esperance
    8.3 17.7
    8.8 18.1

    Eucla
    7.9 21.5
    8.4 21.9

    Eyre
    4.3 21.6
    4.5 22

    Geraldton
    9.5 20
    10 20.5

    Halls Creek
    16.1 32.6
    16.6 33

    Kalgoorlie
    6.8 20.3
    7.2 20.7

    Katanning
    6.1 14.7
    6.5 15.1

    Kellerberrin
    5.3 18.6
    5.6 18.9

    Laverton
    7.5 22.4
    7.9 22.9

    Marble Bar
    13.8 31.1
    14.3 31.5

    Merredin
    6.1 17.7
    6.5 18.1

    Mt Barker
    6.8 15.6
    7 15.8

    Northam
    6.2 18.4
    6.6 18.7

    Onslow
    13.8 27.7
    14.3 28.1

    Perth
    8.8 18.5
    9.3 18.9

    Rottnest Island
    12.4 17.3
    12.9 17.7

    Southern Cross
    4.6 18.1
    5 18.6

    Wandering
    5.3 16.1
    5.6 16.6

    Wiluna
    7.5 24.8
    7.7 25.2

    Wyndham
    18.3 34
    18.8 34.4

    York
    5.6 17.9
    5.9 18.3

    I’ve questioned the BoM on what happened and received this reply …

    “Thanks for pointing this problem out to us. Yes, there was a bug in the Daily Weather Observations (DWO) on the web, when the updated version replaced the old one around mid November. The program rounded temperatures to the nearest degree, resulting in mean maximum/minimum temperature being higher. The bug has been fixed since and the means for August 2009 on the web are corrected.”

    I’m still scratching my head because the bug only affected August, not any other month including September. Also, there’s no change to the August data on the BoM website and they’re still the higher temps. So if anybody has been monitoring any WA locations at all via the BoM website, be aware that your August temperature data may be wrong, depending upon whether you recorded it before or since Nov 17, and it’s not yet known what’s right and what’s wrong.

    BoM data now shows that across Australia the August 2009 mean was 2.47 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average they use as a baseline, the previous high being in 1998 when August was 1.49 degrees C above the average. July 2009 was 0.78 degrees C above the average (9th warmest since 1960) and September 2009 was 1.22 degrees above average (11th warmest since 1960), so August was outstanding.

    Based on these homogenised figures from BoM, August was the hottest its been since 1910 across Australia, but it should be noted that the August data originally had a bug that had to be corrected with an increase of about .5 degrees C – presumably with a small influence on the national annual average as well.

    Incidentally, since the bug was fixed in mid-November, average maxima at all Western Australia locations have been very high.

  142. Leif Svalgaard (19:54:18) :
    Any amount of smoothing will result in a reduced trend. How about a 1,000,001-month trend?
    should have been [for the nit-pickers] the trend in a 1,000,001-month running average.

  143. RobP:

    Ocean Heat Content (OHC) – important enough to have its own acronym – is a hot topic.

    The ocean stores approximately 1000x more heat than the atmosphere.
    In terms of movement of heat from the equator to the poles, they (atmosphere and ocean) both move about the same amount of heat – surprisingly enough.

    The Argo fleet of 3000+ sensors measures the temperature and salinity around the world’s oceans down to a depth of 2km. But they have only been in place the last few years, the first of them were deployed in the late 90’s.

    And below 2km there is still little data.

    Roger Pielke Sr has often commented on his blog about ocean heat so a good place to go looking.

    Two recent comments on ocean heat:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/guest-weblog-by-leonard-ornstein-on-ocean-heat-content/

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/comment-from-josh-willis-on-the-upper-ocean-heat-content-data-posted-on-real-climate/

  144. JER0ME (19:33:08) :

    “Roy Spencer is not an AGW alarmist pft. Those temperatures are the most accurate that he can produce.”

    I thought he was using their numbers. “In fact, Dr Roy Spencer has just posted the December anomaly from UAH:”

    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2705

    Which means, I believe, that Spencer did NOT “produce” them. He is therefore constrained to work with the numbers they provide, and it is that data that I don’t trust. I in no way mean to criticize Spencer, as should have been clear from what I wrote, and the fact that he is using already processed data, thereby not being responsible for whatever errors it may already contain.

  145. Just to play skeptic of skepticism …

    Every anomaly in 2009 (global/tropical/extratropical sh & nh) is positive.

    With the sun as quiet as it has been for as long as it has been, wouldn’t it be reasonable to see some negatives posted if there is nothing to AGW?

  146. Webcam from the good ole’ south in North Carolina.

    You have to appreciate the geography of the SE to understand how hard, in our modern warm period, it is to get this to do at such a low latitude.

    Granted, this shot is from 5000 feet…but this cold outbreak is producing some remarkable constant upslope snows for many days now.

    And relatively frigid temps. Current? 7 degrees F.

    This is a “ski” resort where I learned to ski in the late 1970s as a kid.

    The weather they are getting now is similar to the winter weather patterns of that same time period….ones that gave the SE US “ski resorts”, despite the steamy balmy Gulf of Mexico to the south, an opportunity to blossom.

    Shades of the late 1970s??

    http://www.highcountrywebcams.com/webcameras_Beech_Charlies.htm

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  147. RobP (13:50:40) :
    Good insight Rob, back to core physics! You might be a late comer but your questions are very welcomed here.

  148. Quoting Mann O Mann (20:55:23) : “….
    Just to play skeptic of skepticism …
    Every anomaly in 2009 (global/tropical/extratropical sh & nh) is positive.
    With the sun as quiet as it has been for as long as it has been, wouldn’t it be reasonable to see some negatives posted if there is nothing to AGW?..”

    True, there does seem to be a modest increase in “global” (however measured) temperatures. Why is this so?

    is it urban heat island?

    energy spill from increasing prosperity (as evidenced by the increases being virtually ALL confined to the northern hemisphere)?

    noise?

    general trend from the end of the little ice age as part of long term cycles that govern climate?

    one thing it does not appear to be is CO2.

  149. From about 1997 onwards, if this was a stock chart, you could make a case, based on technical analysis that this stock is headed lower. It is routinely making lower highs and lower lows. 1998 was the first high, with end of 2006/beginning of 2007 making a lower 2nd high, and the end of 2009 making a 3rd lower high. The low hit at the beginning of 2008 was lower than the low hit in 2004.

  150. re: MY LAST, yonason (20:25:46) :

    O.k., I see that Dr Spencer is actually responsible for the numbers, after all.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

    OK, I trust his honesty, but not most of the others. Still, that doesn’t mean I necessarily trust the instrumentation, especially when it disagrees with ARGO measurements.

    Also, temperature isn’t a measure of latent heat, so just because something is hot (e.g, the 6000K space cloud we are passing through) doesn’t tell us enough information to know how much heat a region contains.

    The average temp of earth is a meaningless concept for that and other reasons, and as honest as Dr. Spencer is, I still don’t trust numbers that don’t necessarily mean what they appear to mean.

  151. Dan (15:35:32) :

    Pretty soon, Chicagoans will see a white bear coming ashore from off the ice, and his name won’t be Brian Urlacher.

    —————————————————-

    Will it be the new offensive coordinator?

  152. Mann O Mann (20:55:23) :

    Every anomaly in 2009 (global/tropical/extratropical sh & nh) is positive.

    Nope NZ December -0.3c giving a 2009 negative trend of -0.41c clearly Austral -pacifc trends are not ubiquitous

  153. Bart (18:53:05) :

    I’m not getting all of the complaints about a 25 month running average. The monthly data are plotted along with it, so nothing is being “hidden”. What’s the beef?

    —————————————————-

    Good question: where’s the beef?

    What I am wondering is not about the validity of the beef as it can be seen there is no validity.

    What I am wondering is what is the motivation for the beef?

    ———

    I am also wondering (just wondering, so no one read more into it than that, please) if Roy Spencer put out the 25 month as a curve ball to see what people’s reaction would be. I’ve noticed in the past he likes to do things like that as with his satire web site The ecoEnquirer.

    http://www.ecoenquirer.com/

  154. pft (17:20:15) :

    “… Thermometers on board can not direcly measure surface temperature.”

    Is it actually “surface temperature” they are measuring? If so, that’s not going to tell you what the atmospheric temperature is. On a hot summer day the surface will be a lot hotter than the air. Go barefoot on the beach sometime, and then try to tell me the air is just as hot.

    Also, how do they measure temps at different altitudes? How do they subtract out background, or even decide what “background” is?

    Does anyone know of a good online ref., for how they do those measurements? It seems it doesn’t make much sense to debate the merits of something without knowing how it works, except that there do seem to be inconsistencies between the method when compared to others that suggests there may be significant problems that are being ignored. That may not be the case, but without a more detailed knowledge I feel perfectly justified in being suspicious, based on what other problems have been shown to exist, and yet which those charged with keeping the data are denying.

  155. maz2 (19:46:33) :

    BTW, Liberal Iffy is in Provence, France, sipping ice whine.

    “And with a new low-pressure system — rather incongruously dubbed “Daisy” — set to move in”.

    ————————————————-

    Well daisy if you do

  156. scienceofdoom (20:11:14) :

    “RobP:

    “Ocean Heat Content (OHC) – important enough to have its own acronym – is a hot topic.”

    The ocean stores approximately 1000x more heat than the atmosphere.

    Lets see.

    A mole of water is about 18cc, while a mole of air is about 22.414*1000=22,414cc. That’s a factor of 22.414/18=1245.

    BUT, the specific heat of water is about 4 times that of dry air, raising the number to 1245*4=4981 (about 5000 times greater)

    For moist air that’s about 1/2, or 2500 times.

    summary – the oceans store from 2500x to 5000x more heat than the air.

    No?

  157. Wouldn’t these readings be affected by changes in the inversion layers in the atmosphere. especially since 80 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water? Could the loopy jet streams be playing a role in changing the inversion layers?

  158. Do you folks who think an incline is being hidden honestly believe it is getting warmer?

    Look out the window.

    Then send a box of used books to a pensioner in the UK.

    Then start waxing your skis for those longer skiing seasons that Australia and New Zealand have been having.

    Then go to the Andes in Peru and talk to the indigenous folk about the longer winters they’ve been getting the last four years.

    Then go to China and dig out a snowed-in motorist.

    Then go to Russia and talk some sense in to Putin about him wanting to stop all snow coming to Moscow—tell him to look out the window like you did.

    Then go to the US Midwest and ask the farmers about last summers growing season.

    Then go to Seoul and see the largest snow storm ever on record.

    Then look at this map:

    http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow

    etc, etc

  159. CORRECTION

    ” yonason (22:40:30) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    summary – the oceans store from 2500x to 5000x more heat than the air.”

    I meant, of course, per unit volume.

    And while I’m at it I should mention a little caveat, in that there is about 38,000 times as much air by volume (before correcting for density); so after correcting for volume, and albido, and density, as well temp., and humidity gradients, etc., etc., that it’s not something that lends itself to easy estimation.

  160. We need a complimentary graph to the UAH temp anomaly called the Roy Spencer selected average n-month anomaly graph. We can um and ah as the value for n climbs above average some months and speculate if there’s a solar cycle – Spencer n relation.

    Seriously, I’ve been wondering for a while if the cooling we’re definately experiencing will show up at all on UAH. Robert Felix had the idea oceans warm during (land) ice ages. I don’t agree with his underwater volcano theory. Instead I wonder about changes to the cloud system as being the cause of ocean warming and land cooling. In which case the oceans warming will offset the land cooling. So no SC signature on UAH.

    Lief’s skepticism for Svensmark reminded me to think of different mechanisms for the solarcycle Earth climate relation.
    In line with Lief saying Earth’s magnetic field has much more influence on incident cosmic rays, those graphics on how the suns magnetic field squashs the Earth’s field leads me to wonder how much less squashed is the Earth’s magnetic field during solar minimum? Would this variation in squashedness affect the incident cosmic rays?
    This was my 1st theory when I 1st heard about GCR and cloud formation. It seems the most simple and intuitive.

  161. We seem to be seeing a large redistribution of tropospheric heat energy with mid latitude regions cooling but equatorial and polar regions remaining relatively warm.

    In the process of that redistribution the air circulation patterns have shifted substantially equatorward but that in itself is merely an extension of the changes that should have been apparent to all observers of weather and climate since 2000.

    Applying my general climate description I would say that the following is the likely explanation:

    i) Generally a latitudinal shift in the air circulation patterns is ocean driven and since about 2000 the PDO has been trending to the negative phase so that gives a basic background cooling effect involving the observed equatorward shift in the air circulation systems.

    ii) In contrast the Arctic Oscillation that controls the size and position of the polar high pressure systems is driven by a combination of the speed of the hydrological cycle as dictated by the rate of ocean energy release and the speed at which the stratosphere can radiate energy to space which is driven by variations in the turbulence of the flow of energy from the sun. The SABER satellite results appear to show that the rate of loss of energy to space is greater when the sun is active and less when the sun is less active.

    iii) At present the quiet sun is reducing the rate of energy loss to space and the stratosphere is warming. At the same time the 2009 El Nino has been pumping energy faster to the stratosphere. The combined effects have both been supplementing one another to increase the flows of energy up into and downward out of the stratosphere to enhance the size of the polar high pressure cells and push them equatorward against the counter pressure from the El Nino.

    iv) The result is cooling mid latitudes but warming equatorial and more polar latitudes. There have been larger and more frequent and more persistent flows of cold air out of the polar regions and of warmer air into polar regions.

    v) Such situations can arise independently of any background warming or cooling trend hence warm years in the LIA and cold years in the MWP

  162. rbateman (19:06:56) :

    tallbloke (09:45:17) :

    My model says the oceans start emitting heat-energy when the sun drops below 40SSN. So the since the SSN was above this value for much of the C20th, there is a lot of extra heat built up in the ocean which has caused the big el nino’s as the sun’s high activity values have started to wane since 1992. These big el nino’s propped up the warmth for some time, but we are now starting to feel the effects of the quiescent sun more directly.

    Couple of questions:
    How long before the oceans’ reserve heat supply is depleted to the point
    where it is no longer a factor?
    Does the currentSSN-40SSN figure scale linerarly in effect?
    ex. – currentSSN=10-40SSN = -30
    so would a previousSSN=0-40SSN = -40, so the previous SSN cools 1.3 times as much as the currentSSN?

    Difficult to tell, as previous minima during the satellite age didn’t have SSN=0 for long. Short minima, high maxima kept the sunspot average high right up to 2003. This is what makes the “temp went up while max SSN has gone down since 1958, so it can’t be the sun” argument so stupid. It’ the overall count across minima which matters, not SSN max.
    More discussion here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/

  163. Cant understand this noise about 25 months or whatever running average?

    Its just the red line in the plot? Want it to follow the temp.-plot more?

    -Go down on number of months.

    Want it to be even smoother? Go up.

    Depends if you want to see an average, or all the spikes?

    Cannot see the problem.

  164. Keep wondering what possible evidence would disprove AGW/human made climate change?

    60 years of flat temperatures? 90 years?

    Never? because all those scientists can’t be wrong?

  165. Stephen Wilde (23:32:02) :

    Someone needs to animate this on the web. And put in Svensmarks cloud-stuff too.

    And kill the AGW theory for good.

  166. Leif Svalgaard (19:55:40) :
    Leif Svalgaard (19:54:18) :

    I have generated 20 random y values in a time series.
    Using simple averaging and linear trend, if slope of the trend of the raw data is increasing, the slope of smoothed data is greater, per Excel anyway.

    Original values trend: y = 0.4488x + 45.189 len 20
    3 len averaged trend: y = 0.5281x + 43.96 len 17
    4 len averaged trend: y = 0.532x + 43.906 len 16

    You must be speaking of some other aspect or other smoothing than simple averaging. Could you clarify? Were you speaking of the length of the trend line?

  167. I think that the satellite data for the nh. may be higher than expected because the flow of air shown from jetstream diagrams has been from the north atlantic through the arctic and back down to us in europe and north america, it could be that air above the north atlantic is not as cold as it would be if there was no blocking

  168. Re: phlogiston (19:17:35)

    “The Antarctic Circumpolar Wave is a coupled ocean/atmosphere wave that circles the Southern Ocean in approximately eight years. Since it is a wave-2 phenomenon (there are two ridges and two troughs in a latitude circle) at each fixed point in space a signal with a period of four years is seen. The wave moves eastward with the prevailing currents.

    Note that although the “wave” is seen in temperature, atmospheric pressure, sea ice and ocean height, the variations are hard to see in the raw data and need to be filtered to become apparent. Because the reliable record for the Southern Ocean is short (since the early 1980s) and signal processing is needed to reveal its existence […]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Wave

    Note the harmonics here:

  169. photon without a Higgs (22:47:47) :

    Then start waxing your skis for those longer skiing seasons that Australia and New Zealand have been having.

    Hi photon!!!!

    You mean ski seasons like these :

    http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/snow.html#mtperisher

    To be fair 2009, got off to a great start in late April, about six weeks early.

    http://www.fallscreek.com.au/SensationalEarlySnowfall

    Unfortunately most of it did not last. I can’t recall how the season eventually finished up. Personally I can’t stand the stuff.

  170. Bart (18:53:05) “I’m not getting all of the complaints about a 25 month running average.”

    Moving average – (running averages are anchored at the left-end).

    2 things:
    1) As you roll the smoothing-bandwidth, you cyclically reduce local-variance as you pass through subharmonics of dominant periods (e.g. diurnal, annual – i.e. anything stationary).
    2) As you increase the bandwidth, you cut more centred-averages off the ends of a series.

  171. >>Other comments in this thread have talked about the
    >>ocean as a heat (energy) sink

    But how much heat can it sink? The North Sea, admittedly a rather shallow sea at a high latitude, cools by about 10oc each winter. Even if the larger oceans cool at a lower rate, it would not take long for them to exhaust much of their energy. Five years?

    .

  172. Re: phlogiston (19:17:35)

    btw, using a boxcar-kernel method, I get an estimate of 28.45 months for the (average) QBO period. Check the harmonic mean of this and (a) twice the terrestrial polar motion group-wave period and (b) the JN synodic period. You’ll get exactly 4 years – which matches ACW …but as wikipedia points out, the ACW record is short.

  173. Re: yonason

    I didn’t do the maths myself.

    [Trying html tags first time, does it work?..]

    Elementary Climate Physics, F.W. Taylor, Oxford University Press 2005.
    Excellent book by the way.

    “The top 3.2m of the ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere, and the total ocean heat content is about 1,000 times that of the atmosphere” (p.9)

  174. Smokey (20:56:32) :

    “It’s not climate change, it’s only weather… everywhere.”

    So you’d rather base your views on anecdotal evidence from the Drudge Report rather than Dr Spencer’s satellite readings?

    Jan 4 globally was the warmest day of that date for the last 21 years.

    Tilo Reber (14:33:19) :

    If you’re convinced ENSO is the driver for the past variations in UAH temperatures, why don’t you plot it for the entire dataset? If you’ve found a mechanism that can explain the injection of energy for the last thirty years you’ve got a major publication to write up on this.

    Lamont (20:19:49) :

    “You can’t play this month-to-month game with UAH data, when we know that there’s a confirmed annual instrument signal in the UAH data.”

    Here’s the 12-month running average data which will remove any seasonal variation:

  175. To all those who oft repeat “weather isn’t climate” and “a couple of years data is too short a time frame” etc

    It’s been 20 frigging YEARS since IPCC’s early predictions.

    So how are they faring with their projections/predictions?

    Can anyone help me with the above?

    The IPCC have already adjusted their climate sensitivity twice. Their temp. projections thrice and sea level rise….well take your pick.

    Someone please tell me which of their forecasts have EVEN COME CLOSE in 20 years, THAT”S 20 WHOLE YEARS

    If not, shut up, sit down and read what reasoned logical people are posting on this blog. LEARN SOMETHING YOU LEMMINGS

  176. Claude Harvey (19:43:20) :

    Regardless of what his motive may have been, Spencer changed the rules of his own game by changing the rolling average calculation for his breathlessly awaited monthly chart. One of the criticisms of the AGW crowd has been that they change the rules of the game each time the old rules produce something they don’t like and leave us comparing apples with oranges. If for no other reason, I think Spencer exhibited a serious lapse in judgment by changing his established convention.

    I agree. He’s handed his enemies a stick to beat him with.

    But the misstep can be corrected by his posting an additional chart with the old 13-month MA as well. (And continuing to post both formats.)

  177. Oops–I meant to undo the blockquote above, not add another layer. I.e., the last two paragraphs are my own comments.

  178. meemoe_uk (23:26:43) :
    In line with Leif saying Earth’s magnetic field has much more influence on incident cosmic rays, those graphics on how the suns magnetic field squashs the Earth’s field leads me to wonder how much less squashed is the Earth’s magnetic field during solar minimum?
    The Earth’s magnetic field at the surface is 10,000 times stronger than the magnetic field of the solar wind, so although the solar wind does deform the outer magnetosphere, there is very little squashing going on further in, with negligible effect on cosmic rays. The real issue is that the Earth’s field itself varies very much [might even disappear] over timescales of centuries and longer. The dipole moment of the field has decreased 10% over the past century or so.

    wayne (23:50:09) :
    You must be speaking of some other aspect or other smoothing than simple averaging. Could you clarify? Were you speaking of the length of the trend line?
    I should have been more explicit. The variance decreases and the trends of short pieces of the data decreases. Not the trend over the whole data set.

  179. Why the 25 Months???

    It is twice the average length of the average El Nino and La Nina during the 30 years [not including the current el nino].

    Originally I thought “I” would throw a suggestion that twice the average El Nino/La Nina…THEN I did the math. average ElNino/La Nina = 12.5 months

  180. I notice that these graphs tend to show December as being warmer than June. Can we take it from this that Southern Hemisphere weather trumps Northern Hemisphere weather every time? Funny that, I would have thought all that ocean at stable temperatures in the South would have made the temperature less prone to extremes…..

  181. Attached is a plot of 3 heights from AMSU-A.

    This has a 28 day average (used to make the plots more readable!)
    You will note that until a couple of months ago there used to be a height of 1km plot (CHLT) This showed significant warming.
    This has now been replaced with the sea surface temp (again one could ask is this to hide the incline – or perhaps Spencer can explain why this is no longer provided?)

    The plots only start in 1998 as this is all trhat is provided on the page:

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html

    Before believing in the satellite data is the reference it is worth considering this weighting plot:

    http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures

    Note that each height is a function of all heights – i.e. the temp at 4km is actually a function of the temp at 4k +-quite a lot of other heights.

  182. I posted:
    Sean Ogilvie (08:43:51) :

    Nit picking alert:

    I’ve posted this before and will again. The official number hasn’t been posted yet. I respect Dr. Roy Spencer and realize that he basically runs the program but I prefer to wait until it is officially posted at:

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

    Hopefully it will remain unchanged.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    OK it’s official. Now I’m happy…

  183. “”” pft (17:20:15) :

    “NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers carried on the satellite radiometers:”

    This is somewhat evasive, Thermometers on board can not direcly measure surface temperature. There is obviously an algorithm being used to convert satellite measurements to surface temperature, and what some folks worry about is that the algorithm can be tweaked to give more “accurate’ temperatures by those who deem them too low. “””

    Well it is not evasive at all. Maybe a little short on details; and yes it would be nice to know those details. I’m sure somewhere there exists a complete and full technical description of these satellites and every instrument they carry on board.

    But back to the lack of ground reference:-

    Let’s say I have an incoming signal (s) which is detected by a detector (A) that converts that signal to an output (t) which is alleged to represent a temperature that supposedly (s) is a proxy for. But over here I have a real thermometer (B), for example a Platinum Resistance thermometer; that eons of use have convinced scientists is a believeable measure of what we call temperature. Also on board, I have a signal generator that can generate controlled signals that when fed to the PR thermometer, will change its temperature by a highly repeatable amount; and I can simultaneously apply that same signal to my detector (A) to get it’s output (t).

    So now I can directly compare the real temperature (T) read by the PR thermometer, with the ersatz temperature (t) registered by my onboar satellite sensor; both of which are fed the exact same stimulus.

    This process has allowed me to directly substitute an accurately manufactured “signal” from my signal generator for the incoming detected signal (s), knowing that my manufactured signal stimulates the same response in my sensor (A) as it does in a real (PR) thermometer.

    Well this sure is a crummy explanation of the process, but gazillions of scientific instruments function to measure various physical variables, by either “balancing” or “substituting” precisely known manufactured signals to obtain the same sensor response.

    Things like Atomic Force Microscopes, measure tiny forces, by exactly balancing them (in a feedback loop) against very precise and accurately knowable forces, that are generated by well understood physical laws. An example would be the precisely calculable force between two coils carrying a known current.

    Something along those lines, is what Roy means when he says the onboard satellite sensors, are calibrated against Platinum Resistance thermometers. (while on board); and it is known that those on board PRs still read real temperature whn on the ground, so no ground reference is needed.

    Heck the most common example of this process, is the hundreds of years old Chemical Balance, which can’t weigh a damn thing; but it can very accurately tell when two different things have exactly the same weight; so it matches the weight of the unknown sample, against some slugs of metal, that have been manufactured to a certain degree of accuracy, as to their total mass and ultimately weight, subject only to the vagaries of earth’s gravitational field variations.

    I wish I (and the general public) had more detail information about how some of these satellite instruments work. Magazines like Scientific American would seem to be perfect vehicles for describing the instrumentation of some of these things, so people knew how they work; but unfortunately, SA has become more of a political rag, and too many of its authors seem bent on pushing an agenda, rather than in publishing useful information.

  184. Sean Ogilvie (09:27:45) :
    OK it’s official. Now I’m happy…
    Interestingly, the table also shows a 12-month running mean. Apparently listed as the mean of the current [latest] and previous 11 months…

  185. “”” Bart (18:53:05) :

    I’m not getting all of the complaints about a 25 month running average. The monthly data are plotted along with it, so nothing is being “hidden”. What’s the beef? “””

    Well my beef, Bart, is that it is well known that the integral of a sine function or a cosine function; over any integral number of cycles is precisely zero. It is also known that the integral of a sine or cosine function over any NON-integral number of complete cycles is generally not zero; and further more has a value that depends on the phase of the end points of the integral. It will only be zero for an interval that is symmetric about a zero or 180 phase point.

    Since it is known that the earth takes part in a cylce of exactly 12 months; during which time, it goes through cyclic physical variable changes, some of which are approximately sinusoidal; it seems obvious that averaging over an integral number of years, would remove the effect of that cylcic variable.

    The same thing could be said for the daily min/max readings from the Stevenson Screens and the like. What if they were simply read at 13 or 25 hour intervals, instead. The result would be a cyclic variation over a number of days, even if the daily cycle exactly replicated every single day.

  186. I am still waiting for some bright up-and-coming Ph.D. candidate to redo satellite and a selection of unadjusted surface anomalies (without splicing the two together – that would be bad form) by calculating 3-month temp anomalies in order to compare with SST 3-month temps directly. In fact, all such variables, including atomospheric CO2, cosmic rays, etc, should be quantified using the same 3-month average system.

  187. “scienceofdoom (02:12:48) :
    […]
    “The top 3.2m of the ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere, and the total ocean heat content is about 1,000 times that of the atmosphere” (p.9)”

    Great. Thanks for this gem.

  188. Pamela Gray (10:03:38) “[…] 3-month average system.”

    All spatiotemporal bandwidths need to be considered (not just 3mo) — that is the lesson hammered in intro-level Physical Geography grad-courses – it’s not a new idea (dates back 100s of years), but due to whatever inconsistencies & deficiencies in the mainstream education system, it has not become “common knowledge” yet. It could easily be covered in intro-level college courses – or even in the highschool system – but physical geographers, landscape ecologists, etc. have built a “publication mill” around the concept of spatiotemporal-pattern depending on aggregation-criteria. It’s a simple concept – and yet it’s paradoxical to many, it seems, probably simply because they never encountered it at a young age. For those interested in digging, google “modifiable areal unit problem” or “MAUP” – the same concepts apply temporally (as spatially). Although a simple concept, it results in burdensome software-programming & analysis-labor since it adds so many dimensions.

  189. @ Scott B. (10:20:11)

    I’ve had the same problem, so I went through the raw data, all in anomaly, but if you incrementally average the values, you will eventually get an average anomaly close to zero. This will tell the period being used to calculate the individual anomalies from.

    So now you can pick some arbitrary average Temp value say 270K or 0C and plot the anomaly as temp but the scale is important. If you pick a Y scale equal to what one could expect, say plus or minus 30C from average, your plot will be a straight horizontal line.

    So now you know why they use anomaly. Because they are all arguing about and trending about a scale less than 1/60th of either the positive or negative fluctuation of actual temp one might record in a year.

  190. Tom P (06:21:39) :

    “A comprehensive and longer-term
    perspective on IPCC predictions, such as
    this, suggests that more recent predictions are
    not obviously superior in capturing climate
    evolution.”

    Precisely

  191. This doesn’t seem to make sense. Record cold weather was reported all over the world in December, yet it’s still .28 degrees hotter than the average for the last 30 years – which themselves are among the warmest on record.

    Where exactly has this warm weather occurred?

    Looking at the figures in more detail is even more baffling. I’ve coped in the data row for December from http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2, as follows

    2009 12 0.280 0.318 0.242 0.503 30.

    The first figure is global, the second Nothern Hemisphere. Then SH, then tropics.

    Given what we’ve all experienced, how can it be true that the Northern Hemisphere was a whole 0.328 degrees hotter than the average for the last 30 years, when they in turn have been the hottest on record?!

  192. Leif Svalgaard (19:54:18) :

    Paul Vaughan (00:34:09) :

    “As you increase the bandwidth, you cut more centred-averages off the ends of a series.”

    Well, yeah. Obviously. But, that’s just the red line. The gray unfiltered line with the blue data points is there, though, so do you why care? you can just eyeball the unfiltered data and see for yourself where it is going.

  193. George E. Smith (09:59:18) :

    You, too. Yeah, it would bother me if all he presented were the red line. Am I somehow looking at a different graph than anyone else, the one that has a red line and red text which says “running 25 month average” and a gray line with blue dots which clearly shows substantial interannual variability?

  194. David Space (20:17:44) : “This doesn’t seem to make sense. Record cold weather was reported all over the world in December, yet it’s still .28 degrees hotter than the average for the last 30 years – which themselves are among the warmest on record.\
    Where exactly has this warm weather occurred?”

    And even then…amidst all the cold….leave it to Yahoo the AP to spin it along the following lines:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/ap_on_sc/sci_big_chill

    The headline?? EXPERTS: COLD SNAP DOES NOT DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMING.

    I’m sorry….but this is pathetic.

    [SORRY GUYS… IT DOESN’T PROVE IT, EITHER!!]

    Hahaha……how ridiculous the AP has become on the subject…..

    Another reason not to give them the time of day.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  195. Paul Vaughan (00:34:09) :

    “As you increase the bandwidth, you cut more centred-averages off the ends of a series.”

    And, you must have meant “decrease”. When you increase the length of an FIR low pass filter, you most often decrease the frequency bandwidth. Or, if you design it for that purpose, you can keep the bandwidth but increase the attenuation of higher frequencies.

    MATLAB has a useful routine in its Signal Processing Toolbox called “filtfilt” which processes the data both backwards and forwards and matching end points so that you get an estimate of what is going on there.

  196. Baa Humbug (18:19:27) :

    “A comprehensive and longer-term
    perspective on IPCC predictions, such as
    this, suggests that more recent predictions are
    not obviously superior in capturing climate
    evolution.”

    The temperature observations to date do not support this statement. The 1990 IPCC projection obviously overstates the warming whereas the more recent projections are much closer to the observed trend:

  197. Paul Vaughan

    Thanx 4 the useful feedback. In the wikipedia article on the ACW a view is expressed that ACW is linked to ENSO. If so this wd make more meaningful a role in global air temp driving from deep-2-surface ocean heat exchange. At each new el Nino patches of warmer surface water appear in the Pacific to thrill the AGW-ers. Where does this heat come from? Focussed rays of sunlight? – calm down Lief, merely a rhetorical device! No it is deep-2-surface ocean heat exchange. This exchange is clearly emergently osscillatory under the influence of numerous forcings and internal time constants.

  198. I have a question I need some help with. I was on a site not long ago that had great info on the sensors taking the satellite measurements and what exactly was the lower troposhpere but unfortunately I have so many links saved I can’t find it again.

    How does the lower troposphere readings compare to the surface instruments – should they be trending higher or lower than the so called warming at the surface?

    I recall reading that part of the AGW model was that upper atmoshpere temps would go down.

    We have a decadal trend on the UAH data of 0.28 and a much larger trend on surface “adjusted” data. I just want to get more background on this and whether that indicates possible fault with the surface data. Thanks for any advice in advance.

Comments are closed.