September 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.60 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

Despite cooling in the tropics, the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly has stubbornly refused to follow suit: +0.60 deg. C for September, 2010.

Since the daily global average sea surface temperature anomalies on our NASA Discover web page have now cooled to well below the 2002-2010 average, there remains a rather large discrepancy between these two measures. Without digging into the regional differences in the two datasets, I currently have no explanation for this.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_10

For those following the race for warmest year in the satellite tropospheric temperature record (which began in 1979), 2010 is slowly approaching the record warm year of 1998. Here are the 1998 and 2010 averages for Julian Days 1 through 273:

1998 +0.590
2010 +0.553

  YR    MON  GLOBE    NH      SH     TROPICS
 2009    1   0.251   0.472   0.030  -0.068
 2009    2   0.247   0.565  -0.071  -0.045
 2009    3   0.191   0.324   0.058  -0.159
 2009    4   0.162   0.315   0.008   0.012
 2009    5   0.139   0.161   0.118  -0.059
 2009    6   0.041  -0.021   0.103   0.105
 2009    7   0.429   0.190   0.668   0.506
 2009    8   0.242   0.236   0.248   0.406
 2009    9   0.505   0.597   0.413   0.594
 2009   10   0.362   0.332   0.393   0.383
 2009   11   0.498   0.453   0.543   0.479
 2009   12   0.284   0.358   0.211   0.506
 2010    1   0.648   0.860   0.436   0.681
 2010    2   0.603   0.720   0.486   0.791
 2010    3   0.653   0.850   0.455   0.726
 2010    4   0.501   0.799   0.203   0.633
 2010    5   0.534   0.775   0.292   0.708
 2010    6   0.436   0.550   0.323   0.476
 2010    7   0.489   0.635   0.342   0.420
 2010    8   0.511   0.674   0.347   0.364
 2010    9   0.603   0.556   0.651   0.284

[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]

Meanwhile, Sea Surface Temperatures Continue to Fall

Since I just provided the September 2010 global tropospheric temperature update, I decided it was time to update the global SST data record from the AMSR-E instrument flying on Aqua.

The following plot, updated through yesterday (October 4, 2010) shows that both the global average SST, and the Nino3.4 region average from the tropical E. Pacific, continue to cool.

(click on the plot for the full-size, undistorted version. Note that the global values have been multiplied by 10 for easier intercomparison with Nino3.4)

Past experience (and radiative-convective equilibrium) dictates that the global tropospheric temperature, still riding high at +0.60 deg. C for September, must cool in response to the cool ocean conditions.

But given Mother Nature’s sense of humor, I’ve given up predicting when that might occur. :)

116 thoughts on “September 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.60 deg. C

  1. “But given Mother Nature’s sense of humor, I’ve given up predicting when that might occur. ”

    i can wholly sympathise.

    Good read, thanks.

  2. Could this be the result of residual water vapour ( created by the latest El Nino) in that portion of the atmosphere?

  3. I currently have no explanation for this.
    More temperature=More alms for the GW church. That’s i it!

  4. BTW Al Gore will be preaching next Oct.13th. in Lima, Peru, South America….It seems that unbelievers have lately increased too much in the US for him to preach there, and times are hard ya know..gotto work… energy bills keeps on increasing.

  5. Does the Naitonal Data Buoy Center (NDBC) SST data comparisons offer any clues?

    BTW, one of the buoys near Honolulu is reporting a tsunami event.

  6. How tightly connected are tropospheric temperature and surface temperature measurements? (in terms of energy and time)

  7. Temperature and heat are not the same thing. We should be more concerned with the relative changes in heat (energy). Since water has a much higher heat capacity than the atmosphere, most of this is happening in the oceans.

  8. The time frame you’ve chosen skews the Southern hemisphere warmer because it predominately represents Summer and the end of the last El Nino?

    [REPLY – I doubt it. it’s compared with all the other Septembers. and El Nino has been gone for a while. ~ Evan]

  9. Isn’t this completely logical? If you have a body of energy if one part cools the other part warms. Just displacement. The energy has to go some where.

    [REPLY – Not in this case. La Nina results (eventually) in cooler air temperatures. The cooler ocean surface is an increase of upwelling of cooler water from the (slightly) deeper ocean. It didn’t get cooler, it was cool in the first place. ~ Evan]

  10. “Since the daily global average sea surface temperature anomalies on our NASA Discover web page have now cooled to well below the 2002-2010 average, there remains a rather large discrepancy between these two measures. Without digging into the regional differences in the two datasets, I currently have no explanation for this. ”

    Indeed, there may be an explanation, but it’s a very odd one.
    I have downloaded and compared every Unisys image Anomaly & Data for the last 2 months.
    The Anomaly moves and is cooling, but the Data image seems to be nearly frozen.
    It is as if the Data image being presented has not been updated, but the Anomaly has.
    Somebody has computed the Anomaly, but thrown the Data away.
    Holy Anomalymometers, Dr. Spencer, the Thermometer is now in the museum of climatology modeling.

  11. > Isn’t this completely logical? If you have a body of energy if one part cools the other
    > part warms. Just displacement. The energy has to go some where.

    Yes, but eventually they should reach equilibrium and have the same temperature, unless there is a _forcing_ that disturbs equilibrium. That’s what Dr. Spencer is looking for. I’m sure he’ll find it. The important issue in this search is to consider all of the feasible radiative forcings, yes even GHG’s and insolation.
    :-|

  12. SST dropping, LT rising; it means a temperature crash is coming in the next six months. Check the current SOI.

    Average SOI for last 30 days: 24.8
    Average SOI for last 90 days: 21.6
    Daily contribution to SOI calculation: 26.4

  13. Why not mention that this is actually a RECORD anomaly for september in the whole dataset? Also, the 13-month running average sets a new record high.

    Despite these two remarkable (but strangely overlooked) feats, the words “cooler” and “cooling” are used again and again in Dr Spencer’s post. [snip -personal attack]

  14. Where can information be found regarding cloud cover and its variation? How does the shift in PDO affect average cloud cover over land vs water?

  15. “Without digging into the regional differences in the two datasets, I currently have no explanation for this.”

    Is there a plot of the un-smoothed measurements at much finer resolution (e.g. daily). I’d like to see if these show a nice transition across the month. If they are highly variable from sample-to-sample, it would tend to support my concern that the trend is distorted by (spatial) aliasing and there would be no point in trying to interpret aliased data.

    Does anybody have a plot of the dailyt data?

  16. Dr. Spenser,

    Your AMSU temperature trends from NOAA-15 show consistantly lower temps since early June as compared to 2009. I would guess that September should be in the +.4 to .5 range. How is this different from what is displayed here?

  17. rbateman says: “I have downloaded and compared every Unisys image Anomaly & Data for the last 2 months.”

    The weekly animation from Unisys shows variability for the past two months, as you said:

    But the NCDC’s OI.v2 SST data has finally decided to drop globally:

    The drop is tough to pick up in the map animation.

  18. It also seems that the running 13-month average has reached a new high. Little wonder with the hottest September in satellite record. Perhaps an active sun is to blame, who knows. However, what goes up must come down. I’m already looking forward to the cooling that’s been predicted for some time.

  19. Enneagram says:
    October 5, 2010 at 8:23 am
    ‘BTW Al Gore will be preaching next Oct.13th. in Lima, Peru, South America’

    Hasn’t he realised how cold it was down there over their winter? Tough gig eh? One can hope the bum’s rush awaits him when he tells them how hot things are getting.

  20. There was this theory that the satellite measurements might react a bit strongly to El Niño/La Niña events. This was my impression too (see the graph, also outside the monster Niño peak of 1998).
    Is this connection starting to break, or is it too soon to conclude this? If it is so, could the change have been introduced by recent adjustments to the measurement methodology?

  21. Teasing out the numbers, there is a very large increase in the SH anomaly from August to September. Given that this is winter in the SH, does this represent an increase in the absolute temperature (as the mean would also be increasing from August to September)?

    I can easily see that monthly changes in the anomaly can be the result of comparing a stable absolute to a moving average, but in this case, that doesn’t apply. A jump of >0.3 C in absolute terms in one month represents a massive transfer of energy from somewhere. As mentioned above, transfer from the ocean is the only option as it is the only source large enough for this.

    A few days/weeks ago, Anthony had a posting showing the cooling of the SST after passage of hurricanes, but this was in the tropics/north Atlantic. Does anyone know if there has been similar activity in the SH?

    I would have expected an increase in NH and tropical tropospheric temps to go along with the energy transfer from hurricane activity (and subsequent drop in SST), although this may have happened in absolute terms since the drop seen this month is the anomaly (not the absolute).

    Need to keep remembering that the anomaly is only relative to the mean and it is not the absolute when it comes to trying to understand the energy transfers.

  22. I did see from the UAH site that yesterday, for the first time this year, the lower tropospheric temperature for 2010 fell below the same day for 2009. There appears to be a fairly rapid cooling of the troposphere in progress.

    The surface temps continued to remain uniformly below the same day last year by about .25F, just as they have every day since the el Nino dissipated in mid-June.

  23. RichieP says:
    October 5, 2010 at 9:52 am
    Surely he will be not speaking out but uttering truths and dogmas “Ex-Cathedra”, to believe in not to doubt or ask about them.
    Kind of a novel from H.P.Lovecraft: One of the “other gods” menaces to scare innocent people.

  24. That is strange. I noticed already earlier in the year that the 2010 El Nino had risen 0.2 degrees higher than it had any right to rise judging by the depth of the 2008 La Nina. However, you are not sampling ocean temperatures in the right place to predict the tropospheric temperature. Forget Nino 3.4 and global ocean. If you must have a single probe put your probe near the South American coast where the equatorial countercurrent discharges. You also show a globe with a beautiful view of the Eastern Pacific and the Americas. It is apparently meant to tell us something about ocean temperatures but it is worthless for that. The massive red band centered on the equator is so overexposed that you cannot get any idea of what is going on there. You have to adjust the exposure to show the two equatorial currents, the equatorial countercurrent, the basins north and south of them, and the temperature along the coast at least twenty degrees in both directions. It is this water along the coasts that determines tropospheric temperature, not Nino 3.4 which is in the middle of the countercurrent and out of phase or any other part of the ocean.

  25. Keep in mind that Dr. Spencer’s Global SST anomaly data is NOT global. He excludes data poleward of 60N & 60S. And the heat released from an El Nino migrates to the poles. Monthly Global SST anomaly data has not dropped significantly, similarly to the TLT data. Here’s a graph of the preliminary Global OI.v2 SST anomaly data through September 2010:

    The graph is from this post:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/09/preliminary-september-2010-sst-anomaly.html

    But as noted in an earlier comment, the weekly global SST anomalies have dropped significantly over the past week and should continue to drop in response to the La Niña:

    The persistence of elevated SST anomalies after an El Niño is not unusual:

  26. Could it be that some residual heat from solar irradiation becomes trapped under the satellite’s wings? This might explain some bias in the temperature readings.

  27. From the sea surface temperature graph on the NASA Discover web page:

    “The temperature on 10/03/2010 is 529.48 deg F cooler than this day last year.”

  28. Something Joe Bastardi wrote last Saturday comes to mind. Where you have a circulation pattern of air, when you have blobs of cold air (his “lava lamp analogy”) moving South, you will have blobs of warmer air moving North to replace it. If those Northward moving blobs are moving over land, they can be heated by radiation from the land. If the Northward flow is over water, it is moderated by the ocean surface temperature. He noted that the major Northerly flow has been across the Eastern US and their temperatures have been warmer than normal.

    So it isn’t only the direction of movement that could have an impact as much as it is also where that movement is taking place. If the Northerly flow was in the Atlantic Ocean, it might not get much/any additional warming from solar radiation.

    But looking at the numbers, the warming was (surprise!) in the Southern Hemisphere. The anomaly in the tropics and the NH declined while the anomaly in the SH nearly doubled. What is interesting here is that there was exactly one month last year where the SH anomaly was over 0.6 (July) and it was bracketed by months with much lower anomalies. This might just be a one-month “burp” in the SH as it seems to do from time to time.

    If I were a betting man, I would say that it is likely that this month’s anomaly is noise. (not instrumentation noise, but natural variation “noise”) and that the Southern Hemisphere will return to more “normal” values in the coming month … unless, of course, it doesn’t. But looking at what I believe to be most LIKELY to happen, it is most likely that this is just a bump and temperatures will drop next month.

  29. Perhaps it should be pointed out again that using temperature to assess atmospheric heat content is a totally false metric.

    But more importantly you say ” lower tropospheric temperature” is this really the case? I presume that the satellites are using a physical vertical distance above the surface (or from the satellite). However, the tropopause in the tropics is around 60,000 feet plus and less than half that at the poles. So a satellite measure at 20,000ft will be in the lower third of the troposphere in the tropics and almost at the tropopause at the poles. So the measure will be of lower troposphere at the tropics and upper troposphere at the poles. These are potentially very different atmospheric measures.

    So the temperature is used incorrectly as a metric for atmospheric heat content, it appears it is not measured where it is claimed to be measured and it is then averaged.

    Why should it surprise anyone that the observed surface level weather does not appear to bear any relation to the satellite ‘metrics’?

  30. The last strong El Nino in 1998 resulted in elevated temperatures until November of that year. This shows up in the CRU, Hadley, UAH and RSS data. The system is very large and it seems that it takes time for the energy to work its way through the system.

    The La Nina that was forming in the fall of 1998 was comparable to what is happening now. I see little reason for the temperatures to fall faster now than they did in 1998. In fact now the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has been stronger (slightly) in the first half of this year compared to 1998. That is additional energy that will work its way out.

    I am still not sure who Mother Nature is playing the joke on. I hope she lets us in on it soon. :-)

  31. I think the good thing is Dr Spencer doesnt try to cook the books— he says its warmer but I dont know why. He tells us what he’s found

  32. MSS shows a downturn by 0.06, in contrast to the UAH upturn. However, the trends of tropics, SH, NH are similar, and quite large. Thus, for the total numbers, there is a lot of compensation. UAH and MSS have differed in the past, so let’s wait for October.

  33. Lets see…. Ocean cooling means it’s dumping a lot of heat. Heat leaves the ocean as water vapor (and we’ve had a lot of rain and snow). Water vapor condenses way up high in cloud tops to fall as snow, hail, and rain. Dumping heat way up high. And we find that the cooling oceans are matched to a warm ‘up high’.

    I don’t see the problem.

  34. The increase seems to be in the Southern Hemisphere – +0.3C

    Southern Hemisphere ocean SSTs have fallen over the last 3 months (by quite a bit) and is actually a negative number right now (1971 – 2000 climatology); Australia was quite cool; South America and Africa might have been a little above average but I don’t see how overall the Southern Hemisphere jumped 0.3C.

    A troposphere effect versus the surface?

    There was a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event at the south pole at the end of July (only the second one) so this might have something to do with it.

  35. Ulric Lyons pointed out 2010 to me over 3 years ago, and generally via the web for the last 2 years I believe, as the next shrieking point for the CO2 crowd.

    \sarcasm

    Now all we need is to show how planetary harmonics affect CO2 levels which, in turn, affect global T.

    /sarcasm

  36. The heat transfer suggested by EM Smith is interesting and touches on an area not often talked about. Enthalpy. It takes a huge amount of energy to change water from liquid to gas, and likewise, it gives it all back on condensation. ie: water vapour holds a lot of energy – but its not measured in degrees F or C.

  37. mikef2 says:
    October 5, 2010 at 8:09 am
    …can I get in before Mr Gates to say its CO2……..?

    _____

    We can only speak of probabilities and consistencies over a longer term. This years warmth is consistent with that which would be expected and predicted by GCM’s over the longer term when taking increasing amounts of CO2 in the troposphere into account. One year, cold or warm makes no difference, just as one snowstorm or heatwave are unimportant. One would expect for example, according to GCM’s and AGW, the period of 2010-2020 to be warmer overall than the period of 2000-2010, just as 2000-2010 was warmer than 1990-2000.

    More interesting to me this summer are the extreme hydrological events around the world, from the U.S., to South America, to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, we’ve seen extreme downpours and flooding setting all sorts of records. While this also is not proof of AGW, it is certainly quite consistent with what is to be expected as CO2 continues to increase…but of course, for AGW skeptics, these extreme hydrological events are unimportant.

  38. Notice that the tropical temps have continued to drop. Perhaps we have ‘stepped’ up. Or may be it’s just a peak. By January or February we should know more.

  39. Bill Illis says:
    October 5, 2010 at 11:30 am
    We are, in SA, at two degrees centigrade less minimum temperature as compared with last year. Minimum temperatures is where the decrease it is better observed.

  40. R Gates said;

    “More interesting to me this summer are the extreme hydrological events around the world, from the U.S., to South America, to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, we’ve seen extreme downpours and flooding setting all sorts of records. While this also is not proof of AGW, it is certainly quite consistent with what is to be expected as CO2 continues to increase…but of course, for AGW skeptics, these extreme hydrological events are unimportant.”

    Extreme compared to when and what sort of records?

    Tonyb

  41. If that heat is held by water vapour, that moisture will have to fall out somewhere and it could be as snow, like we had in Toronto in January 1999, when we got hammered with several (5?) feet in a few weeks, and which fits with the weather pattern expected with a La Nina. I’m moving my shovel to the front of the shed.

  42. “The following plot, updated through yesterday (October 4, 2010) shows that both the global average SST, and the Nino3.4 region average from the tropical E. Pacific, continue to cool.”

    With the SST cooling, the tropospheric temperature is begining to resemble Wile E Coyote, who is just about to notice that the trap door he was standing on has suddenly collapsed, leaving him momentarily suspended in mid air, while he contemplates his imminent fall.

  43. R. Gates said “but of course, for AGW skeptics, these extreme hydrological events are unimportant.” On the contrary, they are ignored by AGW alarmists who fail to factor in the reduced water vapor feedback which lowers sensitivity. Sensitivity is much more dependent on the evenness of water vapor than an average amount.

  44. A healthy tree is known by its fruits . If practicly all crops both from the southern and northern hemiphere are showing in 2010 lesser yields than in the previous years , are they getting all over the world more unhealthy with the best chemical and human treatments possible ? At more precipitation and higher outside temperatures ? Well does mother nature itself show us here that the worldwide temperatures are falling or has it been caused by rising co2 nanopromillas in our atmosphere ? Reality is in front of our eyes , but the agw-fools are closing their eyes and continue to drum their message around . As Euripides already stated , Whom the Gods wish to destroy , will be crazified first .

  45. I know most of us have looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming, (and bristle, of course, when we see phrases like ‘due to the greenhouse effect’).

    But the section on Temperature Changes makes this assertion (which doesn’t involve GHG’s):
    “Ocean temperatures increase more slowly than land temperatures because of the larger effective heat capacity of the oceans and because the ocean loses more heat by evaporation.”

    So here’s a question for Dr. Spencer: What is the expected drop in ocean temperature, as described above (for the global average lower tropospheric temperature) given current ocean evaporation rates? Does this differ from this 0.60 deg C drop that you are observing for Sept 2010?

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

    So, explain to us again why those readings have to be adjusted if they are so precise and how you know the adjustments are correct?

  47. It’s not hard to figure where all the evaporation went – Australia has had rain for a month! Central Australia is covered in wildflowers and the Birdsville Horse Race was cancelled due to rain for the first time in it’s 100 year history.

  48. The sst anoms for the Indian and Atlantic probably negate the Pacific, reinforcing the warm el nino rather than the la nina. (see “global oceans” above, =approx. 0)

  49. Antarctica expands to record extents, but massive heat in SH is the reason for +.6C? okay. Massive sea of red in SH, but SST’s are going through the floor? mmmk. That all adds up, right? Oceans are dumping heat, ocean cooling expands Antarctica.

    Calm down Vermeulen.

  50. Rob Potter says:
    October 5, 2010 at 10:10 am

    “A few days/weeks ago, Anthony had a posting showing the cooling of the SST after passage of hurricanes, but this was in the tropics/north Atlantic. Does anyone know if there has been similar activity in the SH?”

    I don’t know if they are comparable but the snow storms that recently hammered southern New Zealand were caused by a series of intense depressions in the Southern Ocean. The central pressures were reported as being 960 mBars or less. These were huge storms with diameters of 2-4,000 miles. The measurable temperature change induced by storms such as these might be relatively small, particularly as they are over already cold water, but as they cover such huge areas the total effect could be much larger than for the relatively smaller but more intense tropical storms (i.e. hurricanes).

  51. Rocky T says:
    October 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    More evidence that CO2 is beneficial:

    =======
    OT but interesting:

    “Both the EPA and the IPCC evaluated the incidence of deaths from epidemiologic studies of mortality from heat waves, but basically ignored the effects of possible warming during winter months. For the past 15 years, however, evidence from the US, Europe and around the world is consistent with a decreased death rate of about 2% for every 0Centigrade of warming. This effect dwarfs the minor temporary effect of heat waves. The rate of cold mortality from winter months is six to nine times greater than heat deaths, and therefore the overall benefit from each degree of warming is expected to be six to nine times the harm from heat waves.”

  52. I will attempt to translate “extreme hydrological events” for the layman audience.

    NORMAL.

    That’s the best translation for “extreme hydrological events” which have been occurring forever and will continue forever no matter what shortsighted descriptions are given to them…

    Remember, AGW predicts ALL weather – “too much” or “not enough” rain and snow, but also droughts, floods, tornados, hurricanes, etc. – all normal weather patterns are therefore evidence of our carbon sins…

    I don’t feel much like repenting to a “God” as stupid and shortsighted as that, though. Guess I’ll be a carbon sinner for the time being…

  53. R. Gates says: We can only speak of probabilities and consistencies over a longer term.

    Well, over a longer term climate type span (and no, 30 year average weather is still weather; climate is thousands of years) we have a long slow downward march from the Holocene Maximum to the next glacial. The lows have been getting lower on each 1500 or so year “dip” and the highs are less high on each rise. That we have had a recent rise out of the Little Ice Age dip is not comforting when seen in context.

    From:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/an-interesting-view-of-temperatures/

    This chart:

    Kind of sums it all up. The black average line is wiggling downward and our present instrumental blip up is very much like the prior thin line blips up (the average process suppresses any individual record ‘blip’), only not as high.

    So the probabilities (and the consistencies, and the histories, and the geologies, and the ice age theories) all point to colder over the climate cycle.

    This years warmth is consistent with that which would be expected and predicted by GCM’s over the longer term

    Two Small Problems:

    1) “The longer term” in a GCM is a few years. Just glorified weather forecasting (and not very good at it at that).

    2) The models predict everything from burning up 10 C rises to a new LIA in Europe. That’s not a prediction, that’s a shotgun at the wall by a blind man on a rollercoaster.

    One Nit: As is frequently squawked by the warmers when caught in a wrong prediction: GCM’s don’t predict, they “project”. Much like the projectile vo… {oh, self snip…}

    More interesting to me this summer are the extreme hydrological events around the world, from the U.S., to South America, to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, we’ve seen extreme downpours and flooding setting all sorts of records.

    While the records are not nearly as many or as extreme as you paint, the reality of what they MEAN is lost on the hard core warmers. They mean a heck of a lot of steam, condensing to water, at ALTITUDE and dumping heat into space. I.e. a dramatic heat flow off of the planet. Do not confound heat and temperature. (I know, it’s hard for AGW believers to keep them separate, but it very much does matter.)

    So give it about a decade to suck the heat out of the oceans and be prepared for one heck of a ride to the cold side with tons of snow. And no, that is not an outcome of “global warming”.

    While this also is not proof of AGW,

    I’ll say. In fact, it’s proof of exactly the opposite.

    it is certainly quite consistent with what is to be expected as CO2 continues to increase…

    Oh really? I thought we were supposed to expect desertification and everyone dying in a dessicated runaway desert? That’s what the GCM’s predicted, er, projected, some of the time… and what has been claimed in published papers press releases by the AGW “climate scientists”. As soon as the warmers can Pick ONE scenario to predict, then they can claim to have been accurate in their predictions. As long as they say, in effect, “The stock market will be higher, or lower tomorrow, unless is closes even.” they have said nothing.

    but of course, for AGW skeptics, these extreme hydrological events are unimportant.

    As pointed out above, this statement too is “exactly wrong” (a skill the warmers are rather good at…) The rains are very important to me, for they confirm the heat flow off planet.

    Even more important to me will be the very large snow falls as winter sets in, with each year having the snow further south than the last. Then in about 10 years when the oceans have cooled dramatically from all that mass / heat transfer, we will see a gradual drop of snow fall amounts as we stabilize back at a cold level and with a cooler ocean not evaporating as much. Heck, we might even get some of the spectacular snowfalls I saw in the 1950’s. (I think it was about 1958? that there was 18 foot on the way to Donner Lake and some trains got snowed in. I remember the snow was way above the car my Dad was driving… Another hot to cold transition time. As the hot ’30s and ’40s turned to the cold ’60s and ’70s).

    See, part of the problem you have convincing “old farts” like me is that we lived through a whole cycle now. I’m seeing now what I saw at the start of my life. So trying to tell me it’s the “worst ever” or “unprecedented” or “record” this and that just gets me thinking “Wait a minute. This is just like, oh ’55 or so…” Much like our ‘warm now’ is rather like (but a bit cooler than) my Dad experience in Iowa in the ’30s (and he told me about them years, and I remember what he said…)

    So contrary to your professed beliefs: This rainfall is CENTRAL to my view of what is important. We simply must have more precipitation to demonstrate the supremacy of the hydrological cycle over the fictional (or perhaps merely trivial) impact of CO2.

    So please please please, continue to trumpet just how much rain is falling. It’s music to my ears…

  54. blackswhitewash.com says:
    October 5, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    R Gates:

    Please can you post the data which show that current hydrological “events” are more extreme than previous ones, or that such “events” are increasing?
    _____

    tonyb says:
    October 5, 2010 at 12:20 pm
    R Gates said;

    “More interesting to me this summer are the extreme hydrological events around the world, from the U.S., to South America, to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, we’ve seen extreme downpours and flooding setting all sorts of records. While this also is not proof of AGW, it is certainly quite consistent with what is to be expected as CO2 continues to increase…but of course, for AGW skeptics, these extreme hydrological events are unimportant.”

    Extreme compared to when and what sort of records?
    ______

    The floods over the past year in Pakistan, South America, China, and even just recently, N. Carolina broke records. Studies would indicate that we have in fact been seeing a slow increase in precipitation globally each year:

    http://www.physorg.com/news205425928.html

    Now of course, such studies are not proof of anything, nor would one expect them to be, but, like the decreasing summer arctic sea ice, and warmer decade following warmer decade, these are all consistent with GCM’s predicted effects from AGW. I find it curious that it comes as a mystery to certain skeptical “experts” that any of this is occurring, just as I find it curious that at least one expert is confused on how during a La Nina period, such as we are in now, the troposphere could continue to show such warmth. With 40% more CO2 in the troposphere now than there was in the 1700’s, why is it so remarkable that the troposphere could becoming less sensitive to the fluctuations of ocean temps? Do skeptics just toss basic physics aside in trying to refute what GCM’s are telling us should be happening as CO2 continues to increase?

  55. R. Gates says:
    October 5, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    ——-
    There has been some large rainfall events this year, but overall, there is not an increase.

    This map (the anomaly one at the bottom) provides a pretty good indication of precipitation patterns in September. Australia, Indonesia, Indian Ocean, the South Carribean above-normal, almost everywhere else, below normal.

    http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/mwheeler/maproom/OLR/m.lm.html

    Over the last year, probably below normal.

    http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/mwheeler/maproom/OLR/m.ly.html

    (and the paper you linked to was reviewed in the post before this one).

    Check out the precipitation numbers in select cities in Pakistan (or India) and see if you can find a “climate pattern”. A few small areas got dumped on in the beginning of August – other than that, mostly normal to below-normal.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/precipitation/nindia_1yrprec.shtml

  56. Remember that these anomaly figures depend on where the baseline is set. The AQUA satellite is relatively new and does not have a long history on which to set a baseline, so it uses adjusted data from earlier satellites. AQUA may not have quite the same pattern of month to month variation that previous satellites had.

    If you take the AQUA satellite’s own Ch 05 baseline average figures (2002-2009), the September average anomaly was only 0.45, virtually identical to August. The last two weeks have been 0.38, the last week 0.33 and dropping, indicating that the El Nino warmth is finally working its way out of the system.

    The daily data from AQUA Ch 05 is here

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt

    Perhaps someone with expertise could explain why AQUA’s September anomaly did not increase against its own baseline, but increased against the more general baseline.

  57. E.M.Smith says:
    October 5, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Lets see…. Ocean cooling means it’s dumping a lot of heat. Heat leaves the ocean as water vapor (and we’ve had a lot of rain and snow). Water vapor condenses way up high in cloud tops to fall as snow, hail, and rain. Dumping heat way up high. And we find that the cooling oceans are matched to a warm ‘up high’.

    I don’t see the problem.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Interesting.

  58. If you look at the daily record you will see a big uptick of warmth in the first week of September. Seems like this created the impetus for the extra warmth for the month. Any ideas on what may have caused this one week phenomenon? This was about the same time the Antarctic ice took a nose dive. Could they be related?

  59. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    October 5, 2010 at 11:29 am
    It’s dropping quite dramatically now.

    Mr. Ghost, it dropped quite dramatically in September. The question is how is it dropping relative to other Octobers. Plot it versus the record highs and you’ll see it’s still up there.

  60. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    October 5, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Lets see…. Ocean cooling means it’s dumping a lot of heat. Heat leaves the ocean as water vapor (and we’ve had a lot of rain and snow). Water vapor condenses way up high in cloud tops to fall as snow, hail, and rain. Dumping heat way up high. And we find that the cooling oceans are matched to a warm ‘up high’.

    Amino – The cold surface ocean temps (due to upwelling of deep ocean water) of La Nina result in a net transfer of thermal energy from the atmosphere to the ocean, cooling the troposphere. What you describe above is tropospheric warming due to the warm ocean surface of El Nino.

  61. Bill Illis says:
    October 5, 2010 at 5:19 pm
    “There has been some large rainfall events this year, but overall, there is not an increase.”

    On the matter of extreme weather events, I was in St. Louis for the great flood of ’93. It was called a “Five Hundred Year Flood of the Mississippi River.” It was such a big deal that the president felt compelled to buzz it in a helicopter. It was pretty impressive, but not all that impressive to someone who was there for the “Five Hundred Year Flood of the Missouri River” in 1982. The Mississippi and the Missouri flow together at St. Louis. And, I had been prepared for all this by the “Five Hundred Year Flood of the Mississippi River” that occurred in 1973. I arrived in 1971 and I haven’t researched earlier floods. I haven’t been paying attention since leaving in the ’90s, but I take it there have been no such events in the last 18 or 19 years. I guess Global Climate Disruption has caused an end to “Five Hundred Year Floods” near St. Louis.

  62. R. Gates writes:

    “I find it curious that it comes as a mystery to certain skeptical “experts” that any of this is occurring…With 40% more CO2 in the troposphere now than there was in the 1700′s, why is it so remarkable that the troposphere could becoming less sensitive to the fluctuations of ocean temps?”

    We sceptics do not find it a mystery. We find it a puzzle. And we are looking at a lot of possibilities. Everyone is doing puzzle solving work and having a blast. Apparently, you suggest that we should conclude that “40% more CO2 in the troposphere” is the unique explanation that we seek. But what does the “40% more” have to do with this particular puzzle? In other words, if we accepted the “40% more” as the explanation, what more would we know about this particular phenomenon than we know now? As for the big picture, and speaking just for myself, I believe that these puzzles exist simply because the measurement system that we have deployed is hopelessly inadequate to the task.

  63. *****
    Owen says:
    October 5, 2010 at 6:33 pm
    Mr. Ghost, it dropped quite dramatically in September. The question is how is it dropping relative to other Octobers. Plot it versus the record highs and you’ll see it’s still up there.
    *****
    If you “turn on” all the years, this year is no longer the hottest. It is lower than one and about even with a couple. Move along. Nothing to see here.

  64. Never mind hansen has covered every possibility that could occur in this article!!!
    “The news here isn’t just that Hansen is no longer calling for an all-time record warm calendar year this year. Rather, it’s that next year — due to the lag between ocean and air temperatures — likely won’t be a record hot year in the NASA GISS record, at least the way it looks right now, but that 2012 currently looks like a prime opportunity for the atmosphere to go for the title.

    “It is likely that 2012 will reach a record high global temperature,” Hansen wrote. “The principal caveat is that the duration of the current La Nina could stretch an extra year, as some prior La Ninas have.”

    However, according to Hansen, the calendar year temperature ranking is not as relevant to monitoring long-term global climate change as the 12-month running mean — which did hit a record high this year.

    FAQ: Did climate change cause…?

    A deep dive through Hansen’s analysis provides yet more compelling evidence that despite shorter-term ups and downs, the overall climate is warming, due largely to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It also provides interesting advice to Hansen’s fellow scientists about how to address the relationship between extreme events and climate change, a topic of great interest on this blog.

    His comments are worth quoting in full, since it’s unique to see a scientist considering both the message and how the public receives that message, since the two are often quite different:

    “…A comment on frequently asked questions of the sort: Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is ‘you cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming.’ That answer, to the public, translates as ‘no’.”
    “However, if the question were posed as ‘would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?”, an appropriate answer in that case is ‘almost certainly not.’ That answer, to the public, translates as ‘yes’, i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event.”
    “In either case, the scientist usually goes on to say something about probabilities and how those are changing because of global warming. But the extended discussion, to much of the public, is chatter. The initial answer is all important.”
    “Although either answer can be defended as ‘correct’, we suggest that leading with the standard caveat ‘you cannot blame…’ is misleading and allows a misinterpretation about the danger of increasing extreme events. Extreme events, by definition, are on the tail of the probability distribution. Events in the tail of the distribution are the ones that change most in frequency of occurrence as the distribution shifts due to global warming.”
    “For example, the ‘hundred year flood’ was once something that you had better be aware of, but it was not very likely soon and you could get reasonably priced insurance. But the probability distribution function does not need to shift very far for the 100-year event to be occurring several times a century, along with a good chance of at least one 500-year event.””

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/10/scientist_projects_hottest_yea.html

  65. Cooling ocean SSTs, less water vapour in the atmosphere, more rapid solar heating as we go into the SH summer.

    As others have pointed out heat content is what matters and temperatures in isolation mean little. Although the diurnal variation in the satellite temperatures would be interesting. Warmer days would be consistent with less water vapour in the atmosphere (at this time of year). Warmer nights would indicate the opposite.

  66. Actually R Gates, you’ll find reinsurers would disagree with you. There has been no statistically significant increase in extreme events over the past 100 years.

    Extreme heatwaves and floods have occurred throughout recorded history. Even with massive increases in global populations over the past 100 years there is absolutely no evidence to show the incident rate or mortality rates for these events has increased in recent decades. You have statistical data that says otherwise then present it.

    And for the record the last 2 major floods in Brisbane where I live occurred in 1974 and 1893. Were probably over due now for another event given 200 odd years of records seem to show one occurring every 50 years.

  67. Reading through the past 75 comments, you guys look a like a backseat full of kids playing 20 questions with your mom in the front seat. I am not mocking your efforts to discern what is going on – it is a noble and important endeavor. But GIVEN YOUR OWN UNCERTAINTY, WHICH TO AN OBJECTIVE VIEWER, IS AT LEAST TANTAMOUNT TO THE UNCERTAINTY YOU ATTRIBUTE TO THE AGWers – I am troubled by the arrogance of so many of the articles and comments across this website.

    It really takes a certain kind of hubris to sit around playing the same guessing games you condemn WHILE AT THE SAME TIME denouncing those who are trying to exercise the precautionary principle by stopping the alteration of greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. As a young person, do you know how frustrating this is to watch?

    On a socioeconomic vertical scale and on a horizontal linear scale YOU ARE THE WORST PEOPLE TO BE MAKING THESE DECISIONS. Economically, you wouldn’t be the ones to bear the greatest effects of climate change – that would be those living modest subsistence-based lifestyles – these people can’t absorb commodity fluctuations (resulting from bad harvests) of staple items like maize and potatoes. I can’t remember the last time that issue was discussed, but daily I ready many of you you moaning about the fluctuations in energy prices to fuel gadgets and houses the most vulnerable wouldn’t dream of. Temporally, you are on the way OUT of the world yet have the most stake in the CURRENT structure of the world. That’s a conflict of interest in any profession.

    I’m not a NWO Al-Gore clone trying to control your life – and I don’t think you are oil-backed conspiracy theorists. But I am a part of the 18-25 demographic in this country that overwhelmingly supports climate change legislation and I think that we, along with those people in vulnerable countries, deserve a little more humility from those on this site effectively seeking to limit our ability to control our future when you can’t even explain the anomalies yourself.

    • The problem JD is that you may be more likely to harm or even kill those vulnerable people by instituting various policies, such as biofuel production, than would be harmed by doing nothing at all. That is the great uncertainty which needs to be addressed.

      If a policy has no value but has enormous costs, those costs at some point are likely to be borne in some way by the impoverised. Wasted money or resources could lead to increased poverty and suffering for those you seem to care about.

      The old platitude that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is far more relevant to politics than most young people realize.

  68. Jeez –

    1) false premise that regulating has no value (even an unused (if we had the CO2 thing wrong) insurance policy has value)
    2) I agree that who bears the costs of regulation and the means used to regulate are VERY important questions – they’re ones that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about and if I didn’t believe that we could find equitable solutions I wouldn’t be advocating for it

    • JD,

      1. I did not use a false premise. I did not say that regulating has no value. I stated clearly that some policies can do more harm than no policy at all. Burning food for fuel is one of them, and can easily lead to food shortages and starvation. Please do not project your own unrelated feelings about the value of government regulation onto my point.

      2. It is not necessarily a matter of who bears the costs INITIALLY. If the cost to society as a whole is high enough, the vulnerable will suffer. This is the age of global economics. Slow down the economy in the US and there will be less imports from vulnerable societies. So you better be damn sure there is a net positive from the policy before implementing. This is the great uncertainty.

      • Oh and JD, the Greens answer to my 2. above is often some sort of fantasy often going by the word localization, where they imagine getting everyone in the world to stop international and long distance trading with each other and live in some Return to the Garden of Eden, Utopian, Agrarian society, where everyone grows their food, makes their own computers, clothes, DVD players, cell phones, windmill and microhydro generators, and medicine themselves, or trades with their generous neighbors in walking distance for them.

  69. The NH and SH anomalies are still high but the tropics have fallen for the last four months and if it continues this trend then the NH and the SH ,I think ,should follow also in time.I do not think that the changes we are seeing are because of AGW just natural variability.

  70. jeez @2

    Yes, the joys of being born into a world where grownups tell you there are two options:
    1) the vicious (and growing) disparities of the global “free market” run by corporations and the US military, or 2) the mirage of a utopia that is really just masking a direct patch to a poverty-stricken brutish society deprived of all human progress.

    thanks but no thanks – i’m not ready to give up on believing that we can do better than that.

    • Well JD, you could always try for another totalitarian centrally controlled regime, despite the fact that almost every time this is tried, millions of people end up murdered.

      The mantra of the socialist/communist is that these authoritarian policies weren’t implemented “correctly” in the past. We can do it better this time around.

      Remember, a good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

      That’s all for tonight. I’m going to go debate Nietzsche with strippers.

  71. No totalitarianism, I promise ; ) – just price signals that would probably no longer make it profitable for us to export our recyclables to India and import our beef from argentina.

    peace and progress Jeez,

    JD
    p.s. did you hear Obama’s putting up solar panels on the white house?! yes. we. can.

  72. Given up guessing when, huh? Me too. (but I refuse their Uahes god that conjures heat from the cool seas and their Gisses god that brings forth fire from the ice) ☺

  73. JD says:
    October 5, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    But I am a part of the 18-25 demographic in this country that overwhelmingly supports climate change legislation and I think that we, along with those people in vulnerable countries, deserve a little more humility from those on this site effectively seeking to limit our ability to control our future when you can’t even explain the anomalies yourself.

    ======================

    And your frontal lobe has not fully developed until about ~25 [assuming you are a male…and considering the aggression, pretty sure on that].

    So hush up and learn with silence for a few more [ten] years or so, before you speak.

    You have much to learn [However, I respect your passion.].

    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  74. JD says:
    October 5, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    On a socioeconomic vertical scale and on a horizontal linear scale YOU ARE THE WORST PEOPLE TO BE MAKING THESE DECISIONS. Economically, you wouldn’t be the ones to bear the greatest effects of climate change – that would be those living modest subsistence-based lifestyles – these people can’t absorb commodity fluctuations (resulting from bad harvests) of staple items like maize and potatoes. I can’t remember the last time that issue was discussed, but daily I ready many of you you moaning about the fluctuations in energy prices to fuel gadgets and houses the most vulnerable wouldn’t dream of. Temporally, you are on the way OUT of the world yet have the most stake in the CURRENT structure of the world. That’s a conflict of interest in any profession.

    =============================

    These broad-brush, emo words are rather insulting, JD.

    You are guilty of stereotyping and it is wrong.

    We are all in the same boat, brother.

    That quote “temporally you are on the way out of the world, yet you have most at stake in the current structure of the world,” is a gross, egregious generalization.

    Feel free to email me personally and we can continue this discussion there without hijacking this thread. sharkhearted@gmail.com

    I respect your passion. What leaves much to be desired are your broad-brush categorizations about people whom you know absolutely nothing about.

    You don’t know they are “on the way out.” [That is prejudiced in and of itself].

    You don’t know they have the “most at stake in this current structure of the world.”

    You don’t know any of that.

    Show a little respect.

    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  75. JD says:
    October 5, 2010 at 10:12 pm
    Reply;
    There are other options, each of us regardless of age can choose for our selves and vote with our, spending habits, dietary habits, choice of vocations, participation in by voting with your feet, don’t add to the problems, work on what you see in your local environment as the symptoms of the problems, lead by example has worked well for me over the years.

    One of my main goals is to increase awareness of each persons individual skills, drives, ideals, and attachments to these in others. Be yourself first, let others be comfortable with them selves, support those things you like with your excess production, and free time as they become available, mostly by recognizing ways to be more efficient, not just less consumptive.

    Work in areas that you have skills and interests that drive you and add to the overall efficiency of the composite system you can help to evolve, by adding input and feed back as you go along. Always be your true self in all relationships, as you will then attract those who like you for who you really are, steer clear of drama Queens, and psychic vampires, users that will just drag your vitality, love of life, and physical resources down for no net gain to anyone.

    If each of us vote for the type of world we would like to see, by our choice of actions and dedications to the solutions that we can see from our limited environmental input sources, then gradually the whole world will improve, and the combination of input of actions and options will generate as many answers as there are THINKING people, who apply themselves to the worlds problems, doing so with out uselessly dragging down the resources that any one, (self included) needs to stay healthy.

    We are all different in some small way at least, it is this variety of skills, talents, viewpoints, and drives, that make individuals as well as nations successful. Bring to the table what you have, be open and frank about what you think, and be not afraid to question opinions of others, know for yourself, do the research needed to figure out YOUR answers to problems you understand by seeing them first hand. DO NOT get swept away following blindly, anyone not even your self, question your goals frequently, choose directions as guidelines to follow rather than blindly and rudely make for end point goals.

    Maybe the real answer is just to the left or right, further or closer, than you thought, be not afraid to stay in touch with your feelings, but still use logic whenever possible. The mark of mental stability is in the ability to maintain the balance between feelings and logical thought processes. When decisions are needed, try to consider every one involved, not just one other, yourself, or a tight nit group, this helps avoid stupid, embarrassing, costly, unrepairable mistakes.

    If I had a life do over, there are not many things I would change, except getting an education on paper as well as in life, I have found it is much easier to get things done that need doing if you have both.

  76. JD says:
    October 5, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    It really takes a certain kind of hubris to sit around playing the same guessing games you condemn WHILE AT THE SAME TIME denouncing those who are trying to exercise the precautionary principle by stopping the alteration of greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. As a young person, do you know how frustrating this is to watch?

    =========================

    Don’t blame us. Blame the individuals of the “intelligentsia” that you trust who DELIBERATELY conflated issues of climate with pollution and with CO2.

    Two separate issues. Rather, THREE:

    (1) Climate change. Climate changes…that is what it does, as it has done for 4.6 billion years.

    (2) Homo sapiens are polluting the earth [true].

    (3) Irrespective of that pollution, CO2 a beneficial trace gas that fluctuates through the eons, is not the culprit in so-called “climate change.”

    Don’t confuse anthropogenic pollution [a solvable, fixable problem that our species is morally obligated to solve], with the natural variability on this Earth.

    The oceans…and maybe just maybe the sun and maybe even parts of the universe beyond that….govern Earth’s climate….on times scales from decades to hundreds of millions of years.

    Again, don’t confuse anthropogenic pollution [a solvable, fixable problem that our species is morally obligated to solve], with the natural variability on this Earth.

    Two separate arguments.

    This is the crux of the matter.

    There IS such a thing as catastrophic anthropogenic global pollution [in many forms].

    But not CAGW.

    And this has been deliberately obscured…by the profit barons eager to capitalize on carbon credits.

    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  77. JD,

    So potentially you don’t care if Argentinian ranchers go bankrupt or if Indian factory workers lose their jobs.

    I prefer less uncertainty before causing such hardship, but hey…that’s climate science… I mean politics.

    (Posted via blackberry from The Gold Club in sf)

  78. I think it is rather hypocritical to insult the intelligence of all people below the age of 25, who have a much more vested interest in the long term future than older people, while expecting them to respect people who come out with remarks that the rise of Co2 over the last 200 years is not the cause of global warming when they can not possibly know that with 100% certainty or even 1% certainty. Especially as there is clear correlation. On the other hand I am not saying that there is 100% certainty that Co2 is the cause of global warming over the last 200 years.

    It is also hypocritical to accept personal insults on this site against people like Al Gore while removing or denouncing those against skeptics. But not at all surprising.

  79. “Since the daily global average sea surface temperature anomalies on our NASA Discover web page have now cooled to well below the 2002-2010 average, there remains a rather large discrepancy between these two measures. Without digging into the regional differences in the two datasets, I currently have no explanation for this. ”

    Could extra NH cloud have biased the algorithm used to produce the global anomaly?

  80. R. Gates says:

    why is it so remarkable that the troposphere could becoming less sensitive to the fluctuations of ocean temps?

    This is incorrect, check out the La Nina in 2008, global temps dropped to approx 1980 levels in response.
    Give it a few months.

  81. savethesharks says: October 5, 2010 at 11:20 pm::: (2) Homo sapiens are polluting the earth [true].

    Take issue with you there, Chris. My personal belief is that Earth is greener and sweeter now than it has been for some centuries (maybe even since time began), and is continuing in that direction. There are blots on this landscape, but less than there were, and as more of us reach basic levels of comfort those blots will contract…
        …unless starry-eyed dreamers of noble savagery and Eden disrupt the roll we are on — but I don’t think they will (may be close…).

  82. Please pardon my ignorance but I followed your link to your “NASA Discover web page” which took me the AMSU-A page and I could not see anything abnormal temperature wise in the atmosphere. On the contrary, it all looks pretty normal or slightly cooler to me.

  83. dennis ward says:
    October 6, 2010 at 12:41 am
    I think it is rather hypocritical to insult the intelligence of all people below the age of 25, who have a much more vested interest in the long term future than older people, while expecting them to respect people who come out with remarks that the rise of Co2 over the last 200 years is not the cause of global warming when they can not possibly know that with 100% certainty or even 1% certainty. Especially as there is clear correlation. On the other hand I am not saying that there is 100% certainty that Co2 is the cause of global warming over the last 200 years.

    Perhaps you would care to explain how it is scientifically possible for a mechanism to exist that correlates changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide to commensurate changes in global mean air temperature in the present 200 years, while the same scientific mechanism allowed the same carbon dioxide and air temperatures for the past 500 million years to be highly uncorrelated and often anti-correlated? In other words, we know over very long periods of geological time the carbon dioxide and temperatures are highly uncorrelated, so how is it possible for the same laws of physics to suddenly demand and allow correlation only during the most recent 200 years or 800,000 years. Perhaps you may wish to consider the probabilities that like a clock which displays the correct time twice a day despite being broken and inoperative, chance correlations of carbon dioxide and temperature occur in sufficiently short time periods of observation?

    It is also hypocritical to accept personal insults on this site against people like Al Gore while removing or denouncing those against skeptics. But not at all surprising.

    Given Al Gore’s frequently videotaped descriptions of skeptics of AGW as “Liars”, “crooks”, and worse while censoring and suppressing the free speech of his opponents; it can be argued as hypocritical to say Al Gore has not earned such criticism from the targets of his abusive conduct.

    When you discriminate between the vested interests of older people versus younger people, you may wish to contemplate the fact you too will grow older barring misfortune, and you may find some day that your vested interests are even greater in your old age than in your younger years because of the vested interests you have in your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nephews, nieces, great-nephews, great-nieces, and their descendants.

  84. Why does the tropospheric global average temperature peak near the NH summer? Is this related to the fact that the majority of the landmass is on the NH? As far as I know the earth is closest to the sun in the NH winter but that does not factor in apparently. The SST has a different pattern with a peak near spring equinox but the seasonal temperature difference is much less pronounced near the surface.

  85. Is there a launch date overview of the different satellites used to measure the tropospheric temperature? Were the same satellites in operation for measuring the 1998 temperatures that are used for 2010?

  86. Theo Goodwin says:
    October 5, 2010 at 7:11 pm
    R. Gates writes:

    “I find it curious that it comes as a mystery to certain skeptical “experts” that any of this is occurring…With 40% more CO2 in the troposphere now than there was in the 1700′s, why is it so remarkable that the troposphere could becoming less sensitive to the fluctuations of ocean temps?”

    We sceptics do not find it a mystery. We find it a puzzle. And we are looking at a lot of possibilities. Everyone is doing puzzle solving work and having a blast. Apparently, you suggest that we should conclude that “40% more CO2 in the troposphere” is the unique explanation that we seek. But what does the “40% more” have to do with this particular puzzle? In other words, if we accepted the “40% more” as the explanation, what more would we know about this particular phenomenon than we know now? As for the big picture, and speaking just for myself, I believe that these puzzles exist simply because the measurement system that we have deployed is hopelessly inadequate to the task.

    _______

    Science is about solving puzzles, and when a piece fits that consistently gives the answer to so many puzzles (i.e. stratospheric cooling, declines in summer sea ice extent, permafrost melt, ocean acidification, increases in ocean heat content, etc.) you have to start to think there is a better chance than not that it is the RIGHT piece. The factoring of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s into GCM’s seems to be that right piece…and honest (i.e. not politically motivated) skeptics do a service by making honest (i.e. not politically motivated) scientists continue to make sure that the piece that looks to fit so well really is fitting.

  87. R. Gates writes:

    “The factoring of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s into GCM’s seems to be that right piece…”

    Actually, it is not even a potential piece. The “40% increase” is what you should call a fact and it is explained, according to you, by the characteristics of the CO2 molecule, generally speaking. To get from your starting point, the “40% increase,” to work on the puzzle that Spencer introduced in this forum, you have to introduce hypotheses which explain the forcings that might cause the particular phenomenon under discussion. As Spencer has so eloquently shown in his recent book, “The Great Global Warming Blunder,” the pro-AGCD folk have not produced hypotheses that can explain the kind of phenomenon under discussion here.

    Science is puzzle solving only in the same sense that fixing a flat tire is puzzle solving. The purpose of climate science is to create hypotheses which explain the phenomena of climate and which provide a record of well-confirmed predictions of that phenomena. Yes, in this forum, we are puzzle solving. But as yet not one person has introduced something that could qualify as a hypothesis of climate science. Hunches and guesses, however good, are not hypotheses.

  88. R. Gates says:
    October 6, 2010 at 3:38 pm
    [snip – not going there with snark on snark -Anthony]
    ____

    Mine was not meant as a “snark on snark” at all. I hadn’t heard that a cooling had been predicted by you as was only curious as to its duration, cause, etc. If this is a short term La Nina event, that’s one thing, but something that would prevent 2010-2010 being warmer than 2000-2010, that’s something else entirely as it would fly in the face of that which in general is predicted by GCM’s. I would think you’d know me better than attempt a “snark” on you…

  89. Doesn’t the thermometer’s measure heat radiated rather than temperature?
    More precisely, the heat efflux of the atmosphere, rather than its temperature?

  90. Well, I’m certainly expecting a downturn. The RSS satellite temps fell by 0.06C in September, about as expected, even though they also found an unexpected bump in SH temps.

    Last week, the Nino 3.4 Index fell to -1.84C (from -1.5C in the previous 3 weeks) and the best models predict it will fall to -2.0C by December and stay in La Nina territory well into 2011. There is still a huge amount of cooler than normal water (as much as -9C) below the surface in the Pacific waiting to influence the surface so I think it will go down to -2.5C or so (the record level) and a La Nina conditions will extend into the summer of 2011. [The upper ocean heat content anomaly pattern predicts that an El Nino will develop late in 2011 but that is for another day].

    The AMO has declined by about 0.3C in the last 5 weeks.

    Southern Ocean SSTs declined to -0.018C last week, a remarkable decline of 0.45C since the beginning of the year [Think about how much ocean the southern hemisphere represents and that declined by 0.45C in the past 9 months].

    Put it all together and there is only one conclusion and that is cooling until at least April next year.

  91. Ray Harvey says:
    October 6, 2010 at 11:39 am
    Where is the cooling, Anthony?

    You can start with our gardens. The plants have been very unhappy with the colder weather the past number of years. NOAA keeps reporting higher temperatures,, which is a mystery. You cannot find those higher temperautres on our thermometers or among the palnts in the gardens. The rosemary plants that thrived in the 1990s are being systematically frozen out of existence in recent Winter and Spring weather. Many of the flowering plants have failed to ripen and blossom because the April-July weather was too cold for them to their duty. The Spring weather has become so unpredictable, the Skagit Valley Tulip Festival found it necessary to change their traditional festival dates. The blossoming period kept getting earlier, then it began to occur later than the planned festival dates. Finally, they gave up trying to outguess the changing blossom times and made the festival a month long.

    All the time the weather has been getting colder, NOAA keeps trying to tell everyone that its hotter than alsmost ever before. Yeah, right. Next they’ll be telling us that’s water they’re running down our pant legs.

  92. Roger Carr says:
    October 6, 2010 at 3:21 am
    savethesharks says: October 5, 2010 at 11:20 pm::: (2) Homo sapiens are polluting the earth [true].

    Take issue with you there, Chris. My personal belief is that Earth is greener and sweeter now than it has been for some centuries (maybe even since time began), and is continuing in that direction. There are blots on this landscape, but less than there were, and as more of us reach basic levels of comfort those blots will contract…
    …unless starry-eyed dreamers of noble savagery and Eden disrupt the roll we are on — but I don’t think they will (may be close…).

    =========================

    Yeah but “greener and sweeter” thanks to massive fertilizers which run off into the oceans and create massive dead zones…is not the “greener and sweeter” that I personally want.

    And “contracting” blots on the landscape?

    Sort of like the toxic man-made lahar that just happened in Hungary?

    Or most of the dismal environmental record of the world’s most populous country, China?

    Or the giant Pacific (and the recently discovered one in the Atlantic) trash gyres?

    Give me a ******* break.

    As much as I vigorously oppose the radical Rousseauian / Noble Savage /Radical Green agenda…

    I also oppose members of our species who have their heads in the dirty, stinking sand of the pollution that we have created.

    It’s bad, dude.

    And, unfortunately, the reports of “higher temperature” which is the subject of this thread, get blown up in the media along with myths of ocean acidification and CO2 that the world is at the tipping point.

    It isn’t.

    Climate will self-regulate, as it has always done for billions of years.

    But pollution. We CAN do something about pollution and disastrous overfishing and other things that ARE…without a shadow of a scientific doubt…anthropogenic in origin.

    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  93. savethesharks says: (October 6, 2010 at 8:44 pm) Or most of the dismal environmental record of the world’s most populous country, China?

    Give them a little time, Chris. One step at a time in the massive changes they need to make to bring their country into this new age. It is unlikely they like living dirty; just an unfortunate, but necessary, step along the road.
        And I’ll drink to your saving of sharks.

  94. Bill Illis says:
    October 6, 2010 at 5:44 pm
    Well, I’m certainly expecting a downturn. The RSS satellite temps fell by 0.06C in September, about as expected, even though they also found an unexpected bump in SH temps.

    Yes, of course, we’re all expecting a downturn – and there will be one- but how far will temperatures fall. Will they fall as low as 1999-2000, say, or even down to mid-1980s levels? If not, then it suggests that, even with a negative PDO and a weak solar cycle, we still have an underlying warming trend.

  95. Slightly off topic – I couldn’t find better thread. I see Nansen has the Arctic dipping into Summer again. Massive loss of ice as of the last few days. Back to the lows after a big rise. I do love the quality control these guys have in place.

  96. Hey guys. Rather than look for reasons why the obvious could not be happening, why not actually look at the data trend – and look at it over the full record period, not just the bit that makes the increase seem a bit less impressive. Of course temperatures will come down again, but the baseline is clearly moving up – there is obviously a one way valve in the system.
    And hey, its good to see that the more active sun can be wheeled out again. It had to be put to bed during the past few years, since the temps kept on trend through the strongest minimum for a long time, but now that it’s becoming more active – and the temps are still going up – it’s time to resurrect it.

Comments are closed.