From Dr. Roy Spencer:
UAH Update for January 2011: Global Temperatures in Freefall
…although this, too, shall pass, when La Nina goes away.
LA NINA FINALLY BEING FELT IN TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES
January 2011 experienced a precipitous drop in lower tropospheric temperatures over the tropics, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere. This was not unexpected, since global average sea surface temperatures have been falling for many months, with a head start as is usually the case with La Nina.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 2 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 3 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 4 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 5 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 6 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 7 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 8 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 9 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 1 -0.009 -0.055 0.038 -0.369
This is shown in the following plot (note the shorter period of record, and different zero-baseline):
SO WHY ALL THE SNOWSTORMS?
While we would like to think our own personal experience of the snowiest winter ever in our entire, Methuselah-ian lifespan has some sort of cosmic — or even just global — significance, I would like to offer this plot of global oceanic precipitation variations from the same instrument that measured the above sea surface temperatures (AMSR-E on NASA’s Aqua satellite):
Note that precipitation amounts over the global-average oceans vary by only a few percent. What this means is that when one area gets unusually large amounts of precipitation, another area must get less.
Precipitation is always associated with rising air, and so a large vigorous precipitation system in one location means surrounding regions must have enhanced sinking air (with no precipitation).
In the winter, of course, the relatively warmer oceans next to cold continental air masses leads to snowstorm development in coastal areas. If the cold air mass over the midwest and eastern U.S. is not dislodged by warmer Pacific air flowing in from the west, then the warm oceanic air from the Gulf of Mexico and western Atlantic keeps flowing up and over the cold dome of air, producing more snow and rain. The “storm track” and jet stream location follows that boundary between the cold and warm air masses.
What will be important is whether we see a similar fall in temps down to 2000 levels and even more importantly a slower and less recovery (bounce) than was seen in 2001 to 2005. If the temperatures bounce back but stay below the 2001 to 2005 levels then this will cause significant problems for the AGW theory.
Its just weather!
What a great, scientifically-sound post!!!!!!!!!
So, if I’m reading this correctly, the World just wasted several Trillion dollars on a hoax because we are now “Normal” based on the past 30 years?
I grew up believing, never trust over 30 so I guess the “Science is settled”. ; )
So everything is normal, assuming we can tell what normal is.
btw Don’t you mean El Nina?
El Nina is Spanish for…. the nina….
R.I.P. Chris Farley.
In 1930 it was settled science that the continents were stationary, among English speakers that is, excepting Australia and South Africa (down there they had a better grasp of the evidence for drift). Harold Jeffries and Gaylord Simpson ridiculed Wegener’s theory.
In 2011 it settled science by BBC and National Geographic that peregrine falcons can dive at 240mph. But like ET, we still don’t have one good picture. NASA has yet to weigh in on the subject except for one scientist who said they accomplish this by “flicking their wings.” I suggest the scientific world address this vastly simpler problem before taking on climate prediction. –AGF
Chartists would be looking at the double-shouldered nature of the first graph and going heavily short on (A)GW. Chartists are mugs, of course, but if the sun is indeed hibernating then they might be in the money.
“…although this, too, shall pass, when La Nina goes away.”
=============================================================
Or will it?
We’ve never had the chance to observe the effects of a protracted Solar minimum on the temperature rebound that habitually follows a departing La Nina.
The next 2-3 years could prove very interesting……….
Assuming this temperature trend is correct and taking into account that temperature is only a proxy for the heat energy in the Earth fluidsphere, where did the heat energy go? As my thermodynamics professor always proclaimed, “The heat goes to Mars!”
And assuming the temperature spikes back up again, where was the heat hiding?
But, but… where’s the CO2 warming/energy? It must still be “somewhere”. Maybe the EPA captured it in a bottle for later release in the Arctic so there will be less ice this coming summer….. Yes, it would be a pretty big bottle, but still there is so little of it.
/sarc
@NoAstronomer
Its El Nino “The Boy” – Warm lead up followed by the opposite, La Nina, “The Girl” – long cool down after. ” La” because the noun (Girl)is female. 🙂
this fits so well with decades of Queenslanders’ memories, growing up with what we called “the wet season”. now called La Nina, of course. anyone care to comment?
14 Jan: Australian: Siobhain Ryan: La Nina ‘here for decades’
Stewart Franks, associate professor in environmental engineering at NSW’s University of Newcastle, said his research suggested “enhanced” La Ninas would dominate eastern Australian summer weather patterns for years to come.
“What we noticed is El Nino and La Nina events are actually not random, they tend to cluster, and they cluster on time frames between 10 to 40 years,” he said.
Professor Franks, an Australian national representative to the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, said the last run of strong La Ninas occurred between the mid-1940s and mid-1970s, culminating in the 1974 floods.
They were followed by about three decades dominated by El Nino dry climate patterns…
“We are seeing a return to the devastating impact of the enhanced La Ninas we saw in 1945 to 1975, so that indicates to my mind that it’s entirely possible that were facing 20 to 30 years of repeated, frequent or enhanced La Ninas,” he said…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/la-nina-here-for-decades/story-e6frg6nf-1225987421955
Does anybody know why Climate Charts and Graphs is showing a -.12 degree anomaly for January? Are they using a different base period?
http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/
REPLY: That’s the daily reading plot, which is different from what Dr. Spencer does. – A
It does seem as though all the cards were lined up in favor of the AGW skeptics:
Negative PDO check; Dalton style solar activity check; La Nina check.
So now what more can be added to help sink the AGW hypothesis?
It seems to me that there should be a skeptical consensus on expected future climate, which could then be a clear counterexample to the silly hotcold projections currently emanating from the AGW spokespeople.
Keith Wallis says:
February 2, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Chartists would be looking at the double-shouldered nature of the first graph and going heavily short on (A)GW. Chartists are mugs, of course, but if the sun is indeed hibernating then they might be in the money.
******************************************
I don’t think chartists are entirely mugs, unless they look at the charts in isolation. If they look at the charts in conjunction with other patterns, then they are only doing similar things to forecasters like Piers Corbyn or Joe Bastardi, are they not? (I have the highest respect for both.) You don’t need to understand the cause of everything to be a good forecaster (or chartist). You just need to make more accurate forecasts than your competitors.
At a panel discussion on Capitol Hill last week, Joe Romm indicated that we would see catastrophic affects of GW by 2020 and will be desperate to get off carbon fuels. Based on the response of the audience and fellow panel members, no one took him seriously. But at least he did put a line in the sand that we can hold him to. So, if atmospheric temperatures and SST’s are falling, anyone want to bet on what chance Joe has of being correct in only 9 years?
etudiant says:
February 2, 2011 at 2:41 pm
“It seems to me that there should be a skeptical consensus on expected future climate, which could then be a clear counterexample to the silly hotcold projections currently emanating from the AGW spokespeople.”
=======
There is, its going to get colder from here and NO ONE is prepared because of the CAGW Idiots!
Cycles have been documented for the centuries — any country buying into the CAGW meme is unprepared for the next 30 years.
“While we would like to think our own personal experience of the snowiest winter ever”
“Note that precipitation amounts over the global-average oceans vary by only a few percent.”
=====================================================
So precipitation has not changed, which just means it’s colder.
Not cold= rain
cold = snow
And the warmth from global warming did not put any more moisture in the air.
You’d think that in a world which wasn’t warming going below the 1980-2010 average would be a non-notable event.
Bad news for alarmism but they have still have plenty of ammunition.
Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent are presently below average and there are plenty of “exteme events” to back up their claims.
Good to see that Cyclone Yasi was not quite as catastrophic as the most of the media, who were beginning to froth at the mouth, predicted.
Goes to show that if we are fully prepared for climatic extreme events, they do not to be deadly. The citizens of N Queensland can now legitimately say with some pride “Kiss My Yasi”.
Hopefully it drops another half a degree and then I can laugh myself to sleep as warmists explain to the media how greater temperatures cause an increase in arctic sea ice due to increasing precipitation levels.
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/02/02/boxer-says-shes-going-to-hold-hearings-on-global-warming-skepticism/
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/141711-sen-boxer-says-climate-science-hearings-are-absolutely-in-the-works
====
get prepared to embarrass a Senator…
“Note that precipitation amounts over the global-average oceans vary by only a few percent. What this means is that when one area gets unusually large amounts of precipitation, another area must get less.”
===
Just a thought.
In Chicago we just got about 22 inches of low water content snow, I assume the albedo is still “snow”.
It must be cold to get “dry” snow.
Interesting that precipitation is not going up.
I understood from the CAGW crowd that the recent large amounts of snow were all because of the increased temperatures causing more moisture to be in the air (at least they said that once it started snowing a lot).
Now it seems that there is not much more moisture, but there is more snow because it is colder. I wonder how that can be spun to be caused by CAGW? I am sure it can, I’m just wondering how.