The global temperature has fallen .653°C (from +0.554 in March 2010 to -0.099 in March 2011) in just one year. That’s a magnitude nearly equivalent to the agreed upon global warming signal agreed upon by the IPCC. It is quite a sharp drop.
According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century
Comments from Dr. Roy Spencer: (plus graph)
(Graph by Anthony Watts, data and commentary from Dr. Spencer/UAH)
UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C
La Nina Coolness Persists
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for March 2011 fell to -0.10 deg. C, with cooling in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheric extratropics, while the tropics stayed about the same as last month. (I’m on the road in Virgina, so the temperature graph will not be updated until I return on Thursday.)
April 5th, 2011
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 09 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 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suppose I’d care if I thought “Global Temperature” made any sense at all.
How many years of static or falling temperatures did Gavin say it would take to falsify AGW? Was it 15 or 20?
/Mango
I don’t deny climate change, I know climate changes
…….and most of the Northern hemisphere is still covered in ice and snow
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=28&fy=1981&sm=03&sd=28&sy=2011
I got some interesting results from Marion Island
Latitude -46.88333
Longitude 37.86667
Altitude 22
This is quite a bit south of South Africa
So far I looked only at all the temperature data.
I collected all average mean-, maximum-and minimum- temperatures for all months of the year from 1976 and plotted these against time. A linear regression was then performed. The slope of these formulae i.e. the figure before the “x” in each of the reported formulae, is also the rate of incline or decline (if negative) by which the temperature has increased or decreased over the last 35 years in degrees C/year.
Taking the average over each of the 12 slopes for each of the months of the year, I find that from 1976 to 2010
1) the rate of change of the mean temperature was 0.00 degrees C per annum: in other words: flat
2) the maximum temperature has increased at a rate of 0.05 degrees C per annum
3) the minimum temperature has decreased at a rate of 0.02 degrees C per annum
Again these results indicate that heat content has stayed the same even though max. temps. have been rising.
If warming is due to an increase in greenhouse gases, it is the minimum temperatures that should rise as heat would be trapped due to the green house effect. You would then expect the minimum temperatures to rise at a rate as fast as – or even faster than – the mean- and maximum temperatures. What I find is exactly the opposite: minimum temperatures in Marion Island have actually declined by 0.02 degrees C per annum whereas the means have stayed the same and the maximum temperatures have increased. The theory of warming caused by an increase in green house gases is therefore again proved invalid by the evidence presented from the measured results here, at Marion Island.
Thanks for posting this. So far in this new decade, every month has been well below the 2001-2010 decade average.
silly. everyone know global cooling is caused by…uhm… global warming.
“How many years of static or falling temperatures did Gavin say it would take to falsify AGW? Was it 15 or 20?”
That’s the problem. CAGW cannot be falsified. As demonstrated by by the papers shown in this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/#more-37187
Every weather or climate event can be construed as evidence of climate change and then blamed on mankind.
This is why the AGW theory is not scientific.
The post 1998 cooling trend persists. In spite of the gross exaggeration of temperatures reported by the Warmists for circa 2010.
AGW is unfalsifiable religion.
“More on RealClimate’s Unfalsifiable Models”
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/more-on-realclimates-unfalsifiable-models/
“How many years of static or falling temperatures did Gavin say it would take to falsify AGW? Was it 15 or 20?”
Gavin Schmidt of NASA has a website called RealClimate. A couple of years ago there was a post on signs of climate change.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/
In the discussion thread Daniel Klein asks at #57:
OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
(1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
(2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)
(3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings
I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?
[Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I’d need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. – gavin]
That is an impressive graphic. The 28 March 1981 snow and ice cover looks pretty dire. By the way sea ice concentration also looked better.
Obviously, the Koch brothers have bribed the UAH data.
/sarc
HenryP says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:53 am
Nice work Henry.
I’m embarrassed to say but I can’t quite figure out what this graph represents. I get that it’s showing something about the global temperature in the lower troposphere but what exactly?
Arctic ozone levels in never-before-seen plunge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12969167
“due to cold weather in the upper atmosphere” apparently. “It seems that we have some winters that get much colder than before and also the cold periods last longer, into the spring.”
“The low temperatures were not that different from some other years, but extended much further into March and April – in fact it’s still going on now,” said Farahnaz Khosrawi, an ozone specialist at the Meteorological Institute at Stockholm University, Sweden.
Another, Dr Florence Goutail from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), put the 2010/11 winter in context.
“Usually in cold winters we observe that about 25% of the ozone disappears, but this winter was really a record – 40% of the column has disappeared,” she said.
“This winter, while the Arctic was unusually warm at ground level, temperatures 15-20km above the Earth’s surface plummeted and stayed low.”
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I may be) but isn’t this exactly where we would expect to detect global warming first?
Here’s a fun game….
Since we now know that warmer winters make more snow….
Overlay the UAH temp graph with the Rutgers snow graph.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/rutgers_week_49_snow_extent.png
Yes, but . . . it’s worse than we thought!
Bruckner8 says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:35 am
I suppose I’d care if I thought “Global Temperature” made any sense at all.
========================================================
Boy howdy, ain’t that the truth !!!!!
(or if it really meant anything)
Actually, this global warming nonsense has a purpose. Mankind does not NOW affect temperatures or other aspects of climate. Occasionally, we affect weather, as in cloud seeding. But in the future, we WILL control climate, and we will need to be responsible with it.
That is why I am outraged when I see falsified temperature graphs. We cannot either learn real climate science on “models” of no predictive value, nor via falsified data. And without a real subject, we truly could cause harm to the biosphere.
We could actually cause the Earth to cool, for instance. That would cause extinctions.
Obviously, Global Climate Disruption – – – – or GSM Disruption
Interesting update…even mentioning such short term ENSO ups and downs in the context of longer term global warming seems like talking about apples and oranges. Such declines are to be expected when transitioning from a decent El Nino to La Nina.
We are Two weeks late with spring here in NE Oregon. More snow is expected. I have painting planting and mowing to do. Our local robins have barley started the”Dawn
Chorus”-it is cooling off, pards….
It really is appalling that you can’t or won’t learn the simplest basics of statistics. Comparing noise with trend is stupid – no other way to describe it.
Well something must be wrong with those satellites . . . the IPCC models have not predicted this to happen and because the IPCC is made up of really, really smart people and only uses the best peer reviewed literature – never any Greenpeace agitprop, it must be right.
I’m sure this temp record will prove to be flawed and somebody will have to scrape and bow and beg forgiveness from Al Gore.
Because AGW Progressives are so much smarter than us rubes.
It’s falling! The temperature’s falling!
My friends, this is simply appalling!
If it keeps up this rate
Until Two Four Four Eight,
We’ll have Absolute Zero. How galling.