UAH global Temperature for December – no change

UAH Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2011: +0.13 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for December, 2011 remained about the same November, +0.13 deg. C (click on the image for the full-size version):

The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.

Here are the monthly stats for 2010 and 2011:

YR MON GLOBAL 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 -0.010 -0.055 +0.036 -0.372
2011 2 -0.020 -0.042 +0.002 -0.348
2011 3 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342
2011 4 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229
2011 5 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043
2011 6 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233
2011 7 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204
2011 8 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155
2011 9 +0.289 +0.304 +0.274 +0.178
2011 10 +0.116 +0.169 +0.062 -0.054
2011 11 +0.123 +0.075 +0.170 +0.024
2011 12 +0.127 +0.197 +0.057 +0.043

I’m making very good progress on the Version 6 of the global temperature dataset, and it looks like the new diurnal drift correction method is working for AMSU. Next is to apply the new AMSU-based corrections to the older (pre-August 1998) MSU data.

[Reminder: Since AMSR-E failed in early October, there will be no more sea surface temperature updates from that instrument.]

About these ads

71 thoughts on “UAH global Temperature for December – no change

  1. I am wondering does anyone else see that entertaining third order polynomial fit trending down?

  2. Roy Spencer likes to say that curve is for “entertainment purposes only” but it’s pretty obviously meaningful and clearly starting to decline – which is in keeping with Scafetta’s 60 year cycle etc http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/

    It is also in keeping with Trenberth’s trend of sea surface temperatures which SkS so kindly published http://climate-change-theory.com/seasurface.jpg

    Note also this plot which is the inverted sum of scalar angular momentum of the Sun and 9 planets. It shows a 934 year cycle and the superimposed 60 year cycle. http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg There is a connection between angular momentum and the tidal effect of gravity which varies with the cube of the distance, not the square, as it takes into account the acceleration due to relative motion.

    The truth of the matter is that the “greenhouse effect” is a physical impossibility. If carbon dioxide does anything it would be causing slight cooling (a) by absorbing some IR coming in from the Sun which just might have had frequencies high enough to warm cold areas on Earth (b) helping to radiate away thermal energy gained by diffusion from oxygen and nitrogen molecules which don’t radiate much themselves.

    Then it seems we have climate cycles governed by planetary orbits, primarily those of Jupiter and Saturn which have a resonance cycle of 59.6 years. Jupiter’s eccentricity may govern the long term 900 to 1000 year cycle.

  3. It’s curious that, despite a double-dip La Nina and upwardly revised monthly ‘norms,” the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.

  4. “the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.”

    If by that you mean it hasn’t done it since early this year, then point granted.

  5. So, if the”actual measured whole-earth-average temperature data” for a 30 year period varies by +/- 0.20 degrees PER MONTH from any sort of “stable” or “average value” (1 year period, 13 month period, 2 year period, whatever period, …)

    then, it is not demonstrably correct that any (and every) temperature record derived from any and all proxies of any and all types or from any and all past reconstructions of climate include this +/- 0.20 measured month-to-month variation?

    That is, regardless of the error bars of the proxy used (errors in dating the exact year and month of the proxy) and errors in reconstructing the pseudo-temperature record derived from that proxy, every past climate reconstruction must start with a 0.2 error bar for each data point.

    And thus, if any past temperature record is used to compare that record against today’s temperature, the change must be greater than 2 std deviations from the “norm” before ay conclusion (about the temperature itself, the effect of the temperature on feather length, beak size, beach height, mating tends of the species, number of the specie, distribution of the specie, CO2 concentration of the sample, hurricane intensity, snow fall record, glacier length, or whatever).

    True? From this very definitive plot of the earth’s so-called average temperature, can you pick the “exact average temperature” for example of 1984? Of 1992? Of 1998? Or of 2005 – without including the month-to-month changes in temperatures in that year?

  6. Note that the net increase in Dr Spencer’s curved trend line is 0.28 degrees C in the 33 years of accurate satellite measurements, 1979 to 2011 inclusive. This is 0.85 degrees C per century which is in keeping with the long-term growth rate since the Little Ice Age, thus showing absolutely no increase in the rate which could be attributed to industrialisation.

    Using Scafetta’s cycles I expect to see slight cooling until 2028 (maybe 0.1 to 0.2 degrees) then warming of about 0.4 to 0.5 degrees from 2028 to 2058. That 2058 60-year maximum may also be the long-term maximum in the 900 to 1000 year cycle, meaning that cooling would then set in for the next 450 years.

  7. sky says:
    January 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm
    It’s curious that, despite a double-dip La Nina and upwardly revised monthly ‘norms,” the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    sky, I just hope it does not get lower.I’m already freezing where I am now and I have already exhausted my central heating budget for this winter, winter having started 3 weeks before normal.
    I miss global warming.

  8. tim in vermont says:
    January 3, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    If you wnt to take a guess at GISS, use this formula where Time is the number of months since 1979

    GISS = 0.1656 + 0.6833*RSS + 0.0005592*Time

    Arrived at after ten mins with the coolest app I have seen in a long time.

    http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa

    ================================================
    You talked me into it. I’m playing with it now. It is the coolest!

  9. tim in vermont says:
    January 3, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    “Arrived at after ten mins with the coolest app I have seen in a long time.
    http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa

    Tim, Thanks, that is a cool app!

    So we have a +0.13 C anomaly since satellite records in 1979. Reminds me of Dr Lindzen on the GATA and I loosely paraphrase: “Sometimes it goes up a little, sometimes down a little and sometimes does just about nothing at all.”

    Crisis?
    Pfft!

  10. Sky– fair point. But what is your point? The UAH database, one of the few reliable temp databases, and it only goes back 32 years, shows anomolies in TENTHs of a degree centigrade. And the UAH plot is suspiciously begining to look much like a sine wave. Time will tell about that. In the meantime, NO evidence of CATASTROPHIC AGW. That what the skeptics rightly point to. If it’s not in the data, it doesn’t exist.

  11. So what’d all of 2011 end up at compared to previous years?

    It’ll be interesting to see where the next extended non-La Nina/non-El Nino period goes to. I have a suspicion it will be right back around the 2002-2008 relatively flat period.

    But make no mistake –it’s far more of a problem for the AGWers that the “inexorable increase” of their models has flat-lined for a decade or more than it is for the skeptics and luke-warmers that we’ve not had a prolonged down turn. The AGWers are left with “return with a VENGEANCE!” ghost stories like yet another Friday the 13th movie sequel.

    What are they going to argue? The natural variability that they insist doesn’t exist? Fine, admit it exists, and then tell us how you intend to remove it from the back period as well.

  12. According to the Very Preliminary Sea Surface Temperatures for December 2011, Global Sea Surface Temperatures dropped almost 0.05 Deg C in December:

    The graph is from the recent preliminary update:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/very-preliminary-december-2011-sst-anomaly-update/

    But based on the rebound of the weekly global data over the past few weeks, the monthly drop in the Global SST will likely settle out at around 0.04 deg C for December, which is still a reasonable drop.

  13. One one of the MSM channelsthis morning, they passed off 2011 as the “equal tenth warmest”
    globull temperature.

  14. Thanks Dr. Spencer. I read this with relief; 3 months in a row with no global cooling, which would be deadly. I, for one, do not mind warming!

    It seems like additional CO2 has little warming effect, but the Sun seems to be protecting us from the chilling stars ;-)
    (Thanks Dr. Svensmark)

  15. I kind of wish that curve weren’t there. It really has little meaning, and even less so for the future.

  16. To Dr. Roy Spencer (or anybody else who can answer these 2 questions).

    1) Does the satellite data include both the North Pole and South Pole temperature readings?
    2) If the answer to 1 is yes, does James Hansen uses this information when he creates his global warming maps that show massive warming in the Arctic?

    (I’m curious as to where he gets his temperature data from since there aren’t a whole lot of temp sensors in the Arctic).

  17. kramer says:
    January 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    1) Does the satellite data include both the North Pole and South Pole temperature readings?

    Doh!… I just went back to the home page and saw the next article on the UAH satellite data in the Antarctic… My bad.

    I still would like to know where Hansen gets his temperature data he uses to plot his Arctic temperatures…

  18. Apologies to some above,

    Roy is correct, you definitely should not read anything into the 3rd order polynomial fit – apparent lessening of warming in recent years – this is purely an artifact of the shape of 3rd order polynomials.

    1st order is a straight line.
    2nd order is a parabola.
    3rd order, at the extremes, starts/ends highly negative/postive and finishes highly positive/negative (the opposite) with a mirrored ‘flip’ around the centre.

    You can’t get a sine wave from a third order polynomial and you should not ‘anticipate’ a cyclical temperature signal from the ‘fit’ shown.

    Roy reproduces the 3rd order ‘fit’ every month, albeit with the caveat. I have to say I’m not happy with it being there – it is ‘suggestive’ of a characteristic that is certainly bogus- the other side pull these sort of tricks, we don’t need to.

    Stick with linear trends.

  19. Another thrilling installment! I’m already on tenterhooks waiting for next month. Will it go up a little bit? Will it go down a little bit? Can I wait a whole 31 days to find out?

    And that line… oh, the entertainment value.

  20. “The truth of the matter is that the “greenhouse effect” is a physical impossibility”

    You are 150 years out of date. That you are not openly laughed at here for saying such a thing only shows what low standards of “science” are maintained here.

  21. GSW It is just as fallacious to assume a linear trend rather than any kind of curve when it comes to climate. Scafetta* has put forward a cogent argument that overlapping climate cycles of various periodicity (some dominating such as 60 year and 900 to 1000 year) do in fact correlate well with climate and can be used to predict such because they appear to relate to planetary orbits. Planetary orbits are likely to impose approximate overlapping sinusoidal trends. My point is that you should take into account other known information when fitting trends.

    Hence, given this background information, I suggest that it is indeed more appropriate to fit perhaps a sine curve which would look similar to Spencer’s curve. In any event, even a linear trend shows only about 0.1 degree per decade for those 33 years I think you would agree.

    * http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/

  22. kramer says:
    January 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    To Dr. Roy Spencer (or anybody else who can answer these 2 questions).

    1) Does the satellite data include both the North Pole and South Pole temperature readings?
    2) If the answer to 1 is yes, does James Hansen uses this information when he creates his global warming maps that show massive warming in the Arctic?

    (I’m curious as to where he gets his temperature data from since there aren’t a whole lot of temp sensors in the Arctic).
    ================================================
    Kramer, I’m not an authority, but my understanding is no to number 1, but gets close. However, relating to the previous post, I recall Dr. Christy cautioning on the use of sat data above a certain northern latitude. (80°?) As to Hansen, he uses either a red or pink crayon, and extrapolates and interpolates numbers…… mostly from the GHCN, using land based temp reading.

    I’ll look for the Christy statement, as I recall, it was here that he made that statement.

  23. My memory may be going, but its still better than ok. Here’s Dr. Christy’s words……

    As the spacecraft rolls over the pole it does so at an inclined orbit so that the highest nadir latitude is about 82 deg with the scanner looking out a bit closer to the pole. Since we apply the scan line data mostly to the nadir area directly below the satellite, the actual data only go to about 83 deg. In the gridded data I interpolate over the pole, but I wouldn’t trust the data too much beyond 85 deg.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/

  24. We may be in a La Niña based on ocean temperatures but I’m not sure this is a normal one. The SOI has been fairly quiet compared to what it could be. As such I don’t think there’s a huge pile of warm waters in the PWP. I have no idea what this might mean. Has anyone seen any discussion of this anomaly?

  25. Alan Statham says:
    January 3, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    “That you are not openly laughed at here for saying such a thing only shows what low standards of “science” are maintained here.”
    ============================================================
    No, it simply shows that most here aren’t as boorish as others are willing to display. And, if anything, its says volumes to your scientific knowledge. You can make snide comments but you can’t respond to the two very simple statements he/she made? And then you snark about the standards here? phhttt.

  26. Alex;
    Save up to 40% on heating/cooling by using a small fan in the corner with the flow directed or bounced up to the ceiling. Forces mixture of cool floor and warm ceiling air, and vastly improves comfort levels. The architectural version is a hollow corner column with openings top and bottom and a small internal fan, but the DIY version works fine; I’ve used it non-stop for over a decade.

  27. http://climate-change-theory.com says:
    January 3, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    GSW It is just as fallacious to assume a linear trend rather than any kind of curve when it comes to climate.
    ===============================================
    CCT, many use a linear trend to note what has and is happening, not what will happen. There’s a huge difference between using a linear trend line for clarity vs using it as some sort of predictive mechanism. Fact is, no one really uses R² for predictive purposes.

  28. James Re “Fact is, no one really uses R² for predictive purposes.”
    My only comment is that Nicola Scafetta appears to use some cyclic trend (presumably a sinusoidal fit) for predictive purposes – apparently with good accuracy …he says:
    “An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations.”
    This, I believe, will become “standard” in the future for long-term climate predictions.

  29. tim in vermont says:
    January 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    “the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.”
    ————————–
    There is a data point in early 1983 that is hotter than the last 2 months, some 28 years hence.
    Cherry picking is fun, but I also stated a fact.

  30. Richard M says:
    January 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    We may be in a La Niña based on ocean temperatures but I’m not sure this is a normal one. The SOI has been fairly quiet compared to what it could be. As such I don’t think there’s a huge pile of warm waters in the PWP. I have no idea what this might mean. Has anyone seen any discussion of this anomaly?
    ———
    As has been pointed out numerous times, the measurement of SST’s during ENSO cycles in general tells out only how much net energy is leaving or remaining in the surface layer of the oceans, and in general, more net energy is stored in the ocean during a La Nina. If we are measuring anomalous heat at the surface of the ocean that is a sure sign that the atmosphere is about to get warmer as that heat being measured is being transferred from ocean to atmosphere. Though of course, skeptics are quick to find all sorts of reasons why Ocean Heat Content estimates must be inaccurate, in fact they are the best metric for really seeing what the true energy being stored in the upper layers of the ocean is doing. It goes up during most La Nina’s, and this latest one is no exception. In general the oceans have given up less energy than they’ve taken up over the past 30 years or so– meaning that El Ninos have not released as much energy as has been stored during La Nina’s.

    Also one comment about Dr. Spencer’s “entertaining” 3rd Order Polynomial Fit. It truly does of course mean nothing at all, and I suspect, in the next few years, if Dr. Spencer retains it, it will be even more than obvious that it means nothing.The current peak in the 3rd order polynomical fit is gettting a bit “long in the tooth” (i.e flattening), and the next move in the 3rd order polynomical, as the current La Nina fades and some of that energy is released back to the atmosphere, could be up.

  31. http://climate-change-theory.com says:
    January 3, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    James Re “Fact is, no one really uses R² for predictive purposes.”

    Well, James Hansen – he of NASA-GISS “fame” and to the media’s democrat-socialist party leading “authority” on CAGW – claims his mid-1980’s paper on temperature trends allows him to extrapolate temperatures over a 1200 km distance based on HIS single paper’s 0.44 r^2 calculated value…..

  32. kramer says:
    … (I’m curious as to where he gets his temperature data from since there aren’t a whole lot of temp sensors in the Arctic).

    1.   Gather available data
    2.   Homogenize
    3.   Adjust for proper slope
    4.   Extrapolate

    GSW says:
    … You can’t get a sine wave from a third order polynomial and you should not ‘anticipate’ a cyclical temperature signal from the ‘fit’ shown.

    Still looks like a 3rd order polynomial sine wave with a 60 year period.

  33. R. Gates says – “Ocean Heat Content … goes up during most La Nina’s, and this latest one is no exception.”

    So, given that September 2011 values were about the same as those in 1963* we can expect a decline in (so-called) OHC when we get past the current La Niña – that’s good!

  34. kramer says: I still would like to know where Hansen gets his temperature data he uses to plot his Arctic temperatures…

    It is made up from a few (a VERY few) land stations up to 1200 km away from that cell. It is entirely a work of mathematical fiction based on something they call “The Reference Station Method”, that has been “pal reviewed” in a very narrow set of conditions, then applied in far broader context, and recursively, with ever less ‘related’ stations.

    I’ve read (and run) the code.

  35. @ E.M Smith..

    Seeing you have seen the code, and run it, do you have any guesstimate of the probable error range…. (I’m thinking +/- 15 C or even more)?

    Is that related to same one mentioned above, with an R2 = 0.44 ? (ie basically useless)

  36. Oh, and please everyone.. ignore the 3rd order polynomial, its just a pretty curve, and totally meaningless. (sort of like straight lines are meaningless wrt climate.).

  37. ““the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.”
    ————————–
    There is a data point in early 1983 that is hotter than the last 2 months, some 28 years hence.
    Cherry picking is fun, but I also stated a fact.”

    Sometimes these threads are like a game of telephone. My argument was with the word “stubbornly.”

  38. So where does that put 2011 historically? I haven’t seen any news articles about it being the Xth warmest year so it can’t have been too bad. I can tell from the chart above that every month of 2011 was cooler than its respective month in 2010. But I’m still half expecting to come across an article talking about how this was still a warmer than average year and how all of the Y warmest years have occurred in the last Y years.

  39. For all the naysaying, claims of meaninglessness or entertainingness, etc., made for it above … that 3rd order polynomial fit gets to look a better fit with every passing month. Even if it should “really” be a 60-year sine wave.

  40. http://climate-change-theory.com says:
    January 3, 2012 at 11:18 pm
    R. Gates says – “Ocean Heat Content … goes up during most La Nina’s, and this latest one is no exception.”

    So, given that September 2011 values were about the same as those in 1963* we can expect a decline in (so-called) OHC when we get past the current La Niña.
    ——
    Not likely. The longer- term trend seems to be that the oceans are simply not releasing as much energy during El Ninos as they are taking up during La Ninas cycles. Given that the current cool phase of the PDO favors more La Nina episodes versus El Nino, the oceans don’t seem primed anytime soon to be suddenly releasing all this heat. Some of the energy is of course released during El Ninos, and will be during the next one, but no where close to the kind of additional heat content that has been added over the past 30+ years.

  41. R. Gates says:
    January 3, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    In general the oceans have given up less energy than they’ve taken up over the past 30 years or so–

    Sufficient data do not exist do draw that conclusion. We don’t have one decade of ocean heat content data, let alone three.

    The current peak in the 3rd order polynomical fit is gettting a bit “long in the tooth” (i.e flattening), and the next move in the 3rd order polynomical, as the current La Nina fades and some of that energy is released back to the atmosphere, could be up.

    Uh, when a third order polynomial peak “flattens”, it is approaching an inflection point, and the trend is about to head the other way. You’re better off with the “that third order polynomial fit doesn’t mean anything” tune from your “whistling in the dark” repertoire.

  42. RE: 3rd Order Polynomials.

    Just for “entertainment value”, I fit third order polynomials to the data, starting at the beginning (1979) and going to various points. I seem to have lost the file, but I remember the basic results:

    Stop in 1998 (right after the big peak): the current predicted anomaly would be +3.6 K
    Stop in 2000 (after the big dip): the current predicted anomaly would be -0.1 K

    In fact, if you stop after pretty much any major dip or bump, the trend-line changes noticeably. Even fairly recent cubic fits (2008+) result in very noticeable changes in the predictions now (and even more so into the future).

    Over-fitting noisy data like this with a high order polynomial is indeed nothing but “entertainment value”.

  43. sky says:
    January 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    It’s curious that, despite a double-dip La Nina and upwardly revised monthly ‘norms,” the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.

    It is curious that, despite claims of “accelerating warming” and “tipping points of no return from certain doom”, the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to rise significantly any at all above where it was nearly fifteen years ago.

  44. The average temperature record is a sine wave for every day, and every year.
    Should I be surprised to see longer sign waves in the average, for longer temperature records?
    When science was more about observation, and less about “generating an emotional respose to get grant money”, the common wisdom was, there was a cyclical nature to the physical world. There is not much money, in common wisdom, and maybe that is why it is correct so often.

  45. The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.

    Whoa, you know Excel? I know a certain climate scientist that needs a few lessons!

  46. Tim Folkerts says:
    January 4, 2012 at 7:51 am

    “RE: 3rd Order Polynomials.

    Over-fitting noisy data like this with a high order polynomial is indeed nothing but entertainment value”.

    And nevertheless, the pattern-recognision system in my brain did react……but, alas, probably just an evolutionary thing….

  47. Uh, when a third order polynomial peak “flattens”, it is approaching an inflection point, and the trend is about to head the other way.
    ____
    Nope…it only might be headed “the other way”. It is a fit to the data, not a prediction that the trend is about to do anything. It could just as well deflect higher as lower. It has no predictive value, but is a fit to the data after the fact. As Dr. Spencer points out…”entertainment” only…so apparently he is given to entertaining us. Seems to be a common theme among scientists these days….

  48. „The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.”

    I agree.

    Let me say this. One thing is the measurement. An other thing is the interpretation.

    It is obvious – not only from the data from 2009 – that a main frequency is phase coherent in NH and SH. This main frequency can be interpreted with the solar synodic tide function of the couple Mercury/Earth which is superimposed by three or more other solar synodic tide functions, as a simple comparison with astronomical data shows:

    Because of the well known ocean and atmosphere oscillations on the globe the temp data are superimposed by these frequencies (Chandler, QBO, ENSO [4:2:1]). This both leads to the complicated temperature function of the data.

    That this interpretation is valid one can see fitting the solar synodic tide function strength of 11 couples in our solar system in comparison with the hadcrut data:

    A third validity is the phase coherence of the frequency, which is superimposed to the sea level data from Colorado University if one subtract the increasing linear function from the data:

    The general different point is, after fitting the strength of the tide functions the astronomical data can be well used for the prediction of global climate for the next 1000 years, because the NASA ephemrides are precise for that days.

    But very Yes, without the high resolution temperature satellite data from Dr. R. Spencer there wouldn’t precise climate simulation possible. Great Thanks.

    V.

  49. The 3 month lag with respect to the ENSO means that UAH Temperatures in December (+0.127C) are responding to the mild -0.74C Nino 3.4 index of September.

    The last time the Nino 3.4 was in this range was June 2010 when it was -0.65C. The 3 month lag means the comparable UAH Temperature number is September 2010 when it was +0.477C.

    The Nino 3.4 index will reach its low point around late-January at about -1.25C so we will have further cooling over the next four months at least.

    Other issues developing is that the AMO has gone negative now and the Atlantic Nino (the Atlantic’s version of the ENSO) has gone strongly negative and this usually leads to further declines in the AMO. So the paused downspike will resume in short order (but then I said that last month as well).

  50. Volker Doorman’s post is particularly interesting and in line with Scafetta’s analysis of correlations between climate and planetary orbits. The correlation between the total tidal gravitational force of the planets and both temperatures and sea levels appears strong. We can test sea levels against the predictions of falls until March 2012, then rises to a plateau between May and November, followed by falls from December this year.

  51. “Uh, when a third order polynomial peak “flattens”, it is approaching an inflection point,”

    No, the point of inflection of the given curve is around 1996, (where it changes from positive curvature to negative curvature)

    The terminology you are looking for is “stationary point”. The maximum point, where the slope of the line is zero, about 2010.

    If you go further to the right, the 3rd order curve will start to dip rapidly, which hopefully will not be the case. !

  52. Just a thought from a dedicated skeptic. For a decade now the CAGW clique have been frustrated by the fact that the actual temp data doesn’t fit the projections of their ‘climate models’ in which the place their religious belief. They are certain they ‘understand’the physics of CO2 and thus they are confident their models will predict future temps. Some skeptics are also certain they understand smaller climate phenomenon, the ENSO, AO, SSTs, La Nina cycles, etc and based on that knowledge they are certain of being able to make seasonal predictions. I tend to believe in much of this– Joe Bastardi is paid fees by comodities traders for weather pattern predictions for futures trading. There was a consensus in this group that the Upper Midwest USA and central canada would see a brutally cold December and the mid atlantic to maritme Canada would see average temps and very stormy conditions. Hasn’t happened; the Greenland block never developed and NA has had a placid, dry and mild december/early January. Is the “climate” a chaotic system that can’t be predicted with anyone’s model?


  53. NK says:
    January 5, 2012 at 5:57 am
    … They are certain they ‘understand’ the physics of CO2 and thus they are confident their models will predict future temps. … Some skeptics are also certain they understand smaller climate phenomenon, the ENSO, AO, SSTs, La Nina cycles, etc and based on that knowledge they are certain of being able to make seasonal predictions. … Is the “climate” a chaotic system that can’t be predicted with anyone’s model?”

    I only can speak for myself (I have done big finite element method {FEM} heat current models with fast streaming fluids) . I think, it is not possible to mix the world of climate politics with the world of physics. In my point of view the cycles you have mentioned are mostly not elements of physics but social defined conventions; SSTs as an exception can be used in a physical model. A physical model of thermodynamics is using a heat current, a heat source, a heat resistance and heat impedances like oceans or the atmosphere. If this would be done well, an average global temperature as a function of time must fit with the reconstructed or measured temperature spectra. After this one can make local printouts depending on the locals seasons. It can be imagined that such model must be supplied with a time function of the heat power load. And this needs knowledge of the physics of the heat source (What is the heat source?). If we take the well known reconstructed global temperature spectra for real, we have to find out physical processes, which result in the global temperatures from the heat current floating from warm to cold. To my knowledge today there is no known varying physical process that leads to the known reconstructed global temperatures. If there would be knowledge it would be possible to simulate the reconstructed global temperatures. The term chaotic means that the scientist is not able to simulate a physical process, but it doesn’t mean that the nature of climate is chaotic. There are serious hints that the global temperature function of the Earth has a connection to the motion of the planets, and because the motion of the planets is precisely known for about 1000 years ahead, it is not out of the question of physics that it is possible in general to calculate the global temperatures for those days.

    A word to politics. Politics can ask climate science whether they do understand the nature of climate as a physical process, or whether they do not understand the nature of climate. If climate science claims understanding, then the have it to show by physics laws simulations of the real complex reconstructed global temperature spectra. Otherwise they have to say, sorry we don’t know. To my knowledge there is no published paper available yet in that one can find such a simulation of physical processes for the last 2000 years.

    V.

  54. Volker, read my book: Das Ende der globalen Ewaermung, Berechnung des Klimawandels …all transparently for everyone calculated…all your questions answered….about literature and climate system changes…. only 12,90 E , bei Amazon.de … JS

  55. “”””” tim in vermont says:

    January 3, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    I should add that I smoothed the input data for the forumla above. “””””

    So you admit that you fudged the data before coming up with a theoretical model for it ??

    I thought the problem was to come up with an equation that could predict what will happen in the future.

    So just what is your prediction; excuse me, that is projection for the future climate of the planet.

  56. “”””” kwik says:

    January 4, 2012 at 11:45 am

    Tim Folkerts says:
    January 4, 2012 at 7:51 am

    “RE: 3rd Order Polynomials.

    Over-fitting noisy data like this with a high order polynomial is indeed nothing but entertainment value”. “””””

    Well faced with real data as “noisy” as this, nobody would call a third order polynomial a “high order polynomial”. Maybe a 12th order polynomial would be “high order”.

    By the way; that ISN’T noise; it is REAL data., the third order polynomial IS noise.

  57. “”””” Mike McMillan says:

    January 3, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    kramer says:
    … (I’m curious as to where he gets his temperature data from since there aren’t a whole lot of temp sensors in the Arctic).

    1. Gather available data
    2. Homogenize
    3. Adjust for proper slope
    4. Extrapolate

    GSW says:
    … You can’t get a sine wave from a third order polynomial and you should not ‘anticipate’ a cyclical temperature signal from the ‘fit’ shown.

    Still looks like a 3rd order polynomial sine wave with a 60 year period. “””””

    Well a sine wave is certainly not a third order polynomial

  58. “”””” n Statham says:

    January 3, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Itsaying such a thing only shows what low standards of “science” are maintained here. “””””

    Well just in case you think that YOUR favorite text book from which you got all YOUR wisdom, is Biblical truth and beyond reproach; be forewarned; it ain’t necessarily so.
    I have in my hand a Text book on thermodynamics.
    ” An Introduction to Thermal Physics.” by C.J. Adkins
    This is not just any text book and adkins is not just any author.
    Published by Cambridge University Press, as in the UK Cambridge, and the author is a lecturer in Physics, and a fellow ofJesus College, Cambridge; well he was in 1976.

    This copy is from the Hewlett Packard Research Labs Library (and headed back there).
    It is actually a fairly reasonable book and as it says, an Introduction. but turn to page 97 where it so happens the section on the Stefan-Boltzmann law starts.
    the immediately preceding section is actually about GREENHOUSES and figure 6.14 shows a cross section picture of a greenhouse.
    Short wavelength sunligh charges right through the glass roof on the right of the drawing, and impinges on the plants on the tables inside the greenhouse.

    Long wavelength IR emitted from the plants, and other things inside heads towards the glass roof on the left, where it is largely stopped, and mostly reflected, with a small transmitted component..
    As they say, the long wavelength is instercepted by the glass.

    Now everybody above 4-H club knows that green houses simply DO NOT work that way.
    well actually they do. The sunlight does enter, largely unhindered except for its long IR tail, and even that gets through; and the internally emitted LWIR does get intercepted by the roof glass, just as Lecturer author Adkins shows; EXCEPT, it doesn’t reflect, it gets absorbed, and heats the glass, just as the incoming solar IR does, and then the glass inturn radiates LWIR both inside and outside, so about half of the internal IR probably leaks out maybe more.

    As we all know, except for C.J. Adkins, it is the inability of the heated internal air to escape through the roof by convection, that causes the Temperature to rise as far inside the enclosure.
    Well you could make the green house out of opaque material like fiberglass or steel, and it would still get hot inside, even though sunlight could no longer penetrate, to be down converted to LWIR.

    So don’t take for granted, that your favorite text book is above reproach; it surely was well known by 1976 that green houses don’t actually work via the “greenhouse effect” although we know that atmospheric warming surely does to some extent. As to what else is warmed; well that is another matter.

  59. Joachim Seifert says:
    January 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Joachim,
    i have written to this thread because it can be shown, that global climate can be calculated -3000 AD +3000 AD from the real motion of ten planets in high resolution. The time resolution seems to be limited to month because of the solar tide frequency of the fastest synodic couple Mercury/Earth. I have shown this in this graph here, in comparison to the hadcrut 3 data. But it holds also for the whole time span of 6000 yeas (s. graph) .

    You are dealing with one (?) cycle of 790 years. In a comparison with the reconstructed temperatures from A. Moberg et al. and/or E. Zorita et al., you can see that a sinusoidal cycle of 790 years with a maximum in these decades does not fit with the spectra in the pass, solar tide functions does.

    History tells us that there were cold years some 1500 years ago. I think it is understandable that the real motion of ten bodies can tell more details in global climate then one cycle of 790 years.

    The climate code is solved. The global climate can easy be calculated now in high resolution for the next 1000 years similar terrestrial tides.

    V.

  60. I wonder why the monthly widget is not updated
    (to show the December results)
    I also wonder if the widget is changed automatically every month at the sites where it has been introduced?

Comments are closed.