Global Temperature Report: March 2012
- U.S. hits record highs in March,
- Iowa is ‘warmest’ place on Earth
- Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade
March temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.11 C (about 0.20 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.09 C (about 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Tropics: -0.11 C (about 0.20 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30- year average for March.
February temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: -0.11 C below 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: -0.01 C below 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: -0.21 C below 30-year average
Tropics: -0.28 C below 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average
(1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released April 3, 2012:
Compared to seasonal norms, March 2012 was the warmest month on record in the 48 contiguous U.S. states, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Temperatures over the U.S. averaged 2.82 C (almost 5.1° Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in March.
The previous U.S. record warm anomaly in the 33-year satellite temperature record was in November 1999, when temperatures over the U.S. averaged 2.22 C (about 4° F)
warmer than the seasonal norm for November. The next warmest March was in 2007, when temperatures over the U.S. were 2.0 C (about 3.2° F) warmer than normal.
While the long-term climate trend over the U.S. has seen warming at the rate of about 0.21 C (almost 0.38° F) per decade during the past one third of a century, March’s temperature anomaly is just that: an anomaly, Christy said. “We see hot and cold spots over the globe every month, and this was just our turn. A one-time anomaly like this is related to weather rather than climate. Weather systems aligned in March in a way that changed normal circulation patterns and brought more warm air than usual to the continental U.S.”
In fact, the warmest spot on the globe in March (compared to seasonal norms) was northeastern Iowa, where temperatures for the month averaged 6.20 C (about 11.2°
F) warmer than normal. By comparison, the winter (DJF) of 2011-2012 averaged
0.94 C (about 1.7° F) warmer than seasonal norms for the continental U.S.
In recent years March has not typically seen temperature extremes over the U.S. The March 2011 temperature for the “lower 48” was at the seasonal norm. The coolest spot on Earth in March 2012 was northwestern Alaska, where temperatures averaged 3.89 C (7.0° F) colder than normal.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
The processed temperature data is available on-line at: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center
(ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly
temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Well, the warming trend holds on. Would I be a Wall Street broker, I´d say, the temperature bounced off the lower boundary of the up-trend channel.
Strong buy.
So,I go to Dr. Spencer’s web site and find that you scoped him. Well done. Poor guy must have fallen asleep at the switch.
Sitting in my office in Sheffield, England, watching a blizzard cover the grass that I cut on Sunday whilst wearing shorts and a tee shirt. That’s weather for you ;>))
Just highlights a difference, WUWT can give a headline saying the Global temps are up, never seen Realclimate having a headline of say 15 Years of no Temp increase.
Who would you rather believe.
I posted the preliminary sea surface temperature anomalies for March last Monday:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/very-preliminary-march-2012-sst-anomaly-update/
I should be posting the full update next Monday, the 9th.
That is a big jump in one month.
The assertion that the trend since 1978 is 0.13C per decade is misleading, since at least with respect to this data set, the trend was virtually falt between 1978 and ~1997 and again essentially flat from ~1999 to 2011 with a step change around the super El Nino of 1998.
I wish that people would not seek to place a linear trend through data which does not suggest a linear response.
A pity the satellite record doesn’t go back through the period of US warmth in the 1930s.
That would make quite a difference to the weight given to the significance of recent warmth.
The climate system is only just on the turn. It takes time to get through a peak or a trough.
Here in Virginia, the whole winter was mild, which enabled me to work outside much more than usual. Two years ago snow covered the ground from mid-December to early March, and even after that it was chilly. Last year was dryer but still chilly. I really enjoyed this winter. March was warm here, though with only one high-temperature record that I recall. For me, the warm winter and spring was a godsend; I loved it. Now in April we seem to be cooling down a bit.
Chris Mortimer says:
April 4, 2012 at 12:39 am
Yet another weather pattern so abley predicted by the Wet Office – not! Keep warm, fella! Remember, this isn’t climate, just weather. We had climate warming/disaster/disruption/catastrophe last week when the climate was gorgeous, clear blue skies, sunshine, hot, definitely climate. Today, in Devon, we have weather, it’s cold, dull & overcast! 🙂
On the map here they have the east coast of New Zealand in yellow when even Niwa say it was well below avg temps there.
National Climate Summary – March 2012: Continuing cool
Temperatures: Well below average for the south and east of the South Island, also Wellington, Wairarapa, southern Hawkes Bay, Central Plateau. Below average elsewhere, except for near average temperatures in Westland and Fiordland.
Rainfall: Double March normal for Northland, north Auckland, Gisborne, southern Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa. Wet for most other regions of the North Island, also Kaikoura, north Canterbury and Otago. In contrast, rather dry for West Coast, Fiordland, Nelson City, Christchurch, south Canterbury, between Wanganui and Palmerston North, and around Taupo.
Soil moisture levels: Well above normal for much of the North Island and Otago, but closer to normal elsewhere. Drier than usual Wanganui to Palmerston North.
Sunshine: Very cloudy over the north and east of North Island, as well as Nelson/Marlborough. Extremely sunny for Otago and Southland.
Mean temperatures for March were well below average (more than 1.2°C below average) for much of the south and east of the South Island, as well as Wellington, the Wairarapa, southern Hawkes Bay, and the Central Plateau. Elsewhere, March temperatures were generally below average (between 0.5°C and 1.2°C below average), with the exceptions of Westland and Fiordland, where near average temperatures were experienced (within 0.5°C of average). The nation-wide average temperature in March was 14.6°C (1.2°C below the 1971–2000 March average), using NIWA’s seven-station temperature series which begins in 1909.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/climate-summary-for-march-2012
A 30 year average is frankly an irrelevant metric. As are most averages.
alex says:
April 4, 2012 at 12:34 am
“Well, the warming trend holds on. Would I be a Wall Street broker, I´d say, the temperature bounced off the lower boundary of the up-trend channel.
Strong buy.”
That’s why you and the other warmists will lose their shirts.
Well, the warming trend holds on. Would I be a Wall Street broker, I´d say, the temperature bounced off the lower boundary of the up-trend channel.
And like most Wall Street brokers you would be reading patterns into effectively random movements.
There may be a long term trend, but “bounced off the lower boundary of the up-trend channel” is flannel for “I’m making up a story from little information”.
@alex & DirkH:
Well, for the last several years I have paid my bill by trading stocks (and bonds and ETFs).
When I look at that chart I think “negative indicator”. It looks like an inverse of the PDO phase and the opposite of west coast temperatures. We had warming until about 1998 (where we had a warm spike AND this graph has an up spike; interesting that) but it’s been cooling since (and so far the last two years have been quite cool / cold; even now with the East Coast being warmed by tropical air sucked north (to dump it’s heat to the sky) the West Coast has been under snow, rain, and cold in the counterflow southward.
Furthermore, even if the ‘bet’ were on this graph directly, the end shows ‘lower highs and lower lows’ so the recent bump up is weakend and trending to flat / down. No Way I’d “go long” that chart. Better bet is to ‘swing trade’ the ripples. Short at the 0.3 point, cover at zero. IFF it goes negative (i.e. prior long wave cycle returns) go long at -0.3, cover at zero. Trend trading an oscillating flat line with two frequencies in it will get you flat broke pronto.
This is a flat trend with a long period cycle about 60 years (though longer graph needed to be sure and see a whole cycle) and a short period about 5 years (but with -/+ a year or two) superimposed on it. Trade the ripple against the zero line and be ready to swap sides when the longer term infection happens.
I’d that the other side of Alex’s market bets any time.
No error or uncertainty quoted. So we don’t know anything really.
RE
alex says:
April 4, 2012 at 12:34 am
“Well, the warming trend holds on. Would I be a Wall Street broker, I´d say, the temperature bounced off the lower boundary of the up-trend channel.
Strong buy.”
———————-
Fitting channels to stock price data (or any other types of non-linear data for that matter eg. planetary temperature data) works just fine – right up until it doesn’t work. In the stock market you might get away with your shirt if you’re stop loss is taken-out successfully. Most people though hang on and hope that the break through the lower channel boundary was a temporary overshoot… and that’s just one of the reason why most people lose money on stocks… best not bet the house on it alex… as someone above implied: linear statistics are very poor at picking turning points…
For comparison see NASA temperature map for March 1939, here:
http://www.seaclimate.com/c/c1/images/rand/rb/Jan_Jul39/9m3.gif ,
which is still representative for the warm period in the 1930s. That changed to colder conditions very suddenly only few months later; see March 1940:
http://www.seaclimate.com/_ToC/ice-nasa-trend/nasa_imag/0m3.gif
All months between January 1939 and May 1940, see particularly Jan40 and Feb40, here: http://www.seaclimate.com/c/c1/c1.html
It’s been above average here in GA for nearly a year. Last summer was hot, winter was warm and of course March was well above average.
March 2012 was the warmest month on record in the 48 contiguous U.S. states
Should that read “the warmest March on record” ?
We can all see where the most hot air is!
@- richard verney says: April 4, 2012 at 1:44 am
“I wish that people would not seek to place a linear trend through data which does not suggest a linear response.”
While the data may not suggest a linear trend, the overall rise in temperature requires an addition of extra energy to the climate system.
The only known source of additional energy does follow a linear trend.
The discrepency is usually explained as the interannual varations (mainly ENSO) swamping the small linear trend.
Just as the daily variations have swamped the small rising temperature trend towards Summer in the N Hemisphere from the smooth rise in solar input so that in the UK LAST week was much warmer than this/next week.
So much for the ‘seasonal’ theory of increased solar input warming the hemisphere! -grin-
Very deep low pressure system gave very stormy weather over Japan last night.
High winds and snow today. Cherry blossom is late here this year as well.
Could someone please pass some of that heat over to Japan?
Please?!
@- JohnH says: April 4, 2012 at 1:20 am
“Just highlights a difference, WUWT can give a headline saying the Global temps are up, never seen Realclimate having a headline of say 15 Years of no Temp increase.”
That is probably because it would be inaccurate. Whatever temperature metric you use, GISS, UAH, HADCRU, BEST, there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996/to:2011/trend
@-“Who would you rather believe.”
But its not a question of a prefered belief, its a matter of objective data.
“Temperatures over the U.S. averaged 2.82 C (almost 5.1° Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in March.”
Since when has average been the same thing as normal?!
If the temperature was, by chance, the same as the 30 year mean for March I that would be an improbably coincidence, not “normal”.
In a something as chaotic as whether deviation from the mean is NORMAL , not the opposite.
😉
I’m not ure what other posters are lookinga at but the graph above clearly shows a continuing warming trend. Fluctuations in the graph are the result of ENSO events, i.e. La Nina (cooling) and El Nino (warming). For the past several months La Nina (cooling phase) has been dominant. This has resulted in a negative (blue) anomalies in Jan & Feb earlier this year. But if you compare these anomalies with those during other La Nina periods such as in the mid-1980s there is a big difference. It’s clear that each La Nina period is warmer than the previous one. The same is true for El Nino periods – the one exception being the paricularly intense 1997/98 El Nino.
While ENSO muddies the waters a bit, there is undoubtedly a significant underlying warming trend. Whether this warming is a cause for concern or even whether it is related to ghg increases is a separate argument.
If you want to bet on how warm this year (or March-May, or multiple years) will be, head over to Intrade, at https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20
0.1 of a degree, I’m melting, I’m melting, hang on no I’m not, it’s actually snowing outside here in the North of England…
@Alan the Brit:
That’s not just any old weather; that’s English weather.
izen says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:42 am
@- richard verney says: April 4, 2012 at 1:44 am
“I wish that people would not seek to place a linear trend through data which does not suggest a linear response.”
While the data may not suggest a linear trend, the overall rise in temperature requires an addition of extra energy to the climate system.
The only known source of additional energy does follow a linear trend.
The discrepency is usually explained as the interannual varations (mainly ENSO) swamping the small linear trend.
Just to illustrate izen’s point consider this:
CO2 concentrations in 1997 were 363.71 ppm
CO2 concentrations in 2011 were 391.57 ppm
Over the period 1997-2011 CO2 forcing would be ~0.4 w/m2. Even using the IPCC’s quoted sensitivity 3 deg per CO2 doubling we would still only expect an increase of ~0.3 deg. Now, note from the above graph that transition from El Nino to La Nina (e.g 2010-2011) is of the order of 0.5 deg then it’s easy to see how short term fluctuations can mask warming over relatively short periods.
The significance of the March anomaly is that it’s positive yet we are still in a La Nina phase.
izen says: But its not a question of a prefered belief, its a matter of objective data.
Try looking at the derivative (rate of change) of temperature at WFT.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2011/derivative/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2011/derivative/trend
You will see warming around the beginning of your 1996-2010 period. It crosses zero (no warming) in around 2004 and shows cooling since. Note the scale +0.008 to -0.008 !
Now flip off the OLS selector on one of the plots to see all the data with the OLS linear fit.
Positive dT/dt is warming, negative is cooling.
+ve slope is accelerated warming; -ve is accelerating cooling.
It’s damn near flat and zero ie NO WARMING .
P. Solar says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:31 am
> March 2012 was the warmest month on record in the 48 contiguous U.S. states
> Should that read “the warmest March on record” ?
No, but reading it as “the March 2012 temperature anomaly was the highest on record…” would. Note the article goes on to refer to the November 1999 anomaly as the old warmest month.
My compliments to UAH for not using the “Plate Carrée” projection (lat/long cartesian plot that we usually see here) and using the Mollweide Projection. (Personally I’d prefer a sinusoidal projection because it’s easier to manipulate, but visually Mollweide wins.)
http://www.quadibloc.com/maps/mcy0104.htm
http://www.quadibloc.com/maps/mps0404.htm
http://www.quadibloc.com/maps/mps0401.htm
Oh and any one who thinks we see Mercator projections here – a Mercator projection that includes the poles is infinitely tall! Climate Scientists and fakers don’t use mercator projections!
http://www.quadibloc.com/maps/mcy0101.htm
Global Temperature Report: March 2012
March temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.11 C above 30-year average for March.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.13 C above 30-year average for March.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.09 C above 30-year average for March.
Tropics: -0.11 below 30- year average for March.
Yes.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_4_rghi11.gif
It’s no trick, it’s just science.
V.
John Finn…… The warming is natural. The rate of change is no different now than what it was 150 years ago, according to the thermometer record at the start of this natural warming phase… and if paleotemperature proxies can be believed, rates of temperature change both up and down have been faster in the past, so this current warming rate is not alarming…. There is nothing to suggest anything unusual is occurring.
Welcome to Planet Wobegon, where all the science is strong, all the tree rings good looking and all the temperatures are above average.
If it’s a cooler than normal US it’s just the weather and in any case the US is only a small part of the globe. If it’s warmer than normal then it’s a sign of global warming.
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales begin with a weather forecast:-
Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
Todays rain was our first since March 4th.
No change since 1389 then?
richard verney says:
April 4, 2012 at 1:44 am
the trend was virtually falt between 1978 and ~1997 and again essentially flat from ~1999 to 2011….
You stuffed that one up. The trend since 1999 is actualy GREATER the the trend for the whole data set.(.15 per decade vs .13)
The flat trend you were after was from 2002.
UAH trends
….with a step change around the super El Nino of 1998. I wish that people would not seek to place a linear trend through data which does not suggest a linear response.
Step change my eye!
UAH 1997-1999
The temp anomaly 12 months either side of the 1998 peak were
1997.25 -0.305
………
1998.25 0.668
……….
1999.25 -0.019
Sure the El Nino caused a spike in temperatures, but that was all but gone 12 months later.
Oh, and what was the trend over that 2 year period? .148, marginaly above the overall trend of .134.
OK, guys and gals, here comes the test. We are almost completely out of La Nina. If we go into an El Nino, will temps rise significantly, as they did in 1998 and in 2007? Or, if they do not rise much, does that mean that the currently weaker sun is capable of nullifying the warming effects of an El Nino?
I’m sort of on the edge of my seat….
Down 0.12 in February. What’s it all about, Alfie? It’s like it’s zigging and zagging or something. Either that or nothing much on balance in the last two months. Or the last 15 years.
Happy day’s
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=82425
“In fact, the warmest spot on the globe in March (compared to seasonal norms) was northeastern Iowa, where temperatures for the month averaged 6.20 C (about 11.2°F) warmer than normal.”
“Is this heaven? No, it’s Iowa.”
Video at:
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi459472921/
http://www.totaleclips.com/Player/Bounce.aspx?eclipid=e42917&bitrateid=472&vendorid=102&type=.mp4
Philly had a record warm March in the past 80 years! Except not in in the past 90 years: it was this warm in the early 1920’s.
richard verney
Re: “The assertion that the trend since 1978 is 0.13C per decade is misleading,”
Please do NOT use accuse of moral failures when you provide no evidence for that.
Scientifically, a linear trend (2 parameters) is the simplist model after no change and easiest to compare against the IPCC’s models.
Your step change provides similar to more complex models (2-4 parameters).
Dr. Spencer provides a 13 month centered average and a 3rd order polynomial fit with the caveat:
Compare Scafetta’s natural multicycle model with anthropogenic contribution.
To compare how differing models fit it would help to have both and understanding of the physics behind the models and as full uncertainty information as available for readers to evaluate – especially bias uncertainties where possible. See NIST on uncertainty.
This provides a basis for objectively comparing models without making moral accusations.
The mild winter here in the central Appalachians has been devastating. Unlike most of the last 20 yrs, I actually see a reasonable number of honeybees working early in the season. Also, the most fish in my border stream I’ve seen surviving the winter. Extrapolating that, we’ll be overrun w/honeybees & bluegills/brown trout in just a mere few months!
/sarc, of course
The Northwest certainly did not get this warmth. In fact even April is turning to be cold and wet. In any case, it is typical weather during a El Nina cycle.
“In fact, the warmest spot on the globe in March (compared to seasonal norms) was northeast Iowa….)
They just opened a brand new Native American casino up there. Think there might be a corrolation???
Or is that causation?
I get them confused.
“Strong buy.”
Was a joke, of course!
Yet, there is a well seen upward channel in the temperature and it is still unbroken.
What is the reason – this is another question.
Temperature records in isolated spots are meaningless. Here in Sussex, England last month we wre treated to, apparently, temperatures well into the 20s. My experience was that, yes, in sheltered spots the sun was warm (lovely). However, in the shade the air was blooming CHILLY! And, of course, now it’s even chillier.
Anthea
Ray says:
April 4, 2012 at 7:16 am
The Northwest certainly did not get this warmth. In fact even April is turning to be cold and wet. In any case, it is typical weather during a El Nina cycle.
East of the Cascades experienced one nicely warm day in late February, and 3 or 4 in early March. Cool and cloudy is ongoing and set to continue if the week ahead forecast is consulted. Typical (as mentioned by Ray) but not appreciated.
The map at the top has us right on the -0.5 line — and that seems to be accurate – recognizing that this is lower troposphere data and not surface.
Kevin Cave says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:43 am
Very deep low pressure system gave very stormy weather over Japan last night.
High winds and snow today. Cherry blossom is late here this year as well.
Could someone please pass some of that heat over to Japan?
Please?!
_________________________________________________
It is a nice sunny 70F (21C) here in North Carolina. You want I should ship you some?
Please disregard my comment at 7:19 am. The casino is located in the northwest corner of Iowa.
But then again, maybe there is a cause and effect going on.
Like in Dallas yesterday.
John Finn says:
April 4, 2012 at 4:12 am
“I’m not ure what other posters are lookinga at but the graph above clearly shows a continuing warming trend. “
Looking at the UAH GL temperature data, there are a lot up and downs with different frequencies. Each ‘up’ in temperature is caused by an increased heat source and vice versa. Heat is not coming out od nothing.
There is no term “trend” in sciences, because it has no dimension.
“Fluctuations in the graph are the result of ENSO events, i.e. La Nina (cooling) and El Nino (warming). “
No. ENSO is not an observable in physics, and important – ENSO has no heat source (to show). ENSO is an unexplained frequency phenomenon, where the frequency is not really related to a geometry, but is has harmonic relations to the QBO and to the chandler wobble (1 : 2 : 4) .
V.
We’ve been in that lovely red bull’s eye for all of March, the warmest March in well over a hundred years of record keeping, +9C over average, and it has been great. The whole winter has been well above average in southern Manitoba.
With all of that though there is still ice on all of the large lakes. Not ice that you would want to venture on to though, one poor soul drowned last weekend when his ATV went through while doing some late season ice fishing farther north.
izen says:
That is probably because it would be inaccurate. Whatever temperature metric you use, GISS, UAH, HADCRU, BEST, there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996/to:2011/trend
1996 to 2011? That isnt the last 15 years. Those are some plump cherries, though. Cute trick plotting only the trend line. Including the data in the plot would have shown people that you started your run in the trough before the 98 super nino, and ended it a year before the present – conveniently wiping a very cool year (2011) from the record. When people like you tell lies like that, it doesn’t do your cause any favors.
But its not a question of a prefered belief, its a matter of objective data.
In this case, it is a matter of very subjective fiddling with the data on your part, driven by your preferred belief.
Try returning to the OP’s actual assertion – flat for the last 15 years. That is what you claimed to be addressing. The most recent data in the WFT dataset is from January 2012. Counting back 15 years from that point brings us to January 1997. That is the 15 year period you should have looked at. And you undoubtedly did, but that didn’t show what you wanted it to. So you moved the endpoints until you got the story you wanted to tell instead.
The current 15 year trend in the WFT dataset is 0.03 C per decade, and that tiny little thing is not statistically significant. Nor is it practically significant, being but 1/10 of the mid range IPCC predicted warming. Of course, that lack of significance is quite significant.
David L. Hagen says:
April 4, 2012 at 7:08 am
Scientifically, a linear trend (2 parameters) is the simplist model after no change and easiest to compare against the IPCC’s models.
2 parameter are elements of a math function. Without linking this math function to physical observables it is not science. And a comparison of math functions is not science, too.
“Compare Scafetta’s natural multicycle model with anthropogenic contribution.”
Scafetta’s model is based on pasting few FFT single frequencies of sinusoid shape out of well known temperature proxies.
Natural means all and nothing.
“To compare how differing models fit it would help to have both and understanding of the physics behind the models and as full uncertainty information as available for readers to evaluate – especially bias uncertainties where possible. “
To understand the physics of climate it is first necessary to understand the geometry behind the temperature frequencies in detail. A lot of geometry/frequency functions can be found from astronomical (solar tide) functions and fits well with the observed global temperature spectra.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_4_rghi11.gif
This geometry leads to the – unknown – physical mechanism behind, to recognize.
V.
To put 2012 into perspective, the three anomalies so far are -0.090, -0.112 and +0.108. This gives an average of -0.031. Naturally things will change before the end of the year, but at this point, 2012 would rank 18th warmest on the UAH data set. 2011 was 9th warmest with an average anomaly of 0.153.
Mark R writes, re NZ temperatures :
> temperatures were experienced (within 0.5°C of average). The nation-wide
> average temperature in March was 14.6°C (1.2°C below the 1971–2000 March
> average), using NIWA’s seven-station temperature series which begins in 1909.
As I have pointed out before, the four stations in the South Island are
(near-)coastal … no conclusions whatever can be drawn about trends in
the 95% of the island that make up the remainder. The claim by NIWA
that the “seven station series” is “representative of New Zealand” is risible.
John Finn says:
I’m not ure what other posters are lookinga at but the graph above clearly shows a continuing warming trend.
It most certainly does not.
But if you compare these anomalies with those during other La Nina periods such as in the mid-1980s …
Then you are not looking at a continuing warming trend. You are confusing warm with warming.
While ENSO muddies the waters a bit, there is undoubtedly a significant underlying warming trend.
No, there is not. This isn’t a matter for eyeballing and making shit up. Trends can be calculated. From UAH data, the trend for the last 15 years is effectively flat. There is no continuing warming.
izen says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:50 am
Whatever temperature metric you use, GISS, UAH, HADCRU, BEST, there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
I do not agreee about HadCRUT3. I realize you did not mention the sea surface and RSS, but they also show no warming over 15 years.
Following is the longest period of time (above10 years) where each of the data sets is at least slightly negative (or flat for all practical purposes). NOTE: * There are no February values yet for 2, 5 and 6. Once these are in, I expect AT LEAST one month to be added to each of the times below.
1. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 3 months
2. HadCrut3: since March 1997 or 14 years, 11 months*
3. GISS: since May 2001 or 10 years, 10 months
4. UAH: It never quite reaches a negative value but I expect it to with the March numbers.
5. Combination of the above 4: December 2000 or 11 years, 2 months*
6. Sea surface temperatures: February 1997 or 15 years, 0 months*
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.16/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.91/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.08/trend
P.S. From another source, I know the HadCRUT3 value for February will be about 0.19, which is a further drop from the January value of 0.218, and with that being the case, the sea surface value cannot be too different from a slight drop in its January value. I do not know why the February values are not up yet by April 4. Could Dr. Nicola Scafetta be blamed since he will just use these numbers to find something wrong with the IPCC?
izen says: “While the data may not suggest a linear trend, the overall rise in temperature requires an addition of extra energy to the climate system.
The only known source of additional energy does follow a linear trend.”
The only known source if you ignore all the others!
Differences in solar effects, cloud regimes, ocean current cycles, air exchange cycles all add up to a pretty resounding refutation of your argument from ignorance.
“The trend line is 0.13 c per decade ” this is just a meaningless statistic ,not science, the anomoly is only 0.36 higher than it was 33 years ago(less than 1.00 c per centuary) in 2008 it was colder than it was in 1979.The Earths climate is dynamic and changing and trend lines only model where temperatures will be if nothing changes.Our belief systems lead us to conclude that the global temperature will go up or in the skeptics view down but nothing in this data proves anything about the way future global temperatures will evolve,that is my opinion.
Praise the Lord. Warmth is good. Looking at the low pass filtered UAH curve, an uptick during a down ward portion of the cycle is indeed a good thing. We’ll take whatever little warm spikes we can get, carpe diem.
izen says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:50 am
@- JohnH says: April 4, 2012 at 1:20 am
“Just highlights a difference, WUWT can give a headline saying the Global temps are up, never seen Realclimate having a headline of say 15 Years of no Temp increase.”
That is probably because it would be inaccurate. Whatever temperature metric you use, GISS, UAH, HADCRU, BEST, there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
A linear fit of the UHA GL temperature data – changed by 1000 mK – in temperature in thelast decade of years results in Delta T = +26.5559 [mK] . Knowing that the accuracy of thermometers measuring temperatures of 300000 mK cannot be exact, it is not correct to speak on significance, what ever that means. We do not speak here about statistics; we speak about accuracy and precision. It’s possible that a precision is better than an accuracy because of a calibration process, but these data cannot compared, because there is no accurate temperature reference available.
The very point here is that the physical heat cause of the 600 – 1000 mK oscillations in the global temperature spectra are ignored by claims of increasing temperatures of ~27 mK for the last decade, claimed as ‘statistically significant’.
Science is to respect the whole; science need no personal claims of parts.
V.
John Finn says:
April 4, 2012 at 4:12 am
It’s clear that each La Nina period is warmer than the previous one.
This is true for UAH, but with RSS, you have to go back to 1993 to find a La Nina that is much lower than the present one. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1993
The drop in Hadcru3 since 1998 correlates nicely with the decrease in the rate of sea level rise as plotted in the Climate For You website. Click on ‘sea level rise change’.
http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
Sea Level Rise magnifies the effect of global warming since it is the sum of melting land ice and thermal expansion due to ocean heat gain. The IPCC has predicted acceleration of sea level rise. This is a spectacular fail in my opinion.
@-izen says: April 4, 2012 at 3:50 am
Whatever temperature metric you use…there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend/plot/uah/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend
Izen,
For all four land+sea trends for the last 15 years, two are down two are up. Check it out.
My solar based long range forecast gave a strong warming blast from the second week in March.
Would be curious on what percentage of the area mapped is average, above, and below average.
izen says: “The only known source of additional energy does follow a linear trend.”
If you’re talking CO2, it does not follow a linear trend…it’s logarithmic…each doubling of CO2 increases temperature by X degrees. And saying it’s additional energy is not exactly true either. Saying CO2 is a source of energy would be like saying a capacitor is a source of energy, when it actually just stores energy from another source.
Over the period 1997-2011 CO2 forcing would be ~0.4 w/m2. Even using the IPCC’s quoted sensitivity 3 deg per CO2 doubling we would still only expect an increase of ~0.3 deg. Now, note from the above graph that transition from El Nino to La Nina (e.g 2010-2011) is of the order of 0.5 deg then it’s easy to see how short term fluctuations can mask warming over relatively short periods.
It doesn’t ‘mask’ the warming. ENSO causes more and faster cooling than the IPCC claimed warming effect of CO2.
This is the serious flaw in the CO2 forcing theory. The Earth’s climate can lose heat at a much faster rate than CO2 can warm the climate (based on the IPCC’s claim).
Which is why there is the ‘missing heat’ debate.
JJ says:
April 4, 2012 at 9:08 am
It most certainly does not.
Then you are not looking at a continuing warming trend. You are confusing warm with warming.
No, there is not. This isn’t a matter for eyeballing and making shit up. Trends can be calculated. From UAH data, the trend for the last 15 years is effectively flat. There is no continuing warming.
Addressing the points in your final paragraph
1. Despite what you say there is a significant underlying warming trend. It’s 0.13 deg per decade acccording to Roy Spencer and John Christy.
2. I know trends can be calculated. Spencer & Christy calculated the trend for the complete dataset since 1979.
3. The UAH trend for the last 15 years is not “essentially flat” – it’s ~0.1 deg per decade (I too can calculate trends). This is not signifcantly different from the overall trend so we can’t even say that there is a reduced trend over your cherry-picked last 15 years. This is despite the fact that we’ve had back to back La Ninas during the last 18 months of the 15 year period.
Philip Bradley says:
April 4, 2012 at 2:52 pm
It doesn’t ‘mask’ the warming. ENSO causes more and faster cooling than the IPCC claimed warming effect of CO2.
It masks the the warming as far as temperature readings are concerned. It doesn’t change the earth’s energy balance. ENSO clearly doesn’t cool faster than whatever is causing the earth warm otherwise the earth would be much cooler now than it was 20 years ago.
John Finn says:
“…there is a significant underlying warming trend. It’s 0.13 deg per decade…”
Yes. The [natural] global warming trend goes all the way back to the LIA. That trend began when CO2 was ≈280 ppmv, and has continued along the same trend line. Now CO2 is ≈392 ppm, and the long term trend is still within its long term parameters. It is you who cherry-picks short term fluctuations.
The fact that the planet is still emerging from one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene does not seem to be measurably influenced by CO2. But once a true believer in demon CO2, always a true believer. Isn’t that right?
Werner Brozek says:
April 4, 2012 at 11:14 am
John Finn says:
April 4, 2012 at 4:12 am
It’s clear that each La Nina period is warmer than the previous one.
This is true for UAH, but with RSS, you have to go back to 1993 to find a La Nina that is much lower than the present one.
Actually I thought we were discussing UAH. The title of the post is “UAH Global Temperature anomaly up in March at 0.11°C”. Also I thought UAH was the only trusted dataset. I’m a bit surprised by the number of ‘sceptics’ who now use HadCrut or RSS to demonstrate various points.
John Finn says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Also I thought UAH was the only trusted dataset.
I believe a correction is still in the works since Dr. Spencer said this last month:
“Progress continues on Version 6 of our global temperature dataset, which will have a better adjustment for drift of the satellites through the diurnal cycle, and an improved calibration procedure for the older MSU instruments (pre-1998).”
However while I appreciate your point, I also think it is worth pointing out the situation you describe is not unanimously shown, so under the circumstances, perhaps we need to be more cautious before implementing things that cost a lot of money if there is uncertainty over how bad a situation is.
I guess you got our heat.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml
Averaged over Australia, daytime temperatures were 1.64 °C below average, the third-coolest March on record.
Werner Brozek says: April 4, 2012 at 9:09 am
“do not know why the February values are not up yet by April 4. Could Dr. Nicola Scafetta be blamed since he will just use these numbers to find something wrong with the IPCC?”
I sent the update figure to Anthony last week. Anthony did not updatet the figure yet.
Smokey says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm
John Finn says:
“…there is a significant underlying warming trend. It’s 0.13 deg per decade…”
Yes. The [natural] global warming trend goes all the way back to the LIA. That trend began when CO2 was ≈280 ppmv, and has continued along the same trend line. Now CO2 is ≈392 ppm, and the long term trend is still within its long term parameters
Firstly, I have simply stated it’s still warming. I have not suggested reasons for the warming.
Secondly, you’ve provided some of the most misleading graphs I’ve ever come across. The first link (trend) uses 2 deg increments on the veritcal axis which makes it nigh on impossible to see the detail. Anyone can fit a trend line from the start of the data and suggest that the recent warming is just a continuation of past warming. However it’s clearly not the case. See for example the CET record here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Between 1780 and 1900 the trend is essentially flat. The calculated trend is 0.01 deg per decade while the trend since 1900 is 0.08 deg per decade (i.e. 8 times the 1780-1900 trend ). You then try to claim that this is a natural continuation. You are not being honest.
Thirdly, the UAH trend of 0.13 deg per decade cannot possibly extend back to the LIA (whenever that is) otherwise global temperatures would have been 3 deg lower in the mid 18th century. As well as being dishonest your linked graphs make no sense.
Fourthly, you talk about this vague period called the LIA. Can you clarify the start and end dates of this period. I only ask because according to the CET record (and others), mean temperatures in 1800 were much the same as those in 1900. Did the “recovery” stall for 100 years?
Finally, on the issue of CO2, basic physics suggests that more atmospheric CO2 would result on a warmer world. Most well informed and responsible sceptics, e.g. Jack Barrett, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer etc, accept this. However these sceptics disagree (with the IPCC) on the magnitude (and sign) of the feedback. On balance I tend to agree with them.
Pretty much everyone’s heat. The Hot Blob in Central-Eastern N.A., plus a Mild Blob over the North Sea, are about it for the planet. (Aside, of course, from the systematically corrupted Arctic readings, which looks about 20X larger than it really is in area on projections like this.)
Hmmm what is the +- error on this temp record. Is it less than .22?
I would gladly contribute more taxes to pay for more March’s like 2012. Unfortunately all I would get for my money is propaganda, with a little science sprinkled in. About the same as I am getting now. The difference is now I am getting the “scary” story, instead of the “happy ending” version.
The wonderful effect of global warming on Iowa, “the warmest place on Earth”, can be seen in this live video from ustream!
http://www.ustream.tv/decoraheagles
I’m sure environazis are terrified, as they should be. Cam runs 24/7 with infrared night lights. Enjoy…..(c;]