UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2012: +0.34 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for August (+0.34 °C) was up from July 2012 (+0.28 °C):
Here are the monthly departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2012 1 -0.09 -0.06 -0.12 -0.13
2012 2 -0.11 -0.01 -0.21 -0.27
2012 3 +0.11 +0.13 +0.10 -0.10
2012 4 +0.30 +0.41 +0.19 -0.12
2012 5 +0.29 +0.44 +0.14 +0.03
2012 6 +0.37 +0.54 +0.20 +0.14
2012 7 +0.28 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33
2012 8 +0.34 +0.38 +0.31 +0.26
As a reminder, the most common reason for large month-to-month swings in global average temperature anomalies (departures from normal) is small fluctuations in the rate of convective overturning of the troposphere, discussed here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I posted the preliminary Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature anomaly data for August 2012 yesterday:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/preliminary-august-2012-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-update/
The data won’t be official until Monday Sept 10th
Regards
Looks like it might get cold in 2013. Then again, just a few months left still for the end of the world to happen/sarc.
Needs the standard disclaimer about the polynomial.
“By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for August…”
======================================================
Roy, what sort of average is it actually, is it arithmetic or geometric or median or any other kind of average? And the second question is, can it be rightfully called “global”? You guys did not really measure the temperature really everywhere constantly, did you, so why do you think the sample you have is representative for the whole globe? I guess you believe it is, but who and how proved scientifically that it is so?
Global Warming is “real”.
1/3 of one degree ….. since the baseline was set. In the 1970’s.
So, 1/3 of one degree.
The choice of reference problem?
The warmists consider the temperatures to have started rising due to CO2 to be about 1975. The IPCC hasn’t thought that the human-induced signature could be detectable until the late ’80s. So if we wish to refer to the same start-point as the warmists – which should be our goal, regardless of what we think causes the warming, I’d suggest that the above “normal” for the period of discussion should be about 0.2C cooler. That would make the current UAH global temp anomaly about 0.54C, still far below what the IPCC predict for CO2 warming, but more in keeping with what Hansen goes on about.
However we feel about the debate, we need to keep our numbers referring back to the same place, as the warmists set the rules of this conflict. We say 0.34, they say 0.65 or more. Looks to me like it is a reference point problem as well as a data manipulation problem.
Another thing:
I agree with the appropriateness of a sinusoidal curve to fit the data, as we fundamentally say that sinusoidally-inducing processes of a stellar and AMO/PDO nature are causing the neartime temperature rises. However, prior to 1979 there was both a low time and a decline time from 1945 to 1975 or so. If you take that period into account, the curve in 1979 should be coming up prior to 1979, perhaps to 1980. The curve you are using suggests that prior to 1979 there was a time of higher temperatures, not lower.
A fix of some type is needed – it is not saying that the math of creating this curve is incorrect, but that outside data knowledge should be incorporated to its start point.
Bill says:
Needs the standard disclaimer about the polynomial.
There is nothing standard about disclaimers on fitted trend lines. I had never seen one until I saw one of Spencer’s old graphs. I thought it was odd. Glad he got rid of it.
I suspect the monthly anomalies will vary between 0.5 and -0.5C for about the next 100000 years, so really we need to stop watching this farse and get on with our lives LOL
RACookPE1978 says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:55 am
Global Warming is “real”.
1/3 of one degree ….. since the baseline was set. In the 1970′s.
The mean temperature for the 1981-2010 period is the baseline. The mean temperature for August 2012 is 1/3 of a degree higher than the 1981-2010 August mean temperature.
Needs the standard disclaimer about the polynomial.
Better off removing it.
Global flat-lining continues! Remarkable how little the climate has changed (in either direction) over the past 15 years.
The continuing elevated lower troposphere temperature is due to an enourmous amount of energy having left the ocean and dispersed into the atmosphere over the last four months.
There is a graph in this post which illustrates this well.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/2012-el-nino-looking-unlikely/
JJ says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:12 am
Bill says:
Needs the standard disclaimer about the polynomial.
—-
There is nothing standard about disclaimers on fitted trend lines. I had never seen one until I saw one of Spencer’s old graphs. I thought it was odd. Glad he got rid of it.
————————————
Not sure he did get rid of it.
Looks like an omission.
If anything he might just note how it was produced, and remove the entertainment part, but I don’t think that is the case.
Pure conjecture on my part.
The polynomial fit is just an attempt to “hide the rise” in temperatures, trying to fit one cycle of a trend line, when other longer term data does not support that fit is just dishonest.
u.k.(us) says:
Not sure he did get rid of it. Looks like an omission.
Given that he omitted it last month as well, evidence is mounting that the ommission is by intention. By ‘climate science’ standards, if it is gone next month we will be able to conlcude that the odds of it having happened by accident are greater than the number of stars in the universe.
🙂
There has been a pronounced pattern in the anomaly in the last couple of years, It reaches its maximum in the NH summer and minimum in the NH winter. Curiously the SH and tropical ocean follows the same pattern , although weaker, So its not directly a seasonal effect. Probably ENSO related.
The biggest trend is in the south polar land which continues cooing, especially in the SH winter. That the coldest place on Earth is getting even colder, I find somewhat ominous.
Here are the detailed UAH numbers.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
2012 in Perspective so far on Five Data Sets
2012 started off rather cold but has warmed up since then. So the present rank is not the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give what the ranking would be assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year. I will also indicate what is required for the rest of the year in each case to set a new record.
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.
With the UAH anomaly for August at 0.34, the average for the first eight months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369 + 0.28 + 0.34)/8 = 0.186. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 7th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged the August value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.237 and it would rank 4th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 4 months of the year would need to be 0.91. Since this is way above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the GISS anomaly for July at 0.47, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.34 + 0.40 + 0.47 + 0.55 + 0.66 + 0.56 + 0.47)/7 = 0.493. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.514 and ranked 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.82. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for July at 0.477, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.474 + 0.477 + 0.446)/7 = 0.371. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. This is slightly above the anomaly in 2011 which was at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.796. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for July at 0.386, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.386)/7 = 0.292. This would rank it 11th compared to 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.67. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the RSS anomaly for July at 0.292, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.073 + 0.332 + 0.232 + 0.339 + 0.292)/7 = 0.156. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 1.10. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average so far is close to that of 2011. If present trends continue, 2012 will be, for the most part, close to 2011, and a record is out of reach on all sets. My projection for the five sets above is that 2012 will come in 10th on 4 of the sets, but 4th on UAH.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 11 months to 15 years and 8 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*No slope is positive except UAH which was +0.0022 per year or +0.22/century up to July, however the August value will make the slope a bit larger still. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)
1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 11 months (goes to August, but note * above)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to July)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since November 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to July)
4. HadCrut3: since February 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to July)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to July)
6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to July)
RSS is 188/204 or 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to July using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.08/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.8/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0049 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend
Elizabeth–What model are you using for your prediction? Seems unlikely that the earth’s climate will be that stable for 100,000 years. Over such time scales, changes in the sun and in earth’s orbit can become important. Even the lowest estimates for sensitivity to green house gases will have big effects over much shorter time scales.
So much for the AGW theory that not only are temps going up, but the rate of change is so increasing. Seems the rate of change is actually dropping. But isnt CO2 still going up? WUWT?
The right hand side of the polynomial trend line is looking a little ‘flat-ish’? Heaven forbid that it should start pointing upwards.
I’m being a bit dense. So from the start of the 1970 until today, what is the “temp. damage” again ?
Since everyone seems interested in rate of change maybe we should try plotting it …
http://i46.tinypic.com/2wocgw2.png
Monthly rate of change of Dr Spencer’s UAH data since 1979 filtered with various gaussian filters.
The longer filters loose a bit at each end since I have not used Mike’s Nature Trick ™ to fill the filter window with spurious data. Sorry.
With the 24 month filter we see about 0.05 C/year in 1995, that’s 5C / century. We can see why some were getting worried.
That plot only just dips into cooling some time in 2005 and it looks like we’ll be back into slight warming around 2010 once a bit more data is in.
Interesting how much easier it is to see the rate of warming / cooling when you plot the rate of change instead of trying to fit straight lines to the not linear temperature plot and then arguing about when it shoudl start and end.
SanityP says:
September 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I’m being a bit dense. So from the start of the 1970 until today, what is the “temp. damage” again ?
=====================================================================
Here in the US, several trillion and climbing.
If it wasn’t for that several trillion we might be at .065C.
For real? Did I understand that correctly ? Really ? No? You jest surely? No ? .065C?
From the 1970’s untill today, 7 Sept., 2012 there is this measley .065C degree rise in “average global temperature” ? I need to sit.