UAH global temperature, up somewhat

UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for June, 2013: +0.30 deg. C

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

After 10 days in Michigan’s U.P. for my 40th high school reunion, here’s the belated monthly global temperature update.

We added two satellites to the processing, Metop-A starting in 2007 and NOAA-19 starting in 2009.

The resulting anomalies, which we will call Version 5.6, differ by as much as 0.04 deg. C from v5.5. You can read the details of the new processing here.

We are now making good progress on Version 6.0, which includes a variety of improvements in our processing procedures which have taken much more time than we anticipated.

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2013 is +0.30 deg. C (click for large version):
UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2013_v5.6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 18 months are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2012 1 -0.145 -0.088 -0.203 -0.245
2012 2 -0.140 -0.016 -0.263 -0.326
2012 3 +0.033 +0.064 +0.002 -0.238
2012 4 +0.230 +0.346 +0.114 -0.251
2012 5 +0.178 +0.338 +0.018 -0.102
2012 6 +0.244 +0.378 +0.111 -0.016
2012 7 +0.149 +0.263 +0.035 +0.146
2012 8 +0.210 +0.195 +0.225 +0.069
2012 9 +0.369 +0.376 +0.361 +0.174
2012 10 +0.367 +0.326 +0.409 +0.155
2012 11 +0.305 +0.319 +0.292 +0.209
2012 12 +0.229 +0.153 +0.305 +0.199
2013 1 +0.497 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.034 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.068 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.083 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.298 +0.337 +0.259 +0.221

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to UAH global temperature, up somewhat

  1. geran says:

    Yeah, good catch UAH. Record cold in May and June, midwest plantings delayed, but our GOV SATs still see AGW.

    Probably nothing funny going on here….

  2. Stan says:

    in just 12 months the uah-LT 15-yr trend has increased from .06 C/decade to 0.12 C/dec.

    All that ocean heat was bound to come out sometime….

  3. Stan says:

    in just 12 months the uah-LT 15-yr trend has increased from .06 C/decade to 0.12 C/dec.

    All that ocean heat was bound to come out sometime….

  4. You are youngster Roy, my 50th is in Baltimore in September.

  5. So temperatures are almost back to where they were last September.

    It just shows how far they have dropped in the meantime.

  6. noaaprogrammer says:

    A little OT, but what’s this I here about some of our weather satellites needing replacement? Are there plans/funds for this?

  7. ‘UAH global temperature, up, some what’ well there is a surprise!.

    AGU, Richard Alley and climate zombies!
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck ]

  8. Antarctic sea ice almost 2 standard deviations above the average. Seems less SH heat is being transported poleward. Which fits with our experience in Perth. No strong Southern Ocean low pressure systems so far this winter.

  9. Stan says:

    Increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991,http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf, page 795.

  10. Bill Illis says:

    I’ve taken the UAH lower [troposphere] temps and averaged them with RSS and then appended the HadAT (weather balloon) temps which are equivalent to the lower troposphere measure. This allows one to extend the record back to 1958.

    Here are the temps then back to 1958 and my model of them.

    http://s21.postimg.org/nn5u58k8n/UAH_RSS_Had_AT_Model_June_2013.png

    The warming which is left-over after one accounts for the ENSO, AMO, Volcanoes and Solar influences is just 0.057C per decade.

    http://s2.postimg.org/js5m71ot5/UAH_RSS_Had_AT_Warming_June_2013.png

    And then the daily UAH version 5.6 temps going back to September 11, 2001. You are supposed to remember where you were when you saw the second plane arrive on the scene. This was nearly 12 years ago. The UAH trend since is a measely 0.024C per decade or just 10% of that forecast.

    http://s23.postimg.org/kw8kkw1y3/Daily_UAH_5_6_2001_June_2013.png

  11. Stan says:
    July 9, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    The warmist trolls are out in force today.

    That link does not support your claim. This isn’t Real Climate. People actually check references here.

  12. Gunga Din says:

    Of course the crux of the issue is and always has been, “Did Man do it?”. “Can Man change it?”.
    “What authority over the rest of us must ceded by the rest of us to prevent what only those who have authority to authority to gain perceive?”.
    That the answer to the first two questions is i>promoted as “Yes” is why we have to deal with the the third question.
    Those who are using CAGW as an avenue to power don’t want to leave it up to honest, unbiased science.

  13. Stan says:

    Philip Bradley says:
    >> That link does not support your claim. <<

    It's not my fault if you can't read.

  14. Ragnaar says:

    blackadderthe4th says:
    AGU, Richard Alley and climate zombies!
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck ]
    I looked at the video. I estimated what his chart said which I assumed included landbased data based on the fact that he used the year 1957 as one of the early points. My estimate from his chart, based upon a low resolution viewing of it, is that we see a 1.33 Celsius increase per Century. I failed to see his point? This is just my opinion but I think he missed his target.

  15. Didn’t take Stan long to resort to ad hominems. Seems to be all the warmists have left these days.

  16. Max™ says:

    Not sure that is an ad hominem, I mean, it’s a pretty weak retort no doubt, but an ad hominem would be say… implying you disagree because you like Ke$ha (and are thus a terrible person) in an attempt to discredit your argument by “taking it to the man”, while suggesting you can’t read could technically fall in that class of logical fallacies, the irony inherent in using written language to insult the ability of another to read makes it seem like a compliment to even consider it as a full fledged ad hominem.

  17. Stan says:

    Philip Bradley says:
    “Didn’t take Stan long to resort to ad hominems.”

    This from the man who wrote, “The warmist trolls are out in force today.”

    Can you read a scientific paper or not? So far, it appears not.

  18. Max, lol. Even though I have no idea who Ke$ha is.

  19. From The International Symposium on Sea Ice in a Changing Climate in Hobart from March 10 – 14, 2014

    Changes in Antarctic sea ice extent are predicted under future climate change scenarios, although models for the 21st century show wide variability with a 25-40% decrease predicted.

  20. Stan says:

    Philip: You are avoiding the Fu et al paper, pg 795

  21. The Engineer says:

    Read somewhere that the land average for Denmark in June 2013 was -3,0 grader celcius.

  22. You are avoiding the Fu et al paper, pg 795

    Do I detect subtle irony here? Reading a 795 page paper would indeed be futile.

  23. tobyglyn says:

    forgetting the increased sea ice shouldn’t we be seeing accelerating warming, polar amplification and all that…?

  24. Steve mosher says:

    ‘Stan says:
    July 9, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    The warmist trolls are out in force today.

    That link does not support your claim. This isn’t Real Climate. People actually check references here.”

    Actually the link does. Last paragraph, page 795 left hand column.

  25. geran says:

    Steve/Stan–You might want to compare the “study” (1991) with reality (2013).

    Nah, stick with the models….

  26. Manfred says:

    After the failure of UAH channel 5, is there still UAH data in UAH data ?

  27. Thanks Steve, for that sensible response.

    In fact the paper says sea ice thickness in the immediate vicinity of Antarctica increases. Says nothing about sea ice extent, as far as I can see.

    I can’t cut and paste from the paper because its an old pdf.

    And as I posted above, current models predict large decreases in Antarctic sea ice extent.

    I still maintain the paper does not support Stan”s claim of ‘Increased Antarctic sea ice’.

  28. J. Fujita says:

    I am not well versed in the scientific work often referenced here but perusing the link that Stan provided I found this:

    “In the G integration, in which the atmospheric CO2 concentration is increased with time, the thickness of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean is reduced markedly from 3 m t less than 1 m during the 100-year period… It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” p. 795

    “In the D integration, in which the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is decreased with time, the thickness of sea ice increases dramatically over the Arctic Ocean, but is reduced slightly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent. These changes of sea ice are opposite in sign from those of the G integration because the process involved is reversed as discussed in section 9a.” p. 795

    However, in the conclusions…

    “Obviously the credibility of the present study depends critically upon the ability of the present model to mimic the behavior of the actual ocean-atmosphere-land surface system… However, the surface flux adjustments of heat and water, which are needed to simulate the condition of the oceanic surface, are as large as those fluxes themselves. For example, the model tends to overestimate the precipitation in high latitudes and is partly responsible for the relatively large water flux adjustment needed there. It is possible that such a model bias results in the overestimation of the CO2-induced change of precipitation, and accordingly, the changes of near-surface salinity and thermohaline circulation. Further improvements…of the coupled model are urgently needed.” page 815

    So, where does that leave us? An inquiring skeptic would like to know.

  29. J. Fujita says:

    Sorry for the repetition – it took me awhile to re-type the paragraphs.

    It appears from Philip’s citing of current models only furthers the notion that good science requires constant updating. My question is – did the conclusions made in 1991 or any other prediction prove accurate because of good modeling or deriving a conclusion by working backwards. The fact that there are models with differing conclusions proves in itself that skepticism is warranted and believing in consensus is foolhardy.

  30. The paper does say,

    The equilibrium response (of surface air temperature) is particularly large along the coast of the Antarctic Continent, enhanced by the poleward retreat of sea ice

    Clearly their model predicts decreased Antarctic sea ice extent.

  31. bw says:

    It does not matter what the models say. Models are not data.
    On the real planet Earth the global lower troposphere does not actually vary by 0.2C in a month.
    The UAH must have about that amount of jitter on that time scale. Some kind of error estimate should always be included in any and every measurement.

    The real global UAH TLT is likely no different than it was in 1980

  32. I originally raised Antarctic sea ice to stimulate a discussion about any relationship between sea ice extent, SH troposphere temperatures and intensity of Southern Ocean low pressure systems.

    I’d expect increased sea ice to shift the tracks of low pressure systems northward, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. What appears to be happening, is weaker low pressure systems means less poleward heat transport allowing the sea ice to increase.

    Is it the Southern Annular Mode?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/SAM-what.shtml

  33. glenncz says:

    Could some explain. UAH & RSS use satellites and measure something different than the land based GISS & HadCRUT. How do GISS & HadCRUT measure sea surface temperatures to come up with their “global” temp data? Do they use satellites to measure sea surface temp?

  34. Day By Day says:

    Good observation geran :

    Yeah, good catch UAH. Record cold in May and June, midwest plantings delayed, but our GOV SATs still see AGW.
    Probably nothing funny going on here….

    I don’t know about the SH, but in the NH since last fall we have been have record colds–unbelievable. Well I guess no one does believe it because we keep getting anomalies above the 30 year mean. What I don’t believe is the anomalies as recorded from satellites. I think something is wrong with the data and it will be exposed in the near future because the data do not relate to what we are experiencing here on the ground and all the broken cold records and late springs and freezing Europe and China etc..it simply doesn’t fit.

  35. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stan says: “in just 12 months the uah-LT 15-yr trend has increased from .06 C/decade to 0.12 C/dec.”

    Of course you understand the reason for that, Stan. A 180-month trend of TLT anomalies ending in June 2012 starts in July 1997, so that trend includes the evolution and decay of the 1997/98 El Niño and ends with the aftereffects of the 2011/12 La Niña. And when you end the 180-month trend in June 2013, you’re starting your trend in July 1998, so you’ve lost the evolution and part of the decay of the 1997/98 El Niño and have ended the trend analysis in the aftereffects of an ENSO-neutral winter.

    Even so, the most recent 180-month trend of 0.11 deg C/decade is much lower than the peak 180-month trend for the period ending in January 2007. The one ending in January 2007 was about 0.32 deg C/decade, Stan.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/j92a7d.jpg

    Stan says: “All that ocean heat was bound to come out sometime….”

    Nonsense. You keep looking for the impact on TLT anomalies of that buildup in ocean heat at depths of 700-2000 meters, Stan. That’ll keep you busy for the next couple of decades, so that commenters here don’t have to respond to your nonsensical comments.

    Adios

  36. Stan says:

    Of course I realize this, Bob Tisdale. It’s why I quoted it.
    Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry pick.
    Short-term trends (~15 years) fluctuate a great deal.
    Yet I see them, or like them, being quoted all the time.
    Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry-pick.

  37. Gunga Din says:

    Stan says:
    July 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Of course I realize this, Bob Tisdale. It’s why I quoted it.
    Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry pick.
    Short-term trends (~15 years) fluctuate a great deal.
    Yet I see them, or like them, being quoted all the time.
    Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry-pick.

    ===================================================================
    I know I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer here at WUWT, but did you really just say that you knew what you said was wrong but you repeated it because it sounded good?

  38. Stan says:

    I simply noted how quickly the 15-yr trend can change when ENSOs are involved. That should give you some clue about the claimed 17-years or less of no global warming (which of course is not true at all).

  39. Manfred says:

    Stan says:
    July 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm
    Of course I realize this, Bob Tisdale. It’s why I quoted it.
    Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry pick.
    ————————————-

    Yes, you had to cherry pick a 1991 paper to find “something” for a try to make a point on Antarctic sea ice. How did they run their model 32 years ago ? On a 386SX ?

  40. Stan says:

    The Manabe et al paper was certainly not a “cherry pick” — it is a scientific result, a prediction — and one that has come true.

  41. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stan: I believe you missed my graph above showing the running 180-month trends.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/j92a7d.jpg
    They’re down from their peak in 2007.

  42. Manfred, I think these trolls go to climate trolling classes and are given a list of stock responses to use. Which is why Stan couldn’t say where that paper supported his claim and why he was completely unaware it says the complete opposite of what he claimed.

    Although the quality of trolls has markedly deteriorated recently. Big Green must have cut back on its trolling budget, and the lower pay just doesn’t attract quality candidates.

  43. John F. Hultquist says:

    noaaprogrammer says:
    July 9, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    “A little OT, but . . .”

    The story you ask about appeared in numerous places back in Feb.

    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/02/20/weather-satellites-need-replacing-but-new-ones-may-take-years/

  44. Stan says:

    Of course they are down, Bob Tisdale.
    And just a few short years ago, they were up, at 0.3 C/decade.
    Where were you then?
    Such short-term intervals fluctuate with the (oceanic) weather, and are not climatologically meaningful.
    Yet they are quoted all the time. Unscientifically.
    I think I have made my point.

  45. Stan says:

    >> Which is why Stan couldn’t say where that paper supported his claim <<

    As Steven confirmed, and as I've repeated twice now, it is pg 795.
    Did you find that passage, from the lower left-hand column to upper right-hand column?

  46. Stan says:

    They’re down from their peak in 2007.

    And they are going back up.
    Shades of 1997.
    In any case, no metric that fluctuates so quickly can be a useful metric for global warming, which is a centuries/millenia-long phenomena.
    So what is a better metric?

  47. As I have already said, that just that there is localized thickening of the ice.

    And to repeat myself,

    The paper says,

    The equilibrium response (of surface air temperature) is particularly large along the coast of the Antarctic Continent, enhanced by the poleward retreat of sea ice

    Clearly their model predicts decreased Antarctic sea ice extent.

  48. Stan says:

    Philip, it’s like you can’t read.

    Manabe et al, pg 795, top of right-hand column:
    “…resulting in the increase of sea ice….”

  49. Stan says:

    Also see

    Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions
    JINLUN ZHANG. J. Climate, 20, 2515–2529.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4136.1

  50. JimF says:

    Dr. Roy said: “…After 10 days in Michigan’s U.P. for my 40th high school reunion, here’s the belated monthly global temperature update….” Where in the UP? I live now in Ironwood, but have also lived in Houghton and Hancock. Great area, but the weather here lately has been abysmal. Quite cold to cool, rain by the metric ton, and a few of those cold fronts that turn hot and muggy, and bring Iowa to our front door; in other words, the pits. About three (3!) nice, mild, very blue-sky, UP summer days.

  51. Philip, it’s like you can’t read.

    Manabe et al, pg 795, top of right-hand column:
    “…resulting in the increase of sea ice….”

    LOL That’s under the decreasing CO2 scenario. Looks like you are the one with the reading comprehension problem.

  52. Gunga Din says:

    Gunga Din says:
    July 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Gunga Din says:
    July 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm …

    ==========================================================
    Looks like the answer to my question is, “Yes”.

  53. OssQss says:

    Ah ha! The drive by by Stan :-)

    Please tell us Sir, since you seem to be all knowing, what is the correlation between temperature and CO2? Is it linear, logarithmic, or chaotic?

    Take your time.

  54. Richard M says:

    Stan says:
    July 9, 2013 at 6:49 pm
    I simply noted how quickly the 15-yr trend can change when ENSOs are involved. That should give you some clue about the claimed 17-years or less of no global warming (which of course is not true at all).

    Big problem for you, Stan. The recent 16.5 year flat trend starts at an ENSO neutral time and ends in one. Hence, your excuse does not hold up. That is why the models have all been invalidated as we speak. In all cases where models show flat trends it is due to comparing older high points with recent low points (that is, en nino vs. la nina).

    As for the recent upward blip, we once again saw a short 2 week jump and then a fallback right after a CME. Just like what happened in the beginning of May and many other times over the last couple of years. Although the warming was short lived it did increase the average for the month. Check the 25K altitude to see it in action.

    http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/

    It appears this may be a way the sun can affect global temperatures. We are at the current solar maximum so the number of CMEs will fall over the next few years. It’s too bad there’s no daily data on global clouds. I have a feeling the mechanism for the warming is a reduction in clouds but there’s no way to test it.

  55. Gunga Din says:

    Gunga Din says:
    July 9, 2013 at 3:39 pm
    =============================================================
    OUCH!
    I’ve made typos before but when I reread this even had trouble figuring out what I meant! Please forgive this correction/clarification.

    Of course the crux of the issue is and always has been, “Did Man do it?”. “Can Man change it?”.
    “What authority over the rest of us must ceded by the rest of us to prevent “the threat” that those who have authority to gain want us to believe?”.
    That the answer to the first two questions is
    promoted as “Yes” is why we have to deal with the the third question.
    Those who are using CAGW as an avenue to power don’t want to leave it up to honest, unbiased science. They have a Hockey Stick to grind.

  56. Quinn the Eskimo says:

    Stan:

    Doesn’t figure 16(a) in the 1991 Manabe paper predict a tropical upper tropospheric hot spot? How did that prediction turn out?

  57. Max™ says:

    Richard M, not perfect data but: http://www.worldweather.org/cloud/ is the best I can find atm for current data, with this as an archive of older data: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp026e/ndp026e.html which seems to be an update of the data here: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/CloudMap/

  58. Max™ says:

    Whoops, found a rather awesome little visualization, it isn’t raw data, but it IS pretty cool for someone wanting cloud cover info: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html?_r=0

  59. Tim Folkerts says:

    I would also point to page 811 in the paper cited above.

    “This is why sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

    Yet more evidence that Stan was quite right in his interpretation of the paper — that the paper does indeed predict more Antarctic sea ice.

  60. Tim Folkerts says:
    July 9, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    That is a reference to the model prediction of a slight thickening of sea ice adjacent to the Antarctic Continent.

    Warmists do themselves no favours when they persist with obvious errors. As I pointed out above, all current models predict large decreases in Antarctic sea ice over the 21st century. The current increase in Antarctic sea ice is a serious problem for the models and the Forcings Theory in general. Predictably, the warmist response is hand waving, and a reference to a long out of date and poorly written paper.

  61. mobihci says:

    re the antarctic sea ice, the last ipcc report AR4 states-

    “Taken together, the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are very likely shrinking, with Greenland contributing about 0.2 ± 0.1 mm yr–1 and Antarctica contributing 0.2 ± 0.35 mm yr–1 to sea level rise over the period 1993 to 2003. There is evidence of accelerated loss through 2005. Thickening of high-altitude, cold regions of Greenland and East Antarctica, perhaps from increased snowfall, has been more than offset by thinning in coastal regions of Greenland and West Antarctica in response to increased ice outflow and increased Greenland surface melting.”

    from – https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-4-1.html

    Philip Bradley is correct, the ipcc here are claiming that the ice mass on land is increasing, whereas the coastal ice (sea ice extent) is reducing. obviously it is not, and so far the ‘evidence’ that GRACE provides is completely useless, being based on models.

    so what? the ipcc and the models got another thing wrong. who cares, it pretty obvious that the people defending CAGW and the ipcc itself are not interested in the truth of the matter, only the facade. i am sure AR5 will have all the answers … and on the scam will go.

  62. phlogiston says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    July 9, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    Global TLT is up and global SST is down.
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/june-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

    So in what direction is the heat moving?

  63. JohnM says:

    Lawrence Todd
    You are a youngster. My 50th was last November. Sigh! Where has all the time gone?

  64. Max™ says:

    From hot to cold, I would think. : )

  65. Stan says

    In any case, no metric that fluctuates so quickly can be a useful metric for global warming, which is a centuries/millenia-long phenomena.

    At last a bit of common sense from Stan.

    So why are we worrying about a 30 year phenomena? Why are we not looking at 1000 year trends?

  66. Just to put the 0.30C into perspective, there have been 27 readings of 0.30C or above since 2003. So on average, two a year.

  67. Quinn the Eskimo says:

    Stan? Stan? Are you there? Did figure 16(a) predict a tropical upper tropospheric hot spot?

    Are you down to claiming AGW theory is proven correct by relying on predictions of increased Antarctic sea ice?

    This single hand picked paper aside, AR4 predicts polar amplifications of warming, and does not predict more Antarctic sea ice. So the observations stand as a refutation of AR4, if not of this particular point in this particular Manabe paper.

  68. RichardLH says:

    Roy: I guessed this value last month to within 0.002c at Lucia’s (mark one human eyeball with cheat sheet)

    Richard LH (Comment #115617)
    June 12th, 2013 at 7:50 am
    +0.3 based on this predictor.
    http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/70051

    Now that COULD just be blind luck…..

  69. RichardLH says:

    Roy; I’ll pick +0.29c for next month.

  70. Caleb says:

    To be honest, I tend to highlight any small drop, and dismiss any small rise, because I am mischievous and enjoy ruffling the feathers of Alarmists. (Call it revenge, for fifteen years of being called a “denier” and “flat-earther.”)

    Feather ruffler #1: “Oh? We’re back to where we were in January, 1988?”

    Feather ruffler #2: “Three tenths of a degree above normal? And where did Hansen say we should be by now?”

    Feather ruffler #3: “Three tenths of a degree? Can you show me how much that is, on this thermometer?”

    Feather ruffler #4: “Three tenths of a degree? So the elderly won’t need to wear winter coats indoors because they can’t afford heating bills because you closed the cotton-picking coal mines and…”

    (oops. That’s not a ruffle. That’s a rave.)

  71. tjfolkerts says:

    Philip says: “… reference to a long out of date and poorly written paper.”

    You should have said that in the first place. Most people agree that models of climate change are notoriously difficult to get right (and that is doubly true the further back in history you go). It is quite possible that this paper got “lucky” in predicted something that came true by using incorrect methods. Current models DO seem to suggest decreasing ice over the next century around Antarctica (from what little I have seen).

    But instead, you chose to argue that “Clearly their model predicts decreased Antarctic sea ice extent” — which you followed later with “Says nothing about sea ice extent“. So something that you thought was “clearly” predicted in the paper becomes completely absent!

    Even more interestingly, you said “That link does not support your claim.” but later say “Reading a 795 page paper would indeed be futile.” — so you admitted that you hadn’t read the paper in question but you were still SURE about its contents.

    For what its worth, I agree that the paper most directly addresses thickness, not extent. But increasing the thickness would plausibly increase the extent. If nothing else, the ice around the edge of the continent would melt less in the summer.

  72. Tom in Indy says:

    Stan

    There are literally thousands of predictions in the academic literature. Cherry picking a single prediction from a single paper is meaningless. You need to find a model that accurately predicts a variety of climate outcomes.

    Why do you think it makes sense to cite a model that makes some predictions that are correct and some that are incorrect? Would you send a man to the moon based on an orbital model that made some correct predictions about the position of the moon and some incorrect predictions about the positon of the moon? Of course not. You would throw the model out.

    If you want to be something other than an annoying gnat, go find a model that sucessfully hindcasted climate change along various margins, then tell us what it predicts for sea ice extent.

    The larger problem is that you are lurching from one failed model to another, searching for random tidbits that support the failed claim that the earth’s temperature is rising at a catostrophic rate due to rising levels of man made carbond dioxide in the atmosphere.

  73. mark wagner says:

    “On a 386SX ?”

    32 years ago that would have been a Radioshack TRS-80 or Apple II-C. With cassette tape data storage.

  74. Steve Keohane says:

    mark wagner says:July 10, 2013 at 7:51 am

    “On a 386SX ?”

    32 years ago that would have been a Radioshack TRS-80 or Apple II-C. With cassette tape data storage.

    Let’s see, 1981, at HP we had the 32-bit CPU in production (beginning), we had 9845 desktops with 8″ floppy disks being replaced with the 9825 (or was it the 9828?) with the 3″ floppies, I don’t remember what version of unix mainframe we were running, but there was a lot more power available than what you mention.

  75. Dan Pangburn says:

    Four papers on the web, that you may find of interest, provide some eye-opening insight on the cause of change to average global temperature and why it has stopped warming. (The recent UAH up tick must be considered in light of historical stochastic s.d. approximately +/- 0.1 K.) The papers are straight-forward calculations using readily available data up to May, 2013.

    The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ . It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low-altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)

    The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that, using a single external forcing, calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.

    Change to the level of atmospheric CO2 had no significant effect on average global temperature.

    A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.

    The fourth paper http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ exposes some of the mistakes that have been made by the ‘Consensus’ and the IPCC

  76. Steven Mosher says:

    “I still maintain the paper does not support Stan”s claim of ‘Increased Antarctic sea ice’.”

    I read his claim as it stands. “increased ice” could mean increased area, increased extent, increased volume.

    So the paper supports his claim. the problem is his claim is ambiguous.

    practice being precise

  77. Taphonomic says:

    Apparently, Manabe’s predictions are valid in a world without Iceland, where the Drake passage is enlarged from ~800 km to 2000 km, where the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is not as high, and net flow through the Bering Strait does not occur (Manabe et al. 1991, p. 787). I trust that Stan will alert us when these global changes are affected for our Earth.

  78. Mardler says:

    Calling Stan.

  79. RichardLH says:

    Roy: You do realise that I pedicted the figure a month ago (shot my arrow), you moved the target slightly (wind) and I still hit the ‘bull’s eye’ (to within 0.002c – I think I can call that less than the width of the ‘arrow’ ), I come from England, And my intials are R(L)H. Now do I really have to give you my last name? You would be right as well! You just cannot make this stuff up!

  80. RichardLH says:

    Anthony: Do you want me to design the cartoon. I’m sure you can find better artists than me? Josh? (see above)

  81. RichardLH says:

    Anthony: If you would like some design suggestions, may I offer you this from the tail end of the converstaiuon at Tamino’s.

    repost

    RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 11:14 am | Reply [edit]

    [Response: Enough already.]

    RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Reply [edit]

    [Response: I've been more than patient with you. I even gave you a "parting shot" already, a final comment after I said "It’s time for you to find another outlet." Three times I've told you we're not interested in hearing more from you. This is the fourth. Goodbye.]

    RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 5:20 pm | Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    OK.

    My name is now officially ‘Robin Hood’, Aka RichardLH. And, Yes thet last name IS correct!

    I shot an arrow a month ago (I made a prediction of the UAH Global temperature figure for this month and laid my ‘cheat sheet’ out on the web).
    I came here asking nicely if my my caclulations could possibly be correct.
    You said you were busy discussing something else much more mathmatical and to ‘run along boy’ and that nothing I could say was of interest to anyone.
    My ‘arrow’ hits the UAH ‘bulls eye’ to within 0.002c (I think we can call that the width of the ‘arrow’.
    I warn you that I hit it and there is an outside possibity that my maths is righ tall along.

    And you delete all of my comments.

    I claim the prize!

    Where’s a good sherrif when you need one!

  82. RichardLH says:

    Anthony: I tell you this is Disney time now.

    RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 11:14 am | Reply [edit]

    [Response: Enough already.]

    RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Reply [edit]

    [Response: I've been more than patient with you. I even gave you a "parting shot" already, a final comment after I said "It’s time for you to find another outlet." Three times I've told you we're not interested in hearing more from you. This is the fourth. Goodbye.]

  83. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Stan obviously has nothing better to do than continue to troll this thread, making it highly likely that someone is paying him to do so. Too bad he hasn’t actually made a single good point worth actually debating yet. Oh well, I am sure that won’t stop him from typing more “stuff”.

    It is too bad that he and others like him fail to realize that climate is a 99.9% natural cycle and that the 0.1% that man contributes to it is statistically quite meaningless. Oh well, I guess “climate scientists” and “paid trolls” have to make their money somehow, even if it turns out (as I highly suspect it will) that their theory has about as much merit as phlogiston, or the 1970′s “the ice age is coming” scare.

    I also find it interesting that many of the same “scientists” who participated in the 1970′s “the ice age is coming” scare are now the exact same ones who are participating in the “global warming” scare…

    Funny… I would have thought that they would have been HAPPY that it warmed since the late 1970s, since so many of them thought we were ABOUT TO FREEZE TO DEATH at that time… but no.. instead they have to say that warming (from a supposedly impending ice age) is somehow BAD.

    Laughable stuff, truly.

    Of COURSE climate changes. It always has, it always will, and we won’t be able to control it no matter which way it decides to change. The next real ice age is theoretically due any time now (any time now being within 0 to 2000 years, which is “any time now” on a geological scale). I don’t think the paltry CO2 emissions of us humans are going to postpone the inevitable by much.

  84. Tom in Indy says:

    But wait! This just in from “Live Science” –

    “The glacier is the longest and fastest-changing on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. While Humbert and her colleagues did not draw direct connections between this week’s calving event and climate change, other scientists, including marine geologists at the British Antarctic Survey, are investigating whether global warming is thinning Antarctica’s ice sheets and speeding up the glacier’s retreat.”

    That is too funny. While Stan struggles to cite credible evidence that man made CO2 emissions are growing Antarctic ice, his brothers in arms are “investigating” whether man is shrinking Antarctic ice.

    The magical mystery of the omnipotent man made global warming ! It has certainly become a religion for many.

  85. Tom in Indy says:

    Here is the link for the quote in my last post.
    http://www.livescience.com/38078-pine-island-glacier-iceberg.html

  86. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Glacial calving is caused because a glacier is GROWING AND ADVANCING, and when it grows enough that a significant portion is over open water, large parts of the extended, growing glacier break off.

    To say that glacial calving is the result of LESS antarctic sea ice is silly. The ice is growing, so some of it calves off. No mystery there.

  87. tjfolkerts says:

    @ Tom in Indy July 10, 2013 at 11:15 am

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Glaciers and ice sheets are thick (typically 100′s of meters thick). They form on land and (might) move out into the ocean; they are the source of icebergs. Sea ice forms on the ocean (typically a few meters thick). This ice advances and retreats dramatically each year.

    It is quite possible for climate change to make ice sheets increase while sea ice decreases (or vice versa).

  88. Matthew R Marler says:

    PHilip Bradley: That link does not support your claim. This isn’t Real Climate. People actually check references here.

    You are incorrect. P 795 of the document at Stan’s link does support Stan’s claim. At least for one of the models. What is lacking is some indication that the reported method and result had any influence or support in the field. Evidently, it’s just one more model run out of many that can be read.

  89. Matthew R Marler says:

    Tom in Indy: While Stan struggles to cite credible evidence that man made CO2 emissions are growing Antarctic ice, his brothers in arms are “investigating” whether man is shrinking Antarctic ice.

    Just so. Stan cited one study that is evidently not endorsed by the “consensus”. That’s hardly surprising any more: just about everything (increased, decreased this and that) has been predicted for just about every region of the earth at some time or another.

  90. Richard LH says:

    Anthony: As a genuine open question about my work that I have referenced above, and as I have shown only a single monthly prediction on UAH futures so far (a very lucky guess?), I would like to ask this:

    “Can you please give me a logical or mathematical reason why other more complex methods, based on sin, cos and statistics (higher mathematical functions), should be more accurate predictors to short term Climate futures than a simpler method, based simply on long and short term averages and, given that this new presentation of the data still shows that any long term CO2 trend or other such long term factors are not yet confirmed or determined, that it might allow their ranges and time periods to be better estimated or established when using this method?”

  91. Steven Mosher says:
    July 10, 2013 at 9:05 am
    I read his claim as it stands. “increased ice” could mean increased area, increased extent, increased volume.

    So the paper supports his claim. the problem is his claim is ambiguous.

    practice being precise

    Fair point about precision, but often difficult to do in blog comments.

    The difference between (percent changes in) Antarctic sea ice area, extent and volume is likely trivial, probably less than 1%. Although we know next to nothing about changes in Antarctic sea ice volume over a decade or more. We don’t know if the multi-year ice (mostly in the Weddell Sea) is getting thicker or not. Initial indications are that it is getting thicker, but in line with increasing extent. Which was not the paper’s prediction.

  92. JJ says:

    Steven Mosher says:

    I read his claim as it stands. “increased ice” could mean increased area, increased extent, increased volume.

    If you actually read his claim, you will note that it was made in direct response to Phil’s post immediately preceding. Phil was talking about the increase in extent of Anarctic sea ice. With respect to what appears on page 795 of the text in question, Stan’s claim is either false or a fallacy of equivocation.

    It is certainly a fallacy of equivocation with respect to the broader point that it implies. Assume some guy did predict that increasing CO2 would lead to increasing Antarctic ice extent. So what?

    Some guy said this, and a thousand other things. Some other guy said that, and a thousand other things. And there is a multitude of guys saying things. You can’t prove one hypothesis by picking and choosing successful predictions from a thousand other hypotheses. That’s just ad hoc bullshit – and the next step worse than simply averaging a bunch of bad models and pretending that the result has meaning.

    practice being precise

    Physician, heal thyself.

  93. Tim says:

    Stan: That was quite an interesting read (Manabe et al ), thank you for posting the link. However you seemed to have cherry picked/misunderstood the conclusions.
    He states that warming will be slowest in the arctic/Antarctica due to decreased salinity in the water, which reduces warm ocean current travelling to the poles. This may be so in Antarctica but the opposite has been true in the Arctic.
    He also states that increased precipitation over evaporation will cause the Antarctic ice sheet to thicken. This is also not true as the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning, its actually the sea ice that’s increasing.
    My conclusion of this paper is that it has some good ideas, but most of the conclusions have over the last 20 year have proven to be wrong. With that being the case the mechanisms described in the paper are incorrect and perhaps just geared to describe what was happening at the time.

Comments are closed.