UAH global temperature, up somewhat

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….

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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).

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

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.

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.

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?

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….”

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.

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

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

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.

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?

From hot to cold, I would think. : )

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.