The RSS Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) global temperature anomaly data has been published this morning by RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA).
For March 2008 it has moved a little higher, with a value of .079°C for a change (∆T) of 0.081°C globally from February.
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3 0.079
RSS data here
Reference: RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.1) click for larger image
The interesting news is the divergence between northern and southern hemispheres, and the plunge seen in the continental USA. I’ll have more on that coming up.
Curiously, at almost the same time the BBC has published an article today headlining: Global temperatures ‘to decrease’
On a related note:
Lucia over at The Blackboard just posted a very well done analysis that takes ENSO into account in falsifying the IPCC AR4 projection of +2.0C/century. Here is her graph showing IPCC AR4 projections compared with observations and best fit trend:
Click for larger
On stock markets and technical analysis…don’t get me started. Let’s just say that the analogy between temperature trends/cycles and stock prices is pretty weak. Stock prices tend to follow a random walk. If we think temperature follows a random walk, then why are looking for causes, whether solar or anthropogenic, or whatever?
If “technical analysis” of temperature trends should do a better job of predicting future temperature than GCM’s or AGW hypotheses, that doesn’t saying anything good about technical analysis. It just says something unflattering about GCM’s or AGW hypotheses.
Basil
Argh! That should have read “4 million light years…)
Nope, didn’t work.
Basil and Anna V.
1 – I thought missing data. Data exist.
2 – I thought lacked mathematical treatment to the data. There are mathematical tools appropriate.
3 – does not have a model.
A light year here, a light year there; pretty soon we’re talkin’ big distances.
============================================
Anna v,
I’m a physicist too, and I so agree with you! I thought that by looking at the primary literature (peer-reviewed papers), I would find the evidence, the smoking gun, the proof… but just the opposite happened. The more I looked, the less I found!
We physicists are used to compare data and theory. If the theory doesn’t fit the data, it’s no good. Climate science is just the opposite: if the data don’t fit, it’s because the data is bad… The models are never compared with the real world, they’re compared between each others! When you actually find comparisons of models with real world data, the discrepancies are so huge you wonder why they don’t throw the model into the garbage bin.
About CO2 and temperatures, some may be interested in my paper on the subject (http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3130). Yes I know it’s incomplete etc etc but nevertheless, nowhere else in the literature do you find a model linking the fluctuations of CO2 uptake and temperature. I’m still working on this, but the answer is not in physics, it’s in biology! It is the biosphere that regulates CO2, both on land and in the oceans. And we’re just beginning to understand the myriad of processes at play. None of which are included in GCM’s by the way. But whichever way you look at it, CO2 does not seem to have such a big influence on temperatures. If you start with the picture where temperatures drive CO2, and not the opposite, you actually find that a lot of things fall into place.
Re the notorious “pollutant” CO2, this is just my two cents, but we have just received some information through the post re renewable energy from the Energy Saving Trust (UK-based NGO). About renewable energy sources, they say, and I quote: “… they produce little or no carbon dioxide (CO2): the harmful gas that’s one of the biggest causes of climate change.”
If all carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere, I’m sure we would find out swiftly just how “harmful” it actually was. Unless we quickly managed to learn how to subsist without plant life…
I would have to agree, just logically. Makes perfect sense in the CO2 lags temp situation. The warmer it gets, glaciers recede, animals multiply. Plants also multiply and increase in vigor, therefore you’d have more plants aspirating CO2 at night, and also when they die.
Anthony said:
“Teller wanted to push for more nuclear power in the USA, CO2 became a tool to accomplish that. Readers may recall that in the mid to late 1970’s there were a series of magazine ads in major U.S. magazines that had a picture of a lump of coal. The gist of the ad was “coal is dirty, it produces CO2 and soot, harming our atmosphere. Nuclear power is the clean fuel”. If I recall correctly, they were paid for by the Atomic Energy Commission.
You’re right about Teller, but about the same time England’s newly minted Prime Minister (Lady Thatcher) was urged by her advisor, Lord Tickell, to use coal caused CO2 as a “bogie man” in creating alleged runaway atmospheric Armageddon. Tickell, the “Goofy Gore” of England, propelled his environmental stature, Thatcher was catapulted onto the world stage, and the coal unions (who vigorously opposed Thatcher’s elections) were “punished” and all but dismembered. This was really the start of the “greenhouse gas destroying our planet” scare mongering.
Anthony said:
“So if my memory serves me correctly, it appears the CO2 movement may have been started in part, due to a U.S. Government funded advertising campaign.”
For the life of me, I can’t figure out who came first: Thatcher or the AEC.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
If greenhouse gases warm the earth’s climate, you would expect more warming where there is more GHG.
There is more than twice as much ocean in the SH than the NH, consequently water vapour levels are substantially higher (on average) in the SH.
Why then is the SH on average 1.9C cooler than the NH? And in summer, when the GHG effect is at its strongest, a huge 5.4C cooler?
http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap14/climate_spatial_scales.html
I sort of understand the answer to this question. It’s because surface temperatures measure warming (as in heat gain to the Earth system) by assuming fixed water vapour.
In reality, changes in water vapour have much larger effects than heat gain (forcings). And all we are doing with the surface temperature is measuring the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.
James S said:
How does El Nino / La Nina change the “Earth’s temperature”? No new energy enters the system as they are normal weather cycles which don’t correlate with increase solar / geothermal output. Therefore any energy released from the oceans must have been there originally and was simply stored away from our thermometers.
James, you’ll find a fascinating article on the subject here http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/WarmPool/
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Many geologists and other earth scientists also have problems with AGW. My doubts are driven by my understanding of Quaternary/Holocene climatic history.
My understanding of physics is OK for Newtonian and Quantum physics, but not at the level of most graduate students of physics. As a practitioner of empirical science however, I bristle at models that don’t match the real data.
This has been the case with the AGW climate models. I somehow doubt that this will improve if the modelers continue to seek validation rather than understanding.
What really annoys me though are thousands of government funded derivative studies based on models that have consistently not conformed to reality. This is not science. It is divination – tea leaf reading – entrails.
Quote: Basil
“If ‘technical analysis’ of temperature trends should do a better job of predicting future temperature than GCM’s or AGW hypotheses, that doesn’t saying anything good about technical analysis. It just says something unflattering about GCM’s or AGW hypotheses.”
That is the purpose of the demonstration.
Those who debase technical analysis of finanical markets generally misinterpret its purpose and disregard its proven application.
My Dear Jeff Alberts,
Perhaps your reading material contains references to Buck Rodgers, I am pleased that you enjoy.
But the references that I posted above are from the Russian Academy of Sciences, which if you have the time you can read at http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/planetophysical.html.
The translation from Russian to English is not as good as the translation into German. The paper by Dr. Alexey N. Dmtriev and associates, will assist you in understanding the above posting.
Closer to home there is’ Science’ the issue of May 11 2007 ref. Merav Opher Astrophysicist. Also a very interesting read.
Historical note;
the oldest scientific references we have to the sun arrive from the Mayas the Mayan calendar starts on the 11 August 3114 BC and finishes on December 21st 2012 we are still working on a better system, but as yet have not got one.
They worked it out that when Jupiter and Saturn are aligned on the same side of the sun, solar activity is at its minimum. When on the opposite sides the solar activity is at its maximum.
And if you want to no more about 21 December 2012 there are a million possibilities on the internet .
Enjoy
Alan
Anna V – Do you know my brother Crispin Williams who is a particle physicist leading a team at CERN? I tried to get him to look at the data of this site for his opinion but he simply told me to trust the BBC and look at the melting glaciers and trust the models! I am pleased to have found your analysis which I have copied to him. Thank you.
Francois
I read your work.
Fascinante.
His model is perfect.
I think we can apply the same analysis of Anthony and Basil. l = 14400.
Can concerned the initial CO2 concentration.
Lucia has written an Excel macro. I use linux, so I’ve written 4 short scripts to parse out the row/column text files into a 2 column date/temp format. This should be usable in linux, unix, Cygwin, Solaris, etc. GISS and Hadley are harder, RSS and UAH are easier. In alphabetical order…
Download it here as a PDF file
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/wdnes-script.pdf
GACK! WordPress re-formatted and wrapped my scripts. Anthony please either kill the post or re-format. I apologize for the mess.
REPLY: I can’t do much, its formatted to a column. I made a PDF, and a download for you in the previous comment.
Francois
I’d add CO2 predictions for several climate scenarios. Just in case the sun is teasing AGW skeptics :). By the way you won my heart by bringing up Wegner et al. 2004.
If you don’t publish it someone else will beat you. Might as well be you to get the credit for the observation. It is about three years overdue already.
Best Wishes
Alan, I see a lot of gobbledegook in that link you posted. Some garbage about natural disasters increasing 410% since 1963, yeah, right. Let’s see the references for those numbers. None are provided in those pages. Gratuitous assertions are a dime a dozen.
As for 2012, I’ll leave the end of the world nonsense to the crackpots.
Julian Williams in UK (18:06:17) :
“Anna V – Do you know my brother Crispin Williams who is a particle physicist leading a team at CERN? I tried to get him to look at the data of this site for his opinion but he simply told me to trust the BBC and look at the melting glaciers and trust the models! ”
I am sorry, no. I have not been at CERN since 2003, and by that time it was just for meetings :).
Do not blame him. As I said, I used to think in the same way because I had a basic trust that scientists do not manipulate data. I would accept the regurgitations of the media without further thought. It was when I started looking for alternative methods of affecting global warming than CO2 budgets that I got into the nitty-gritty and saw the whole farce. I spent a lot of time trying to make sense of the IPCC physics working group report, 800 and more pages of it.
Francois (13:10:42) :
I downloaded your paper. I do not have much time the next days since I have visitors, but I will look it over carefully. Looks promising.
Have you taken volcanoes into account? I have posted a link on the other thread about the number of volcanoes etc. There would be peaks of CO2 during volcanic eruptions.
Alan Chappell wrote:
“They worked it out that when Jupiter and Saturn are aligned on the same side of the Sun, solar activity is at its minimum.”
Completely wrong! Jupiter and Saturn were aligned at the same side of the Sun in 2000 (more exactly, their heliocentric conjunction occurred on June 22 of that year), yet in 2000 solar activity reached its maximum, not a minimum.
Moreover, the Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions occur at mean intervals of 19.86 years. Hence, if the mentioned statement was true, the sunspot cycles would have a lenght of 19.86 years, not 11 years.
Anna V : what you are doing is very important because you have the background to give credibility for the case against overstating the CO2/Global warming theory. I expect as a scientist you are used to being rigorous and honest and upfront so it may come naturally to you to stand up and tell others plainly that the models do not stand up to scrutiny.
You must understand that the political momentum behind the case for CO2 has now built up into and almost unstoppable force and the politicians are not going to be happy that “the consensus” in the scientistic community does not exist, so it is only through very forceful, vocal and creditable opposition that the bandwagon will be turned around. The political reaction against scientists who stand up against the CO2/Global Warming theories will be nasty and ruthless.
But you must get your message out because the EU laws for producing set percentage of biofuels are very damaging to the lives of millions in the poorer nations because such laws are contributing to the rising prices for basic foods like rice, and pockets of rioting are already breaking out in many places across the world. It is also causing de-forestation as the biofuels industry begins to move into the rainforests to make big bucks serving the EU quoter systems.
I have a feeling the GW issue will surface in the American elections too, and it is driving the flames of anti-Americanism in Europe (Personally I think the EU are jealous of the US)
The referendum in Ireland is also focusing almost entirely on the need for global responses against CO2 build up, (as if giving more power to unaccountable bureaucrats will save the planet). Lithuania are seeing their self sufficiency n energy challenged by bogus CO2 targets the people in that poor country are seeing their prospects of a more comfortable life taken away from them.
This momentum reaches right down through the political classes into the media and comedy shows, only a few days ago there was a sketch about how stupid it is to pretend there is a case against the CO2/Global theories. It was really a vile crude tarring of people who have the courrage to stand up against the political consensus of idiots who follow every fad like sheep, and in a way it was wicked.
I think there is a connection between the lessening of democratic accountability in our political institutions as they meet the challenges of globalisation and the lessening of well-mannered debate.
One of the few ways of cutting through this debate is for people across disciplines in the scientific community to simple say the global warming models are bad science
My brother has been working with the Italian team at CERN for twenty years and is head of a project called Alice (I think).
Isaaac Asimov said that if you held the earth in your hand, and then carefully wiped away the oceans, rivers and lakes, you would be left with a sphere that is much smoother than a billiard ball. We think that the ocean is so huge because we are so tiny.
Everest and the deep ocean trenches are mere imperfections on our home sphere.
There is much less lag in ocean temperatures than anyone believes. The sun is active and El Ninos flourish, warming earth and sea alike. The sun is quiet and La Nina, the ice queen, moves in.
Anyone who watches the animations of La Nina can see this cooling taking place. The earth and her oceans cool and warm depending on what our heat source, the sun, does.