While the official number for June 2008 global temperature anomaly from UAH is not out yet, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit reports it to be -0.114 for the global number.
Click for a larger image
A number of commenters there are puzzled as to how Steve might have this “inside information” when it has not yet been published. Normally you’d find that data here
Steve left a clue in comments at CA when Lucia asked:
Did you get Roy Spencer to email you the data? I cleared cache and I don’t see June.
Steve: No.
Knowing Steve, I’m guessing he wrote a script to scrape data from this page http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ (or a page like it) and then calculated the June global UAH numbers from it. Steve McIntyre is careful and cautious about such things, so I would trust his number even though UAH has not officially released it yet.
Congratulations to Steve on getting the “scoop”!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
IceAnomaly (16:33:58) :
“The ONLY way to get model output for the coupled GCMs that matches the temperature increase of the last century, is to include anthropogenic CO2 as an input. The anthro CO2 then operates through basic radiative physics and feedbacks, such that it is very easy to use physically realistic values for all parameters adn settings, and reproduce the temperatures of the last cnetury.”
So, what happens if you don’t add the feed back in the models?
From what I understand, the postive feedback amplifier is 2.5
“As just mentioned, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide (from the pre-Industrial value of 280 parts per million) in the global atmosphere causes a forcing of 4 W/m2. The central value of the climate sensitivity to this change is a global average temperature increase of 3 °C (5.4 °F), but with a range from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (based on climate system models: see section 4). The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Well-documented climate changes during the history of Earth, especially the changes between the last major ice age (20,000 years ago) and the current warm period, imply that the climate sensitivity is near the 3 °C value. However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of the feedback can differ according to the composition, thickness, and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have suggested a lesser climate sensitivity.”
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, pp 6-7,
Committee on the Science of Climate Change
National Research Council
In other words the amplification factor of 2.5 is an assumption made to “balance the books”
So again, I ask the what has been the ampiification factor over the last eight years?
Ophiuchus
I have no idea what caused the climate change from MWP to LIA, but I’m 99.9%confident that mankind didn’t cause it. I guess we can chock it up to unknow factors.
Basic radiative physics says that the equilibrium response to 2xCO2 will be a temperature increase of 1.1C. This is the baseline, the prediction from ‘basic physics,’ in the absence of any feedbacks. Your “basic physics” conveniently leaves out that the warming effect of C02 is logarithmic, not linear. Must be hockey stick physics.
When in the past increased temp caused increased CO2, much of that increase in CO2 came via outgassing from warmer oceans. But we know that right now, CO2 in the oceans is increasing, not decreasing – net CO2 flow is from atmosphere to ocean, not out of ocean. This is causing ocean acidification, and it is another serious risk that comes with rapidly increased atmospheric CO2.
Interesting, Ice. AGW physics again? Funny how, with AGW, the laws of nature can suddenly, magically be reversed. If C02 in the oceans is indeed increasing, it couldn’t possibly be because the oceans have started to cool, could it? Or, possibly due to increased underwater volcanic activity?
As a lay person, I am enjoying the debate, if not understanding all of it.
Can anyone answer a simple question for me?
If as I understand it, global temperatures fell strongly in 2007, and that fall has continued into 2008, if those temperatures keep falling, say to over 2C less than in 1980, isnt that the end of the AGW theory? Surely whatever it is they predict, a sharp fall in temperatures would be outside those bounds. Measurements outside of those bounds, and the AGW game is up?
It looks to me as if the measurements that we have for the past 18 months suggest that it is almost over for AGW as a scientific hypothesis. Our governments should be spending money on snow ploughs, not carbon trading.
From what I read about Solar Activity being almost zero at the moment, if the alternative ‘Solar’ theory is right, things are going to get pretty chilly over the next couple of years.
I sent an email to Greenpeace to ask them if they would be changing their policy on climate change given the recent falls in global temperatures. I received a very rude response. It is interesting just how many vested interests in all of this have been built up over the years. Should the evidence prove that the King has no clothes, the little boy who points this out is going to receive a very rough time from the courtiers of the King until opinion changes decisively.
Thanks for listening to an amateur.
Sorry to hear you received a rude response from Greenpeace… it doesn’t surprise me. Steve McIntyre, of Climate Audit, has also been getting roughed up for his research into how data is gathered and results produced using incorrect statistical methods. The AGW crowd is beginning to see their sham unravel and they’re getting desperate.