Even though little change has been seen, there is some interesting news in the August RSS numbers. We are still cooler than one year ago, and the 12 month trend continues to drop.
The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for August 2008 was published today and has remained essentially unchanged, with a value of 0.146°C for a miniscule change (∆T) of -0.001°C globally from July 2008.
RSS
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3 0.079
2008 4 0.080
2008 5 -0.083
2008 6 0.035
2008 7 0.147
2008 8 0.146
The August 2008 number is 0.221°C lower than in August of 2007 which was 0.367°C
Click for a larger image
The RSS data is here (RSS Data Version 3.1)
While is was going to do my own analysis of the numbers, Walter Dnes did an excellent job of summarizing it all in comments on another thread, so I’ll give him the honor:
This brings down the 12-month running mean to +0.086, which is very slightly lower than the +0.091 12-month running mean to the end of November 1987. That’s almost 21 years ago.
What I’m really waiting for is Hadley and GISS 12-month means to drop below their 1995 values. Hadley might make it in the next couple of months. GISS by year end. Once we get annual means matching temperatures on the other side of 1998, global cooling will be undeniable.
We do indeed live in interesting times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
counters,
I’d have to say then the comma was misplaced. The first part of the sentence (the one I responded to) is a complete thought, the phrase separated out by a comma followed with ‘and’ makes it confusing and masks your apparent intent to include it as a criteria.
If 1998 was an outlier and cannot be counted in the cooling side of things, then it also cannot be counted on the warming side of things either then, can it? If that is so, then I don’t think you have a multi-decadal warming trend either.
In any case suggesting that a ‘plausible mechanism’ is a prerequisite for evidence of a trend (or warming trend) is not viable. There is either a cooling trend or there is not, there is either a warming trend or there is not, regardless if the mechanism that causes it is understood or not.
““Could the decrease seen earlier this year be just another blip? In the 80’s and 90’s there are also sharp drops but these then recover …”
At around 1976 we saw a “step” upwards in average temperatures when the PDO switched to “warm” phase. It has now switched back to “cool” phase and we see a corresponding step down in average temperatures. Yes, in the period between there were blips up and down when we had various El Nino and La Nina events, but overall there is a very obvious step up that the RSS graphs can’t show because it happened in 1976, three years before the satellite measurements started.
Status of the Sun notwithstanding, I expect there to be an obvious step down to a generally cooler mode over the next couple of decades, just as there was from about 1945 to 1975. From ’76 to ’06 it was warmer, now it is cooler. Climate changes. Always has, always will.
Interesting arguments… from all parties
Aars I am not convinced by your posts…who cares about a piece of ice the size of manhattan? Ice breaks and forms all the time. You didn’t even bother mentioning the Antarctic record highs in ice formation…
Hmmm typical cherry-picking alarmist!!!
If this really is just a La Nina blip then no-one will be right and we will all be watching in anticipation at what nature does next.
As a climate realist I do see solar variability as an important factor…but think about it… the solar cycle 1964-1977 was longer than the current one and nothing major happened right?? No ice age happened… Yes, yes the solar conveyer belt was faster in the 70s than it is now, but I think we must be careful on placing such bets on solar cycles. I remember reading on an earlier thread where someone predicted that “July 2008 will see massive flares and SC 24 will erupt,,,etc” ,,,well…that never happened. We must wait and see! 🙂
btw: I really hate it when people bring up the hurricane argument.. I mean give me a break. 70 years ago there were no satellites to track hurricanes that did’t reach land, nor did they have accurate instruments to measure “records”. And there was not a ship in every square km of the ocean to track non-landfall storms. Skeptics’ arguments are pathetic really. And to just ignore the CO2 lagging temp effect is ludicrous as this one fact destroys it all.
Ah good point about that step in 1976…what a pity the satellite wasn’t invented earlier! It would have answered a few questions. Agreed we all know that, what is the problem is that no-one really knows for sure who or what controls it and by how much and for how long…
The solar cycle isn’t totally abnormal yet…we must wait until may 2009…and if it hasn’t started by then…well then we should seriously start worrying!
ref: Paul
quote There is indeed an overall trend of 0.017K/yr (1.7K/century), as you can see from:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend unquote
I’ve only eyeballed it but it is instructive to look at the Hadcrut3 record from 1910 with the dodgy bucket correction removed. It falls into three parts, 1910 to 1939, 40 to 57, 57 to 97. The record since 97 looks like a natural spike and then an attempt by the system to get back to the long term trend of the two steady warming periods — just like the struggle back to the norm after the 1939 spike. If that is the case we should be able to make a prediction.
I make the underlying warming rate about .14 deg C/decade. If the system is tending back to its preferred rate, when should warming recommence?
JF
“If this really is just a La Nina blip then no-one will be right ”
I believe the La Nina has already returned to “neutral” and did so a couple of months ago. So right now we are in a “neutral” ENSO condition with a “cool” PDO and a cool NAO. In a “cool” PDO, one generally sees more La Nina events than El Nino events and the opposite is true in the “warm” phase of PDO. So chances would be better of slipping into another La Nina than an El Nino event.
counters:
You seem to be long on opinion, and short on facts. Leaving out 1998, here is a chart of four agencies [including NASA/GISS], plus the deep sea buoys, which all indicate global cooling.
If you can, please refute each one in turn.
February 1878 anomaly +0.364C
July 2008 anomaly +0.403C
[HadCRUT3]
By my math, that is only 0.039C per 130 years or 0.003C per decade.
Or, alternatively, just 1.5% of the temperature increase expected under global warming theory.
Actually, we might be starting into another La Nina. Looking at this graph it looks like the last La Nina ended, we blipped up a little warm in June and dropped back down cold again in July. August’s ENSO numbers aren’t in yet as far as I know.
counters (10:36:14) :
Ok, yeah, according to NOAA’s ENSO “Diagnostic Discussion” page, we are neutral and have been for some time:
So the fact that we are neutral and temps are still down would argue that we are no longer seeing much/any impact from La Niña and so I would posit that we are seeing a continuing “cool” PDO / NAO having the greatest impact on moderating temperatures at the moment. In other words, I believe we have stepped down from the 1976 step up. Now solar activity could well modify that to either moderate or amplify that cooling depending on what we see going forward but I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that the current drop in temperatures is solar related … it would take a longer time for that to be noticed as the ocean stores a lot of heat. We aren’t much lower now than we have been at previous minimums.
I didn’t read all the comments, but I was just working on my monthly analysis of the data (I plan to write up a post on it tomorrow, if not tonight) and it is worth noting that, while the statement is true that the current 12-month temperature is slightly below the 12-month period ending November 1987, the statement seems a little misleading in that it is not the most recent occurrence of lower anomalies.
The current 12-month anomaly value of 8.6 last reached a level at least this low in the period ending December 2000, when the value reached 7.7. (It was as low as 4.2 earlier in the year)
I don’t put this out there to make any statement regarding warming or cooling, but rather for clarity. We’ve had periods like this before, and while I personally believe that we’re heading into an extended cooling phase, but the data at this point only suggests it and doesn’t prove it. We’ve had 12 consecutive months of year-over-year cooler anomalies, but from 1999-2000 we had a 15-month stretch.
Of significance is that a linear trend line (yes, I realize this is not the most appropriate measure, but it’s kind of the litmus test we all use to determine whether there is an overall trend of warming or cooling) can be stretched back to March 1997 with a negative slope.
I haven’t yet done my analysis on how the different slopes are changing.
Bill Illis –
“February 1878 anomaly +0.364C
July 2008 anomaly +0.403C
[HadCRUT3]
By my math, that is only 0.039C per 130 years or 0.003C per decade.
Or, alternatively, just 1.5% of the temperature increase expected under global warming theory.”
I just don’t believe arguments like this does anyone any good. Anybody can randomly (or purposely) select two individual months and make virtually any case they like. I think any reasonable person would understand that in a data set with hundreds of data points, you have variation, and that’s exactly why more rigorous statistical analysis is necessary.
I mean, in the past three months alone, we’ve seen global temperatures increase by nearly a quarter degree. If this continues, we’re all doomed.
Anthony,
I thought you and others would find this interesting if not very surprising. It’s baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. Yes, the Hockey Stick liveth yet again!
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/09/hockey-stick-lives-not.html
Article from the New York times along the same lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The editors at EUReferendum conclude thusly:
“It is, of course, going to take some time to deconstruct the Mann paper, but it is worth noting that climatologists have difficulty deciding even today what is the current temperature. That Mann is so unequivocally able to assert what the temperature was 1300 years ago tells us all we need to know.
But then, as we have so often observed, we are not dealing with science here, so much as a belief system. Those who want to believe will continue to believe, while the rest of us stand back in amazement and marvel at the gullibility of the human species – or some of it.”
Here we go again!
REPLY: I’ve been aware of it for some time, but due to its Mannomatic nature which before relied on some questionable, and some would say, outright fraudulent methods, I’m waiting to see how the dust settles before wasting any column space on it. In short, I see the new Mann paper as a polished turd that was pulled from the old stinking heap for rework. Other than that it’s perfect.
[…] August RSS Global Temperature – holding steady, still cooler than 1 year ago Even though little change has been seen, there is some interesting news in the August RSS numbers. We are still cooler […] […]
Re the above, I agree wholeheartedly. There is nothing but tweaking being done in order to get it accepted.
Anthony,
As a plumber, I have to take exception to the fact that you referred to the new hockey stick graph as a “polished turd”. It cannot hold a candle to a turd. Turds make me alot of money. Please be more careful in the future.
Mike Bryant
Anthony, Flush that last commrnt if you wish it won’t hurt my feelings.
Matt Carden (11:44:59) wrote : ” My story on this is here: http://www.cardenchronicles.com/2008/09/link-between-solar-activity-and-weather.html
Matt, maybe it’s just me, but I find your site VERY difficult to read and a “turn off.”
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Anthony wrote: “In short, I see the new Mann paper as a polished turd that was pulled from the old stinking heap for rework.”
And Mann continuously attempts to hand the clean end to his colleagues!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Diatribical Idiot – (Great Nick by the way) – “I just don’t believe arguments like this does anyone any good. Anybody can randomly (or purposely) select two individual months and make virtually any case they like. I think any reasonable person would understand that in a data set with hundreds of data points, you have variation, and that’s exactly why more rigorous statistical analysis is necessary.”
It actually does a lot of good to take the most extreme individual months in the record to provide a comparison. Cherry-picking to be sure, but it got a lot of people to actually look at the data and see the natural variability which occurs.
All we ever see is this GISS chart or the Hadley Centre chart of temperature (smoothed beyond all recognition but still) a straight line going up. It is all designed to drive an emotional reaction of the reader.
But when one looks at the significant variation which has occurred, even over this short period of time, one gets a better understanding of how the smoothed line could increase all by itself, simply by natural variation.
In addition, the smoothed line going up is less than half of what global warming theory says it should have increased.
1878 was an extreme El Nino event year. 2007-08 was a mild La Nina year. Obviously, the temp change between the two will be a minimal amount over the entire record. But the temps in 1878 are virtually the same as today.
All that really means is that GHGs and global warming is far, far less of a problem that the climate models predict it should be.
CO2 levels in 1878 were about 290 ppm. Today they are 385 ppm. Temperatures should have increased by 1.75C over this period if global warming theory was correct given the logarithmic impact of rising CO2. Instead, we see temps have increased by just 0.039C over the period (or a smoothed number of 0.7C). That just means the impact of GHGs is far, far less than the theory predicts and far, far less than any temp chart shown to the public today invokes.
I cherry-picked those two years to derive an emotional reaction from people just like the smoothed line going straight up is designed to invoke (even though it is still less than half of what global warming theory says it should be.)
Last year on this day in NE Oregon, Enterprise recorded a high of 83.4, a low of 56.5, and an average temp of 67.5. Today the high of 50.2 was recorded at 10:15 AM, and the low of 34.7 was recorded earlier at 6:28 AM. This degree of downturn has been happening for 3 weeks. I am already using my winter store of wood.
Regardless of what you think of global climate, there will be folks this winter here in the US and maybe in my county who will lose their lives due to what I predict will be extreme winter cold temps and no money for heating fuel or electricity. Weather is clearly relevant.
Pamela Gray (21:17:38) :
“I am already using my winter store of wood.”
Oh dear, does that mean you’re heading for a “Three Hubby Night?” Or just a one hubby and two dog night?
I only have one smallish dog, so one wife and one dog for me, except was 88 today, and still 66F and humid tonight. Dog gets pushed out of bed tonight.
average sun spots.
90 year cycle looks possable + or –
200 looks good too
1823
87.7/30=2.92
1913
87.6/30=2.92
2008 09-01
259/28=9.3
1798
229.1/30=7.64
any one know the weather for 1798 ?
Counters, two words, sun spots.
Anthony, I would like to help with the project, the FAYETTE 4SW
is a possiblity. no way to know for sure of a drive by but would like to go.
REPLY: Fayette is in what state? – Anthony
Oh dear, does that mean you’re heading for a “Three Hubby Night?” Or just a one hubby and two dog night?
Woe is me, I don’t even have dogs – so had to get a new chainsaw, stat. [I live in the same County as does Pamela. I think we had a whole two months of subjective “Summer” with virtually no “Spring” at all.]
And listen up, counters: if we don’t have a Fall Indian Summer where I live this year, Global Cooling is most certainly verified – hey, my logic is at least as good as yours and that of the ipcc “Climate Scientists”. After all, anything goes in “Climate Science” – it’s oso Progressive that way.