UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for August 2008 was published today and has moved a bit below the zero anomaly line, with a value of -0.010°C, down from 0.048°C in July 2008
The global UAH ∆T from July to August 2008 was .049°C and is 0.287°C cooler than in August 2007. It becomes the fourth time the UAH data has dipped below the zero anomaly line in 2008
UAH
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.180
2008 6 -0.114
2008 7 0.048
2008 8 -0.010
Click for a larger image
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jared,
Also including one from the present.
La Nada: Isn’t it interesting that 5 successive 3-month <-0.5 Equatorial SST indicies were required to declare La Nina, and yet conditions change and prior to the first set of numbers indicating its ‘end’ coming out at the end of July it’s declared over.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/ensoforecast.shtml
The forecasts tip back to La Nina by October.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
We are still in negative territory. Perhaps the JAS number will sneak above zero but I bought new plugs and a battery just in case.
Jared (13:00:02) :
To say this La Nina was cooler than the ’99 is frankly bizarre, what temperatures are you talking about? Land and sea surface temperatures are higher now than they were 9 years ago, atmospheric temperatures virtually the same.
Mary…
I already produced the stats for that statement in a previous comment above. Here it is again, according to UAH lower tropospheric data, which this thread/article is about.
UAH 1999 through August (average): +.042
UAH 2008 through August (average): -.023
Globally, 2008 has been cooler than 1999 so far, even though that La Nina was stronger and maintained longer. Explain?
Bill, thank you …. exactly the plight that you place.
Leif, thank you …. especially on solar activity. Specifically the balance solar electric.
I think that the mechanism for transfer of heat in the ocean does not follow the equation Navier-Stocks. So below is the rate of diffusion in the lower layers of the ocean there is sufficient time for the temperatures to reach equilibrium, on the other hand observing the phenomenon of convection (cyclones) the answer is instantaneous, Therefore I am trying to go to another equation (daydreams). I will consider that the ocean is neutral and Sun is constant (Hansen has done this and won a Nobel prize, let the criticism on this for later, in fact I am trying to change the equations.). sure, this is the scenario A1B (breathe).
Considering only the atmosphere, (August/2008)
I have to ΔF = ΔS – T ΔH
Whereas:
Sun spots = zero (Catania ….)
T in July 2008 ≈ T in August 2008
Atmospheric pressure = constant
Once ΔH = 0
For example, several phenomena occurred in August 2008 for ΔH=0
Conclusion: the variation of ice in the Arctic and Antarctica occurred due to a ΔS, and not because of a change in global temperature.
………Waiting take as little as possible………..
Gary Gulrud: I agree with you … I hope the return of La Ninã … … against 17 models (all indicated El Niño at the end of the year) but the situation is extremely volatile at this time. For only SOI.
Anne; welcome and good job
Feel free to correct me (and I’m sure someone will), but according to my calculations, both UAH and RSS have 2008 (so far) as the coolest year since 1993.
ThePenguin (05:56:28) :
“Down here in Sydney Australia we have just had our coldest August since 1944 !!!”.
Something has just struck me, we’ve all been complaining about the replacement of the term Global Warming with Climate Change because of the removal of warming part. But, maybe, it’s the global part of the term we should be looking at. If you look at this graphic posted by 00 (12:16:23) : http://climate.uah.edu/august2008.htm you will see differences between north and south.
Is another la nina forming?
SOI in rapidly rising +15
SST and winds falling in line
This would be consistent with predominant La Ninas in a PDO switch to cooling phase\
Matt, I believe 2008 is the coolest year since 1997 so far.
The GISSTEMP anomaly for August was 0.39.
Following a few small changes to recent months that gives the average for this year so far as 0.375, which is lower than for any year since 2000.
jared:-
Try making the same calculation using the summer months of June, July and August and you get a different result. Try it with other global temperatures, not just the lower troposphere and you will see how this summer has globally been warmer than the La Nina of ’99. The SST anomoly charts are suggesting that the heat transfer is occurring below the ocean surface globally in profound ways. Combined with higher air temperatures in recent years this has caused the extra-ordinary melt in the Arctic the last couple of years. Warmer deepocaen currents are melting the ice around the Antarctic causing thinning of the ice, the lower salinity is also paradoxically increasing ice area.
You cannot say that by comparing the anomolies of one specific measurement in two La Ninas shows that the globe is cooling. There are other factors at work and no two events are the same, the ’99 event closely followed the largest El Nino recorded and the lag in temperatures would have resulted in global temperatures during the ’99 La Nina being raised slightly. This did not happen prior to the recent La Nina. I’m afraid your logic is rather like the Monty Pythons Witch sketch in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, to paraphrase “If she floats, she’s made of wood, therefore she burns so she’s a witch!”
“Not to worry about the LHC. If a black hole is created”
If they manage to create the Higgs Boson, which is the most coveted goal, that would not result in enough energy to turn over your car’s engine.
Mary Hinge…
First of all, there are very few surface stations over the Arctic, so it is much more accurate to go by the satellite readings for that area of the globe for sure, at least. And the satellites show that summer 2008 was about 1F cooler over the Arctic than summer 2007. Those are the facts, interpret them as you wish.
Secondly, I was comparing 2008 so far to 1999 so far, not just the summer months. Remember, the 1998-99 La Nina began earlier, got stronger, and maintained longer than the 2007-08 La Nina. Again, those are the facts. Yet, so far, 2008 is running cooler than 1999.
You asked me to compare 1999 summer temperatures with 2008, according to a surface metric? Very well…GISS shows summer 1999 to have been slightly warmer than summer 2008. Just the facts, as you wanted.
Now my question for you: are you looking at the facts first, or forming your opinions first?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=8&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0603&year1=1999&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
Jared (09:40:20) :
You should really look at the big picture and stop relying on cherry picked comparisons between two differing events. Also try simple maths, use the mean for the three months you get a better picture. While you’re at it try and make some attempt to answer my particular points, which you haven’t even touched on in your response. You don’t have the right to ask me a question until you have at least touched on the points I made. To paraphrase Monty python again
MP-“This isn’t an argument, it’s contradiction”
JC “No it isnt, if I argue with you I must take up a contrary position”
MP “Aaaah, but an argument is a collective series of statements intended to establish a proposition, it isn’t just saying “No it isn’t”
JC- “Yes it is”
MP- “No it isn’t”
So unless you listen to someones points don’t bother asking any questions, just jump up that cherrypicker of yours and sing and dance,do what you like, ’cause no-one is listening to you.
Mary…
You are incredibly close-minded. I present you with facts, and all you can do is resort to empty accusations of “cherry-picking”? C’mon, show me how I’m cherry picking by comparing the last major La Nina to this one.
And what questions do you want me to answer? You initially disputed my claims, so I provided you with the facts to back them up.
Mary Hinge (09:15:26) wrote: “Hi John, sorry, I’m not getting into a religious discussion, not in the scope of this blog.”
Good grief! This coming from the very person who began the entire discussion with her diatribe against Palin!
Mary continues: “I was using the point that I wouldn’t trust anything on a scientific level that came from someone that believes in creationism when all the scientific evidence supports evolution through natural selection.”
Could you please list some of the evidence? As far as I knew, evolution is still just a theory, a theory which may have substance on one hand, and not on another. You also have to remember the evolution theory was hammered into everyones’ skulls by the Lamestream Media (ABCNNBCBS) in much the same manner as they are hammering AGW into everyones’ skulls.
Mary also wrote: “So unless you listen to someones points don’t bother asking any questions, just jump up that cherrypicker of yours and sing and dance,do what you like, ’cause no-one is listening to you.”
Actually Mary, it seems people are listening to you… in much the same manner as one would listen to a good comedian. Your arguments and arrogant attitude don’t wash.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Jared (16:00:35) :
“C’mon, show me how I’m cherry picking by comparing the last major La Nina to this one. ”
You’ve just answered your own question! They are two similar but different events, you can’t give a direct comparison as the global picture was very different prior to the evnts, you haven’t explained away the ‘lag’ effect of the extreme El Nino prior to this at all! You are basing your entire argument on this one, very narrow point, you are also innacurate, this year so far is NOT the coldest since 2007, but the coldest since 2000. This NH summer is very similar to the summer of 1999, maybe slightly warmer or slightly cooler and with the El Nino lag affecting global temperatures during the following La Nina in real terms this summer would be much warmer than ,99, globally. You also haven’t explained the heat transfer into the sub-surface oceans and the effect this is having on the seas around the poles (both events predicted in global warming models.)
As for Jack Koening, any credibility you MIGHT have had has gone out of the window and exposes your non-scientific mindset. Evolution IS REAL, it’s happening, it has happened (if creationism can be taken seriously it has to explain why God bothered to ‘design’ trilobites, ammonites, pterosaurs, eurypterids and the like, did he just get bored with them and made them extinct!!) The whole creationist argument is a joke and Palin, by supporting the study of ‘Intelligent design’ in science lessons falls into this catagory.
You show your ignorance in science by explaining it away as a theory, you should know that science is based on theories and that some theories have been very thoroughly tested and have been strengthened to such a point that no-one of serious scientific thought can deny them. If you want the evidence supporting evolution then I can give it to you, as can any serious scientist on this blog could.
Mary….
No, my entire argument is not based on the fact that 2008 has been cooler so far than 1999. How about the fact that when ENSO effects are removed from the temperature record, there is a flat or slightly declining trend with EVERY temperature metric from 2001 onward?
And the 1998 El Nino ended long before 1999 began, so to claim that temperatures in 1999 were still be affected by the El Nino cannot be supported, that is just your speculation.
This is all a waste of time with you, anyway. You are obviously a die-hard AGW believer who will twist any facts to fit the theory you hold so dear. I dare you to actually open your eyes and look at all the evidence. I did, and now I realize how foolish it is to think AGW is the only explanation for climate change.
Jared:-
Still avoiding the oceans and the poles ehh!
Your comment “how foolish it is to think AGW is the only explanation for climate change.” is again preposterous, no scientist regards AGW as the ONLY explanation but it is PART of the problem, and with such a chaotic system as weather and climate small changes can lead to big effects. Your cherry picking of a single event is worthless, to illustrate lets compare the 1989-90 La Nina,( which was a more similar event to the 2007-8 La Nina) against the 2007- 2008 event and see what happens http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=8&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=1106&year1=1989&year2=1990&base1=2007&base2=2008&radius=1200&pol=reg
Surprise surprise, the world was much cooler then! This type of cherry picking is just as valid as yours, probably more so as it is comparing similar events, but even so I wouldn’t use this as the basis of an argument. Shall I ask you “my question to you is how was it so much cooler then than now?”
Removing the ENSO effects still produces a small short trend rise since 2001, it is a much higher medium to long trend rise. You seem to think that short term trends are the major ones as they support your theory at the moment, once the short term trends start to rise again (which, due to the nature of climate they will) you will have to change stance again.
I have looked at the evidence, from paleontological, biological, climate models, the exciting marine work going on at the moment, solar, wind measurement, chemical and computer modelling and you know what, the evidence so far suggests that AGW is happening and the consequences of even small changes to the climate ( especially to agriculture) are too dangerous to ignore and until we have at least some strong evidence to suggest that AGW is not to blame then it would be highly irresponsible to ignore it.
This is not a therory “[I] hold dear”, I would love it to be wrong, and the facts aren’t twisted to suit the theory, to see that read Jack Koening’s verdict on Evolution!
Mary Hinge (01:34:00) wrote: “As for Jack Koening, any credibility you MIGHT have had has gone out of the window and exposes your non-scientific mindset.”
Up to your old tricks Mary? Attempt to re-frame the question in your terms and then use circuitous arguments to avoid the real issue? That doesn’t cut it Mary… at least not here. As far as credibility is concerned, I have more in my little finger than you could ever muster.
Mary continued: “Evolution IS REAL, it’s happening, it has happened (if creationism can be taken seriously it has to explain why God bothered to ‘design’ trilobites, ammonites, pterosaurs, eurypterids and the like, did he just get bored with them and made them extinct!!)”
I’m not too certain what all that diatribe is about, but once again you can’t seem to comprehend what I said. I never said evolution wasn’t real. All one has to do is look at our changing bodies to realize almost everything evolves. One glaring example would be the generally increasing heights of children from one generation to another.
Mary continued: “The whole creationist argument is a joke and Palin, by supporting the study of ‘Intelligent design’ in science lessons falls into this category.”
Nice try at ignoring the issue Mary, but “creationism” and “intelligent design” are two different issues. Your ignorance in the matter is telling!
Mary also wrote: “You show your ignorance in science by explaining it away as a theory, you should know that science is based on theories and that some theories have been very thoroughly tested and have been strengthened to such a point that no-one of serious scientific thought can deny them.”
So by stating the above, you posit that because some theories have been tested and strengthened, evolution must be one of them. Huh? Where did you study logic, Mary… Disneyland? This is an old trick right out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”: make any convoluted claim and then state that anyone skeptical of that claim is a nutcase. Nice try, but once again you failed!
And FINALLY, Mary conclude: “If you want the evidence supporting evolution then I can give it to you, as can any serious scientist on this blog could.”
Wonderful! Then why don’t you do it? Wasn’t that what I asked for in the first place?
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Mary Hinge (04:40:46) wrote: “I have looked at the evidence, from paleontological, biological, climate models, the exciting marine work going on at the moment, solar, wind measurement, chemical and computer modelling and you know what…”
Wow! You must be some type of genius to comprehend all that! Where did you study? Any notable degrees?
Actually, I “Googled” Mary Hinge and all I could find was a strip dancer in England and a few other nondescripts. I also found that the term “Mary Hinge” is commonly used for women with “hairy vaginas” in England
Is “our” Mary Hinge actually “counters” in drag? They seem to both use the same circuitous arguments, convoluted logic, and contempt for the facts!
Anthony, do they share the same or similar IP addresses?
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Reply: Anthony has an established policy against people using more than one alias when posting which he applies universally to all posters as our resident poet can testify (here) . If Mary and Counters were the same person, I am sure he would have taken an appropriate action. Let trust in his judgment in this regard and avoid the ad hominem attacks – Anne, the newbie moderator
An interesting reply but your ignorance somehow managed to shone through!
“One glaring example would be the generally increasing heights of children from one generation to another.”
This has nothing to do with evolution in any form but everything to do with diet and health. I feel sorry for you in that you have exposed your lack of understanding of basic science for all to see.
Also you seem ignorant of religion to, but don’t be too hard on yourself. Creationism is the process of giving life by an intelligent designer so how can Creationism be different from Intelligent Design?
My point again is that you cannot trust someones scientific judgement if you make such glaring errors in such basic science.
For the record I have not been ‘ignoring the issue’ or ‘avoiding the real issue’, I have gone straight to the issue but you don’t like it and start spouting nonsense!
To repeat your error “I never said evolution wasn’t real. All one has to do is look at our changing bodies to realize almost everything evolves. One glaring example would be the generally increasing heights of children from one generation to another.” You are saying you agree with the theory of evolution because of this particular ‘fact’! This is the exact parallel to your climate beliefs, YOU BELIEVE IN IT DESPITE THE ‘FACTS’ TO BE PLAINLY WRONG!!
Maybe you can understand why I shouldn’t go into giving a full evolutionary discussion, let’s dicuss: Genetic inheritance, mutations, phenotype, genotype, resource competion, fossil records, DNA analysis, monophyly, heterosis, heterochrony, group selection, bottlenecks, genetic load, fitness, extinction, environmental adaptation, epistasis and good old Darwinism, or even neo-Darwinism. There is of course also adaptation, sexual selection, niche adaption, altruism and speciation to go through. Maybe your head is hurting, why don’t you have a lie down…you deserve it; or why not grow some cojones and enjoy the discussion!
Attention – There has been enough creationism and religion on this topic by now. Charles has previous warned people off the topic as well. There are a number of blogs which regularly host this sort of debate that may be better suited to your conversation. Lets move on people, nothing here to see. – Anne
Hi Anne,
sorry for the religious bits, a good policy not to get involved in them, seems to bring out the dark side! Just for the record I am definately not ‘counters’ nor am I a strip dancer (if only I still had the body!), and as the folicular state of my punani, that’s between the waxer and me 😉
To summarise, “Sorry officer, you’ll have no more trouble from me!” No more religion, even if prompted, only exposing those who try to establish their points with untruths.
Reply: We all are indebted to Anthony for providing us with a safe, thoughtful space to hang out and each one of us should take personal responsibility for maintaining that standard. – Anne
Mary,
The fact is, I presented evidence that this year has been cooler than 1999. You disputed that. I provided the evidence to show that this was indeed the case. Then, you moved on to dismissing this as meaningful…you never answered my original question, posed to all AGWers here: what is your explanation for how cool 2008 has been?
And sure, if you compare the 1989 La Nina to this one, that one was cooler. I agree that there has been warming since then. However, that one reached a peak strength much stronger than 2008’s, so I’m not sure why you think it is more comparable. Anyhow, my point is not that there hasn’t been warming since the 1980s, just that there has been little or no warming since the end of the 1990s. All the data points to that conclusion. So the real question is: why? I’m not saying it disproves AGW, but it sure wasn’t expected either.
Hi Jared,
guess we got a bit side-tracked with Mr Koenig. Your point that there has been little warming, (lower atmosheric warming to be more accurate) since the end of 1999 is valid. This of course doesn’t mean that there has been no warming overall, the oceans take up 70% of the solar energy and research has shown faster than expected warming in sub-surface seas, hence the bevaviour of the with sea ice around both poles. This heat stored under the sea which is released at the surface is one of the manifestations of El Nino’s. I guess my point is that even though the surface temperatures have shown little change, the ocean could well be storing this heat energy to be released at a later time. Further research may show if this is the case or not.
As for picking the ’89 La Nina I was making the point that you can’t compare 2 La Nina’s as if they are the same entity but at a different time. As you correctly stated the ’89 event was different to the 2007-2008, just as the point I made that the ’99 event was different to the last event.
It will be interesting to see what happens this winter as a new La Nina looks likely and is within predictions of behaviour seen during a negative PDO.