RSS Global Temperature Anomaly also down in May, halving the April value

RSS May 2009-520

Click for a larger image

The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for March 2009 was published yesterday and has dropped after peaking in January.   The change from April with a value of 0.202°C to May’s 0.09°C is a (∆T) of  -0.112°C.

Recent RSS anomalies

2008 10 0.181

2008 11 0.216

2008 12 0.174

2009 01 0.322

2009 02 0.230

2009 03 0.172

2009 04 0.202

2009 05 0.090

RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)

The RSS data is here (RSS Data Version 3.2)

Oddly, a divergence developed in the Feb 09 data between RSS and UAH, and opposite in direction to boot. UAH was 0.347 and RSS was 0.230

 I spoke with Dr. Roy Spencer at the ICCC09 conference (3/10) and asked him about the data divergence.

Here is what he had to say:

“I believe it has to do with the differences in how diurnal variation is tracked and adjusted for.” he said. I noted that Feburary was a month with large diurnal variations.

For that reason, UAH has been using data from the AQUA satellite MSU, and RSS to my knowledge does not, and makes an adjustment to account for it. I believe our data [UAH] is probably closer to the true anomaly temperature, and if I’m right, we’ll see the two datasets converge again when the diurnal variations are minimized.”

It certainly looks like the data sets are converging now, with a scant difference in May of .047°C and that Dr. Spencer was right.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Adam Soereg

Despite of the near-neutral ENSO conditions the global temperature is falling again. Last year the UK MetOffice predicted that the year 2009 will be at least the fifth warmest on record, and just the recently observed La Nina conditions preventing it from being even warmer.
The latest La Nina has gone, and this year is lightyears away from being the 5th warmest or higher. Something is not right with the forecast mechanism used by the MetOffice. Since 1999, they have forecasted too high values for every years. They have been wrong all the time, and always to the same direction. It can’t be just a random error, it must be a very clear bias.

grayuk

Love the website, love the data, man made global warming is a farce, I have always believed it, but this website just keeps enforcing my opinion (and just about everyone I speak to).
Now, how are we going to stop the idiot politicians before they ruin us all?
What can we all do? Any guidance? Any ideas for positive action? We have to get this insanity stopped?
P

grayuk

I have stopped using the UK met office for any weather forecasts, they are almost always incorrect, and the website is now nothing more than a man made global warming propaganda shop window.
P

John F. Hultquist

“Dr. Spencer was right.”
All of this research and reporting – atmosphere, oceans, solar, weather stations – is multifaceted and globe spanning. Thus, it is difficult to keep up with small parts of it. I always find Dr. Spencer’s reports and statements encouraging because he always writes in a very accessible manner, makes sense, and knows how different parts relate to one another. In the current case I feel confident that these data are reasonable because Spencer says they make sense to him and tells why.
In contrast, and very discouraging, when presented with a report from an avowed or closet “warmest” the assumption is one of being conned and trying to figure out how they are doing it.

Filipe

What’s the baseline period for the anomaly? It’s not indicated in the plot.

skeptic

Always a pleasure to see the cherry-picked examples of lower temperatures. Reading this site, one would get the impression that the world is getting colder, and would hardly know that we are in the midst of the hottest decade ever, or that last year was hotter than the average of the previous record holder for the hottest decade ever (1990s).
BTW, I noticed the NSIDC has resumed reporting arctic ice loss. Sadly, it shows that 2009 loss is well below normal and has almost exceed the record year for this time of year. I remember you had quite a number of posts when it was only a little less than average, and a few more when it went offline. Will you run a few more now that it shows results inconsistent with your hypothesis?

Adam Soereg (12:00:22) :
Despite of the near-neutral ENSO conditions the global temperature is falling again. Last year the UK MetOffice predicted that the year 2009 will be at least the fifth warmest on record, and just the recently observed La Nina conditions preventing it from being even warmer.

A little caution might be advisable here. There tends to be a lag between ENSO events and satellite temperatures. RSS and UAH temperatures are probably only now responding to the low point of SST which happened a couple of months ago. Hadley and GISS anomalies are likely to increase over the next few months with RSS and UAH following suit by the end of the summer.

Leon Brozyna

Tracking each month’s values is about as exciting as watching the paint dry on this (& the UAH) thirty year data collection project. In eyeballing the thing, I can see why the more fanatical of AGW proponents are sounding hysterical of late — after leveling off for a few years, the last 4-5 years seem suggestive of a falling temperature trendline. Ah well, such are the vagaries of climate – those damn cycles keep hiding all that warming.
Speaking of the vagaries of climate – remember the big disaster in the making last year in the SE US – the record setting drought? Atlanta’s water supply in Lake Lanier was drying up (man-made lake). Well, it seems it’s been a soggy spring in the SE this year with weekend plans washed out too often. As for the drought conditions…
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html
So much for the hysterics of the talking heads.

UKIPer

Well the Met Office predicted a “BBQ Summer” and yet here we are 2 weeks from midsummer and we have snow in England on the Pennines. A very rare event and there’ll be some interesting pictures about in tomorrow’s papers. So yes Grayuk, the Met Office’s forecast are next to useless. Independent forecasts have confirmed the likelihood for another floody summer with a sunken jet and wave after wave of vile, vomit-inducing cloudy wet days. As usual things are going against the Met with up to 4 inches of rain due in places this weekend, threatening more flooding.

khufy

“Well the Met Office predicted a “BBQ Summer” and yet here we are 2 weeks from midsummer and we have snow in England on the Pennines.”
You have to be kidding me. Were you the only man in england who missed the heat wave we just had? Barbeque weather..in spring. But 3 days of average temperature means that the Met Office is wrong….ahh
Oh and Midsummer isn’t actually “mid summer”. We’ve only had 5 days of summer so far.

skeptic (12:20:59) :

Always a pleasure to see the cherry-picked examples of lower temperatures. Reading this site, one would get the impression that the world is getting colder, and would hardly know that we are in the midst of the hottest decade ever, or that last year was hotter than the average of the previous record holder for the hottest decade ever…

Spoken like a fact-deficient True Believer: click
Notice that global temperatures are about the same as they were in 1979 – 80. The theory of natural climate variability predicts that temperatures will oscillate above and below a gradually increasing trend line from the LIA. That is exactly what’s happening.

George E. Smith

“”” skeptic (12:20:59) :
Always a pleasure to see the cherry-picked examples of lower temperatures. Reading this site, one would get the impression that the world is getting colder, and would hardly know that we are in the midst of the hottest decade ever, or that last year was hotter than the average of the previous record holder for the hottest decade ever (1990s).
BTW, I noticed the NSIDC has resumed reporting arctic ice loss. Sadly, it shows that 2009 loss is well below normal and has almost exceed the record year for this time of year. I remember you had quite a number of posts when it was only a little less than average, and a few more when it went offline. Will you run a few more now that it shows results inconsistent with your hypothesis? “””
Well you need to watch your words anonymous skeptic. We know for absolute certain that planet earth has had periods of ten years (decade) where it was considerably hotter than the last ten years, and would beat the warmest of the last ten yeras in every one of those earlier hotter decade years.
So clearly this is not the hottest decade ever. It very well might be the hottest decade since about 1978 when polar satellites were first launched, and also the Argo buoys were first put out in the ocean.
Prior to that we don’t have any idea what the mean global surface or lower troposphere temperature was; because we never measured it before then.
So you are simply wrong in your assertion. But lets give you the hottest decade since 1978.
Have you ever noticed how high values of a function tend to congregate around the peak of that function. Conversely, numerous studies have also shown that low values of a function tend to congregate around the minimum of that function ? Don’t you think that is odd ? It’s almost like the observations that some of the highest altitudes on the planet can be found up in the mountains.
Weird, if you ask me.

Ubuntu

Climate Progress has moved it WUWT bashing article back to the top of the heap! This isn’t over by a long shot.
Don’t forget to watch The Goode family!
Ubuntu

Ubuntu

Germany has really been sold on this whole global warming thing. Here’ a good chuckle the Goode’s would appreciate.
June 4 (Bloomberg) — Germany’s last glacier, located above the Bavarian resort of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, is getting a protective tarpaulin to help shield it from summer melting.
Ubuntu (left tackle extraordinaire)

James Waters

Alan, it would be great if you could post Dr. Roy Spencer power point presentation that he gave at the ICCC09 conference (3/10)

Mike Abbott

skeptic (12:20:59) :
[…]
BTW, I noticed the NSIDC has resumed reporting arctic ice loss. Sadly, it shows that 2009 loss is well below normal and has almost exceed the record year for this time of year. I remember you had quite a number of posts when it was only a little less than average, and a few more when it went offline. Will you run a few more now that it shows results inconsistent with your hypothesis?

Both sides in the global warming debate overstate the effect of global temperatures on the Arctic sea ice extent and thickness. As another commenter pointed out, regional atmospheric circulation patterns may be the biggest factor. This is acknowledged by the NSIDC, which closes its 6/3/09 Report with this statement:
“Whether or not Arctic sea ice reaches a new record low this summer will depend on the circulation patterns that set up over the next few months.”
(From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.)
This was also acknowledged by NASA after the great 2007 summer melt:
“[Dr.] Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”
(From: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html.)
And:
“A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming. ”
(From http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ipy-20071113.html.)
Finally, Anthony has recently posted two excellent animations of changes in Arctic sea ice over time based on satellite imagery. You can see the dramatic effect of the circulation patterns with your own eyes.

DanD

Quote: skeptic
Always a pleasure to see the cherry-picked examples of lower temperatures. Reading this site, one would get the impression that the world is getting colder, and would hardly know that we are in the midst of the hottest decade ever, or that last year was hotter than the average of the previous record holder for the hottest decade ever (1990s).
BTW, I noticed the NSIDC has resumed reporting arctic ice loss. Sadly, it shows that 2009 loss is well below normal and has almost exceed the record year for this time of year. I remember you had quite a number of posts when it was only a little less than average, and a few more when it went offline. Will you run a few more now that it shows results inconsistent with your hypothesis?

I agree with your first notion, skeptic. Considering how many cherry-picked examples we see that fit the AGW agenda, it’s nice to get some to the contrary, along with some well-reasoned analysis of the problems inherent in sea-ice extent measurement and data records.
I for one will keep watching the sea ice record and see what happens in the crucial months of July and August. Minimum extent is what gets the press. Keep in mind that at this time in 2006 there was less ice and the melt speed levelled off substantially compared to 2007. You can see it in the AMSRE graph above.
You’re also completely ignoring Antarctic ice, which is doing just fine, thanks.

For those who missed Przemysław Pawełczyk’s link to it a few days ago on the Lindzen thread, I prepared a post about the RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude plot that many of you would find interesting:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
I tried to use one of the figures from it in a comment at ClimateProgress, on the latest post in which Joe Romm attacks the “BREATHAKING ignorance” of WUWT by misspelling breathtaking in his headline. I wonder if Romm sees the humor in that.
But alas! My comment, which I saved, did not make it past Joe Romm’s filter. Each time I try to post a comment there with graphs that show cause and effect, my comment is deleted. Here’s the comment I posted at 12:37PM today (6/6/09) that failed to make it through:
Regarding the well-documented Polar Amplification, refer to RealClimate thread here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends
Real Climate writes, “Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):”
#
The following are two illustrations from the RealClimate thread. The first shows the tropical enhancement and polar amplification for a doubling of CO2 and the second illustrates the same effects for a 2% increase in solar irradiance.
http://i33.tinypic.com/10fu8p2.jpg
http://i38.tinypic.com/w8l4c0.jpg
RealClimate continues: “The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.
“If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case – the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models.”
#####
To create the polar amplification profile illustrated in the above figures in the GCMs, there had to be a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. Neither happened in the last 3 to 4 decades, so what created the polar amplification profile? Real Climate provides the answer. El Nino events.
Since 1976, did we endure a string of El Nino events whose frequency and magnitude greatly outweighed La Nina events? Most assuredly.
And when did polar amplification become evident in the Northern high latitudes? Immediately after the 1997/98 El Nino. It’s very visible in the RSS MSU Time-Latitude plot. I’ll make it easier to see with a time-series graph along side.
http://i42.tinypic.com/e9b04g.jpg
Regards

Frank Mosher

John Finn. You have indicated that you are an expert at predictions. When, exactly, will the UAH global anomaly exceed the .76 recorded for April 1998 ? Plus or minus a month or two would be close enough. Thanks fm

paulID

we need to get this t shirt for Dr Spencer and lief and all the true scientists out there http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/sciencemath/ba6a/

Joel Shore

Smokey says:

Notice that temperatures are about the same as they were in 1979 – 80. The theory of natural climate variability predicts that temperatures will oscillate above and below a gradually increasing trend line from the LIA. That is exactly what’s happening.

That’s not a theory…it’s just giving fancy names to observations. Why are we still recovering from the LIA? What evidence do you have for this and what is the mechanism that is leading to this warming?

Kazinski

Always a pleasure to see the cherry-picked examples of lower temperatures.
That is dead on, rather than cherry picking some outlying data point to try to make some bogus point, Steve should be looking at the most current data.
Oh. Nevermind.

For that reason, UAH has been using data from the AQUA satellite MSU, and RSS to my knowledge does not, and makes an adjustment to account for it. I believe our data [UAH] is probably closer to the true anomaly temperature, and if I’m right, we’ll see the two datasets converge again when the diurnal variations are minimized.”
It certainly looks like the data sets are converging now, with a scant difference in May of .047°C and that Dr. Spencer was right.

How is Spencer right, has RSS changed to the Aqua satellite? If RSS are still using their drift compensation method then it would appear by Spencer’s logic that he was not right and that the source of error is not the drift compensation. Or perhaps May was a month with small diurnal variation, anyone know?

KlausB

John Finn (12:25:06) :
[I]…Hadley and GISS anomalies are likely to increase over the next few months with RSS and UAH following suit by the end of the summer….[/I]
End of summer, possible. But for the next one or two month, I’m GISS-ing,
all four may go down a little bit further.
I like to compare UAH MSU (Global, Sea) to Pacific WWV from TAO.
The warm water volume does cange direction from month to month only
slightly, so accumulation will be for two more month.
Pacific Warm Water Volume vs. UAH MSU (Global, Sea), here:
http://i39.tinypic.com/20u5u8m.jpg

Peter Hearnden

UKIPer (12:41:31) :
Well the Met Office predicted a “BBQ Summer” and yet here we are 2 weeks from midsummer and we have snow in England on the Pennines. A very rare event and there’ll be some interesting pictures about in tomorrow’s papers. So yes Grayuk, the Met Office’s forecast are next to useless. Independent forecasts have confirmed the likelihood for another floody summer with a sunken jet and wave after wave of vile, vomit-inducing cloudy wet days. As usual things are going against the Met with up to 4 inches of rain due in places this weekend, threatening more flooding.

C’mon man (?) don’t hide behind your UKIP political banner!
Fact is the Met office is doing very well with it’s forecasts, that the rain atm is very localised (as in any high hills snow). Readers here need to know that and not be inadvertently misled.
Wrt the summer just started, it looks as if another (we’ve all ready seen warm weather this June) warm spell is on the card by next weekend. My advice is to not make it so obvious you’re getting you retaliation in early while we’re between hot spells ;).

Adam from Kansas

John D.Aleo gives a reality check from ICECAP regarding the El-Nino prospects
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Romms_Fairy_Tales.pdf
Also, didn’t EarlHapp say something of something he expects will hold up this development before El-Nino is official, don’t forget the PDO cool signature and the dropping of the AMO according to Unisys (which gets its daily readings from Bouys with no heat sinks because of ships)
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

jh

Off topic I know but does anyone know if there is a historic gloabal temperature anomally data set available that corrects the bucket problem discussed here a while back – link below. As far as I know data sets like Hadcrut3 are uncorreceted, as you would expect, have they been superceded?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/30/buckets-inlets-sst%e2%80%99s-and-all-that-part-2/

KlausB

Ubuntu (13:25:29) :
{i}…Germany has really been sold on this whole global warming thing.
Here’ a good chuckle the Goode’s would appreciate….{/i}
Yeah, and the national german weather service (DWD, http://www.dwd.de)
did already on the 27th of April give a note to the press, that
according to first analysis, it was the hottest April ever.
Was on the biggest tabloid here.
A week later, the update (April was only 2nd hottest ever),
nobody took notice. Same was with: December/January/February
as season was among the coldest three seasons of the last 25 years.
Sure, that’s only weather.

Joel Shore (13:48:43) :
[…]
Why are we still recovering from the LIA? What evidence do you have for this and what is the mechanism that is leading to this warming?

Because the Earth’s climate is always recovering from the last thing that happened to it.
We’ll be recovering from the LIA for the next couple of hundred years…Then we’ll be recovering from the MWP (Modern Warm Period). Eventually the Earth’s climate will start recovering from the Holocene.
On a “local scale”…We’re currently recovering from the last positive shift in the PDO…In about 25 years we’ll be recovering from the recent negative shift in the PDO.
For the last couple of months, we’ve been recovering from winter…In about four months we’ll start recovering from summer.
Today we are recovering from last night…Word has it that tonight we will be recovering from today.
Tomorrow I expect to be recovering from a hang-over.
You’re right…Not a theory…Just a fancy name for an intuitively obvious observation…;-))

paulID

Dave Middleton (14:17:50)
very good Dave, very witty, but you forgot to give Joel the mechanism so i will give him a hint. It’s big and yellow and it rises to damn early every morning and goes down to damn early when I’m fishing. 🙂

KlausB

Dave Middleton (14:17:50) :
re: Joel
Dave,
he’s still drinking AGW, his hang-over will come later.

paulID

sorry should be TOO damn early

Frank Mosher

Adam from Kansas. Note that the ” dynamic” models predict El Nino, and the ” statistical” models predict neutral. With the ONI for march-april-may at minus .1 and a cool PDO and AMO, an El Nino seems unlikely for me. As Joe points out, the vertical temp structure looks similar, but lacks the signature cool pool at 150m, 160e-180e. It sure is fun to speculate! More so since we will only have to wait a few months. fm

George E. Smith

“”” jh (14:08:45) :
Off topic I know but does anyone know if there is a historic gloabal temperature anomally data set available that corrects the bucket problem discussed here a while back – link below. As far as I know data sets like Hadcrut3 are uncorreceted, as you would expect, have they been superceded? “””
Well jh, there couldn’t be any such corrected data set; and there never will be.
Check Geophysical Research Letters for Jan 2001. John Christy et al.
They report on about 20 years of the Argo buoy data. Actual water temperature measurements from a fixed (?1 metre) depth, and simultaneous air temperatures at a fixed (?3 meter) height.
The air temperaturews reported only about 60% of the warming that the water temperatures reported for the succeeding 20 odd years; showing that the previous 150 years of oceanic temperature measures were wrong vaslues to use as a proxy for the lower troposphere temperatures that the land sensors measure.
More importantly the data shows that the air and the water temperatures are not even correlated; let alone identical as had previously been assumed.
Consequently the lower air temperatures over the ocean can never be reconstructed prior to about 1980. That’s data for more than 70% of the earth’s surface.
So prior to 1980ish; we have no idea what the global mean lower troposphere temperature was.

Trevor

Khuffy – we had 3 days of clear skies and hot weather. Then we have had 3 days of clear skies and cold weather.
My reading of this graph is that between 1980 and now temperatures have gone up and down a lot and right now are back were we started. So, after 30 years of alleged global warming, temperatures are exactly the same.

“Skeptic,” I wonder how long it will take for you to catch up. You are apparently still stuck on the original Mann “hockey stick” assertions about the relationship between temperatures in the Nineties and previous times.
Please read this. It will help you catch up. And, as you read it, keep at least these two things in mind: (1) “plausible” doesn’t mean anything like “certain,” and (2) the Little Ice Age was near its coldest period 400 years ago, so the warming that ended the LIA may have simply continued since the year 1600 cited in this report.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the “hockey stick.”
The Research Council committee found the Mann team’s conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies — in fewer locations — provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team’s conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

Mike Bryant

I’m never ever going back to climate progress. The owner seemed nice enough, but there were people there that were making open threats against some for expressing their sincerely held views. I wonder why the owner of that site would allow that?
Mike

Adam from Kansas

Hi Frank, can you tell me the difference between dynamic and statistical models and which ones have been shown to be more accurate?
Also I noticed there was no cool pool in the spot you described and BOM.gov is showing the surplus warm water in the western half of their depth maps almost gone. (after declining for a while). It depends on whether or not El-Ninos are supplied by water from the west near Indonesia or from the east near South America, if the west then El-Nino’s starting to look a bit more unlikely without that anomalously warm water supplying it to kick it into full gear, one more indication of a domino or two refusing to fall is the recent increase in cloudiness near the date-line.

Frederick Michael

Ubuntu (13:20:02) :
Climate Progress has moved it WUWT bashing article back to the top of the heap! This isn’t over by a long shot.
Don’t forget to watch The Goode family!
Ubuntu

I can’t see it. WebSense blocks ClimateProgress.com for sex.

Alan Millar

“Joel Shore (13:48:43)
Why are we still recovering from the LIA? What evidence do you have for this and what is the mechanism that is leading to this warming?”
As you and the rest of the alarmists have apparently ‘settled the science’ shouldn’t you be telling us?
Whilst you are it you can also explain to the rest of us IQ challenged people what caused the Earth to warm up to the MWP and then subsequently cooled down to the LIA and then caused it to warm up again to the start of the 20th century.
You can then explain what caused the global temperatures to increase from 1910 to 1940 at a similar rate to 1975 to 2000 even though there was little change in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric aerosols showed a very large increase.
Please be specific as to all the forcing factors involved, the measured changes etc and please explain in simplistic language so that IQ challenged people viewing here can understand.
Alan

Steve Hempell

Joel Shore (13:48:43)
One of my favourite things to do is to determine the area under the curve for the TSI chart (using a base of 1365.6 or thereabouts and always using Leif’s data!!) to determine the “activity” of the sun. If you do this you will find that the 19th century has ~10% more “activity” than the 18th; the 20th ~17% more than the 19th. Also the two halfs of the 20th century are almost equal (the later being slightly more!!). Leif has said that these numbers are basically correct. So the sun has been more active since the LIA and certainly since the M minimum of the 1600s
If you do the same for Volcano DVI (using Mann’s weighted DVI), the 19th century is, I don’t have the numbers in front of me, 60% (at least maybe more 80%? I’m not at home) greater than the 18th and the 20th even less than the 18th (~30%)
Surely this would have some effect on the earth’s average global temperature since the LIA with the 20th century likely to be the warmest.
Also, it has been pointed out by Bob Carter, Bob Tisdale and others that the El Nino of 1998 was an anomaly whose effects have, quite likely, not been dissapated. If you take the UAH trend from Dec 1978 to June 1997 the straight line trend is 0.036 Deg C/Decade. If you take the trend from 1989 to Nov 2008 the trend is 0.132 Deg C/Decade. I’m just waiting patiently to see what the temperatures do in the next few years. Maybe they will go down, revert to the very slight upward trend of before the El Nino or go through the roof!!

Steve Hempell: Be cautious about Mann’s DVI data in recent years. My first blog post was about the MBH manipulation of even that dataset:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/04/mann-et-al-weighted-dust-veil-index.html

Bottom line: after 30 years of unremitting, industrial strength, human production of CO2 from fossil carbon, global temperatures have risen a whopping 0.1 degree C.
If things keep up at this rate, by 2100 the Earth will be sweating from an unbearable temperature rise of 0.3 degrees C.
The shock, the horror of it all. Oh, the humanity! I’m moving to Mars.

J.Hansford

To…. skeptic (12:20:59) :
“Always a pleasure to see the cherry-picked examples of lower temperatures.”
Not so much “Cherry picked” as pointed out Skep.
As for me and many on this site, we consider natural variation to be the phenomenon being observed rather than Anthropogenic CO2 forcing climate.
Sure I acknowledge Anthropogenic impacts. I quite readily accept Heat Island effects around cities. I am cognisant of the impact of land clearing. There is plenty of scientific observation to bear out those hypothesis….. But as far as CO2 and it’s supposed effect on global climate is concerned…. The observation does not bear out the Hypothesis at all.
That hottest decade you where talking about is not heating as per the AGW hypothesis despite a continuing rise in CO2 levels….
That would be pause for thought. Do you not agree?

MattN

2009 may not be cooler than 2008, but it will be a LONG way from the record. At this pace, it would need a monster of an El Nino to beat 1998. And I’m not seeing that….

Jason S.

Why does the AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent have a noticeable jump/ increase at the beginning of June of each year? It looks like at least 4 of the 8 years recorded has the exact same hiccup?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
I appreciate any info on that.
REPLY:It is a seasonal adjustment for meltwater that is likely on the surface of the ice in some areas right about now. – Anthony

Steven Hill

I see a 1977 type winter coming to a nation near you, that’s my theory. I hope I am incorrect, but the cards are lining up. I can’t wait to see what AGW says then. Oh that’s right, “we reached the tipping point and man made global warming caused it”.
AGW people are never wrong, it’s an interesting system they have.

Just Want Results...

I spy a cooling trend.

peter_ga

Just had a thought. That temperature signal is quite noisy, with much more high frequency than low frequency content.
Is this not indicative of a control system with a large amount of negative feedback, but where there is a low pass filter in the loop, so that there is less feedback at higher frequencies, and more negative feedback at lower frequencies? If so, then low frequencies are suppressed relative to high frequencies because of the negative feedback. The low pass filter is formed from consideration of the stabilizing effects of the oceanic heat capacity.
A feedback system with positive feedback and a low pass filter in the loop would have quite a different spectrum. Its gain would be a maximum at zero frequency, because positive feedback creates gain. However higher frequencies would tend to be filtered out and have reduced feedback, resulting in reduced closed-loop gain, and the overall signal would look smoother.