Graph by Anthony (click for larger image) text by Dr. Roy Spencer from his blog here
May 2009 Global Temperature Update +0.04 deg. C
June 4th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.304 0.443 0.165 -0.036
2009 2 0.347 0.678 0.016 0.051
2009 3 0.206 0.310 0.103 -0.149
2009 4 0.090 0.124 0.056 -0.014
2009 5 0.043 0.043 0.043 -0.168
May 2009 saw another drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.09 deg. C in April to +0.04 deg. C in May, originating mostly from the Northern Hemisphere and the tropics.
A reminder for those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here:
(1) Only use channel 5 (”ch05″), which is what we use for the lower troposphere and middle troposphere temperature products.
(2) Compare the current month to the same calendar month from the previous year (which is already plotted for you).
(3) The progress of daily temperatures should only be used as a rough guide for how the current month is shaping up because they come from the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite, which has a substantial diurnal drift in the local time of the orbit. Our ‘official’ results presented above, in contrast, are from AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, which carries extra fuel to keep it in a stable orbit. Therefore, there is no diurnal drift adjustment needed in our official product.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
rbateman (10:23:44) :
David Archibald (16:13:25) :
John Finn corrects my 4am can’t sleep again question.
But I am still interested in your estimate of uncertainty in your prediction.
Archibald has already said that his prediction was ahead of its time so it seems that the uncertainty is not in the size [0.5 degrees] but in the timing. Wait long enough and perhaps the prediction will come true and there will come a time when the anomaly then will be equal to the one predicted for now.
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:07) : “Since 1880, there has been 20 cases before this one where the monthly anomaly has been exactly the same to 1/1000 of a degree in both hemispheres”
That’s a bold assumption since it is highly unlikely that with the earlier measurement techniques and density thereof such an accuracy (to 1/1000 of a degree) could be achieved whilst showing such a coincidence of both hemispheres being in sink.
Chris Schoneveld (11:03:27) :
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:07) : “Since 1880, there has been 20 cases before this one where the monthly anomaly has been exactly the same to 1/1000 of a degree in both hemispheres”
That’s a bold assumption since it is highly unlikely that with the earlier measurement techniques and density thereof such an accuracy (to 1/1000 of a degree) could be achieved whilst showing such a coincidence of both hemispheres being in sink.
Not an assumption:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts.txt
Do you think that I would say so without having researched this fully? Check for yourself how many times the exact same anomaly is reported in NH and SH. You can argue that the GISS temps are no good and that one can’t measure temps to 1/1000 of a degree, that is irrelevant. What matters is that a long time series such as the GISS [even with random errors] has a fair chance of many such exact coincidences. You may safely assume that I would never say something unless it is backed up with evidence.
I think our global temerature will fall half a degree a year if the sun deep minimum will stay like this if we look at the all the past records of deep solar minimums this could last untill 2039 or even longer since 1980 untill now every solar maximum there have been less sunspots it could well be 1850 the solar wind has droped 30 percent this will effect the jet stream and will move up towards greenland this will allow high pressure to build from the continent and colder winters its happend many times in the past as we know the polar ice caps have been growing for 20 years and air temperature has not risen for the length of time the sun has gone a little dimmer less radiation effecting the earth each global warming cycle has a duration of 130 to 160 years and the peak of each cycle has a duration of 50 to 90 years there for the current global warming cycle will run from 1910 to 2060 itwill peak between 1950 and 2015 the warming will level off around 2015 to fall fast affter or no latter than the year 2030 to 2040 once cooling begins it will take 20 to 30 years to cool so the lowest part of the cooling cycle temperatures like that of 1800s we know over the last 11400 years how many times this has happend through proxy dating in polar ice caps and the rings we are not fully out of the the last ice age yet the sun is in a deep state now allmost like 1913 we are due for a long cold spell we must have warmed the planet up only a little bit around 5% the sun will have the opposite effect on the world temperatuer every time this happens to the sun all what ive been studying over the years it will get colder ive been doing this reasearch for a long time I also study astronomy ive studied astronomy for 30 years i wonder how the sun will stay like this the current warming began in 1500 ad will peak around the year 2000 and end in 2500ad we are dou for a cooling there is cooling breaks in some years we could cool down at a fast rate nothing compared to the last ice age and the gulf stream has changed many times in the past due to warmer climates we are in now the gulf stream could easily slow or stop again because the fresh water coming down from the north pole this will have drastic effects which looks like has happend in other warming periods.
Bob Tisdale
Your post
For those interested, I normally post monthly (OI.v2 SST) global, hemispheric, individual ocean, and NINO3.4 SST anomaly data on the 1st or 2nd of each month. Here’s this month’s:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/may-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html
I notice an unusal high spike in 2007 for the Arctic Ocean SST anomaly. Any idea why? [ EL nino 2006-2007?]Could this account for the ice levels in 2007?
Bob Tisdale
This is the sea ice level in 2007. 2007http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
It would seem to me the 2007 low ice level is “one of a kind” event and not at all a long term trend for diminishing ice . I expect the ice to return as the ocean cooling continues for the next several decades.
rbateman (22:34:07) :
My day jobs are now impinging heavily on my time and I have less opportunity to defend Western Civilisation. There was no uncertainty in my estimate, and I am extremely flattered by the attention that it received. Just as the warmers aren’t perturbed by data that proves their climate models wrong, I can claim victory because I got the direction right.
This reminds me of the service I have provided to climate science. Before I came along, rationalists knew that warmers were wrong but couldn’t offer an alternate weltanshchauung. By simply combining Clilverd’s Solar Cycle 24 prediction with Friis-Christenson and Lassen theory, I provided an alternate belief framework. There was another step in the process. If Solar Cycle 24 was going to be as weak as I thought it would be, Solar Cycle 23 would be very long. The first sign of a cold second decade of this century would be a long Solar Cycle 23. It has come to pass.
It was bizarre. Billions of dollar annually was being spent on climate science, but nobody bothered to look at what the solar physicists were predicting and to consider the consequences of their predictions. Today, each sunspot is examined for its significance.
I still think that have yet to hit month of minimum. And the cooling effect is 0.002 degrees C per day of Solar Cycle 23 length for you mid-latitude people.
What is bizarre to me now is that nobody has cottoned on to the significance of the predictive power of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory. I applied it to three US stations to show that it also worked on the western side of the Atlantic as well. If you look at the scatter of points on the Hanover, New Hampshire graph, there is no way a severe cooling can be avoided.
That gives me an idea for another paper. Once more into the breach.
Several have commented about the June snow in the Sierra Nevada range. It is uncommon, but not rare. Back about 1970, a park ranger at Yosemite told me they have had snow on every date of the year.
Leif: ” You may safely assume that I would never say something unless it is backed up with evidence.”
I depends what you consider evidence. I strongly question the validity of the data that you consider as being “evidence”
Flanagan, at the risk of stating the obvious, there are no stations near the N Pole! GISS does use the data from the station at the S Pole (and a glance at the GISS data shows that the claim of large positive anomaly there is completely false) .
What HadCrut currently uses, nobody knows, because they refuse to release this information (see latest post at climate audit).
Directory (09:16:07) :
Flanagan, at the risk of stating the obvious, there are no stations near the N Pole!
Not permanent ones but currently there are 2:
http://www.aari.nw.ru/resources/d0014/np36/default.asp?lang=0
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_weatherdata.html
“I still think that have yet to hit month of minimum.”
I would say timidly, the current spurt in 24 activity mirrors that of last Oct/Nov. Spots will again subside below a smoothed 1.0 for an upcoming month, possibly more than one.
But then I check the locks twice on leaving, look bothways multiple times before crossing, etc.
Good work ❗ 🙄
Just had a look at the latest anomaly figures for May 09 in ” Wood For Trees” and they show:-
UAH fell to +0.043
RSS fell to + 0.09
and surprise, surprise GISS went up to+0.55.
I realise that the RSS and UAH baselines differ from the GISS, We all know that the GISS data is applied to a floating baseline that keeps sinking each month. How long can they keep that AGW dream alive before the politicians start asking questions?