UAH global temperature anomaly – hitting the slopes

Mathematician Luboš Motl takes on the new UAH data (source here) and some current thinking about slopes in global climate by adding his own perspective and analysis. Be sure to visit his blog and leave some comments for him – Anthony

UAH: June 2009: anomaly near zero

Global mean temperature according to UAH MSU for the first 8.5 years i.e. 102 months of this century. Linear regression gives a cooling trend by a hefty -1.45 °C per century in this interval. So if someone tells you that the trend is "of course" positive as long as we omit the year 1998, you may be very certain that he or she is not telling you the truth.

UAH MSU has officially released their June 2009 data. This time, they’re faster than RSS MSU. The anomaly was +0.001 °C, meaning that the global temperature was essentially equal to the average June temperature since 1979. June 2009 actually belonged to the cooler half of the Junes since 1979.

Global warming is supposed to exist and to be bad. Sometimes, we hear that global warming causes cooling. In this case, global warming causes global averageness. In all three cases, it is bad news. The three main enemies of environmentalism are warm weather, cool weather, and average weather.

It is not a coincidence that these enemies are very similar to the four main enemies of communism. The four main enemies that were spoiling the success of communism were Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. 🙂 See Anthony Watts’ blog for additional discussion.

Bonus: trends over different intervals

You may have been intrigued by my comment that the cooling trend during the last 8.5 years is -1.45 °C. What is the result if you choose the last “N” months and perform the linear regression?

You may see that the cooling trends are dominating for most intervals shorter than 110 months; the trend in the last 50 months is around -6 °C per century. Only when the period gets longer than 150 months i.e. 12.5 years (but less than 31 years), the trend becomes uniformly positive, around 1.2 °C per century for the intervals whose length is close to 30 years.

Note that those 12.5 years – where you still get a vanishing trend – is from January 1997 to June 2009. If you consider the UAH mid troposphere data instead (relevant for the part of the atmosphere where the greenhouse warming should be most pronounced, according to both proper atmospheric science and the IPCC report, page 675), all the trends are shifted downwards:

You need to consider time periods longer than 180 months i.e. 15 years (at least from Summer 1994) – but shorter than 31 years – to see a uniformly positive warming trend. And the trend that you can calculate from those 30+ years is just 0.4 °C per century and chances are that this 30+-year trend will actually drop below zero again, in a few years. At any rate, the blue graph makes it clear that in the right context, the longer-term warming trend converges to zero at a very good accuracy.

According to the IPCC, the surface warming trend should be around 3 °C per century which should translate to a 4-5 °C warming per century in the mid troposphere where the greenhouse effect has the strongest muscles. You see that according to the last 30 years of the data, the IPCC overestimates the warming trend by one order of magnitude!

Because the mid troposphere is the dominant locus of the greenhouse “fingerprint”, this is the most appropriate method to check the validity of the IPCC predictions. Their order-of-magnitude error is equivalent to the mistake of a biologist who confuses squirrels and elephants.

To be more specific about a detail, half of the Earth’s surface is between 30°S and 30°N – because, as Sheldon Cooper said in TBBT, sine of 30 degrees is exactly 1/2. But the mid-troposphere warming (8 km above the surface) is faster than the surface at least between 40°S and 40°N, i.e. on the majority of the surface, so it is likely that even when you take the global averages of both quantities, the mid-troposphere should see a faster warming than the surface.

Someone may argue that those 30 years represent too short an interval and the trend will be higher in 100 years. But such a reasoning is a wishful thinking. Moreover, periods longer than 30 years don’t really belong to the present generation. In 30 years, most of the population of the Earth won’t remember the year 2009 – and they shouldn’t be affected by stupid fads of those mostly dumb people from 2009.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The scientific data and anecdotal stories (“cooler and wetter than previous years”, etc.) reinforce each other. Same pattern in general between the temperate and tropical countries.

noaaprogrammer

Is there a formal meteorological/geological definition for the number of years encompassed by the term, “climate?” Roughly how many years does it take to shift from one set of climate averages to another, and how is that related to the duration of the “stable” climate periods? Whenever the Earth does undergo a climate shift, what are some statistics that could be used during the shift to measure/project the magnitude of the shift. For example, the number of temperature, precipitation, hurricane, etc. records being broken when compared to the previous stable period. It would be nice to have some formal definitions in the area of climate change using statistics and the mathematical theory of chaos.

Ivan

Dear Anthony,
Lubos is not a mathematician, but physicist, working on string theory.

Stefan

noaaprogrammer (09:50:13) : Is there a formal meteorological/geological definition for the number of years encompassed by the term, “climate?”
I’ve often wondered this. Why is 30 years defined as climate? Why not 3 or 300 or 3000 or 30000? I keep wondering as a lot seems to ride on the number chosen. To be fair someone did once post a reply as to why, but I didn’t understand the answer.

philw1776

Add me to those experiencing an unusually cold and wet May-early July here in New England. What I gather from the informative post is that to project a warming trend, one must carefully select the particular time period to compute the moving average. I doubt that such cherry picking data selection methodology exhibits statistical significance. Another great guest science post in a fine science blog.
Given that CO2 levels are higher this decade than the decades of the last half of the 20th Century, should we not be seeing readily measurably higher temperatures according to IPCC dogma?

Adam from Kansas

IceAgeNow has a story on where they’re predicting possible frosts for Canada’s Avalon peninsula around Newfoundland
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/warnings/report_e.html?nl11
If we lived up there we’d have to take our ferns inside and cover the flowers during a time which is supposed to be the hottest part of the year. Speaking of flowers I noticed a few foolish Sunflowers here blooming more than a month early when it’s supposed to get to 100 degrees in a few days O.o.
I’m almost surprised temperatures aren’t shooting upward in response to SST’s by now, perhaps the PDO, AMO, Serychev, and the sun are all acting as a drag

The 0.4C rise is the same as that suggested by Dr Roy Spencer & “The Diatribe Guy” in their blogs.
Three identical results from 3 different methods, better than the IPCC models can do.

Rob

philw1776 (10:09:51) :
“Given that CO2 levels are higher this decade than the decades of the last half of the 20th Century, should we not be seeing readily measurably higher temperatures according to IPCC dogma?”
I’ll bet they are measurably higher. Average global temps for a decade around 1995 and 2005 and see what you get. Then try it for a few more decades back.

dennis ward

I am surprised temperatures are not much cooler than they are, given that the sun has been remarkably quiet of late. Surely one would have thought that temperatures should be much lower than the 1979 average by now?

Paul revere

Who cares what your facts say, the Gorical has spoken and the debate is over. Who can deny the Gorical!!!

Steven Kopits

Not to belabor the point, but a squirrel to an elephant is about three orders of magnitude. A horse to an elephant would be about right.

Adam from Kansas

A meteorologist on Accuweather is saying the quiet sun could be contributing to the relative coolness of the Northeast, when taken in the light there have been no Tambora-sized eruptions as of recent
http://www.accuweather.com/regional-news-story.asp?region=eastusnews
I wonder if it’s true for the Northwest as well, they’ve gotton some relatively cool days, also it seems Summer has been awol for a number of days in the Canadian city of Edmonton which Intellicast is forecasting low 60 and below for several days for them.

Jos

# Stefan.
Cited from H.H. Lamb, ‘Climate, history and the modern world’, 1995, page 11:
” … A step in the direction of standardization was taken at the 1935 conference of the International Meteorological Organization (forerunner of the present World Meteorological Organization) when use of the observations of the years 1901-1930 for all climatic purposes was recommended as the so-called ‘climatic normal period’. Choice of the world ‘normal’ turned out to be unfortunate, but it has persisten in climatological practice. It spreads the impression that nature recognizes such a norm and the conditions should continually return to the regime of the chosen period. Wenow know that 1901-1931 was a highly abnormal period, though it was surpassed by the following thirty years 1931-1960, which were in due course substituted as the ‘new normal period’. Globally these were probably the warmest, and in many regions the moistest, regions periods of such length for centuries past. …”
See more here.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=0Nucx3udvnoC&dq=climate+definition+thirty+years&source=gbs_navlinks_s
With a special thanks to William Kininmonth – former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre, who explained this to me earlier this year.

rbateman

“Global warming is supposed to exist and to be bad. Sometimes, we hear that global warming causes cooling. In this case, global warming causes global averageness. In all three cases, it is bad news. The three main enemies of environmentalism are warm weather, cool weather, and average weather.”
Weather is bad for you. Weather is part of the environment. The environment is bad for you. Weather is part of the Climate. The Climate is bad for you.

steven mosher

I could think of two reasons to say that “climate” is a 30 year period. One would be that with a sample of 30 years of data you could say the sample was “large” in statistical terms, but really this isn’t a physically motivated rationale. The other reason could be the existence of underlying physical cycles that had length of 15 years.

Jos

# Stefan, Noaaprogrammer
There are several scientists active in climate research that argue that there is no unique period that can be used to define “climate”. Reason is that the notion that climate appears to be non-stationary, i.e. that after subtracting a mean the remaining variability still contain non-random variations (for example long term persistence), and these remaining variations THUS are not random.
It appears that such variations occur on all sorts of timescales, although there are some preferences within the climate system for certain periods, like ENSO, typically about 3-5 years, or PDO, 30-60 years or Oeschger-Dansgaard variations (1470 years) or the ice ages.
Nevertheless, the question is valid, and you can defend that there is no unique climate-timescale. I guess it all depends on the timescales and response times of various sub-processes that play a role in climate.
Still, for practical purposes – like a weather forecast – it is nice to be able to say that ‘for the time of the year it is warmer or colder than usual’ as we are so used to for example the ever changing seasons.

James H

Summer isn’t AWOL in the Phoenix, AZ area. We’ve been a bit below normal lately in the mid 100’s, but the forecast for Saturday is 116. That’s somewhere between the normal and the record for that day. This is the time of year where we expect more 115-118F days. Where are these frost warnings again? Is there gainful employment available? 🙂

rbateman

dennis ward (11:00:12) :
Time spent in minimum conditions plus latency plus prevailing patterns (noise) determines who get what when and how much. Ask not for whom the cold comes, it comes for you. Your only advantage in this is that, unlike previous civilizations, you have records of what has been. And that’s about all the warning you are ever likely to get, seeing that the present crystal ball of AGW is no better at predicting the future than those who read tea leaves or entrails, or those who forecast endless prosperity in the CDO swap market.
It all seems so simple until the bottom falls out.
Choose your poison. Long or short, boiling or freezing. If you guess at it, your chances are 50-50. If you happen to be observant and pick out the right indicators, you may do better. If you take somebody else’s word for it, you are still guessing.

Gary Crough

noaaprogrammer (09:50:13) : Is there a formal meteorological/geological definition for the number of years encompassed by the term, “climate?
I think 30 years is the minimum used by researchers in the field. I also thought the years 1951-1980 were the baseline used in the RSS and UAH temperature graphs provided by this site? Can someone confirm or correct this assumption?
For example the 1st point plotted, Jan 1979 is ~ -.15 C (on the UAH chart). I thought that indicated it was .15 C below the 1951 – 1980 average global temperature? If not what is it indicating?

Jos

#Gary Crough
According to the UAH website:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.06Jul2009
“Note that the base period for the mean annual cycle for
t2lt is now 1979-1998, or 20 years instead of the previous
1982-1991 ten years.”
So it is the anomaly compared to the 20-year mean for 1979-1998.

Bob Kutz

I am pretty sure those graphs representing the trend over various periods looks a lot like the graph of trends in a random data set;
It flails about wildly on a small sample set, switching signs less and less frequently as sample size increases, then somewhere between 50 and 200 events, it picks a sign and diminishes to zero over about a thousand events such that x=n and y = RND(+1 or -1).
Try it out in excel if you want, it’s a simple statistical experiment. I am reasonably confident there’s some interpretation to be made, depending on the number of y intercepts and the sample size, but I haven’t looked much deeper than that.
Sorry if that is too pedestrian for the fully engaged scientific mind, but I found it useful.
Hmmm. . . . Statistics 201 to the rescue!

oMan

Maybe the 30 year period chosen for climate is based on the underlying political-cultural cycle. Which would be based on the average term of ambitious young charlatans who could rise by peddling nonsense because their elders and betters were retiring. Roughly 30 years?

Bob Kutz

What’s truely remarkable about that is when you introduce a trend of 1 per 100 (i.e. 1 ‘degree’ per century or .01 per ‘n’) there’s two intercepts at less than 10 events, and after about 35 events, there is no doubt that it’s not trending toward zero, or even remaining constantly in the vicinity. If there’s a trend, it shows up for real over any large data set. I imagine there’s a probability distribution somewhere here as well.
There’s something in this line of thinking that could prove disasterous for the AGW crowd if they want to claim 1 or 2 or even 5 degrees of warming per century. (Although the proprietor of this website and the regulars here have provided more than a few disasters for the warmists already).

TJA

One day, when we fully understand what drives climate, we will have a good number to define a period associated with climate. Until then, we may as well be arguing about angels and pinhead. Eleven years is good for now, because it encompasses one complete sunspot cycle, on average. At least it has some basis in physical reality and balances the effects of a sunspot cylcle. Maybe 33 yrs will turn out to be right.

JT

“Is there a formal meteorological/geological definition for the number of years encompassed by the term, “climate?” Roughly how many years does it take to shift from one set of climate averages to another, and how is that related to the duration of the “stable” climate periods? ”
Benoit Mandelbrot, who is a mathematician, and who knows something about chaotic systems, considered that question and there is a summary of his conclusions at Climate Audit. To over-simplify: its Weather, all the way down.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=396

TJA

At least multiples of 11 have the advantage that they defeat cherry picking from within a solar cycle.

Juls

With the 10 years moving average used in most publications, the trend is still positive, and we can unfortunately expect 10 years more before the AGW hypothesis is definitely discarded.

bluegrue

Here’s a plot of linear 8.5 year “trends” of the UAH data, where the slope is plotted versus the time of the end of the 102month period, so e.g. the data at 1995 represents the data from mid-1986 to the beginning of 1995.
http://i27.tinypic.com/20k1y87.png
In mid-1987 the “trend” was -2.2°C/century and in mid-1995 the “trend” was down to -1.8°C/century. In that respect the current dip in 8.5 year linear “trend” is not really exceptional. Also note, that the 8.5 year “trend” was above zero most of the time and above +2°C/century for extended periods of times, whereas it only dipped down to comparable negative slopes for short periods of time.

botosenior

and another great prediction from METOFFICE:
Precipitation during summer will be below average in eastern Europe!
If you take a look, almost today in most of this regions more rain was fallen, than during an average meteo-sommer (06-09).
Now, we saw this time again, that all of this medium (long) range forecasts from metoffice have been very wrong.
There is nothing else to say!

Lubos: “global warming causes global averageness” is a classic. My vote for the quote of the week.
Great post. Thanks.

tallbloke

dennis ward (11:00:12) :
I am surprised temperatures are not much cooler than they are, given that the sun has been remarkably quiet of late. Surely one would have thought that temperatures should be much lower than the 1979 average by now?

There is still a lot of residual heat in the oceans left over from the run of big amplitude solar cycles. It ain’t going to raise temperatures, but it does leave some lag in the system and will mean the fall of temperatures will be slow for a while. If solar cycle 24 doesn’t get it’s act together in the next 2 years, then you’ll see how much the sun affects climate more clearly.
If the realclimatescientists understood how much bigger the ocean is in terms of thermal capacity than the atmosphere is, you’d probably already be aware of this.

George E. Smith

“”” Stefan (10:05:32) :
noaaprogrammer (09:50:13) : Is there a formal meteorological/geological definition for the number of years encompassed by the term, “climate?”
I’ve often wondered this. Why is 30 years defined as climate? Why not 3 or 300 or 3000 or 30000? I keep wondering as a lot seems to ride on the number chosen. To be fair someone did once post a reply as to why, but I didn’t understand the answer. “””
Well there are two aspects of “climate”. The most obvious to people is what causes it to be warm and humid, and rainy in the Amazon, but dry and hot in the interior of Australia; ie local climate; which is as much a function of geography as it is of atmospheric/oceanic Physics.
The other aspect is the global long term equivalent to weather. Evidently climate is formally defined as the long term average of weather; which brings in your long term query.
Actually climate is no such thing, as the long term average of weather; it is much more accurate to say it is the long term integral of weather. Because any change in the status quo by whatever means, must clearly start from the status quo. Weather changes do not operate on the long term average of anything. If you want to superimpose a hurricane onto an isothermal eath that has a temperature of +15 deg c all over, you can’t expect to end up where we end up after a real hurricane; because you didn’t start at the place where the hurricane started.
The earth on the other hand takes weather as it happens by the nanosecond, and religiously integrates it for all future time to get to someplace else. So what should we say about a science that can’t even properly define what it is about.
The other thing is that climatologists don’t seem to want to talk about real world variables like temperature. they have to make up fictitious ones like “anomaly” which is something that isn’t what it was supposed to be; and what it was suposed to be; that miraculous zero anomaly that we are nearly celebrating today, depends on what period of time when we couldn’t measure the real variables either, we want to take the average of, to set as a baseline for where things should be according to climate concensus.
If the data were any good, what difference does it make where you set the baseline. How about setting the baseline at zero deg C, or even zero Kelvins if you like; something that is recognizable as real science.
And then there are the “Forcings”, another mythical creation of concensus science; not to be confused with any real physical variables of main stream science.
Add to that, a lavish dose of statistical mathematical prestidigitation, so you can create information out of nonsense.
But don’t ever expect to see one of these anomaly graphs plotted on the same scales as the actual real world physical temperatures that you might actually measure on any northern summer day. Try plotting that first UAH graph above on a scale from -90 deg C to +60 deg C, to get a real world view of how significant climate change really is.
George

David

Unbelievable denialism here. Those of you who are actually still considering the issue, rather than wedded to one side of it than the other, please consider the following paragraph from the Hadley Climate Research Unit for a moment before resuming this counter-constructive online banter:
The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.
The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2008). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2008 (0.43°C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean).
Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and historical records) show that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the millennium was likely 1998, and the coldest was probably (but with much greater uncertainty) 1601.

We should all remember having read that, when we consider how we will justify our inaction to our grandchildren.

Tom in Florida

George E. Smith (14:27:40) :
“Try plotting that first UAH graph above on a scale from -90 deg C to +60 deg C, to get a real world view of how significant climate change really is.”
Exactly. Also try drawing a veritcal line for 380 PPM on an 8×11 piece of paper using the bottom edge of the paper as 0 and the top edge as 1,000,000.

a jones

Well if I were you I would read that very carefully yourself and note both the non sequiturs and the inherent contradictions. Not to mention the mays, the might bees, and the unsupported assertions.
Kindest Regards

Ron de Haan

David (14:30:01) :
“Unbelievable denialism here”.
From your side and especially from the side of the Hadley Climate Research Unit you refer to.
Hadley is into the AGW/Climate Change Scam up to their neck.
Your problem is that you still believe this Old English Institution can be trusted.
Unfortunately you can’t.
I know this comes as a real shocker and I had to walk the same road you have entered today.
Look for earlier postings about Hadley at WUWT, icecap.us and other honest and objective blogs. Most of them can be found via WUWT.
It’s your children’s future they intend to steal by closing down our economies and taxing the hell out of the hard working people, all based on an absolute hoax.
We can adapt to the climate as we have done for hundreds of thousand of years.
Adapting to the biggest hoax in history will be a lot more difficult.
So please go the whole nine yards and learn what we have learned.

Jordan

steven mosher: “One would be that with a sample of 30 years of data you could say the sample was “large” in statistical terms”
Only if 30 years’ AMSU data is a statistically representative sample. But it is not – it does not give us the randomness/diversity required to capture all the information required to summarise climate behaviour. If this data is used to produce measures of significance, such measures would need to be expanded to account for the shortcomings of the inferior sample.
Juls: “.. we can unfortunately expect 10 years more before the AGW hypothesis is definitely discarded.”
Right now, the AMSU LT series has a large spike in 1998. As this sits toward the right hand end of the series, it contributes to the apparent positive trend.
If the new data over coming decade or so does not challenge the 1998 peak, the spike will transition to the middle, and then onto the left-hand end of the growing series. Without large new positive anomalies, 1998 will act as a pivot, and the apparent trend would reduce to zero and eventually turn negative. If this happens, it will show that 30 years is arbitrary and will be a practical demonstration of statistical insignificance.

Boudu

“Sometimes, we hear that global warming causes cooling. In this case, global warming causes global averageness. In all three cases, it is bad news.”
This has to be Quote of the week !

Bob Kutz

David (14:30:01) :
Here’s the underpinning of the information you just regurgitated;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
Can you see what that is? Do you understand what it means? The raw data show’s no (or only very slight) warming. This is all a facade.
So go ahead, give us that old argumentum ad misericordiam sham argument; Do it for the Children! In lieu of any real evidence to the contrary. We don’t know, so just to be safe, we’d better stop using fuel! Talk about a way to screw up our kid’s lives!
The powers that be have chosen to ignore the facts, have subverted the science, and would appreciate it greatly if we would now surrender our freedom.
You go first.

Russ R.

David:
“counter-constructive online banter” ????????
I guess we need “banter police” to determine the relative merit to online banter, to stop the evil counter-constructive variety.
I am sure we could trust the banter police to only give us the information we need, and not expose us to the ideas, that might make us mistrust the banter police. I bet Hadley wished they had set up the right kind of information regulation, so they wouldn’t look like they had an agenda, other than providing the public with non-biased data.

Gerry

When Dr. Roy Spencer released the June UAH results, I was intrigued by his statement, “The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade.” This was nicely explained by Motls’ regression analysis. The positive decadel trend results from a little bump on Motls’ regression curve (second figure) between 113 months (9.4 years) and 123 months (10.2 years).
Also, as Motls observed “You see that according to the last 30 years of the data, the IPCC overestimates the warming trend by one order of magnitude!”
I would add to Motls’ comments that there is a clear warming trend over the last 310 years. Why? Because the year 1699 was near the end of the Maunder Minimum, in the frozen depths of the Little Ice Age!

David
Would you like to confirm your understanding of the number of accurate weather stations that were used at the start of the series in 1850, and also how the marine surface record back to then was compiled? Also you might like to find out how often the reporting stations have changed in number and location.
Once you know that background we can all have a sensible discussion on the data you have referenced.
Tonyb

Ron de Haan

dennis ward (11:00:12) :
I am surprised temperatures are not much cooler than they are, given that the sun has been remarkably quiet of late. Surely one would have thought that temperatures should be much lower than the 1979 average by now?
Be patient Dennis,
You are not the only warmist who is “surprised”!
We live on a resilient planet that takes it’s time to warm up and cool down.
It’s because all that water you know.
I personally am not disappointed at all.
We are cooling fast and nobody can stop it.
Looking forward to the coming winter which will start about 2 months earlier.
From Seablogger comment by Steve Sadlov:
“Sunday, a dry cold front passed through. I thought, maybe, just maybe … this is our harbinger of climatic autumn, in this region. The earliest ever. Of course, there is no way to know this now. Only retrospectively, perhaps 2 months from now, will we know for sure. Interestingly, and, hauntingly, a northerly flow has settled in. The marine layer is once again mixed out. Cold air from aloft has worked its way to the surface. We’ve been flirting with the upper forties the past two mornings. I will neither rule in nor out the possibility that climatic autumn has arrived here. If true, it is indeed a year without a summer”.
WATER VAPOR IMAGERY IS INDC A DEEPENING TROUGH OFF THE PACIFIC NW COAST. THIS TROUGH WILL MOVE TO THE COAST DURING THE WEEK…BRINGING NEAR TO SLIGHTLY BELOW NORMAL TEMPS. HAVE KEPT TEMPS UP A BIT IN THE NORTH BAY VALLEYS AS THE NORTHERLY FLOW SHOULD INCR…LEADING TO SOME DOWNSLOPE WARMING. THIS TROUGH WILL REMAIN ALONG THE COAST THROUGH THE WEEKEND. THE LARGE RIDGE IN THE SOUTHERN PLAINS WILL BUILD A LITTLE TO THE NORTHWEST…HOWEVER UNLIKE EARLIER MODEL RUNS IT WILL NOT PUSH INTO THE DISTRICT. THEREFORE…ANY WARMING OVER THE WEEKEND WILL BE MODEST. ANOTHER TROUGH DEEPENS OFF THE PACIFIC NW COAST EARLY NEXT WEEK FOR SOME ADDITIONAL SLIGHT COOLING.
=========================================
If our “typical summer pattern” is not established soon, it will never be established, and “the fall pattern” will be the innate default value.
http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/templine_nat_640x480_img.htm
and
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_low_temperatures_in_46_states_during_June.htm
No Dennis, I am not disappointed.

There is much discussion here as to what constitutes a period long enough to be termed ‘climate,’ thirty years being considered the norm.
Some time ago I did the calculation for an average persons 70 year lifetime which is probably a more meaningful figure.Apologies to those who have seen it before here, but it is relevant in this thread.
“Being at a loose end, I set my dedicated team of climate researchers here in the UK on the task of graphing Hadley CET temperatures back to 1660, so we could demonstrate to the misinformed the realities of indisputable and catastrophic climate change, and get our large research budgets increased.
Unfortunately the ‘adjustments and smoothing interpolator’ was away on holiday and the ‘trend line coordinator’ was absent a wedding, so I must apologise that the data shown below from 1660 is ‘unadjusted’ and looks nowhere near as pretty and nicely ordered as we have become used to.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
One of our staff is a former actuary and thought she would amuse herself by working systematically through the records back to 1660, to see for herself the alarming warming trend over the centuries-obviously she had seen the Gore film and was wearing the T Shirt
“Catastrophic Climate Change-stop it now! Ask me How!”
Living near the coast she thought about the cycle of the tides, and whilst realising that the climate cycle was different- in as much it is however long we want it to be, and starts from whatever point necessary to maximise our funding- thought it would be fun to use this idea of a regular cycle.
Consequently she based her calculations on a three score year and ten life span as she worked out the average annual mean temperature enjoyed by ‘British Everyman’ through each year of each decade. This assumed he was born at the start of a decade and died the last year of the decade seventy years later. Of course we urged her to call this mythical person ‘everywoman’ but as a woman was likely to live longer, as an actuary she thought this would only complicate matters, so 70 years it is. These are her calculations;
Someone born in Britain in 1660 and living to 70- Average annual temp 8.87c
Someone born in 1670 and living to 70 Average annual temp 8.98
1680 9.01
1690 9.05
1700 9.19
1710 9.21
1720 9.17
1730 9.14
1740 9.04
1750 9.03
1760 9.08
1770 9.10
1780 9.07
1790 9.12
1800 9.15
1810 9.13
1820 9.14
1830 9.12
1840 9.10
1850 9.14 (Start of the famously reliable Hadley global temperatures)
1860 9.17
1870 9.21
1880 9.30 Official end of the Little Ice Age
1890 9.39
1900 9.40
1910 9.46
1920 9.497
1930 9.60
1940 9.70 (projected to 2009)
1950 9.76 Extrapolating current trends (our favourite phrase)
1960 9.79 Using advanced modelling techniques to create a robust scenario.
The actuary has a poetic turn of mind and decided to call the people born in the period from 1660 to 1880 as ‘LIA Everyman’ in as much the person lived part or all of their lives during the Little ice age. She called those born from 1890 to the present day as ‘UHI Everyman’ She assures me that no adjustments have been made to correct UHI Everyman’s unfair reputation to exaggerate his (or her) temperatures.
It was at this point that the Accountants -who were in auditing our accounts to ensure we were spending our grants wisely- became really interested. They’re at a bit of a loose end as they are the group who audit the annual EU accounts-they’ve refused to endorse them for 12 years in a row now- and say it’s so easy to spot the fraud that it’s not a full time job anymore!
Consequently they hope to get some work with the IPCC as they see them as a rapidly growing enterprise as fond of throwing meaningless and unsubstantiated-some might unkindly say fraudulent –numbers around, as the EU are.
After examination of the data the accountants reluctantly agreed that the temperatures were remarkably consistent, and the increase of a fraction of a degree in mean average temperatures during Everyman’s lifetime over a period of 350 years, was so well within natural variability it was difficult to make any useful analogy (other than it was the sort of increase in average warmth that would pass by completely unnoticed if we weren’t looking very very hard for it).
The fractional temperature difference was unlikely to have any effect on Everyman’s choice of clothes, or the day they might attempt to have their first swim of the year in the sea. (Wearing approved buoyancy aids of course)
The Accountants were particularly intrigued by the fact that the very slight rise in overall temperatures was almost entirely due to the absence of cold winters depressing overall temperatures, rather than hotter summers. At this point the actuary mentioned that warmer winters were good, as statistically, fewer people died.
Someone mused that the modern temperatures seemed rather too close for comfort to those experienced during the LIA, and another murmured as to what the temperature variance would show if we did this exercise for the MWP, or the Roman warm period. I quickly pointed out that it was just a Little Ice age and not the real thing, and that Dr Mann had told us all that the MWP was an outdated concept, and as I had never heard of the Romans they couldn’t exist, and neither could their allegedly warm period.
Another Accountant mentioned that if UHI was stripped out, the already tiny increase in temperature since the Little Ice Age would disappear. I reminded them who was paying their bills and to stop that sort of Contrarian talk immediately.
Of course I fired the actuary when she confessed that the almost indistinguishable blue line along the bottom of her original graph represented total man made co2 since 1750. Obviously she was some sort of closet right wing tool of Big Oil out to cause trouble.
I’m undecided whether to turn this report over to our adjustments and smoothing interpolator for remedial work or merely to lose it. Or burn it.
TonyB

Anthony,
too many zeros in “The anomaly was +0.001…” ? The original article shows only +0.01…
Bob

bluegrue

@ Bob Kutz (15:07:03) :

Can you see what that is? Do you understand what it means?

Yes, pretty clearly. About 0.4°F or about 0.2°C of the warming of 0.7°C of the contigeous US48 since about 1970 are due to the necessary correction for time of observation bias (TOBS) and changes in station location (SHAPS). Your point being?

Adam from Kansas

You must be pulling my leg Ron de Haan, I do not doubt what that honest person says about what cooling is in store weather-wise, but please tell me it won’t mean an early freeze here in Wichita despite some sunflowers at my transition school blooming, the reason is we have a tomato and cucumber plant growing in two upside-down planters and I hope my parents and others can enjoy a bumper crop of them before the first freeze kills them, we’re just about to get a big wave of little tomatoes and cucumbers in addition to the 5 already seen, so it’d be nice if the first freeze waited until…………oh should I say the average date somewhere in October so we have time to actually pick a bunch.

Michael Hauber

‘Is there a formal meteorological/geological definition for the number of years encompassed by the term, “climate?” ‘
Or would a more relevant question be ‘How many years would it take for Co2 warming to become greater than the normal amount of variation in the climate due to other factors?’
Hansen in 1981 said about 20.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1981/Hansen_etal.html
So nearly 30 years ago Hansen predicted:
a) There will be a warming trend in the next few decades sometime in the next couple of decades due to Co2.
b) Natural variation could cancel out this Co2 warming for periods of up to 20 years.

Joel Shore

Lubos is wrong when he says that what he calls the “mid-tropospheric data” (and is technically known as T2) should show a higher trend than the T2LT data that one usually talks about. The problem with T2 is that, while the weighting function is centered in the mid-troposphere, it has a considerable tail going into the stratosphere. Since the stratospheric cooling trend is considerably larger in magnitude than the tropospheric warming trend, this causes a large contamination of the trend in T2 from the stratospheric cooling.
Spencer and Christy created the synthetic T2LT channel to try to eliminate this contamination. There is still some argument about how successfully their T2LT channel does this and whether there is a better way to do this (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf and http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJTECH1840.1 ), but I don’t think anybody claims that T2 itself gives a good measure of tropospheric temperature trends because of the issue of considerable stratospheric contamination.

TJA

“Unbelievable denialism here.” – David
David, have you ever heard of the “Drunkard’s Walk”? If a system has memory, and I am assuming that you are not maintaining that the planet has no memory of its preceding temperature. then if it takes an excursion in one direction or another, the time periods around that excursion before and after will also be clustered around the outlying number.
In other words, even if every word of the Hadley Centers description of past temperature fluctuations is accurate, it proves exactly nothing. This is not denial, it is recognition of the inexorable logic of mathematics. If you can’t understand this argument, don’t be surprised if nobody takes you seriously.
“Lubos is not a mathematician, but physicist, working on string theory.” – Ivan
Ivan,
I am curious what your point is?
Speaking of “deniers”, has here is an interview with Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climatologist, on Howie Carr’s radio show in Boston where he says that he is no longer a skeptic, but in fact is now a full throated denier, considering that the evidence against AGW is now overwhelming.
http://audio.wrko.com/m/audio/24111309/richard-lindzen-global-warming-denier.htm?q=lindzen