Hot off the press from Dr. Roy Spencer. After being essentially zero last month, we have a jump to .410°C in July. This was not unexpected, as a El Nino has been developing.
July 2009 Global Temperature Update: +0.41 deg. C
August 5th, 2009
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 0.045 0.046 0.044 -0.166
2009 6 0.003 0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 0.410 0.211 0.609 0.427
July 2009 experienced a large jump in global average tropospheric temperatures, from +0.00 deg. C in June to +0.41 deg. C in July, with the tropics and southern hemisphere showing the greatest warming.
NOTE: For those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here, we will be switching from NOAA-15 to Aqua AMSU in the next few weeks, which will provide more accurate tracking on a daily basis. We will be including both our lower troposphere (LT) and mid-tropospheric (MT) pre-processing of the data.
Lucia at the Blackboard has an analaysis of RSS, which came in higher this month also, at 0.392°C.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/rss-for-july-0392-c-graphs-to-follow/
Kum, did you actually read the article on corn in the link you posted? Nice positive spin on a basically iffy report on corn production.
Leif, I didn’t know you spooned!!!!
Well, all I can tell you all is that we have 2 Billion Bushels of corn in elevators, and bins in the U.S., alone. You can buy all you want for a touch over $0.06/lb. This is up about a penny/lb from a couple of years, ago, when ethanol production was less than half of what it is now.
A couple of you dismiss the CO2/Temp connection (as I do) because the “Correlation” isn’t there. Then, you turn around and blather about the corn/ethanol/hunger connection when the “Correlation” Isn’t “There,” Either.
Sometimes I find the lack of “Scientific” thinking on Climate/Weather blogs, Breathtaking.
Pamela Gray-just talking to some clients-who are ranchers here in NEOregon.
Yes they are worried about the wheat crop and rain is on the way.The manufacture of food Vs Fuel is insane.When will we ever learn that there is no magic bullet, and sometimes it’s better to leave well enough alone.
In my opinion, also fall here has arrived,Niño or not…
“Split Atoms, not Birds”
Matt (02:41:43): “x:y:z≡4:5:6 Sorry- couldn’t resist”
Thanks, Matt. Now solve the (apparently difficult) question:
In comparing Hansen 1988’s projections with UAH’s observations, the constants are the calendar and the Celsius scale. Both begin around 1979. Each has a different benchmark, but we can peg the relative comparison to 1979 — Hansen’s OBSERVED temp was approximately 0.3° above his bench mark and the UAH temp was very close to their benchmark. Keeping within Hansen’s study, the rise projected from 1979 by Hansen was 0.5° or 1.1°C (Dave Middleton at 08:09:21 concludes the net anomaly growth to be +0.6 or +0.75). UAH’s observed change from 1979 was 0.41° for the month or about 0.19° (Middleton’s net rise: +0.09) as a 13-month running average.
So we’ve established what the relative rise in average temperature was within each study — Hansen’s modeled rise and UAH’s observed rise. We compare those internal numbers and it appears the low modeled number (Scenario B) of 0.5°- 0.6° is several times greater than the UAH smoothed observation net rise number of 0.09° – 0.19°.
bluegrue (07:51:34) can’t accept this saying the UAH rise from 1979 to 1988 is 0.5°, suggesting this matches “closely” to Hansen’s GISS “0.8.” For starters, 0.8 is not close to 0.5 in my book. But I’m not seeing the present net rise in UAH’s observations as 0.5°. The monthly observation (which bluegrue previously complained about being too narrow a time frame) is only 0.41°, but the smoothed average comes in at less than 0.2°. bluegrue said “. . . this scenario matches most closely the actual history of the forcing . . .” There is huge doubt about the forcing idea and the present CO2 load is more like his scenario A. Hansen’s prediction was way off base any way I look at it.
Matt, since you understand substitution algebra, perhaps you could explain bluegrue’s conclusion better than he can. I don’t get it.
Jimmy Haigh (03:46:18) :
Basty Noy!
I don’t buy the ethanol versus hunger thing myself but I do think that weather patterns are changing back to cooler versions. This could, more than anything else, change the price of food, along with another round of oil price spikes. We didn’t see the dairy price increase coming till it was breathing down our necks. Complacency in food stores is never a good reason to jump in or out of markets.
No, Pamela, NOT “iffy.” The farmers are expecting yields to average 160 bu/acre (the all-time high of 161 was set a few years, ago, when Everything fell in place perfectly.)
Last year, with 50 year floods, yields were 154 bu/acre, and the year before they were 151.
There’s, always, a lot of guessing as to whether farmers planted “more corn,” or “more beans.”
**************
Leif Svalgaard (22:50:55) : “A candle works not by providing light, but by sucking up the dark. Proof: the wick gets black.”
****************
There is a similar principle at work in the field of electronics. If you notice; if a transistor, other component, or in many cases even an entire instrument loses its smoke, a critical and essential element in all electronic devices, they cease to function.
Anthony, how can you attribute this latest, large UAH anomaly to El Nino, when the current El Nino has barely started — and, in fact, the July SOI wasn’t even negative?
*************
Kum Dollison (10:18:20) :
Well, all I can tell you all is that we have 2 Billion Bushels of corn in elevators, and bins in the U.S., alone. You can buy all you want for a touch over $0.06/lb. This is up about a penny/lb from a couple of years, ago, when ethanol production was less than half of what it is now.
A couple of you dismiss the CO2/Temp connection (as I do) because the “Correlation” isn’t there. Then, you turn around and blather about the corn/ethanol/hunger connection when the “Correlation” Isn’t “There,” Either.
Sometimes I find the lack of “Scientific” thinking on Climate/Weather blogs, Breathtaking.
**************************
Just because we aren’t there yet does not mean we won’t get there if we keep it up.
Tom in Florida (15:59:04) :
“Why do so many wait breathlessly each month for these numbers to come out?
Is it so you can jump on the “my side is now winning” wagon? I have watched this go back and forth for a while with each month’s numbers attempting to be used to validate a personal opinion of either it’s getting warmer or it’s getting colder. All this based on an arbitrary base line. Good grief!”
Tom,
I quite enjoy all the commentary on temp/weather/climate observations & opinions as a healthy exercise in sharpening the necessary related skills that can foster insight not otherwise possible, especially if these matters were expressed representing essentially only one (such as an agw) perspective.
These exchanges help contribute to understanding and hopefully to improved responsible adaptive activity by us and our societies that will allow us to ‘weather’ our environments as comfortably as possible.
As the wheat and chaff are separated we all benefit. Please, continue…….
Adam (12:41:08) :
“Plus, its well known that the typical lagged response of temp to ENSO is about 6-7 months, and 6 months ago La Nina conditions were present.”
I made a comparison between ENSO (ONI) and the temp anomalies of GISS, UAH and RSS.
1. ENSO and GISS
Very striking is the almost identical fluctuation pattern of both. Each peak of the temp graph has a peak in the ENSO-graph, with some exceptions.
Example of a maximum: ENSO 1997/11 and 12 (2.5 C°) // GISS temp 1998/02: 79 (.01 C°);
A minimum is seen in ENSO 1973/11 and 12 (-1.9 and -2.0 C°) // GISS temp 1974/02: -26 (.01 C°)
Recently, ENSO showed a descent (minimum 2008/01), a rise ( max 2008/08 to 10) and a descend (minimum 2009/01) before the latest rise. The trend of GISS temperature is nearly identical (descent in 2008/01, the rise culminates in 2008/11, a low temperature peak in 2009/01 followed by a new rise.
Thus, a response time of 2 or 3 months is normal, but a immediate response (zero months) is obviously as much possible.
2. ENSO and RSS
There is a similarity between both graphs, but rather hazy. Since 2008/09, there is an opposite movement: where ENSO rises, RSS descends (global impression). There is a maximum temperature anomaly at 2009/01 of 0.325°C where ENSO has a minimum in that same month.
3. ENSO and UAH
Same conclusion as with RSS. Here the maximum temperature is reached on 2009/02 with a higher 0.347°C.
These are my findings. It proofs again the large differences between GISS and the other centers.
>>>For all the people grousing about the “weather,” with the
>>>exception of the Pacific Northwest and interior Australia,
>>>most of the hot spots this past month were over oceans:
>>> http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium
>>> /global/ch_tlt_2009_07_anom_v03_2.png
If global warming is all man-made, why are all the hot-spots over the uninhabited areas? Is that because there is no-one there to check the data?
.
If July was (according to questionable readings) warmer, August might be way cooler for people around Yosemite: http://yosemiteblog.com/2009/08/05/snow-in-yosemite-in-august-grab-your-camera/
I think Pamela makes very good sense. As an active commodity trader, i can say that her comments are right on. BTW, the number that is most meaningful to me is the USDA stocks/ usage ratio. This number provides a useful estimate of the world wide excess, or buffer, of inventory available. Currently at 17% for corn and 28% for wheat. That is about average for wheat, but very low for corn. BTW, yields for corn have been going up for decades, so that is not news, but is allowed for in the USDA’s yearly estimte. All this info is readily available at cmegroup.com or the USDA.
Kum Dollison
2 Billion Bushels is NOTHING 16% of Yearly Consumption…
Ethanol = 3.6Bb this year with a 500Mb/year growth rate. So by 2012 USA will be converting 5.1Bb /year
Consumption is estimated at nearly 12.5Bb this year. Yields are expected to be 12,405 Bb so you can see what we are moving towards, plus exports were way down in 2009 and are expected to recover in 2010 putting more pressure on yields.
Using 2009 as a guage in the middle of a World Wide recession is bad methodology as a starting point for this debate, you need to look forward ( that is why we trade Corn Futures and not Corn ).
bill (10:04:36) : So you are going to warm/cool your crops with nuclear power. Thats a new one on me!
It was done in the former Soviet Union, in Siberia.
In the time when “Atoms for peace” was promoted it was thought that nuclear power could solve poverty in the whole world, and that is perfectly possible today. The idea was abandoned years after…perhaps because of some malthusian people out there who wanted those poor (BTW now RICH) people dead, that is why they also prohibited DDT, with the altruistic purpose of liberating white people of that nasty brown and black people neighbourhood down there. The trouble now is exactly the contrary: How do we get rid of those nuts up there who are planning to destroy the world we all live in by banning CO2.
Ray (11:43:37) :
If July was (according to questionable readings) warmer, August might be way cooler for people around Yosemite:
Not just there. So far, August has been about five degrees cooler than last year where I live (the last six days) and the next ten look to be around six degrees cooler on average as well.
bill (09:16:42) :
To all who keeps saying that if the temperature rises (or presumably falls) we’ll just adapt therefore GW does not matter.
Well if you say crops are failing because of the cold and disaster is upon us then why not simply adapt?
or is it perhaps a little more tricky than you thought?
For $200-300 billion, the US could build a canal siphoning Mississippi River water following topographic lines from north of the Quad cites, through Iowa-Neb-S.Dak-Wyo-Co to irrigate over 40 million acres in New Mex and TX. Some water could be sold to Denver, allowing them to release more Co. River water for irrigation in Az. and Ca (+5 million acres). Some could be left in the So Platte, North Platte, Arkansas and tributaries for another 10 million + acres under irrigation. Add another $100 billion for the nuclear energy to pump it up in a couple of stages or $200 billion for a few recreation damns along the way. Presto, you’ve increased arable land (and irrigated at that) 25% in the good ol US of A. It’s been proposed, and I’ve seen the proposal, along with others. Put about 250,000 unemployed to work. The proposal is fighting foolish Greenies all the way down the Mississippi to the Shrimpers in the La. gulf. Regardless, adaptation is a darn site cheaper than Cap’N’Charade.
bill (10:04:36) :
Nogw (09:49:11) : …but it depends if you have enough and dependable energy or not
So you are going to warm/cool your crops with nuclear power. Thats a new one on me!
Any adaptation will require money and energy. Regardless, adaptation is a darn site cheaper than Cap’N’Charade.
I thought people here were suggesting that warm/cool tolerant crops are grown or moving farms north or south. A simple matter, cusing [sic] little hardship!!!!!!!!
Pamela may have to plant hard red spring wheat, grow canola or pasture. Regardless, adaptation is a darn site cheaper than Cap’N’Charade.
Pamela, It’s good that soybeans are a cool weather crop — that may be important in the future. BTW, I’ve heard of a promising new soybean based product called Soylent Green.
Jeff Alberts (09:47:04) : said
“…..My take is that the concept of a “global average or mean temperature” is a meaningless concept. If some places cool, some remain relatively static, and some warm, then there is clearly nothing “global” occurring, just lots of little regional things which aren’t connected.”
I agree. I think the concept of a single global temperature is bizarre. The world comprises millions of micro climates (not micro weathers) where at any one time some are getting cooler some warmer and some staying the same- as can be seen by the numerous hot and cold records set this year.
Do these global temperatures get split? For example it would be interesting to see the north/south and east/west anomaly from both hemispheres (ie four readings) which might enable us to identify more closely where the warming is coming from.
Perhaps rather more useful than a global temperature might be a global sunshine index which might be able to tell us whether more cloudiness over a measurable period raises, lowers, or keeps temperatures the same. Is there such a thing?
Tonyb
Leif Svalgaard (04:46:42) :
Richard (23:14:05) :
I downloaded the SORCE data for TSI. From 1st of July to 29th July the Earth received 38,212.13 W/m^2 of irradiance and for the previous 29 days it was 40,899.10 W/m^2. We received 2,686.97 W/m^2 less and yet the temperature shot up.
“For the previous 29 days we received 38,252.21 W/m2, not 40,899.10”
Rechecked Leif – you are right by jove! I took an extra two days back. So now that makes more sense.
We’re, steadily, taking farmland OUT of production. We used to rowcrop 400 Million Acres. Now, it’s more like 240 Million Acres. Farmers decide “What,” and “How Much” to plant depending on “projected” price, price of fertilizer, Prices of “alternative” crops, Gov. Programs, etc.
We, currently, pay farmers Not to Farm 34 Million Acres. A Lot of that is, reasonably, productive land. Only about 4% of ethanol is made from “irrigated” corn.
Russia has 100 Million Acres of Very Good Black Land that’s not being farmed. India is the No 1 Wheat Producer. China is the No 2 Corn Producer (and, they, basically, plant, and harvet By Hand.
The only reason Africa doesn’t grow an enormous amount of corn, and soybeans is that due to our efficiency the price is still a bit too low. Plus, they don’t have the Capital to get in the Game. Governance is, of course, a Big Problem, there.
Almost half of the soil on Earth has been off-limits to agriculture due to soil acidity, and aluminum toxicity. New seeds are quickly bringing this to an end.
Folks, we’ve got a lot of problems, but ability to grow food isn’t one of them.
Check out this article from David Appell in Scientific (?) American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick