August 2009 Global Temperature Update: +0.23 deg. C
Dr. Roy Spencer September 4th, 2009
August 2009 saw a modest fall in the global average tropospheric temperature anomaly, from +0.41 deg. C in July to +0.23 deg. C in August. The tropical and Northern Hemispheric troposphere remain quite warm, but the Southern Hemisphere cooled by over 0.4 deg. C in the last month.
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 +0.412 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.231 +0.284 +0.179 +0.455
NOTE: For those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here, we are still working on switching from NOAA-15 to Aqua AMSU, 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. We will also be adding global sea surface temperature anomalies from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite.
“Flanagan (22:40:07) :
Remember 2007 is the warmest year.”
According to the MET (anomalies, global, mean):
1998 0.52
2005 0.47
2006 0.42
2007 0.40
2008 0.32
DavidK (01:40:48) : Richard, whoever “debunked” it would have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of money and a whole lot of stress – they would have been lauded by everyone all over the world and given all the media attention and kudos they would rightly deserve
That statement is naive in the extreme. You think the Nobel Committee is wandering around looking for every bearded naked man running around in the streets and yelling Eureka? And then handing him the prize double quick? Followed by a ticker parade down Times Square? The Nobel committee doesnt work like that and more importantly science doesnt work like that.
The Nobel Committee usually takes it time and in my opinion perhaps sometimes also gets it wrong. They gave a Nobel Prize to some guy who claimed to have deciphered the bees language by the way they waggle their bottoms. I read the protests of the lady who said he had got it wrong and she did experiments to actually prove it so, in Nature about 4 -5 years ago. She sounded convincing, but unfortunately the world is not very enthused about waggling bees and the Nobel Committee, just like any committee, are loath to admit they have got it wrong.
They get it wrong the other way far more often. They do not give the Nobel Prize to someone who deserves it.
In any case a theory or hypothesis is debunked by the weight of evidence. Most people who believe in AGW use this argument:- Hey a lot of smart intelligent people believe in it – so it must be true.
The people who point this out (contrary evidence) of course deserve kudos. It took a long time and effort for James Randi to debunk Homeopathy, and all the other junk fit to be debunked, and a lot of people still believe in it.
The average person in the world isnt that smart and can be easily fooled.
From Icecap.us
Sep 07, 2009
Excerpts from a scientific paper by Dr Martin Hertzberg
By Dr Martin Hertzberg
Martin Hertzberg 2009, “Earth’s radiative equilibrium in the solar irradiance”, Energy & Environment v.20 no.1&2, pp.85-96 (Special double-issue: Natural drivers of weather and climate, 278p.)
“Many interacting regions, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, are involved in the complex radiative balance. Unverified models do not realistically represent that balance, and it would be absurd to base public policy decisions on them.
“… the controlling factor in determining the average temperature of the Earth is its absorptivity to emissivity ratio.
Even for those portions of Earth that are not covered with clouds, the assumption that the ocean surface, land surfaces, or ice and snow cover would all have blackbody emissivities of unity, is unreasonable.
It is certainly true that in the absence of an atmosphere, temperatures would drop drastically at night as the darkened portions of Earth lost infrared energy by radiation to Space; however, with all the incoming solar radiation being concentrated on the daytime half of the surface, daytime temperatures would rise as drastically as the night time temperatures would fall.
If the near-surface air temperature is not representative, is it realistically possible to measure the average temperature of the entire mass of absorbing and emitting entities with sufficient accuracy to make a meaningful comparison between the data and the predictions?
How high in altitude should one go in the atmosphere to include it all?
Similarly, how deep in the liquid fluid of the oceans should one go in order to include the mass below the ocean surface that influences the heat and mass transport processes near the ocean surface and in the atmosphere above it?”
“… looking at the problem in depth, it may be more realistic to conclude that its resolution may be unattainable given our limited understanding of the complex processes involved, and the lack of data available for the current thermodynamic state of those entities.
The heat and mass transport from that enormous ocean reservoir to the atmosphere are the dominant factors in determining temperatures and weather conditions over the entire globe.
It is implausible to expect that small changes in the concentration of any minor atmospheric constituent such as carbon dioxide, can significantly influence that radiative equilibrium.
Further quotes by this accomplished research scientist:
“In 1994 I tried to get an analysis of the then prevalent state of climate science published in Nature and Science, but they weren’t interested. I even sent a copy of it with a long letter to Burt Bolin, who was then chair of the IPCC. He replied to the effect that who was I to challenge the decades of work of so many distinguished scientists. He also argued that I was being disrespectful by referring to the some of the theories of the global warming advocates as “catechisms”. After studying the issue more carefully and reading the well researched papers of the skeptics/realists, I now think that the AGW arguments do not deserve to be referred to as either “theories” or “catechisms”. In reality, they are elaborate hoaxes.”
“I tried explaining to [those] Senators that in order for them to accept the Gore-IPCC-Hansen theory as valid, they will first have to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics!”
Compiled by Hans Schreuder, 7 September 2009
Roger (4:19)
Ah yes, power and control – even the churches are into it. And just watch the bun fight in Copenhagen. I’m not so sure all the scientific bodies and institutions are trying to pull a ‘swifty’ though.
Richard (10:59)
That statement wasn’t referring to the Nobel Committee.
It was referring to any recognized body or institution that agreed that AGW was, well … bunkum. And it will only take one very robust piece of work to do that. Personally, I think Roy Spencer might be onto to something. Unfortunately, I don’t think he is there yet – but good on him for persevering.
Your disdain for the Nobel Committee is noted and I do understand how science works, thanks.
We’re following the ENSO quite closely in Australia at the moment (higher drought and fire risk probability for the forthcoming summer). The hysterics here (Bureau of Met, National Climate Centre and CSIRO) all predicited a super El Nino (a la 1998) at the start of the year, but this is not eventuating. The Japanese Marine and Space Agency called a Modoki El Nino 6 months ago, and latest observations are still showing this is more likely (ie. more warming in the western Pacific instead of the Eastern). This could be the reason for the SH not exhibiting a warming trend when many were expecting it.
Ron de Haan (15:29)
One has to explain why the ‘hoax’ and why by so many.
Consider this:
The UN understands there are real issues about ‘climate change’. Moreover, they also understand that humanity has embarked on a course of unfettered consumerism and growth – with all the stresses and strains that that puts on energy supply, food resources, national/international security, etc.
Is it possible that they are using ‘climate change’ (real or not) to urge humanity to grow and develop in a more sustainable way?
And don’t get me talking population growth when the power and control (thanks Roger) are vested in religious dogma to go forth and multiply for the glory of God (apologies to Roy, but hey).
To: DavidK
You wrote: “The UN understands there are real issues about ‘climate change’. Moreover, they also understand that humanity has embarked on a course of unfettered consumerism and growth – with all the stresses and strains that that puts on energy supply, food resources, national/international security, etc.”
The UN was functional for perhaps 10 years after its founding. Now, it has become little better than a venue for bashing the big, bad, evil United States of America.
Please recall that scientists, especially those working in an area of political sensitivity such as AGW, are perfectly human and have a perfectly human desire to see their names in the newspapers. When they find that issuing provocative statements gets them recognition, and possibly increased funding, just what do you think will happen?
Recall that during Al Gore’s years in the Senate, he served on the committee which directed the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The well-known skeptic Dr. Patrick Michaels stated it succinctly: “If you have all the money on one side, and all the scientists on the other, pretty soon you will have all the scientists on the side with the money.”
Another item to remember is that the world is believed to have had much higher CO2 levels in the distant past–more than 20 times the current levels–without triggering some kind of runaway reaction. Yes, the environment might not be to OUR liking–but it certainly will not destroy all life. Your throwaway comment about “making the dinosaur extinction look insignificant”, poetic license or no, well, that bit of exaggeration is way off base.
Chris R
The bun fight in the UN (or UNFCCC) is about politico-socio-cultural ideology as you rightly observe. Notwithstanding, even the US (as a major major player) acknowledges the problems associated with global warming, or as the Bush Administration preferred, climate change.
It was you who opine “it has become little better than a venue for bashing the big, bad, evil United States of America.” I beg to differ, but that gets us nowhere, as the current Administration has let it be known.
As I have said above, there are extremists on both sides. Put another way, the so called “alarmists” have not got a monopoly on “issuing provocative statements” (your words). Indeed, the author of this current article has himself ‘pre-published’ a scientific paper on this very site without due process (which he is well versed in) … that in and of itself is very provocative, imho.
Your last para has been thrashed out time and time again so I presume no matter what I say will not make any difference to you. All I would suggest is for you to read my above comments again – and the contained links.
It is my qualified opinion that we are not about to head into “some kind of runaway reaction” and it is very disconcerting to think that a lot of people (here and elsewhere) have a propensity to misrepresent or distort what scientists say. There are some who do this deliberately, there are others who do this in ignorance. Either way, they most often do it based on their own preconceived ideological perspective (as you have so aptly demonstrated) and as has been said by others … science doesn’t work like that. Let me go further, there are some that are anti-science … and they can come from either the ‘left’ or the ‘right’, look it up on Wiki.
As far as my “throwaway comment” – lighten up.
DavidK (16:33:44) : That statement wasn’t referring to the Nobel Committee.
Maybe not but you had said “I think we all would like a scientist/engineer to get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a statistician the Fields, for debunking AGW..” You’re niggling with words here.
Your disdain for the Nobel Committee is noted
Wrongly, as are most of your other conclusions. I have great respect for the Nobel Committee. But even they are not infallible. To question them, to you seems to be the ultimate sacrilege. Your blind unquestioning respect for authority seems to be the reason why you accept the AGW hypothesis with such unshakable faith.
and I do understand how science works, thanks.
If you do then maybe you should examine the hypothesis critically. Newtons law of gravitational attraction was confirmed by the calculated reappearance of Haley’s comet to the precise day and hour predicted.
Examine the contrary evidence to the hypothesis and see if the predictions of the AGW hypothesis hold good.
Richard
You’re niggling with words here.
Which recognized body or institution has accepted that AGW is bunkum? Just saying it is doesn’t make it so.
Wrongly, as are most of your other conclusions.
In your opinion.
Your blind unquestioning respect for authority seems to be the reason why you accept the AGW hypothesis with such unshakable faith.
Please don’t assume Richard, you don’t know anything about me. For what it’s worth, I don’t “accept the AGW hypothesis with such unshakable faith” … science is not a religion no matter how much you would like to tar me with that brush.
If you do then maybe you should examine the hypothesis critically.
I have, it’s my job.
Examine the contrary evidence to the hypothesis and see if the predictions of the AGW hypothesis hold good.
Repeat … I have, it’s my job.
Alexej Buergin (10:13:43) :
I should have mentioned the lack of mention of a record south hemisphere temperature anomoly being mentioned last month, that would have placed the headline of this post in context and at give at least some illusion of balance
@ur momisugly DavidK (01:29:31)
August was marked by some individual days which were exceptionally hot, especially in northern NSW and Queensland. State records were set for August in both states (37.8°C at Mungindi and 38.5°C at Bedourie respectively). Perhaps more exceptional were the margins by which some records were broken, and the number of days on which previous records were exceeded.
Isn’t it great? The newsletter from our local fruit and veg delivery firm (run by Aussie farmers) tells us things are really good for them:
At present this weather has been very good to growers here and around the country however those rains are still needed. This time of year is also the time when many growing regions finish and other start producing.
“”” Harry Eagar (20:06:48) :
I do not believe anybody knows the global temperature to a ten-thousandth of a degree.
I don’t even believe anybody knows it to a full degree, but we might debate that.
Did everybody skip 7th-grade arithmetic? “””
Well we aren’t even sure what the temperature is at the earth’s center, so I’m quite positive that we have NO IDEA what the mean global temperature is; but certainly humans couldn’t suvive at that high a temperature.
But then we can’t even measure the surface temperature properly in accordance with the rules for sampled data systems; and even if we could; there is no simple relationship between the mean global surface temperature (if we knew it) and the radiation balance of the earth’s energy , since temperature and emission are non linearly related, and then the net energy flow is highly dependent on local thermal processes. So MGT tells you nothing about energy balance.
DavidK (23:30:21) : A policeman was caught here two days ago driving with over twice the limit of alchohol. An instructor no less. The almost unanimous opinion here is that he should lose his job. I should imagine he would have had even less sympathy if he had pulled himself up and declared – dont tell me about drinking and driving I teach it every day.
You posted a long piece about it being the hottest August in Australia, it was in New Zealand also. But the SH as a whole cooled in August. And the warmth has brought benefits. That is the the broader picture – telling it like it is, so to speak.
You admit that Al Gore has exaggerated and created an alarmist image. Yet you condone it because you say he brought the attention of the world onto something that will “believe it or not” threaten world peace. You mention belief and then ask not to be tarred with that brush.
Science has to be dispassionate. You cannot bend scientific evidence to justify some alleged moral end.
The science of AGW is contaminated by politics and activism. Whereas I agree there may not be any conspiracy amongst most scientists, if you study the Hockey stick story the conclusion that there has been lying and tampering with the evidence is inescapable.
When I say the AGW hypothesis has already been debunked, I mean that the alternate theories out there need further evidence. The flat Earth theory was debunked a long time ago. But no one sailed around the world till much later.
Milankovitch was not accepted in his time. Neither was Arrhenius – the usurped father of AGW. Arrhenius thought warmth was a good thing and that CO2 would save us from the next ice age.
“”” Richard (22:52:08) :
DavidK (16:33:44) : That statement wasn’t referring to the Nobel Committee.
Maybe not but you had said “I think we all would like a scientist/engineer to get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a statistician the Fields, for debunking AGW..” You’re niggling with words here.
Your disdain for the Nobel Committee is noted
Wrongly, as are most of your other conclusions. I have great respect for the Nobel Committee. But even they are not infallible. To question them, to you seems to be the ultimate sacrilege. Your blind unquestioning respect for authority seems to be the reason why you accept the AGW hypothesis with such unshakable faith.
and I do understand how science works, thanks.
If you do then maybe you should examine the hypothesis critically. Newtons law of gravitational attraction was confirmed by the calculated reappearance of Haley’s comet to the precise day and hour predicted. “””
I guess you haven’t seen many comets have you ? Comets hang around for months or weeks, so to claim that the return of Haley’s comet was predicted down to the day and hour of appearance is complete nonsense.
Most notable Haley’s comet trivia; Mark Twain was born and died both times that Haley’s comet was prominent in the sky. Could win you a beer at a bar; maybe ?
George E. Smith (13:38:47) – All that just to contradict me on the day and the hour? I was talking about the first appearance. Would you settle for the year?
Jerome (04:35:06)
That is great Jerome, for those particular farmers … and I hope they get the rains soon.
Unfortunately, as you may be aware, most of the “country” the local newsletter alludes to has been in the grips of a very severe and prolonged drought (however those rains are still needed seems somewhat understated). This “country” is traversed by the Murray-Darling and its basin is considered the major food bowl of Australia.
You might find My Country interesting.
On a more general note: there are some benefits to a warmer and wetter world, particularly in the short term (maybe a couple of decades). However, the costs far out way the benefits, in the longer term. I only hope your local farmers don’t have to pick up and travel to where the rain is, like some other farmers are seriously considering doing.
Richard
Most people ‘don’t do science’. It’s not their vocation, their job, their life. These people (for most part) don’t have the ability, capacity or resources to do the science. For these people, they must “believe” or have “faith” in whom or what they see in the multimedia, because they can’t do the science themselves (nor should they be expected to). Therefore, because of this impediment (for want of a better word) their belief/unbelief or faith/non-faith (in AGW for example) is purely based on their ideological perspective.
Corollary: I have lost count the number of times people (accountants, carpenters, doctors, truckies, engineers, teachers, mechanics, etc, etc) tell me or my colleagues how to do our jobs. Beware I should tell my plumber or mechanical engineer that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Let me put it this way: the ‘science’ of ‘climate change’ is not perfect, nor is it absolute – but it is very good. As I have said, we hope real sceptics (in the scientific sense) like Roy, or Dick Lindzen, are on to something (e.g. negative feedbacks). However, they are not there, yet – believe it or not 🙂
Now you accuse me of bending scientific evidence. Methinks you protest too much – have a nice day.
DavidK (21:32:34) :Now you accuse me of bending scientific evidence…
I did not accuse you of bending scientific evidence. What I said was quite clear. Al Gore bends scientific evidence and you condone it. Also that scientific evidence with regard to global climatic history has been tampered with and distorted.
..Beware I should tell my plumber or mechanical engineer that they don’t know what they’re talking about…..For these people they must “believe” or have “faith” in whom or what they see in the multimedia, because they can’t do the science themselves ..Therefore ..their belief/unbelief or faith/non-faith (in AGW for example) is purely based on their ideological perspective…
I disagree with you there. I would not tell my plumber he was wrong if he forecast that my tap would leak after a year. But if my plumber told me and the government, and the Govt listened to him, that because of a leak in the water mains I would have to pay tax, cycle to work, do without electricity, close down my factory, while he jets to Europe to discuss whats wrong, then I would have to examine his arguments.
People can weigh the arguments and have informed debate and judgement even if cannot “do” science. There is plenty of information thanks to the internet. They do not have to rely on faith or base their opinions on ideology.
They do not have to rely on faith or base their opinions on ideology.
Correct, but they do.
Bye
DavidK (21:29:09) : Interesting that you send that link which says that the droughts are now all of a sudden due to “climate change” aka AGW. The models say so. Raise the temperature due to the sun and no drought, but raise it due to CO2 and viola – drought.
Funny how in the past it was thought that Australia was prone to drought “because of its geography” . That no longer holds good apparently.
Earlier they had The “Federation drought” 1895-1902, The 1914-15 drought,
The World War II droughts 1937-45, The 1965-68 drought, Short but sharp – The 1982-83 drought, The long El Niño – 1991 through 1995. Not to mention when Australia’s interior dried out 50,000 years ago leading to the loss of more than 85 percent of it’s megafauna. For none of them was CO2 mentioned.
But these are modern times.
Richard, your latest.
How would you have it? Suppression, censorship – I understand this has happened recently in NZ and Canada, as well as the US a few years back.
Anyway, it is still too early to be so definitive. I am waiting on more satellite data.
When you asserted;
“I just noticed the blighter is comparing October anomalies with August? Ridiculous. First thing you have got to do is compare like with like to try any meaningful analysis”
I knew you hadn’t a clue about multivariate analysis, even though you “know a bit of maths and science and can reason things out for (yourself)”
But when you say;
People can weigh the arguments and have informed debate and judgement even if (one) cannot “do” science. There is plenty of information thanks to the internet
It just demonstrates to me you are blowing smoke.
In fact, you are quite content to continue to distort and misrepresent. You only see what you want to see, Richard.
Take your blinkers off and read that link again.
Wait, let me help:
He does have to back this up though, Richard. Maybe you should point Freeman in the right direction.
My last.
DavidK (01:44:08) “My last.”
I trust you do not mean your last comment here, David. Whilst I am on the other side of a barbed wire fence to you on AGW, I gain considerably from digesting your commentary, and find many meeting points of opinion. Perhaps the greatest divide is your belief that science (or one part of science) is acting responsibly by sounding a general alarm in the interests of mankind. I believe money and power-seeking drive AGW alarm, and that the supporting science is highly paid dressing.
AGW bears the bloodline of historical scams.
When sober science puts balanced opinion before the world for consideration then I support the world considering. Tossing a burning brand into a quiet mob camped down for the night can have only one result. Stampede. That is what has been done, and I’ll ride with those who seek to turn the mob and quiet them down… but I would miss having you and Richard to follow.
DavidK (21:32:34) :
“Corollary: I have lost count the number of times people (accountants, carpenters, doctors, truckies, engineers, teachers, mechanics, etc, etc) tell me or my colleagues how to do our jobs. Beware I should tell my plumber or mechanical engineer that they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
I take exception to this paragraph… i may not tell an accountant or a plumber or a mechanic how to do their job… But ill keep a very sharp eye on what exactly they are doing, and billing me for. It would be an extremely naive person who would blindly trust strangers. Ive certainly caught mechanics trying to pull swifties on me. And have put then straight about it in quick order.
Most people may not have the time or resources to do science themselves. But many people have diverse interests that arnt necessarily related to their occupation. Im a farmer, but for a hobby i design and fabricate expanders/compressors. I like physics, it interests me greatly. And i wouldnt tell you how to do your jobs, but if you’re saying you’re expecting blind faith from the likes of myself, you will be sorely disappointed.