From the “WUWT never reports warm events” department: After a drop last month, this is not unexpected, given the time of year. With an El Nino present the tropics and southern hemisphere warmed the most.
November 2009 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.50 deg. C
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
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 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
2009 11 +0.496 +0.418 +0.575 +0.493
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly rebounded from +0.29 deg. C in October to +0.50 deg. C in November. Both hemispheres, as well as the tropics, contributed to this warmth. The global anomaly for November of +0.50 deg. C is a period record for November (since 1979); the previous November high was +0.40 deg C. in 2004.
Following is the global-average sea surface temperature anomalies through November 2009 from the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite:
As usual, the trend line in the previous figure should not be construed as having any predictive power whatsoever — it is for entertainment purposes only.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In Lord Monckton’s latest paper he states that the satellites are calibrated using the surface temp data. (note: SPPI seems to have taken down the long paper he posted yesterday and substituted a very short one). I guess this only affects the starting point and not the ongoing data:
“Since the satellites do not have thermometers on board, and would be in the wrong place for taking the Earth’s near-surface temperature even if they had them, their atmospheric measurements have to be processed and reconstructed so as to become a temperature record. That requires the measurements to be calibrated. And what are they calibrated against? The instrumental surface-temperature record, of course. Therefore, if the surface temperature record has been accidentally or artificially enhanced in order to show greater warming than what has in truth occurred, the satellite temperature records that were originally calibrated against it would tend to show the same inaccurate overstatement of “global warming”.”
Off topic but interesting:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Former-NASA-climate-scientist-pleads-guilty-to-contract-fraud-8613137-78268862.html
Plus there was a blocking ridge dominating the East Pacific for much of the month.
A crack may be forming.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-climate-emails3-2009dec03,0,2224917.story
In my opinion (since 2002 at least) UAH is probably best temperature trend metric available. The station keeping satellite solved a lot of problems
Humans don’t control physics, except for super humans like Mann.
This “cold phase” PDO recently experienced a “warm spike” which reinvigorated the El Nino. Waiting for PDO Index November numbers.
SST Sep was 0.52, Oct 0.27. If trend in PDO continues into negative territory, perhaps this El Nino will weaken and eventually fizzle out.
A letter to the community from Ben Santer:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/a-climate-scientist-on-data-mining-for-dirt/
Re:
D. King (20:11:24) :
A crack may be forming.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-climate-emails3-2
“A crack” is an apt description.
I did a few searches of the LA Times and this story appears to be their first mention of the climategate emails. It is a whopping 31 word, single sentence (not including the headline).
From the above mentioned LATimes article”
…Boxer said. “To me, what’s important is, e-mails aside, is there global warming? Is it being affected by human activity? And there’s nothing out there that says otherwise.”
I think she has it bass ackwards.
not having any scientific background whatsoever, i would like someone on this site to explain if anything in the following link is meaningful. thanx.
SPURIOUS WARMING IN NEW NOAA OCEAN TEMPERATURE PRODUCT: THE SMOKING GUN
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. | August 27, 2009
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blogwatch/spurious_warming.pdf
O.K. Been looking for this. Here’ s a forecast where Joe Bastardi is making his NA winter weather forecast, and he’s talking about this El Nino. The long and short of it is that it ain’t showing up in the atmospheric data like the 90’s ones did.
I guess the video must be on the Accuweather pro site. Nuts.
not sure if the url went thru properly. please note:
SPURIOUS WARMING IN NEW NOAA OCEAN TEMPERATURE PRODUCT: THE SMOKING GUN
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. | August 27, 2009
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blogwatch/spurious_warming.pdf
Briffa 1998 shows N hemisphere temperatures falling steeply from 1945 to 1978, a slight rise to 1984, the a fall again.
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
Is there any other data to support this trend ?
Radiosonde data seems to roughly fit the post 1958 section.
Re: David Walton (20:28:10) :
It is a whopping 31 word, single sentence (not including the headline).
Ooops, I didn’t scroll down far enough on the first pass. Much longer.
O/T In case you still thought climate scientists weren’t politicians, it looks like Phil Jones just starred in his first political cartoon…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/GaryVarvel/2009/12/1
In the LA Times article linked to by D King it says this:
“‘The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,’ Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don’t cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.”
However, that is a direct contradiciton to this said by CRU in response to their raw data being destroyed:
“Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, ‘We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.'”
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/14/14greenwire-scientists-return-fire-at-climate-skeptics-in-31175.html
So how can NOAA and CRU be completely independent while at the same time saying that NOAA has all CRU’s data? These guys either can’t get their stories straight or they know they are lying but hoping to not have people realize what they say in one part of the world will also show up in other parts of the world to see if the stories match. Actually if you look into what CRU says about the data destruction, they just wont admit that they destroyed their unique data but are instead trying to trick people into thinking two different data sets are the same data set (with all their tweaking and incestuous relationships, I think they make sure their numbers basically match, but it doesn’t mean you can say the raw NOAA data is the raw CRU data).
Perhaps someone can tell me how ENSO causes an increase in global temperature. Is ENSO a release of stored energy? I understand that ENSO causes predictable weather changes, with some places becoming hotter and wetter and others becoming colder and drier or some combination of the states. But it would seem that globally temperatures would balance out, ENSO or not. Or is there a problem with data collection?
Ben Santer needs to be invistigated. HIs letter is his attempt at PR now that his hand has been caught in the cookie jar. Santer in his emails made it very clear that he was obstructing FOIA requests in coordination with CRU’s own FOIA obstruction. He also pre-emptively calls the leak something done by a criminal hacker, but of course we don’t know who did the leak, so they very well could have been a whistleblower who would be entitled to protections. These emails also weren’t private as they related to work paid for by the taxpayer, but he just shows how he thinks he’s got his own little fiefdom.
Aaron W. (19:04:15) :
The temps should have climbed, the el nino has strengthened.
So what happens when the energy from El Nino dissipates?
All I did was talk to the Independent about what I thought 2007 had in store weatherwise. With an El Nino going on, I thought it might be a record and just trotted off the typical things that happen in El Nino years.
Cheers
Phil
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=762&filename=1167928837.txt
“Or is there a problem with data collection?”
I expect the more we look into this, we will see there are problems with data collection…at least to when it comes to if the world’s economies shold be reworked.
royfomr (19:26:23) :
The last thing you want when the earth is cooling is for high surface temperatures to happen. That’ll cause the planet to lose more heat and accelerate the decline! Time to start praying for Mr Sol to spark up.
I was thinking the same thing. But the sun isn’t in the mood.
Would you like a little ice with your crops?
chainpin (20:28:09) :
A letter to the community from Ben Santer:
If we don’t pay attention to his letter is he going to want to meet us all in a dark alley?
Warm Saskatchewan, ElNino, it’s all just weather. I still see a cooling trend.
royfomr (19:26:23) :
accelerate the decline
it can be hidden