June 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.44 deg. C
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm, +0.44 deg. C for June, 2010, but it appears the El Nino warmth is waning as a La Nina approaches.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.251 0.472 0.030 -0.068
2009 2 0.247 0.564 -0.071 -0.045
2009 3 0.191 0.324 0.058 -0.159
2009 4 0.162 0.316 0.008 0.012
2009 5 0.140 0.161 0.119 -0.059
2009 6 0.043 -0.017 0.103 0.110
2009 7 0.429 0.189 0.668 0.506
2009 8 0.242 0.235 0.248 0.406
2009 9 0.505 0.597 0.413 0.594
2009 10 0.362 0.332 0.393 0.383
2009 11 0.498 0.453 0.543 0.479
2009 12 0.284 0.358 0.211 0.506
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.552 0.321 0.475
For those keeping track of whether 2010 ends up being a record warm year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 30 June being +0.64 C in 1998 compared with +0.56 C for 2010. (John Christy says that the difference is not statistically significant.) As of 30 June 2010, there have been 181 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 122 (two-thirds) of them.
As a reminder, four months ago we changed to Version 5.3 of our dataset, which accounts for the mismatch between the average seasonal cycle produced by the older MSU and the newer AMSU instruments. This affects the value of the individual monthly departures, but does not affect the year to year variations, and thus the overall trend remains the same as in Version 5.2. ALSO…we have added the NOAA-18 AMSU to the data processing in v5.3, which provides data since June of 2005. The local observation time of NOAA-18 (now close to 2 p.m., ascending node) is similar to that of NASA’s Aqua satellite (about 1:30 p.m.). The temperature anomalies listed above have changed somewhat as a result of adding NOAA-18.
[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
2009 1 0.251 0.472 0.030 -0.068
2009 2 0.247 0.564 -0.071 -0.045
2009 3 0.191 0.324 0.058 -0.159
2009 4 0.162 0.316 0.008 0.012
2009 5 0.140 0.161 0.119 -0.059
2009 6 0.043 -0.017 0.103 0.110
2009 7 0.429 0.189 0.668 0.506
2009 8 0.242 0.235 0.248 0.406
2009 9 0.505 0.597 0.413 0.594
2009 10 0.362 0.332 0.393 0.383
2009 11 0.498 0.453 0.543 0.479
2009 12 0.284 0.358 0.211 0.506
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.552 0.321 0.475
That’s quite a drop !!
Roy,
Why is there lag between SST and TLT temperatures?
Dr. Spencer,
the data you show above
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.251 0.472 0.030 -0.068
2009 2 0.247 0.564 -0.071 -0.045
2009 3 0.191 0.324 0.058 -0.159
2009 4 0.162 0.316 0.008 0.012
2009 5 0.140 0.161 0.119 -0.059
2009 6 0.043 -0.017 0.103 0.110
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.552 0.321 0.475
seems to indicate that the temps have increased by better than 0.4 degC.
is there any indication what part of that is discontinuity introduced by change MSU to AMSU?
are there any other factors that contribute to this discontinuity?
Joe Bastardi was right.
It’s going to get chilly.
I’ll be able to relive my youth in the early ’70s: no marketable job skills, poverty, cool wet weather…
Almost at the same level than 1998 El Niño? Give me a break! .
And I’ve posted the preliminary NINO3.4 and Global SST anomalies for June:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/06/preliminary-june-2010-sst-anomaly.html
According to this ‘out of box’ approach, the Arctic – Atlantic relationship has a ‘resolution’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm
I’d definitely say there’s a La Nina developing out there.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
California is much cooler compared to the past few years.
http://www.calclim.dri.edu/
It’s been a great year in the upper Midwest. A little warmer than normal with adequate precipitation. As a result the crops are looking like they will break all previous records. The corn is already chest high in many fields.
Tell me again why we should worry about a little added warmth.
Jack Simmons – I think those were the ones Bruce Springsteen referred to as “Glory Days.”
Steven:
1) sun warms ocean, then
2) ocean warms atmosphere
Actually, you would not see a time lag between ocean and tropospheric temperatures if this process was at a constant rate at all times. But there are episodic variations in the process, driven mostly by tropical intraseasonal oscillations. The oceans get unusually warm, then the troposphere starts overturning a little faster, evaporating more water from the ocean and dumping the extra latent heat in the troposphere.
Richard M says:
July 2, 2010 at 9:13 am
All of this prosperity in the corn belt will lead to a sense of well being, soon transformed into confidence about the future, ending up with smug self satisfaction as your life will be obviously better than all the soon-to-be unemployeed climatologists.
So we’re all worried for you.
I can vouch for that where I live. It has been a cool year. Summer was very late and we had rain until nearly Memorial Day. The weekend before Memorial Day saw snow at my friend’s house in Mendocino County and we were concerned that we might see snow over the holiday weekend.
We had 15 days of below normal temperatures in June and only 2 days with temperatures in the 90’s. That isn’t so unusual to have only a few 90 degree days in June, though. July will tell the story.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/histGraphAll?day=2&year=2009&month=6&ID=KSJC&type=1&width=500
There are two figures which interest me at the moment:
1. Will the first decade of the third millennium be a cooling or warming trend?
2. When will the number of google stories for “global warming” fall below the number of google stories for “peak oil”?
I suppose I could add the publication of Sir Muir Russel’s whitewash on climategate (I always enjoy a laugh) and the “reorganisation” that is going to happen around the CRU – which will have nothing at all to do with climategate … and swineflu.
Enneagram
The 1998 El Nino was teh greatest measured. Evah! It appears to correlate with a 0.2 degree step change that has persisted for at least 10 years. Atmospheric CO2 didn’t make any dramatic increase in concentration at the time (it’s about as linear and predictable as sea level rise) so the only reasonable explanation to me is that the aftershocks from such a huge sudden SST event are still dissippating. The oceans rule the climate and never forget that the atmosphere and surface waters of the ocean are a thin layer (atmosphere 0.1%, ocean surface waters 9.9%) atop what’s essentially a bucket of ice-water (the remaining 90% of the ocean). If the amount of mixing between deep and shallow ocean water changes significantly so does the weather evidently all across the globe. The AMDO, PDO, and ENSO basically run the show as far as I can see and no one has the first clue how to predict the timing or intensity of them other than some very rough periodicity taken from a rather brief span of recorded history.
crosspatch says: July 2, 2010 at 10:15 am
California is much cooler compared to the past few years.
I can vouch for that where I live.
The cold Siberian air ‘jet stream’ may be moving further south over California. If so according to some of my forthcoming graphs, bad news is, Siberia is going to get colder for foreseeable future.
Unfortunately mammoths are extinct, so no chance of them raising Siberian temperature, good news though is, Siberian permafrost is not going to melt and ‘methane catastrophe’ will be avoided.
The mission bells told me, that you shouldn’t stay,
go South of the border, down Mexico way.
Shouldn’t this El Nino be 0.36c warmer than 1998’s if we were seeing a 3c/century warming from CO2?
Well, I’m sure this will disappoint many of our alarmist friends, maybe we’ll quit seeing the words “hottest year ever” so often, but I doubt it.
Dr. Spencer, thanks for this update!
It’s been getting hot here in Germany since monday and i’ve changed my position to an AGW believer. I’ll change to skeptic again when it gets cold.
Only kidding. I’m happy that we don’t beat 1998; for me it’s a clear falsification of the AGW believe – that rising CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures and that there is no negative feedback strong enough to stop the rise. If that were true, we would have to see temperature records all the time.
Oh, i see Pingo noticed the same thing.
Mike Haseler says:
July 2, 2010 at 10:34 am
“[…]
2. When will the number of google stories for “global warming” fall below the number of google stories for “peak oil”?
”
Peak oil will be a non-event. Here in Germany, LPG and natural gas are excempt from car fuel tax (the German government wants to stop global warming and thinks it helps to switch cars to fossil fuels with a lesser content of carbon, so they drop this whopping tax for LPG and natural gas – it’s 70 eurocent per liter of gasoline) so we already have a lot of LPG-driven cars and trucks. As oil gets more expensive and gas stays cheap or gets cheaper (think shale gas), more and more cars around the globe will be switched over. This will reduce the demand for oil worldwide in accordance with dropping supplies, stretching the “no-oil horizon” indefinitely into the future.
Its cooling down because we are paying our ETS.New Zealands saving the world.(just day dreaming)
Interesting to see what new excuses and stories will be presented to the public in view of the sobering temperature reality , which may make cap and trade superflous . The clock is ticking against mr obamas communist dreams , based upon a utopian view on society , where mrs pelosi claims that the economy will be revived by more doing nothing ……. Only sacrifice and giving the utmost may bring our society forward and it is devils dream that you are able to bring society forward on a golf course .
OT but I must share this with someone or I’ll burst! UK wind turbines are currently producing 2.8 % of consumption – the highest rate that I have seen – whilst the importation from the French Interconnector has been reduced to 1.6% !
If only we knew what the French charge us for their lovely nuclear power and exactly what each unit produced by wind costs, we could tell if it would be worthwhile to build the further 7,600 windturbines (3x the current stock) that are going to produce…..er…um…. – 20% of our 2020 electricity requirements.
Don’t you just love career politicians ripping 10% off all your energy bills! The Renewables Obligation is the new expenses scandal, a honeypot in preparation for retiring MPs joining the grateful Boards of Energy companies and other firms feasting off this secretive, rarely remarked, imposition.
Re: california cooler average temp – see Chiefio – all that warming bias and its still cooler!!
Dirk H – don’t count too much on shale gas. The word on polluted ground water is beginning to come out (See the new documentary Gasland). When people have to choose between gas and water, my guess is that they will choose water. I am a true believer in technology to solve problems, but I din’t think technology will solve this one. Murray
Murray Duffin says:
July 2, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“[…]
Dirk H – don’t count too much on shale gas. The word on polluted ground water is beginning to come out (See the new documentary Gasland). ”
I’m observing the controversy; i’ve heard claims from both sides. Personally, i don’t know enough about geology to be able to define my position yet.
Thanks for the update Roy. I’m thinking that it will go down further next month. The only thing that still concerns me is that the mid Atlantic still looks hot.
Hello Dr Roy,
How exactly are you measuring SSTs. Is John Christy stirring a thermometer in the surface waters; or do you have some remote sensing (scanner). If so; what is the Physics behind the Temperature collection . Don’t mean how you statistically handle the data; but what Physical phenomenon do you turn into SST; and in that context; what do YOU mean by SURFACE.
izzat the top ten microns, or cm or a metre; or what, that you are sensing.
George
Something doesn’t make sense here.
YR……….MON….. GLOBE….. NH……..SH………TROPICS…….GLOBE Dt…..Dt/NH
2009……9…………..0.505……..0.597…..0.413……0.594………….0.362……………0.362
2009……10…………0.362……..0.332…..0.393…..0.383………….0.143……………0.265
2009……11………….0.498……..0.453…..0.543…..0.479………….0.136…………….0.121
2009……12…………0.284……..0.358…..0.211……0.506………….0.214…………….0.095
2010……1……………0.648……..0.860…..0.436…..0.681………….0.364……………0.502
2010……2 …………..0.603……..0.720…..0.486…..0.791………….0.045……………0.140
2010……3 …………..0.653……..0.850…..0.455……0.726………….0.050……………0.130
2010……4 …………..0.501……..0.799…..0.203……0.633………….0.152…………….0.051
Taking the raw differences between the last four months of 2009, and the first four months of 2010, both the Global temps and NH temps took one heck of a jump.
THAT just doesn’t make sense, in the consideration of Dec., Jan., and Feb. being the coldest months for that part of the cycle for that part of the Globe.
Additionally no such jumps took place in the either the SH or Tropics.
Further, the NH temps took and almost .5 deg. jump, and then stayed relatively stable.
Something is damned fishy with those figures, if you don’t mind me saying …
I compared 1998 El niño with this year:
Check this graphs from UAH temps
I think it’s interesting how the anomaly on both el niño events, grow and seems to plunge at the same time of the year.
I wonder if this is just a coincidence or if this is expected, and happens with every el niño event…
Also if both events are similar, it makes me wonder that maybe the anomaly will be back to 0ºC by January 2011, does this have any sense?
Pingo says:
July 2, 2010 at 11:04 am
Shouldn’t this El Nino be 0.36c warmer than 1998′s if we were seeing a 3c/century warming from CO2?
*************************************************************************
DirkH says:
July 2, 2010 at 11:36 am
Only kidding. I’m happy that we don’t beat 1998; for me it’s a clear falsification of the AGW believe – that rising CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures and that there is no negative feedback strong enough to stop the rise. If that were true, we would have to see temperature records all the time.
Oh, i see Pingo noticed the same thing.
************************************************************************
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
No disrespect gentlemen, but it seems that 1 dimensional thinking is being used to reach these conclusions.
First of all, I’ll say the following to Pingo. Please look at the satellite temperature charts at the very beginning of this this thread and notice the distinction between 1979 and 2010 in general.
Take special note of the tops of the high curves and how they undergo a quantum shift between those dates. THEN take a very close look at the bottom of the down curves between 1979-1990 and compare them to 1995-2008. (You will have to exclude the gap from1991-1994 because that down dip was caused by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubu which was a fluke)
You will notice that the high curves of 1998-2010 get higher by approximately .15 degree Centigrade. Also the low curves of 1995-2008 get warmer by about .2C than the low curves of 1979-1990.
The conclusion is that there has been a sudden rise in the temperatures of both La ninas (bottom curves) and El Ninos (high curves).
Now, in response to DirkH, I’ll mention the following. Your assumptions of hyper gradualism is a common mistake that people make when they do not know the complexities of a subject. Almost any subject.
Take Evolution as an example. It used to be thought that the rate of evolution was gradual throughout time. Then it was discovered in due time that evolution occurred in small leaps. These small leaps would be followed by periods of stability where the species exhibited no meaningful change.
As for Global Warming having to take on a gradualistic change ON A YEARLY BASIS, by what facts and deductions is this claim made? The only way that a gradual increase of CO2 will make for a yearly rise in temperature is for the Earth itself to have gradual, that is smooth, distinctions in its features. It clearly does not.
This is where a steady increase of CO2 will lead to temperature records being set on a gradual YEAR BY YEAR instead of an episodic series of leaps and bounds.
You will need an artificial planet that is as smooth and hard (surface area has to be weather proof) as a bowling ball. Its oceans and or lakes will have to be designed as perfect geometric shapes spaced apart in a perfect manner. Only then will you have predictable ocean, humidity, atmospheric effects etc.. That is where CO2 would cause an ARTIFICIAL rise in temperature on a YEARLY basis.
Hi I was just wondering which channel(s) this corresponds to at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ and I was wondering if it is likely that the 97/98 data would be available for the graph. It’s a great graph tool and deserves more data!
villabolo says:
July 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm
[–snip–]
You will notice that the high curves of 1998-2010 get higher by approximately .15 degree Centigrade. Also the low curves of 1995-2008 get warmer by about .2C than the low curves of 1979-1990. [–snip rest–]
But you’ve not answered the question: If CO2 is supposed to be any kind of agent of so-called ‘CAGW,’ they why is it that with all that CO2 locked into the polar ice, along with that air above it –absolutely flooded with CO2– that the ice doesn’t immediately begin to melt when the Sun hits it?
One would think –according to your theory– that with the CO2 locked into the matrix of the ice, and with that extra measure of CO2 floating directly above, that the ice would be positively VAPORIZED by the Sunshine!!!
But it’s not … It’s not even melting. Is that CO2 faulty from the factory? Do we need to have a CO2 recall?
So then, what’s reason your theory isn’t working as advertised? Did someone slip a digit in that formulation?
899 – you didn’t notice that Dr Roy said the following:
As a reminder, four months ago we changed to Version 5.3 of our dataset, which accounts for the mismatch between the average seasonal cycle produced by the older MSU and the newer AMSU instruments.
janama says:
July 2, 2010 at 4:06 pm
899 – you didn’t notice that Dr Roy said the following:
As a reminder, four months ago we changed to Version 5.3 of our dataset, which accounts for the mismatch between the average seasonal cycle produced by the older MSU and the newer AMSU instruments.
Be that as it may, but that still doesn’t address the jump in the NH which wasn’t also reflected in the other two regions.
If one region will experience that great of a measurement change, then why not the others, in consonant fashion?
Well I for one am enjoying the rain in the Pacific Northwest.
I’m hoping El Nina keeps up her strongwilled womanly ways.
I haven’t had a chance to do any Salmon fishing the last couple of falls and I miss it.
Typically at the beginning of an La Nina the fishing picks up. The silver Salmon run was supposed to be pretty good last year.
villabolo says:
July 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm
“[…]
Now, in response to DirkH, I’ll mention the following. Your assumptions of hyper gradualism is a common mistake that people make when they do not know the complexities of a subject. Almost any subject.[…]”
DIRKH RESPONDS:
Villabolo, thanks for the compliments. One question to you:
The AGW “theory” (it fails the test for a theory but let’s call it a theroy for the moment) posits that the Earth warms under the influence of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Correct me if the current version of the AGW “theory” has already been corrected to state something else.
Now if it warms it must accumulate heat.
Where does it do this?
And if it doesn’t do it – or only sometimes – and only after various very complicated sequences of events a new heat record shows up – events too complicated to understand for me for sure – then this simply means that the heat has intermediately made off into space, which proves that the planet can cool off without a problem, which in turn proves that we don’t need any Cap&Trade scam, Kyoto or anything like that.
Enough cooling capacity == no problem, easy enough?
Villbolo, your side has to prove – as if your side was able to make any definitive statement about anything – that there is a problem with the cooling capacity of the problem, otherwise the alarmist house of cards breaks down. That’s why Kevin trenberth is searching high and low for the missing heat in the system. That’s why the warmist cause tries to fudge the gridded temperature products. That’s why ARGO is a huge problem for the warmist cause.
villabolo says:
July 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm
“[…]Take Evolution as an example. It used to be thought that the rate of evolution was gradual throughout time. Then it was discovered in due time that evolution occurred in small leaps. These small leaps would be followed by periods of stability where the species exhibited no meaningful change.[…]”
DIRKH RESPONDS:
When looking at evolution you will also notice a rise of complexity over time and a speedup of adaptive mechanisms. This indicates that evolution is an intelligent process in that it has a slowly rising “IQ”; it delivers ever faster rates of adaption. See Ray Kurzweil about this, for instance The Age Of Spiritual Machines.
Your comparison of that unrealistic combination of feedbacks posited by the AGW movement (you see i leave of the “C”, we don’t even need to take the “catastrophic” into account) with evolution is completely unfounded. The AGW “process” is not more and not less complex than the AGW CGM’s; and they don’t evolve in the sense of evolution during the runtime of a model run. IOW, they’re not self-modifying programs. A much lower class of complexity than evolution.
villabolo says:
July 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm
“[…]
As for Global Warming having to take on a gradualistic change ON A YEARLY BASIS, by what facts and deductions is this claim made? The only way that a gradual increase of CO2 will make for a yearly rise in temperature is for the Earth itself to have gradual, that is smooth, distinctions in its features. It clearly does not.
This is where a steady increase of CO2 will lead to temperature records being set on a gradual YEAR BY YEAR instead of an episodic series of leaps and bounds.
You will need an artificial planet that is as smooth and hard (surface area has to be weather proof) as a bowling ball. Its oceans and or lakes will have to be designed as perfect geometric shapes spaced apart in a perfect manner. Only then will you have predictable ocean, humidity, atmospheric effects etc.. That is where CO2 would cause an ARTIFICIAL rise in temperature on a YEARLY basis.”
DIRKH RESPONDS:
As Willis says, don’t put words in my mouth. “Gradualistic”? I’m not a gradualist, nor do i think that the gradualists would take me as a member. I said that we would see new temperature records all the time. You know, because the greenhouse effect is supposed to “trap heat”. Not my idea.
And for your funny ideas about a planet with perfect geometrical shapes for oceans: No, i don’t think that would help. If it has a water cycle and an atmosphere, it will have convection, conduction, chaotic eddies in atmosphere and oceans, thunderstorms and a virtual James Hansen on that virtual world will have to fudge the numbers all the same to make the inhabitants of that virtual world believe that his simple models describe this world realistically.
You see, GCM’s work with coarse rasters, and they’re not capable of reproducing local phenomena – for instance clouds. And that’s why they fail and fail so hard. It’s got nothing to do with a complicated geometry of a coastline. You can have a coast line that’s perfectly straight and perfectly in line with the raster of your GCM and you will still not be able to simulate cloud formation realistically.
If the net temp rise of this El Nino does not meet or exceed 1998’s, then I’m going to be doing some serious finger wagging. I’m am so tired of getting bullied by the government, the media, and my peers. I don’t care how you chop it up, cook it or repackage it. Even a statistical tie for 98’s El Nino requires some serious explaining!
villabolo says:
July 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm
“[…]
As for Global Warming having to take on a gradualistic change ON A YEARLY BASIS, by what facts and deductions is this claim made? …..
________________________________________________________________________
If the planet is warming as those who support AGW believe then we would see the record high temperatures broken. Instead we have lately seen several record low temps broken. We have had 60 – 70 years of increasing CO2 so we should not still be seeing record lows.
crosspatch
I was living in the Bay Area during the summer of 1998. It was very cold – I remember being bundled up in a blanket watching the fireworks in Cupertino on July 4. Every trip to the beach that summer was freezing cold.
Seems to happen after big El Nino events.
DirkH says:
July 2, 2010 at 6:58 pm
“You see, GCM’s work with coarse rasters, and they’re not capable of reproducing local phenomena – for instance clouds. And that’s why they fail and fail so hard. It’s got nothing to do with a complicated geometry of a coastline. You can have a coast line that’s perfectly straight and perfectly in line with the raster of your GCM and you will still not be able to simulate cloud formation realistically.”
DirkH says:
July 2, 2010 at 6:47 pm
“The AGW “process” is not more and not less complex than the AGW CGM’s; and they don’t evolve in the sense of evolution during the runtime of a model run. IOW, they’re not self-modifying programs. A much lower class of complexity than evolution.”
==================================
Extremely well said on both counts and worth repeating.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2010vs2005+1998.pdf
I’m not sure sure if I really understand what data set or sets Dr. Spencer used to come to his conslusion. If you look at Nasa Giss graphs on the link above Nasa comes to a much different conclusion.
2010 the warmest of 131 years .72
2005 the fourth warmest of 131 years .62
1998 the fifth warmest of 131 years .61
There is a great deal more Dr. Spencer could do to educate us in what he is doing. I’m not finding it believeable that 122 days of 180 have a higher temperature in 1998 compared to 2010. If you look at the graph provided by Nasa 2010 is clearly a higher temperature than 1998
[REPLY – The good doc is none other than the dude in charge of the world’s premier satellite temperature record: the University of Alabama at Huntsville — none other than UAH. As for the NASA/GISS record, well, the term “infamous” springs to mind . . .. Stick around and you’ll see a lot of discussion of both the NASA/GISS and UAH records. ~ Evan]
Enjoying an air condition-less night here in the coast of VA on July 2nd as an unusually vigorous Canadian anticyclone pushes the front all the way to central Florida. Highly unusual.
We don’t ever turn our AC off in July. Hmmm
Yeah yeah I know Philadelphia had its “hottest June ever.”
Big f-ing deal. They just had their “snowiest winter ever” too.
Oh, I forgot, both extremes are cause by AGW.
Regardless, this 2010, though hot for the eastern US megalopolis…where so many (and so many politicians and news reporters) live…this summer is very different from the constant heat of 2007 and 2008.
The maturing, grouchy, cumudgeon-ly positive AMO has about reached the end of his days for now….and it is quite obvious the direct effect of the current morphing that is occurring in his bigger brother, the Pacific.
It is 61 degrees F with a 52 dewpoint and we just don’t get that in July, ya’ll.
Summertime…..and the livin’ is easy.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I think villabolo is partly correct. Many here are implying that because temperatures are failing to beat those due to the El Nino of 1998 that there is therefore no warming. But where is the evidence that the El Nino that has just finished was anything like as strong as the 1998 one? It seems to me that it has been nothing of the kind. Only when an El Nino as powerful as the 1998 one returns SHOULD global temperatures be remotely similar to that truly exceptional year, if the world is not warming. But the fact is they are similar, so one can only assume that global temperatures are still slowly rising overall. Whatever the cause.
I have as much moss on my driveway today as I do in the deepest spring and fall. Norm for July is to cut back the dried grass and weeds so we don’t get drive-by cigarette fires. No possibility of that at the present, though “they” say it’s going to be 80º next week.
This is Puget Sound, not Belfast. We’re down to 3 seasons this year.
Somebody mentioned Pelosi earlier.
On the connection between jobs and legislation, she had this to say:
She sure has a way with numbers.
I’m feeling more confident about the future now with her in charge.
Jeff Green says:
July 2, 2010 at 10:12 pm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2010vs2005+1998.pdf
I’m not sure sure if I really understand what data set or sets Dr. Spencer used to come to his conslusion. If you look at Nasa Giss graphs on the link above Nasa comes to a much different conclusion…..
______________________________________________________________
As Evan the moderator noted Dr. Spencer’s data is the satellite temperature record. It pretty much covers the whole planet uniformly and uses calibration to insure accuracy.
So what about GISS?
Here is one problem with the GISS graphs, see: http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
or http://i31.tinypic.com/5vov3p.jpg
Yes I know this is just the USA but the problem is not limited to the USA. For example Darwin and New Zealand and Russia
Another couple of problems are briefly mentioned in Anthony’s interview
“When I was in college one of the first jobs I had was to assemble a Stevenson Screen [the slatted box on stilts that protects meteorological instruments from undue influences, widely used up until 1984], and I remember the whitewash coming off in my hand. I’d always wondered about that. My professor told me we couldn’t change it because even though it was an inferior coating that flaked off, it just couldn’t be changed Then when I learned in 1979 that the Weather Bureau had changed the specification to latex… I finally got around to doing the experiment, and when I did the experiment I discovered that there was indeed a difference, a significant difference [a thermometer in a latex painted screen records a higher average temperature], which was as large as the agreed upon global warming signal…..”
“only one in ten US measuring stations meeting minimum standards.…
The specification from the United States NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and through their weather service, NWS—National Weather Service—has a simple rule called the 100 foot rule. And it basically says keep the thermometers away from influences such as concrete, asphalt, car parks, buildings, other heat generating phenomena—keep them away at least 100 feet. Our study in the United States showed that only one in ten met that rule. The effects of poor siting can be seen here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/31/uhi-is-alive-and-well/
My state North Carolina illustrates another problem. At least one third of the state is mountains, the city of Ashville at least was occupied in the 1800’s yet there are no GISS reporting stations in the mountains. This is the station drop out problem. “..the GHCN station dropout Smith has been working on is a significant event, going from an inventory of 7000 stations worldwide to about 1000 now, and with lopsided spatial coverage of the globe. According to Smith, there’s also been an affinity for retaining airport stations over other kinds of stations. His count shows 92% of GHCN stations in the USA are sited at airports, with about 41% worldwide.”
Here is a quick look at the only city & close by airport listed for North Carolina. The other North Carolina cities show the same pattern, the airport shows a completely different pattern over time and is not representative of the state. Norfolk City and Norfolk International Airport Here is the raw 1856 to current Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation All the other city temperatures I looked at follow the Atlantic ocean oscillation as long as the weather station is not sitting at an airport.
This brings us to the effects of interpolation where reported temperatures such as the seacoast and piedmont areas in North Carolina are used to infill the missing data in the mountainous areas even though there is a five degree F colder temperature difference. E.M.Smith calls this the Bolivia Effect
And on top of all that is the missing M problem The reporting conventions for data switched to using “M” to show a minus sign temperature and sometimes the M is left out corrupting the data – always giving a warm bias.
Is it any wonder skeptics do not trust the “official global temperature” data?
899 says:
July 2, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Something doesn’t make sense here.
[Snip] ….
Taking the raw differences between the last four months of 2009, and the first four months of 2010, both the Global temps and NH temps took one heck of a jump.
THAT just doesn’t make sense, in the consideration of Dec., Jan., and Feb. being the coldest months for that part of the cycle for that part of the Globe.
The numbers you posted are anomalies. Just because an anomaly is higher in one month than in the previous month doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s actually got warmer. Jan 2010 was a record high in the NH for UAH. This means it was wamrer than all other Januarys – it doesn’t mean January 2010 (0.860) was warmer than Sepember (0. 332) say.
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your post.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 2, 2010 at 7:41 am
And I’ve posted the preliminary NINO3.4 and Global SST anomalies for June:
If the last NINO was a super NINO like 97/98 then it was piss weak.
AMO is still in it’s warm phase.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/AMO.png
Despite the powers that be redefining what a year is, the global temps have been flatlining for over 10 years. If the AMO reacts negatively to the solar slumber the schmucks that masquerade as scientists these days are going come up with another ad-hoc hypothesis to explain the failure of the last ad-hoc hypothesis.
Dr Spencer
Able to see/detect anything yet on the Iceland Eyekull eruption temperature impact?
Jack Simmons says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:20 am
Somebody mentioned Pelosi earlier.
On the connection between jobs and legislation, she had this to say:
Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.
Nancy Pelosi
She sure has a way with numbers.
I’m feeling more confident about the future now with her in charge.
If in fact she did say that, then she’s reading into the future, inasmuch as there are only a bit more than 300 million Americans. I wonder where they’re hiding the other 200 million?
Tack onto that, the fact that only about 200 million people need employment, as the rest are minors, retirees, or those incarcerated.
So I dunno here. If 500 million Americans lose their jobs monthly, then they must be getting those jobs back and losing them in rapid-fire fashion!!
Musical jobs anyone?
There is about a 3 month lag between the ENSO and global temperatures so this June is still being affected by the March, 2010 El Nino.
The 2009-10 El Nino should be influencing the June 2010 TLT anomaly by about 0.08C above the trend.
The 1997-98 El Nino should have influenced the June 1998 TLT anomaly by about 0.10C above trend.
So June 1998 (0.562C) versus June 2010 (0.436C) should be close to comparable as far as the El Nino is concerned.
Let’s look at the other forcings and natural variability influences. Both periods are seeing the development of strong La Ninas. The AMO is about the same in the two periods (both periods are quite high). Solar forcing is about the same (despite the quiet Sun, total solar irradiance is about the same). There is no volcanic aerosols forcing in either period. Human aerosols are estimated to be about the same.
The only change is CO2/GHGs which should have increased temperatures by about 0.22C over this period.
But we have an ENSO-adjusted decline of 0.146C instead.
John Finn says:
July 3, 2010 at 3:42 am
899 says:
July 2, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Something doesn’t make sense here.
[Snip] ….
Taking the raw differences between the last four months of 2009, and the first four months of 2010, both the Global temps and NH temps took one heck of a jump.
THAT just doesn’t make sense, in the consideration of Dec., Jan., and Feb. being the coldest months for that part of the cycle for that part of the Globe.
The numbers you posted are anomalies. Just because an anomaly is higher in one month than in the previous month doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s actually got warmer. Jan 2010 was a record high in the NH for UAH. This means it was wamrer than all other Januarys – it doesn’t mean January 2010 (0.860) was warmer than Sepember (0. 332) say.
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your post.
The anomalous value didn’t happen for only one month, it was for several, and it stablised at the new higher level. Further, as I remarked earlier, that anomaly didn’t reflect itself for the other two regions in the same period of measurement.
899 says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:16 am
Taking the raw differences between the last four months of 2009, and the first four months of 2010, both the Global temps and NH temps took one heck of a jump.
Yes but this appears to be driven by cyclical SST’s. There is no reason to assume that the ocean cycles should follow the annual calender although they might in a noisy fashion.
THAT just doesn’t make sense, in the consideration of Dec., Jan., and Feb. being the coldest months for that part of the cycle for that part of the Globe.
Your confusing ocean cycles with seasonal variables. When you use anomalous perimeters the seasonal variables have been removed.
It therefore doesn’t matter what part of the year or what part of the globe you observe, you ask yourself what has caused the divergence from the base line of the anomaly.
The answer is a reasonably strong NINO and a warm AMO has contributed to the current warm global temperatures but the fact they have occurred at the beginning of the year is irrelevant.
They would have the same effect if they were in sync at any time of the year.
The shysters know that people in the northern hemisphere think this time of year should be cold and have deliberately misled them by using anomalous data and redefined what a year is.
Shame on them. They are a disgraceful bunch of spivs.
Dr Spencer
Why was the CHLT 1km removed from the discover page? (This showed a warming rate of 0.18C per year!)
Why has CH05 been replaced with a shorter record CH05 aqua?
Why has CH05 aqua data posted before July 1(?) been replaced with a modified set posted after July 10 (?)? Only small changes but there is no reference on the web site to changes being made.
CH05 Aqua on 17th June had 6 February 29ths in the last 8 yearsplus some temperatures showing 20C differences from normal. On the 18th June this had been corrected. Why was this error not referenced on the home page.
In the past other temperature indexes have been hauled over hot coals for having made such unannounced changes/corrections!
The removed chLT plot
[http://] img21.imageshack.us/img21/3427/amsre100617.png
The differences in CH05
[http://] img8.imageshack.us/img8/4640/amsuadjusments.png
Just curious as I am sure there are valid explanations
Thanks
\harry