June 2010 Temperature, cooling a bit as El Nino fades

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.

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 …

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.

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?

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?

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
“[…]
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.

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.

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

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 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.

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?