Note the black dot:
Source:
http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/
Looking at Dr. Roy Spencer’s daily UAH plotter, comparing to last year at this time, globally we are nearly a full degree Fahrenheit cooler:
So far, much of January (red) has been below the average line (orange) for the data set since 2002. It is not in record territory yet for this dataset but with 1/4 degree.
My SWAG for the January average UAH value is -0.12°C. We’ll know in a few days when Dr. Spencer posts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The fundamental problem with your assessment, Mooloo, is that playing at averages can smooth things enough to render them meaningless. It’s pretty clear that the cause of the variations isn’t understood well enough to effectively quantify what the temperature would be without CO2. What good does the average do you then? Especially when you have those who say the warming can only be explained by CO2, because natural variations don’t explain it. Well, since natural variations fluctuate from month to month on a greater scale than the ‘unexplained’ signal, how in the hell can you say you even have a signal, and not a product of faulty application of statistics?
For those asserting January satellite temps not being “low” enough, I’d like to make an observation that an enormous amount of heat was released during this Modoki El Nino early last year, and it doesn’t disappear immediately.
Look at the UAH tropical LT where most of the heat originates on the planet. Compare December 2010 to December 1998, particularly over the oceans. I think we have yet to see the drop that is to come, globally. Also, there must be some effect from having so much of the surface covered by snow reflecting the heat right back up to the atmosphere. That may be what is happening currently with the LT behavior.
Let’s see what it is in 3-6 months.
My 2c
According to the Australian Bureau of Meterology weather observations and records, so far this January is 0.9 degrees (Celcius) colder than the 50-year average ( 24.7C compared to 25.6C [ the 50-year average])
This has upset the pro-AGW BoM so much that they have tipped the last 3 days of January to be over 40degreesC each day, which (if they are correct) would lead the average temp to rise to 26.2C (or 0.6C ABOVE the 50-year average…. thus enabling them to already make claims that 2011 “is on track to be hotter than 2010 which was THE HOTTEST YEAR EVAR!”
One wonders if they (and other pro-AGW commentators here who have picked up the BoM’s comments and run with them) will retract that stement should the temps fail to reach the predicted leve-…. sorry I couldn’t finish that sentence without laughing.
Pro-AGW mantra:
Hot = AGW and also Cold = AGW
Drought = AGW and also Rain = AGW
and never forget
Snow = AGW
Thanks, E M Smith, for your lucid post. I have never bought the concept of global temperature as currently used for the reasons you explained so well, except where the temperature changes are very large – obviously, in an Ice Age the g.t. measurements would produce lower results than we get currently. When we are talking about fractions of a degree, or even 1 or 2 degrees, it is just meaningless.
Nevertheless, it is a step along the way to developing better concepts and measuring techniques for both weather and climate. I just wish people would stop calling a lump of coal a diamond. We have a long way to go yet.
As was pointed out before, this is almost exactly between 2008 and 2009. However it only covers 25/31 or 81% of the month. The anomaly in January 2008 was -0.30 and for January 2009 it was +0.15. This averages to -0.075. So with 6 days left, I will guess between -0.05 and -0.10.
The warmest ever cold winter snowfalls. Right.
Let them keep on shooting themselves in the feet with those ridiculous statements, their credibility ratings go right out the window with the icy bathwater.
Last January anomaly was high from El Nino but it was claimed it was from global warming. This January anomaly is low because of La Nina. And La Nina as natural variation is used as the reason how global warming can still be happening while cooling also is happening. They are not consistent in using natural variation as the reason for temperature changes. If La Nina is natural so is El Nino. So the warm anomaly last January was not global warming but it was natural.
E.M.Smith says:
January 28, 2011 at 11:27 am
Thanks for that masterful explanation.
Anthony, how about promoting this to a complete post?
Ron
To Brian of Moorabbin, AUS
On the first part of your comment i totally agree – such short period has absolutly no meaning climate wise – be it cold or warm.
On the second part of your comment, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Try to get a snow storm raging at -30 or lower degrees, and you’ll have to wait a couple of month or years. It’s not GW related.. The more cold temps you get the harder it gets to have enought humidity (even of the sea coast) to get a single cloud. Definitly over those very frigid and cold area, a warmer temps (not by very much higher) means more snow and usually a lot of snow in such conditions.
Elsewhere, higher temps means less snow and more drizzle or pellets/wet snow/freezing rain, if not rain instead of wintry precipitation.
E.M. Smith…
You da MAN!!
I’m glad that this January is looking cooler. We certainly don’t need a repeat of 2010.
Mike says:
January 28, 2011 at 12:30 pm
“Those global data sets are contaminated by the fact that two-thirds of the globe’s stations dropped out in 1990. Most of them rural and they performed no urban adjustment. And, Lou, you know, and the people in your studio know that if they live in the suburbs of New York City, it’s a lot colder in rural areas than in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting — that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data set.”
—Joe d’Aleo, CNN
I would be not as nice as Joe, and say it more bluntly: “two-thirds of the globe’s stations were intentionally dropped out in 1990″.
E.M.Smith says:
January 28, 2011 at 11:27 am
=======================
Wow. What a great post!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The statue of ‘The Thinker’ reminds me of E.M Smith. Thanks for your insights, Chiefio.
Imagine taking the temperature of any ordinary human being on the planet by meausring the temperature at a million points on the surface and averaging. Wonder what the NEW Normal would be?
EM:
I have done my own global average temperature reckoning:
From 1990 to 2000, I took the yearly average of GISS temps of the following points:
* Sanibel, FL
*Rio de Janeiro
*Paris
*Cairo
*Amundsen Base, Antarctica
I got approximately 10°C
For 2000 to 2010, I eliminated Amundsen, because it was too far.
For that decade, I now get 18°C.
Wow! My average has gone up 8°C in only 10 years!! Worse than I could have imagined…
This is the reductio ad absurdum for the result of “climate scientists” eliminating the number of monitoring stations from about 400 to 100 in the last 30 years, and shows how averages can be skewed.
bubbagyro says:
January 29, 2011 at 8:49 am
EM:
I have done my own global average temperature reckoning:
From 1990 to 2000, I took the yearly average of GISS temps of the following points:
* Sanibel, FL
*Rio de Janeiro
*Paris
*Cairo
*Amundsen Base, Antarctica
I got approximately 10°C
For 2000 to 2010, I eliminated Amundsen, because it was too far.
For that decade, I now get 18°C.
Your example is not valid for many reasons. The main one being that the measure of temperature change is given by anomalies. In your example, the ‘global’ anomaly would be related to the temperature change at the 4 remaining stations.
Looking at all the trend charts since 1980, the temperature drop is not particularly unusual, and does not look significant.
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_5_temp_anom_series_latest.png
MikeEE:
“Come on, isn’t it obvious? You yourself point out the 2010 ‘temperature’, that’s cherry picking. The point is only that this is a deviation from the long AGW drama. Why isn’t the media reporting this when every ‘warm’ event is?”
What I was pointing out with the remark that 2010 is near the record high line much of the year is that it seems strange to claim we are 1 deg Farenheit lower than this time in 2010 since last year was also near the record high line at this time (why not compare to the average?). I wasn’t cherry picking trying to claim that a single year represents an accurate picture of the climate trends, but when someone says that a day (or a month) that deviates from the upward temperature trend should be pointed out as something indicative of a change in the trend, that is cherry picking. It just seems a bit biased to say that a single data point that deviates from the “AGW drama” should be covered, even though the overall decadal trend is upward.
“The comparison is for the period for which they have data.”
And that’s a valid gripe. I get that the UAH dataset goes back that far, but we can still look at the established data for earlier times to get an idea of the climate trend. To focus on such a small sliver in time, as this article does, we can’t draw any conclusion that there is a truly meaningful deviation from AGW.
otter17 says:
“To focus on such a small sliver in time, as this article does, we can’t draw any conclusion that there is a truly meaningful deviation from AGW.”
Hold your horses. First, you have to show that AGW actually exists. To show that you need measurable, quantifiable, testable evidence.
But so far, AGW is too insignificant to measure.
It’s a travesty!
Smokey says:
“Hold your horses. First, you have to show that AGW actually exists. To show that you need measurable, quantifiable, testable evidence.
But so far, AGW is too insignificant to measure.”
You state that AGW is too insignificant to measure, but what measurements are you referring to? Regardless, your point is taken that one can’t assume there is a trend without evidence. I was basing my comment on AGW from the assessments of groups such as the National Academy of Sciences and others that have affirmed graphs that show a distinct warming trend following the Industrial Revolution.
But putting the AGW trend issue aside, my point still stands that it is somewhat strange to show a cool day or month if talking about climate. The article may just be showing the global temps as compared to last year, without any comment on climate. That’s fine, I suppose.
I would rather see interpretations of data that show at least some reasonable time frame. Take for example these graphs…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RSS_troposphere_stratosphere_trend.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
These longer-term sets of data lend credence to an upward trend. Plus, the troposphere warming while the stratosphere cools suggests that something is acting like a blanket within the troposphere. One day or month’s temperature doesn’t say much, but a decadal trend does.
I would agree that you can’t judge much based on a 1-2 month trend.
And, this is considered a La Niña Ocean Current year/season which tends to show lower ocean surface temperatures (with presumably higher subsurface temperatures).
However.
There also has been no significant “warming” since 1998.
here is a chart I cut out of one of the recent NOAA graphs.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2dt7l6x.jpg
I’ve drawn a line at about 0.58 °C.
It intersects the error bars for:
1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2008 fall below the value. Of course we are still early in 2011, but some of the trends resemble 2008, so another year below the 0.58°C would not be unexpected.
The same thing goes for the Wikipedia graphs above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
You could easily draw a straight line (or perhaps even a downward trending line) from 1998 to present.
The sea surface temperatures have been dropping since early 2010.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE_SST_thru_Dec_10.gif
One of the problems with most of the graphs is that they tend to ignore the warming around 1940.
NOAA uses a 1961-1990 base period, with about 1960 beginning a significant cooling trend with respect to many of the weather stations, especially many of the arctic weather stations that now appear as red blotches on the maps.
Look at Jan Mayen Island, for example.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010010003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
If you chose your mean from 1921 to 1960, then you would only see a slight warming in the last couple of years, and attribute it to a statistical anomaly.
What is going on?
There are some estimates that we are now beginning one of the weakest solar cycles in a century. We have yet to see the influences of the weak solar cycle on the climate. However, either no additional warming, or perhaps a cooling trend for the next decade would not be unexpected. The implications of such a trend have yet to be seen. And, it is still possible that temperatures could bounce back with a vengeance in the future, but hopefully at that time we’ll at least have good baseline temperature records for comparison.