UAH global temperature, up this month to 0.31C

UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2011: +0.31 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

Post-La Nina Warming Continues

The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for June, 2011 increased to +0.31 deg. C (click on the image for a LARGE version):

The Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and and Tropics all experienced temperature anomaly increases in June:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2011 1 -0.010 -0.055 +0.036 -0.372

2011 2 -0.020 -0.042 +0.002 -0.348

2011 3 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342

2011 4 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229

2011 5 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043

2011 6 +0.314 +0.377 +0.251 +0.235

I would like to remind everyone that month-to-month changes in global-average tropospheric temperature have a large influence from fluctuations in the average rate of heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. In other words, they are not of radiative origin (e.g. not from greenhouse gases). El Nino/La Nina is probably the most dramatic example of this kind of activity, but there are also “intraseasonal oscillations” in the ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges occurring on an irregular basis, too.

YEARLY temperature averages probably provide a better indication of the existence of radiative forcings on the climate system (whether warming or cooling). Nevertheless, we must remember that even DECADAL time scale (or longer) changes in the ocean circulation could also be involved, which can cause long-term climate change independent of any kind of greenhouse gas (or cosmic ray-induced) radiative forcing. (That last sentence has not been approved by the IPCC…but I don’t really care.)

Advertisements

104 thoughts on “UAH global temperature, up this month to 0.31C

  1. New la nina on the way then, ocean releasing energy and sub surface cooling at the moment.

  2. Weather or Not?
    Whether weather is climate or whether it’s not,
    depends on whether it’s cold or it’s hot.
    If it’s cold it’s just weather, whether or not
    it’s cold all the time and never gets hot.
    If it’s hot it’s the climate, whether or not
    it was cold yesterday and just now it got hot.
    So, weather is climate whenever it’s hot,
    but climate is weather whenever it’s not.

  3. Can anyone here look at that chart and say, seriously, “no warming since 1998”?
    Just asking…

  4. The current warming is from the rebound from La Nina, which looked like an incipient el Nino (and was proclaimed as such by some) but right now the south Pacific looks more likely to turn back to a La Nina phase. More cool water is upwelling along the Peru coast. So this warming might be short-lived.

  5. So, if the ENSO is slightly above neutral, why is the WUWT ENSO meter stuck at 1.2? That widget doesn’t seem to be working

  6. Well, I’m jealous. You heard me–jealous! Somebody else has been getting the warmth and it hasn’t been me. Where I live, garden veggies didn’t grow much at all in June; indeed, I had to re-plant some varieties due to frost. The mountains in all directions around me are still white with snow; the rivers are still at flood stage. I suppose I should be happy there wasn’t more frost and less flooding. I’m not. I’m jealous. Can someone help me out?…. Where has all the warm weather been?

  7. About the same temperature as 20 years ago (SST is looking like 1991 also). If the ocean oscillations theory holds, this temperature anomaly can be expected to bounce up and down several tenths of a degree, as it has all along, around an average +0.1°C, until about 2030. Meanwhile, there is no greenhouse effect, so there will likely be a revolution in climate science rather than in climate.

  8. @John B: Seriously, yes. Take a ruler and set the left side on the FWHM on the left side of the 1998 el Nino. Draw a line straight across to the right and see it essentially bisects the temp data from 1998 to today. i.e. no net upward temp. trend.

  9. Where can I get that warming? Is it on Ebay or Amazon?
    Ireland “The island has lush vegetation, a product of its mild but changeable oceanic climate, which avoids extremes in temperature.”
    June 2011 was officially the coldest June for the last 39 years. 1 C below normal. The sunshine hours were above normal but the temperature didn’t match it. How come?
    My cherry tree had also a problem with the climate. The cherries didn’t ripe well this year.

  10. John B: even if you are correct (there is a warming) can anyone here say, seriously, that it cannot be due to a natural cause?

  11. Here in Northern Alberta, Canada, it’s been COLD. At night it feels more like early September you can feel the extremely quick cooling soon as the sun sets. Now, if someone here could tell me exactly where this magical warming is occurring I would like to hire their magicians to perform said miracles in this part of the world. And its not only here – my wife and myself have been riding in the Rockey mountains on our Harleys and there is very little ice melt from the glaciers completely unlike it was around ten years ago. My wife and myself both remarked on the meager melt – never saw anything like that before in all the years I’ve been riding in the mountains. Matter of fact I have the photos of brand new snow on glaciers all over the Rockies. So pray tell where is this magical warming? That is in light of the heavy flooding from snow record breaking snow packs and the flooding all over the prairies down through the US as well.
    I’ll believe in UFOs and aliens kidnappings long before I believe these temperatures reflect every point on the planet at the same time – not before! Like we say here in Canada – because its hot in Toronto means nothing to the other 3.5 million square miles of Canada. However listening to Toronto the world really IS gonna end by next Thursday.

  12. John B:
    I agree with Michael Monce, it looks like essentially no change. What are you getting at?
    MikeEE

  13. To John B – your are correct, there is certainly cooling if 1998 is selected as the starting year. Starting with 1998 is a bit of cherry picking. Good observation.
    To say it’s been flat is much fairer than saying there has been cooling.

  14. Michael Monce says:
    …….
    Michael, draw that same line but start with 1997 or 1999….. What do you find?
    By the way… Picking a start year and end year, then connecting the dots is not the proper way to determine trends…

  15. Bill Kropla says:
    July 7, 2011 at 9:51 am
    “Weather or Not?
    Whether weather is climate or whether it’s not,
    depends on whether it’s cold or it’s hot.
    If it’s cold it’s just weather, whether or not
    it’s cold all the time and never gets hot.
    If it’s hot it’s the climate, whether or not
    it was cold yesterday and just now it got hot.
    So, weather is climate whenever it’s hot,
    but climate is weather whenever it’s not.”
    EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!! Encore!!!

  16. I have said it before and I will keep saying it, the UAH anomalies do not fit with the real world temperatures. South America is cold, Australia is cold, North America is cold, Europe is not warmer than normal, in fact the UK is cold. The Oceans are normal, so just where is all this heat that gives us a World anomaly of 0.31C?

  17. John B says:
    Can anyone here look at that chart and say, seriously, “no warming since 1998″?
    ++++++++
    There has been no warming since 1998. Given that 1998 was an El Nino year, most serious commenters bother to look to when the warming stopped and it was about 1995 (or even 1995). Since the temperatures in the past 10 years are slightly higher than in 1995, why do they say that? Because in order to capture a global temperature value, many edits of actual measurements must be made, some subjective, some arbitrary, some rational. This results in a value with an attendant error bar. If the error bar (which is not shown above) were seen and understood, the temperature change would have to be ‘significant’ before being delcared to be different (up or down). The use of the term ‘significant’ is not arbitrary nor subjective. It has a technical meaning to do with variation based not on the actual temperature, whatever it is, but with the methods and known error bars. For example temperatures read to plus or minus 0.25 degrees cannot give a result that is plus or minus 0.2 degrees and certainly not 0.211 degrees. A calculation method may provide an answer, but it is not able to reduce the intrinsic errors of each input or conversion or projection over surface area (etc). That is why they are called intrinsic errors. They are part of the source number or calculation method.
    Presuming that the measurement resolution in 1998 is the same as in 2011, there has, seriously, been no global temperature rise in 13 years.
    According to IPCC projections, we are already as much as 0.78 degrees behind – a rise approximately equal to that of the past century. This failure of reality to match prediction is held by some (skeptics) to be further proof that the modelled heating from AG CO2 is erroneous. Others, AGW proponents, hold that there is an on-going, steep natural variation (cooling) that brought the rise to a halt, that this halt is temporary, and when the cooling phase reverses, temperatures will rise very rapidly to ‘catch up’. Critics of this view hold that if natural variation is so powerful, over-riding the AG CO2 as it is claimed to have done, then perhaps the calculated forcing for CO2 is in error (high) and recent 1975-1995 warming was also largely cause by natural variation. Pro-AGW commenters such as at RealClimate have, in most cases, responded to these critics by saying, “Your mother wears Army boots!” or words with similar gravitas and relevance.
    Also, John, you will not find people seriously claiming, “The global average temperature has risen since 1998.” because no credible data supports such a contention.

  18. RockyRoad says:
    July 7, 2011 at 10:43 am
    Well, I’m jealous. You heard me–jealous! Somebody else has been getting the warmth and it hasn’t been me.

    We’ve been getting that warmth down here in New Zealand. One of the warmest Junes on record and our ski fields are a month late in opening, but we do recognise it as weather, not climate. Across the Tasman they have had heavy and early snow, so Australia makes up for it.

  19. Unfortunately your recent musing about being a politician and a teacher, or even an econ expert, has seriously hurt your science cred with alot of people. And Rush Limbaugh’s climate scientist? All this hurts your cred, just like Hansen’s getting arrested destroy’s his cred.

  20. I look at the above graph and see 1) No trend from 1979-1998, 2) A 0.2 to 0.3 step after 1998, and 3) No reason to feel confident we won’t get another step of similar magnitude within the next few years, in spite of the negative PDO and very low solar activity.
    If that happens, I sure hope direct CO2 capture and sequestration ( CCS ) has made a lot of progress because transforming the global industrial civilization under the direction of the U.N. to reduce global CO2 emissions by 50% is something I don’t even want to comtemplate.

  21. The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

  22. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
    That, and anecdotal cool temperature reports on this blog from around the world, together with the recent outage on the lower atmosphere chanel, leads me to suspect that the empirical evidence that produced this result might be questionable.
    Perhaps a recallibration might be in order, possibly using a world wide network of tomatoes.

  23. Well, all I can say is, that this measurement seems to bear no relationship to the conditions that I experience, here in Southern England. Bloody cold most of the time, and has been all through this “summer” with the exception of a few days.
    Or is this measurement a reflection of the amount of heat leaving the lower atmosphere, so perhaps a little counter-intuitive, as this heat then departs into space?

  24. Perhaps the last El Nino was a ‘step up’….warmer is the new ‘normal’ within ENSO neutral conditions….at least until the AMO decides to go negative.

  25. tonybr says:
    July 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    Here in Scotland it has also been a very cold year so far. I blame our First Minister Mr Salmond for covering the countryside with big white fans which he powers with electricity from the grid most days when the wind doesn’t blow .
    I think it no coincidence that the more he builds each year the cooler it becomes.

  26. robb876: I agree, but that isn’t what John asked; he asked about 1998 on. To me, the temperature exhibits a step function. It oscillates around an average value of -0.15 from 1979 to the 1998 El Nino, then steps up to a new average of +0.2 degrees where it has been oscillating around since.

  27. Bill Kropla says:
    July 7, 2011 at 9:51 am
    Hats off to you, Sir. Send it to poetry magazine, among other places. For we critics of climate science, it is a scream!!!!

  28. “The Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and and Tropics all experienced temperature anomaly increases in June”
    Well, here in south of Brazil the temperatures dropped at levels of 1974/75. Ice, cold, and low temperatures in the last days are above the normal. The cold is going to central regions of Brazil and near Amazon forest. In Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru we have very low temperatures too. So… what is happen ? The cold is only in surface ?
    JFB

  29. What does everyone make such a big deal out of these numbers? No one has a scientific explanation for them. Some people have good rules of thumb based on things like ENSO, but those folks will readily admit that what they have is not up to the level of science. Of course, Warmista fetishize numbers because that is the slim thread that keeps their enterprise alive.
    Would someone tell me again where the thermometers are? These readings do not agree with my experience of the southeastern US – Houston to Dallas to St. Louis to DC to Miami or my experience of the internet.
    Would someone please tell me again what the Global Average Temperature is? It is a contrivance for sure and not a scientific one.
    Would someone tell me why climate scientists insist on using anomalies rather than actual temperatures?
    Finally, would someone tell me why climate scientists chose the word ‘anomaly’? The word ‘anomaly’ has a perfectly good meaning which has nothing to do with the use made of it by climate scientists. The fact that they use it in this way screams “not really literate.”

  30. —I’m so glad you said that ‘in fact, the UK is cold’ — down here in the south it was all of 14C maximum today, 7th July. Yes, we have had some hot weather, with the odd day in the mid-80s, but ‘had’ is the word.

  31. I for one plan to enjoy.
    As far as warming since ’98, it must need be remembered, the contexts that EVERYBODY realizes, but that now seem to not matter.
    AT THE TIME HE WAS SAYING THAT UNBEKNOWN to US, e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y. realized that the
    precise
    global temp
    Phil Jones gave when he SAID “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms ***IF I SAID THE WORLD HAD COOLED SINCE 1998. OK IT HAS*** ” (asterisks and caps mine, this was an everyday email without any unusual puctuation)
    “…Ok it has, but it’s only seven years of data ***AND IT I.S.N’T. S.T.A.T.I.S.T.I.C.A.L.L.Y. S.I.G.N.I.F.I.C.A.N.T.”
    (Again, caps, asterisks, mine because it’s the internet and Anthony isn’t charging me by the word or character – but also to make it just how plainly the e.n.t.i.r.e. game is over, with Jones’ having said the “it isn’t statistically significant” part)
    The important thing that *seals* *every* *word* *any* *of* *them* *ever* *utter*,
    is that the
    ENTIRE WORLD
    READING THE RAW DATA
    POSTED ONLINE
    BY LAW
    SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT
    WEATHER FRAUD,
    was SHOWING that
    ***SINCE 1998, IT HADN’T WARMED, B.U.T. C.O.O.L.E.D. JUST A LITTLE BIT –
    SLIGHTLY BELOW
    STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
    level.***
    And in ONE SENTENCE, he admitted
    (a)lack of warming as REPEATEDLY CLAIMED
    (b) the actual veracity of the raw data with the most minimal of adjustments ABSOLUTELY KNOWABLE to ANYONE of some vocational-quality grasp, of state-of-the-industry @ the time weather forecasting,
    (c)the ABSOLUTE ASSERTION in the language as lain down- it was patently obvious he knew precisely what he was communicating: DISCUSSING COMMITTING of FRAUD on MASSIVE scale with SPECIFIC INTENT TO HIDE IT HADN’T BEEN WARMING.
    This was in 2005 and the v.e.r.y. month before the ClimateGate data were released, on ANOTHER email that made the rounds, THERE was JONES’ NAME, on the ”TRAVESTY” Email wherein they all took turns admitting it hadn’t been warming, or that it was very troubling to SEE THE ACTUAL TRUTH: that IT HADN’T WARMED SINCE ’98 or so – and there was
    MANN
    TRENBERTH
    JONES
    SCHNEIDER
    CO-ORDINATING JOINT FRAUDULENT DENIALS – from SEVERAL DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES –
    on MULTIPLE CONTINENTS –
    the ASSERTIONS of a BBC REPORTER: that assertion?
    THAT IT HAD NOT WARMED SINCE 1998.
    That, and that IT LOOKED LIKE IT WASN’T GOING TO START WARMING EITHER, to some fairly well known public figure; I can’t remember who the BBC Reporter had quoted.
    But to SUM it ALL UP, all you have to do, is GO READ the Email where Jones discusses in 2005 the fact THEY WERE HIDING IT STOPPED WARMING:
    then read the “Travesty” email.
    And THAT is all you really need to know, to understand why suddenly every legal jurisdiction on earth was backing off further contractual obligation due to putative warming; why NOTHING they could say could ever put the genie back in the bottle.
    Taking those two Emails along with some choice others, and a few paragraphs from the “readme.txt” file, where notes in a model showed the C.R.U. databases in utter disarray with everyone simply MAKING UP data and even stations to put out the next warmist propaganda paper, shows the more casual reader, just how exquisitely damning the entire ClimateGate situation became.

  32. We should not expect the anomoly to correlate with our current view of how warm it is on land. The anomoly is dominated by sea temperatures since they represent two thirds of the data. One also need to take note of the point Dr Spencer makes regarding the real issue which is the global energy balance. The energy balance may well be negative during periods where the sea surface is unusually warm. By far the most important measure is the Argo buoy data for total sea energy content down to 700 metres, as Pielke Snr. constantly tells us. This is the real measure of the energy balance and is the only data that I am interested in seeing on a monthly timeframe. Yet I hardly ever see it reported. Is there a place where one can see it sumarised? These surface anomolies only begin to make sense when viewed over at least 60 years.

  33. TimC says:
    July 7, 2011 at 11:20 am
    John B: even if you are correct (there is a warming) can anyone here say, seriously, that it cannot be due to a natural cause?

    Would this be the very weak solar cycle cause?

  34. Even if it has warmed since 1998, there still is the big problem of attribution. If CO2 is as nasty as claimed by the IPCC, then the anomaly should be significantly higher than it is. Therefore, it can’t be CO2, never mind that it is due to human created CO2. Could this anomaly be well within the expected range of the history of climate on earth? Until that can be answered with a “no”, then we need not even consider the causes.

  35. John B says:
    July 7, 2011 at 9:59 am
    Can anyone here look at that chart and say, seriously, “no warming since 1998″?
    Just asking…

    Like many others, I have never said that our planet hasn’t warmed since 1998. In fact, there is no warming since 1997. Despite all the alarming predictions about a continuous and steep temperature increase, the globe has failed to warm for 15 years (and counting…). The latest GCM-based IPCC estimate was about +0.24°C per decade, with a 95% confidence range of +0.15-0.34°C. Where is Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?
    Our most recent, up-to-date observations say:
    1. Zero or negligible surface and troposheric warming since 1997 (HadCRUT3, RSS MSU, UAH MSU)
    2. SSTs have been steady since 1997 (HadSST2), global ocean heat content remains unchanged since the deployment of the ARGO network
    3. AGW theory predicts stratospheric cooling. No cooling has occured in the stratosphere since the early 1990s (HadAT2 and other datasets)
    HadCRUT3 data with a 15-year trendline: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend
    RSS TLT data has no trend since 1997: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
    UAH currently shows a modest, statistically not significant increase: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
    HadSST2 – the very same picture: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend
    HadAT2 – lack of any cooling in the stratosphere since 1994: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png

  36. tonybr says:
    July 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    Well, all I can say is, that this measurement seems to bear no relationship to the conditions that I experience, here in Southern England. Bloody cold most of the time, and has been all through this “summer” with the exception of a few days.

    RSS have maps showing temperature distribution around the planet: http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?channel=tlt. You can see the UK is just on the edge of a cold spot. Initially I thought this must be because of the Icelandic volcano but, looking at the May map, it might just be a cold spot has moved East from West Greenland.

  37. Many decades ago some poor teachers tried to convince me that the “scientific method” was a good thing. They said just about everyone agreed with that assessment.
    Now I am faced with climate “scientists” who tell me that as CO2 rises we will see temperatures also rise — very sharply. CO2 has been rising, but there is not been a corresponding temperature rise. Is this not one of those “experiments” that shows one his hypothesis was wrong? If not, what would it take to falsify? (or did Karl Popper get outed as a fraud or something?)

  38. I suspect most of the heat anomaly was located in the Southern US in the spring. We’re still warm, but I think it’s seasonal.

  39. Higher than I expected. In fact this La Nina is not behaving correctly. Someone had best have a talk with it.
    I have said this before: I suspect there is actually more “energy” involved in a La Nina than in an El Nino. The energy may not be in the form of heat, but it takes a lot to haul all that heavy, cold, dense water up from the depths, creating a La Nina. On the other hand, it seems a lack of energy is involved, when the trade winds slacken, and warm water comes sloshing back across the Pacific, creating an El Nino.
    In other words, when the earth has less energy to work with, it may spark warming, which is counterintuitive. How can less energy cause more energy? However the huge 1998 El Nino may have been sparked by a double whammy of perfectly timed and huge volcanic eruptions, El Chiton and Pinatubo. (There seems to be an idea floating around that the “cooling” volcanoes cause is short-term, followed by a “warming” El Nino in the mid-term.)
    I honestly believe we are barely starting to understand all the actions and reactions occurring . When you throw in the effects of the “quiet sun,” we are venturing out into a frontier we haven’t truly explored before.
    People who pretend they understand this wondrous system are displaying the crassest sort of arrogance. But that has never stopped me before, and won’t stop me now. I just have to prepare myself for looking like a chump, and being humbled.

  40. PeterGeorge says:
    July 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm
    I look at the above graph and see 1) No trend from 1979-1998, 2) A 0.2 to 0.3 step after 1998, and 3) No reason to feel confident we won’t get another step of similar magnitude within the next few years, in spite of the negative PDO and very low solar activity.
    If that happens, I sure hope direct CO2 capture and sequestration ( CCS ) has made a lot of progress
    ——————————————————————————————————
    Does anyone have a hypothesis as to how a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 can result in flat temperature trends with step changes very decade or two?

  41. We’ll have to see where it goes from here. The temperature has swung down half a degree and then back up half a degree all in the span of several months. With that much variability how do you even declare that temperatures have gone up 0.7 degrees since such and such time?
    The non-nino years of the last decade had a lot of mini-peaks between 0.3 and 0.4. If we stay at 0.3 and go down then it will look even more like the temperature has not increased since ’98. If we cross 0.4 more than once over the next couple years it will look like the temperature is increasing – albeit slower than “predicted.”

  42. @ A. C. Osborn
    “…so just where is all this heat that gives us a World anomaly of 0.31C?”
    It’s ‘in-the-pipeline’…

  43. The climate market indicators suggest a short term bullish period for warming, my recommendation is to buy “warming”, and short “cooling” for the short term, be prepared to hedge your trades in the longer term as the climate market long term indicators are bearish with the possibility of a new LIA.
    If the market indicators turn to the cooling side, short “Warming” and go long “Cooling”.

  44. steven mosher says: the no warming since 1998 “meme” will soon be forgotten. And we can get to the important questions
    Not around here, I fear, judging by some of the comments above.

  45. robb876: Also, a step function is not how the AGW models predict the temps should behave. It should be rising in a linear fashion, reflecting the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. To have credibility, a model has to model behavior — and the current ones don’t do that well at all.

  46. Well, that didn’t last too long. And right back to 2002-2008 temps.
    Well, we’ll see here in a few more months if we’re more or less steady-state around 2002-2008 again.
    Certainly no relentless increase.

  47. Jeremy: While your point is taken about temperature lagging predictions, you linked a chart from two years ago. The question was, can you look at the current data and say no warming.
    I can’t see the warming myself, but that’s because 1998 is chosen as a specific date to make it look like there’s less warming.

  48. The Ocean cycles are actually providing a positive impact (or close to neutral impact) on temperatures right now.
    Nino 3.4 in March was -0.98C –> which has a coefficient of 0.07 —> -0.07C
    AMO index in June was about +0.22 —> coefficient of 0.5 —> +0.11C
    net —-> +0.04C
    Here are the weekly Nino 3.4 and AMO values from 1981 to last week.
    http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/9634/weeklyensoamojun2911.png

  49. StuartMcL says:
    “Does anyone have a hypothesis as to how a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 can result in flat temperature trends with step changes very decade or two?”
    We’d need some kind of 11 year cycle. Nothing springs to mind.

  50. Graeme says:
    July 7, 2011 at 3:51 pm
    The climate market indicators suggest a short term bullish period for warming, my recommendation is to buy “warming”, and short “cooling” for the short term, be prepared to hedge your trades in the longer term as the climate market long term indicators are bearish with the possibility of a new LIA.
    If the market indicators turn to the cooling side, short “Warming” and go long “Cooling”.

    You can do all that on Intrade: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=90488

  51. John B says:
    July 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    steven mosher says: the no warming since 1998 “meme” will soon be forgotten. And we can get to the important questions
    Not around here, I fear, judging by some of the comments above. ))
    JB. The comments around here are trying to get through to you what was written in the article. READ IT AGAIN>>>>
    ((I would like to remind everyone that month-to-month changes in global-average tropospheric temperature have a large influence from fluctuations in the average rate of heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. In other words, they are not of radiative origin (e.g. not from greenhouse gases). ))
    Read the last paragraph. again. And again. It is about the oceans losing heat. Not gaining heat in other words….. If your religion tells you otherwise, go for it, it is your right. You are trying to ascribe the warmth to (gasp) CO2 since 1998. Fail
    regards

  52. “”””” John B says:
    July 7, 2011 at 9:59 am
    Can anyone here look at that chart and say, seriously, “no warming since 1998″?
    Just asking… “””””
    Well I do believe that “that chart” mentions the “lower troposphere Temperature.” What on earth would that have to do with the avereage Temperature of the earth, which is set by solar energy stored in mostly the ocean.
    Unless you believe that the vaporous atmosphere can “warm” the surface with LWIR EM radiation that has a typical source Temperature of about 288 K, and isn’t even detectable as “heat” by human sensory mechanisms. And conductive and convective heating of the surface is the wrong way round; both are far more likely to transport heat the other direction.
    Try holding an ordinary 12 oz bottle of even tap water adjacent to but not in contact with your skin, and feel the radiant heat pouring off that source at about 390 W/m^2.
    Yes the lower troposphere may have warmed; that is far different from the earth having warmed. And the sun is perfectly capable of warmng the LT when water vapor is around; and that warming comes at the expense of solar spectrum energy reaching the surface, where it could warm the surface.
    So a warming LT is highly likely to be accompanied by a cooling surface.
    Since you are just asking…

  53. Well “global lower atmosphere” which I believe is called the “troposphere” but I can live with “global lower atmosphere”.

  54. Steve Mosher: “the no warming since 1998 “meme” will soon be forgotten. And we can get to the important questions”
    What is wrong with you lately, Mosher?
    John B. “Can anyone here look at that chart and say, seriously, “no warming since 1998″?”
    Maybe! Just hung out a new chart. Here is what it looks like from beginning of 98 through the end of May. It’s the second chart. The first was made with 2009 data.
    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2011/07/rss-and-uah-divergence-charts.html
    I believe that RSS and UAH are in the process of working out a recent divergence. So it’s a little hard to tell exactly what we have at the moment. I’m not calling it one way or the other. But I do know that what we don’t come close to having is the .2C per decade of warming that the IPCC predicts.

  55. Couldn’t you compare the trend over months? E.g. This June to the 30 before it? And July, et cetera.

  56. @Mosher No one is debating the earlier trend Mosher. We were only talking about what happened since 98. And you know that John B’s question wasn’t just related to UAH. Like I said, UAH and RSS have to work out a divergence problem right now. But even if you use UAH, you still only get about 1/4 of the IPCC’s predicted warming. So your snide “meme” remark is still hugely misplaced.

  57. Well I got two tomatoes this year, not that where I live is a good place to grow tomatoes as it
    is a temperate region 3,500 ft about sea level, and we have had an extremely cold winter
    FOR AUSTRALIA. Even in Sydney the temps have been colder than normal. But the government
    still insist they are following what the rest of the world (?) is doing by introducing a carbon tax.
    There climate change commission headed by Tim Flannery has used Mann and the IPCC data
    to base their ‘The Critical Decade’ report to government and then added a disclaimer on page
    2 that they couldn’t be held responsible for any inaccuracies. But the PM and the treasurer
    are members of the Australian Fabian society. Need I say more. Help us down under please.

  58. steven mosher says:
    July 7, 2011 at 11:10 am
    john B.
    the no warming since 1998 “meme” will soon be forgotten. And we can get to the important questions
    I agree the no warming since 1998 meme will soon be forgotten. It will be replaced with the cooling since 1998 meme. After that, the cooling since 1998 meme will be replaced with the accelerated cooling since 1998 meme. Around ~2020 it will be replaced with the oh shit meme.
    One of the importeant questions will be:
    How did we get into this?

  59. steven mosher says:
    July 7, 2011 at 7:32 pm
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2012/every/offset:%20/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2012/trend
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Steve
    The graph you link, graphically shows that according to the purple uah trend line from 1998 to 2012 there has been no significant upward trend in temperatures during this recent period and that the trend during this period is for all practical purposes flat.
    Further, the blue uah trend line from 1979 to 1998 shows that there has been no significant upward trend during that period and that the trend during that period is for all practical purposes is flat.
    The graph more ‘correctly’ shows a flat trend between 1979 to 1998 a significant step change taking place in around 1998 and a flat trend as from 1998 to date.
    The green uah trend line from 1979 to date, whilst obviously showing an upward trend during that loner period, gives a misleading impression that there is a uniform and gradual rise in temperature between 1979 to date, The more detailed analysis shown by the blue and purple trend lines shows that that is not so and in practice temperatures have been fairly flat but with a step change reflecting the heat released by the super El Nino event of 1998.

  60. Theo Goodwin says: (July 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm)
    “Would someone tell me why climate scientists insist on using anomalies rather than actual temperatures?”
    A question I have often seen asked, but never answered, Theo. Perhaps someone on this thread will give it a try? It does need answering.

  61. IAmDigitap says: (July 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm)
    I for one plan to enjoy.
    And I enjoyed your comment, Digitap. Thank you (and for touching on my favourite character in this fraud: “Harry” of “Read_Me” fame).

  62. The warming since the beginning of the satellite era is right in line with the expected effect of CO2 increases if you add in the “cooling effect” of CO2 to the greenhouse warming effect. It lowers the expected warming by about 50%. Hence, we’ve seen about .3° of warming instead of .6° as predicted by the alarmist climate establishment. Coincidence? Time will tell.

  63. @John
    Seriously, no warming since 1998.
    There was an abrupt upward (step) change in 1998 of about 01C but there has been no warming (or cooling) trend since 1998 – it remained level after the step change.
    One major volcanic eruption would easily negate (or more) the 1998 upward step change with a similarly abrupt downward step change, by the way.

  64. Roger Carr says:
    July 8, 2011 at 5:19 am
    Theo Goodwin says: (July 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm)
    “Would someone tell me why climate scientists insist on using anomalies rather than actual temperatures?”
    A question I have often seen asked, but never answered, Theo. Perhaps someone on this thread will give it a try? It does need answering.

    Absolute temperatures vary substantially across even short distances due to various factors, such as altitude. You would need incredibly good global spatial coverage to get close to a reasonable estimate.
    Anomalies are consistent over wide areas and geographical conditions. Two nearby stations at different altitudes will show different absolute temperatures but changes over time will be very similar.

  65. Just noting that the Volcanoes in the period also influence how the chart looks and what the end-result warming trend is.
    Here is how it might look if the volcanoes did not happen or if they were adjusted out (the impact is generally thought to be between 0.4C to 0.5C diminishing over a 3 year period).
    The warming trend actually drops by quite a bit, down to 0.095C per decade.
    I think we also see that the ENSO has an even more direct impact than assumed when an adjustment like this is made.
    http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/3554/rssuahvolcanoadjusted.png

  66. u.k.(us) says:
    July 7, 2011 at 7:55 pm
    I see 1/2 of a 60-70 year cycle.
    What do you see ?
    As we fall into this solar minimum.

    We “fell into this solar minimum” around 5 years ago. Stop making out as though it only happened last week. The last solar maximum was a decade ago and solar activity, in general, has been in decline since ~1991, i.e. SC23 was not a particularly strong cycle.

  67. Bill Illis
    July 8, 2011 at 7:20 am
    Very interesting, volcanoes have helped the global warming crowd in making their manmade warming case.

  68. bushbunny says:
    July 7, 2011 at 8:25 pm
    Well I got two tomatoes this year,
    and
    George E. Smith says:
    July 7, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    Well “global lower atmosphere” which I believe is called the “troposphere” but I can live with “global lower atmosphere”.
    Sadly only one response to my sugestion that tomatoes might be of equal value as a metric for the direction of global temperatures, and an interesting observation from George that the graph relates to the global lower atmosphere.
    The question is, are tomatoes, other crops, and humans directly affected by the global lower atmosphere temperature or do we just ripen in proportion to the ambient temperature of our immediate suroundings (I’m possibly thinking airing cupboards here)?
    In a nutshell, does this chart measure the surface temperature that we all experience and relate to, or has Roy Spencer got his head in the air?

  69. Roger Carr: “A question I have often seen asked, but never answered, Theo.”
    Climate science is more concerned with long term variation in the overall climate. They are not concerned with specific temperature. So anomalies serve their needs better.

  70. Has climatic autumn already arrived on the US West Coast?:
    THE REST OF THE FORECAST PERIOD IS EXPECTED TO REMAIN COOL AS THIS TROUGH
    CONTINUES TO DEEPEN ALONG THE WEST COAST. BY THE MIDDLE OF NEXT WEEK…IN FACT…HIGH TEMPERATURES ARE PROGGED TO BE ONLY AROUND 60 AT THE COAST TO THE 60S AND 70S INLAND…WITH THE WARMEST INLAND AREAS ONLY REACHING THE MID 80S…WELL BELOW SEASONAL NORMALS.

  71. Bill Illis says:
    July 8, 2011 at 7:20 am
    “I think we also see that the ENSO has an even more direct impact than assumed when an adjustment like this is made.”
    Especially when ENSO can be shown to have increased over the past 100 years, not equal out as some have claimed. Suprising how close it actually matches global temperatures?
    http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/95/had3vpdovenso.png

  72. Add to previous post.
    NOTE – Temperature anomaly on graph shown regarding PDO is not of actual SST’s, but the difference between two regions above 20N.

  73. Paul S says:
    July 8, 2011 at 7:20 am
    Roger Carr says:
    July 8, 2011 at 5:19 am
    Theo Goodwin says: (July 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm)
    “Would someone tell me why climate scientists insist on using anomalies rather than actual temperatures?”
    A question I have often seen asked, but never answered, Theo. Perhaps someone on this thread will give it a try? It does need answering.
    “Absolute temperatures vary substantially across even short distances due to various factors, such as altitude. You would need incredibly good global spatial coverage to get close to a reasonable estimate.”
    So, that raises a couple of questions. Now that we have computers, why do we not introduce a new measurement system that automatically reports all factors such as altitude and incorporates them into the temperature reading? What assumptions are made when anomalies (a human contrivance) are substituted for actual temperatures (actual observations free of human contrivance)?
    For goodness sake, why do meteorologists report an average temperature for a day? Of what value is that? As another example, in Central Florida during the summer season, weather shifts dramatically. In May, the high for the day will occur around five PM. In late June, the summer rainy season has begun and the high for the day will occur around 1 PM. Does anyone adjust for that? Why not?
    In general, why is it that meteorologists are excused when they say that recording and using actual observations is too difficult. Do the folks at CERN get to use the same excuse? Will they tell us that it is too difficult to find actual Pi-Bisons but they have an average Pi-Bison?

  74. The plots of SST (Global and North Atlantic) over the last few decades, as well as troposphere over ocean, appear strongly to move forward in a “saltatory” manner, in 8 year “jumps”. See: http://www.climate4you.com/
    These jumps constitute rises and falls in global temperatures roughly between 1985-1993, 1993-2001, 2001-2008. On that basis the jump up to el Nino in 2009-2010 was right on queue. Also the top of our current “jump” can be expected in the next year or two. (Then a fall.)
    The 8 year period is close to the calculation by Schwartz & Scafetta of the thermal time constant of the oceans:
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/schwartz-scafetta-estimate-climate-time-scale/
    Also from http://www.climate4you.com/ , (bottom of page) it is evident that the derivative of sea level (rate of change) is tanking. This could be a sign of cooling ahead (fall in rate of heat input to sea surface).

  75. Theo,
    Most weather stations do report altitude now but think about what would be needed to produce a coherant global signal using this method. You would essentially need to build a statistical model to knit readings together using an assumed quantative relationship between altitude and temperature.
    This seems needlessly complex when simply using anomalies probably does a better job anyway. There’s nothing particularly complex or contrived about anomalies. An example of an absolute temperature is 18 deg C. An anomaly would simply be something like 18 – 16 = 2 deg C, where 16 is the arbitrary ‘normal’ used for comparison. Using anomalies makes no difference whatsoever to the long-term temperature trends of a station, it simply makes comparisons and collations with other stations much more coherant.
    Regarding changes in daily patterns from May to June, presumably this happens every year so why would any adjustment be needed? Each month has different general charateristics: July is warmer than January in the Northern Hemisphere, for example. Does that require adjustment? The records we’re talking about are used for tracking global or hemispheric decadal and multi-decadal trends, not comparisons between May and June at a single location.

  76. Thank you, Paul S, for this answer to the question by Theo Goodwin, repeated by me: (“Would someone tell me why climate scientists insist on using anomalies rather than actual temperatures?”).
    “Anomalies are consistent over wide areas and geographical conditions. Two nearby stations at different altitudes will show different absolute temperatures but changes over time will be very similar.”
    Something I have wanted to see set down for some time.

  77. Tilo Reber (July 8, 2011 at 8:22 am) “Climate science is more concerned with long term variation in the overall climate.
    Thanks, Tilo.
    Theo Goodwin (July 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm) “So, that raises a couple of questions.”
    Indeed, Theo… indeed.

  78. John B says:
    July 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    steven mosher says: the no warming since 1998 “meme” will soon be forgotten. And we can get to the important questions
    Not around here, I fear, judging by some of the comments above.

    Do you acknowledge that seven different people have tried to explain to you exactly why you are wrong, and why there is “No warming since 1998” in the real-world data, despite your effort to believe the CAGW religion of data manipulation and extrapolated fear?
    Do you acknowledge that:
    CO2 has been steady, and temperatures fell over a 30 year period?
    CO2 has been steady, and temperatures rose over a 30 year period?
    CO2 rose, and temperatures fell over a 30 year period?
    CO2 rose, and temperatures rose over a 30 year period?
    CO2 rose, and temperatures have been steady over a 13 year period?

  79. Roger Carr says:
    July 8, 2011 at 8:26 pm
    Thank you, Paul S, for this answer to the question by Theo Goodwin, repeated by me: (“Would someone tell me why climate scientists insist on using anomalies rather than actual temperatures?”).
    “Anomalies are consistent over wide areas and geographical conditions. Two nearby stations at different altitudes will show different absolute temperatures but changes over time will be very similar.”
    Something I have wanted to see set down for some time.

    A certain NASA-GISS so-called “scientist” has received over 1.2 million dollars in donated money from a single 1987 article that claimed a 50% relationship between temperature trends being equal over a 1200 kilometer distance; therefore, all worldwide temperature data can be extrapolated between supposedly “perfect” measurement locations as much as 1200 kilometers apart.

  80. racookpe1978 says: (July 8, 2011 at 9:36 pm) “A certain NASA-GISS so-called “scientist” has received…
    That was a helluva question you asked, Theo… Thanks, racookpe.

  81. Based on the answers to Theo’s question (“Would someone tell me why climate scientists insist on using anomalies rather than actual temperatures?”), why not select one single weather station in the world as the base and report all “global warming” as:
    C02 level (Mauna Loa) currently XX
    Earth temperature (Station X) currently XX
    Or would that take the fun(ds) out of it all?

  82. It is impossible to produce a global average temperature when you have different seasons occurring in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Observation is one thing. Now we have all
    heard of rain shadows. This happens when an area within klms of each other, (sometimes metres) one receives higher rain fall than another. I live about 3300 ft absl in a valley environment. My day and night temps vary by 5 degrees C from my friend who lives in the valley 2 klms from me. She rang me up one day and told me the rain was very heavy and it wasn’t raining where I lived. Heavy and damaging hail occurred in one area where I lived and yet the rest of us didn’t even see one hail stone. On a global context how can anyone say – what happens in one area is characteristic of all areas. And this is Australia mates, not UK or the US of A. By the way, this morning at 11 am I checked my small pond and it had a quarter of inch
    ice on it. So don’t think Australia is all the same, we get snow, hoar frost and hail. Yet the majority of our continent wouldn’t. But it is cooling by average temperatures this winter, not only on the alpine regions but even in the centre of Australia.

  83. Roger Carr,
    Temperature anomalies change by latitude – the Arctic has warmed much faster than the Equator, for example. There are also differences within latitude bands due to various dynamical phenomena, as well as between land and sea surfaces. Any single location wouldn’t be near adequate for capturing a global signal.
    CO2 level is different. CO2 is well-mixed so concentrations are quite consistent around the whole planet. NOAA display both a global record and a Mauna Loa record and there is very little difference between them.

  84. well, that’s my tipping point reached. Sincere thanks for all the information and arguments you guys provided over the years. good luck.

Comments are closed.