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.)
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?
Colder, here though. Much colder…perhaps BoM haven’t adjusted yet…
http://pindanpost.com/2011/06/28/why-i-like-broome-weather/
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.
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.
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).
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.
@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.
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.
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
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.
Bill Illis
July 8, 2011 at 7:20 am
Very interesting, volcanoes have helped the global warming crowd in making their manmade warming case.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?