UAH Global Temperature Update July, 2011: +0.37 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
How ironic..a “global warming denier” reporting on warmer temperatures 
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for July, 2011 increased to +0.37 deg. C (click on the image for a LARGE version):
Even though the Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly cooled slightly in July, as did the tropics, warming in the Southern Hemisphere more than made up for it:
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 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233
2011 7 +0.372 +0.340 +0.404 +0.198
For those who want to infer great meaning from large month-to-month temperature changes, I remind them that much of this activity is due to natural variations in the rate at which the ocean loses heat to the atmosphere. Evidence for this is seen at the end of the sea surface temperature record through last month, which has a down-tick during the recent up-tick in atmospheric temperatures:
Global Sea Surface Temperature through July:
Here are the SST anomalies from AMSR-E on the NASA Aqua satellite (note the different base period, since Aqua has been flying only since 2002…click for a larger version):
I took two courses in Statistical, and Research analysis, plus did my own research and have published. Both graduate level courses, and my experiences as a researcher, imbued me with a skeptical mind and critical eye toward published research and scientific articles. I am amazed at the low level of understanding presented here as evidenced by links provided that, once critically reviewed, are far less than the poster touts them to be. Shame on you.
Tilo:
“Tilo Reber says:
August 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm
The UAH numbers are diverging strongly from the RSS numbers.”
####
how do you figure that? The error on your trends is large. The difference between the trends is small.
Here is an exercise: Do a statistical test and see if the difference between the datasets is non zero. statistically
You can bet on the temperature anomaly in 2019 here: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=707799
And here: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=707800
La guy says: August 1, 2011 at 1:02 pm “Smokey – explain away the change in ocean PH without our CO2 emissions.
La guy, given that a definition of pH (in water, let’s say) is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity, would you care to provide evidence that ocean pH has indeed changed during a period in which CO2 emissions are known? For a start, you should look at the whole ocean, but deeper parts have very sparse sampling. What is a common pH near deep ocean floors? Do you know the difference between activity and concentration? How much do you know?
Werner Brozek-The different groups different measures behave differently for a number of reasons. The first is that they measure different things: While GISS is supposed to measure temperature variations near the Earth’s surface, UAH and other satellite groups try to measure temperatures integrated through a large layer of the atmosphere. The second reason, as Roy notes, is that on month to month timescales there is a lot of variability in how heat moves from the surface out to space. The third reasons is on annual timescales, variations at the surface are amplified in the bulk of the lower troposphere. The last difference, the only one that suggests an inconsistency between these different datasets, is the relationship between the long term trends. Logically, one might expect that the lower troposphere is more variable, it should warm more than the surface, the reality is that it has apparently warmed slightly less. This goes against climate model expectations as well. This difference leads many (especially warmers) to conclude (against all evidence to the contrary!) that the satellite data must be wrong. If you ask me it is probably a problem with the surface data, which implies a problem for the models as well, since the modelers like to brag about their success “backcasting” the temperature trend at the surface. I have analyzed this here:
http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/relating_lower_tropospheric_temperature_variations_to_the_surfac/
@La Guy
La Guy and RGates have returned to the hue and cry about “ocean acidification”. Even appealing to the “highest rate of acidification in (x) years.”
If you go back a few more years you will notice that corals – those canaries of the oceans that we are taught will be the first to dissolve like Alka Seltsas – actually evolved during the Cambrian and Ordovician eras during which atmospheric CO2 levels were 2000-5000. Corals and other calcareous marine organisms – sessile and otherwise – both evolved and flourished during this period.
If you are willing to think about this fact (a big IF), does it not strike you as, in any way, odd?
I guess you could take refuge in the “rate of change” of CO2 (and rely on a very unsafe assumption that this translates into ocean pH change), rther than the absolute values. But this looks very like Gatesian desperation.
steven mosher;
Since you brought up the physics… well then, let’s discuss the physics.
CO2 is logarithmic. So, over the last century, CO2 levels have increased by 100 ppm. The result has been negligible. Being logarithmic, it CO2 increases by another 100 ppm, the effect will be exactly 1/2 of the last 100 ppm. In other words, 1/2 of negligible. The next 100 ppm after that…1/4 of negligible. But let;s put aside for a moment the KNOWN physics that shows that additional CO2 is pretty much meaningless, and put Dr Spencer’s results in perspective.
1. Temperature is an indirect measure of energy flow.
2. The formula is W/m2=5.67*10^-8*T^4 where T is in degrees K.
3. Dr Spencer’s results show that the NH and the tropics have DECREASED in terms of T.
4. The SH has INCREASED in terms of T to result in an “average” that is higher.
5. But….
6. Since w/m2 varies with T to the power of FOUR
7. And it is currently WINTER in the SH
8. We can conclude that the temperature record converted to w/m2 shows a cooling trend on average, not a warming trend.
The watts/m2 change in the NH and the tropics is much larger per degree than that of the SH because it takes a LOT of change at hot temperatures to get a 1 degree change and much less to get a 1 degree change at cold temperatures, Since it is summer and therefor HOT in the NH, and hot by definition in the tropics, and it is winter and therefore COLD in the SH, the “cooling” in the NH and tropics in w/m2 outweigh’s the “warming” in the SH by several times.
I’d be very interested in understanding what drives those fluctuations of course, but it is hard to do research when all you can find are articles screaming bloody murder about how much CO2 is going to boil the planet unless we stop producing any right away. Even though the KNOWN PHYSICS TO WHICH YOU REFER makes it clear that any additional CO2 is pretty much meaningless.
“timetochooseagain says:
August 1, 2011 at 8:02 pm”
Thank you very much! Could I ask two more questions of you?
When comparing the AQUA ch05 for July 2010 with July 2011, I would say the 2011 value was about 0.18 lower on the average. However the values quoted for these two months were 0.42 and 0.37 or only 0.05 lower. I was under the impression AQUA ch05 was to be at least a rough guide to guess what is happening but it does not even seem close. Is there any reason you know of?
The GISS data at
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
shows an increase from 0.45 to 0.50 from January to June of 2011 or a 0.05 increase.
The HADCRUT data at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
shows an increase from 0.206 to 0.426 from January to June of 2011 or a 0.22 increase. Does this difference of 0.17 seem high since they are presumably measuring the same thing? Thank you in advance!
If the atmospheric temperature goes up by 0,37 degree – atmosphere will expand INSTANTLY, by 370m. up – will intercept extra coldnes to counteract, in 3,5 seconds – in a jiffy that extra coldness will fall somewher = equalizes. Atmospheric temperature doesn’t go up and down as a yo-yo. Extra heat in the atmosphere is not acumulative. Heat /coldness change places; that is not GLOBAL warming or cooling. Misleading data that destroys people and economy will become ilegal soon; hopefuyly retrospective. CO2 is only 260-400 parts per million; oxygen and nitrogen are 998999 parts per million, they regulate the temperature, not the climatologist. They think they do, big suprises for them on http://www.stefanmitich.com.au and in my book. Misleading doesn’t change the truth. The sooner climatologist comprahend that they have being exposed WITH REAL PROOFS, the less damages they will make = people will be more lenient on them – when the time for ”truth and reconciliation” arive; as soon as the public knows about my proofs..
Australia must be the odd man out in the southern hem. We’ve had a cold winter here.
Don’t know about those SH figures. I am freezing here (South Africa). We even had a lot of snow, which is unusual for here. I heard the Aussies also complaining about the cold.
In Holland they had their wettest (and coolest) summer yet.
Those here believing that disastrous global warming is upon us, can I have the increase in maxima, means and minima from the area where you live for the past 35 years, please?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns.
How come the science related by you guys on here never sees the light of day in mainstream media? Why aren’t politicians prepared to take on the issue and say that the science is divided? I find it extremely difficult to determine who to accept primarily because whenever the 2 sides are in a forum the debate soon descends into personal abuse, as the comments on this post show. This only makes it harder to try and understand the science. It seems to me that all any individual can do is try to understand the science but there is no easy way of seeing the competing interpretations, by respectable scientists, of, what I assume is, the same science lined up against each other.
The debate is frustrating.
Second post I have read where the first comment is from the warmist flock.
When someone can convincingl explain how the past three intergalacials peaked at higher temps than this one, and why if we are prolonging the intergalacial that is a bad thing, then I may “believe”.
I did not expect the upturn of the past few months. It doesn’t make sense to me. The La Nina has relaxed, but there is no El Nino. The sun is more active, but still is quieter than usual. There have been some decent volcanic eruptions. I see no reason for the upturn to be so steep, and am not inclined to see CO2 as the cause, (for various reasons. Gates will include denial.)
One flaw in my thinking may be that I tend to look for immediate responces, immediate reaction to actions. Much in nature happens, however, in the manner of a wave.
When you are walking down a very foggy beach, how do you know a really big wave is coming, when you can’t see it? Is it not because the water draws back farther than usual?
This upturn may just be the “water-drawing -back” before the “big wave” of a large downturn.
Another from Australia, this time in Canberra. April thru July has been extraordinarily cold. We have had lows of -6C overnight during July with daytime temperatures struggling to get to 10C.
This is the coldest winter since our return here from Sydney. An anecdotal note comes from an old lady who told me a few weeks ago that she cannot remember a winter that has been this cold.
There has been record snowfall in the Snow Mountains. We have been experiencing those snow flurries which are discernible on the car windscreen, but we have not seen the other kind of snow flurries that we experienced a few years ago and again back in the 1980s.
I have a suspicion that Canberra experienced temperatures this cold during the early 1970s.
Temperature is a totally incorrect metric to use anyway.
So the Antarctic is apparently 30°F warmer than usual… So what?
As the air there is virtually dry, it will take next to no energy to heat.
The areas which are cooler, being more humid have lost huge amounts of energy!
DaveE.
I think the warm summer is turning you yanks cranky.
Meanwhile here in the UK it is a seasonally avearge 24 today here in Norwich, but in Inverness today it is going to be a max of 13 degrees celcius.
So is it warming or cooling? And the wind got up last night while I was out doing some night sailing, so perhaps that’s a sign of global warming as well.
Get a grip!
Well June and most of July were bitter in Toowoomba. The last week has been great.
As for “more greenhouse gases cause more warming” we’ve seen about 100ppm in extra CO2. There’s 10,000 to 40,000 ppm water so total has gone up by 0.25 to 1%. I doubt we can measure atmospheric water that well as you need to sample in 4 dimensions(area, altitude and time).
Big deal.
Should we not expect global temperatures in the NH summer to be going up? Temperature differences between summer and winter are much greater in the NH because of greater land area.
By the way the UAH site seems not to show the running graphs any more which gave current month data as well as comparison with earlier years. Are they available elsewhere?
pardon? southern hemispheres are showing warming….you’ve got be kidding.
This measuring the global temp is a farce!
Yep.
Temps are on the way up. The Bear can feel it. Here. Right now. In Sydney.
And it’s definitely the global warming stuff, resulting from our sinful ways.
We are utterly doomed and we deserve it. The Bear can think of no other possible explanation, so carbon emissions and the inherent evil of capitalism must be the cause.
Oh, hang on a minute.
Sorry, it’s been so focking cold in Sydney, I had forgot to turn the heater down.
Robert Sheldon
The debate is frustrating.
Henry@Robert
It is so because unfortunately many people’s jobs depend on the incorrect science that has been promoted in the past few decades. Namely, that an increase of only 0.01% carbon dioxide can change the global temperature…. In fact, some people here in the green industry are so anti-me that I am scared to use my full name.
I am reasonably good in chemistry and stats and I was able to figure out the truth.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
I did a random sample of weather stations all over the world to see what actually happened.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I would think that anybody with a bit of statistics backround can do this?
davidmhoffer says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“…it takes a LOT of change at hot temperatures to get a 1 degree change and much less to get a 1 degree change at cold temperatures…”
David, could you explain this further? I have taken people at their word when they state this concept, (Joe Bastardi uses it,) however when I repeat it during discussions with Alarmists I get soundly rebuked, and I’m told a degree is a degree, whether you are up at a hundred or down at zero. With great authority they state that the same amount of heat raises a thermometer one degree. Are they talking about some different measure? Am I involved in some case of comparing apples to oranges?
I know this discussion will occur again, while comparing a “blue” area at the equator to a “red” area up at the poles. I’d like to equip myself with greater understanding. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Smokey says repeatedly:
“there is no verifiable, testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing any anthropogenic effects”
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. At some level, you could argue that since there is only one world, and there is no way yo go back 100 years and “turn off” the CO2 production, then there is no way to “test” anything about the climate. That is a pretty useless view, so I assume that is not what you mean.
How about a simple hypothesis “Temperatures are related to anthropogenic CO2 changes.”
There is a clear, well established green house effect that should be related to temperature, so theory supports this hypothesis.
Then we can try a statistical test — a linear regression of Temp (from HADCRUT) vs CO2 (from Mauna Loa). The CO2 data goes back to 1959, so we will use 1959 – 2010 and see what the results are (using Minitab).
In anyone’s book, p = 0.000 constitutes “evidence” of a relationship.
Now there are lots of other test, lots of other factors, lots of other ways of looking at things, but I can’t see how you can claim there is evidence.